If the Government Pays for Full Home-Charger Installation, Would Affordable-Housing and Middle-Income Residents Buy Electric Vehicles?

Abstract

With climate change and inequities, this study assessed the willingness of affordable-housing and middle-income residents to buy an electric vehicle (EV) if they had a charging station at their home, the likelihood of buying an EV in 2 years, ideal charger locations, and payment preferences for installation. The new Green Books revealed charger opportunities. Volunteers completed paper surveys in Brookline, MA, in an affordable housing complex (n = 37) and a middle-income neighborhood (n = 128) (Total n = 165). Brookline is unique because drivers cannot leave their cars curbside overnight, and local historic districts (LHDs) require aesthetic charger-installations. Descriptive statistics (yes + likely) revealed that affordable housing (70%) and middle-income (65%) respondents would lease or buy a secondhand EV if they had a charging station where they park their car at their home. Affordable housing (43%) and middle-income (38%) respondents were more neutral about buying an EV in the next 2 years. The preferred charger location was the side of the house (44%) or a post by the driveway (38%). Preferred cost-for-installation included government reimbursement (47%) and tax deduction (41%). Data analysis combined affordable housing and middle-income responses and showed no significant differences for gender, significant differences for individuals 76 years and older, and minor differences for income. To inform individuals in the pre-contemplation phase, Black-owned businesses in the new Green Books could seek government funding for off-road chargers. While EV technology will improve, land is limited, so chargers should not displace climate-responsive bicyclists in curbside protected bike lanes. Following this study, governments and academics could pilot full funding of home charger installations to involve affordable housing and middle-income residents in this climate change solution, study details of these adopters, and develop worldwide policies to lessen greenhouse gas emissions.

1. Introduction

Climate change is dire [1,2,3], and 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. are from transportation [4]. Electric vehicles (EVs) are a solution, but attention has focused on the wealthy [5] and future technologies, [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13] both of which won’t immediately lessen climate change. Lower-income residents need and do not have equal access to EV charging [14]. A federally funded program installs public charging stations on interstate highways, [15] yet not all use the highway, basic charging requires waiting hours, and Tesla owners are the primary beneficiaries of fast charging. Advanced technologies include EV batteries that store and return energy to the home [16] and battery swapping [17], but working with what is at hand is also necessary due to the climate change-clock.

Individuals who now purchase an EV are in the later stages of the five stages of behavior change, i.e., the preparation and action stages [18,19,20]. The primary owners of EVs are wealthy, and 78–98% recharge at home, [21] the preferred location [22]. In the US, a tax credit through the U.S. Internal Revenue Service of $7500 is available to buy a new EV, [23] while the cost is only $2000 to $4500 to expand the electrical panel and run wires to the charger at home. Because the wiring is complex, having government funding for home installation may incentivize individuals in the pre-contemplation stage, including lower-income individuals who may purchase a more affordable secondhand EV [24] and who would benefit the most from owning electric vehicles [25,26]. Wealthy EV owners do not drive in less-wealthy neighborhoods and thus benefit those residents with lowered emissions. Lower-income residents who own EVs and charge at home would reduce emissions in their own neighborhood, pay less compared to using public charging stations, not pay for gasoline, and not have expensive combustion engine vehicle repairs [27].

For everyone, having readily available charging is necessary to lessen range anxiety, which is one reason for the low sales of EVs [28]. Recharging options include Level I, Level II, and fast charging [29]. Level I (common household plug) requires 40–50 h to fully charge a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV; only runs on electricity) or 5–6 h for Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV; can also run on gasoline). Level II charging (more advanced plug) can require 4–10 h for a BEV and 1–2 h for a PHEV. Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) requires 20–60 min, but the BEV owner still must wait for the charge to reach 80% capacity, and fewer cars have the capability to fast-charge.

Local public Level II chargers now exist for residents at grocery stores, by municipal offices, or on the side of the street. Melrose, Massachusetts, installed chargers on the telephone poles 10 feet above the sidewalk [30], and the EV owner’s app activates the Level II charger to slowly drop the retractable 25-foot-long cord [31]. The EV can remain charging for 3 h, but a $5 surcharge is imposed if the car remains longer [32]. Compared to in-ground public charging stations, telephone pole-mounted chargers reduce installation costs by 70%, [33] yet these public chargers do not fully alleviate range anxiety. Problems include the charging space being occupied, the charger being broken, and the allowed three-hour charge only partially recharging the EV. Walking far from a charging station to home is a less desirable option if neighborhood crime is high, the EV owner is a single parent, and a job starts or ends at night [34,35].

Though Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09) introduced legislation to install 200,000 EV charging stations by 2030 in underserved and disadvantaged neighborhoods on streets and in multi-unit dwellings/affordable housing/parks/places of work/transit hubs, [36,37] charging stations on the side of the road take the place of the safer and preferred protected bike lanes/cycle tracks [38,39]. Biking is a more-responsive-to-climate-change-and-health solution than riding in an electric vehicle or having a car recharging by the side of the road [40,41,42]. A better utilization of land would be to re-think existing off-road parking spaces. Even though lower and middle-income residents might not have a garage, they might own a large-enough driveway in which several cars could recharge. The residents could rent these extra spaces to friends and neighbors for monthly 24 h recharging [43]. Apartment or condo owners could rent or sell unused spaces if they are equipped with EV charging.

While some subsidies exist for EV charging installation, the amount residents receive is low. The United Kingdom provides grants for installing a home charger, yet the total is only $418.44 [44]. In the U.S., the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has a rebate but offers only $500 to all applicants to buy and install a Level II charger and $250 for the installation of a dedicated and costly EV charging station meter [45,46]. The Pacific Gas & Electric Utility gives $500 to purchase the charger and $2000 to upgrade the electrical system [26]. In the U.S., Volkswagen’s settlement funding exists, but that is only for public charging [47]. Fewer individuals have charging capabilities if they live in apartments [48] due in large part to the higher cost of installing EV charging in multi-unit housing [49].

Recently in Massachusetts, the energy companies National Grid, Eversource, and UNITIL instituted the Make Ready program and Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) rebates [50]. To pay for the program, the utility companies imposed a kilowatt-per-hour fee on all their customer’s bills, totaling about $5 annually per customer. Any homeowner, no matter their income, who wants to install an EV charger can request the Make Ready installation that covers the full cost of installing the necessary power on the utility side (public street side) of the house meter. For the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) rebate, only low-income residents can receive 100% coverage for running wires, increasing the circuit breaker panel capacity, and installing the charging station/s in the house/garage/driveway. Middle and higher-income residents are not eligible for EVSE rebates. Because the funding for this program is coming from the utility companies and not the government, the utility companies are determining what policy best addresses climate change for the world.

As a climate-responsive and all-population comparison, a partnership in Massachusetts between MassSave and the New England Energy Efficiency Company covers 75 to 100% of the cost of insulation in single-family homes or apartments, no matter the income level. MassSave also offers a $10,000 rebate for a heat pump [51] and up to $15,000 in rebates for heating and cooling [52]. The rebates align with the house size and retrofit complexity. To duplicate the environmental solutions in home energy reductions, scaled reimbursements should be available for the full installation of EV charging stations in both low- and middle-income homes or multi-family housing. Installing home EV charging would be a far less costly program than installing insulation or heating and cooling systems. If the homeowner rents parking spaces, the reimbursement could also cover the cost of more chargers in the driveway to increase EV ownership.

With this background and the need to address climate change and equity, the main aim of this study was to answer the question, “If the government pays for full home-charger installation, would affordable-housing and middle-income residents buy electric vehicles?” This study asked residents in an affordable housing complex and a middle-income residential neighborhood in Brookline, Massachusetts, if they would complete a survey that contained questions about the installation of electric vehicle charging where they live. The survey location was Brookline because the community does not allow overnight roadside parking, so car owners own or rent off-street parking spaces [53]. Brookline also has Local Historic Districts (LHD) that require electric vehicle installations to be aesthetic [29]. The first survey question was whether affordable housing and middle-income residents would buy or lease an EV if they had a charging station at their homes where they park. They additionally could indicate their travel distances, if they would consider a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle that is also fueled by gasoline, whether they would prefer to have Level I or Level II charging, and if they would buy or lease an EV in the next 2 years. Middle-income residents were asked to indicate their preferred source for funding the installation of the charging station and their preferred location for the charger at their homes.

To explore non-home equity-related locations and funding for chargers, this study also involved a review of the historic and new Green Books. The Green Book was a guide for African Americans that identified safe places to eat, spend the night, get gas, and have public restrooms during the periods of racial segregation and Jim Crow. After 1964 when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, many prosperous enterprises went out of business, but updated Green Books are now available. The National Park Service, through its African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund, is preserving Black history by highlighting locations that were in the Green Book [54]. Perhaps Black-owned restaurants, coffee shops, or lodgings could have off-road Level II chargers to introduce patrons in the pre-contemplation stage [18] to EVs and serve the needs of EV owners.

This study tests two hypotheses: Hypothesis #1: affordable housing and middle-income residents would buy an electric vehicle if they had a charging station at their homes. Hypothesis #2: affordable housing and middle-income residents, when analyzed for age, gender, and income categories, respond similarly to the questions about buying an EV if they had a home charging station and if they would buy an EV in the next 2 years.

For a brief overview, the literature revealed that, in the U.S., the government funds the full installation of charging stations in public parking lots or roadside, but parking lots are distant from homes, and roadside-charging stations displace climate and health-responsive protected bike lanes. The government offers homeowners a rebate for the charging station unit and not full electrical installation. Utility companies in Massachusetts recently introduced a program that covers the full cost of installing home charging stations in lower-income, and not middle-income, homes. The surveys revealed that affordable and middle-income residents would buy an electric vehicle if they had a charging station at their home, and middle-income residents preferred to have the government cover the installation. The government could fund the installation of EV chargers in government-supported affordable housing complexes.

This study is original because, while other studies determined that all populations preferred home EV charging, those studies did not identify that the preferred funding source for charger installation was the government. While households can now apply for full funding for home insulation, heat pumps, and all-electric appliances, this study revealed that middle-income residents want full funding to install home chargers. The cost for full installation of the charging station is less than the costs of retrofitting homes for energy efficiency and less than the tax rebate for buying a new electric vehicle. The study is also original because it explored the new Green Books and identified funding sources that could cover the installation of off-road EV charging stations at the advertised Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and hotels.

The below sections include a brief Literature review. Following the Literature review, the Methods section covers the methodology of the paper survey distribution, analysis for the descriptive statistics, and, based on age, gender, and income, analysis of the willingness to buy an EV and if respondents would buy an EV in the next 2 years. This study, which follows the theory of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (physiological and safety), includes in the Methods section a literature discussion concerning the new Green Books. The additional sections are the Results, Discussion, Limitations, Conclusion, and Practical Application of the Study Findings.

Rather than calling for more research about buying an electric vehicle, the sections on Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and Practical Application offer sufficient evidence for the government and academics to study, through applied action research and pilot funding, home EV charger installations in small neighborhoods. The findings for each neighborhood could reveal the number of EV charging spaces provided in affordable and middle-income housing, whether EV purchases increased if residents rented their additional driveway EV charging parking spaces to neighbors, and whether any apartment or condo complexes sold or rented unused parking spaces then equipped with EV charging. The government could provide material about the aesthetic installation of electric vehicle chargers and study whether homeowners applied the aesthetic designs to increase their property values and improve the visual appeal of neighborhoods as they solve climate change [29]. The studies could also identify whether any Black-owned businesses in the new Green Books installed off-road EV charging stations.

Literature Review to Show Gaps in the Literature

Below is a brief review of the literature to show the originality and contribution of this research.

Multiple studies identified the preference for home charging, including a 2018 literature review, yet preferences of lower or middle-income residents concerning home charging are lacking [22]. The lack of home charging, public charging’s high cost, and the few charging options in low-income neighborhoods were noted in a 2021 study [26]. Another 2021 study identified the need to help lower-income drivers own electric vehicles, but the recommendation was for subsidies for purchasing the EV and not for covering the full costs for home charging installation [27]. A 2022 study conducted in the UK did concur that, even in other countries, individuals with lower incomes were less likely to purchase electric vehicles [5]. A 2019 study in California, the US state with the highest number of electric vehicles, noted that one of the greatest policy contributions would be to address the lack of charging, in particular in multi-family housing [25]. While serving residents in multi-family housing is necessary, lower- and middle-income ethnic-minority residents also own homes, and some of these homes have driveways large enough to accommodate multiple chargers for the residents or for parking space renters.

While the government would cover the cost of installing electric vehicle charging stations in government-sponsored affordable housing, only a few states offer funding for EV charging to homeowners, and that is only for the charging unit itself. To increase EV sales and address climate change, governments could cover the full cost of installing charging stations at homes. A review of the most up-to-date studies did not identify studies that showed middle-income residents would prefer to have government funding to cover the full installation of their home charging stations. A 2022 Consumer Reports study indicated that because Black and Latino Americans are more likely to use on-street parking or park in public lots, a policy should be enacted to install chargers on the side of the road or in public lots [55]. Roadside chargers mean children, some seniors, and residents who do not own cars could not then have safe, protected bike lanes for the healthy and affordable activity of biking. A 2019 study in Canada recommended providing financial aid to building owners for retrofitting buildings with EV charging and mandating the installation of charging stations in new Multi-Unit Residential Buildings [56]. There was no mention of the amount of financial coverage, and there was no mention of homes. A 2020 Consumer Reports study discussed the results of a national survey that showed 42% of the respondents wanted public charging stations along highways, while 37% wanted discounts for the installation of home charging stations. The highway public charging stations would be fully government-funded, while the Consumer Reports question only asked about having a discount of an unknown amount for homeowners [57]. A 2020 study conducted in an underserved neighborhood in Huntsville, Alabama, showed the respondents wanted government policies that make it easier for them to own an electric vehicle [58]. The author was not specific about the policies. The authors of a study conducted in 2015 in the Boston area noted that owners of parking spaces who do not use their parking spaces could lease these spaces to car owners who lack off-street parking [59]. If the owners of these rented spaces received full coverage for installing EV charging, car-space renters, labeled “garage orphans,” could buy and charge their own EV overnight in their rented space.

New studies were not located that were conducted in the US that analyzed the age, gender, and income of affordable and middle-income housing residents’ preference for a home charging station or buying an electric vehicle. A study conducted in China in 2018 did identify that older individuals were less inclined and females were more inclined to purchase an electric vehicle [60]. A study in Spain studied gender and age, but the association was with purchasing an electric vehicle. A literature review of the adoption of electric vehicles suggested males were the predominant purchasers of EVs, but the studies cited were from 2014 in Germany [61] and 2018 in the Nordic region [62], and the association was again about purchasing an electric vehicle.

To increase EV sales in underserved ethnic-minority populations, a parallel opportunity exists in the new Green Books. These books identify Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and lodgings across the country. The new Green Books currently do not, but could, advertise the availability of off-road electric vehicle charging at their listed Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and hotels. A study in 2022 discussed the lack of public charging stations in low-income, predominantly Black neighborhoods but did not discuss funding home charging installation in affordable housing complexes, in properties owned by Black residents, or at the new Green Book establishments [14]. New versions of the Green Book exist, and the authors could advertise off-road EV charging at Black-owned businesses [63,64]. A potential EV buyer in the pre-contemplation stage of behavior change [20] might have coffee at a Black-owned Green Book establishment and learn about EVs from a patron who is charging their own EV.

2. Method

2.1. Theory, Survey Method, Approval, Distribution, and Green Book Review

The study follows the theory of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [65]. Human behavior requires the fulfillment of basic needs first in order to survive. Other needs, such as love or esteem, can achieve fulfillment in the third or fourth tier. While some have suggested that needs overlap, the first needs are physiological (food, water, warmth, and rest), and the second needs are safety (security). If a homeowner is dependent on the reliability of a vehicle for income, shelter, and food, the uncertainty of recharging an electric vehicle can cause range anxiety. The need for safety, especially with weather disasters, requires that the homeowner knows they can control their personal security.

The survey method took the following issues into consideration: (1) Only 2.1% of Massachusetts’ vehicles are electric; (2) volunteers would include lower-income ethnic-minority populations; (3) limited funding; (4) high response rate necessary for time spent in the field; (5) COVID; and (6) completing data collection quickly because the results relate to climate change. The survey took place in Brookline, Massachusetts, considered one of the 10 wealthiest communities in Massachusetts, with a median income of $113, 642 for 2016–2020. Within this median-income community, Brookline, settled in 1638, retains pockets of dense housing where lower-income and working-class families live in smaller homes, lower-rent triple-decker apartments, or affordable housing complexes built primarily after World War II. Brookline also has a policy, enacted in 1896 when the restrictions first applied to horses and carriages, that forbids cars from being parked on the side of the road overnight [53]. All car owners who do not have parking on their own property have to rent parking off-street. Brookline also has Local Historic Districts (LHDs) in which any electric vehicle charging station visible from the street needs to be aesthetic and approved.

For the survey contents and distribution, the individual who oversees affordable housing in Brookline suggested edits to the survey to fit the concerns of the residents and recommended placing the survey table in the shaded courtyard with chairs and clipboards. For the middle-income survey, individuals with the Brookline Police Department reviewed the survey and granted permission because the survey was for research and not solicitation or selling a product. Clipboards held the surveys for door-to-door distribution. The one person conducting the surveys was the person in the field and present at all times.

Residents of the affordable housing community had suggested the best days and hours for the highest number of participants. The survey table was set up in June 2022 for 4 days, starting at 11 AM and ending at 6:30. The affordable housing survey table totaled 12 h in the field. The survey table was not set up for additional days because the same residents were walking by the survey table. The middle-income housing survey involved distributing the surveys door-to-door for 8 days in June 2022 for 68 h in the field.

To learn about possibilities with the new Green Books to provide more EV charging spaces and introduce others to EVs, a web search explored the old and new Green Books [54]. The Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and lodgings involve land, and perhaps space exists for EV charging. Funding sources may exist for these enterprises to install off-road EV charging. The significance of the historic Green Books, funding sources for installation of chargers at Black-owned businesses, and the number of new Green Books could provide an opportunity to tell a story, bring economic prosperity to Black-owned businesses, and reduce mobile source air pollution in predominantly minority-owned communities.

2.2. Human Subjects Approval

The Electric Vehicle Charging Station Survey Initial Study submission met the Harvard Chan School of Public Health Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance criteria for exemption per the regulations found at 45 CRF 46.104 (d) (2). As such, an additional Harvard Longwood Campus (HLC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was not required. The initial and final two locations in Brookline, Massachusetts, included the affordable housing complex and the middle-income neighborhood. For distributing and collecting the surveys, the local approvals (affordable housing official and the Brookline Police official) were included in the application for Human Subjects Approval. The approval included the cover sheet that explained the protocol, the purpose of the 1-sheet survey, and that the survey would take a maximum of 3 min to complete.

Demographic questions included age, income (from $10,000 to $150,000), and gender (male, female, other). The income for the lowest category was $10,000–$24,999 to capture the range in the smaller salary. The other categories included rounded income levels, i.e., $25,000–$49,000. The survey did not ask the participant to distinguish between individual or household salary. Questions about race were not included because, even though self-identity is a factor in deciding whether to buy an EV, the primary factors are gender, age, and income.

2.3. Data Analysis

The descriptive statistics presented are by count and percentage. The participants volunteered to complete the survey, and the respondents did not have to answer all the questions, including gender, age, or income. As responses with missing data may be included, the sample size varies in different comparisons. Because some categories under the questions have fewer respondents, the answers with Yes and Likely were coded as Yes (positive indication), and Less Likely, and No were coded as No (negative indication). This meant the responses with “Maybe” or “Somewhat Likely,” were not included in the statistical analysis that determined differences in age, gender, and income. Thus, the Yes + Likely in percentage in the descriptive statistics was different from the Yes + Likely in percentage in the age, gender, and income analysis.

In the affordable housing survey, Question #1 asked if the respondent would lease or buy a second-hand electric vehicle, while the middle-income survey asked if the respondent would lease or buy a “new” or secondhand electric vehicle. The representative of the affordable housing complex requested the removal of the word “new” from the affordable housing survey because the residents would be less able to afford a new electric vehicle. The responses in the affordable housing and the middle-income survey to question #1 were combined even though the latter survey included the word “new.” An electric vehicle needs recharging, whether it is new or secondhand.

In this study, we mainly used the chi-square test for statistical analysis, which compares the correlation between 2 or more unordered categorical variables. If the significant p-value after 2-comparison is greater than the adjusted test level, it means there is no significant difference between the 2, and vice versa, it means there is a significant difference between the two. Compared with the conventional 2-comparison LSD test (Least Significant Difference), the Bonferroni adjustment uses stricter criteria and is more likely to result in no significant difference when two are compared, so the results are more accurate.

In order to further test and analyze the group differences by A and B group, gender, age and income on question Q1 (would you buy an EV if you had home charging) and question Q6 (would you buy an EV in the next 2 years), all options under Q1 and Q2 questions were regrouped. All “Yes + Likely” answers became Yes (positive indication), and all “Less Likely + No” became No (negative indication). The middle responses of “Maybe + Somewhat Likely” were excluded from the age, gender, and income statistical analysis.

For the analysis at the age level, we used Fisher’s Exact Test as the criterion since many cells in the cross-tabulation table have an expected value of less than 5. Overall, the result for the Q1-age comparison was not significant (p = 0.059) but is very close to the p = 0.05 threshold. We could see that the age group of 80 (76 years and older) was very different from the other age groups. We further compared the age group of 80 with the other age groups, and the results showed a significant difference (p = 0.021). This difference in Q6, age comparison, was significant. Specifically, the significant difference was between 30 and 80 and between 50 and 80. The 80 group had the lowest frequency of “Yes.” At the income level, the difference between Q1 and income was not significant. However, we could see that the Inc-4 group seems to be different from the other groups. We further compared it with other income groups. Since the expected count for 1 cell is less than 5, and the minimum expected count is 1.72, we used the Continuity Correction instead of Pearson Chi-Square for testing, and the results confirmed that the difference was not significant. The comparison of Q6 with income showed non-significant differences.

The chi-square test belongs to the nonparametric category test and is applied to the case where all data types are unordered categorical variables to examine whether the distribution of their levels is consistent between two or more groups, i.e., correlation analysis. The basic idea of the chi-square test is: first, the assumption that H0 holds, i.e., the observed value is not different from the expected value. Based on this premise, the χ² value is calculated, and according to the χ² distribution and degrees of freedom can be determined in the assumption that H0 holds to obtain the current statistic and the probability p-value. If the p-value is small, it means that the observed value deviates too much from the expected value, and the H0 hypothesis should be rejected, indicating that there is a significant difference between categorical variables; conversely, a large p-value would not allow the H0 hypothesis to be rejected, and the categorical variables cannot be considered significantly different from each other. The chi-square test has wide application in various fields, including medicine, psychology, social sciences, and education. The advantages of the method include ease of computation, flexibility in handling data from two to multiple groups, and intuitive and easy-to-read results; the disadvantage is that it is difficult to interpret when there are large numbers of categories in the variable (more than 20 categories). For more applications of the method, please refer to the description of the chi-square test method.

A literature study was conducted using the web to learn about the history of the Green Books, if any of the new Green Books described the availability of off-road charging at the Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, or lodgings, and funding sources for these enterprises to install off-road EV charging. A book that covered the history of the Green Books also revealed information [66].

3. Results

3.1. Study Population

In total, 165 individuals completed the surveys, with 37 in the affordable housing complex and 128 in the middle-income neighborhood (

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of participants at survey table (affordable housing) and door-to-door surveys (middle-income) [Authors’ processing].

Variable	Overall n = 165 (100%)	A. Affordable Housing n = 37 (22.4%)	B. Middle Income Housing n = 128 (77.6%)
Gender
Male	82 (49.7%)	12 (7.3%)	70 (42.4%)
Female	78 (47.3%)	23 (13.9%)	55 (33.3%)
Other	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Missing	5 (3.0%)	2 (1.2%)	3 (1.8%)
Total	165 (100%)	37 (22.4%)	128 (77.6%)
Age
18–35	30 (18.2%)	9 (5.5%)	21 (12.7%)
36–45	32 (19.4%)	5 (3.0%)	27 (16.4%)
46–55	35 (21.2%)	6 (3.6%)	29 (17.6%)
56–65	19 (11.5%)	5 (3.0%)	14 (8.5%)
66–75	26 (15.8%)	3 (1.8%)	23 (13.9%)
76–85	10 (6.1%)	3 (1.8%)	7 (4.2%)
86–95	3 (1.8%)	2 (1.2%)	1 (0.6%)
96–105	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Missing	10 (6.1%)	4 (2.4%)	6 (3.6%)
Total	165 (100%)	37 (22.4%)	128 (77.6%)
Income
$10,000–24,999	17 (10.3%)	12 (7.3%)	5 (3.0%)
$25,000–49,000	23 (13.9%)	11 (6.7%)	12 (7.3%)
$50,000–74,000	24 (14.5%)	4 (2.4%)	20 (12.1%)
$75,000–99,000	23 (13.9%)	1 (0.6%)	22 (13.3%)
$100,000–149,000	23 (13.9%)	0 (0%)	23 (13.9%)
$150,000+	33 (20.0%)	3 (1.8%)	30 (18.2%)
Missing	22 (13.3%)	6 (3.6%)	16 (9.7%)
Total	165 (100%)	37 (22.4%)	128 (77.6%)

). For gender, with both groups combined, 47.3% were female. In the affordable housing complex, more women completed the surveys (n = 23) compared with the men (n = 12), and in the middle-income neighborhood, more men completed the survey (n = 70) compared with the women (n = 55). In the affordable housing complex, the largest group was 18–35, while in the middle-income neighborhood, the largest group was 46–55. In the affordable housing complex, the largest group (n = 12 out of 37) earned $10,000–$24,999, while this was the smallest group in the middle-income neighborhood (n = 5 out of 128). In the middle-income neighborhood, 22% earned $10,000–$74,000, and 18% earned more than $150,000.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics

For the likelihood of buying or leasing an electric vehicle if they had a charging station at home (Question #1), 70% (Yes + Likely) of the affordable housing respondents would lease or buy a second-hand electric vehicle if they had charging station where they park their car (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for responses to the affordable housing table survey and middle-income door-to-door surveys [Authors’ processing].

A. Affordable Housing Table Survey (Total n = 37)
1.  I would lease or buy a secondhand electric vehicle (EV) if I had an EV charging station where I park my car at home.
Yes 23 (62.2%)	Likely 3 (8.1%)	Somewhat Likely 9 (24.3%)	Less Likely 1 (2.7%)	No 1 (2.7%)	Missing 0 (0%)
2.  To get to work or on typical trips, my drive takes the below minutes one-way.
10–20 min 13 (35.1%)	21–30 min 9 (24.3%)	31–60 min 13 (35.1%)	61 min or longer 2(5.4%)	Missing 0 (0%)
3.  I drive less than 60 min in a day, so a Level I charger (a regular plug that takes 8–12 h overnight to charge) would be fine.
Yes 15 (40.5%)	Fine 4 (10.8%)	Maybe 7 (18.9%)	Less Fine 4 (10.8%)	No 6 (16.2%)	Missing 1 (2.7%)
4.  I drive more than 60 min a day, so I need a Level II charger for faster charging.
Yes 16 (43.2%)	Occasionally 3 (8.1%)	Maybe 8 (21.6%)	Rarely 3 (8.1%)	No 5 (13.5%)	Missing 2 (5.4%)
5.  I am likely to lease or buy a second-hand hybrid electric plug-in vehicle because I could put gas in the car if the car runs out of electricity.
Yes 14 (37.8%)	Likely 10 (27.0%)	Somewhat Likely 8 (21.6%)	Less Likely 2 (5.4%)	No 2 (5.4%)	Missing 1 (2.7%)
6.  I am likely to lease or buy an electric vehicle (EV) in the next 2 years.
Yes 8 (21.6%)	Likely 8 (21.6%)	Somewhat Likely 9 (24.3%)	Less Likely 2 (5.4%)	No 7 (18.9%)	Missing 3 (8.1%)
B. Middle-Income Door-to-Door Survey (Total n = 128)
1.  I would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle (EV) if I had an EV charging station where I park my car at home.
Yes 52 (40.6%)	Likely 34 (24.6%)	Somewhat Likely 31 (24.2%)	Less Likely 5 (3.9%)	No 6 (6.7%)	Missing 0 (0%)
2.  I park my car in the location where I live, or I don’t own a car.
Park in garage 20 (15.6%)	Park in own drive way 92 (71.9%)	Park on the side of the road 7 (5.5%)	Don’t own a car 8 (6.1%)	Missing 1 (0.8%)
3.  If I have an off-road parking space, I would be okay buying a plug-in hybrid car, charging with a regular outlet (Level I), and adding gas if I drove more than 40 miles a day.
Yes 46 (35.9%)	Likely 31 (24.2%)	Somewhat Likely 29 (22.7%)	Less Likely 10 (7.8%)	No 9 (7.0%)	Missing 3 (2.3%)
4.  If I have an off-road parking space and I installed an electric vehicle charger for faster charging (Level II), I would prefer the below option to cover the cost of the charger (average is $1200, but add $1000–$3000 if the house needs more power).
Government Reimbursement 60 (46.9%)			Tax Deduction 52 (40.6%)
I would cover the cost 12 (9.4%)			Missing 4 (3.1%)
5.  If I did install an electric vehicle charger, I would place it in this location.
In the garage 16 (12.5%)			Side of the house 57 (44.5%)
Post in the driveway 49 (38.3%)			Missing 6 (4.7%)
6.  I am likely to lease or buy an electric vehicle (EV) in the next 2 years.
Yes 32 (25%)	Likely 17 (13.3%)	Somewhat Likely 29 (22.7%)	Less Likely 29 (22.7%)	No 18 (14.1%)	Missing 3 (2.3%)

). For the more neutral category, 24% of the affordable housing respondents indicated Somewhat Likely. Of the middle-income respondents, 65% (Yes + Likely) would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle if they had a charging station at home. For the more neutral category, 24% indicated Somewhat Likely.

For travel times, 94% of the affordable housing respondents indicated that their typical trips were between 10 and 60 min (Question #2). Fifty-one percent (Yes + Fine) indicated that, because they drive less than 60 min in a day, a Level I charger would be fine (Question #3). Fifty-one percent (Yes + Occasionally) indicated that they drive more than 60 min in a day and need a Level II charger (Question #4). Sixty-five percent (Yes + Likely) indicated they would lease or buy a secondhand hybrid electric plug-in vehicle because they could put gas in the car (Question #5).

The middle-income survey (Question #2) asked where the respondent parks, and the majority (72%) park in their own driveway. If they could install a charging station (Question #5), 12% would put the charger in the garage, 44% on the side of the house, and 38% on a post in the driveway.

The middle-income survey asked the respondents if they would be okay buying a plug-in hybrid car, charging with a regular outlet, and adding gas if they drove more than 40 miles a day, and 60 percent indicated Yes + Likely (Question #3). If they had an off-road parking space and installed a faster Level II charger, 47% preferred that the government reimbursement them, 41% preferred to receive a tax deduction, and 9% would cover the cost themselves (Question #4). Of the affordable housing respondents, 43% (Yes + Likely) indicated they would likely lease or buy an electric vehicle in the next 2 years (Question #6). Of the Middle-Income survey respondents, 38% (Yes + Likely) indicated they would likely lease or buy an electric vehicle in the next 2 years.

3.3. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 in Affordable and Middle-Income Housing

The analysis assessed whether the affordable housing respondents differed from the middle-income respondents about whether they would buy an EV if they had a charging station at home (Question #1) and whether they would buy an EV in the next 2 years (Question #6;

Table 3. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 showed that affordable and middle-income residents responded similarly to buying an EV if they had a home charger and to buying an EV in the next 2 years. * [Authors’ processing].

Question #1: I would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle (EV) if I had an EV charging station where I park my car at home. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		A Affordable Housing	B Middle Income Housing	Total A + B
No	Count	2	11	13
		7.10%	11.30%	10.40%
Yes	Count	26	86	112
		92.90%	88.70%	89.60%
Total	Count	28	97	125
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Question #6: I am likely to lease or buy an electric vehicle (EV) in the next 2 years. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		A Affordable Housing	B Middle Income Housing	Total A + B
No	Count	9	47	56
		36.00%	49.00%	46.30%
Yes	Count	16	49	65
		64.00%	51.00%	53.70%
Total	Count	25	96	121
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

* Yes = Yes + Likely, No = Less Likely + No.

). For Question #1 about buying or leasing an EV, if they had a charging station, the positive responses (Yes + Likely) were not significantly different between the two populations. For Question #6 about whether they were likely to lease or buy an EV in the next 2 years, the positive responses (Yes + Likely) were not significantly different.

In looking at the percentages for Question #1 and Question #6, the respondents in the affordable and middle-income housing were more inclined to buy a new or secondhand EV (Yes + Likely) if they had a charging station where they park their car (93% affordable housing, 89% middle income housing). Their willingness (Yes + Likely) was somewhat favorable for leasing or buying an EV in the next 2 years (64% affordable housing, 51% middle-income housing).

3.4. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 by Gender

To determine if willingness differed between genders, combined affordable and middle-income responses showed non-significant differences between male and female respondents. (

Table 4. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 showed males and females responded similarly to buying an EV if they had a home charger and to buying an EV in the next 2 years. * [Authors’ processing].

Question #1: I would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle (EV) if I had an EV charging station where I park my car at home. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		Male	Female	Total
No	Count	4	8	12
		6.70%	12.90%	9.80%
Yes	Count	56	54	110
		93.30%	87.10%	90.20%
Total	Count	60	62	122
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Question #6: I am likely to lease or buy an electric vehicle (EV) in the next 2 years. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		Male	Female	Total
No	Count	31	25	56
		49.20%	43.10%	46.30%
Yes	Count	32	33	65
		50.80%	56.90%	53.70%
Total	Count	63	58	121
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%

* Yes = Yes + Likely, No = Less Likely + No.

). Males (93%) were slightly more favorable (Yes + Likely) to leasing or buying a new or secondhand EV if they had a charging station at home compared with females (87%), but both genders were similar statistically (Question #1).

The results were also non-significant between males and females concerning their likelihood of whether they would lease or buy an EV in the next 2 years. Females (57%) were slightly more inclined to lease or buy an EV compared with males (51%), but both genders were similar statistically (Question #6). In comparing the answers for the likelihood of leasing or buying an EV in the next 2 years (Yes + Likely), both genders (54%) more favorably viewed leasing or buying an EV in the next 2 years.

3.5. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 by Age

Because younger people might be more inclined to view electric vehicles favorably, combining the affordable and middle-income survey responses allowed for comparisons across the entire study population according to age (

Table 5. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 showed age groups responded differently to buying an EV if they had a home charger and to buying an EV in the next 2 years. * [Authors’ processing].

Question #1: I would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle (EV) if I had an EV charging station where I park my car at home. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		18–35 (30)	36–45 (40)	46–55 (50)	56–65 (60)	66–75 (70)	76+ (80)	Total
No	Count	1	2	2	0	3	3	11
		4.80%	7.40%	6.90%	0.00%	15.80%	42.90% *	9.30%
Yes	Count	20	25	27	15	16	4	107
		95.20%	92.60%	93.10%	100.00%	84.20%	57.10% *	90.70%
Total	Count	21	27	29	15	19	7	118
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Chi-Square Tests					Value		df	p
Pearson Chi-Square					12.631		5	0.027 *
Likelihood Ratio					10.153		5	0.071
Fisher’s Exact Test					8.931			0.059 *
Linear-by-Linear Association					4.916		1	0.027 *
		Others (30–70)			76+ (80)		Total
No	Count	9			3		12
		7.80%			42.90%		9.80%
Yes	Count	106			4		110
		92.20%			57.10%		90.20%
Total	Count	115			7		122
		100.00%			100.00%		100.00%
Chi-Square Tests					Value		df	p
Pearson Chi-Square					9.130 a		1	0.003 **
Continuity Correction					5.608		1	0.018 *
Likelihood Ratio					5.742		1	0.017 *
Fisher’s Exact Test								0.021 *
Linear-by-Linear Association					9.056 d		1	0.003 *
Question #6: I am likely to lease or buy an electric vehicle (EV) in the next 2 years. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		18–35 (30)	36–45 (40)	46–55 (50)	56–65 (60)	66–75 (70)	76+ (80)	Total
No	Count	6	14	8	5	10	9	52
		27.30%	58.30%	28.60%	41.70%	52.60%	81.80% *	44.80%
Yes	Count	16	10	20	7	9	2	64
		72.70%	41.70%	71.40%	58.30%	47.40%	18.20% *	55.20%
Total	Count	22	24	28	12	19	11	116
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Chi-Square Tests					Value		df	p
Pearson Chi-Square					14.105		5	0.015 *
Likelihood Ratio					14.662		5	0.012 *

Yes = Yes + Likely, No = Less Likely + No. * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01. a. 1 cell (25.0%) has expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.69. d. The standardized statistic is −2.992.

). As a whole, all of the ages indicated favorably (Yes + Likely) that they would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle if they had an EV charging station at home, except the older group (76 + ) (Question #1). The older group was significantly different compared to all of the other age groups. The other age groups combined would lease or buy a new or secondhand EV if they had a charging station (92%), while the older group was less inclined to buy the EV if they had a charging station (57%). A qualitative comment from one of the survey respondents indicated an older friend returned his newly purchased EV because he perceived the quiet vehicle to be a toy.

For the question of whether the affordable and middle-income respondents would lease or buy an electric vehicle in the next 2 years, the differences were significant (Question #6). There were significant differences between the individuals 18 to 35 years old (73%) and the 76 years old and older group (18%). There also were significant differences between the individuals 46 to 55 years old (71%) and the 76 years old and older group (18%).

3.6. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 by Income

Because income is a critical factor in deciding to buy a car, combining the affordable and middle-income surveys allowed for comparisons across the entire study population according to income (

Table 6. Comparisons of Questions #1 and #6 showed different income groups responded somewhat similarly to buying an EV if they had a home charger and to buying an EV in the next 2 years. * [Authors’ processing].

Question #1: I would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle (EV) if I had an EV charging station where I park my car at home. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		$10,000 $24,999 (1)	$25,000 $49,000 (2)	$50,000 $74,000 (3)	$75,000 $99,000 (4)	$100,000 $149,000 (5)	$150,000+ (6)	Total
No	Count	1	2	2	4	1	1	11
		7.70%	12.50%	10.00%	23.50% *	5.00%	4.30%	10.10%
Yes	Count	12	14	18	13	19	22	98
		92.30%	87.50%	90.00%	76.50% *	95.00%	95.70%	89.90%
Total	Count	13	16	20	17	20	23	109
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
		Others			$75,000 $99,000		Total
No	Count	7			4		11
		7.60%			23.50%		10.10%
Yes	Count	85			13		98
		92.40%			76.50%		89.90%
Total	Count	92			17		109
		100.00%			100.00%		100.00%
Chi-Square Tests					Value		df	p
Pearson Chi-Square					4.008a		1	0.045 *
Continuity Correction					2.446		1	0.118
Likelihood Ratio					3.241		1	0.072
Fisher’s Exact Test								0.068
Linear-by-Linear Association					3.972 d		1	0.046*
Question #6: I am likely to lease or buy an electric vehicle (EV) in the next 2 years. * Yes = Yes + Likely (Excluded = Somewhat Likely + Less Likely + Missing) No = Less Likely + No
		$10,000 $24,999 (1)	$25,000 $49,000 (2)	$50,000 $74,000 (3)	$75,000 $99,000 (4)	$100,000 $149,000 (5)	$150,000+ (6)	Total
No	Count	5	10	7	12	5	10	49
		38.50%	55.60%	46.70%	60.00%	27.80%	40.00%	45.00%
Yes	Count	8	8	8	8	13	15	60
		61.50%	44.40%	53.30%	40.00%	72.20%	60.00%	55.00%
Total	Count	13	18	15	20	18	25	109
		100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Chi-Square Tests					Value		df	p
Pearson Chi-Square					5.280		5	0.383
Likelihood Ratio					5.371		5	0.372
Fisher’s Exact Test					5.242			0.391
Linear-by-Linear Association					0.637		1	0.425

Yes = Yes + Likely, No = Less Likely + No. * p < 0.05. a. 1 cell (25.0%) has expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.72. d. The standardized statistic is −1.993.

). All income groups were similarly willing to lease or buy a new or used EV if they had a charging station at home (Question #1). Notably, respondents in the lowest income group ($10,000 to $24,999) indicated they would lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle if they had an EV charging station where they park their car at home (92%). Respondents in the next income category ($25,000 to $49,000) were also willing to lease or buy an EV if they had a charging station (87%). As a whole, the difference was non-significant across all income groups, but the income group for $75,000 to $99,000 was different from the others. The difference is only marginally significant.

Income would also be a critical factor in being likely to lease or buy an electric vehicle in the next 2 years. The results show non-significant differences between income levels as all income levels were similarly only somewhat inclined to lease or buy an EV in the next 2 years (Question #6). The lowest income group at $10,000–$24,999 (61%) was similar in only being minimally likely to lease or buy a new EV in the next 2 years when compared with the highest income group with incomes of more than $150,000 (60%).

3.7. Literature Related to Recharging at the New Green Book-Identified Businesses

Multiple online resources discussed the history of the Green Books, funding sources for chargers at Black-owned businesses, and new versions of the Green Book. Background literature revealed the transportation and environmental circumstances for some residents. Lower-income ethnic-minority populations have the fewest options for transportation to work and live the farthest from work due to the high cost of housing near better-paying jobs [67]. COVID-19 changed lives worldwide, and many now work from home, but they tend to be male, educated, older, and better paid [68]. With lower-income residents needing to get to jobs, improving transit is an option, but individuals in lower-income households do not take transit if they have a car [69]. The neighborhoods where the majority of the lower-income ethnic-minority residents live have the highest rates of mobile source air pollution [70]. Lower-income, ethnic-minority, and immigrant families are, at times, carless [71], and one reason is that they buy secondhand cars which need costly repairs [72]. While they could do the repairs themselves, they often live in rental housing that bans working on cars. Electric vehicles require fewer repairs because the EV’s battery, electronics, and motor require little maintenance, there are fewer fluids such as oil, there are fewer moving parts, and brakes wear less because of regenerative braking [73].

From 1936 until 1966, the Green Book, written by the postal service worker Victor Green, was a guide to safe Black-owned restaurants, beauty parlors, restaurants, gas stations, lodgings, and dance halls [54,66]. A more modern version of the Green Book was the 1947–1957 “Travel Guide: Vacation & Recreation Without Humiliation.” [74]. A consideration now would be for owners of new Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and lodgings to install fast and Level II EV chargers off-road near their business and provide a space where owners of electric vehicles could make repairs and learn from one another. These installations would be more community focused than chargers on the highway, which involve waiting at highway rest areas.

The many authors of new versions of the Green Book could, but currently do not advertise these ethnic-minority-owned businesses as places that support electric vehicles [63,64]. The gas station Esso, now Exxon, supported the Green Book and perhaps companies and non-profits that fund sustainability would support the new Green Book and the Black-owned businesses that provide EV services. Funding for the establishments and the EV chargers might also come from the National Trust for Historic Preservation African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund [75]. Because minority cities, towns, and villages were more negatively impacted by COVID, funding for off-road charger installation at the Black-owned Green Book advertised businesses could come through the American Rescue Plan Act [76]. To additionally lower mobile source air pollution in underserved ethnic-minority neighborhoods, networks of protected bike lanes could lead to these Black-owned businesses [77]. Funding for the protected bike lanes could come from the U.S. Department of Transportation Reconnecting Communities Program [78].

While having fast charging stations on the interstate is a solution, not all ethnic-minority individuals drive long distances on the highway. At Black-owned businesses, the car must remain charging, and this would allow time to have coffee or a meal with colleagues. Some Green Book businesses offered lodging, [79] so lodging establishments could provide overnight EV charging. Having the charging stations and repair options at Black-owned businesses would mean the EV, which lowers pollution in ethnic-minority neighborhoods and better assures continued ownership with fewer repairs, could become the car of choice.

4. Discussion

The descriptive statistics (Yes + Likely) revealed that affordable housing (70%) and middle-income (65%) respondents would lease or buy a secondhand EV if they had a charging station where they park their car at their home. This confirmed Hypothesis #1 that affordable and middle-income housing residents would lease or buy an electric vehicle if they had a charging station at their homes.

For the statistical analysis for Table 3 Question #1, which included Yes + Likely, but did not include the Maybe or Somewhat Likely responses, the majority of affordable housing and middle-income residents responded Yes (90%) to buying or leasing a new or secondhand electric vehicle if they had an EV charging station where they park. For gender Table 4, the results combined were 90% (Yes). For age Table 5, the response of the group 76 years and older was significantly different (57%) from the other age groups (92%). For income Table 6, as a whole, the difference in the responses was non-significant, but the group earning between $75,000 and $99,000 was somewhat different (76%) from the other income groups (92%). This again supports Hypothesis #1, that affordable and middle-income housing residents would buy an electric vehicle if they had a charging station at home.

For an exploration of the statistical analysis, in Table 6 on income, Question #1, only 76% of those with an income range of $75,000–$99,000 would lease or buy if they had home EV charging, whereas the response in the income range below that is quite large, reaching 90%, although the income is less. The small sample size for each cell could explain the difference, i.e., 13 respondents in $75,000–$99,000 and 18 respondents in $50,000 to $74,000. Someone with an income of $10,000–$74,000 may be making an aspirational statement and wish to buy an EV to copy the actions of someone with a higher income. Those with incomes above $50,000–$74,000 also responded with 95–96% approval. The total for all the populations for Yes was 90% for buying an EV if they had a charging station at home. Thus, the affordable and middle-income respondents appear favorable to leasing or buying a new EV if they have an EV charging station at their homes where they park their cars.

The affordable housing survey asked about trip time, and half responded Yes or Fine to a Level I charger because they drive less than 60 min in a day. Half responded Yes or Occasionally and wanted a Level II charger because they drive more than 60 min in a day. Sixty-five percent answered Yes or Likely to leasing or buying a secondhand hybrid electric vehicle because they could add gasoline. These findings support Hypothesis #1 about leasing or buying an electric vehicle if they had a home charging station.

For parking, of the middle-income respondents, 72 percent currently park in the driveway. When asked where they would install an electric charger, 12% said in the garage, 44% said on the side of the house, and 38% said on a post in the driveway. When asked about the options of paying to have a Level II charger, the first preference was for government reimbursement (47%) and the second for a tax deduction (41%). The government would cover the installation costs for home charging in the government-owned affordable housing complex. This finding confirms that middle-income residents would prefer to have government funding to cover the full cost of home installation of the charging station rather than cover the cost themselves.

Affordable housing (43%) and middle-income (38%) respondents in the descriptive statistics for Question #6 were more neutral about buying an EV in the next 2 years. In Table 3, Question #6, the responses in the statistical analysis of the two housing groups combined were more neutral (54%) to leasing or buying an EV in the next 2 years. For gender Table 4, Question #6, the results were neutral or marginally favorable (54%). For age Table 5, Question #6, as a whole, there were significant differences between individuals 18–35 years old (73%) and 76+ (18%) and between individuals 46–55 years old (71%) and 76+ (18%). For income Table 6 Question #6, the results showed non-significant differences (55%), but the income group most likely to buy an EV in the next 2 years was in the $100,000–$149,000 income category (72%). This confirms Hypothesis #2, that affordable and middle-income housing residents, when analyzed for age, gender, and income categories respond similarly to the questions about buying an EV in the next 2 years with exceptions including higher age (76+) and variations, but non-significant differences in income.

To further explore buying an EV in the next 2 years, Table 5 on age, Question #6, reveals a smaller percentage of respondents aged 36–45 (42%) will buy an EV in the next 2 years. The two surrounding age ranges, 18–35 (73%) and 46–55 (71%), indicated a higher likelihood of buying an EV in the next 2 years (above 70%.) The statistical analysis for age, gender, and income resulted in individual categories based on the respondent’s age, gender, or income. There were six categories for age, and the statistical analysis did not include the respondents who answered Maybe or Likely. Thus, the sample size for the respondents aged 36–45 was only 10, while the sample size for 18–35 was 16, and the sample size for 46–55 was 20. Having fewer respondents could skew the percentage. The total percentage for buying an EV in the next 2 years was 55%.

In Table 6 on income, Question #6, very few people with an income of $75,000–$99,000 (only 40%) indicated they would buy an EV in the next 2 years even though people with a much smaller income of $ 10,000–$24,999 indicated they would buy EVs in the next 2 years (61.50%). The sample size for each cell, $75,000–$99,000 and $10,000–$24,000, was only eight respondents. The eight respondents may mark their survey differently and, with the small sample, skew the percentages. The respondents in the income category of $10,000–$24,999 lived in the affordable housing complex. They may have responded favorably because they, too, want to address climate change and reduce the pollution that causes asthma in children. The fact that this population responded so favorably suggests this population deserves funding for electric vehicle charging where they live. Government funding now subsidizes a wealthy person’s purchase of a new electric vehicle. At the end of the Yes line, 55% of the respondents said they were likely to lease or buy an EV in the next 2 years.

Additionally, in Table 6 on income, Question #6, there were comparatively few (only 60%) people with an income over $150,000 who will buy an EV in the next 2 years. Compared to the other categories, which had eight respondents, the group with an income of $150,000+ included 15 respondents. The next lower level of income ($100,000 to $149,000), with 13 respondents, indicated the highest likelihood of buying or leasing an EV in the next 2 years (72%). Individuals in the higher income bracket might be aware that it is now difficult to buy an EV. They may speculate that the EV technology keeps improving, and they would prefer to buy a new EV in 3 or 4 years. They may have recently purchased a new combustion engine vehicle and want to obtain the value in miles traveled before selling it. They may decide to buy or lease an EV in the next 3 years after the technology has improved, when public charging stations become commonplace, or just before mandates require the purchase of an EV.

The literature study about the new Green Books revealed that the new Green Books do not include information about EV charging. Clientele could increase at the Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and lodgings located across the country due to the availability of new versions of the Green Book. The literature study revealed funding sources for the installation of off-road charging stations at Black-owned businesses. This indicates that the new Green Books currently do not, but could, advertise the availability of off-road electric vehicle charging at their listed Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and hotels.

4.1. Results Confirm or Contrast with Literature

While studies have confirmed that the home was the most important location for charging, the studies [22,60,80] did not ask the more direct question, i.e., whether the respondent was more likely to buy an EV if they had a charging station at home. Few studies about electric vehicles focus on equity, but one concluded that, while subsidies exist for low-income households, the subsidy is typically only for the charger and not the more expensive installation [26]. Utility companies in Massachusetts recently introduced funding for low-income households to install home chargers [50]. Having home-charging increases the odds of the lower-income household having a plug-in electric vehicle, which is more affordable because public charging costs 2–4 times more [26].

In a study in an underserved neighborhood that involved 20 respondents, the biggest concern by 80% of the respondents was having too few public charging stations. Fifty percent indicated that government policies should enable owning a plug-in electric vehicle [58]. An online study involved 3772 respondents from across the U.S., with the majority earning between $15,000–$50,000, having a bachelor’s degree, and owning a detached single-family home. This study projected that, in the future, 35–75% of electric vehicles would have residential charging access, but that multi-family housing is a challenge. The authors did describe a scenario in which additional chargers could be at home [21]. In 2022, Consumer Reports conducted a survey of 8027 U.S. adults and 36% plan to buy or lease an electric-only vehicle, 44% indicated nowhere to plug in at home, and 49% would like discounts to install a home charger [81].

A study in China confirmed that older individuals were less inclined to purchase an electric vehicle, [60] which confirmed the findings in this study for age. This same study indicated that females were more inclined to purchase an electric vehicle, but the only association was about the purchase and not having a home charger or a subsidy to install the home charger.

Public chargers are often located on the side of the road, but curbside space has high demands, including parking, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Uber/Lyft drop-off, restaurant tables, delivery truck parking, bike share stations, and protected bike lanes. While tools determine the optimal use of the curbside, these do not allocate space based on which curbside use best addresses climate change [82]. Three Parking Enforcement Officers were asked in one study to identify the best streets for on-street recharging for people without driveways [83]. Of 2001 participants in a study in the UK who did not have a driveway or garage, 44% preferred on-street charging, and 56% wanted hub charging options, such as a car park [84]. The respondents also wanted a safe and attractive route to walk from their parked car to home. Rather than concentrating on on-street parking, this UK study suggested exploring reliable, affordable, and parking near households.

Lower-income and Black-identifying neighborhoods have not benefited from investments in EV charging stations [14]. The lower-income and ethnic-minority residents lack knowledge about EVs, and multi-family housing lacks EV charging infrastructure [25]. New gathering spaces to serve local EV charging needs and longer-distance travel are the Black-owned businesses that are in the new versions of the Green Book. These Black-owned businesses, which include coffee shops, restaurants, and lodgings, could mention that they offer EV charging, allowing the culture to adopt electric vehicles and not increase mobile source air pollution in their neighborhoods.

4.2. Achievable Solutions for Adaptation

Cities in China lack parking, and, to meet demand, a car owner can use an app to identify a vacant parking space owned by a condominium or apartment owner. A retractable lock at the entrance to the parking space lowers, allowing the renter to drive into the space [85]. The downside is the owner of the parking space may not consistently rent the space.

A research project in Germany proposed the concept of “GrowdStrom,” in which the owner of a parking space with EV charging would rent the space, and a CrowdStrom app would provide the payment to the parking space owner [86,87]. As with shared parking in China, the owner may prefer to have access to the charging overnight to lessen their own range anxiety [28]. Also, only individuals with the app would know of the parking space availability, leaving out some seniors and underserved populations.

A study in Austria tested having a recharging parcel owned by several households and sharing the spaces based on an agreed schedule [80,86]. An affordable and large piece of vacant land near the existing residences is required, plus group relations, a set number of members, and clear legal documents and responsibilities. The study concluded that charging at a private home is the preferred option.

In 2002, Portland, Oregon, allowed developers to construct apartment or condominium complexes without on-site parking if the building was near transit [88]. A study of 115 residents determined that 72% of the respondents still owned cars but parked them on neighborhood streets. Homeowners on the neighborhood streets complained, and multifamily developments now must provide one on-site parking space for every three or four housing units. Portland is now trying to manage on-street parking because obtaining a residential on-street parking permit is too easy.

Some U.S. communities have not allowed car owners to leave their cars overnight on the side of the road, and one is Brookline, Massachusetts [53]. All car owners without parking have to rent parking spaces from residents who have larger driveways, park overnight in a Brookline community lot after paying a fee, or park their car on the side of the road in a neighboring community that allows overnight parking. While Brookline rents their public lot spaces for overnight parking, the preferred rental is 24-h parking because, during winter storms, drivers cannot park on the road during the day. An informal study speculated that 50% of car owners in Brookline are garage orphans, i.e., there is no overnight place to park, so they need to rent. Unlike Brookline, 40% of the vehicles in Cambridge, MA, have a parking space in a garage or driveway, but 80% of the registered vehicles have a $ 25-a-year permit to park for 24 h on the road [59]. Most of the streets in Cambridge have cars parked on both sides of the road. If the government covers the cost of installing charging stations on private property, parking space owners with extra spaces could rent their spaces and increase the number of EVs. Smartphone apps, such as SPOT, could advertise these spaces [59], but advertising in local neighborhood online groups can link parking space owners with EV owners for year-long 24 h rentals.

Brookline, MA, has several Local Historic Districts (LHDs), and a design review committee must approve any changes to the appearance of the historic home. These changes include the installation of electric vehicle charging stations on the side of the house or on a post by the driveway. Exclusions include a charger in a garage because the charger is not visible from the road. These aesthetic charger installations, now photographed [29], could become part of a collection of examples of aesthetic charger installations to help homeowners.

While renting or buying an unused parking space from condominiums or apartment complexes is an option, often, the building association’s bylaws do not allow owners or renters to rent or sell unused parking spaces to people who do not live in the building. Condominiums and apartment buildings may have excess parking due to the community’s zoning mandate, in which developers must include a minimum number of parking spaces for each unit. Thus, the cost of the condo or apartment was “bundled” with the cost of the parking space, adding 20% or more to the cost of the residential unit [89]. Some communities have done away with the minimum parking requirement, but the result is owners park their vehicles on the road. Some have suggested un-bundling to allow the renting of unused spaces, but potential renters worry that the rental price will increase yearly. A greater gain would come from un-unbundling and allowing the unused spaces to be sold to nearby homeowners if the spaces have EV charging. A developer could add parking to the building and give the profit from EV charging space rentals or sales of the spaces to condominium owners or apartment renters. This would eliminate the need to recharge EVs on the side of the road or take up valuable real estate with surface lots. Instead, cars would be stacked, stored, and recharged inside a building.

5. Limitations

While the sample size in the affordable housing complex was only 37, the total with middle-income housing respondents was 165. Biases may exist, including hypothetical bias, because the respondents were indicating preferences concerning a speculated EV charging option. The survey was a convenience sample as respondents were outside in the affordable housing courtyard or in the middle-income housing and answered their door. The survey may have social desirability bias because the respondents would know that EVs are a response to climate change. The person consistently administrating the survey was white, older, and female, and, in the affordable housing surveys, respondents might be less willing to complete a survey administered by a person who did not look like them. The willingness was extremely high, perhaps because the survey was short, the respondent was in their own environment, i.e., the courtyard or at their front door, and an actual person was asking for their opinion and not an online form.

6. Conclusions

The primary issue for electric vehicle adoption is land for recharging, and land should be explored with the same rigor as EV technology to guarantee everyone an assured place to recharge at or close to home. EVs should not recharge on the side of the road because this should be the place for greenhouse-gas-reducing, health-improving, and egalitarian protected bike lanes. Public charging locations have anxiety-building variables (broken chargers, someone remaining in the charging space, walking through an unsafe neighborhood, or spending up to 3 h at the public charger). Tesla owners can recharge at home or at a fast-charging station for 30 min, but not everyone can afford a Tesla. Individuals in the pre-contemplation stage of behavior change should be the focus to address climate change.

The results from this study indicate that affordable and middle-income residents would buy an EV if they had a charging station where they park their cars at home. The government would cover the cost of EV chargers in affordable housing. Middle-income respondents preferred that the government cover the full installation cost of their home charging station. Governments now cover the costs for heat pumps, insulation, and all electric appliances up to $15,000. Governments also provide tax rebates of $7500 for the purchase of a new electric vehicle. The cost for the full installation of the home charging station is between $2000 and $4500.

The results also suggested that affordable and middle-income residents are only somewhat likely to buy an EV in the next 2 years. Technologies improve with time, so waiting a short while might be wise, but more EVs are necessary now to respond to climate change. Perhaps if the government funded the full home installation of charging stations, individuals might then buy or lease the EV now. The preferred charger location was on the side of the house or on a post. If funding was available to homeowners with long driveways who rent spaces, these homeowners might install multiple EV chargers for their own cars and for the cars of renters. Owners of condominiums and apartments could un-unbundle their building’s unoccupied parking spaces and rent or sell the parking spaces to nearby EV owners if funding was available to install EV chargers. This would be a better alternative than mandating the construction of apartments or condominiums without parking because then residents park their cars on the street.

To expand the adoption of EVs, the new Green Books could highlight the Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, and lodgings that offer EV off-road charging spaces. Just as with subsidies for installing chargers on the highways, these Black-owned businesses should receive subsidies for installing EV chargers. Due to the connection to history, Black-owned businesses also have additional funding opportunities to request funding for EV charging stations at the Black-owned business.

Analysis of age, gender, and income showed no significant differences except for individuals older than 76. Older respondents were less likely to lease or buy a new or secondhand electric vehicle in the next 2 years. The similarity in responses, as categorized by age, gender, and income, suggested that there is not a wide divide in opinions about electric vehicle charging and funding home installation.

7. Practical Application of the Study Findings and Future Directions

This paper is original because it asks affordable housing and middle-income residents if they would buy an electric vehicle if they had an electric vehicle charging station at home and gives them funding options for the charging installation. The respondents chose government funding, which lessened their decision burden in the pre-contemplation stage. While most residents have purchased a vehicle, few know the details required for electric vehicle charger installation. Installation involves electric currents, determining if additional power to the house is necessary, possible installation of a larger circuit breaker panel, drilling through sills/studs/beams, running wires behind the lathe and plaster or sheetrock, and installing the Level II charging station the correct height from the ground with a system to keep the cord off the ground. There are now more electricians certified to install an EV charging station, but finding someone certified is another reason to hesitate to buy an EV. While a purchaser of an EV could hope to charge at work or walk from a distant public charger to their home, these options increase range anxiety if they do not work or are highly inconvenient.

Though critics could speculate that an affordable housing or middle-income resident might not buy an electric vehicle even if they had a charging station installed at their home, these individuals might need more time before buying an electric vehicle. The resident could initially rent the space at their home during the day if they drove to work in a combustion engine vehicle or rent the space for 24 h if they had more parking on their driveway [59]. They could lease an EV for a year. They could keep their combustion engine vehicle and buy a used EV as a second vehicle.

Homeowners with garages and long or wide driveways could receive government reimbursements for installing the necessary wiring and the EV chargers for their own EVs and, if they choose, for others’ EVs so neighbors could rent the 24-h/monthly parking space/s. Temporary or hourly charging does not reduce anxiety compared to having an owned or rented charging location seven days a week. Owners of condominiums and apartments could un-unbundle the parking spaces and rent or sell the parking spaces to nearby EV owners. The current EV owner is white and wealthy, and to expand the adoption of EVs, the new Green Books could highlight the Black-owned coffee shops, restaurants, lodgings, or gas stations that offer EV charging spaces. Just as with subsidies for installing chargers on the highways, these Black-owned businesses should receive subsidies for installing EV chargers.

For the future, this paper is the first step in proposing a new policy for the government to provide full funding for EV charger installation at home and not installing chargers on the side of the road. The side of the road should be the location for climate-responsive protected bike lanes. The government, and not the utility companies, should provide the funding because their only objective is to address climate change, while the utility companies understandably have an objective of profit. The second step, if pilot funding could be available, would be for governments and academics in applied action research to conduct pilot studies in small geographic neighborhoods to determine the number of residents who choose to use the government funding to have the home EV charging station installed. A government document could demonstrate the aesthetics involved in the attractive installation of the charging station. Now, many heat pump installations degrade the aesthetics of homes as large outside lines, the size of downspouts, run from the heat pump to the second and third floor straight up or diagonally on the exterior of the house. The government document could also identify the number of Black-owned businesses in the new Green Books that installed off-road charging stations for their patrons. The pilot studies could document the installation, adherence to aesthetic considerations, and how the residents plan to use their charger, i.e., for their own vehicle, to rent to someone else, or to use in the future. Data collection for each neighborhood could determine the number of home chargers installed, the income of that household, the number of EV and non-EV cars for that household, the cost for each charger, the number of EVs purchased, if the EVs are new or secondhand, number of rental spaces with EV chargers, and if condo/apartment complexes sold or rented their EV charging-equipped spaces. The selected neighborhoods could have monitors installed near the main roads to assess if levels of mobile source pollution have reduced over time. While the future might see Tesla’s fast chargers redesigned for all EV owners, home charging would still be the preferred choice to lessen range anxiety. These pilots would give all homeowners the opportunity to be part of a study that addresses climate change.