Abstract
The transition to electric vehicles represents a cornerstone of decarbonisation strategies worldwide, yet emerging evidence reveals significant inequities in charging infrastructure access across sociodemographic groups. This dissertation synthesises contemporary literature to identify which populations face exclusion from electric vehicle charging networks and evaluates local policy interventions capable of addressing these disparities. Through systematic literature review, the research examines peer-reviewed studies from multiple geographic contexts, revealing consistent patterns of disadvantage affecting low-income households, renters, residents of multi-unit dwellings, and Black and Hispanic communities. Nationally, disadvantaged communities possess 64% fewer chargers per capita than affluent areas, with disparities reaching 73% for renters in multi-unit housing. Beyond proximity concerns, excluded populations experience inferior reliability, elevated costs, and safety deficits. The analysis identifies five effective policy categories: equity-focused siting frameworks utilising location-allocation models; zoning and building regulations mandating charging-ready infrastructure; targeted subsidies and progressive pricing structures; public-private partnerships incorporating equity conditions; and reliability standards enhancing user experience. The dissertation concludes that coordinated deployment of these interventions can substantially narrow access gaps, though sustained political commitment and robust monitoring mechanisms remain essential for achieving equitable transport electrification.
Introduction
The electrification of transport represents one of the most significant technological transitions of the twenty-first century, promising substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in urban air quality. Governments worldwide have established ambitious targets for electric vehicle adoption, with the United Kingdom committing to ending sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2035 and the United States targeting 50% electric vehicle sales by 2030 (Department for Transport, 2023; The White House, 2021). Central to achieving these objectives is the development of comprehensive charging infrastructure networks capable of supporting mass electric vehicle adoption.
However, the current trajectory of charging infrastructure deployment raises profound questions regarding distributional justice. As the electric vehicle market matures, evidence increasingly suggests that the benefits and burdens of this transition are not equitably distributed across society. Communities that have historically experienced environmental injustice and inadequate infrastructure investment now face the prospect of exclusion from clean transport technologies, potentially creating new dimensions of inequality whilst ostensibly addressing climate change.
The concept of energy justice, which encompasses distributional, procedural, and recognition justice, provides a valuable framework for understanding these inequities (Jenkins et al., 2016). Distributional justice concerns the fair allocation of benefits and burdens; procedural justice addresses inclusive decision-making processes; and recognition justice acknowledges the diverse needs and vulnerabilities of different communities. Applied to electric vehicle charging infrastructure, these principles demand examination of who can access charging facilities, who participates in infrastructure planning, and whose needs receive priority in deployment decisions.
This topic merits academic attention for several interconnected reasons. First, transport decarbonisation policies that exacerbate existing inequalities undermine their legitimacy and long-term sustainability. Second, understanding access disparities enables evidence-based policy interventions that can improve outcomes for marginalised communities. Third, the rapid pace of infrastructure investment creates a critical window during which deployment patterns may become entrenched, making early intervention essential. Fourth, the intersectional nature of charging access disadvantage—encompassing income, race, housing tenure, and geography—provides insights applicable to broader infrastructure equity challenges.
The practical significance of this research extends to local authorities, infrastructure planners, and policymakers who must navigate competing priorities whilst ensuring equitable outcomes. Without deliberate intervention, market-driven infrastructure deployment tends to follow demand signals that reflect existing patterns of advantage, thereby reinforcing rather than remedying historical inequities. Understanding both the nature of exclusion and the effectiveness of policy responses enables more informed decision-making in an area of substantial public investment.
Aim and objectives
The overarching aim of this dissertation is to critically examine inequities in electric vehicle charging infrastructure access and to evaluate local policy interventions capable of addressing identified disparities.
To achieve this aim, the research pursues the following specific objectives:
1. To identify and characterise the population groups systematically excluded from or underserved by existing electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
2. To analyse the multiple dimensions of charging access disadvantage, including proximity, reliability, cost, and safety considerations.
3. To evaluate the geographic and contextual variation in charging infrastructure inequities across different urban, suburban, and rural settings.
4. To critically assess evidence regarding local policy interventions designed to improve charging access equity.
5. To synthesise findings into coherent policy recommendations for local authorities seeking to achieve equitable transport electrification.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, systematically reviewing and integrating findings from peer-reviewed academic sources to address the research aim and objectives. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach when the research questions concern the integration of existing knowledge across multiple studies, contexts, and disciplinary perspectives (Snyder, 2019).
