Content uploaded by Dimitris Potoglou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dimitris Potoglou on Jun 05, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
Available online 31 May 2023
1364-0321/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Can the equitable roll out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure
be achieved?
Emma Hopkins
a
,
*
, Dimitris Potoglou
a
,
**
, Scott Orford
a
, Liana Cipcigan
b
a
School of Geography and Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3WA, UK
b
School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Social equity”
“Social inequity”
“Electric vehicle”
“Electric vehicle charging infrastructure”
“Equitable”
“Charging infrastructure placement”
“Transport justice”
ABSTRACT
Equitable and sufcient charging infrastructure is required for transport decarbonization to reach its goals.
Despite increased electric vehicle infrastructure roll out rates, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the
charging market. For example, studies have evidenced disparities in electric vehicle charging placement, how-
ever, predictable as the market caters for early adopters. While there is an emerging discourse surrounding social
equity in charging infrastructure, this is scattered across interdisciplinary research covering broader aspects of
electric vehicle infrastructure provision with a lack of studies consolidating issues. This study aims to synthesize
evidence on social equity in various aspects of electric vehicle charging infrastructure provision and set an
agenda for centering social equity in the debate. Findings of this critical synthesis of research have helped to
draw out the complexities involved in the equitable roll out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, which are
interlinked with an array of other dimensions including the affordability of electric vehicle purchase. Research
into solutions and best practice has shown examples of local target setting, monetary incentives (grants, loans
and rebates for electric vehicle purchase and charging infrastructure and smart energy tariffs) and other policy
incentives (increased public overnight charging, electric car-clubs, extended battery warranties for second-hand
vehicles) that can or have been employed to redress the balance. The outcomes could be utilized when devel-
oping and implementing electric vehicle strategies to support uptake across all people. Policy implications and
further study suggested could ensure that communities and individuals are not locked out of the benets of
investment.
1. Introduction
Several initiatives to decarbonize the road-transport system are
focusing on policy strategies, the transformation of the energy system
and the deployment of charging infrastructure to further promote the
adoption of the electric vehicle (EV)
1
[1]. For example, in the UK, the
Government’s 2035 Delivery Plan [2] documents a commitment to stop
the sales of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030 and requires
that all new cars and vans be 100% zero emissions at the tailpipe by
2035 [2,3]. In the meantime, the UK Government expects to have
approximately 300,000 public chargers ‘as a minimum by 2030’ [4].
Alongside policy, the development and adoption of EV technology is
moving at an exciting pace. Globally, there were over 450 electric car
models available in 2021, an increase of more than 15% compared to
2020 and more than twice the number of models available in 2018 [5].
This trend has been accompanied by year-on-year increasing sales and
market share of EVs worldwide [5]. EVs are generally becoming
attractive to consumers as prices are becoming comparable to conven-
tional cars relative to previous years. For example, between 2020 and
2021, the sales-weighted average price-per-range ratio for battery
electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) fell
by 10% and 14%, respectively [5]. These trends have also been facili-
tated by a suite of tax benets and subsidies, ambitions and regulations,
especially across the top-11 countries in terms of EV market share,
namely Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, UK, Germany, France, China,
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hopkinsec@cardiff.ac.uk (E. Hopkins), potogloud@cardiff.ac.uk (D. Potoglou).
1
In this study electric vehicle (EV) is used to cover battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). BEVs exclusively use rechargeable
battery packs, with no secondary source of propulsion. PHEVs have a petrol engine combined with an electric motor and a battery. Internal Combustion Engine
Vehicle (ICE) is used to describe a vehicle with an engine which generates motive power by the burning of petrol, diesel, or other fuel.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113398
Received 4 July 2022; Received in revised form 23 April 2023; Accepted 22 May 2023
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
2
Japan, Korea, Canada and US [6]. An effective transition and wider
adoption of EVs is very much dependent on drivers’ access to public and
home-charging infrastructure. Globally in 2021, publicly accessible
chargers increased by 37%, however, this was lower than the growth
rate reported in 2020 (45%) and pre-pandemic roll out rates [5]. Despite
these signicant increase rates, there is still considerable uncertainty
regarding the EV charging market. For example, across the 100 most
populous US metropolitan areas, over four times the charge points these
markets had at the end of 2017 will be needed by 2025, amounting to
over 195,000 non-residential EV charging points [7]. In the European
Union (EU), Member States’ infrastructure planning “lacks, on average,
the level of ambition and coherence needed, leading to insufcient,
unevenly distributed infrastructure; ” [8]. The 2022 Global EV Outlook
attributed slower market uptake in emerging markets and developing
economies to the lack of widely accessible charging infrastructure and
weaker regulatory ‘push’ [5,9].
The reduction in dependency on fossil fuels imports, as well as
improved air quality, are seen as the benets of EVs; during the COVID
pandemic, this positively led to greater interest and acceptance of EVs
[10]. EVs were less affected by the COVID crisis than conventional car
sales in Europe, but only due to purchase incentives and regulatory in-
struments increasing the number of EV models, and the reduction of
global battery costs [10,11]. Hu et al. [12] identied increased charging
infrastructure investment as a necessary component mechanism for
China to recover the rate of EV sales to pre-pandemic sale rates sooner.
The importance of transitioning to low-carbon technologies has been
heightened by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, highlighting the
energy mix and dependence on imported fossil fuels in the EU [13]. The
sanctioning of Russia has stimulated oil production in other countries.
There is an urgent need therefore to accelerate the transition by incen-
tivizing the switching of fuels, including by subsidizing the purchase of
EV and EV charging station infrastructure [14]. Accelerated EV market
penetration will enhance emission savings and will enable a smoother
technology uptake in advance of meeting global 2050 emissions targets
[15,16] and support the delivery of United Nations Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDG) [17] and national ambitions. Sufcient and equi-
table public charging infrastructure is required for transport
decarbonization to reach its goals [18]. The market will prioritize
commercial interests rather than social equity and organic growth may
not keep pace with vehicle purchases. This in turn will not provide the
consumer or market condence needed to increase further uptake and
stimulate investment [19]. Well-designed, binding targets for EV
charging infrastructure could reect positively on government
commitment, ensure social equity where public EV charging infra-
structure utilization is lower/less investable, and provide long-term
signals and direction for public-private investment in EV infrastructure
and the upgrade of local electricity networks [19].
Equity analysis is frequently used in transportation-related studies to
examine fairness in accessibility [20]. Spatial and temporal accessibility
measures exist for access to a variety of infrastructure such as healthcare
and parks and by transport modes including public transport and active
travel, which can be used as targets at a local level [21,22]. In the
context of ‘decarbonization through electrication’ of road transport,
inequity is observed in two directions: (a) EV ownership/uptake and (b)
in the provision of EV charging infrastructure. EV owners and those with
the intention to adopt EVs have been consistently reported to have
higher income [23], higher education qualications, and live in
single-family homes they own [24]. Lower income households and those
from lower socioeconomic groups would be late adopters of EVs [25].
The majority of EV scal incentives are unlikely to make any difference
in supporting those on lower incomes [20]. In the meantime, many
countries are starting or planning to end purchase incentives and tax
exemptions for EVs before these become accessible to the mass market
[12,26]. It is a logical strategy for EV charging infrastructure investment
to target early adopters to increase EV take up but funding to support
local policy measures could be imbalanced within the same country
leading to certain areas standing out in terms of offering effective EV
policy interventions relative to other regions [6]. This work is important
as it has practical implications for the linkage of intervention measures
to the United Nations SDGs [17]. The implementation of SDG 13
regarding urgent action on climate needs to be implemented so as to not
conict with SDG 9.1 regarding equitable access to infrastructure,
SDG10.1 reducing inequality within and among countries, and SDG11.2
regarding sustainable transport systems for all [27,28].
Discourse surrounding social equity in EV charging infrastructure is
limited but also scattered across interdisciplinary research covering
broader aspects of EV infrastructure provision and EV adoption with a
lack of studies consolidating issues. The aims and novelty of this study is
to synthesize evidence on social equity in the various aspects of EV
charging infrastructure provision and to set an agenda for centering
social equity in the debate. This study further focuses on the key issues
relating to social equity in the context of EV charging infrastructure, by
examining how this has been recognized in previous work, and what
would be the potential corrective strategies or policies and funding
based on measures employed to date. The study aims to demonstrate the
dynamic relationship between charging infrastructure and EV take-up.
Last but not least, the study considers how a tailored multi-layered
interdisciplinary approach to EV charging infrastructure allocation
policy, strategy and funding could potentially address equity in the
context of charging point provision and related aspects across all people.
The structure of this review is as follows; section two describes the
methodology of undertaking the review of literature, and sections three
and four summarise issues around social equity in the context of EVs and
charging infrastructure and their potential solutions extracted from
research, respectively. A discussion of ndings and conclusions are
presented in sections ve and six.
2. Methodology
For the purposes of this analysis, a denition of social inequity in the
context of EV charging infrastructure provision is suggested as:
“An uneven opportunity for individuals or groups to benet from
electric vehicles due to the lack of provision, affordability or use-
ability of charging infrastructure.”
This denition considers the benets from EV use or ownership as
being a reduction in carbon emissions and in household transportation
costs in terms of fuel, taxation and maintenance costs in relation to an
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, and improvements in health
due to better air quality in areas of adoption [29]. There is evidence of
environmental injustice where areas of higher deprivation are usually
linked with higher levels of particulate matter [30] and people living in
lower-income countries disproportionately experience the burden of
outdoor air pollution [31]. The least responsible for climate change are
often the least capable in terms of being able to benet from low carbon
technologies e.g. being unable to install EV chargers or solar panels in a
rented property or live in a deprived local authority area less likely to be
able to fund infrastructure [28]. Government action may be needed to
make sure any social inequities recognized in EV infrastructure
Abbreviations
BEV battery electric vehicle
EU European Union
EV electric vehicle
ICE internal combustion engine
MUD multi-unit dwelling
PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
3
provision do not become self-perpetuating, where having fewer current
and projected EV drivers attracts less infrastructure investment, further
disincentivizing EV take-up and preventing areas from benetting from
air quality and health improvements [24].
A review of academic and grey literature has been undertaken to
understand how inequity in the roll out of EV charging infrastructure
and EV uptake has been recognized in the diverse and interdisciplinary
body of research in this area. To identify the relevant literature for this
review the Scopus database and Google Scholar were used. All searches
looked for works that contained both a search term related to ‘social
equity’ and EVs. Key terms used were: (“equality” OR “equity” AND
“electric vehicle” OR “ev” AND “charg*“). Papers were screened to
identify those that directly addressed the topics within the scope of this
review. The screening process is based on the PRISMA ow diagram
shown in Fig. 1.
The identication of additional articles was possible through reviews
of the collected studies. Journal articles considering social equity and EV
charging were selected for detailed review along with grey literature.
These included nine (9) studies about ‘social equity in charging place-
ment models’ and additional papers that did not directly consider social
equity in charge point location but were nonetheless relevant to un-
derstanding other barriers to ‘achieving equity in EV take-up’. Thirty-
one (31) items were from grey literature sources including policy
instruments, government strategies, and non-governmental organiza-
tional studies. Of the seventy (70) journal articles, all except two (2)
items were published after 2018 with an increasing number year on
year, twenty-six (26) were published in 2022. The identied journal
articles were published in twenty-three (23) different journals covering
the disciplines of transportation (11), energy (9), sustainability and
environment (3), technology (3) and Geographic Information Systems
(1). The geographic focus, where relevant, to academic studies is
weighted most heavily to the US (6), followed by the UK (4), and China
(3) with additional work covering Europe, Ireland, South Korea, Swe-
den, and Switzerland.
3. Issues around social equity in the context of electric vehicles
and charging infrastructure
3.1. Categorization of issues
Table 1 summarises and categorizes the key issues and the related
studies in which these issues were highlighted. The discussion that fol-
lows Table 1 has emerged from a thematic analysis of the interdisci-
plinary research. Issues were grouped into charging infrastructure and
non-infrastructure related categories. EV charging infrastructure issues
were further divided into those relating to the availability of charging,
Fig. 1. PRISMA Diagram for the literature review
Source: The authors.
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
4
charging placement studies, accessibility, useability and funding of
infrastructure, affordability of charging and indicators used to measure
roll out. Non-infrastructure issues identied relate to the affordability of
EVs.
3.2. Chicken and egg dilemma
A ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma in EV infrastructure provision refers to
the cycle of poor availability of charging, which is hampering the
adoption of EVs, and then in turn is hampering the expansion of
charging infrastructure [32,33]. Patt et al. (2018) who studied EV pur-
chase intentions in Switzerland, suggested that consumers with their
own parking space were almost twice as likely to indicate a high will-
ingness to purchase an EV compared to those who parked their car on
the street [32]. This would create a signicant challenge for example, in
the UK, where the Competition and Market Authority highlighted that in
addition to meeting the demand for charging infrastructure whilst
traveling for business or leisure, there are 8 million households who are
unable to install charging infrastructure at home [43]. There are chal-
lenges with home-based charging “installing home chargers is also more
challenging in rental residences as renters are less likely to bear the cost
of an upgrade to a home they do not own, and owners are less likely to
bear the cost of a charger they will not use” [24]. While the UK Gov-
ernment has provided subsidies for the installation of home chargers
through the EV Homecharge Scheme, a recent review found that there
was an uneven geographical uptake of the Scheme [44].
3.3. Social equity in charging placement models
Many studies approach EV charging infrastructure planning as an
optimization issue where modeling sets a minimum number of charging
points to achieve maximum prot/amount of ‘vehicle miles being
electried’. Studies viewing EV charging infrastructure planning as an
optimization issue neglect to consider how to layout EV charging
infrastructure to enhance the social uptake rate of EVs effectively, which
could magnify existing inequities and cause harm to the excluded pop-
ulation [33,38]. Guo et al. [39 p.3] noted that “inequity measurement
compares the outcomes among the spatially distributed population
(horizontal equity) or among population subgroups (vertical equity) and
argued that both horizontal and vertical equity should be measured to
understand the overall equity performance of a system”. Horizontal
equity considers that all groups should be treated the same in terms of
transport resources. Measurements of horizontal equity would include
the per capita share of public resources [45]. Vertical equity considers
that different people have different needs e.g. based on income and re-
sources should be prioritized accordingly [46]. Measurements of vertical
equity include accessibility, quality of travel experience, cost burdens
compared to income, etc [45]. Table 2 summarises EV charging location
studies considering social equity. Of the nine (9) studies identied in the
research capturing the aspects of social equity in charging placement all
were located in North America with the exception of one in the UK [25]
and one (1) in the Republic of Ireland [47]. Four (4) studies were based
in US cities – Chicago [46], Los Angeles [34] New York [35] and Seattle
[37]. Four (4) studies were conducted in California, two (2) of them
state-wide [23,24], one (1) in Orange County [36] and one (1) citywide
Table 1
Issues around social equity in EV and EV-charging infrastructure.
EV Charging Infrastructure Related Relevant
Studies
‘Chicken and Egg’ problem in EV infrastructure provision and
availability of home charging
[5,25,32,33]
Social equity charging placement studies [23–25,33–39]
Accessibility, useability and charging infrastructure funding
barriers
[24,40]
Energy and fuel price [11,25,41]
Indicators used to measure roll out and planning for EVs [5,19,23,42]
Non-EV charging infrastructure related Relevant
Studies
EV Affordability – Price parity with ICE and second-hand EV
market
[23–25,42]
Table 2
Studies of equity in EV charging infrastructure allocation.
Citation Study area and
geographic scale
Data Methods
Carlton and
Sultana,
2022
[46]
a
Chicago
Metropolitan
Statistical Area,
USA
- EV charge
point data
- Unsupervised
machine learning
clustering algorithm
- Density-based Spatial
Clustering of
Applications with
Noise
Khan et al.,
2022
[35]
a
New York City,
USA (Citywide)
- American
Community
Survey
- Alternative
Fuel Station
Locator dataset
- Correlation analysis of
median household
income, population
ethnicity, highways
Law et al.,
2021
[36]
a
Orange County,
California, USA
(County wide)
- EV charging
station data,
land use
information,
- American
Community
Survey
- Weighted Cost Raster
and Least -Cost Path
Model
- Local Moran’s I
Anselin Moran’s I
- Kernel Density
estimation
Hsu et al.,
2021
[24]
a
California, USA
(State-wide)
- Public charging
station location
- American
Community
Survey
- Generalized additive
model
Min et al.,
2020
[37]
a
Seattle,
Washington USA
(Citywide)
- American
Community
Survey
- Electrical
permits for
home charging.
