Skip to main content

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

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment volume 21, pages 1009–1034 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Quantitative 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.

Methods

To 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 discussion

BEVs 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

References

  • Abbas KA, Bell MGH (1994) System dynamics applicability to transportation modeling. Transp Res A Policy Pract 28:373–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amekudzi AA, Jotin Khisty C, Khayesi M (2009) Using the sustainability footprint model to assess development impacts of transportation systems. Transp Res A Policy Pract 43:339–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argonne National Laboratory (2014) The VISION Model. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/VISION/. Accessed 9 Jun 2014

  • Baldoni F, Falsini D, Taibi E (2010) A system dynamics energy model for a sustainable transportation system. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society

  • Barlas Y (1996) Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 12:183–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossel H (2007) System zoo 3 simulation models–economy

  • Bradley TH, Quinn CW (2010) Analysis of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle utility factors. J Power Sources 195:5399–5408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CALCAS (2009) D17 Final report: options for deepening and broadening LCA. http://www.estis.net/includes/file.asp?site=calcas&file=B501D8D5-ADC1-4DBA-8EFC-71A764FCFE5A. Accessed 3 Feb 2014

  • Chateau J, Rebolledo C, Dellink R (2011) An economic projection to 2050: the OECD“ ENV-Linkages” Model Baseline

  • Chester MV, Horvath, A (2009) Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environ Res Lett 4(2):024008

  • Cucurachi S, Suh S (2015) A moonshot for sustainability assessment. Environ Sci Technol 49(16):9497–9498

  • Dobranskyte-Niskota A, Perujo A, Pregl M (2007) Indicators to assess sustainability of transport activities. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, ISBN 978-92-79-07802-6, doi:10.2788/54736

  • Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O, Bhutta M (2014) Supply chain sustainability assessment of the US food manufacturing sectors: a life cycle-based frontier approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 82:8–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Sustainability assessment of US manufacturing sectors: an economic input output-based frontier approach. J Clean Prod 53:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egilmez G, Tatari O (2012) A dynamic modeling approach to highway sustainability: strategies to reduce overall impact. Transp Res A Policy Pract 46:1086–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2014) Light-duty automotive technology, carbon dioxide emissions, and fuel economy trends. Washington, pp 1975–2014

  • EPA (2013) Gasoline emission factor-calculations and references. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

  • Ercan T, Kucukvar M, Tatari O, Al-Deek H (2013) Congestion relief based on intelligent transportation systems in Florida: analysis of triple bottom line sustainability impact. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2380:81–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiddaman T (2008) Tom Fiddaman’s system dynamics model library. http://www.metasd.com/models/. Accessed 2 Sep 2014

  • Furuoka F (2009) Looking for a J-shaped development-fertility relationship: do advances in development really reverse fertility declines. Econ Bull 29:3067–3074

    Google Scholar 

  • Furuoka F (2010) The fertility-development relationship in the United States: new evidence from threshold regression analysis. Econ Bull 30:1808–1822

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée J (2016) Life cycle sustainability assessment: what is it and what are its challenges? In Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology. Springer International Publishing, pp 45–68

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halog A, Manik Y (2011) Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3:469–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han J, Hayashi Y (2008) A system dynamics model of CO2 mitigation in China’s inter-city passenger transport. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 13:298–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins TR, Gausen OM, Strømman AH (2012) Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:997–1014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stab 95:422–428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Settanni E, Guinée J (2012) Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1722–1733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson CT, Lester BL, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input–output approach. Washington

  • Hiasa S, Noori M, Kelly C, Tatari O (2016) Dynamic techno-ecological modeling of highway systems: a case study of the Shin-Meishin Expressway in Japan. J Clean Prod 115:101–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang YA, Weber CL, Matthews HS (2009) Categorization of Scope 3 emissions for streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 43:8509–8515

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M (2010) Options for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J Clean Prod 18:120–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin W, Xu L, Yang Z (2009) Modeling a policy making framework for urban sustainability: incorporating system dynamics into the Ecological Footprint. Ecol Econ 68:2938–2949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (2007) Life-cycle based sustainability assessment as part of LCM. Proc 3rd Int Conf Life Cycle Manag:27–29

  • Kucukvar M, Egilmez G, Onat NC, Samadi H (2015) A global, scope-based carbon footprint modeling for effective carbon reduction policies: lessons from the Turkish manufacturing. Sustain Prod Consum 1:47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Samadi H (2015) Linking national food production to global supply chain impacts for the energy-climate challenge: the cases of the EU-27 and Turkey. J Clean Prod 108:395–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014a) Sustainability assessment of U.S. final consumption and investments: triple-bottom-line input–output analysis. J Clean Prod 81:234–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Noori M, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014b) Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1185–1199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Gumus S, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014c) Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: an intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method. Autom Constr 40:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:958–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucukvar M (2013) Life cycle sustainability assessment framework for the U.S. built environment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida

  • Laurenti R, Lazarevic D, Poulikidou S et al (2014) Group model-building to identify potential sources of environmental impacts outside the scope of LCA studies. J Clean Prod 72:96–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Geum Y, Lee H, Park Y (2012) Dynamic and multidimensional measurement of product-service system (PSS) sustainability: a triple bottom line (TBL)-based system dynamics approach. J Clean Prod 32:173–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litman T, Burwell D (2006) Issues in sustainable transportation. Int J Glob Environ Issues 6:331–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litman TA (2009) Sustainable transportation indicators: a recommended research program for developing sustainable transportation indicators and data. In: Transportation Research Board 88th Annual Meeting

  • Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Murgante B (2015) Calling for an integrated computational systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability analysis. Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 3(3):213–216

  • Meadows DH, Randers J, Meadows DL (2004) Limits to growth: the 30-year update. Chelsea Green, White River Junction, VT

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: a guided tour. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

  • Myrskylä M, Kohler H-P, Billari FC (2009) Advances in development reverse fertility declines. Nature 460:741–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NASA (2014) Global annual mean surface air temperature change. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. Accessed 10 Feb 2015

  • Noori M, Gardner S, Tatari O (2015a) Electric vehicle cost, emissions, and water footprint in the United States: development of a regional optimization model. Energy 89:610–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noori M, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2015b) A macro-level decision analysis of wind power as a solution for sustainable energy in the USA. J Sustain Energy 34(10):629–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noori M, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2015c) Economic input–output based sustainability analysis of onshore and offshore wind energy systems. Int J Green Energy 12(9):939–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus DW (2006) RICE and DICE models of economics of climate change. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/dicemodels.htm. Accessed 3 Sep 2014

  • Oak Ridge National Lab. (2013) Transportation energy data book. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter8.shtml

  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2013) Transportation energy data book Edition 32. Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    Google Scholar 

  • Offer GJ, Howey D, Contestabile M et al (2010) Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy 38:24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014a) Towards greening the U.S. residential building stock: a system dynamics approach. Build Environ 78:68–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Gumus S, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2015a) Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies. Sustain Prod Consum 6:12–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014b) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment of alternative passenger vehicles. Sustainability 6:9305–9342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014c) Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1488–1505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2015b) Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States. Appl Energy 150:36–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014d) Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of U.S. residential and commercial buildings: an input–output hybrid life cycle assessment approach. Build Environ 72:53–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O, Zheng QP (2016) Combined application of multi-criteria optimization and life-cycle sustainability assessment for optimal distribution of alternative passenger cars in U.S. J Clean Prod 112:291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park YS, Egilmez G, Kucukvar M (2016) Emergy and end-point impact assessment of agricultural and food production in the United States: a supply chain-linked ecologically-based life cycle assessment. Ecol Ind 62:117–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park YS, Egilmez G, Kucukvar M (2015) A novel life cycle-based principal component analysis framework for eco-efficiency analysis: case of the United States Manufacturing and Transportation Nexus. J Clean Prod 92:327–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck RS (2011) Modeling the impact of warming in climate change economics. In: The economics of climate change: adaptations past and present. The National Bureau of Economics Research-Libecap and Steckel

  • ReCiPE (2009) ReCiPe LCIA methodology. http://www.lcia-recipe.net/project-definition

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18:5–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012a) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1686–1697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012b) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schade B, Schade W (2005) Assessment of environmentally sustainable transport scenarios by a backcasting approach with ESCOT. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society

  • Shepherd S, Bonsall P, Harrison G (2012) Factors affecting future demand for electric vehicles: a model based study. Transp Policy 20:62–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd SP (2014) A review of system dynamics models applied in transportation. Transp B Transp Dyn 2:83–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanova M, Tripepi C, Zamagni A, Masoni P (2014) Goal and scope in life cycle sustainability analysis: the case of hydrogen production from biomass. Sustainability 6(8):5463–5475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone S, Strutt A, Hertel T (2012) Socio-economic impact of regional transport infrastructure in the Greater Mekong Subregion

  • Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • The National Research Council (2013) Spreadsheets for transitions to alternative vehicles and fuels. http://www.nap.edu/tavf/. Accessed 8 Sept 2015

  • The U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014) Annual energy outlook with projections to 2040. Washington

  • The World Bank (2006) Social analysis in transportation projects: guidelines for incorporating social dimensions into bank-supported projects

  • The U.S. Social Security (2014) Life Tables for the United States Social Security. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/images/LD_fig2a.html. Accessed 5 May 2014

  • United Nations (2014) Human development report 2014 sustaining human progress: reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience

  • Wang J, Lu H, Peng H (2008) System dynamics model of urban transportation system and its application. J Transp Syst Eng Inf Technol 8:83–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for application of deepened and broadened LCA. CALCAS, Project no.037075

  • Wood R, Hertwich EG (2012) Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1710–1721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:373–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Buttol P, Buonamici R et al (2009) Blue paper on life cycle sustainability analysis. In: CALCAS Proj. Deliv. http://www.calcasproject.net/. Accessed 5 Jan 2015

  • Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T (2013) From LCA to life cycle sustainability assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1637–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by an award to the University of Central Florida, as part of grant number DTRT13-G-UTC51 from the US Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives, the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA

    Nuri C. Onat

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Sehir University, Uskudar, 34662, Istanbul, Turkey

    Murat Kucukvar

  3. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA

    Omer Tatari

  4. Department of Mechanical, Civil, and Environmental Engineering, University of New Haven, New Haven, CT, 06516, USA

    Gokhan Egilmez

Authors
  1. Nuri C. Onat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Murat Kucukvar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omer Tatari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gokhan Egilmez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omer Tatari.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Alessandra Zamagni

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 1670 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O. et al. Integration of system dynamics approach toward deepening and broadening the life cycle sustainability assessment framework: a case for electric vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 1009–1034 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1070-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1070-4

Keywords

  • Deepening and broadening
  • Electric vehicles
  • Group model building
  • Life cycle sustainability assessment
  • Sustainable transportation
  • System dynamics