International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

What electric vehicle users want: Real-world

preferences for public charging infrastructure

John E. Anderson, Marius Lehne & Michael Hardinghaus

To cite this article: John E. Anderson, Marius Lehne & Michael Hardinghaus (2018) What electric
vehicle users want: Real-world preferences for public charging infrastructure, International Journal
of Sustainable Transportation, 12:5, 341-352, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2017.1372538

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1372538

Published online: 18 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1291

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
2018, VOL. 12, NO. 5, 341–352
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1372538

What electric vehicle users want: Real-world preferences for public charging
infrastructure
John E. Anderson , Marius Lehne, and Michael Hardinghaus
Institute of Transport Research, German Aerospace Center, Berlin, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Electric vehicles offer a means to achieve environmental goals within personal passenger transportation. Received 21 October 2016
However, one central challenge in transitioning to electric vehicles remains the lack of adequate public Revised 23 August 2017
charging infrastructure. In this paper, we address this challenge by focusing on user preferences for public Accepted 23 August 2017
charging infrastructure. We present new insights from a survey of 843 electric vehicle users in Germany KEYWORDS
regarding their preferences for public charging infrastructure. The online survey allowed users to locate Charging station; electric
additional public charging stations required for their personal use and define the characteristics for each vehicles; mobility; online
station: charging power, location description, accessibility, and expected frequency of use. survey; preferences; public
From the results we identify a need for more public charging infrastructure. We find three critical charging infrastructure
overarching user preferences and three central infrastructure strategies. First, there is a preference for
semi-fast (22 kW AC) charging stations. Second, we find that slow charging (3.7 kW AC) is acceptable for
frequently used stations, whereas fast charging (50 kW DC) is desired for infrequently used stations. Third,
slow charging is acceptable for locations where vehicles are parked over a longer period of time. For
public charging infrastructure strategies, a mix of all station characteristics is critical. There should be
infrastructure where people already park plus an additional backup fast network for infrequent charging.
Finally, public stations should be provided mainly outside of the freeway system. The results of the survey
provide valuable insights into effective and user-oriented public charging infrastructure, which is critical to
the success of electric vehicles.

1. Introduction
Electric vehicles are crucial to achieving environment goals in the
transportation sector. Huo, Cai, Zhang, Liu, and He (2015) show
that during operation, electric vehicles have the potential to reduce
both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Furthermore,
life-cycle assessments over the entire life span of electric vehicles
(i.e., cradle to grave) find that electric vehicles can reduce green-
house gas emissions compared to internal combustion engine
vehicles (Archsmith, Kendall, & Rapson, 2015; Tagliaferri et al.,
2016). Based on the environmental promise of electric vehicles,
numerous national governments encourage transitioning personal
motorized transportation to electric vehicles (Bundesregierung,
2009; U.S. Department of Energy, 2009).
For example, the German Federal Government set of goal of
having one million electric vehicles on the streets of Germany by
2020 (Bundesregierung, 2009). Electric vehicles are central to Ger-
many’s overarching environmental objective to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and energy use, while increasing renewable energy
production (Bundesregierung, 2009). However, to date only
68,000 electric vehicles are registered in Germany (7% of the 2020
goal) (Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt, 2017). As illustrated by this example,
the ability to fulfill electric vehicle goals is called into question.
One central challenge in transitioning to electric vehicles
remains the lack of adequate public charging infrastructure
(Barisa, Rosa, & Kisele, 2016; Rahman, Vasant, Singh, Abdul-
lah-Al-Wadud, & Adnan, 2016). As charging infrastructure is
essential for the success of electric vehicles, significant research
has been conducted in this area. A major theme in infrastruc-
ture research is planning strategies for charging stations. These
strategies focus on development of methods to determine opti-
mal infrastructure requirements and placement. These methods
include mixed logit models (Sun, Yamamoto, & Morikawa,
2016), multi-objective optimization models (Yi & Bauer, 2016),
bottom-up multi-agent based approaches (Xydas, Marmaras, &
Cipcigan, 2016), demand estimation models (Ji, Nicholas, &
Tal, 2015), and activity-based approaches (Dong, Liu, & Lin,
2014). Other researchers have focused on the technical aspects
of charging infrastructure as the drive for planning strategies
(Funke, Gnann, & Pl€otz, 2015; Gnann, Pl€otz, & Haag, 2013).
These planning strategies have been evaluated for different
scenarios for large-scale infrastructure plans (e.g., state-wide)
(Melaina & Helwig, 2014). While these methodologies provide
useful insights into infrastructure planning, they have an over-
arching limitation: they do not account for the actual users of
charging infrastructure.
Research is starting to provide insights into electric vehicle
users. To date several studies have been conducted regarding
charging behavior and usage patterns of current electric vehicle

CONTACT John E. Anderson John.Anderson@dlr.de Institute of Transport Research, German Aerospace Center, Berlin 10245, Germany.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ujst.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
342 J. E. ANDERSON ET AL.
users (Franke & Krems, 2013a; Morrissey, Weldon, &
O’Mahony, 2016; Nicholas, Tal, & Turrentine, 2017; Weldon,
Morrissey, Brady, & O’Mahony, 2016). Additional studies on
electric vehicle users focus on user habits and attitudes (Barisa
et al., 2016) and user satisfaction with current infrastructure
and their willingness to pay (California Center for Sustainable
Energy, 2012). Further, examining actual electric vehicle users
has been proven useful in gaining new insights into charging
behavior (Franke & Krems, 2013a). While insightful, these
studies focus solely on current charging infrastructure and do
not address the need for additional infrastructure. Thus, rec-
ommendations for the future buildup of public charging infra-
structure are absent.
Consequently, there is little research on real-world electric
vehicle users’ demand for additional public charging infrastruc-
ture. While potential electric vehicle users are critical to achieve
a mass-market, they are problematic in understanding addi-
tional infrastructure needs. First, they have no experience with
electric vehicles and charging. Second, they have numerous
additional barriers in transitioning besides adequate charging
infrastructure, and these barriers should be explored in separate
research. Thus, charging infrastructure preferences of current
electric vehicle users are essential to understand future infra-
structure needs.
In assessing additional infrastructure demands, user prefer-
ence surveys offer a useful methodology to determine preferen-
ces. Hensher, Barnard, and Truong (1988) justified the role of
stated preference methods when surveying travel choices
(Hensheret al., 1988). In the area of new technologies and infra-
structure, user preference surveys offer a proven tool to under-
stand how best to address future developments. For example,
Wardman, Bonsall, and Shires (1997) surveyed the impact of
message signs on drivers’ route choice. Mertens et al. (2016)
determined the most important environmental factors to assess
when improving a street for active modes of transportation.
User preferences have proven useful in studying alternative fuel
vehicles, new technologies, electric vehicle range, and fast-
charging stations (Franke & Krems, 2013b; Greene, Lin, &
Dong, 2013; Philipsen, Schmidt, van Heek, & Ziefle, 2016). Fur-
ther, several research papers have utilized stated preference sur-
veys to gain potential insights into alternative fuel vehicles
(Bahamonde-Birke & Hanappi, 2016; Hackbarth & Madlener,
2013; Hidrue, Parsons, Kempton, & Gardner, 2011; Jabeen,
Olaru, Smith, Braunl, & Speidel, 2013).
Initial findings on user preferences for public charging infra-
structure provide useful first insights, but must be updated for
the fast-changing electric vehicle landscape with new vehicle
models, increased electric range, and faster charging stations
(Nicholas, Tal, & Woodjack, 2013). Thus, new insights regard-
ing public charging infrastructure are needed to ensure the suc-
cess of electric vehicles. Further data is needed regarding where
charging infrastructure should be located, technical specifica-
tions of stations, different charging speeds, and frequency of
use of the infrastructure. This allows for the identification of
individual charging patterns and provides insights into overall
infrastructure strategies.
This paper addresses the challenge of electric vehicle build-
up by focusing on user preferences for public charging infra-
structure. The research is conducted for Germany due to the
substantial, and unmet, target for electric vehicles and the gov-
ernment’s strong desire to transition to electric vehicles. Pres-
ently, there are just over 14,100 charging points in Germany,
which relates to 3.8 electric vehicles per charging point
(European Alternative Fuels Observatory, 2016). Germany is
also ideal as a case study as it represents a country at the cross-
over point between early adopters and a mass-market. To
obtain one million electric vehicles would require 9% of all new
vehicle registrations by 2020 to be electric vehicles.
In the following section we outline the methodology for the
study: overview of the survey design, survey sample, and imple-
mentation of the survey. Then we present the results from the
survey and analyze the data to provide insights into user
preferences for public charging infrastructure. This is followed by
a discussion of the results, and finally by the research conclusions.
2. Methodology
In this section outline the methodology used to determine elec-
tric vehicle user preferences for public charging infrastructure.
We present the survey sample followed by an overview of the
survey design. Then we review the online survey tool and the
different properties available to the respondents for each charg-
ing station.
2.1. Survey sample of electric vehicles users in Germany
Between December 2013 and February 2014 the Institute of
Transport Research at the Germany Aerospace Center con-
tacted over 9,200 registered electric vehicle owners with the
goal of researching their use behavior. The sample group was
registered battery electric vehicle (BEV) and plug-in hybrid
vehicle (PHEV) owners in Germany. Companies, as well as
car-sharing and car rental services, were excluded from the sur-
vey. Of the initial sample, 3,111 private persons took part in an
online survey regarding electric vehicle user behavior (Frenzel,
Jarass, Trommer, & Lenz, 2015).
From this initial survey group, 2,300 persons agreed to be
contacted for future research projects. Between February 9th
and 11th, 2016 these persons were contacted again regarding
the present study on user preferences for public charging infra-
structure. In total, 2,228 email addresses were found to be valid.
Upon emailing the sample group, 71 samples resulted in an
email error message, which were reviewed and contacted again.
A reminder email regarding the survey was sent on February
17th, 2016.
2.2. Survey design, online survey tool, and data collection
In order to collect electric vehicle user preferences for pub-
lic charging infrastructure, we created an online survey tool.
The online tool allows survey respondents to navigate an
online map (Agafonkin, 2015) and place charging stations
at exact longitude and latitude locations. Each user was
given a unique anonymous identity code allowing them
access to the tool. This prevented users from replying mul-
tiple times and prevented the access of unauthorized partic-
ipants. There was no limit on the number of stations
respondents could place. Upon entering a valid code to start
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 343