The literature search strategy drew upon academic databases including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, employing search terms encompassing “electric vehicle charging,” “infrastructure equity,” “access disparities,” “environmental justice,” and related terminology. The search was supplemented by citation tracking and reference list examination to identify additional relevant sources. Inclusion criteria prioritised peer-reviewed journal articles published within the past five years, though seminal earlier works were included where they provided foundational concepts or methodological frameworks.
The geographic scope of included literature encompasses studies from multiple national contexts, with particular emphasis on the United States, United Kingdom, and selected Asian cities. This geographic breadth enables identification of both universal patterns of disadvantage and context-specific variations requiring tailored policy responses.
Quality assessment of included sources considered methodological rigour, sample sizes, analytical approaches, and alignment with established research standards in transport equity and environmental justice scholarship. Government reports and policy documents from authoritative sources supplemented the academic literature where they provided relevant data or policy context.
The analytical approach involved thematic synthesis, whereby findings from individual studies were coded according to key themes relating to excluded populations, dimensions of disadvantage, and policy interventions. Cross-study comparison enabled identification of consistent patterns and notable divergences across contexts. The synthesis prioritised findings with strong empirical support from multiple independent studies whilst acknowledging areas of uncertainty or conflicting evidence.
Limitations of this methodology include reliance on published literature, which may reflect publication bias towards significant findings, and the inherent challenges of synthesising studies employing different methodological approaches and variable definitions. Nevertheless, literature synthesis enables integration of a substantial evidence base that would be impractical to generate through primary research within the scope of a single dissertation.
Literature review
Theoretical foundations of infrastructure equity
The equitable distribution of infrastructure represents a longstanding concern within urban planning and public policy scholarship. Environmental justice research has documented systematic patterns whereby low-income communities and communities of colour experience disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and reduced access to environmental amenities (Bullard, 1990). These patterns reflect historical processes including residential segregation, discriminatory lending practices, and uneven political influence that have shaped the spatial distribution of infrastructure investment.
The concept of mobility justice extends environmental justice principles to transport systems, emphasising that access to sustainable mobility options constitutes a matter of social equity rather than merely consumer preference (Sheller, 2018). Applied to electric vehicle charging infrastructure, mobility justice frameworks highlight how exclusion from charging networks may perpetuate transport disadvantage, limiting access to employment, services, and social opportunities whilst continuing exposure to local air pollution from internal combustion vehicles.
Energy justice scholarship provides additional theoretical grounding, particularly regarding the distributional dimensions of energy system transitions (Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015). The transition to electric vehicles necessarily involves substantial infrastructure investment, creating opportunities either to remedy historical inequities or to reproduce existing patterns of advantage. Deliberate policy intervention is therefore essential to ensure that decarbonisation benefits are equitably distributed.
Income and racial disparities in charging access
A substantial body of empirical research documents significant disparities in charging infrastructure access across income and racial/ethnic dimensions. In California, analysis of block group-level data reveals that lower-income and Black/Hispanic-majority areas have significantly fewer public chargers than more affluent or white-majority areas. The odds of charging access in Black/Hispanic-majority areas are approximately 0.7 compared to non-majority areas, declining further to approximately 0.5 for publicly funded charging stations (Hsu and Fingerman, 2020). This latter finding is particularly concerning, as it suggests that public investment intended to expand charging access may actually reinforce rather than remedy existing inequities.
National-level analysis confirms these patterns across the United States. Disadvantaged communities possess 64% fewer chargers per capita than more advantaged areas, with disparities particularly pronounced for renters in multi-unit dwellings, who experience 73% fewer chargers per capita (Yu et al., 2025). These findings indicate that charging infrastructure deployment has systematically favoured already-advantaged populations, despite the substantial public subsidies supporting this infrastructure.
Income and racial disparities exhibit significant state-by-state variation, reflecting differences in policy environments, housing markets, and historical patterns of segregation. Low- and moderate-income households and many Black households face systematically lower accessibility across states, though the magnitude of disadvantage varies considerably (Lou et al., 2024). This variation suggests that state and local policy choices significantly influence equity outcomes, creating opportunities for policy learning across jurisdictions.
Early analysis of charging infrastructure deployment identified similar patterns, finding that census tracts with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic residents had fewer charging stations, controlling for other relevant factors (Khan et al., 2021). The persistence of these disparities across multiple studies employing different methodologies and time periods suggests structural rather than incidental causes.
