Abstract
Understanding battery electric vehicle (BEV) charging behavior is essential for improving driver experience, battery life, and reducing range anxiety. This study examined charging frequency, battery level, charging rate, and emotional states of BEV drivers over a 2-week period. Findings suggested that BEV drivers did not always charge their vehicles to full, likely due to infrastructure limitations or battery life concerns. Range anxiety and habitual behavior may influence charging decisions, as reflected in the preference to charge at moderate battery levels. While some drivers developed routines to mitigate stress, others remained concerned about the long-term effects of charging habits on battery life and resale value. Additionally, the impact of fast charging on battery health could shape user behavior, with some drivers avoiding fast charging unless necessary. This study demonstrates the feasibility of real-time behavioral data collection and identifies variables for future studies, informing human-centered strategies to balance convenience with battery longevity.
Introduction
An electric vehicle (EV) is powered by electric or traction motors, where some or all the driving power is generated from a battery that produces electricity (Nanaki, 2021; Richardson, 2013). In 2022, worldwide sales of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles amounted to 10.5 million units, representing a 55% increase from the previous year (Irle, 2023). The increase in the adoption of EVs as an alternative to conventional vehicles is driven by the developments in battery technology, supportive policies, and environmental concerns, as they have shown ability to reduce emissions and enhance energy efficiency (Amer et al., 2024). Various types of EVs are currently in use. Hybrid electric vehicles have a battery that supplies electricity to optimize the efficiency of the engine. Battery electric vehicles are powered by grid electricity, and they solely rely on rechargeable batteries and must be charged using an external source like a home charger or public charging station (Jorgensen, 2008). While this growth has led to increasing research interest in supply chain and logistics (e.g., EV charging station and infrastructure planning), the understanding of driver behavior and emotional experiences such as range anxiety, charging infrastructure accessibility, and battery life, have yet to be investigated (Andrenacci & Valentini, 2023; Rauh et al., 2015).
Drivers’ behaviors and decisions play a crucial role in optimizing the interaction between users and EV systems (e.g., the vehicle and associated charging infrastructure). For instance, limited charging infrastructure could lead to long wait times and an increase in range anxiety (Shrestha et al., 2022). Charging preferences can also create challenges for infrastructure planning as different users have their unique needs and experiences. Charging behavior could be influenced by how individuals use their vehicles. Drivers who charge their EVs at every opportunity often have jobs that require daily travel to different locations, whereas those who charge overnight typically use their vehicles for more regular routines, such as commuting to and from work (Bunce et al., 2014). Living situations may also influence charging behaviors. Battery electric vehicle owners living in apartments largely rely on the workplace and public charging infrastructure. Reliance on public charging stations can lead to long wait times, especially when charging rates are low. Three types of chargers are commonly used: Level 1 (L1), Level 2 (L2), and direct current (DC) fast charging (Horesh et al., 2023). L1 and L2 are primarily used at home, with L2 offering a faster charging rate. To manage the peak demand, some policies are suggested, like adjusting charging levels based on arrival times or implementing time-of-use pricing to incentivize off-peak charging (Darabi & Ferdowsi, 2011). In addition to the availability of charging locations, some remained concerned about the long-term effects of time-related range anxiety and the possible effects on resale value (Roberson et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023). Although fast charging might be ideal; high charge rates, low temperature, and frequent deep discharge affect battery aging, therefore, fast charging convenience and battery longevity present a trade-off (Leijon, 2025). Addressing these concerns requires a deeper understanding of factors that influence driver’s behavior.
Previous studies have utilized questionnaires and on-board data logging as primary tools to assess EV user behavior and challenges (Franke & Krems, 2013). These surveys have explored aspects including charging habits, range anxiety, the influence of the state of charge, the distance between two charging stations, the availability of workplace charging stations, and preferred charging locations. These studies have found that EV drivers generally adapt well to recharging routines, but both current and potential EV owners continue to experience range anxiety and prefer EV charging station distances similar to that of gas stations (Bunce et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2020; Pevec et al., 2020). Insights from such studies could drive infrastructure improvements, optimize charging strategies, and ultimately make EV ownership more convenient and stress-free. However, there is limited insight into behavioral dynamics over time as they did not capture momentary, before-and-after charging data or address drivers’ affective states.
The purpose of this pilot study was twofold: to preliminarily explore the charging behavior patterns, emotional experiences and the challenges BEV drivers face over a 2-week period, and to examine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale longitudinal study and identify areas for improvement. The collection of these behavioral factors would allow us to inform the design of the future larger study in terms of useful variables of interest. This pilot study will provide insight into how BEV users interact with their vehicles and help evaluate whether the considered variables effectively capture human behavior and refine the study design to enhance usability and participant engagement.
Methods
Participants
Five participants (1 female, 4 males) aged 28 to 35 years (M = 32.8, SD = 3.96) enrolled in this pilot study with informed consent approved by the North Carolina State University Institutional Review Board. The inclusion criteria specified that participants must be at least 18 years old, have a valid driver’s license, must regularly use a BEV, and be available for a 2-week study period. Participants did not have to be local for this remote data collection. Hybrid vehicles were not considered as they could utilize gas, and gas stations are more abundant than charging stations, hence minimal charging anxiety.
Procedure
Upon informed consent, participants completed a pre-study questionnaire that collected demographic and baseline information, including BEV details, charging habits, and stress levels related to battery charge levels (Table 1). During the 2-week study period, participants logged the following information through our online data collection forms before and after each time they charged (Table 2), including current battery level, charging location (home, work, public station, etc.), and their emotional state. Participants reported their emotional state by selecting anxiety, stress, panic, frustration, or neutral, with the possibility of selecting multiple states. Regular reminders were sent to participants if no charging event entries were received for 3 days to encourage consistent reporting and reduce the likelihood of missing any charging sessions. A 3-day threshold was selected based on the pre-study questionnaire results that indicated on average participants charge their vehicles once or twice a week. This interval aimed to provide timely prompts while avoiding excessive notifications and participant burden. At the end of the study, participants took part in a semi-structured interview to elaborate on their experiences and charging habits. To support data accuracy, participants were asked during the semi-structured interview whether they had missed completing any charging session forms throughout the study period. Participants received a $40 gift card to compensate for their time at the end of the 2-week study period.
Pre-Study Questionnaire.
Survey Questions on the Online Data Collection Form that Participants Logged Data Before and After Each Charging Session.
Variables and Analysis
The data of interest were responses from the charging surveys and the semi-structured interviews. The interview questions included: (a) Describe your emotional state before and after each charging session. (b) What emotions do you typically feel when your EV battery is below 20%, and how do you usually respond? (c) If you used different charging rates, what factors affect your selection of charging rate? (d) Do you have any concerns about the long-term health or performance of your EV’s battery?
Results
The study collected data from 5 BEV drivers, recording a total of 18 charging events over a 2-week period. A charging event included both before and after responses for a charging session. All participants reported owning a single BEV and using it almost daily (i.e., 7 days a week).
The pre-study questionnaire revealed that two participants had access to home chargers, while the three remaining participants relied on public charging stations. Three participants reported having access to a charging station at their workplace. All participants reported a preference for charging overnight or during the day, with none selecting the morning as their preferred charging time. On average, participants indicated that reaching a battery level below 15% would be stressful (SD = 6.32%). All participants indicated a desired battery level of 80% after charging and disagreed with the statement that the time required to charge their BEV limited their ability to use the vehicle. On average, participants reported driving a 2021 model year battery electric vehicle (SD = 1.62 years), indicating that the batteries were not new and may have some degradation. Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics from the 18 charging events. Participants charged their vehicle between 2 and 7 times during the 2-week period (M = 3.6, SD = 1.95). The average rate of charge was 75.94 kW (SD = 120.71 kW), with a high standard deviation likely reflecting the use of a wide range of charger types, including Level 1, Level 2, and DC fast chargers across different charging locations. While participants attempted to predict their next charging event, they underestimated the timing by an average of 1.75 days (SD = 1.5 days) and only 22.22% of charging sessions were anticipated correctly. On average, Participants who started charging at higher remaining battery levels tended to charge more frequently, suggesting that routine behaviors or a preference for a higher state of charge may influence charging decisions.
Descriptive Statistics Over the 2-Week Period. Anticipation Error Refers to the Number of Days the Next Charging Event was Underestimated.
Discussion
Charging Patterns and Driver Emotions
Charging Location and Availability
The findings from this pilot study provided insights into BEV users’ charging behavior, range anxiety, emotional state, and their impact on decision-making and battery life. Participants exhibited different charging routines, with differences observed between those with home charging access and those relying on work or public infrastructure. Charger location and availability affected charging behavior, as Participant 1 (P1) stated, “I am close to multiple chargers and usually travel to known destinations, all of which are well within range.” Participants with home charging access used public stations for 11% of their charging sessions, indicating that public charging stations remain useful for those with residential charging options. Participant 2 stated, “If my EV battery is low, I simply drive to a charger en route as needed. Typically, when my battery drops below 20%, I am already on my way to my house, and I charge there.” Another participant (P4) without access to a home charger reported stress over charging station availability, noting, “If there are many cars at the station, I feel worried, and I don’t always have time to wait.”
Charging Routines and Range Anxiety
Establishing charging routines helped mitigate charging anxiety. Participants who had structured routines, such as charging overnight, exhibited low to no level of anxiety that has been reported in previous research indicating that range anxiety influences BEV user behavior (Bunce et al., 2014; Pevec et al., 2020). It could be explained that having planned charging events and routes could support expectations and potentially reduce uncertainty. While some drivers reported strategic charging routines, they still overall underestimated the timing of their next charging event by an average of 1.75 days (SD = 1.5 days), indicating a possible disconnect between perceived and actual battery performance. Participants without access to a home charger showed a relatively greater underestimation. The observed underestimation of the time until the next charging event suggests that participants may be charging more frequently than anticipated. The tendency to initiate charging earlier than necessary may also reflect a charging behavior driven by range anxiety, but it could also unintentionally shorten battery life. This pattern may further indicate a lack of awareness among participants regarding the extent of battery aging in their vehicles. Given that the average vehicle model year was 2021 (SD = 1.62 years), it is likely that battery aging had already begun to affect performance, even if drivers were not consciously aware of its impacts. Charging behavior varied across BEV users. Participants who charged with relatively higher battery levels exhibited more frequent charging patterns. This behavior may reflect routine-based decision making or a preference for maintaining a higher state of charge, possibly as a strategy to reduce uncertainty or anxiety related to range limitations or charging station availability. Findings suggest that perceived risk and habitual patterns play a noticeable role in charging behavior, even when immediate vehicle battery needs are not present.
Battery Longevity and Resale Considerations
This pilot study also highlights concerns about battery life that shape BEV users’ decision-making. Some participants expressed concerns about battery degradation and reported avoiding fast charging unless necessary. Participant 5 (P5) developed structured routines, reducing anxiety, but expressed concerns over battery degradation and resale value. P5 stated, “I’ve heard different things about how often you should use fast charging. . . I’m not sure if I’m damaging my battery or not.” P5, who had driven a BEV for several years, reported battery degradation, explaining, “I’ve lost about 17 miles of range over 3 years, so I try not to charge past 80%.” The impact of fast charging on battery health and the importance of appropriate charging strategies have also been noted in prior work (Leijon, 2025). Long-term financial considerations also influenced charging decisions. Two participants expressed concern about the potential impact of their charging behavior on the resale value of their BEVs. This aligns with findings from (Roberson et al., 2024), which identified battery condition and driving range as significant factors influencing resale value in the used BEV market. The study emphasizes that newer models with longer ranges tend to retain value better, highlighting drivers’ concerns as valid.
Feasibility and Design Considerations
This pilot study also revealed important logistical takeaways to help plan the full-scale study. First, participant dropout from initial interest (n = 11) to study completion (n = 5) suggested the need for a larger recruitment pool (two times larger than the final goal). While it was possible that dropout may be attributed to the charging event logging, participants indicated during the post-study interviews that the forms were convenient to complete. Next, separate analyses may be needed for those who charge at home versus those who use public charging stations as they have different charging routines and strategies. Finally, battery longevity concerns (perceived impact on battery health) and alternative charging options (consideration of other locations) will be added to better capture charging behavior.
Overall, this pilot study supports understanding BEV charging from a human-centered perspective. Participants’ ability to report their charging behavior and identification of patterns and their engagement in semi-structured interviews suggest that a longitudinal study may help identify and distinguish behavioral patterns. Charging frequency, battery level, emotional state, and charger availability emerge as variables that could influence both driver convenience and long-term battery health. Insights from this work could inform future design strategies that aim to reduce range anxiety, enhance battery lifetime, and promote sustainable charging habits among BEV users.
Limitation
This pilot study included only five participants with a 2-week study duration, limiting the generalizability of the findings. While the data revealed useful behavioral patterns, future research will require a larger sample size to identify broader behavioral trends, and a longer monitoring period could capture more stable behaviors and statistically significant results. While some participants may have missed logging a charging session, the overall findings are unlikely to be affected, as the goal of the pilot study was to assess feasibility and identify behavioral trends rather than comprehensive data collection. Furthermore, the study did not capture safety concerns or contextual variables such as trip length, destination type, or weather conditions, all of which may influence when and where participants choose to charge. These factors could help better interpret behavioral patterns. Future research should investigate how these variables affect charging decision making.
Conclusion
This pilot study highlighted patterns in BEV charging decisions, examining the role of range perception and charging habits and their effects on battery life. Battery electric vehicle drivers do not always fully charge their vehicles, likely due to infrastructure limitations, or battery concerns. Frequent charging with a moderate battery level suggests that charging decisions could be influenced by range anxiety or habitual behavior. Over time, some develop routines that reduce stress, while others remain concerned about the long-term effects of charging habits on battery life and the effect on resale value. Fast charging’s effect on the battery also impacts charging behavior, as some avoid fast charging unless necessary. Understanding the differences and any shared behaviors would help BEV owners to have their convenience, increase their BEV battery life, and ultimately support widespread BEV adoption.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported in part by the Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at North Carolina State University through the ISE Innovation Fund.
