Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model
This paper presents a utility-based and a regret-based model of consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles, based on a large-scale stated choice-experiment held among company car leasers in The Netherlands. Estimation and application of random utility maximization and random regret minimizat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Energy policy 2013-10, Vol.61, p.901-908 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 908 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 901 |
container_title | Energy policy |
container_volume | 61 |
creator | Chorus, Caspar G. Koetse, Mark J. Hoen, Anco |
description | This paper presents a utility-based and a regret-based model of consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles, based on a large-scale stated choice-experiment held among company car leasers in The Netherlands. Estimation and application of random utility maximization and random regret minimization discrete choice models shows that while the two models achieve almost identical fit with the data and differ only marginally in terms of predictive ability, they generate rather different choice probability-simulations and policy implications. The most eye-catching difference between the two models is that the random regret minimization model accommodates a compromise-effect, as it assigns relatively high choice probabilities to alternative fuel vehicles that perform reasonably well on each dimension instead of having a strong performance on some dimensions and a poor performance on others.
•Utility- and regret-based models of preferences for alternative fuel vehicles.•Estimation based on stated choice-experiment among Dutch company car leasers.•Models generate rather different choice probabilities and policy implications.•Regret-based model accommodates a compromise-effect. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.064 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671430170</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301421513005715</els_id><sourcerecordid>3051463871</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-5ae7214f76dc0259e0ddefb3bd9845166e545337e637e6b721c7efda545eaca33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2LFDEQhhtRcFz9BR4MiOClx0rncwQPy-AXLHjQPYdMunrMkE7GpHtw_fWmnUXBgytUKEg99VJUvU3zlMKaApWvDmuMxxTWHVC2BlmD32tWVCvWSqXU_WYFDGjLOyoeNo9KOQAA1xu-aqZtimUeMZNjxgEzRoeFDCkTGybM0U7-hGSYMZATfvUuYHlNtmk82uzjnlgyTz746YaM9rsf_Y_Kp0hs7Gsp4z7jREYf_1TG1GN43DwYbCj45DZfNNfv3n7ZfmivPr3_uL28ap0EPrXCouooH5TsHXRig9D3OOzYrt9oLqiUKLhgTKFc3q6yTuHQ2_qL1lnGLpqXZ91jTt9mLJMZfXEYgo2Y5mKoVJTXxSi4GxXAOVVM87tRLrkQVIP4D5RrproN0xV9_hd6SHPdf1ioTmoBoBdBdqZcTqXUi5lj9qPNN4aCWaxgDuaXFcxiBQOyxjLxi1ttW5wNQ7bR-fK7tVPVJEC7yj07c4NNxu5zZa4_VyFZ7SKFFgvx5kxgPdvJYzbF-cUzvc_oJtMn_89JfgI7Y9Pr</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1426850085</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Chorus, Caspar G. ; Koetse, Mark J. ; Hoen, Anco</creator><creatorcontrib>Chorus, Caspar G. ; Koetse, Mark J. ; Hoen, Anco</creatorcontrib><description>This paper presents a utility-based and a regret-based model of consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles, based on a large-scale stated choice-experiment held among company car leasers in The Netherlands. Estimation and application of random utility maximization and random regret minimization discrete choice models shows that while the two models achieve almost identical fit with the data and differ only marginally in terms of predictive ability, they generate rather different choice probability-simulations and policy implications. The most eye-catching difference between the two models is that the random regret minimization model accommodates a compromise-effect, as it assigns relatively high choice probabilities to alternative fuel vehicles that perform reasonably well on each dimension instead of having a strong performance on some dimensions and a poor performance on others.
•Utility- and regret-based models of preferences for alternative fuel vehicles.•Estimation based on stated choice-experiment among Dutch company car leasers.•Models generate rather different choice probabilities and policy implications.•Regret-based model accommodates a compromise-effect.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-4215</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-6777</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.064</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ENPYAC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Alternative fuel vehicles ; Alternative fuels ; Applied sciences ; Automobiles ; Automotive engineering ; Consumer preferences ; Consumers ; Decision making models ; Economic theory ; Electric vehicles ; Energy policy ; Estimation ; Exact sciences and technology ; fuels ; Ground, air and sea transportation, marine construction ; Hybrid vehicles ; issues and policy ; Mathematical models ; Maximization ; Minimization ; Motor vehicles ; Netherlands ; Optimization ; Probability ; Random regret ; Road transportation and traffic ; Simulation ; Studies ; Utilities ; Utility functions ; Western Europe</subject><ispartof>Energy policy, 2013-10, Vol.61, p.901-908</ispartof><rights>2013 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Oct 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-5ae7214f76dc0259e0ddefb3bd9845166e545337e637e6b721c7efda545eaca33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-5ae7214f76dc0259e0ddefb3bd9845166e545337e637e6b721c7efda545eaca33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.064$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27844,27845,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27677012$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chorus, Caspar G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koetse, Mark J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoen, Anco</creatorcontrib><title>Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model</title><title>Energy policy</title><description>This paper presents a utility-based and a regret-based model of consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles, based on a large-scale stated choice-experiment held among company car leasers in The Netherlands. Estimation and application of random utility maximization and random regret minimization discrete choice models shows that while the two models achieve almost identical fit with the data and differ only marginally in terms of predictive ability, they generate rather different choice probability-simulations and policy implications. The most eye-catching difference between the two models is that the random regret minimization model accommodates a compromise-effect, as it assigns relatively high choice probabilities to alternative fuel vehicles that perform reasonably well on each dimension instead of having a strong performance on some dimensions and a poor performance on others.
