IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i15p8297-d600994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life Cycle Assessment on Electric Moped Scooter Sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Nora Schelte

    (Laboratory for Sustainability in Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, Bochum University of Applied Sciences, 44801 Bochum, Germany)

  • Semih Severengiz

    (Laboratory for Sustainability in Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, Bochum University of Applied Sciences, 44801 Bochum, Germany)

  • Jaron Schünemann

    (Laboratory for Sustainability in Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, Bochum University of Applied Sciences, 44801 Bochum, Germany)

  • Sebastian Finke

    (Laboratory for Sustainability in Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, Bochum University of Applied Sciences, 44801 Bochum, Germany)

  • Oskar Bauer

    (Laboratory for Sustainability in Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, Bochum University of Applied Sciences, 44801 Bochum, Germany)

  • Matthias Metzen

    (e-bility GmbH, 53424 Remagen, Germany)

Abstract

Due to their small size and low energy demand, light electric vehicles (LEVs), such as electric moped scooters, are considered as a space efficient and eco-friendly alternative for mobility in cities. However, the growth of electric moped scooter sharing services raises the question of how environmentally friendly this business model is, considering the entire lifecycle. Due to the dynamic market and insufficient availability of public data on the business processes of sharing services only a few studies on the impact of shared electric mopeds are available. Especially there is a lack of research on the impacts of key operational logistic parameters of the sharing system. This paper aims to fill this gap by conducting a life cycle assessment using the example of an electric moped scooter manufactured and used in sharing services in Germany, based on different operating scenarios. The results show that e-moped sharing has a similar environmental impact on global warming potential, in terms of passenger kilometers, as public transport, especially if long product lifetimes as well as efficient operation logistics are realized.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8297-:d:600994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8297/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8297/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryuji Kawamoto & Hideo Mochizuki & Yoshihisa Moriguchi & Takahiro Nakano & Masayuki Motohashi & Yuji Sakai & Atsushi Inaba, 2019. "Estimation of CO 2 Emissions of Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle and Battery Electric Vehicle Using LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Eckard Helmers & Johannes Dietz & Martin Weiss, 2020. "Sensitivity Analysis in the Life-Cycle Assessment of Electric vs. Combustion Engine Cars under Approximate Real-World Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-31, February.
    3. Amelie Ewert & Mascha Brost & Christine Eisenmann & Sylvia Stieler, 2020. "Small and Light Electric Vehicles: An Analysis of Feasible Transport Impacts and Opportunities for Improved Urban Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Anne de Bortoli, 2021. "Environmental performance of shared micromobility and personal alternatives using integrated modal LCA," Papers 2103.04464, arXiv.org.
    5. McKenzie, Grant, 2019. "Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 19-28.
    6. Felipe Cerdas & Paul Titscher & Nicolas Bognar & Richard Schmuch & Martin Winter & Arno Kwade & Christoph Herrmann, 2018. "Exploring the Effect of Increased Energy Density on the Environmental Impacts of Traction Batteries: A Comparison of Energy Optimized Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Mobility Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Younes, Hannah & Zou, Zhenpeng & Wu, Jiahui & Baiocchi, Giovanni, 2020. "Comparing the Temporal Determinants of Dockless Scooter-share and Station-based Bike-share in Washington, D.C," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 308-320.
    9. Rosario Tolomeo & Giovanni De Feo & Renata Adami & Libero Sesti Osséo, 2020. "Application of Life Cycle Assessment to Lithium Ion Batteries in the Automotive Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Chan, Nelson & Bansal, Apaar & Cohen, Adam, 2015. "Shared Mobility: A Sustainability & Technologies Workshop: Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2f61q30s, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    11. Andrea Temporelli & Maria Leonor Carvalho & Pierpaolo Girardi, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicle Batteries: An Overview of Recent Literature," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-13, June.
    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. Michel Noussan & Edoardo Campisi & Matteo Jarre, 2022. "Carbon Intensity of Passenger Transport Modes: A Review of Emission Factors, Their Variability and the Main Drivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-16, August.
    2. Ann Kathrin Stinder & Nora Schelte & Semih Severengiz, 2022. "Application of Mixed Methods in Transdisciplinary Research Projects on Sustainable Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-25, June.

    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. 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. 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).
    3. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Katarzyna Turoń & Andrzej Kubik & Feng Chen & Hualan Wang & Bogusław Łazarz, 2020. "A Holistic Approach to Electric Shared Mobility Systems Development—Modelling and Optimization Aspects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Hosseinzadeh, Aryan & Algomaiah, Majeed & Kluger, Robert & Li, Zhixia, 2021. "Spatial analysis of shared e-scooter trips," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Huo, Jinghai & Yang, Hongtai & Li, Chaojing & Zheng, Rong & Yang, Linchuan & Wen, Yi, 2021. "Influence of the built environment on E-scooter sharing ridership: A tale of five cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    10. Ma, Xinwei & Ji, Yanjie & Yuan, Yufei & Van Oort, Niels & Jin, Yuchuan & Hoogendoorn, Serge, 2020. "A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 148-173.
    11. Buberger, Johannes & Kersten, Anton & Kuder, Manuel & Eckerle, Richard & Weyh, Thomas & Thiringer, Torbjörn, 2022. "Total CO2-equivalent life-cycle emissions from commercially available passenger cars," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Cheng, Long & Huang, Jie & Jin, Tanhua & Chen, Wendong & Li, Aoyong & Witlox, Frank, 2023. "Comparison of station-based and free-floating bikeshare systems as feeder modes to the metro," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Samadzad, Mahdi & Nosratzadeh, Hossein & Karami, Hossein & Karami, Ali, 2023. "What are the factors affecting the adoption and use of electric scooter sharing systems from the end user's perspective?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 70-82.
    15. Foissaud, Nicolas & Gioldasis, Christos & Tamura, Shun & Christoforou, Zoi & Farhi, Nadir, 2022. "Free-floating e-scooter usage in urban areas: A spatiotemporal analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    16. Liu, Hung-Chi & Lin, Jen-Jia, 2022. "Associations of built environments with spatiotemporal patterns of shared scooter use: A comparison with shared bike use," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 107-119.
    17. Yang, Hongtai & Huo, Jinghai & Bao, Yongxing & Li, Xuan & Yang, Linchuan & Cherry, Christopher R., 2021. "Impact of e-scooter sharing on bike sharing in Chicago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 23-36.
    18. Gábor Horváth & Attila Bai & Sándor Szegedi & István Lázár & Csongor Máthé & László Huzsvai & Máté Zakar & Zoltán Gabnai & Tamás Tóth, 2023. "A Comprehensive Review of the Distinctive Tendencies of the Diffusion of E-Mobility in Central Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-29, July.
    19. Draženko Glavić & Marina Milenković & Aleksandar Trifunović & Igor Jokanović & Jelica Komarica, 2023. "Influence of Dockless Shared E-Scooters on Urban Mobility: WTP and Modal Shift," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-17, June.
    20. Meng, Si'an & Brown, Anne, 2021. "Docked vs. dockless equity: Comparing three micromobility service geographies," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    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:13:y:2021:i:15:p:8297-:d:600994. 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.