Perception towards electric vehicles and the impact on consumers’ preference

Ghasri, Ardeshiri, Rashidi, 2019, in Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.003
Location New South Wales, Australia
Population General
Sample size 1076
Factor analysis type exploratory factor analysis, unknown rotation
Stepwise regression no
Removal of insignificant variables yes
Reviewed by LCM

Abstract

Relative advantage, or the degree to which a new technology is perceived to be better than an existing technology which is being replaced, has a significant impact on individuals’ decisions on when, how and to what extent to adopt. An integrated choice and latent variable model is used, in this paper, to explicitly measure the perceived advantages in electric vehicles over the conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. The analysed data is obtained from a stated preference survey including 1076 residents in New South Wales, Australia. According to the results, the latent component of the model disentangles the perceived advantages across three dimensions of vehicle design, impact on the environment, and safety. These latent variables are interacted with price, driving range and body type, respectively, to capture the impact of perception on preference. The developed model is then used to examine the effectiveness of different support schemes on Millennials (Gen Y), the generation before them (Gen X) and after them (Gen Z). The results show higher probability of adopting electric vehicles for Gen Y, compared to Gen X and Z. Gen Y is found to be the least sensitive cohort to purchase price, and Gen X to be the most sensitive cohort to this attribute. People are more sensitive to incentives for the initial price compared to ongoing incentives for operating costs. Also, offering financial incentives to consumers as a rebate on the purchase price is more effective than allocating the same incentive to manufacturers to reduce the purchase price. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd

Factors

Models

Dependent variable Car choice
Model type HCM
Sample size 1076
R2 0.373
Adjusted R2
Pseudo R2 (nan) nan
AIC nan
BIC nan
Log-likelihood at zero -148548.006
Log-likelihood at constants nan
Log-likelihood at convergence -118279.273
Design
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant 2.78 0.0
Age -33.33 0.011
Age squared -8.71 0.002
Age cubed 12.2 0.0
Female 0.086 0.0
TAFE certificate or equivalent -0.15 0.0
Undergradaute 0.196 0.0
Postgraduate 0.444 0.0
Other education level 0.0 nan
Full time 0.362 0.0
Part time 0.122 0.0
Retired or unemployed 0.0 nan
Couple with kids 0.49 0.0
Couple without kids -0.042 0.165
Single parent 0.053 0.227
Single parent -0.128 0.0
Other household structure 0.0 nan
No vehicle 0.0 nan
1 vehicle -0.093 0.038
2 vehicles -0.207 0.0
3+ vehicles -0.317 0.0
Income below $54K 0.409 0.0
Income above $104K 0.038 0.062
House -0.047 0.088
Apartment -0.206 0.0
Owner 0.524 0.0
Owner with mortgage 0.349 0.0
Renter 0.379 0.0
Environment
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant 3.79 0.0
Age -9.36 0.0
Age squared 13.6 0.009
Age cubed -5.61 0.114
Female 0.266 0.0
TAFE certificate or equivalent 0.174 0.003
Undergradaute 0.266 0.0
Postgraduate 0.355 0.0
Other education level 0.0 nan
Full time 0.155 0.0
Part time -0.065 0.126
Retired or unemployed 0.0 nan
Couple with kids 0.431 0.0
Couple without kids 0.283 0.0
Single parent 0.209 0.008
Single parent 0.363 0.0
Other household structure 0.0 nan
No vehicle 0.0 nan
1 vehicle -0.343 0.0
2 vehicles -0.379 0.0
3+ vehicles -0.217 0.027
Income below $54K 0.017 0.66
Income above $104K 0.111 0.004
House -0.161 0.002
Apartment -0.179 0.001
Owner -0.581 0.0
Owner with mortgage -0.585 0.0
Renter -0.568 0.0
Safety
Variable Coefficient p-value
Constant 2.14 0.0
Age 2.58 0.272
Age squared -27.5 0.0
Age cubed 27.4 0.0
Female 0.347 0.0
TAFE certificate or equivalent -0.053 0.358
Undergradaute 0.157 0.008
Postgraduate 0.736 0.0
Other education level 0.0 nan
Full time 0.368 0.0
Part time 0.354 0.0
Retired or unemployed 0.0 nan
Couple with kids 0.665 0.0
Couple without kids -0.041 0.466
Single parent 0.449 0.0
Single parent -0.019 0.749
Other household structure 0.0 nan
No vehicle 0.0 nan
1 vehicle -0.635 0.0
2 vehicles -0.954 0.0
3+ vehicles -1.34 0.0
Income below $54K 0.396 0.0
Income above $104K 0.067 0.074
House 0.123 0.014
Apartment -0.05 0.353
Owner 0.436 0.0
Owner with mortgage 0.269 0.014
Renter 0.205 0.06
Variable Coefficient p-value
Hatchback 0.49 0.954
Small sedan 0.4417 0.954
Small SUV 0.499 0.955
Purchase price -7.98 0.777
Setup cost -0.038 0.984
Operating costs -0.46 0.961
Recharge time -0.477 0.942
Rebate on upfront cost 0.183 0.963
Energy bill discount until 2025 0.309 0.953
Portion of EVs sold (market share) 0.344 0.958
Design*Purchase price 2.38 0.925
Environment*Range in a single recharge 0.023 0.997
Safety*Large SUV 0.139 0.98
Safety*Large sedan 0.084 0.981

The Attitudes and Travel Database is produced with support from the Center for Teaching Old Models New Tricks at Arizona State University, a University Transportation Center sponsored by the US Department of Transportation through Grant No. 69A3551747116.

sha256:a08d9e369743bf7e6d1c40d27347318209b40a7fb1543813fdcf31b898918815