4.7 Article

Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.12.005

关键词

Discrete choice; Stated preferences; Latent class model; Electric mobility; Compensating variation

资金

  1. E.ON ERC foundation [02-02/04-19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the light of European energy efficiency and clean air regulations, as well as an ambitious electric mobility goal of the German government, we examine consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) based on a Germany-wide discrete choice experiment among 711 potential car buyers. We estimate consumers' willingness-to-pay and compensating variation (CV) for improvements in vehicle attributes, also taking taste differences in the population into account by applying a latent class model with 6 distinct consumer segments. Our results indicate that about 1/3 of the consumers are oriented towards at least one AFV option, with almost half of them being AFV-affine, showing a high probability of choosing AFVs despite their current shortcomings. Our results suggest that German car buyers' willingness-to-pay for improvements of the various vehicle attributes varies considerably across consumer groups and that the vehicle features have to meet some minimum requirements for considering AFVs. The CV values show that decision-makers in the administration and industry should focus on the most promising consumer group of 'AFV aficionados' and their needs. It also shows that some vehicle attribute improvements could increase the demand for AFVs cost-effectively, and that consumers would accept surcharges for some vehicle attributes at a level which could enable their private provision and economic operation (e.g. fast-charging infrastructure). Improvement of other attributes will need governmental subsidies to compensate for insufficient consumer valuation (e.g. battery capacity). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据