Analysis of effective factors and willingness to pay for alternative fuel vehicles in Tehran

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
1 Tarbiat Modares University
2 Tarbiat modares university
Abstract
Concerns for climate change, reduction of greenhouse gas emission and environmental pollution, besides economically dependency on fossil fuels and political aspect motivate governments and policy makers to take into account replacing usual vehicle with alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) such as Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles (CNGV) and Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Vehicles (GEHV). The air pollution in Tehran is a serious concern that based on this problem, CNGV has been introduced to Iranian market from 10 years ago. On the other hand, with the approval and notification of the removal of the electric vehicle importation’s tariff law, GEHV has been entered into the market of Iran as a new entrant. The purposes of this paper is to identify the effective factors to choose AFVs for drivers in Tehran and the assessment of effects of the incentive policies that increase AFV shares and computing their willingness to pay (WTP) for AFV under different incentives. This study designed a questionnaire which includes 3 parts: current vehicle features, dominant travel characteristics, socio-economic properties and the prioritization of effective factors on new vehicle purchase, and the tendency of AFVs choice with different scenarios representing different features. A random sample of 365 respondents was interviewed in a face-to-face survey in February 2016 in the technical inspection centers and in compressed natural gas stations. Finally, for the determination of effective factors on current and new vehicle purchase with revealed preference information and the assessment of AFVs usage tendency with stated preference information, the Multinomial Logit models have been used and WTPs are calculated. The incentive policy in Tehran, like previous studied countries, was the most influential factor in motivating consumers to buy AFVs in comparison to improvement of AFV specifications. The results show that drivers’ WTP is 5 MT for free access to even-odd area for CNGV and 12 MT for GEHV, also WTP for free access to pricing area in Tehran central business district is equal to 10 MT for CNGV; i.e. people tend to pay this extra cost for AFVs to access to pricing areas. These values are comparable with similar studies in cities located in developed countries. However, the results of this study show that WTP for fuel cost in Iran is considerably less than WTP of people driving in developed countries. The fuel cost and access time to gas stations are influential variables on CNGV choice. The vehicle acceleration and driving range are influential variables on GEHV choice.


Keywords

Subjects


1.Achtnicht M, Bühler G, Hermeling C. The impact of fuel availability on demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2012;17(3):262-9.
2.Hackbarth A, Madlener R. Consumer preferences for alternative fuel vehicles: A discrete choice analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2013;25:5-17.
3.Hackbarth A, Madlener R. Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2016;85:89-111.
4.Tanaka M, Ida T, Murakami K, Friedman L. 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. 2014;70:194-209.
5.Hoen A, Koetse MJ. A choice experiment on alternative fuel vehicle preferences of private car owners in the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2014;61:199-215.
6.Koetse MJ, Hoen A. Preferences for alternative fuel vehicles of lease car drivers in The Netherlands. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2012.
7.Mabit SL, Fosgerau M. Demand for alternative-fuel vehicles when registration taxes are high. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2011;16(3):225-31.
8.Valeri E, Danielis R. Simulating the market penetration of cars with alternative fuelpowertrain technologies in Italy. Transport Policy. 2015;37:44-56.
9.Liu, J., Khattak, A.J., Li, X., and Fu, X. 2019. A spatial analysis of the ownership of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 77: 106–119. Pergamon. doi:10.1016/J.TRD.2019.10.018.
10.Kuhfeld W. Marketing Research Methods in SAS, Version 9.2. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute. 2010.
11.Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied choice analysis: a primer: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
12.Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation: Cambridge university press; 2009.
13.Koetse MJ, Hoen A. Preferences for alternative fuel vehicles of company car drivers. Resource and Energy Economics. 2014;37:279-301.