Underutilised charging stations can be a bottleneck in the swift transition to electric mobility. This study is the first to research cooperative behaviour at public charging stations as a way to address improved usage of public charging stations. It does so by viewing public charging stations as a common-pool resource and explains cooperative behaviour from an evolutionary perspective. Current behaviour is analysed using a survey (313 useful responses) and an analysis of large dataset (2.1 million charging sessions) on the use of public charging infrastructure in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. In such a way it identifies the potential, drivers and possible obstacles that electric vehicle drivers experience when cooperating with other drivers to optimally make use of existing infrastructure. Results show that the intention to show direct reciprocal charging behaviour is high among the respondents, although this could be limited if the battery did not reach full or sufficient state-of-charge at the moment of the request. Intention to show direct reciprocal behaviour is mediated by kin and network effects.
MULTIFILE
The HCR-20V3 is a violence risk assessment tool that is widely used in forensic clinical practice for risk management planning. The predictive value of the tool, when used in court for legal decisionmaking, is not yet intensively been studied and questions about legal admissibility may arise. This article aims to provide legal and mental health practitioners with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the HCR-20V3 when applied in legal settings. The HCR-20V3 is described and discussed with respect to its psychometric properties for different groups and settings. Issues involving legal admissibility and potential biases when conducting violence risk assessments with the HCR-20V3 are outlined. To explore legal admissibility challenges with respect to the HCR-20V3, we searched case law databases since 2013 from Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In total, we found 546 cases referring to the HCR-20/HCR-20V3. In these cases, the tool was rarely challenged (4.03%), and when challenged, it never resulted in a court decision that the risk assessment was inadmissible. Finally, we provide recommendations for legal practitioners for the cross-examination of risk assessments and recommendations for mental health professionals who conduct risk assessments and report to the court. We conclude with suggestions for future research with the HCR-20V3 to strengthen the evidence base for use of the instrument in legal contexts.
Stakeholders must purposely reflect on the suitability of process models for designing tourism experience systems. Specific characteristics of these models relate to developing tourism experience systems as integral parts of wider socio-technical systems. Choices made in crafting such models need to address three reflexivity mechanisms: problem, stakeholder and method definition. We systematically evaluate application of these mechanisms in a living lab experiment, by developing evaluation episodes using the framework for evaluation in design science research. We outline (i) the development of these evaluation episodes and (ii) how executing them influenced the process and outcomes of co-crafting the process model. We highlight both the benefits of and an approach to incorporate reflexivity in developing process models for designing tourism experience systems.
MULTIFILE
