It’s the Social Interaction That Matters: Exploring Residents’ Motivation to Invest in the Community-Shared Charging Post Co-Construction Project

Abstract

Countries worldwide are increasingly focused on addressing the imbalance between the supply and demand for EV charging infrastructure, with the community-shared charging post (CSCP) co-construction project emerging as a promising solution. The broad participation and investment support of the residents are the keys to the success of the CSCP co-construction project. This study, grounded in the theory of planned behavior (TPB) from social psychology, incorporated factors such as community identity, perceived green value, economic benefit, uncivil behaviors, and perceived risk to construct a structural model explaining community residents’ intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. This research confirmed that (1) 85.73% of respondents expressed strong recognition of the CSCP co-construction project, with a mean recognition score of 5.56 out of a possible 7; (2) an individual’s social-related perceptions, including the subjective norms and community identity are the strongest determinant of the intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project; (3) the willingness to invest in CSCP co-construction project differs significantly between the EV group and the non-EV group. Economic benefit was significant only for the non-EV group, while uncivil behaviors were significant only for the EV group. These results provide valuable guidelines for governments and corporations that are promoting or pursuing sharing community for the residents.

1. Introduction

The attention to carbon emissions, and the consequences on the environment, continue to grow and become a global issue of high priority in countries around the world as well as in scientific fields. The tailpipe emissions resulting from fuel combustion in the traditional vehicle’s engine during driving are an important source of carbon emissions. Electric vehicles (EVs) are regarded as one of the most effective forms of green transportation in terms of environmental protection due to their zero exhaust emissions [1]. Therefore, in order to mitigate environmental problems, the automobile industry has gradually promoted EVs as a sustainable alternative to conventionally powered vehicles; the sales of EVs are increasing rapidly, reaching 6.6 million in 2021 [2]. Meanwhile, China’s electric vehicle industry is expanding rapidly, with sales of 12.866 million new energy vehicles in 2024, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. However, one of the challenges impeding the growth of China’s EV market is a mismatch between charging demand and charging infrastructure. As of October 2024, China had 11.884 million units of charging infrastructure. Apparently, in comparison to the fast growth in the number of electric vehicles, charging facilities are far from meeting the needs of the future expansion of electric vehicles. Furthermore, relying solely on public EV charging infrastructure to address this issue is impractical due to its limited capacity and resources [3]. High population concentrations in urban areas have resulted in increased population density, further reducing per capita living space. So, it is less feasible to meet the growing demand for charging by expanding the number of private charging posts in the residential community.

In this regard, the sharing economy model provides a new viewpoint on the development of infrastructure for charging electric vehicles. The sharing economy’s ability to maximize the use of idle resources has the potential to significantly improve the efficiency of social resource allocation. Specifically, communal conditions enable the sharing economy concept to realize its full potential. Communities, as the principal gathering places for urban people, have a consistent population base, implying that their living demands and idle resources are comparable. In response to these circumstances, community-based sharing models have emerged, which promote effective resource integration and utilization. The community-shared charging post (CSCP) is gradually emerging as a community-sharing mechanism in this trend. When a significant number of community residents gather within the same physical space, their similar living needs and the resulting excess capacity create opportunities for various community-based sharing economy models. One such model is the CSCP co-construction project, a novel economic approach rooted in the principles of community sharing. It is in the form of sharing and co-construction and guided by the theoretical principle of “sharing economy”, allowing residents and communities to jointly invest in the construction of EV charging facilities, which can be used by themselves to meet their demand for charging posts. Moreover, when the charging posts are not in use, they can be shared with others, ensuring efficient utilization while generating additional income for the owners.

As a relatively new model, research on community-shared charging posts remains limited. Most existing studies on shared charging infrastructure focus on the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, which facilitates sharing between private charging posts without restricting its scope. For instance, the “CrowdStorm” project provides a detailed description of the concept and operational details of a P2P private charging station sharing initiative [4]. They see this as a promising solution to the problem of inadequate charging infrastructure. Several researchers are also examining the feasibility and practicality of P2P shared private charging posts, such as the impact [5], charging schedule [6], and benefit distribution [7]. However, it is undeniable that there are many differences between the CSCP co-construction project and the P2P sharing private charging stations project. In essence, the CSCP co-construction project adds value by increasing the utilization of the community’s unused resources, which requires reinvestment by residents. It should be noted that the assets of a shared project belong to the entire investment group rather than an individual. In contrast, the P2P sharing private charging stations project brings value to the private sector by increasing the utilization of existing idle resources, usually without significant capital investment by the participant, and the assets belong to the individual.

There are numerous issues to consider in promoting CSCP co-construction projects, but one of the most fundamental is residents’ willingness to invest. From the perspective of the sharing economy, the number of participants determines the project’s scale and sustainability. To ensure high levels of engagement, it is essential to understand the motivations driving participation. This aspect has been extensively studied by scholars both domestically and internationally. Hamari developed a model of individual determinants of participation in Collaborative Consumption and found sustainability, enjoyment, and economic gain are the primary motivations [8]; Matzler et al. suggested that for the sharing side, the primary motivation is to gain additional revenue from idle assets or time, while for the demand side, the main reason to participate is to meet their needs more conveniently and at a lower cost [4]. Moreover, if the sharing economy exists in the community beyond the usual motives mentioned, some researchers highlight social fulfillment as a significant factor. For instance, Möhlmann argued that collaborative consumption satisfies consumers’ social needs, such as the desire to socialize and feel part of a community [9]. Similarly, Hamari et al. suggested that the emergence of the sharing economy offers a meaningful opportunity for individuals to interact with other community members [8], while Chase highlighted its potential to foster connections among neighbors, encourage communication, strengthen a sense of belonging, and cultivate a supportive community atmosphere [10]. In general, motivations for individuals to participate in the sharing economy vary depending on the people and contexts studied [11]. Therefore, examining residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project is crucial, as it provides valuable insights for effectively motivating their participation.

In conclusion, considering the important role of community residents’ willingness to invest in the promotion of the CSCP co-construction project, this paper aims to construct a structural equation model of investment intention for the CSCP co-construction project and analyze the strategies to increase residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project, so as to provide practical references for the government and investors in deciding whether or not to encourage and invest. The major contributions of this work are mentioned below. First, as an emerging community-sharing model, the CSCP has the potential to optimize resource utilization and promote sustainable development, although there are fewer research studies on it. This paper delves further into this issue, broadening the research perspective of the sharing economy paradigm. Second, the analysis of factors affecting residents’ willingness to participate in existing studies is mainly based on the mere expansion of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Based on the TPB framework, this paper proposes a model of the factors influencing the investment intention of the CSCP co-construction project, taking into account both hindering and promoting factors, and comprehensively and systematically analyzing the influencing mechanism of residents’ investment intentions. Furthermore, this paper divides community residents into two groups, EV and non-EV, and purposefully analyzes the heterogeneity of the two in their willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project, particularly the differential influence effect of negative factors, which provides a supplement to the single perspective of existing research.

The rest of the study is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the model framework adopted to investigate the critical factors that influence residents’ intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. Section 3 presents the data collection, after which the results are reported in Section 4. Section 5 provides a detailed discussion of the paper’s findings. Finally, the last section provides the conclusions and implications for future research.

2. Model Construction

2.1. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework adopted for this paper was based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [12]. These three psychological pillars have been widely proven to comprehensively and systematically examine the formation mechanism of individual behavior, effectively explaining the complex and nuanced behavioral intentions of humans as well as their actual behavior. Its universality and explanatory power establish it as a classical theory in sociology, psychology, and consumer behavior. The TPB has also been applied to green consumerism and environmental behavior.

According to the TPB paradigm, an individual’s willingness to behave exerts a direct and positive influence on their actions. Behavioral intention refers to an individual’s subjective assessment of the likelihood of adopting a given behavior, reflecting their proclivity to perform that behavior. The stronger an individual’s eagerness to act, the higher the likelihood they will engage in the behavior. As outlined in the Theory of Planned Behavior, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control, all positively influence individuals’ behavioral intentions.

Attitude pertains to an individual’s value assessment of the behavior’s object, with individuals more likely to engage in activities they perceive as important and meaningful while avoiding those deemed meaningless or insignificant. Numerous studies on behavioral intentions have identified attitude as a significant predictor, showing that a positive attitude often leads to more favorable behavioral intentions. Subjective norms refer to the perceived attitude of the surrounding environment, which an individual views as either supportive or resistant to adopting a particular activity. This environment typically includes individuals or groups the person values. Subjective norms capture the influence of supportive or opposing attitudes from significant others on an individual’s behavioral intention. When significant others express a desire or expectation for the individual to perform a specific behavior, this expectation is often internalized and translated into a corresponding behavioral tendency. Positive support from the surrounding environment, for example, can encourage college students to demonstrate stronger behavioral willingness. Perceived behavioral control refers to an individual’s impression of the ease or difficulty associated with performing a specific behavior. This perception often stems from preconceived notions about the favorable or unfavorable conditions surrounding the behavior. Perceived behavioral control becomes stronger when individuals have a positive assessment of their available resources, information, and abilities, or when they anticipate encountering fewer obstacles. Generally, a higher perceived level of behavioral control is closely associated with a greater readiness to act.

Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control directly influence community members’ participation in CSCP co-construction projects. Attitudes represent residents’ positive or negative evaluations of investing in such projects, while subjective norms reflect the perceived pressure from their surrounding environment to participate. Perceived behavioral control, on the other hand, represents residents’ judgments regarding the ease or difficulty of investing in CSCP co-construction projects.

2.2. Development of Hypotheses

This study, based on the TPB theory, alludes to the findings of Proudlove et al. [13], who investigated residents’ desire to join in community-based renewable energy (CORE) co-production initiatives. It tentatively suggests that residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project is influenced by attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.

H1. 

Attitudes will be positively associated with an individual intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Residents are more likely to invest in the project when they have a higher level of recognition and a positive attitude toward the project; Hypothesis 1 is, therefore, proposed.

H2. 

Subjective norm will be positively associated with an individual intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Residents will show a higher propensity to invest when the project has a higher degree of fit with personal and social norm, which is hypothesis two.

H3. 

Perceived behavioral control will be positively associated with an individual intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Perceived behavioral control refers to a person’s ability to overcome obstacles and complete actions. Before investing in a project, residents typically assess its feasibility and level of difficulty. If they perceive the project as challenging, their willingness to invest tends to decrease; conversely, if they consider it more manageable, their willingness to invest is likely to increase.

However, TPB is a behavioral theory based on causal processes, which only considers the influence of user-related or internal factors on intention. To better explore and explain community residents’ intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project and enhance the robustness of the study results, this research draws on findings from other studies on the behavioral intentions within the community sharing model [3,7]. Consequently, the original model was extended to incorporate five additional factors—community identity, perceived green value, economic benefit, uncivil behavior, and perceived risk—in order to emphasize the impact of individual decision criteria and external factors.

H4. 

Community identity will be positively associated with an individual’s intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Community identity represents a unique perception and emotional connection that residents have with their community, serving as a strong bond among its members. Through engagement in community identity construction, residents commit to various behaviors and, in return, gain rewards and incentives related to community status, reputation, convenience, and the enhanced quality of community life. As a result, residents are more inclined to contribute to community development and engage positively with it.

Building on the study by Cagney et al. [14], residents perceive that living in a community with a stronger sense of community identity enables them to better leverage networked social capital to withstand risks. A central aspect of the CSCP co-construction project is to support community residents in collaboratively addressing the challenge of inadequate EV charging infrastructure. Therefore, the influence of community identity on residents’ willingness to invest in the project is hypothesized.

H5. 

Perceived green value will be positively associated with an individual’s intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Perceived green value extends the concept of perceived value, emphasizing environmental awareness, sustainability, and green needs [15]. The CSCP co-construction project, grounded in a sharing economy model, is characterized by eco-friendliness and resource efficiency. Beyond addressing the charging needs of EV owners, the project reduces the government’s reliance on constructing public charging infrastructure, thereby demonstrating the value of conservation. This study explores the potential impact of perceived green value on individuals’ decisions to invest in the CSCP co-construction project, leading to the proposed hypothesis.

H6. 

Economic benefit will be positively associated with an individual intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Economic benefit has consistently been a central focus in investor behavior research, with prior studies extensively examining its attributes and their impact on investment decisions. Beyond its ecological advantages, the sharing economy also offers economic benefits [8]. On the one hand, investment in the CSCP co-construction project allows residents to save costs by using community-shared charging posts at a lower price when they have charging needs. On the other hand, residents can collectively share the financial returns generated by these charging posts. These two aspects together enhance residents’ perception of the economic benefits of participating in the CSCP co-construction project. The stronger this perception, the greater their intention to invest. Accordingly, the proposed hypothesis is plausible.

H7. 

Uncivil behaviors will be negatively associated with an individual intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Research by Robin et al. indicates that uncivil behaviors in shared public spaces represent a significant source of annoyance in the daily lives of urban residents [16]. Similar challenges are anticipated in CSCP, as the involvement of non-community members could result in behaviors that conflict with the norms recognized by the community, leading to uncivil behaviors. These are defined as actions showing disrespect or aggression toward others or the environment [17]. This study hypothesizes that such behaviors may inconvenience residents’ daily lives and even pose potential risks, thereby diminishing their willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

H8. 

Perceived risk will be negatively associated with an individual’s intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

Perceived risk denotes the potential discrepancy between actual outcomes and expected or desired results when utilizing or participating in a service. Bauer defined perceived risk as “the combination of uncertainty and the severity of the outcome involved” [18]. Laroche et al. confirmed that individuals’ behavioral intentions are significantly negatively influenced by their perceived risk [19], whilst Nguyen-Phuoc et al. demonstrated that people’s perception of risk within a service space has an influence on their participation in the sharing economy [20]. Based on the above analysis, we propose that the perceived risk of residents’ participation in the CSCP co-construction project refers to “the potential loss (or negative consequences) that residents perceive in the process of pursuing the expected outcomes when participating in the CSCP co-construction project”, implying that the higher the perceived risk, the less likely residents are to invest.

2.3. Model Framework

The paper presents eight hypotheses and constructs an extended framework. The model framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Data Collection

3.1. Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

The objective of this study is to investigate how various variables and their interactions influence residents’ intentions to invest in the CSCP co-construction project and to identify the factors most strongly associated with this intention.

A questionnaire was developed for this study to collect data necessary for validating the model structure illustrated in Figure 1. The questionnaire consists of three sections, starting with participant screening. Participants are categorized into two groups to examine whether significant differences exist in their willingness to invest: the EV group and the non-EV group. The non-EV group includes individuals who do not currently own an EV, possibly due to policy constraints, such as the license-plate lottery, but who are likely to acquire one in the future. Furthermore, investing now allows these individuals to benefit from the project once they own an EV, making future investments plausible. Unlike the EV group, the non-EV group lacks charging experience, and their actual perception of charging may not be as accurate. Based on these considerations, the two groups are analyzed separately. In China, relatively few EV owners possess private charging posts, primarily due to the scarcity of community parking spaces and power resources. Nevertheless, many owners still express a preference for installing such posts. Owners without private charging posts are likely to perceive the uneven distribution of charging infrastructure more acutely, which increases their appreciation for the value of community-shared charging posts. Based on this, the selection criteria for the questionnaire are broadened to include all EV owners, rather than limiting it to those with private charging posts. The second part involves the measurement and data collection of the variables involved in testing the hypothesis, including attitudes, perceived behavior control, subjective norms, perceived risk, perceived green value, charging facilities situation, community identity, economic benefit, uncivil behaviors, and intentions in the context of investing in the project. Since EV owners without private charging posts are included in the questionnaire, a specific scenario is designed to assess their willingness to invest as if they owned private charging posts. This allows for a separate evaluation of their investment intentions. The third part of the questionnaire gathers demographic information about the participants.

To ensure the validity of the online questionnaire responses, trap questions and counterintuitive questions were incorporated into the questionnaire design. Using random sampling methods, a total of 821 questionnaires were distributed via Wenjuanxing, a Chinese survey platform with a sample pool of 6.2 million users. After excluding invalid responses, 608 valid questionnaires were retained, comprising 305 from the EV group and 303 from the non-EV group, resulting in a completion rate of 74.06%.

The final descriptive statistics for the overall sample are summarized in

Table 1. Characteristics of the research sample (N = 608).

Demographic Variables	Classification Items	Number of People	Population
Gender	Male	343	56.41%
	Female	265	43.59%
Age	Under 18	0	0%
	18–25 years old	113	18.59%
	26–30 years old	202	33.22%
	31–40 years old	217	35.69%
	41–50 years old	59	9.7%
	51–60 years old	15	2.47%
	Over 60 years old	2	0.33%
Education	Junior high school and below	12	1.97%
	High school or technical secondary school	31	5.1%
	Specialist	59	9.7%
	Undergraduate	461	75.82%
	Postgraduate and above	45	7.4%
Type of employment	Employees of enterprises and institutions	350	57.57%
	Personnel in the fields of education, scientific Research and health	34	5.59%
	Individual/private business owners or employees	128	21.05%
	General workers or service personnel	19	3.13%
	Freelancer	28	4.61%
	Student	49	8.06%
Family monthly income level	Below 3000 yuan	16	2.63%
	3001–5000	48	7.89%
	5000–10,000	158	25.99%
	10,000–20,000	244	40.13%
	20,000 and above	142	23.36%
Do you have an Electric Vehicle?	Yes	305	50.16%
	No	303	49.84%
Do you have a private charging post?	Yes	98	32.13%
	No	207	67.87%

. According to the results, 56.41% of the respondents are male, and 87.5% are aged between 18 and 40. Regarding educational background, the majority of participants are well-educated, with 75.82% holding a bachelor’s degree, and most are employed. Additionally, over half of the respondents own a new energy vehicle, and more than 32% of households have private charging posts, suggesting that most participants have a certain level of familiarity with new energy vehicles and charging posts.

3.2. Scale Selection

Table 2. Main scales and their sources.

Construct	Items and Measurement	Reference
Attitude (ATT)	ATT1: I think that investing in the CSCP co-construction project is a positive behavior.	Ajzen, 1991 [12]
	ATT2: I think that investing in the CSCP co-construction project is a valuable behavior.
	ATT3: I think that investing in the CSCP co-construction project is a good idea.
Subjective Norm (SN)	SN1: My family will agree to my investment in the CSCP co-construction project.
	SN2: My friends will approve of my investment in the CSCP co-construction project.
	SN3: My friends and family will encourage me to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)	PBC1: If I want, I can invest in the CSCP co-construction project.
	PBC2: Investing in the CSCP co-construction project is easy.
	PBC3: I am capable of investing in the CSCP co-construction project.
Perceived Risk (PR)	PR1: I think that the CSCP co-construction project will lead to community disruption.	Bauer, 2001 [18]
	PR2: I don’t think that the CSCP co-construction project will lead to community disruption.
	PR3: I think that the CSCP co-construction project is perfectly safe.
Perceived Green Value (PGV)	GV1: I think that using a CSCP will bring resource-saving effects.	Nguyen-Phuoc et al., 2021 [20]
	GV2: I think that using a CSCP will contribute to reducing pollution.
	GV3: I think that using a CSCP is environmentally friendly.
Community Identity (CI)	CI1: When someone criticizes my community, it feels like a personal insult to me.	Mael & Ashforth, 1992 [21] Xie et al., 2022 [22]
	CI2: My community’s successes are my successes.
	CI3: When someone praises my community, it feels like a personal compliment.
Economic Benefit (EB)	EB1: I can earn money if I invest in the CSCP co-construction project.	Bock et al., 2005 [23] Hamari et al., 2016 [8]
	EB2: It is financially beneficial for me to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.
	EB3: My investment in the CSCP co-construction project can improve my economic situation.
Uncivil Behaviors (UB)	UB1: Outsiders are likely to park illegally during the use of CSCP.	Félonneau, 2004 [24] Robin et al., 2007 [16]
	UB2: Outsiders are likely to disrespect pedestrians and cyclists in the community during the use of CSCP.
	UB3: Outsiders may have conflicts with community members during the use of CSCP.
	UB4: Outsiders may vandalize the community facilities during the use of CSCP.
Intention (INT)	INT1: I am willing to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.	Kalkbrenner & Roosen, 2016 [25] Brayley et al., 2015 [26]
	INT2: I intend to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.
	INT3: I will invest in the CSCP co-construction project.
	INT4: I will most likely invest in the CSCP co-construction project in the future.

outlines the sources and items of the main scales utilized in this study. Each scale is measured using a 7-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

3.3. Data Analysis

Following factor analyses on all sub-items of the variables, items with relatively low factor loading coefficients are eliminated to improve the validity of the variable tests. All retained item loading scores exceed the recommended threshold of 0.7 [27]. The final scale comprises 29 items, validating the factorial structure composed of nine distinct factors.

In

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for constructs.

Variable	Items	Mean	SD	Factor Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha	AVE	CR
CI	CI1	4.79	1.279	0.775	0.765	0.681	0.865
	CI4	4.79	1.317	0.856
	CI5	5.21	1.266	0.843
PGV	PGV1	5.91	0.871	0.804	0.729	0.651	0.848
	PGV2	5.94	0.977	0.766
	PGV3	6.01	0.930	0.848
EB	EB1	4.72	1.177	0.858	0.808	0.723	0.887
	EB2	5.12	1.185	0.862
	EB3	4.61	1.235	0.831
ATT	ATT1	5.83	0.918	0.819	0.744	0.662	0.854
	ATT2	5.81	0.937	0.805
	ATT3	5.82	0.974	0.816
SN	SN1	5.49	1.041	0.859	0.813	0.729	0.890
	SN2	5.42	1.014	0.831
	SN3	5.39	1.132	0.871
PR	PR1	4.38	1.182	0.910	0.901	0.838	0.939
	PR2	4.64	1.272	0.940
	PR3	4.62	1.342	0.895
UB	UB1	4.90	1.214	0.822	0.902	0.721	0.928
	UB2	4.49	1.400	0.878
	UB3	4.53	1.410	0.865
	UB4	4.17	1.476	0.851
PBC	PBC4	5.43	1.188	0.766	0.776	0.598	0.817
	PBC5	4.77	1.406	0.737
	PBC6	5.28	1.254	0.815
INT	INT1	5.36	1.124	0.877	0.890	0.753	0.924
	INT2	5.37	1.218	0.879
	INT3	5.29	1.206	0.877
	INT4	5.48	1.154	0.837

and

Table 4. Discriminate validity tests.

	PBC	PR	SN	ATT	UB	INT	EB	GV	CI	CFS
PBC	0.773
PR	0.517	0.915
SN	0.614	0.382	0.854
ATT	0.571	0.405	0.78	0.814
UB	−0.394	−0.481	−0.223	−0.195	0.849
INT	0.659	0.394	0.714	0.725	−0.257	0.868
EB	0.522	0.273	0.563	0.591	−0.181	0.553	0.850
PGV	0.419	0.371	0.598	0.804	−0.152	0.548	0.457	0.807
CI	0.442	0.234	0.502	0.548	−0.188	0.485	0.444	0.479	0.825

Note: PBC, perceived behavioral control; PR, perceived risk; SN, subjective norm; ATT, attitude; UB, uncivil behaviors; INT, intention; EB, economic benefit; PGV, perceived green value; CI, community identity.

, it can be seen that all scales fulfill the requirements for discriminant and validity specified in the literature [28,29]. Specifically, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) scores exceed 0.7, average variance extracted (AVE) values are above 0.5, and the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than its correlations with all other latent constructs. These results confirm the adequacy of the measurement model, enabling the interpretation of the structural paths within the overall model.

4. Results

4.1. Path Tests

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the proposed hypotheses and address the research questions. SEM integrates factor analysis and multiple regression analysis, making it suitable for estimating relationships between measured variables and latent constructs [30]. The analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS 26 and SPSS Amos statistical software packages.

The SEM fit measures confirm that the proposed model meets the established fit standards, as detailed in

Table 5. Model-fit indices of the structural path models.

Index	Recommended Value	Model 1 (Entire)	Model 2 (EV Group)	Model 3 (Non-EV Group)	Reference
Chi-square/df	<3	2.471	1.751	1.529	Park et al. (2018) [31]
RMSEA	<0.08	0.049	0.050	0.042
GFI	>0.90	0.909	0.905	0.920
NFI	>0.80	0.907	0.885	0.916
CFI	>0.90	0.942	0.947	0.969
IFI	>0.90	0.942	0.947	0.969

. The ratio of the chi-square value to degrees of freedom is below the cutoff value of 3, RMSEA values are below the threshold of 0.08, and both GFI and IFI exceed the minimum acceptable value of 0.9 [31]. This study adopts bootstrapping (2000 iterations), with 90% bias-corrected confidence intervals, to test the mediating effects and assess the indirect effects in the proposed model [32]. The principal path coefficients, along with the significance tests for all models and the effects of the primary variables on intention (INT), are presented in

Table 6. Multigroup structural path coefficients testing (standardized).

Path	Model 1 (Entire)	Model 2 (EV Group)	Model 3 (Non-EV Group)
PGV←CI	0.520 ***	0.47 ***	0.530 ***
EB←CI	0.485 ***		0.457 ***
UB←CI	−0.231 ***	−0.256 ***
SN←PGV	0.367 ***	0.355 ***	0.401 ***
SN←CI	0.192 **	0.411 ***	0.134 *
SN←EB	0.360 ***		0.396 ***
PBC←SN	0.586 ***	0.547 ***	0.623 ***
ATT←PGV	0.502 ***	0.699 ***	0.377 ***
PR←UB	−0.499 ***
ATT←SN	0.426 ***	0.343 ***	0.492 ***
PBC←UB	−0.293 ***	−0.363 ***
ATT←EB	0.150 **		0.212 ***
INT←SN	0.222 **	0.497 ***
INT←PBC	0.262 ***	0.188 **	0.401 ***
INT←ATT	0.367 ***	0.206 **	0.530 ***
INT←CI	0.054
INT←EB	0.071
INT←UB	−0.021
INT←PGV	−0.057
INT←PR	0.033

Notes: *** p < 0.001; ** 0.01 ≤ p < 0.05; * 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1.

and

Table 7. Multigroup main effects on INT testing (standardized).

Path	Model 1 (Entire)		Model 2 (EV Group)		Model 3 (Non-EV Group)		Hypothesis Verification
	Total	Indirect	Total	Indirect	Total	Indirect
INT←ATT	0.353 **	-	0.206 *	-	0.530 ***	-	Supported
INT←SN	0.583 ***	0.326 ***	0.670 ***	0.173 **	0.510 ***	0.510 ***	Supported
INT←PBC	0.304 **	-	0.188 *	-	0.401 **	-	Supported
INT←CI	0.468 ***	0.468 ***	0.472 ***	0.472 ***	0.427 ***	0.427 ***	Supported
INT←PGV	0.385 ***	0.385 ***	0.381 ***	0.381 ***	0.405 **	0.405 **	Supported
INT←EB	0.272 ***	0.272 ***	-	-	0.315 ***	0.315 ***	Supported
INT←UB	−0.090 ***	−0.090 ***	−0.068 *	−0.068 *	-	-	Supported
INT←PR	0.037	−0.103	−0.202	-	0.080	-	Unsupported

Notes: *** p < 0.001; ** 0.01 ≤ p < 0.05; * 0.05 ≤ p < 0.1.

.

4.2. Hypothesis Testing

Table 7 demonstrates that the total effects of ATT, SN, and PBC on residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project are both significant and positive. Based on the path test results, the structural paths for the three models are illustrated in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. It can be seen that SN exhibits both direct effects and indirect effects, mediated by perceived behavioral control and attitudes. Both mediation paths are direct effects, affirming support for H1, H2, and H3. Regarding H4, community identity (CI) has a significant indirect effect on residents’ intention to invest (β = 0.468; p < 0.001), mediated by SN, which validates H4. For H5, Table 6 data indicate that perceived green value (PGV) negatively influences investment intentions. However, as shown in Table 7, the indirect effect of PGV is significantly positive when mediated by ATT and SN. This suggests that the overall effect of PGV on residents’ willingness to invest is positively significant (β = 0.385; p < 0.001), confirming H5.

The analysis reveals no significant direct effect of EB on residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project, but according to the data in Table 6, it has a positive indirect influence effect. Moreover, it can be observed from the data in Table 7 that this indirect influence effect is mediated by ATT and SN, indicating an overall influence of EB on residents’ intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project is also positively significant. Hence, H6 holds. The results in Table 6 and Table 7 both show that UB was negatively associated with residents’ intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. Additionally, this negative effect is amplified through the mediation of perceived behavioral control (PBC), confirming support for H7. As illustrated in Table 7, the effects of perceived risk (PR) did not reach statistically significant levels, indicating that PR does not significantly influence residents’ intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. Consequently, hypothesis H8 is not supported.

5. Discussion

5.1. Residents Generally Have a High Level of Recognition of the CSCP Co-Construction Project

In order to test whether participants recognize the CSCP co-construction project, the questionnaire includes a question with a detailed description of the project. The survey results indicate that over four-fifths of respondents expressed a high level of recognition for the CSCP co-construction project. Additionally, no significant difference in recognition is observed between genders, with 87.76% of male respondents and 82.65% of female respondents expressing high recognition. However, 91.8% of respondents in the EV group recognized the project, a notably higher percentage compared to 79.2% in the non-EV group. This difference may stem from the EV group’s direct experience with the challenges posed by insufficient charging infrastructure, making them more supportive of initiatives aimed at enhancing charging convenience. Additionally, it is interesting to note that males show a slightly higher likelihood of investing in the project compared to females (82.22% vs. 76.98%). This difference could be attributed to males generally having a greater interest in and familiarity with cars, which may enhance their willingness to invest in car-related initiatives. This observation aligns with Davidson et al. [11], who find that familiarity with and willingness to engage in sharing projects are strongly correlated across various contexts.

5.2. Variables Related to Socialization Contributed Noticeably to the CSCP Co-Construction Project for Residents

The data in Table 7 indicate that the total effect of SN is the most influential factor affecting residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project, with an impact coefficient of 0.583, p < 0.001. This value is notably higher than the influence effect of ATT and PBC, which indicates that residents are more inclined to invest in the CSCP co-construction projects when they perceive strong alignment with their personal and social norms as well as receiving approval from family, neighbors, and friends (social approval).

In addition, CI is also identified as the second-most important factor, after SN, in influencing the total effect of the CSCP co-construction project. Since the indirect effects are mediated through EB, PGV, SN, and UB, this finding suggests that although higher CI does not directly increase people’s willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project, it indirectly promotes their willingness by enhancing perceptions of other aspects of the project.

Specifically, residents with a higher sense of CI tend to perceive the EB and PGV of the CSCP co-construction project as higher, likely because a stronger sense of CI enhances their confidence and expectations for community development [33]. In other words, such residents exhibit greater trust in the community’s capabilities and believe that collaborating with the community maximizes the project’s value. Meanwhile, they feel a stronger sense of social responsibility, which increases their awareness of whether their own or others’ behaviors conform to social norms. Additionally, individuals with a high CI are more likely to recognize the consequences of uncivil behavior when outsiders utilize the CSCP. As noted in the study by Liao [34], these individuals are more inclined to view their group positively and engage in altruistic cooperation, fostering trust formation. However, in this study, they demonstrate greater wariness and distrust toward outsiders due to limited familiarity.

Additionally, the moderating effect of UB through PBC is found to negatively impact residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. This suggests that when residents perceive higher consequences of uncivil behavior, they are more likely to view investing in the CSCP co-construction project as challenging, thereby becoming more reluctant to invest.

As evidenced by the above analysis, residents’ willingness to invest is influenced by SN, CI, and UB, indicating that an individual’s social attributes, particularly social relationships with family and neighbors within the community, can positively enhance their willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

5.3. PGV Will Not Directly Drive Residents to Invest in the CSCP Co-Construction Project

The results indicate that PGV does not directly impact residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. However, PGV plays a crucial role when moderated by ATT and SN (see Table 6). Specifically, ATT and SN moderate the relationship between PGV and the intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. Furthermore, PGV has a significant positive effect on ATT and SN, suggesting that it fosters positive attitudes toward the project among residents. The results of the questionnaire survey reveal that residents strongly acknowledge the environmental value of the CSCP co-construction project, with an average recognition rate of 92.87%. However, residents may not decide directly to invest in the project due to its environmental benefits, and there is not much practical action currently being taken. While consumers’ awareness of low-carbon products and related green knowledge has been gradually increasing, and more individuals recognize the importance of low-carbon consumption, the reality remains that most consumers fail to take tangible action.

5.4. The Willingness to Invest in CSCP Co-Construction Projects Differs Significantly Between the EV Group and the Non-EV Group

First, the effect of ATT on the willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project is found to be higher for the non-EV group than for the EV group, with values of 0.530 and 0.206, respectively. This difference may be attributed to the fact that some members of the EV group have already installed private charging posts (as 32.13% of respondents reported owning a private charging post during the interviews) or have access to fixed charging stations. Having not yet experienced the convenience offered by the CSCP, the EV group perceives a lower demand for the project, which likely explains their slightly weaker ATT compared to the non-EV group.

The results for question 9, which examine the relationship with the community, indicate that the CI of the EV group is higher than that of the non-EV group (5.38 vs. 5.04). This disparity may be related to the slightly lower economic status of the non-EV group. This interpretation is supported by the results of question 22, which show that 77.05% of the EV group report a monthly income exceeding 10,000 RMB, compared to only 49.83% of the non-EV group. Members of the EV group are more likely to own a home and reside in higher-class communities with better services, fostering a stronger sense of CI. This may also explain why economic benefits only influence the non-EV group’s willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

In addition, UB only has a negative impact on the EV group’s willingness to invest in CSCP co-construction projects, although not significantly. This result also confirms the above argument that the EV group has high CI, as well as the fact that those with high CI perceive higher perceptions of the consequences of UB. Because the EV group itself needs to use charging posts, they are more likely to be concerned about UB issues that arise when others use the CSCP (e.g., occupied or damaged by others), as these directly affect their interests. In contrast, such issues do not pose a concern for the non-EV group.

5.5. PR Does Not Have Any Impact on Residents’ Willingness to Invest in the CSCP Co-Construction Project

Based on the empirical results, residents’ PR does not have a significant effect on their willingness to invest, with a standardized path coefficient of 0.033, which does not reach a significant level. This may be attributed to the fact that the community sharing model is not yet widely adopted in China, and residents remain unfamiliar with the model and unaware of the potential risks associated with it. As a result, they do not perceive the project as risky.

6. Conclusions and Policy Implication

6.1. Conclusions

The development of electric vehicles is crucial for addressing various challenges posed by climate change, particularly in metropolitan areas. However, the lack of sufficient charging resources is one of the major barriers to the growth of the electric vehicle market due to physical space, technology, and urban management constraints [35]. This issue is not only prevalent in China but also globally. To address this challenge, the CSCP co-construction project has been launched in several Chinese cities, aiming to improve the charging conditions of the community by encouraging residents to participate in co-investment and centralized management by the community, resulting in a collaborative building and co-creation process between the residents and the community. In addition to addressing the imbalance between the supply and demand for charging infrastructure in communities, the development of the CSCP co-construction project also contributes to fostering the harmonious development of communities. However, its success depends on the support of residents, including their willingness to invest and the factors they consider in making this decision. Identifying these factors is crucial for developing effective incentive policies that can encourage greater resident participation and steer the project toward a sustainable development path.

This study offers a unique perspective on the attitudes and intentions of residents to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. By developing a theoretical framework based on the TPB model, we introduced five additional variables: community identity, perceived green value, economic benefit, uncivil behaviors, and perceived risk. Through an SEM process, we explored the drivers of residents’ intention to invest in the CSCP co-construction project, ultimately finding the following:

(1) Residents exhibit a high level of recognition for the CSCP co-construction project, with the EV group showing a higher level of recognition than the non-EV group. There is no significant difference in the recognition between females and males, though males are more likely to invest in the project (5.47 vs. 5.28).

(2) SN, CI, and UB are key social factors influencing residents’ willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

(3) A significant difference exists between the EV group and the non-EV group regarding the factors influencing their willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project. Specifically, ATT has a greater impact on the non-EV group’s willingness to invest in the CSCP compared to the EV group. EB positively affects the non-EV group’s willingness to invest, while UB has a negative impact on the EV group’s willingness to invest. Additionally, the EV group exhibits a higher CI, which results in a stronger influence on their willingness to invest in the CSCP co-construction project.

6.2. Policy Implication

The results of our study also indicate that individuals with a strong sense of CI perceive greater pressure from SN and higher PGV and EB from the CSCP co-construction project, which collectively enhance their willingness to invest. These findings offer some inspiration for promoting the CSCP co-construction project:

In the early stages of promoting the CSCP co-construction project, it is essential to identify EV owners with strong social connections within the community and encourage their involvement. Emphasizing that participation in the project can generate shared benefits for residents and collaboratively address the issue of insufficient charging resources in the community can help stimulate their subjective norms toward investing in the CSCP co-construction project. This, in turn, will further motivate them to proactively participate.

Next, to attract more non-EV owners to invest and expand the positive impact of the CSCP co-construction project on community governance, it is important to further emphasize that the project can offer economic benefits and promote green values. This approach will encourage non-EV owners to develop a more positive attitude toward the project, thereby increasing the likelihood of their participation in the investment.

Finally, to address concerns regarding uncivil behavior associated with the CSCP co-construction project, project managers should develop effective countermeasures to ensure the successful promotion of the project to the public.

Furthermore, our findings have important implications for cities in improving community governance. As a unit of urban spatial governance, particularly in large cities with high population density, the community has become a key arena for achieving successful social governance at the grassroots level and addressing people’s aspirations for a better life. However, in the process of community building, residents often lack a voice, participation, and a sense of identity and belonging. This is typically driven by a top-down leadership and management style of administration, which is particularly prevalent in China. Furthermore, a weakened sense of community identity leads to insufficient community participation, which further diminishes individuals’ connection to their community. Community co-construction projects, such as the CSCP co-construction project, provide an effective means to increase people’s co-participation in community governance, thereby enhancing their sense of community belonging. Therefore, the government should encourage the development of community co-construction projects to promote the improvement of symbiotic relationships between community managers and residents, ultimately strengthening urban community governance.