IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i5p1803-d326164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters

Author

Listed:
  • Hélie Moreau

    (Institute for Environmental Management and Land Use Planning (IGEAT), ULB (Université libre de Bruxelles), 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Loïc de Jamblinne de Meux

    (IRL, ICHEC Brussels Management school, 1150 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Vanessa Zeller

    (Institute for Environmental Management and Land Use Planning (IGEAT), ULB (Université libre de Bruxelles), 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Pierre D’Ans

    (4MAT Department, ULB (Université libre de Bruxelles), 1050 Brussels, Belgium
    Haute Ecole Libre de Bruxelles (HELB), 1070 Brussels, Belgium)

  • Coline Ruwet

    (IRL, ICHEC Brussels Management school, 1150 Brussels, Belgium
    Chaire Hoover, CRIDIS & Louvain School of Management (LSM), UCLouvain (Université Catholique de Louvain), 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium)

  • Wouter M.J. Achten

    (Institute for Environmental Management and Land Use Planning (IGEAT), ULB (Université libre de Bruxelles), 1050 Brussels, Belgium)

Abstract

This study applies a life cycle assessment (LCA) to the shared dockless standing e-scooter system that is established in Brussels. The results are given for four impact categories: global warming potential (GWP), particulate matter formation, mineral resource, and fossil resource scarcity. Regarding GWP, the use of the shared e-scooters in the current system causes 131 g of CO 2 -eq. per passenger-kilometer while the mode of transportation displaced has an impact of 110 g of CO 2 -eq. Thus, at present, the use of e-scooters shows a higher impact than the transportation modes they replace. The high results for the shared e-scooter, in terms of GWP, are mainly caused by the short lifespan of the shared e-scooter. Nevertheless, as the market further matures, the lifespan of e-scooters could increase and the impact per kilometer travelled could decrease accordingly. Regarding the use of the personal e-scooter, the LCA results show an impact of around 67 g of CO 2 -eq. This study quantifies the LC impacts of the current situation based on local, ‘real-life’ data. However, potential changes on soft mobility patterns induced by the use-oriented product-service system (PSS), such as a shared e-scooter system, could not be quantified.

Suggested Citation

  • Hélie Moreau & Loïc de Jamblinne de Meux & Vanessa Zeller & Pierre D’Ans & Coline Ruwet & Wouter M.J. Achten, 2020. "Dockless E-Scooter: A Green Solution for Mobility? Comparative Case Study between Dockless E-Scooters, Displaced Transport, and Personal E-Scooters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1803-:d:326164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1803/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1803/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnold Tukker, 2004. "Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 246-260, July.
    2. Owain James & J I Swiderski & John Hicks & Denis Teoman & Ralph Buehler, 2019. "Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Cox, Brian L. & Mutel, Christopher L., 2018. "The environmental and cost performance of current and future motorcycles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 1013-1024.
    4. Fanying Zheng & Fu Gu & Wujie Zhang & Jianfeng Guo, 2019. "Is Bicycle Sharing an Environmental Practice? Evidence from a Life Cycle Assessment Based on Behavioral Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    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. Mehzabin Tuli, Farzana & Mitra, Suman & Crews, Mariah B., 2021. "Factors influencing the usage of shared E-scooters in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 164-185.
    2. Páraic Carroll, 2022. "Perceptions of Electric Scooters Prior to Legalisation: A Case Study of Dublin, Ireland, the ‘Final Frontier’ of Adopted E-Scooter Use in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Luca D’Acierno & Matteo Tanzilli & Chiara Tescione & Luigi Pariota & Luca Di Costanzo & Salvatore Chiaradonna & Marilisa Botte, 2022. "Adoption of Micro-Mobility Solutions for Improving Environmental Sustainability: Comparison among Transportation Systems in Urban Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    4. LE BOENNEC, Rémy & SALLADARRE, Frédéric, 2023. "Investigating the use of privately-owned micromobility modes for commuting in four European countries," MPRA Paper 119202, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Georgia Ayfantopoulou & Josep Maria Salanova Grau & Zisis Maleas & Alexandros Siomos, 2022. "Micro-Mobility User Pattern Analysis and Station Location in Thessaloniki," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-14, May.
    6. Abouelela, Mohamed & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2023. "Understanding the landscape of shared-e-scooters in North America; Spatiotemporal analysis and policy insights," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Alberica Domitilla Bozzi & Anne Aguilera, 2021. "Shared E-Scooters: A Review of Uses, Health and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Implications of a New Micro-Mobility Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    8. Bach, Xavier & Marquet, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme, 2023. "Assessing social and spatial access equity in regulatory frameworks for moped-style scooter sharing services," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 154-162.
    9. Koide, R. & Murakami, S. & Nansai, K., 2022. "Prioritising low-risk and high-potential circular economy strategies for decarbonisation: A meta-analysis on consumer-oriented product-service systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    10. Mahmoud Masoud & Mohammed Elhenawy & Shi Qiang Liu & Mohammed Almannaa & Sebastien Glaser & Wael Alhajyaseen, 2023. "A Simulated Annealing for Optimizing Assignment of E-Scooters to Freelance Chargers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Gabriel Dias & Elisabete Arsenio & Paulo Ribeiro, 2021. "The Role of Shared E-Scooter Systems in Urban Sustainability and Resilience during the Covid-19 Mobility Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Stefania Boglietti & Benedetto Barabino & Giulio Maternini, 2021. "Survey on e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles: Exploring Current Issues towards Future Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-34, March.
    13. McQueen, Michael & Clifton, Kelly J., 2022. "Assessing the perception of E-scooters as a practical and equitable first-mile/last-mile solution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 395-418.
    14. Bretones, Alexandra & Marquet, Oriol, 2022. "Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 230-249.
    15. Pol Felipe-Falgas & Cristina Madrid-Lopez & Oriol Marquet, 2022. "Assessing Environmental Performance of Micromobility Using LCA and Self-Reported Modal Change: The Case of Shared E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and E-Mopeds in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.
    16. Devyani Pande & Araz Taeihagh, 2021. "The Governance Conundrum of Powered Micromobility Devices: An In-Depth Case Study from Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, May.
    17. Anastasia Roukouni & Gonçalo Homem de Almeida Correia, 2020. "Evaluation Methods for the Impacts of Shared Mobility: Classification and Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Elena Carrara & Rebecca Ciavarella & Stefania Boglietti & Martina Carra & Giulio Maternini & Benedetto Barabino, 2021. "Identifying and Selecting Key Sustainable Parameters for the Monitoring of e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles. Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Jeffrey Glenn & Madeline Bluth & Mannon Christianson & Jaymie Pressley & Austin Taylor & Gregory S. Macfarlane & Robert A. Chaney, 2020. "Considering the Potential Health Impacts of Electric Scooters: An Analysis of User Reported Behaviors in Provo, Utah," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Monika Hamerska & Monika Ziółko & Patryk Stawiarski, 2022. "A Sustainable Transport System—The MMQUAL Model of Shared Micromobility Service Quality Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    21. Nora Schelte & Semih Severengiz & Jaron Schünemann & Sebastian Finke & Oskar Bauer & Matthias Metzen, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment on Electric Moped Scooter Sharing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    22. Samira Dibaj & Aryan Hosseinzadeh & Miloš N. Mladenović & Robert Kluger, 2021. "Where Have Shared E-Scooters Taken Us So Far? A Review of Mobility Patterns, Usage Frequency, and Personas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-27, October.

    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. Pol Felipe-Falgas & Cristina Madrid-Lopez & Oriol Marquet, 2022. "Assessing Environmental Performance of Micromobility Using LCA and Self-Reported Modal Change: The Case of Shared E-Bikes, E-Scooters, and E-Mopeds in Barcelona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Bretones, Alexandra & Marquet, Oriol, 2022. "Sociopsychological factors associated with the adoption and usage of electric micromobility. A literature review," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 230-249.
    3. Nine Klaassen & Arno Scheepens & Bas Flipsen & Joost Vogtlander, 2020. "Eco-Efficient Value Creation of Residential Street Lighting Systems by Simultaneously Analysing the Value, the Costs and the Eco-Costs during the Design and Engineering Phase," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2021. "Consumer adoption of electric vehicles in alternative business models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    5. Kley, Fabian & Lerch, Christian & Dallinger, David, 2011. "New business models for electric cars--A holistic approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3392-3403, June.
    6. Fabio Antonialli & Rodrigo Gandia & Joel Sugano & Isabelle Nicolaï & Arthur Neto, 2019. "Business Platforms For Autonomous Vehicles Within Urban Mobility," Post-Print halshs-03687640, HAL.
    7. Wiebke Reim & David Sjödin & Vinit Parida, 2021. "Circular business model implementation: A capability development case study from the manufacturing industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 2745-2757, September.
    8. Siri Jagstedt & Magnus Persson, 2019. "Using Platform Strategies In The Development Of Integrated Product-Service Solutions," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(04), pages 1-36, May.
    9. Cao, Zhejing & Zhang, Xiaohu & Chua, Kelman & Yu, Honghai & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "E-scooter sharing to serve short-distance transit trips: A Singapore case," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 177-196.
    10. Fabio Antonialli & Bruna Habib Cavazza & Rodrigo Gandia & Isabelle Nicolaï & Arthur de Miranda Neto & Joel Sugano & André Luiz Zambalde, 2020. "Human or machine driving? Comparing autonomous with traditional vehicles value curves and motives to use a car," Post-Print halshs-03687616, HAL.
    11. Pan, Jeh-Nan & Nguyen, Hung Thi Ngoc, 2015. "Achieving customer satisfaction through product–service systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 179-190.
    12. Rönnberg Sjödin, David & Parida, Vinit & Kohtamäki, Marko, 2016. "Capability configurations for advanced service offerings in manufacturing firms: Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5330-5335.
    13. David Opresnik & Maurizio Fiasché & Marco Taisch & Manuel Hirsch, 0. "An evolving fuzzy inference system for extraction of rule set for planning a product–service strategy," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    14. Marcus Adam, 2018. "The Role of Human Resource Management (HRM) for the Implementation of Sustainable Product-Service Systems (PSS)—An Analysis of Fashion Retailers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-27, July.
    15. Alberto de la Calle & Inmaculada Freije & Aitor Oyarbide, 2021. "Digital Product–Service Innovation and Sustainability: A Multiple-Case Study in the Capital Goods Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, June.
    16. Catherine E. Cherry & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2018. "Why Is Ownership an Issue? Exploring Factors That Determine Public Acceptance of Product-Service Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
    17. Alexandra König & Laura Gebhardt & Kerstin Stark & Julia Schuppan, 2022. "A Multi-Perspective Assessment of the Introduction of E-Scooter Sharing in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Á. Pereira & A. Carballo-Penela & A. Guerra & X. Vence, 2018. "Designing a policy package for the promotion of servicising: A case study of vineyard crop protection in Galicia (Spain)," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(2), pages 348-369, January.
    19. Estephania Delgadillo & Tatiana Reyes & Rupert J Baumgartner, 2021. "Towards territorial product-service systems: A framework linking resources, networks and value creation," Post-Print halshs-03520232, HAL.
    20. Rodrigo Pascual & Matías Siña & Gabriel Santelices & Milton Román & Enrique López Droguett, 2017. "Optimal channel coordination in use-based product-service system contracts," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(23), pages 6946-6956, December.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:5:p:1803-:d:326164. 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.