The used car market is a critical element for the mass adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). However, most previous studies on EV adoption have focused only on new car markets. This article examines and compares the effects of charging infrastructure characteristics on the preferences for EVs among both new and used car buyers. This study is based on an online stated preference choice experiment among private car owners in the U.S., and the results of comparable binomial logistic models show that new and used car buyers generally share similar patterns in preferences for EVs, with exceptions for sensitivity toward fast charging time, and home charging solutions. Respondents’ stated willingness to adopt an EV increases considerably with improvements in driving range, and the effects on new and used car buyers are similar. The study also finds that better availability of charging infrastructure largely increases preference for EVs. The results further reveal that slow and fast charging have complementary effects on encouraging EV adoption as the combination of public slow and fast charging can compensate for the unavailability of home charging.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HoenA.KoetseM. J.A Choice Experiment on Alternative Fuel Vehicle Preferences of Private Car Owners in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 61, 2014, pp. 199–215.
2.
TanakaM.IdaT.MurakamiK.FriedmanL.Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Comparative Discrete Choice Analysis between the US and Japan. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 70, 2014, pp. 194–209.
3.
LiaoF.MolinE.van WeeB.Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles: A Literature Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2017, pp. 252–275.
4.
CoffmanM.BernsteinP.WeeS.Electric Vehicles Revisited: A Review of Factors That Affect Adoption. Transport Reviews, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2017, pp. 79–93.
5.
Transportation Research Board and National Research Council. Overcoming Barriers to Deployment of Plug-in Electric Vehicles. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015.
6.
BotsfordC.SzczepanekA.Fast Charging vs. Slow Charging: Pros and Cons for the New Age of Electric Vehicles. EVS24 Intenational Battery, Hybrid and Fuell Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium, Stavanger, Norway, 2009.
7.
FontaineP. J.Shortening the Path to Energy Independence: A Policy Agenda to Commercialize Battery-Electric Vehicles. Electricity Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 22–42.
8.
JabbariP.KhaloeiM.MacKenzieD.Locating Fast Charging Stations for Safe and Reliable Intercity Electric Vehicle Travel in Washington. Presented at 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2018.
9.
HardmanS.JennA.TalG.AxsenJ.BeardG.DainaN.FigenbaumE.JakobssonN.JochemP.KinnearN.PlötzP.PontesJ.RefaN.SpreiF.TurrentineT.WitkampB.A Review of Consumer Preferences of and Interactions with Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 62, 2018, pp. 508–523.
10.
DunckleyJ.TalG.Plug-in Electric Vehicle Multi-State Market and Charging Survey. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2016.
11.
AxsenJ.KuraniK. S.Hybrid, Plug-In Hybrid, or Electric — What Do Car Buyers Want?Energy Policy, Vol. 61, 2013, pp. 532–543.
12.
NeaimehM.SalisburyS. D.HillG. A.BlytheP. T.ScoffieldD. R.FrancfortJ. E.Analysing the Usage and Evidencing the Importance of Fast Chargers for the Adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles. Energy Policy, Vol. 108, 2017, pp. 474–486.
13.
TalG.NicholasM. A.TurrentineT. S.TurrentineT.First Look at the Plug-In Vehicle Secondary Market. EVS30 Symposium, Stuttgart, Germany, 2017.
Removing Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption by Increasing Access to Charging Infrastructure. Seattle Office of Sustainability and Environment, WA, 2014.
17.
LoomisJ.What’s to Know about Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation Studies?Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2011, pp. 363–370.
18.
GibbardA.Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result. Econometrica, Vol. 41, No. 4, 1973, p. 587.
19.
CarsonR. T.GrovesT.Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 37, 2007, pp. 181–210.
20.
SatterthwaiteM. A.Strategy-Proofness and Arrow’s Conditions: Existence and Correspondence Theorems for Voting Procedures and Social Welfare Functions. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1975, pp. 187–217.
21.
ValeriE.DanielisR.Simulating the Market Penetration of Cars with Alternative Fuelpowertrain Technologies in Italy. Transport Policy, Vol. 37, 2015, pp. 44–56.
22.
ChorusC. G.KoetseM. J.HoenA.Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Comparing a Utility Maximization and a Regret Minimization Model. Energy Policy, Vol. 61, 2013, pp. 901–908.
23.
HackbarthA.MadlenerR.Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Discrete Choice Analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 25, 2013, pp. 5–17.
24.
JensenA. F.CherchiE.MabitS. L.On the Stability of Preferences and Attitudes before and after Experiencing an Electric Vehicle. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 25, 2013, pp. 24–32.
25.
LiaoF.MolinE.TimmermansH.van WeeB.The Impact of Business Models on Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Latent Transition Analysis Approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 116, 2018, pp. 531–546.
26.
RossJ.ZaldivarA.IraniL.TomlinsonB.Who Are The Turkers? Worker Demographics in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Social Code Report 2009-01. CHI EA, 2010.
27.
KrumpalI.Determinants of Social Desirability Bias in Sensitive Surveys: A Literature Review. Quality and Quantity, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2013, pp. 2025–2047.
28.
FisherR. J.KatzJ. E.Social-Desirability Bias and the Validity of Self-Reported Values. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2000, pp. 105–120.
SovacoolB. K.KesterJ.NoelL.de RubensG. Z.The Demographics of Decarbonizing Transport: The Influence of Gender, Education, Occupation, Age, and Household Size on Electric Mobility Preferences in The Nordic Region. Global Environmental Change, Vol. 52, pp. 86–100.
31.
KruegerR.RashidiT. H.RoseJ. M.Preferences for Shared Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 69, 2016, pp. 343–355.