- Moran’s I Generalized
log-linear model
(GLM)
- Poisson lognormal
spatial model
- Bayesian method
- Integrated Nested
Laplace
Approximations
(INLA),
- An Intrinsic
Conditional Auto-
Regressive (ICAR)
- K-means clustering
Canepa
et al.,
2019
[23]
a
California, USA
(State-wide
Disadvantaged
communities)
- American
Community
Survey,
- California
Clean survey
responses
- Vehicle
registration
and rebate data
- Logistic regression
model
Nazari-
Heris
et al.,
2022
[34]
b
Los Angeles, USA
(Citywide)
- EV and charge
point data,
Quality of Life
- Mixed-integer linear
programming
- Demand priority
Function
- Analytical
Hierarchical process
Lee and
Brown,
2021
[25]
b
UK (selected car
owners from
National Travel
Survey)
- National Travel
Survey
- English
Housing Survey
- Behaviour-based EV
grid Integration
(BEVI) model
Cauleld
et al.,
2022
[47]
a
Ireland - Small Area
Population
Statistics
- EV charging
station data
- Census
- Linear regression
modeling
a
Review of existing EV charging infrastructure dispersal.
b
Forecasting model.
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
5
[34]. Six (6) of the studies considered the distribution of public
charging; one (1) in relation to mobile charging stations [34] and three
(3) studies considered the distribution of residential charging [25,37,
47]. Whilst most studies specically focused on inequity in the distri-
bution of EV charging infrastructure, Canepa et al. [23], Cauleld et al.
[47], and Lee and Brown [25] studied EV uptake considering the effect
of access to EV charging. Nazari-Heris et al. [34] looked at an optimi-
zation solution for mobile charging stations ensuring social equity of
distribution. Finally, seven (7) of the studies [23,24,35–37,46,47]
reviewed existing EV charging infrastructure and two (2) studies created
forecasting models [25,34].
The American Community Survey and Alternative Fuel Station
Locator data were common data sets utilized in US studies [23,24,
35–37,46]. American Fuel Station Locator data contains a number of
attributes on charging stations including their network status, hours of
operation, and connection types, however, the data did not contain any
spatial information about the stations beyond their geographic co-
ordinates [46]. Carlton and Sultana [46] identied spatial clustering of
public EV charging stations in Chicago followed by a manual review of
each cluster, which determined the types of land-use setting of each
cluster. The study found that clustered charging congregates around
isolated land use regimes - e.g. shopping centers where they were
located at higher-end car dealerships, restaurants, and stores, which
may present additional costs in traveling to these locations and psy-
chological barriers for lower income consumers [46].
There are similar ndings from US studies examining associations
across charging infrastructure dispersal and socio-demographic data,
which found that the availability of EV charging stations was not
determined by the population density [35,36], but correlated with the
median household income [35–37,46], age [36] percentage of
white-identifying population [35] and presence of highways within a zip
code area [24,35]. Hsu et al. [24] compared the probability of public EV
charger presence, dened as having at least one public EV charging
station within the boundary of a given Californian census block group,
based on the median income and race. The study also looked at the
distance from the centroid of each census block group to the nearest
freeway or highway. Using similar data and correlation analysis in New
York, Khan et al. [35] compared zip codes with and without EV charging
and obtained comparable positive correlations between EV charging
presence/absence and income, race and highway presence. In contrast
to other studies, Canepa et al. [23] found that public charging infra-
structure was distributed similarly across disadvantaged communities
and non-disadvantaged communities of California. This was the only
study, which used vehicle registration and data from the Californian
Clean Vehicle Rebate project to undertake a correlation analysis.
Disadvantaged communities are not sociodemographically homogenous
[23] and studies undertaken did not investigate the differential access to
public charging infrastructure between different sociodemographic
groups. For example, Canepa et al. [23] found from a survey of used EV
owners that owners of used EVs in disadvantaged communities as a
group have higher incomes, are higher educated, and fewer are
home-renters than the disadvantaged community average, indicating
that they are not representative of their surrounding community.
Min et al. [37] found that in addition to income, residential EV
charger installations in Seattle were also correlated to housing stability
(single family houses and housing ownership types). Several of the
studies also discussed the greater need for public chargers adjacent to
multi-unit dwellings (MUDs), which were in greater numbers in disad-
vantaged communities [23,24,34,46]. When high-income group areas
had a high MUD density these areas had more than twice the probability
of having access to public chargers than residents of the poorest areas
with predominantly MUDs [24]. Mobile charging stations were also
considered to offer particular benets to inhabitants of MUDs lacking
dedicated parking in a study by Nazari-Heris et al. [34], which discussed
social equity access and mobile charging stations for EVs in Los Angeles.
The study identied the drawbacks of stationary charging stations
becoming stranded assets with the future uptake of shared vehicles,
shared rides, or autonomous vehicles and the benet of large-scale
deployment of mobile EV charging stations in reducing exposure to
car pollution and promoting health and wellbeing in low-income
neighborhoods [34].
Lee and Brown [25] in a UK study suggested that 80% of adopters are
second vehicle owners. They utilized an agent-based model to explore
adoption rates and charging proles according to socioeconomic
groupings and income quintiles and identied that an increase in the
rate of addition of public charging and an increase in the range of
available vehicles in the model was adequate to overcome home
charging concerns and reduce the future need for a second reserve
vehicle [25]. Similarly, Cauleld [47] identied that areas in the Re-
public of Ireland with higher numbers of EV charging points also had
higher levels of car ownership, suggesting that an EV may be the second
or third car in the household. This points to a continued reliance on ICE
vehicles as a backup vehicle to overcome range anxiety which is likely to
favor higher income groups.
3.4. Accessibility, usability and funding
There are challenges related to the need for disability-specic pro-
vision such as accessibility issues (built environment, the charging
process and information about charging points) and other useability
issues that could be experienced by any user, such as reliability, avail-
ability, and the complexity which could have a disproportionately
negative effect on disabled people [49]. There are also concerns at a EU
level [8] regarding the many approaches to nding, accessing, using and
paying, for EV charging infrastructure including information on avail-
ability, price transparency and payment services. A Which? 2022 report
[50] identied that in the UK there is “a confusing maze of 60 networks
with limited interoperability, little consideration for disabled drivers’
needs.” [49 p.3]. This was echoed by user feedback, which described the
complexities of different providers requiring different apps and pro-
cesses to enable charging to take place, which was confusing or frus-
trating for some participants and lacking in information on accessibility
[49]. To fund EV charging infrastructure Local Authorities often enter
into a public-private partnerships e.g. concession business models where
the authority retains some control over the specication but the risk and
capital and maintenance costs and also revenue are retained by the
private sector [51]. Bonsu [40] explored the UK EV infrastructure
network challenges through interviews with key EV infrastructure
players such as Local Authorities, vehicle manufacturers, academics and
energy companies. This study identied that Local Authorities could
explore a concession business model with the private sector to increase
the number of chargers but highlighted risks as service providers could
be more inclined towards prioritizing new investments in protable
markets [40]. Barriers also exist for Local Authorities when imple-
menting EV charging for car clubs as authorities need to consider mat-
ters relating to subsidy control, which apply if the chargers are not
publicly available [52].
3.5. Measuring and planning for EVs
Targets are key for the roll out of public charging infrastructure but
quantitative requirements alone are not sufcient to guarantee the most
effective and equitable roll out of charging infrastructure [53]. Clean
Transport Campaign Group, Transport and Environment, offered a
supply metric and sufciency indicator to take account of various
charging powers, availability to the public, and charging requirements
from BEV and PHEVs by weighting [53]. EST EV Demand Forecasting
paper supported a combined index of existing metrics used in the UK and
EU to allow for a comparison of quality, quantity and regional differ-
ences [48]. The suitable number of public chargers per EV for a country
depends on a number of factors, including housing stock, the average
distance traveled and population density and EV type. Contrasting
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
6
ndings in studies from different countries are to be expected due to
market differences as discussed in Global EV Outlook 2022 [5]. For
example, fewer public chargers can serve a higher number of EVs in
countries with high shares of residential charging. This is seen in Nor-
way and the United States which have a high share of single-family
dwellings (with garages) [5]. The UK has set a target for all new cars
and vans to be zero emission by 2035, but despite setting ambitions, is
yet to set any similar mandate for delivering the required charging
infrastructure to support this. The Global EV Policy Explorer summarises
the ambitions and/or targets by country. As shown in Appendix A out of
fty three (53) countries, thirty (30) have set a target for EV share but
only half of these fteen (15), have set ambitions for EV charging
infrastructure and less than half again, seven (7), have set EV charging
infrastructure targets. Only four (4) countries that are members of the
Electric Vehicle Initiative have both a target for vehicles and chargers
[9]. The worldwide average EV to charger ratio in 2021 was 10 EVs per
charger and 2.4 kW per EV. European countries for the most part failed
to meet the recommended electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) of 1
public charger per 10 EVs, a ratio of 0.1 in 2020 [5]. The Proposed
Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation requires mandatory mini-
mum targets for EV charging infrastructure power output by market
share [54].
Table 3 describes the drawbacks of the use of ratios alone to measure
EV charging infrastructure penetration. Ratios fail to consider the full
picture of charging infrastructure type (speed of chargers, availability of
chargers, Number of PHEVs vs BEVs, access to off-street parking for
overnight charging) and do not accurately reect the needs of different
communities [48]. For example, Canepa et al. [23] found that the
number of chargers per 1000 new and used EVs was high in disadvan-
taged communities. This proportion can be explained due to the low
number of EVs in the communities therefore each charging station
would serve less EVs. Nordic countries with the highest EV penetration
tend to have the lowest EV charging points per EV ratios because they
have more fast chargers and more home charging available [5]. A larger
market share of PHEVs would require less public charging than BEVs
[5]. Measuring the charger power (kilowatts per EV) is also a more
meaningful measure than the EV-per-charger ratio as fast chargers can
serve a higher number of EVs compared to slow chargers [5]. Data on
available charging infrastructure is not comprehensively available to
monitor against targets set and equity of provision. There are global
differences in EV charging infrastructure information availability. In the
UK, the Department for Transport Electric Vehicle Charging Device
Statistics: January 2022 presents experimental data on the number of
publicly available EV charging devices in the UK, using data provided by
the EV and charging point platform Zap-Map as there is no central
publicly owned repository [55]. There is, however, more information
available on publicly available infrastructure in the US, for example, the
Alternative Fuel Station Locator data set.
3.6. Energy and fuel prices
Measures to disincentivize ICE vehicles could have a negative effect
on socio-demographic groups that are unable to switch to an EV. The
2021 Global EV Outlook recognized that measures are needed to balance
reduced revenue from fuel taxes associated with EV uptake and taxation
to discourage the use of ICE vehicles [11]. These could include coupling
higher taxes on carbon-intensive fuels with distance-based charges [11].
Global EV Outlook 2022 called for the adoption of vehicle efciency
and/or CO2 standards by all countries [5]. Because fuel taxes, regis-
tration fees and user charges, zoning restrictions and bans against ICEs
raise the costs of driving an ICE, they can create nancial barriers to
mobility [63] and a double injustice for low-income and rural drivers
particularly if sustainable alternatives are not available [28]. Access to
energy and fuel poverty presents an additional challenge for the wider
affordability of EV charging. Policy tools for reducing risks/costs for
energy providers, reaching economies of scale and bringing down the
market price have not been able to bridge the affordability gap that
prevents the poorest consumers from obtaining cheaper electricity [64].
The cost of increasing the capacity of the electricity network to support
EV charging infrastructure is shared evenly through increased charges
for all customers. This is unlikely to be socially equitable because the
impact from lower income households is delayed as they are late
adopters of EVs [25]. Forecast modeling of EV use by socio-economic
characteristics by Lee and Brown [25] also showed a later peak
charging period for low income groups, contributing less to peak eve-
ning demand. In the UK, there is a benet from charging EVs at home in
terms of VAT on energy being 5% rather than 20% at public EV charge
points, which increases the charging cost for those unable to charge at
home. The cost of home charging for those on prepayment meters, likely
to be low income groups and renters, is higher. Prepayment meters have
higher tariffs, it is difcult to change payment method back to direct
debit and therefore to benet from more competitive deals [41].
3.7. EV affordability
EV prices are becoming more affordable and price parity with con-
ventional vehicles is expected to be reached within 5–10 years [25].
Despite this, even with incentives for new vehicles, the cost of pur-
chasing an EV remains high. Without subsidies for second-hand EVs,
there are high proportions of the population who cannot afford an EV
[24,25]. Another barrier to EV take-up is the absence of a mature
second-hand market and resale values achieved by EVs are low when
Table 3
EV charging infrastructure metrics.
EV: Charging
Infrastructure
Metric
Challenge Social Equity Implications
Total number of
charge points
Difcult to compare across
regions. Does not
distinguish between charge
point types [48]
Charge points could be
clustered to serve demand
Number of EVs per
charging point
A low ratio can be
indicative of a high number
of charging points, but also
a low EV stock [5]
The number of chargers
found to be high in
disadvantaged communities
can be explained due to the
low number of EVs therefore
each charging station is
serving less EVs [23].
Could be further broken
down e.g. BEVs per rapid
charge point
Number of charging
points per x EVs
Does not reect the full
picture of the speed of
chargers, availability of
chargers, Number of PHEVs
vs BEVs, and access to off-
street parking for overnight
charging [48].
Nordic countries with the
highest EV penetration tend
to have the lowest EV
charging points per EV ratios
because they have more fast
chargers and more home
charging available [5].
Number of charging
points per x
population
Will not accurately reect
the needs of different
communities [19] or
different types of charging
points available [48].
Some rural populations may
have relatively fewer plug-in
vehicles, while others may
have off-street parking and
electrical wiring that allow
for the installation of
dedicated home chargers
[19]. Could be further
broken down e.g. charge
point per on street household
or proportion of residents
within x walk of a public
charge point [48].
Charge points per
km
Number per x km on major
roads or motorways does
not account for regional
differences such as vehicle
ownership or trafc
volumes [48].
Supports long distance
journeys but not the
population without access to
overnight charging at home.
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
7
compared to ICE alternatives [65]. Lower resale values could however
support EV take-up by low income drivers. Greater numbers of EVs are
now entering the secondary market making EV adoption more economic
for disadvantaged communities [23,24]. Second-hand EVs could be seen
as a high-risk purchase where low priced used EVs may be approaching
the end of their warranty periods and their battery packs may have
begun to degrade [23]. Vehicle replacement by EV is unlikely to see a
signicant change in vehicle emissions without the replacement of older
vehicles with EVs to reduce emissions sooner [66]. Vehicle replacement
over time generally follows the eet’s age distribution. The median
vehicle in many markets (and most likely to be replaced) is a sports
utility vehicle where there are few all-electric choices for these types of
vehicles and the purchase price is higher. The most common vehicles in
the eet will also be those already near-zero emissions vehicles where
replacement would reduce emissions reduction realized [66].
4. Policy mechanisms/potential solutions
4.1. Categorization of solutions
The review has identied policy mechanisms/solutions that are
being implemented to overcome EV charging related inequity. Table 4
provides a summary of proposed and implemented policy mechanisms
including subsidies, grants, regulations and standards, and innovative
business models.
4.2. Charging placement and accessibility
Local Authorities could explore delivery via a concession business
model with the private sector to increase the number of chargers
including packaging of sites to ensure equitable delivery [40]. Mobile
Charging Stations are also seen as a exible solution which allows
charging providers to quickly set up infrastructure or test for the opti-
mum sites while retaining the ability to relocate [34]. Intended to
address the absence of universal accessibility standards for charging
infrastructure UK Electric Vehicles Accessible Charging Specication
sets out requirements to support useability and access for all [56]. The
charging network should be convenient with acceptable charging prices
to the user but also needs to ensure a return on investment for the
provider. To reconcile this contradiction, Shi et al. [33] proposed that
government should subsidize the relevant charging facilities and sug-
gests a subsidy calculation method. National targets for EVs and
charging infrastructure should be set to guide local governments, and
funding from the central government should also be allocated reason-
ably across regions [6]. This is seen in China in the ofcial guidance for
accelerating electric vehicle charging stations where access-based tar-
gets are outlined in terms of reaching minimal coverage across a city or
region, in accordance with projections of EV demand [38].
4.3. Availability and affordability of charging
Regulations can be used to ensure minimum standards of provision
for new development. In England, HM Government Building Regulations
from June 2022 require all new residential, mixed-use and other
buildings with more than 10 car parking spaces to provide EV charging
infrastructure [57]. The scaling back of eligibility for grant funding to
specically underserved groups has been seen in the UK where the
Electric Vehicle Homecharge Scheme is now only available to at
owner-occupiers and people living in rented properties and the EV
charge point grant for landlords gives nancial support to landlords to
install EV charge points at residential or commercial properties [58].
The exibility of when people charge vehicles also creates an opportu-
nity to balance electricity supply with demand. Smart chargers and
dynamic tariffs can provide incentives for EV users to charge during
off-peak periods and sell energy back to the grid during peak periods
[59].
In the UK, under the provisions of the Automated and Electric Ve-
hicles Act 2018 [67], regulations may impose requirements on large fuel
retailer service area operators to provide public charging or refueling
points. The UK Government has not yet used the powers to require large
fuel retailers to provide charging infrastructure, but will “continue to
monitor the delivery of EV charging infrastructure and will use these
regulations should we feel that further progress is needed to meet am-
bitions” [68]. A betterRetailing article [69] advised how forecourt re-
tailers have been told to watch and wait before investing in EV chargers,
as they will not see a return on investment at this point in time on
expensive electricity reinforcement to install EV chargers because of low
demand. A BBC News article [70] predicted that the demand at fore-
courts may never materialize. The article highlighted that fuelling cars
with petrol and diesel is dangerous, which is why we do it at
specially-designed centralized refueling points. EV charge point loca-
tions are not limited in this way so long as electricity is available, so
providing or repurposing petrol stations may not be the most convenient
solution for users or cost effective for forecourt retailers [70]. This aligns
with deliberative research with drivers without access to off-street
parking in the UK nding a preference for providing a public charging
network where vehicles are “naturally sat”, near home being the most
desirable in conjunction with rapid charging at destinations [60].
4.4. EV affordability
Attempts have been made to address the issue of EV affordability as a
barrier to wider take-up. To increase EV affordability residents who live
in disadvantaged communities in the Enhanced Fleet Modernization
Program areas in California may be eligible to receive an additional
$3000-$5000 (dependent on income and type of EV) plus $2000 for the
installation of an EV charger [23]. Transport Scotland in 2020 intro-
duced a Low Carbon Transport Loan of up to £20,000 for second-hand
vehicle purchase [61]. Battery Swapping Station strategies are
emerging as a promising alternative to the traditional EV battery
charging station approach [62]. Support warranties for the battery packs
in used EVs, or battery pack replacement programs could be offered to
address battery warranty and degradation issues in second hand vehicles
[23]. New business models reducing the need to own an EV including
e-car sharing, e-hailing, or peer-to-peer e-car rental and lease should be
progressed [6]. For example, in Shanghai, the local government offered
Table 4
Solutions/Policy Mechanisms to overcome EV Inequity.
Issue Best Practice Mechanism/Solution
Social equity in charging
placement and accessibility
Access-based targets and funding/subsidy to
reaching the minimal coverage at local/regional
level
a
[6,33,38].
Concession business model with the private
sector [40].
Mobile charging stations to test demand [34].
Accessible charging specication to address the
absence of universal standards [56].
Availability of Home Charging
and workplace charging
Regulations for new development to provide
electric vehicle charging infrastructure [57].
Grant schemes to support landlords and MUDs
[58].
Smart chargers and dynamic tariffs to incentivize
off-peak charging
a
[59].
Development of a public charging network where
vehicles are “naturally sat” including on-street
charging [60].
EV Affordability New business models to reduce the need to own
an EV e.g. e-car sharing [6].
Grants/loans for new and second-hand vehicle
purchase [23,61].
Battery swapping stations
a
[62] and replacement
programs
a
[23].
a
Measures proposed in literature sources without examples of
implementation.
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
8
free parking spaces to shared vehicle operators and subsidies for intro-
ducing low emissions vehicles [71]. The introduction of car sharing and
EVs share the intention of developing a system capable of reducing
humans negative impact on the environment and e-car sharing could
support the implementation of an EV charging network [72]. The ability
to rent shared EVs when they are needed could reduce the expense to
purchase underutilized owned assets and energy used in their produc-
tion [73]. The use of e-car sharing allows people to “become friendly
with a technology that remained otherwise still difcult to access (and
therefore reduce scepticism against electric vehicles)” [72 p84]. This
would also apply to shared autonomous EVs. Langbroek et al. [74] in a
Gotenburg case study of EV rental and EV adoption caveated that EV
rental is not likely to be chosen by persons who are not already
contemplating EV use or purchase. For those people, mass media cam-
paigns are suggested [74].
5. Discussion
5.1. Findings
Firstly, this study critically reviews the emerging body of knowledge
concerning social equity in the provision of EV charging infrastructure.
Emphasis is placed on capturing the complexities involved in the equi-
table roll out of EV infrastructure including location (lack of home
charging for renters or those with off-street parking and less public
charging in lower income areas), affordability (higher cost of public
charging) and useability (lack of standard specication, information on
charger availability). Studies have evidenced disparities in EV charging
placement, however predictable as the market caters for early adopters,
and forecasting models have been developed to support redressing the
balance in charging placement. Issues have been assimilated into Fig. 2
which highlights the breadth of issues and cross-sector challenge in
relation to social equity in EV charging including charging infrastructure
location, charging cost, accessibility and useability of infrastructure and
effective measurement and planning for infrastructure roll-out.
Although the focus of this review is the consideration of social equity
in EV charging infrastructure, secondly, this study further looks at how
EV charging provision is interlinked with an array of other dimensions
including the affordability of EV purchase (lack of price parity with
conventional vehicles and an immature secondary EV market).
Thirdly, this study consolidates empirical evidence to suggest mea-
sures which could be packaged into holistic strategies and implemented
at the appropriate national, regional and local levels according to local
challenges and demographic characteristics. Research into the in-
centives in encouraging the purchase of EVs and best practice has shown
examples of local target setting, monetary incentives (grants, loans and
rebates for EV purchase and charging infrastructure and smart energy
tariffs), other policy incentives (increased public overnight charging,
standard operability, EV car clubs, extended battery warranties for
second-hand vehicles) that can or have been employed to redress the
balance.
Best practice is summarised in Fig. 3 which demonstrates the dy-
namic relationship between charging infrastructure and EV take-up. A
package of incentives and investment in securing social equity in EV
infrastructure and affordability (government targets & subsidy, infor-
mation, infrastructure location and accessibility and energy pricing) to
tackle issues could increase take-up across all people. These incentives
and investment are interlinked with a cross-sectoral comprehensive
approach. Targets can increase all charging investment by sending di-
rection to the market [19]. The use of locally specic targets and stra-
tegies can ensure the identication of locations for public overnight
charging where vehicles are naturally sat [60]. It is vital to engage across
all disciplines including the energy sector to facilitate affordable tariffs
where home charging is unavailable or properties are rented. Support
should be provided to renters and landlords wishing to provide EV
charging [58]. Charge point operators are key players in providing
accessible and user-friendly charging points in terms of cables, access,
payment method, cost and reliability [60]. In addition to addressing
charging issues measures to increase EV affordability and EV take-up
will increase charging demand leading to more investment in infra-
structure in areas not seen as investable. Non-ownership solutions such
as e-car clubs and rental can also bring this technology to a wider
cross-section in addition to reducing overall car dependency [72]. A
more mature EV market with increasing EV adoption supports car
manufacturers to offer less expensive mass-market car models [5]
increasing EV affordability and leading toward price parity with ICE
vehicles. Increased EV adoption through a feedback-reinforcing effect
could result in increased charging demand and demand for further
infrastructure helping to solve the chicken and egg problem and towards
meeting climate change goals [33].
5.2. Policy implications
Finally, this study considers key policy implications across a number
Fig. 2. Social Equity Issues for EV Charging
Source: The authors.
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
9
of different sectors and governmental levels. This work is important as it
has practical implications for the linkage of intervention measures to the
United Nations SDGs [17] and national and international ambition [9,
16]. Policy changes are required to increase access to EVs and reduce
individual car purchases through supporting other business models – e.
g. e-car club/EV rental infrastructure. From different perspectives and
geographical scales, effective EV take-up and EV infrastructure roll out
will not be achieved by the market without intervention [19]. Car
scrappage schemes may be required to target the replacement of older
vehicles with all-electric vehicles to reduce emissions sooner [66]. Fiscal
incentives such as grants, loans and rebates for EV purchase and
charging infrastructure have supported EV uptake and infrastructure roll
out and energy policies such as no VAT on public charging and smart
energy tariffs could reduce additional barriers to take up. Mandatory
targets for EV infrastructure at a national and local level could support a
“right to charge” just as previous broadband targets have supported the
“right to connect” setting the signals to providers to encourage invest-
ment in social equity, supporting fair distribution [19]. If setting targets
for EV infrastructure, however, the right ratio of a combination of
metrics at the local level should be considered to measure equity [48].
