IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlogis/v8y2024i3p83-d1459332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling User Intentions for Electric Vehicle Adoption in Thailand: Incorporating Multilayer Preference Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Thanapong Champahom

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Business Administration, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand)

  • Chamroeun Se

    (School of Transportation Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand)

  • Wimon Laphrom

    (School of Transportation Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand)

  • Sajjakaj Jomnonkwao

    (School of Transportation Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand)

  • Ampol Karoonsoontawong

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand)

  • Vatanavongs Ratanavaraha

    (School of Transportation Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand)

Abstract

Background : The automotive industry is pivotal in advancing sustainability, with electric vehicles (EVs) essential for reducing emissions and promoting cleaner transport. This study examines the determinants of EV adoption intentions in Thailand, integrating demographic and psychographic factors from Environmental psychology and innovation diffusion theory; Methods : Data from a structured questionnaire, administered to 4003 respondents at gas stations with EV charging facilities across Thailand, were analyzed using a Correlated Mixed-Ordered Probit Model with Heterogeneity in Means (CMOPMHM); Results : Findings indicate that younger adults, particularly those aged 25–34 years old and 45–54 years old, are more likely to adopt EVs, whereas conventional or hybrid vehicle owners are less inclined. Rural residency or travel also hinders adoption. Individuals with strong environmental values and openness to new technologies are more likely to adopt EVs; Conclusions : The proposed model quantified the relative importance of these factors and uncovered heterogeneity in user preferences, offering reliable and valuable insights for policymakers, EV manufacturers, and researchers. The study suggests targeted policies and enhanced charging infrastructure, especially in rural areas, and recommends leveraging environmental values and trialability through communication campaigns and test drive events. These insights can guide the development of targeted incentives, infrastructure expansion, communication strategies, and trialability programs to effectively promote wider EV adoption in Thailand and similar markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Thanapong Champahom & Chamroeun Se & Wimon Laphrom & Sajjakaj Jomnonkwao & Ampol Karoonsoontawong & Vatanavongs Ratanavaraha, 2024. "Modeling User Intentions for Electric Vehicle Adoption in Thailand: Incorporating Multilayer Preference Heterogeneity," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:8:y:2024:i:3:p:83-:d:1459332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/8/3/83/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/8/3/83/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salari, Nasir, 2022. "Electric vehicles adoption behaviour: Synthesising the technology readiness index with environmentalism values and instrumental attributes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 60-81.
    2. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2006. "Calculation of multivariate normal probabilities by simulation, with applications to maximum simulated likelihood estimation," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 156-189, June.
    3. Liu, Yiran & Zhao, Xiaolei & Lu, Dan & Li, Xiaomin, 2023. "Impact of policy incentives on the adoption of electric vehicle in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Peter Haan & Arne Uhlendorff, 2006. "Estimation of multinomial logit models with unobserved heterogeneity using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 229-245, June.
    5. Liu, Junbei & Zhuge, Chengxiang & Tang, Justin Hayse Chiwing G. & Meng, Meng & Zhang, Jie, 2022. "A spatial agent-based joint model of electric vehicle and vehicle-to-grid adoption: A case of Beijing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    6. Rye, Jamie & Sintov, Nicole D., 2024. "Predictors of electric vehicle adoption intent in rideshare drivers relative to commuters," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    7. Jui-Che Tu & Chun Yang, 2019. "Key Factors Influencing Consumers’ Purchase of Electric Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-22, July.
    8. Langbroek, Joram H.M. & Cebecauer, Matej & Malmsten, Jon & Franklin, Joel P. & Susilo, Yusak O. & Georén, Peter, 2019. "Electric vehicle rental and electric vehicle adoption," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 72-82.
    9. Hirotugu Akaike, 1987. "Factor analysis and AIC," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 317-332, September.
    10. Deka, Chayasmita & Dutta, Mrinal Kanti & Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Komendantova, Nadejda, 2023. "Can gain motivation induce Indians to adopt electric vehicles? Application of an extended theory of Planned Behavior to map EV adoption intention," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Breschi, Valentina & Ravazzi, Chiara & Strada, Silvia & Dabbene, Fabrizio & Tanelli, Mara, 2023. "Driving electric vehicles’ mass adoption: An architecture for the design of human-centric policies to meet climate and societal goals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    13. White, Lee V. & Sintov, Nicole D., 2017. "You are what you drive: Environmentalist and social innovator symbolism drives electric vehicle adoption intentions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 94-113.
    14. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    15. Iogansen, Xiatian & Wang, Kailai & Bunch, David & Matson, Grant & Circella, Giovanni, 2023. "Deciphering the factors associated with adoption of alternative fuel vehicles in California: An investigation of latent attitudes, socio-demographics, and neighborhood effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    16. Srivastava, Abhishek & Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan & Chakraborty, Abhishek & Mateen, Arqum & Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan, 2022. "Design and selection of government policies for electric vehicles adoption: A global perspective," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    17. Kangda Chen & Fuquan Zhao & Han Hao & Zongwei Liu, 2018. "Synergistic Impacts of China’s Subsidy Policy and New Energy Vehicle Credit Regulation on the Technological Development of Battery Electric Vehicles," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, November.
    18. Barbarossa, Camilla & De Pelsmacker, Patrick & Moons, Ingrid, 2017. "Personal Values, Green Self-identity and Electric Car Adoption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 190-200.
    19. Roemer, Ellen & Henseler, Jörg, 2022. "The dynamics of electric vehicle acceptance in corporate fleets: Evidence from Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    20. Peng, Ruoqing & Tang, Justin Hayse Chiwing G. & Yang, Xiong & Meng, Meng & Zhang, Jie & Zhuge, Chengxiang, 2024. "Investigating the factors influencing the electric vehicle market share: A comparative study of the European Union and United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    21. Zhang, Lei & Tong, Hangyan & Liang, Yuqing & Qin, Quande, 2023. "Consumer purchase intention of new energy vehicles with an extended technology acceptance model: The role of attitudinal ambivalence," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    22. Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1372-1385.
    23. William Greene & David Hensher, 2010. "Does scale heterogeneity across individuals matter? An empirical assessment of alternative logit models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 413-428, May.
    24. Bhat, Chandra R. & Guo, Jessica, 2004. "A mixed spatially correlated logit model: formulation and application to residential choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 147-168, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Tiantian & Fu, Xiaowen & Hensher, David A. & Li, Zhi-Chun & Sze, N.N., 2022. "Air travel choice, online meeting and passenger heterogeneity – An international study on travellers’ preference during a pandemic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 439-453.
    2. Salari, Nasir, 2022. "Electric vehicles adoption behaviour: Synthesising the technology readiness index with environmentalism values and instrumental attributes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 60-81.
    3. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Raux, Charles & Chevalier, Amandine & Bougna, Emmanuel & Hilton, Denis, 2021. "Mobility choices and climate change: Assessing the effects of social norms, emissions information and economic incentives," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Jingnan Zhang & Shichun Xu & Zhengxia He & Chengze Li & Xiaona Meng, 2022. "Factors Influencing Adoption Intention for Electric Vehicles under a Subsidy Deduction: From Different City-Level Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Sharma, Reema Bera & Majumdar, Bandhan Bandhu & Maitra, Bhargab, 2024. "Commuter and non-commuter preferences for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle: A case study of Delhi and Kolkata, India," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. Haghani, Milad & Sarvi, Majid & Shahhoseini, Zahra, 2015. "Accommodating taste heterogeneity and desired substitution pattern in exit choices of pedestrian crowd evacuees using a mixed nested logit model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 58-68.
    8. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    9. Sara Ayllón, 2013. "Understanding poverty persistence in Spain," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-233, June.
    10. Ji, Dandan & Gan, Hongcheng, 2022. "Effects of providing total cost of ownership information on below-40 young consumers’ intent to purchase an electric vehicle: A case study in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    11. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    12. Gunnar Gutsche & Bernhard Zwergel, 2020. "Investment Barriers and Labeling Schemes for Socially Responsible Investments," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(2), pages 111-157, April.
    13. Yuanyuan Gu & Richard Norman & Rosalie Viney, 2014. "Estimating Health State Utility Values From Discrete Choice Experiments—A Qaly Space Model Approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1098-1114, September.
    14. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2013. "Obtaining reliable Likelihood Ratio tests from simulated likelihood functions," IFRO Working Paper 2013/1, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    15. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2012. "Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1225-1239, November.
    16. Kassie, Girma Tesfahun & Abdulai, Awudu & MacRobert, John F. & Abate, Tsedeke & Shiferaw, Bekele & Tarekegne, Amsal & Maleni, Debrah, 2014. "Willingness to pay for Drought Tolerance (DT) in Maize in Communal Areas of Zimbabwe," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169747, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    18. Jia Guo & Tao Feng & Harry J. P. Timmermans, 2020. "Modeling co-dependent choice of workplace, residence and commuting mode using an error component mixed logit model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 911-933, April.
    19. Ugo Colombino & Marilena Locatelli, 2008. "Parameters Heterogeneity in a Model of Labour Supply: Exploring the Performance of Mixed Logit," CHILD Working Papers wp21_08, CHILD - Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic economics - ITALY.
    20. Mosthaf, Alexander, 2017. "Change in self-efficacy as a source of state dependence in labor market dynamics?," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168131, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:8:y:2024:i:3:p:83-:d:1459332. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.