Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/retrec

Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles and internal combustion engine

vehicles: A case study of Hong Kong
Muhammad Shafique a, b, Anam Azam c, Muhammad Rafiq d, Xiaowei Luo a, b, *
a
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
b
Architecture and Civil Engineering Research Center, Shenzhen Research Institute of City University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China
c
School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China
d
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The transportation and electricity sectors are in the midst of leading changes in the endeavor to mitigate climate
Electric vehicle change and air pollution issues. In future years, traditional fossil-fuelled vehicles are estimated to be substituted
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with electric vehicles (EVs), resulting in higher electricity demand from the transport sector. Meanwhile, the
Life cycle assessment
electricity sector is transforming due to policies to adopt renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, and
Environmental impact assessment
Electricity mix
hydropower in the future. However, there are still societal concerns regarding the environmental benefits of
Greenhouse gases emissions these vehicle technologies and how new energy options and vehicles benefit the 2050 HK Carbon Neutral Plan.
To address these concerns, this paper aims to analyse the environmental burdens of current (2019) and future
(2050) vehicle scenarios in Hong Kong using a life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA was performed for internal
combustion vehicles (ICEVs) fuelled by diesel and petrol and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) and EVs with
future electricity energy mix scenarios (2025–2050). The results revealed that EVs with the 2050 HK electricity
mix are an optimal choice and have the least environmental impact in selected impact categories. Additionally,
PHEV with diesel were the second most optimal choice to reduce the environmental impacts in current scenarios.
In contrast, the petrol ICEV has the utmost environmental impacts in all damage category results. The study
shows that clean energy could decrease the environmental impact and mitigate climate change in Hong Kong.

air pollutant emissions than conventional vehicles in the transportation

sector (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018; Elgowainy et al., 2018; Ellingsen
1. Introduction
et al., 2017; Hawkins et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2017; Nordelöf et al., 2019;
Wu et al, 2018, 2019; Yang et al., 2021). Electric vehicles (EVs) have
The warming impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is contin­
gained greater consideration for adoption due to their sustainable
uously increasing globally, and transportation is one of the significant
qualities, as they can reduce CO2 emissions more than internal com­
drivers of GHG emissions. For example, the transportation sector ac­
bustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are the
counts for 19.5% of the European Union’s GHG emissions (European
prevalent EVs, and more than one million BEVs had been sold worldwide
Environment Agency, 2014). In Hong Kong, around 18.1% of all GHG
in 2018 (EV-Volumes, 2019). With its swift economic growth, Hong
emissions in 2018 were produced by the transportation sector (Clima­
Kong’s total energy consumption amplified each year from 2000 to
teReady@HK, 2020). The transportation sector mainly use fossil fuels
2015, which also put numerous pressures on the energy supply system.
such as coal, oil, and gas that discharge significant amounts of GHGs and
In addition, the number of registered passenger vehicles increased from
generate formidable climate change (Fan et al., 2018; Timilsina &
465,894 in 2010 to 645,584 in 2019, accounting for a 27.9% increase
Shrestha, 2009). The adverse consequences of environmental degrada­
(Transport Department, 2020a). The conventional vehicle, which
tion are becoming more dominantly apparent in the shape of ambient air
mainly refers to a conventional petrol vehicle, is one of the primary
pollutants. Thus, continuing efforts are required to mitigate environ­
sources of pollutant emissions, which discharged a large amount of CO2
mental impacts and reduce transportation’s dependence on conven­
and NOx in Hong Kong in 2017 (Environment Bureau, 2017). Consid­
tional fuels.
erable financial strategies and the advancement of battery technologies
Currently, electromobility is a suitable option that generates lower

* Corresponding author. Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
E-mail address: xiaowluo@cityu.edu.hk (X. Luo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101112
Received 1 November 2020; Received in revised form 16 June 2021; Accepted 25 June 2021
0739-8859/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Muhammad Shafique, Research in Transportation Economics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101112
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Another primary concern about road transportation is air pollution such

Abbreviations as NOx, SO2, CO, ozone, volatile organic compounds, toxic heavy metals
(e.g., lead, mercury), organic pollutants (e.g., dioxins), and particulate
BEV Battery electric vehicles matter. Air pollution has an adverse effect on human health and affects
EV Electric vehicle various parts of the human body (Kampa & Castanas, 2008). Trans­
FD Fossil depletion portation noise is also a serious issue that causes health problems. As EVs
FPM Fine particulate matter do not have a combustion engine, they do not discharge direct CO2
FU Functional unit emissions and air pollutions into the natural atmosphere. Although EVs
GHGs Greenhouse gases provide momentous benefits in terms of reduction of fossil energy con­
GWP Global warming potential sumption as well as pollutant emissions, it is unclear whether they have
GREET Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use potential in the life cycle (while considering material production,
in transportation vehicle manufacture, and recycling processes) (Bauer et al., 2015; Faria
HT Human toxicity et al., 2013; Ke et al., 2017; Rosenfeld et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2016).
HK Hong Kong Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been introduced to assess the energy and
ICEV Internal combustion vehicle environmental impact of various vehicles. For example, Hawkins et al.
LCA Life cycle assessment (2013) performed an LCA study on EVs and conventional vehicles; the
LU Land use results showed that EVs can decrease GHG emissions by up to 29%.
MD Mineral depletion Moreover, Faria et al. (2013) performed an LCA study of an EV in
OZF Ozone formation various geographical locations (France, Portugal, and Poland), and the
PHEV Plug-in hybrid vehicle results manifested that the highest air pollution by the EV was found in
SAW Simple additive method Poland, as a major portion of Polish electricity is generated from coal.
TE Terrestrial ecotoxicity On the other hand, France had the lowest emissions because a significant
WLTP Worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure portion of French electricity is produced from nuclear plants.
Multiple studies have been performed on the evaluation of LCA of
EVs and ICEVs in different geographical locations: Brazil (de Souza et al.,
2018), China (Qiao et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2019), Lithuania (Pet­
have positively sped up the growth of EVs. In Hong Kong, in 2010–2019, rauskienė et al., 2020), Poland (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018), Czech
more than 90% of the passenger vehicles were petrol-driven (Transport Republic (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018), Canada (Bicer & Dincer, 2018),
Department, 2020b); diesel vehicles represented around 5% of the fleet Japan (Kosai et al., 2018), Sweden (Nordelöf et al, 2014, 2019),
(Fig. 1). The number of EVs began increasing rapidly after 2015, and the Switzerland (Bauer et al., 2015; Yazdanie et al., 2014), and the United
increase is expected to continue, as the Hong Kong government is States (Onat et al., 2018). Recent researchers have shown that the
providing incentives to the public for the adoption of EVs in the future environmental performance of battery EVs is strongly dependent on the
(Environment Protection Department of Hong Kong, 2020). Hong Kong size of the battery, the energy used for the battery recharging and pro­
has also taken some initiatives to boost the EV industry, such as the first duction phase, and how the energy is produced (Cox et al., 2018;
registration tax concession for EVs and 100% profit tax deduction for Ellingsen et al., 2016; Peters et al., 2017).
EVs in the first year of registration in Hong Kong (Environment Pro­ To provide a comprehensive LCA calculation of EVs and plug-in
tection Department of Hong Kong, 2020). hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), the future energy mix, and a comprehensive
From the environmental perspective, electromobility would benefit life cycle inventory database, there is a need for an LCA evaluation that
from reducing air pollution and noise. The incorporation of EVs into the considers all these aspects. In addition, there remains a major gap in the
city transportation system is necessary to promote sustainable devel­ literature, as all previous studies (Bauer et al., 2015; Burchart-Korol
opment in the Hong Kong transport sector (Environment Bureau, 2017). et al., 2018; Petrauskienė et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021) have focused on

Fig. 1. The total number of registered petrol, diesel, and electric passenger vehicles in Hong Kong.