Future EV infrastructure guidance papers could increase focus on social
equity as an integral part of EV infrastructure roll out strategy rather
than one approach for consideration. Social equity should also be
ensured within the evidence base utilized in informing EV Strategy
development to make sure all demographics are represented in data,
surveys, and models.
5.3. Limitations
The literature review in this study has highlighted policy and prac-
tical mechanisms and best practice identied or employed to tackle is-
sues around social equity in EV and EV charging, it does not however
review the extent to which these measures could or have been success-
ful. The literature review relies on English based studies with many
studies based in the US or the UK. Further expansion of the review in
other EV markets is required to consider common or contrasting issues
and solutions to social equity in EV uptake and charging provision. This
work only examines equity in the roll out of EVs and EV charging at the
point of use. The transition to EVs as with other low carbon technologies
generates both benets and burdens, with strong winners and losers that
should be considered on the global as well as local scale, for example,
social and environmental impacts from mining lithium, cobalt, and
nickel in South America and Africa [10,75]. Investment in EVs and EV
infrastructure may still result in increased demand for cars and
continued car dependence, which raises questions about transportation
injustice, which is dened as a “lack of transportation options or a lack
of access to transportation that leads to a lack of opportunities and
further social exclusion” [23], as well as social and environmental im-
pacts and issues of road safety [23]. Pendall [42] asked how could we
reconcile the apparent benets of car access for disadvantaged families,
in terms of access to employment, with serious concerns about climate
change and the need to reduce car emissions. The scale of carbon
reduction required cannot be achieved with EVs alone but requires a
reduction in distance traveled, delivered through investment in active
travel and not the further expansion of road networks [73].
The source of electricity generation for EV chargers impacts the
ability of EVs to deliver toward the decarbonization of transport [7,76].
Ajanovic [10] highlighted the variance of the environmental benets of
EV use in different EU countries due to the different carbon content of
the electricity mix, “for example, EV use in Sweden can signicantly
reduce local air pollution, as well as contribute to the reduction of the
global greenhouse gas emissions. However, in countries with a very high
share of coal in the electricity generation mix, such as Poland or Estonia,
EVs could contribute just to the reduction of local air pollution without
signicant benets for the reduction of the global greenhouse gas
emissions” [10 p8]. Despite the issues with lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions from EVs, long term improved energy mixes, increased battery
manufacturing efciency, and increased battery production in other
markets is able to cut most of the manufacturing emissions and nearly all
electricity use emissions from EVs making them preferable to ICE ve-
hicles [76,77].
5.4. Setting the agenda for future work
From the ndings and discussions of this literature review, the
following recommendations for future research have been identied:
Despite the identication of inequities in EV infrastructure provision
there needs to be further qualitative study with the breadth of EV
charging infrastructure “players”, particularly Local Authorities, who
have been identied to ‘plug the gap’ where the market will not provide
[78]. Research in this area will enable a more in-depth understanding of
delivery challenges globally, country by country and on a regional/local
scale and to identify innovation in how they are being overcome.
Qualitative information can be compared with data on EV take up,
Fig. 3. Dynamic relationship diagram between EV interventions and take up
Source: The authors.
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
10
charging infrastructure and charging events to identify areas which have
been effective in achieving a wider take-up towards vertical equity
through intervention.
To achieve equity in transportation provision, we need data [79].
The availability of open and big data supports high level analysis to
reveal patterns and trends, but this data is unable to provide the full
understanding of who is purchasing and using EVs. There appears to be a
knowledge gap in understanding regarding socio-economic data of who
is using charging infrastructure for what purpose and how much they are
paying. Disaggregated anonymized demographic data from users is
required to overcome this. There is a need for further work to identify
groups with different socio-economic characteristics and psychological
preferences to enable improved targeting of potential groups of adopters
[6].
Further study is required to examine existing EV policy and strategy
against the three pillars of justice -distributive, procedural and recog-
nition [80], to review the extent to which social equity has been
considered. There is a signicant body of research covering stated
preference and user surveys for planning for EVs and EV infrastructure.
The extent to which social equity has been considered and a represen-
tative sample has been used is a key area for research expansion. A re-
view of the consideration of social equity in EV charging infrastructure
models has been undertaken in this study. This body of research mainly
models the coverage of existing EV charging infrastructure rather than
how social equity is being considered when planning EV infrastructure
roll out.
Research considering the effectiveness of mandatory targets for
infrastructure at various levels of government and in particular for EV
use is required. Metrics for EV infrastructure measurement can however
have drawbacks in the fact they can mask social inequity in provision
[48]. Further research in this area could support the equitable roll out of
infrastructure. A consideration would be the identication of an
appropriate measure of accessibility for EV infrastructure. The literature
review has not identied a metric for the measurement of EV accessi-
bility. Similar to other topic areas such as healthcare and open space and
widely used in transport accessibility [20] a measurement of EV acces-
sibility could allow the identication of inequity of provision.
Expansion of knowledge and research to increase access to EVs and
reduced individual car purchases through supporting e-car club infra-
structure would address the ongoing issue of continued car dependence
on social equity [72,74]. The focus of this study is equity at the point of
use which is only part of the equity in the life cycle assessment of EVs.
The research synthesizing the whole life cycle equity considerations
should be expanded including raw materials, disposal and the country
energy mix powering EV charging stations [76,77].
6. Conclusion
This study has synthesized evidence on social equity in the various
aspects of EV charging infrastructure provision to set an agenda for
centering social equity in the debate. This review of interdisciplinary
research assimilates progress in the eld of equity in EV charging
infrastructure to provide direction in taking into account equity aspects
for practitioners and policy makers. Electric vehicles and low carbon
technology is evolving and moving at a fast pace, however, the debate
around ensuring equity of provision (as with equity of access to all goods
and services) and how this can accelerate EV take-up to meet climate
goals is ongoing.
This study brings together a dispersed cross-sectoral body of research
enabling the identication and categorization of factors relating to so-
cial equity in EV infrastructure provision. Key issues or factors inu-
encing social equity in infrastructure roll out include charging
infrastructure location [33], charging cost, accessibility and useability
of infrastructure [49,50] and effective measurement and planning for
infrastructure roll out [5,48]. There are several complexities involved in
the increased and equitable roll out of EV infrastructure. Other
non-infrastructure interdependencies impacting EV take up across un-
derserved socio-economic groups observed in research relate to EV
ownership, where lack of price parity with conventional vehicles and an
immature secondary EV market are key issues [24]. This study also
documents global best practice from the literature review to assimilate
potential solutions for consideration by EV stakeholders in addressing
the issues identied. Research identies that a cross-sectoral approach
will be required to reduce inequity including energy supply, and tariffs,
urban planning – provision of EV charging in development, landlords –
provision for tenants, transport authorities – strategy direction and
funding, transport providers – e-car rental/e-car club, charging pro-
viders – design, useability applications and information exchange, car
manufacturers –mass market car models and battery warranties. This
study provides a pictorial summary of the inter-relationship between
factors related to EV infrastructure and EV adoption to demonstrate the
inuence of implementing supporting measures to increase equity in EV
infrastructure provision to increase overall EV take-up.
The literature review identies that EVs cannot achieve the targets
for decarbonization of transport alone but in combination with other
measures to reduce the need to travel and investment in active and
sustainable travel [73]. Continuing with individual car ownership and
car dependence leaves challenges for transport injustice [23], social and
environmental impacts and issues of road safety [39]. There is a ceiling
on what can be achieved by EVs and EV infrastructure investment if
charging infrastructure is being powered from fossil fuel energy sources
[13] and there are issues relating to equity in the EV life cycle including
mining of minerals [10,75]. From these different perspectives, the
literature review highlights that effective EV take-up, EV infrastructure
roll out and its contribution to reducing climate change will not be
achieved by the market without intervention.
This study brings together previous research, although limited to
English based studies many from the US and UK, regarding social equity
and EV charging infrastructure issues and potential solutions. It does not
however review the extent to which these measures could or have been
successful. The assimilation of research provides academic researchers
and policy makers with direction for future policy and areas for further
study, including the need for qualitative research with key players and
users and improved metrics to measure the roll out of EV charging
infrastructure. The outcomes from this study could be utilized at a local
and governmental level when developing EV strategy and at the pro-
gram implementation level to avoid exacerbation of social inequity in
EV infrastructure provision evidenced and to support wider EV uptake.
This is important as it has practical implications for the linkage of
intervention measures and strategy to the United Nations SDGs [17] and
national and international ambition [9,16]. This study contributes to the
broader debates about achieving equity in transportation and climate
action to achieve ambitions by highlighting barriers to equity in EV take
up and EV infrastructure charging resources and how this can be
addressed.
Author contributions
Conceptualization, E.H., D.P, SO and LC; Investigation, E.H.; Writing
– original draft, E.H Writing – review & editing, D.P and SO.; Supervi-
sion, D.P., LC and SO. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript
Funding
Emma Hopkins acknowledges the nancial support of the EPSRC
Engineering and Physical Science Research Council.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
11
the work reported in this paper. Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Appendix A
Table of Global EV Ambition / Targets
Number of EVs Charging Infrastructure
Ambition Target Ambition Target
Korea Yes Yes 43,000 charging stations in residential apartments 146,000
charging stations in commercial areas and 12,000 fast chargers
along highways by 2025.
No
Chile Yes No No No
Indonesia Yes Yes No 30,000 charging stations and 67,000 battery swap stations by
2030.
Netherlands Yes Yes Charging infrastructure to meet the needs of 1.9 million BEVs on the
road by 2030
No
South Africa Yes No No No
China Yes Yes Charging infrastructure sufcient to meet the needs of more than 20
million NEVs by 2025.
60% of expressway service areas to have rapid charging by 2025.
13 million slow charging stations and 0.8 million fast charging
stations by 2025.15 million (cumulative) slow charging stations and
1.46 million (cumulative) fast charging stations by 2035.
1000 battery swap stations and production of more than 100,000
vehicles capable of battery swapping.
Guangxi ambition: 80,000 public charging stations and 147,000
private public chargers by 2025
Shaanxi ambition: 102,800 charging stations to meet the demand of
600,000 NEVs by 2025
No
Italy Yes No 21,400 fast and ultra-fast charging stations by the end of 2025
(7500 on motorways or extra-urban areas, 13,755 in urban
centers and 100 experimental chargers with energy storage
technology).
Japan Yes Yes No 150,000 EV charging points (including 30,000 fast chargers) and
1000 hydrogen refueling stations by 2030.
France Yes Yes No 100,000 public EV charging points by December 31, 2023.
7 million public and private EV charging stations by 2030.
Greece No Yes No No
Switzerland Yes No No No
Spain No Yes No 500,000 EV charging stations in 2030.
Belgium No Yes No No
Finland Yes No Yes No
United
Kingdom
Yes Yes 300,000 public charging stations by 2030 No
Poland Yes Yes No No
Thailand Yes No 12,000 public fast charging stations by 2030 and 1450 battery
swapping stations for electric motorcycles by 2030.
No
Germany Yes No 50,000 EV charging stations (20,000 of which are fast chargers) by
2025.
1 million EV charging stations by 2030
No
Canada Yes Yes No 50,000 charging and hydrogen stations to the charging network.
Sweden Yes Yes 2400 km of electried road by 2037. An electric road is
supplemented by an electrical installation intended for the
transmission of electrical energy to vehicles while driving
No
United States Yes Yes No National level 500,000 charging stations. State of California
target: 250,000 charging stations by 2025
Portugal Yes Yes No No
Denmark Yes No No No
India Yes No 2877 charging stations in 25 states and 1576 charging stations
across 9 expressways and 16 highways.
Charging stations every 40–60 km on national highways or 700
charging stations by 2023 covering 35,000–40,000 km of national
highways.
No
Norway No Yes No No
Iceland No Yes No No
New Zealand Yes No Nationwide coverage of fast/rapid direct current charging stations
every 75 km across state highway networks.
No
Carbo Verde No Yes No No
Egypt No No 42,000 public charging stations across governorates, with 3000
stations to be built in phase one of the program.
No
Kenya Yes Yes No No
Malaysia Yes No 9000 alternating current charging stations and 1000 direct current
charging stations by 2025.
No
(continued on next page)
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
12
(continued)
Number of EVs Charging Infrastructure
Ambition Target Ambition Target
Nepal No Yes No No
Pakistan Yes No Fast charging stations every 10 km
2
in all major cities and every
15–30 km on all motorways (convert 3000 CNG stations to charging
stations) in next four years.
No
Singapore No Yes 60,000 charging stations by 2030 (40,0000 in public car parks and
20,000 in private premises)
No
Sri Lanka No Yes No No
Brazil Yes Yes No No
Columbia Yes No No No
Costa Rica Yes Yes No No
Ecuador Yes No No No
Panama Yes No No No
Uruguay Yes No No No
Kazakhstan Yes No No No
Turkey Yes No No No
Austria Yes No No No
Hungary No Yes No No
Ireland No Yes No No
Luxembourg Yes No No No
Slovenia No Yes No No
Scotland Yes No No No
United Arab
Emirates
No Yes No No
Qatar No Yes No No
Australia No No Deploy EV charging stations in over 400 businesses, 50,000
households as well as access to 1000 public fast charging stations.
No
Israel Yes No No No
References
[1] Corliss A. Electric vehicles and their role in the energy system. Johnson Matthey
Technology Review 2020;64:307–19.
[2] HM Government. Transitioning to zero emission cars and vans: 2035 delivery plan.
2021.
[3] Department for Transport. Decarbonising transport. 2021.
[4] HM Government. Taking charge: the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy. 2022.
[5] International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2022. 2022. Paris.
[6] Song R, Potoglou D. Are existing battery electric vehicles adoption studies able to
inform policy? A review for policymakers. Sustainability 2020;12.
[7] Nicholas M, Hall D, Lutsey N. Quantifying the electric vehicle charging
infrastructure gap across US markets. ICCT; 2019.
[8] European Commission. Executive summary of the impact assessment
accompanying the proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the
Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing
directive 2014/94/EU of the European parliament and of the Council. 2021.
[9] International Energy Agency. Global EV policy explorer. 2022. Paris.
[10] Ajanovic A. The impact of COVID-19 on the market prospects of electric passenger
cars. WIRESs Energy and Environment; 2022. p. 11.
[11] International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2021. 2021. Paris.
[12] Hu Y, Qu S, Huang K, Xue B, Yu Y. The Chinese plug-in electric vehicles industry in
post-COVID-19 era towards 2035: where is the path to revival? J Clean Prod 2022:
361.
[13] European Commission. Communication from the commission to the European
parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European economic and social
committee and the committee of the regions. REPowerEU Plan; 2022.
[14] Arezki R, Nysveen P. Ukraine invasion: from oil sanctions to accelerating the
energy transition. In: Garicano L, Rohner D, Weder di Mauro B, editors. Global
economic consequences of the war in Ukraine sanctions, supply chains and
sustainability. Centre for Economic Policy Research; 2022.
[15] Bhagavathy SM, McCulloch M. Electric vehicle transition in the UK. Energy and
Power Group, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford; 2020.
[16] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. What is the Paris
agreement?. 2015.
[17] UN General Assembly. Transforming our world : the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development. 2015. A/RES/70/1 ed.
[18] The Pilot Group. Failing to deliver equity of access for EV charging. 2022.
[19] The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Delivering consumer-centric
charging infrastructure for zero emission mobility. 2022. London.
[20] Guo S, Kontou E. Disparities and equity issues in electric vehicles rebate allocation.
Energy Pol 2021:154.
[21] Park J, Kang J, Goldberg DW, Ht A. Leveraging temporal changes of spatial
accessibility measurements for better policy implications: a case study of electric
vehicle (EV) charging stations in Seoul, South Korea. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 2021;36:
1185–204.
[22] Hathaway Z, Polis H, Loomis J, Boroski J, Milano A, Ouyang J. A utility roadmap
for expanding customer adoption of electric vehicles. World Electric Vehicle
Journal 2021;12.
[23] Canepa K, Hardman S, Tal G. An early look at plug-in electric vehicle adoption in
disadvantaged communities in California. Transport Pol 2019;78:19–30.
[24] Hsu CW, Fingerman K. Public electric vehicle charger access disparities across race
and income in California. Transport Pol 2021;100:59–67.
[25] Lee R, Brown S. Social and locational impacts on electric vehicle ownership and
charging proles. Energy Rep 2021;7:42–8.
[26] Hm Government. Autumn Statement 2022:2022.
[27] Asekomeh A, Gershon O, Azubuike SI. Optimally clocking the low carbon energy
mile to achieve the sustainable development goals: evidence from dundee’s electric
vehicle strategy. Energies 2021:14.
[28] Bouy´
e M, O’Connor D, Tankou A, Grinspan D, Waskow D, Chattopadhyay S, et al.
Achieving social equity in climate action: untapped opportunities and building
blocks for leaving No one behind. Working paper. Washington, DC: World
Resources Institute.; 2020.
[29] Bauer G, Hsu CW, Lutsey N. When might lower-income drivers benet from electric
vehicles? Quantifying the economic equity implications of electric vehicle
adoption. International Council on Clean Transportation; 2021.
[30] Fairburn J, Schüle S, Dreger SSA, Hilz L, Bolte G. Social inequalities in exposure to
ambient air pollution: a systematic review in the WHO European region. Int J
Environ Res Publ Health 2019;16.
[31] World Health Organisation. Ambient (outdoor) air quality and health. 2021.
[32] Patt A, Aplyn D, Weyrich P, Vliet O. Availability of private charging infrastructure
inuences readiness to buy electric cars. Transport Res Part A: Policy and Research
Practice 2019;125:1–7.
[33] Shi L, Hao Y, Shengnan L, Cipcigan L, Liang J. A comprehensive charging network
planning scheme for promoting EV charging infrastructure considering the
Chicken-Eggs dilemma. Res Transport Econ 2021;88.
[34] Nazari-Heris M, Loni A, Asadi S, Mohammadi-ivatloo B. Toward social equity
access and mobile charging stations for electric vehicles: a case study in Los
Angeles. 2022. p. 311.
[35] Khan HAU, Price S, Avraam C, Dvorkin Y. Inequitable access to EV charging
infrastructure. Electr J 2022;35.
[36] Law M, Roy A. A geospatial data fusion framework to quantify variations in electric
vehicle charging demand. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGSPATIAL
international workshop on advances in resilient and intelligent cities. ARIC; 2021.
p. 23–6. 2021.
[37] Min Y, Lee HW. Social equity of clean energy policies in electric-vehicle charging
infrastructure systems. In: Infrastructure systems and sustainability - selected
papers from the construction research congress. Construction Research Congress;
2020. p. 221–9. 20202020.
[38] Li G, Luo T, Song Y. Spatial equity analysis of urban public services for electric
vehicle charging—implications of Chinese cities, vol. 76. Sustainable Cities and
Society; 2022.
E. Hopkins et al.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 182 (2023) 113398
13
[39] Guo Y, Chen Z, Stuart A, Li X, Zhang Y. A systematic overview of transportation
equity in terms of accessibility, trafc emissions, and safety outcomes: from
conventional to emerging technologies, vol. 4. Transportation Research
Interdisciplinary Perspectives; 2020.
[40] Bonsu N. Transition to electric vehicles: stimulating local authorities to address
charging infrastructure challenges. 2019.
[41] Ramsden S. Tackling fuel poverty through household advice and support: exploring
the impacts of a charity-led project in a disadvantaged city in the United Kingdom,
vol. 70. Energy Research & Social Science; 2020.
[42] Pendall R. For many low-income families, cars may be key to greater opportunity.
Urban Institute; 2014.
[43] Competition & Markets Authority. Electric vehicle market study nal report. 2021.
[44] Department for Transport. Electric vehicle charging device grant scheme statistics:
January 2022. 2022.
[45] Litman T. Evaluating transportation equity guidance for incorporating
distributional impacts in transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute;
2022.
[46] Carlton GJ, Sultana S. Electric vehicle charging station accessibility and land use
clustering: a case study of the Chicago region. Journal of Urban Mobility 2022;2.
[47] Cauleld B, Furszyfer D, Stefaniec A, Foley A. Measuring the equity impacts of
government subsidies for electric vehicles. Energy 2022:248.
[48] Energy Saving Trust. Forecasting public electric vehicle charging demand. A guide
for local authorities prepared by Local Government Support Programme. 2022.
[49] Boyd H, Keir H, Ridgers J. User engagement report. Accessible EV charging. 2021.
[50] Which? Building an electric vehicle charging infrastructure that is t for the future.
2022. London.
[51] European Investment Bank. Electric vehicle charging concessions. A contract guide
for public authorities; 2022.
[52] Department for Transport. Car clubs: local authority toolkit. 2022.
[53] Transport & Environment. Recharge EU: how many charge points will Europe and
its Member States need in the 2020s. 2020.
[54] European Parliament. Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 19
October 2022 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing
Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2022.
[55] Department for Transport. Electric vehicle charging device statistics. 2022.
[56] British Standards Institution. PAS 1899:2022 electric vehicles – accessible charging
– specication. 2022.
[57] HM Government. The Building Regulations Infrastructure for the charging of
electric vehicles. 2010. p. 2021.
[58] Ofce for Zero Emission Vehicles. Electric vehicle Homecharge scheme: customer
guidance. 2022.
[59] National Grid ESO, Regen. A Day in the Life 2035 How a fully decarbonised
electricity system might operate. 2022.
[60] Britain thinks. In: Public electric vehicle charging infrastructure, deliberative and
quantitative research with drivers without access to off-street parking. DfT; 2022.
[61] Scotland Transport. Expanding access to ultra-low emission vehicles. 2020.
[62] Ahmad F, Saad Alam M, Saad Alsaidan I, Shariff S. Battery swapping station for
electric vehicles: opportunities and challenges. IET Smart Grid; 2020.
[63] Schweitzer L. The empirical research on the social equity of gas taxes, emissions
fees, and congestion charges. Committee on the Equity Implications of Evolving
Transportation Finance Mechanisms Transportation Research Board; 2009.
[64] International Energy Agency IREA, United Nations Statistics Division, The World
Bank, World Health Organization. Tracking SDG 7: the energy progress report.
Washington DC: World Bank; 2021.
[65] Berkeley N, Jarvis D, Jones A. Analysing the take up of battery electric vehicles: an
investigation of barriers amongst drivers in the UK. Transport Res Part D 2018;63:
466–81.
[66] Bishop G. Are electric vehicles a panacea for reducing ozone precursor emissions?
The magazine for environmental managers. A&WMA; 2020.
[67] Automated and electric vehicles Act. 2018.
[68] Hm Government. Automated and electric vehicles Act 2018 regulatory report.
2021.
[69] Yau A. Forecourts advised to wait before installing EV chargers. betterRetailing.
com; 2020.
[70] Rowlatt J. Why it’s the end of the road for petrol stations. 2021.
[71] element energy. Barriers and opportunities for shared battery electric vehicles: a
report for Transport and Environment. 2021.
[72] Mazzocato A. The rising E-car industry and the inuence of car sharing in the
German market. Venice: University of Venice; 2018.
[73] Barrett J, Pye S, Betts-Davies S, Eyre N, Broad O, Price J, et al. The role of energy
demand reduction in achieving net-zero in the UK. Centre for Research into Energy
Demand Solutions (CREDS); 2021.
[74] Langbroek Jhmc M, Malmsten J, Franklin JP, Susiloa YO, Geor´
en P. Electric vehicle
rental and electric vehicle adoption. Res Transport Econ 2019;73:72–82.
[75] Garvey A, Norman J, Buchs M, Barrett J. A “spatially just” transition? A critical
review of regional equity in decarbonisation pathways, vol. 82. Energy Research &
Social Science; 2022.
[76] Hausfather Z. Factcheck: how electric vehicles help to tackle climate change. Eco-
Business; 2019.
[77] Hall D, Lutsey N. Effects of battery manufacturing on electric vehicle life-cycle
greenhouse gas emissions. ICCT; 2018.
[78] Department for Transport. Future of transport regulatory review consultation.
2021.
[79] Brown A. From aspiration to operation: ensuring equity in transportation.
Transport Rev 2022;42, 409-414.
[80] Schwanen T. Achieving just transitions to low-carbon urban mobility. Nat Energy
2021;6:685–7.
E. Hopkins et al.
