User Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Connected Vehicle Technologies: Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

The preferences of drivers and their willingness to pay (WTP) for connected vehicle (CV) technologies were estimated with the use of adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis, the newest such method available. More than 500 usable surveys were collected through an online survey. Respondents were asked to choose from variously priced CV technology bundles (e.g., collision prevention, roadway information system). The study found that the acceptance level of the CV technologies was high, given that an absolute majority of survey respondents had the highest preferences for the most comprehensive technology bundle in each attribute. However, a comparison of the average importance of each attribute, including bundle prices, implied that price would be an important constraint and would influence CV deployment rates. At the attribute level, collision prevention technology received the highest importance score (i.e., the safety benefits most appealed to drivers). The ACBC analysis seemed to mimic well the trade-offs that people would consider in their actual purchasing decisions. The difference between WTP and self-explicated prices obtained before preferences were estimated was statistically significant (i.e., participants chose bundles after they considered product attributes and prices). This finding also affirmed that the ACBC analysis was a more appropriate method than the direct questioning methods used in past studies. Finally, certain socioeconomic characteristics were positively related to WTP. Those respondents that were knowledgeable about CV technologies and showed more innovativeness had higher WTP as well.

[1]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Sequential preference questions factors influencing completion rates and response times using an online panel , 2013 .

[2]  Wassim G. Najm,et al.  Frequency of Target Crashes for IntelliDrive Safety Systems , 2010 .

[3]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  Research methods knowledge base , 2001 .

[4]  Rachel T. A. Croson,et al.  Gender Differences in Preferences , 2009 .

[5]  R. W. Burgess,et al.  BUREAU OF THE CENSUS , 1992 .

[6]  G. Charness,et al.  Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking , 2012 .

[7]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[8]  Patrick De Pelsmacker,et al.  Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair‐Trade Coffee , 2005 .

[9]  Michael Hahsler,et al.  A REVIEW OF METHODS FOR MEASURING WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY , 2017 .

[10]  J Kyle Garrett,et al.  AASHTO Connected Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Analysis , 2011 .

[11]  Charlotte H. Mason,et al.  An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior , 2003 .

[12]  Tony Markel Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles , 2006 .

[13]  Martin Wetzels,et al.  Response Rate and Response Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study , 2004 .

[14]  Kenneth Lebeau,et al.  The market potential for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles in Flanders: A choice-based conjoint analysis , 2012 .

[15]  Bryan K. Orme,et al.  A New Approach to Adaptive CBC , 2007 .

[16]  Danielle E. Ramo,et al.  Broad Reach and Targeted Recruitment Using Facebook for an Online Survey of Young Adult Substance Use , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[17]  Michael Sivak,et al.  A survey of driver opinion about carbon capture in vehicles , 2013 .

[18]  John Walker Implementation , 2001, Kant, Applied.

[19]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times , 2008 .

[20]  M. King,et al.  Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing , 2000 .

[21]  Melanie Revilla,et al.  What are the Links in a Web Survey Among Response Time, Quality, and Auto-Evaluation of the Efforts Done? , 2015 .

[22]  John R. Hauser,et al.  Probabilistic Polyhedral Methods for Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis: Theory and Application , 2007 .

[23]  Charles E. Cunningham,et al.  Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis , 2010, The patient.

[24]  Frank M. Bass,et al.  A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables , 2004, Manag. Sci..