the survey, users were asked if additional public charging Table 1. Properties available to survey respondents for each placed charging
stations are needed or not, if additional stations are needed station.
users were asked: “Please identify your personal need for Charging power  3.7 kW AC (slow)
public charging infrastructure.”  22 kW AC (semi-fast)
 50 kW DC and higher (fast)
The online survey tool is shown in Figure 1. For each placed Location description  Work
charging station, users had the opportunity to identify specific Personal work location
properties of the charging station. A total of four categories are Other work location
 Education/child care
defined: charging power, location description, accessibility, and Day care/Kindergarten
frequency of use. The charging power levels were selected in Elementary school
accordance to common infrastructure solutions in Germany Other school
University/trade-school
and the functionality of electric vehicles in stock. Location Other educational center
description and frequency of use are specified according to the  Shopping
main German travel surveys (Ahrens, Ließke, Wittwer, & Daily shopping needs
Other shopping needs
Hubrich, 2009; Follmer et al., 2010). The available responses  Chores
for each of the categories are summarized in Table 1. It was Doctor
possible for a respondent to place a station without providing Post office
Bank
any additional information (i.e., “not selected” is a valid Government office
response for each property). Other
 Leisure
Culture
Bar/restaurant
3. Analysis and results Private (e.g., friend’s apartment)
Sport
Now we present the results of the survey for electric vehicle Large event (e.g., rock concert, sporting event)
user preferences for public charging infrastructure. We review Other leisure activity
 Own house/apartment
the initial response data, preprocessing carried out, and the  Stop-to-charge
analysis of the findings. This section focuses on presenting the  Other
results. In the following discussion section, we explore the find- Accessibility  Publically accessible area (e.g., parking garage,
supermarket parking lot, gas station)
ings and insights gained from the results.  Public street
Prior to any data preprocessing 2,665 stations were placed by Frequency of use  (Nearly) daily
survey responders. Of the initial 2,228 contacted persons, a total  1–3 days per week
 1–3 day per month
of 843 persons responded (38% response rate). Of this total, 773  Less frequently
persons placed at least one station (92%) and 70 persons saw no

Figure 1. Example of a neighborhood in Berlin, Germany in the online survey tool for exact locations of charging infrastructure. For each station, users can give the
following properties of the station: charging power, location description, accessibility of station, and frequency of use of station.
344 J. E. ANDERSON ET AL.
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of the total 2,472 public charging stations placed by the survey respondents (blue lines indicate the German freeway system).
need for additional stations (8%). Geographical analysis of the
data revealed several stations located outside of Germany. As the
first data preprocessing step, we remove stations outside of
Germany leaving a total of 2,604 stations from 763 respondents.
Using this data set, the average number of stations placed
per respondent is 3.4 with a standard deviation of 6.3. The
largest number of stations for one user was 122, followed by
45 stations. In order to prevent this large number of stations
from influencing the results, we remove all 122 stations
placed by this user. We justify removing these station as the
respondent did not seem to understand the focus of the
study: identifying personal needs not national coverage.
Removing this respondent reduces the data set to 2,482 sta-
tions from 762 respondents. Finally, 10 stations are from
respondents without an identification code so we remove
these stations. The final data set has 761 respondents and
2,472 stations. Next, we review the overarching results for all
stations (aggregates results) followed by the individual results
based on user groups (group results).
3.1. Aggregate results: Analysis of public charging station
characteristics
The 2,472 public charging stations from the survey are plotted
in Figure 2 to show their distribution within Germany.
In order to better understand the geographical implications
of the selected charging stations, we identify the regional
structure (i.e., urban, suburban, rural) for each station using
the stations’ geographical location and information from the
Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBSR,
2012). The distribution of the charging stations per regional
structure is presented in Figure 3. Of the total stations, 28%
(680) are located in urban areas, 42% (1,026) in suburban areas,
and 31% (766) in rural areas.
We next analyze the data per charging power preferences of
electric vehicle users in Germany. For charging power, the
respondents select “3.7 kW AC” with 22%, “22 kW AC” with
50%, “50 kW DC and above” with 22%, and “Not selected”
with 5% (Figure 4).
Survey respondents’ preferences by location are presented in
Figure 5. The results are “Work” with 16%, “Education/day
care” with 1%, “Own house/apartment” with 3%, “Shopping”
with 18%, “Chores” with 5%, “Leisure” with 18%, “Other” with
6%, “Stop-to-charge” with 29%, and “Not selected” with 5%.
The station results based on accessibility are 47% (1,171 sta-
tions) for “Publically accessible,” 47% (1,164 stations) for “Pub-
lic street,” and 6% (137 stations) for “Not selected.” These
results are not presented graphically. Finally, station distribu-
tion per frequency of use is illustrated in Figure 6. Here
“(nearly) daily” has 18%, “1–3 days per week” has 24%,
“1–3 days per month” has 33%, “Less frequently” has 20%, and
“Not selected” has 5%.
Analysis of stations based on multiple-characteristics is also
of interest. Figure 7 illustrates stations per regional structure

Figure 3. Results of selected stations per regional structure.
Figure 4. Results of selected stations per charging power.
and charging power, Figure 8 presents stations per location and
charging power, and Figure 9 shows stations per frequency of
use and charging power.
Finally, the top 10 most common stations based on the char-
acteristics location, power, and frequency of use are shown in
Figure 10. The top four choices were all “Stop-to-charge” with
either 22 kW AC or 50 kW DC.
3.2. Stations and the freeway system
We now analyze the results in relations to their proximity to the
Germany freeway (i.e., Autobahn). All public charging stations
are identified as either lying along the freeway system (i.e., using a
buffer of 250 m from the freeway) or as being outside the freeway
system (i.e., all other stations outside the buffer).
Figure 5. Results of selected stations per location.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 345
Figure 6. Results of selected stations per frequency of use.
Of the 2,472 public charging stations, 473 (19%) are along
the freeway and 1,999 (81%) are outside the freeway. For the
stations outside the freeways the results show 26% with
“3.7 kW AC,” 52% with “22 kW AC,” 16% with “50 kW DC,”
and 6% with “Not selected.” Groups along the freeway are as
follows: 6% with “3.7 kW AC,” 42% with “22 kW AC,” 49%
with “50 kW DC,” and 3% with “Not selected.” These results
are shown in Figure 11. The survey results along the freeway
are shown geographically in Figure 12; results outside the free-
way system are shown in Figure 13. These maps show many
stations along the freeway system located in urban areas. The
uncertain influence of near freeway versus urban environment
seems to further reduce the significance of stations along the
freeway system.
Figure 7. Results of selected stations per regional structure and charging power.
346 J. E. ANDERSON ET AL.
Figure 8. Results of selected stations per location and charging power.
Figure 9. Results of selected stations per frequency of use and charging power.
3.3. Group results: Analysis of individual user
perspectives on public charging infrastructure
Now we review the results based on individual user perspec-
tive, overall and per groups. As stated previously, the
response rate of the survey was 38%, with 92% of respond-
ents indicating the need for at least one additional charging
station. From the post-processed data set, the mean number
of stations per user is 3.2 stations and the median number of
stations per user is 2. The standard deviation for stations per
user is 4.6 and the maximum number of stations for one
user is 45. The number of stations desired by users for the
Figure 10. Summary of the top 10 most common stations per location, power, and
frequency of use: 1: Stop-to-charge, 22 kW AC, 1–3 days per month 2: Stop-to-
charge, 50 kW DC, less frequently 3: Stop-to-charge, 50 kW DC, 1–3 days per
month 4: Stop-to-charge, 22 kW AC, less frequently 5: Shopping, 22 kW AC, 1–
3 days per week 6: Work, 22 kW AC, (nearly) daily 7: Shopping, 22 kW AC, 1–3 days
per month 8: Leisure, 22 kW AC, 1–3 days per month 9: Work, 3.7 kW AC, (nearly)
daily 10: Leisure, 22 kW AC, less frequently.
Figure 11. Charging stations per charging power and location outside freeways/
freeways.
70th, 80th, 90th, and 95th percentiles are 3, 4, 7, and 10 sta-
tions, respectively.
To understand the importance of fast charging (i.e., “50 kW
DC and higher”) the histogram of the responses for fast charg-
ing stations is presented in Figure 14. Of the 761 survey
respondents, 80% of the respondents did not select a single fast
charging station. The maximum number of fast charging sta-
tions per respondent is 40, the minimum 0, the mean 0.72, and
the standard deviation 2.84. These results show that users over-
whelmingly want slow and semi-fast public charging stations.
Only 10% of respondents see the need for one fast charging sta-
tion. Thus we see a strong signal away from fast charging sta-
tions in public infrastructure.
Next we analyze the survey results to determine if over-
arching electric vehicle user groups can be identified based
on their station selections. The first grouping of respondents
is based on the regional structure of their charging stations.
We identify users based on the location of the majority (i.e.,
over 50%) of all their selected stations. There are four groups
identified. The first group is “urban-majority,” which has a
majority of their selected stations (i.e. over 50% of all sta-
tions per person) in urban areas. The second group, “subur-
ban-majority,” has a majority of their stations in suburban
areas. The third group, “rural-majority,” has a majority of
their stations in rural areas. The fourth and final group, “no-
majority,” does not have a majority of their stations in
urban, suburban, or rural areas. The resulting number of
respondents per group is as follows: 27% (208 persons)
“urban-majority,” 39% (299 persons) “suburban-majority,”
26% (195 persons) “rural-majority,” and 8% (59 persons)
“no-majority.” This result indicates a roughly even spread of
stations between the three regional groups. Due to privacy
limitations, we do not have users’ home or work locations
and thus cannot correlate these locations to station locations.
Thus, it is possible that this distribution simply reflects the
users’ home locations. The take away, however, is that addi-
tional public charging stations across all three regional types
are seen as necessary.
For the second analysis of user groups, we examine the loca-
tion description variable (Table 1). The location description
describes the activity that the respondent would carry out in
conjunction with the charging station identified (e.g., working
(“work”) or taking care of chores (“daily shopping needs”)).
However, there is also the option for “stop-to-charge,” which is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 347

Figure 12. Results showing public charging stations placed along the freeway (473 in total) differentiated by charging power.

Figure 13. Results showing public charging stations outside the freeway system (1,999 in total) differentiated by charging power.
348 J. E. ANDERSON ET AL.
Figure 14. Partial histogram of the 761 respondents selecting a station with a
charge power of “50 kW DC and higher.”
similar to typical refueling for an internal combustion engine
vehicle. Here no other activities, aside from refueling, are per-
formed. We can therefore analyze the location description to
determine what type of charging stations are actually sought.
The two main user groups are those desiring stations to be
used during another activity (“all except stop-to-charge”) and
those desiring stations to be used solely for refueling and no
other activity is completed during this time (“stop-to-charge”).
Finally, users could also choose the location description
“other.” This variable is unclear whether other activities would
be completed during the charging event or not. This is included
as the third possible user group. Again, the groups are defined
by a majority of their stations (i.e., over 50%) in one of the three
groups: “all except stop-to-charge,” “stop-to-charge,” and
“other.” Figure 15 shows the results for the location description
analysis. The group “all except stop-to-charge” has 77% (587
persons) followed by “stop-to-charge” with 19% (145 persons)
and finally “other” with 4% (29 persons).
For the third analysis of user groups, we examine where user
groups want stations in relation to freeways. Similar to the
other group analyses, we define the groups based on where a
majority of their stations are located. The three groups are as
follows: the “non-freeway” group has a majority of their sta-
tions outside the freeway network, the “freeway” group has a
majority of their stations along the freeway network, and finally
the “other” group does not satisfy either of the previous two
groups. The results are presented in Figure 16. The group
“non-freeway” has 85% (650 persons), the group “freeway” has
12% (93 persons), and the remaining group “other” has 2% (18
Figure 15. Users grouped by charging type preference.
Figure 16. Users grouped by charging location preference non-freeway, freeway,
and other.
persons). The results clearly show that users want public charg-
ing infrastructure outside the freeway system.
3.4. Grouping users by multiple variables
The next grouping of electrical vehicle users is per user prefer-
ences for regional structure and charging power. The grouping
of the respondents is done as follows. First, all respondents
with a majority of one station type (i.e., charging power and
region) are assigned this station type for their group. Next,
some respondents have 50% of one station type and less than
50% for all other station types. These users are assigned the
50% station type as their group.
Some respondents have two station types, each making up
50% of their total preferences. These respondents are assigned
to the group “two station types.” Next, respondents with no
majority of station types (i.e., less than 50%) are assigned the
station type “no majority” of stations. Finally, the respondents
with a majority of station types selected without power infor-
mation are given the “no power selected” station type.
The results are shown in Figure 17. The groups are as fol-
lows: “urban/suburban –slow” (17%), “urban/suburban –semi-
fast/fast” (33%), “rural –slow” (6%), “rural –semi-fast/fast”
(12%), “freeway –slow” (1%), “freeway –semi-fast/fast” (11%),
“power not selected” (7%), “2 station types” (7%), and “no
majority” (5%).
Figure 17. Users grouped by regional structure and charging power. All locations
are non-freeway unless otherwise indicated by freeway. Two station types indicate
that two station types are equally preferred. No majority indicates that no single
station type is preferred at least 50% by the users.

The next grouping looks at the groups based on charging
power and frequency of use. The interest here lies in slow-fre-
quent versus fast-infrequent charging preferences by electric
vehicle users. The groups are formed using the same method
described above for the regional structure and charging power
grouping. The results are shown in Figure 18. The groups
are “3.7 kW –infrequent” (10%), “3.7 kW –frequent” (14%),
“22 kW –infrequent” (18%), “22 kW –frequent” (25%), “50 kW
–infrequent” (8%), “50 kW –frequent” (6%), “power not
selected” (10%), “2 station types” (7%), and “no majority” (2%).
4. Discussion
The survey results on real-world user preferences for public
charging infrastructure provide numerous new and useful
insights. The research is of particular relevance as countries
remain far from their stated goals for electric vehicles due in
part to insufficient public charging infrastructure. The results
are also useful to ensure that countries are able to transition
from early adopters to a mass-market. In this section, we out-
line the major theses for charging infrastructure preferences
and charging infrastructure planning strategies.
Overall, the results illustrate a need for more public charging
infrastructure, although it is not much per person. We find that
92% of respondents see a need for additional infrastructure.
However, there is low individual demand: single respondents
specify very few additional stations. On average an additional
3.2 stations are selected by each respondent (standard deviation
of 4.6 stations). Eighty percent of the respondents would be sat-
isfied with 4 additional stations. Thus, more public charging
stations are needed, but not that many per person.
4.1. Charging infrastructure preferences
For charging infrastructure preferences, the first finding is that
the majority of stations should at least be semi-fast, but do not
necessarily need to be fast. There is a clear preference for sta-
tions with semi-fast charging power (22 kW AC) followed by
an almost equal number of slow (3.7 kW AC) and fast (50 kW
DC) stations (Figure 4). In addition, regardless of regional
structure, semi-fast stations are always preferred by respond-
ents (Figure 7), and seven of the ten most popular station types
are semi-fast (Figure 10).
Figure 18. Users grouped by charging power and frequency of use (Freq. – fre-
quent, Infreq. – Infrequent) (Infrequent – “1–3days per month” and “less fre-
quently;” frequent – “daily” and “1–3 days per week”).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 349
Second, slow charging is acceptable for frequently used
charging stations, whereas fast charging is required for stations
used infrequently. As shown in Figure 9, users want more fast
charging for infrequently used stations. This is also seen when
grouping users based on charging power and frequency
(Figure 18). Therefore, the charging speed of the infrastructure
should be directly tied to the frequency of use.
Third, slow charging is acceptable at locations where electric
vehicles are parked over a longer period of time, whereas fast
charging is required for short stops. In particular, electric
vehicles parked at work (a location with long time periods
available to charge) have the highest percentage of slow charg-
ing stations (Figure 8). Figure 8 also shows that semi-fast and
fast chargers are preferred for “stop-to-charge” events. This
finding is also verified in Figure 10 where the only slow charg-
ing station among the top 10 stations is at work. All other sta-
tions are semi-fast or fast charging stations.
4.2. Charging infrastructure strategies
The first strategy for public charging infrastructure is to pro-
vide a mix of all station characteristics. This mixture of charac-
teristics includes regional structure, charging power, location,
accessibility, and frequency of use. First, stations should be pro-
vided in all regional structures. We find that the placed stations
are fairly equally distributed between regional structures (i.e.,
urban, suburban, and rural) (Figure 3). Next, public infrastruc-
ture must be offered at various charging power levels and at
numerous locations. While semi-fast has the most stations,
slow and fast stations are also desired by users (Figure 4).
Regarding downward compatibility of charging power and the
possibility of integrating multifunctional chargers, it should be
up to potential operators to exceed minimal requirements indi-
cated in the survey. The same applies for multi-level chargers.
In addition, users want stations not just at stop-to-charge
locations, but also stations at work, shopping, and leisure
(Figure 5). Next, stations must simply be accessible from the
users’ point-of-view. Thus both types of accessibility are accept-
able, and therefore both the private sector (e.g., stores) and the
public sector (e.g., public street administrators) should be
involved in infrastructure planning. Also, public charging infra-
structure must allow for multiple frequencies of use. As illus-
trated in Figure 6, numerous frequencies of use are desired by
respondents: some infrastructure regularly and some only occa-
sionally as a backup. These results also show that users do not
expect public stations to meet their daily charging needs.
Rather they want to have the additional charging infrastructure
as a backup (i.e., 1–3 days per month). This is supported by
Figure 10, which shows that accounting for all attributes of the
stations only two of the top ten station preferences are for daily
charging.
The second infrastructure strategy is to provide public infra-
structure where people already park plus an additional backup
fast network. We find that infrastructure should be provided at
common locations (i.e., work, shopping, leisure) to ensure users
can maintain their current travel patterns (Figure 5). This infra-
structure network should then be supplemented by backup sta-
tions for emergency charging (i.e., stop-to-charge) (Figure 5).
This strategy avoids creating charging infrastructure similar to
350 J. E. ANDERSON ET AL.
the classical gas station model. We see that users overwhelming
want infrastructure that is not stop-to-charge (Figure 15), but
rather distributed across numerous other locations (Figure 5).
Thus building up electric vehicle charging infrastructure similar
to gas station infrastructure is not recommended. However,
some stop-to-charge infrastructure will be needed to supple-
ment the other stations (Figure 10). In addition, Figure 11
shows that an overwhelming number of users only want slow
and semi-fast public charging stations. This is further sup-
ported in Figure 15, which shows that users desire charging
during other activities rather than just stopping to charge. Thus
the infrastructure model of gasoline stations is not desired for
this new infrastructure. While it is well known that users prefer
private charging while doing other activities (e.g., sleeping),
this is also the case for public charging. This new and interest-
ing finding offers unique insights into public charging infra-
structure planning.
For the region-power group analysis, we find that the
group urban/suburban–semi-fast/fast is the dominate group
(Figure 17). This is followed by the urban/suburban–slow
group. This may be due to the concentration of home or
work locations for respondents in these areas. However, as
this data was not available due to privacy concerns, this can-
not be confirmed. The charging power-frequency group anal-
ysis shows that slower stations are anticipated to be used
more frequently (Figure 18). In addition, we see a lower fre-
quency of use for fast charging stations (Figures 9 and 18).
However, very few individuals are satisfied only with this
fast network (i.e., stop-to-charge) (Figure 15). Thus, we
anticipate an initial low utilization rate for these fast charg-
ing stations, which may require short-term subsides to
enable profitability over the long-term.
The third and final infrastructure strategy is that public
charging stations should be mainly provided outside of the free-
way system with a small backup infrastructure on freeways.
From the results, we see that most stations are needed outside
of freeways and (Figure 11). As expected, the results show that
outside of freeways there is a preference for slow infrastructure
and on freeways there is a preference for fast infrastructure.
4.3. Limitations and future research
The limitations of this research and the results must also be
considered. First, the survey respondents were identified as
early adopters for electric vehicles and thus have unique
characteristics that do not mirror the larger society (i.e., high
income, highly educated, open to new technologies, environ-
mentally aware) (Frenzel et al., 2015). On one hand, this
group has already adopted to the system of electric mobility
despite lacking public charging infrastructure. On the other
hand, this is the only experienced group to question about
realistic user needs. In transitioning from a niche to a mass-
market for electric vehicles, understanding the preferences
and barriers of potential adopters is also critical. Future
research should examine the barriers of potential users in
detail. However, as the electric vehicle market is not yet a
mass-market, early adopters remain the only available users
to question at this time.
In addition, this research survey did not include cost infor-
mation. This was done due to the absence of adequate cost data
for public charging infrastructure. Further, available cost data
do not reflect actual supply costs as the market is in the start-
up phase and subsidized. This might lead to some over-prefer-
ence for faster chargers. However, based on the results and the
fact that the respondents are experienced electric vehicle users,
the bias is taken to be insignificant.
It should be noted that respondents may identify more
infrastructure (on a station per vehicle basis) as than is actually
required. This initial ratio may provide an initial oversupply
for the small market share of electric vehicles, which would be
reduced upon achieving a mass-market.
Conclusion
Electric vehicles are critical to achieving environmental goals
ranging from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to ensuring
the expansion of renewable energy use. However, despite
aggressive government goals for electric vehicles around the
world, up-take of this new technology is significantly lagging. A
major challenge for electric vehicles remains the need for ade-
quate public charging infrastructure. In order to address this
challenge, this paper surveyed 843 electric vehicle users in Ger-
many in order to identify user preferences for public charging
infrastructure.
From the results, we identify a need for more public charg-
ing infrastructure. In addition, we find three critical overarch-
ing user preferences and three central infrastructure strategies.
First, there is a preference for semi-fast charging stations. Sec-
ond, we find that slow charging is acceptable for frequently
used stations, whereas fast charging is desired for infrequently
used stations. Third, slow charging is acceptable for locations
where vehicles are parked over a longer period of time. For
public charging infrastructure strategies, we find that providing
a mix of all station characteristics is critical. Next, there should
be public charging infrastructure where people already park
plus an additional backup fast network for infrequent charging.
Based on this, we recommend avoiding a charging infrastruc-
ture model similar to the distribution of traditional gasoline
stations. Finally, public charging stations should be mainly pro-
vided outside of the freeway system with a small backup infra-
structure supply on freeways.
This timely survey on real-world user preferences for public
charging infrastructure highlights critical insights in planning
user-oriented infrastructure. These findings lay the framework
for the successful adaption of electric vehicles, and in turn also
for achieving the associated environmental objectives.
Funding
This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic
Affairs and Energy under the project LADEN2020: Concept to build up a
demand-oriented charging infrastructure in Germany between today and
2020 (Grant number: 01MX15001) and CCS: Combined charging system:
Development and demonstration of fast charging stations (Grant number:
16SBB017H).

ORCID
John E. Anderson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7615-7926
References
Agafonkin, V. (2015). Leaflet/Open street map: Open source java script
library. Retrieved from http://leafletjs.com/, (accessed 13 September
2017)
Ahrens, G.-A., Ließke, F., Wittwer, R., & Hubrich, S. (2009). Endbericht zur
Verkehrserhebung ‘Mobilit€at in St€adten – SrV 2008’ und Auswertungen
zum SrV-St€adtepegel. Lehrstuhl Verkehrs-und Infrastrukturplanung:TU
Dresden, pp. 157; Retrieved from http://daten.clearingstelle-verkehr.de/
224/1/Staedtepegel_SrV2008.pdf; Date accessed: 13 September 2017.
Archsmith, J., Kendall, A., & Rapson, D. (2015). From cradle to junkyard:
Assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas benefits of electric vehicles.
Research in Transportation Economics, 52, 72–90. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.007
Bahamonde-Birke, F. J., & Hanappi, T. (2016). The potential of electromo-
bility in Austria: Evidence from hybrid choice models under the pres-
ence of unreported information. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 83, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.11.002
Barisa, A., Rosa, M., & Kisele, A. (2016). Introducing electric mobility in
Latvian municipalities: Results of a survey. Energy Procedia, 95, 50–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.015
BBSR, (Bundesinstitut f€ ur Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung). (2012). Rau-
mordnungsbericht 2011 (pp. 249). Bonn, Germany. Retrieved from
http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/Sonderveroef
fentlichungen/2012/rob-2011.html?nn=412542. (accessed 13 Septem-
ber 2017).
Bundesregierung. (2009). Nationaler Entwicklungsplan Elektromobilit€ at
der Bundesregierung. Retrieved from http://erneuerbar-mobil.de/sites/
default/files/2016-08/nep_09_bmu_bf.pdf
California Center for Sustainable Energy. (2012). California plug-in electric
vehicle owner survey. Retrieved from https://energycenter.org/sites/
default/files/docs/nav/policy/research-and-reports/California%20Plug-
in%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Owner%20Survey%20Report-July%
202012.pdf
Dong, J., Liu, C., & Lin, Z. (2014). Charging infrastructure planning
for promoting battery electric vehicles: An activity-based
approach using multiday travel data. Transportation Research
Part C: Emerging Technologies, 38, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.trc.2013.11.001
European Alternative Fuels Observatory. (2016). Electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. Retrieved from http://www.eafo.eu/electric-vehicle-
charging-infrastructure
Follmer, R., Gruschwitz, D., Jesske, B., Quandt, S., Lenz, B., Nobis, C., &
Mehlin, M. (2010). Mobilit€at in deutschland 2008 – Ergebnisbericht
(pp. 214). Bonn und Berlin: Bundesministeriums f€ ur Verkehr, Bau und
Stadtentwicklung.
Franke, T., & Krems, J. F. (2013a). Understanding charging behaviour of
electric vehicle users. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychol-
ogy and Behaviour, 21, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.09.002
Franke, T., & Krems, J. F. (2013b). What drives range preferences in elec-
tric vehicle users? Transport Policy, 30, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tranpol.2013.07.005
Frenzel, I., Jarass, J., Trommer, S., & Lenz, B. (2015). Erstnutzer von Elek-
trofahrzeugen in Deutschland: Nutzerprofile, anschaffung, fahrzeug-
nutzung. Deutsches Zentrum f€ ur Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V., pp. 69.
 Gnann, T., & Pl€
Funke, S. A., otz, P. (2015). Addressing the different needs
for charging infrastructure: An analysis of some criteria for charging
infrastructure set-up. In W. L. Filho & R. Kotter (Eds.), E-mobility in
Europe (pp. 73–90). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
Gnann, T., Pl€otz, P., & Haag, M. (2013). What is the future of public charg-
ing infrastructure for electric vehicles? – A techno-economic assess-
ment of public charging points for Germany. Paper presented at the
ECEEE SUMMER STUDY proceedings.
Greene, D. L., Lin, Z., & Dong, J. (2013). Analyzing the sensitivity of
hydrogen vehicle sales to consumers’ preferences. International Journal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 351
of Hydrogen Energy, 38(36), 15857–15867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2013.08.099
Hackbarth, A., & Madlener, R. (2013). Consumer preferences for alternative fuel
vehicles: A discrete choice analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Trans-
port and Environment, 25, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.002
Hensher, D. A., Barnard, P. O., & Truong, P. T. (1988). The role of stated
preference methods in studies of travel choice. Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy, 22(1), 45–58.
Hidrue, M. K., Parsons, G. R., Kempton, W., & Gardner, M. P. (2011).
Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resource
and Energy Economics, 33(3), 686–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
reseneeco.2011.02.002
Huo, H., Cai, H., Zhang, Q., Liu, F., & He, K. (2015). Life-cycle assessment
of greenhouse gas and air emissions of electric vehicles: A comparison
between China and the U.S. Atmospheric Environment, 108, 107–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.02.073
Jabeen, F., Olaru, D., Smith, B., Braunl, T., & Speidel, S. (2013). Electric
vehicle battery charging behaviour: findings from a driver survey. Paper
presented at the 36th Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF),
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ji, W., Nicholas, M., & Tal, G. (2015). Electric vehicle fast charger planning
for metropolitan planning organizations: Adapting to changing mar-
kets and vehicle technology. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, (2502), 134–143. https://doi.org/
10.3141/2502-16.
Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt. (2017). Neuzulassungsbarometer im February 2017.
Retrieved from http://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Fahrzeuge/Neuzulassun
gen/MonatlicheNeuzulassungen/monatl_neuzulassungen_node.html
Melaina, M., & Helwig, M. (2014). California statewide plug-in electric
vehicle infrastructure assessment. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy15osti/60729.pdf
Mertens, L., Van Dyck, D., Ghekiere, A., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Deforche,
B., Van de Weghe, N., & Van Cauwenberg, J. (2016). Which environ-
mental factors most strongly influence a street’s appeal for bicycle
transport among adults? A conjoint study using manipulated photo-
graphs. International Journal of Health Geographics, 15(1), 31. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12942-016-0058-4
Morrissey, P., Weldon, P., & O’Mahony, M. (2016). Future standard and
fast charging infrastructure planning: An analysis of electric vehicle
charging behaviour. Energy Policy, 89, 257–270. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.001
Nicholas, M., Tal, G., & Turrentine, T. (2017). Advanced plug-in electric
vehicle travel and charging behavior interim report research report –
UCD-ITS-RR-16-10 (pp. 38). Davis, California: Institute of Transporta-
tion Studies, UC Davis.
Nicholas, M., Tal, G., & Woodjack, J. (2013). California statewide charging
survey: What do drivers want? Paper presented at the TRB 92nd
Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Philipsen, R., Schmidt, T., van Heek, J., & Ziefle, M. (2016). Fast-charging
station here, please! User criteria for electric vehicle fast-charging loca-
tions. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behav-
iour, 40, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.04.013
Rahman, I., Vasant, P. M., Singh, B., Singh, M., Abdullah-Al-Wadud, M.,
& Adnan, N. (2016). Review of recent trends in optimization techni-
ques for plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle charging infrastructures.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 1039–1047. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.353
Sun, X.-H., Yamamoto, T., & Morikawa, T. (2016). Fast-charging station
choice behavior among battery electric vehicle users. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 46, 26–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.008
Tagliaferri, C., Evangelisti, S., Acconcia, F., Domenech, T., Ekins, P., Bar-
letta, D., & Lettieri, P. (2016). Life cycle assessment of future electric
and hybrid vehicles: A cradle-to-grave systems engineering approach.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 112, 298–309. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.07.003
U.S. Department of Energy. (2009). Recovery act announcement: President
Obama announces $2.4 Billion for electric vehicles [Press release].
Retrieved from http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/
news_id D 19814
352 J. E. ANDERSON ET AL.
Wardman, M., Bonsall, P. W., & Shires, J. D. (1997). Driver response to
variable message signs: A stated preference investigation. Transporta-
tion Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 5(6), 389–405. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0968-090X(98)00004-7
Weldon, P., Morrissey, P., Brady, J., & O’Mahony, M. (2016). An investiga-
tion into usage patterns of electric vehicles in Ireland. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 43, 207–225. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.013
Xydas, E., Marmaras, C., & Cipcigan, L. M. (2016). A multi-agent
based scheduling algorithm for adaptive electric vehicles charging.
Applied Energy, 177, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.05.034
Yi, Z., & Bauer, P. H. (2016). Optimization models for placement of an
energy-aware electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 91, 227–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.04.013