Did Attitudes Interpret and Predict “Better” Choice Behaviour towards Innovative and Greener Automotive Technologies? A Hybrid Choice Modelling Approach

Table 4

Collected and investigated attributes.

Attribute	Meaning	Type	SI	Min	Max
Age	Age of the respondent	Continuous	Years	24	70
Master’s degree	Equal to 1 for users achieved this educational attainment	Binary		0	1
ZonRes	Equal to 0 for users living to the historical centre, 1 if in the outskirts	Binary		0	1
Diesel	Power supply of the owned car	Binary		0	1
CarAge	Age of the owned car on which the respondent would install the kit	Continuous	Years	1	10
By car-shopping	Mode choice car and trip purpose shopping	Continuous	—	0	0.93
By car-personal services	Mode choice car and trip purpose personal services	Continuous	—	0	0.93
Interested in electric vehicle purchasing	Equal to 1 for users which declared to be interested in electric vehicle purchasing	Binary	—	0	1
Conc_Consump; Conc_Design; Conc_Environ; Conc_Reliab; Conc_Tech	(i) Design issues concern; (ii) Environment concern; (iii) Reliability concern; (iv) Technology concern; (v) Fuel consumption concern	Binary attribute for each scale	—	0	1
	Each respondent was asked to rate how the fuel consumption/vehicle design/environment/technology/reliability of technology is important in the decision of which car to purchase. The rating scale and the value associated to each rate was: null importance (1), mild (2), moderate (3), and severe (4).
Att_Consump	Latent variable representing the attitude towards the fuel consumption; the rating scale and the value associated to each rate was: 1: Totally disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Indifference; 4: Agree; 5: and Totally agree	Continuous
Att_Design	Latent variable representing the attitude towards the vehicle design; the rating scale and the value associated to each rate was: 1: Totally disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Indifference; 4: Agree; 5: Totally agree	Continuous
Att_Environ	Latent variable representing the attitude towards the environment; the rating scale and the value associated to each rate was: 1: Totally disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Indifference; 4: Agree; and 5: Totally agree	Continuous
Δcost	Δcost = WCwithoutK – WcwithK	Continuous	€	−4.4	17.2
	The weekly cost considering two scenarios, with and without the kit, was computed in order to define the users’ financial gain. Therefore, each respondent was preliminarily informed on the upfront cost, and successively he/she was also informed on the weekly cost (combining the fuel consumption, the charging cost and the installation cost).; Obviously the cost estimation is based on the weekly kilometres travelled by each respondent.