로짓모형을 이용한 친환경차 구매행태 분석 = Analysis of Green Vehicle Purchasing Behavior Using Logit Model

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study assumes a vehicle choice model based on the multinomial model and analyzes the vehicle choice behaviors of consumer. An SP survey targeting drivers was implemented and data was collected for model estimates, with the possible choice options of the survey takers limited to gasoline, HEV, PHEV, and EV vehicles. The explanatory variable mostly displayed a significance level of under 5%, and excluding variables for price and fuel the remaining variables were all consistent with the logical direction with the plus (+) sign and the results were determined to be rational. Consumers selecting mid-size & full-size vehicles are able to afford more than consumers that selected other vehicle types, so there was relatively little consideration given to low fuel costs when compared to vehicle price. For this reason, it was determined that for the full-size vehicle model the fuel variable could be disregarded. Socio-economic variables that were statistically significant were the age and infor variables for the sub-compact & compact, the age, infor and inc3 variables for the mid-sized & full-size vehicles.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 다항로짓모형 기반의 차종선택모형을 추정하여 개별 구매자의 차종선택행태를 분석하였다. 차량운전자를 대상으로 SP 설문조사를 수행하여 모형추정을 위한 자료를 수집하였으며, 설문응답자가 선택 가능한 대안은 가솔린차, HEV, PHEV, EV로 한정하였다. 모형에 포함된 설명변수는 대부분 유의수준 5% 하에서 유의한 것으로 나타났으며, price, fuel 변수를 제외한 나머지 변수는 모두 양(+)의 부호로 상식적인 방향과 일치하여 결과가 합리적인 것으로 판단된다. 중·대형을 선택하는 구매자는 타 차급을 선택하는 구매자보다 경제적 여유가 있어 차량가격 등에 비하여 상대적으로 지출금액이 낮은 연료비는 크게 고려하지 않는 경향이 강하다. 이러한 이유로 대형 차급의 모형에서는 fuel 변수가 유의하지 않은 것으로 판단되며, 사회경제변수의 경우 경·소형에서는 age, infor 변수가, 중·대형에서는 age, infor, inc3 변수가 통계적으로 유의한 것으로 나타났다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 권오상, "이산․연속선택모형을 이용한 친환경자동차에 대한 지원정책이 에너지 소비와 CO2 배출에 미치는 영향 분석" 한국환경경제학회 21 (21): 237-269, 2012

2 박상준, "승용차 보유대수와 차종선택에 대한 네스티드로짓모형의 추정" 대한교통학회 25 (25): 133-141, 2007

3 Choo S., "What Type of Vehicle Do People Drive? The Role of Attitude and Lifestyle in Influencing Vehicle Type Choice" 38 (38): 201-222, 2004

4 Achtnicht M., "The Impact of Fuel Availability on Demand for Alternative-fuel Vehicles" 17 (17): 262-269, 2012

5 Greenhouse Gas Inventory & Research Center of Korea, "National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of Korea 2013" 2014

6 Brownstone D., "Joint Mixed Logit Models of Stated and Revealed Preferences for Alternative-fuel Vehicles" 34 (34): 315-338, 2000

7 Horne M., "Improving Behavioral Realism in Hybrid Energy-economy Models Using Discrete Choice Studies of Personal Transportation Decisions" 27 : 59-77, 2005

8 Potoglou D., "Household Demand and Willingness to Pay for Clean Vehicles" 12 (12): 264-274, 2007

9 Qian L., "Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Cars in China" 16 (16): 607-613, 2011

10 Park S. J., "Estimation of a joint Model on Households' Car Ownership and Vehicle Type Choices and the Vehicle use and Policy Implications of Fuel Prices" Korean Society of Transportation 41-50, 2007

11 Calfee J. E., "Estimating the Demand for Electric Automobiles Using Fully Disaggregated Probabilistic Choice Analysis" 19B (19B): 287-301, 1985

12 Tompkins M., "Determinants of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Choice in the Continental United States" 1641 : 130-138, 1998

13 Bunch D. S., "Demand for Clean-fuel Vehicles in California: A Discrete-choice Stated Preference Pilot Project" 27 (27): 237-253, 1993

14 Tanaka M., "Consumer's Willingness to Pay for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Comparative Discrete Choice Analysis Between the US and Japan" 70 : 194-209, 2014

15 Hackbarth A., "Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Discrete Choice Analysis" 25 : 5-17, 2013

16 Ewing G. O., "Car Fuel-type Choice under Travel Demand Management and Economic Incentives" 3 (3): 429-444, 1998

17 Brownstone D., "A Transactions Choice Model for Forecasting Demand for Alternative-fuel Vehicles" 4 : 87-129, 1996

18 Park S. J., "A Study of Long-Term Car Ownership in Korea" The Korea Transport Institute 2012

19 Hess S., "A Joint Model for Vehicle Type and Fuel Type Choice: Evidence From a Cross-nested Logit Study" 39 (39): 593-625, 2012