•Utility- and regret-based models of preferences for alternative fuel vehicles.•Estimation based on stated choice-experiment among Dutch company car leasers.•Models generate rather different choice probabilities and policy implications.•Regret-based model accommodates a compromise-effect.</description><subject>Alternative fuel vehicles</subject><subject>Alternative fuels</subject><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Automobiles</subject><subject>Automotive engineering</subject><subject>Consumer preferences</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Decision making models</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>Electric vehicles</subject><subject>Energy policy</subject><subject>Estimation</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>fuels</subject><subject>Ground, air and sea transportation, marine construction</subject><subject>Hybrid vehicles</subject><subject>issues and policy</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Maximization</subject><subject>Minimization</subject><subject>Motor vehicles</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Random regret</subject><subject>Road transportation and traffic</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Utilities</subject><subject>Utility functions</subject><subject>Western Europe</subject><issn>0301-4215</issn><issn>1873-6777</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk2LFDEQhhtRcFz9BR4MiOClx0rncwQPy-AXLHjQPYdMunrMkE7GpHtw_fWmnUXBgytUKEg99VJUvU3zlMKaApWvDmuMxxTWHVC2BlmD32tWVCvWSqXU_WYFDGjLOyoeNo9KOQAA1xu-aqZtimUeMZNjxgEzRoeFDCkTGybM0U7-hGSYMZATfvUuYHlNtmk82uzjnlgyTz746YaM9rsf_Y_Kp0hs7Gsp4z7jREYf_1TG1GN43DwYbCj45DZfNNfv3n7ZfmivPr3_uL28ap0EPrXCouooH5TsHXRig9D3OOzYrt9oLqiUKLhgTKFc3q6yTuHQ2_qL1lnGLpqXZ91jTt9mLJMZfXEYgo2Y5mKoVJTXxSi4GxXAOVVM87tRLrkQVIP4D5RrproN0xV9_hd6SHPdf1ioTmoBoBdBdqZcTqXUi5lj9qPNN4aCWaxgDuaXFcxiBQOyxjLxi1ttW5wNQ7bR-fK7tVPVJEC7yj07c4NNxu5zZa4_VyFZ7SKFFgvx5kxgPdvJYzbF-cUzvc_oJtMn_89JfgI7Y9Pr</recordid><startdate>20131001</startdate><enddate>20131001</enddate><creator>Chorus, Caspar G.</creator><creator>Koetse, Mark J.</creator><creator>Hoen, Anco</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7SU</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131001</creationdate><title>Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model</title><author>Chorus, Caspar G. ; Koetse, Mark J. ; Hoen, Anco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c604t-5ae7214f76dc0259e0ddefb3bd9845166e545337e637e6b721c7efda545eaca33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Alternative fuel vehicles</topic><topic>Alternative fuels</topic><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Automobiles</topic><topic>Automotive engineering</topic><topic>Consumer preferences</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Decision making models</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>Electric vehicles</topic><topic>Energy policy</topic><topic>Estimation</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>fuels</topic><topic>Ground, air and sea transportation, marine construction</topic><topic>Hybrid vehicles</topic><topic>issues and policy</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Maximization</topic><topic>Minimization</topic><topic>Motor vehicles</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Random regret</topic><topic>Road transportation and traffic</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Utilities</topic><topic>Utility functions</topic><topic>Western Europe</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chorus, Caspar G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koetse, Mark J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoen, Anco</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Energy policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chorus, Caspar G.</au><au>Koetse, Mark J.</au><au>Hoen, Anco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model</atitle><jtitle>Energy policy</jtitle><date>2013-10-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>61</volume><spage>901</spage><epage>908</epage><pages>901-908</pages><issn>0301-4215</issn><eissn>1873-6777</eissn><coden>ENPYAC</coden><abstract>This paper presents a utility-based and a regret-based model of consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles, based on a large-scale stated choice-experiment held among company car leasers in The Netherlands. Estimation and application of random utility maximization and random regret minimization discrete choice models shows that while the two models achieve almost identical fit with the data and differ only marginally in terms of predictive ability, they generate rather different choice probability-simulations and policy implications. The most eye-catching difference between the two models is that the random regret minimization model accommodates a compromise-effect, as it assigns relatively high choice probabilities to alternative fuel vehicles that perform reasonably well on each dimension instead of having a strong performance on some dimensions and a poor performance on others.
•Utility- and regret-based models of preferences for alternative fuel vehicles.•Estimation based on stated choice-experiment among Dutch company car leasers.•Models generate rather different choice probabilities and policy implications.•Regret-based model accommodates a compromise-effect.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.064</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0301-4215 |
ispartof | Energy policy, 2013-10, Vol.61, p.901-908 |
issn | 0301-4215 1873-6777 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671430170 |
source | PAIS Index; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Alternative fuel vehicles Alternative fuels Applied sciences Automobiles Automotive engineering Consumer preferences Consumers Decision making models Economic theory Electric vehicles Energy policy Estimation Exact sciences and technology fuels Ground, air and sea transportation, marine construction Hybrid vehicles issues and policy Mathematical models Maximization Minimization Motor vehicles Netherlands Optimization Probability Random regret Road transportation and traffic Simulation Studies Utilities Utility functions Western Europe |
title | Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: Comparing a utility maximization and a regret minimization model |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T03%3A52%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Consumer%20preferences%20for%20alternative%20fuel%20vehicles:%20Comparing%20a%20utility%20maximization%20and%20a%20regret%20minimization%20model&rft.jtitle=Energy%20policy&rft.au=Chorus,%20Caspar%20G.&rft.date=2013-10-01&rft.volume=61&rft.spage=901&rft.epage=908&rft.pages=901-908&rft.issn=0301-4215&rft.eissn=1873-6777&rft.coden=ENPYAC&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.064&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3051463871%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1426850085&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0301421513005715&rfr_iscdi=true |