Transportation Research Part D 46 (2016) 200–206

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Notes and comments

Use of hybrid vehicles in Japan: An analysis of used car market

data
Kazuyuki Iwata a, Shigeru Matsumoto b,⇑
a
Faculty of Regional Policy, Takasaki City University of Economics, 1300 Kaminamie, Takasaki, Gunma 370-0801, Japan
b
Faculty of Economics, Aoyama Gakuin University, Room 828, Building 8, 4-4-25 Shibuya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8366, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Despite the rapid market penetration of hybrid vehicles (HVs), their usage and contribu-
Available online 12 April 2016 tions to environmental protection have not been examined by vehicle traveling data. In this
paper, we analyzed Japan’s used car market data to understand how HVs are used on the
Keywords: street. We find GV drivers with high travel demand switched from GVs to HVs during the
Carbon dioxide transition period. Despite HV owners driving much longer distances than conventional
Hybrid vehicles gasoline vehicle (GV) owners, they emit less carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, owing to bet-
Used cars
ter fuel economy. We also find that HV owners spend roughly the same amount of money
annually as GV owners. However, the per-kilometer travel cost of HVs is much lower than
that of GVs even if the depreciation cost of the vehicle and vehicle related taxes are
included in the analysis.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Despite the rapid market penetration of hybrid vehicles (HVs), their usage and contributions to environmental protection
have not been examined by vehicle traveling data.1 This paper analyzes used car market data and examines HV usage patterns
in Japan. HVs have become very popular in Japan, and they are expected to become popular in other countries as well (Fuji
Keizai Management Co. Ltd., 2013). Understanding their usage and environmental impact in Japan could potentially shed light
on their impact in other countries.
Additional driving (the rebound effect) induced by higher vehicle efficiency has been confirmed by previous studies
(Greene et al., 1999; Greening et al., 2000; Goldberg, 1998; Linn, 2013; Mizobuchi, 2011; Small and Van Dender, 2007;
West, 2004). According to the comprehensive literature survey conducted by Sorrell et al. (2009), the rebound effect is less
than 30%. The latest study, Linn (2013), estimates that the rebound effect is 20–40%. Although many scholars have estimated
the rebound effect in various contexts, none estimated it by explicitly separating HVs from GVs. We expect that the mileage
on HVs with remarkable fuel economy will become larger than that of conventional GVs. Since previous studies, such as
Kanemoto (2007), Koyama and Kishimoto (2001) and Parry et al. (2007), report that mileage-related external costs are much
greater than fuel-related external costs, it is important to estimate the extent to which HVs are driven more than GVs.
In recent years, many countries have implemented rebate programs to stimulate HV sales. Empirical studies report that
these programs have led to a large increase in the market share of HVs (Chandra et al., 2010; Gallagher and Muehlegger,

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 3 3409 9640; fax: +81 3 5485 0698.
E-mail addresses: iwata.kazuyu@gmail.com (K. Iwata), t71092@aoyamagakuin.jp (S. Matsumoto).
1
The studies such as Kanari et al. (2010) and Nakaue et al. (2010) have examined the effect of HV and the next generation vehicles on the CO2 emission.
However, they have conducted simulation studies and have not analyzed vehicle traveling data.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.010
1361-9209/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. Iwata, S. Matsumoto / Transportation Research Part D 46 (2016) 200–206 201

2011). Although the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions has been stated as the reason for the rebate programs, it has
not yet been examined whether the amount of CO2 emitted from HVs is lesser than that from GVs. Demonstrating lower CO2
emissions from HVs as compared to GVs would justify these promotion policies.
Although the new vehicle market share of HVs among all passenger vehicles reached 32.4% in Japan (Japan Automobile
Dealers Association, 2014), it remained at 3.19% in the U.S. in 2013 (Cobb, 2014).2 One explanation for this discrepancy is that
Japanese drivers take into account an eco-friendly image when purchasing HVs, but American drivers care only about the pay-
back period of any particular HV (Momota, 2013). Japanese hybrid owners stated that contributing to global warming preven-
tion was one of the reasons they chose to purchase an HV (Gulliver International Co., Ltd., 2006). We examine whether HV
owners in Japan emit less CO2 than GV owners.
Considering the lack of knowledge of HV use, we analyzed Japan’s used car market data and examine (1) whether the
annual mileage of HVs is larger than that of GVs, (2) whether the annual CO2 emission from HVs is smaller than that from
GVs, (3) whether the drivers with high travel demand switched from GVs to HVs, and (4) whether HV owners spend more
money on their vehicle than GV owners.
We find that (1) the average annual travel distance of HVs is much larger than that of GVs, (2) the average annual CO2
emissions from HVs is about half that from GVs, (3) the drivers with high travel demand switched from GVs to HVs, and
(4) HV owners spend about the same amount of money on their vehicle annually as GV owners. However, HV owners spend
lesser money on per-kilometer travel costs than GV owners.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section ‘Methods’ explains research methods. In Section ‘Results and
discussion’, we compare the extent of HV usage with that of GVs. Section ‘Conclusions and policy implications’ concludes the
paper and discusses policy implications.

Methods

The hybrid vehicle market in Japan

Fig. 1 describes the changes in the share of the type of vehicles owned from 2006 to 2012. There is a special small size
(light vehicle) category in Japan. Light vehicles whose engine sizes are equal to or smaller than 660 cc are subject to reduced
taxes. Fig. 1 shows that the share of conventional GVs decreased from 70.09% to 61.71%, while that of light vehicles increased
from 25.13% to 31.65%. The figure also shows that the share of diesel vehicles decreased from 3.72% to 1.35%, while that of
hybrid vehicles increased from 0.59% to 4.83%.
According to Japan Automobile Dealers Association (2014), 3,014,651 new domestic vehicles were sold in the Japanese
market in 2012, of which 899,155 were HVs. Thus, the sales share of HVs among passenger vehicles is estimated to be about
29.8%. In 2013, 33 varieties of HVs were sold in the Japanese market.

Used car market data

The purpose of this study is to examine whether HVs changed travel patterns based on the analysis of the vehicle trav-
eling data. For this purpose, we obtain our primary data from Proto Corporation (2013), which publishes one of the most
popular used car magazines, Goo. It also releases up-to-date information on a web site called ‘‘Goo-net.” The Goo data cover
all regions in Japan.
We focus on the data for March and September, released between 2008 and 2013. March and September are the two peak
months in the Japanese used car market. For example, 4,015,909 used vehicles were registered in 2012. In the same year,
528,192 and 306,304 used vehicles were registered in March and September, respectively. The Goo data for March 2012 con-
tains 340,301 used cars, while that for September 2012 is 352,643.
In Table 1, we report the descriptive statistics of vehicles according to fuel type. The total number of vehicles in our data-
set is 3,694,846, including 1,026,213 (27.77%) light vehicles, 1,914,044 (51.80%) regular GVs, 118,058 (3.20%) diesel vehicles,
and 48,942 (1.32%) regular HVs that use regular gasoline. The market share of other types of vehicles is relatively small.
The third column reports the catalog price of new vehicles. The average price of regular GVs is 22.93 thousand dollars,
while that of regular HVs is 27.16 thousand dollars. Therefore, the price of HVs is higher than that of GVs. The fifth column
reports the average fuel economy based on the 10–15 mode released by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and
Tourism of Japan (2013).3 As the column shows, the average fuel economy of HVs is much higher than that of GVs.
The sixth column shows the average holding period. The column shows that expensive vehicles, such as premium gaso-
line, diesel, and LPG vehicles, are used for a longer period of time than regular GVs. The column shows that the holding per-
iod of HVs is shorter than that of GVs, mainly because HVs became popular after 2009 and the HVs in the dataset have recent
model years.

2
The U.S. statistics include trucks through to Class 3, which consist of trucks up to 14,000 lb gross vehicle weight.
3
The 10–15 mode is the official fuel economy test cycle for new cars and is expressed in km/L. Carried out on a dyno rig, the 10–15 mode cycle is a series of
25 tests, which cover idling, acceleration, steady running, and deceleration, and simulate typical urban and/or expressway driving patterns (Japan Automobile
Manufacturers Association, 2009). Fuel economy based on the 10–15 mode cycle is often criticized because it is much higher than the actual fuel economy.
However, we use the 10–15 mode cycle data in this paper, since other data sources do not cover as many vehicles.
202 K. Iwata, S. Matsumoto / Transportation Research Part D 46 (2016) 200–206

Fig. 1. Ownership share by vehicle type.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of used vehicles.

Category Sample Price of new vehicle Engine size Fuel economy Total registered period
(number) ($1000) (1000 cc) (km/L) (year)
Regular GV 1,914,044 22.93 2.14 13.76 8.63
(51.80%) (8.65) (0.90) (3.51) (5.61)
Light GV 1,026,213 12.28 0.66 18.50 7.63
(27.77%) (2.00) (0.02) (2.22) (4.80)
Premium GV 568,553 40.82 2.74 10.50 9.35
(15.39%) (19.67) (1.26) (3.45) (6.07)
Regular HV 48,942 27.16 1.67 30.58 5.25
(1.32%) (5.87) (0.36) (4.53) (2.96)
Premium HV 7747 45.19 3.29 13.63 5.32
(0.21%) (12.69) (1.07) (4.82) (3.02)
Diesel V 118,058 27.66 3.51 8.95 11.49
(3.20%) (69.41) (1.26) (2.01) (5.40)
Natural Gas V 682 16.87 1.84 15.21 9.93
(0.02%) (15.11) (1.54) (3.07) (5.45)
LPG V 839 26.11 2.01 12.70 9.67
(0.02%) (12.22) (1.04) (3.85) (4.58)
Electric V 1067 29.08 6.67
(0.03%) (11.53) (4.93)
Unknown V 8701 27.66 2.00 13.83 7.90
(0.24%) (16.06) (1.12) 5.00 (7.76)
Total 3,694,846 2,528,350 3,669,109 2,253,104 3,705,487

Note: Vehicles without relevant information have been removed. The numbers in parentheses indicate standard deviations. Total indicates the number of
vehicles included in the corresponding dataset.

Results and discussion

Travel mileage comparison

Table 2 compares the average annual travel distance (AATD) between gasoline and hybrid vehicles. The AATD of regular
GVs is 8003 km, while that of regular HVs is 9993 km. Therefore, the average HV owner drives much longer distances than
the average GV owner. Similarly, the average diesel and electric vehicle owners drive much longer distances than GV owners.
The t-statistics reported in the parentheses show that the differences in AATD are statistically significant at the 1% level.
The AATD of newer vehicles is longer than that of older vehicles in general (Matsumoto, 2013). Since GVs include much
older vehicles than HVs, we expect that the AATD of GVs will become shorter than that of HVs. In the third column, we focus
on new model vehicles sold after 2003. Although the AATD of GVs increased to 9561 km, the AATD of HVs is still larger than
that of GVs.
The variety and price ranges of HVs have been limited until recently. Since the price of popular HVs models such as the
Aqua, Fit, Insight, and Prius fall in the price range of $15,000–30,000, we focus on the vehicles within this price range in the
last column.4 We again find that the AATD of HVs is higher than that of GVs.

4
We assume that $1 = 100 yen.
 K. Iwata, S. Matsumoto / Transportation Research Part D 46 (2016) 200–206 203

Table 2
Average annual travel distance (km).

Category All After 2003 $15,000–30,000

Regular GV 8003 9561 8536
(Base) (Base) (Base)
Light GV 8975 10,883
(32.22)⁄⁄⁄ (23.33)⁄⁄⁄
Premium GV 7661 9093 7971
(–10.88)⁄⁄⁄ (–7.23)⁄⁄⁄ (–6.72)⁄⁄⁄
Regular HV 9993 10,466 9993
(20.30)⁄⁄⁄ (6.10)⁄⁄⁄ (12.09)⁄⁄⁄
Premium HV 9565 9913 7640
(6.57)⁄⁄⁄ (1.00) (–1.20)
Diesel V 12,074 18,076 10,878
(64.37)⁄⁄⁄ (53.13)⁄⁄⁄ (19.83)⁄⁄⁄
Natural Gas V 7055 9784 20,475
(–1.16) (0.12) (4.15)⁄⁄⁄
LPG V 11,767 13,112 13,120
(5.20)⁄⁄⁄ (2.14)⁄⁄ (2.28)⁄⁄⁄
Electric V 12,613 15,351 8766
(7.15)⁄⁄⁄ (5.31)⁄⁄⁄ (0.14)
Unknown V 10,664 12,985 13,802
(11.63)⁄⁄⁄ (8.44)⁄⁄⁄ (11.23)⁄⁄⁄
Total 3,636,054 1,870,117 1,080,945

Note: We examined whether the AATD of each type of vehicle is dif-

ferent from that of regular GVs. The numbers in the parentheses indi-
cate t-statistics. ⁄⁄, and ⁄⁄⁄ indicate significance at the 5%, and 1% level,
respectively. Total indicates the number of vehicles included in the
corresponding dataset.

CO2 emission comparison

Using the formula proposed by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan (2013), we estimated the
average annual CO2 emission (AACE) of each vehicle (see Appendix for detail). Fig. 2 compares the AACE between regular HVs
and regular GVs. The AACE of regular GVs is 1.46 tons, while that of regular HVs is 0.69 tons. Therefore, despite the higher
mileage, regular HV owners emitted less CO2, owing to the HV’s better fuel economy. In contrast, we did not find reduced CO2
emission for premium HVs because they have lower fuel economy, and have greater mileage than regular GVs (see Table 1).5
The annual reduction of CO2 is 0.77 ton (=1.46–0.69). Suppose that the price of CO2 is $29/ton, which is social cost of glo-
bal warming provided in Tol (2012), then we estimate that each HV owner saved approximately $22.3 in global warming
costs annually.

Comparison between pre and post HV era

Many drivers switched their vehicles from GV to HV after 2009. To identify the types of drivers who switched vehicles, we
compare AATD between pre and post HV eras.6 The results are presented in Table 3.
The table shows that AATD of regular GVs in the post-HV era is much shorter than that in the pre-HV era. In contrast,
AATDs of other type of vehicles in the post-HV era are longer than those in the pre-HV era. The results suggest that drivers
with high travel demand switched from GVs to HVs during the transition period.
AATD of regular GVs in the pre-HV era is 8179 km while AATD of regular HVs in the post-HV era is 10,019 km. Assuming
that the travel distance of new HV owners was the same as that of GV owners in the pre-HV era, the upper bound of the
rebound effect is estimated to be 22.51% (=(10,019–8179)/8179)
100), which is consistent with the range of the effect,
20–40%, shown in Sorrell et al. (2009), Linn (2013) and Mizobuchi (2011).7

Cost comparison

When we discuss the benefits of new generation vehicles, we often restrict our attention to fuel economy. However, the
total cost to own a vehicle includes tax, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance. Below, we estimate these costs for each
vehicle type.

5
As in Subsection ‘Travel mileage comparison’, we considered the case including only vehicles sold after 2003, and the case only vehicles with a price range
between $15,000 and $30,000. In both cases, we found that the AACE of regular HVs is lower than regular GVs.
6
Following the suggestion by an anonymous referee, we conducted the analysis of this subsection. We highly acknowledge the suggestion.
7
Since HV owners were likely to travel longer than GV owners, we may overestimate the rebound effect in this calculation. Using Japanese household data,
Mizobuchi (2011) found that the rebound effect is 18%. However, he did not separate HVs from GVs.
204 K. Iwata, S. Matsumoto / Transportation Research Part D 46 (2016) 200–206

Fig. 2. Average annual CO2 emissions hybrid vs. gasoline vehicles.

Table 3
Comparison of annual travel distance between pre and post HV eras.

Category Pre-HV era (2008.9–2009.3) Post-HV-era (2009.3–2013.3) t-Value

Mean Std. Dev. Number Mean Std. Dev. Number
Regular GV 8179 23,886 394,325 7956 19,812 1,484,847 5.99
Light V 8817 34,719 210,825 9017 30,837 804,072 2.58
Premium GV 7565 19,766 163,386 7701 19,887 389,046 2.33
Regular HV 9689 20,164 3659 10,019 30,526 43,379 0.64
Premium HV 11,227 39,011 632 9416 23,871 7017 1.71
Diesel V 11,798 27,930 27,431 12,161 20,336 87,680 2.35
Natural gas V 6105 3139 113 7255 24,503 535 0.50
LPG V 8732 9082 120 12,287 13,657 700 2.75
Electric V 6292 3809 104 13,319 51,915 932 1.38
Unknown V 9560 64,674 3755 11,545 43,310 4700 1.68
Total 8359 26,928 805,123 8394 23,776 2,830,931 1.12

Note: Null hypothesis is that AATD in the pre-HV era equals to AATD in the post-HV era.

We examined the historical trend of fuel prices and considered two scenarios. Scenario 1 assumes that the prices of pre-
mium gasoline, regular gasoline, and diesel are $1.6/L, $1.5/L, and $1.2/L, respectively. Scenario 2 assumes that the prices of
premium gasoline, regular gasoline, and diesel are $1.5/L, $1.4/L, and $1.1/L, respectively. Since the two scenarios produce a
similar result, we summarize only the result of Scenario 1 in Table 4.
Table 4 shows that depreciation accounts for a large share of the vehicle’s total cost. For instance, the average owner of a
regular GV spends $3660 annually. Of this, 58.91% is the depreciation cost alone.8
The table also shows that the average regular HV owner spends $3619, roughly the same as the average owner of a GV. In
contrast, we find that the average GV owner spends $34.76 to travel 100 km, while the average HV owner spends only $20.19
to travel the same distance. Hence, HV owners spend lesser on per-kilometer travel than GV owners.

Conclusions and policy implications

In this paper, we analyzed the used car market data in Japan, and examined whether a difference exists between HV and
GV owners in terms of vehicle usage. The analysis of vehicle traveling data reveals that drivers with high travel demand
switched their vehicles from GV to HV in the hybrid transition period. The analysis also shows that HV owners drive a longer
distance annually than GV owners. Despite the higher mileage, CO2 emissions from HVs are lower than that from GVs. There-
fore, HVs can contribute to the global warming mitigation, even if HVs induce the rebound effect.
We find that HV owners spend roughly the same amount of money on their vehicles annually as GV owners. However, HV
owners spend lesser to travel 100 km than GV owners. Hence, the average HV owner cannot recover the initial higher cost
when they purchase HVs.

8
On the calculation of vehicle related taxes, we did not take into account the tax reduction for clean vehicles. Therefore, we expect that the tax burden of HVs
is lesser than the value reported in Table 4.
 K. Iwata, S. Matsumoto / Transportation Research Part D 46 (2016) 200–206 205

Table 4
Cost to use vehicles ($).

Category Annual Per 100 km

Depreciation cost Tax Fuel cost Total cost Total cost
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Regular GV 2156 566 938 876 3660 3597 34.76 33.21
Light GV 1237 110 678 633 2025 1985 19.18 18.17
Premium GV 3631 740 1284 1204 5656 5575 46.77 44.73
Regular HV 2671 514 434 405 3619 3590 20.19 19.51
Premium HV 4561 804 1100 1031 6465 6396 38.87 37.42
Diesel V 1839 749 1408 1291 3996 3879 39.02 36.65

Note: Scenario 1 assumes that the prices of premium gasoline, regular gasoline, and diesel are $1.6/L, $1.5/L, and $1.2/L, respectively. Scenario 2 assumes
that the prices of premium gasoline, regular gasoline, and diesel are $1.5/L, $1.4/L, and $1.1/L, respectively. The prices include consumption and energy
taxes.

Although CO2 emissions will be reduced by the promotion of HVs, the other mileage-related externality problems are yet
to be resolved. HV owners pay less gasoline tax per mile than GV owners. A mileage-related charge becomes an important
policy option especially if new HV owners drive longer distances than conventional GV owners.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Kondo Jiro Grant of the Asahi Glass Foundation, and a Grant for Environmental Research
Projects from the Sumitomo Foundation. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2nd Symposium of the Euro-
pean Association for Research in Transportation and the 12th International Conference of the Japan Economic Policy Asso-
ciation. We thank Akira Maeda, Toru Morotomi and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Appendix A

We calculate CO2 emissions per km based on the following formula released by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism of Japan (2013),
 
1
Gasoline Vehicle : yðg  CO2 =kmÞ ¼
34:6ðMJ=LÞ
67:1ðg  CO2 =MJÞ
hðkm=LÞ
 
1
Diesel Vehicle : yðg  CO2 =kmÞ ¼
38:2ðMJ=LÞ
68:6ðg  CO2 =MJÞ
hðkm=LÞ
 
1
LPG Vehicle : yðg  CO2 =kmÞ ¼
28:1ðMJ=LÞ
59:8ðg  CO2 =MJÞ
hðkm=LÞ
where h indicates fuel efficiency. By multiplying the value and travel mileage, we estimate the total CO2 emissions of each
vehicle.

References

Chandra, A., Gulati, S., Kandlikar, M., 2010. Green drivers or free riders? An analysis of tax rebates for hybrid vehicles. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 60 (2), 78–
93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.04.003.
Cobb, J., 2014. Top 5 best selling hybrid automakers: a market analysis perspective: 2013 US hybrid market HybridCars.com, Retrieved March 2, 2014 from
<http://www.hybridcars.com>.
Fuji Keizai Management Co. Ltd., 2013. HV, PHV and EV World Market Analysis: Prediction of 2030 World Market. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from <https://
www/fuji-keizai.co.jp> (in Japanese).
Gallagher, K., Muehlegger, E., 2011. Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 61
(1), 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.05.004.
Goldberg, P.K., 1998. The effects of the corporate average fuel economy standards in the U.S. J. Ind. Econ. 46 (1), 1–33.
Greene, D.L., Kahn, J.R., Gibson, R.C., 1999. Fuel economy rebound effect for U.S. household vehicles. Energy J. 20 (3), 1–31.
Greening, L.A., Greene, D.L., Difiglio, C., 2000. Energy efficiency and consumption – the rebound effect – a survey. Energy Policy 28 (6–7), 389–401. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5.
Gulliver International Co., Ltd., 2006. Are you satisfied with hybrid vehicles? Internet survey of hybrid owners. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from <http://
221616.com/gulliver/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/etc_010.pdf> (in Japanese).
Japan Automobile Dealers Association, 2014. Statistical information. Retrieved March 16, 2014 from <http://www.jada.or.jp>.
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, 2009. From 10.15 to JC08: Japan’s new economy era. News from JAMA. Retrieved March 12, 2013 from
<http://www.jama-english.jp/>.
Kanari, S., Kii, M., Suehiro, S., 2010. Reduction of CO2 and cost-effectiveness analysis by future technology of automobile. J. Jpn. Soc. Energy Resour. 31 (4), 1–
7 (in Japanese).
Kanemoto, Y., 2007. Economic analysis of road taxes and earmarking. Chapter 1, pp. 1–44, The Japan Research Center for Transport Policy, Series A-430. (in
Japanese).
Koyama, S., Kishimoto, A., 2001. External costs of road transport in Japan. Transp. Policy Stud. 4 (2), 19–30 (in Japanese).
Linn, J., 2013. The rebound effect for passenger vehicles. Resour. Fut. Discuss. Paper, RFF DP, 13–19.
206 K. Iwata, S. Matsumoto / Transportation Research Part D 46 (2016) 200–206

Matsumoto, S., 2013. Thinking about automobile policies after the spread of eco-friendly vehicles: travel demand analysis of hybrid vehicles. Keizai Kenkyu
5, 31–56 (in Japanese).
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan, 2013. Automobile Fuel Economy List: March 2012. Retrieved July 15, 2013 from <http://
ele-car.com> (in Japanese).
Mizobuchi, K., 2011. Rebound effect for passenger vehicles: estimations with micro panel data. Kankyo Keizai Seisaku Kenkyu (Environ. Econ. Policy Stud.) 4
(1), 32–40 (in Japanese).
Momota, K., 2013. Japanese Cars Not Sold in Japan: Toyota Hybrid in North America. Autoc One. Retrieved from <http://autoc-one.jp>.
Nakaue, S., Yamamoto, H., Yamaji, K., Takagi, M., Iwafune, Y., Hiwatari, R., Okano, K., Ikeya, T., 2010. Evaluation of diffusion of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
and all electric vehicles considering utilization patterns for vehicle types. J. Jpn. Soc. Energy Resour. 31 (6), 7–15 (in Japanese).
Parry, I., Walls, M., Harrington, W., 2007. Automobile externalities and policies. J. Econ. Lit. 45 (2), 373–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.45.2.373.
Proto Corporation, 2013. Goo-net. Retrieved May 10, 2010 from <http://www.goo-net.com/index.html> (in Japanese).
Small, K.A., Van Dender, K., 2007. Fuel efficiency and motor vehicle travel: the declining rebound effect. Energy J. 28 (1), 25–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/
ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No1-2.
Sorrell, S., Dimitropoulos, J., Sommerville, M., 2009. Empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect: a review. Energy Policy 37 (4), 1356–1371. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.026.
Tol, R.S.J., 2012. On the uncertainty about the total economic impact of climate change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 53 (1), 91–116.
West, S.E., 2004. Distributional effects of alternative vehicle pollution control policies. J. Pub. Econ. 88 (3–4), 735–757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-
2727(02)00186-X.