Integration of system dynamics approach toward deepening and broadening the life cycle sustainability assessment framework: a case for electric vehicles

PurposeQuantitative life cycle sustainable assessment requires a complex and multidimensional understanding, which cannot be fully covered by the current portfolio of reductionist-oriented tools. Therefore, there is a dire need on a new generation of modeling tools and approaches that can quantitatively assess the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability in an integrated way. To this end, this research aims to present a practical and novel approach for (1) broadening the existing life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework by considering macrolevel environmental, economic, and social impacts (termed as the triple bottom line), simultaneously, (2) deepening the existing LCSA framework by capturing the complex dynamic relationships between social, environmental, and economic indicators through causal loop modeling, (3) understanding the dynamic complexity of transportation sustainability for the triple bottom line impacts of alternative vehicles, and finally (4) investigating the impacts of various vehicle-specific scenarios as a novel approach for selection of a macrolevel functional unit considering all of the complex interactions in the environmental, social, and economic aspects.MethodsTo alleviate these research objectives, we presented a novel methodology to quantify macrolevel social, economic, and environmental impacts of passenger vehicles from an integrated system analysis perspective. An integrated dynamic LCSA model is utilized to analyze the environmental, economic, and social life cycle impact as well as life cycle cost of alternative vehicles in the USA. System dynamics modeling is developed to simulate the US passenger transportation system and its interactions with economy, the environment, and society. Analysis covers manufacturing and operation phase impacts of internal combustion vehicles (ICVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and battery electric vehicles (BEVs). In total, seven macrolevel indicators are selected; global warming potential, particulate matter formation, photochemical oxidant formation, vehicle ownership cost, contribution to gross domestic product, employment generation, and human health impacts. Additionally, contribution of vehicle choices to global atmospheric temperature rise and public welfare is investigated.Results and discussionBEVs are found to be a better alternative for most of sustainability impact categories. While some of the benefits such as contribution to employment and GDP, CO2 emission reduction potential of BEVs become greater toward 2050, other sustainability indicators including vehicle ownership cost and human health impacts of BEVs are higher than the other vehicle types on 2010s and 2020s. While the impact shares of manufacturing and operation phases are similar in the early years of 2010s, the contribution of manufacturing phase becomes higher as the vehicle performances increase toward 2050. Analysis results revealed that the US transportation sector, alone, cannot reduce the rapidly increasing atmospheric temperature and the negative impacts of the global climate change, even though the entire fleet is replaced with BEVs. Reducing the atmospheric climate change requires much more ambitious targets and international collaborative efforts. The use of different vehicle types has a small impact on public welfare, which is a function of income, education, and life expectancy indexes.ConclusionsThe authors strongly recommend that the dynamic complex and mutual interactions between sustainability indicators should be considered for the future LCSA framework. This approach will be critical to deepen the existing LCSA framework and to go beyond the current LCSA understanding, which provide a snapshot analysis with an isolated view of all pillars of sustainability. Overall, this research is a first empirical study and an important attempt toward developing integrated and dynamic LCSA framework for sustainable transportation research.

[1]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  A global, scope-based carbon footprint modeling for effective carbon reduction policies: Lessons from the Turkish manufacturing , 2015 .

[3]  Simon Shepherd,et al.  A review of system dynamics models applied in transportation , 2014 .

[4]  Chris Hendrickson,et al.  Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input-Output Approach , 2006 .

[5]  Rob Dellink,et al.  An Economic Projection to 2050: The OECD "ENV-Linkages" Model Baseline , 2011 .

[6]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Economic Input–Output Based Sustainability Analysis of Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Systems , 2015 .

[7]  Stacy Cagle Davis,et al.  Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 31 , 2012 .

[8]  Omer Tatari,et al.  A dynamic modeling approach to highway sustainability: Strategies to reduce overall impact , 2012 .

[9]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Congestion Relief Based on Intelligent Transportation Systems in Florida , 2013 .

[10]  Meleckidzedeck Khayesi,et al.  Using the sustainability footprint model to assess development impacts of transportation systems , 2009 .

[11]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[12]  Björn Frostell,et al.  Group Model-Building to identify potential sources of environmental impacts outside the scope of LCA studies , 2014 .

[13]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: concept, practice and future directions , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[15]  Dennis L. Meadows,et al.  Limits to growth : the 30-year update , 2004 .

[16]  Nigel P. Brandon,et al.  Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system , 2010 .

[17]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Electric vehicle cost, emissions, and water footprint in the United States: Development of a regional optimization model , 2015 .

[18]  Sangwon Suh,et al.  A Moonshot for Sustainability Assessment. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  O. Tatari,et al.  Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: An intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method , 2014 .

[20]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Sustainability assessment of U.S. manufacturing sectors: an economic input output-based frontier approach , 2013 .

[21]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2) , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[22]  Stefano Armenia,et al.  A System Dynamics Energy Model for a Sustainable Transportation System , 2010 .

[23]  Yaman Barlas,et al.  Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics , 1996 .

[24]  T. Litman,et al.  Issues in sustainable transportation , 2006 .

[25]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[26]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Dynamic techno-ecological modeling of highway systems: a case study of the Shin-Meishin Expressway in Japan , 2016 .

[27]  Khalid Malik,et al.  Human Development Report 2014: Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience , 2014 .

[28]  J. Guinée Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges? , 2016 .

[29]  Edgar G. Hertwich,et al.  Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[30]  O. Tatari,et al.  Sustainability assessment of U.S. final consumption and investments: triple-bottom-line input–output analysis , 2014 .

[31]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies , 2016 .

[32]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of U.S. residential and commercial buildings: An input–output hybrid life cycle assessment approach , 2014 .

[33]  Fumitaka Furuoka,et al.  Looking for a J-shaped development-fertility relationship: Do advances in development really reverse fertility declines? , 2009 .

[34]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[35]  R. Heijungs,et al.  Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA , 2009 .

[36]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Towards greening the U.S. residential building stock: A system dynamics approach , 2014 .

[37]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States , 2015 .

[38]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[39]  Thomas H. Bradley,et al.  Analysis of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle utility factors , 2010 .

[40]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1 , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[41]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework For The U.S. Built Environment , 2013 .

[42]  Wei Jin,et al.  Modeling a policy making framework for urban sustainability: Incorporating system dynamics into the Ecological Footprint , 2009 .

[43]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies † , 2002 .

[44]  Fumitaka Furuoka,et al.  The Fertility-Development Relationship in the United States: New Evidence from Threshold Regression Analysis , 2010 .

[45]  Thomas W. Hertel,et al.  Assessing Socioeconomic Impacts of Transport Infrastructure Projects in the Greater Mekong Subregion , 2010 .

[46]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis , 2010 .

[47]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[48]  Hartmut Bossel,et al.  System Zoo 3 Simulation Models. Economy, Society, Development , 2009 .

[49]  Yoshitsugu Hayashi,et al.  A system dynamics model of CO2 mitigation in China's inter-city passenger transport , 2008 .

[50]  Sora Lee,et al.  Dynamic and multidimensional measurement of product-service system (PSS) sustainability: a triple bottom line (TBL)-based system dynamics approach , 2012 .

[51]  A. Horvath,et al.  Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains , 2009 .

[52]  Walter Kloepffer,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment of products , 2008 .

[53]  Burkhard Schade,et al.  Evaluating Economic Feasibility and Technical Progress of Environmentally Sustainable Transport Scenarios by a Backcasting Approach with ESCOT , 2005 .

[54]  Hu Peng,et al.  System Dynamics Model of Urban Transportation System and Its Application , 2008 .

[55]  Hua Jiang,et al.  Life cycle sustainability assessment of fuels , 2007 .

[56]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Passenger Vehicles , 2014 .

[57]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  A Novel Life Cycle-based Principal Component Analysis Framework for Eco-efficiency Analysis: Case of the United States Manufacturing and Transportation Nexus , 2015 .

[58]  Alessandra Zamagni,et al.  Goal and Scope in Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis: The Case of Hydrogen Production from Biomass , 2014 .

[59]  Simon Shepherd,et al.  Factors affecting future demand for electric vehicles: A model based study , 2012 .

[60]  Stacy Cagle Davis,et al.  Transportation energy data book , 2008 .

[61]  Michael G.H. Bell,et al.  System dynamics applicability to transportation modeling , 1994 .

[62]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Complexity - A Guided Tour , 2009 .

[63]  Perujo Mateos Del Parque Adolfo,et al.  Indicators to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities - Part 1: Review of the Existing Transport Sustainability Indicator Initiatives and Development of an Indicator Set to Assess Transport Sustainability Performance , 2007 .

[64]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Emergy and end-point impact assessment of agricultural and food production in the United States: A supply chain-linked Ecologically-based Life Cycle Assessment , 2016 .

[65]  A. Perujo,et al.  Indicators to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities , 2009 .

[66]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Combined application of multi-criteria optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative passenger cars in U.S. , 2016 .

[67]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches , 2010 .

[68]  Todd Alexander Litman,et al.  Sustainable Transportation Indicators: A Recommended Research Program For Developing Sustainable Transportation Indicators and Data , 2009 .

[69]  Francesco C. Billari,et al.  Advances in development reverse fertility declines , 2009, Nature.

[70]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  A macro-level decision analysis of wind power as a solution for sustainable energy in the USA , 2015 .

[71]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Linking national food production to global supply chain impacts for the energy-climate challenge: the cases of the EU-27 and Turkey , 2015 .

[72]  H Scott Matthews,et al.  Categorization of Scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[73]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  CorrigendumCorrigendum to “Supply chain sustainability assessment of the U.S. food manufacturing sectors: A life cycle-based frontier approach” [Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 82 (2014) 8–20] , 2014 .

[74]  Anthony Halog,et al.  Advancing Integrated Systems Modelling Framework for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment , 2011 .