Content uploaded by Semih Severengiz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Semih Severengiz on Sep 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Life Cycle Assessment on the mobility service e-
scooter sharing
Prof. Dr-Ing. Semih Severengiz
Electrical engineering and computer
science
Bochum University of Applied
Sciences
Bochum, Germany
semih.severengiz@hs-bochum.de
Dr. Sebastian Finke
Electrical engineering and computer
science
Bochum University of Applied
Sciences
Bochum, Germany
sebastian.finke@hs-bochum.de
Norman Wendt
Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH
(German Energy Agency)
Berlin, Germany
normanwendt@gmx.de
Nora Schelte
Electrical engineering and computer
science
Bochum University of Applied
Sciences
Bochum, Germany
nora.schelte@hs-bochum.de
Abstract— E-scooters are being controversially discussed as
a new mobility alternative for cities. The rapid growth of the
shared use e-scooter market has raised questions about
environmental sustainability and urban benefits in many cities
worldwide. The high dynamics of the market and insufficient
public data availability about the concrete business processes of
shared e-scooters are making clear statements about the
ecological effects difficult. The aim of the paper is to conduct a
life cycle assessment using Berlin as an example for shared e-
scooters. On the basis of different operating scenarios, ecological
potentials of e-scooters should be assessed in a more
differentiated way. The results show how product lifetimes,
swappable batteries, alternative collection logistics and
charging concepts influence the greenhouse balance compared
to alternative means of transport.
Keywords— e-scooter sharing, e-mobility, e-scooter, energy
supply system, environmental impact, life cycle assessment,
mobility services, Sharing economy, sustainability, urban mobility
I. INTRODUCTION
Sharing concepts with light electric vehicles are spreading
in major cities around the world. E-scooters in particular are
at the forefront of public interest and are being controversially
discussed as a new mobility alternative. The term e-scooter is
not used uniformly. In particular, a distinction must be made
between stand-up electric scooters and electric motor scooters.
Stand-up scooters are driven in a standing position, reach
lower speeds (up to 20 km/h in Germany) and are therefore
especially designed for transporting individual drivers over
short distances in the urban environment. While e-scooters
have been in use for years in the USA or in China, for
example, they have only been approved for use on German
roads in Germany since the German Regulation on Electric
Small Vehicles (eKFV) came into force in June 2019. Since
then, around 35,000 e-scooters have been available in sharing
services in German cities [1].
This rapid development led to many questions about the
benefits of e-scooters and their environmental impact. The
dockless sharing of e-scooters is touted as a last mile solution,
as a supplement to local public transport and as an alternative
to private car traffic. Compared to alternative means of
transport, they are supposed to reduce traffic volume, reduce
congestion and represent an ecologically advantageous mode
of transport [2]. Although e-scooters have no direct tailpipe
emissions, full life-cycle impact assessment is necessary to
understand their environmental impact properly. In this study
we use the methodology of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to
quantify the total global impact of shared electric scooters on
the environmental impact categories Global Warming
Potential (GWP 100) and non-renewable Primary Energy
Demand (PED). The aim of this study is in particular to
analyse the production of a new type of e-scooter model with
swappable battery and to consider the influence of a
swappable battery on the use phase of the e-scooter. The
introduction of new e-scooter models with swappable
batteries will result in new usage patterns. By analysing the
production and use phase of e-scooter sharing, it is possible to
identify the main triggers for negative environmental impacts,
to make recommendations for local authorities, policies or
practices that would reduce these impacts and to compare the
overall impacts with other modes of transport.
II. RELEVANCE FOR PRACTICE
Although numerous life cycle analyses for vehicles [3, 4]
and even sharing services [5, 6] are available, the
environmental impact of e-scooter sharing has so far been
studied only to a limited extent. Due to earlier market launch
this discussion has started in US before. Chester shows
important results of an LCA on shared dockless e-scooters.
