Advertisement

Eco-Driving from the Perspective of Behavioral Economics: Implications for Supporting User-Energy Interaction

  • Matthias G. Arend
  • Thomas Franke
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

Eco-driving can essentially be regarded as driver behavior targeted towards increased energy efficiency. As such, eco-drivers have an impact on fuel efficiency when selecting a vehicle (strategic eco-driving), selecting routes (tactical eco-driving) as well as selecting eco-driving strategies (operational eco-driving). On the operational level, a key task for electric vehicle drivers is to decide how to control and interact with the system-inherent energy flows (i.e., user-energy interaction). With the control of the energy flows, drivers convert energies into each other with the goal of achieving optimal energy efficiency. Consequently, user-energy interaction can be regarded as a regulation of energy resources that is composed of a series of economic decisions. Therefore, we examine economic decision-making as a framework for understanding drivers’ eco-driving decisions on the strategic, tactical and operational level of eco-driving. So far economic decision-making has been most extensively studied with the resource money creating a whole research discipline, namely behavioral economics. A plethora of research has indicated that humans tend to use heuristics and succumb to fallacies when making economic decisions. Therefore, we describe heuristics and biases that have been identified for driver behavior and that are relevant to eco-driving. Based on these, we discuss possible implications of the behavioral economics perspective for user-energy interaction. Opportunities to support drivers’ user-energy interaction on the levels of eco-driving and directions for future research are highlighted.

Keywords

Eco-driving User-energy interaction Behavioral economics Heuristics Biases 

References

  1. 1.
    Dijk M, Orsato RJ, Kemp R (2013) The emergence of an electric mobility trajectory. Energy Policy 52:135–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis S, Caldeira K, Matthews H (2010) Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 329:1330–1333.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.118856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barkenbus JN (2010) Eco-driving: an overlooked climate change initiative. Energy Policy 38:762–769.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sivak M, Schoettle B (2012) Eco-driving: strategic, tactical, and operational decisions of the driver that influence vehicle fuel economy. Transp Policy 22:96–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stillwater T, Kurani KS (2013) Drivers discuss eco-driving feedback: goal setting, framing, and anchoring motivate new behaviors. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav 19:85–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McIlroy R, Stanton N (2013) Sustainability, transport and design: reviewing the prospects for safely encouraging eco-driving. In: AutomotiveUI 2013 (ed) proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, pp 278–284. EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franke T, Arend MG, McIlroy RC, Stanton NA (2016) Ecodriving in hybrid electric vehicles - exploring challenges for user-energy interaction. Appl Ergon 55:33–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thatcher A (2013) Green ergonomics: definition and scope. Ergonomics 56:389–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.718371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93(5):1449–1475.  https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thaler RH (2000) From homo economicus to homo sapiens. J Econ Perspect 14:133–141.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.1.133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart J Econ 69:99–118.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–292.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39:341–350.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larrick RP, Soll JB (2008) The MPG illusion. Science 320:1593–1594.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schouten TM, Bolderdijk JW, Steg L (2014) Framing car fuel efficiency: linearity heuristic for fuel consumption and fuel-efficiency ratings. Energ Effi 7:891–901.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-014-9260-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palat B, Delhomme P, Saint Pierre G (2014) Numerosity heuristic in route choice based on the presence of traffic lights. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav 22:104–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pelham BW, Sumarta TT, Myaskvosky L (1994) The easy path from many to much: the numerosity heuristic. Cogn Psychol 26:103–133.  https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eriksson G, Svenson O, Eriksson L (2013) The time-saving bias: judgements, cognition and perception. Judgment Decis Making 8:492–497Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peer E, Gamliel E (2012) Estimating time savings: the use of the proportion and percentage heuristics and the role of need for cognition. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 141:352–359.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Svenson O (1970) A functional measurement approach to intuitive estimation as exemplified by estimated time savings. J Exp Psychol 86:204–210.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Svenson O (2008) Decisions among time saving options: when intuition is strong and wrong. Acta Psycholgica 127:501–509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peer E (2011) The time-saving bias, speed choices and driving behavior. Trans Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav 14:543–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2011.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cocron P, Bühler F, Neumann I, Franke T, Krems JF, Schwalm M, Keinath A (2011) Methods of evaluating electric vehicles from a user’s perspective – the MINI E field trial in Berlin. IET Intell Transp Syst 5:127–133.  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2010.0126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arend MG, Franke T (2017) The role of interaction patterns with hybrid electric vehicle eco-features for drivers’ eco-driving performance. Hum Factors 59:314–327.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816670819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schwarze D, Arend MG, Franke T. The effect of displaying kinetic energy on hybrid electric vehicle drivers’ evaluation of regenerative braking (in press)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eriksson G, Svenson O, Eriksson L (2013) Debiasing time saving judgements by manipulation of speed display. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society Europe chapter annual conference. TurinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xu S, Li SE, Peng H, Cheng B, Zhang X, Pan Z (2016) Fuel-saving cruising strategies for parallel HEVs. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 65:4676–4686.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2015.2490101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Franke T, Arend MG, Stanton NA (2017) How do hybrid electric vehicle drivers acquire ecodriving strategy knowledge? In: International conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics, pp 363–374. Vancouver.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58475-1
  30. 30.
    Rogers EM (2002) Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addict Behav 27:989–993.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00300-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Multimedia and Interactive Systems, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive ErgonomicsUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations