Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

I can’t believe your attitude: a joint estimation of best worst attitudes and electric vehicle choice

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of conventionally fuelled motor vehicles in use is increasing worldwide despite warnings about finite fossil fuel and the detrimental impacts of burning such fuels. While electric vehicles, the subject of much research, generate far less emissions and offer the potential for power from renewable sources, they are yet to significantly penetrate the market. Tangible barriers such as price and vehicle range still exist, but consumer attitudes also drive behaviour. This paper examines attributes in a framework relatively new to transportation and energy policy; best–worst scaling. This method is widely considered an improvement over traditional methods of eliciting attitudes and beliefs, where respondents select attitudes they find best or worst from a set of attitudinal statements. To avoid potential endogeneity bias, we jointly model attitudes and choice for the first time with best–worst data. It is found that energy crisis, air quality and climate change concerns influence behaviour with respect to vehicle range and that travel behaviour change and forms of government incentives are needed influences on behaviour with respect to vehicle emissions. It is argued that correctly modelling attitudes reduces the error term of the vehicle choice model and provides policy makers with an improved lens for assessing behaviour. Additionally, the methods described within can easily be adapted to other policy scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This paper is a revision of Beck et al. (2014), an unpublished conference presentation.

References

  • ABS: Motor Vehicle Census, Australia, 31 Jan 2013, cat. no. 9309.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0 (2013). Accessed 28 July 2013

  • ABS: 2011 Census Data. Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data (2014). Accessed 13 Aug 2015

  • Archtnicht, M., Buhler, G., Hermeling, C.: The impact of fuel availability on demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D 17, 262–269 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M.: Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: the role of affective and moral attitudes in the theory of planned behaviour. Appetite 50(3), 443–454 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., Devinney, T.M., Louviere, J.J.: Using best–worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. J. Bus. Ethics 70, 299–326 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., Burke, A.: Are batteries ready for plug-in hybrid buyers? Transp. Policy 17(3), 173–182 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, P., Rolim, C., Silva, C.: Plug-in vehicle acceptance and probable utilization behaviour. J. Transp. Technol. 2, 67–74 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, M.J., Rose, J.M., Hensher, D.A.: Environmental attitudes and emissions charging: an example of policy implications for vehicle choice. Transp. Res. Part A 50, 171–182 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, M.J., Rose, J.M., Greaves, S.P.: I can’t believe your attitude: eliciting attitudes and beliefs through best–worst scaling and jointly estimating their impact on electric vehicle choice. In: 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board TRB 2014, Washington D.C., United States, 16 January 2014

  • Beggs, S., Cardell, S.: Choice of smallest car by multi-vehicle households and the demand for electric vehicles. Transp. Res. 14(5), 298–404 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Beggs, S., Cardell, S., Hausman, J.: Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. J. Econom. 16, 1–19 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bei, L., Simpson, E.: The determinants of consumers’ purchase decisions for recycled products: an application of acquisition-transaction utility theory. Adv. Consum. Res. 22(1), 257–261 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., McFadden, D., Gärling, T., Gopinath, D., Walker, J., Bolduc, D., Börsch-Supan, A., Delquié, P., Larichev, O., Morikawa, T., Polydoropoulou, A., Rao, V.: Extended framework for modeling choice behavior. Mark. Lett. 10(3), 187–203 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierlaire, M.: BIOGEME: a free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland (2003)

  • Brownstone, D., Bunch, D.S., Golob, T.F., Ren, W.: A transaction choice model for forecasting demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Res. Transp. Econ. 4, 97–129 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, D.S., Bradley, M., Golob, T.F., Kitamura, R., Occhiuzzo, G.P.: Demand for clean-fuel vehicles in California: a discrete-choice stated preference pilot project. Transp. Res. Part A 27(3), 237–253 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, B., Farrell, S., McMahon, B.: Examining individuals preferences for hybrid electric and alternatively fuelled vehicles. Transp. Policy 17(6), 381–387 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, J.: December 2012 Dashboard. HybridCars.com and Baum & Associates. http://www.hybridcars.com/december-2012-dashboard (2013). Accessed 14 Jan 2013

  • Cohen, S. H., Markowitz, P.: Renewing market segmentation: some new tools to correct old problems. In: ESOMAR 2002 Congress Proceedings, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2002)

  • Cohen, S.H., Neira, L.: Measuring preference for product benefits across countries: overcoming scale usage bias with maximum difference scaling. In: ESOMAR 2002 Congress Proceedings, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2003)

  • Craig, C.S., Douglas, S.P.: International Marketing Research. Wiley, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • DCCEE: Australian National Greenhouse Accounts: National Inventory Report 2010, vol. 1. Department of Climate Change. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/emissions (2012). Accessed 29 July 2013

  • De Palma, A., Kilani, K., Laffond, G.: Best and worst choices. halshs-00825656 Working Paper Series (2013)

