Evaluation of Prospective Users’ Choice Decision toward Electric Two-Wheelers Using a Stated Preference Survey: An Indian Perspective
Abstract
:1. Background and Motivation
2. Literature Review and Research Scope
Selection of Attributes and the Levels
3. Design of Stated Preference Survey Questionnaire
4. Data Collection and Database Development Process
5. Model Development
5.1. Theoretical Background of the Multinomial Logit and Random Parameter Logit Models
5.1.1. Multinomial Logit Model
5.1.2. Random Parameter Logit Model
5.1.3. Heterogeneity Investigation with Respect to Socio-Economic and Trip Characteristics
5.2. Multinomial Logit and Random Parameter Logit Model Estimation
5.3. Interpretation of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates
5.3.1. Operating Cost Savings
5.3.2. Range
5.3.3. Top Speed
5.3.4. Charging Duration
5.3.5. Acceleration
6. Sensitivity Analysis
7. Conclusions and Contributions
- Firstly, the demonstrated methodological approach presents a unique method for producing quantitative estimates of perceived benefits associated with E2W specific attributes. Valuation provides useful insights on the different operational characteristics of E2W and would act as a guideline for planners in the typical Indian context. Although results are case study specific in nature, this paper makes a major contribution with respect to the proposed methodology, which applies to other city settings as well. This methodology develops the basis for a tool to estimate economic benefits related to E2W operational characteristics. This methodology would provide insights to both manufacturers and prospective users for informed decision-making specific to E2W. The majority of the past studies in the context of E2W in general, and E2W attribute valuation, in particular, has been taken up in developed countries such as China [62], USA [14,63], and Norway [64] or countries where E2W is already a popular or established mode of transport such as Taiwan [28,65] and Indonesia [11]; however, due to the significant difference in the transport and socio-economic characteristics of commuters, results derived from such studies cannot be directly applicable to a country such as India, where E2W is at its nascent stage. Hence, this methodology and related findings would be a distinct contribution to the body of E2W commuting specific research literature in general, in the context of India in particular.
- Secondly, the WTP estimates and shift in choice probability for an individual associated with various E2W operational characteristics are substantial for prospective users belonging to different socio-economic strata. This indicates that there is substantial scope for improvement in E2W-specific attributes in the typical Indian context. The WTP estimates are crucial inputs for assessing future users’ perceived benefits that may help the manufacturers and government decision-makers. This research indicates improving the speed, acceleration level of the current E2W models, and suggestions for devising an appropriate government subsidy plan for increased patronage.
- Third, this paper has explored the unobserved heterogeneity across user perception to assess the influence of age, income, and journey duration on factors influencing E2W choice decisions. Such investigations are relatively new in E2W research and, therefore, they substantially strengthen the present academic body of the literature. Such findings help manufacturers and policymakers, as they help toward market segmentation in the Indian context.
- Fourth, the research results, specifically the utility equation coefficients and WTP estimates associated with the set of attributes, clearly reveal the role of econometric model specification on WTP estimation. The less restricted and relatively parameter-richer models (RPL models with heterogeneity) were statistically superior and explored more behavioral information than the simpler MNL models. This research also presents a successful application of constrained triangular distribution for the estimation of RPL models. The model specification and estimation results are found to be in accordance with the existing research literature [18,19].
- Fifth, this research’s major contribution is combining the approach of WTP estimation and the sensitivity analysis to arrive at the important attributes from the stated choice experiment. WTP values provide monetary estimates for the improvement of different attributes. WTP units are different for different attributes such as OC (₹ per % OC savings/km), top speed (₹ per km/h increase in top speed), and acceleration (₹ per the second decrease in acceleration time), which makes the interpretation of most important attribute relatively difficult. Sensitivity analysis in terms of percentage shift in probability due to an improvement of a particular level of a specific attribute would provide all estimates in percentage, thereby making the interpretation simpler for the policymaker. Combining both these indicators, top speed, followed by acceleration, was the most important attribute influencing an individual’s perception on E2W-specific attributes in the typical Indian context.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations. Developing Countries Need Urgent Support to Adapt to Climate Change. Available online: https://unfccc.int/news/developing-countries-need-urgent-support-to-adapt-to-climate-change (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- World Health Orgainisation. 9 Out of 10 People Worldwide Breathe Polluted Air, but More Countries are Taking Action. Available online: https://www.who.int (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://www.un.org (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- Filippini, M.; Kumar, N.; Srinivasan, S. Nudging the Adoption of Fuel-Efficient Vehicles: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment in Nepal; Economics Working Paper Series, 20/333; Center of Economic Research at ETH: Zurich, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Hackbarth, A.; Madlener, R. Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: A discrete choice analysis. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2013, 25, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Green Vehicle Guide. Available online: https://www.epa.gov (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- Ramachandra, T.V. Shwetmala Emissions from India’s transport sector: Statewise synthesis. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 5510–5517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dey, S. Pollution Killed 1.7m in India in 2019, Behind 18% of All Deaths. Available online: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- Choi, W.; Yun, S. A Comparative Study of Initial Cost Recuperation Period of Plug-In Series Hybrid Electric Two-Wheel Vehicles in Southeast Asian Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grover, S.; Tiwari, G.; Rao, K.R. Low Carbon Mobility Plans: A Case Study of Ludhiana, India. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 104, 785–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guerra, E. Electric vehicles, air pollution, and the motorcycle city: A stated preference survey of consumers’ willingness to adopt electric motorcycles in Solo, Indonesia. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 68, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementaion, Government of India. Statistical Year Book India-2017. New Delhi, India. Available online: http://mospi.nic.in/statistical-year-book-india/2017 (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- Sharma, I.; Chandel, M.K. Will electric vehicles (EVs) be less polluting than conventional automobiles under Indian city conditions? Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2020, 8, 1489–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, Y.C.; Tzeng, G.H. The market acceptance of electric motorcycles in Taiwan experience through a stated preference analysis. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 1999, 4, 127–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amjad, S.; Rudramoorthy, R.; Neelakrishnan, S. Assessment of petroleum saving and greenhouse gas emission reduction from two-wheeler segment: 2011–2021. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2011, 16, 265–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, R.; Perl, A. Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight Without Oil; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- National Automotive Board. FAME India Scheme- Phase II. Available online: https://fame2.heavyindustry.gov.in (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- Phanikumar, C. Modelling Generalized Cost of Travel and Its’ Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kolkata, India, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Majumdar, B.B.; Mitra, S. Analysis of bicycle route-related improvement strategies for two Indian cities using a stated preference survey. Transp. Policy 2018, 63, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Lindsey, G. Do new bike share stations increase member use: A quasi-experimental study. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 121, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eboli, L.; Mazzulla, G. A stated preference experiment for measuring service quality in public transport. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2008, 31, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maitra, B.; Dandapat, S.; Chintakayala, P. Differences between the Perceptions of Captive and Choice Riders toward Bus Service Attributes and the Need for Segmentation of Bus Services in Urban India. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2015, 141, 04014018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majumdar, B.B.; Dissanayake, D.; Rajput, A.S.; Saw, Y.Q.; Sahu, P.K. Prioritizing Metro Service Quality Attributes to Enhance Commuter Experience: TOPSIS Ranking and Importance Satisfaction Analysis Methods. Transp. Res. Rec. 2020, 2674, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadhukhan, S.; Banerjee, U.K.; Maitra, B. Commuters’ willingness-to-pay for improvement of transfer facilities in and around metro stations – A case study in Kolkata. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 92, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brownstone, D.; Bunch, D.S.; Golob, T.F. A Demand Forecasting System for Clean-Fuel Vehicles; Inst. of Transportation Studies, California Univ., Irvine: Irvine, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Cirillo, C.; Liu, Y.; Maness, M. A time-dependent stated preference approach to measuring vehicle type preferences and market elasticity of conventional and green vehicles. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 294–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Sung, Y.C. Consumer learning behavior in choosing electric motorcycles. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2010, 33, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, L.; Zhang, J. Stated Responses to Policy Interventions and Technological innoation of Electric Motorcycles in Laos. J. East. Asia Soc. Transporation Stud. 2013, 10, 482–498. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, L.R.; Cherry, C.R.; Vu, T.A.; Nguyen, Q.N. The effect of incentives and technology on the adoption of electric motorcycles: A stated choice experiment in Vietnam. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2013, 57, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Sheng, N.; Liang, K.P. Factors Affecting Consumer’s Choice for Electric Motorcycles: A Case In Macau. In Environmental Science and Sustainable Development: International Conference on Environmental Science and Sustainable Development (ICESSD 2015); World Scientific: Singapore, 2016; pp. 356–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, T.C.; Huang, C.C.; Lai, M.P. The User Prefeernces for new energy motorcycles in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), Okinawa, Janpan, 26–30 May 2016; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, L.; Song, Q.; Sheng, N.; Zhou, X. Exploring the determinants of consumers’ WTB and WTP for electric motorcycles using CVM method in Macau. Energy Policy 2019, 127, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearmain, D.; Swanson, J.; Kroes, E.; Bradely, M. Stated Preference Techniques: A Guide to Practice, 2nd ed.; Steer Dav Les Gleave Hague Consult Gr.: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Patil, M.; Majumdar, B.B. Analysis of the key determinants of electric two-wheeler use in the Indian context. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (CTRG-2019), Bhopal, India, 18–21 December 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Huber, J.; Zwerina, K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 1996, 33, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasri, M.; Ardeshiri, A.; Rashidi, T. Perception towards electric vehicles and the impact on consumers’ preference. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 77, 271–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Woodworth, G. Design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 1983, 20, 350–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018). The World’s Cities in 2018—Data Booklet (ST/ESA/ SER.A/417). 2018. Available online: https://www.un.org (accessed on 28 January 2021).
- District Census Handbook-Hyderabad; Directorate of Census Operations, Andhra Pradesh: Hyderabad, India, 2011.
- Das, D. Hyderabad: Visioning, restructuring and making of a high-tech city. Cities 2015, 43, 48–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baski, S. Vehicle Population Cause of Concern for Hyderabad. Available online: https://telanganatoday.com (accessed on 27 January 2021).
- Bieliński, T.; Ważna, A. Electric scooter sharing and bike sharing user behaviour and characteristics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, O. Modelling Passenger Mode Choice Behaviour Using Computer Aided Stated Preference Data. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Taherdoost, H. Determining sample size; How to calculate survey sample size. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Syst. 2017, 2, 237–239. [Google Scholar]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ben-Akiva, M.E.; Lerman, S.R. Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. In Handbook of Transportation Science; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1999; pp. 5–33. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior; University of California, Berkely: Berkley, CA, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Boyd, J.H.; Mellman, R.E. the Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on the U. S. Automotive Market: An Hedonic Demand Analysis. Transp. Res. Part A Gen. 1980, 14A, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhat, C.R. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2001, 35, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Louviere, J.; Eagle, T. Confound It! That Pesky Littlescale Constant Messes Up Assumptions. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Sawtooth Software Conference, Delray Beach, FL, USA, 29–31 March 2006; pp. 211–228. [Google Scholar]
- Hess, S.; Bierlaire, M.; Polak, J.W. Estimation of value of travel-time savings using mixed logit models. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2005, 39, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bansal, P.; Daziano, R.A.; Achtnicht, M. Extending the logit-mixed logit model for a combination of random and fixed parameters. J. Choice Model. 2018, 27, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiebig, D.G.; Keane, M.P.; Louviere, J.; Wasi, N. The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 393–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, W. NLOGIT Student Reference Guide Table of Contents; Econom. Software, Inc.: Plainview, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Phanikumar, C.; Maitra, B. Valuing Urban Bus Attributes: An Experience in Kolkata. J. Public Transp. 2006, 9, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indian Road Congress. IRC:SP 30-2009. Manual on Economic Evaluation of Highway Projects in India; The Indian Road Congress: New Delhi, India, 2009.
