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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Energy policy 2013-10, Vol.61, p.901-908
Hauptverfasser: Chorus, Caspar G., Koetse, Mark J., Hoen, Anco
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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=27677012$$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 &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; 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 &amp; 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