Challenges and benefits in peer-to-peer EV charger sharing: an explorative study to actual hosts

Abstract

Peer-to-peer sharing of private home electric vehicle chargers is promoted as a way to widen access. While a growing literature examines perceived benefits/risks and stated willingness to host or rent, less is known about how verified hosts experience hosting in practice and what sustains participation over time, particularly in the UK. We conducted semi-structured interviews in June 2025 with 16 verified hosts across the United Kingdom. Our participants reported three experienced benefits: small cost-offsets from an otherwise idle asset, helping nearby drivers with affordable and convenient charging, and a sense of environmental stewardship. Demand was thin and inconsistent, and viable participation often depended on repeat, hyper-local ties rather than a broad marketplace. Key barriers were trust and liability uncertainty, privacy and safety at the household boundary, and coordination frictions in booking. This study conclude that peer-to-peer home charging is a targeted complement to the public network, industrial and policy implications are provided.

1 Introduction

Recent reports indicates that global emissions reached a record ~37.4 Gt in 2023 despite growth in clean energy, signifying the need decarbonization. Here, road transport remains a major source, which is responsible for nearly 24% of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2023). This keeping pressure on urban transport systems to deliver deeper cuts. Simultaneously, cities worldwide are responding rapidly while keeping mobility affordable, reliable and equitable. For instance, electric vehicle (EV) adoption continues to accelerate, with sales exceeded 17 million in 2024, which compounds demand for convenient, fairly priced charging in and around cities. Despite their adds to the sustainable development of urban mobility, their widespread adoption and usability in cities is significantly constrained by the charging infrastructure, especially in densely populated areas where the public infrastructure requires more time to match EV adoption (LaMonaca and Ryan, 2022).

In the UK, national policy frames EV uptake as central to net-zero and air-quality goals. The Government's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy sets an ambition for a comprehensive network to support the phase-out of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2035 (Gov.uk, 2022). In diffusion terms, the UK EV fleet has grown rapidly in both stock and flow. As at June 2025, there were around 1.505 million licensed zero-emission cars in the UK, accounted for nearly 22% of all new car registrations in April–June 2025 (Gov.uk, 2025). Policy support has also continued to evolve beyond infrastructure strategy alone. In July 2025, the UK introduced an Electric Car Grant offering discounts up to £3,750 for eligible new electric cars, with manufacturers applying to participate (Gov.uk, 2025). Provision has expanded quickly—by October 2025 there were 86,021 public charging devices, 20% of which were rapid (≥50 kW) (Gov.uk, 2025). Yet, access remains uneven. Demand still outpaces supply, especially in urban areas where suitable locations and expansion costs are major barriers (Zhang and Cao, 2025). Another possible solution can be private charging piles, but comes with several obstacles as well. Specifically, there are nearly 32% of English households that do not have off-street parking, making home charging infeasible and pushing these drivers toward costlier and sometimes inaccessible public tariffs (Budnitz et al., 2024). Research on equity echoes these concerns, finding spatial and social disparities in on-street provision and access, especially within London (Zhang et al., 2024; Cao et al., 2025). Further obstacles such as space requirements and financial and logistical barriers were also registered in literature to be crucial elements to be solved (Dixon et al., 2020; Budnitz et al., 2024). As such, to build a connected and reliable charging network, past literature explored many new models that can complement public EV charging infrastructure effectively, ease the pressure on public chargers and enhance grid stability (Chen et al., 2020).

One proposed complement solution is collective ownership charging piles, that are shared among co-owners (e.g., community ownership, neighborhood ownership). By splitting the costs of EV charger purchase and installation, this solution reduces the financial burdens for co-owners (Velkovski et al., 2024). Specially, this approach allocates the communities with flexible use of chargers with planned use period for each households; and it is also possible for drivers outside the communities to use the charger with certain charging costs (Azarova et al., 2020; Gong et al., 2019). However, it was also raised by other researchers that, although this approach reduce upfront investment per user, they frequently face challenges related to access coordination. For instance, given the similar working hours in a community, it is expected for occasions that many households would want to charge at a similar timeframe, which leads conflicts and inconvenience.

Another newer solution is peer-to-peer charger sharing. Owners of private charge points make their device available to nearby drivers, typically via digital platforms that handle discovery, booking and payments. For example, Co-Charger enables “hosts” (owners of private EV chargers) to offer charging to “chargees” (borrowers of private EV chargers), with guidance on pricing, responsibilities and insurance (Co-Charger, 2025). Specifically, and in the primary design of this model, P2P charger sharing can not only bring residential-like charging within walking distance by leveraging existing domestic devices, but also potentially offer lower and more stable prices than many public options (Yang et al., 2024; Hu et al., 2021). Additionally, it may reduce near-term pressure on public budgets by making better use of installed assets (Hu et al., 2021). By enabling collaborative consumption through digital platforms, CSS represents a flexible and scalable complement to traditional infrastructure (Zervas et al., 2017; Cao and Zhang, 2025). Notably, throughout this study, we do not position P2P charger sharing as a substitute for on-street and rapid networks, but it may be a pragmatic complement in neighborhoods where on-street rollout lags.

In the UK, this “community charging” landscape spans transactional booking-and-payment platforms as well as listing/coordination platforms. For example, Co-Charger is explicitly designed for neighborhood-based, repeatable home-charging arrangements between local hosts and drivers, while JustPark's JustCharge positions home-charger sharing as a bookable parking-and-charging option for visitors and drivers seeking off-street charging (Zapmap, 2025; JustPark, 2025). Other services (for example, PlugShare home-charger listings) primarily support discovery and direct messaging, with access and payment handled between users rather than through an integrated transaction flow (PlugShare, 2022). In the same synthesis, the two main established UK sharing platforms are reported to have on the order of 6,000 (Co-Charger) and 3,000 (JustCharge) hosts as of January 2025. If these were unique devices, this would imply just under 1% of EV drivers share their home chargers via such services—highlighting both current small scale and growth potential (Zapmap, 2025).

P2P access to privately owned home EV chargers is a platform-mediated form of collaborative consumption in which idle household assets are temporarily made available to others (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Lamberton and Rose, 2012). Prior sharing-economy research shows that participation is typically driven by a blend of utilitarian motives, social motives, and moral motives, while barriers cluster around trust, perceived risk, and usability of the platform interface (see, for example, Hamari et al., 2016; Böcker and Meelen, 2017; Bucher et al., 2016). Within a more specific context, mobility-specific studies report similar patterns, with strong extra emphasis on high sensitivity to governance frictions and transaction costs, which condition adoption and retention (Lee et al., 2018; LaMonaca and Ryan, 2022; Chahine et al., 2024).

While P2P home-charger sharing remains an emerging market with uneven uptake across contexts, academic work has expanded rapidly. Recent studies have examined public perceptions and willingness to host/rent via surveys (e.g., Akbari and Dean, 2025), the role of social connections in shaping sharing intention through mixed methods (Li et al., 2025), and segmentation of charger owners' motivations and intention to share (Cao and Zhang, 2025). However, much of this evidence is intention- or perception-based rather than experience-based, leaving limited qualitative insight into the day-to-day practices of verified hosts and the mechanisms that sustain participation under real platform and demand conditions. For another side of literature in this field, they talked about the broader picture or economic benefits it provides to sharers–by simulating how this model reduces load of public charging infrastructure, or by simulating monthly/yearly income of sharers (see for example, Matzner et al., 2016; Hu et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). These research provides evidence for policy makers and industrial stakeholders to be macro-level implementation and planning. Meanwhile, such perspectives may have naturally assumed the mass adoption without looking into how to facilitate public adoption–which kept their results for conceptual grounds only.

In addition, plausibly because of increasing adoption rate and research interest in academia, a number of recent studies started to explore and investigate individual perceptions, attitudes and adoption. For example, Akbari and Dean (2025) conducted a survey study to examine the perceived importance a range of benefits and risks that they identified in related literature. Similarly, another study went further to explore the impact of perceived benefits and risks to adoption intention (Cao et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025). Despite the contribution these recent studies made, it is notable that the insights coming from such research is deductive in nature and has limited detail. Some qualitative work has begun to inform this topic. For example. Li et al. (2025) conducted a mixed-method research focused on intention formation in megacities and test mechanisms quantitatively across user-relationship groups. However, given the novel concept of P2P charger sharing, it might be the case that the interviewees and survey takers were unaware of such platforms, making the results less meaningful and less bonded in contexts. Our study examines realized hosting and the conditions that sustain supply over time among verified UK hosts. This distinction matters because several constraints (e.g., domestic-boundary management, coordination burden, and uncertainty over liability and platform governance) often emerge only after hosting is enacted and therefore may not be fully anticipated in intention-focused designs. As such, there remains limited qualitative evidence focused on verified hosts' experiences of hosting and the factors that sustain participation once hosting is enacted, particularly in the UK context. Thus, the core research question for this study is to explore “what are the actual benefits and challenges experiencing by current hosts in EV charger sharing platforms?”

To sum, despite a growing technical and adoption literature on shared charging, there is comparatively little qualitative evidence on why household charger owners in mature EV markets would (or would not) participate as hosts, and how platform design and local context shape that decision. This paper addresses these gaps by bringing together the sharing-economy lens with UK EV-charging realities. Drawing on new qualitative interviews with actual hosts on the EV charger sharing platforms, we inductively map benefits and challenges to hosting on P2P platforms and relate them to platform features and local contexts. While the broad motivational categories we identify are consistent with recent intention-focused work in other contexts, our contribution is to show how these motives translate (or fail to translate) into sustained hosting under thin demand, domestic-boundary risks, and platform governance frictions. We make two core contributions. First, this study contribute a parsimonious motivation-barrier framework for P2P charger sharing adoption. Second, we translate host concerns into actionable recommendations for platforms and for local/national policy.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study design and oversight

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured, one-to-one interviews with UK residents who had hosted (i.e., shared) their private home EV charge point via any P2P EV charger sharing platform. The aim was to surface actual, first-hand benefits and challenges experienced by hosts, thereby contributing to literature with life-real experience of using. The data collection was commenced in June 2025, after ethical approval granted by the authors' institution (approval code: 20250602_PGR_YC). All procedures conformed to institutional and GDPR requirements; participants provided informed consent before scheduling and again immediately prior to interview. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and pseudonymised.

2.2 Sample

To situate our host sample within the broader user landscape, we also fielded a Prolific screener and logged recruitment metrics. The screener asked whether respondents were UK-based adults, owned a private home EV charge point, had used a P2P charger-sharing platform. Only those affirming all three were invited to interview. For this paper we included only participants with hosting (“supply-side”) experience, interviewees with charge-only experience were excluded from theme development, although their accounts informed question refinement and context.

Candidates were sourced via a simple eligibility and willingness questionnaire on Prolific. The screener captured awareness and use of P2P platforms, willingness to be interviewed and consent to be re-contacted. Those meeting the above criteria were asked if they were interested in a qualitative interview. To prevent misclassification, candidates who self-reported hosting were asked to verify host status by uploading a screenshot of their hosting/sharing history from the platform they used (e.g., Co-Charger booking history). Notably, screenshots were uploaded once via the secure Prolific/Qualtrics intake and immediately moved to an encrypted, access-controlled institutional folder (AES-256 at rest; access limited to named researchers). Researchers redacted any visible personal data (names, phone, exact addresses, license plates) and stored a redacted copy under a randomized filename linked to the participant ID in a separate key file. We coded only binary verification, platform name as derived variables for analysis. Once the verification is passed, the interested and qualified candidates received a Microsoft Outlook calendar invitation with available slots.

Descriptively, from the Prolific screener log (N = 3,427), 2,888 completed the screener; 539 started but did not finish. Among the completers, 1,711 reported awareness of P2P charger sharing platforms and 814 reported having used a relevant platform at least once. A total of 510 respondents expressed initial willingness to be interviewed. Because interviews required re-contacting participants and scheduling an online meeting, only 77 provided a useable and contactable channel and preferred interview modality (e.g., Microsoft Teams). Among those who self-reported hosting, 42 provided verifiable evidence and were confirmed as hosts. The interview stage was designed for in-depth qualitative mechanism identification rather than enumeration; we recruited from the verified pool until thematic saturation was reached and our pre-specified target sample was achieved. Recruitment was closed when theoretical saturation is reached (after 16 completed interviews), therefore not all verified hosts were interviewed.

2.3 Interview procedures

Each session was booked for up to 60 mins and followed a semi-structured interview guideline with two blocks: a warm-up and a main interview. The interviewer opened with rapport-building and repeated consent, reminded participants of their rights, and confirmed recording. Participants were encouraged to speak freely, and the order of questions was flexible and we used non-leading prompts (e.g., Could you give me an example) to elicit concrete, experienced benefits and challenges rather than hypotheticals. Because this study targets verified hosts, the questioning explicitly prioritized actual experiences. Notably, interviews were conducted with one adult per household (the verified host/account holder), so accounts reflect a household-level perspective on hosting decisions and routines rather than a multi-member reconstruction of within-household negotiation. The guide was iteratively refined as coding progressed but its structure and core prompts remained stable across participants.

Immediately after the interview, participants completed a brief socio-demographic questionnaire to support case-comparison in analysis. The post-interview questionnaire focused on a short set of socio-demographic and housing characteristics to support case-comparison while minimizing participant burden and protecting privacy (Appendix 1). It included age, gender, employment status, education, housing tenure, dwelling type, access to off-street parking, and length of platform use. We did not systematically collect household income, household composition, detailed mobility behavior (e.g., commuting vs. second car), or household on-site renewable generation (e.g., solar PV). We acknowledge this as a limitation and recommend these dimensions for future mixed-method and qualitative work on hosting economics and charging practices.

2.4 Data analysis

A sequential, concurrent-coding approach was adopted, and theoretical saturation was reached at 14 interviews, we conducted 16 interviews in total and then stopped recruitment as planned (Braun and Clarke, 2021; Fugard and Potts, 2015). Audio files were transcribed verbatim and pseudonymised upon import to the analysis workspace. Specifically, any personal names or precise locations mentioned during the interview were replaced with neutral descriptors. Notably, pseudonyms were randomly assigned and not intended to match participant characteristics. The data were then analyzed using Nvivo.

We followed a hybrid deductive–inductive thematic analysis approach to map hosts' experienced benefits and challenges to platform features and neighborhood contexts. Following a template approach, we first developed an a priori coding structure from established sharing-economy and mobility-adoption research, distinguishing motivations (utilitarian/economic, social/prosocial, and moral/environmental) and barriers (trust and perceived risk including liability, privacy/safety, and platform usability/transaction-cost frictions). In the first coding pass, all excerpts relevant to hosting were assigned to one of these template categories. In the second pass, we conducted inductive open coding and constant comparison within each category to generate finer sub-themes and refine theme definitions. When a segment did not fit the template, new codes were created; one salient example was “low and inconsistent demand/market thinness,” which emerged repeatedly across participants and was therefore treated as an additional challenge theme.

3 Results

3.1 Descriptive analysis of participant characteristics

Due to width of the table, the participant characteristics are presented in Appendix 1. Overall, participants were predominantly working-age, employed, degree-educated homeowners with off-street parking. For age distribution, the participants' age ranged from 27-60 years old, with mean age of 39. Most of them are male (n = 11), and lived in detached (n = 6), semi-detached (n = 5) or terraced houses (n = 4). Off-street access varied by dwelling type, all detached households reported off-street parking (6/6), compared with 4/5 semi-detached and 2/4 terraced homes. The property ownership type and dwellings distribution aligns with what would be expected among supply-side P2P hosts who own and manage private chargepoints. Next, their residence were mostly owner-occupied, with only 1 renter in our sample. The education level is consistently high: 13 of 16 participants reported holding an undergraduate degree or above (including 7 with postgraduate qualifications). Regarding their experience with P2P EV charger sharing platforms, a large proportion of them have only started sharing for less than 1 year (n = 9), enriching our story by providing perspectives from both newer and more established hosts.

3.2 Experienced benefits

3.2.1 Putting an idle asset to work and offsetting costs

Across interviews, hosts most often described P2P sharing as a practical way to turn a largely idle charger into small but meaningful offsets to household energy or EV-related costs. Several began with the language of waste avoidance and micro-income. For example, Joseph whose home unit was

“sometimes just sitting there… a bit of a wasted asset,”

so sharing offered opportunity that could go toward offset partly the energy bill and even pay off the car lease. Similarly, another current host framed it similarly:

“Now it is just sitting there unused, and it's nice to make a bit of extra cash.” (Kerry)

Participants also described concrete strategies for making the math work. Ashe, who charges his own EV on an off-peak tariff, explained the underlying calculus succinctly:

“If I can subsidize the cost of my night charging… then effectively I'm getting free electric.”

For long-time hosts, the sums remained modest but tangible; Mark remarked that over time the trickle

“pays for my mobile contract, for example,”

capturing the cost-offsetting (rather than profit-seeking) tenor reported by many. Notably, participants were clear-eyed about limits. Income was often experienced as irregular and small, and the effort required could dilute the financial upside. Mikey described his experience in arranging the charging session, especially allowing people to enter the driveway:

“it's not a very straightforward thing, there was quite a lot of hassle, [and finally] you earn just a couple of pounds at the end of it. It really wasn't worth it for that.”

This moderation is important analytically: in our sample, money Marked most, but primarily as cost-offsetting and asset-utilization rather than as a reliable revenue stream. When the price gap with public charging was large and coordination was simple, hosts felt the “side earner” logic held; when bookings were sparse or arrangements clunky, the benefit contracted accordingly.

3.2.2 Helping others out

Set against the cost-offsetting calculus, a second benefit that hosts emphasized was helping other EV drivers gain cheaper, closer access to charging, especially neighbors and visitors without a driveway or an on-street option. Participants described price-setting as a Marker of fairness rather than profit and framed their offer as a small, local service that reduces detours to public chargers. This benefit appeared most tangible when relationships became repeat and routine, such as accommodating a nearby worker's regular top-ups during the week. Kerry's account exemplifies the pattern. After a neighbor began booking her charger two or three times a month, she observed,

“She lives about a 7 min walk away, and I think the reason she comes back is it's cheaper. My rate is cheaper than using the public chargers.”

Because the nearest public alternatives were in the city, the practical advantage compounded:

“It is more difficult for her to go and charge her car than it is to bring it to my house.”

Kerry ultimately characterized hosting as

“a great way to kind of for everyone to benefit… to save a little bit of money and for a bit of convenience.”

Several hosts rooted this helping-others motive in the local housing stock. Mark's bookings largely came from nearby residents without private EV chargers, including one regular who would leave the vehicle overnight and another who lived

“20 or 15 min walk away and came back in the morning.”

He described the arrangement as for guests, while still worthwhile for him. Notably, price fairness frequently surfaced alongside this local-convenience logic. Ashe, who live in a community where many other hosts exist, set his rate to be competitive with nearby options,

“It made sense to effectively undercut the competition slightly… other than convenience for somebody else, I can't really think of any other benefit at the moment.”

In his telling, the value to guests a nearby, lower-cost charge justified the effort even when bookings were infrequent. Taken together, these accounts position hosting as a “neighborhood kindness:” a fair-priced, close-to-home alternative that smooths everyday charging for people. Importantly, this helping others benefit often coexisted with the cost-offsetting motive but was narrated in a different manner, which is less about revenue and more about fairness and access.

3.2.3 Environmental ethos

Building on the local, fair-price help described above, several hosts experienced a less tangible but personally meaningful benefit. That is, a sense that hosting contributes to decarbonisation and helps normalize EV use in their neighborhoods. One long-time EV owner in West Yorkshire located his motivation squarely in climate terms:

“We're really keen on electric vehicles as part of the way of decarbonizing and of improving sustainability.”

Joseph similarly described why this benefit Markered to him beyond any income:

“I want to reduce my carbon emissions,”

and he connected day-to-day hosting with a modest, everyday advocacy: meeting guests on the drive

“kind of builds that community in a way with other users.”

For some others hosts, by sharing their EV chargers, they are actually lowering the threshold for trying or owning an EV. Emmanuel explained that platforms can act as a bridge for potential adopters who are stopped by the cost or feasibility of installing a charger at home:

“It gives them a halfway house, because charging on a street nearby is not as expensive as using the public charging network, yet you haven't got the cost of installing at home.”

Even when they framed hosting primarily as cost-offsetting, participants often folded in an environmental rationale. Taken together, these accounts portray hosts as everyday advocates: by making an affordable, close-to-home charge visible and workable, they felt they were not only helping neighbors but also quietly normalizing EV use and lowering the barrier of EV adoption. This ethos coheres with the helping others benefit above, but shifts the emphasis from the immediate convenience of a cheaper local charge to the longer-term aim of broadening adoption.

3.3 Experienced challenges

3.3.1 Trust, liability and uncertainty

Set against the experienced benefits of EV charger sharing, the strongest brake on continued hosting in our sample was uncertainty about liability and the extent to which platforms, insurers, or hosts themselves would stand behind a booking if something goes wrong. Mikey voiced this most plainly as he weighed offering his driveway to strangers:

“Suddenly I'm providing a service. Am I somehow liable of something goes wrong? That was my biggest anxiety… the websites say no to all my concerns–you're not liable for this and it would be fine, but I don't know if it's ever been actually tested.”

For another host who decided not to share the EV charger through platforms any more, the perceived ambiguity is a huge barrier:

“Then when I sort of looked into some home insurance they can decline [your insurance quotes] if they if they know you're sharing your charger.”

He concluded bluntly,

“So I canceled it. I said it's not worth the risk.”

Beyond formal liability, several hosts described the transaction itself as trust-dependent, because metering and proof of presence were not fully automated in the apps they used. Kerry summarized the core worry:

“The way the app's set up, it's a little bit of a trust thing, to be honest…. The app kind of works out roughly how much they should be paying based on how long they say that they're there for, and if you're not home, well, they could be there all day.”

Although she had not been exploited, the possibility of misuse loomed large enough to shape how and when she made her point available.

Hosts also connected liability considerations to the absence of a clear backstop when disputes arise. The same former host, reflecting on an overstayer and an unhelpful response from the platform support, pointed to the limits of public enforcement:

“Even if I call the police, they'll say it's a civil Marker.”

He argued for platform-level cover:

“Maybe offer some sort of insurance for hosts. There's no insurance.”

Others agreed that explicit cover would lower the perceived downside—even if they had not personally faced damage. As Mark put it,

“Some of the platforms have insurance for this. So I think if it was broken, JustPark, for example, would cover the costs.”

In his experience, the presence (or absence) of such guarantees made the difference between a low-risk side activity and a hassle that could erase thin profit margins.

3.3.2 Privacy and safety

Beyond liability, hosts also described a persistent unease about bringing strangers into the domestic sphere and potentially signaling routines or absence. Joseph recalled that his hesitation

“does have something to do with privacy, because when you're actually filling out the actual form and things, you know they'd want to know your full address,”

and he worried at the platform's privacy protection for hosts,

“could they actually see when I'm at home and when I'm not?”

For active hosts, privacy often blended into practical safety questions about unattended use. Kerry explained,

“I guess the only concern is just a maybe about safety,”

and noted that enabling charging when she was out created an exposure:

“Because the way the app's set up, it's a little bit of a trust thing, to be honest.”

A small number of hosts described negative guest behavior that sharpened these privacy and safety concerns. One former host recounted routine overstaying:

“I had some bookings where they'd leave their car for a long time, so even after the charge has completed, they won't come in. They would leave it all day and all night and there's nothing I could do.”

He also reported a dispute over the driveway environment:

“He had parked up and he was using my charger. And then when he came to collect, there was some leaves on his car. So he said, ‘Are you going to reimburse me for my car's dirty now?”'

The same participant linked these frictions to a broader privacy discomfort with platform maps:

“So it's not worth, because the map is publicly available your data is in public.”

Bad experience in sharing, especially when the platform lacks comprehensive guidance and support for hosts, do act as strong barrier for continued sharing.

Notably, Not all hosts shared these worries to the same degree. Some pointed to ways of managing perceived risks with simple measures at home. Mark noted the deterrent value of visible surveillance and framed it as a reassurance for both sides:

“It would be ridiculous to start making any problems with a camera,”

and, more generally, he felt his doorbell camera made the encounter feel safe for guests and acceptable for him.

3.3.3 Inconvenience arising from platform design and personal contexts

Beyond concerns about liability and domestic privacy, hosts repeatedly described frictions that stem from the difficulties experienced with bookings and payments, and from the practicalities of fitting third-party charging into household routines. These frictions did not usually end a hosting relationship outright, but they thinned already modest margins and made sharing feel like more work than it ought to be.

Recurrent difficulty was coordination by chat rather than by a reliable end-to-end booking flow. One host (Emmanuel) summarized the experience succinctly:

“I think partly the platform could be better because there's no like booking system, now it's just like a messaging system… Most people just pay you cash or bank transfer or whatever. So that could probably be a bit more seamless.”

In practice, this translated into uncertainty about whether a booking would actually happen. In addition, the app design and customer support further exacerbates such challenge. Hosts who persevered with Co-Charger described software reliability issues that added time and uncertainty. Mark contrasted Co-Charger with a rival app:

“The app's been pretty bad recently and the support is really bad as well, I literally had 2 months of backwards and forwards with support.”

Next, hosts described pricing complexity and inflexibility as a persistent administrative burden. For those on time-of-use tariffs, setting a simple per-kWh rate felt error-prone and risky. As one host put it,

“I couldn't work out how much I should roughly be charging per kWh because obviously I wanted to make sure that I was cheaper than public chargers because, you know, what's the point if you're not,”

Where platforms fixed prices on the host's behalf, the problem inverted, meaning hosts could neither reflect cheaper off-peak electricity nor pass on higher daytime costs when necessary.

Finally, several interviewees noted access constraints within the household that platforms do not fully absorb. Mickey explained why his driveway configuration and household vehicle use make daytime hosting impractical:

“Usually it's in use by one or the other, the off-peak tariff window is 11:00 PM at night, 5:00 in the morning, and the cable, although it's a long cable for the charger, it won't reach down to the street.”

In these settings the additional coordination, combined with messaging-based bookings and post-hoc payments, pushed sharing from a light-touch sideline into a chore. As Frank reflected:

“the process wasn't a very straightforward thing,”

and that lack of straightforwardness often weighed more than the small sums earned.

In addition, Although interviews were conducted with a single verified host per household and therefore did not systematically elicit detailed intra-household negotiation processes, hosts frequently described platform use as something that had to be made compatible with household routines. In practice, this often meant restricting availability to specific time windows to protect household charging needs and driveway access. Following what Mickey explained about how they integrate sharing into their own charging pattern, hosts also noted that perceived risks around unattended access influenced when they were willing to host. For example, Kerry's concerns about trust and the possibility of overstaying shaped “how and when she made her point available.” In a small number of cases, negative experiences with extended vehicle stays (e.g., guests leaving vehicles “all day and all night”) further reinforced the need for temporal boundaries around hosting.

3.3.4 Low and inconsistent demand

Across interviews, hosts described demand as sporadic and often too light to justify the coordination effort. Emmanuel put it plainly:

“It's pretty sporadic to be honest with you. Probably like less than one person every 3 months, it's not very frequent at all.” He added, “I haven't stopped. It's available for sharing, but the amount of people that actually take that offer up through Co-Charger is like very minimal.”

Others saw a decline over time. Mark contrasted a previously steady trickle with a sudden drop:

“For the last 2 1/2 years I'd get at least one or two bookings a week, but since February, it's just kind of stopped at the moment. I've not had anyone new booking.”

Participants linked this thin pipeline to the growth of public charging, the relative advantages (e.g., speed, availability) of public chargers and the fact that many EV owners also have home chargers where the dwellings in a community support EV charger installation. Frank observed the substitution effect and concluded the future market potential:

“So I think the platforms we've got, they'll cease to exist because now charging is more widely available.”

Taken together, these accounts indicate that low and inconsistent demand reduces the perceived payoff from navigating platform and household frictions, thereby cuts the intention to continue sharing via such platforms.

4 Discussion

4.1 Side income under low demand

In our sample, hosts typically approached peer-to-peer (P2P) charger sharing as a way to offset household energy costs and put an idle asset to work, not to create a dependable revenue stream. This echoes findings from past sharing-economy work that documents utilitarian motives alongside social and environmental ones (Hamari et al., 2016; Böcker and Meelen, 2017; Bucher et al., 2016; Gazzola et al., 2019). In addition, it nuances more entrepreneurial narratives of collaborative consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2010) by casting P2P charging as a domestic micro-utility. Specifically, in the context of charger sharing, our respondents feel it is worthwhile when hassle is low and demand exists, but rarely a profit engine.

Realized value was consistently capped by market thinness. In our sample, there is only one participant who acquired consistent bookings through platform. A large proportion of our respondents reported months between bookings, dependence on a single repeat user, one-off requests that never materialized, and in some cases a noticeable drop-off after a previously steady trickle. Participants attributed this to growth in public charging and the prevalence of home charging among EV owners. Viewed against UK infrastructure trends and policy ambitions (Department for Transport (DfT), 2022; Falchetta and Noussan, 2021; Hopkins et al., 2023), these experiences position P2P sharing as a niche complement rather than a substitute for the public network. That is, charger sharing might only be valuable in particular geographies and routines but unlikely to generate thick, anonymous markets at present UK. This interpretation, to some extent, tempers modeling that infers substantial latent capacity from private posts, and adds an experienced utilization constraint (Hu et al., 2021; Plenter et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2024).

Furthermore, domestic context further constrains the practical availability of supply. For example, driveway geometry, access limitations, cable reach, all made hosting inconvenient for some, even when motivations were positive. These situated considerations, aligning with past studies to residential charging research help explain why viable supply frequently converges on repeat local relationships (e.g., a nearby worker charging on fixed days) rather than open, always-on listings. That pattern is also consistent with place-based planning arguments for neighborhood or street-level solutions (Azarova et al., 2020; Charly et al., 2023) and with UK equity concerns around on-street households (Hopkins et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2024). This findings also adds practical lens to the literature, which heavily focus on simulating potential income of full-time charger sharing, and to some extent challenges the past studies that emphasis on the income potential of charger sharing for individual hosts (Zhao et al., 2020; Zhang and Ha, 2025).

4.2 Social and prosocial logic

Our interviews indicate that participation is sustained also by social logics. Hosts framed sharing as helping others locally while offering a fairer price than public rapid chargers and a level of convenience aligned with everyday routines. This configuration coheres with sharing-economy research that consistently finds multi-motive participation rather than pure profit seeking (Hamari et al., 2016; Gazzola et al., 2019). Additionally, our sample explicitly situated their pricing as “reasonable” relative to nearby public provision, aligning with prior work that highlights fairness and convenience as important non-monetary benefits in collaborative consumption (Lamberton and Rose, 2012). Meanwhile, a notable corollary of these social logics is the emergence of repeat local ties. Rather than a thick, anonymous marketplace, several hosts reported that use consolidated around a single, nearby driver on a regular schedule (e.g., multiple sessions per month). Such repeated interactions lower coordination effort, build familiarity and trust, and make the exchange feel less like a one-off market transaction and more like neighborly reciprocation. This dynamic resonates with work showing that familiarity and trust are central to sustaining peer-to-peer exchanges (Mittendorf, 2018). Similarly, it also mirrors observations in peer accommodation where ongoing host–guest relationships reduce perceived risk and smooth logistics (Yi et al., 2020).

Hosts in our study frequently also located their participation in environmental purposes. This configuration coheres with past works across the sharing economy that find participation is motivated by prosocial and environmental motives alongside utilitarian aims (Hamari et al., 2016; Böcker and Meelen, 2017). In our material, stewardship was articulated in grounded terms rather than in abstract carbon calculus. That emphasis on everyday convenience is consistent with service-exchange accounts in which moral and communal norms are activated by small, visible contributions embedded in routine life (Lamberton and Rose, 2012). Similarly, hosts in our study positioned themselves as ambassadors who lower the experiential barrier for potential users. This mechanism maps onto diffusion theory's demonstration effect, that first-hand exposure reduces uncertainty about a new practice, particularly when conveyed by trusted peers (Rogers et al., 2014). It also complements proposals for community-level or neighborhood charging that fill micro-gaps in public provision (Azarova et al., 2020; Charly et al., 2023).

4.3 Risks and governance

Participation was also bounded by a cluster of risks. Specifically, trust, liability, privacy and safety, which together raise the threshold at which thin, irregular demand remains worthwhile. Hosts repeatedly expressed uncertainty about who bears responsibility if something goes wrong. These experiences mirror a broader sharing-economy pattern in which perceived risk depresses participation unless clear governance and recourse mechanisms are present (Cherry and Pidgeon, 2018; Yi et al., 2020; Mittendorf, 2018). These household boundary dynamics are widely noted in commercial sharing contexts that documents tensions between sharing and privacy at the property line (Xingjun et al., 2024).

At the same time, following the social part of our findings, neighborly framing is tempered by domestic boundary work. Concerns about privacy and safety remains, included guests lingering beyond a charge session and visibility of the home on public maps. In our interviews, such concerns were not universal, but the practice that how access is offered and to whom (e.g., favoring familiar or vetted users, or hosting only when someone is at home). These findings echo risk and boundary concerns documented across commercial sharing systems and the salience of privacy/safety in peer settings (Shah et al., 2021; Teubner and Flath, 2019).

Compounding with these risks, the immature platform features further exacerbated the concerns. Our participants raised that basic assurance mechanisms were absent, such as identity and presence verification. Consequently, several hosts defaulted to serving people they already knew. Where booking defaults to ad-hoc messaging, hosts described reverting to users they already know, as this reduces perceived risk and increases willingness to participate (e.g., identity verification, presence confirmation) (Zloteanu et al., 2018; Ranzini et al., 2020). In turn, the social and the technical mutually reinforce trust, and reduce the need for heavy coordination. However, their emergence also signals to platforms where governance and automation are most needed (cf. LaMonaca and Ryan, 2022). These findings also suggests the importance to enhance platform governance and assurance, otherwise the familiarity issues and related concerns may hinder the market uptake.

Our findings align with recent intention-focused and mixed-methods research on home-charger sharing in that participation is multi-motivated, combining utilitarian considerations with prosocial and environmental motives, while perceived risks and transaction frictions remain salient. In this sense, the present results can be interpreted as cross-context support for previously identified drivers (e.g., Li et al., 2025; Cao and Zhang, 2025). At the same time, our study contributes by shifting the empirical focus from intentions to realized hosting and sustainment among verified hosts. Three experience-based constraints are especially prominent. First, demand can be thin and inconsistent, which places a hard cap on realized value and makes participation dependent on repeat, hyper-local ties rather than a thick anonymous marketplace. Second, once hosting is enacted, domestic-boundary governance becomes a decisive retention factor. Third, platform design choices amplify coordination effort and perceived risk, shaping whether motivation translates into sustained supply. In combination, these boundary conditions help explain why P2P home charging currently functions as a targeted complement to public charging in the UK rather than a mass-market substitute.

5 Implications

Taken together, our interviews suggest that peer-to-peer home-charging in the UK currently functions as cost-offsetting under thin demand. It is viable where coordination is light and where P2P fills spatial or temporal gaps in the public network. Across cases we saw limited bookings and protection for host against several risks (e.g., safety, property protection). These frictions turn a few pounds of benefit into a hassle for existing hosts.

As such, hosts are unlikely to open the boundary of the home without clearer governance. The interviews pointed to uncertainty about home or car insurance coverage when hosting, especially when one partner may be at home alone. Platforms can lower these barriers by standardizing host-side protection (e.g., embedded micro-insurance priced into each session) and by implementing presence/identity assurance and privacy-by-design defaults. Where these assurances were missing or weak, hosts preferred known users or withdrew.

Raising awareness may help, but our interviewees tied discovery to clear value and existing search habits rather than generic advertising. Suggested approaches included integration with Zap-Map or Google Maps and communicating typical price differentials with local public options. On its own, marketing is unlikely to solve low uptake if transaction and assurance frictions remain. Awareness efforts should follow or accompany service fixes so that new users who arrive can book and pay with minimal effort.

Policy should treat charger sharing as a complement to the public network, not a substitute. We observed low general demand but durable repeat local ties where charger sharing fills neighborhood-level gaps or workplace-adjacent needs. This aligns with UK calls to address inequities for households without off-street parking and to plan at neighborhood scale, rather than expect domestic hosts to backfill rapid-charging corridors (Department for Transport (DfT), 2022; Hopkins et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2024). Practical steps are to meet P2P where it works. For instance, encourage neighborhood clusters and workplace-adjacent matching, and promote open APIs between chargers and platforms so that presence verification.

6 Conclusion, limitations and future research

Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 16 verified UK hosts, we find that peer-to-peer home-charger sharing delivers modest but meaningful household cost-offsets and is often sustained by local/prosocial motives and environmental stewardship. However, realized participation is constrained by thin and inconsistent demand, uncertainty around liability and protection, privacy and safety concerns at the household boundary, and coordination frictions in booking, payment and day-to-day hosting.

This study is also short in several limitations. First, our small, purposive sample of verified UK hosts privileges early adopters who are digitally confident and already engaged with services such as Co-Charger (and to a lesser extent JustPark). This design is fit for mechanism finding but not for statistical generalization. A proportionate next step is to broaden the sampling frame beyond online panels and to use light quotas. Second, the evidence is a single-period snapshot in a fast-moving context where tariffs, platform features, and public charging options shift. Thin and inconsistent demand could therefore be contingent rather than stable, and the market acceptance may have changed at the time of publication. A feasible next step is a short longitudinal panel focused on the same hosts to observe changes in bookings after feature updates or local infrastructure changes (if any). Furthermore, as a qualitative study, we identify mechanisms but cannot estimate prevalence or magnitudes (e.g., typical utilization rates, net earnings after energy and time costs). A proportionate mixed-methods next step is to link a small, consented subset of hosts' interviews to anonymised session logs or charger data (kWh, session length, time-of-day). This would allow cautious estimation of booking frequency and cost-offset under real tariffs. In addition, the recruitment funnel required opting in to be re-contacted, providing scheduling details, and submitting verification materials; these steps may under-represent privacy-sensitive hosts, less active/lapsed hosts, or those with lower digital confidence, so findings should be interpreted as mechanisms rather than prevalence estimates. Lastly, education levels in our sample were also high (13/16 reported at least an undergraduate degree), which may shape how hosts interpret and manage P2P home charging. Accordingly, the salience and framing of motivations and risks identified here may differ for less-educated or less digitally confident hosts. Future research could purposively recruit a more socio-demographically diverse host sample to examine how education interacts with housing tenure, digital literacy, and risk perception in sustaining hosting.

The contribution of this work is to move beyond quantitative intention studies by analyzing experienced benefits and challenges among verified hosts and by specifying practical levers that can translate prosocial and cost-offsetting motives into sustained supply. More broadly, we show how domestic context and routine shape the availability of private chargers, offering grounded parameters for evaluating neighborhood-scale pilots and realistic roles for P2P charging in the UK. Looking ahead, our findings suggest that the long-run viability of community charging is likely to depend less on generic awareness-raising and more on reducing household-boundary risk and coordination costs through clearer liability/insurance arrangements and more seamless booking-and-payment design.

References

• 1

  Akbari A. Dean M. D. (2025). Peer-to-peer residential charger sharing: exploring public perceptions in California. Transport. Res. Part D Trans. Environ.144:104788. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2025.104788

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Azarova V. Cohen J. J. Kollmann A. Reichl J. (2020). The potential for community financed electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transport. Res. Part D Trans. Environ.88:102541. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102541

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Böcker L. Meelen T. (2017). Sharing for people, planet or profit? Analysing motivations for intended sharing economy participation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.23, 28–39. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Botsman R. Rogers R. (2010). What's Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. New York, NY: Harper Business

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Braun V. Clarke V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qual. Res. Psychol.18, 328–352. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Bucher E. Fieseler C. Lutz C. (2016). What's mine is yours (for a nominal fee)–Exploring the spectrum of utilitarian to altruistic motives for Internet-mediated sharing. Comput. Human Behav.62, 316–326. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Budnitz H. Meelen T. Schwanen T. (2024). Public residential charging of electric vehicles: an exploration of UK user preferences. Eur. Transp. Stud.1:100004. doi: 10.1016/j.ets.2024.100004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Cao Y. Zhang Y. (2025). Electric vehicle charger sharing services: a latent class analysis based on private charger owners' motivation and intention to share as hosts. Eur. Transp. Stud.2:100030. doi: 10.1016/j.ets.2025.100030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Cao Y. Zhang Y. Cao M. (2025). Exploring the influence of socio-demographic characteristics on the intention to share private electric vehicle chargers. Travel Behav. Soc.41:101084. doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Chahine R. Christ S. L. Gkritza K. (2024). A latent class analysis of public perceptions about shared mobility barriers and benefits. Transport. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect.25:101132. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2024.101132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Charly A. Thomas N. J. Foley A. Caulfield B. (2023). Identifying optimal locations for community electric vehicle charging. Sustain. Cities Soc.94:104573. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104573

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Chen J. Li F. Yang R. Ma D. (2020). Impacts of increasing private charging piles on electric vehicles' charging profiles: a case study in Hefei City, China. Energies13:4387. doi: 10.3390/en13174387

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Cherry C. E. Pidgeon N. F. (2018). Is sharing the solution? Exploring public acceptability of the sharing economy. J. Clean. Prod.195, 939–948. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.278

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Co-Charger (2025). FAQs - Co-charger. Available online at: https://co-charger.com/knowledge-base/a-simple-guide-to-charging-an-ev/ (Accessed January).

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Department for Transport (DfT) (2022). UK Government's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy and Funding Plan. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-strategy (Accessed December 10, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Dixon J. Andersen P. B. Bell K. Træholt C. (2020). On the ease of being green: an investigation of the inconvenience of electric vehicle charging. Appl. Energy258:114090. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114090

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Falchetta G. Noussan M. (2021). Electric vehicle charging network in Europe: an accessibility and deployment trends analysis. Transport. Res. Part D: Trans. Environ.94:102813. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2021.102813

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Fugard A. J. Potts H. W. (2015). Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.18, 669–684. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Gazzola P. Vătămănescu E. M. Andrei A. G. Marrapodi C. (2019). Users' motivations to participate in the sharing economy: moving from profits toward sustainable development. Corporate Soc. Responsibil. Environ. Manag.26, 741–751. doi: 10.1002/csr.1715

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Gong D. Tang M. Buchmeister B. Zhang H. (2019). Solving location problem for electric vehicle charging stations—a sharing charging model. IEEE Access7, 138391–138402. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2943079

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Gov.uk (2022). UK Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-strategy (Accessed December 10, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Gov.uk (2025). Electric Vehicle Public Charging Infrastructure Statistics. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electric-vehicle-public-charging-infrastructure-statistics-october-2025 (Accessed December 10, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Hamari J. Sjöklint M. Ukkonen A. (2016). The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. J. Assoc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 67, 2047–2059. doi: 10.1002/asi.23552

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Hopkins E. Potoglou D. Orford S. Cipcigan L. (2023). Can the equitable roll out of electric vehicle charging infrastructure be achieved?. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.182:113398. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113398

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Hu X. Yang Z. Sun J. Zhang Y. (2021). Sharing economy of electric vehicle private charge posts. Transport. Res. Part B Method.152, 258–275. doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2021.09.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023). CO2 Emissions in 2023. Available online at: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023 (Accessed December 10, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  JustPark (2025). EV Charging Networks | Community charging | Fleet Solutions. JustPark. Available at: https://www.justpark.com/ev (Accessed January 05, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Lamberton C. P. Rose R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. J. Market.76, 109–125. doi: 10.1509/jm.10.0368

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  LaMonaca S. Ryan L. (2022). The state of play in electric vehicle charging services–a review of infrastructure provision, players, and policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.154:111733. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111733

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Lee Z. W. Chan T. K. Balaji M. S. Chong A. Y. L. (2018). Why people participate in the sharing economy: an empirical investigation of Uber. Int. Res.28, 829–850. doi: 10.1108/IntR-01-2017-0037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Li L. Zhang R. Yuan Y. Harris M. Cai H. Chen B. et al . (2025). Connections can make a difference: understanding EV owners' motivations for agreeing to share their HCSs in megacities through a mixed methods approach study. Transport. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.109, 180–210. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2024.12.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Matzner M. Chasin F. von Hoffen M. Plenter F. Becker J. (2016). “Designing a peer-to-peer sharing service as fuel for the development of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure,” in 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (New York, NY: IEEE), 1587-1595. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2016.201

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Mittendorf C. (2018). Collaborative consumption: the role of familiarity and trust among Millennials. J. Consum. Market.35, 377–391. doi: 10.1108/JCM-12-2016-2040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Plenter F. Chasin F. von Hoffen M. Betzing J.H. Matzner M. Becker J. (2018). Assessment of peer-provider potentials to share private electric vehicle charging stations. Trans. Res. Part D: Trans and Environ.64, 178–191. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.02.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  PlugShare (2022). Home Charging Stations. PlugShare Help Centre (05 May). Available online at: https://help.plugshare.com/hc/en-us/articles/6018329565459-Home-Charging-Stations (Accessed January 05, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Ranzini G. Etter M. Vermeulen I. (2020). My home on the platform: exploring the physical privacy concerns of home-sharing providers. Int. J. Hospit. Manag.86:102433. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102433

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Rogers E. M. Singhal A. Quinlan M. M. (2014). “Diffusion of innovations,” in An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (Routledge), 432–448.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Shah S. H. H. Noor S. Lei S. Butt A. S. Ali M. (2021). Role of privacy/safety risk and trust on the development of prosumption and value co-creation under the sharing economy: a moderated mediation model. Inform. Technol. Dev.27, 718–735. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2021.1877604

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Teubner T. Flath C. M. (2019). Privacy in the sharing economy. J. Assoc. Inform. Syst.20:2. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00534

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Velkovski B. Gjorgievski V. Z. Markovski B. Cundeva S. Markovska N. (2024). A framework for shared EV charging in residential renewable energy communities. Renew. Energy231:120897. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2024.120897

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Xingjun H. Mao Z. Lin Y. Shi Q. Liu F. Zhou F. (2024). Sharing or privacy for private electric vehicle charging piles? Evidence from Chongqing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change203:123350. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Yang X. Liu J. Zhuge C. Wong A. T. C. Wang P. (2024). Exploring the potential of sharing private charging posts: A data-driven micro-simulation approach. Sustain. Cities Soc.100:105053. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.105053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Yi J. Yuan G. Yoo C. (2020). The effect of the perceived risk on the adoption of the sharing economy in the tourism industry: the case of Airbnb. Inform. Process. Manag.57:102108. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102108

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Zapmap (2025). Home and Community EV Charging Stats. Zapmap. Available online at: https://www.zapmap.com/ev-stats/home-and-community-charging (Accessed January 05, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Zervas G. Proserpio D. Byers J. W. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. J. Market. Res.54, 687–705. doi: 10.1509/jmr.15.0204

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Zhang J. Che L. Wan X. Shahidehpour M. (2021). Distributed hierarchical coordination of networked charging stations based on peer-to-peer trading and EV charging flexibility quantification. IEEE Transact. Power Syst.37, 2961–2975. doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2021.3123351

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Zhang Q. Ha P. H. (2025). “iCharging: a game-based decentralized nash equilibrium approach for shared EV charging,” in 2025 IEEE 101st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2025-Spring) (IEEE), 1—5.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Zhang Y. Cao Y. (2025). Towards a combined framework for public electric vehicle charger accessibility in London. J. Transp. Geogr.129:104438. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104438

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Zhang Y. Kamargianni M. Cheng L. De Vos J. Cao M. (2024). Evaluating the accessibility of on-street household electric vehicle charging stations in London: policy insights from equity analysis across emission zones. Energy Policy195:114375. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114375

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Zhao Z. Zhang L. Yang M. Chai J. Li S. (2020). Pricing for private charging pile sharing considering EV consumers based on non-cooperative game model. J. Clean. Prod.254:120039. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Zloteanu M. Harvey N. Tuckett D. Livan G. (2018). Digital identity: the effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the sharing economy. PloS ONE13:e0209071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209071

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar