Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

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

Engineering advance

Integration of charging behavior into infrastructure planning and

management of electric vehicles: A systematic review and framework
Priyadarshan Patil a , Khashayar Kazemzadeh b , Prateek Bansal c,d ,∗
a Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78712-1591, USA
b
Space, Earth & Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Gothenburg, Sweden
c
Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, 1 Engineering Drive 2, 07-03 E1A, 117576, Singapore
d
Singapore-ETH Centre, Future Cities Lab Global Programme, Singapore Hub, CREATE campus, 1 CREATE Way, #06-01 CREATE Tower, 138602, Singapore

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Increasing electric vehicle (EV) sales have shifted the focus of researchers from EV adoption to new operational
Electric vehicles challenges such as charging infrastructure deployment and management. These challenges require an accurate
Charging behavior characterization of EV user charging behavior, especially with evolving battery technology. This study critically
Charging infrastructure
reviews approaches and data sources used to elicit EV charging behavior and patterns from a demand-side
Demand modeling
perspective and investigates how supply-side studies on charging infrastructure deployment and management
Charging stations
incorporate charging behavior. We observe a noticeable disconnect between both strands of the literature,
as supply-side studies still rely on simplistic assumptions about charging behavior and focus on a handful
of aspects in isolation. More specifically, several studies either consider personal EVs or ride-hailing services
with only public fast-charging infrastructure while ignoring available home/work charging infrastructure. We
recommend shifting from this silo approach to a system-level dynamic planning framework where future
charging demand is forecasted by combining charging behavior models with the models to forecast travel
demand and EV adoption, followed by an integration of demand information into supply-side optimization.
The framework can thus capture complex supply–demand interactions and inform the charging infrastructure
planning policies, laying out a roadmap for emerging and mature EV markets.

1. Introduction affecting EV adoption such as range anxiety or charging infrastructure

Electric mobility is paving a path towards sustainable transportation
by reducing air pollution and dependence on fossil fuels (International
Energy Agency, 2020). Specifically, electric vehicles (EVs), including
plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs) and battery EVs (BEVs), have emerged as
a potential alternative to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs).
To expedite EV adoption, governments have offered financial incentives
such as tax exemptions, purchase subsidies, and charging benefits,
as well as non-monetary incentives such as high-occupancy-vehicle
lane access and preferential parking (Bansal & Dua, 2022; Gadepalli,
Gumireddy, & Bansal; Hardman, Chandan, Tal, & Turrentine, 2017;
Kester, Noel, de Rubens, & Sovacool, 2018; Wee, Coffman, & La Croix,
2018; Zhang, Liang, Yu, Rao, & Xie, 2017). As a result of these poli-
cies, global EV stock has grown from 0.1 million in 2012 to over 10
million in 2020 (Bibra et al., 2021). An aspiration to shift towards an
electric mobility-driven future has led to several emerging strands of
research to facilitate EV adoption. These include consumer experience
and preferences for EVs (Daramy-Williams, Anable, & Grant-Muller,
2019; Hardman et al., 2018; Liao, Molin, & van Wee, 2017), the factors
availability (Kumar & Alok, 2020; Li, Long, Chen, & Geng, 2017;
Rezvani, Jansson, & Bodin, 2015; Singh, Singh, & Vaibhav, 2020), and
the willingness to pay of consumers to improve EV-related attributes
such as driving range (Greene, Hossain, Hofmann, Helfand, & Beach,
2018; Hardman et al., 2017).
While EVs are still a relatively new automobile product for most
countries, government policies and research have nurtured markets
like Norway, where EVs constituted over 80% of vehicle sales in April
2022 (Holland, 2022). Some markets are now mature enough to even
trim or remove government incentives. For instance, Denmark and the
U.S. state of Georgia are planning to discontinue tax exemption policy
for EV buyers, and China is planning to eliminate purchase subsidies in
2022 (Li, Wang, & Xie, 2022). Additionally, major automakers such as
Tesla, GM, and Toyota are also ineligible for future federal tax credits in
the U.S. due to total EV sales exceeding 200 thousand vehicles (Internal
Revenue Service, 2022). These decisions imply that government is
confident about the organic growth of EVs – Norway aims to achieve
100% EV sales by 2025, and the UK and France by 2040 (Plötz, Axsen,
Funke, & Gnann, 2019).

