A collaborative governance model for electric vehicle charging infrastructure incorporating policy evaluation and feedback

IF 3.8 3区 经济学 Q3 ENERGY & FUELS
Yiting Zhang , Henry J. Liu , Shuai Ling , Dan Wang , Yifan Fu , Xueqing Wang
{"title":"A collaborative governance model for electric vehicle charging infrastructure incorporating policy evaluation and feedback","authors":"Yiting Zhang ,&nbsp;Henry J. Liu ,&nbsp;Shuai Ling ,&nbsp;Dan Wang ,&nbsp;Yifan Fu ,&nbsp;Xueqing Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jup.2024.101819","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The rapid growth of electric vehicles (EVs) worldwide has raised concerns about and exacerbated the undersupply of charging infrastructure (CI), highlighting an urgent need for policy support. However, there is a lack of critical research that conducts a post-implementation evaluation for the CI-related policies, considering various goals and objectives of stakeholders. Thus, the study fills the void by applying the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA), which aims to assess CI-related policies based on stakeholder perspectives. We selected Tianjin, China, as a case study and collected data from two focus groups and one semi-structured interview across the city’s six central districts. As revealed by the empirical evidence, the interviewed stakeholders favor subsidies in terms of their welfare, followed by electricity adjustments. The EV incentives, multi-operation mechanisms, and supportive urban planning rank lower but are still supported by the stakeholders, while supportive land use and policy advocacy are opposed. We also identified that the stakeholders’ concerns are varied, where the CI operation department prioritizes operating profit and costs, the government focuses on electricity safety, and the end-user group is concerned with all criteria except profit. Implications for future policy and practice were also discussed. This research can enrich the collaborative governance model (CGM) by incorporating policy evaluation and feedback.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":23554,"journal":{"name":"Utilities Policy","volume":"90 ","pages":"Article 101819"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Utilities Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178724001127","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rapid growth of electric vehicles (EVs) worldwide has raised concerns about and exacerbated the undersupply of charging infrastructure (CI), highlighting an urgent need for policy support. However, there is a lack of critical research that conducts a post-implementation evaluation for the CI-related policies, considering various goals and objectives of stakeholders. Thus, the study fills the void by applying the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA), which aims to assess CI-related policies based on stakeholder perspectives. We selected Tianjin, China, as a case study and collected data from two focus groups and one semi-structured interview across the city’s six central districts. As revealed by the empirical evidence, the interviewed stakeholders favor subsidies in terms of their welfare, followed by electricity adjustments. The EV incentives, multi-operation mechanisms, and supportive urban planning rank lower but are still supported by the stakeholders, while supportive land use and policy advocacy are opposed. We also identified that the stakeholders’ concerns are varied, where the CI operation department prioritizes operating profit and costs, the government focuses on electricity safety, and the end-user group is concerned with all criteria except profit. Implications for future policy and practice were also discussed. This research can enrich the collaborative governance model (CGM) by incorporating policy evaluation and feedback.

结合政策评估和反馈的电动汽车充电基础设施合作治理模式
全球电动汽车(EV)的快速增长引发了人们对充电基础设施(CI)供应不足的担忧,并加剧了这一问题,凸显了对政策支持的迫切需求。然而,考虑到利益相关者的各种目标和目的,目前缺乏对 CI 相关政策进行实施后评估的重要研究。因此,本研究通过应用多因素多标准分析法(MAMCA)填补了这一空白,该方法旨在根据利益相关者的观点评估与 CI 相关的政策。我们选择了中国天津作为案例研究对象,并从该市六个中心区的两个焦点小组和一个半结构式访谈中收集了数据。实证结果表明,受访利益相关者从福利角度出发更倾向于补贴,其次是电价调整。电动汽车激励措施、多方合作机制和支持性城市规划排名靠后,但仍得到利益相关者的支持,而支持性土地使用和政策倡导则遭到反对。我们还发现,利益相关者的关注点各不相同,CI 运营部门优先考虑运营利润和成本,政府关注用电安全,而最终用户群体则关注除利润以外的所有标准。研究还讨论了对未来政策和实践的启示。这项研究可以通过纳入政策评估和反馈来丰富协同治理模式(CGM)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Utilities Policy
Utilities Policy ENERGY & FUELS-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Utilities Policy is deliberately international, interdisciplinary, and intersectoral. Articles address utility trends and issues in both developed and developing economies. Authors and reviewers come from various disciplines, including economics, political science, sociology, law, finance, accounting, management, and engineering. Areas of focus include the utility and network industries providing essential electricity, natural gas, water and wastewater, solid waste, communications, broadband, postal, and public transportation services. Utilities Policy invites submissions that apply various quantitative and qualitative methods. Contributions are welcome from both established and emerging scholars as well as accomplished practitioners. Interdisciplinary, comparative, and applied works are encouraged. Submissions to the journal should have a clear focus on governance, performance, and/or analysis of public utilities with an aim toward informing the policymaking process and providing recommendations as appropriate. Relevant topics and issues include but are not limited to industry structures and ownership, market design and dynamics, economic development, resource planning, system modeling, accounting and finance, infrastructure investment, supply and demand efficiency, strategic management and productivity, network operations and integration, supply chains, adaptation and flexibility, service-quality standards, benchmarking and metrics, benefit-cost analysis, behavior and incentives, pricing and demand response, economic and environmental regulation, regulatory performance and impact, restructuring and deregulation, and policy institutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信