Decision-making analysis identifies key causal design dimensions for sustainable EV charging hubs, highlighting infrastructure and urban integration as crucial for operational resilience.
The adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) as an eco-friendly mode of transportation is accelerating worldwide. However, several technological and urban planning challenges remain to be overcome. These primary challenges are reflected in urban spatial constraints, grid capacity and energy demand, user experience and perception, and ecological and material sustainability. This study investigated the strategic prioritization of design dimensions for electric vehicle (EV) charging hubs through a multidimensional analytical framework to address these gaps. Accordingly, thirty-five sub-dimensions across five main dimensions, namely urban, architectural, infrastructure, environmental, and physiological, were derived from an extensive review of the literature and global experience. The dimensions/sub-dimensions were assessed using the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) methodology to identify the causes, effects, and priority groups. The results indicated that infrastructure (P2) was the most significant causal dimension, and urban (P1) was the most prioritized dimension. Additionally, adaptive multi-function zones (U8), the ability to discharge power to the grid (Inf4), prefabricated modular systems (Ar8), renewable energy integration (En7), and the intuitive interaction with technology (Ph5) were the most significant causal sub-dimensions. The findings illustrate that these factors represent the strategic nodes that maximize operational resilience for EV charging hubs. Additionally, the study proposed a conceptual architectural model based on the integrated design guidelines matrix derived from the experts' evaluation and DEMATEL analysis. This prototype demonstrated how theoretical causal relationships translate into physical spatial configurations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Selim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: