See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260967890

Carbon footprint analysis of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system: a case study
of Xiamen City, China

Article · December 2009

CITATIONS READS

4 259

2 authors:

Wancen Wang Shenghui Cui

University of Southampton Institue of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences
605 PUBLICATIONS   6,024 CITATIONS    98 PUBLICATIONS   1,046 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Urbanization in China View project

the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41371205), and the National Key Technology R&DProgramoftheMinistryofScienceandTechnology(2012BAC21B03)
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shenghui Cui on 14 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences]
On: 30 November 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 928290869]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t908394088

Carbon footprint analysis of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system: a case
study of Xiamen City
Shenghui Cuia; Hongbin Niua; Wei Wanga; Guoqin Zhanga; Lijie Gaoa; Jianyi Lina
a
Key Lab of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Xiamen, China

Online publication date: 21 July 2010

To cite this Article Cui, Shenghui , Niu, Hongbin , Wang, Wei , Zhang, Guoqin , Gao, Lijie and Lin, Jianyi(2010) 'Carbon
footprint analysis of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system: a case study of Xiamen City', International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17: 4, 329 — 337
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2010.490657
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2010.490657

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology
Vol. 17, No. 4, August 2010, 329–337

Carbon footprint analysis of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system: a case study of Xiamen City
Shenghui Cui*, Hongbin Niu, Wei Wang, Guoqin Zhang, Lijie Gao and Jianyi Lin
Key Lab of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen, China

The transport sector is responsible for a large and growing share of global emissions that affect climate change. Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) systems have been identified as an efficient public transport option, but their total emissions across the entire
operation chain have not been quantified. This paper proposed a carbon footprint model of the BRT system based on a life cycle
assessment (LCA) approach, with three components: infrastructures, fuels and vehicles. A case study of Xiamen City was
carried out to offer a broader perspective on the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact. Results showed that the total carbon footprint of
Xiamen’s BRT system was 55,927 tCO2e per year. The main emission phases, infrastructure operations, vehicle fuel
consumption and infrastructure material production, respectively, accounted for 31%, 30% and 23%. The direct emission
from fuel consumption was 13,059 tCO2e per year, accounting for 23% of the total carbon footprint. Considering only direct
emissions, the BRT system could achieve reductions of approximately 25,255 tCO2e per year compared to the no-build option.
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010

The carbon footprint model proved effective in identifying and measuring GHG emissions of each activity of the BRT life
cycle.
Keywords: carbon footprint; Bus Rapid Transit (BRT); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Transport; Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emission; Xiamen

Introduction energy use, GHG emissions and pollutant emissions asso-

The carbon footprint has become a widely used model in the
public debate on responsibility and abatement action
against the threat of global climate change, and has been
used to assess household, industry, transport, construction,
water supply and medical treatment applications (Christen
2007; Perry et al. 2007; Barthelmie et al. 2008; Klemes and
Pierucci 2008; Zachary 2008; Cole 2009; Druckman and
Jackson 2009; Friedrich et al. 2009; Kenny and Gray 2009;
Somner et al. 2009).
Transport has played an especially important role in
responding to the challenge of averting dangerous climate
change (Yan and Crookes 2009). By 2050, as much as
30–50% of total CO2 emissions are projected to come
from the transport sector, compared with today’s 20–25%
(Fuglestvedt et al. 2008). It is therefore of critically impor-
tance to analyse energy demand and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in the transport sector and to assess possible
effective reduction measures. Some studies have estimated
the historical trends of energy demand and associated GHG
emissions in the road transport sector and future trends
under different policy scenarios (Steenhof et al. 2006;
Bellasio et al. 2007; Hensher 2008; Singh et al. 2008).
These only considered direct emissions (vehicle operation)
and ignored upstream (road construction and vehicle man-
ufacture) and downstream (decommissioning and recy-
cling) emissions. However, upstream and downstream
emissions are known to have a significant impact on the
total GHG emissions (Matthews et al. 2008). To fully assess
GHG emissions from transportation, life cycle assessment
(LCA) can be used to analyse and evaluate energy con-
sumption and environmental emissions, and examine
ciated with the full life cycle of various transportation
activities.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems have been identified
as an inexpensive and efficient public transportation option
(Bitterman and Hess 2008; Estupinan and Rodriguez 2008;
Golotta and Hensher 2008). Several studies have evaluated
the efficiency and environmental effect of BRT systems
through cost–benefit analysis or scenarios analysis (William
and Jerram 2006; Abdelghany et al. 2007; Golotta and
Hensher 2008; Wohrnschimmel et al. 2008). However, few
studies have focused on the life cycle emissions of BRT
systems. In this study, an evaluation of the carbon footprint
of a BRT system based on the LCA model was explored.
We evaluated the carbon footprint of the BRT system of
Xiamen City, China, and analysed the GHG emissions over
the BRT life cycle to offer a broader perspective on the
GHG impact of transportation. Finally, solutions for reducing
GHG emissions from BRT are put forward to build a low-
carbon transit-oriented development mode for the future.
Methods
System boundary
The system boundary was established based on the ISO
LCA standard, which requires inclusion of all life cycle
stages in environmental product declarations. In a full life
cycle for transportation, emissions from three components,
namely infrastructure, fuels and vehicles, should be taken
into account (EPA 2006). The life cycle phases of the BRT
system are illustrated in Figure 1.

*Corresponding author. Email: shcui@iue.ac.cn

ISSN 1350-4509 print/ISSN 1745-2627 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2010.490657
http://www.informaworld.com
 330 S. Cui et al.

Infrastructure raw material Vehicle raw material

extraction Upstream emissions
extraction

Transport Fuel raw material

exploitation Transport

Infrastructure material and Vehicle componemt

component manufacture Transport
manufacture

Fuel production
Transport Transport

Transport
Infrastructure construction Vehicle assembly
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010

Vehicle operartion and

Infrastructure use and maintenance maintenance
Direct emissions

Infrastructure demolition Transport Vehicle disposal

Recycling Land filling Recycling

Downstream emissions

Figure 1. The system boundary of the carbon footprint assessment for the BRT system.

Infrastructure carbon footprint study is listed in the material inventory (Scheuer et al. 2003,
Material production phase Asif et al. 2007) (Table 1). The GHG emissions in produ-
cing the materials and components can be calculated from
Material production contains four processes: burden from raw
Equation (1):
materials extraction (e.g. drilling for oil, mining for iron ore,
etc.), transportation and processing, refining raw materials into
engineered materials and manufacturing (e.g. extrusion of X
n fi
steel or aluminium, etc.). The primary material embodied Im ¼ qi  ð1 þ wi Þ  ei  CF; (1)
energy, on a per kilogram basis, for materials used in this i¼1

Table 1. Embodied energy for building materials, waste factor for materials in construction and emissions for materials.
Embodied energy Waste factor Consumption GHG emissions
Material (MJ/kg) (%) (tons) (tCO2e)
Cement (in concrete) 3.7 2.50 203,893.03 201,854.10a
Sand 0.6 5.00 287,298.85 126,981.50
Gravel 0.2 5.00 647,983.81 95,466.16
Steel 12.3 5.00 59,474.22 538,876.41
Aluminium primary 207 2.50 150.52 22,951.81
Glass 6.8 5.00 39.37 197.21
Ceramic tiles 5.5 5.00 2,046.18 8,290.14
Bricks 2.7 5.00 6,661.27 13,248.78
Acrylate lacquer 30.8 5.00 85.85 1,947.72
Asphalt 50.2 5.00 6,493.10 194.79a
Aggregate 1,010,008.62
Note: aThe default values are 0.99 tCO2e per t cement and 0.03 tCO2e per t asphalt (UNFCCC 2006).
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology
where Im (tCO2e) defines the GHG emissions in infrastruc-
ture material production; n is the number of building mate-
rials and elements; qi is the amount of material i; ei (MJ/kg)
is the energy required for manufacturing material i; wi is a
factor for waste of material i produced during the assembly;
!
CF (t/TJ) is a conversion factor recommended by the IPCC
(1996): 1 TJ coal equivalent can release 92.64 tCO2, 10.00
tCH4 and 1.40 tN2O.
Transport and construction phase
Transport mainly covers shipping of materials from the
manufacturing site to the construction site as well as trans-
portation to landfill/recyclers. The unit inventory loadings
of transport vehicle operation can be calculated by multi-
plying fuel consumption by the sum of engine operation and
fuel production (Huang et al. 2009), see Equation (2):
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010
TE ¼ FC  ðEO þ FPÞ; (2)
where TE (gCO2e/kmt) is transport emissions; FC (MJ/km) is
fuel consumption, i.e. amount of fuel added to the engine, using
a lower heating value and converted from l/km; EO (g/MJ) is
emissions from engine operation, where g emissions per MJ
work energy output from the shaft of the engine are converted
from g/kwh and FP (g/MJ) defines emissions from fuel
production.
Construction is the burden from electricity used for
power tools and lighting, as well as diesel used by heavy
equipment at the construction site. Activities are site pre-
paration, structural and envelope installation, mechanical
and electrical equipment installation, and interior finishing.
Energy and environmental flows associated with the con-
struction process could not be developed directly, since there
is no record of equipment use or operational hours. Here,
5% of total embodied energy is used to account for both
structural and interior construction (see Scheuer et al. 2003).
Operation and maintenance phase
Operation phase activities consist of lighting (road lamps)
and equipment operation, such as escalators, card readers
and air-conditioning. The emissions can be estimated from
electricity consumption of such equipment. During the
maintenance phase, we mainly consider emissions from
materials production and road repairs. The materials used
in maintenance are mostly cement, sand, gravel and asphalt.
The energy for road repair is thought to be 5% of total
embodied energy of the material used in maintenance, as
in the construction phase.
Table 2. GHG emission for fuels manufacture.
Emission factor
Fuel (gCO2e/mmBtu) (g/mmBtu)
Gas 12,608.74 12,266.81
Diesel 9,765.94 9,499.59
331
Decommissioning and recycling phase
The conventional decommissioning process often results in
landfill disposal of the majority of materials. However,
some materials can be separated and reused in order to
reduce disposal costs and environmental burdens
(Birgisdottir et al. 2007; Carpenter et al. 2007). This study
assumes recycling of the following materials: steel and
aluminium. The decommissioning energy for this study is
calculated using 90% of the total energy in the construction
stage (Qiao 2006).
Fuel carbon footprint
A fuel cycle is a complicated process, including upstream
emissions associated with drilling, exploration and produc-
tion, crude oil transport, refining, fuel transport, storage and
product retailing, as well as downstream disposal or recycling
of oil products (Delucchi and Mark 2003). In this paper, we
examine the fuel cycle (raw material exploitation–fuel pro-
duction–vehicle operation; Table 2), using the GREET model
developed by the Argonne National Laboratory as a research
simulation tool. As recommended by the IPCC (1996), emis-
sions of the three GHGs are combined with their global
warming potentials (GWPs): 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4 and
310 for N2O. Table 2 shows the GHG emission factors of
fuel manufacture (Wang et al. 2007).
Vehicle carbon footprint
The vehicle life cycle includes: raw material recovery and
extraction, transportation and material processing, material
production and fabrication, vehicle component production,
vehicle assembly, operation, disposal and recycling
(Burnham et al. 2006).
Material production phase
The processes included in the vehicle material production
phase are: raw material recovery, raw materials transporta-
tion and processing and material production, fabrication and
processing. The GHG emissions in producing materials and
components can be calculated from Equation (3):
X
n
Vm ¼ qi  ð1 þ wi Þ  Mi ; (3)
i¼1
where Vm is GHG emissions from vehicle material produc-
tion (tCO2e/t); n is number of vehicle materials and ele-
ments; qi is amount of material i; Mi is the emission factor
CO2 CH4 N2O
(g/mmBtu) (g/mmBtu)
13.50 0.19
10.51 0.15
 332 S. Cui et al.
Table 3. GHG emissions for vehicle assembly, disposal and recycling.
Emissions CO2 (g/vehicle)
Paint production 31,319.00
Vehicle painting 234,446.00698,900.00
Vehicle assembly 312,523.00
Vehicle disposal
Total ADR 1,277,188.00
required for manufacturing material i (tCO2e/t); while waste
of material i produced during manufacture is denoted by wi.
Assembly, disposal and recycling phase
The assembly, disposal and recycling (ADR) phase includes
vehicle assembly, painting, disposal and recycling. The
emissions associated with vehicle assembly, e.g. body weld-
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010
ing, assembling and painting, are calculated using data from
a survey of automotive assembly plants (Burnham et al.
2006). In addition, life-cycle emission data from research
on paint production and vehicle painting were also collected
(Burnham et al. 2006; Papasavva et al. 2001, 2002). On the
basis of these data, the GREET (2.7) model calculated that
emissions related to ADR of a medium-sized passenger car
is 1.33 tCO2e. Details for emissions of the ADR phase are
shown in Table 3.
Operation phase
Direct emissions occur during the operation of vehicles.
GHG emissions per kilometer (Druckman and Jackson
2009) are calculated based on consumption of each fuel
type and CO2e emissions per litre of fuel. Equation (4)
calculates emissions per km for different vehicle categories
(UNFCCC 2006).
X   Nx;i

EFKM ;i ¼ ECx;i  EFCO2 ;x þ EFCH4 ;x þ EFN2 O;x  ;
x
Ni
(4)
where EFKM,,i is the transport emissions factor per distance of
vehicle category i (gCO2e per km driven); ECx,i is the energy
consumption of fuel type x in vehicle category i (litres per
km); EFCO2 ,x is the CO2 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO2
per litre); EFCH4 ,x is CH4 emission factor for fuel type x (gCO2e
per litre, based on GWP); EFN2 O,x is N2O emission factor for
fuel type x (gCO2e per litre, based on GWP); Ni is the total
number of vehicles in category i; while Nx,i is the number of
vehicles in vehicle category i using fuel type x.
The GHG emissions per passenger trip for different
vehicle categories can be calculated from Equation (5):
EFKM ;i  DDi
EFP;i ¼ ; (5)
PZ
where EFP,i is the transport emissions factor in vehicle
category i (g per passenger trip); EFKM,i is emissions from
CH4 (g/vehicle) N2O (g/vehicle) CO2e (t/vehicle)
69.33 0.73 33,000.95
263.37 2.59 240,779.53
1,318.68 10.63 729,886.76
420.74 4.42 322,729.71
2,072.12 18.37 1,326,396.95
vehicle category i (gCO2e per km); DDi is total distance
driven by vehicle category i (km per year); Pz is the total
passenger capacity of vehicle category i (passenger trip).
Emission reductions
The emission reductions of the whole BRT system can be
calculated from Equation (6):
ERy ¼ BEy  PEy ; (6)
where ERy is emission reductions in year y (tCO2e); BEy is
baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e) and PEy is project
emissions in year y (tCO2e).
The baseline emissions for all passengers transported
are calculated using Equation (7). This is differentiated
according to the mode of transport that the person would
have used in the absence of the project.
X
BEy ¼ EFi  Pi ; (7)
i
where BEy is baseline emissions in year y (tCO2e); EFi is
transport emissions factor per passenger in vehicle category
i in year y (g per passenger trip); Pi is passengers transported
by the project (BRT) in year y who, without the project
activity, would have used category i, where i ¼ Z (buses,
public transport), T (taxis), C (passenger cars) or M (motor-
cycles) (passenger trips). The percentage of passengers who
in the absence of the BRT would have used other transport
types was based on representative surveys (sample size was
574, effective rate of 100%). This default questionnaire for
the survey was from the baseline methodology for BRT
projects (UNFCCC 2006). The project emissions are only
from vehicle operation of the new BRT system including
both trunk routes and feeder lines as in Equations (4) and
(5).
Results
Carbon footprint of the infrastructure
The total carbon footprint of the infrastructure was
42,037.43 tCO2e per year based on a 50 year life span
(Table 4). Operation and maintenance activities accounted
for the majority of total GHG emissions, about 55.49% of
the carbon footprint. Materials production deducted emis-
sion reduction from recycling accounted for about 39.78%
of total life-cycle emissions. Transport activities including
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 333

Table 4. Carbon footprints for the infrastructure of the BRT system.

Category GHG emissions (tCO2e per year)
Infrastructure material production 20,200.17
Transport 149.89
Infrastructure construction 967.13
Infrastructure operation 17,273.74
Infrastructure maintenance 6,055.29
Infrastructure decommissioning 870.42
Infrastructure recycling 3,479.21
Aggregate 42,037.43

shipping of materials from the manufacturing to the con-
struction site and transportation to landfill/recyclers
accounted for only about 0.36% of the total life-cycle
GHG emissions. Construction and decommissioning were
responsible for 2.30% and 2.07% of the infrastructure car-
bon footprint, respectively. Infrastructure carbon footprints
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010
detailed data for consumption and emission of infrastructure
materials are shown in Table 1.
The total transportation GHG emissions, including ship-
ping of materials from manufacturing to construction site
and transportation to landfill/recyclers accounted for only
7,494.45 tCO2e, or 149.89 tCO2e per year. Material trans-

are annualised based on the life span of the project. This is
due to the fact that emissions from material production,
transport, construction, decommissioning and recycling
occur at the beginning or the end of the infrastructure life
cycle, while other direct emissions such as operation and
maintenance are annual. Not annualising the upstream and
downstream emissions would thus grossly overstate emis-
sions in the first year and would not be compatible with the
approach of monitoring annual emissions (UNFCCC 2006).
port accounted for the majority of total transport emissions,
about 93.69% of the transport carbon footprint. Gravel,
cement and sand were the largest contributors to the GHG
emissions probably due to their greater mass. Transport to
landfill and recyclers accounted for 5.85% and 0.45% of total
emissions, respectively. Average distances from Xiamen BRT
sites to sources of sand, gravel, cement, metal, glass, etc. were
used as materials transport distances (Table 5). The default
distances from the disposal sites to landfill and recyclers are
5 and 10 km, respectively.

Infrastructure material production

The total GHG emissions of infrastructure material produc- Carbon footprint of vehicles and fuels
tion were 1,010,008.62 tCO2e and 20,200.17 tCO2e per The total GHG emissions of the vehicle life cycle was
year, respectively. Cement, steel and sand were the largest 13,889.64 tCO2e per year (Table 6), consisting of three
contributors to embodied energy and emissions. The important parts: vehicle material production, ADR and

Table 5. Transport parameters and GHG emissions.

Materials transport Materials transport Landfill transport Recycling transport
Freight Origin Destination distance (km)a (tCO2e) (tCO2e) (tCO2e)
Cement (in Longyan, Fujian Xiamen, 142 2,300.59 79.03
concrete) Fujian
Sand Zhangzhou, Xiamen, 50 1,141.44 108.71
Fujian Fujian
Gravel Zhangzhou, Xiamen, 50 2,574.44 245.18
Fujian Fujian
Steel Zhangzhou, Xiamen, 75 354.44 33.76
Fujian Fujian
Aluminium Xiamen, Fujian Xiamen, 5 0.06 0.11
Fujian
Glass Yixing, Jiangsu Xiamen, 1,063 3.33 0.01
Fujian
Ceramic tiles Foshan, Xiamen, 738 119.99 0.77
Guangdong Fujian
Bricks Xiamen, Fujian Xiamen, 5 2.65 2.52
Fujian
Acrylate Sanming, Fujian Xiamen, 410 2.80 0.03
lacquer Fujian
Asphalt Maoming, Xiamen, 1,012 522.13 2.46
Guangdong Fujian
Aggregate 7,494.45 7,021.86 438.72 33.87
(tCO2e)
Note: aThe distances were measured using Google Maps.
 334 S. Cui et al.

Table 6. Carbon footprints of vehicles and fuels in the BRT system.

Category GHG emissions (tCO2e per year)
Vehicle material production 801.25
Assembling–Disposal–Recycling 29.18
Fuel consumption 13,059.21
Aggregate 13,889.64

Table 7. GHG emissions for vehicle materials manufacture in the BRT system.
Trunk routes Feeder lines
Emission factor XMQ6127G XMQ6891G
Material (tCO2e/t or dl) (tCO2e/vehicle) (tCO2e/vehicle)
Virgin steel 4,899,022.19 36.62 27.07
Cast iron 481,133.27 0.10 0.10
Virgin wrought 11,014,556.08 0.73 0.54
aluminium
Lead 847,564.00 0.08 0.08
Copper 7,763,188.81 0.27 0.27
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010

Glass 1,393,976.25 0.93 0.69

Plastic 4,332,135.13 0.83 0.61
Rubber 2,898,510.32 1.43 1.43
Engine oil 2,016.19 0.05 0.05
Aggregate 41.06 30.85

fuel consumption, including the fuel life cycle. Fuel con-
sumption accounted for the majority of total GHG emis-
sions, at about 94.02% of the vehicle carbon footprint.
Vehicle material production and ADR activities accounted
for 5.77% and 0.21% of total vehicle emissions, respec-
tively. According to the statistics for buses from the Xiamen
Metal Recycling Company, a default vehicle retirement age
of 10 years was used in this paper.
There are mainly two kinds of vehicle in the BRT system
in Xiamen City, trunk route vehicles (XMQ6127G) and
feeder line vehicles (XMQ6891G). The emission factors
for vehicle materials manufacture are shown in Table 7.
Carbon footprint of the BRT system
Combining the infrastructure and vehicle carbon footprint,
Figure 2 shows the total carbon footprint of the BRT in
Xiamen City, which was 55,927.07 tCO2e per year.
Infrastructure operations, infrastructure material produc-
tion, fuel consumption and infrastructure maintenance
activities account for the first four parts of the total carbon
footprint, whereas other parts together only represent 5.04%
of total emissions.
Emission reductions of the BRT system
Based on Equations 6–8, the project emissions were
13,059.21 tCO2e per year. Taking the direct emissions into
consideration, we found that the BRT system would
decrease emissions by 25,255.67 tCO2e per year. Table 8
shows GHG emissions for operation of the different vehicle
types. Figure 3 shows the percentage of passengers trans-
ported by BRT that, without the project activity, would have
used other categories.

Raw materials Use and

Transport Manufacture Demolition Recycling and land filling
extraction maintenance
149.89 2,516.09 877.52 –3,476.21
21,001.42 34,861.36

Infrastructure Transport Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Transport

materials construction use and maintenance demolition 9.45 Land filling
140.44
20,200.17 967.13 23,329.03 870.42

Infrastructure
recycling
Fuel
Transport Transport Fuel use –3,479.21
Fuel materials production
1,526.87 11,532.34

Vehicle Vehicle assembly–

Transport Transport Land filling
materials disposal–recycling
801.25 29.18

Figure 2. Carbon footprints of the BRT system (tCO2e per year).

 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology
Table 8. GHG emissions for the operation of different vehicles.
Vehicles Fuel type
Taxis Gas
Normal buses Diesel
Cars Gas
Motorcycles Gas
BRT (trunk routes) Diesel
BRT (feeder lines) Diesel
85.02%
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010
Figure 3. Percentage of passengers transported by BRT that, without the project activity, would have used other categories of transport.
Discussion
Carbon footprint and direct emissions
It is interesting that direct emissions of vehicles only
accounted for 23% of the total carbon footprint of the BRT
system. The emissions could be underestimated if other
emissions in the life cycle of the BRT system had been
ignored. This is supported by the report of GHG emissions
from the US Transportation Sector (1990–2003). According
to the EPA (2006), the total life-cycle emissions for the USA
transportation sector are estimated to be 27–37% higher than
direct fuel combustion emissions. However, these estimates
do not include some important components of the transporta-
tion life cycle, such as upstream vehicle emissions for non-
highway vehicles, and emissions from the construction and
maintenance of infrastructure. Furthermore, if only consider-
ing direct emissions, the BRT system could achieve reduc-
tions of approximately 25,255.67 tCO2e per year compared
to the no-build option. That means the BRT system can
definitely decrease GHG emissions through its mass transit
system. Analogously, William and Jerram (2006) also found
that BRT offered the greatest potential for GHG reductions,
when comparing expected CO2 emissions from three
scenarios.
In addition, we analysed the composition of BRT carbon
footprints to probe the emissions at each stage. Apart from
fuel consumption, the largest share of carbon footprints in
the BRT system was concentrated in material production
activities of both infrastructure and vehicles, which
accounted for 31.33% of the total carbon footprint. The
largest contributors to material production were cement,
steel and sand, which is due to their large mass rather than
their material production energy.
335
GHG emissions
(gCO2e/passenger trip)
767.10
322.19
3,226.72
277.98
142.28
165.60
3.66%
Normal buses
4.36%
Cars
1.22%
Taxis
0.17%
Motorcycles
3.66%
Electric bikes
1.92%
Motorless vehicles
Induced traffic
System boundary – a key issue
Accounting for carbon footprints is a question of quantify-
ing and presenting emissions data for the whole life cycle of
products in a consistent manner (Weidema et al. 2008);
therefore, the system boundary is a key issue for calculating
carbon footprints. In recent studies, the most notable meth-
odology for carbon footprint analysis was that developed by
the Carbon Trust (2008), which can cover all supply chain
steps from raw material to disposal. However, the product
carbon footprints used in a product label include steps up to
the arrival of the product at a retail store, plus disposal;
emissions in the use of the product are not included, which
is an important part of the overall carbon footprint. In
particular, a notable evaluation method for the GHG emis-
sions in the BRT system is the approved baseline methodol-
ogy AM0031 (UNFCCC 2006). The methodology is
applicable to project activities that reduce emissions
through the construction and operation of a BRT system
for urban road-based transport. Nevertheless, this method
ignores emissions from vehicle production and infrastruc-
ture operation of the BRT system. Furthermore, the metho-
dology focuses solely on cement and/or asphalt as the main
energy-intensive materials used for construction.
Conclusions
This paper has developed a methodology to estimate total
GHG emissions in carbon equivalents from a BRT system
across its life cycle (carbon footprints) based on the LCA
approach. The study shows that BRT is a promising transit
option for cities looking to reduce their transportation-
related GHG emissions, if only direct vehicle emissions
 336 S. Cui et al.
are considered. To reduce emissions, developing clean
energy, applying energy-saving construction materials and
energy conservation management are the main effective
measures. Therefore, carbon footprint analysis can provide
a broader perspective on GHG impact, help identify the
main drivers of GHG emissions and explore ways to reduce
emissions across all phases of the BRT life cycle.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences
(KZCX2-YW-450) and The Ministry of Science and Technology
of China (2009DFB90120).We would like to thank PhD candidate
Zengbin Zhang at the University of California, Santa Barbara for
the paper review.
References
Abdelghany KF, Mahmassani HS, Abdelghany AF. 2007. A mod-
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010
eling framework for Bus Rapid Transit operations evaluation
and service planning. Transp Plann Technol. 30:571–591.
Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R. 2007. Life cycle assessment: A case study
of a dwelling home in Scotland. Built Environ. 42:1391–1394.
Barthelmie RJ, Morris SD, Schechter P. 2008.Carbon neutral
Biggar: calculating the community carbon footprint and
renewable energy options for footprint reduction. Sustain
Sci.3:267–282.
Bellasio R, Bianconi R, Corda G, Cucca P. 2007. Emission inven-
tory for the road transport sector in Sardinia (Italy). Atmos
Environ. 41:677–691.
Bitterman A, Hess DB. 2008. Bus rapid transit identity meets
universal design. Disabil Soc. 23(5): 445–459.
Birgisdottir H, Bhander G, Hauschild MZ. 2007. Life cycle assess-
ment of disposal of residues from municipal solid waste incin-
eration: recycling of bottom ash in road construction or land
filling in Denmark evaluated in the ROAD-RES model. Waste
Manage. 27:75–84.
Burnham A, Wang M, Wu Y. 2006. Development and applications
of GREET 2.7 – The transportation vehicle-cycle model.
Chicago, USA: Argonne National Laboratory.
Carbon Trust. 2008. Guide to PAS 2050. How to assess the carbon
footprint of goods and services. London, UK: Carbon Trust.
Carpenter AC, Gardner KH, Fopiano J. 2007. Life cycle based risk
assessment of recycled materials in roadway construction.
Waste Manage. 27(10): 1458–1464.
Christen K. 2007. The carbon footprint of transportation fuels.
Environ Sci Technol. 41:6636–6636.
Cole A. 2009. More treatment in surgeries and at home will help
cut NHS carbon footprint. Br Med J. 338:b345.
Delucchi M, Mark A. 2003. Lifecycle emissions model (LEM).
California: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California.
Druckman A, Jackson T. 2009.The carbon footprint of UK house-
holds 1990–2004: a socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-
multi-regional input-output model. Ecol Econ. 68:2066–2077.
[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Greenhouse
gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector, 1990–2003.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
Estupinan N, Rodriguez DA. 2008. The relationship between
urban form and station boardings for Bogota’s BRT. Transp
Res A Policy Pract. 42:296–306.
Friedrich E, Pillay S, Buckley CA. 2009. Carbon footprint analysis
for increasing water supply and sanitation in South Africa: a
case study. J Cleaner Prod. 17:1–12.
Fuglestvedt J, Berntsen T, Myhre G, Rypdal K, Skeie RB. 2008.
Climate forcing from the transport sectors. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 105:454–458.
Golotta K, Hensher DA. 2008. Why is the Brisbane Bus Rapid
Transit system deemed a success?. Road Transp Res.17:3–16.
Hensher DA. 2008. Climate change, enhanced greenhouse gas
emissions and passenger transport – what can we do to make
a difference? Transp Res D-Tr E. 13:95–111.
Huang Y, Bird R, Heidrich O. 2009. Development of a life cycle
assessment tool for construction and maintenance of asphalt
pavements. J Clean Prod. 17(2): 283–296.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1996.
Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. In:
Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N,
Kattenberg A, Maskell K, editors. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge
(UK): Cambridge University Press.
Kenny T, Gray NF. 2009. Comparative performance of six carbon
footprint models for use in Ireland. Environ Impact Assess
Rev. 29:1–6.
Klemes J, Pierucci S. 2008. PRES 2007: Carbon footprint and
emission minimization, integration and management of energy
sources, industrial application and case studies. Energy.
33:1477–1479.
Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Weber CL. 2008. The importance
of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ Sci
Technol. 42:5839–5842.
Papasavva S, Kia S, Claya J, Gunther R. 2001. Characterization of
automotive paints: an environmental impact analysis. Prog
Org Coat. 43(1–3):193–206.
Papasavva S, Kia S, Claya J, Gunther R. 2002. Life cycle environ-
mental assessment of paint processes. J Coat Tech. 74(925): 65–76.
Perry S, Klemes J, Bulatov I. 2007. Integrating waste and renew-
able energy to reduce the carbon footprint of locally integrated
energy sectors. In: 10th Conference process integration, mod-
eling and optimization for energy saving and pollution reduc-
tion; 24–27 June 2007; Ischia, Italy. p. 1489–1497.
Qiao YF. 2006. Studies on energy consumption of traditional
dwelling houses based on life cycle assessment [master’s
thesis]. [Xi’an, China]: Xian University of Architecture and
Technology (in Chinese).
Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P. 2003. Life cycle energy and
environmental performance of a new university building:
modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build.
35:1049–1064.
Singh A, Gangopadhyay S, Nanda PK, Bhattacharya S, Sharma C,
Bhan C. 2008. Trends of greenhouse gas emissions from the
road transport sector in India. Sci Total Environ. 390:124–131.
Somner J, Scott K, Morris D, Gaskell A, Shepherd I. 2009.
Ophthalmology carbon footprint: something to be considered?
J Cataract Refract Surg. 35:202–203.
Steenhof P, Woudsma C, Sparling E. 2006. Greenhouse gas emis-
sions and the surface transport of freight in Canada. Transp
Res D-Tr E. 11:369–376.
UNFCCC. 2006. CDM–EB: Approved baseline methodology
AM0031 (Version 01) Baseline Methodology for Bus Rapid
Transit Projects [Internet]. 2006. Publisher: United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change; [cited 2010 Jun
11]. Available from: http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/
FileStorage/CDMWF_ AM_IK6BL2878HZ4NHV86V65CB
J2Y1ZBDI.
Wang M, Wu Y, Elgowainy A. 2007. Operating manual for
GREET: Version 1.7. Chicago: Argonne National Laboratory.
Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Lokke S. 2008.
Carbon footprint – A catalyst for life cycle assessment? J Ind
Ecol.12:3–6.
 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 337

William V, Jerram LC. 2006. The potential for BRT to reduce trans-
portation-related CO2 emissions. J Public Transp. 9(3):219–237.
Wohrnschimmel H, Zuk M, Martinez-Villa G, Cardenas B, Bracho
LR, Bremauntz AF. 2008. The impact of a Bus Rapid Transit
system on commuters’ exposure to Benzene, CO, PM2.5 and
PM10 in Mexico City. Atmos Environ. 42:8194–8203.
Downloaded By: [CAS Chinese Academy of Sciences] At: 07:02 30 November 2010
Yan X, Crookes RJ. 2009.Reduction potentials of energy demand
and GHG emissions in China’s road transport sector. Energy
Policy. 37:658–668.
Zachary J. 2008. Options for reducing a coal-fired plant’s carbon
footprint, part II. Power. 152:50–55.

View publication stats