4.7 Article

An experimental analysis of consumer preferences towards public charging infrastructure

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2023.103626

Keywords

Battery electric vehicles; Charging infrastructure; Choice experiment; Value of time; Willingness to pay; Renewable energy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As the share of battery-electric vehicles in car fleets increases, it is important to design public charging infrastructure that is attractive to current and future BEV holders. A choice experiment was conducted to examine the relevance of design features such as waiting time, charging time, price, energy source, and amenities. The results showed that mean queueing time is the most relevant, and car holders are willing to pay to avoid or limit waiting times. The implications for charging infrastructure providers are the need for fast charging, real-time observation of charger occupancy, and the option to reserve chargers.
As the share of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) in car fleets increases, more and more car holders will need to charge their electric vehicles at public facilities. Designing public charging infra-structure so as to make it attractive to current and future BEV holders thus becomes essential. We implemented a choice experiment with a large sample of current BEV (N = 950) and non-BEV (N = 1,881) holders to examine the relevance of several design features that are widely presumed to be important in this regard: waiting (queueing) time, charging time, price, energy source, and amenities. Mean queueing time turns out to be most relevant, and car holders are also willing to pay for limiting or avoiding (uncertain) queueing times. The main implications for commercial and public charging infrastructure providers are that they should seek to provide fast charging, real-time observability of charger occupancy, and the opportunity to reserve chargers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available