A Sustainability Assessment of the UK Car Fleet Essay (Book Review)

Introduction

Sustainability has become a popular concept in recent decades due to the climate change emergency and the need to mitigate its impact. The present literature review will focus on the definition of sustainability, indicators, and stakeholders of the transportation system, sustainability assessment methods, sustainable transport, and the relevant assessments recently conducted in the United Kingdom, particularly in London. Therefore, the assessment of the UK car fleet sustainability represents an important task aimed at identifying current flaws and shortcomings and developing ways to address the challenges of sustainable transportation.

Definition of Sustainability

Sustainability has a relatively long history, though the modern mainstream concept was shaped in the twentieth century. The first mentions of the term appeared between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries [8, p. 2]. It was the concept of sustainable yield as a part of the framework for addressing the deforestation problem [8, p. 2]. During the industrial revolution, social justice and income generation, against economic and population growth background, concerned political economists [8, p. 2]. In the twentieth century, anthropocentric conservationists saw the necessity to conserve natural resources as a way to sustainable consumption, and biocentric preservationists insisted on preserving nature because of its inherent value [8, p. 2]. As one can see, people attempted to create an initial theoretical framework of sustainability, as they encountered corresponding challenges more frequently with the pace of time.

Nowadays, the world seems to have a substantially clearer understanding of sustainability. However, the spectrum of definitions has broadened, so many researchers become perplexed when selecting the most suitable concept [9, p. 1]. Given this, many studies containing the term in the title provide no definition, which points out a methodological error [9, p. 1]. Thus, Salas-Zapata and Ortiz‐Muñoz propose several meanings for the concept [9, p. 3].

The first is sustainability as “a set of guiding criteria for human action” [9, p. 3]. Under this statement, one should understand the concept as integrating socio-ecological criteria into the planning and functioning of a particular reference system. The second variant presents sustainability as one of the goals of humankind. It encompasses environmental, social, and economic goals and their idealized relationship within a particular reference system [9, p. 3]. Third, sustainability can also be regarded as an object that can be studied and intervened, as well as the reference system’s behavior [9, p. 5]. Finally, one can also understand sustainability as “an approach of study” [9, p. 5]. In this stance, researchers use sustainability to explore different variables to evaluate the environmental, social, and economic properties of a reference system [9, p. 5]. Thus, the concept of sustainability applies to a range of areas pertaining to the environment, society, and economy, which form three key domains.

Despite the mentioned above, sustainability can be understood in various ways, thus contributing to confusion in defining this phenomenon. However, many scholars may blunder ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development definitions, abrading the distinction between action and outcome [19, p. 77]. Virtanen et al. state that sustainability should be regarded as a target or a result of a socio-ecological process called sustainable development [19, p. 77-78]. For instance, some indigenous communities use notions similar to ‘sustainability’ that correspond to healthy living, consideration of competencies and skills, and socio-economic, spiritual, and emotional well-being [19, p. 78]. Thus, it refers to the capacity of a particular community to manage the use of natural resources in a way to ensures the interconnectedness of the community and environment and maintains communal existence [19, p. 78]. Given the abundance of the term interpretations, one should cautiously and precisely choose the concept that will be the most relevant to certain research.

Although sustainability has become a word widely used by many companies in their social responsibility missions, the concept should imply a particular function and purpose, taking into account the context. Within the transportation framework, one should also consider urban sustainability, which provides for integration and mutual development of all city subsystems without impeding the development of surrounding areas [3, p. 269]. Moreover, the concept of urban sustainability is linked to urban resilience and urban transformation. While resilience means the ability of urban systems to recover from disasters, transformation refers to major positive changes in subsystems and infrastructure [3, p. 269]. For the purposes of the present literature review, it makes sense to distinguish a specific definition based on Salas-Zapata and Ortiz‐Muñoz’s [9, pp. 3-5] ideas regarding sustainability as an object and guidance for human action. Moreover, the current research should be action-oriented to provide insights for further development of sustainability policies in the UK transport system.

Indicators and Stakeholders

Environmental indicators reflect the level of consumption of resources, such as energy, water, and land, and the resulting waste. Thus, the transport system should be considered from the perspective of producing vehicles, their operation, and maintenance. The major issue of the automotive industry is always environmental damage, which has short- and long-term consequences like immediate pollution and exhaustion of natural resources [2, p. 3]. Currently, the main and most relevant indicators to consider in the present review are emissions of pollutants, total waste produced, and the amount of water used.

When describing economic indicators of the sustainable transport system, one should focus on the external impact they produce. For instance, the evaluation of various impacts of transportation, such as the socio-economic effect of traffic congestion, is also vital for sustainable development [1, p. 2]. The influence of a particular transportation mode requires studying its potential for economic improvement compared to other modes. As for the stakeholders, the government and investors are the most affected parties.

The government has other functions besides funding infrastructure and the transport system. For instance, it can regulate pricing policies for petroleum and the use of public transport, so they may be highly sensitive to unsustainable practices that lead to additional costs or financial losses. The investors are threatened with the loss of profits in this case. Communities are impacted in terms of the safe environment and public health services, as well as their costs. The users of the transport system are impacted directly by the mobility they receive. They can also obtain financial advantage as a part of a community that benefits from taxes the government collects from the transport system entities. The economic indicators for this domain can include value added by vehicle production, medical costs, costs of physical damage, cost per kilometer, and so further. Here, one should understand that this indicator category can be identified more precisely given a specific issue.

The social indicators represent an integral part of the sustainable transport system and its analysis. Currently, they include accessibility, safety, poverty, quality of life, and housing, though they still cannot reflect the comprehensibility of sustainability issues [20, p. 11]. The key stakeholders are employees, users, and the community because they are directly connected to the transport system. When speaking about employees, one should consider their income and work conditions. Users need to have more options for traveling that must be safe. Finally, the community should also enjoy safe and comfortable travels, as well as have a convenient infrastructure. Given this, the indicators, such as employment rate, the income of the transport system employees, the percentage of injured in accidents, user security, and others, can be considered depending on a specific issue.

Methods for Sustainability Assessment

The Process Analysis Method is one of the frequently used methods for assessing sustainability. This approach employs indicators that show the impacts of human activities on sustainability. It is also based on three domains, namely environmental, social, and economic. According to Tahir and Darton, the Process Analysis Method should be applied following particular stages [13, p. 1599-1601]. The first one is a business overview, in which one needs to thoroughly review business operations, as well as identify inputs, outputs, and stakeholders. The second step is one of the most crucial because it requires selecting the most relevant definition of sustainable development. Usually, it is related to conducting operations in a way that does not compromise the future generation’s ability to fulfill their needs. In the third phase, spatial and temporal system boundaries are identified. The spatial factor considers the size of the reference system, while the temporal one refers to the period during which business operations are conducted. The fourth stage is building a sustainability framework with regard to the sustainability domains and capital stores of value.

Another component of the sustainability framework is internal impact generators, which allow for measuring the impact of business activities on the organizational stores of value. There is also an element of external impact receivers and issues that encompass the effects on stakeholders of a selected reference system. Indicators and metrics in this step allow measuring an issue and giving it value with regard to the context of a business. The final step is verification and modification, when one must ensure the applicability and relevance of the indicators and metrics and revise them until they are sufficient for the sustainability performance analysis.

Since the transportation system is complex, it comprises many areas that may draw particular attention in terms of changes toward sustainability. While evaluating sustainable transport research, Xianbo et al. identified multiple topics in the transportation field, including sustainable transport indicators, environmental impact, travel behaviors, new fuels, and sustainable transport policy, which can also be considered within the context of the UK transportation system [20, p. 1].

In view of this, it becomes relevant to regard sustainability assessment approaches applicable to transport policies. Sayyadi and Awasthi offer an integrated approach combining system dynamic simulation and analytic network process to evaluate sustainable transportation policies [11, p. 1]. The authors analyzed trip rate reduction, car ownership, trip sharing, road network length reduction, and average kilometers traveled in relation to fuel consumption, emissions, and congestion level [11, p. 1]. The results demonstrated the highest effectiveness of policies pertaining to trip sharing in terms of achieving sustainability of the transport system [11, p. 1]. Therefore, conducting the sustainable transport policy evaluation with the mentioned method is also topical for the UK because it may facilitate identifying conceptually new ideas concerning the improvement of sustainable transport.

Sustainable Transport

Transportation can be considered an advanced achievement of humankind, as there are numerous options to travel from one point to another. However, transportation brings a range of challenges together with benefits. For instance, the development of transportation increases the employment rate and contributes to gross value added [6, p. 1]. Meanwhile, it affects air quality and aggravates climate change due to carbon emissions causing the greenhouse effect [6, p. 1]. Although the definition of sustainability is frequently exceedingly broad and generalized, it makes sense to draw attention to the intersections between the three domains mentioned earlier. They include social cohesion or the combination of social and economic dimensions, environmental responsibility referring to social and environmental elements, and economic efficiency representing environmental and economic components [6, p. 3]. Notably, none of the domains can be dominant within the sustainability framework.

Transportation is inextricably connected to sustainable development because it influences all three dimensions. The recognition of this fact came in the last years of the past century, and since those times, two documents were adopted, namely Agenda 21, which came to force earlier, and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) [16, p. 16]. These regulations provided the most critical points regarding sustainable transport within the context of public transport systems, delivery networks, infrastructure, affordability, and so on. Moreover, economic growth and better accessibility depend on transport sustainability [16, p. 32]. Sustainable transport systems should make the economy more integrated, contributing to environmental protection, city resilience, and social equity, and improve linkages between urban and rural areas, as well as facilitate rural productivity.

Nevertheless, one may admit that such goals can appear unachievable because they are broadly formulated, thus hindering an understanding of what exactly should be done. Making transport sustainable through the implementation of zero-emission programs may be insufficient to significantly reduce inequality or improve affordability. Furthermore, any transport system should know how to safely utilize and recycle old vehicles without damage to the environment. In turn, it requires having an appropriate recycling infrastructure, which may lead to additional expenses for the national economy.

One of the contemporary challenges is the absence of a clear definition explaining sustainable transport. On the one hand, minimization of driving and shift to bicycles looks sound and promising as it has a huge potential to improve the environmental situation and public health. On the other hand, switching from cars to bicycles and buses may have ambiguous consequences for the economy because the demand for petroleum can drop. In addition, traveling by bicycle requires the advancement of cycling and walking infrastructure, so car parking areas can be reduced. Moreover, it is always necessary to distinguish between urban and rural sustainable transport and practices because these two areas require different approaches. The infrastructure of a city is not the same as in a village, so it will require another approach to planning, allocating resources, and implementing sustainable changes. In addition, the sustainability of transport is also determined by the needs of future generations.

The second assumption emphasizes the need to minimize the number of trips along with the distance traveled [6, p. 3]. As one could admit, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the stay-in-home mode significantly contributed to the improvement of the environmental dimension. It has become possible to work remotely, but locking people at home and forbidding them to travel somewhere for vacation, especially when COVID-19 restrictions are gradually lifted, looks unreal. Another statement says about increasing the transportation system’s efficiency by implementing shared car ownership and encouraging the use of low-emission vehicles [6, p. 3].

This proposition is also associated with uncertainty regarding developing and changing not only urban infrastructure but also rural one. The final option is digitalization embodied in smartphone applications offering various modes of traveling instead of car use. Still, it gives rise to doubts about whether this suggestion is relevant for people in suburban and rural areas. On the one part, there can be poor network coverage that limits access to transportation services, and this will adversely contribute to the social dimension. On the other part, Turoń [15, p. 13] describes the associated risks of social exclusion in transport that can be based on economic, physical, geographic, fear-based, spatial, time-based, and facility-access factors. In turn, these barriers require a separate set of measures to address or prevent them because otherwise, the social domain becomes compromised.

Thus, defining the sustainability of the transport system represents a complicated task as it encompasses various factors pertaining to the three dimensions. Keeping a balance between them may look almost impossible because implementing changes for improvement is associated with a considerable influence of such factors as geographic location, cellphone networks, societal tendencies, and many others. Therefore, one can suggest that sustainability refers to the maintenance of the transport system that satisfies the present generation’s needs and does not impede this opportunity for the next generations.

Sustainability Assessments Conducted on the UK Car Fleet

One of the assessments conducted on the UK car fleet related to the processes in 1995-2005. Since those times, new technologies have developed, and the automotive market has been enriched with electric vehicles as an alternative to traditional cars with combustion engines. However, there has been a considerable scarcity of reports or literature concerning the UK transport system in recent years. Still, it appeared possible to find the transport sustainability report related to London released in 2021.

The transport system of London is now decently developed and continues to be advanced even though there is evidence of poor waste management practices. According to the study by Pouranian and Shishehbor [7, p. 31], “from about 0.4 million metric tons of suitable waste plastics as the aggregate per year in the UK, only 0.008 million was recycled properly”. The local government strives to achieve the UN’s sustainable development goals by addressing social, environmental, and economic dimensions. For example, the study by Skeete et al. [12, p. 12] has evaluated the UK government’s intention to advance the ban on gasoline and diesel vehicles until 2035.

The study by Ogryzek et al. [5, p. 1] highlights how Lithuania used UK’s experience to improve its own sustainable transportation issues. Finally, with a focused action in the economic domain, London puts efforts into eradicating poverty, facilitating economic growth and employment, contributing to innovations and infrastructure, and developing sustainable cities and communities [18, p. 8]. Thus, one needs to look closer at the achievements of the local government to decide whether the London transport system meets sustainable standards and goals.

The presented findings indicate a range of improvements in environmental, economic, and social areas. For instance, the operational carbon emissions decreased by 9% with the UK becoming “the first major country to implement a net-zero GHG emissions target into national policy” according to the study by Satola et al. [10, p. 10]. Moreover, the number of trees on the road network grew by 5.1% [14, p. 10]. In addition, the percentage of zero-emission bus fleets enlarged by 1.8%, which cannot be regarded as a significant improvement, though it still has contributed to better air quality [14, p. 10]. Furthermore, the report states [14, p. 26] that London has the largest zero-emission bus fleet in Europe. As it is ascertained in the study by van Waes et al. [17, p. 1305], London authorities could learn from Copenhagen’s experience of using bike sharing as a sustainable transportation. It is evident that the city authorities have an excessive focus on the ‘zero’ principle, including zero-emission, zero-carbon, and zero-waste, which must significantly contribute to climate action and life on land.

As has been mentioned, such a transition can be associated with substantial costs to both economic and ecological systems. According to Skeete et al., the UK has a well-functioning economic structure for recycling end-of-life vehicles built on a three-faceted system of dismantlers, smelters, and shredders [12, p. 2]. However, the technologies in the structure are relatively obsolete, though it exists for a long time. Moreover, while the bus fleet is possible to shift to zero-emission, this change can hardly be achievable in the area due to the extensive use of combustion-engine cars. In addition, the rate of car scrapping is 50% lower than the new car sales rate, which speaks for a potential problem with waste management [9, p. 2]. Therefore, London authorities will have to coordinate their efforts better to ensure that zero emission is achieved along with zero waste.

Within the economic area, London has shown a substantial improvement. The number of homes delivered has grown by 109% [14, p. 10]. In addition, the employment rate has positively changed by 12.7% [14, p. 10]. Remarkably, the report statistics do not seem to correspond to the situation in the whole UK. For example, Vickerman claims that the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially changed the national transport system [18, p. 98]. During the crisis, the government supported businesses, the health care system, and citizens, which led to growing pressure on public budgeting [18, p. 98]. Moreover, the unemployment rate increased to 7.5% against the background of escalating central government borrowing [18, p. 98]. In view of this, there can be the risk of uneven distribution of efforts on the way to sustainability as the capital may draw limited resources for the expense of rural areas.

The results in the social dimension also look promising in terms of increasing transportation safety. The report indicates the decreased number of fatal car accidents and severe injuries in London streets by 21% [14, p. 10]. The injury rate for users and employees also dropped by 3% [14, p. 10]. Indeed, the availability of different transport options, including public transport, cycling, or car-sharing, addresses emission control, traffic congestion, and safety [2, p. 6].

Meanwhile, there is a need to consider social stance narrower and with perspectives for the future. Inclusion has to be among the critical issues in the transport system, and it concerns not only people with disabilities or representatives or other vulnerable groups. For instance, the promotion of cycling may not bring desired outcomes, especially among women, because the global tendency shows that this transport option is limited due to considerable gender differences [2, p. 10]. Nevertheless, cycling can increase the social inclusion of women as it offers both affordability and convenience [2, p. 10]. The additional journey time in the step-free network was reduced by almost a minute. As one can see, London strives to improve the sustainability of its transport system and achieve results in the environmental and social stores of value, but still, the most considerable success pertains to the economic domain. However, it is unknown how this dimension will develop in the future.

Some achievements are unsuccessful in terms of sustainable development. For example, the percentage of zero-emission vehicle support dropped by 0.4% [14, p. 10]. This situation raises the question of the approach to promoting this category of transportation. With regard to the mentioned limited use of bicycles by women, the drop can be justified. On the other hand, it could occur due to COVID-19 and the consequent decrease in the overall use of public transport. As Vickerman states, working from home has become a common practice, which also pertains to the UK and London [18, p. 98]. Remote work seemingly sets the problem of moving from one point to another aside, but any city cannot refuse to have public transport. The author suggests that the transportation system capacity will be needed in any case but for a smaller number of passengers, which broaches the subject of expenses and what will be the source of covering them [18, p. 98]. Thus, substantial changes may pose particular financial and economic constraints, though they can improve the environmental store of value.

Nevertheless, environmental issues may become even more critical for London and the whole UK because of poor waste management. The percentage of commercial and industrial waste recycled significantly decreased by 6.4% [14, p. 10]. One must understand that making the transport system more sustainable requires a physical change in the whole infrastructure or its parts, which will inevitably lead to construction waste. Kabirifar et al. [4, p. 1] that waste is produced as a result of repairing, construction, or renovation, and it concerns not only buildings but also roads. Furthermore, when planning waste management, there is a need to consider different types of waste, including asphalt, concrete, stones, dirt, and so further, that should be recycled using different approaches [4, p. 1].

The report states that currently, the London transport system strives to increase its recycling rates through the reuse and recovery of redundant equipment, as well as recycling wood [14, p. 30]. However, the critical question touches on the reasons for ineffective waste management in the area because there is no relevant information in the report. Supposedly, the barriers can be related to the cost of equipment or materials involved in recycling, disposal-associated expenses, insufficient support for green development, health impacts of waste collection, and so further [4, p. 13]. Thus, the local authorities will have to examine the constraints and limitations of waste management and take appropriate measures.

The London authorities have ambitions to make the railway system 100% zero-emission, as well as enable the transition of the municipal bus to this mode with supportive financing from the government. Whatever the case, the city needs to put more effort into the improvement of the environmental dimension. Since waste management represents an urgent challenge, the assessment of population growth in London will be needed to identify the amount of waste produced and then the framework developed to address the issue. For instance, it can be the 3Rs strategy that refers to ‘reduce, reuse, and recycle’ [4, pp. 9-10]. Although the London transport system partially practices reusing and recycling, it would be helpful to identify a broader scope of relevant activities under the proposed framework. Furthermore, the local authorities must focus on reducing waste as the central strategy as the highest priority in improving the environmental dimension. As has been previously noted, the scarcity of reports regarding the UK transport system contributes to the incompleteness of the analysis and the absence of the whole picture of sustainable development in the area.

Conclusion

Finally, the sustainability assessment of the UK car fleet plays an essential role in clearing a path to sustainable development. The analysis of the sustainability concept has shown that it has many interpretations, so researchers need to select a precise meaning of sustainability when conducting a study. For the present literature review, considering sustainability as an object and guide for human action appears to be the most suitable. In addition, two methods for assessing the sustainability of a transport system have been distinguished. They include the Process Analysis Method and the combination of system dynamics simulation and analytic network process to evaluate the sustainability of transportation policies. Defining the concept of sustainable transport has been complicated due to the multi-faceted connection of the transportation system with factors in all three domains discussed. The analysis of the sustainability report has shown considerable achievements in the sustainability of London’s transport system. However, there is still an area for improvement in the environmental domain, which requires additional research and information due to insufficient literature on this topic.

References

1. Afrin, T., Yodo, N., “A Survey of Road Traffic Condestion Measures towards a Sustainable and Resilient Transportation System,” Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 11, 2020, pp. 1-23. Web.
2. Bamwesigye D., Hlavackova P., “Analysis of Sustainable Transport for Smart Cities,” Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 7, 2019, pp. 1-20. Web.
3. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K. and Folke, C., “Sustainability and Resilience for Transformation in the Urban Century. Nature sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2019, pp. 267-273. Web.
4. Kabirifar K., Mojtahedi M., Wang C., Tam V. W. Y., “Construction and Demolition Waste Management Contributing Factors Coupled with Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Strategies for Effective Waste Management: A Review,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 263, 2020, pp. 1-33. Web.
5. Ogryzek, M., Adamska-Kmieć, D., & Klimach, A. “Sustainable Transport: An Efficient Transportation Network—Case Study,” Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 19, 2020, pp. 1-23. Web.
6. Kraus, L. and Proff, H., “Sustainable Urban Transportation Criteria And Measurement—A Systematic Literature Review,” Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 13, 2021, pp. 1-21. Web.
7. Pouranian, M. R., & Shishehbor, M. “Sustainability Assessment of Green Asphalt Mixtures: A Review,” Environments, Vol. 6, No. 6, 2019, pp. 1-55. Web.
8. Purvis, B., Mao, Y., Robinson, D., “Three Pillars of Sustainability: In Search of Conceptual Origins,” Sustainability Science, Vol. 14, 2018. Web.
9. Salas‐Zapata, W. A., and Ortiz‐Muñoz, S. M., “Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability,” Sustainable Development, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2018, pp. 1-9. Web.
10. Satola, D., Wiberg, A. H., Singh, M., Babu, S., James, B., Dixit, M., & Gustavsen, A. “Comparative review of international approaches to net-zero buildings: Knowledge-sharing initiative to develop design strategies for greenhouse gas emissions reduction,” Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 71, 2022, pp. 291-306. Web.
11. Sayyadi, R., and Awasthi, A., “An integrated approach based on system dynamics and ANP for evaluating sustainable transportation policies,” International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2018, pp. 1-10. Web.
12. Skeete J.-P., Wells P., Dong X., Heidrich O., Harper G., “Beyond the Event Horizon: Battery Waste, Recycling, and Sustainability in the United Kingdom Electric Vehicle Transition,” Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 69, 2020, pp. 1-15. Web.
13. Tahir, A. C., and Darton, R. C., “The Process Analysis Method of Selecting Indicators to Quantify the Sustainability Performance of a Business Operation.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, No. 16-17, 2010, pp. 1598–1607. Web.
14. Transport for London, “Doing the Right Thing Locally and Globally: Sustainability Report 2021”, 2021. Web.
15. Turoń, K., “Social Barriers and Transportation Social Exclusion Issues in Creating Sustainable Car-Sharing Systems,” Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2021, pp. 10-22. Web.
16. United Nations, “Sustainable Transport”. Web.
17. Van Waes, A., Farla, J., Frenken, K., de Jong, J. P., & Raven, R. “Business Model Innovation and Socio-technical Transitions. A New Prospective Framework with an Application to Bike Sharing,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 195, 2018, pp. 1300-1312. Web.
18. Vickerman R., “Will Covid-19 Put the Public Back in Public Transport? A UK perspective,” Vol. 103, 2021, pp. 95-102. Web.
19. Virtanen P. K., Siragusa L., Guttorm H., “Introduction: Toward More Inclusive Definitions of Sustainability,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 43, 2020, pp. 77-82 Web.
20. Zhao, X., Yongjian K., Jian Z., Wei X., Peng W., “Evaluation of Sustainable Transport Research in 2000-2019,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 256, 2020, pp. 1-51. Web.