A Literature Review on Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Perspectives in EV Charging Station Planning and Scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before the onset of global warming concerns, the idea of manufacturing electric vehicles on a large scale was not widely considered. However, electric vehicles offer several advantages that have garnered attention. They are environmentally friendly, with simpler drive systems compared to traditional fossil fuel vehicles. Additionally, electric vehicles are highly efficient, with an efficiency of around 90%, in contrast to fossil fuel vehicles, which have an efficiency of about 30% to 35%. The higher energy efficiency of electric vehicles contributes to lower operational costs, which, alongside regulatory incentives and shifting consumer preferences, has increased their strategic importance for many vehicle manufacturers. In this paper, we present a thematic literature review on electric vehicles charging station location planning and scheduling. A systematic literature review across various data sources in the area yielded ninety five research papers for the final review. The research results were analyzed thematically, and three key directions were identified, namely charging station deployment and placement, optimal allocation and scheduling of EV parking lots, and V2G and smart charging systems as the top three themes. Each theme was further investigated to identify key topics, ongoing works, and future trends. It has been found that optimization methods followed by simulation and multi-criteria decision-making are most commonly used for EV infrastructure planning. A multistakeholder perspective is often adopted in these decisions to minimize costs and address the range anxiety of users. The future trend is towards the integration of renewable energy in smart grids, uncertainty modeling of user demand, and use of artificial intelligence for service quality improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".