Findings are based on several assumptions with high variety
of different scenarios. In the baseline scenario, Chester shows
that manufacturing and materials cause most life-cycle CO2eq.
emissions, followed by collection and distribution and
charging of the scooter, for a total of 200 g CO2eq./ kilometre.
By increasing the distance travelled over the life cycle of the
e-scooter from 1200 to 6000 kilometres, emissions could be
reduced to a total of 57 g CO2eq./ kilometre [7].
In their recent work, which was conducted with
parameters specific to the determining factors of Raleigh,
North Carolina, Hollingsworth et al found out that the global
warming impacts associated with shared e-scooters are
dominated by materials, manufacturing and automotive use
for e-scooter collection for charging [8]. The authors pointed
out that extending scooter lifetime, reducing collection and
distribution distance, using more efficient vehicles, and less
frequent charging strategies can significantly reduce environ-
mental impacts. Potentials of swappable batteries and the use
of electrical e-cargo bicycles for battery and vehicle
collection, which are more and more used in many cities in
Europe, were not part of investigations in the study.
But shared e-scooters are a new phenomenon. The use of
sharing services in the transport sector in general could
minimise total CO2-emissions, fuel consumption, traffic
volume and congestion [6]. Furthermore, sharing services can
be an integral part of an intermodal mobility concept.
According to the German Federal Ministry of Transport,
intermodal mobility can have a positive impact on the
environment by linking services of public transport to car
sharing in terms of location, payment and tariffs [9].
Ecological impacts are associated to substitution of transport
mode. As much car passenger-kilometers can be substituted
by e-scooters, as much emissions can be reduced.
Substitution rates of fuel based motorized vehicles by e
scooters differ a lot between USA and Europe. Based on
different survey results from Portland [10] (34% of locals,
48% of tourists), San Franciso [11] (41%) and Paris [12] (8%)
we see huge differences. Different determining factors in
cities, poor data availability and high uncertainties shows that
further investigations are needed to finally judge on
environmental impacts of shared e-scooters.
A further study of a German think tank provides policy
recommendations for local governments [13]. Municipalities
should encourage e-scooter sharing providers to use
swappable battery systems and e-cargo bikes for collection
and deployment operations to reduce environmental impacts.
The German Environment Agency is also recommending
swappable batteries and point out that ecological benefits
would only occur, if cars and motorcycles are substituted and
no further fuel based vehicles are needed. Lifetime of scooters
is another important issues for improvements [14]. First e-
scooter sharing providers like Tier Mobility and Circ already
use swappable battery systems and aim to use mainly e-cargo
bikes for deployment [15, 16]. Spin, another e-scooter sharing
provider has also been experimenting with station-based
charging stations in US cities to limit the number of trips to
collect and charge scooters. Combined with power supply
from solar panels emissions could be further decreased [2].
III. RESEARCH DESIGN
In accordance with the ISO standard, the present LCA is
structured as follows: Goal and Scope definition, inventory
balance, impact assessment and interpretation. The system
boundaries are shown in Figure 1. The study includes material
and component production, manufacturing, transport, use and
charging. Due to the poor database, maintenance and repair
were only considered to a limited extent. The functional unit
is one passenger-kilometre travelled. The base case for the
daily use, collection and charging of the e-scooters was
defined through interviews with e-scooter companies. The city
of Berlin was used as an example of the market situation. A
bill of material (BoM) was used to collect data for the
inventory analysis of the production of the e-scooters.
Individual components were also disassembled.
The inventory modelling was done with the program
"Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung - GaBi" from thinkstep AG [17].
The CML method in the updated version of January 2016 is
used as the method of impact assessment. This method is
based on the international standard of the Centre voor
Milieuwetenschappen (CML) in Leiden (NL) [18].
A. Manufacturing
The major materials and components of the e-scooter
include aluminum components (45%), a lithium-ion battery
pack (16%), an electric motor (14%), rubber (7%) and plastic
parts (7%) which in total account for 89 % of the total scooter
mass as shown in Figure 2.
