Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

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

“Mind the (Policy-Implementation) Gap”: Transport decarbonisation

policies and performances of leading global economies (1990–2018)
Ka Ho Tsoi a, Becky P.Y. Loo a, *, David Banister b
a
Department of Geography, The Jockey Club Tower, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
b
School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

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

Keywords: Despite a series of transport decarbonisation initiatives, transport carbon emissions have been growing in both
Decoupling absolute and relative terms since 1990, and this is contributing to climate change. This study scrutinises the
Sustainable transport decoupling experiences of transport carbon emissions in 16 selected countries, including both developed and
Decarbonisation
developing countries, over a 29-year timeframe (1990–2018). Resting upon the concept of socio-ecological
Policy analysis
resilience, collaborative planning and policy-implementation gap, a new conceptual framework is proposed to
understand transport decarbonisation policies. In doing so, data of transport carbon emissions and Real Gross
National Income in Purchasing Power Parity (based 2017) are first analysed. Progress of decoupling is then
categorized for each country in every five-year period (a total of 96 data points). We then select consecutive
periods when a country moves towards absolute decoupling (i.e. improvement) or deviates from it (i.e. wors­
ening) and identify relevant policy instruments implemented based on a nine-component strategic framework
that addresses the policy-implementation gap. Results indicate that defining clear sectoral objectives in action
plans and integrating a holistic policy package to reinforce sustainable transport is pivotal. While there are no
magic bullets to achieve transport decarbonisation, the strategic framework can help enhance policy effective­
ness by formulating context-specific strategies.

1. Introduction
Increased levels of mobility are one of the main driving forces of
economic growth (IEA, 2018). Nonetheless, the rapid growth of trans­
port activities has given rise to a multitude of negative environmental
impacts, including carbon emissions and local air pollution. These im­
pacts are seen as negative externalities because they are neither care­
fully considered nor compensated for in transport investment decisions.
Empirically, transport carbon emissions are growing in both absolute
and relative terms. It reached around 8 Gt CO2 in 2016 (71 percent
higher compared to 1990) and it has become the second largest source of
CO2 emissions by sector (around 24 percent) (IEA, 2018). This explains
why decarbonising the transport sector has become central in climate
change mitigation efforts (OECD, 1996; ITF, 2017; Sims et al., 2014),
and the move towards more sustainable transport (OECD, 2006; UNCEC,
2011). Recently, a more stringent goal of limiting global warming from
2 ◦ C to 1.5 ◦ C has been established to accelerate the decarbonisation
trend (IPCC, 2018). Notwithstanding the ambitious goal, the progress of
transport decarbonisation has not been successful (OECD et al., 2015;
TDA, 2018). This has raised questions on the effectiveness of the existing
transport decarbonisation measures and the means by which the carbon
emissions reduction target can be achieved in the near future. Transport
decoupling is an important concept that refers to the delinking of
environmental costs in the transport sector from economic development
(Loo and Banister, 2016). It allows us to look at how different countries
promote their economic development but at the same time suppress
transport-related carbon emissions. The ideal situation would be to
achieve both objectives. Some effort has been made both nationally and
globally to decouple carbon emissions from economic growth (Loo and
Banister, 2016; OECD, 1996; Tapio et al., 2007), but decoupling has not
been a central part of the policy debate.
Given the international initiatives to promote sustainable transport,
it is necessary to understand the current situation in decoupling trans­
port carbon emissions from economic growth, and to examine the
decarbonisation measures that have been implemented. The experience
of different countries in decoupling transport carbon emissions from
economic growth, and what policy instruments have been implemented
is one means to research this important set of questions. In this paper, we