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: prateekb@nus.edu.sg (P. Bansal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104265
Received 5 July 2022; Received in revised form 19 September 2022; Accepted 16 October 2022
Available online 21 October 2022
2210-6707/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Patil et al.
Abbreviations
EV Electric vehicle
BEV Battery electric vehicle
PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
ICEV Internal combustion engine vehicle
PEV Plug-in electric vehicle
CS Charging station
WTP Willingness to pay
CS Charging station
SOC State of charge
GMM Gaussian mixture model
ABM Agent-based model
Rapid market penetration of EVs and optimistic future trends have
shifted the focus of researchers from expediting EV adoption to other
foreseeable challenges such as electric grid load management, charging
infrastructure design, and smart charging strategies (Fachrizal, Shep-
ero, van der Meer, Munkhammar, & Widén, 2020; Hussain, Sulaiman,
Hussain, & Jabir, 2021; Jang, 2018). While this research direction is at
a nascent stage, its practical relevance hinges on two critical considera-
tions. First, understanding EV owners’ charging behavior (i.e., demand-
side) is vital in managing charging supply. Recognizing this supply–
demand interplay at an early stage is crucial for the transferability
of research to practice. For instance, solving a complex optimization
problem for charging infrastructure deployment with several unrealistic
assumptions on charging behavior can result in suboptimal design in
practice. Second, there is a need to design today’s charging infrastruc-
ture based on future charging demand. Thus, charging infrastructure
decisions should use forecasted charging demand within a day across
the target area, instead of current charging demand. Developing well-
informed charging infrastructure and management strategies which
consider charging demand evolution and their application in relatively
mature markets such as the U.S., Nordic countries, and China could
provide a roadmap for other emerging markets.
With these considerations, our study reviews the existing literature
on the demand and supply sides of EV charging, intending to lay
out avenues for future research. The contributions of this study are
threefold. First, we provide a systematic and comprehensive overview
of demand-side studies solely focusing on eliciting EV owners’ charging
behavior and patterns using different data sources (e.g., stated prefer-
ence, household travel survey, vehicle trajectory, charging events) and
supply-side studies related to optimal charging infrastructure design
and grid load management with varying assumptions on charging
demand. Second, we critically discuss challenges associated with each
strand of the related research and recommend ways to address these
challenges. Thus, we lay out a research agenda for future research in
charging demand forecasting and infrastructure optimization. Third, we
propose a conceptual framework to improve the charging infrastructure
planning. The main idea is to forecast the EV charging demand and
integrate it into charging infrastructure and management planning.
Fig. 1 presents the contribution of this article.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 highlights
the importance and positioning of this study by reviewing the existing
literature review studies about EVs. Section 3 presents the adopted
literature search protocol. Section 4 reviews the charging demand
literature, followed by literature on charging supply-side and supply–
demand-interplay in Section 5. Lastly, Section 6 discusses a proposed
conceptual framework and Section 7 concludes with main takeaways
and future work.
2
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
2. Background and motivation
This section succinctly discusses previous EV review studies, which
appeared in our literature search based on the search protocol provided
in Section 3. Core focus, research direction, and their consideration
of charging behavior are summarized in Table 1. We classify review
studies into two broad themes. The first theme is related to the effect
of various factors on EV adoption/preferences, and the second theme
is about charging infrastructure design and management.
• First, it is crucial to understand how different factors affect the
individual’s preference to purchase an EV. Prior studies have
investigated factors ranging from user-side characteristics such
as demographics and willingness to pay (WTP), to supply side
characteristics including charging infrastructure. Li et al. (2017)
review literature on the joint impact of demographics, EV-specific
factors such as driving range and charging infrastructure, and
psychological factors on EV adoption. Kumar and Alok (2020)
propose a nomological network of EV adoption integrating con-
structs from antecedents to consequences. They provide compre-
hensive policy recommendations for stakeholders from various
perspectives, such as charging infrastructure, vehicle design, en-
vironmental, and marketing, among others. Similarly, Singh et al.
(2020) develop an integrated framework to reveal precursors
and consequences of EV adoption while identifying and cate-
gorizing factors similar to Li et al. (2017) that influence EV
adoption. Hardman et al. (2017) review studies that evaluate
the financial purchase incentives, where most analyzed studies
find them to be effective in promoting EV market growth. A
handful of reviewed studies note the lack of correlation between
market growth and initiatives, perhaps due to a lack of consumer
awareness of financial incentives. Studies on the effect of post-
purchase incentives such as charging/parking incentives on EV
adoption are not considered by Hardman et al. (2017).
Greene et al. (2018) analyze consumers’ marginal WTP to im-
prove various vehicle attributes (e.g., driving range and fuel
economy) for the U.S. domestic market. They find high variability
in WTP values across studies but try to derive a common estimate
using meta-analysis. Daramy-Williams et al. (2019) analyze user
experience instead of uptake decisions, aiming to understand the
behavior of actual adopters as opposed to potential adopters.
They identify themes in the literature on EV user experience and
the role of PHEVs in the transition to an all-EV world, but ex-
clude discussion on charging behavior. Liao et al. (2017) analyze
the modeling techniques and experiment designs adopted by EV
preference studies. Greene et al. (2018), Hardman et al. (2018)
and Hardman et al. (2017) primarily focus on financial factors
such as purchase incentives and charging costs to promote EV
adoption, while Daramy-Williams et al. (2019), Kumar and Alok
(2020), Li et al. (2017) and Singh et al. (2020) scrutinize non-
financial factors (user experience, demographics, psychological,
situational, resilience, etc.) and their effects on adoption.
In summary, prior literature has abundant studies that review the
factors affecting the decision to purchase an EV, but they fail
comprehensively review the research on understanding EV charg-
ing behavior. Increased availability of data, especially charging
events, EV trajectories, and stated and revealed preference sur-
veys, has led to several advancements in eliciting the charging
behavior of EV users. Understanding state-of-the-art and open
research questions are critical for the progress of the literature.
• Second, researchers have explored the requirement and limita-
tions of charging infrastructure and associated optimal design
and management strategies. Prior works examine availability and
accessibility of charging stations (CS), strategies of optimal loca-
tion and smart charging strategies, and assess viability of home
charging. Funke, Sprei, Gnann, and Plötz (2019) identify stable
P. Patil et al.
Fig. 1. Overview of current literature, gaps, and challenges.
regularities across studies (and nationalities) concerning public
charging infrastructure requirements, further identifying impor-
tant quantifiable parameters related to these stylized facts. The
authors conclude that home charging is a practical charging alter-
native in most countries for current and future EV owners, while
public infrastructure remains critical in metropolitan areas. Hard-
man et al. (2018) summarize various types of methods and data to
draw insights into the importance of home and public charging in-
frastructure, access to charging stations, charging cost sensitivity,
infrastructure requirements for widespread adoption, and impact
on power grids. This study notes the role of charging-related
attributes on the satisfaction of EV owners. Pagany, Ramirez Ca-
margo, and Dorner (2019) provide quantitative analysis to un-
derstand advances in CS location modeling and categorize this
research strand according to applications. The CS location models
are discussed from a lens of theoretical approaches, input data,
and maturity.
On the service operations and optimization side, Shen, Feng, Mao,
and Ran (2019) conduct a comprehensive overview of optimiza-
tion methods used for EV operations. The authors focus on EV
charging infrastructure location planning, optimal control policies
for CS, and public policy. Yao, Gendreau, Li, Ran, and Wang
(2022) study optimization models and algorithms used in the
EV-sharing systems (i.e., a car-sharing system with an EV fleet).
They focus on both supply (strategic planning and operations)
and demand (forecasting methods and influencing factors) sides
of EV-sharing systems. They review various modeling techniques,
ranging from optimization, queuing theory, and game-theoretic
models to Markov decision processes, simulation, and dynamic
programs. However, they find that studies incorporating charg-
ing behavior assume fully deterministic charging behavior, a
simplistic assumption.
In sum, several previous review studies have summarized research
on public/home/work charging requirements, optimizing charg-
ing operations, and charging infrastructure deployment strategies.
These are essential research foci for emerging EV markets. How-
ever, as the market starts to mature, the focus needs to be shifted
towards understanding user charging profiles to adapt operations
and understand the interplay of increasing demand and con-
strained supply. As discussed above, EV usage and charging data
availability will contribute to understanding, validating, and im-
proving supply-side service and operations. However, no previous
study reviews the research on the role of charging demand in
optimizing charging operations and infrastructure deployment.
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
Thus, we observe a noticeable disconnect between supply and de-
mand side studies analyzed by the review studies related to the charg-
ing infrastructure and management. These studies focus on rigorous
methods from operations research for optimal CS locations and grid
management, but most ignore demand-side discussions as they incor-
porate charging behavior information in a simplified, deterministic, or
aggregate form. While the literature on eliciting EV charging behavior
has made substantial progress in the last decade, no review study
summarizes these behavioral models and much less is synthesized on
how such demand-side models are integrated into supply-side models.
This supply–demand disconnect can lead to suboptimal charging in-
frastructure allocation even after using advanced optimization models,
inefficient charging management strategies due to inaccurate predic-
tions of grid load, and in extreme cases, adverse effects on EV adoption
rates.
Our study addresses this knowledge gap by analyzing (i) approaches
and data sources used to elicit EV charging behavior and patterns
from demand-side perspectives; and (ii) how supply-side studies on
infrastructure development and management incorporate charging be-
havior. While synthesizing state-of-the-art studies, we highlight major
challenges associated with the demand, supply, and supply–demand
sides of EV charging. We conclude with a conceptual framework to
forecast EV charging behavior and how it can be integrated with
supply-side models to optimally deploy and manage the infrastructure.
3. Literature search protocol
We followed the PRISMA framework to conduct a systematic re-
view of the literature (Page et al., 2021). To conduct a systematic
review based on the PRISMA framework, first, Web of Science (www.
webofscience.com) and Transport Research International Documenta-
tion databases were searched. These databases have been frequently
used in the transport domain to retrieve relevant literature based on the
PRISMA framework (Haghani & Bliemer, 2022; Kazemzadeh & Bansal,
2021). We also performed citation searches to maximize the exhaus-
tiveness of the search strategies. Second, we used the following terms to
search the databases: behavior, charging, location, infrastructure, and
station coupled with electric vehicles, plug-in electric vehicle, battery
electric vehicles, EVs, PEVs/PHEVs, and BEVs. The databases were
searched in November 2021, and the same search process was refreshed
in August 2022 to include newly published articles. The search resulted
in 2029 papers from Web of Science and TRID databases. Third, the
returned papers in both databases were screened, and duplicates were
removed. We included research articles that discussed the charging be-
havior of EV users (personal as well shared) using empirical data in the
P. Patil et al.
Table 1
Summary of review studies.
Authors Core focus
Daramy-Williams Analysis of user experience with
et al. (2019) battery and plug-in hybrid
vehicles as relating to driving
behavior, interaction with the
vehicle, and subjective aspects
Funke et al. (2019) Synthesis of existing framework
conditions on charging
infrastructure needs and analysis
of public infrastructure
requirement across nationalities
and population density
Greene et al. (2018) Study of marginal
willingness-to-pay for various
vehicle attributes and analysis of
consensus willingness-to-pay for
fuel cost reduction and increased
acceleration performance
Hardman et al. Study of effectiveness of EV
(2017) purchase incentives on promoting
EV sales
Hardman et al. This research looks at
(2018) infrastructure needs to support EV
adoption using customer, vehicle,
and charging infrastructure data
Kumar and Alok Empirical investigation of factors
(2020) influencing consumer EV
adoption, especially across the
sustainability dimension
Li et al. (2017) Analysis of reasons for and
against consumer EV adoption
from the lens of three types of
influencing factors: demographic,
situational, psychological
Liao et al. (2017) Analysis of factors driving
adoption of BEVs, specifically
looking at EV preference studies
and heterogeneity in observed
preferences
Pagany et al. (2019) Synthesis and analysis of charging
station location methods and
identification of key elements for
useful location models
Shen et al. (2019) Latest mathematical modeling
based on EV operations
management
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
Timeline Number of Research directions Charging behavior
studies
2000–2017 75 (1) User experience in developing economies Charging behavior was
(2) Long term experience study of battery replacement intentionally excluded
(3) Study of added valuation or social benefits of PHEVs to focus on UX of the
(4) Analysis of social influence and gender-distinct vehicle itself.
response to EV adoption
2011–2019 26 (1) Current research focuses on US and Europe, future
research must consider other emerging markets
(2) High-resolution data will help improve
decision-making and policy aspects
(3) Better understanding of interactions between various
types of charging infrastructure (home, work, public)
1979, 52 (1) Routine calculation of MWTP estimates, covariances, Fast charging produced
1995–2015 and standard error for all studies, allowing other lower MWTP estimates
researchers to draw insights
(2) Aliasing effects should be carefully handled
(3) Rational economic models must be considered
(4) Attribute units must be consistent and carefully
studied
2008–2016 35 (1) Analysis of best cost-to-benefit ratio of financial Only charging
incentives infrastructure was
(2) Additional studies in non-US markets mentioned as a strong
(3) Impact of incentive removal and timeline for removal predictor for EV sales
on EV sales
(4) Impact of incentives on low-range EVs (<200 miles)
2011–2018 58 (1) Consideration of charging needs of transit companies
and taxi fleets
(2) Study of consumer adoption and usage of ultra-fast
chargers
(3) Research on mainstream user adoption of EVs
(4) Study of consumer sentiment about current charging
infrastructure and perceived need of infrastructure
2010–2019 239 (1) Additional studies on moderating and mediating Charging infrastructure
variables would be useful readiness, behavior,
(2) Better measurement and analysis of consequence and resilience are
variables, especially in conjunction with moderating and considered among the
mediating variables antecedents of the
(3) More geographic regions and additional innovations proposed research
such as autonomous vehicles and connected mobility framework
need to be studied
2011–2016 40 (1) Representative and larger scale dynamic surveys are Charging infrastructure
needed is identified as a
(2) Satisfaction with existing EV-related policies and their technical barrier
effect on adoption needs analysis
(3) Studies on usage of psychological factors (esp.
societal influence and social status) to induce consumers
into EV adoption are required
2005–2017 63 (1) Discrete choice experiments should incorporate future Charging time and
EV use pattern and localize policy instruments being infrastructure are
tested identified as important
(2) Interaction effects between relevant attributes can be factors. The study notes
explored that previous studies
(3) Incorporation of EV uncertainty into these studies, have not distinguished
resulting in preference dynamics between slow and fast
(4) Time geography perspectives and direct experience charging.
with EVs will help better understand consumer behavior
1986–2016 119 (1) Better connection of demand and supply data sources Charging behavior
(2) Additional studies in non-urban settings studies were mostly
(3) Review of charging speed and temporal aspects excluded due to no CS
influencing CS locations location component
(4) Incorporation of walking distance to destination from
CS, given neighborhood aspect and daily activities
2005–2018 106 (1) Inclusion of dynamic demand behavior and dynamic Most studies assume
pricing in charging infrastructure planning that charging behavior
(2) Integration of EV routing with battery pooling and is deterministic, a very
transit problems simplistic assumption
(3) Inclusion of multi-period planning
(4) Better understanding of subsidy/incentive design
while considering consumer and EV manufacturer
objectives
(continued on next page)
4
P. Patil et al.
Table 1 (continued).
Authors Core focus Timeline Number of
studies
Singh et al. (2020) Empirical investigation of factors 2009–2019 211
influencing consumer EV adoption
Yao et al. (2022) EV sharing systems, supply and 2015–2020 120
demand side
context of charging infrastructure and individual-level characteristics
(e.g., sociodemographic and psychological factors such as risk aver-
sion). These datasets can be household travel survey, stated preference
experiment, GPS-based trajectory, and charging event, among others.
Furthermore, we considered papers that study EV charging behavior
from the perspective of supply–demand interaction. The articles that
focus on the impact of charging behavior on the energy systems were
also included. We excluded the papers that focused on manufacturing
advancements, life cycle assessment, environmental impacts, and safety
assessment of EVs. This process returned 254 papers for further evalua-
tion. Fourth, we screened the title and abstract of these 254 papers and
assessed each article’s eligibility within this study’s framework. After
applying the aforementioned screening strategies, 71 papers met the
criteria to be individually reviewed. Readers should note that we only
considered peer-reviewed English-language articles that were published
from January 2017 till the time of searching databases. Fig. 2 represents
the adopted literature search protocol based on the PRISMA framework.
4. Charging demand, profile and behavior
The study area, theme, data collection method, data analysis tools,
and sample sizes of each reviewed study are presented in Table 2.
Most studies have been conducted in the UK, the USA, or Europe, with
a few exceptions of Asia and Australia. These studies generally rely
on stated preference experiments or surveys, but a few used revealed
preference data on charging behavior and household travel patterns.
The studies relying on stated preference experiments use advanced
discrete choice models such as mixed logit or latent class logit models.
The studies using trajectory or charging event data (i.e., revealed
preference) mainly adopt clustering algorithms and simulation-based
methods with a probabilistic representation of travel and charging
behavior. We classify studies on charging demand into nine major
themes. After discussing the main insights derived from the review of
each theme, we discuss challenges and avenues for future research.
First, the increase in EV adoption has encouraged several recent
studies to evaluate different strategies to manage the charging demand
over the day so that the electric grid does not experience sudden
demand peaks. Delmonte, Kinnear, Jenkins, and Skippon (2020) con-
ducted semi-structured interviews of 60 car owners in the UK and
found that user preference for any specific managed charging scheme is
governed by cost reduction and guaranteed minimum charge. Similar
5
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
Research directions Charging behavior
(1) Additional studies in developing economies Contextual factors
will help advance consumer behavior consider charging
understanding infrastructure from the
(2) Analysis of psychological factors in relation supply side
to demographic, situational and contextual
factors
(3) Incorporation of rapidly evolving EV
technological attributes
(4) Less studied factors: dealership experience,
green part vote, population density, vehicle to
grid, wireless charging and charging
infrastructure resilience
(5) Models to predict probability of EV
adoption
Supply side: Multiple sharing modes must be Strategic planning and
considered in models, amount of charging daily operation for EV
infrastructure, fleet size; Vehicle relocation, sharing systems
vehicle route optimization for range constraints
Demand side: Operational strategies for
demand (using vehicle availability);
identification of spatial and temporal
distribution of EV-sharing demand; study of
government policies on EV sharing demand
insights were also obtained by Bailey and Axsen (2015) in a survey
of new vehicle buyers in Canada. Delmonte et al. (2020) also found
that user-managed charging schemes, where users decide charging
schedules based on pricing information, are preferred as compared to
supplier-managed schemes where the supplier manages the timing and
duration of charging during the window specified by the user. Even
though the latter scheme is simplistic, it has a higher risk of ending up
in a situation of not having enough charge to cater to an unexpected
mobility need during the charging period. Latinopoulos, Sivakumar,
and Polak (2017) investigated the impact of uncertain future prices
(i.e., dynamic pricing) on charging behavior using smartphone-based
stated preference experiments and forward-looking behavioral models.
They found that majority of car drivers are risk-averse and prefer more
certain charging prices. This result implies that charging prices can
be varied over the day to maintain grid load, but they should not be
highly uncertain to ensure user satisfaction. Xu, Colak, Kara, Moura,
and Gonzalez (2018) coupled data on mobile phone activity with
census/survey data to estimate the charging patterns of PEV drivers and
suggested modifications in departure/arrival times to shift the charging
sessions of PEV commuters at their workstations to reduce the peak
demand. Sun, Yamamoto, Takahashi, and Morikawa (2018) analyzed
the home charging behavior of PHEV owners under dynamic pricing
and found a significant effect of charging prices on their charging
schedules. While PHEV drivers tend to charge their vehicles after
returning from work, dynamic pricing could reduce evening peak grid
load by nudging their charging schedule to other times. Using cu-
mulative prospect theory and national household travel survey, Hu,
Dong, and Lin (2019) also found that the time-of-use electricity rate
can shift peak EV charging demand to off-peak periods from midnight
to early morning. The pricing strategies could be used as an anti-
hogging mechanism to increase the efficient use of electric vehicle
charging stations by reducing the idle time (Wolbertus & Gerzon,
2018). Dixon and Bell (2020) brought a long-term perspective to the
charging demand management problem. They used large-scale survey
data to quantify the implications of improved battery capacity and
charging power on peak demand. The results indicate that battery
capacity improvement is likely to reduce the charging demand peak,
which is also less likely to coincide with the peak domestic energy
demand. However, an increase in charging power may lead both peaks
to coincide. Finally, Pagani, Korosec, Chokani, and Abhari (2019) used
a simulation-based framework to argue that strategies to shift the peak
demand could be different based on the scale of areas. In their study,
P. Patil et al.
Fig. 2. Literature search protocol — PRISMA visualization.
local grid peak loads might be as high as 78% of the capacity, compared
to only 6% at the city scale. Considering the scale of the area is thus
critical in devising a grid management strategy.
Second, several new business models have emerged to address the
chicken-and-egg problem related to the charging infrastructure and
EV adoption. Community-owned infrastructure is one such model to
alleviate the concerns of car owners who cannot install private EV
chargers in their homes (e.g., 42% of households in Europe) (Azarova,
Cohen, Kollmann, & Reichl, 2020). The main idea is that neighbors
jointly finance installation and maintenance costs and agree upon
a charging schedule. Such a business model could address concerns
related to profitability, grid load management, and availability of the
charging infrastructure at the expense of certain losses in freedom
to charge. Azarova et al. (2020) surveyed over 3000 Austrians to
understand their preferences for community-owned charging infras-
tructure. The cost of co-ownership is the main decisive factor, but
there is heterogeneity in preferences across different socio-economic
groups. For instance, the preferences of high-income households for
such a business model are more influenced by the flexibility-related
attributes of the charging station. Along similar lines, in another peer-
to-peer business model, citizens can be encouraged to purchase and
install PEV charging stations on their properties, and they receive
compensation when their charging station is used by others. According
6
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
to a stated preference study by Plenter et al. (2018), 25% of German
respondents expressed their intention to provide charging services in
such a hypothetical marketplace. The profitability of such a business
model largely depends upon location-dependent pricing and the charg-
ing demand. To evaluate the same, Plenter et al. (2018) conducted a
stated preference experiment and found that the WTP amount ranges
from 2.42 euros/hour at 3.7 kW current in a suburban area to 11.79
euros/hour for a 22 kW station in the city center. Apart from peer-to-
peer business models, Ardeshiri and Rashidi (2020) also investigated
the public’s WTP to improve the state-wide fast-charging infrastructure
using a stated preference experiment. They found that around three-
fourths of respondents from New South Wales are willing to pay a
non-zero amount to improve the public charging infrastructure, with
an average annual WTP of $31.9.
Third, several studies assessed the association between charging
and activity-based travel behavior, as EV owners make these choices
jointly. Daina, Sivakumar, and Polak (2017) conducted a stated choice
experiment in the UK where respondents were asked about their pre-
ferred charging option after providing information about their daily
tours (e.g., home–work–home) with timestamps on different activities.
They found that when charging does not induce activity delays, the
majority of EV drivers prefer to keep the vehicle at home charging.
Only 40% of respondents prefer charging as fast as possible. Xu, Meng,
P. Patil et al.
Liu, and Yamamoto (2017) used charging event data to investigate
the relation of BEV users’ preferences for mode (speed) and location
of charging with travel patterns. They found that the longer interval
between current charging and the next trip positively affects the chance
of normal charging at home. Moreover, battery capacity and state of
charge (SOC) are good predictors of location and mode of charging.
While only limited policy-relevant inference can be derived using such
behavioral models, their parameter estimates serve as inputs for models
to forecast charging demand. A handful of studies have directly used
revealed daily activity patterns of a large sample to study the time-
dependent EV charging demand. Iqbal et al. (2021) used daily activity
patterns of over 30,000 people in Finland to derive probability distri-
bution functions of departure time, distance, and arrival time. After
making reasonable assumptions about the proportion of different EVs in
the fleet and using existing relationships between the charging current
and the SOC of the EV, the authors estimated the EV load curve during
the day. Crozier, Morstyn, and McCulloch (2021) also used a similar
approach to estimate time-dependent EV charging demand, but they
used high-resolution EV trial data with national travel diary data to
obtain a probability of charging conditional on the SOC, vehicle usage,
and time of day. Hu et al. (2019) developed a charging behavior model
based on the cumulative prospect theory to capture risky behavior,
defined its parameters based on existing aggregated data (e.g., the
value of time and electricity prices), and integrated it with the USA’s
household travel survey to find the nationwide BEV charging demand
under different electricity prices. While none of these studies has a
formal way to account for future EV market penetration, Moon, Park,
Jeong, and Lee (2018) conducted stated preference experiments to
model individual-level EV purchasing behavior and charging decisions
and integrated both into an agent-based model to forecast future EV
charging load profile over the day. However, they do not account for
travel patterns and assume that all agents travel the same distance.
Thus, none of the studies to forecast future EV charging profiles jointly
model individual-level EV purchase decisions, charging behavior, and
activity-based travel patterns.
Fourth, understanding the factors (i.e., location, charging duration,
and density) affecting the attractiveness of charging infrastructure is
central to ensuring its level of service for EV owners. Globisch, Plotz,
Dutschke, and Wietschel (2019) used ranking-based conjoint analysis to
investigate the preferences of German car owners for various aspects
of charging infrastructure. They found that charging duration has a
much higher influence on the attractiveness of infrastructure than
spatial coverage. While considering this result and the lower WTP of
consumers to use the infrastructure, they suggested installing fewer but
faster charges to make a viable business case. Anderson, Lehne, and
Hardinghaus (2018) developed an interactive online application where
German EV owners were asked to locate additional public charging
stations required for their personal use and define their charging power,
location, and expected frequency of use. They found substantial interest
in semi-fast charging stations (22 kW AC) and advocated the use of
mixed charging infrastructure with slow chargers at locations with
higher parking times and fast chargers for additional backup. Lee,
Chakraborty, Hardman and Tal (2020) analyzed the charging pat-
terns of over 7000 PEV owners in California to explore the relation
of sociodemographic characteristics and commute behavior with the
attractiveness of the charging infrastructure. They suggested the im-
portance of Level 2 (3.6–22 kW AC) workplace charging for EV owners
without home charging and those with level 1 (1.2–1.8 kW AC) home
charging. Considering that owners of a PEV with over 200 miles of
driving range only used home charging, the authors also encouraged
the development of infrastructure not only for future EV demand but
also for higher driving ranges. In another study, Dixon, Andersen, Bell,
and Traeholt (2020) derived an idealized charging schedule of around
40,000 week-long travel diaries from the UK National Travel Survey
and compared the convenience of charging EVs and refueling ICEVs
in terms of time penalty. They found that around 95% of individuals
7
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
with the potential of having home charging could reach convenience
parity with available batteries in affordable EV models, but workplace
and public charging facilities cannot be more convenient than refueling
ICEVs. Finally, Andrenacci, Genovese, and Ragona (2017) used driving
patterns of Rome, Italy, and assigned BEV users to stations with a
convenience-based criterion to evaluate the level of service (in terms
of waiting time) of various configurations of charging infrastructure.
They came up with a charging infrastructure scenario with a moderate
number of CS, which resulted in zero wait time at CS for around 94%
of EV users.
Fifth, apart from infrastructure-specific factors, individual-level at-
titudinal factors also affect charging behavior. There is significant
heterogeneity in charging behavior, but Sun et al. (2021) argued that
most EV users are risk-averse as most drivers fully charge their vehicles
every charging session. The anxiety related to SOC at which the owner
charges the vehicle is generally modeled using cumulative prospect
theory. Hu et al. (2019) found that EV drivers with a higher degree
of risk-seeking behavior are likely to charge vehicles at a lower SOC.
On average, BEV drivers charge their vehicles at 41% SOC. Pan, Yao,
and MacKenzie (2019) investigated EV-related risk attitudes in a hy-
brid choice modeling framework. They found that risk-averse drivers
mainly care about excess buffer range to complete the subsequent
trip, but risk-seeking drivers make charging decisions by balancing
the cost of charging and parking against the current SOC. Ashkrof,
de Almeida Correia, and van Arem (2020) explored the sensitivity of
route and charging preferences of BEV drivers relative to SOC, charging
time, wait time, charging location, travel time, and travel cost using a
stated preference experiment. The results indicate that routes without
fast charging are preferred when the SOC at the origin is high and the
destination has a slow charger, perhaps due to a lesser perceived risk
of running out of charge. The authors suggested that a smartphone ap-
plication with information about the estimated electricity consumption
on different routes between an origin–destination pair and the avail-
ability of slow charging points at the destination could be promising
for users to make anxiety-free or informed decisions. Xiong, An, and
Kraus (2021) developed a binary choice experiment to understand EV
owners’ preferences for charging locations characterized by travel time,
distance, price, and queue length. Their behavioral model suggests
that EV drivers’ charging preferences are aligned with the bounded
rationality theory. Philipsen, Brell, Brost, Eickels, and Ziefle (2018)
compared the current refueling behavior of potential BEV adopters with
actual BEV owners. The results indicate that BEV users start thinking
about charging at a higher SOC, but BEV users are more likely to remain
calm than gasoline car users when the fuel tank/battery is almost
empty. On average, the refueling behavior of potential BEV adopters
can be transferred to charging behavior. This insight is encouraging
as many charging behavior studies use a sample of regular car owners
due to a small share of EV owners in the early stages of market
penetration. In addition to these stated preference studies, Fotouhi,
Hashemi, Narimani, and Bayram (2019) proposed a stochastic model
to simulate future requirements of CS and congestion while considering
the charging behavior of EV users based on the SOC. By applying this
model in London and a few networks in North America, they found
that when short rush hours are spread out throughout the day and
the network has fewer anxious drivers, the number of required CS
decreases.
Sixth, a few studies classified/clustered EV charging behaviors to
identify heterogeneity in behavior across different situations (e.g., day-
time vs. overnight, weekday vs. weekend). Yang, Dong, Zhang, Liu, and
Wang (2018) adopted a machine learning approach (self-organizing
feature map) to analyze BEV drivers’ charging habits (e.g., charging
frequency and battery SOC before and after charging). They identified
four clusters where two clusters have primary charging demand during
the daytime, but the demand mainly occurs for the remaining clusters
during the off-peak period with higher home charging in the evening.
P. Patil et al.
Identifying such heterogeneity in charging behavior could help as-
sess the effectiveness of energy management strategies. In another
study, Helmus, Lees, and van den Hoed (2020) used unsupervised
learning methods to cluster the charging behavior and EV user typology
using charging transaction data from four cities in the Netherlands.
They found thirteen types of charging sessions and nine user types
based on the time of the day and charging duration. They reported
that only about 15% of EV users have irregular/infrequent charging
patterns. They also suggested that the necessity to search for alternative
CS in the event of CS scarcity is a crucial variable that affects driver
behavior and should be incorporated in charging behavior models.
Similarly, Liu, Hong, and Hu (2019) used big data mining techniques on
large-scale charging event data to identify charging behavior clusters
on workdays, weekends, and holidays. Aligned with Helmus et al.
(2020), this study found regularity in EV charging behavior, which
raises the possibility of systematically nudging the behavior of EV users
to develop effective grid management strategies.
Seventh, a strand of literature also explores the factors affecting
the frequency of charging PHEVs because not plugging-in PHEVs re-
sults in unexpectedly higher emissions due to higher gasoline miles.
While there are few studies on PEV discontinuation due to data lim-
itations (Hardman & Tal, 2021), infrequent charging of PHEVs can
be considered as a proxy or likelihood of discontinuation. Using a
revealed preference survey of over 5000 PHEV owners in Califor-
nia, Chakraborty, Hardman, and Tal (2020) found that higher home
electricity prices, lower electric driving range, lower electric motor
power, and lower potential for cost savings from charging are the main
reasons behind infrequent charging of PHEVs. Interestingly, consumers
who purchased PHEVs to access high-occupancy-vehicle lanes charge
their PHEVs less frequently. This insight suggests that incentives for
PHEVs should be provided based on their electric miles. While a higher
range of PHEVs can encourage users to charge them more frequently,
such changes in technical specification can negatively impact fuel
economy due to the introduction of a higher-capacity battery with
higher weight. Since many automakers are considering PHEVs with
a low electric driving range as an alternative to meet fuel economy
standards, and the government is subsidizing their upfront cost, there
is a need to devise policies to reduce the non-electric driving miles of
PHEVs.
Eighth, A few studies have discussed the notion of optimal charging
strategies and driving ranges from the EV user’s perspective. Zhou, Li,
and Wu (2018) collected data from 112 private EVs in China and pro-
posed an optimal charging strategy based on the traveling habits of EV
users. They treated charging behaviors as an optimization problem. The
solution to the problem reduced charging costs by 66.2% and increased
the average-peak demand ratio by 11% (with a 99.5% rate of successful
travel). This study also suggests that EVs should be charged when the
SOC is less than 56.9%. Similarly, Lu, Zhang, Yuan, and Tong (2020)
determined the optimal driving range of BEVs using a Monte Carlo
simulation framework. They indicated that EV users should choose EVs
such that their daily vehicle kilometers traveled remain less than 34%
of the driving range.
Ninth, while the prediction of parking duration and energy require-
ments in a charging event is critical for the development of smart
charging strategies, the hybrid application of parking spaces for both
recharging and parking EVs increases the underlying complexity in
estimating the duration of charging (Dost, Spichartz, & Sourkounis,
2017). Hovet et al. (2018) provided numerical and visual information
regarding the usage of charging stations on a university campus in the
USA. The analysis included the start date/time of charging, length of
parking and charging time, and the amount of power consumed. They
reported that 77.4% of charging events were completed in 3 h or fewer.
The amount of energy delivered to each charging event varied over
time, and there was no clear trend. Thus, they claimed that EVs might
stay parked at charging stations after the completion of their charging
process, i.e., parking duration might not provide information related to
8
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
energy consumed by the EV. In another study, Huber, Dann, and Wein-
hardt (2020) used data from travel logs to forecast parking duration
and energy requirements (analogously upcoming trip distance). Travel
data improved prediction accuracy by 13.7% for parking duration
and 0.56% for the energy required compared to the data obtained at
charging stations. Similarly, Wolbertus, Kroesen, van den Hoed, and
Chorus (2018a) used enriched data of personal, taxis, and carsharing
EV users in the Netherlands to investigate the variables that govern
the charging duration. The findings indicate that the factors related to
the time of day (e.g. morning and evening) and the types of charging
system (e.g. regular and fast) have the most significant impact on the
length of the charging station connection. However, much cannot be
said about the charging duration due to the above reasons.
Challenges and future work
We have come a long way in developing and calibrating models
to understand charging behavior, its importance in planning charging
infrastructure, and its relationship with travel behavior. We have de-
veloped methods to classify charging patterns and disentangle parking
and charging duration using many data collection, fusion and analy-
sis methods. However, the fundamental question remains unanswered
— What will be the future spatio-temporal demand for the public
fast chargers conditional on the specific proportions of home-based
or workplace-based slow/semi-fast charging infrastructure at different
market penetration of personal EVs and electric taxis with different
driving ranges? This research question not only highlights intercon-
nected aspects that should be simultaneously considered in charging
infrastructure planning, but also flashes out several gaps and avenues
for future research related to each aspect of charging demand.
First, charging demand for different modes (fast vs. slow) and
locations (home vs. workplace vs. public place) has not been studied
jointly. For instance, stated preference studies generally consider public
charging infrastructure, but their interaction with CS at home and
the workplace is missing. Second, future adoption of personal EVs
and taxis has not been considered while forecasting the EV charging
profile. Projected advancements in the battery driving range should
also be considered because longer-range EVs with reduced infrastruc-
ture needs are likely to dominate the future fleet. Such considerations
are critical because today’s charging infrastructure should be designed
for future charging needs. Third, none of the studies simultaneously
considered or contrasted the charging behavior of personal EVs and
electric taxis. This distinction is essential to understand whether the
public fast-charging infrastructure should be designed to serve the
charging requirements of only electric taxis, or whether a proportion of
the personal EV fleet would also need fast charging CS conditional on
having or not having a home- or work-based charging facility. Fourth,
charging behavior could be different on weekdays and weekends, but
most previous studies on forecasting EV charging demand do not
critically consider day-to-day demand variation (with the exception of
a few charging pattern mining studies). For instance, workers could use
the charging facility at the workplace during weekdays but might not
during the weekend. This consideration becomes crucial, especially for
workers without a home-based charging facility who rely on public
charging infrastructure during the weekend. Fifth, eliciting current
probability density functions of travel behavior indicators (e.g., depar-
ture time and trip length) and integrating them with charging behavior
data to forecast EV charging profile does not capture evolution in
charging and travel behavior. Activity-based travel behavior models
should be integrated with charging behavior models developed from
multi-day revealed preference data to improve the forecasting of the
EV charging demand. Sixth, a basic idea of community-based and
peer-to-peer charging infrastructure exists in the literature, but details
of business models remain to be explored. Various open questions
related to the community-based business model are – (i) whether the
community-based model is equitable for all stakeholders, or should
the flexibility of charging schedules be offered based on the WTP
P. Patil et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265

Table 2
Demand-side studies.
Author(s) (Year) Study area Study context Data collection Data Data analysis Sample size Themes
collection
date
Anderson et al. Germany Preferences for additional Survey Dec ’13–Feb Geographical 843 EVs 4
(2018) charging infrastructure ’14 analysis
Andrenacci et al. Italy Quality of electric charging Probe vehicle May ’13 Fuzzy model 150,633 ICEs 4
(2017) stations
Ardeshiri and New South Willingness to pay to Stated choice Oct ’18 Latent class choice 1180 households 2
Rashidi (2020) Wales, improve charging experiment model
Australia infrastructure
Ashkrof et al. Netherlands Effect of charging choice Stated choice N/A Mixed logit model 505 EV drivers 5
(2020) on routing behavior experiment
Azarova et al. Austria Factors affecting decision Stated preference N/A Multinomial logit 3131 households 2
(2020) to participate in survey model
community-owned
charging infrastructure
Cardenas, Guzman, Canada Overnight charging Consumption Nov ’19–Apr Simulation 100 detached 5
and Martinez (2021) strategy profile ’20 houses
Chakraborty et al. California, USA Reasons behind not Revealed 2015–2019 Logistic regression 5418 PHEV owners 7
(2020) charging PHEV preference
survey
Crozier et al. (2021) UK Forecasting demand for EV National travel 2016 Clustering & 2 million trips, 3
charging survey and EV conditional charging data of
charging probabilities 213 Nissan Leafs
Daina et al. (2017) UK A joint model of EV Stated choice 2012 Mixed logit model 88 car drivers (12 3
drivers’ activity-travel experiment choice situations per
scheduling and charging driver)
choices
Delmonte et al. UK Preference for managed An hour-long 2017–2018 Thematic analysis 60 actual and 1
(2020) charging semi-structured potential plug-in EV
interview users
Dixon and Bell United Demographic impacts on Face-to-face 2002–2016 Heuristic algorithm 15,000 residents 1
(2020) Kingdom (UK) car usage interview and a
self-completed
diary
Dixon et al. (2020) UK Inconvenience of EVs Travel diary 2012–2016 A heuristic approach Over 39,000 4
week-long travel
diaries
Dost et al. (2017) Germany Charging behavior of two Data logger Nov ’12 and Descriptive 200 test persons 8, 9
EV types Dec ’14
Duarte, Silva, and Portugal Assessing recharging Onboard data 2013 and 62 drivers (8000 h 9
Baptista (2021) scenarios logger 2016 of driving data)
Fotouhi et al. North America Charging behavior and Public charging (1) Nov Simulation (1) 6800 charging 5
(2019) and UK future scenarios points ’11–Jan ’15 events
(2) Oct ’12, (2) 14 000 charging
Feb ’14 events
Globisch et al. Germany Attractiveness of charging Rating-based N/A Hierarchical linear 1003 car drivers 4
(2019) infrastructure conjoint model
Guthoff, Klempp, Germany Smart charging of BEVs Empirical 2017 Simulation 316,000 respondents 1
and Hufendiek mobility data
(2021)
Helmus et al. Netherlands Clusters of charging Charging points Jan ’17–Mar Cluster analysis 27 000 users, 7079 6
(2020) behaviors the ’19 charging points
Hovet et al. (2018) United States Charging behavior on a EV charging Apr ’14–Jun Data visualization 3204 charging 9
(USA) campus stations ’17 events
Hu et al. (2019) USA Psychological factors Household travel 2017 Cumulative prospect 43,540 vehicles’ 1, 3, 5
related to charging survey theory and daily activity
behavior simulation pattern
Huber et al. (2020) Germany Time and energy flexibility Travel logs, N/A Quantile regression, 6.465 car users 9
in BEVs charging multi-layer
stations, or GPS perceptrons,
data multivariate
conditional kernel
density
Iqbal et al. (2021) Finland Forecasting the EV Household travel 2016 Probabilistic models Daily activity 3
ownership and usage survey and agent-based patterns of 30,000
model people