The lithium-ion battery has a cathode material LiNiCoAlO2
(NCA), as indicated by the battery manufacturer. A GaBi-
dataset is used for the inventory analysis and the impact
assessment of the NCA-battery cells [19]. The energy
consumption for manufacturing the scooter and assembling
the battery is assumed to be 3.9 kWh based on interviews with
scooter sharing providers. We consider a recycling content for
aluminum: The base case assumes a recycling content of 24%
for aluminum, which corresponds to the average Chinese
aluminum in 2017 [20].
Fig. 1: System boundary diagram for a life cycle assessment on shared electric scooters.
45%
16%
14%
7%
7%
6% 5% Aluminium
Battery pack
Electric motor
Rubber
Plastic components
Electronic
components
Steel
Fig. 2. Share of materials/ components of an e-scooter
B. Transportation to Germany
The majority of scooter manufacturers are located in the
Zhejiang and Guangdong province. The rounded total mass of
the e-scooter is 28 kg. Based on the statement of the e-scooter
sharing service providers it is assumed that the e-scooter is
transported on rail (estimated 10500 km), resulting in 290 ton-
km transport via rail, per scooter.
C. Use phase
The environmental impact of the use phase depends on
various factors: the daily distance travelled, the electricity grid
mix used for charging and the method of charging. The
assumptions made for the use phase are based on the
statements of e-scooter sharing providers. In the base case, an
e-scooter travels an average distance of 10,2 km per day. With
a current lifetime of 24 months, this results in an average
distance of 7500 km over the entire life-cycle. However, this
does not consider scooter downtime for maintenance and
repairs. The sharing provider states that 0.5% of scooters are
collected daily for repairs. More research is needed on how
long the scooters are in repair and how many total breakdowns
there are in order to estimate a more realistic lifetime. The e-
scooters have a range of 30 km with a battery capacity of 0.46
kWh. This results in an energy consumption of 0.02 kWh per
km or 115 kWh over the entire lifetime. In the base scenario,
the environmental impacts of electricity demand are modelled
according to the country-specific conditions of the German
electricity mix of 2016. The Global Warming Potential is
0.568 kg CO2eq. per kWh of electricity [17]. In the base case
it is assumed that the e-scooters have a swappable battery. The
batteries are swapped with vans (diesel, Euro 4, 3.5 t) [17].
The van has a GWP over its entire life-cycle of 337 g CO2eq.
per km [17]. According to the service provider, one van can
serve 200 scooters per day. Each day, 70 batteries are swapped
using a van. The vans also collect e-scooters (0.5% of all
scooters per day) for repair. In total, one van drives a distance
of 50 km per day, meaning it travels 0.25 km per e-scooter per
day or 183 km over the lifetime of an e-scooter. As the e-
scooters are continued to be used while the batteries are
charging, it is assumed that 1.5 batteries are required per e-
scooter.
D. End-of-Life
For End-of-Life the e-scooter is shredded. No credits are given
for this. The energy consumption for this is 2.7 kWh. [17].
E. Scenarios
E-scooter sharing is a relatively new business. Therefore,
there are hardly any reliable data on the lifetime of e-scooters,
and the methods for charging the e-scooters also differ greatly.
To take these uncertainties into account, different scenarios
for the use phase were created. In addition to the base case, we
examine three scenarios relating to the battery or e-scooter
collection for charging, one scenario related to e-scooter
lifetime and one scenario related to the electricity grid mix
used to charge the scooters. Table 1 shows the parameters that
were varied within the sensitivity analysis and thus their
influence on the environmental impact of e-scooter sharing
was tested.
1) Scenario 1: Shorter lifetime
The e-scooter sharing provider TIER state that their
scooter is particularly robust, which is shown, for example, by
its high weight, and that it therefore has a particularly long
lifetime of 24 months [15]. In previous studies, a shorter
lifetime of 6-24 months is assumed [8]. As there are many
reports of vandalism against shared e-scooters, it is more
likely that they have a shorter lifetime [21]. In this study we
test a scenario with a shorter lifetime of 6 months.
2) Scenario 2: Not-swappable battery
If the e-scooter has no swappable battery, the whole
scooter with the battery is collected and charged. This method
of charging was common practice until recently. It can be
assumed that a van can serve fewer scooters with this method,
as the scooters take up more space in the van than the batteries.
According to the service provider, a van can transport 40
scooters per day for charging. This means that one van can
serve 100 scooters, travelling a distance of 100 km/day. In
total, in this scenario, a van travels 1.00 km per e-scooter per
day or 730 km over the life-cycle of an e-scooter. In this
scenario only one battery per scooter is required.
3) Scenario 3: Battery swapping with e-vans
Some surveyed e-scooter sharing service providers use
electrified vans for battery exchange. It is assumed to be a van
of a Chinese manufacturer with a LiFePO4 battery [23]. The
production of the battery and the van and the transport to
Germany was modelled using the software "GaBi -
Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung" [17, 23]. Based on a lifetime of
the van of 150,000 km [24], the production was included in
the environmental impact assessment of the battery exchange
with the e-van. As with the diesel van, it is assumed that a van
travels 0.25 km per e-scooter per day or 183 km over the
lifetime of an e-scooter. The e-vans have a range of 160 km
with a battery capacity of 56 kWh [22]. This results in an
energy consumption of 0.35 kWh per km or 63.875 kWh over
the entire lifetime of the e-scooter. In the base scenario, the
environmental impact of electricity demand is modelled
according to the country-specific conditions of the German
electricity mix [17]. The result of the modeling is a GWP over
the entire life-cycle of the e-van of 64 g CO2eq./ km.
4) Scenario 4: Battery swapping with e-cargo bikes
Some e-scooter sharing service provider claim to use
electrified cargo bikes to change batteries in future. Currently,
cargo bikes with a capacity of 20 - 40 batteries are being
tested. However, since the cargo bike can only cover shorter
distances (range of approx. 30 km) and due to safety and
weight restrictions, it can serve fewer e-scooters than a van. It
is assumed that a cargo bike can serve 100 scooters per day.
In total, a cargo bike travels 0.33 km per e-scooter per day or
219 km over the lifetime of an e-scooter. The production of a
e-cargo bike and its battery was modelled using the software
"GaBi - Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung" [17, 25]. The
assumptions regarding the components of a cargo bike and the
energy required for production are based on a study by
Leutenberger et al. [26]. It is assumed that the cargo bike is
produced in Germany. The battery was modelled as a battery
with LiNiMnCoO2 cells with a capacity of 1.4 kWh. With a
range of 30 km, the energy demand is 0.046 kWh per
kilometer or 10.074 kWh over the entire life-cycle of the e-
scooter. Based on a lifetime of the e-cargo bike of 15,000 km
[26], the production was included in the environmental impact
assessment of the battery exchange with the e-cargo bike. The
result of the modeling is a GWP over the entire life-cycle of
the e-cargo bike of 34 g CO2eq./ km. Electrified vans are also
used in this scenario to collect broken e-scooters for repair.
According to the sharing provider, one van that travels 50 km
per day is sufficient to collect the broken scooters (daily 0.5%
of all scooters).
TABLE I. Parameter of the scenario analysis.
Base Case
Shorter
lifetime
Not-swappable
battery
E-vans
E-cargo
bikes
Transport
by plane
Solar power
Energy demand per km [kWh]
0.015
Average distance per day [km]
10.2
Lifetime e-scooter [month]
24
6
24
24
24
24
24
Battery type
swappable
swappable
not- swappable
swappable
swappable
swappable
swappable
Energy demand per lifetime
[kWh]
115
29
115
115
115
115
115
Average distance per lifetime
[km]
7500
1900
7500
7500
7500
7500
7500
Vehicle for collecting broken
Scooters
diesel-van
diesel-van
diesel-van
e-van
e-van
diesel-van
diesel-van
Vehicle for battery swapping
diesel-van
diesel-van
diesel-van (
e-van
e-cargo bike
diesel-van
diesel-van
Distance per van and day [km]
50
50
100
50
50
50
50
Served e-scooters per van and
day [#]
200
200
100
200
-
200
200
Distance per van, scooter and
day [km]
0.25
0.25
1.00
0.25
0.03
0.25
0.25
Distance per cargo bike and day
[km]
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
Served e-scooters per cargo
bike and day [#]
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
Distance per cargo bike,
scooter and day [km]
-
-
-
-
0.33
-
-
Electricity grid mix for
charging of e-scooters
German mix, 0.568 kg CO2eq./ kWh [60]
Solar power, 0.0806 kg
CO2eq./ kWh [71]
Transport of the e-scooter to
Germany
Train
Plane
Train
Number of batteries per scooter
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
5) Scenario 5: Transportation by plane
The surveyed e-scooter sharing service providers claim
their e-scooters are transported by train from China to
Germany. In order to examine the influence of transport on the
environmental impact of e-scooter sharing, in this scenario a
transport by air is assumed. The transport is modelled using
the corresponding process of the Software GaBi (Cargo plane,
65 t payload) [17] over a distance of 7500 km, resulting in 208
ton-km transport via plane, per scooter.
6) Scenario 6: Solar power
The environmental impact of the electricity mix used to
charge the e-scooters has a strong influence on the life cycle
assessment of the use phase. To evaluate this effect, it is
assumed in this scenario that the e-scooters are charged with
solar power. In this scenario, the environmental impacts of
electricity demand are modelled according to the country-
specific conditions of German electricity from photovoltaic.
The GWP is 0.0806 kg CO2eq. per kWh of electricity [17].
IV. MAIN FINDINGS
Figure 3 shows the life cycle environmental impacts per
passenger-kilometre traveled for each scenario. In the base
case, the average GWP is 77 g CO2eq./passenger-kilometre,
with 63% from materials and manufacturing. 1% from
transportation and 35% from use phase. In the use phase, 11%
of the GWP comes from electricity for charging the batteries,
13% from collecting the batteries and e-scooters with a diesel
van and 4% from the battery for swapping (1.5 batteries per
scooter).
A shorter lifetime can greatly increase the environmental
impact of e-scooter sharing. With a lifetime of 6 instead of 24
months (scenario 1), the GWP increases by 21% to 237 g
CO2eq./passenger-kilometre, with a far higher share of
production of 82 %. Alternative approaches to charge the e-
scooters can greatly reduce or increase the adverse
environmental impacts. If no swappable batteries are used,
resulting in an average distance of 1 km per e-scooter per day
for the van to collect and charge (scenario 2), the GWP will
increase by 56% to 121 g CO2eq./ passenger-kilometre. The
use phase then accounts for 58% of this environmental impact.
The use of electrified vans for collection (scenario 3) results
in a 12% reduction. Using electrified cargo bikes to collect the
batteries and e-vans to collect broken e-scooters (scenario 4)
could yield a net reduction in GWP of 17%. If the e-scooters
were charged with solar power, the GWP impact could be
reduced by 14%. If the e-scooters were transported by air from
China to Germany, it would increase by 20%. Figure 4 shows
the Global Warming Potential of the production of an e-
scooter. Per 1 kg weight of the e-scooter the GWP is 13 kg
CO2eq. The production of the aluminium components
accounts for 65% of this, the battery for 12% and the motor
and the electronic components for 6% each. In order to better
understand the environmental impact of e-scooter sharing, it
is necessary to compare it with alternative modes of transport.
As shown in Figure 5 it becomes clear, that e-scooter sharing
in a best case scenario has a lower environmental impact than
private cars, electrified mopeds and public transport buses, but
performs worse than trams, electrified bikes and bicycles. In
the worst case scenario, e-scooters have the worst
environmental impact of all modes of transport. To evaluate
these results, it is necessary to consider which modes of
transport are likely to be substituted by e-scooter sharing.
Hollingsworth et al. conducted a survey among e-scooter
drivers to find out which means of transport they would have
used if the e-scooter sharing had not been available. 7% of
users reported that they would not have taken the trip
otherwise, 49% would have biked or walked, 34% would have
used a private passenger cars or ride-share service, and 11%
would have taken a public bus [8] The research institute 6t-
research determines a substitution rate of 8% for private
passenger cars. The substitution rate of footpaths by electric
scooters is thus over 44 % and for public transport approx. 30
% [12].
The sensitivity analysis shows that the GWP is most
sensitive to the scooter lifetime and the distance driven for
collection. A low scooter lifetime shows very high global
warming impacts driven from the manufacturing and
materials burdens, which are spread across a smaller number
of passenger-miles traveled over the e-scooter lifetime.
Therefore, it is clear, that the production is an important
parameter to influence the environmental impact of e-scooter
sharing, but this study did not include a sensitivity analysis of
production. Another important parameter is the distance
travelled to collect batteries or scooters per distance travelled
with the scooter. Especially the use of swappable batteries
reduces the collection distance enormously. Also densely
populated urban areas can allow a higher density of e-scooters
and lower collection distances per scooter. Another result of
the sensitivity analysis is that differences in the grid emissions
of the electricity used to charge the scooter cause only small
changes in the overall results. While this study was conducted
with parameters specific to Berlin, Germany, the results can
be interpreted and used for a wide range of locations.
V. LESSONS LEARNED
E-scooters may be an effective solution to urban
congestion and last-mile problem, but they do not necessarily
reduce the environmental impacts of the transportation
system. This study clearly demonstrates that there is the
potential for e-scooters to increase life cycle emissions
relative to the transportation modes that they displace. In a
worst case scenario, the GWP per passenger-kilometre of e-
scooter sharing could be higher than all other modes of
transport including private cars. In this study, we found that
the GWP associated with the use of shared e-scooters are
dominated by the manufacturing phase, especially the
production of aluminium parts.
In addition to production, the lifetime of the scooters, the
distances to collect the batteries or scooters, the type of
collection vehicle and the electricity mix for charging the
scooters are important influencing factors. If non-swappable
batteries are used and the entire scooter is collected for
charging, every 10th trip travelled with the e-scooter is
accompanied by a trip of the collection vehicle. However, it is
important not to replace all e-scooters with new scooter
models immediately, but only at the end of the scooter's
lifetime, as the lifetime has the highest influence on the
environmental impact. It would also be a possibility to extend
the lifetime by selling the scooter in private ownership.
There are effective measures for cities and decision-makers to
work towards integrating e-scooter sharing into urban
transport in an environmentally friendly way. By limiting the
business area of the sharing service to the inner-city area, the
density of scooters increases, and the distances of battery/
scooter collection trips are reduced. By offering a joint service
of e-scooter sharing and local public transport, cities could
promote e-scooter sharing as a complement rather than a
substitute for the more environmentally friendly public
transport. Additionally, cities could enforce anti-vandalism
policies to reduce e-scooter mistreatment which can result in
short lifetimes (and thus high manufacturing impacts per
passenger-kilometre travelled).
The scooter sharing providers can take important measures to
reduce the environmental impact as well. First of all, it may
make sense to produce vehicles with a lower share of
Fig. 4. Global warming potential of the production of an e-scooter.
Fig. 3. Life cycle environmental impacts for shared electric scooters under
Base Case and alternative scenarios for a) global warming potential
and b) non-renwable primary energy demand.
64
237
147
58
80
119
40
8
050 100 150 200 250
E-scooter Sharing Best Case
E-Scooter Sharing Worst Case
Passenger Car [28]
Tram [28]
Bus [28]
E-Motorcycle [27]
E-Bicycle [27]
Bicy cle [2 7]
g CO2eq./ passenger-km
Fig. 5. Comparison of the global warming of e-scooter sharing to
alternative modes of transport
65%
12%
7%
7%
3% 3% 2% 1%
GWP 100 years [kg CO2eq.]
Aluminium
Battery
Motor
Electronics
Rubber
Plastics
Steel
Assembly
aluminium, as the aluminium components account for a share
of 65% of the GWP of the production of the e-scooter. The
manufacturer is recommended to use "green" aluminium, with
a high recycling rate and renewable energies in the production.
Previous studies have analysed a much lighter scooter
(approx. 17 kg), with the result that the GWP of scooter
production is only half as high, at 178 kg CO2eq. per scooter
[8]. On the other hand, the lighter scooter is supposed to have
a shorter lifetime, which compensates the lower
environmental impact of the production regarding the impact
per passenger-kilometre. In addition, the sharing providers
should use electrified vehicles to collect the scooters and
batteries, switch to scooter models with swappable batteries
and charge their vehicles with electricity from renewable
energy sources. In the future, it is also feasible to set up a
battery charging infrastructure consisting of battery charging
and swapping stations, which would enable the user to change
and charge the battery himself, so that collection trips are
completely eliminated.
The results of this study are comparable to previous
studies. Hollingsworth et al. determined a GWP of 88 g
CO2eq./ passenger-kilometre for a lifetime of 24 months and
281 g CO2eq./ passenger-kilometre for a lifetime of 6 months
[8]. The values determined in this study are 17% lower. These
deviations are due to the assumption of shorter distances for
collecting the batteries.
Cities and e-scooter sharing service providers can use this
study to explore life cycle impacts of e-scooter sharing.
Through further research on usage patterns and operating
systems in e-scooter sharing services, it will be possible in
future to make even more precise statements on the
environmental impact over the life-cycle. Further studies
should also examine the influence of aluminium components
on the environmental impact and potential measures to reduce
the impact, such as relocation of production, a higher
proportion of secondary aluminium and a lower proportion of
aluminium components in scooters. The claim that e-scooter
sharing will benefit the environment should be viewed with
scepticism unless longer product life, environmentally
friendly production of e-scooters and efficient collection and
charging of e-scooters are achieved.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Tack, A. Klein, B. Bock (Civity), E-Scooters in Germany. A data-
driven contribution to the ongoing debate, 2019 (scooters.civity.de/en).
[2] C. S. Smith CS, P. S. Joseph, E-scooter scenarios: evaluating the
potential mobility benefits of shared dockless scooters in Chicago,
Chaddick Institute Policy Series (Chicago, IL: DePaul University),
2018.
[3] H. Brunner, M. Hirz, W. Hirschberg, K. Fallast , Evaluation of various
means of transport for urban areas, Energy, Sustainability and Society,
2018 (https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0149-0).
[4] T. Hawkins, Comparative environmental lifecycle assessment of
conventional and electric vehicles, J. Ind. Ecol. 17, 2013, pp. 53–64.
[5] T. D. Chen, K. M. Kockelman, Carsharing’s life-cycle impacts on
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, Transp. Res. D 47, 2016, pp.
276–84.
[6] P. Baptista, S. Melo, C. Rolim, Energy, environmental and mobility
impacts of car-sharing systems. Empirical results from Lisbon,
Portugal, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 111, 2014, pp.
28–37.
[7] M. Chester, It’s a Bird…It’s a Lime…It’s Dockless Scooters! But Can
These Electric-Powered Mobility Options Be Considered Sustainable
Using Life-Cycle Analysis?, 2019.
[8] J. Hollingsworth, B. Copeland, J. X. Johnson, Are e-scooters polluters?
The environmental impacts of shared dockless electric scooters,
Environ. Res. Lett. 14 084031, 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/ab2da8).
[9] Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur (BMVI),
Innovative Öffentliche Fahrradverleihsysteme. Ergebnisse der
Evaluation und Empfehlungen aus den Modellprojekten, Berlin, 2014.
[10] Portland Bureau of Transportation, E-Scooter Pilot User Survey
Results, 2018 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/
transportation/article/700916).
[11] San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA’s),
Powered Scooter Share Mid-Pilot Evaluation, 2019
(https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-
documents/2019/08/powered_scooter_share_mid-
pilot_evaluation_final.pdf).
[12] C. Crier, J. Chretien, N. Louvet (6t research), Uses and users of free-
floating e-scooters in France, 2019 (https://6-t.co/en/free-floating-
escooters-france/).
[13] J. Gubmann, A. Jung, T. Kiel, J. Strehmann (Agora Verkehrswende),
Shared E-Scooters: Paving the Road Ahead. Policy Recommendations
for Local Government, 2019 (https://www.agora-
verkehrswende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2019/E-
Tretroller_im_Stadtverkehr/Agora-Verkehrswende_Shared-E-
Scooters-Paving-the-Road-Ahead_WEB.pdf).
[14] Umweltbundesamt, Sind E-Scooter umweltfreundlich?, 2019
(https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/sind-e-scooter-
umweltfreundlich).
[15] TIER Mobility, The 7 myths about e-scooters, 2019
(https://www.tier.app/de/the-7-myths-about-e-scooters/).
[16] S. O’Hear, Circ, the Berlin-based e-scooter company makes layoffs
following ‘operational learning’
(https://guce.techcrunch.com/copyConsent?sessionId=3_cc-
session_1c87e98c-dff5-43cd-bb99-
41360b12fc98&inline=false&lang=de-DE).
[17] thinkstep AG, LBP-GaBi, University of Stuttgart, GaBi Software
System, Leinfelden-Echterdingen / Germany, 2019.
[18] Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen Leiden, CML-IA
Characterisation Factors, 2016
(https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-
output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors).
[19] Stoffregen, Rudolph, Reuter Bausa (thinkstep AG), NCA Cell, Lithium-
ion-battery cell – NCA & LiFEPO4, CN, GaBi database, 2019.
[20] M. Bertram, S. Ramkumar, H. Rechberger, G. Rombach, C. Bayliss,
K. J. Martchek, D. B. Müller, G. Liu, A regionally-linked, dynamic
material flow modelling tool for rolled, extruded and cast aluminium
products, Res. Conservation Recycling, 2017
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.05.014).
[21] Umweltbundesamt, Wie lang ist die Lebensdauer der E-Scooter?, 2019
(https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/wie-lang-ist-
die-lebensdauer-der-e-scooter).
[22] M. Busch , Y. Sakanoshita, Maxus EV80, 2019
(https://www.maske.de/fahrzeuge/leichte-nutzfahrzeuge/e-
nutzfahrzeuge/maxus-ev80/).
[23] A. Bausa, M. Rudolf (thinkstep AG), LFP Cell, Lithium-ion-battery
cell – NCA & LiFEPO4, CN, GaBi database, 2019.
[24] M. Ritthoff, K. O. Schallaböck, Ökobilanzierung der Elektromobilität.
Themen und Stand der Forschung. Teilbericht im Rahmen der
Umweltbegleitforschung Elektromobilität im Förderschwerpunkt
„Modellregionen Elektromobilität“, 2012.
[25] Stoffregen, Rudolf, Reuter, Bausa (thinkstep AG), NMC Cell, Lithium-
ion-battery cell – NMC, LCO & Spinell, CN, GaBi database, 2019.
[26] M. Leutenberger, R. Frischknecht, Life Cycle Assessment of Two Wheel
Vehicles, 2010.
[27] M. Weiss, P. Dekker, A. Moro, H. Scholz, M. K. Patel, On the
electrification of road transportation–a review of the environmental,
economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers, Transp.
Res. D 41, 2015, pp. 348–366.
[28] Umweltbundesamt, Vergleich der durchschnittlichen Emissionen
einzelner Verkehrsmittel im Personenverkehr, 2019
(https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/bild/vergleich-der-
durchschnittlichen-emissionen-0).