  • Diamond, D.: The impact of government incentives for hybrid-electric vehicles: evidence from U.S. Energy Policy 37(3), 972–983 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyachenko, T., Walker Reczek, R., Allenby, G.M.: Models of sequential evaluation in best–worst choice tasks. Mark. Sci. 33(6), 828–848 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, U., von Helmolt, R.: Sustainable transportation based on electric vehicle concepts: a brief overview. Energy Environ. Sci. 3, 689–699 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberle, U., Mullera, B., von Helmolt, R.: Fuel cell electric vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure: status 2012. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 8780–8798 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EEA: Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2006 and Inventory Report. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Egbue, O., Long, S.: Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 48, 717–729 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA: Fast Facts U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-12-063 (2012)

  • Finn, A., Louviere, J.J.: Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J. Pub. Policy Mark. 11(2), 12–25 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J., Peters, T.J., Coast, J.: Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: Comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Med. Res. Methodol 8(1), 76 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, T., Neumann, I., Bühler, F., Cocron, P., Krems, J.F.: Experiencing range in an electric vehicle: understanding psychological barriers. Appl. Psychol. 61(3), 368–391 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J, Quezada, G., Paevere, P.: CSIRO Electric Driveway Project: Social Study on Attitudes, Drivers and Barriers to the Uptake of Electric Vehicles, Report Number EP113815. www.electricdriveway.com.au (2011)

  • Hensher, D.A.: Functional measurements, individual preferences and discrete choice modeling: theory and application. J. Econom. Psychol. 2, 323–335 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, S.: Rethinking heterogeneity: the role of attitudes, decision rules and data processing strategies. Transp. Lett. 4(2), 105–113 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, S., Fowler, M., Adler, T., Bahreinian, A.: A joint model for vehicle type and fuel type choice: evidence from a cross-nested logit study. Transportation 39(3), 593–625 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidrue, M.K., Parsons, G.R., Kempton, W., Gardner, M.P.: Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour. Energy Econ. 33(3), 686–705 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA: Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (ETP2012). International Energy Agency, Paris (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.A., Soutar, G., Louviere, J.J.: The best–worst scaling approach: an alternative to Schwartz’s values survey. J. Pers. Assess. 90(4), 335–347 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.A., Soutar, G.N., Louviere, J.J.: Measuring values using best–worst scaling: the LOV example. Psychol. Mark. 24(12), 1043–1058 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maness, M., Cirillo, C.: Measuring future vehicle preferences: stated preference survey approach with dynamic attributes and multiyear time frame. Transp. Res. Rec. 2285, 100–109 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C.: Measuring expectations. Econometrica 72(5), 1329–1376 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley, A.A.J: The best–worst method for the study of preferences: theory and application. In: CenSoC Working Paper No. 09-004. http://www.censoc.uts.edu.au/researchoutput/marley-berlin-paper-09-05-12.pdf (2009). Accessed 29 July 2013

  • Marley, A.A.J., Flynn, T.N., Louviere, J.J.: Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best–worst choice. J. Math. Psychol. 52(5), 281–296 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marley, A.A.J., Louviere, J.J.: Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. J. Math. Psychol. 49(6), 464–480 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mielby, I.H., Edelenbos, M., Thybo, A.: A Comparison of rating, best–worst scaling, and adolescents’ real choices of snacks. Food Qual. Prefer. 25(2), 140–147 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowen, J.C.: Consumer Behaviour, 3rd edn, pp. 151–182. Macmillian Publishing Company, New York (1993). (Chapter 7)

    Google Scholar 

  • OICA: 2012 Production Statistics. International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers. http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/ (2013). Accessed 29 July 2013

  • Ozaki, R., Sevastyanova, K.: Going hybrid: an analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy 39(5), 2217–2227 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D.L.: Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S. (eds.) Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, pp. 17–59. Academic Press, New York (1991)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J.M.: Interpreting discrete choice models based on best–worst data: a matter of framing. Transportation Research Board, Annual Meeting, January 12–16, Washington D.C. (2014)

  • Rose, J.M., Bliemer, M.C.J., Hensher, D.A., Collins, A.C.: Designing efficient stated choice experiments involving respondent based reference alternatives. Transp. Res. Part B 42(4), 395–406 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpa, R., Notaro, S., Louviere, J., Raffaelli, R.: Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 93(3), 813–828 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, D., Gordon, D.: Two Billion Cars: Driving Toward Sustainability. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B., Baumgartner, H.: Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 25(1), 78–90 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Train, K.: The potential market for non-gasoline-powered vehicles. Transp. Res. 14(5), 405–414 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A.: Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: a discrete choice analysis for Germany. Transp. Res. Part A 46(8), 1372–1385 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous referees whose comments have improved the content of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Matthew J. Beck & Stephen P. Greaves

  2. Institute for Choice, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

    John M. Rose

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen P. Greaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Beck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beck, M.J., Rose, J.M. & Greaves, S.P. I can’t believe your attitude: a joint estimation of best worst attitudes and electric vehicle choice. Transportation 44, 753–772 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9675-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9675-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation