IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i18p6725-d914979.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

City-Level E-Bike Sharing System Impact on Final Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Mariana Raposo

    (Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1250-096 Lisboa, Portugal)

  • Carla Silva

    (Instituto Dom Luiz, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal)

Abstract

Bike-sharing systems implemented in cities with good bike lane networks could potentiate a modal shift from short car trips, boosting sustainable mobility. Both passenger and last-mile goods transportation can benefit from such systems and, in fact, bike sharing (dockless or with docking stations) is increasing worldwide, especially in Europe. This research focused on a European city, Lisbon, and the e-bike sharing system GIRA, in its early deployment, in 2018, where it had about 409 bikes of which 30% were non-electric conventional bikes and 70% were e-bikes. The research aims at answering the main research questions: (1) What is the number of trips per day and travel time in conventional bikes and e-bikes?; (2) Do the daily usage peaks follow the trends of other modes of transport in terms of rush hours?; (3) Are there seasonality patterns in its use (weekdays and weekends, workdays and holiday periods)?; (4) How do climate conditions affect its use?; and finally, (5) What would be the impact on final energy consumption and GHG emissions? The dataset for 2018 regarding GIRA trips (distance, time, conventional or e-bike, docking station origin and destination) and weather (temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, precipitation) was available from Lisbon City Hall by means of the program “Lisboa aberta”. Data regarding the profile of the users (which trips GIRA replaces?) and data regarding electricity consumption were not available. The latter was estimated by means of literature e-bike data and electric motor specifications combined with powertrain efficiency. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were estimated by using the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) CO 2 equivalents and a spreadsheet simulator for the Portuguese electricity GHG intensity, which was adaptable to other countries/locations. In a private car fleet dominated by fossil fuels and internal combustion engines, the e-bike sharing system is potentially avoiding 36 Ton GHG/year and reducing the energy consumption by 451 GJ/year. If the modal shift occurs from walking or urban bus to an e-bike sharing system, the impact will be detrimental for the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariana Raposo & Carla Silva, 2022. "City-Level E-Bike Sharing System Impact on Final Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:18:p:6725-:d:914979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/18/6725/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/18/6725/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caulfield, Brian & O'Mahony, Margaret & Brazil, William & Weldon, Peter, 2017. "Examining usage patterns of a bike-sharing scheme in a medium sized city," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 152-161.
    2. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Rui Pacheco & Carla Silva, 2019. "Global Warming Potential of Biomass-to-Ethanol: Review and Sensitivity Analysis through a Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Carla Silva, 2021. "Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment of Simulated Wastewater Biorefinery," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Ivan EVTIMOV & Rosen IVANOV & Gergana STANEVA & Georgi KADIKYANOV, 2015. "A study on electric bicycle energy efficiency," Transport Problems, Silesian University of Technology, Faculty of Transport, vol. 10(3), pages 131-140, September.
    6. Carla Silva & Patricia Moniz & Ana Cristina Oliveira & Samuela Vercelli & Alberto Reis & Teresa Lopes da Silva, 2022. "Cascading Crypthecodinium cohnii Biorefinery: Global Warming Potential and Techno-Economic Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-26, May.
    7. Zheyan Chen & Dea van Lierop & Dick Ettema, 2020. "Dockless bike-sharing systems: what are the implications?," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 333-353, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anita Konieczna & Kamil Roman & Witold Rzodkiewicz, 2023. "Fuel Consumption, Emissions of Air Pollutants and Opportunities for Reducing CO 2 Emissions from Linear Sources in the Model Rural Municipality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Danijela Tuljak-Suban & Patricija Bajec, 2022. "A Hybrid DEA Approach for the Upgrade of an Existing Bike-Sharing System with Electric Bikes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Kęstutis Zaleckis & Bartosz Czarnecki, 2023. "Energy-Saving Potential in Planning Urban Functional Areas: The Case of Bialystok (Poland)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Radzimski, Adam & Dzięcielski, Michał, 2021. "Exploring the relationship between bike-sharing and public transport in Poznań, Poland," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 189-202.
    2. Xiaojia Guo & Chengpeng Lu & Dongqi Sun & Yexin Gao & Bing Xue, 2021. "Comparison of Usage and Influencing Factors between Governmental Public Bicycles and Dockless Bicycles in Linfen City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Li, Aoyong & Zhao, Pengxiang & Huang, Yizhe & Gao, Kun & Axhausen, Kay W., 2020. "An empirical analysis of dockless bike-sharing utilization and its explanatory factors: Case study from Shanghai, China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Maas, Suzanne & Nikolaou, Paraskevas & Attard, Maria & Dimitriou, Loukas, 2021. "Examining spatio-temporal trip patterns of bicycle sharing systems in Southern European island cities," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Suzanne Maas & Paraskevas Nikolaou & Maria Attard & Loukas Dimitriou, 2021. "Heat, Hills and the High Season: A Model-Based Comparative Analysis of Spatio-Temporal Factors Affecting Shared Bicycle Use in Three Southern European Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Peng Zeng & Ming Wei & Xiaoyang Liu, 2020. "Investigating the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Urban Vitality Using Bicycle-Sharing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, February.
    7. Morton, Craig & Kelley, Scott & Monsuur, Fredrik & Hui, Tianwen, 2021. "A spatial analysis of demand patterns on a bicycle sharing scheme: Evidence from London," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Maas, Suzanne & Nikolaou, Paraskevas & Attard, Maria & Dimitriou, Loukas, 2021. "Spatial and temporal analysis of shared bicycle use in Limassol, Cyprus," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Li-Ting Chen & Ya-Wen Hsu, 2020. "Socio-Ecological Predictors of Frequent Bike Share Trips: Do Purposes Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Danilo Arcentales-Bastidas & Carla Silva & Angel D. Ramirez, 2022. "The Environmental Profile of Ethanol Derived from Sugarcane in Ecuador: A Life Cycle Assessment Including the Effect of Cogeneration of Electricity in a Sugar Industrial Complex," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-24, July.
    11. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    13. Hu, Yujie & Zhang, Yongping & Lamb, David & Zhang, Mingming & Jia, Peng, 2019. "Examining and optimizing the BCycle bike-sharing system – A pilot study in Colorado, US," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Debora Sotto & Arlindo Philippi & Tan Yigitcanlar & Md Kamruzzaman, 2019. "Aligning Urban Policy with Climate Action in the Global South: Are Brazilian Cities Considering Climate Emergency in Local Planning Practice?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-31, September.
    15. Zhou, Xiaolu & Wang, Mingshu & Li, Dongying, 2019. "Bike-sharing or taxi? Modeling the choices of travel mode in Chicago using machine learning," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Zhang, Ziru & Krishnakumari, Panchamy & Schulte, Frederik & van Oort, Niels, 2023. "Improving the service of E-bike sharing by demand pattern analysis: A data-driven approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. Giuffrida, Nadia & Pilla, Francesco & Carroll, Páraic, 2023. "The social sustainability of cycling: Assessing equity in the accessibility of bike-sharing services," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    18. Carla Silva, 2021. "Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment of Simulated Wastewater Biorefinery," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Ouassim Manout & Azise Oumar Diallo & Thibault Gloriot, 2023. "Implications of pricing and fleet size strategies on shared bikes and e-scooters: a case study from Lyon, France," Working Papers hal-04017908, HAL.
    20. Mohammad Anwar Alattar & Caitlin Cottrill & Mark Beecroft, 2021. "Sources and Applications of Emerging Active Travel Data: A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:18:p:6725-:d:914979. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.