# A Literature Review on the Charging Behaviour of Private Electric Vehicles
## 2 Literature Review and Method
### Analysis of Users' Preferences and Needs
#### 2.2.1 Survey-Based Papers
Charging network subscriptions have a positive impact on the likelihood of using public infrastructure [64]. Interestingly, commute length is a significant factor only for PHEV owners and not for BEV owners [63]. An interesting notion in the psychology behind charging behavior is the so-called user-battery interaction style (UBIS) introduced by [PERSON] [65]: users with low UBIS have a lower awareness of the meaning of the energy level of their devices, which leads to recharging based on contextual triggers rather than on battery SOC. The correct assessment of the residual range is linked to range anxiety. The same survey found that some personality traits, such as self-control and low impulsivity, and greater technical competence were positively correlated with decreased autonomy anxiety [66]. A survey on ICE drivers and BEV users with varying levels of experience revealed that stress levels regarding vehicle range are similar between the two groups, even though BEV users demonstrate greater confidence in the vehicle and tank/battery indicators [67]. Conversely, [PERSON] et al. [68] found that BEV drivers tend to have more range anxiety than ICE vehicle drivers if driving on a long journey. Connected to the previous aspects is the attitude toward risk in the charging choice [69]. The inclusion of the risk attitude, in the form of a latent variable, improved the adaptation to the experimental data of the developed forecasting model [11]. In some studies, the aim was to investigate which actions can improve access to charging and users' perceptions of charging infrastructure as available, reliable, and sufficient for their needs. A pilot experiment on dedicated neighborhood charging [70] showed that potential EV users consider parking-combined and bookable charging options within the city to be of paramount importance, especially as parking is a problem common to both EV users and non-EV users. A survey of stated preferences without a private residential charging option found that the most important aspects of public charging are closely related to personal safety and proximity to one's home, especially if the service is used overnight [71]. With a view to a comparison with conventional mobility, [PERSON] et al. [72] analyzed travel diaries to quantify the inconvenience deriving from longer recharging times compared to the refueling times of ICE cars. They verified that around 95% of people with access to domestic-charging equipment and medium-sized EV batteries can achieve equal convenience. That is not the case for people who rely only on workplace or public charging, for whom a percentage of trips would become unattainable. The effectiveness of policies for influencing charging choices is of great interest to local or national authorities, although the corresponding evaluation is not always simple. For example, the application of a fee is generally effective in inducing users to move their cars at the end of the charging period, but the need for parking can lead to the nullification of the control action [73]. Another strategy for indirect control is to act on the charge price with dynamic pricing. The response to this type of solicitation is heterogeneous among different social groups [74]. In Table 1, we present an overview of the studies presented in this section.