size matters: how vehicle body type affects consumer ...mitl.mcmaster.ca/sites/default/files/vehicle...
TRANSCRIPT
Body Type and EV PreferencesMarch 16, 2011
Size Matters: How Vehicle Body Type Affects Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles
Christopher HigginsMoataz MohamedMark Ferguson
Body Type and EV Preferences
Introduction• How to encourage EV use?
– Who to target, how, and where?
Body Type and EV Preferences
Study Country Time Period Respondents Alternatives Estimation
Method Segmentation Approach
Horne et al. (2005) Canada 2002-2003 866 NGV; HEV; FCV MNL Global modelPotoglou and Kanaroglou (2007) Canada 2005 482 AFV; HEV NL Interaction segmentationMau et al. (2008) Canada 2002 1,935 HEV; FCV MNL By HEV and FCV market shareHidrue et al. (2011) USA 2009 3,029 BEV LCM 2 latent choicemaking profilesMabit and Fosgerau (2011) Denmark 2007 2,146 AFVs (BEV+HEV) MXL Random taste variationMusti and Kockelman (2011) USA 2009 645 HEV; PHEV MNL Interaction segmentationQian and Soopramanien (2011) China 2009 527 BEV; HEV NL Owner and non-owner householdsAchtnicht et al. (2012) Germany 2007-2008 598 AFVs (BEV+HEV) MNL Global modelDaziano (2012) Canada 2002-2003 866 NGV; HEV; FCV HCM 2 latent attitudinal constructsHess et al. (2011) USA 2008 944 AFVs NL Global modelKitamura et al. (2012) Netherlands 2011 247 BEV MXL Random taste variationShin et al. (2012) South Korea 2009 250 BEV; HEV MDCEV Random taste variationZiegler (2012) Germany 2007-2008 598 AFVs (BEV+HEV) PRO Global modelChorus et al. (2013) Netherlands 2011 616 AFVs (BEV+PHEV) RRM Company-car driversDaziano and Achtnicht (2014) Germany 2007-2008 598 AFVs (BEV+HEV) PRO Light-duty vehicle buyersDaziano and Bolduc (2013) Canada 2002-2003 866 NGV; HEV; FVC HCM 1 latent attitudinal constructHackbarth and Madlener (2013) Germany 2011 711 AFVs (BEV+HEV) MXL Random taste variationJensen et al. (2013) Denmark 2012 369 BEV HCM 1 latent attitudinal constructRasouli and Timmermans (2013) Netherlands 2012 726 BEV MXL Random taste variationBockarjova et al. (2014) Netherlands 2012 2,977 BEV; HEV LCM 3 latent choicemaking profilesGlerum et al. (2014) Switzerland 2011 593 BEV HCM 4 latent attitudinal constructs
Hoen and Koetse (2014) Netherlands 2011 1,903 AFVs (HEV+ PHEV+BEV) MXL Random taste variation
Kim et al. (2014) Netherlands 2012 726 BEV HCM 5 latent attitudinal constructsTanaka et al. (2014) USA/Japan 2012 8,202 BEV; PHEV MXL Country, random taste variationAxsen et al. (2015) Canada 2013 1,754 HEV; PHEV; BEV LCM 5 latent choicemaking profilesHelveston et al. (2015) USA/China 2012-2013 956 BEV; PHEV; HEV MXL Country, random taste variationValeri and Danielis (2015) Italy 2013 121 AFVs MXL Random taste variationPresent study Canada 2015 15,392 HEV; PHEV; BEV PRO Vehicle body type preference
Economic Studies
Body Type and EV Preferences
Vehicle Body Type
Hypothesize that:• There are significant differences in the profile of those
interested in different types of vehicle• That this leads to differences in preferences towards
EVs
Body Type and EV Preferences
Survey Design
Body Type and EV Preferences
Body Type and EV Preferences
Survey Design
Body Type and EV Preferences
Body Type and EV Preferences
Additional Variables• Urban-rural index• Household size• Household income• Age of household head• Young dependency ratio• Education ratio• Non-labour force ratio• Vehicle ownership ratio• Annual HHVKT• Time to next vehicle purchase, replacement?• French speaking, female• Vehicle attributes: luxury styling, passenger space, cargo room, tailpipe
emissions
Body Type and EV Preferences
Descriptive Statistics
Body Type and EV Preferences
MANOVA
Body Type and EV Preferences
Body Type and EV Preferences
Body Type and EV Preferences
Body Type and EV Preferences
Marginal Effects – Household Characteristics
Body Type and EV Preferences
Marginal Effects – Choice Scenarios
Body Type and EV Preferences
Marginal Effects – Choice Scenarios
1. No Incentives 2. Ontario Incentives
3. Ontario Incentives, altered characteristics
Double vehicle range to 270km+37% zero tailpipe - 2.9 to 4+3% reduced tailpipe – 3.4 to 3.5
Body Type and EV Preferences
Marginal Effects – Choice Scenarios
Body Type and EV Preferences
Marginal Effects – Choice Scenarios
1. No Incentives 2. Ontario Incentives3. Ontario Incentives, altered
respondent characteristics
+37% zero tailpipe+3% reduced tailpipe
Body Type and EV Preferences
Body Type and EV Preferences
Body Type and EV Preferences
Conclusions• Work confirms profile of those interested in
different vehicles varies significantly• These profiles affect preferences for EEs• Consistent findings:
– BEVs and PHEVs appealing to younger, more educated
– BEVs preferred when hhld is looking to add a vehicle
– Fuel economy, emissions very strong
Body Type and EV Preferences
Conclusions• Consistently Insignificant:
– HHVKT– Suggests ‘age anxiety’ more appropriate?
• Submarkets– Economy and intermediate show low ASCs– But also SUV and Minivan – interesting potential
markets– EVs hardest sell for full-size sedan and pickup
markets
Body Type and EV Preferences
Conclusions• Luxury Market – most unique
– Highest base willingness to select EVs (ASCs)– Value emissions elimination– Lowest sensitivity to purchase price, but by far highest
to incentives (3x higher)• Suggests value of incentives goes beyond monetary
– Validate approach of Tesla?• Pickup – least inclined to adopt EVs
– Highest disutility for EVs in ASCs, low value for incentives, no relationship with education, focus on emissions reduction rather than elimination
Body Type and EV PreferencesMarch 16, 2011
Size Matters: How Vehicle Body Type Affects Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles
Christopher HigginsMoataz MohamedMark Ferguson