- Potoglou, D.; Kanaroglou, P.S. Household demand and willingness to pay for clean vehicles. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2007, 12, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Tan, R. Estimation of the environmental values of electric vehicles in Chinese cities. Energy Policy 2017, 104, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajper, S.Z.; Albrecht, J. Prospects of Electric Vehicles in the Developing Countries: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hidrue, M.K.; Parsons, G.R.; Kempton, W.; Gardner, M.P. Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 686–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, C.; Zhou, J.; Yang, D.; Fan, Y. Research on the relationship between the individual characteristics of electric bike riders and illegal speeding behavior: A questionnaire-based study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ling, Z.; Cherry, C.R.; MacArthur, J.H.; Weinert, J.X. Differences of cycling experiences and perceptions between e-bike and bicycle users in the United States? Sustainability 2017, 9, 1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simsekoglu, Ö.; Klöckner, C. Factors related to the intention to buy an e-bike: A survey study from Norway. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 60, 573–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.S.; Tsai, B.K.; Hsieh, C.M. The effects of perceived barriers on innovation resistance of hydrogen-electric motorcycles. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
S.No | Source | Country | Attributes | Choice Alternatives for the Survey | Model |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Chiu et al. (1999) [14] | Taiwan | Purchase price, maximum speed, emission level, operating cost, cruise range | (A) Electric motorized two-wheelers | Multinomial logit model (MNL) |
(B) Low-engine-volume gasoline motorcycle | |||||
(C) High-engine-volume gasoline motorcycle | |||||
2 | Sung (2010) [28] | Taiwan | Price, top speed, maximum driving range, operating cost, recharging time, recharging method | (A) Gasoline motorcycle | Bayesian learning process model |
(B) Electric motorcycle | |||||
3 | Jones et al. (2013) [30] | Vietnam | Price, range, refuel/recharge time, operating cost, maintenance cost, acceleration, speed, license requirement, sales tax | (A) Standard gas motorcycle | Mixed logit model |
(B) Large gas motorcycle | |||||
(C) Electric scooter | |||||
4 | Sun and Zhang (2013) [29] | Laos | Engine displacement for electric motorcycle (EM), efficiency of conventional motorcycle (CM), efficiency of EM, maximum speed, cruising range, charge time, battery life, diffusion rate, distance to the charge station, warning sound, future monthly income level, vehicle body price for CM, vehicle body price for EM, subsidy for EM, life cycle cost for ten years | (A) Conventional motorcycle | Dogit model with parameterized captivity functions |
(B) Electric motorcycle | |||||
(C) No buying | |||||
5 | Lee et al. (2016) [32] | Taiwan | Maximum speed, hill-climbing, acceleration, weight, range, refueling time, fuel availability | (A) Internal Combustion (IC) engine motorcycle | Multinomial logit model (MNL) |
(B) Electric motorcycle | |||||
(C) Hydrogen fuel motorcycle | |||||
6 | Zhou et al. (2016) [31] | China | Cognitive level, environmental consciousness, fuel price, charge cost, family size, license number, income | (A) Electric motorcycle | Binary logistic regression model |
7 | Guerra (2019) [11] | Indonesia | Purchase price, maximum speed, range, charging duration, | (A) Conventional Motorcycle | Mixed logit model with random coefficients |
(B) Electric Motorcycle | |||||
(C) No Motorcycle | |||||
8 | Zhu et al. (2019) [33] | China | Charging fees, environmental benefits, safety, education level, family members, motorcycle number, income level | (A) Electric motorcycle alternative 1 | Binary logistic regression model |
(B) Electric Motorcycle alternative 2 |
S.No | Attributes | Description | Level | Values |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Purchase cost | The total cost paid for owning the electric two-wheeler | Level_1 (Base) | ₹80,000 (US$1087) |
Level_2 | ₹90,000 (US$1222.8) | |||
Level_3 | ₹100,000 (US$1358.7) | |||
2 | OC savings | The savings in the operating cost of electric two-wheelers in comparison to the average OC value of the existing electric two-wheelers | Level_1 (Base) | 10% |
Level_2 | 30% | |||
Level_3 | 50% | |||
3 | Range | The maximum distance that can be traveled on a fully charged electric two-wheeler | Level_1 (Base) | 120 km |
Level_2 | 150 km | |||
Level_3 | 180 km | |||
4 | Top speed | The highest speed that can be traveled on an electric two-wheeler | Level_1 (Base) | 40 km/h |
Level_2 | 60 km/h | |||
Level_3 | 80 km/h | |||
5 | Charging infrastructure | The total time taken to charge the electric two-wheeler | Level_1 (Base) | 5 h |
Level_2 | 4 h | |||
Level_3 | 3 h | |||
6 | Acceleration | The time taken by the electric two-wheeler to reach a speed from 0 to 60 km/h | Level_1 (Base) | 4 s |
Level_2 | 7 s | |||
Level_3 | 10 s |
Attribute | Purchase Cost | OC Savings | Range | Top Speed | Charging Duration | Acceleration | Select Your Choice |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample choice set-1 | |||||||
Alternative A | ₹90,000 | 30% | 180 km | 80 km/h | 3 h | 4 s | |
(US$1222.8) | |||||||
Alternative B | ₹80,000 | 30% | 120 km | 40 km/h | 5 h | 10 s | |
(US$1087) | |||||||
Sample choice set-2 | |||||||
Alternative A | ₹80,000 | 10% | 120 km | 60 km/h | 5 h | 10 s | |
(US$1087) | |||||||
Alternative B | ₹100,000 | 50% | 180 km | 60 km/h | 3 h | 4 s | |
(US$1358.7) |
Socio-Economic Variable | Classification | Total Number of Respondents | Percentage of Respondents (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | ≤35 years | 394 | 82 |
>35 years | 86 | 18 | |
Income (₹/month) | ≤50,000 ₹/month (US$679.3) | 287 | 60 |
>50,000 ₹/month (US$679.3) | 193 | 40 | |
Education level | Below 12th grade | 114 | 24 |
Graduate | 259 | 54 | |
Post graduate and above | 107 | 22 | |
Type of vehicle ownership | Two-wheeler | 322 | 67 |
Two-wheeler + Car | 158 | 33 | |
Number of trips per day (trips/day) | 1 | 126 | 26 |
2 | 155 | 32 | |
3 | 151 | 31 | |
>3 | 48 | 10 | |
Average daily journey time (hours) | ≤1 h/day | 305 | 64 |
>1 h/day | 175 | 36 | |
Number of household members | 1 to 3 | 221 | 46 |
5 to 6 | 193 | 40 | |
>6 | 66 | 14 |
Attributes | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3A | Model 3B | Model 3C |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
MNL Model Estimates | RPL Model Estimates | RPL Model Estimates | RPL Model Estimates | RPL Model Estimates | |
Overall Sample | Overall Sample | Age Heterogeneity, Years | Monthly Income Heterogeneity, ₹/Month | Average Daily Journey Time Heterogeneity, Hours/Day | |
Random Parameters in Utility Functions | |||||
Coefficient Estimate (Absolute t-Ratio) | Coefficient Estimate (Absolute t-Ratio) | Coefficient Estimate (Absolute t-Ratio) | Coefficient Estimate (Absolute t-Ratio) | Coefficient Estimate (Absolute t-Ratio) | |
OC savings (%) | 0.013 (7.77) | 0.013 (7.13) | 0.010 (3.03) | 0.007 (3.17) | 0.017 (7.03) |
Range (km) | 0.011 (5.58) | 0.010 (5.26) | 0.007 (2.40) | 0.007 (2.99) | 0.013 (5.10) |
Top speed (km/h) | 0.033 (13.75) | 0.035 (13.12) | 0.027 (6.16) | 0.031 (10.01) | 0.037 (10.24) |
Charging duration (hours) | −0.182 (−3.17) | −0.239 (−3.96) | −0.269 (−2.80) | −0.261 (−3.70) | −0.232 (−3.18) |
Acceleration (s) | −0.141 (−8.18) | −0.161 (−8.60) | −0.167 (−5.07) | −0.179 (−7.89) | −0.163 (−7.09) |
Non-random parameters in utility functions | |||||
Purchase cost (₹) | −0.024 (−6.13) | −0.027 (−6.26) | −0.026 (−5.99) | −0.027 (−6.16) | −0.028 (−6.38) |
Heterogeneity in mean, Parameter: Variable | |||||
OC savings (%) | 0.015 (4.51) | −0.009 (−2.72) | |||
Range (km) | 0.005 (2.36) | 0.009 (2.89) | −0.005 (−1.70) | ||
Top speed (km/h) | 0.010 (2.09) | 0.009 (2.03) | |||
