Table 6 College Students’ Purchase Intention Pattern Evaluation Results.
From: College students’ potential purchase intention of electric two-wheeled vehicles
Variables | Logistic Regression Model | Ordered Logit Model | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Items | Coefficient | t value | Coefficient | t value |
Constants | −4.56 | −9.32** | - | - |
Weekly fuel expenses for regular scooters | 0.003 | 2.52** | ||
Age | - | - | 0.06 | 1.73* |
Number of people in each household | - | - | −0.14 | −1.98** |
ETWVs are too expensive | −0.46 | −2.43** | - | - |
ETWVs have poor endurance | −0.49 | −2.61** | - | - |
ETWVs rebate | - | - | 1.06 | 4.79** |
ETWVs are reasonably priced | 1.33 | 2.29** | - | - |
Exemption of fuel tax/vehicle license tax | 0.93 | 3.15** | 0.51 | 2.29** |
Outstanding performances (horsepower and distance) | - | - | 0.53 | 1.88* |
I am willing to try or continue to use ETWVs | 0.81 | 7.70** | 0.28 | 3.58** |
Good value for the price of ETWVs | 0.64 | 6.01** | 0.16 | 2.03** |
ETWVs can improve the quality of outdoor activities | - | - | 0.16 | 1.93* |
Those who are male, have high household income, and are willing to spend more money to purchase ETWVs for environmental reasons | - | - | 0.65 | 3.06** |
Those who are male, have high household income, and regard ETWVs as their first choice when purchasing a vehicle in the future | 2.63 | 2.5** | - | - |
Threshold value 1 | - | 5.73 | 3.16** | |
Threshold value 2 | - | 6.03 | 3.48** | |
Threshold value 3 | - | 7.21 | 4.66** | |
Threshold value 4 | - | 9.31 | 6.59** | |
LL(ο) | −557.75 | −1168.63 | ||
LL(β) | −399.17 | −1061.85 | ||
Pseudo R2 | 0.28 | 0.09 |