Housing tenure and multi-unit dwelling challenges
Housing tenure represents a crucial determinant of charging access, as homeowners can typically install private charging equipment whilst renters depend upon landlord cooperation or public infrastructure. This fundamental distinction creates systematic disadvantage for renter households, who comprise approximately one-third of households in many developed nations and are disproportionately low-income and from minority racial/ethnic groups.
Renters and residents of multi-unit housing face a confluence of challenges extending beyond infrastructure availability. Where public charging exists, these users often encounter higher per-unit costs compared to home charging, reduced convenience requiring travel and waiting time, and uncertainty regarding charger availability and functionality (Varghese, Menon and Ermagun, 2024). These additional burdens compound the financial constraints that may already limit electric vehicle adoption among renter households.
Analysis of community-based public charging services reveals persistent equity gaps affecting multi-unit dwelling residents. Even where public charging stations exist in proximity to multi-unit developments, factors including charger availability, reliability, and pricing may limit effective access (Zhang and Fan, 2025). The distinction between nominal access—having a charger nearby—and effective access—being able to use that charger reliably at reasonable cost—is essential for understanding the full scope of disadvantage affecting renter populations.
Multi-unit dwellings present particular challenges for charging infrastructure deployment due to complex property ownership structures, electrical system limitations, and competing demands for limited parking spaces. Retrofitting charging capability into existing multi-unit buildings often requires substantial capital investment and coordination among multiple stakeholders, creating barriers that market forces alone are unlikely to overcome (Bhatt et al., 2024).
Geographic dimensions: charging deserts in urban and rural areas
The spatial distribution of charging infrastructure creates distinct patterns of disadvantage across urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Large “charging deserts”—areas with minimal or no charging infrastructure—appear in both disinvested urban neighbourhoods and some rural areas, though the causes and characteristics of these gaps differ significantly (Carlton and Sultana, 2024).
Urban charging deserts typically reflect historical patterns of disinvestment that have left certain neighbourhoods with inadequate infrastructure across multiple domains. These areas often overlap substantially with low-income and minority communities, creating compounding disadvantage whereby residents face both limited charging access and other infrastructure deficits affecting quality of life. The concentration of poverty and limited commercial development in these areas reduces incentives for private charging infrastructure investment, whilst public investment has often failed to compensate for market gaps (Khan et al., 2021).
Rural charging deserts present different challenges, primarily reflecting low population density and limited commercial viability of charging infrastructure. Rural residents typically travel longer distances, making adequate charging infrastructure particularly important, yet the dispersed nature of rural settlement patterns makes infrastructure deployment economically challenging. Some rural areas face extremely limited charging options, with residents potentially required to travel substantial distances to reach any public charging facility (Lou et al., 2024).
Accessibility analysis employing spatial methods reveals significant variation in charging infrastructure coverage across metropolitan areas. Some regions achieve relatively equitable spatial distribution, whilst others exhibit pronounced disparities that correlate strongly with sociodemographic characteristics (Esmaili et al., 2024). These variations suggest that local policy choices and market conditions significantly influence spatial equity outcomes.
Beyond proximity: reliability, cost, and safety dimensions
Equity analysis focused solely on charging station presence risks overlooking other dimensions of access that significantly affect user experience and effective accessibility. Research increasingly emphasises that reliability, cost, and safety represent distinct equity concerns requiring separate attention.
Charging station reliability varies substantially across networks and locations, with disadvantaged communities often served by older, less well-maintained equipment with higher failure rates. Analysis of charging station functionality data reveals that reliability gaps disproportionately affect communities already experiencing access disadvantage, compounding the effects of fewer chargers with higher rates of charger malfunction or unavailability (Yu et al., 2025).
Cost considerations extend beyond per-kilowatt-hour pricing to encompass access fees, subscription requirements, and the time costs associated with travelling to and waiting at public chargers. Users dependent on public charging—disproportionately renters and low-income households—face systematically higher effective costs for vehicle charging compared to those with home charging capability (Chen et al., 2025). These cost disparities may discourage electric vehicle adoption among cost-sensitive households, creating a feedback loop whereby limited adoption reduces political pressure for equitable infrastructure investment.
Safety concerns include both personal safety at charging locations and the safety of charging equipment itself. Charging stations located in poorly lit areas, in locations perceived as unsafe, or lacking adequate signage and accessibility features may deter use by vulnerable populations. These considerations are particularly relevant for users who must charge during evening hours or in unfamiliar locations (Bhatt et al., 2024).
International perspectives on charging access equity
Whilst the majority of research on charging infrastructure equity has focused on North American contexts, emerging studies from other regions reveal both common patterns and context-specific variations. International comparison enables identification of factors that transcend particular national contexts and those that reflect distinctive local circumstances.
Research from Hong Kong and Shanghai reveals that older residents, those with lower educational attainment, and residents of government or low-grade housing experience markedly lower access to electric vehicle charging infrastructure (Peng et al., 2024; Cai et al., 2024). These findings suggest that socioeconomic disadvantage correlates with charging access gaps across diverse national contexts, though the specific dimensions of disadvantage may vary.
The compact urban form and high density of Hong Kong and Shanghai create distinctive challenges and opportunities for charging infrastructure deployment. High-rise residential development concentrates large populations in areas where parking and charging infrastructure must be carefully planned, whilst public transport alternatives may reduce individual vehicle ownership and thus charging demand. Nevertheless, equity concerns persist regarding access for those who do own or aspire to own electric vehicles.
European research, whilst less extensively represented in the reviewed literature, suggests similar patterns of socioeconomic disparity in charging access. The United Kingdom’s distinctive policy environment, including substantial public investment in charging infrastructure and emerging regulatory frameworks, provides a context for examining policy effectiveness that may offer lessons for other jurisdictions (Hopkins et al., 2023).
Effective policy interventions for equitable charging access
The research literature identifies several categories of local policy intervention with demonstrated or theoretical potential to improve charging access equity. These interventions operate through different mechanisms and require varying degrees of public investment and regulatory authority.
Equity-focused siting and deployment targets represent perhaps the most direct approach to addressing geographic disparities. Local access-based coverage standards—such as requirements that chargers be available within specified distances for all residents—can substantially improve coverage when infrastructure is deliberately placed in underserved areas. Analysis of Delhi’s charging infrastructure suggests that location-allocation models incorporating equity constraints can achieve coverage exceeding 90% whilst prioritising disadvantaged areas (Jha et al., 2025).
Tract-level equity metrics and multi-criteria clustering approaches enable systematic identification of areas requiring priority investment. These analytical frameworks can identify “EV-underdeveloped/disadvantaged” areas for targeted infrastructure deployment, ensuring that public investment addresses genuine access gaps rather than reinforcing existing advantages (Li, Smith-Colin and Wang, 2025; Mandolakani and Singleton, 2024).
Zoning and building regulations offer mechanisms for ensuring that new development incorporates charging capability. Mandates requiring electric vehicle-ready wiring in new construction reduce future retrofit costs and ensure that charging capability is available as vehicle electrification proceeds. Support for retrofitting charging infrastructure in existing multi-unit dwellings and rental properties addresses the particular challenges facing these housing types (Hopkins et al., 2023).
Subsidy and pricing interventions can address both infrastructure deployment gaps and ongoing cost disadvantages. Grants and loans specifically targeting charger installation in disadvantaged areas and multi-unit buildings can overcome financial barriers that otherwise limit private investment. Smart tariffs offering reduced rates for off-peak charging can lower costs for users dependent on public infrastructure, partially offsetting the cost disadvantages relative to home charging (Varghese, Menon and Ermagun, 2024; Chen et al., 2025).
Public-private partnership models can expand charging networks whilst incorporating equity conditions. Concession contracts that require service provision in less profitable, underserved areas alongside more commercially attractive locations can leverage private investment for public benefit. Accessibility standards—such as those emerging in the United Kingdom regarding charger design for disabled users—ensure that infrastructure meets diverse user needs (Hopkins et al., 2023).
Beyond hardware deployment, policies addressing reliability and user experience disproportionately benefit disadvantaged users who lack alternatives to public charging. Reliability standards, maintenance funding requirements, safety lighting, clear signage, and simplified payment systems all contribute to effective access for populations dependent on public infrastructure (Bhatt et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2025).
Discussion
Synthesising evidence on excluded populations
The literature review reveals remarkable consistency in identifying populations experiencing charging infrastructure disadvantage across diverse geographic and methodological contexts. Low-income households, Black and Hispanic communities, renters, residents of multi-unit dwellings, and populations in both disinvested urban neighbourhoods and rural areas emerge repeatedly as underserved groups. This convergence across independent studies employing different data sources, spatial scales, and analytical approaches provides strong evidence that charging infrastructure inequity represents a structural phenomenon rather than an artefact of particular research designs.
The intersectional nature of disadvantage merits particular emphasis. Individuals occupying multiple disadvantaged categories—for instance, low-income renters in majority-minority urban neighbourhoods—face compounding barriers to charging access. Single-axis analyses examining only income or only race may understate the magnitude of disadvantage experienced by those at the intersection of multiple marginalised identities. This observation aligns with broader scholarship on intersectionality and infrastructure access, suggesting that equity interventions must address multiple dimensions of disadvantage simultaneously.
The finding that publicly funded charging infrastructure in California actually exhibits greater disparity than privately funded infrastructure (Hsu and Fingerman, 2020) raises troubling questions about public investment effectiveness. If public funds intended to expand access are flowing disproportionately to already-advantaged areas, fundamental reforms in investment criteria and oversight mechanisms may be necessary. This finding also highlights the importance of distinguishing between public investment quantity and public investment equity—substantial public spending does not guarantee equitable outcomes absent deliberate equity-focused deployment criteria.
Multi-dimensional nature of access disadvantage
This research confirms that equitable charging access encompasses multiple dimensions beyond simple proximity. The distinction between nominal and effective access—having infrastructure nearby versus being able to use it reliably at reasonable cost—is essential for understanding the full scope of disadvantage affecting marginalised populations.
Reliability disparities create a two-tier system in which advantaged users with home charging capability experience consistent, convenient charging whilst disadvantaged users dependent on public infrastructure face uncertainty regarding charger availability and functionality. This uncertainty may deter electric vehicle adoption among populations who cannot afford the risk of being stranded with an uncharged vehicle, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates adoption gaps.
Cost disparities similarly compound access disadvantage. Users dependent on public charging face systematically higher per-mile charging costs, including both direct pricing differentials and the indirect costs of travel time and inconvenience. For cost-sensitive households, these elevated costs may render electric vehicle ownership economically irrational even where purchase subsidies reduce initial acquisition costs. Policy interventions that address only vehicle purchase costs without addressing ongoing charging cost disparities may fail to achieve equitable adoption outcomes.
Safety and usability concerns, whilst less extensively researched than proximity and cost dimensions, deserve greater attention in equity analysis. Charging infrastructure design, location, lighting, signage, and payment systems all influence effective accessibility. Universal design principles that accommodate diverse user needs—including users with disabilities, users with limited English proficiency, and users with safety concerns—should inform infrastructure standards and deployment decisions.
Policy intervention effectiveness and implementation challenges
The evidence regarding policy interventions suggests multiple potentially effective approaches, though rigorous evaluation of intervention effectiveness remains limited. Equity-focused siting frameworks demonstrate clear theoretical potential, and modelling studies suggest that deliberate placement of infrastructure in underserved areas can substantially improve coverage equity. However, translating these analytical frameworks into implemented policy requires political will to prioritise equity objectives alongside or above commercial viability considerations.
Zoning and building regulations offer mechanisms for ensuring that new development incorporates charging capability, though these interventions primarily address future construction rather than existing housing stock. Given that the majority of housing that will exist in 2050 already exists today, retrofit requirements for existing multi-unit dwellings represent an essential complement to new construction standards. The political and practical challenges of mandating retrofits in existing buildings—including cost allocation, technical feasibility, and property rights considerations—require careful policy design.
Subsidy and pricing interventions can address both deployment gaps and ongoing cost disadvantages, though their effectiveness depends on targeting mechanisms and funding sustainability. Subsidies that flow to already-advantaged areas or populations may fail to improve equity outcomes, whilst well-targeted subsidies may face funding constraints or opposition from constituencies preferring universal programmes. Smart tariff structures offering reduced off-peak rates can lower costs for public charging users, though implementation requires coordination between local authorities, utilities, and charging network operators.
Public-private partnership models incorporating equity conditions represent a promising approach for leveraging private investment whilst ensuring public benefit, though contract design and enforcement present challenges. Equity conditions that are vaguely specified or weakly enforced may prove ineffective, whilst overly burdensome requirements may deter private participation. The optimal balance between equity requirements and commercial viability likely varies across contexts and requires empirical testing.
Contextual variation and policy transferability
The substantial variation in charging access equity across jurisdictions suggests that policy choices significantly influence outcomes. States and localities with strong equity frameworks appear to achieve better outcomes than those relying primarily on market-driven deployment, though isolating policy effects from other contextual factors presents methodological challenges.
Policy transferability across contexts requires careful attention to local circumstances. Interventions effective in dense urban environments may prove impractical in rural areas, whilst regulatory approaches suitable for jurisdictions with strong planning authority may be unavailable in contexts with more limited governmental capacity. The international evidence suggests both common patterns of disadvantage and context-specific variations requiring tailored responses.
The research findings regarding reliability and user experience dimensions of access suggest opportunities for policy innovation that have received less attention than infrastructure deployment questions. Reliability standards, maintenance requirements, and user experience specifications can improve effective access for populations dependent on public charging without requiring additional infrastructure construction. These “soft” interventions may offer favourable benefit-cost ratios compared to physical infrastructure deployment, particularly where infrastructure exists but fails to provide reliable service.
Limitations and research gaps
Several limitations of the existing research base merit acknowledgement. First, the predominance of cross-sectional studies limits causal inference regarding policy effectiveness. Longitudinal studies tracking changes in access equity following policy interventions would strengthen evidence regarding which interventions produce meaningful improvements.
Second, most studies examine charging station presence or density rather than actual charging usage patterns. Understanding who actually uses existing infrastructure, under what circumstances, and with what outcomes would enable more nuanced equity assessment. Usage data may reveal barriers to effective access that proximity-based measures fail to capture.
Third, research has largely focused on public Level 2 and DC fast charging infrastructure, with less attention to workplace charging, destination charging at retail and hospitality locations, and emerging charging technologies including wireless and curbside charging. The equity implications of these alternative charging modalities deserve investigation.
Fourth, the reviewed research primarily examines equity in infrastructure access rather than equity in infrastructure decision-making processes. Procedural justice—who participates in decisions about where infrastructure is located and how it is designed—represents an important complement to distributional analysis that merits greater research attention.
Conclusions
This dissertation has systematically examined evidence regarding inequities in electric vehicle charging infrastructure access and evaluated local policy interventions capable of addressing identified disparities. The research objectives have been addressed as follows.
Regarding the first objective, the research has identified and characterised populations systematically excluded from or underserved by existing charging infrastructure. Low-income households, Black and Hispanic communities, renters, residents of multi-unit dwellings, and populations in disinvested urban neighbourhoods and rural areas consistently emerge as disadvantaged groups across multiple studies and contexts. The magnitude of disadvantage is substantial—with disadvantaged communities possessing 64% fewer chargers per capita nationally and disparities reaching 73% for renters in multi-unit housing.
Regarding the second objective, the research has analysed multiple dimensions of charging access disadvantage extending beyond proximity. Reliability gaps, cost disparities, and safety concerns compound geographic access limitations, creating systematic disadvantage for populations dependent on public charging infrastructure. The distinction between nominal and effective access is essential for understanding the full scope of disadvantage.
Regarding the third objective, the research has evaluated geographic variation in charging access, identifying charging deserts in both disinvested urban neighbourhoods and some rural areas. The causes and characteristics of these gaps differ across contexts, requiring tailored policy responses. Substantial state-by-state variation in equity outcomes suggests that policy choices significantly influence distributional outcomes.
Regarding the fourth objective, the research has critically assessed evidence regarding local policy interventions. Equity-focused siting frameworks, zoning and building regulations, targeted subsidies and pricing interventions, public-private partnerships with equity conditions, and reliability standards all show promise for improving access equity. However, rigorous evaluation of implemented interventions remains limited.
Regarding the fifth objective, the research supports the following policy recommendations for local authorities seeking equitable transport electrification: adopt explicit equity metrics in infrastructure planning and investment decisions; implement building regulations requiring charging capability in new and retrofitted multi-unit developments; target subsidies to disadvantaged areas and populations rather than employing universal programmes; incorporate equity conditions in public-private partnerships for charging infrastructure; and establish reliability and accessibility standards for public charging infrastructure.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic understanding to practical policy implications. The window for shaping charging infrastructure deployment patterns is narrowing as networks expand, making early intervention essential to avoid entrenching inequitable access patterns. Market-driven deployment will not achieve equitable outcomes absent deliberate policy intervention.
Future research should prioritise longitudinal evaluation of implemented equity interventions, analysis of charging usage patterns rather than solely infrastructure presence, and investigation of procedural justice in infrastructure decision-making. As electric vehicle adoption accelerates, ensuring that the benefits of transport electrification are equitably distributed represents both a matter of social justice and a prerequisite for sustainable policy legitimacy.
References
Bhatt, R., Giang, A., Javed, B. and Kandlikar, M., 2024. Equitable charging infrastructure for electric vehicles: access and experience. *Progress in Energy*, 6. https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1083/ad4b8f
Bullard, R.D., 1990. *Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality*. Boulder: Westview Press.
Cai, Y., Zhang, J., Gu, Q. and Wang, C., 2024. An Analytical Framework for Assessing Equity of Access to Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: The Case of Shanghai. *Sustainability*, 16(14), 6196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16146196
Carlton, G. and Sultana, S., 2024. Electric vehicle charging equity and accessibility: A comprehensive United States policy analysis. *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, 129, 104123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104123
Chen, B., Zhang, K., Moore, A., Jia, B. and Cao, M., 2025. Electric Vehicle Public Charging Equity Considerations: A Systematic Review. *ArXiv*, abs/2507.09726. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2507.09726
Department for Transport, 2023. *Transitioning to zero emission cars and vans: 2035 delivery plan*. London: Department for Transport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transitioning-to-zero-emission-cars-and-vans-2035-delivery-plan
Esmaili, A., Oshanreh, M., Naderian, S., Mackenzie, D. and Chen, C., 2024. Assessing the Spatial Distributions of Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations with Emphasis on Equity Considerations in King County, Washington. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, 105409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105409
Hopkins, E., Potoglou, D., Orford, S. and Cipcigan, L., 2023. Can the equitable roll out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure be achieved? *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews*, 182, 113398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113398
Hsu, C. and Fingerman, K., 2020. Public electric vehicle charger access disparities across race and income in California. *Transport Policy*, 100, pp.59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.10.003
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. and Rehner, R., 2016. Energy justice: A conceptual review. *Energy Research and Social Science*, 11, pp.174-182.
Jha, S., Pani, A., Puppala, H., Varghese, V. and Unnikrishnan, A., 2025. An equity-based approach for addressing inequality in electric vehicle charging infrastructure: Leaving no one behind in transport electrification. *Energy for Sustainable Development*, 84, 101643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101643
Khan, H., Price, S., Avraam, C. and Dvorkin, Y., 2021. Inequitable Access to EV Charging Infrastructure. *The Electricity Journal*, 35(3), 107096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2022.107096
Li, Z., Smith-Colin, J. and Wang, J., 2025. A unified multi-criteria equity metric for data-driven decision-making: Application to tract-level electric vehicle charging station planning. *Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence*, 144, 110070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110070
Lou, J., Shen, X., Niemeier, D. and Hultman, N., 2024. Income and racial disparity in household publicly available electric vehicle infrastructure accessibility. *Nature Communications*, 15, 4922. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49481-w
Mandolakani, F. and Singleton, P., 2024. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure deployment: A discussion of equity and justice theories and accessibility measurement. *Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives*, 26, 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101072
Peng, Z., Wang, M., Yang, X., Chen, A. and Zhuge, C., 2024. An analytical framework for assessing equitable access to public electric vehicle chargers. *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment*, 127, 103990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103990
Sheller, M., 2018. *Mobility justice: The politics of movement in an age of extremes*. London: Verso.
Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. *Journal of Business Research*, 104, pp.333-339.
Sovacool, B.K. and Dworkin, M.H., 2015. Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. *Applied Energy*, 142, pp.435-444.
The White House, 2021. *Fact sheet: President Biden announces steps to drive American leadership forward on clean cars and trucks*. Washington, DC: The White House. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/08/05/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-steps-to-drive-american-leadership-forward-on-clean-cars-and-trucks/
Varghese, A., Menon, N. and Ermagun, A., 2024. Equitable distribution of electric vehicle charging infrastructure: A systematic review. *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews*, 199, 114825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114825
Yu, Q., Que, T., Cushing, L., Pierce, G., Shen, K., Kejriwal, M., Yao, Y. and Zhu, Y., 2025. Equity and reliability of public electric vehicle charging stations in the United States. *Nature Communications*, 16, 2845. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60091-y
Zhang, Y. and Fan, Y., 2025. Equity evaluation of community-based public EV charging services – A case study of the Sacramento region. *Energy Policy*, 196, 114495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2025.114495
