Content uploaded by Ines Kawgan-Kagan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ines Kawgan-Kagan on Mar 11, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Integrated charging infrastructure: cognitive interviews
to identify preferences in charging options
Stephan Daubitz
1
&Ines Kawgan-Kagan
1
Received: 2 January 2015 /Accepted: 22 September 2015 / Published online: 12 October 2015
#The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at SpringerLink.com
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to provide insight into how
people assess different charging options in the context of elec-
tric mobility and how charging can be integrated into daily
activities. The central research question concerns the accep-
tance of fast charging with direct current up to 200 kWh rel-
ative to alternative charging concepts such as inductive charg-
ing or battery changes as a part of mobility routines.
Method The Repertory Grid Technique uses cognitive inter-
views based on the Personal Construct Theory by George
Kelly to motivate respondents to reflect electric mobility be-
yond the insights that regular interview forms can provide. 20
respondents from Berlin were asked about their subjective
perceptions and emotions relating to electric mobility and to
different charging options.
Results Charging processes are accepted when they appear to
proceed subconsciously. That is, options are accepted when
they are not perceived to result in trip interruptions or delays.
Fuelling a vehicle with an internal combustion engine is most-
ly not considered as a trip interruption, and provides a
benchmark to which all other charging options are compared.
We identify the need to integrate charging options into
existing mobility patterns, and provide evidence arguing
against the need for a comprehensive charging infrastructure
from a users’perspective.
Conclusions The Repertory Grid technique provides a valu-
able tool for the exploration of perceptions of public and pri-
vate charging infrastructure. By overcoming difficulties in
reaching an underlying reality that are inherent to standard
interviews, this technique may be useful in creating a shift
towards a more sustainable mobility.
Keywords Perception of e-mobility .e-mobility .Charging
options .Integrated charging .BEV .Repertory grid
technique .Qualitativeinterviews .Preferences .Acceptance .
Fast charging .Cognitive interviews .Combined charging
systems
1 Introduction
The shift towards electric mobility as a sustainable form of
urban transport leads to a change of familiar traffic experi-
ences for most people. Traffic behaviour as the implemented
translocations is mostly routinized [1,23,43]. Mobility rou-
tines are internalized and repeatedly performed decisions and
behaviour for potential translocations prior to the actual mode
choice [2]. Once strategies are developed they are difficult to
change, particularly by external forces [1]. Because the pro-
cess of refuelling vehicles with an internal combusting engine
(ICEVs) is familiar and fits within such a routine, it generally
proceeds subconsciously. In contrast, the process of charging
battery electric vehicles (BEVs) is unfamiliar and may conse-
quently be seen as more effortful.
Description The special research method repertory grid gives the
opportunity to get to the bottom of cognitive perceptions and emotions
relating to electric mobility combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Driving Societal Changes
towards an Electro-mobility Future
*Ines Kawgan-Kagan
ines.kawgan-kagan@tu-berlin.de
Stephan Daubitz
stephan.daubitz@tu-berlin.de
1
Institute of Land and Sea Transport, Department of Integrated
Transport Planning, Technical University Berlin, Salzufer 17 –19,
10587 Berlin, Germany
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2015) 7: 35
DOI 10.1007/s12544-015-0184-2
Electric mobility, encompassing a combination of public
transport and electrically operated vehicles, requires the adop-
tion of new strategies and methods to assess, differentiate, and
select sustainable travel methods. In the context of BEVs, it is
important toconsider the perceptions of potential users includ-
ing factors such as range limitation or even range anxiety [34].
Charging of battery electric vehicles is discussed in terms of
capacity and infrastructure considering distances. In order to
create a shift towards a more sustainable mobility subjective
perception is of crucial importance for the acceptance of
charging options as coming along with the use of BEVs and
therefore needs to be analysed.
Previous studies mostly discussed charging processes from
a technical perspective regarding capacity, performances, en-
ergy sources and charging times [6,33]. Other studies cover
cost efficiency in terms of return on investment [40] and op-
timization of efficiency [14,45]. Costs of infrastructure has
been analysed and optimized concerning processes and model
of planning for charging infrastructure are proposed, including
interval-distance ratio, charge capacity and charging power
[19,21,33,44]. The impact of charging EVs on grids consid-
ering differences in energy storage technology, infrastructure,
and market context for optimization of driving range by min-
imizing costs has been analysed [7,29,41]. Consumers and
their mobility behaviour have been mostly researched in terms
of optimization of electricity costs and ranges partially con-
sidering range anxiety [22,29]. Fast charging was assessed by
using current mobility behaviour to model optimized fast
charging infrastructure [30]. Asking for day-to-day usability
of BEVs, studies focussed on range and average speed using
aggregated data and implying invariable mobility behaviour
[20,35].
From a psychological point of view, Lim stated in 2014 that
range anxiety is one of the two major barriers to mass adoption
of electrically powered vehicles besides resale anxiety [28].
Bakker even sees an elaborated fast charging infrastructure as
the key factor for the acceptance of electric vehicles since
pubic charging stations relief users from range anxiety [3].
Range anxiety, respectively the perception of comfortable
ranges related to charging behaviour has been presumed as a
given and constant factor and researched in order to optimize
charging processes [10]. Although Franke states that elucida-
tion provides a promising way of addressing perceived range
anxiety [12], most studies assume persistent mobility behav-
iour. It is used as a given and unchangeable factor when
analysing range and charging behaviour. Picking up this issue,
we analyse charging options using a qualitative approach,
which allows a deep reflection of users’mobility routines in
order to reach an underlying truth. The analysis of perception
of range so far did not take the whole process of charging into
consideration. The issue of integrating charging into daily
routines and mobility behaviour has not been addressed from
ausers’perspective. So far, psychological analyses focussed
on a superficial assessment considering range and charging
times as isolated factors. Cost efficiency and charging pro-
cesses have been treated without the context of daily routines.
Our research integrates all aspects and combines charging
processes and infrastructure requirements as well as compar-
ing several alternative options, discussing integration into the
daily life of users.
This research is part of the Combined Charging System
(CCS) project, including qualitative and cognitive interviews
focussed on the cognitive assessment of different charging
options for BEVs. CCS combines regular charging with alter-
nating current (AC) and fast charging with direct current (DC)
in one charging station. The aspect of fast charging is of spe-
cial interest, since it gives the opportunity to charge an electric
vehicle with up to 200 kWh, which leads short waiting times.
To address differences in perception a research approach has
been chosen that aims for revealing the current state of accep-
tance, considering daily mobility routines. This acceptance of
differentcharging options and refuelling is investigated for the
first time with a qualitative research method named Repertory
Grid Technique (RGT), which is based on the Personal Con-
struct Theory (PCT) by George A. Kelly [25]. PCT provides
an appropriate theoretical foundation in order to elicit the in-
dividual cognitive systems of subconscious assessments of
items [25,26].
2 Personal construct theory
Kelly argues that perception is not an objective process that
can be compared easily across individuals [26]. Each individ-
ual has a specific context ofassessment criteria, which leads to
a subjective perception. The criteria people use to evaluate
objects and subjects are not naturally given. In fact, they are
constructed and therefore named constructs. Personal con-
structs usually consist of two poles, which provide a range
of anticipation between a mostly positive pole and a negative
counter pole [4]. People rate objects, subjects, situations or
issues within this range of a construct [32]. Combining ratings
leads to an individual perception regarding the criteria that are
important to the respective individual. Some of the constructs
are unstable, some constructs are more important than others,
and different constructs of one individual may even be inter-
nally inconsistent. The process of assessment is usually sub-
liminal and helps to anticipate an individual’ssurroundingby
shaping or creating expectations and acceptance [18]. Societal
and publicly distributed constructs have a significant impact
on the generation and modification of constructs of
individuals.
Setting constructs in a relation to one another creates an
individual system of evaluation [25,26]. For every item, a
person has his or her own and very specific set of constructs
to assess. Instead of using objective categories to understand a
35 Page 2 of 14 Eur.Transp.Res.Rev.(2015)7:35
person’s perception, PCT sees the person as the creator of his
or her individual system of assessment. It is shaped by expe-
riences and is constantly influenced by new sources of infor-
mation [38]. Consequently, the perception of an individual can
never stand for an objective truth and cannot be assessed via
standardised and supposed objective criteria.
Because the majority of the German population currently
lacks experiences with electric mobility, constructs assessing
electric mobility and charging options are mostly built through
public media and comparison to vehicles with an internal
combustion engine. Therefore, perceptions of charging op-
tions are heavily influenced by regular refuelling procedures,
with which car drivers are usually familiar. The assessment of
charging options for battery electric vehicle, for example, is
determined by subjective categories that are susceptible to
interpretation [42]. For two different individuals a particular
wording, despite being objectively the same, can have two
completely different meanings. Therefore, the individuality
of construct systems requires a specific method to capture
how a person perceives an item. Kelly developed the Reper-
tory Grid Technique to grasp subjective construct systems.
Even qualitative depth or semi-structured interviews have lim-
itation when exploring subconscious routines [38]. Therefore,
instead of observing characteristics and explaining people
using objective observations, he asked the respondents to ex-
plain their world, as they perceive it [25].
3 Repertory grid technique
The analysis of subjective perception due to individual con-
struct systems requires an interview technique that gives the
respondents a possibility to anticipate items according to their
perception without constraints. Kelly developed a method for
understanding this subjective perceptions based on his PCT
[25–27]. Since a construct system is shaped by personal ex-
periences and cannot be observed directly, respondents must
be asked to reflect on and identify the constructs they use to
anticipate situations, people or other items. RGTwas original-
ly created for psychotherapeutic treatments of patients [25]. In
this task, participants were asked to assess mainly people, who
they categorized as belonging to specific groups such as fam-
ily or friends [13]. In addition to psychotherapeutic treatment,
RGT has been used in other research fields, as well for mar-
keting reasons. To date, RGT has not been used in many
studies covering mobility research: in the field of tourism
research, it has been repeatedly used to gain insight into
individuals^perception of destinations [9,36,37]. Another
study by Dick examined the application of RGT for everyday
traffic behaviour for individuals. However, although it fo-
cused on the method and on ways of analysing the data, it
unfortunately did not contain an analysis of the topic itself
[8]. Consequently, our study was designed to fill this gap in
the literature by examining perceptions of charging options as
an aspect of electric mobility using the Repertory Grid
Tec hniqu e.
We conducted 20 computer-assisted personal interviews
(CAPI) in November and December 2013 supported by special
software for the Repertory Grid Technique called GridSuite
[17]. Respondents with a higher affinity towards cars were
recruited through various ways: Potential respondents were
addressed either directly, online via a portal for professional
networking or through a chain-referral sampling technique.
Higher affinity towards cars was defined as either using one’s
own car on a daily basis or viewing it as a hobby. All of the
participants had some experience with BEVs: Ten respondents
reported having actual driving experience; of these, one wom-
an reported driving her BEV to work every day. Another man
reported driving an electric company car within Berlin. The
rest reported having at least seen BEVs in their everyday life.
All of the participants were either self-employed or employed
at the point of the interview, and eight of them were female.
The elements were presented to the respondents in triads of
cards [16]. We asked them to group two cards together accord-
ing to a shared attribute. After an initial intuitive grouping,
they were asked to reflect on which aspects of the items may
have led them to assign their groupings. The attribute of the
two similar elements represents the (positive) construct pole.
In order to elicit the counter pole, the respondents had to name
what distinguishes those two from the third element as given
in Fig. 1. Respondents largely did not have issues phrasing the
first constructs during a session. After a few triads it became
harder to put the intuitive grouping into concrete words.
Whenever constructs meanings started to become repetitive,
and respondents were unable to generate new constructs, this
part of the interview stopped. Using this strategy, each respon-
dent elaborated 7 to 8 constructs for a grid for a total of 156
constructs describing charging options and refuelling. The in-
terviews were conducted in German.
Since the focus of the present research is the acceptance of
different charging options of BEVs, we used seven charging
options. In addition, we used the refuelling of ICEVs as a
process that was well-known to our interviewees. Table 1con-
tains the elements as they were presented in German to the
respondents during the interview. Defining the elements for a
repertory grid has been previously argued to be the most dif-
ficult aspect of designing the interview [18]. To address this
issue, we identified our elements in a pilot study that included
ten semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted in the
summer of 2013. The results of these qualitative interviews
were then used to generate the narratives and pictures used to
present the elements.
After eliciting the construct poles, we asked the respon-
dents to rate all the elements on a scale from one to five for
each construct, where one stands for the construct pole and
five for the counter pole [24]. In addition to collecting the
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2015) 7: 35 Page 3 of 14 35
constructs and ratings, the interviews were recorded in order
to reproduce the meanings of the specific words that were
used to describe the differences. The meanings of particular
wordings can exhibit substantial differences from one respon-
dent to another [42]. Consequently, to understand the subjec-
tive meanings of different construct wordings, it is important
to consider how a construct was generated during an
interview.
At the end of the interview, we generated a complete grid
for each interviewee on the basis of their responses. Each grid
contained the elements of a particular topic, a construct pole,
and a respective counter pole as well as the ratings of all
elements regarding all constructs [4]. The set of generated
constructs shows which aspects of a particular topic play a
role in its perception. The following Table 2shows the
examplary connection of topic, constructs, elements and rat-
ings for a particular respondent in form of a complete grid:
The RGT combines qualitative narrative and quantitative
aggregated material [31]. The first step of analysis was to
perform a content analysis of the qualitative audio material
corresponding to the constructs, to gain a better understanding
of their actual meaning [42]. Additionally, the ratings were
analysed for internal consistency, because occasionally the
meaning of a construct changed over the course of the inter-
view. A complete grid displays the respective attitudes and
values of an individual. Since construct systems of individuals
are unique, it is not possible to directly compare the results of
the ratings of the elements between respondents [25,39]. That
said, aggregating constructs and ratings can be a usefulavenue
to gain insight into the perception of specific issues [24,31].
Thus, the constructs were used to generate a collective con-
struct system that captures the scope of perceptions of charg-
ing options [38]. These constructs were then further analysed
to explore our special interest in fast charging. The aggregated
constructs lead to specific dimensions having a significant
impact on the assessment of charging and refuelling options.
The next analysis step consisted of summarizing each re-
spondent’s ratings of the elements to explore similarities and
differences in how they perceived the elements. Ratings from
construct systems cannot be compared across the entire sam-
ple, because they represent different assessment dimensions
[18,25]. Nevertheless, the elements and ratings can be com-
pared to each other within the context of each individual re-
spondent’s construct system. This comparison yields each re-
spondent’s individual acceptance of an option based on the
constructs elicited during the interview, taking into context
the results of the content analysis. This method results in the
identification of shared characteristics that play a crucial role
for the perception and acceptance of fast charging. For each
element, we listed the respective elicited construct poles,
which were either rated with one or five.
Setting all ratings in a relation to the number of elements
and constructs, it is possible to calculate the percentage of
element similarity for each respondent according to his or
her construct system [15]. As described in the previous sec-
tion, we focussed on comparing fast charging to the rest of the
elements. See Table 11 in the results section for a visualisation
of these data. An advantage of this analysis method is that the
correlations between assessment criteria reveal acceptance be-
yond what respondents said during the interview.
4Results
To identify assessment criteria and acceptance for different
charging options, we present the range of relevant constructs
Fig. 1 Example of Triad (for more details see Table 1)
35 Page 4 of 14 Eur.Transp.Res.Rev.(2015)7:35
for all charging option and refuelling. In addition, special em-
phasis is placed on analysis of perceptions of fast charging of
BEVs. As a first step, we will provide an overview of the
assessments of all the different charging and refuelling op-
tions. Subsequently, we will report analyses designed to com-
pare fast charging with other charging and refuelling options
to gain a better understanding of the fast charging assessment
criteria.
4.1 Assessment of charging and refuelling options
All respondents approached charging options by comparing
them to their known and mostly routinized traffic behaviour.
Familiar car ranges and refuelling at a gas station both seemed
to be a first reference point in driving preferences. Experiences
with electric mobility also played a crucial role in the accep-
tance of different charging options, in line with findings from
Tabl e 1 Elements as presented in the Interview (translated from German into English)
Refuelling You use your car with an internal-combustion engine the
common way and refuel it the way you are used to.
Normal
charging
(public)
You can charge your BEV in public space at a special
charging station. You go to work and take your
recharged BEV to go home after work.
Normal
charging
(home)
You can charge your BEV at a reserved parking space
next to your home. Usually this is the origin and
destination of your trips.
Inductive
charging
Your BEV can be charged at special parking spaces
through wireless, inductive charging. This could be
possible while driving on special inductive charging
lanes as well.
Fast charging You drive with your BEV to the next fast charging station
at the gas station and recharge your car up to 80 %
within 30 minutes. Afterwards you can continue your trip.
Battery
replacement
You can charge your BEV at a changing station, where
your battery is being exchanged within five minutes.
Car sharing You use BEVs of car sharing service providers. You do
not have to take care of charging the BEV. If the battery
is low, you can simply change the car.
Intermodality You use your BEV until you reach the next public
station. From there on you use other modes of transport.
When you return to your BEV it is completely charged.
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2015) 7: 35 Page 5 of 14 35
previous studies [5,11]. Normative backgrounds were less rel-
evant. Nevertheless, during the interviews important assess-
ment criteria beyond range or even range anxiety were elicited.
4.1.1 Refuelling
TheactualtripinterruptioncausedbyrefuellinganICEVis
not recognized by most of the respondents. It is a subcon-
scious part of traffic behaviour and its duration seems to be
an accepted loss of time. Initially, it served as a benchmark for
acceptance of charging for the majority of the sample, and was
connected to the constructs Bindependency^,Bflexibility^and
Bavailability^. The number of constructs regarding refuelling
elicited during the interviews was the highest for all the pre-
sented options (see Table 3). Compared to other elements, it
was perceived as very Bfast^and Bflexible^and was
associated with greater perceived mobility. It is Balways
available^and does not constrain the respondents in any
way. They felt able to go where and when they want without
having to plan anything. However, there were also drawbacks
associated with refuelling ICEVs: compared to the other ele-
ments, respondents perceived it to be Bdirty^,Bout of fashion^,
or even Bobsolete^. Despite these drawbacks, respondents
largely accepted it as an option that is suitable to everyone’s
life and mobility requirements.
4.1.2 Normal charging (public)
The scope of perceptions of charging in public in specifically
reserved parking spaces was substantially smaller than of the
other options (see Table 4). It was mostly perceived as being
Bslow^and Buncomfortable^, and to require respondents Bto
Tabl e 2 Grid example, topic: charging and refuelling options
1
Construct pole
Elements 5
Counter pole
Battery
exchange
Inductive
charging
Regular
refuelling
Fast
charging
Car
sharing
Inter-
modality
Regular
charging
Home
charging
Common 5 2 5 2 1 2 4 3 Super innovative
Hard to realise 1 5 1 2 5 5 2 3 Realisable
Ecol. aware 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 Not ecol. aware
Forced 1 4 5 3 4 3 3 5 Not forced
Difficult1 5 1 35335Simple
Cost-intense 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 Cost-efficient
Inconvenient 1 4 4 2 4 4 4 5 Convenient
Tabl e 3 List of constructs regarding refuelling, N=20, Berlin
Realizable (10×) (I am) free Fully developed Not time-consuming
Fast (8×) Acceptable Given infrastructure Obsolete
Flexible (in time) (8×) According to travel behaviour Having sole responsibility Out of fashion
Unconstrained (use) (4×) Conventional I am not going to lose anything Past
(It is) mine (3×) Cost intense I have to do something Permanent Mobility
Comfortable (3×) Does not constrain my individuality I know what I’ve got Private
Harmful to the environment (3×) Does not interrupt my mobility Individual Provides mobility
Independent (3×) Don’t have to plan my time Keeps the possibility of being spontaneous Public
Always available (2×) Don’t have to take care Known Regular speed
Common (2×) Don’t have to wait Long range Reliable
Dirty (2×) Efficient Low start-up costs Safe offer
Don’t have to change routines (2×) Everything is possible Many possible ways to use Societal acceptance
Easy (2×) Exclusive My living room To take care
Everyday-life like (2×) Expensive My mobility stays as it is Uniform transport
Free (2×) External resources Need to take care Use as it is
Not constrained to a location (2×) Fits my daily life Not bound to supplier of electric energy Works for everybody
Practical (2×) Flexible in time Not innovative
Safe (technology) (2×) For long term use Not susceptible to vandalism
35 Page 6 of 14 Eur.Transp.Res.Rev.(2015)7:35
change routines^, because it restricts individuals to remaining
in specific locations. Respondents did not yet trust in the
existing infrastructure. Consequently, this option was associ-
ated with uncertainty. Most of the respondents excluded this
charging option as a possibility for themselves because they
reported not having seen any charging stations along their
route to or from work. Nevertheless, it is the most Bknown^
charging option to the interviewees, although it did not result
in many construct poles. Even after reflecting their traffic be-
haviour routines, the majority of respondents did not see this
option as acceptable. Most of the respondents were concerned
about the possibility of failing to locate charging station, or if
they were to find a charging station it might be occupied.
Although many of the respondents initially talked about a
comprehensive charging infrastructure, it became a less im-
portant aspect after consideration of daily routines.
4.1.3 Normal charging (home)
The option of charging at home overnight was another highly
accepted recharging method for most of the respondents (see
Tab le 5). It was perceived as being Bcomfortable^, and respon-
dents reported feeling as they Bdon’t have to take care of
anything^. Although the interviewees perceived it to be the
slowest option, the long charging duration was partially not
perceived as being stressful. The time-consumption and
location-constraints were evaluated ambivalently. Because
home is the origin and destination of most of the trips, respon-
dents saw it as a Bnatural station^because they would have to
Bgo there anyway^, as phrased by one respondent. Charging at
this Bnatural station^was seen as something that would natu-
rally Bhappen along the way^, and was consequently not per-
ceived as an interruption or as a loss of time. One respondent
phrased a picturesque contrast of Bmy living room^for charg-
ing at home versus Bto be visiting^for car sharing services.
She associates the construct pole Bmy living room^with a
very positive, warm, and cosy feeling, as well as with safety
and privacy.
4.1.4 Inductive charging
The perception and assessment of inductive charging as an easy
option of charging a BEV was mostly positive (see Table 6). It
was seen as a very fast option, which does not necessitate
exerting much additional effort, or having to change routines.
It does not appear to require additional planning or unusual
actions. Rather, it Bhappens along the way^, as phrased by one
respondent. Other positive construct poles that were used to
evaluate inductive charging were responses such as Bsorcery^
or Ball-round carefree package^. This charging option does not
appear lead to behavioural changes for respondents, and even
makes refuelling stops redundant. Nevertheless, although the
reception of inductive charging was largely positive, there were
also some negative perceptions associated with this option. In the
presented form, inductive charging presents an unsafe solution.
Unsolved technical issues are associated with massive impacts
on health and the environment (e.g., electromagnetic radiation).
Consequently, a lot of Bpublic resistance^is expected. Addition-
ally, the high costs associated with the implementation of this
technology also played a crucial role in its acceptance. Despite
these concerns regarding safety and cost, inductive charging was
the most accepted form of charging across our sample as it is
perceived as almost invisible and very Bcomfortable^.
4.1.5 Fast charging
For the assessment of fast charging, the factor of duration
presents an important consideration (see Table 7). Half an
hour of charging results in the inescapable consequence of
having to change the traffic behaviour routines. Respondents
were aware of this necessity, and produced both positive and
negative appraisals in response. One of the respondents was
unable to imagine using a fast charging station, because it
would force him to Brearrange^his entire work day. This
respondent was unable to think of potential ways to use the
half hour required for charging in a productive manner. He
was not willing to bring a laptop, documents, or other required
Tabl e 4 List of constructs regarding normal charging in public, N=20, Berlin
Slow (7×) Public (2×) Getting nowhere Need to wait
Realizable (4×) Already existing Having sole responsibility Not constrained to a location
Known (Conventional) Bound to supplier of electric energy I am not going to lose anything Relaxed (time)
Safe (technology) (3×) Calms me down Individual Societal acceptance
Uncomfortable (3×) Comfortable It is mine Suitable for urban areas
Environment friendly (2×) Constrains my individuality Many possible ways to use Susceptible to vandalism
Have to change routines (2×) Dependent My living room Uniform transport
Need to take care (2×) External resources My vehicle
Not flexible (in time) (2×) Flexible (time) Need to plan my time
Not practical (2×) For long term use Need to stay home
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2015) 7: 35 Page 7 of 14 35
items with him in the car to use this time to work. Although
most of the interviewees did not accept the duration of charg-
ing associated with fast charging, the demand of a form of
mobility that is always available led respondents to name the
construct Bflexibility^in response to this option. Despite the
positive appraisal of the flexibility of this option, the draw-
backs related to the duration of charging dominated the per-
ceptions of this option. Respondents associated fast charging
with massive changes in their daily routines, and consequently
named negative construct poles such as Bdependency^or Bnot
free^. Other respondents with similar perceptions additionally
associated fast charging with Bnot being practical^and with
being Bcircumstantial^. The notion of availability was a cru-
cial element for this group of respondents in their assessment
of charging and refuelling options. To them, mobility seems to
be requiring constant access and a lack of interruptions in use.
Anything that differs from this conception of mobility appears
to be an Bobstacle^or Binterference^.
4.1.6 Battery replacement
Charging options that were perceived as being similar to normal
refuelling appeared to be more acceptable to the respondents
relative to other options (see Table 8). In this study, battery
replacement at a gas station was seen as a familiar process as
it is associated with similar durations and locations to which
individuals are already accustomed. This option was mostly
perceived as a Bfast^,Bflexible^,Bmodern^and Bcomfortable^
Tabl e 5 List of constructs regarding charging at home, N=20, Berlin
Comfortable (7×) Relaxed in time (2×) For long term use Not forced
Don’t have to take care of anything (5×) Time-consuming (2×) Free Not innovative
Slow (5×) Unconstrained use (2×) Happens along the way Not susceptible to vandalism
(It is) mine (4×) According to travel behaviour Have to change routines Not time-consuming
Constrained (to a location) (4×) Calms me down Having sole responsibility One Possibility of use
Not flexible (4×) Cannot use other modes I am not going to lose anything Permanent Mobility
Realizable (4×) Constrains my individuality I know what I’ve got Private resources
Safe (technology) (4×) Dependent Individual Purely electric
I have to do something (2×) Does not interrupt my mobility Low cost Relaxed
Known (2×) Easy Low range Reliable
Modern (2×) Efficient Mobilizes me Societal acceptance
Need to plan my time (2×) Environment friendly My living room Suitable for rural areas
Practical (3×) Everything is possible Need to stay home Uniform transport
Private (2×) Exclusive Need to wait
Real (2×) Flexible in time Not bound to supplier of electric energy
Tabl e 6 List of constructs regarding inductive charging, N=20, Berlin
Fast (6×) Aesthetically acceptable I don’tknowwhatI’ve got Public resistance
Comfortable (5×) All-round carefree package I have to do something Purely electric
Hard to realize (5×) Calms me down Independent Quick access
Don’thavetotakecareofanything
(4×)
Decent Individual Realizable
Cost intense (high start-up costs) (3×) Difficult Interrupted mobility Regular speed
Flexible (3×) Don’thavetowait Itismine Relaxed(time)
Innovative (modern) (3×) Don’t need to do anything Many possible ways to use Safe
Constrained (to a location) (2×) Dubious My living room Safe offer
Fits my daily life (2×) Environment friendly My mobility stays as it is Sorcery
Flexible in time (2×) Everyday-life like My vehicle Strange
Happens along the way (2×) Exclusive No need to plan my time Suitablefor long distances of dailylife
Not constrained to a location (2×) For long term use Not bound to supplier of electric energy Suitable for urban areas
Not safe (2×) Future Not clear Thrilling
Practical (2×) Given infrastructure Not complicated Unforced
(I am) free Hand over responsibility Not susceptible to vandalism Uniform transport
According to travel behaviour I am not going to lose anything Public Unknown
35 Page 8 of 14 Eur.Transp.Res.Rev.(2015)7:35
way to charge a BEV. It was considered to be the fastest charg-
ingmethod,andtherefore,anadequate alternative to refuelling.
Respondents were generally unwilling to change their traffic
behaviour routines. For them, it was important to maintain Bthe
possibility of being spontaneous^that is an advantage of using
an ICEV, as some stated. With this option, respondents felt as
though they would be free to go wherever they want without
having to plan for contingencies in case the battery runs low.
Despite these benefits, some disadvantages were also associat-
ed with a battery exchange: although rated as Benvironmental
friendly^by one participant, another respondent perceived it as
a waste of resources –especially of lithium. Construct poles like
Bhard to realize^were associated with this option, reflecting the
fact that this option would likely be challenging to implement.
Some respondents criticised battery replacement as an approach
that leads to indispensable deposit systems. One respondent
even considered himself to be exposed to higher costs, because
he expected an extra charge for the service of exchanging the
battery. For this respondent, the higher expenses associated
with this option would be unacceptable.
4.1.7 Car sharing
The car sharing element was perceived both positively and
negatively across the sample (see Table 9). For this option,
prior experiences, particularly with free floating car sharing
services played a major role in perception. Free floating car
sharing presents a flexible contrast to round-trip car sharing:
cars can simply be picked up on the street and do not have to
be returned to a fixed station. Respondents who reported using
car sharing services assessed this option through the construct
Brealizable^, and associated it with requiring Blittle efforts^.
This form of mobility gave respondents a feeling of indepen-
dence. However, respondents who reported either not having
yet used these services or having used them only one or two
times evaluated car sharing very differently: to these partici-
pants, availability did not seem to be guaranteed. One per-
ceived obstacle was the required time to find a car. Relative
to the charging options involving fixed stations, this option
was perceived as insecure. For some respondents, owning a
car was an important aspect of mobility culture and led to
Tabl e 7 List of constructs regarding fast charging in public, N=20, Berlin
Environment friendly (3×) Calms me down I am not going to lose anything Not constrained to a location
Need to take care (3×) Constrained to a location I need to plan my time Not free
Public (2×) Dependent Individual Not practical
Realizable (2×) Does not work for everybody Interrupts my mobility Obstructive
Safe (technology) (2×) Expensive It is mine Purely electric
Uncomfortable (2×) External resources Known Societal acceptance
Having sole responsibility Fast Modern Static
Aesthetically Inacceptable Flexible (time) My living room Unacceptable
All-round carefree package Given infrastructure My vehicle Uniform transport
Bound to supplier of electric energy Have to change routines Not clear
Tabl e 8 List of constructs regarding battery replacement, N=20, Berlin
Fast (8×) Bound to supplier of electric energy Given infrastructure Not relaxed (time)
Hard to realize (5×) Constrained Happens along the way Not susceptible to vandalism
Comfortable (4×) Cost intense I am not going to lose anything Possibility of distant destinations
Flexible (4×) Dependent I have to do something Public
Unconstrained use (4×) Difficult Forced Purely electric
(I am) free (2×) Diligent I know what I’ve got Regular speed
Always available (2×) Does not constrain my individuality Individual Represents prejudice
Efficient (2×) Does not interrupt my mobility It is mine Restructures my life
Modern (2×) Don’t have to take care of anything Keeps the possibility of being spontaneous Safe offer
Need to take care (2×) Don’t have to wait Makes me mobile Societal acceptance
No need to plan my time (2×) Don’t need to do anything Many possible ways to use Suitable for rural areas
Practical (2×) Easy Masculine Super innovative
Realizable (2×) Environment friendly My living room Uncomfortable
Safe (2×) External resources My mobility stays as it is Uniform transport
According to travel behaviour Fits my daily life My vehicle Works for everybody
Boring For long term use Not practical
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2015) 7: 35 Page 9 of 14 35
constructs such as Bprivate –foreign^. For these respondents,
this played a major role in the evaluation of car sharing. One
respondent even directly stated that he prefers it Bif something
is owned by him^.
4.1.8 Intermodality
The intermodal approach that consists of using a car until
reaching the next public transport station to switch to the local
public traffic system did not represent a positively rated charg-
ingoption(seeTable10). Predominantly, the respondents who
travel monomodal by car were consequently unable to imagine
travelling with such inconvenient interruptions. One of the re-
spondents mentioned that she would feel Blike losing
something^(e.g., Bgrocery bags^,Bchildren^). Changes in
travel mode were associated with the potential to lose items,
which requires individuals to be careful and attentive. Most of
the negative ratings of this option stem from the perception that
charging at the station represents an unacceptable interruption
of mobility. Thus, although this option was commonly associ-
ated with the positive perception of being Bsafe^and
Benvironmental friendly^, for most of the respondents it was
incompatible with established daily routines. This Bhybrid^is
partially associated with being for commuters from the suburbs.
In the present study, the inclusion of assessments of a va-
riety of charging and refuelling options resulted in more fine
grained information about the factors that influence
perceptions of mobility. A crucial factor in the constructs elic-
ited by the respondents is prior experience with electric mo-
bility. For current users of BEVs, the constructs relating to the
need to plan both time and trips accordingly are distinct and
nonnegative relative to those of respondents without experi-
ence with BEVs. One user reported that although she has to
plan charging at home or at a charging station, it does not
constitute an issue for her. She compared the process of
adapting to the use of BEVs to the process of Badapting new
routines to a new period of life, where you have to learn new
patterns as well^. This respondent reported that she usually
charges her BEV at home, and described it as a modern and
comfortable charging method. She further reported that she
found it Bcool not having to go to a gas station anymore^.
In general, for respondent without experience driving elec-
tric vehicles or for those who do not have much information,
charging options have to be close to their current routines to be
seen as acceptable. Battery exchange as a substitute for
refuelling seems to offer these respondents the flexibility to
keep their mobility routines because this option is similar to
their current mobility routines. Respondent with more experi-
ences, however, are more open to adapting to electric mobility
and are at least able to imagine integrating charging processes
into their daily routines.
Although the prospect of waiting 30 min at a gas station
was seen as unacceptable, some respondents were open to the
possibility of fast charging periods if they were to be
Tabl e 9 List of constructs regarding car sharing, N=20, Berlin
Realizable (8×) Does not interrupt my mobility Intermodal Safe technology
Don’t have to take care of anything (3×) Easy Interrupts my mobility Slow
Flexible (3×) Exchangeable Joint Societal acceptance
Comfortable (2×) Expensive Known Suitable for urban areas
Environment friendly (2×) Fast Lazy Time-consuming
External resources (2×) Given infrastructure Modern To be visiting
Need to take care (2×) Hand over responsibility Not constrained to a location Unconstrained use
Strange (2×) Have to change routines Not flexible in time Uniform transport
Uncomfortable (2×) I know what I’ve got Not susceptible to vandalism Works for everybody
Bound to supplier of electric energy Independent Provides mobility
Clean Ineffective Public
Cumbersomely Innovative Purely electric
Tabl e 1 0 List of constructs regarding intermodality, N=20, Berlin
Safe (technology) (3×) Comfortable Having sole responsibility Not flexible
Slow (3×) Cumbersomely Hybrid Possibility of using other modes
Environment friendly (2×) Don’t have to change routines Interrupts my mobility Public
Need to take care (2×) Exchangeable Known Relaxed in time
Realizable (2×) Flexible in time Modern Societal acceptance
(It is) mine For long term use Need to stay home Suitable for urban areas
Calms me down Getting nowhere Need to wait Uncomfortable
35 Page 10 of 14 Eur.Transp.Res.Rev.(2015)7:35
integrated with other activities such as shopping at a mall. An
alternative approach of integrated charging that was also ac-
cepted was while being at home or at work with a reliable
parking space.
4.2 Similarity in perception of fast charging and other
charging and refuelling options
Thesecondstepofanalysesinvolvescomparingthesimilarity
values across the sample. Since the present research focusses
on fast charging facilities and the requirements of such a sys-
tem, in this stage fast charging was compared to the rest of the
charging and refuelling options. In the foreground the relative
similarity or differences in the perception of the various op-
tions was explored. Note that similarity values are distinct
from acceptance. It is possible, for example, for respondents
to exhibit high similarity values for both fast and regular
charging, while not accepting either charging option. Thus,
in addition to exploring the acceptance of these options, we
used the results of the content analysis to infer some of the
major differences and similarities in perception of charging
and refuelling options from a users’perspective.
Tab le 11 shows the similarity values for fast charging com-
pared to the other charging and refuelling options. Values are
underlayed according to their height, such that lighter colours
denote greater similarity and darker values denote lower sim-
ilarity. Each column represents one respondent. The order of
the elements in the left column is based on the overall average
similarity given in the second column.
Consideration of the similarities between fast charging and
regular charging in public spaces reveals that there are few
differences between the two elements for the respondents.
The average similarity is 82 %. Predominantly, respondents
are not aware of differences because some of them lack the
relevant experiences. Thus, their construct systems have not
been modified by practical experiences and are instead based
on known refuelling processes, in addition to being affected
by mostly negative public constructs that have been distribut-
ed by the media. An initial scepticism is present in the percep-
tions of fast charging and regular charging, which stands in
contrast to the well-known refuelling processes at gas stations.
As a result, for most respondents a comprehensive public
charging infrastructure is an initial requirement for accep-
tance. After taking the daily routines into account, it becomes
apparent that it is not the mere amount of charging stations that
results in negative perceptions. Even with fast charging, which
reduces the waiting time during charging from several hours
to 30 min, was not associated with a high rate of acceptance.
Respondents did not see this 30 min waiting period as some-
thing that would be practical to integrate into their individual
mobility routines: First, for most of the respondents, this time
was perceived as wasted because they would be unable to use
this time in a productive manner (e.g., to work). The accep-
tance of this option was lowest for public regular (AC) and
fast (DC) charging stations located in areas where users could
not do anything else. Most of the respondents were not willing
to change their routines to adapt to waiting times. Neverthe-
less, this option was accepted by respondents who were able
to think of a productive way to occupy their time close to the
public charging station. Possible activities included things
such as short shopping for fast charging, or working for reg-
ular charging periods. Second, another perceived obstacle to
this option involved concerns about a fully charged BEV:
specifically, participants were concerned about the possibility
of blocking a charging station with a fully charged BEV,
which would inconvenience others. For some respondents,
the possibility of coming home in the evening and charging
the car at a public fast charging station was associated with
expectations of guilt at preventing someone else in need from
using the charging station. However, respondents did not
seem to think it would be practical to plan to relocate the car
to avoid a guilty conscience.
Charging processes currently seem to require a similar pro-
cess to refuelling. Most of the respondents were initially not
able to think of scenarios to integrate fast charging or regular
charging in their daily traffic behaviour. Therefore, both op-
tions were mainly perceived as unacceptable in terms of prac-
ticality and convenience. Additionally, other constructs have
been phrased that stand for a negative perception of fast charg-
ing compared to regular charging options: fast charging was
Tabl e 11 Similarities of fast charging compared to other options in %, N=20, Berlin
Elements ØRespondents
Regular charging 82 82 88 72 75 78 88 75 84 75 91 86 66 88 91 84 79 91 89 100 59
Intermodality 78 86 88 75 84 94 84 69 69 72 81 93 75 44 69 84 75 72 89 94 56
Car sharing 68 71 66 75 81 66 78 69 69 78 69 71 78 62 84 53 68 56 82 62 12
Home charging 60 75 78 56 47 53 53 53 72 66 81 50 59 62 69 34 36 41 79 78 56
Inducve charging 59 68 66 59 47 56 69 59 47 44 44 50 38 53 59 78 54 84 96 94 19
Baery exchange 58 54 56 62 59 53 53 84 72 78 62 79 66 59 38 47 46 78 34 56 25
Refuelling 54 43 44 69 59 59 50 78 66 62 72 61 38 56 66 22 32 66 57 75 6
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2015) 7: 35 Page 11 of 14 35
rated as being Bmore expensive^. To implement fast charging,
it will be necessary to build an infrastructure that must be
financed by both users and taxpayers. Consequently, fast
charging is perceived to have a negative societal impact.
Moreover, in additional to being perceived as being very ex-
pensive, fast charging is expected to lead to higher abrasion of
batteries, which also increases the costs incurredby fast charg-
ing processes. In contrast, charging at home appears to be the
most cost-efficient way of charging and therefore showed the
highest acceptance.
Generally, the differences between AC and DC were is not
obvious to the most of the respondents. For some of the re-
spondents, these charging options were appraised equally.
This equal assessment was highly negatively correlated with
the acceptance of electric mobility in general. For instance,
one respondent named the construct Bcrackbrained^to de-
scribe regular public charging stations. In his view, they are
Bthe opposite of practical^, and he reported that he does Bnot
understand why they have not been sabotaged yet^.Accord-
ingly, all the other options of charging facilities were rated
similar to regular public charging.
Another important factor is a lack of trust with regard to
new technologies. Especially, missing experiences with high
voltages lead to this distrust. One factor that likely contributes
to this scepticism of charging is the fact that humans are un-
able to sense electricity without actually touching it. Electric-
ity is typically associated with danger and life-threatening
situations, and handling it is neither common nor routinized.
In contrast, refuelling a car is common and routinized, despite
the fact that gasoline is also potentially dangerous. Conse-
quently, a lack of experience with charging leads to a reliance
on publicly accessible information about charging and the
familiar refuelling construct system.
After being asked about their daily mobility routines and
actual their traffic behaviour, charging at origins and destina-
tions seemed to be the most accepted option. Both charging
options (regular charging in public and fast charging) were
predominantly seen as an interruption of mobility that was
perceived as a greater inconvenience than refuelling a car at
a gas station. Thus, refuelling was perceived as being most
different from fast charging. The average similarity for fast
charging and regular refuelling was merely 54 %, which rep-
resents the lowest match between fast charging and the other
options. This differentiation is based on various reasons. On
the one hand, there are respondents that verbalize normative
constructs such as Bclean –dirty^,andBmodern –old
fashioned^. Environmental consciousness was important to
some respondents. On the other hand, respondents perceived
refuelling as a familiar and approved method that is used on a
daily basis. Thus, trip interruptions are not recognized. In re-
lation to other charging options, this option appears to require
a comprehensive infrastructure that does not yet exist, prior to
acceptance by the majority of the respondents.
Respondents saw concepts that include a plug-in charging
station as very similar to one another. Whether or not respon-
dents have previously noticed charging stations dominated
their assessments, because most of the respondents do not
yet have practical experiences with charging. Regular
refuelling represents the main point of reference when
assessing other options. Therefore, other elements are typical-
ly contrasted with this option. Battery exchange and inductive
charging, which were both novel to most of the respondents,
were mostly rated as acceptable alternatives to refuelling
ICEVs. Although fast charging was associated with higher
flexibility, when respondents started to reflect their own mo-
bility patterns it became clear that this option was perceived as
difficult to implement into daily routines. Fast charging may
not always be the best option, unless it hits the benchmark and
can take place within a time frame that is comparable to
refuelling an ICEV.
5 Conclusion
A novel contribution of the present research is the first analy-
sis of the perception of fast charging of BEVs compared to
other charging and refuelling options. Using the Repertory
Grid Technique developed by Kelly according to his Personal
Construct Theory, we were able to elicit constructs of assess-
ment of different charging and refuelling options and explore
similarities and differences in the perception of those options.
In the characterisation of current mobility routines, knowledge
of refuelling processes dominated perceptions charging. For
most of the respondents this background served as the bench-
mark for all the different charging options for BEVs and im-
plies an apparent obstacle of electric mobility. In addition,
public media influences the assessment and provides con-
structs making up for the lack of respective experiences.
Range as a publicly distributed construct was initially the
main factor in the acceptance of charging BEVs. It was con-
nected to constructs such as Bindependency^,Bflexibility^and
Bavailability^. These construct poles represent a form of mo-
bility that is shaped by experiences with ICEVs. The current
state of charging technology does not satisfy the requirements
of mobility, since it leads to the necessity of developing new
routines.
However, for the majority of our sample, the integration of
charging into daily routines was seen as an acceptable option
of electric mobility for the majority. Charging processes dur-
ing shopping, while at work, or participating in leisure activ-
ities were rated as attractive alternatives to refuelling ICEVs.
For respondents, it was important that charging proceeds with-
out being noticed. Charging BEVs at home generally provided
the most appealing option for the respondents. Early adopters
of BEVs are yet able to integrate the charging processes into
their daily life and develop new routines of traffic behaviour.
35 Page 12 of 14 Eur.Transp.Res.Rev.(2015)7:35
Respondents without driving experiences appeared to find it
difficult to imagine having to change their routines, but did not
exclude the possibility entirely.
In order to leverage electric mobility, it is crucial to gain an
alternative understanding of mobility, which has to be
governed by different ideological and guiding principles.
Gas stations currently offer a comprehensive infrastructure
for refuelling ICEVs. However, they are not accepted though
as locations for charging BEVs with direct current. Accord-
ingly, the concept of gas stations could become obsolete for
charging BEVs. In addition, respondents were not able to
imagine daily routines with a 30 min break at a gas station,
or the fact of needing to relocate the car after it is fully
charged. The duration of charging needs to be short enough
to Bdisappear in the background^when charging at public
stations. However, the possibility of integrating charging with
other activities was seen as a highly accepted option of charg-
ing BEVs. Using charging periods for other activities was
accepted at high rates because it fulfills the requirement of
invisible charging. Thus, integration of charging into daily
routines is the key to acceptance of electric mobility. Never-
theless, if charging at a gas station were possible within a
duration comparable to the current process of refuelling, it
would be possible to maintain the current mobility culture.
A complete understanding of mobility presupposes its re-
flection. In order to support the acceptance of new forms of
mobility, it is critical to raise awareness of the traffic behav-
iours of all individuals. The present study provides insight into
rarely verbalized routines, perceptions and assessments of
charging, since the actual traffic behaviour is highly routinized
for most of the people. Research about range anxiety has con-
cluded to providing a comprehensive charging infrastructure
as a key of acceptance. In our paper we demonstrate that this
may not be necessary once respondents reflect their actual
daily routines. Our results suggest that range anxiety can be
overcome by other practices such as raising awareness of ac-
tual traffic behaviour rather than building a comprehensive
charging infrastructure.
Acknowledgments The CCS project is part of the Berlin-Brandenburg
International Showcase for Electromobility, which is funded by the fed-
eral government as well as by the federal states of Berlin and Branden-
burg for 3 years as part of the federal government’s Showcase initiative.
CCS combines both charging stations (alternating current (AC) and direct
current (DC)) for battery electric vehicles and tests them in highly visible
places in Berlin.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-
priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
1. Ahrend C (2009) Spotlights. Zukünfte in Mobilitätsroutinen.In
Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung. Beiträge aus
Wissenschaft und Praxis, R. Popp and E. Schüll, Editors. Berlin,
Heidelberg.p.307–312
2. Ahrend C et al (2013) Kleiner Begriffskanon der
Mobilitätsforschung,inDiscussion Paper,T.B.Integrierte
Verkehrsplanung, Editor
3. Bakker J (2011) Contesting range anxiety: the role of electric vehi-
cle charging infrastructure in the transportation transition.
Eindhoven University of Technology
4. Bannister D, Fransella F (1986) Inquiring man: The psychology of
personal constructs. 3 ed, London, Dover, N.H: Croom Helm. viii,
194
5. Bühler F et al (2014) Is EV experience related to EV acceptance?
Results from a German field study. Transportation Research Part F:
traffic psychology and behaviour. 25, Part A(0): p. 34–49
6. Chan CC, Chau KT (2001) Modern electric vehicle technology, vol
47. Oxford Press, Oxford
7. De Craemer K, Deconinck G (2012) Balancing trade-offs in coor-
dinated PHEV charging with continuous market-based control. p.
1–8
8. Dick M (2000) Die Anwendung narrativer Gridinterviews in der
psychologischen Mobilitätsforschung. Forum: Qualitative
Sozialforschung (1 (2))
9. Embacher J, Buttle F (1989) A repertory grid analysis of Austria’s
image as a summer vacation destination. J Travel Res 27(3):3–7
10. Franke T, Krems JF (2013) Understanding charging behaviour of
electric vehicle users. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 21:
75–89
11. Franke T, Krems JF (2013) What drives range preferences in elec-
tric vehicle users? Transp Policy 30:56–62
12. Franke T et al (2012) Experiencing range in an electric vehicle:
understanding psychological barriers. Appl Psychol 61(3):368–391
13. Fransella F (2003) International handbook of personal construct
psychology. Wiley, Chichester, p 529
14. Frolik J, Hines P (2012) Random access, electric vehicle charge
management. p. 1–4
15. Fromm M (1995) Repertory Grid Methodik: Ein Lehrbuch.
Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim
16. Fromm M (2004) Introduction to the repertory Grid interview.
Waxmann, Münster, p 189
17. Fromm M, Bacher A (2003) GridSuite 2.1.0: Software zur
Erhebung, Bearbeitung und Auswertung von Repertory-Grid-
Interviews. /04
18. Fromm M, Paschelke S (2010) GridPractice: Anleitung zur
Durchführung und Auswertung von Grid-Interviews. 1 ed.
Norderstedt: Books on Demand. 184 S
19. Gharbaoui M et al (2012) An advanced smart management system
for electric vehicle recharge. p. 1–8
20. Greaves S, Backman H, Ellison AB (2014) An empirical assess-
ment of the feasibility of battery electric vehicles for day-to-day
driving. Transp Res A Policy Pract 66:226–237
21. Guo C et al (2012) Planning method of charging infrastructure
based on energy equivalent. p. 739–744
22. Halvgaard R et al (2012) Electric vehicle charge planning using
Economic Model Predictive Control. p. 1–6
23. Harms S (2002) Besitzen oder Teilen. Vom Routinehandeln zur
bewusst-rationalen Wahl zwischen Mobilitätsalternativen: Wann
steigen Autobesitzende auf das Car Sharing um? Rügger Verlag,
Zürich
24. Jankowicz D (2004) The easy guide to repertory grids. Chichester,
West Sussex, England, Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley. 1 online resource
(xix, 308
Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. (2015) 7: 35 Page 13 of 14 35
25. Kelly GA (1955) Clinical diagnosis and psychotherapy. 1 ed. The
psychology of personal constructs. New York, NY: Norton.
5591218
26. Kelly GA (1963) A theory of personality. Norton, New York, p 190
27. Kelly GA (1986) Die Psychologie der persönlichen Konstrukte.
Reihe innovative Psychotherapie und Humanwissenschaften.
Paderborn: Junfermann. 191 S
28. Lim MK, Mak H-Y, Rong Y (2015) Toward mass adoption of
electric vehicles: impact of the range and resale anxieties. Manuf
Serv Oper Manag 17(1):101–119
29. Lin Z, Greene DL (2010) Rethinking FCV/BEV vehicle range: a
consumer value trade-off perspective. Medium: X
30. Machiels N et al (2014) Design criteria for electric vehicle fast
charge infrastructure based on flemish mobility behavior. IEEE
Trans on Smart Grid 5(1):320–327
31. Marsden D, Littler D (2000) Repertory grid technique –An inter-
pretive research framework. Eur J Mark 34(7):816–834
32. Meyer M, Freitag M (2009) In: Kühl S, Strodtholz P, Taffertshofer
A (eds) Repertory Grid, in Handbuch Methoden der
Organisationsforschung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften,
Wiesbaden
33. Moura SJ et al (2010) Tradeoffs between battery energy capacity
and stochastic optimal power management in plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles. J Power Sources 195(9):2979–2988
34. Nilsson M (2011) Electric vehicles: an interview study investigating
the phenomenon of range anxiety
35. Pearre NS et al (2011) Electric vehicles: how much range is re-
quired for a day’s driving? Transp Res Part C: Emerg Technol
19(6):1171–1184
36. Pike S (2007) Repertory grid analysis in group settings to elicit
salient destination image attributes. Curr Issues Tourism 10(4):
378–392
37. Riley S, P. J (1975) Of attitudes and lattitudes: a repertory grid study
of seaside resorts. J Market Res Soc (17): p. 74–89
38. Rogers B, Ryals L (2007) Using repertory grid to access the under-
lying realities in key account relationships. Int J Market Res (49
(5)): p. 595–612
39. Scheer JW, Catina A (1993) Einführung in die Repertory Grid-
Technik: Grundlagen und Methoden. 1 ed. Bern: Hans Huber. 96 S
40. Schroeder A, Traber T (2012) The economics of fast charging in-
frastructure for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 43:136–144
41. Simpson M, Markel T (2012) Plug-in electric vehicle fast charge
station operational analysis with integrated renewables. In
International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Symposium 26. California
42. Thieme DPN (2011) Repertory Grid Methodik, in Empirische
Forschung und Soziale Arbeit. Springer. p. 281–291
43. Wilke G (2002) Neue Mobilitätsdienstleistungen und Alltagspraxis.
Institut für Klima, Umwelt. Wupperta l Papers
44. Wu C et al (2010) A method for electric vehicle charging infrastruc-
ture planning [J]. Autom Electr Power Syst 24:007
45. Yilmaz M, Krein PT (2012) Review of charging power levels and
infrastructure for plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles. p. 1–8
35 Page 14 of 14 Eur.Transp.Res.Rev.(2015)7:35
