Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure distribution primarily relies on early adopter data, overlooking challenges faced by later adopters, such as renters and multi-unit dwelling (MUD) residents, who may have different charging needs. These groups often face limited charging access, leading to a discrepancy between their desired and actual charging behaviours. We introduce the concept of charging dissonance to describe this discrepancy, drawing from the cognitive dissonance theory. This study (1) explores how charging dissonance manifests among renters and MUD residents, (2) examines user responses to this dissonance, and (3) evaluates the effectiveness and impacts of these responses through seven focus groups with current EV owners, prospective EV owners, and non-EV intenders in Greater Melbourne (Australia). Our analysis reveals that, first, charging dissonance often occurs when users cannot charge at home and must deliberately incorporate charging into their schedules. Second, users develop various responses to charging dissonance, including relying on less-preferred non-residential charging options, adopting workarounds like kerbside charging, and adjusting their activity-travel patterns to accommodate charging needs. Third, while some users alleviate dissonance through multitasking, others experience persistent dissonance due to schedule inflexibility. Users also rationalise charging difficulties by demonstrating willingness to adapt their behaviours for overall EV ownership benefits. Furthermore, in some cases, charging dissonance leads to undesired consequences like forgone trips, potentially triggering other travel-related dissonances. These insights underscore the need to streamline charging accessibility at rentals and MUDs and to provide non-residential charging alternatives that minimally disrupt user lifestyles to effectively support underserved groups in the EV transition.
Malabanan et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: