Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Energy consumption and CO2 emissions in hinterland container

transport
Xuezong Tao *, Qin Wu
College of Transport and Communications, Shanghai Maritime University, No. 1550, Haigang Avenue, Pudong, Shanghai, 201306, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To correctly estimate both energy consumption and CO2 emissions of hinterland transport, the currently
Received 18 February 2020 accepted Activity e modal Structure e energy Intensity e emission Factor (ASIF) method needs to be
Received in revised form revised. Therefore, this study introduces the concept of both “yard-door-port” transport chain and semi-
26 June 2020
life cycle assessment, and establishes a generalized analytical framework. This framework considers all
Accepted 19 July 2020
energy consumption and well-to-wheel (WTW) emissions of main-haulage, loading/unloading, pre-/
Available online 10 August 2020
post-haulage, and transshipment of both loaded container movement and empty container reposition-
Handling editor. M.T. Moreira ing. An empirical study of the Yiwu-Ningbo corridor shows that the energy consumption and CO2
emissions were 82.675 ktce and 249.414 kt in 2017, respectively. Depending on the factors that are not
Keywords: considered, total energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be underestimated by 0.04e45.50% and
Hinterland transport 0.08e45.37%, respectively. All-road transport consumes 99.17% of the total energy and emits 98.84% of
Energy consumption the overall WTW CO2 emissions. The intensities of energy consumption and CO2 emissions for the road-
CO2 emissions rail combined transport are 81.34% and 74.24% lower than those of all-road transport, respectively.
ASIF method
Accordingly, decreasing the energy intensity of semi-trailers and shifting container traffic from all-road
Transport chain
transport to road-rail combined transport are effective measures to save energy and reduce CO2. This
Well-to-wheel
revised ASIF method enabled the reasonable estimation and structural analysis of energy consumption
and CO2 emissions under different scenarios.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In 2018, China’s container port traffic reached 251 million
twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), placing China first among
container port traffic of the world for the sixteenth time since 2003
(MOT, 2019; Li, 2019). However, the market share of hinterland
transport modes (all-road: 83.7%, road plus water: 15%, and road plus
rail: 1.3%) for Chinese container ports is extremely unbalanced
(Zhao, 2018). This unbalanced state is detrimental for the con-
struction of regional low-carbon transport systems. In this context,
Abbreviations: TEU, twenty-foot equivalent unit; CO2, carbon dioxide; WTW,
well-to-wheel; WTT, well-to-tank; TTW, tank-to-wheel; STT, semi-trailer trucks;
CBT, container block train; ECH, empty container handler; FLT, forklift trucks; RTG,
rubber-tyred gantry crane; RMG, rail-mounted gantry crane; ASIF, Activity - modal
Structure - energy Intensity - emission Factor; ce, coal equivalent; ktce, kilotons of
coal equivalent; ktCO2, kilotons of carbon dioxide; LNG, liquefied natural gas; Yiwu
CFS, Yiwu West Railway Container Freight Station; Beilun CFS, Beilun Port Railway
Container Freight Station.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xztao@shmtu.edu.cn (X. Tao).
not only national but also local governments of China have released
a series of policies (i.e., The Three-year Plan to Push forward
Restructuring Transportation in China, The Action Plan to Strengthen
Emission Controls of Diesel Trucks in China, and The Three-Year Action
Plan for Winning the Blue-Sky Defense War in Zhejiang Province).
These policies aim to both save energy and reduce CO2 emissions by
shifting intercity freight traffic from all-road transport to combined
transport, especially along port-hinterland corridors. However,
how to reasonably and accurately evaluate the effects (or pre-
evaluate the potential effects) of such policy measures on energy
saving and CO2 emissions reduction remains unknown.
One of the main challenges is the absence of a reasonable and
practical approach to assess the energy consumption and/or CO2
emissions from freight transport at the corridor level. In more
general terms, without an appropriate assessment approach,
neither developed economies nor developing countries can objec-
tively assess the effectiveness of an issued regional low-carbon
transport policy in the freight sector. Moreover, pre-evaluating
the potential energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction of a pro-
posed regional freight transport policy is also only possible with an

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123394
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394
appropriate assessment approach. Therefore, it is essential to
establish a generalized practical approach for the assessment of
both energy consumption and CO2 emissions from freight transport
at the corridor level.
So far, notable efforts by numerous researchers have been
directed to address this issue, mainly using a traditional activity-
based method (also known as bottom-up method). For North
America, Winebrake et al. (2008) proposed an intermodal network
analysis model for the selection of optimal routes, and obtained
both energy consumption and CO2 emissions of container transport
for three corridors along the U.S. eastern seaboard. Similarly, Comer
et al. (2010) depicted both CO2 intensity and total CO2 emissions for
different hinterland transport modes from Montreal, Canada, to
Cleveland, Ohio, USA, utilizing the model developed by Winebrake
et al. (2008). In Europe, Michalk and Meimbresse (2012) presented
a method to design new container train services, and computed the
CO2 emissions of both road and intermodal transport along the
Ulm-Wustermark corridor. Kim and Van Wee (2014) established a
model that integrates the semi-life cycle assessment concept
(considering the well-to-wheel (WTW) energy emissions,
including both well-to-tank (WTT) and tank-to-wheel (TTW) en-
ergy emissions. The authors used this model to examine whether
combined transport emits less CO2 than road transport in a Euro-
pean corridor between Rotterdam and Gdansk. Kirschstein and
Meisel (2015) constructed a series of mesoscopic emission
models to evaluate the CO2 emissions of road and rail trans-
portation, and conducted a case study for the container transport
from the port of Hamburg to Bratislava. In Asia, Liao et al. (2011)
calculated the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of hinterland
transport in Taiwan, and analyzed the effects of four managerial
strategies for the reduction of CO2 emissions. Regmi and Hanaoka
(2015) analyzed the CO2 emission reductions resulting from a
modal shift along the Laem Chabang Port-Thanaleng corridor. Tao
et al. (2017) developed a comprehensive analytical framework for
the evaluation of the mitigation potential of CO2 emissions from
modal shift, induced by subsidy for hinterland container transport,
which was tested, using the container transport along the Yiwu-
Ningbo corridor.
Except for research at the freight corridor level, few studies
reported the CO2 emissions at the freight node level, e.g., port or
consolidation center. Na et al. (2017) evaluated the environmental
efficiency of China’s eight coastal container ports using CO2 emis-
sions, including those from ships, loading/unloading equipment,
and yard trucks. Nocera and Cavallaro (2017) concluded that WTW
(well-to-wheel) analysis is the most appropriate approach to assess
the real freight CO2 emissions, and assessed the impacts of four
scenarios on CO2 emissions via WTW analysis.
In general, the above-mentioned studies provided insights into
the assessment of both energy consumption and CO2 emissions in
port-hinterland container transport. However, they still suffer from
a number of shortcomings. Firstly, only Winebrake et al. (2008) and
Liao et al. (2011) calculated both energy consumption and CO2
emissions, while the remaining studies only considered CO2
emissions. Secondly, almost none of the selected studies included
the CO2 emissions that emerge from the loading and unloading of
loaded containers (except for Na et al., 2017; Tao et al., 2017) and
the activities of empty container repositioning. Thirdly, the WTT
CO2 emissions were either neglected (Comer et al., 2010; Michalk
and Meimbresse, 2012; Regmi and Hanaoka, 2015) or the WTW
CO2 emissions of pre-/post-haulage and transshipment were not
included (Kirschstein and Meisel, 2015). Therefore, both the energy
consumption and CO2 emissions were underestimated to varying
degrees for container transport along a specific freight corridor (Tao
et al., 2018b). Additionally, previous research did not analyze the
structure of both total energy consumption and total CO2 emissions
in container transport. Hence, it is almost impossible to either
identify the key influencing factors of, or to select efficient mana-
gerial strategies for, the reduction of energy consumption and CO2
emissions in hinterland transport.
To fill these gaps within the literature (see Table 1), this study
proposes a generalized framework that not only enables reasonable
estimates but also enables a structural analysis of both energy
consumption and CO2 emissions for hinterland container transport.
To this end, the concept of both “yard-door-port” transport chain
(from the loading of an empty container at the empty container yard,
the loading cargoes at the door of factory or warehouse, to the
unloading of full-loaded container at the port terminal or vice versa)
and semi-life cycle assessment (namely WTW analysis including
both WTT and TTW energy emissions) are introduced in an attempt
to revise the traditional activity-based method.
Based on empirical research, the following main findings were
obtained: (1) Yiwu-Ningbo container traffic used 82.675 ktce and
emitted 249.414 kt CO2 in 2017. (2) The results will be under-
estimated by 0.04e45.50% if relevant factors are omitted. (3) All-
road transport dominants both the energy use and CO2 emissions.
(4) Reducing road energy intensity and prompting modal shift can
effectively reduce energy and CO2.
To the best of our knowledge, this study contributes to the
literature in the following aspects: (1) Considering all activities
included in the “yard-door-port” transport chain (including main-
haulage, loading and unloading, pre- and post-haulage, and trans-
shipment, which in turn includes both loaded container movement
and empty container repositioning), potential underestimation of
energy consumption in hinterland container transport could be
avoided. (2) Introduction of the concepts of both “yard-door-port”
transport chain and semi-life cycle assessment results in a fair and
reasonable assessment of CO2 emissions in hinterland container
transport. (3) The generalized framework proposed in this study
enables the structural analysis of both energy consumption and CO2
emissions in either developed economies or other developing
countries. Moreover, several efficient strategies for energy saving
and CO2 reduction are suggested.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 analyzes
both the elements and functions of a typical hinterland container
transport system in China. Section 3 presents a generalized
framework with which to objectively estimate the energy con-
sumption and CO2 emissions of hinterland container transport.
Section 4 provides background information and data collection for
the case study. Section 5 presents the results including structure
analysis, uncertainty analysis, comparative analysis, and scenario
analysis. Section 6 summarizes the main findings and proposes
relevant policy implications.
2. The typical hinterland transport system of China
Hinterland container transport refers to the container move-
ment between port and hinterland, which is a fundamental leg of
the entire international container transport chain. A seamless,
efficient, and sustainable hinterland container transport system is
beneficial for economic growth, social development, and environ-
mental protection of the entire port-hinterland corridor. A typical
hinterland container transport system in China is composed of
transport networks, vehicles, handling equipment, and operating
activities. In general, the transport networks are composed of links
(such as highway, railway, inland waterway, and access road) and
nodes (factory and warehouse, inland and costal intermodal facil-
ities, port terminal, and empty container yards outside the port).
The vehicles mainly include semi-trailer trucks (STT), container
block trains (CBT), and container ships. The handling equipment
normally consist of empty container handlers (ECH), forklift trucks
 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394 3

Table 1
Overview of selected literature and current study.

Studies Region Scope Mode Energy use CO2 emissions Activities Shipment

TTW WTW AM AL AP AT SL SE

Winebrake North America Corridor level Road, rail, water ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓

et al. (2008)
Comer et al. Corridor level Road, rail, water
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓

(2010)
Michalk and Europe Corridor level Road, rail
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓

Meimbresse
(2012)
Kim and Van Corridor level Road, rail, water

✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓

Wee (2014)
Kirschstein and Corridor level Road, rail
✓
✓

✓ ✓

Meisel
(2015)
Nocera and Node level Road
✓ ✓ ✓


✓

Cavallaro
(2017)
Liao et al. Asia Corridor level Road ✓ ✓
✓


✓ ✓
(2011)
Regmi and Corridor level Road, rail
✓
✓


✓

Hanaoka
(2015)
Tao et al. (2017) Corridor level Road, rail

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Na et al. (2017) Node level Road, Water
✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
This study (2020) Asia Corridor level Road, rail ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Note: TTW, Tank-to-Wheel; WTW, Well-to-Wheel; AM, activity of main-haulage; AL, activity of loading/unloading at the origin or destination node; AP, activity of pre-/post-
haulage; AT, activity of transshipment; SL, shipment of full-loaded container; SE, shipment of empty container; √ denotes that this factor was considered;
denotes that this
factor was not considered or the result of this factor was not given.

(FLT), rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTG), and rail-mounted gantry
cranes (RMG).
With regard to operating activities (see Fig. 1), all-road transport
is simpler than combined transport. Specifically, all-road transport
typically requires two legs of main-haulage and three loading and
unloading activities. Compared with all-road transport, however,
combined transport generally requires an additional four legs of
pre- and post-haulage as well as four transshipment activities in
the whole hinterland transport chain from the loading of the empty
container at an empty container yard to the unloading of the loaded
container at the port terminal. Ideally, if the costal intermodal fa-
cility is located within the port area, the number of pre- and post-
haulages and transshipments can be halved. Therefore, the pre- and
post-haulage and transshipment of both empty container reposi-
tioning and loaded container movement between the empty
container yard (or port terminal) and the costal intermodal facility
can be omitted. Then, the total activities of combined transport
include the two legs of main-haulage and pre- and post-haulage,
two transshipments, and three loading and unloading activities.
3. Methodology
Two main approaches can be used to calculate CO2 emissions
resulting from freight transportation. The first approach is an
energy-based method (Macharis et al., 2012), in which the CO2
emissions can be calculated by summing the multiplied energy
consumptions by energy type and the energy-specific CO2 emission
factors. The second approach is an activity-based method (Macharis
et al., 2012), in which the CO2 emissions can be computed by
summing the multiplied freight turnover per energy type, the

Fig. 1. Typical operation activities of hinterland container transport in China.

4 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394
energy consumption by energy type per turnover, and the energy-
specific CO2 emission factor. In general, the energy-based method is
the better option if energy consumption data is available (Grant
et al., 2013). In contrast, if energy consumption data is not avail-
able, the activity-based method is an appropriate substitute for
estimating both energy consumption and CO2 emissions (Tao et al.,
2018b). WRI and WBCSD (2005), McKinnon and Piecyk (2009),
Sprinz (2010), and Grant et al. (2013) assessed the advantages,
limitations, and choice of these two methods in detail. For this
study, it was almost impossible to directly obtain the data on en-
ergy consumption of the hinterland container transport. The rea-
sons are as follows: (1) Neither governmental departments nor any
third-party organizations collect, or even have the ability to collect,
energy consumption data at the freight corridor level from the
perspective of the “yard-door-port” transport chain. (2) The various
market players that are involved in the hinterland container
transport are reluctant to actively publish data either on energy
consumption or CO2 emissions. Consequently, the present study
used the activity-based method.
The Activity - modal Structure - energy Intensity - emission
Factor (ASIF) approach (see Eq. (1)) is the most frequently used
activity-based method. Schipper and Marie (1999) initially pro-
posed the ASIF approach to analyze past changes and future pos-
sibilities for both energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the
transport sector either of a single country (Eom and Schipper, 2010;
Schipper et al., 2011) or of several countries (Kamakate and
Schipper, 2009; Eom et al., 2012).
X haulage, and TEU-time for loading and unloading as well as
G¼ A$Sij $Iij $Fij
i; j
where G represents the carbon emissions from a particular trans-
port sector (tons of CO2); A represents the total travel or freight
activity (passenger- or ton-km); S represents a vector of the modal
shares (% of total passenger- or ton-km carried by each mode i using
energy type j); I represents the modal energy intensity of each
mode i using energy type j(energy use per passenger- and ton-km);
and Fij represents the carbon content of a specific energy type j used
for a given mode i.
The traditional ASIF model was originally developed at the
macroscopic level to estimate CO2 emissions rather than energy
consumption, and therefore would impose limitations on this
study. Consequently, the traditional ASIF model cannot be directly
applied to estimate the energy consumption. In addition, it neglects
a certain number of emissions from the WTT stage of the energy or
from the activities of main-haulage, loading and unloading, pre-
and post-haulage, and transshipment. Moreover, the traditional
ASIF model will underestimate the emissions from combined
transport, because emissions from pre- and post-haulage trucks are
assigned to road transport.
Therefore, the traditional ASIF model is first revised by intro-
ducing the concept of the “yard-door-port” transport chain. Spe-
cifically, the activities of the “yard-door-port” transport chain for
the repositioning of empty containers and the movement of loaded
containers are decomposed into main-haulage, loading and
unloading, pre- and post-haulage, and transshipment. Next, to es-
timate both energy consumption and CO2 emissions, Fij in Eq. (1) is
extended to two denotations. One is for the conversion of different
types of energy to coal equivalent (ce), and the other is for the
conversion of different types of energy to CO2 emissions. Third, new
superscripts and subscripts are introduced to adjust the traditional
ASIF approach to the requirements of this study. In doing so, Eq. (2)
is formulated to estimate both the energy consumption and CO2
emissions associated with hinterland container transport.
XX
El ¼ Ecladbj
c; a d2
; b; j 3
X X 
¼ 4 Aca $Sdcabj $Icdabj $Fjl 5
c; a d; b; j
X h  i
¼ Vc $Xca $Sdcabj $Icdabj $Fjl (2)
c; a; d; b; j
where E represents the energy consumption (in tons of ce) or CO2
emissions (in tons of CO2) in hinterland container transport; l
represents either energy consumption (l ¼ 0) or CO2 emissions
(l ¼ 1 and 2 for TTW and WTW emissions, respectively); c repre-
sents different types of “yard-door-port” transport chains for hin-
terland containers (c ¼ 0, 1, and 2 for all-road transport, road-rail
combined transport, and water-rail combined transport, respec-
tively); a represents the operational activity (a ¼ 0, 1, 2, and 3 for
main-haulage, loading and unloading, pre- and post-haulage, and
transshipment, respectively); d represents the flow direction of
container transport (d ¼ 0 and 1 for inbound empty container
repositioning and outbound loaded container movement, respec-
tively); b represents the category of vehicles and equipment (b ¼ 0,
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for main-haulage vehicles, ECH, FLT, RTG, pre- and
post-haulage vehicles, and RMG, respectively); j represents the
energy type (j ¼ 0, 1, and 2 for diesel, electricity, and liquefied
natural gas (LNG), respectively); Aca represents the operational
activity a of the “yard-door-port” transport chain c (TEU-km for
(1)
transshipment); Vc represents the container traffic (1000 TEU)
moved by the “yard-door-port” transport chain c; Xca represents
the average distance (km for main-haulage and pre- and post-
haulage) or the average number (times of loading and unloading
and transshipment) of the operational activity a for a given “yard-
door-port” transport chain c; Sdcabj represents the ratio (%) of the
operational activity a of different types of vehicles and equipment
b, which consume energy j to total operational activity a for a given
flow direction d of the “yard-door-port” transport chain c; Icdabj
represents the average energy intensity of different types of vehi-
cles and equipment b, which consume energy j to finish operational
activity a for a given flow direction d of the “yard-door-port”
transport chain c (L/TEU-km or L/TEU-time for diesel vehicles or
handling equipment, respectively, kWh/TEU-km or kWh/TEU-time
for electric vehicles or handling equipment, respectively, and kg/
TEU-km for LNG vehicles); Fjl represents a conversion factor of
energy j to coal equivalent (l ¼ 0, kgce/L for diesel, kgce/kWh for
electricity, and kgce/kg for LNG) or CO2 emissions (l ¼ 1 and 2 for
TTW CO2 emissions and WTW CO2 emissions, respectively, kgCO2/L
for diesel, kgCO2/kWh for electricity, and kgCO2/kg for LNG).
Based on Eq. (2), Eqs. (3)e(6) can be constructed for the struc-
tural analysis.
h i
P
ðVc $Xca Þ$Sdcabj $Icdabj $Fjl
a; d; b; j
4lc ¼
100% (3)
El
P h i
ðVc $Xca Þ$Sdcabj $Icdabj $Fjl
c; d; b; j
4la ¼
100% (4)
El
 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394 5

Fig. 2. Hinterland container transport routes along Yiwu-Ningbo corridor.

h i 4.1. Background
P
ðVc $Xca Þ$Sdcabj $Icdabj $Fjl
c; a; b; j Yiwu is a county-level city in the center of Zhejiang Province.
4ld ¼
100% (5)
El About 2.2 million people live in Yiwu, which has an administrative
area of 1105 km2. Because of an abundance of consumer goods and
P h i opportunities for shoppers, Yiwu has a strong economy with a gross
ðVc $Xca Þ$Sdcabj $Icdabj $Fjl domestic product (GDP) of 1.152 billion Renminbi (RMB) in 2017
c; a; d; b
4lj ¼
100% (6) (YYEO, 2018), ranking 12th of all counties and county-level cities in
El
China (Jason, 2018). Moreover, Yiwu is renowned as the “largest
small commodity wholesale market in the world” (YGAO, 2018).
where 4lc , 4la , 4ld , and 4lj represent the ratio of energy consumption
In 2017, approximately 928 thousand TEU of commodities were
(or CO2 emissions) of a specific “yard-door-port” transport chain c, exported to more than 200 countries and regions (Tao et al., 2018a).
the operational activity a, the flow direction d, and the energy Almost 90% of these commodities were transported overseas from
source j to total energy consumption (or CO2 emissions), Yiwu via the Ningbo port area (Tao et al., 2018b). Fig. 2 shows the
respectively. hinterland container transport routes along the Yiwu-Ningbo
Additionally, Eq. (7) is established to validate the results via corridor. All-road transport carriers supplied 97% of the hinter-
comparative analysis with previous relevant studies with regard to land container transport market share, while the remaining 3% was
the average intensity. The reason is that the total CO2 emissions (or supplied by road-rail combined transporters (Tao et al., 2018a). The
energy consumption) in these studies are very diverse. extremely low share of road-rail combined transport results from
P h i the longer distance, more complicated process, and higher cost of
ðVc $Xca Þ$Sdcabj $Icdabj $Fjl this “yard-door-port” transport chain compared with all-road
a; d; b; j transport.
Icl ¼ P (7)
ðVc $Xca Þ First, the “yard-door-port” distance of road-rail combined
a
transport is 47.93% longer than that of all-road transport. Second,
the repositioning of empty containers and the movement of loaded
where Icl represents the average intensity of CO2 emissions (or
containers by road-rail combined transport requires an additional
energy consumption) for a given “yard-door-port” transport chain c
four pre- and post-haulages and transshipments. Among these, the
(kgCO2/TEU-km for CO2 emissions and kgce/TEU-km for energy
transshipment is generated at the Yiwu West Railway Container
consumption); a ¼ 0, 2.
Freight Station (Yiwu CFS, inland intermodal facility) and the Beilun
Port Railway Container Freight Station (Beilun CFS, costal inter-
modal facility). The pre- and post-haulage activities are initiated
4. Case study between an empty container yard or a port terminal and the Beilun
CFS in Ningbo, and between the Yiwu CFS and a factory or a
This section presents an empirical analysis using the case of the warehouse in Yiwu. As a result, the road-rail combined transport
export container transport along the Yiwu-Ningbo corridor. This chain takes 66.67% longer than all-road transport. Third, the
case was chosen for two reasons: First, this corridor is one of the average “yard-door-port” cost of road-rail combined transport is
busiest hinterland container transport corridors in China. Second, a 1455 RMB/TEU. This is 100e200 RMB/TEU higher than all-road
good research foundation already exists (Tao et al., 2017; Tao et al., transport according to the hinterland container tariff provided by
2018a, 2018b) and data sources are available for this case. Ningbo Port International Logistics Co., Ltd.
6 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394

Table 2
Activity data for Yiwu-Ningbo hinterland container transport.

Transport chain Operational activity Parameters Value Source Note

All-road (c ¼ 0) Container traffic (1000 TEU) V0 809.924 YYEO, 2018; Tao et al. (2018a)
Main-haulage distance (km) X00 484(a) Tao et al. (2018b) a ¼0
Loading/unloading (times) X01 3 Tao et al. (2018a) a ¼1
Road-rail combined (c ¼ 1) Container traffic (1000 TEU) V1 24.954 YYEO, 2018; Tao et al. (2018a)
Main-haulage distance (km) X10 648(b) Tao et al. (2018b) a ¼ 0
Loading/unloading (times) X11 3 Tao et al. (2018a) a ¼ 1
Pre-/post-haulage distance (km) X12 68(c) Tao et al. (2018b) a ¼ 2
Transshipment (times) X13 4 Tao et al. (2018a) a ¼ 3

Note: (a) all-road distance of “yard-door-port” transport chain, (b) rail main-haulage distance of loaded container movement and empty container repositioning, (c) pre-/post-
haulage distance of loaded container movement and empty container repositioning.

Table 3
Structure of vehicles/equipment in Yiwu-Ningbo hinterland container transport.

Transport chain Vehicles/equipment Parameters Value Source

All-road Diesel STT(a) for main-haulage S00000 ¼ S10000 50% Tao et al. (2018a)
All-road or road-rail combined Diesel ECH(b) for loading/unloading S00110 ¼ S01110 33.33% Tao et al. (2018a)
Diesel FLT(c) for loading/unloading S10120 ¼ S11120 1.17%
Electric FLT(c) for loading/unloading S10121 ¼ S11121 0.50%
Electric RTG(d) for loading/unloading S10131 ¼ S11131 33.33%
Road-rail combined Diesel CBT(e) for main-haulage S01000 ¼ S11000 0.93% Tao et al. (2018b)
Electric CBT(e) for main-haulage S01001 ¼ S11001 49.07%
Diesel STT(a) for pre-/post-haulage S01240 ¼ S11240 38.82% Tao et al. (2018a)
LNG STT(a) for pre-/post-haulage S01242 ¼ S11242 11.18%
Electric RTG(d) for transshipment S01331 ¼ S11331 25%
Electric RMG(f) for transshipment S01351 ¼ S11351 25%
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Note: semi-trailer trucks, empty container handlers, forklift trucks, rubber-tired gantry cranes, container block trains, rail-mounted gantry cranes.

Table 4
Average energy intensity of vehicles/equipment for case study.

Transport chain Vehicles/equipment Parameters Value Reference value

(a)
All-road Diesel STT for main-haulage (L/TEU-km) 0
I0000 0.151 0.140e0.203 (AQSIQ and SAC, 2018a), 0.153e0.164 (Tao et al.,
1
I0000 0.181 2017), 0.196 (Winebrake et al., 2008), 0.218 (Suo, 2016), 0.245
(Liu et al., 2017)
All-road or road-rail Diesel ECH(b) for loading/unloading (L/TEU-time) 0
I0110 0
¼ I1110 0.230 0.250e0.330 (Kuai, 2015), 0.302 (Hu, 2008), 0.310e0.550 (Fan
combined et al., 2017)
Diesel FLT(c) for loading/unloading (L/TEU-time) 1
I0120 1
¼ I1120 1.167 0.790e1.370 (Fan et al., 2017), 1.174 (Yang, 2017), 1.607 (Tang,
2017)
Electric FLT(c) for loading/unloading (kWh/TEU-time) 1
I0121 ¼ I1121
1 2.623 2.258e3.333 (g), 3.125 (Tao et al., 2017), 3.240 (CKECL, 2018)
Electric RTG(d) for loading/unloading (kWh/TEU-time) 1
I0131 1
¼ I1131 1.719 1.500 (Suo, 2016), 1.697e1.909 (Xu, 2013), 1.700 (Liu et al.,
2015), 2.000 (Qi, 2010), 2.500 (Shen, 2015), 3.014 (Yang and
Chang, 2013)
Road-rail combined Diesel CBT(e) for main-haulage (L/TEU-km) 0
I1000 0.022 0.025 (ITRCC, 2009), 0.028 (Tao et al., 2018b), 0.037 (Comer
1
I1000 0.034 et al., 2010)
Electric CBT(e) for main-haulage (kWh/TEU-km) 0
I1001 0.098 0.096 (ITRCC, 2009), 0.122 (Tao et al., 2018b), 0.153 (Tao et al.,
1
I1001 0.146 2017), 0.297 (Tang, 2017)
Diesel STT(a) for pre-/post-haulage (L/TEU-km) 0
I1240 0.158 0.140e0.203 (AQSIQ and SAC, 2018a), 0.153e0.164 (Tao et al.,
1
I1240 0.193 2017), 0.196 (Winebrake et al., 2008), 0.218 (Suo, 2016), 0.245
(Liu et al., 2017)
LNG STT(a) for pre-/post-haulage (kg/TEU-km) 0
I1242 0.144 0.163 (Suo, 2016), 0.210 (Liu et al., 2017)
1
I1242 0.176
Electric RTG(d) for transshipment (kWh/TEU-time) 0
I1331 1
¼ I1331 1.691 1.500 (Suo, 2016), 1.697e1.909 (Xu, 2013), 1.700 (Liu et al.,
2015), 2.000 (Qi, 2010), 2.500 (Shen, 2015), 3.014 (Yang and
Chang, 2013)
Electric RMG(f) for transshipment (kWh/TEU-time) 0
I1351 ¼ I1351
1 3.150 1.820 (Wang, 2011), 2.500 (Qi, 2012), 2.579 (Tang, 2017), 3.445
(Wang et al., 2013)

Note: (a) semi-trailer trucks, (b) empty container handlers, (c) forklift trucks, (d) rubber-tired gantry cranes, (e) container block trains, (f) rail-mounted gantry cranes, (g) provided
by Yiwu International Landport Group (YILG) Co. Ltd.

4.2. Data sources sake of clarity, the input data are categorized following the “ASIF”
logic. The activity data are listed in Table 2.
The input data for this case study are collected from public Table 3 presents the structure of vehicles and equipment b
statistics, published literature, and publications in progress. For the consuming energy j to finish operational activity a for a given flow
 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394 7

Table 5
Conversion factors of energy to coal equivalent and CO2 emissions.

Conversion type Kinds of energy Parameters Value Source

Coal equivalent Diesel (kgce/L) F00 1.253 AQSIQ and SAC (2018b)
electricity (kgce/kWh) F10 0.123
LNG (kgce/kg) F20 1.757
TTW CO2 emissions Diesel (kgCO2/L) F01 2.716(a) Cheng (2016), Suo (2016), Wang et al. (2016)
electricity (kgCO2/kWh) F11 0 Tao et al. (2018b)
LNG (kgCO2/kg) F21 2.750(a) Chen (2017), BSR (2018)
WTW CO2 emissions Diesel (kgCO2/L) F02 3.758(a) Ou et al. (2010), Jiang et al. (2013), Feng (2014)
electricity (kgCO2/kWh) F12 0.805 MEE (2018)
LNG (kgCO2/kg) F22 3.070 Jiang (2016)
(a)
Note: represents average value from different sources.

Fig. 3. Structure of energy consumption for case study.

Fig. 4. Structure of WTW CO2 emissions for case study.

direction d of the “yard-door-port” transport chain c. Note that
31.67% of loading and unloading activities that are finished by hand
are omitted, because they do not directly consume energy (Tao
et al., 2018a).
Table 4 shows the average energy intensity of various vehicles
and equipment (Tao et al., 2018a, 2018b). In addition, the energy
intensities of similar vehicles and equipment are compiled from the
relevant literature for the sake of validation.
As shown in Table 4, the energy intensity of the same type of
vehicle or equipment varies within specific limits because of dif-
ferences in technical performance, operational condition, and
management level. However, the vast majority of the parameter
8 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394

values that were collected for this study fall within the range of
existing research. Although the values of I0110 0 0
and I1110 are not
within this range, they are very close to the lower limit of this range.
This may be because the operation efficiency of ECH at the empty
container yard in Ningbo City is comparatively higher than that in
other similar port cities. In summary, comparative analysis with
relevant literature provides a foundation for data validation.
Therefore, this can be used to estimate energy consumption and
CO2 emissions in the Yiwu-Ningbo hinterland container transport.
Finally, the conversion factors of three types of energy to coal
equivalents and CO2 emissions are provided in Table 5.
5. Results
Estimations can be obtained by inputting the parameter values
into Eq. (2). The energy consumption of the hinterland container
transport along the Yiwu-Ningbo Corridor in 2017 was 82.675 ktce
(kilotons coal equivalent). Accordingly, the TTW and WTW CO2
emissions were 178.169 kt and 249.414 kt. Therefore, the total CO2
emissions will be underestimated by 28.56% if WTT CO2 emissions
are omitted. To improve both accuracy and comparability, the
WTW CO2 emissions are included in the following analysis.
5.1. Structure analysis
The structure of the transport chain, operational activity, flow
direction, and energy type can be calculated via Eqs. (3)e(6),
respectively.
Energy consumption. Fig. 3 shows the energy consumption
structure of Yiwu-Ningbo hinterland container transport. With
regard to the transport chain, all-road transport and road-rail
combined transport consumed 81.986 ktce and 0.689 ktce, ac-
counting for 99.17% and 0.83%, respectively. With regard to the
operational activity, the main-haulage, loading and unloading, pre-
and post-haulage, and transshipment accounted for 98.92%, 0.56%,
0.48%, and 0.04%, respectively. With regard to the flow direction,
the ratios for the repositioning of inbound empty containers and
the movement of outbound loaded containers were 45.50% and
54.50%, respectively. With regard to the energy type, diesel domi-
nated the energy consumption (99.33%), while electricity and LNG
only constituted a minor share of 0.67%.
WTW CO2 emissions. Fig. 4 shows the structure of the WTW CO2
emissions of the hinterland container transport along the Yiwu-
Ningbo corridor. With regard to the transport chain, all-road
transport caused the vast majority (98.84%) of WTW CO2 emis-
sions, while road-rail combined transport only constituted a small
proportion (1.16%). With regard to the operational activity, main-
haulage caused most (98.68%) WTW CO2 emissions. The contri-
butions of loading and unloading (0.82%), pre- and post-haulage
(0.42%), and transshipment (0.08%) to WTW CO2 emissions were
very limited. With regard to the flow direction, the movement of
outbound loaded containers constituted 54.63%, which was 9.26%
higher than the repositioning of inbound empty containers. With
regard to the energy type, undoubtedly, diesel remained the main
contributor (98.75%) of WTW CO2 emissions. The shares of WTW
CO2 emissions from electricity and LNG were very low, accounting
for only 1.25%.
5.2. Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty of parameter values could affect the estimation
results of energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In this study,
uncertainties related to the base year (2017) originate from four
kinds of factors: the container activity (A), the proportion of
container activity (S), the energy intensity of vehicles/equipment
(I), and the conversion factors of different energy sources (F). The
data of container traffic was obtained from the Yiwu Yearbook
(YYEO, 2018). The conversion factors of different energy sources
were obtained from the national technical standard (AQSIQ and
SAC, 2018b) and literature. To reduce uncertainty, the averaged
value of relevant studies was adopted. The haulage distance, the
number of loading/unloading activities, the number of

Table 6
Sensitivity analysis of parameters on energy use and WTW CO2 emissions.

Factors Vehicles/equipment or energy Parameters Change rate (%)

Energy use WTW CO2 emissions

I Diesel STT(a) for main-haulage 0

I0000 0.448%e4.485% 0.446%e4.459%
1
I0000 0.537%e5.376% 0.535%e5.345%
Diesel ECH(b) for loading/unloading 0
I0110 0
¼ I1110 0.002%e0.029% 0.003%e0.029%
Diesel FLT(c) for loading/unloading 1
I0120 ¼ I1120
1 0.000%e0.005% 0.001%e0.005%
Electric FLT(c) for loading/unloading 1
I0121 1
¼ I1121 0 0.000%e0.001%
Electric RTG(d) for loading/unloading 1
I0131 1
¼ I1131 0.002%e0.021% 0.005%e0.046%
Diesel CBT(e) for main-haulage 0
I1000 0 0.000%e0.001%
1
I1000 0.001%e0.011% 0.003%e0.025%
Electric CBT(e) for main-haulage 0
I1001 0 0.000%e0.001%
1
I1001 0.001%e0.017% 0.004%e0.037%
Diesel STT(a) for pre-/post-haulage 0
I1240 0.001%e0.015% 0.002%e0.016%
1
I1240 0.000%e0.005% 0.000%e0.003%
LNG STT(a) for pre-/post-haulage 0
I1242 0.001%e0.019% 0.002%e0.019%
1
I1242 0.000%e0.007% 0.000%e0.004%
Electric RTG(d) for transshipment 0
I1331 1
¼ I1331 0.000%e0.001% 0.000%e0.003%
Electric RMG(f) for transshipment 0
I1351 ¼ I1351
1 0.000%e0.002% 0.001%e0.005%
F Diesel F02 0 0.988%e9.875%
Electricity F12 0 0.012%e0.118%
LNG F22 0 0.001%e0.008%
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Note: semi-trailer trucks, empty container handlers, forklift trucks, rubber-tired gantry cranes, container block trains, rail-mounted gantry cranes, (g) provided
by Yiwu International Landport Group (YILG) Co. Ltd.
 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394 9

Table 7
Comparison on average intensity of energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

Studies Corridor All-road transport Road-rail transport notes

P (a) P (a)
a Xa I00 (b) I02 (c) a Xa I10 (b) I12 (c)

Winebrake et al. (2008) New York City to Miami, FL 2214 0.248 0.627 2305 0.080 0.169 Loaded(d)
Rochester, NY to Jacksonville, FL 1862 0.240 0.622 2057 0.073 0.159 loaded
New York/New Jersey to Boston, MA 394e407 0.239 0.621 460 0.082 0.161 loaded
Comer et al. (2010) Montreal, Canada to Cleveland, OH 885 NA(e) 0.520 853 NA 0.223 loaded
Michalk and Meimbresse (2012) Ulm to Wustermark, Germany 610 NA 0.610 1070 NA 0.263 loaded
Kirschstein and Meisel (2015) Hamburg in Germany to Bratislava in Slovakia 983 NA 0.554 1079 NA 0.199 loaded
942 NA 0.249 loaded
Tao et al. (2017) Yiwu to Ningbo, China 230 NA 0.682 333 NA 0.167 loaded
This study Yiwu to Ningbo, China 484(f) 0.209 0.629 716(f) 0.039 0.162 both empty and loaded(g)

Note: (a) unit: km (a ¼ 0; 2), (b) unit: kgce/TEU-km, (c) unit: kgCO2/TEU-km, (d) only loaded container movement is considered, (e) NA: not applicable, (f) the distance of “yard-
door-port” transport chain, which is approximately twice the one-way distance of loaded container movement or empty container repositioning, (g) both empty container
repostioning and loaded container movement are considered.

transshipments, and the energy intensity of vehicles/equipment
were initially collected by Tao et al. (2018a, 2018b) from Yiwu CFS,
Beilun CFS, empty container yards and port terminals in Ningbo,
factories/warehouses in Yiwu, and related trucking companies. The
proportion of operation activity was calculated by using the related
parameters (e.g., container traffic, haulage distance, the number of
loading/unloading, and the number of transshipments). Among
these, the energy intensities of vehicles/equipment were also
compared with literature to reduce uncertainty.
In brief, the potential uncertainties mainly derive from the share
of diesel STT and LNG STT, the energy intensities of vehicles and
handling equipment, and the WTW conversion factors of different
energy sources. Consequently, sensitivity analysis was imple-
mented following suggestions by Nocera et al. (2018). The results
are shown in Table 6. Note that only one input parameter was
changed as 1e10% while all other parameters were kept constant
for each calculation. Clearly, the energy consumption of Yiwu-
Ningbo hinterland container transport is sensitive to the energy
intensity of diesel STT for main-haulage. This shows that obtaining
a reliable value of energy intensity of STT for main-haulage is of
great significance for an accurate estimation of the total energy use
in hinterland container transport. The evaluation of WTW CO2
emissions is more sensitive to both the conversion factor of diesel
to WTW CO2 emissions and the energy intensity of diesel STT for
main-haulage. This suggests that these two factors are vital for an
accurate estimation of the total WTW CO2 emissions in hinterland
container transport. Whatever the sensitivities are, the change
rates of both energy use and WTW CO2 emissions are inelastic in
general. Except for this, all parameters in Table 6 were cross vali-
dated with existing literature. Thus, the uncertainty of estimation
results is basically acceptable.
respectively. First, in general, the energy intensity in this study was
small compared to the results of a previous study (Winebrake et al.,
2008). This might be mainly because both the repositioning of
empty containers and the movement of loaded containers are
considered in the present study, while only the latter has been
considered by Winebrake et al. (2008). Consequently, a lower
overall energy intensity was assumed.
Second, the CO2 intensity of all-road transport in this study
(0.629 kgCO2/TEU-km) is near the upper limit (0.682 kgCO2/TEU-
km) of the intensity reported by previous studies (see Table 7). The
reason is that the CO2 emissions of loading and unloading were
considered and the WTW CO2 emissions factors were introduced.
In contrast, the CO2 intensity of road-rail combined transport in this
study (0.162 kgCO2/TEU-km) was near the lower limit (0.159 kgCO2/
TEU-km) of previous studies for two reasons: The first reason is that
the electrification rate of the Yiwu-Ningbo CBT is particularly high
(98.15%), while the electric CBT emits 6.67% less CO2 than diesel CBT
per TEU-km on average. The second reason is that empty container
repositioning dilutes the overall CO2 emissions intensity.
Third, although the “yard-door-port” transport distance of road-
rail combined transport (716 km) is 47.93% longer than that of all-
road transport (484 km), the corresponding energy use and CO2
emissions of the “yard-door-port” transport chain for one TEU were
72.40% and 61.90% less than that of the all-road transport, respec-
tively. This is mainly because the intensities of energy consumption
and CO2 emissions for the road-rail combined transport were
81.34% and 74.24% lower than those for all-road transport. There-
fore, shifting container traffic from all-road transport to road-rail
combined transport favors energy saving and CO2 reduction. Spe-
cifically, one TEU of shift from all-road transport to road-rail com-
bined transport will save energy by 73.232 kgce and reduce CO2 by
188.444 kg, thus saving 337.5 RMB and 6.5 RMB, respectively.

5.3. Comparative analysis

It is almost impossible to make a direct comparison with pre-
vious relevant studies, because of differences in container traffic,
transport conditions, operational procedure, and the performance
of vehicles and equipment. To facilitate comparison despite these
differences, the average intensities of energy consumption and CO2
emissions for all-road transport and road-rail combined transport
were calculated according to Eq. (7). Table 7 presents the results.
With regard to all-road transport, the energy intensity varied
from 0.209 kgce/TEU-km to 0.248 kgce/TEU-km, whereas the CO2
intensity ranged from 0.520 kgCO2/TEU-km to 0.682 kgCO2/TEU-
km. With regard to road-rail combined transport, the values of
energy intensity and CO2 intensity were within the range of
0.039e0.082 kgce/TEU-km and 0.159e0.263 kgCO2/TEU-km,
5.4. Scenario analysis
To test the effect of policy measures on energy saving and CO2
reduction, ten scenarios were established and compared with the
base scenario (which is business as usual) according to relevant
policy documents and research literature. Scenario 1 is the con-
struction of a new railway line (the Ningbo-Jinhua Railway) be-
tween Yiwu and Ningbo, which would decrease the rail haulage
distance by 78 km, according to ZJPDRC and ZJC (2017). Scenario 2 is
the construction of a new dedicated railway line (the Chuanshan
Branch Line) connected to the Chuanshan container terminal in
Ningbo, which would shift 45% of the pre- and post-haulage
container traffic from STT to CBT in Ningbo (Tao et al., 2018b).
Scenario 3 is the increase of the share of LNG STT for pre- and post-
10 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394
Fig. 5. Scenario analysis of energy saving and CO2 reduction for case study.
haulage in Ningbo from 40% to 50% (NBMTB, 2017). Scenarios 4, 5,
and 6 are shifts of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively, of total container
traffic from all-road transport to road-rail combined transport (Tao
et al., 2018a; PGZJP, 2018). Scenario 7 is the operation of a double-
stack CBT, which results in a reduction of 62.55% of CBT energy
intensity (Zhong, 2014). Scenario 8 is a decrease of 6% of STT energy
intensity by improving energy efficiency (NBMTB, 2017). Scenario 9
is a decrease of 58% of STT energy intensity by use of electric trucks
for all-road transport (Liimatainen et al., 2019). Scenario 10 is a
decrease of 2% of energy intensity for ECH and RTG at Ningbo port
terminals (NBMTB, 2017). The results are shown in Fig. 5.
Compared with the base scenario, three measures are effective
to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions. The first measure is to
decrease the energy intensity of STT either by using electric trucks
for all-road transport or by improving energy efficiency, which
would result in 20.17% (or 5.95%) of energy saving and 3.19% (or
5.91%) of CO2 reduction. The second measure is to shift container
traffic from all-road transport to road-rail combined transport. The
contribution of this modal shift to energy saving (0.74%, 3.72%, and
7.44%) and CO2 reduction (0.63%, 3.15%, and 6.30%) is positively
associated with the shifting volume (1%, 5%, and 10% of total
container traffic). The third measure is to operate a double-stack
CBT, which will lead to 0.19% energy saving and 0.40% CO2 reduc-
tion. Nevertheless, the effects of other measures on both energy
saving and CO2 reduction are not clearly noticeable. However,
building a new railway line (e.g., the Ningbo-Jinhua Railway, the
Chuanshan Branch Line) is necessary to operate double-stack CBT
and to stimulate a modal shift from all-road transport to road-rail
combined transport.
6. Conclusions and policy implications
6.1. Conclusions
The hinterland container transport is one of the most important
sectors for the development of international trade and for the
construction of a low-carbon transport system. It is therefore
necessary to establish a reasonable and practical generalized
framework with which to accurately estimate both the energy
consumption and CO2 emissions of the hinterland container
transport. This paper revises the traditional ASIF methodology and
introduces the concepts of both “yard-door-port” transport chain
and semi-life cycle assessment. First, all activities of the “yard-door-
port” transport chain are considered, including main-haulage,
loading and unloading, pre- and post-haulage, and transshipment
of both the repositioning of empty containers and the movement of
loaded containers. Second, both TTW and WTT CO2 emissions are
included by using the WTW CO2 emissions factor. Third, the revised
ASIF method enables reasonable estimations and structure analyses
of both energy consumption and CO2 emissions under different
scenarios. The Yiwu-Ningbo container transport corridor is used as
case study. The main conclusions can be summarized as follows:
(1) The energy consumption and WTW CO2 emissions associ-
ated with the Yiwu-Ningbo hinterland container transport in
2017 were 82.675 ktce and 249.414 kt, respectively. All-road
transport dominated the container traffic (97%), energy
consumption (99.17%), and WTW CO2 emissions (98.84%) of
the Yiwu-Ningbo hinterland container transport. Main-
haulage and diesel greatly contributed to both total energy
 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394
consumption (98.92%) and WTW CO2 emissions (98.68%).
Accordingly, how to change the unbalanced structure of
transport chain and energy source will be a central issue for
energy saving and CO2 reduction. Total CO2 emissions will be
underestimated by 28.56% when WTT emissions are omitted.
If the repositioning of empty containers is not considered,
the overall energy consumption and WTW CO2 emissions
will be underestimated by 45.50% and 45.37%, respectively.
Therefore, it is advisable to use the WTW CO2 emissions
factor, and to consider all energy consumption and CO2
emissions from the activities of the “yard-door-port” trans-
port chain. Additionally, a 0.04e0.56% and 0.08e1.18% lower
estimation of energy consumption and CO2 emissions,
respectively, would result if certain activities of non-main-
haulage or electric equipment are neglected. In summary, if
certain factors are omitted, total energy consumption and
CO2 emissions will be underestimated by 0.04e45.50% and
0.08e45.37%, respectively.
(2) The average energy intensities of all-road transport and
road-rail combined transport were 0.209e0.248 kgce/TEU-
km and 0.039e0.082 kgce/TEU-km, respectively, whereas
the CO2 intensities ranged from 0.520 kgCO2/TEU-km to
0.682 kgCO2/TEU-km and from 0.159 kgCO2/TEU-km to 0.263
kgCO2/TEU-km, respectively. Shifting one TEU from all-road
transport to road-rail combined transport in the Yiwu-
Ningbo corridor would save 73.232 kgce and reduce CO2 by
188.444 kg. Thus, prompting this modal shift is an effective
measure to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions.
(3) Shifting 1%, 5%, and 10% of the total container traffic from all-
road transport to road-rail combined transport will save
0.74%, 3.72%, and 7.44% of energy, and reduce CO2 emissions
by 0.63%, 3.15%, and 6.30%, respectively. Decreasing the en-
ergy intensity of STT by 6% will result in a 5.95% and 5.91%
reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emissions,
respectively. Similarly, the energy consumption and CO2
emissions will be cut by 0.19% and 0.40% if double-stack CBT
is operated.
6.2. Policy implications
The analysis in section 5.4 shows that both reducing energy
intensity of STT and stimulating modal shift provide a significantly
positive contribution to the overall energy saving and CO2 reduc-
tion. Therefore, first and foremost, incentive measures should be
implemented both to prompt the usage of electric trucks and to
improve energy efficiency (Liimatainen et al., 2012, 2019). In
addition, policy makers are suggested to adopt modal shift mea-
sures so that shippers shift their containerized cargoes from all-
road transport to road-rail combined transport. In theory,
decreasing the rail price (Blauwens et al., 2006; Patterson et al.,
2008; Regmi and Hanaoka, 2015; Tao et al., 2016; Kim et al.,
2017), decreasing the rail time (Blauwens et al., 2006; Li et al., 2007;
Regmi and Hanaoka, 2015; Tao et al., 2016), and increasing the
reliability of rail transport (Tao et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2017;
Larranaga et al., 2017) can realize modal shift. In practice, subsi-
dizing rail transport (Santos et al., 2015; Tao et al., 2017; Tang, 2017)
is sometimes adopted to decrease rail price. For example, a subsidy
of 200 RMB/TEU to shippers who choose road-rail combined
transport for containers from Yiwu to Ningbo will induce a shift of
3.2% from all-road transport (Tao et al., 2017), which will result in a
net benefit of 144 RMB/TEU (337.5 RMB/TEU from energy saving,
plus 6.5 RMB/TEU from CO2 reduction, minus a subsidy of 200 RMB/
TEU). Improvement of intermodal facilities (Li et al., 2007; Regmi
and Hanaoka, 2015; Kim et al., 2017; Larranaga et al., 2017) is a
11
frequently-used method to decrease rail time and increase rail
reliability. Zhang et al. (2018) reported that a 1.4% modal shift can
be expected if the facilities of Yiwu CFS can be improved by
establishing a customs area, renovating and expanding the Beilun
CFS, and upgrading the Yiwu-Ningbo rail line. Moreover, opera-
tional facilitation measures, such as higher frequency of CBT,
paperless documentation processes, the sharing of logistics infor-
mation (Regmi and Hanaoka, 2015), and an efficient mechanism for
cooperation among road-rail combined transport players (Pfoser
et al., 2016), are additionally required policy initiatives (GOPGZJP,
2018). Furthermore, measures to prompt the development of dry
ports can also be implemented to achieve the required modal shift.
These measures include the improvement of the process and sup-
port system (Bergqvist and Woxenius, 2011), the provision of
additional value-added services (Roso et al., 2015), and cooperation
between public and private sectors (Panova and Hilmola, 2015).
However, given that incentive measures only are not sufficient
to induce modal shift, restrictive measures are still required to
promote the targeted modal shift. In practice, such measures
include truck size and weight regulations (Kaack et al., 2018;
GOPGZJP, 2018), fuel taxes (Bolis and Maggi, 2003; van Essen et al.,
2008), road user charges (Bühler and Jochem, 2008; Facanha et al.,
2012), carbon pricing (Brogan et al., 2013; Kaack et al., 2018), and
emission trade schemes (van Essen et al., 2008; Facanha et al.,
2012). Furthermore, it is essential for policy makers to implement
a set of measures that will reduce the STT energy intensity. The
most common measure at the macro level is the improvement of
STT’s fuel economy standards (AQSIQ and SAC, 2018a). In addition,
policies need to be issued that optimize the structure of STT with
different energy sources (GOMEE, 2018). At the micro level, policy
measures should be focused on reducing empty running, increasing
the average load, limiting driving speed, and promoting eco-driving
(Ang-Olson and Schroeer, 2002; Liimatainen and Pollanen, 2010;
Liimatainen et al., 2012).
Fortunately, with regard to the Yiwu-Ningbo corridor, both the
Ningbo-Jinhua railway and the Chuanshan Branch Line are under
construction and supported by relevant policies (ZJPDRC and ZJC,
2017; GOPGZJP, 2018). As soon as the new rail route along the
Yiwu-Ningbo corridor is completed, the rail cost will decrease
because of the shorter distance. Moreover, it is possible to operate a
double-stack CBT on the new rail route, which is conducive to
reduce CBT’s energy intensity and to further lower rail cost (Tang,
2017). Moreover, the policy documents issued by ZJPDRC and ZJC
(2017), GOPGZJP (2018), and PGZJP (2018) cover the vast majority
of measures that are required to stimulate the necessary modal
shift and to reduce the energy intensity of STT. Therefore, it is most
likely that energy is saved and CO2 emissions are reduced in the
Yiwu-Ningbo hinterland container transport by inducing this
modal shift and reducing STT’s energy intensity.
6.3. Future directions
The revised ASIF approach can also be used to assess energy cost
and other air pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxides and particulate
matter) by changing conversion factors. However, several problems
remain to be further studied that have been simplified or neglected
in this study. For instance, the types of STT have been simplified by
using the corresponding average energy intensity. Moreover, the
WTW CO2 emission factors have been extracted from other rele-
vant publications. Hence, it is impossible to eliminate all biases. In
future and for long-term analyses, the establishment of an inte-
grated framework with which to estimate the energy consumption
and CO2 emissions from the full life cycle of infrastructures, vehi-
cles, and energy is suggested. Moreover, the impact of restrictive
measures on the modal shift and corresponding energy saving and
12 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394
CO2 reduction should be studied, given that similar studies have
been conducted for incentive measures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xuezong Tao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization,
Writing - original draft, Supervision, Project administration,
Funding acquisition. Qin Wu: Resources, Investigation, Software,
Data curation, 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 work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [Grant no. 71603162]; and sponsored by the
Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai [Grant no. 15ZR1420400].
The authors would like to thank the editors and three dedicated
reviewers for their contribution to improve the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123394.
References
Ang-Olson, J., Schroeer, W., 2002. Energy efficiency strategies for freight trucking
potential impact on fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. Transport. Res. Rec.
1815, 11e18.
AQSIQ (General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine
of the People’s Republic of China), SAC (Standardization Administration of the
People’s Republic of China), 2018a. Fuel consumption limits for heavy-duty
commercial vehicles. Retrieved. https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/
China%20Stage%203%20Standards%20%28GB30510-2018%29.pdf. (Accessed 12
December 2018).
AQSIQ and SAC, 2018b. The statistical and analytical methods on energy con-
sumption for port. Retrieved June 18, 2018 from. http://jtst.mot.gov.cn/news/
dbfile.svl?n¼/u/cms/www/201803/30161005otuz.pdf.
Bergqvist, R., Woxenius, J., 2011. The development of hinterland transport by
railethe story of Scandinavia and the Port of Gothenburg. J. Interdiscipl. Econ.
23, 161e175.
Bolis, S., Maggi, R., 2003. Logistics strategy and transport service choices: an
adaptive stated preference experiment. Growth Change 34, 490e504.
Brogan, J.J., Aeppli, A.E., Beagan, D.F., Brown, A., Fischer, M.J., Grenzeback, L.R.,
McKenzie, E., Vimmerstedt, L., Vyas, A.D., Witzke, E., 2013. Freight Trans-
portation Modal Shares: Scenarios for a Low-Carbon Future. Cambridge Sys-
tematics, Inc., Cambridge, MA; National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
CO. ; and US Department of Energy, Washington, DC.
BSR (Business for Social Responsibility), 2018. 2017 global maritime trade lane
emissions factors. Retrieved September 10, 2018 from. https://www.bsr.org/
reports/BSR_Clean_Cargo_Working_Group_Emissions_Factors_2018.pdf.
Bühler, G., Jochem, P., 2008. CO2 emission reduction in freight transports: how to
stimulate environmental friendly behaviour? Retrieved March 15, 2016 from.
http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp08066.pdf.
Chen, X.H., Liang, W.J., Li, M., Xu, Y.Y., Li, S., 2017. Carbon emission characteristics of
LNG intercity bus operation. Internal Combustion Engine and Powerplant 34
(1), 65e69.
Cheng, D., 2016. Carbon Emissions Calculation of Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Based on
Life Cycle Assessment. China University of Petroleum, Beijing.
CKECL (Changzhou Kaiangdeng Electromechanical Co Ltd), 2018. Which is better in
terms of energy efficiency: electric forklift or internal combustion forklift?
Retrieved December 18, 2018 from. http://www.kaiangdeng.com/news/429.
html.
Comer, B., Corbett, J.J., Hawker, J.S., Korfmacher, K., Lee, E.E., Prokop, C.,
Winebrake, J.J., 2010. Marine vessels as substitutes for heavy-duty trucks in
Great Lakes freight transportation. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 60, 884e890.
Eom, J., Schipper, L., 2010. Trends in passenger transport energy use in South Korea.
Energy Pol. 38, 3598e3607.
Eom, J., Schipper, L., Thompson, L., 2012. We keep on truckin’: trends in freight
energy use and carbon emissions in 11 IEA countries. Energy Pol. 45, 327e341.
Facanha, C., Blumberg, K., Miller, J., 2012. Global Transportation Energy and Climate
Roadmap: the Impact of Transportation Policies and Their Potential to Reduce
Oil Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. International Council on
Clean Transportation, Washington DC.
Fan, X.L., Xia, Z.Q., Li, C., Huang, Z.J., Wang, Y.L., Zheng, J.Y., 2017. An improved
method for building an emission inventory for cargo handling equipment and
its application. Research of Environmental Science 30 (4), 628e635.
Feng, X.J., 2014. Modeling Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions for High-Speed Railways. Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing.
GOMEE (General Office of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the People’s
Republic of China), 2018. The action plan to strengthen emission Controls of
diesel trucks in China. Retrieved January 9, 2019 from. http://ftp.zew.de/pub/
zew-docs/dp/dp08066.pdf.
GOPGZJP (General Office of the People’s Government of Zhejiang Province), 2018.
The three-year plan to Push forward restructuring transportation in Zhejiang
province. Retrieved January 12, 2019 from. http://zfgb.zj.gov.cn/art/2019/2/16/
art_1621589_30377397.html.
Grant, M., Hartley, W.S., Milam, R., Walters, J., O’Rourke, L., Brickett, J., Suter, S., 2013.
Handbook for Estimating Transportation Greenhouse Gases for Integration into
the Planning Process. ICF International, Inc., Fairfax, VA and Fehr & Peers,
Walnut Creek, CA.
Hu, C.B., 2008. Talking about the power saving and consumption reducing of the
container stacker in the port. Port Technology (8), 28e30.
ITRCC (Integrated Transport Research Center of China), 2009. Energy Consumption,
Emissions and Their Comparison Among Different Transport Modes. Beijing
Jiaotong University, Beijing.
Jiang, H., 2016. Life Cycle Assessment and Optimization Analysis of Different Liq-
uefied Natural Gas (LNG) Usage Scenarios. Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian.
Jiang, L., Ou, X., Ma, L., Li, Z., Ni, W., 2013. Life-cycle GHG emission factors of final
energy in China. Energy Procedia 37, 2848e2855.
Josan, 2018. The latest! 2018 list of top 100 counties in China. Retrieved October 28,
2018 from. http://cnhours.com/2018/10/the-latest-2018-list-of-top-100-
counties-in-china.
Kaack, L.H., Vaishnav, P., Morgan, M.G., Azevedo, I.L., Rai, S., 2018. Decarbonizing
intraregional freight systems with a focus on modal shift. Environ. Res. Lett. 13
(8), 1e29.
Kamakate, F., Schipper, L., 2009. Trends in truck freight energy use and carbon
emissions in selected OECD countries from 1973 to 2005. Energy Pol. 37,
3743e3751.
Kim, N.S., Van Wee, B., 2014. Toward a better methodology for assessing CO2
emissions for intermodal and truck-only freight systems: a European case
study. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 8, 177e201.
Kirschstein, T., Meisel, F., 2015. GHG-emission models for assessing the Eco-
Friendliness of road and rail freight transports. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol.
73, 13e33.
Kuai, G.L., 2015. Analysis Report on Energy Consumption of Empty Container
Handler at Guandong Container Terminal. Shanghai Guandong International
Container Terminal CO., LTD., Shanghai.
Larranaga, A.M., Arellana, J., Senna, L.A., 2017. Encouraging intermodality: a stated
preference analysis of freight mode choice in Rio Grande do Sul. Transport. Res.
Pol. Pract. 102, 202e211.
Liao, C.H., Lu, C.S., Tseng, P.H., 2011. Carbon dioxide emissions and inland container
transport in Taiwan. J. Transport Geogr. 19 (4), 722e728.
Li, L., 2019. China's port cargo and container throughput ranked first in the world
for 16 consecutive years which will accelerate the innovative applications of
high and new technologies in the shipping field. Retrieved October 18, 2019
from. http://news.cri.cn/20190711/af936e4a-bed1-89dc-3af7-71c11469b197.
html.
Liimatainen, H., Pollanen, M., 2010. Trends of energy efficiency in Finnish road
freight transport 1995e2009 and forecast to 2016. Energy Pol. 38, 7676e7686.
Liimatainen, H., Stenholm, P., Tapio, P., McKinnon, A., 2012. Energy efficiency
practices among road freight hauliers. Energy Pol. 50, 833e842.
Liimatainen, H., van Vliet, O., Aplyn, D., 2019. The potential of electric trucks e an
international commodity-level analysis. Appl. Energy 236, 804e814.
Liu, J., Huang, G.J., Chen, M., Huang, B.L., Wang, H.C., Wang, X.H., 2015. Measurement
and analysis of energy consumption by rubber-tyred gantry crane switching to
electricity from oil. Hoisting Conveying Mach. 3, 111e114.
Liu, X.R., Chao, Z.H., Zhu, P.Y., 2017. An analysis on energy saving and emission
reduction and corresponding benefit of LNG tractors in Shanghai Yangshan Port
Area. Communication and Shipping 4 (3), 45e47.
Macharis, C., Vanhaverbeke, L., Lier, T., Pekin, E., Meers, D., 2012. Bringing inter-
modal transport to the potential customers: an interactive modal shift website
tool. Research in Transportation Business and Management 5, 67e77.
McKinnon, A.C., Piecyk, M.I., 2009. Measurement of CO2 emissions from road freight
transport: a review of UK experience. Energy Pol. 37, 3733e3742.
MEE (Ministry of Ecology and Environment, the People’s Republic of China), 2018.
China regional grid emission factors for purchased electricity. Retrieved
December 12, 2018 from. http://qhs.mee.gov.cn/kzwsqtpf/201812/
P020181220579925103092.pdf.
Michalk, P., Meimbresse, B., 2012. Development of intermodal train concepts as a
method for sustainable regional development. In: Golinska, P., Hajdul, M. (Eds.),
Sustainable Transport: New Trends and Business Practices. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 273e294.
MOT (The Ministry of Transport), 2019. Statistical Bulletin of Transportation
 X. Tao, Q. Wu / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 123394
Industry Development in 2018. Retrieved September 12, 2019 from. http://xxgk.
mot.gov.cn/jigou/zhghs/201904/t20190412_3186720.html.
Na, J.H., Choi, A.Y., Ji, J.H., Zhang, D.L., 2017. Environmental efficiency analysis of
Chinese container ports with CO2 emissions: an inseparable input-output SBM
model. J. Transport Geogr. 65, 13e24.
NBMTB (Ningbo Municipal Transport Bureau), 2017. The 13th five-year plan for
green transport development of Ningbo. Retrieved November 17, 2018 from.
http://jtw.ningbo.gov.cn/module/download/downfile.jsp?classid¼0&
filename¼2e52063f2ef845beb739005bffe09454.doc.
Nocera, S., Cavallaro, F., 2017. A two-step method to evaluate the Well-To-Wheel
carbon efficiency of Urban Consolidation Centres. Res. Transport. Econ. 65,
44e55.
Nocera, S., Galati, O.I., Cavallaro, F., 2018. On the uncertainty in the economic
evaluation of carbon emissions from transport. J. Transport Econ. Pol. 52e1,
68e94.
Ou, X., Zhang, X., Chang, S., 2010. Scenario analysis on alternative fuel/vehicle for
China’s future road transport: life-cycle energy demand and GHG emissions.
Energy Pol. 38 (8), 3943e3956.
Panova, Y., Hilmola, O., 2015. Justification and evaluation of dry port investments in
Russia. Res. Transport. Econ. 51, 61e70.
Patterson, Z., Ewing, G.O., Haider, M., 2008. The potential for Premium-Intermodal
services to reduce freight CO2 emissions in the Quebec CityeWindsor corridor.
Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 13, 1e9.
Pfoser, S., Treiblmaier, H., Schauer, O., 2016. Critical success factors of synchromo-
dality: results from a case study and literature review. Transport Research
Procedia 14, 1463e1471.
PGZJP (The People’s Government of Zhejiang Province), 2018. The three-year action
plan for winning the blue-sky Defense war in Zhejiang province. Retrieved
December 12, 2018 from. http://huanbao.bjx.com.cn/news/20181028/937223.
shtml.
Qi, C.B., 2010. Research on Energy Saving &emission Reduction on the Yard Cranes
of the Container Terminal. Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China.
Regmi, M.B., Hanaoka, S., 2015. Assessment of modal shift and emissions along a
freight transport corridor between Laos and Thailand. International Journal of
Sustainable Transportation 9, 192e202.
Roso, V., Russell, D., Ruamsook, K., Stefansson, G., 2015. Seaport-inland port dyad
dynamics: an investigation of service provisions and intermodal transportation
linkages. World Rev. Intermodal Transp. Res. 5, 263e280.
Santos, B.F., Limbourg, S., Carreira, J.S., 2015. The impact of transport policies on
railroad intermodal freight competitivenessethe case of Belgium. Transport.
Res. Transport Environ. 34, 230e244.
Schipper, L., Marie, C., 1999. Transportation and CO2 Emissions: Flexing the Link - A
Path for the World Bank. World Bank, Environment Department, Washington,
DC.
Schipper, L., Saenger, C., Sudardshan, A., 2011. Transport and carbon emissions in
the United States: the long view. Energies 4, 563e581.
Shen, S.W., 2015. Research on the Environmental Benefit and Subsidy Mechanism of
the Project of the Rubber-Tyred Gantry Crane “Oil to Electricity”. Shanghai
Maritime University, Shanghai.
Sprinz, D., 2010. The “sandwich solution” to global climate policy. Retrieved June 18,
2016 from. https://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/sprinz/doc/Sprinz.2010.Sandwich_
Solution.DP.EN.pdf.
13
Suo, C., 2016. Container Terminal Carbon Emissions Accounting and Low-Carbon
Development Research. South China University of Technology, Guangzhou.
Tao, X., Wu, Q., Zhu, L., 2017. Mitigation potential of CO2 emissions from modal shift
induced by subsidy in hinterland container transport. Energy Pol. 101, 265e273.
Tao, X.Z., Wu, Q., Yin, C.Z., 2018a. Emission Reduction Potential of Shifting Con-
tainers from Road to Rail for Green Transport Development. Shanghai Maritime
University, Shanghai.
Tao, X.Z., Wu, Q., Yin, C.Z., 2018b. Estimating CO2 emissions from inland railway
transport chain of international containers. Journal of Transportation Systems
Engineering and Information Technology 18 (2), 20e26.
van Essen, H., Boon, B., Schroten, A., Otten, M., Maibach, M., Schreyer, C., Doll, C.,
Jochem, P., Bak, M., Pawlowska, B., 2008. Internalisation Measures and Policy for
the External Cost of Transport. CE Delft, Delft.
Wang, A.H., Meng, W.J., Gao, Y.S., Sun, X.D., 2016. A WTW analysis of diesel and
HCNG fuel for large bus. Automot. Eng. 38 (1), 78e85þ77.
Wang, M., 2011. Comparison of performance between rubber-tyred gantry crane
and rail-mounted gantry crane. Containerization 22 (3), 21e23.
Wang, W.Y., Zhang, Y.C., Tang, G.L., Peng, Y., 2013. Calculation of carbon emission
during container load/unload operation. Port Engineering Technology 50 (4),
6e7þ10.
Winebrake, J.J., Corbett, J.J., Falzarano, A., Hawker, J.S., Korfmacher, K., Ketha, S.,
Zilora, S., 2008. Assessing energy, environmental, and economic tradeoffs in
intermodal freight transportation. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 58, 1004e1013.
WRI (World Resources Institute), WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development), 2005. