Policy makers are looking for effective ways to promote the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). Among the options is the roll-out and management of charging infrastructure to meet the EV drivers’ refuelling needs. However, policies in this area do not only have a long-term effect on the adoption of EVs among prospective owners, they also have short-term impacts on the usage of public charging infrastructure among current EV owners and vice-versa. Presently, studies focusing on both effects simultaneously are lacking, missing out on possible cross-pollination between these areas. This study uniquely combines stated and revealed preference data to estimate the effect of particular policy measures aimed at EV adoption, on the one hand, and charging behaviour, on the other. Using a large dataset (1.7 million charging sessions) related to charging behaviour using public charging infrastructure in the Netherlands we quantify the effects of (i) daytime-parking (to manage parking pressure) and (ii) free parking (to promote purchase of EVs) policies on charging behaviour. To estimate the effects of these particular policies on EV purchase intentions, a stated choice experiment was conducted among potential EV-buyers. Results show that cross-pollinations between EV charging and adaptation policies exist and should be taken into account when designing policies for EV adoption.
MULTIFILE
At this moment, charging your electric vehicle is common good, however smart charging is still a novelty in the developing phase with many unknowns. A smart charging system monitors, manages and restricts the charging process to optimize energy consumption. The need for, and advantages of smart charging electric vehicles are clear cut from the perspective of the government, energy suppliers and sustainability goals. But what about the advantages and disadvantages for the people who drive electric cars? What opportunities are there to support the goals of the user to make smart charging desirable for them? By means of qualitative Co-design methods the underlying motives of early adaptors for joining a smart charging service were uncovered. This was done by first sensitizing the user about their current and past encounters with smart charging to make them more aware of their everyday experiences. This was followed by another generative method, journey mapping and in-depth interviews to uncover the core values that drove them to participate in a smart charging system. Finally, during two co-design sessions, the participants formed groups in which they were challenged to design the future of smart charging guided by their core values. The three main findings are as follows. Firstly, participants are looking for ways to make their sustainable behaviour visible and measurable for themselves. For example, the money they saved by using the smart charging system was often used as a scoreboard, more than it was about theactual money. Secondly, they were more willing to participate in smart charging and discharging (sending energy from their vehicle back to the grid) if it had a direct positive effect on someone close to them. For example, a retiree stated that he was more than willing to share the energy of his car with a neighbouring family in which both young parents work, making them unable to charge their vehicles at times when renewable energy is available in abundance. The third and last finding is interrelated with this, it is about setting the right example. The early adopters want to show people close to them that they are making an effort to do the right thing. This is known as the law of proximity and is well illustrated by a participant that bought a second-hand, first-generation Nissan Leaf with a range of just 80 km in the summer and even less in winter. It isn’t about buying the best or most convenient car but about showing the children that sometimes it takes effort to do the right thing. These results suggest that there are clear opportunities for suppliers of smart EV charging services to make it more desirable for users, with other incentives than the now commonly used method of saving money. The main takeaway is that early adopters have a desire for their sustainable behaviour to be more visible and tangible for themselves and their social environment. The results have been translated into preliminary design proposals in which the law of proximity is applied.
The number of Electric Vehicles (EVs) is expected to increase exponentially in the coming years. The growing presence of charging points generates a multitude of interactions between EV users, particularly in metropolitan areas where a charging infrastructure is largely part of the public domain. There is a current knowledge gap as to how current decisions on charging infrastructure deployment affect both current and future infrastructure performance. In the thesis an attempt is made to bridge this knowledge gap by creating a deeper understanding of the relation between charging behavior, charging infrastructure deployment, and performance.The results demonstrate shown how both strategic and demand-drive deployment strategies have an effect on performance metrics. In a case study in the Netherlands it was found that during the initial deployment phase, strategic Charging Points (CPs) facilitate EV users better than demand driven deployment. As EV user adoption increased, demand-driven CPs show to outperform strategic CPs.This thesis further shows that there are 9 EV user types each with distinct difference distinct behavior in terms of charging frequency and mean energy uptake, both of which relate to aggregate CP performance and that user type composition, interactions between users and battery size play an important role in explaining performance of charging infrastructure.A validated data-driven agent-based model was developed to explore effects of interactions in the EV system and how they influence performance. The simulation results demonstrate that there is a non-linear relation between system utilization and inconvenience even at the base case scenario. Also, a significant rise of EV user population will lead to an occupancy of non-habitual charging at the expense of habitual EV users, which leads to an expected decline of occupancy for habitual EV users.Additional simulations studies support the hypothesis that several Complex Systems properties are currently present and affecting the relation between performance and occupation.
In the coming decades, a substantial number of electric vehicle (EV) chargers need to be installed. The Dutch Climate Accord, accordingly, urges for preparation of regional-scale spatial programs with focus on transport infrastructure for three major metropolitan regions among them Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (AMA). Spatial allocation of EV chargers could be approached at two different spatial scales. At the metropolitan scale, given the inter-regional flow of cars, the EV chargers of one neighbourhood could serve visitors from other neighbourhoods during days. At the neighbourhood scale, EV chargers need to be allocated as close as possible to electricity substations, and within a walkable distance from the final destination of EV drivers during days and nights, i.e. amenities, jobs, and dwellings. This study aims to bridge the gap in the previous studies, that is dealing with only of the two scales, by conducting a two-phase study on EV infrastructure. At the first phase of the study, the necessary number of new EV chargers in 353 4-digit postcodes of AMA will be calculated. On the basis of the findings of the Phase 1, as a case study, EV chargers will be allocated at the candidate street parking locations in the Amsterdam West borough. The methods of the study are Mixed-integer nonlinear programming, accessibility and street pattern analysis. The study will be conducted on the basis of data of regional scale travel behaviour survey and the location of dwellings, existing chargers, jobs, amenities, and electricity substations.
To what extent does receiving information about either popular attractions or less-visited at-tractions, presented as “highlights” of the city, influence the movement of tourists to popular or less-visited attractions, and how does this differ by information channel through which the information is presented? To what extent does receiving information about either popular attractions or less-visited at-tractions, presented as “highlights” of the city, influence tourists’ experience, including their evaluations of the destination, their visit as a whole, and the specific information channel they received, and how does this differ by information channel through which the information is presented? What implementation models and financing mechanisms are available for DMO’s to spread tourists using the information channels tested, contingent on their effectiveness as measured by the previous experiment?Societal issueDestination Management Organisations (DMOs) are looking for interventions that effectively discourage tourists from visiting crowded hotspots and entice them to visit less crowded locations. Interventions like changing infrastructure, charging entrance fees and re-serving site access are either too expensive, too invasive or politically controversial. It is much easier to intervene on tourists' behaviour by informing them about alternatives.Collaborative partnersNHL Stenden, Travel with Zoey, Amsterdam and Partners, Wonderful Copenhagen, Mobidot.