2
M. Shafique et al.
the environmental impact assessment of BEV and missed the impact of
the energy transition considering all different types of vehicles (such as
BEV, PHEV) with diesel and petrol. Thus, future development in the
electricity sector must be incorporated into the life cycle database to
assess future EVs’ environmental impacts accurately. Beltran et al.
(2020) showed that the environmental performance of EVs and ICEVs
changes strongly in the future energy scenarios, and the relative per­
formance of two powertrains differs significantly based on the chosen
scenario. Similarly, Cox et al. (2018) also showed that the future energy
sector must be included in LCA to evaluate EVs’ environmental impacts
comprehensively. However, Cox et al. (2018) only included the future
energy mix scenarios for BEV. Only a few studies (Burchart-Korol et al.,
2018; Messagie et al., 2014) included the uncertainty analysis of the
vehicle performance parameters independently. However, presently,
there is a literature gap regarding how the future energy mix could have
an impact on the overall LCA performance of EV and PHEV using the HK
energy mix. To fill this research gap, the following research questions
are answered: a) Do EVs and PHEVs mitigate the impact of climate
change compared with conventional vehicles in future energy scenarios
or only in the scenario where electricity sector decarbonisation is ach­
ieved? b) Which environmental benefits could be achieved with vehicle
electrification compared with ICEVs by utilising the HK future energy
mix scenarios?
The present study tries to fill the above research gaps using LCA
evaluation of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs, taking Hong Kong as a case study.
The main objective of the paper is to undertake a comprehensive anal­
ysis that can provide comprehensive answers to the questions above. To
achieve this, this analysis a) examines the production and use phase
environmental impact of different powertrains and their relative per­
formance assessment based on complete LCA results, b) provides
consistent life cycle environmental impacts of current (2019) and future
(2050) passenger vehicles (EV and PHEV) based on future energy mix
scenarios, and c) helps engineers identify green opportunities in the
future transport system and helps policy-makers optimise the portfolio
of HK energy development.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 de­
scribes the methodology used in this study. The life cycle inventory
calculations are shown in Section 3, followed by the results and dis­
cussion in Section 4. Section 5 concludes this study with future
recommendations.
2. Methodology
2.1. Goal and scope of the study
Life cycle assessment is a method used to evaluate the environmental
impact of a product, activity, or process throughout its lifetime. The
environmental impacts of internal combustion engines and electric ve­
hicles were analysed in accordance with the procedure and recom­
mendations of ISO-14040 (International Organization for
Standardization, 2006), including the four main steps: goal and scope
definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and result interpre­
tation. A comparative LCA based on a well-to-wheel analysis was per­
formed to estimate vehicles’ environmental impacts, and the details are
described.
2.2. Functional unit and system boundary
This study aimed to assess and compare the environmental impacts
of the production and use phases of PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs. To compare
the LCA of different vehicles, generally, a functional unit of total dis­
tance traveled by vehicles during the lifetimes “150,000 km” has been
used in previous studies. Several authors assumed an average lifetime of
14 years for EVs, with a total lifetime mileage of 150,000 km (Burch­
art-Korol et al., 2018; Girardi et al., 2015; Hawkins et al., 2013; Pet­
rauskienė et al., 2020). Therefore, for a fair comparison, this study
3
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
assumes the total lifetime distance traveled by PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs is
150,000 km, and impacts are calculated based on the overall perfor­
mance of vehicles during their lifetime. The scope of this analysis in­
cludes the cradle to grave life cycle assessment of vehicles, covering the
production, transport, use, and maintenance phases of vehicles. The full
description of system boundaries for PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs is shown in
Fig. 2.
The production phase consists of the production, assembly, and
transport processes of vehicle components. The LCA phases comprise
vehicle and battery production, use, and maintenance of vehicles. The
vehicles’ operation incorporates the direct emissions of fuels and non-
exhaust emissions caused by brakes, roads, and tire wear. EVs do not
have direct pollutant emissions during the use phase, but all emissions
are accounted for by the electricity production process. Therefore, it is
imperative to know the generation methods of electricity used for EV
battery charging because they directly impact EVs’ overall emissions
during their life cycle assessment. Therefore, the system boundary of the
EV and PHEV flow includes the electricity mix of HK from 2019 to 2050.
This analysis utilises future electricity mix scenarios of 2025, 2030,
2035, and 2050 for EVs and PHEVs and compares them with conven­
tional vehicles fuelled by petrol and diesel.
3. Life cycle inventory and data analysis
3.1. Vehicle manufacturing phase
The material production consists of various stages, including mining,
smelting, and refining for metals, whereas polymer production com­
prises oil and gas recovery and refining, etc. According to the current
situation, the popular BEVs in HK are compact cars; therefore, these cars
were selected in this study. The vehicle comprises various assemblies
such as the chassis, power train system, transmission system, traction
motors, batteries, vehicle fluids, and vehicle assembly, which each
consist of several materials (Burnham, 2012). The detailed material
proportion of PHEV, ICEV, and EV are summarised in Table 1. The
vehicle is mainly composed of systems that can be separated into single
parts. ICEVs and EVs are the two main vehicle systems that consist of an
internal combustion engine and a battery system, while PHEVs have
both an internal combustion engine and a battery system in one pow­
ertrain system. For the PHEV and EV, the study extracts the battery
values from Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in
Transportation (GREET) database (Argonne National Laboratory, 2019).
In addition, as most EVs (Transport Department, 2020b) are compact
cars and have higher battery capacity, and materials which are selected
through the GREET database (Burnham, 2012). We have used the data
from GREET and selected the weight of the PHEV and EV in our study. As
there is no original equipment manufacturer (OEM) plant in Hong Kong,
therefore, these vehicles were produced in other countries, and after
that, they were transported to Hong Kong. As the transportation envi­
ronmental impact accounted for a minimal value compared with the
production and use phase, so it is neglected in this study. The overall
mass for the ICEV, PHEV, and EV are assumed to be 1395, 1867, and
1744 kg (Ecoinvent, 2020; Electric Vehicle Database, 2019). The curb
weights of the PHEV and EV are 33.8% and 25.0% heavier than the
ICEV, while the curb weight of the PHEV is 7.0% heavier than the EV.
This is because the PHEV consists of an internal combustion engine and
battery together in one powertrain. ICEV vehicle production requires an
input of 5635.6 MJ of thermal energy and 4376.0 MJ of electricity. For
the production of EVs, a total energy input of 15,429.3 MJ of thermal
energy and 6463.1 MJ of electricity is required during the vehicle
manufacturing process. In contrast, the PHEV required 8425.3 MJ of
thermal energy and 4958.1 MJ of electricity for the overall production
and assembly, as expressed in Table 1.
M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 2. System boundary.
3.2. Vehicle operation phase
In addition to the overall distance traveled (150,000 km) by each
vehicle, other vital parameters considered for the LCA were fuel con­
sumption, non-exhaust emissions (particles released from brake wear,
tire wear, and road surface wear), and exhaust emissions. Fuel con­
sumption strongly depends on vehicle type. Table 2 reports the main
assumptions of the driving mission sets for each of the PHEVs and EVs
(the EV from 2019 to 2050 and the petrol PHEV and diesel PHEV): en­
ergy consumption, etc. Table 3 summarises the characteristics (e.g., fuel
economy, road surface, and tire wear emissions) of the ICEV with diesel
and petrol. As shown in Table 2, the EV’s energy consumption per km
driving distance is assumed to be 0.206 kWh. In addition, the HK future
electricity mix scenarios from 2025 to 2050 were used to estimate the
environmental impacts of the EVs.
During the vehicle use phase, the ICEV runs on petrol or diesel, and
the EV runs on the HK electricity mix, while the PHEV runs on diesel/
petrol and electricity. Therefore, the emissions from petrol, diesel, and
electricity production were counted during the life cycle assessment of
this study. As PHEVs can run in combination mode (energy supply from
an onboard battery or the internal combustion engine with diesel/
petrol), this study assumes that 50% of the distance is traveled using
diesel/petrol and the other 50% is traveled using electricity (Wu &
Zhang, 2017; Yang et al., 2021). In addition, to determine the impact of
the production and use of electricity during the life cycle assessment, the
HK electricity mix (2019–2050) was used for this study. The data used
for the life cycle impact assessment of electricity production are
retrieved from the Ecoinevnt database, while the HK electricity mix
scenarios were made using the Simapro software. The transmission and
charging losses were also considered during the life cycle assessment.
3.3. Life cycle impact assessment
The life cycle impact assessment was performed with the software
Simapro 9.1. The ReCiPe method was chosen to gauge the environ­
mental impact assessment of PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs, as it is widely used
by other researchers (Goedkoop et al., 2008). The primary objective of
the ReCiPe method is to transform the long list of life cycle inventory
results into a limited number of indicator scores. These indicator scores
express each category’s environmental impact and help select the
product with the least environmental impact. LCA database Ecoinvent 3
was utilised to collect life cycle inventory data (Ecoinvent, 2020). A
cradle to grave life cycle analysis, including material extraction, trans­
portation of material, use phases and maintenance phases, was per­
formed in this study. This method was utilised to determine the impacts
of multiple midpoint categories, and the results were shown for the
4
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
midpoint categories, which have higher environmental impacts in the
case of ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs. The main purpose of the ReCiPe method
is to convert the long list of inputs and outputs of the whole LCA into a
number of indicators that have a higher environmental impact (Goed­
koop et al., 2008). This study selected the environmental impact cate­
gories at the midpoint, which have a higher impact during the analysis,
such as global warming potential, ozone formation, fine particulate
formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, human toxicity, land use, and fossil
depletion and mineral depletion. These are very useful impact categories
to estimate the impact of a product with regard to sustainability (Bicer &
Dincer, 2018; de Souza et al., 2018). Therefore, to select a green and
sustainable vehicle, a comprehensive LCA was performed in the present
study.
3.4. Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty is an in-built element, which needs attention for results
assessment. In LCA analysis, the result varies due to the choice of the
electricity generation mix, co-products, and curb weights of vehicles.
For the PHEV, a parametric study for optimal percentage selection of
fuel and electricity was performed. The study also performed an un­
certainty analysis to assess the robustness of the use phase results, as
these are the major part of the present study. In the present study, un­
certainty analyses for the selected environmental impact categories are
performed for diesel ICEVs, petrol ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs using the
current HK energy mix for 2019 and the future energy mix for 2050.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Results of the vehicle production phase
Fig. 3 shows the results of the vehicle production phase, consisting of
component production and vehicle manufacturing. Parts manufacturing
involves a number of mechanical and chemical processes such as cast­
ing, rolling, and stamping (Wang et al., 2020). In addition, in this study,
we assumed that steel/iron, aluminum, and plastics were produced in
the countries that manufactured these vehicles, and we utilised their
local parameter while estimating the production impact of the vehicles
in this process. After the production, the vehicles were shipped to HK.
The stacked charts indicate the environmental impact contributions of
each component of the vehicles. Fig. 3 compares the different environ­
mental impacts associated with the production of the ICEV, EV, and
PHEV. Results include the impact of processes and components pro­
duced during the life cycle assessment. The productions of advanced
vehicles such as EV and PHEV have higher environmental impacts than
ICEV, because EV and PHEV are heavier due to Li-ion batteries than
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Mass and energy balance of ICEV, EV, and PHEV vehicle production (Argonne Materials and Energy Unit ICEV EV PHEV
National Laboratory, 2019; Electric Vehicle Database, 2019; Ecoinvent, 2020;
Electric Vehicle; Rosenfeld et al., 2019). Lithium Hexafluorophosphase (RoW)
(PVDF)
Materials and Energy Unit ICEV EV PHEV Electricity [Medium Voltage] MJ – 2094.4 589.4
Chassis* Thermal energy from coal MJ – 9805.6 2801.6
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg 3.7 4.1 3.9 Generator
Cast iron [Metal parts] kg 22.9 25.3 25.6 Aluminium casting part kg – – 18.2
Copper wire [Metals] kg 3.7 4.1 4.6 Copper wire kg – – 14.0
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg 5.9 6.5 7 Steel plate kg – – 18.2
Steel plate kg 282 311.3 340.9 Vehicle assembly
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 14.8 16.3 17 Electricity [Medium Voltage] MJ 4338.2 4338.2 4338.2
Vehicle Body Thermal energy from natural gas MJ 5573.9 5573.9 5573.9
Aluminium sheet [Metal parts] kg 8.9 4 4.2 Source: Data based on GREET 2019; (*) Confidential industry data; Ecoinvent data
Copper wire [Metals] kg 3.4 11.5 11.3
(Ecoinvent, 2020).
Float flat glass [Minerals] kg 32.4 38.9 37.9
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg 123 110.1 130.7
Steel sheet with zinc plated [Metals] kg 509.6 416.3 392.2
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 4.9 2.7 3 Table 2
Powertrain System* Summary of specification of EV (Ecoinvent, 2020; Electric Vehicle Database,
Aluminium ingot [Metals] kg 47.1 – – 2019).
Cast iron part [Metal parts] kg 0.5 – 84.5
EV Default value
Copper wire [Metals] kg 15.5 12.6 10.4
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg 43.5 18.2 31.1 Passenger car maintenance 0.000007 p/km
Steel plate kg 127.9 0.8 186.1 Brake wear emissions 0.000001 kg/km
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 0 – – Road surface wear emissions 0.000012 kg/km
Aluminium sheet part [Metal parts] kg – – 50.8 Tire wear emissions 0.000068 kg/km
Lead acid battery Vehicle energy consumption (WLTP) 0.206* kWh/km
Glass fibers [Minerals] kg 0.8 0.6 0.6 The overall weight of EV 1744 kg
Lead [Metals] kg 25.7 20.7 20.7 The overall weight of PHEV 1867 kg
Polypropylene part [Plastic parts] kg 2.3 1.8 1.8
Sulphuric acid (98%) [Inorganic kg 2.9 2.4 2.4 Notes:* Represent the revised parameter for HK’s situation.
intermediate products]
Thermal energy from natural gas MJ 61.7 49.8 49.8
Water (process water) kg 423.0 423.0 423.0 Table 3
Electricity [Medium Voltage] MJ 37.8 30.5 30.5 Summary of specification for ICEV data (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018; Ecoinvent,
Transmission system 2020).
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg 29.7 14.8 14.7
Cast iron [Metals] kg 24.4 – – ICEV The default value for The default value for
Copper wire [Metals] kg – 13.9 13.9 ICEV_Diesel ICEV_ Petrol
Steel plate kg 28.1 44.4 44.5 Passenger car 6.45E-06 p/km 6.45E-06 p/km
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 4.7 – – maintenance
Vehicle Fluids Brake wear emissions 5.77E-06 kg/km 5.77E-06 kg/km
Ethylene glycol [Organic intermediate kg 27.2 14.4 20.8 Road surface wear 1.27E-05 kg/km 1.27E-05 kg/km
products] emissions
Water (Deionsed for operating materials) kg 75.1 41.4 47.8 Tire wear emissions 7.43E-05 kg/km 7.43E-05 kg/km
Gasoline blendstock (For operation) kg 168.1 5.2 161.1 Fuel consumptions 5.9* l/100 km 8.6*l/100 km
Naphtha [For Operation] kg 112.1 3.5 107.9 The overall weight of a 1395 kg 1395 kg
Methanol [For Operation] kg 47.9 27 27 vehicle
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg – 13.5 13.6
Traction motor Notes:* Represent the revised parameter for HK’s situation.
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg – 33.3 18.2
Copper wire [Metals] kg – 25.6 14
Steel plate kg – 33.3 18.2
conventional vehicles. In addition, EVs have more significant environ­
Electronic controller mental impacts compared to ICEV and PHEV. This excess impact is
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg – 41.7 13.1 clearly noticeable for global warming potential (GWP), ozone formation
Copper wire [Metals] kg – 6.2 2.3 (OZF), fine particulate matter (FPM), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), human
Steel plate kg 3.8 1.4
toxicity (HT), land use (LU), and fossil depletion (FD) and mineral
–
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg – 2.8 1
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg – – 6.6 depletion (MD). All impact category results with numeric values are
Li-Ion battery* presented in Table S1 in the Supplementary Material section.
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg – 120.7 35 Fig. 3 shows that the EV has a higher impact on GWP as compared
Copper wire [Metals] kg 57.9 16.8
–
with the ICEV and the PHEV. The EV’s GWP impact (kg CO2 eq) is almost
Ethylene glycol [Organic intermediate kg – 11.4 3.3
products]
40% higher than the ICEV and 23% higher than the PHEV, respectively.
Glass fibers [Minerals] kg – 2.5 0.7 The ICEV was found to have the least total environmental impact value,
Polyethylene terephthalate compound kg – 1 0.3 at 6,333 kg CO2 eq. As shown in Fig. 3, the production of the ICEV has
[Plastics] the lowest impact compared with the PHEV and EV. Terrestrial eco­
Polypropylene compound [Plastics] kg 5.4 1.6
toxicity indicates the impact on human health, where the EV has the
–
Steel Plate kg – 3 0.9
Water (Deionised) kg – 43.1 12.4 highest impact, which is more than twice that of the ICEV. This is due to
Graphite kg – 81.2 23.5 the impact of larger Li-ion batteries in the case of the EV. In terms of
Lithium Hexafluorophosphase (LiPF6) kg – 7.9 2.3 ozone formation and fine particulate formation, the results show a sig­
Ethylene Carbonate kg 21.9 6.4
–
nificant impact in the case of the EV compared with the other two
Polyethylene high density granulate kg – 1.8 0.5
Cobalt (NMC) kg – 113.2 32.8
powertrains. In addition, in the case of terrestrial ecotoxicity and human
kg – – 3 toxicity, the EV’s impact is almost double that of the PHEV. As there are
more materials involved in EV manufacturing, midpoint results show a

5
M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 3. Impacts of the production phase of vehicles.
higher impact in the case of the FD and MD categories. From the pro­
duction results analysis, it can be seen that the production of the ICEV
has the most negligible impact in the case of all midpoint impact cate­
gories, followed by the PHEV, as shown in Fig. 3.
To better understand the contribution percentage of each compo­
nent’s impact, we grouped the components of each vehicle together, as
shown in Fig. 4. In this way, it was possible to observe the components of
each vehicle that have a higher impact contribution and need further
attention for sustainable production in the future. In the case of the EV,
the Li-ion battery contributes 46% of the total GWP. The vehicle body
accounts for almost 35% and 24% of GWP impacts in the case of the
ICEV and the PHEV, respectively, while the chassis accounted for 14%
and 13% of GWP impacts in the case of the ICEV and the PHEV,
6
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
respectively.
For EV production, the Li-ion battery is responsible for the greatest
impact in all categories, as displayed in Fig. 4. In the case of the ICEV,
the vehicle body and powertrain system are composed of various ma­
terials, and hence these two are the main contributors in all impact
categories, as shown in Fig. 4. For the PHEV and EV, Li-ion batteries
have the highest impact in the case of the OZF, PMF, TE, HT, LU, and MD
impact categories. The classical impact categories such as GWP, OZF,
PMF, HT, TE, FD, MD, and LU are analysed, and their percentage con­
tributions for each vehicle type are shown in Fig. 4. The powertrain
system also plays a major role in HT and TE, around 44% in the case of
the ICEV. The Li-ion battery has the second-highest impact of GWP
(18%) in the PHEV compared with the results of the other two vehicle
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Contribution of the components of each vehicle during the production phase.

types. show that PHEVs and EVs have lower GWP, FPM, LU, MD and FD im­
pacts than petrol ICEV. In comparison, the diesel ICEV is a better choice
according to FPM, LU, MD, and HT compared with the PHEV and EV
4.2. Results of use phase
when utilising the current (2019) HK energy mix.
According to the inventory of the future electricity generation mix by
The environmental life cycle inventory assessments of the ICEV
source type in Hong Kong for the years 2019–2050, data for the current
fuelled by diesel and petrol, the EV using the HK mix energy scenarios,
and future electricity generation were used and analysed during the LCA
and the PHEV (fuelled by diesel and petrol as well as using the HK en­
use phase analysis. A detailed description of current and future elec­
ergy mix scenarios) were performed with the ReCiPe method at the
tricity production was illustrated in Table 4. At present, natural gas and
midpoint level. Comparative LCA results of the use phase for ICEVs,
coal are the major sources of electricity production, which comprise an
PHEVs, and EVs are depicted in Fig. 5. The results of the use phase are
overall 73% of electricity production. The current energy mix (2019) is
reported here, in particular, the effects of direct emissions of the com­
based on the real energy mix data which is obtained from the 2020 press
bustion engine and the electricity production emissions. As shown in
release from the HK government (Hong Kong Special Administrative,
Fig. 5, the petrol ICEV has higher impacts in six categories (global
2020). In addition, future 2025 and 2030 energy mix data were obtained
warming potential, land use, terrestrial ecotoxicity, fine particulate
from the modeling study of Colonel-Bertrand (2020) which estimates the
formation, fossil depletion, and mineral depletion) compared with other
future energy mixes based on the 2030 HK climate action plan.
vehicles. The total results of the EV (HK electricity mix 2019), the diesel
Furthermore, future 2035 and 2050 data forecast the highest
ICEV and the petrol ICEV, and the PHEV HK 2019 with diesel and petrol

7
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 5. Use phase results of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs—150,000 km.

and it is expected to increase continuously until 2030. In contrast,

Table 4
electricity production from coal and nuclear will decrease in future
Current (2019) and future proportions of electricity production mix
years, and a 0% share in the 2050 electricity production mix is expected.
(2025–2050) by the source in Hong Kong (Colonel-Bertrand, 2020; Hong Kong
The percentage share of renewable energy in electricity production is
Special Administrative, 2020) (“Hong Kong Energy Vision 2050,” 2015).
only 1% in the current year, 2019, which will continue to increase to
Unit (%) 2019 2025 2030 2035 2050
85% in the 2050 electricity production mix. Table 4 shows that in 2050,
Natural Gas 29% 33% 42% 65% 15% a vast amount of renewable electricity will be used in Hong Kong, which
Coal 44% 35% 24% 5% 0% will be an optimal choice for EVs.
Nuclear 26% 30% 32% 0% 0%
Renewable Energy 1% 2% 2% 30% 85%
Fig. 5 depicts the impact categories that have a significant impact
during the operation phase of analysed vehicles. As there are nearly zero
exhaust emissions generated by the EV, the major impact is from elec­
contribution of renewable energy mixes in the electricity production tricity generation for the EV use phase. However, we have included tire,
mixes and it is based on the World Wildlife Fund Hong Kong (2015). brake, and road surface wear emission default values for realistic results,
Hong Kong has the largest share of natural gas in electricity production, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 Fig. 5 depicts that during the use phase the

8
M. Shafique et al.
EV had a major environmental impact in 2019 because electricity is still
mainly generated using natural gas and coal. Due to the extensive use of
natural gas and coal for electricity production, HK 2019 indicates
adverse environmental impacts; thus, EVs in 2019 have a more
degrading impact in four out of eight impact categories (FPM, HT, LU,
MD) compared with diesel ICEVs. Similarly, the petrol PHEV HK 2019
has a greater impact than the diesel PHEV HK 2019 in all impact cate­
gories except GWP and OZF. For the PHEVs 2025 and 2030 also follow a
similar pattern, as natural gas and coal are still the foremost sources of
the electricity generation mix. Therefore, the results of PHEVs in 2025
and 2030 are not convincing, particularly in the case of TE, HT, MD. In
contrast, in the year 2050, the major share of the HK electricity mix is
projected to be renewable energy, contributing almost 85%. Therefore,
the EV-2050 energy mix scenario has the least impact value on GWP,
OZF, FPM, TE, and FD.
From the analysis of the results, electric vehicles are still dominant in
reducing all categories’ impact, even in a state dominated by fossil
sources for electricity production. Fig. 5 shows that the ICEV with petrol
and diesel has a higher GWP impact. In addition, the diesel PHEV has a
lower GWP impact than the petrol PHEV. This is because petrol vehicles
have higher direct emissions in the use phase compared with all other
vehicles. Based on the operation phase assessment, it can be seen that
different electricity mixes have different impacts on GWP, HT, OZF, and
FPM by different types of vehicles, as presented in Fig. 5. All impact
category results with numeric values (see the Supplementary Material
section) are presented in Table S1.
Ozone depletion potential refers to the damage of ozone gas in the
upper atmosphere, which is majorly associated with the use of chloro­
fluorocarbons in aerosol products. The production of steel, aluminum,
copper, zinc, lithium, nickel, rubber, and plastic mainly causes the
higher emissions of methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, halons,
and hydrobromofluorocarbons. This process contributes to the overall
higher values of OZF in the atmosphere. The EVs has the optimal envi­
ronmental results for the OZF impact category, followed by the petrol
PHEVs, diesel PHEVs, and petrol ICEV. The diesel ICEV has the most
significant OZF impact (382.8 kg NOx eq) in the use phase, which is
almost much higher than that of the EV in 2019 (15.2 kg NOx eq).
A fine particulate matter (FPM) refers to the fine particles presented
in an atmosphere, mainly ambient pollution. Fig. 5 shows that the EV in
2019 and the EV in 2025 have a more significant impact on the FPM
impact category compared to all other vehicles. Generating current
(2019) HK electricity from natural gas (29%) and coal (44%) produces a
higher amount of dust and fine particles. Therefore, FPM impact is
caused by the EV and PHEV with petrol in 2019’s use phase was found to
be higher than diesel ICEV.
Human toxicity (HT) refers to the potential impact on human health
caused by the toxic emission of harmful particles into the atmosphere,
including ethane, phenols, and non-methane volatile organic com­
pounds. From the use phase results analysis, the EVs show the higher
environmental performance for the HT, followed by diesel PHEVs, petrol
PHEV, petrol ICEV and diesel ICEV, as demonstrated in Fig. 5. As the
future HK electricity mix utilises a higher proportion of renewable en­
ergy, it reduces the production of dust and fine particles. Therefore, the
EV in 2050 shows the greatest reduction in HT compared with the EV in
2019. Similarly, the terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE) environmental impact of
the EV in 2050 is almost 2 times less than that of the petrol ICEV. The
lowest environmental impact of TE was found in the use phase of the EV
in 2035, as manifested in Fig. 5.
FD and MD impact categories refer to the use of non-renewable fossil
fuels such as natural gas, petroleum fuels, and coal as well as minerals
such as copper. Fig. 5 presents that the EV in 2050 shows the least FD
impact of all vehicles. In contrast, the petrol ICEV indicates a higher FD
impact than all other vehicles. For the MD impact category, results
reveal that the diesel ICEV has the least environmental of all vehicles in
the use phase, while the petrol ICEV shows the higher MD impact, fol­
lowed by the petrol PHEV HK in 2019 and the diesel PHEV HK in 2019.
9
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
To sum up, the use phase LCA results show that the HK electricity
mix dramatically affects the overall environmental impact results in all
categories. There is a massive decrease in environmental impacts in
future years, particularly for EVs and PHEVs. Additionally, the operation
stage of the EV in 2050 will release much lower GWP emissions than the
EV in 2019, which is mainly due to the increase in renewable energy
production in HK electricity production. This study result mirrors the
previous research findings (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018; Held &
Schücking, 2019; Petrauskienė et al., 2020), indicating that the EV’s
performance is enhanced by utilising renewable energy sources.
4.3. Complete LCA results
4.3.1. Comparison of production and use phase environmental impact
Fig. 6 shows the production and use phase result together, and their
impacts are presented in percentage for each vehicle type. Advanced
vehicles such as EVs and PHEVs have higher percentages of GWP impact
in the production phase than ICEVs. However, the GWP production
impact percentage increases from 2019 to 2050 in the case of EVs. In
addition, it can be seen that in the case of the EV in 2050, there was a
68% of GWP impact during the production stage, while only a 32% of
GWP impact during the use phase. Similarly, the environmental impact
percentages of the EV in 2050 production (i.e., OZF, FPM, LU, HT, MD
and FD) were higher than all other vehicle production impacts, as shown
in Fig. 6. Comparing PHEVs and EVs, the environmental impact per­
centages (GWP, OZF, HT, FPM, and FD) of the production phase are
expected to increase in future years, as this study uses a similar weight
and energy mix for the production of vehicles. This indicates that EVs
and PHEVs do not include a modified database with the lightweight EVs
and PHEVs in future years.
In terms of MD, the production stage impact of the EV in 2050 and
the petrol PHEV in 2050 account for 98% and 93%, respectively. For FD,
the highest production impact was 56% for the EV in 2050, followed by
27% for the diesel PHEV HK in 2050. The result shows that the pro­
duction stage was still a prominent phase in the life cycle of EVs and
PHEVs. The LCA impacts of ICEVs were dominant by the use phase. EVs
and PHEVs with smaller batteries and lighter weights should be pro­
duced in the future to reduce their overall production stage impacts.
4.3.2. Complete LCA of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs of current (2019) and
future (2050) scenarios
The environmental LCA of diesel ICEVs, petrol ICEVs, and current
(2019) and future (2050) scenarios for EVs and PHEVs was performed,
and the results were analysed using the ReCiPe method at the midpoint
level. Fig. 7 presents the comparative analysis of the full LCA (including
production, operation, and maintenance phases) of diesel ICEVs, petrol
ICEVs, and EVs (2019–2050 electricity generation mix scenarios). Full
midpoint impact category results of ICEVs and EVs (2019–2050) are
shown in Table S2 in Supplementary Materials.
For a comparison of impact results of all vehicles, we have selected
the petrol ICEV as the base vehicle. Fig. 7 presented the impact of GWP,
where the EV 2050 result has the least GWP impact (37%) followed by
the diesel PHEV in 2050 (61%) and the petrol PHEV in 2050 (68%)
compared with the petrol ICEV. The EV in 2019 has (24%) lower GWP
impact than the petrol ICEV.
It is also evident from Fig. 7 that the EV in 2050 shows lower OZF and
FPM impact than all other vehicles. The results also showed that the EVs
(2019 and 2050) has a more significant impact concerning HT impact.
The petrol PHEV in 2019 had the third-highest HT impact compared
with other vehicles. This is because HK electricity is mainly produced
from natural gas and coal, as shown in Table 4. In contrast, results
analysis indicates that the petrol ICEV has a lower mineral depletion
impact than EVs and PHEVs. In the LU impact category, the diesel ICEV
requires the least space, and its LU impact is 97% less than the petrol
ICEV. For fossil depletion, the EV in 2050 is a sustainable option for HK’s
future transport system, as it uses fewer resources, which also fulfills the
M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 6. Complete life cycle impacts of ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs using the HK electricity mix.
criteria of the circular economy. The results indicate that the FD impact
of the EV in 2050 is 77% lower compared with the petrol ICEV. The
diesel PHEV in 2050 has the second-lowest FD impact value, which is
56% lower than our base vehicle. For mineral depletion, the diesel ICEV
has a 13% lower impact than the petrol ICEV. On the other hand, the EV
in 2050 and the petrol PHEV in 2050 indicate 910% and 274% higher
MD impacts than the base vehicle.
To sum up, through the current and future LCA analysis, results show
that the EV in 2050 is a sustainable choice in reducing the
10
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
environmental impacts of all midpoint categories except HT, LU, and
MD. Thus, it is proven that turning from fossil fuels towards renewable
energy provides significant advantages in protecting the overall envi­
ronment and achieving transport sustainability. In contrast, the petrol
ICEV is the highest polluting vehicle in the HK transport system, and it
should be replaced with an electric vehicle in the near future to make the
HK transport system green and sustainable.
To have a clear overview of the results pertaining to the whole LCA,
they have been transformed into a synoptic format, as shown in Fig. 8.
M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 7. Midpoint results of complete LCA of the petrol ICEV and the diesel ICEV and current (2019) and future (2050) scenario of the EV and PHEV.
All the impact results for current and future scenarios were normalised
by Equation (1), as shown below, and their impacts are displayed in
synoptic format.
xi − min(x)
zi =
max(x) − min(x)
where; x= (x1 … …. ….,xn) and zi is the value of ith normalise data. xi is
the present value to be normalised, min(x) is the minimum values in x,
and max (x) is the maximum values in x.
In order to clearly show the current and future EVs and PHEVs’
comparison results with ICEVs, the results of ICEVs compared to current
EVs and PHEVs were shown in Fig. 8(a), and the results of ICEVs
compared to future EVs and PHEVs were shown in Fig. 8(b). Fig. 8(a)
shows the higher impact of the petrol ICEV in the case of the present
scenario (2019), and the diesel PHEV HK 2019 was found to have the
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
least overall impact.
On the other hand, for the future HK electricity mix scenario (2050),
overall results in accordance with all impact categories show that the EV
in 2050 has the least environmental impact, followed by the diesel PHEV
(1) in 2050, as shown in Fig. 8(b). Looking at the future, the ICEV is still
contributing larger impacts in the use phase. In the future scenario, EVs
are generally preferable to PHEVs and ICEVs with the same lifetime and
vehicle characteristics.
4.4. Uncertainty analysis
The uncertainty analysis was employed to determine the uncertainty
of the use phase results of the petrol ICEV, diesel ICEV, PHEV, and EV on
all eight selected midpoint categories. The Monte Carlo uncertainty
analysis is conducted with 1000 trials, as suggested by Inyim et al.
11
M. Shafique et al.
Fig. 8. Complete life cycle impacts of vehicles using HK electricity mix. a) ICEV with current EV and PHEV in 2019. b) ICEV with future EV and PHEV in 2050.
(2016), and a 95% confidence interval. Since there is a lack of energy
and emission factors of products in Hong Kong, the values and infor­
mation from the Ecoinvent database were used. Thereby, this added
uncertainty to the LCA results. This study mainly utilised the current and
future electricity mix for the electric vehicle; it is very important to
calculate the uncertainty in the use phase of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs for
robust calculations. Therefore, to make our robust conclusion, an un­
certainty analysis was performed for selected impact categories for
ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs, as shown in Fig. 9. Based on the coefficient of
variation, the EV in 2019 has the least uncertainty compared to all other
vehicles for GWP. Results also revealed that the EV in 2019 shows lower
uncertainty in all impact categories concerning variance, as represented
in Fig. 9. In contrast, the petrol ICEV showed greater uncertainty with
respect to the coefficient of variation in all impact categories except TE.
Uncertainty analysis results revealed that HT impact categories would
deviate most compared with all other impact categories for each vehicle,
as shown in Fig. 9. Various factors affect the operation of vehicles,
including fuel efficiency, battery size, and vehicle speed. Thus, the
environmental impact assessment calculated in each vehicle might be
overestimated. However, the uncertainty analysis result did not reject
the conclusions drawn in the present work.
4.5. Comparison of LCA results with published literate
The LCA results of ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs were compared with
previous studies for the functional unit of “per km distance traveled”, as
shown in Table 5. For the comparison analysis with the prior studies,
global warming potential and human toxicity impact categories were
chosen. A result of climate change can be seen in Table 5, which shows
various LCA studies with respect to different geographical locations. All
the results vary, as the life cycle inventory and location have a signifi­
cant impact on the overall LCA result. The previous studies’ results
(Burchart-Korol et al., 2018) reported their GWP for future EV 2050;
their GWP impacts are found to be higher compared with our study
results. This is because our future HK electricity mix is estimated to
utilise around 85% renewable energy sources for production. Addi­
tionally, the difference in emission results might be due to operation
emissions factors and vehicle efficiencies, which were used in previous
studies. Regarding the HT impact category, the HT of ICEV with diesel
and petrol (Petrauskienė et al., 2020) was much lower than that man­
ifested in our study. Vehicle weight and battery size are the main factors
that significantly impact environmental LCA during the production
stage. While fuel consumption and fuel types are the main aspects in the
use phase for the LCA, manufacturing data also play an essential role in
the use phase results. In the case of the EV operation LCA, the electricity
production source majorly impacts the overall LCA results. Most of the
research results indicate that the renewable electricity mix has a
momentous impact on reducing the environmental impact of EVs.
12
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
Countries should encourage the adaptation of a cleaner energy option
for future transport electrification.
5. Conclusion
A comparative environmental impact assessment of ICEV, petrol
ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs was undertaken based on the ReCiPe method’s
midpoint indicators. For EV and PHEVs’ environmental impact assess­
ment, the future electricity mix scenarios were included from the HK
electricity mix from 2019 to 2050. Hong Kong was selected as a case
study; the vehicle production, use, and transport phase results were
included in the whole life cycle assessment. The conclusions made are as
follows:
1. Based on the evaluation of vehicle production, the EV manifests the
highest environmental impact in all impact categories, as it uses a
larger material proportion than other vehicles.
2. Results indicated that EV environmental performance mainly de­
pends on the electricity mix, which is mainly used to provide energy
to the EV. This study indicates that the current (2019) HK electricity
mix is not suitable for adopting EVs. However, some EVs are a suit­
able option for the HK transportation system. The PHEVs with diesel
indicate lower particulate matter formation in 2019 and 2025 than
EVs, which could be a quick option to reduce ambient pollution in
the Hong Kong transport system.
3. At the midpoint estimation, throughout the whole life cycle analysis,
the EV with the 2050 electricity mix has a lower environmental
impact in five out of eight selected impact categories including global
GWP (15,712 kg CO2 eq.), OZF (71 kg NOX eq), FPM (26 kg PM2.5
eq), TE (55, 121 kg 1,4-DB eq.) and FD (4, 285 kg oil eq.) than the all
other vehicles. This is because a significant portion of the electricity
mix (85%) is from renewable energy sources used to recharge elec­
tric vehicle batteries.
This study result indicates that integrating renewable energy sources
into electricity production improves the environment and ecosystem. As
for CO2 emissions mitigations, a higher penetration of EV in the light­
weight vehicle category could provide greater Environmental potential
in Hong Kong. As EVs are still in the immature stage in Hong Kong, the
government should provide a financial subsidy to EV buyers with
reduced vehicle tax as well as an exemption to the purchase tax. In
addition, we argue that for future EV adoption, there is a need to reduce
coal power consumption and regional power systems. Moreover, a
higher renewable energy integration will not only improve the envi­
ronment but also reduce the costs of tackling environmental degradation
issues in cities. The use of coal accounts for a higher proportion of the
electricity mix due to low cost; however, the government should put
more effort into reforms on the gas market, which will be critical to
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 9. Uncertainty analysis of use phase results of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs.

lowering the cost gap and thus improving the cost competitiveness in
Hong Kong. This could be done through some reasonable planning goal
integration (gas, solar, and wind) in the regional power system in future
years. There is also a high need to invest in research and development
related to EVs to compete with that of ICEVs. This includes technical
development in the manufacturing (lightweight and higher milage with
lower energy consumption) of EVs and infrastructure development
(charging, etc.). The future EVs should be cost-effective so that they can
compete with ICEVs in the market, which can further promote their use
in the transportation sector. In addition, there is also a need for the
adoption of environmentally friendly and lightweight batteries for EVs,
which can promote their economic accessibility and sustainability. The

13
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5 economic, social, and environmental life cycle assessments for

Comparison of LCA results with published literature. comprehensive analysis.
Reference Location Results
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Global warming Human toxicity (kg
potential (kg CO2 eq/ 1,4-DB eq/km)
km) Muhammad Shafique: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
This paper Hong EV in 2019: 0.237 EV in 2019: 0.126 Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation,
Kong EV in 2050: 0.110 EV in 2050: 0.147 Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Anam Azam: Re­
ICEV—petrol: 0.282 ICEV—petrol: sources, Data curation. Muhammad Rafiq: Resources, Data curation,
0.094 Writing – review & editing. Xiaowei Luo: Conceptualization, Supervi­
ICEV—diesel: 0.242 ICEV—diesel:
sion, Writing – review & editing.
0.069
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in
2019—petrol: 0.258 2019—petrol: Declaration of competing interest
0.091
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in
2019—diesel: 0.238 2019—diesel: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
0.079
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in Appendix A. Supplementary data
2050—petrol: 0.194 2050—petrol:
0.102
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
2050—diesel: 0.174 2050—diesel: org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101112.
0.090
Yang et al. (2021) China BEV:0.179–0.195 –
References
PHEV—petrol and
electricty: 0.220–0.231
Argonne National Laboratory. (2019). Argonne GREET model [WWW Document].
ICEV-petrol:
Bauer, C., Hofer, J., Althaus, H. J., Del Duce, A., & Simons, A. (2015). The environmental
0.220–0.236
performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment based
Petrauskienė et al. Lithuania BEV 2015: 0.142 BEV 2015: 0.077 on a novel scenario analysis framework. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2020) BEV 2050: 0.078 BEV 2050: 0.073 apenergy.2015.01.019
ICEV-petrol: 0.105 ICEV-petrol: 0.009 Bicer, Y., & Dincer, I. (2018). Life cycle environmental impact assessments and
ICEV-diesel: 0.076 ICEV-diesel: 0.0073 comparisons of alternative fuels for clean vehicles. Resources, Conservation and
Burchart-Korol Poland BEV 2015: 0.276 BEV 2015: 0.331 Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.036
et al. (2018) BEV 2050: 0.172 BEV 2050: 0.234 Burchart-Korol, D., Jursova, S., Folęga, P., Korol, J., Pustejovska, P., & Blaut, A. (2018).
ICEV-petrol: 0.284 ICEV-petrol: 0.085 Environmental life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in Poland and the Czech
Burchart-Korol Czech BEV 2015: 0.214 BEV 2015: 0.306 Republic. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
et al. (2018) Republic BEV 2050: 0.146 BEV 2050: 0.234 jclepro.2018.08.145
ICEV-petrol: 0.284 ICEV-petrol: 0.085 Burnham, A. (2012). Updated vehicle specifications in the GREET vehicle-cycle model.
Argonne Natl. Lab.
Bicer and Dincer Canada BEV: 0.160 BEV: 0.26
ClimateReady@Hk. (2020). Greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong by sector. https
(2018) ICEV-petrol: 0.270 ICEV-petrol: 0.04
://www.climateready.gov.hk/files/pdf/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20in%
ICEV-diesel: 0.23 ICEV-diesel: 0.03
20Hong%20Kong%20by%20Sector.pdf. (Accessed 9 April 2021).
Pero et al. (2018) Italy BEV: 0.129 – Colonel-Bertrand, G. P.-A. (2020). Modelling of the Hong Kong power system by 2030.
ICEV: 0.203 Cox, B., Mutel, C. L., Bauer, C., Mendoza Beltran, A., & Van Vuuren, D. P. (2018).
Onat et al. (2015) United BEV: 0.180 – Uncertain environmental footprint of current and future battery electric vehicles.
States ICEV: 0.260 Environmental Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00261
Ecoinvent. (2020). Ecoinvent database V 3 [WWW Document].
Electric Vehicle Database. (2019). 2019. Electric vehicle database, 2019. Technical
US, Germany, Japan, and other countries have set up a specific portion specification of nissan leaf. . (Accessed 9 September 2020). https://evdatabase. org/c
ar/1106/Nissan-Leaf.
of R&D for battery development. In contrast, in Hong Kong and China, Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Ward, J., Joseck, F., Gohlke, D., Lindauer, A., Ramsden, T.,
there has been limited R&D investment in the last decade. Therefore, Biddy, M., Alexander, M., Barnhart, S., Sutherland, I., Verduzco, L., &
Hong Kong and China should enhance their R&D investment in the EV Wallington, T. J. (2018). Current and future United States light-duty vehicle
pathways: Cradle-to-Grave lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and economic
industry, particularly in batteries, EV infrastructure, and the public assessment. Environmental Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
support platform (Zhang et al., 2017). Furthermore, a close cooperation est.7b06006
link between auto manufacturers, energy suppliers, and research in­ Ellingsen, L. A.-W., Hung, C. R., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). Identifying key assumptions
and differences in life cycle assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with
stitutions is essential to make cost-effective and efficient EV technology
focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
in the near future. The scenario analysis results could provide mean­ Environment, 55, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.028
ingful insight to the government and show that different policies and Ellingsen, L. A. W., Singh, B., & Strømman, A. H. (2016). The size and range effect:
future policy combinations may bring different results; therefore, it is Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environmental Research
Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054010
very important to evaluate each expected future plan and policy to select Environment Bureau. (2017). Hong Kong’s climate action plan 2030+. Hong Kong.
sustainable pathways for the future transport system. Despite the above Environment Protection Department of Hong Kong. (2020). Promotion of electric
contributions, there are some limitations of this study. For example, we vehicles in Hong Kong. Environ. Prot. Dep. Hong Kong. URL Promotion of Electric
Vehicles in Hong Kong %7C Environmental Protection Department (epd.gov.hk) [WWW
only consider the production and use phase during the LCA analysis and Document].
do not consider the end-of-life phase of vehicles. We account for the European Environment Agency. (2014). Sectoral greenhouse gas emissions by IPCC sector
manufacturing of the vehicles using the present energy mix and tradi­ [WWW Document].
Ev-Volumes. (2019). EV data center. Retrieved from http://www.ev-volumes.com/data
tional materials; however, this study does not include the production of center/.
vehicles by using the future energy mix and selecting lightweight and Fan, Y. Van, Perry, S., Klemeš, J. J., & Lee, C. T. (2018). A review on air emissions
green materials for the automotive industry. Therefore: (1) Future re­ assessment: Transportation. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.05.151
searchers should optimise the weight of EVs to reduce the environmental Faria, R., Marques, P., Moura, P., Freire, F., Delgado, J., & De Almeida, A. T. (2013).
burdens during the production stage. (2) Future studies are needed to Impact of the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric
select sustainable and green materials for EVs to make them competitive vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.03.063
in all impact categories in current and future years. (3) Future research
Girardi, P., Gargiulo, A., & Brambilla, P. C. (2015). A comparative LCA of an electric
needs to be carried out to evaluate EVs and ICEVs, which includes vehicle and an internal combustion engine vehicle using the appropriate power mix:

14
M. Shafique et al.
The Italian case study. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11367-015-0903-x
Goedkoop, M. J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Schryver, A. De, Struijs, J., & Zelm, R.
Van (2008). ReCiPE 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises
harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Hague,
Netherlands.
Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Strømman, A. H. (2013). Comparative
environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. Journal of
Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
Held, M., & Schücking, M. (2019). Utilization effects on battery electric vehicle life-cycle
assessment: A case-driven analysis of two commercial mobility applications.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 75, 87–105. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.005
Hong Kong Special Administrative. (2020). Press Releasee.LCQ1: Fuel mix for electricity
generation [WWW Document].
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management — life
cycle assessment — principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). Geneva, Switzerland.
Inyim, P., Zhu, Y., & Orabi, W. (2016). Analysis of time, cost, and environmental impact
relationships at the building-material level. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32,
Article 04016005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000430
Kampa, M., & Castanas, E. (2008). Human health effects of air pollution. Environmental
Pollution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012
Ke, W., Zhang, S., He, X., Wu, Y., & Hao, J. (2017). Well-to-wheels energy consumption
and emissions of electric vehicles: Mid-term implications from real-world features
and air pollution control progress. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.12.011
Kong, H. (2015). Energy vision 2050 [WWW Document] https://wwfhk.awsassets.
panda.org/downloads/hong_kong_energy_vision_2050__english_version_20150714.
pdf.
Kosai, S., Nakanishi, M., & Yamasue, E. (2018). Vehicle energy efficiency evaluation
from well-to-wheel lifecycle perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.011
Ma, Y., Ke, R.-Y., Han, R., & Tang, B.-J. (2017). The analysis of the battery electric
vehicle’s potentiality of environmental effect: A case study of beijing from 2016 to
2020. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.12.131
Mendoza Beltran, A., Cox, B., Mutel, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Font Vivanco, D., Deetman, S.,
Edelenbosch, O. Y., Guinée, J., & Tukker, A. (2020). When the background matters:
Using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospective life cycle
assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12825
Messagie, M., Boureima, F.-S., Coosemans, T., Macharis, C., & Mierlo, J. (2014). A range-
based vehicle life cycle assessment incorporating variability in the environmental
assessment of different vehicle technologies and fuels. Energies, 7, 1467–1482.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en7031467
Nordelöf, A., Messagie, M., Tillman, A. M., Ljunggren Söderman, M., & Van Mierlo, J.
(2014). Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric
vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0
Nordelöf, A., Romare, M., & Tivander, J. (2019). Life cycle assessment of city buses
powered by electricity, hydrogenated vegetable oil or diesel. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.019
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2015). Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or
electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in
the United States. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.001
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2018). Well-to-wheel water footprints of
conventional versus electric vehicles in the United States: A state-based comparative
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.09.010
15
Research in Transportation Economics xxx (xxxx) xxx
Pero, F. D., Delogu, M., & Pierini, M. (2018). Life cycle assessment in the automotive
sector: A comparative case study of internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric
car. In Procedia structural integrity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.066
Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., Zimmermann, B., Braun, J., & Weil, M. (2017). The
environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters – a review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.08.039
Petrauskienė, K., Skvarnavičiūtė, M., & Dvarionienė, J. (2020). Comparative
environmental life cycle assessment of electric and conventional vehicles in
Lithuania. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.119042
Qiao, Q., Zhao, F., Liu, Z., He, X., & Hao, H. (2019). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
of Electric Vehicles in China: Combining the vehicle cycle and fuel cycle. Energy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.080
Rosenfeld, D. C., Lindorfer, J., & Fazeni-Fraisl, K. (2019). Comparison of advanced
fuels—which technology can win from the life cycle perspective? Journal of Cleaner
Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117879
Shi, S., Zhang, H., Yang, W., Zhang, Q., & Wang, X. (2019). A life-cycle assessment of
battery electric and internal combustion engine vehicles: A case in hebei province,
China. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.301
de Souza, L. L. P., Lora, E. E. S., Palacio, J. C. E., Rocha, M. H., Renó, M. L. G., &
Venturini, O. J. (2018). Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of
conventional vehicles with different fuel options, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles
for a sustainable transportation system in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.236
Timilsina, G. R., & Shrestha, A. (2009). Transport sector CO2 emissions growth in Asia:
Underlying factors and policy options. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2009.06.009
Transport Department. (2020a). Registration and licensing of vehicles by class of vehicles
[WWW Document].
Transport Department. (2020b). Registration and licensing of vehicles by fuel type [WWW
Document].
Wang, L., Shen, W., Kim, H. C., Wallington, T. J., Zhang, Q., & Han, W. (2020). Life cycle
water use of gasoline and electric light-duty vehicles in China. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104628
Wu, Z., Wang, C., Wolfram, P., Zhang, Y., Sun, X., & Hertwich, E. (2019). Assessing
electric vehicle policy with region-specific carbon footprints. Applied Energy. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113923
Wu, Z., Wang, M., Zheng, J., Sun, X., Zhao, M., & Wang, X. (2018). Life cycle greenhouse
gas emission reduction potential of battery electric vehicle. Journal of Cleaner
Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.036
Wu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2017). Can the development of electric vehicles reduce the emission
of air pollutants and greenhouse gases in developing countries? Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 51, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2016.12.007
Yang, L., Yu, B., Yang, B., Chen, H., Malima, G., & Wei, Y.-M. (2021). Life cycle
environmental assessment of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles in
China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.124899
Yazdanie, M., Noembrini, F., Dossetto, L., & Boulouchos, K. (2014). A comparative
analysis of well-to-wheel primary energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions for
the operation of alternative and conventional vehicles in Switzerland, considering
various energy carrier production pathways. Journal of Power Sources. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.043
Zeng, Y., Tan, X., Gu, B., Wang, Y., & Xu, B. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions of motor
vehicles in Chinese cities and the implication for China’s mitigation targets. Applied
Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.130
Zhang, X., Liang, Y., Yu, E., Rao, R., & Xie, J. (2017). Review of electric vehicle policies
in China: Content summary and effect analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 70, 698–714.