Charging duration (hours) | |||||
Acceleration (s) | |||||
Log likelihood function | −1669.54 | −1669.39 | −1667.03 | −1656.94 | −1664.88 |
McFadden Pseudo R-squared | 0.20 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.24 |
WTP Estimates (₹) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attributes | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3A | Model 3B | Model 3C | |||
MNL Model | RPL Model | RPL Model with Age Heterogeneity | RPL Model with Monthly Income Heterogeneity | RPL Model Average Daily Journey Time Heterogeneity | ||||
Overall Sample | Overall Sample | ≤35 Years | >35 Years | ≤50,000 ₹/Month | >50,000 ₹/Month | ≤1 h/Day | >1 h/Day | |
OC Savings (%) | 542 | 481 | 385 | 385 | 259 | 815 | 607 | 286 |
Range (km) | 458 | 370 | 269 | 462 | 259 | 593 | 464 | 286 |
Top speed (km/h) | 1375 | 1296 | 1038 | 1423 | 1148 | 1481 | 1321 | 1321 |
Charging Duration (hours) | 7583 | 8852 | 10,346 | 10,346 | 9667 | 9667 | 8286 | 8286 |
Acceleration (s) | 5875 | 5963 | 6423 | 6423 | 6630 | 6630 | 5821 | 5821 |
Attributes | Coefficients | Attribute Levels | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Base Level | Alt_1 | Alt_2 | Alt_3 | Alt_4 | Alt_5 | Alt_6 | Alt_7 | Alt_8 | Alt_9 | Alt_10 | Alt_11 | Alt_12 | ||
Purchase cost (₹1000) | −0.027 | 80 | 90 | 100 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
OC savings (%) | 0.013 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 30 | 50 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
Range (km) | 0.010 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 150 | 180 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 | 120 |
Top speed (km/h) | 0.035 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
Charging duration (hours) | −0.239 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
Acceleration (seconds) | −0.161 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 4 |
Utility of the alternatives (U) | −2.2 | −2.47 | −2.73 | −1.93 | −1.67 | −1.89 | −1.58 | −1.51 | −0.81 | −1.96 | −1.72 | −1.72 | −1.23 | |
Percentage change in probability of choice from base mode to alternative mode | ||||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_1 | −14% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_2 | −26% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_3 | 14% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_4 | 26% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_5 | 16% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_6 | 30% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_7 | 34% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_8 | 60% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_9 | 12% | |||||||||||||
Base Level to Alt_10 | 24% | |||||||||||||
Base mode to Alt_11 | 24% | |||||||||||||
Base mode to Alt_12 | 44% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Patil, M.; Majumdar, B.B.; Sahu, P.K.; Truong, L.T. Evaluation of Prospective Users’ Choice Decision toward Electric Two-Wheelers Using a Stated Preference Survey: An Indian Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063035
Patil M, Majumdar BB, Sahu PK, Truong LT. Evaluation of Prospective Users’ Choice Decision toward Electric Two-Wheelers Using a Stated Preference Survey: An Indian Perspective. Sustainability. 2021; 13(6):3035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063035
Chicago/Turabian StylePatil, Mallikarjun, Bandhan Bandhu Majumdar, Prasanta Kumar Sahu, and Long T. Truong. 2021. "Evaluation of Prospective Users’ Choice Decision toward Electric Two-Wheelers Using a Stated Preference Survey: An Indian Perspective" Sustainability 13, no. 6: 3035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063035
APA StylePatil, M., Majumdar, B. B., Sahu, P. K., & Truong, L. T. (2021). Evaluation of Prospective Users’ Choice Decision toward Electric Two-Wheelers Using a Stated Preference Survey: An Indian Perspective. Sustainability, 13(6), 3035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063035