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jasonf1d@hku.hk (K.H. Tsoi), bpyloo@hku.hk (B.P.Y. Loo), david.banister@ouce.ox.ac.uk (D. Banister).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102250
Received 21 August 2020; Received in revised form 27 January 2021; Accepted 16 February 2021
Available online 21 March 2021
0959-3780/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.H. Tsoi et al.
apply the decoupling typology in Loo and Banister (2016) to investigate
the trend of transport decarbonisation in 16 major countries from 1990
to 2018. By examining recent experiences in the past 29 years, this paper
aims to find out the underlying mechanisms of such decoupling patterns.
There are two major objectives in this paper. First, the cross-country
transport decoupling analysis provides an overview of the interna­
tional situation and the long-term trends of transport decarbonisation.
Secondly, a nine-component strategic policy framework is developed to
consolidate effective practices for supporting transport decoupling.
Section 2 introduces the core literature in transport decoupling and the
conceptual framework of decoupling analysis. Section 3 outlines the
methodology and Section 4 summarises some good policy practices
under the nine-component framework. Finally, Section 5 summarises
the lessons learnt. Section 6 concludes this paper.
2. Literature review and conceptual framework
2.1. Literature review of transport decoupling and transport
decarbonisation
The concept of “decoupling” was first coined to describe the
delinking of the environmental harm of human activities from economic
development (de Bruyn, 2002; Vehmas et al., 2003). In this study, the
decoupling patterns are examined from a sectoral perspective, that is, in
the transport sector. In relation, it is closely related to the wider litera­
ture on transport decarbonisation as well. By using the keywords of
‘transport(ation) decoupling’, ‘decoupling transport(ation)’, ‘transport
(ation) decarbonis(z)ation’ and ‘decarbonis(z)ing transport(ation)’ to
search for relevant literature in the Web of Science, a total of 58 highly
relevant articles were identified. These studies evaluate the relationship
between transport carbon emissions and economic growth or total
transport output (i.e. passenger-kilometre and ton-kilometre). Further­
more, most are longitudinal studies of transport decoupling trends. They
can be further divided into two groups – global/regional studies and
country/local studies. Fig. 1 presents the flow chart of word search and
summarises the literature at different spatial scales (i.e. global and
national).
2.1.1. Global/regional studies
Tapio et al. (2007) was the first systematic study of transport
decoupling. It examines the decoupling of transport energy use and
carbon dioxide emissions in 15 European countries between 1970 and
2000. Their results show that there were almost no signs of decoupling
in both indicators, while six distinctive clusters were identified based on
the country-specific decoupling experiences. In relation, some local
policy actions have been identified in each cluster that contributed to
different decoupling trends (Tapio et al., 2007). Loo and Banister (2016)
examined the environmental (i.e. carbon emission) and social (i.e. traffic
fatalities) decoupling patterns in the transport sector of 15 countries
(including seven developed and eight developing countries) between
1990 and 2012. Their study illustrates that transport decoupling of
carbon emissions was still limited and most countries remained in the
state of relative decoupling. A recent global analysis of transport
decoupling between 1990 and 2015 (Loo et al., 2020) also indicates that
most nations have only obtained a ‘stable’ decoupling pathway without
consistent improvement to absolute decoupling. Wang et al. (2020)
2
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
examined the decoupling of transport carbon emissions of 51 countries
along the belt-and-road scheme from 2000 to 2014. A general sequence
of weak decoupling, recessive coupling and expansive negative decou­
pling was identified1, but large discrepancies across countries were
observed (Wang et al., 2020). From these studies, one key observation is
that the decoupling experiences are largely country-specific, depending
on whether or not they are located in the same region (Tapio et al.,
2007), or whether they have a similar or different economic develop­
ment status (Loo and Banister, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Policy impli­
cations of these diverging patterns remain ambiguous. Moreover, no
single country always performs well over time and consistently across all
these studies.
The most typical methodologies of global decarbonisation studies
comprise of scenario and sensitivity analysis (e.g. Arioli et al., 2020;
Krause et al., 2020) and integrated modelling approaches (e.g. Mercure
et al., 2018; Thiel et al., 2016a). Irrespective of the different method­
ologies, a common research objective has been to examine the potential
impacts of a specific policy theme on transport decarbonisation. These
policy instruments can be grouped into the broader themes of energy
demand and resilience (Chiaramonti and Maniatis, 2020), carbon tax
(Pietzcker et al., 2014) and technological advances, notably in relation
to the EV technology (Pelegov and Pontes, 2018; Sovacool et al., 2018;
Stampatori et al., 2020; Thiel et al., 2016a; Tsakalidis et al., 2020).
There is a surge in research at a global scale (or cross-country compar­
ison) only in recent years (e.g. Gota et al., 2019), possibly due to the
availability of empirical data and well-developed international data­
bases. In addition, more literature examines the effects of mixed policy
instruments on transport decarbonisation (Gota et al., 2019; Karkat­
soulis et al., 2017; Krause et al., 2020; Mercure et al., 2018; Mittal et al.,
2016; Siskos et al., 2018; Thiel et al., 2016b). The policy measures
considered in their models mainly include travel reduction by better
accessibility and land-use planning, modal shift to cleaner modes of
transport (public transport and active transport), legislation and regu­
latory measures on fuel and vehicle standards, improvement in fuel and
energy efficiency (including electricity), advances in powertrain and
battery technology of EVs, and better support for ancillary infrastructure
to support EV development (e.g. charging & parking). The above sug­
gests that an integrative transport policy framework is critical. More­
over, some studies highlight the importance of effective implementation
across different hierarchies of jurisdictions (Arioli et al., 2020; Banister
et al., 2012; Haas and Sander, 2020) and the need to integrate the freight
transport sector into a holistic decarbonisation framework (Greene and
Façanha, 2019; Meyer, 2020).
2.1.2. Country/local studies
This group of studies aim to provide insights about the policy lessons
from specific countries. On transport decoupling, Li (2011) examines
transport decoupling in several major Indian cities and finds that urban
governance, public transit quality, integrated land-use and transport
planning, traffic management and economic instruments are critical
factors of promoting transport decoupling. In addition, Nelson and
Warren (2020) find out that there is a low magnitude of relative
decoupling of transport emissions of UK between 1997 and 2015. They
suggest that transformative changes beyond technological fixes, such as
behavioural changes, should be integrated into policy making. Alises
et al. (2014) investigate the relationship between freight transport and
1
According to Tapio (2005), transport decoupling is determined by income
elasticity (e) of transport CO2 emission, which is the ratio of the change in
transport CO2 emission to the change in GDP. Weak decoupling occurs when
both transport CO2 emissions and GDP increase, but the former increases at a
slower rate (e = 0–0.8). Recessive coupling occurs when both transport CO2
emissions and GDP decrease (e = 0.8–1.2). Expansive negative decoupling
occurs when both transport CO2 emissions and GDP increase, with the former
increases at a higher rate (e > 1.2).
K.H. Tsoi et al.
Fig. 1. Literature review of transport decoupling and transport decarbonisation. * Both American spelling (decarbonization & decarbonizing) and British spelling
(decarbonisation & decarbonising) are considered.
economic growth in the UK and Spain from 1997 to 2007. Their
decomposition analysis indicates that both improving logistics and
supply chain management (i.e. technological advances and enhanced
efficiency) and restructuring economy towards tertiary sectors are some
possible drivers of decoupling. Many related studies were also con­
ducted in China (Jiang et al., 2018a, 2018b; Wang et al., 2017; Zhao
et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2019a). China has progressed towards trans­
port decoupling after 2005 when nation-wide environmental pro­
grammes (e.g. improved fuel efficiency and modal shift initiatives) and
economic restructuring initiatives were provided by the central
government.
Earlier studies (before 2015) on transport decarbonisation tend to
focus on measures of regulation in carbon emission standards (Yeh and
Sperling, 2010; Voltes-Dorta et al., 2013) and improvement in fuel and
energy system (Zhang and Chen, 2015). More recent case studies were
almost exclusively on ways of promoting electric mobility (Bauer et al.,
2020; Breetz and Salon, 2018; Corliss, 2020; O’Neill et al., 2019; Perera
3
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
et al., 2020; Sovacool et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2019b), boosting energy
efficiencies and securities (Al-Subaie et al., 2016; Fu et al., 2019; Hagos
and Ahlgren, 2020; Ruhnau et al., 2019; Savickis et al., 2020) and the
implementation of intelligent transport system (Arsenio et al., 2018;
Fox-penner et al., 2018; Zawieska and Pieriegud, 2018) so as to reduce
transport carbons. Some are related to regulation and pricing measures
(Danesin and Linares, 2018; Pedros-Perez et al., 2019). Essentially, it is
emphasised that complementary and synergetic measures are funda­
mental to achieving a deep carbon emission cut in a timely manner
(Bhardwaj et al., 2020; Brand et al., 2020; Spyra and Salmhofer, 2016;
Xiao et al., 2019). Furthermore, some studies investigate the less
commonly examined aspects, such as change of lifestyle (Brand et al.,
2020), and freight transport and logistics management (Dobers et al.,
2019; Goedhals-Gerber et al., 2018; Kluschke et al., 2019) in achieving
decarbonisation. Overall, these national studies can provide insights for
the major policies of transport decarbonisation. Yet, despite a wide
range of identified policies, there is currently no comprehensive and
K.H. Tsoi et al.
systematic framework to examine related policy measures conductive to
the ultimate goal of transport decoupling.
2.2. Conceptual framework
The implications of the above literature are two-fold. Firstly, it
suggests that policy lessons of successful decoupling cannot be gener­
alised based on only one specific country at a single point of time. This
idea aligns with the concept of socio-ecological resilience, which refers
to the capacity to cope with and adapt to changes under the existing
socio-ecological system, and to permit a transformation into a new
pathway through learning and innovation (Cretney, 2014; Folke, 2006;
Folke et al., 2016). Essentially, decarbonisation policies need to be
flexible because effective policy actions need to respond to dynamic
changes (including social, economic, environment and technological)
under local contexts (whether it is unprecedented or not). In other
words, there needs to be a mechanism to allow policy decisions and
refinements to be made over time (Hayes et al., 2019). Using this
rationale, this paper proposes a conceptual framework to examine
transport decoupling policies through time (Fig. 2). As shown in Fig. 2, a
country may have varying levels of decoupling in transport carbon
emissions (i.e. y-axis) over time (i.e. x-axis). In each period, there can be
a wide range of different policies implemented to promote transport
decarbonisation; these policies are, in turn, associated with changes in
the decoupling status (i.e. decoupling or coupling). By examining the
decoupling status of each country and its associated policy actions,
common elements of transport decoupling from individual countries can
thus be identified and analysed.
Secondly, the decarbonisation literature suggests that mixed policy
instruments are the most effective in supporting ambitious transport
decarbonisation. As transport is a complex and multi-dimensional policy
domain, it is necessary to impose constraints on the scope of analysis. In
this paper a nine-component strategic framework has been developed in
a transport context (including road safety and the promotion of active
transport), and this is used to systematically analyse the transport
decoupling policies within each period (Loo et al., 2005; Loo and Siiba,
2018). These nine components are identified in Fig. 2. Four of these
components (i.e. Vision, Objectives, Target and Action Plans) are related
to ‘policy planning’ and the other five (i.e. Evaluation & Monitoring,
Research & Development, Quantitative Modelling, Institutional Frame­
work and Funding) are related to ‘policy implementation’. This
approach is different to the traditional policy analysis at multiple scales
or by different sectors (Bristow et al., 2008; Jones, 2012; Santos et al.,
2010; United Nations, 2016), as it integrates both policy planning and
policy implementation into one holistic analytical framework. Often,
influential policy designs or ideologies that are well-established in the
planning stage may fail to achieve the predefined targets and translate
into policy outcomes during implementation (Banister and Hickman,
2013). Recent evidence also suggests that transport decarbonisation
may be ineffective even when there are holistic policy plans, as policy
instruments might not be well-defined, coordinated and executed by
policy actors (Jones, 2012; Li, 2011; May et al., 2017). Hence, the
proposed strategic framework aims to bridge the ‘policy-implementation
gap’. In the following section, each of the elements in the nine-
component strategic framework (Fig. 2) will be discussed in detail in
Section 2.2.1 (policy planning) and Section 2.2.2 (policy implementa­
tion) to illustrate its importance in policymaking of transport
decarbonisation.
2.2.1. Policy planning
(a) Policy vision: In transport decarbonisation, a policy vision helps
shape our common goal of sustainable development and high­
light the role of transportation in paving the way to future low-
carbon pathways. A well-defined policy vision can drive mo­
mentum from different stakeholders including the public to work
4
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
together towards the common objective of climate change miti­
gation (European Commission, 2018; OECD, 2008; UNDP, 2009).
(b) Policy objectives: Transport decarbonisation policy objectives
define what needs to be achieved and they highlight the resources
required for achieving them in the medium to long term. In
setting policy objectives, specific contexts such as managing
conflicts and constraints of local geographies need to be consid­
ered (Healey, 1998, 2007). Practicality, cost-effectiveness, cred­
ibility, and feasibility are key elements affected by local
conditions (Bassi et al., 2017).
(c) Targets: Policy targets are usually based on the reduction of
carbon emissions (in absolute or relative terms) over a specific
timeline. Other sub-targets that are in line with transport carbon
emission reduction are also observed (e.g. increasing public
transport share by a certain percentage). It is important for policy
targets to be quantitative and measurable so that policymakers
can keep track on the progress in achieving the predefined goals.
(d) Action plan: In line with the Collaborative Planning Theory
(Healey, 2003), an action plan indicates policy actors involved in
decision-making, defines power relations, and stimulates collec­
tive policy actions. Clear task division among different stake­
holders of transport decarbonisation should be delineated. The
interplay of policy actors to stimulate synergetic and collective
efforts (i.e. institutionalism) is a vital component. A well-
developed action plan should be integrated, innovative and
multilateral (POLIS, 2016), so that synergies among policy in­
struments can be facilitated and consistency between the targets
and objectives is maintained.
2.2.2. Policy implementation
(a) Evaluation and monitoring: Timely feedback allows policy­
makers to devise adaptive strategies for low-carbon pathways
based on current conditions. For example, the reduction of
transport carbon emissions needs to align with the targets. A
reporting and measurement database for continuous assessment
is thus required. Moreover, regulatory measures (i.e. law and
regulation) need effective monitoring to narrow down the policy-
implementation gap. This means that the mandatory standards
also require regular evaluation and monitoring so that they keep
up with the decarbonisation initiatives (Teter et al., 2019).
(b) Research and development (R&D): Conducting scientific
research and developing innovative technologies are key to
transport decarbonisation. This is captured by the literature in
socio-technical landscape (Geels, 2012), where global awareness
in climate change mitigation in the socio-technical landscape has
stimulated the growth of fuel-efficient vehicles and renewable
energy production. This has impacted on the socio-technical
regime where both vehicle-related technology and fuel/energy-
related technology have been modified, and this in turn has
resulted in innovation to promote more environmentally-friendly
mobility choices.
(c) Quantitative modelling: Quantitative modelling is required to
examine the trends of transport carbon emissions for evaluating
policy measures. Longitudinal studies can illustrate to what
extent the carbon reduction target can be achieved under
different scenarios. In transport decarbonisation, quantitative
modelling is usually conducted by comparing the different sce­
narios of transport carbon emissions to the business-as-usual
scenarios based on different policy scenarios (e.g. forecasting
and backcasting) (Barisa et al., 2015; Capros et al., 2014; Dhar
et al., 2018; Banister et al., 2007).
(d) Institutional framework: Transport decarbonisation requires
concerted efforts by different institutions in delivering fruitful
outcomes. A cohesive governance in formulating policy in­
struments to promote sustainable transport is part and parcel
K.H. Tsoi et al.
Fig. 2. A conceptual framework of analysing transport decarbonisation policies. Note: Each pie-diagram illustrates four policy planning and five policy imple­
mentation components (i.e. nine-component strategic framework discussed below). The tick symbols (√) illustrate the major policy components in action.
(TDA, 2018). Hence, multi-sectoral policy instruments are
advocated. In transport decarbonisation, integrating passenger
transport and freight transport in an institutional framework has
been proposed as a promising direction to promote sustainable
transport and alleviate climate change (Bakker et al., 2019; Kiba-
Janiak and Witkowski, 2019; Richardson, 2005).
(e) Funding: Funding is essential for policy components to be
implemented in a financially viable way. Most importantly, a
cost-effective approach needs to be established to enhance the
sustainability and resilience of transport decarbonisation pro­
grammes. Funding is usually required for developing transport
infrastructure and incentives for encouraging low-carbon travel
options. Hence, taxes are levied to discourage carbon-intensive
travel options and the tax income is used to support the expen­
diture in low-carbon transport policies. Recently, there are
increasing financial instruments in the downstream of value
chain to support electric mobility (e.g. fuel tax and rebates for
low-emission vehicles) (van der Steen et al., 2015).
3. Data and methodology
To capture the global experiences of transport decarbonisation, 16
major countries are selected for analysis based on the following ratio­
nales. Firstly, eight developed and eight developing nations with the
highest GDP across the globe have been selected. The rationale is that
these globally leading economies should be in a better position to play a
leading role in transport decarbonisation. Fig. 3 shows the list of selected
nations, together with their nominal GDP in US dollars and levels of
transport carbon emissions in 2017, the latest year with comprehensive
data when we determined our case studies. Secondly, geographical di­
versity is considered. Australia is chosen instead of Korea for the
developed nations so that the continent of Oceania is represented.
Hence, the eight developed nations comprise of Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and USA. Similarly, Nigeria is chosen
as the eighth country for the developing nations so that Africa is
included. Nigeria has the highest GDP in Africa. The eight developing
5
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
nations cover Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia
and Turkey. Hence, this study covers 16 nations across the six major
continents. They altogether accounted for around 75 percent of the
global GDP (World Bank, 2019) and 60 percent of the total transport
carbon emissions (IEA, 2018). Timely and effective measures from these
countries can be pivotal in achieving long-term transport
decarbonisation.
These countries have also been increasingly proactive in decarbon­
isation. Over half of them (including national or subnational govern­
ments) have implemented Emission Trading Schemes and/or levied
carbon tax (Marianne et al., 2015; World Bank, 2014). In addition, seven
out of the eight selected developing countries have taken reforms to
fossil-fuel subsidies (Marianne et al., 2015). The local context is always
relevant to their decoupling status (Loo and Banister, 2016). Policy
lessons learnt from these countries can provide valuable insights into
formulating more effective strategies to accelerate transport decarbon­
isation. The study timeframe is between 1990 and 2018. This study di­
vides the 29 years into six time periods (with five equal time periods and
the last period consisting of three years) with overlapping years to better
capture continuous change (i.e. 1990–1995, 1995–2000, 2000–2005,
2005–2010, 2010–2015 and 2015–2018). In other words, there are 96
time periods to be investigated in total (i.e. six time periods for 16
countries). To identify the policies associated with improving decou­
pling experiences, there needs to be a systematic and consistent meth­
odology. First, transport decoupling of each country in every period is
evaluated based on the eight possible decoupling categories classified in
Loo and Banister (2016). Then, we identify periods when a country
moves towards absolute decoupling (i.e. improvement) or deviates from
it (i.e. worsening). Relevant policy instruments and factors are then
identified. The nine-component strategic framework (as discussed in
Section 2.2) is applied to evaluate policies identified in the improving
periods. Moreover, we divide the policy instruments into an early stage
(i.e. 1990–2005) and a more recent stage (i.e. 2005–2018). This is to
address that there can be a periodical sequence of transport decoupling,
and transport decarbonisation strategies can have a logical and
sequential structure (May, 2005; OECD, 2018). We also differentiate
K.H. Tsoi et al. Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

Fig. 3. GDP and transport CO2 of the selected 16 countries in 2017. * selected nations.

developed and developing nations in the analysis as the policy in­

Table 1
struments can vary according to the development stage of specific
The decoupling framework of transport carbon emissions.
countries (Nakamura and Hayashi, 2013).
Transport carbon emissions

3.1. Transport decoupling categories Decrease (Δtce < 0) Increase (Δtce > 0)

Income growth (Δy > 0) Absolute weak decoupling Relative strong coupling
The fundamental principle of determining the transport decoupling |Δy|>|Δtce| |Δy|⩽|Δtce |
status follows the typology developed in Loo and Banister (2016), where |e|<1, negative |e|≥1, positive
the decoupling categories are closely associated with the income elas­ Absolute strong Relative weak decoupling
decoupling |Δy|>|Δtce |
ticity of negative transport externalities2. Hence, the income elasticity of
|Δy|⩽|Δtce | |e|<1, positive
transport carbon emissions (e) in each time period is the ratio of per­ |e|≥1, negative
centage change of transport carbon emissions (tce) to percentage change Income decline (Δy < 0) Relative weak coupling Absolute weak coupling
of real GNIPPP (constant 2017 international dollars) (y), as follows: |Δy|>|Δtce | |Δy|>|Δtce |
|e|<1, positive |e|<1, negative
Δtce
e= Relative strong decoupling Absolute strong
Δy |Δy|⩽|Δtce | coupling
|e|≥1, positive |Δy|⩽|Δtce |
Results of transport decoupling consist of eight possible categories
|e|≥1, negative
based on the combinations of changes in transport carbon emissions and
the real GNIPPP (Loo and Banister, 2016). As shown in Table 1, absolute Note: Modified from Loo and Banister (2016). Absolute decoupling cells are
strong decoupling is the best scenario, which denotes that transport typed in bold. Relative decoupling cells are typed in italics.
carbon emission is decreasing while real GNI is increasing, with an
elasticity >1 (i.e. the carbon reduction rate is larger than the economic growth). On the contrary, absolute strong coupling is the worst case.

2
In Loo and Banister (2016), the income elasticity of negative transport ex­ 3.2. Identifying improving and worsening periods of transport decoupling
ternalities (ei) is a ratio of the change in negative transport externality (ntei) to
the change in aggregate income (y). To identify improving and worsening periods, we compare the

6
K.H. Tsoi et al.
decoupling categories in between two consecutive time periods (e.g.
1990–1995 vs 1995–2000). Any change of decoupling categories that
involves moving towards absolute strong decoupling is considered as an
‘improving’ period. Under one of the following three conditions it can be
identified as an ‘improvement’ – (i) from coupling to decoupling, (ii)
from relative decoupling to absolute decoupling or (iii) from absolute
weak decoupling to absolute strong decoupling. On the contrary, any
change that involves moving towards absolute strong coupling is
considered as a ‘worsening’ period. The criteria of a worsening period
are converse to those in the ‘improving’ period, which are (i) from
decoupling to coupling, (ii) from absolute decoupling to relative
decoupling or (iii) from absolute strong decoupling to absolute weak
decoupling. If there is no change of decoupling categories between two
consecutive periods, it will not be regarded as improving nor worsening
periods.
3.3. Identifying policy practices to improving periods
The next step is to identify policy practices associated with an
improvement in transport decarbonisation performance. Since there is a
time lag between policies and actual outcomes, policies implemented
during the current and one period before the identified improving
period are considered. For example, if 2000–2005 is an improving
period when compared to the previous period (i.e. 1995–2000), relevant
policies implemented between 1995 and 2005 are all extracted and
analysed. An objective guideline needs to be established for policy data
extraction. Following Loo et al. (2020), policies are first extracted from
the ‘Addressing Climate Change Database’ (IEA, 2019a) and the ‘Energy
Efficiency Database’ (IEA, 2019b). We evaluate all transport-related
policies (including fuel and energy) in the respective improving pe­
riods. The above datasets usually provide brief information (e.g. year of
implementation, major policy measures and jurisdiction). The more
Table 2
Categories of decoupling in transport carbon emissions over time periods.
* compared to the previous five-year period, e.g. 1995–2000 is compared to 1990–1995, and so on.
# absolute weak decoupling has been achieved in the period.
## absolute strong decoupling has been achieved in the period.
↑ improving period(s).
↓ worsening period(s).
Note: Cells in green represent the improving periods compared to the previous time period. Cells in orange represent the worsening periods compared to the previous
time period. Cells in white represent the periods without changes in the decoupling status compared to the previous time period.
7
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
recent Global Status report 2018 on Transport and Climate Change and
its Transport Knowledge Base (SLoCaT, 2018) that mainly record pol­
icies after 2005 has been used as a supplementary data source. In order
to supplement the analysis and discussion of some distinctively desirable
policy practices implemented during the improvement periods at abso­
lute decoupling, country reports concerning with climate change, sus­
tainable transport, and specific polices as identified in the above
international policy databases, are utilised (Appendix 1 summarises all
the reviewed documents and databases). The documents are compiled
from the national governments of individual countries and some
authoritative international agencies, such as the World Bank, Organi­
sation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Inter­
national Transport Forum (ITF).
4. Results
The improving and worsening periods of transport decarbonisation
across the 16 countries are summarised in Table 2. Cells in green
represent an improving time period when compared to the previous one,
whereas cells in orange represent a worsening period. Consistent with
previous studies, the patterns vary a lot both across countries and over
time. The period 2005–2010 stands out as being the period during which
the best scenarios of decoupling took place across many of the 16
countries. Perhaps the explanation for the good results in the 2005–2010
period reflects the lower levels of GDP growth in all countries over this
period, and as a consequence the transport carbon emissions also fell, as
there was less economic activity and travel.
Across the 16 countries over the 29 years, there is a total of 25
improving and 24 worsening periods. Most improving periods happened
in 2005–2010. However, worsening decoupling performances are
noticeable in the recent periods of 2010–2015 and 2015–2018. The last
period is observed with a significant exacerbation of transport
K.H. Tsoi et al.
decoupling progress (seven worsening nations), with only two devel­
oped nations (i.e. Italy and Japan) achieving absolute weak decoupling.
As the primary focus of this paper is to suggest various necessary con­
ditions and strategies for transport decoupling to take place, relevant
and commonly adopted transport decarbonisation policy practices in the
improving periods are presented according to the nine-component
strategic framework (Fig. 4). To better present the variations of the
development pathways between developed and developing nations, text
boxes in sold lines are policies implemented by developed countries and
those in dotted lines are developing countries. Also, to demonstrate the
early and more recent stages of policymaking, the text boxes within the
inner ring represents the early stage (i.e. 1990–2004) and the outer ring
represents the recent stage (i.e. 2005–2018). A general observation is
that more strategies have been adopted in the recent period and more
widely across policy planning and policy implementation. Some notable
differences are observed in the country groups that seldom are the
strategies appropriate for both in the same period. Developing nations
relied on regulatory measures in early periods and have recently focused
more on policy planning aligning to sustainable transport. Developed
Fig. 4. The nine-component strategic framework in transport decarbonisation.
8
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
nations adopted more single instruments in the earlier period and have
recently diversified policy measures in various components. Across both
groups of nations, it seems that clear objectives alongside quantifiable
targets and action plans supported by hard measures (i.e. regulation in
fuel quality and emission standards and taxes on polluting fuel and ve­
hicles) can offer significant momentum for decoupling at the first place.
These measures are usually planned and implemented at a national
level. To sustain the decarbonising trend, it appears that promotion of
electrification (i.e. ‘improve’ measures through R&D and funding
mechanism) and improving accessibility (i.e. ‘avoid’ and ‘shift’ mea­
sures in passenger and freight transport) can offer synergy across
developed and developing countries. However, this observation requires
more rigorous analysis of the synergetic effects of various policy
combinations.
4.1. Policy planning
Since vision and objectives are usually inseparable, and targets and
action plans are highly interlinked to each other, the four components in
K.H. Tsoi et al. Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

policy planning are grouped into two sub-sections below for detailed
analysis.
(a) A long-term vision with clear sectoral objectives: As seen
from Table 3, five countries are found to have clearly stated vi­
sions and objectives in the national climate plans or energy
conservation plans in the improving periods. Apparently, ‘sus­
tainability’ is the key component in their visions. For many
developing countries, this was the very first step to develop a
high-level policy direction that could help achieve absolute
decoupling in decarbonisation (i.e. Indonesia, Mexico and
Russia). Transport was acknowledged to be an important
contributor to carbon emissions. Usually, a specific vision under
the transport sector is specified which envisages a concurrent
strengthening of urban mobility and a reduction of carbon
emissions. In addition, specific sectoral objectives targeted at
reducing carbon emission have been established. The focus on the
prioritised needs has facilitated problem identification and
policy-building. More recent objectives have focused on lowering
the carbon intensity of transport by technological approaches.
Overall, these objectives align to the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (notably, sustainable cities and communities;
industry, innovation and infrastructure; affordable and clean
energy).
(b) Quantifiable targets and a thematic action plan: Table 4
shows two common features – quantifiable targets and a thematic
action plan – in the policy planning of decarbonisation. Quanti­
fiable targets are commonly found in the developed nations and
have been set up to reduce carbon emissions by a certain per­
centage or a reduction to the past levels. For countries which have
achieved absolute decoupling in at least one period (i.e. France,
Germany, Japan & UK), specific targets and goals were also
established within the transport sector in the early 2000s. This
was fundamental to the effective formulation of transport policies
and to the review of existing progress. Major components in
earlier periods include public transport, energy efficiency, and
energy technology. In more recent years, those which have ach­
ieved absolute decoupling have incorporated innovations in low-
carbon technologies. After 2010, some developing nations which
improved their decoupling status have also developed quantifi­
able targets for carbon reduction (i.e. Brazil, India & Mexico). For
developed nations, the major actors of government agencies were
identified for each policy instrument. Moreover, the action plans
synthesised advanced measures to rectify both the existing and
emerging problems. Overall, a common success factor is multi-
instrumentality which can potentially induce policy synergy
and enhance legitimacy (Vieira et al., 2007). As argued by Loo
and Tsoi (2018), systematic transformations ranging from city,
economic, vehicle, modal-split to lifestyle are fundamental to
sustainable transport.
4.2. Policy implementation
The five components in policy implementation are examined indi­
vidually below.
(a) Effective regulation and monitoring: These fuel-based policies
were generally observed (Table 5), and fuel quality is a crucial
success factor for developing nations, where consumers are
required to shift to cleaner fuels (e.g. ethanol and compressed
natural gas), as in Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Absolute
decoupling was achieved in India and Mexico by further having
the mandatory requirements effectively enforced nationwide and
by applying it to both private cars and other transport modes. For
developing nations, mandatory requirement on fuel economy and
efficiency were set up to reduce the number of passenger and
freight vehicles not meeting the environmental standards set.
Older vehicles were made obsolete or replaced. For some devel­
oped nations, regulation was imposed on car manufacturers, as
they were required to abide by mandatory labelling requirements
and required to publicise labels indicating CO2 efficiency,
average energy consumption and fuel economy on new vehicles
(i.e. Japan, Germany, UK and USA). Those who have formulated a
reporting system for systematic evaluation (i.e. Japan, Mexico
and USA) were also able to achieve absolute decoupling in spe­
cific periods.
(b) Research and development (R&D) in low-carbon transport
technologies: As shown in Table 6, the green innovation policies
observed in the improving periods can be classified as vehicle-
related or fuel-related. Vehicle-related strategies involve in­
novations in low-carbon vehicles and supporting facilities (i.e.
fuel cells, batteries and other hardware). Fuel and energy-related
technologies have mainly focused on investing in research into
alternative fuels of lower or zero carbon emissions. Fundamen­
tally, these successful cases have demonstrated the need for
multi-sectoral cooperation and public–private partnership. For
instance, Canada, Germany, France, Japan and US governments
have all invited relevant stakeholders (i.e. manufacturers and
fleet operators, environmental agencies and universities) to
cooperate in the research and promotion agenda. Similarly, some
developing nations (e.g. Brazil and India) have started to facili­
tate partnership among research among research, industry and

Table 3
Examples of policies in ‘Vision’ and ‘Objectives’ of decarbonisation.
Types of policies Examples (country) Visions Objectives Year (Decoupling
periods)

National Climate Climate Plan 2004–2012
Plan (France)
Russian Federation’s
Climate Doctrine (Russia)
National Climate Change
Strategy (Mexico)
Energy Low Carbon Transport
Conservation Strategy (UK)
Strategy
National Action Plan for
Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (Indonesia)
Enhancing the economic performance and Changing the quantity of transport demand and 2004
maintaining ecological balances at the same time ( modal split through the evolution of economic (2000–2005;
IEA, 2009) and urban structure (IEA, 2009) 2005–2010)
Achieving sustainable development in social, Enhancing fuel efficiency of vehicles (President 2009
economic, environmental under the challenges of of Russia, 2009) (2005–2010)
changing climate (President of Russia, 2009)
Promoting a sustainable and equitable Promoting low-emission and energy-efficient 2013
management of natural resources and the use of technology and developing sustainable urban (2010–2015)
clean energies that encourage low-emission mobility systems (NCCS, 2013)
development (NCCS, 2013)
To adopt a market-based approach, encourage the Focusing on climate change, encouraging modal 2009
shift to new technologies and promote low carbon shift from cars and improving accessibility (DfT, (2005–2010)
transport modes (DfT, 2009) 2009)
Conserving environment to support economic Reducing GHG emissions from the transport 2010
growth and sustainable welfare by shifting to low- sector on regional and national level to support (2005–2010)
emission transport mode and promoting sustainable development (Tharmin, 2011;
sustainable urban transport Ministry of Transport, 2013)

9
K.H. Tsoi et al. Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

Table 4
Examples of policies in ‘Targets’ and ‘Action Plan’ of decarbonisation.
Types of policies Example policies (country) Targets Action Plan Year
(Decoupling
periods)

International Kyoto Protocol Target Reducing GHG emission by 1.8% in 2010; Improving fuel efficiency, traffic flow 2008
Target Achievement Plan (Japan) reducing tank-to-wheel CO2 emissions by 90% management, low-carbon transport, freight (2005–2010)
Achievement below 2010 levels by 2050 (Ministry of the efficiency and public transport (Ministry of the
Plan Environment, 2008; Climate Action Tracker, Environment, 2008)
2018)
National Climate National Climate Reducing CO2 emission by 25% by 2005 Reducing transport intensities, enhancing energy 2000
Plan Protection Programme compared with the 1990 levels; a specific target efficiency and further promoting technical (2000–2005)
(Germany) to reduce 15–20 million-ton CO2 in the transport improvements in new technologies (OECD, 2002)
sector by 2005 compared with the 1999 level (
OECD, 2002)
French Climate Plan Maintaining GHG emissions at their 1990 level by Developing public transport, reducing vehicle 2000
(France) 2000; a specific target to reduce greenhouse gases emission and promoting cleaner fuels (IEA, 2009) (2000–2005;
emissions in transport sector by 20% by 2020 ( 2005–2010)
IEA, 2009)
National Climate Change Achieving a reduction of 30% of emissions by Initiating innovation, environmental, city 2013
Strategy (Mexico) 2020 compared to the 2000 baseline, and 50% by development & funding for encourage sustainable (2010–2015)
2050 (NCCS, 2013) transport system (NCCS, 2013)
Twelfth Five Year Plan: Reducing carbon emission intensity of GDP by Pinpointing twelve focus areas including 2013
Sustainable Development 20–25% over 2005 levels by 2020 (Planning renewable energy, technological advance, vehicle (2015–2018)
(India) Commission, 2013) & fuel efficiency and public & non-motorised
transport (Planning Commission, 2013)
Climate Policy Contributing a reduction of GHG emissions by Developing sectorial action plans to enhance 2016
Programme Brazil (Brazil) 37% below 2005 levels in 2025, followed by a energy efficiency, expand the use of low-carbon (2015–2018)
reduction of 43% in 2030 below 2005 levels ( fuel, promote public transport and improve
FRB, 2016) transport infrastructure (FRB, 2016)
Energy Medium and Long-term Reducing energy consumption per capita by 43% 10 programmes covering energy conservation, e.g. 2004
Conservation Plan of Energy in 2020 compared to 2005 (NEA, 2004) fuel switching (NEA, 2004) (2000–2005)
Plan Conservation (China)
Energy Conservation Targeting to improve energy efficiency by 30% Developing technological approach to promote 2006
Frontrunner Plan (Japan) relative to 2006 by 2030 (IEA, 2016) energy conservation and developing a (2005–2010)
benchmarking methodology of quantitative
verification (IEA, 2016)
Russian Federation’s Increasing the share of renewable energy of Developing a regulatory approach, research and 2009
Climate Doctrine (Russia) electricity to 1.5% by 2010, 2.5% by 2015, and development, and international cooperation in (2005–2010)
4.5% by 2020 (ITF, 2011) climate change; actors responsible for the tasks are
clearly indicated (ITF, 2011)
Renewable Energy 10% of transport energy needs to be generated by Action plans being listed in the Renewable 2009
Strategy (UK) renewable energy sources (SSECC, 2009) Transport Fuel Obligation and raising the ratio of (2005–2010)
renewable biofuel (SSECC, 2009)
National Energy Strategy Reducing 10 Mtoe of energy consumption by Developing six priorities actions covering the 2017
(Italy) 2030 and 80% of carbon emission from the 1990 themes of renewables, energy efficiency, energy (2016–2018)
levels by 2050 (MED, 2017) security, R&D, decarbonisation and energy
markets (MED, 2017)
Carbon Emission National Team for Biofuel Setting up targets for 3 phases 2006–2010, Supporting policy implementation from national 2006
Reduction Plan Development and Biofuel 2011–2015 and 2016–2025, including biodiesel to village level and between different sectors (e.g. (2010–2015)
Road Map (Indonesia) utilization in the overall energy mix (e.g. 10% of agriculture and energy) (IEA, 2016)
diesel fuel consumption in 2006–2010) (IEA,
2016)
Government Action Plan An overall target of 28% reduction of CO2 Detailed action plans are listed for the 4 specific 2007
(Japan) emission in the transport sector by 2030 (IEA, themes. Transport-related action plans include the (2005–2010)
2016) introduction of low pollution vehicles and
efficient use of vehicles (IEA, 2016)
Low Carbon Transition A 16% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 (on Specific measures (based on different transport 2009
Plan (UK) 2005 levels) across sectors not covered by a modes) are suggested alongside the potential (2005–2010)
trading scheme; a sectoral target of sourcing 10% challenges that fulfil the strategic objectives (DfT,
of transport’s energy from renewables by 2020 ( 2009)
DfT, 2009)
National Action Plan for An overall target of 26% reduction in GHG Initiating fuel efficiency improvement, mass 2013
Reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2020; a specific target to reduce transport, demand side management, renewable (2010–2015)
Emissions (Indonesia) emission up to 0.039 giga ton CO2-equivalent by energy and energy efficiency (Tharmin, 2011)
energy and transport sector (Ministry of
Transport, 2013)
Local Air Quality White Paper on Pollution – Enhancing fuel quality, abandoning low-quality 1999
Control Strategy in Delhi with An Action vehicles and upgrading traffic management; tasks (1995–2000)
Plan (India) of every department being listed with a specific
timeframe (MEF, 1997)

governmental agencies in the most recent periods. This has
facilitated information exchange and funding procedures in the
pioneering and marketing of new technologies. Secondly, R&D
was supported to establish intelligent transport to manage traffic
flow and disseminate real-time travel information to the general
public. From the UK experience, it reduced energy consumption
by reducing congestion and has attracted travellers to public
transport (DfT, 2009).
(c) An integrated institutional framework of passenger and
freight transport: Having well-developed transport governance

10
K.H. Tsoi et al. Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

Table 5 Table 6
Examples of policies in ‘Monitoring and Evaluation’ of decarbonisation. Examples of policies in ‘Research and Development’ of decarbonisation.
Types of policies Examples of policy instruments Year Implemented Types of policies Examples of policy instruments Year Implemented
(country) (Decoupling periods) (country) (Decoupling periods)

Regulation in Conversion of Government vehicles & 1995 (1995–2000) Vehicle-related National Fuel Cell Research and 1999 (1995–2000)
Fuel Quality taxis to CNG (India) technology Innovation Initiative (Canada)
Buses that only use clean fuels (India) 1998 (1995–2000) Clean Vehicles for Public Transport 1999 (1995–2000)
National Ethanol Fuel Programme 2002 (2000–2005) (Italy)
(China) Research programme on integrating 2000 (2000–2005)
Mandatory Biodiesel Requirement 2005 (2000–2005) environmental strategies (Brazil)
(Brazil) “A new way to drive” campaign 2000 (2000–2005)
Renewable Fuel Standard (USA) 2007 (2005–2010) (Germany)
Ministerial Regulation No. 32/2008 2009 (2010–2015) Millennium Project (Japan) 2001 (2000–2005;
(Indonesia) 2005–2010)
Renewable Transport Fuels 2009 (2005–2010) Driving Research and Innovation for 2002 (2005–2010)
Obligation (UK) Vehicle Efficiency and Energy
Certification of Biofuels (Italy) 2011 (2015–2018) Sustainability (USA)
Law on carbon emission standard 2012 (2010–2015) Public-Private Research Partnerships 2006 (2005–2010)
(Mexico) (France)
Transport Ministerial Regulation No. 2013 (2010–2015) Promotion of eco-driving (Japan) 2006 (2005–2010)
201 (Indonesia) National Fuel Cell Bus Technology 2006 (2005–2010)
National Policy on Biofuels (India) 2015 (2015–2018) Development Program (USA)
National Biofuels Policy (Brazil) 2017 (2015–2018) The Budget Law (Italy) 2007 (2005–2010)
Decrees for advanced biofuels and 2016; 2018 Low Carbon Transport Innovation 2007 (2005–2010)
bio-methane (Italy) (2015–2018) Strategy (UK)
Regulation in White paper on pollution (India) 1997 (1995–2000) EcoCAR Program (USA) 2008 (2005–2010)
Fuel Economy Voluntary agreement of the German 1998 (2000–2005) PREDIT 4: Sustainable transport 2009 (2005–2010)
automotive industry (Germany) (France)
Top Runner Programme (Japan) 1998 (1995–2000; Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and 2009 (2005–2010)
2000–2005) Component Manufacturing Initiative
Fuel Economy Labelling for Cars (UK) 2001 (2005–2010) (USA)
Passenger Vehicle Energy 2004 (2000–2005) Five-Year Plan R&D allocation 2012 (2015–2018)
Consumption Labelling Ordinance (India)
(Germany) Inovar Auto Incentive Programme 2013 (2015–2018)
Labelling standard for cars (Japan) 2004 (2000–2005; (Brazil)
2005–2010) Fuel & Energy- Natural Gas for Vehicles (Canada) 1999 (1995–2000)
Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards 2005 (2000–2005) related Fleetwise Promotion of Ethanol- 1999 (1995–2000)
(China) technology Blended Transport Fuel (Canada)
Light Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and 2006 (2005–2010) National Plan for Biofuels and 2000 (1995–2000)
Environment Label (USA) Biomass (Italy)
Green Contract Law (Japan) 2007 (2005–2010) Driving Research and Innovation for 2002 (2005–2010)
Law on fuel economy standard 2012 (2010–2015) Vehicle Efficiency and Energy
(Mexico) Sustainability (USA)
Mandatory standard on fuel 2013, 2015 Alternative fuels and engines 2004 (2000–2005)
efficiency (Russia) (2010–2015) (Germany)
Requirement on fuel efficiency 2013 (2015–2018) Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Programme 2004 (2005–2010)
standard (Brazil) (USA)
CO2 emission & fuel efficiency 2017; 2018 The Budget Law (Italy) 2007 (2005–2010)
standards for light duty vehicles and (2015–2018) Ethanol (E3) Production 2007 (2005–2010)
heavy-duty vehicles (India) Demonstration (Japan)
Evaluation Regulation for Consigners and 2006 (2005–2010) National Clean Diesel Campaign 2007 (2005–2010)
Transportation Companies (Japan) (USA)
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 2009 (2005–2010) New Energy Technologies 2008 (2005–2010)
Gases Rule (USA) Demonstration Fund (France)
On-Road GHG Assessment Tools 2010 (2005–2010) Renewable Fuel Infrastructure Grant 2008 (2005–2010)
(USA) (USA)
Mandatory measurement and 2012 (2010–2015) The American Recovery and 2009 (2005–2010)
reporting of corporate emissions Reinvestment Act (USA)
(Mexico) Energy Storage for Transportation 2009 (2005–2010)
and Electric Power (USA)
Energy Technologies Institute (UK) 2007 (2005–2010)
to provide attractive public transport and well-coordinated land Low Carbon Industrial Strategy (UK) 2009 (2005–2010)
Inova Energia Program (Brazil) 2013 (2015–2018)
uses was the key to the improvement especially at the early stage
(1990–2004) for developed nations (Table 7). This was usually
done by investing in railway infrastructure and bus transit to countries (notably Germany and UK) to achieve absolute decou­
enhance the in-city and intraregional connectivity. Accessibility pling. Another effective practice was to encourage modal shift in
planning was also stressed. During the more recent stage the freight sector, as road logistics are also a major contributor to
(2005–2010), more successful policies focused on strengthening carbon emissions. A series of financial, technological and opera­
the planning at a district level to improve interconnectivity be­ tional strategies were usually synthesised to help achieve abso­
tween public transport modes, and employed mixed land-use lute decoupling (i.e. France, Japan, UK & USA). From these
near main transit locations (i.e. Germany and UK) to further experiences, developing a connection to the logistics companies
encourage modal shift and sustain transit ridership. Moreover, and considering their challenges in operation (instead of merely
active transport was integrated in accessibility planning such as investing in the infrastructure) are critical to the overall effec­
enhancing accessibility to buildings by short-distance walking tiveness of policy implementation.
and cycling. Overall, this might have helped some developed

11
K.H. Tsoi et al. Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

Table 7 Table 8
Examples of policies in ‘Institutional Framework’ of decarbonisation. Examples of policies in ‘Funding’ of decarbonisation.
Types of Examples of policy instruments Year Implemented Types of policies Examples of policy instruments Year Implemented
policies (countries) (Decoupling periods) (countries) (Decoupling periods)

Passenger Air Quality and Energy Rational Use 1996 (1995–2000) Economic Biofuel Tax Exemption (Italy) 2001 (2005–2010)
transport Law (France) incentives Subsidies to bioethanol producers 2002 (2000–2005)
Promotion of teleworking (Japan) 1999 (1995–2000; (China)
2000–2005) Preferential Tax Regimes for Biofuels 2002 (2005–2010)
The National Cycling Plan (Germany) 2002 (2000–2005) (UK)
National Sustainable Development 2002 (2000–2005) Aid for Low-Emission Transport 2005 (2005–2010)
Strategy (2002) (Germany) (France)
Development of Transport 2002 (2000–2005; Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicle 2006 (2005–2010)
Infrastructure (Italy) 2005–2010) Tax Credit (USA)
Urban and Regional Planning 2004 (2000–2005) Vehicle CO2 bonus and penalty 2007 (2005–2010)
(Germany) system (France)
Environmentally Sustainable Transport 2004 (2000–2005) Vehicle scrappage scheme (France) 2008 (2005–2010)
(Japan) Grants for Production of Advanced 2008 (2005–2010)
Promotion of cycling (France) 2006 (2005–2010) Biofuels (USA)
Promotion of traffic demand 2007 (2005–2010) Cleaner vehicle purchase incentives 2009 (2005–2010)
management (Japan) (Italy)
Eco-commuting Promotion Action 2007 (2005–2010) Eco-car tax breaks and subsidies 2009 (2005–2010)
Program through the Mobility (Japan)
Management Project (Japan) No fuel duty for electric vehicles (UK) 2009 (2005–2010)
Federal Transit Programme (USA) 2007 (2005–2010) National Clean Diesel Campaign 2009 (2005–2010)
Cycle Rail Task Force (UK) 2009 (2005–2010) (USA)
Sustainable Travel Towns (UK) 2009 (2005–2010) Funding for energy efficiency, 2010 (2005–2010)
Strengthening regional and national 2013 (2010–2015) renewable energy and bike-sharing
interconnectivity (Mexico) (Italy)
Sustainable City Bus Services (India) 2014 (2015–2018) Green Bus Fund (UK) 2010 (2005–2010)
Freight Railway Infrastructure Adaptation for 2000 (2000–2005; Charging infrastructure incentives 2014 (2015–2018)
logistics Freight Transport (Japan) 2005–2010) (Italy)
21st Century Truck Partnership (USA) 2000 (2005–2010) Funding Scheme for Faster Adoption 2015 (2015–2018)
The Green Logistics Partnership 2004 (2000–2005) and Manufacturing of (Hybrid) &
Conference (Japan) Electric Vehicles (India)
The SmartWay Transport Partnership 2004 (2005–2010) Import taxes exemption for both 2016 (2015–2018)
(USA) passenger & goods transport EVs
Maritime Transport Initiative (France) 2006 (2005–2010) (Brazil)
Promotion of efficient freight of railway 2007 (2005–2010) Ownership tax benefits for EVs (Italy) 2017 (2015–2018)
transport (Japan) Economic Green Tax on automobiles (Japan) 2001 (2000–2005;
Freight Modal Shift Grant Schemes (UK) 2007 (2005–2010) disincentives 2005–2010)
Retailer Sustainable Commerce 2008 (2005–2010) Vehicle Exercise Duty (UK) 2001 (2005–2010)
Agreement (France) Company Car Tax Reform (UK) 2002 (2005–2010)
Clean transportation systems (Mexico) 2013 (2010–2015) Heavy goods vehicle toll (Germany) 2004 (2000–2005)
Distance-Based Road Pricing for 2004 (2000–2005)
Heavy Vehicles (Germany)
(d) A viable funding mechanism: Financial incentives and disin­ Vehicle CO2 bonus and penalty 2007 (2005–2010)
system (France)
centives have been commonly practised by developed nations in
Vehicle Registration Tax (Russia) 2008 (2010–2005)
more recent periods (2005–2018), and they have included envi­ Eco-tax for heavy-duty vehicles 2009 (2005–2010)
ronmental taxes and the provision of subsidies to reinforce the (France)
push and pull effects that encourage the use of cleaner transport Carbon Tax (Mexico) 2013 (2010–2015)
modes (Table 8). Taxes have been levied on the consumption of Tax for all light-duty and commercial 2013 (2015–2018)
vehicles (Brazil)
traditional fossil fuels, and the purchase of cars that generate
higher CO2 emissions. Some countries have also levied tax on
other polluting transport modes (e.g. distance-based road pricing transport sector. An illustrative example of well-designed quan­
for heavy vehicles). On the other hand, providing economic in­ titative modelling is the Visioning and Backcasting for UK
centives such as subsidies, tax credit or rebates were commonly Transport Policy (DfT, 2006) conducted by government-research
practised to subsidise the purchase of new vehicles of low or zero efforts at the national level. In particular, the scientific-based
carbon emission. Subsidies have been granted when buyers pur­ backcasting approach allows policymakers to identify suitable
chase cars with very low emissions (e.g. full electric) or specific policy packages that can be implemented in different time phases
types of low-emission vehicles (e.g. fuel-cell light duty and plug- for achieving specific carbon reduction targets (Banister et al.,
in electric). Replacing an old vehicle with a low-emission vehicle 2007).
is also rewarded. As observed in other cases, subsidies are pro­
vided for public transport operators (e.g. for the purchase of clean 5. Lessons learnt
fuel buses and retrofitting of old diesel buses), for the production
of biofuels, and for R&D into green technologies (e.g. lithium-ion Over the last three decades, both developed and developing nations
batteries for electric vehicles). In many nations, the tax received have implemented different policy packages to facilitate transport
would be injected to the funding of economic incentives to decarbonisation. The results clearly indicate that a wide range of policy
change behaviour or to other complementary transport policies. mechanisms are available for transport decoupling. However, there is a
(e) Quantitative modelling for different policy scenarios: Quan­ high degree of complexity in these mechanisms, as significant variations
titative modelling for carbon emissions in all sectors is commonly are identified in the level of implementation (easy or difficult), the scale
identified in recent years. Though, there are limited efforts in of implementation (local or national) and the time over which the effect
modelling for the potential impacts of different transport polices can be measured among policy options. Some simple push–pull
before 2015, despite the growing carbon contribution by the

12
K.H. Tsoi et al. Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

initiatives (i.e. regulatory and price signals) are relatively easy to
implement, but stronger ‘avoid’ and ‘shift’ measures are more difficult,
as it requires a more collaborative planning approach including effective
execution by different policy actors, together with flexibility and con­
sistency over time. Implementation takes place at both the national and
the local levels, meaning that vertical cooperation is required between
different government agencies. Some policies are more immediate in
their effects, but others take longer for policy outcomes to be realised
and measured.
This policy review has been designed to provide examples that
illustrate the potential for transport decarbonisation. These policies are
not comprehensive, but they help our understanding of the more suc­
cessful policy practices adopted by different countries. The aim is not to
be prescriptive, but to argue that a range of different policy packages
implemented in the appropriate local contexts can lead to an absolute
decoupling of the growth in transport carbon emissions from economic
growth. Some of the critical factors that affect the effectiveness of
transport decarbonisation are summarised in Table 9.
In terms of policy planning, a transport decarbonisation action plan
that aligns with the overarching vision in the national climate plan and
clearly defines quantifiable targets is a common success factor for
developed and developing countries. A scientific-based, realistic and
achievable target can greatly enhance policy effectiveness (ITF, 2018;
TDA, 2018). For those who have improved the decoupling status and
achieved absolute decoupling in the final period (i.e. Mexico, Russia,
France and Japan), detailed task coordination among institutions and a
clear timeline of policy deliverables were in place to facilitate effective
decoupling. This is also articulated in a wide range of literature – a well-
defined governance structure is essential to the realisation of policy
objectives in transport decarbonisation (Marsden and Rye, 2010;
Schwanen et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2015).
In terms of policy implementation, several effective policy in­
struments in transport decoupling were observed. First, regulating fuel
quality and fuel economy standards as a coordinated strategy can be a
very first step for relative decoupling (particularly in developing na­
tions). Its effectiveness can be enhanced if mandatory standards are
applied to both car consumers and manufacturers. In more recent years,
R&D in low-carbon vehicles and fuel technology is an effective policy
measure to accelerate transport decarbonisation. Secondly, to enhance
policy effectiveness, R&D policies need to facilitate public–private
research partnerships, as this can strengthen the relations between early
pioneers (i.e. innovative niches) and existing policy actors in the regime
for effective social-technical transition (Geels, 2014). For example, the
participatory planning approach with research institutions and the in­
dustry helps bridge the policy-implementation gap, where knowledge
can be translated into policy outcomes (e.g. electric mobility infra­
structure and market uptake). Thirdly, a strengthened national-regional
framework in promoting modal shift initiatives seems to sustain a
longer-term decoupling trend. National commitment and investment in
public transport, regional development in well-coordinated land-use
zoning (i.e. transit-oriented development) and local integration of
accessible design all reinforce a well-structured institutional hierarchy
and enhance policy effectiveness.
Policy synergies can affect overall policy effectiveness because an
appropriate combination of policy instruments can mitigate potential
conflicts and reinforce policy objectives. Countries that improve the
transport decoupling status usually develop a set of policy packages in
the action plan. The policy-mix is highly multisectoral with clear sub-
objectives that work towards the overarching goal. This study does
not quantify the synergetic effects, but some better performing nations
who manage to achieve absolute decoupling in the most recent period
illustrate a series of consistent policies to reduce private road transport.

Table 9
Critical factors of transport decarbonisation at different spatial scales.
National Regional Local

Non-transport Transport

Policy planning
Vision and • A national climate plan with • Formulating a National
Objectives long-term vision to sustainable Sustainable Transport Policy
development
Target and • Goals of carbon reductions in all • Quantifiable targets in carbon • Private-public collaboration in • Developing local carbon reduction
Action Plans sectors reduction by transport sector freight carbon reduction initiatives strategies based on the regional
• Supplemented by sub-plans such • Multi-instrumentality in policy • Regional action plans that clearly action plans
as energy conservation and car­ objectives and actions plans delineate policy actors and fulfil • Consultation and promotion of
bon reduction blueprint • Clear delineation of task among national objectives national objectives in local
ministries (horizontal) and • Empowering regional agencies to communities
regional authorities (vertical) have higher autonomy in decision-
making
Policy implementation
Monitoring and • Mandatory reporting of GHG in • Regulation on fuel quality and fuel • Effective monitoring to the
Evaluation important sectors economy emission standards of transport
• Regulation in fuel economy operators and fuel manufacturers
labelling
Research and • R&D in energy-saving technol­ • R&D in low-carbon vehicle tech­ • Public-private-research partnership • Developing supporting
Development ogy and renewable power (useful nology and fuel energy to increase the uptake of low- infrastructure for low-carbon
for road electrification) • R&D in traffic management (e.g. carbon technology in the market driving
intelligent transport system)
Institutional • Compact city development & • Enhancing accessibility by more • Transit-oriented development • Integrating public and active
Framework avoiding uncontrolled urban public transport investment (i.e. • Well-coordinated land-use (density transport in accessibility planning
sprawl rail and bus rapid transit) and diversity) and building design
• Aligning future city development • Increasing investment in • Public-private cooperation in • Enhancing interconnectivity
to sustainable transport multimodal freight infrastructure freight sector to enhance the among different transport modes
objectives (i.e. rail and sea) connectivity between ports and
markets
Quantitative • National backcasting and forecasting research in carbon emissions
Modelling (transport and all sectors)
Funding • Funding in research of cleaner • Subsidies on low-carbon electric • Subsidise regional transport • Distance-based road pricing
energy vehicles operators in using much cleaner
• Tax on vehicles with higher carbon fuel and fleet
emissions and fossil fuels

13
K.H. Tsoi et al.
Overall, stand-alone policies might only induce immediate effect but
cannot sustain the overall decoupling trend (Vieira et al., 2007; Loo and
Tsoi, 2018). Returning to the socio-ecological resilience concept, policy
synergies are dynamic. Progressive policy efforts through adjusting
existing policy measures and devising new measures grounded on cur­
rent policy combinations can generate much stronger synergetic effects.
For instance, the Japanese polices of modal shift by first improving local
public transport infrastructure, followed by promoting eco-commuting
through promoting urban agglomerations and cooperating with busi­
ness sectors to encourage eco-commuting behaviour have demonstrated
strong synergies in reducing car use with a consistent improvement in
transport decoupling.
To address the policy-implementation gap, integrative, collabora­
tive, and holistic policy planning is always observed in transport
decarbonisation on a national level. Strong implementation was
observed in law enforcement in fuel quality and labelling. However,
implementation in other policy areas tends to be weaker. This gap might
have led to the unstable trends observed in transport decoupling. There
are several lessons here. Firstly, there may be a communication problem
between ideas and actual measures. One example is promoting sus­
tainable freight by encouraging intermodality. Essentially, intermodal
transfer is the key objective, but the actual measures may not address the
core problems. Monetary incentives and the upgrading of existing
infrastructure, for instance, might not effectively encourage modal shift
because the intermodal arrangement can be inconvenient and unat­
tractive to logistics operators. Secondly, the effectiveness might have
been compromised in the citizen engagement process as more effective
policies may be perceived to be unpopular. Encouraging sustainable
travel through behavioural shift is a case in point. The unpopularity can
reflect the difficulty in changing individual habits, as this usually takes a
longer time to realise and it is hard to measure the effect. Some com­
plementary policies implemented in a sequential order seems to offer an
effective means to enhance policy legitimacy over time. For example,
Germany enhances public transit by first subsidising commuting in
public transport (2001), followed by consolidating the National Cycling
Plan (2002) and the Urban & Regional plans (2004) and levying energy
& fuel tax (2006). The overall aim of discouraging car use began by
introducing some more acceptable measures such as encouraging the 30
million tax-paying commuters to use public transport, and it then pro­
ceeded by promoting structural changes in regional planning (inte­
grating short-distance passenger transport and active transport in
building construction and urban development) (IEA, 2019a), before the
deterrence measures were implemented. The need to continuously
adjust transport decarbonisation policies in a positive and dynamic
manner to address the policy-implementation gap is evident, and this
provides the means to achieve both strong and weak transport
decoupling.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, the nine-component strategic framework that captures
aspects of both policy planning and policy implementation has been
applied over a 29-year time horizon to 16 countries to evaluate the
global performance in making progress towards transport decoupling.
The lessons learnt (Section 5) has identified some of the critical factors
that would be needed to provide the elements of national, regional and
local policy strategies, and the necessary supporting measures to ensure
effective implementation. The approach taken has been from top down,
so that broad based policies can be identified for implementation. The
intention is not to be prescriptive, as each country would follow a
different pathway to transport decarbonisation, and probably make
progress at different speeds. But examples have been given throughout
covering a range of regulatory, pricing, behavioural, and technological
strategies that need to be followed.
Here a set of more general conclusions are drawn that provide a
framework for positive action, and more importantly to help translate
14
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
strong policy interventions towards transport decarbonisation with
effective measures so that the ‘implementation gap’ can be bridged.
Throughout it should be remembered that strong decoupling means
substantial reductions in carbon emissions in transport, but at the same
time maintaining and enhancing economic growth. Transport decar­
bonisation is attainable, and together with the appropriate supporting
measures it can be achieved, but as noted (Table 9) there needs to be a
sound set of facilitating measures, such as effective regulation, taxes,
pricing and incentives. For example, strong carbon pricing can be
introduced together with investment in public transport and with in­
centives for renewable energy and electric vehicles. It is necessary to
move beyond single policy measures and to combine sets of comple­
mentary measures that work together to achieve the desired outcomes.
The process is not a linear one, but when certain thresholds are reached,
the switch to low carbon transport becomes a reality.
Policy framing, including the vision and objectives together with
targets and action plans, must promote a clear and consistent direction,
as the market requires stability and certainty. For example, it seems that
in some developed countries (e.g. the EU and the UK), conventional cars
(petrol and diesel powered) will be phased out with only EVs (initially
with hybrid cars) being sold in 2030. Such a policy, combined with
suitable incentives, would result in the total stock of vehicles being
substantially changed over a 10-year transition period (the average life
of a car), and provided that the batteries were powered from renewable
sources there would be substantial reductions in transport carbon
emissions. More importantly, the car industry would respond through
switching to new production processes that in turn would mean sub­
stantial investment in electric technologies.
Technological transition is always difficult and many consumers do
not like change. This means that enabling mechanisms are needed to
allow individuals and businesses to make that change. This could be
achieved through incentives or tax benefits, but it would also require a
much greater involvement of both the public and businesses in discus­
sions over the importance of low carbon transport and how they might
contribute to a fundamental change in consumption patterns.
As noted earlier in this paper, actions are required not only in
transport but across government to promote consistency between de­
partments, and also to acknowledge more transparency and an accep­
tance that effective actions cut across sectors. New forms of
collaboration and coordination are needed, together with a clearer un­
derstanding of how transport decarbonisation can impact positively on
economic growth. Reducing the need to travel long distances reflects on
a range of sectoral policies that relate to location and density of new
housing, the distribution of jobs, services and facilities, supply chains for
industry, and the distribution of goods to shops and directly to
consumers.
However, any framework needs to be flexible and thought needs to
be given to contingency measures. One problem is that outcomes are
often not as intended, either in terms of consumer responses or in terms
of the scale of the expected impact. Throughout the process of policy
planning and implementation, it is crucial to debate and discuss options
so that the likelihood of effective actions is increased. One way to pro­
vide such a dialogue is through the use of good examples of successful
implementation taken from other countries or cities, and to test them for
their transferability.
This paper helps in that respect by drawing on examples of the 16
countries reviewed. There is now a clear acceptance of climate change
and transport’s contribution, and this is apparent in all the countries
reviewed. Together they contribute 60 per cent of all carbon dioxide
emissions from transport. Some of them have set Net Zero targets at the
national or regional or even local levels, and in many cases (e.g. USA) it
is the cities that have taken the lead and put pressure on other levels of
governance to be more ambitious in their transport and climate change
targets.
With the upcoming COP26 meeting in Glasgow (2021) and the re-
engagement of the USA in leading the climate change agenda, the
K.H. Tsoi et al. Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250

signs for real action are the most positive since COP21 in Paris (2015).
Transport decarbonisation has been the hardest sector to adjust to the
new imperatives of Net Zero, as emissions for surface transport have
remained about the same as in 2010 in the eight developed countries or
declined. But emissions have increased substantially in the eight
developing countries (except Russia and Mexico). This is not unex­
pected, but it means that to achieve global targets, the richer countries
may need to take responsibility for a larger cut in carbon emissions.
Economic growth has continued to rise, but at a slower rate in most
countries, as the global economy is still recovering from the financial
crisis (2008) and the COVID-19 pandemic’s economic impact is
increasingly felt. It is now time for transport to switch from being a
minor player to taking the lead through a combination of innovation,
electrification, behavioural change, strong industry leadership, but
above all through a clear set of ambitious and consistent policies taken
by governments at all spatial scales.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ka Ho Tsoi: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data
curation, Writing - original draft, Validation. Becky P.Y. Loo: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing. David Banister: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix 1. A list of other supplementary national and government documents

Countries Policy documents

Developing nations
Brazil • Fact Sheet: Brazil at the 22nd Conference of the Parties to the UNFCC (FRB, 2016)
China • National Pilot Scheme for Ethanol Fuel (NEA, 2002)
• China Medium- and Long-Term Energy Conservation Plan (NEA, 2004)
India • White Paper on Pollution in Delhi with An Action Plan (MEF, 1997)
• Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017): Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth (Planning Comission, 2013)
Indonesia • National Climate Change Policy in Indonesia (Ministry of Transport, 2013)
• Guideline for Implementing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Action Plan (NDPA, 2011)
• Indonesia’s National Mitigation Actions: Paving the Way towards NAMAs. Discussion document (Tharmin, 2011)
Mexico • National Climate Change Strategy. 10-20-40 Vision (NCCS, 2013)
• Energy Policies beyond IEA Countries: Mexico (IEA, 2017a)
Nigeria • Low-carbon energy development in Nigeria (IIED, 2013)
Russia • Climate Doctrine of the Russian Federation (President of Russia, 2009)
Developed nations
France • Promoting Sustainable Mobility: Cycling (Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, 2014)
• Maritime Transport Initiative (IEA, 2017b)
Germany • The German Government’s Environmental Report 2015: Moving forward with modern environmental policy (BUMB, 2015)
• A road toll for Germany: Every kilometre counts (GEA, 2015)
• The National Cycling Plan 2002-2012 (Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, 2002)
• National Climate Protection Programme (ISIR, 2006)
Italy • Italy’s National Energy Strategy 2017 (MED, 2017)
Japan • Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan (Ministry of the Environment, 2008)
• Profile of Japan (Climate Action Tracker, 2018)
UK • Freight Carbon Review (DfT, 2017)
• Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future (DfT, 2009)
• The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (SSECC, 2009)
• Reducing emissions and preparing for climate change: 2017 Report to Parliament Summary and recommendations (CCC, 2017)
USA • Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gases Reporting Program Implementation (EPA, 2009)

References Bassi, S., Carvalho, M., Doda, B., Fankhauser, S., 2017. Credible, effective and publicly
acceptable policies to decarbonise the European Union: Final report. The Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
Alises, A., Vassallo, J.M., Guzmán, A.F., 2014. Road freight transport decoupling: a
Banister, D., Hickman, R., 2013. Transport futures: thinking the unthinkable. Transp.
comparative analysis between the United Kingdom and Spain. Transp. Policy 32,
Policy 29, 283–293.
186–193.
Banister, D., Hickman, R., Stead, D., 2007. Looking over the horizon: visioning and
Al-Subaie, A., Maroufmashat, A., Walker, S., Fowler, M., Elkamel, A., 2016.
backcasting. In: Perrels, A., Himanen, V., Lee-Gosselin, M. (Eds.), Building Blocks for
Decarbonizing transportation through the use of power-to-gas for oil refining
Sustainable Transport. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 25–53.
operations. In: 2016 IEEE Smart Energy Grid Engineering (SEGE), University of
Banister, D., Schwanen, T., Anable, J., 2012. Introduction to the special section on
Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, 21–24 August 2016, pp. 231–235.
theoretical perspectives on climate change mitigation in transport. J. Transp. Geogr.
Arioli, M., Fulton, L., Lah, O., 2020. Transportation strategies for a 1.5◦ C world: a
24, 467–470.
comparison of four countries. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 87, 102526.
Bauer, G., Zheng, C., Greenblatt, J.B., Shaheen, S., Kammen, D., 2020. On-demand
Arsenio, E., Dias, J.V., Lopes, S.A., Pereira, H.I., 2018. Assessing the market potential of
automotive fleet electrification can catalyze global transportation decarbonization
electric bicycles and ICT for low carbon school travel: a case study in the Smart City
and smart urban mobility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 (12), 7027–7033.
of ÁGUEDA. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 10 (1), 13.
Bhardwaj, C., Axsen, J., Kern, F., McCollum, D., 2020. Why have multiple climate
Bakker, S., Haq, G., Peet, K., Gota, S., Medimorec, N., Yiu, A., Rogers, J., 2019. Low-
policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research
carbon quick wins: integrating short-term sustainable transport options in climate
gaps. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 135, 309–326.
policy in low-income countries. Sustainability 11 (16), 4369.
Brand, C., Anable, J., Ketsopoulou, I., Watson, J., 2020. Road to zero or road to nowhere?
Barisa, A., Romagnoli, F., Blumberga, A., Blumberga, D., 2015. Future biodiesel policy
Disrupting transport and energy in a zero carbon world. Energy Policy 139, 111334.
designs and consumption patterns in Latvia: a system dynamics model. J. Cleaner
Prod. 88 (1), 71–82.

15
K.H. Tsoi et al.
Breetz, H.L., Salon, D., 2018. Do electric vehicles need subsidies? Ownership costs for
conventional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in 14 US cities. Energy Policy 120,
238–249.
Bristow, A.L., Tight, M., Pridmore, A., May, A.D., 2008. Developing pathways to low
carbon land-based passenger transport in Great Britain by 2050. Energy Policy 36
(9), 3427–3435.
BUMB (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and
Nuclear Safety), 2015. The German Government’s Environmental Report 2015:
Moving forward with modern environmental policy. Rostock, BMUB.
Capros, P., Paroussos, L., Fragkos, P., Tsani, S., Boitier, B., Wagner, F., Busch, S.d, Resch,
G., Blesl, M., Bollen, J., 2014. European decarbonisation pathways under alternative
technological and policy choices: a multi-model analysis, Energy Strat. Rev. 2(3–4),
231–245.
CCC (Committee on Climate Change), 2017. Reducing emissions and preparing for
climate change: 2017 Report to Parliament Summary and recommendations.
London, CCC.
Chiaramonti, D., Maniatis, K., 2020. Security of supply, strategic storage and Covid19:
which lessons learnt for renewable and recycled carbon fuels, and their future role in
decarbonizing transport? Appl. Energy 271, 115216.
Climate Action Tracker, 2018. Profile of Japan. Assessed January 15, 2019. https://
climateactiontracker.org/countries/japan/.
Corliss, A., 2020. Electric vehicles and their role in the energy system. Johnson Matthey
Technol. Rev. 64 (3), 307–319.
Cretney, R., 2014. Resilience for whom? Emerging critical geographies of socio-
ecological resilience. Geogr. Compass 8 (9), 627–640.
Danesin, A., Linares, P., 2018. The relevance of the local context for assessing the welfare
effect of transport decarbonization policies. A study for 5 Spanish metropolitan
areas. Energy Policy 118, 41–57.
de Bruyn, S., 2002. Dematerialization and rematerialization as two recurring phenomena
of industrial ecology. In: Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W. (Eds.), A Handbook of Industrial
Ecology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 209–222.
DfT (Department of Transport), 2006. Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy
(VIBAT). DfT, London.
DfT (Department of Transport), 2009. Low Carbon Transport: A Greener Future. DfT,
London.
DfT (Department of Transport), 2017. Freight Carbon Review 2017. DfT, London.
Dhar, S., Pathak, M., Shukla, P.R., 2018. Transformation of India’s transport sector under
global warming of 2 C and 1.5 C scenario. J. Cleaner Prod. 172, 417–427.
Dobers, K., Ehrler, V.C., Davydenko, I.Y., Rüdiger, D., Clausen, U., 2019. Challenges to
standardizing emissions calculation of Logistics hubs as basis for decarbonizing
transport chains on a global scale. Transp. Res. Rec. 2673 (9), 502–513.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2009. Fact Sheet: Greenhouse Gases Reporting
Program Implementation. Washington, DC, EPA.
European Commission, 2018. Final Report of the High-Level Panel of the European
Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative. European Commission.
FRB (Federal Republic of Brazil), 2016. Fact Sheet: Brazil at COP22. FRB.
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A.V., Reyers, B., Rockström, J., 2016. Social-ecological
resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 21 (3), 41.
Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 253–267.
Fox-Penner, P., Gorman, W., Hatch, J., 2018. Long-term US transportation electricity use
considering the effect of autonomous-vehicles: estimates & policy observations.
Energy policy 122, 203–213.
Fu, P., Pudjianto, D., Zhang, X., Strbac, G., 2019. Evaluating strategies for decarbonising
the transport sector in Great Britain. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Milan PowerTech,
Milan, Italy, 23–27 June 2019, pp. 1–6.
GEA (Germany Environmental Agency), 2015. A road toll for Germany: Every kilometre
counts. Dessau-Roßlau, GEA.
Geels, F.W., 2012. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the
multi-level perspective into transport studies. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 471–482.
Geels, F.W., 2014. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics
and power into the multi-level perspective. Theor. Cult. Soc. 31 (5), 21–40.
Goedhals-Gerber, L., Freiboth, H., Havenga, J., 2018. The decarbonisation of transport
logistics: a South African case study. Southern Afr. Business Rev. 22 (1), 4362.
Gota, S., Huizenga, C., Peet, K., Medimorec, N., Bakker, S., 2019. Decarbonising
transport to achieve Paris Agreement targets. Energ. Effi. 12 (2), 363–386.
Greene, S., Façanha, C., 2019. Carbon offsets for freight transport decarbonization. Nat.
Sustain. 2 (11), 1–3.
Haas, T., Sander, H., 2020. Decarbonizing transport in the European Union: emission
performance standards and the perspectives for a European Green Deal.
Sustainability 12 (20), 8381.
Hagos, D.A., Ahlgren, E.O., 2020. Exploring cost-effective transitions to fossil
independent transportation in the future energy system of Denmark. Appl. Energy
261, 114389.
Hayes, S., Desha, C., Burke, M., Gibbs, M., Chester, M., 2019. Leveraging socio-ecological
resilience theory to build climate resilience in transport infrastructure. Transp. Rev.
39 (5), 677–699.
Healey, P., 1998. Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Plann. Rev. 69
(1), 1.
Healey, P., 2007. The collaborative planning’project in an institutionalist and relational
perspective: a note. Crit. Policy Anal. 1 (1), 123–130.
Healey, P., 2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. Plann. Theor. 2 (2), 101–123.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2009. Energy Policies of IEA Countries – France. IEA,
Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2016. Policies and Measures. Accessed May 5, 2018.
https://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/pams/japan/name-22959-en.php.
16
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2017a. Energy Policies beyond IEA Countries. IEA,
Mexico, France.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2017b. Maritime Transport Initiative. Accessed May
15, 2018, at https://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/climatechange/?
country=France.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2018. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report 2017. IEA,
France.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2019a. Addressing Climate Change: Policies and
Measures Databases. Accessed 7th Jan, 2018. https://www.iea.org/policiesandmeas
ures/climatechange/.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2019b. Energy Efficiency: Policies and Measures
Databases. Accessed 7th Jan, 2018. https://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/ener
gyefficiency/.
IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development), 2013. Low-Carbon
Energy Development in Nigeria. IIED, London.
ISIR (Institute of Systems and Innovation Research), 2006. National Climate Protection
Programme.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2018. Global Warming of 1.5◦ C.
Switzerland: IPCC.
ITF (International Transport Forum), 2011. Road Safety Performance – National Peer
review: Russian Federation. ITF, Paris.
ITF (International Transport Forum), 2017. Transport Outlook 2017. ITF, Paris.
ITF (International Transport Forum), 2018. Policy Priorities for Decarbonising Urban
Passenger Transport. ITF, Paris.
Jiang, X.T., Su, M., Li, R., 2018a. Investigating the factors influencing the decoupling of
transport-related carbon emissions from turnover volume in China. Sustainability 10
(9), 3034.
Jiang, R., Zhou, Y., Li, R., 2018b. Moving to a low-carbon economy in China: decoupling
and decomposition analysis of emission and economy from a sector perspective.
Sustainability 10 (4), 978.
Jones, P., 2012. Developing sustainable transport for the next generation: the need for a
multi-sector approach. IATSS Res. 35 (2), 41–47.
Karkatsoulis, P., Siskos, P., Paroussos, L., Capros, P., 2017. Simulating deep CO2 emission
reduction in transport in a general equilibrium framework: the GEM-E3T model.
Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 55, 343–358.
Kiba-Janiak, M., Witkowski, J., 2019. Sustainable urban mobility plans: how do they
work? Sustainability 11 (17), 4605.
Kluschke, P., Gnann, T., Plötz, P., Wietschel, M., 2019. Market diffusion of alternative
fuels and powertrains in heavy-duty vehicles: a literature review. Energy Rep. 5,
1010–1024.
Krause, J., Thiel, C., Tsokolis, D., Samaras, Z., Rota, C., Ward, A., Verhoeve, W., 2020. EU
road vehicle energy consumption and CO2 emissions by 2050–expert-based
scenarios. Energy Policy 138, 111224.
Li, J., 2011. Decoupling urban transport from GHG emissions in Indian cities—a critical
review and perspectives. Energy Policy 39 (6), 3503–3514.
Loo, B.P.Y., Banister, D., 2016. Decoupling transport from economic growth: extending
the debate to include environmental and social externalities. J. Transp. Geogr. 57,
134–144.
Loo, B.P.Y., Hung, W.T., Lo, H.K., Wong, S.C., 2005. Road safety strategies: a
comparative framework and case studies. Transp. Rev. 25 (5), 613–639.
Loo, B.P.Y., Siiba, A., 2018. Active transport in Africa and beyond: towards a strategic
framework. Transp. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1442889.
Loo, B.P.Y., Tsoi, K.H., 2018. The sustainable transport pathway: a holistic strategy of
five transformations. J. Transp. Land-use Plann. 11 (1), 961–980.
Loo, B.P.Y., Tsoi, K.H., Banister, D., 2020. Recent experiences and divergent pathways to
transport decoupling. J. Transp. Geogr. 88, 102826.
Marianne, F., Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Rozenberg, J., Narloch, U., Kerr, T., 2015.
Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future. Climate Change
and Development. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Marsden, G., Rye, T., 2010. The governance of transport and climate change. J. Transp.
Geogr. 18, 669–678.
May, A., Boehler-Baedeker, S., Delgado, L., Durlin, T., Enache, M., van der Pas, J., 2017.
Appropriate national policy frameworks for sustainable urban mobility plans. Eur.
Transp. Res. Rev0 9, 7–23.
May, A.D., 2005. Developing sustainable urban land use and transport strategies: a
decision maker’s guidebook. European Commission.
MED (Ministry of Economic Development), 2017. Italy’s National Energy Strategy 2017,
MED.
MEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests), 1997. White Paper on Pollution in Delhi
with An Action Plan. Accessed June 19, 2018, at. http://www.envfor.nic.in/
divisions/cpoll/delpolln.html.
Mercure, J.F., Lam, A., Billington, S., Pollitt, H., 2018. Integrated assessment modelling
as a positive science: private passenger road transport policies to meet a climate
target well below 2 ◦ C. Clim. Change 151 (2), 109–129.
Meyer, T., 2020. Decarbonizing road freight transportation–a bibliometric and network
analysis. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 89, 102619.
Ministry of the Environment, 2008. Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan. Ministry of
the Environment.
Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, 2002. The National Cycling Plan
2002–2012. Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, Berlin.
Ministry of Transport, 2013. National Climate Change Policy in Indonesia. Ministry of
Transport.
Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, 2014. Promoting Sustainable
Mobility: Cycling. Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Paris.
K.H. Tsoi et al.
Mittal, S., Dai, H., Shukla, P.R., 2016. Low carbon urban transport scenarios for China
and India: a comparative assessment. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 44,
266–276.
Nakamura, K., Hayashi, Y., 2013. Strategies and instruments for low-carbon urban
transport: an international review on trends and effects. Transp. Policy 29, 264–274.
NCCS, 2013. National Climate Change Strategy. 10–20-40 Vision. Federal Government of
Mexico, Mexico.
NDPA (National Development Planning Agency), 2011. Guideline for Implementing
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Action Plan. Jakarta, NATP.
NEA (National Energy Administration), 2002. National Pilot Scheme for Ethanol Fuel.
Accessed June 12, 2018, at http://www.nea.gov.cn/2015-12/13/c_131051672.htm.
NEA (National Energy Administration), 2004. China Medium and Long Term Energy
Conservation Plan.
OECD, 1996. OECD, 1996, March. Towards Sustainable Transportation proceedings,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
OECD, 2002. Germany’s Climate Protection programme – A Step by Step. OECD.
Nelson, E., Warren, P., 2020. UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in
transport? Transp. Policy 90, 39–51.
OECD, 2006. Decoupling the Environmental Impacts of Transport from Economic
Growth. OECD, Paris.
OECD, 2008. An OECD Framework for Effective and Efficient Environmental Policies.
OECD, Paris.
OECD, 2018. Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development 2018: Towards Sustainable
and Resilient Societies. OECD, Paris.
OECD, IEA, NEA, ITF, 2015. Aligning Policies for a Low-carbon Economy. OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233294-en.
O’Neill, E., Moore, D., Kelleher, L., Brereton, F., 2019. Barriers to electric vehicle uptake
in Ireland: perspectives of car-dealers and policy-makers. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 7
(1), 118–127.
Pedros-Perez, G., Martínez-Jiménez, P., Aparicio-Martinez, P., 2019. The potential of car
advertising in pursuing transport policy goals: code of good practices in the Spanish
context. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 72, 312–332.
Pelegov, D.V., Pontes, J., 2018. Main drivers of battery industry changes: electric
vehicles—a market overview. Batteries 4 (4), 65.
Perera, P., Hewage, K., Sadiq, R., 2020. Electric vehicle recharging infrastructure
planning and management in urban communities. J. Cleaner Prod. 250, 119559.
Pietzcker, R.C., Longden, T., Chen, W., Fu, S., Kriegler, E., Kyle, P., Luderer, G., 2014.
Long-term transport energy demand and climate policy: alternative visions on
transport decarbonization in energy-economy models. Energy 64, 95–108.
POLIS (Cities and regions networking for innovative transport solutions), 2016.
Decarbonising Transport: The perspective of European Regions and Cities. POLIS.
Planning Commission, 2013. Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017) Faster, More Inclusive
and Sustainable Growth. Planning Commission.
President of Russia, 2009. Climate Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Accessed July 14,
2018, at. http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/4822.
Richardson, B.C., 2005. Sustainable transport: analysis frameworks. J. Transp. Geogr. 13,
29–39.
Ruhnau, O., Bannik, S., Otten, S., Praktiknjo, A., Robinius, M., 2019. Direct or indirect
electrification? A review of heat generation and road transport decarbonisation
scenarios for Germany 2050. Energy 166, 989–999.
Santos, G., Behrendt, H., Maconi, L., Shivani, T., Teytelboym, A., 2010. Part I:
externalities and economic policies in road transport. Res. Transp. Econ. 28 (1),
2–45.
Savickis, J., Zemite, L., Zeltins, N., Bode, I., Jansons, L., 2020. Natural gas and
biomethane in the European road transport: the Latvian perspective. Latv. J. Phys.
Tech. Sci. 57 (3), 57–72.
Schwanen, T., Banister, D., Anable, J., 2011. Scientific research about climate change
mitigation in transport: a critical review. Transp. Res. Part A 45, 993–1006.
Sims, R., Schaeffer, R., Creutzig, F., Cruz-Núñez, X., D’Agosto, M., Dimitriu, D., et al.,
2014. Transport. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E.,
Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann,
B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.),
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(599-670). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Siskos, P., Zazias, G., Petropoulos, A., Evangelopoulou, S., Capros, P., 2018. Implications
of delaying transport decarbonisation in the EU: a systems analysis using the PRIMES
model. Energy Policy 121, 48–60.
SLoCaT (Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport), 2018. Transport and
Climate Change Global Status Report 2018. Accessed 5th August 2020, http://slocat.
net/tcc-gsr.
Sovacool, B.K., Abrahamse, W., Zhang, L., Ren, J., 2019. Pleasure or profit? Surveying
the purchasing intentions of potential electric vehicle adopters in China. Transp. Res.
Part A: Policy Pract. 124, 69–81.
Sovacool, B.K., Kester, J., Noel, L., de Rubens, G.Z., 2018. The demographics of
decarbonizing transport: the influence of gender, education, occupation, age, and
17
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102250
household size on electric mobility preferences in the Nordic region. Global Environ.
Change 52, 86–100.
SSECC (Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change), 2009. The UK Renewable
Energy Strategy. Surrey, SSECC.
Spyra, H., Salmhofer, H., 2016. The politics of decarbonisation – a case study. Transp.
Res. Procedia 14, 4050–4059.
Stampatori, D., Raimondi, P.P., Noussan, M., 2020. Li-ion batteries: a review of a key
technology for transport decarbonization. Energies 13 (10), 2638.
Tapio, P., 2005. Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the
case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transp. Policy 12 (2),
137–151.
Tapio, P., Banister, D., Luukkanen, J., Vehmas, J., Willam, R., 2007. Energy and
transport in comparison: immaterialisation, dematerialisation and decarbonisation
in the EU15 between 1970 and 2000. Energy Policy 35 (1), 433–451.
TDA (Transport Decarbonisation Alliance), 2018. Decarbonising transport by 2050. TDA.
Teter, J., le Feuvre, Gorner, M., Scheffer, S., 2019. Tracking Transport. International
Energy Agency.
Tharmin, S., 2011. Indonesia’s National Mitigation Actions: Paving the Way towards
NAMAs. Discussion document. In: CCXG/Global Forum on Environment Seminar on
MRV and Carbon Markets, 28–29 March 2011, Paris.
Thiel, C., Drossinos, Y., Krause, J., Harrison, G., Gkatzoflias, D., Donati, A.V., 2016a.
Modelling electro-mobility: an integrated modelling platform for assessing European
policies. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2544–2553.
Thiel, C., Nijs, W., Simoes, S., Schmidt, J., van Zyl, A., Schmid, E., 2016b. The impact of
the EU car CO2 regulation on the energy system and the role of electro-mobility to
achieve transport decarbonisation. Energy Policy 96, 153–166.
Tsakalidis, A., Gkoumas, K., Pekár, F., 2020. Digital transformation supporting transport
decarbonisation: technological developments in EU-funded research and innovation.
Sustainability 12 (9), 3762.
United Nations, 2016. Mobilizing Sustainable Transport for Development. United
Nations.
UNCEC, 2011. Transport for Sustainable Development in the ECE Region. (United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe), UNCEC.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2009. Handbook on Planning,
Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. UNDP, New York.
Vehmas, J., Malaska, P., Luukkanen, J., Kaivo-oja, J., Hietanen, O., Vinnari, M., Ilvonen,
J., 2003. Europe in the global battle of sustainability: rebound strikes back?
Advanced Sustainability Analysis. Publications of the Turku School of Economics
and Business Administration, Series Discussion and Working Papers 7: 2003, Turku.
Vieira, J., Moura, F., Viegas, J.M., 2007. Transport policy and environmental impacts:
the importance of multi-instrumentality in policy integration. Transp. Policy 14,
421–432.
Voltes-Dorta, A., Perdiguero, J., Jiménez, J.L., 2013. Are car manufacturers on the way
to reduce CO2 emissions?: a DEA approach. Energy Econ. 38, 77–86.
van der Steen, M., Van Schelven, R.M., Kotter, R., Van Twist, M.J.W., Peter van Deventer,
M.P.A., 2015. EV policy compared: an international comparison of governments’
policy strategy towards e-mobility. In: E-mobility in Europe. Springer, Cham, pp.
27–53.
Walker, B.J.A., Neil Adger, W., Russel, D., 2015. Institutional barriers to climate change
adaptation in decentralised governance structures: transport planning in England.
Urban Stud. 52 (12), 2250–2266.
Wang, C., Wood, J., Geng, X., Wang, Y., Qiao, C., Long, X., 2020. Transportation CO2
emission decoupling: empirical evidence from countries along the belt and road.
J. Cleaner Prod. 121450.
Wang, Y., Xie, T., Yang, S., 2017. Carbon emission and its decoupling research of
transportation in Jiangsu Province. J. Cleaner Prod. 142, 907–914.
World Bank, 2014. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2014. Washington, DC, World
Bank.
World Bank, 2019. Data. Accessed 24th August,. http://data.worldbank.org/topic.
Xiao, M., Simon, S., Pregger, T., 2019. Scenario analysis of energy system transition-a
case study of two coastal metropolitan regions, eastern China. Energy Strat. Rev. 26,
100423.
Yeh, S., Sperling, D., 2010. Low carbon fuel standards: implementation scenarios and
challenges. Energy Policy 38 (11), 6955–6965.
Zawieska, J., Pieriegud, J., 2018. Smart city as a tool for sustainable mobility and
transport decarbonisation. Transp. Policy 63, 39–50.
Zhao, Y., Kuang, Y., Huang, N., 2016. Decomposition analysis in decoupling transport
output from carbon emissions in Guangdong Province, China. Energies 9 (4), 295.
Zhang, H., Chen, W., 2015. The role of biofuels in China’s transport sector in carbon
mitigation scenarios. Energy Procedia 75, 2700–2705.
Zheng, J., Hu, Y., Dong, S., Li, Y., 2019a. The spatiotemporal pattern of decoupling
transport CO2 emissions from economic growth across 30 Provinces in China.
Sustainability 11 (9), 2564.
Zheng, Y., Li, S., Xu, S., 2019b. Transport oil product consumption and GHG emission
reduction potential in China: an electric vehicle-based scenario analysis. PLoS ONE
14 (9), e0222448.