(continued on next page)

9
P. Patil et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265

Table 2 (continued).
Author(s) (Year) Study area Study context Data collection Data Data analysis Sample size Themes
collection
date
Latinopoulos et al. UK Impact of dynamic pricing Smartphone- N/A Multinomial logit 118 individuals 1
(2017) on charging behavior based stated model (rank (1062 observations)
preference dependent expected
survey utility and prospect
theories)
Lee, Chakraborty California, USA Factors related to the Revealed 2016–2017 Multinomial logit 7979 plug-in EV 4
et al. (2020) choice of charging location preference model owners
and level of chargers survey
Lee and Brown UK EVs adoption and charging Historic 2012 Agent-based model 1000 homes, 5
(2021) behavior purchase choices corresponding to
in the UK 1524 car owners
market
Liu et al. (2019) Scotland EV charging behavior Dundee City Jan ’18 Random forest, 29 charging stations 1, 6
extracted via big data Council Principal component
mining analysis
Lu et al. (2020) China Optimal driving range for GPS data loggers Jun ’15–Jun Monte Carlo 50 BEVs, 12,855 8
BEVs and instruments ’16 simulation valid trips
to measure
voltage and
current
Moon et al. (2018) South Korea Forecasting charging Two choice Dec ’16 Mixed logit model 418 adults 3
demand patterns experiments: EV
purchase and
charging pattern
Pagani et al. (2019) Switzerland Databases of Swiss users’ User’s behavior N/A Agent-based 1
characteristics impact on simulation &
charging geo-referenced
infrastructure digital model
Pan et al. (2019) China Understanding charging Stated choice Feb ’18–Mar Hybrid choice 160 Chinese EV 5
behavior and attitudes experiment ’18 model drivers
Philipsen et al. Germany Comparing refueling and Survey 2017–2018 Correlational 1021 car drivers 5
(2018) recharging decisions questionnaire analysis (29% BEV drivers)
Schüßler, Niels, and Germany Future demand for BEVs Surveys or N/A Agent-based model 4
Bogenberger (2017) governmental
data collections
Sellmair and Schelo Singapore Impact of charging (1) GPS loggers N/A Agent-based model (1) 50 taxis 3
(2019) infrastructure on electric (2) Public (2) 2949 taxis
taxi transport
company
Song and Hu (2021) Kansas City, Modeling user range Charging events Jun ’14–Dec Gradient-boosting, 3096 users & 5
Missouri, USA anxiety from charging data ’19 ensemble learning 208,187
observations
Sun et al. (2018) China Travel and charging GPS trajectory Jan ’18 Statistical, Trajectories of over 1
patterns data spatio-temporal 76,000 private EVs
analyses
Sun et al. (2021) Toyota City, Home charging behavior of Recharging 2011–2012 Mixed logit model 9 households PHEV 5
Japan PHEV owners under events in field usage (2226
dynamic pricing trial observations)
Wei, Ramakrishnan, USA EV charging infrastructure GPS devices Nov ’04 and Trip Energy model 334 vehicles 1
Needell, and Apr ’06
Trancik (2021)
Wolbertus and Netherlands Charging demand Stated preference NA A latent class 119 responses (1058 1
Gerzon (2018) management through survey discrete choice choices)
pricing model
Wolbertus et al. Netherlands EV connection time to Charging point 2014 and Multinomial logistic 2 531 841 charging 9
(2018a) charging stations operators 2016 regression sessions
Xiong et al. (2021) Singapore Charging behavior and Stated choice N/A K-level nested 50 respondents 5
optimal location of game quantal response
charging station (focus on equilibrium model
station queuing)
Xu et al. (2017) Japan Demand for charging mode Revealed probe 2011–2013 Mixed logit model 500 private & 3
(normal vs. fast) and data (charging commercial BEVs
location (home vs. public events) (85,240 charging
station) events)

(continued on next page)

10
P. Patil et al.
Table 2 (continued).
Author(s) (Year) Study area Study context
Xu et al. (2018) USA Planning for PHEVs
Yang et al. (2018) China BEV driving and charging
behavior
Zhou et al. (2018) China EVs’ large-scale charging
behavior and impact on
grid load
Themes: 1 - Charging demand management strategy; 2 - Charging infrastructure and EV adoption; 3 - Joint modeling of charging and travel behavior; 4 - Factors affecting charging
infrastructure attractiveness; 5 - Individual level factors affecting charging behavior; 6 - Classifying charging behavior; 7 - Factors affecting charging frequency; 8 - User optimal
charging strategies; 9 - Parking and charging analysis.
for charging? (ii) For the latter case, how do we define the trade-off
between flexibility and cost such that the welfare of all stakeholders
can be maximized? (iii) What should be the optimal community size
for the sustainability of such a business model, as the shared upfront
cost of charging infrastructure will indirectly raise the upfront price to
purchase an EV? Similarly, the peer-to-peer EV charging model requires
evaluating the host’s perceived trade-off between the upfront cost of the
charger installation, future earnings, and other safety-related aspects.
Seventh, more dedicated studies should focus on identifying charging
duration from the parking duration by including the characteristics of
the charger installed at CS. Moreover, there is a need to evaluate poli-
cies to remove EVs from parking garages when they are fully charged,
such as increasing parking prices after a certain duration (governed
by the power consumption of the CS). Eighth, dynamic pricing and
other charging management schemes may cause inconvenience to EV
users. With the fusion of EV trajectories and household travel survey
datasets, there is a potential to develop more targeted charging tariff
policies based on the user’s sociodemographic characteristics and travel
patterns. Ninth, while most studies evaluated city-level grid manage-
ment strategies, no study has explored a way to regulate charging tariffs
in specific areas of the city and quantify the impact of these localized
changes on the charging demand in other areas. Tenth, there is a need
to develop objective measures of the quality of service for a CS to
measure the performance evolution of charging infrastructure in future
years. These measures can be developed using infrastructure-related
factors such as wait/queuing time at CS, charging duration, cost of
charging, and accessibility of CS, among others.
5. Charging infrastructure deployment and management with de-
mand considerations
Optimizing domestic EV charging helps load shifting, cost-saving
and improving energy efficiency, all while helping serve evolving de-
mand for charging. Many supply-side problems have been studied in
recent literature, some prominent ones being the impact on the electri-
cal grid, charging infrastructure location, and pricing optimization. In
this section, we review the analytical and simulation-based supply-side
studies with varying considerations of charging demand. Specifically,
we analyze research trends about incorporating charging behavior
data to study the impact of EV charging on the grid and understand
behavioral data requirements from the supply-side in charging station
location/operation optimization.
The study area, theme, and data collection method of each reviewed
study are presented in Table 3. Most studies have been conducted in
the UK, the USA, or Europe, with a few studies from Asia and New
Zealand. These studies rely on a mix of stated preference experiments
and revealed preference data on charging behavior or household travel
patterns. We classify studies on supply–demand interactions into five
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
Data collection Data Data analysis Sample size Themes
collection
date
(1) Mobile 2013 Optimization (1) 1.39 million 1
phone activity users
data (2) 580,000 PEV
(2) PEV charging
profiles
(3) Survey
GPS data loggers Jun ’15–Jun Self-organizing 50 BEVs & 3499 6
’16 feature map observations
GPS installed on Jun ’12–Mar Monte Carlo 112 private EVs, 8
EVs ’13 simulation total 4892 data
points
major themes. After discussing the main insights derived from the
review of each theme, we discuss challenges and avenues for future
research.
The first observed theme in the supply-side literature is an anal-
ysis of the impact on the electric grid, similar to demand-side litera-
ture. Zhao et al. (2018) modeled domestic charging load by analyzing
factors affecting user charging behavior and proposed an integer pro-
gram to regulate the resulting EV charging load for transmission loss
optimization. The simulation results show that the lack of a charging
strategy can result in high peak–valley demand differences, some ex-
ceeding half the total demand. The connection of EVs to the grid can
also increase the peak–valley gap by 33% and voltage fluctuation by
50% over current levels. Transmission losses and peak–valley gaps can
be reduced by considering seasonality and smart charging strategies.
Similarly, Su, Lie, and Zamora (2019) created and validated charging
profiles and demand for the Auckland (New Zealand) network, and
noted that future deployment of EVs without a charging management
strategy, will challenge total installed generation capacity and have
adverse effects on the grid. If 40% of ICEVs transition to EVs, the
charging demand will overwhelm total power generation capacity,
showing the balance between promoting EV adoption and managing
the resultant demand. Lee, Yazbeck and Brown (2020) validated their
agent-based model(ABM) against observed trajectory data as well as
survey data from the UK, noting that energy use peaks after work hours,
especially for EVs with larger batteries. This charging behavior can
lead to an up to 150% increase in peak demand under the worst-case
circumstances (winter, uncontrolled charging, etc.). Qiu et al. (2022)
corroborate the energy use peak after hours for Arizona drivers, but
differ in the magnitude of the demand spike (14% in the winter). They
also note that the observed differences between prior simulations and
data are larger than expected, noting the importance of data-driven
charging profile calibration. Bi, Xiao, Viswanathan, and Knoll (2017)
showed that a uniform spatial distribution of charging stations leads
to worse grid performance as opposed to placing them at car parks
and gas stations, resulting from demand mismanagement in the former
scenario.
A second observed theme is related to the consequences of poli-
cies promoting EV adoption. Wolbertus, Kroesen, van den Hoed, and
Chorus (2018b) focused on short- and long-term policy impacts of
daytime parking and free parking for EV charging stations. Apart from
grid-impact observations concurring with other studies, they observe
unintended consequences such as daytime parking policies encouraging
drivers to start charging earlier to secure parking spots and therefore
interfere with grid management. Hardinghaus, Locher, and Anderson
(2020) also observed unintended consequences such as an increase in
parking spots blocking when allowed by pricing structures. Bi et al.
(2017) noted that policies favoring uniform CS distribution could lead
to underutilization of over 50% of residential CS due to low demand in
11
P. Patil et al.
certain areas, corroborating observations by Hardinghaus et al. (2020).
In summary, while many studies (Jahangir et al., 2019; Su et al., 2019;
Wolbertus et al., 2018b; Zhao et al., 2018) noted that accurate model-
ing and a better understanding of charging behavior/profiles could help
with grid load management significantly, some studies (Bi et al., 2017;
Hardinghaus et al., 2020; Wolbertus et al., 2018b) highlighted the need
to carefully evaluate unintended consequences of pro-EV policies.
A third theme is a choice of charging demand modeling technique
to understand interactions between charging infrastructure supply and
demand. This strand of the literature models charging demand and
uncertainty in associated factors such as the daily distance driven,
start and end times for charging and dwell times at charging stations.
These models are used to simulate user profiles and optimize charging
infrastructure and supply, as discussed below. The first commonly
used technique is to approximate parameters of the charging demand
model using probability distributions. Zhao et al. (2018) modeled
seasonal daily home return time and daily driving distance using Gaus-
sian and exponential distributions, respectively. These distributions
allow for modeling seasonal daily demand loads for grid management,
such as charging loads being lowest in the spring and largest in the
summer/winter due to increased consumption of air-conditioning and
heating. These distributions are then used to simulate the power con-
sumption of a cluster of EVs using Monte Carlo methods, facilitating
the development of network load regulation strategies.
Fazeli, Venkatachalam, Chinnam, and Murat (2021) also adopted a
similar approach (including seasonality) to model dwell times for var-
ious trip purposes and arrival times at charging stations using Weibull
distributions, initial SOC distribution using Gaussian distributions, and
willingness to walk using a negative exponential distribution. They
calibrated additional distributions for weekday/weekend, activity type,
and community size, followed by using them to generate demand
data for charging infrastructure layout and types. These charging pro-
files are then embedded in a stochastic programming model for CS
infrastructure and layout optimization. Their results aim to derive rela-
tions between total budget and preference for different charger types,
concluding that increased budget leads to more fast charger capac-
ity installation and higher accessibility but lower charger utilization,
corroborating observations by Wolbertus, van den Hoed, Kroesen, and
Chorus (2021). While Yang, Sarma, Hyland, and Jayakrishnan (2021)
modeled initial SOC using truncated normal distributions, Jahangir
et al. (2019) adopted recurrent artificial neural networks to accurately
predict load profile. Siddique, Afifah, Guo, and Zhou (2022) use lo-
gistic regression for charging location choice, mixed-effect model for
dwell time, and beta regression for SOC. Their analysis helps identify
interesting observations such as larger batteries more likely to charge
at home, or start SOC at DC fast chargers being over 20% lower than
other chargers.
Quirós-Tortós, Navarro-Espinosa, Ochoa, and Butler (2018) used
Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) to statistically capture charging met-
rics such as charging start times, SOC, and the number of charging
events. They created charging profiles based on these distributions.
They argue that GMMs (as opposed to probability distributions) allow
for more realistic and complex charging behavior, even at higher
resolutions with low errors. However, Pareschi, Kung, Georges, and
Boulouchos (2020) noted that their validation is conducted on data
from the same source, potentially resulting in overfitting. Pareschi et al.
(2020) studied the validity of charging profiles constructed using travel
survey data, and empirically concluded that these profiles and models
are accurate reproductions of EV drivers’ charging behavior (𝑅2 =
0.83). They also note that this performance is achievable without major
restructuring of current surveys. Powell, Cezar, and Rajagopal (2022)
also use GMMs to construct charging profiles based on driver data
clustered using hierarchical clustering. They note that this is a scalable
approach for simulating large populations with relatively low RMSE
(<6% for weekdays and <12% for weekends). Li et al. (2021) adopt
GMMs to obtain temporal charging patterns while using multinomial
12
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
logit models for factor analysis of the temporal charging patterns. They
provide intuitive explanations for most observed charging patterns, like
commuting temporal charging patterns, non-emergency travel temporal
charging patterns, and overnight temporal charging patterns. However,
validation was not provided for these profiles, leaving an open research
direction. Su et al. (2019) proposed multivariate probabilistic models
within a Monte Carlo simulation for daily demand prediction incorpo-
rating heterogeneity and uncertainty in EV charging demands. These
approaches have been validated for specific study areas, leaving scope
for further validation on other networks and corresponding demand
data to confirm their transferability.
A fourth notable theme is a creation and validation of charging
profiles for simulation, especially agent-based models (ABMs). ABMs
model detailed mobility patterns, aiming to mimic the actions and
interactions of various autonomous agents (in this case, EVs) to under-
stand system-level behavior and outcomes. Bauer, Phadke, Greenblatt,
and Rajagopal (2019), Bi et al. (2017), Lee, Yazbeck et al. (2020) and
Wolbertus et al. (2021) used ABMs to better understand EV charging
behavior and network performance. Bi et al. (2017) estimated the im-
pact on driver behavior when EV fast-charging infrastructure is added
to existing gas stations in Singapore, with observations transferable to
other dense urban areas. Their model considers three different driver
behavior models, ranging from the simplest initial SOC threshold-based
model to the most complex model estimating energy consumption for
the trip and detour to the CS. The intermediate model incorporates
a post-trip remaining range margin to the initial SOC. Their energy
estimation model shows the highest reduction in mean occupancy and
number of unused locations, attributed to reduced charging instances
and higher battery usage for this model. Bauer et al. (2019) analyzed
the effect of charging infrastructure on the level of service provided by
an electrified fleet for various battery ranges and infrastructure avail-
ability levels. Their model shows that a sparse fast-charging network
allows EVs with an average range (∼230 miles) to provide the same
level of service as ICEVs, and therefore, the cost of charging infras-
tructure is not a significant barrier to ride-sourcing electrification. This
observation is different from prior work noting charger location and
charge time as the two most important factors affecting EV adoption.
They also consider three different charging behavior models, a SOC
threshold model, an optimal routing after SOC threshold model, and
a charge-when-idle with an optimal routing model. Their results also
show that flexibility in charging extent and duration is crucial for ride-
sourcing fleet performance and level of service, which is consistent
with prior literature. Flexibility consideration distinguishes fleet and
non-fleet charging behavior models.
Lee, Yazbeck et al. (2020) aimed to validate and match their ABM
with two UK-based datasets — the behavior of 200 EV drivers for 18
months and the national travel survey. The calibrated ABM modeled
driver behavior is predominantly charge-at-destination, with interme-
diate fast charging only if the SOC falls below a set threshold. The
results show a reasonable temporal correlation between predicted and
actual charging events but fail to capture the magnitude of demand
accurately, perhaps due to simplifying assumptions and lack of initial
SOC information. Two expected observations from this study are the
inverse relation between rapid charging and battery size and the peak
in energy usage after work hours. Wolbertus et al. (2021) studied vari-
ous charging infrastructure rollout strategies using ABMs calibrated and
verified using empirical EV public charging patterns from Amsterdam
(majority public charging with few shared vehicles or fleets). They
observed a critical charging infrastructure density, showing return-to-
scale effects. Also, rolling out charging points at a location sequentially
for multiple locations rather than together at one hub worked better in
terms of providing available charging, due to a lack of a return of scale
for the latter. They also conclude that travel time to CS is crucial in
the short term for EV adoption, while charging duration is the more
important factor in the long term.
P. Patil et al.
One common thread among ABM studies is the choice of user
charging behavior models and the associated data. While the first three
studies consider the kind of ‘‘charge when empty’’ behavior, Wolbertus
et al. (2021) argued that it is an insufficient standalone explanation
of charging behavior without the inclusion of charging duration and
amount of charge gained. More detailed behavioral models validated by
charging event data showed better CS utilization and battery usage. All
studies also highlight the importance of collecting initial SOC distribu-
tion data for accurate modeling results. Another common thread is the
lack of calibration data about travel and parking behavior, especially in
dense urban areas. Some current studies assume that the ratio between
charging and parking time is a constant value, usually one. However,
this assumption fails to capture driver behavior heterogeneity and does
not accurately depict CS infrastructure utilization — an avenue for
further research. Another limitation of these studies is the dependence
on early adopters and current infrastructure data, which is a concern
because demographic groups currently under-represented among these
studies may exhibit different charging behavior. While studies like Ja-
hangir et al. (2019) and Lee, Yazbeck et al. (2020) calibrate their model
on EV data, most others do not do so due to a lack of appropriate
datasets. Calibration is an important consideration and future studies
in this area. These studies also consider each agent to usually have
battery capacity and range as derived from the available mass-market
PHEVs and EVs (4–100 kWh) and CS infrastructure to have current
fast charging speeds. Driving range values adopted in these studies
have already been exceeded in some production vehicles, owing to the
evolution in battery technology. Therefore, as discussed earlier, the
effect of improvement in battery technology on user behavior must
be studied and incorporated. Lastly, while most of these studies have
segmented private users and ride-sharing/fleet vehicles, they should be
simultaneously included for accurate modeling results.
A fifth theme focuses on supply-side optimization literature, which
includes CS location optimization and management, among others
(Yang et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2018; Zhou, Wen, Wang, & Cai, 2020).
ABM simulation and optimization models are two main methods. ABMs
are detailed and capture ‘‘realism’’ in the form of heterogeneity by
incorporating detailed behavioral data, but rely on input data accuracy
and pose significant computational complexity. On the other hand, op-
timization methods prioritize robustness and mathematical ‘‘niceties’’,
generating representative conclusions, but incorporating heterogeneity
and randomness in charging behavior is not straightforward. Many
studies have investigated the integration of charging infrastructure
within existing locations such as parking lots, malls, and gas stations (Bi
et al., 2017; Fazeli et al., 2021; Guo, Yang, & Lu, 2018; Lin et al.,
2022), while other studies approached the CS location problem starting
from a blank slate (Alhazmi, Mostafa, & Salama, 2017; Bauer et al.,
2019; Mashhoodi, van Timmeren, & van der Blij, 2021; Wolbertus
et al., 2021). The prior approach is motivated by combining charging
with driver trip destinations such as work and entertainment, implicitly
reducing deviation distances and range anxiety by considering demand
patterns. The methods proposed in the latter set of studies can use
existing infrastructure as candidate CS sites but did not do so in their
case studies.
While we have detailed ABMs in the last theme, we discuss the
literature on CS location optimization to reduce the cost of infrastruc-
ture. Guo et al. (2018) undertook a CS location problem to minimize
construction cost and user path deviation, considering range anxiety
and service levels using flow decay functions. They observe that both
distance deviation tolerance and range anxiety threshold have a big
impact on charging station location and costs, motivating further em-
pirical investigation of charging behavior. Lastly, their results show a
70% reduction in construction costs if battery capacities are doubled.
A similar observation is made by Alhazmi et al. (2017), who studied
the CS location problem as a maximum covering location problem sub-
ject to service constraints, primarily driver convenience. Their model
notes that vehicles with low battery capacities are highly dependent
13
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
on CS infrastructure, while high battery capacity vehicles complete
most trips (97%) in the absence of CS infrastructure. Mashhoodi et al.
(2021) approached the CS location problem from a walkability and
accessibility perspective. A higher walking threshold decreases new CS
construction costs substantially (>40%) as it results in fewer CS hubs
but each with higher capacity. Reserving chargers for area residents can
decrease required CS construction costs by up to 20% but also reduces
utilization. Lower walking thresholds can also lead to unutilized CS
capacity, while higher thresholds lead to main junctions being chosen
as the candidates for new CS infrastructure. They conclude that while
there is a complex interplay of factors such as spatial demand distri-
bution, existing chargers, and street geometry, the willingness to walk
more for a CS leads to a significant reduction in new EV infrastructure
costs. Bauer et al. (2019) observe CS costs being very sensitive to
utilization, as corroborated by Wolbertus et al. (2021).
Challenges and future work
Several studies have investigated how different policies and charg-
ing infrastructure configurations affect charging and parking behavior
and vice versa. Several modeling approaches, ranging from ABMs and
probabilistic modeling to optimization methods, have been developed
to study charging infrastructure deployment and management. It is
evident that all supply-side approaches require rich input data and
calibrated models of charging behavior or demand. Charging event
data is predominantly analyzed using statistical methods such as GMMs
and probability distribution fitting for behavior characterization and
charging profile calibration. Trajectory data lends itself to ABM for
replicating travel patterns. Stated preference and revealed preference
studies are more versatile, being used for both CS location optimization
and management. We discuss the identified gaps in the literature and
potential avenues for future research.
First, similar to demand-side literature, supply-side studies also
primarily focus on public charging infrastructure. However, private
charging would become more relevant as the market adoption of EVs
increases. Private charging data would not only complement demand
models in the form of SOC information or grid demand data, but
information about joint private and public charging could also address
missing data problems and help integrate charging and active-based
travel behavior models. The former is critical because demand-side
models are sensitive to input parameters related to the initial SOC data.
Moreover, modeling public and private charging demands together will
provide the total grid load information, resulting in informed man-
agement strategies. Second, battery technology advancements would
lead to variation in the driving range across EV fleets. Accounting
for such demand-side heterogeneity is critical in making supply-side
decisions. Assuming large (small) battery sizes for the entire fleet
may underestimate (overestimate) the demand for charging infras-
tructure. Third, many models for CS location planning and demand
management strategies depend on the thresholds at additional will-
ingness to travel and range anxiety, which might be lower for early
adopters. More investigations into SOC, range anxiety, and distance
deviation threshold data could be beneficial in optimal deployment and
operations of charging infrastructure. Moreover, many studies make
assumptions about current driving behavior and charging requirements
using travel surveys of selected countries and translating them to
their study areas. The validity of these assumptions must be critically
analyzed based on the time horizon of the application, demographics,
or region. Fourth, while the literature offers initial/preliminary guid-
ance on unintended consequences of pro-EV policies and the required
supply-side infrastructure for cities/countries joining the EV adoption
movement, policymakers seek recommendations about technological
advancements. For instance, in-motion wireless charging (Jang, 2018;
Miller, Jones, Li, & Onar, 2015) and autonomous EVs (Alkheir, Alo-
qaily, & Mouftah, 2018; Iacobucci, McLellan, & Tezuka, 2018) have the
potential to reshape electric mobility, but these areas have not been
P. Patil et al. Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265

Table 3
Supply-side studies.
Author(s) (Year) Study area Study context Data collection Themes
Alhazmi et al. Ontario, Canada CS location optimization Other 5
(2017)
Bauer et al. (2019) New York City, Minimum charging requirement for ridesharing Trajectory 4, 5
San Francisco electrification
Bi et al. (2017) Singapore Impact of driver charging behavior for charging station Stated preference, 1, 2, 4, 5
placement other
Fazeli et al. (2021) Detroit, United Stochastic programming model for optimal layout and Stated preference 3, 5
States types of EV supply equipment
Guo et al. (2018) USA and China CS location optimization Other 5
Hardinghaus et al. Berlin, Germany Charging data analysis for future infrastructure Charging event data 2
(2020) recommendations
Jahangir et al. United States Rough recurrent neural networks for travel behavior Stated preference 3
(2019) prediction
Lee, Yazbeck et al. United Kingdom Validation of EV ABM against field data Trajectory 1, 4
(2020)
Li et al. (2021) China Analysis of temporal EV charging patterns using GMMs Charging events & 3
driving data
Lin et al. (2022) Sweden CS location optimization Stated preference 5
Mashhoodi et al. Amsterdam, Urban CS location problem Travel behavior 5
(2021) Netherlands data
Pareschi et al. United Kingdom, Validation of EV models against travel survey data Stated preference, 3
(2020) United States trajectory
Powell et al. (2022) California, USA A framework to generate long-term estimates of EV Charging events 1,2
charging loads capturing real charging patterns
Qiu et al. (2022) Arizona, USA Assessment of the grid impact from at-home charging Charging events 3
Quirós-Tortós et al. United Kingdom Statistical representation of EV charging Stated preference, 3
(2018) trajectory
Ren, Lan, Yu, and Beijing, China Characterization of EV charging behavior using ABMs and Charging events & 3
Jiao (2022) nested logit models driving data
Siddique et al. Illinois, USA Characterization of EV charging behavior using Charging events 3
(2022) descriptive analysis and regression analysis
Singh, Vaidya, and Netherlands Analysis of charge scheduling algorithms using idle time Charging events 1
Mouftah (2022) ratio (load shifting) and time-of-use pricing strategies
Su et al. (2019) New Zealand Estimation and evaluation of EV charging loads based on Other 1, 3
multivariate probabilistic model
Wolbertus et al. Amsterdam, Analysis of policy impacts on charging behavior and Stated and revealed 2
(2018b) Netherlands purchase intentions preference
Wolbertus et al. Amsterdam Charging station location and rollout strategies Charging events, 3, 4, 5
(2021) stated preference
Yang et al. (2021) California, USA Management of fast-charging stations using dynamic Other 3, 5
pricing
Zhao et al. (2018) United States Modeling seasonal domestic charging load Stated preference 1, 3, 5
Zhou et al. (2020) Beijing, China Battery capacity requirement for heterogeneous travel Stated preference 5
patterns

Themes: 1 - Impact on grid; 2 - Consequences of EV promotion policies; 3 - Demand modeling techniques; 4 - Agent based models; 5 - Supply side optimization.

explored from the charging behavior/demand and supply-side per-
spective. Therefore, studies assessing and combining policy-influenced
behavioral data with technological advancements would be valuable,
specifically those dealing with government incentives. Fifth, quite a
few supply-side studies depend on behavioral data from selected de-
veloped countries. There is an opportunity for researchers to explore
charging behavior in emerging EV markets (e.g., India and China) and
develop context-specific supply-side models.
6. Proposed framework
While the literature on charging supply–demand interactions has
made substantial progress in the last decade, most studies focus on
a handful of aspects in isolation. For instance, studies either consider
personal EVs or ride-hailing services with only public fast-charging
infrastructure while ignoring available home/work charging infrastruc-
ture. The distinction between weekend and weekday charging behavior
is missing, which is crucial for EV owners who live far from the
workplace and mostly rely on charging stations at work locations.
Moreover, previous studies mainly focus on current charging behavior
and demand patterns but charging demand is likely to evolve due to
higher market penetration of EVs and growing driving range. Due to
these challenges, the following key policy question remains unanswered
— what should be the spatial coverage of the public fast chargers in
a given year conditional on the specific proportions of home-based or
workplace-based slow charging infrastructure so that grid load can be
balanced while maintaining the appropriate level of service (i.e., user
satisfaction in terms of charging price, duration, and queuing time)?
We propose a system-level dynamic planning framework to better
forecast future charging demand, which could inform the charging
infrastructure planning policies (See Fig. 3). This framework has three
main urban scale models: (i) long-term forecasting of EV adoption, (ii)
charging behavior models conditional on the availability of different
charging infrastructures characterized by location and speed, and (iii)

14
P. Patil et al.
Fig. 3. Integrated dynamic planning framework for electric vehicle charging infrastructure planning.
Travel demand forecasting models. The literature has a few EV fore-
casting models (Musti & Kockelman, 2011), but they only focus on
personal EVs. Thus, there is a need to develop a model to forecast the
adoption of electric taxis while considering an increase in driving range
due to technological innovations in battery development. Similarly,
the literature has several charging behavior models, but they do not
cover all scenarios presented in Fig. 3. Thus, there is a need to develop
charging behavior models for missing situations, such as weekends
with varying charging infrastructure in terms of charging locations
and speed. These charging behavior models should account for travel
behavior to ensure seamless integration with existing travel demand
forecasting models. This integrated framework results in the spatio-
temporal distribution of EV charging demand in the future, which could
dynamically inform the need to build charging infrastructure over the
years. The resulting charging infrastructure solution is passed back to
the charging behavior model, followed by rerunning the travel demand
forecasting and the charging infrastructure optimization models. The
process is reiterated until convergence is reached. The model will
provide a charging infrastructure policy that will guide agencies to
install a specific number of public charging stations in a given year
and their spatial distribution.
EV charging behavior and infrastructure have complex interactions,
as charging behavior affects infrastructure planning and vice versa.
Our proposed framework aims to incorporate all these bidirectional
interactions and has the potential to lay out a roadmap for all emerging
and mature EV markets.
15
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
7. Conclusions and future work
We review the studies on EV charging demand and supply, focus-
ing on charging behavior. This section summarizes the main research
themes while highlighting research gaps and avenues for future re-
search. On the charging demand side, the literature focuses on charging
demand management via community-owned charging schemes and
dynamic pricing. This demand-side strand is complemented by the
supply-side studies, which evaluate the impact of EV charging on the
grid by characterizing loads and charging profiles. Similarly, demand-
side studies focus on understanding the charging behavior (location
and time of charging) conditional on the given charging infrastruc-
ture via the lens of psychological aspects, travel behavior, and grid
load profiling. Specifically, the demand-side literature identifies the
infrastructure-level and individual-level factors that affect charging be-
havior. These factors include the availability of slow and fast chargers
at activity locations, level of service at charging stations (e.g., accessi-
bility, pricing, queuing time, and charging duration), and EV drivers’
socio-demographics and risk attitudes. These studies also focus on het-
erogeneity in the preferences of EV drivers. Supply-side studies again
complement this demand-side strand by developing charging infras-
tructure optimization methods and system-level agent-based simulation
models to handle supply–demand interactions but considering simplis-
tic assumptions on the charging demand. These models are calibrated
using charging event and travel data, making observations about the
P. Patil et al.
validity of different charging strategies, the correlation between predic-
tions and actual temporal charging load, the inverse relation between
battery size and demand peak, and cost reduction for infrastructure
costs.
While avenues for future research in charging infrastructure op-
timization have been discussed in the last section, we discuss the
main direction for future research on the demand side. Charging be-
havior models are based on stated choice experiments or revealed
preference data on vehicle trajectory or charging events. Static choice
experiments cannot jointly consider different dimensions of charging
behavior (e.g., availability of charging at different activity locations
on weekdays and weekends, relationship with activity-based travel
behavior). On the other hand, charging event or trajectory data do not
have information about the charging options considered by the driver
and thus can only be suitable for developing a charging demand load
profile but not appropriate for developing a charging behavior model
or forecasting charging demand. Studies on charging behavior should
explore possibilities of conducting stated-off-revealed-preference exper-
iments while pivoting the design on the activity patterns of EV users
to handle the complex nature of charging behavior. The use of these
charging behavior models for grid load management and maintaining
a good level of service at charging stations opens up a valuable direc-
tion of research in EV charging demand management (conditional on
fixed charging infrastructure). Finally, emerging business models such
as peer-to-peer charging or community-based charging infrastructure
models provide an avenue for future exploration.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Priyadarshan Patil: Conceptualization, Data curation, Method-
ology, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. Khashayar
Kazemzadeh: Data curation, Writing – original draft. Prateek
Bansal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted at the Future Cities Lab Global at
Singapore-ETH Centre. Future Cities Lab Global is supported and funded
by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Sin-
gapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technologi-
cal Enterprise (CREATE) programme and ETH Zurich (ETHZ), with
additional contributions from the National University of Singapore
(NUS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, and the
Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD).
References
Alhazmi, Y., Mostafa, H., & Salama, M. (2017). Optimal allocation for electric vehicle
charging stations using Trip Success Ratio. International Journal of Electrical Power
& Energy Systems, 91, 101–116.
Alkheir, A. A., Aloqaily, M., & Mouftah, H. T. (2018). Connected and autonomous
electric vehicles (caevs). IT Professional, 20(6), 54–61.
Anderson, J. E., Lehne, M., & Hardinghaus, M. (2018). What electric vehicle users want:
Real-world preferences for public charging infrastructure. International Journal of
Sustainable Transportation, 12(5), 341–352.
Andrenacci, N., Genovese, A., & Ragona, R. (2017). Determination of the level of service
and customer crowding for electric charging stations, through fuzzy models and
simulation techniques. Applied Energy, 208, 97–107.
16
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
Ardeshiri, A., & Rashidi, T. (2020). Willingness to pay for fast charging station for
electric vehicles with limited market penetration making. Energy Policy, 147.
Ashkrof, P., de Almeida Correia, G. H., & van Arem, B. (2020). Analysis of the effect of
charging needs on battery electric vehicle drivers’ route choice behaviour: A case
study in the netherlands. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
78, Article 102206.
Azarova, V., Cohen, J., Kollmann, A., & Reichl, J. (2020). The potential for community
financed electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 88.
Bailey, J., & Axsen, J. (2015). Anticipating PEV buyers’ acceptance of utility controlled
charging. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 82, 29–46.
Bansal, P., & Dua, R. (2022). Fuel consumption elasticities, rebound effect and feebate
effectiveness in the Indian and Chinese new car markets. Energy Economics, [ISSN:
0140-9883] 113, 106192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106192, https:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988322003425.
Bauer, G., Phadke, A., Greenblatt, J., & Rajagopal, D. (2019). Electrifying urban
ridesourcing fleets at no added cost through efficient use of charging infrastructure.
Transportation Research Part C (Emerging Technologies), 105, 385–404.
Bi, R., Xiao, J., Viswanathan, V., & Knoll, A. (2017). Influence of charging behaviour
given charging infrastructure specification: A case study of Singapore. Journal of
Computer Science, 20, 118–128.
Bibra, E. M., Connelly, E., Gorner, M., Lowans, C., Paoli, L., Tattini, J., et al. (2021).
Global EV outlook 2021: Accelerating ambitions despite the pandemic. International
Energy Agency.
Cardenas, A., Guzman, C., & Martinez, W. (2021). EV Overnight Charging Strategy in
Residential Sector: Case of Winter Season in Quebec. Vehicles, 3(3), 557–577.
Chakraborty, D., Hardman, S., & Tal, G. (2020). Why do some consumers not charge
their plug-in hybrid vehicles? Evidence from Californian plug-in hybrid owners.
Environmental Research Letters, 15(8), Article 084031.
Crozier, C., Morstyn, T., & McCulloch, M. (2021). Capturing diversity in electric vehicle
charging behaviour for network capacity estimation. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 93.
Daina, N., Sivakumar, A., & Polak, J. (2017). Electric vehicle charging choices:
Modelling and implications for smart charging services. Transportation Research Part
C (Emerging Technologies), 81, 36–56.
Daramy-Williams, E., Anable, J., & Grant-Muller, S. (2019). A systematic review of the
evidence on plug-in electric vehicle user experience. Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment, 71, 22–36.
Delmonte, E., Kinnear, N., Jenkins, B., & Skippon, S. (2020). What do consumers
think of smart charging? Perceptions among actual and potential plug-in electric
vehicle adopters in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, Article
101318.
Dixon, J., Andersen, P., Bell, K., & Traeholt, C. (2020). On the ease of being green:
An investigation of the inconvenience of electric vehicle charging. Applied Energy,
258.
Dixon, J., & Bell, K. (2020). Electric vehicles: Battery capacity, charger power, access
to charging and the impacts on distribution networks. Etransportation, 4.
Dost, P. K.-H., Spichartz, P., & Sourkounis, C. (2017). Charging behavior of users
utilizing battery electric vehicles and extended range electric vehicles within the
scope of a field test. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 54(1), 580–590.
Duarte, G., Silva, A., & Baptista, P. (2021). Assessment of wireless charging impacts
based on real-world driving patterns: Case study in Lisbon, Portugal. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 71.
Fachrizal, R., Shepero, M., van der Meer, D., Munkhammar, J., & Widén, J. (2020).
Smart charging of electric vehicles considering photovoltaic power production and
electricity consumption: A review. ETransportation, 4, Article 100056.
Fazeli, S., Venkatachalam, S., Chinnam, R., & Murat, A. (2021). Two-Stage Stochastic
Choice Modeling Approach for Electric Vehicle Charging Station Network Design in
Urban Communities. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 22(5),
3038–3053.
Fotouhi, Z., Hashemi, M. R., Narimani, H., & Bayram, I. S. (2019). A general model
for EV drivers’ charging behavior. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 68(8),
7368–7382.
Funke, S. Á., Sprei, F., Gnann, T., & Plötz, P. (2019). How much charging infrastructure
do electric vehicles need? A review of the evidence and international comparison.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 77, 224–242.
Gadepalli, R., Gumireddy, S., & Bansal, P. Cost Drivers of Electric Bus Contracts:
Analysis of 33 Indian Cities, Transportation Research Record, 03611981221088593.
Globisch, J., Plotz, P., Dutschke, E., & Wietschel, M. (2019). Consumer preferences for
public charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. Transport Policy, 81, 54–63.
Greene, D., Hossain, A., Hofmann, J., Helfand, G., & Beach, R. (2018). Consumer
willingness to pay for vehicle attributes: What do we Know? Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, 118, 258–279.
Guo, F., Yang, J., & Lu, J. (2018). The battery charging station location problem: Impact
of users’ range anxiety and distance convenience. Transportation Research Part E:
Logistics and Transportation Review, 114, 1–18.
Guthoff, F., Klempp, N., & Hufendiek, K. (2021). Quantification of the Flexibility
Potential through Smart Charging of Battery Electric Vehicles and the Effects on
the Future Electricity Supply System in Germany. Energies, 14(9).
P. Patil et al.
Haghani, M., & Bliemer, M. C. (2022). Emerging trends and influential outsiders of
transportation science. Transportation Letters, 1–37.
Hardinghaus, M., Locher, M., & Anderson, J. (2020). Real-world insights on public
charging demand and infrastructure use from electric vehicles. Environmental
Research Letters, 15(10).
Hardman, S., Chandan, A., Tal, G., & Turrentine, T. (2017). The effectiveness of
financial purchase incentives for battery electric vehicles–A review of the evidence.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1100–1111.
Hardman, S., Jenn, A., Tal, G., Axsen, J., Beard, G., Daina, N., et al. (2018). A
review of consumer preferences of and interactions with electric vehicle charg-
ing infrastructure. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 62,
508–523.
Hardman, S., & Tal, G. (2021). Understanding discontinuance among California’s
electric vehicle owners. Nature Energy, 6(5), 538–545.
Helmus, J. R., Lees, M. H., & van den Hoed, R. (2020). A data driven typology of
electric vehicle user types and charging sessions. Transportation Research Part C
(Emerging Technologies), 115, Article 102637.
Holland, M. (2022). Norway’s april EV market share at 84%, fleet share at 23%.
CleanTechnica, Available from: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/05/04/norways-
april-ev-market-share-at-84-fleet-share-at-23/.
Hovet, S., Farley, B., Perry, J., Kirsche, K., Jerue, M., & Tse, Z. (2018). Introduction
of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations to University Campuses: A Case Study for the
University of Georgia from 2014 to 2017. Batteries, 4(2).
Hu, L., Dong, J., & Lin, Z. (2019). Modeling charging behavior of battery electric vehicle
drivers: A cumulative prospect theory based approach. Transportation Research Part
C (Emerging Technologies), 102, 474–489.
Huber, J., Dann, D., & Weinhardt, C. (2020). Probabilistic forecasts of time and energy
flexibility in battery electric vehicle charging. Applied Energy, 262.
Hussain, M. T., Sulaiman, N. B., Hussain, M. S., & Jabir, M. (2021). Optimal
Management strategies to solve issues of grid having Electric Vehicles (EV): A
review. Journal of Energy Storage, 33, Article 102114.
Iacobucci, R., McLellan, B., & Tezuka, T. (2018). Modeling shared autonomous electric
vehicles: Potential for transport and power grid integration. Energy, 158, 148–163.
Internal Revenue Service (2022). Plug-in electric drive vehicle credit. Internal Revenue
Service, Available from: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/plug-in-electric-vehicle-
credit-irc-30-and-irc-30d.
International Energy Agency (2020). Global EV outlook 2020. International Energy
Agency, Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020.
Iqbal, M., Kutt, L., Lehtonen, M., Millar, R., Puvi, V., Rassolkin, A., et al. (2021). Travel
Activity Based Stochastic Modelling of Load and Charging State of Electric Vehicles.
Sustainability, 13(3).
Jahangir, H., Tayarani, H., Ahmadian, A., Golkar, M., Miret, J., Tayarani, M., et al.
(2019). Charging demand of Plug-in Electric Vehicles: Forecasting travel behavior
based on a novel Rough Artificial Neural Network approach. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 229, 1029–1044.
Jang, Y. J. (2018). Survey of the operation and system study on wireless charging
electric vehicle systems. Transportation Research Part C (Emerging Technologies), 95,
844–866.
Kazemzadeh, K., & Bansal, P. (2021). Electric bike level of service: A review and
research agenda. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103413.
Kester, J., Noel, L., de Rubens, G. Z., & Sovacool, B. K. (2018). Policy mechanisms to
accelerate electric vehicle adoption: a qualitative review from the Nordic region.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 719–731.
Kumar, R. R., & Alok, K. (2020). Adoption of electric vehicle: A literature review and
prospects for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, Article 119911.
Latinopoulos, C., Sivakumar, A., & Polak, J. (2017). Response of electric vehicle
drivers to dynamic pricing of parking and charging services: Risky choice in early
reservations. Transportation Research Part C (Emerging Technologies), 80, 175–189.
Lee, R., & Brown, S. (2021). Evaluating the role of behavior and social class in electric
vehicle adoption and charging demands. Iscience, 24(8).
Lee, J. H., Chakraborty, D., Hardman, S. J., & Tal, G. (2020). Exploring electric vehicle
charging patterns: Mixed usage of charging infrastructure. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 79, Article 102249.
Lee, R., Yazbeck, S., & Brown, S. (2020). Validation and application of agent-based
electric vehicle charging model. Energy Reports, 6, 53–62.
Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., & Geng, J. (2017). A review of factors influencing consumer
intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 78, 318–328.
Li, L., Wang, Z., & Xie, X. (2022). From government to market? A discrete choice
analysis of policy instruments for electric vehicle adoption. Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, 160, 143–159.
Li, X., Zhang, Q., Chibane, H., Cavallucci, D., Tang, X., Zuo, J., et al. (2021). Data-
driven temporal charging patterns of electric vehicles in China. Energy Technology,
9(12), 2100421.
Liao, F., Molin, E., & van Wee, B. (2017). Consumer preferences for electric vehicles:
a literature review. Transport Reviews, 37(3), 252–275.
Lin, H., Bian, C., Wang, Y., Li, H., Sun, Q., & Wallin, F. (2022). Optimal planning of
intra-city public charging stations. Energy, 238.
Liu, Y., Hong, Y., & Hu, C. (2019). Research on Big Data Mining Technology of Electric
Vehicle Charging Behaviour. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 25(6), 55–61.
17
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
Lu, Z., Zhang, Q., Yuan, Y., & Tong, W. (2020). Optimal Driving Range for Battery
Electric Vehicles Based on Modeling Users’ Driving and Charging Behavior. Journal
of Advanced Transportation, 2020.
Mashhoodi, B., van Timmeren, A., & van der Blij, N. (2021). The two and half minute
walk: Fast charging of electric vehicles and the economic value of walkability.
Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 48(4), 638–654.
Miller, J. M., Jones, P. T., Li, J.-M., & Onar, O. C. (2015). ORNL experience and
challenges facing dynamic wireless power charging of EV’s. IEEE Circuits and
Systems Magazine, 15(2), 40–53.
Moon, H., Park, S., Jeong, C., & Lee, J. (2018). Forecasting electricity demand of electric
vehicles by analyzing consumers’ charging patterns. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 62, 64–79.
Musti, S., & Kockelman, K. M. (2011). Evolution of the household vehicle fleet:
Anticipating fleet composition, PHEV adoption and GHG emissions in Austin, Texas.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(8), 707–720.
Pagani, M., Korosec, W., Chokani, N., & Abhari, R. (2019). User behaviour and electric
vehicle charging infrastructure: An agent-based model assessment. Applied Energy,
254.
Pagany, R., Ramirez Camargo, L., & Dorner, W. (2019). A review of spatial localization
methodologies for the electric vehicle charging infrastructure. International Journal
of Sustainable Transportation, 13(6), 433–449.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C.
D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting
systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, Article 105906.
Pan, L., Yao, E., & MacKenzie, D. (2019). Modeling EV charging choice considering
risk attitudes and attribute non-attendance. Transportation Research Part C (Emerging
Technologies), 102, 60–72.
Pareschi, G., Kung, L., Georges, G., & Boulouchos, K. (2020). Are travel surveys a good
basis for EV models? Validation of simulated charging profiles against empirical
data. Applied Energy, 275.
Philipsen, R., Brell, T., Brost, W., Eickels, T., & Ziefle, M. (2018). Running on
empty–Users’ charging behavior of electric vehicles versus traditional refueling.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 59, 475–492.
Plenter, F., Chasin, F., von Hoffen, M., Betzing, J. H., Matzner, M., & Becker, J. (2018).
Assessment of peer-provider potentials to share private electric vehicle charging
stations. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 64, 178–191.
Plenter, F., von Hoffen, M., Chasin, F., Benhaus, S., Matzner, M., Paukstadt, U., et al.
(2018). Quantifying consumers’ willingness to pay for electric vehicle charging. In
2018 IEEE 20th conference on business informatics, Vol. 1 CBI, (pp. 196–203). IEEE.
Plötz, P., Axsen, J., Funke, S. A., & Gnann, T. (2019). Designing car bans for sustainable
transportation. Nature Sustainability, 2(7), 534–536.
Powell, S., Cezar, G. V., & Rajagopal, R. (2022). Scalable probabilistic estimates of
electric vehicle charging given observed driver behavior. Applied Energy, 309,
118382.
Qiu, Y. L., Wang, Y. D., Iseki, H., Shen, X., Xing, B., & Zhang, H. (2022). Empirical
grid impact of in-home electric vehicle charging differs from predictions. Resource
and Energy Economics, 67, 101275.
Quirós-Tortós, J., Navarro-Espinosa, A., Ochoa, L. F., & Butler, T. (2018). Statistical
representation of EV charging: Real data analysis and applications. In 2018 power
systems computation conference PSCC, (pp. 1–7). IEEE.
Ren, Y., Lan, Z., Yu, H., & Jiao, G. (2022). Analysis and prediction of charging behaviors
for private battery electric vehicles with regular commuting: A case study in Beijing.
Energy, 253, 124160.
Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., & Bodin, J. (2015). Advances in consumer electric vehicle
adoption research: A review and research agenda. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 34, 122–136.
Schüßler, M., Niels, T., & Bogenberger, K. (2017). Model-based estimation of private
charging demand at public charging stations. European Journal of Transport and
Infrastructure Research, 17(1).
Sellmair, R., & Schelo, T. (2019). Analysis of the effect of charging infrastructure design
on electric taxi driving profiles: A case study approach on the example of Singapore.
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 13(7), 479–496.
Shen, Z.-J. M., Feng, B., Mao, C., & Ran, L. (2019). Optimization models for electric
vehicle service operations: A literature review. Transportation Research, Part B
(Methodological), 128, 462–477.
Siddique, C., Afifah, F., Guo, Z., & Zhou, Y. (2022). Data mining of plug-in electric
vehicles charging behavior using supply-side data. Energy Policy, 161, 112710.
Singh, V., Singh, V., & Vaibhav, S. (2020). A review and simple meta-analysis of factors
influencing adoption of electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment, 86, Article 102436.
Singh, S., Vaidya, B., & Mouftah, H. T. (2022). Smart EV charging strategies based on
charging behavior. Frontiers in Energy Research, 331.
Song, Y., & Hu, X. (2021). Learning electric vehicle driver range anxiety with an
initial state of charge-oriented gradient boosting approach. Journal of Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 1–19.
Su, J., Lie, T., & Zamora, R. (2019). Modelling of large-scale electric vehicles charging
demand: A New Zealand case study. Electric Power Systems Research, 167, 171–182.
Sun, M., Shao, C., Zhuge, C., Wang, P., Yang, X., & Wang, S. (2021). Uncovering travel
and charging patterns of private electric vehicles with trajectory data: evidence and
policy implications. Transportation, 1–31.
P. Patil et al.
Sun, X.-H., Yamamoto, T., Takahashi, K., & Morikawa, T. (2018). Home charge timing
choice behaviors of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle users under a dynamic electricity
pricing scheme. Transportation, 45(6), 1849–1869.
Wee, S., Coffman, M., & La Croix, S. (2018). Do electric vehicle incentives matter?
Evidence from the 50 US states. Research Policy, 47(9), 1601–1610.
Wei, W., Ramakrishnan, S., Needell, Z., & Trancik, J. (2021). Personal vehicle
electrification and charging solutions for high-energy days. Nature Energy, 6(1),
105–+.
Wolbertus, R., & Gerzon, B. (2018). Improving electric vehicle charging station
efficiency through pricing. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018.
Wolbertus, R., van den Hoed, R., Kroesen, M., & Chorus, C. (2021). Charging
infrastructure roll-out strategies for large scale introduction of electric vehicles in
urban areas: An agent-based simulation study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 148, 262–285.
Wolbertus, R., Kroesen, M., van den Hoed, R., & Chorus, C. (2018a). Fully charged:
An empirical study into the factors that influence connection times at EV-charging
stations. Energy Policy, 123, 1–7.
Wolbertus, R., Kroesen, M., van den Hoed, R., & Chorus, C. (2018b). Policy effects
on charging behaviour of electric vehicle owners and on purchase intentions of
prospective owners: Natural and stated choice experiments. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 62, 283–297.
Xiong, Y., An, B., & Kraus, S. (2021). Electric vehicle charging strategy study and
the application on charging station placement. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent
Systems, 35(1).
18
Sustainable Cities and Society 88 (2023) 104265
Xu, Y., Colak, S., Kara, E., Moura, S., & Gonzalez, M. (2018). Planning for electric
vehicle needs by coupling charging profiles with urban mobility. Nature Energy,
3(6), 484–493.
Xu, M., Meng, Q., Liu, K., & Yamamoto, T. (2017). Joint charging mode and location
choice model for battery electric vehicle users. Transportation Research, Part B
(Methodological), 103, 68–86.
Yang, J., Dong, J., Zhang, Q., Liu, Z., & Wang, W. (2018). An Investigation of Battery
Electric Vehicle Driving and Charging Behaviors Using Vehicle Usage Data Collected
in Shanghai, China. Transportation Research Record, 2672(24), 20–30.
Yang, D., Sarma, N., Hyland, M., & Jayakrishnan, R. (2021). Dynamic modeling and
real-time management of a system of EV fast-charging stations. Transportation
Research Part C (Emerging Technologies), 128.
Yao, Z., Gendreau, M., Li, M., Ran, L., & Wang, Z. (2022). Service operations of electric
vehicle carsharing systems from the perspectives of supply and demand: A literature
review. Transportation Research Part C (Emerging Technologies), 140, Article 103702.
Zhang, X., Liang, Y., Yu, E., Rao, R., & Xie, J. (2017). Review of electric vehicle policies
in China: Content summary and effect analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 70, 698–714.
Zhao, Y., Che, Y., Wang, D., Liu, H., Shi, K., & Yu, D. (2018). An Optimal Domestic
Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy for Reducing Network Transmission Loss While
Taking Seasonal Factors into Consideration. Applied Sciences, 8(2).
Zhou, Y., Li, Z., & Wu, X. (2018). The Multiobjective Based Large-Scale Electric Vehicle
Charging Behaviours Analysis. Complexity.
Zhou, Y., Wen, R., Wang, H., & Cai, H. (2020). Optimal battery electric vehicles range:
A study considering heterogeneous travel patterns, charging behaviors, and access
to charging infrastructure. Energy, 197.