4.7 Article

How hyperbolic discounting preference affects Chinese consumers' consumption choice between conventional and electric vehicles

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 97, Issue -, Pages 400-413

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.004

Keywords

Hyperbolic discounting; Life-cycle private cost; China transport; Time discounting; Irrational vehicle consumption choice

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71390331, 71202114]
  2. Shandong Independent Innovation and Achievement Transformation Special Fund of China [2014ZZCX03302]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents a theoretical model and addresses several issues related to life cycle cost analysis to illustrate how time-inconsistent preferences affect consumer choice. The particular case study selects involved consumer choice between a vehicle with high initial acquisition cost but low ownership cost (e.g., an Electric Vehicle, EV) and one with a low initial acquisition cost but high ownership cost (e.g., a conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle, ICEV). To test our theoretical analysis, we conduct an empirical study on how time discounting rates affect consumer choice between ICEVs and EVs with different initial cost ratios. From the survey results, we find that individuals with higher present bias showed irrational purchase behavior even when controlling for wealth level. Specifically, people making some stronger bias to present' decisions chose higher total cost ICEVs with lower initial cost but higher ownership cost over lower total cost EVs with higher initial cost and lower ownership cost. However, people's long-term discount is not correlated with irrational vehicle purchase behavior. Furthermore, we study the present bias and long-term discount rate in one scenario and found present bias to be correlated with irrational behavior. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available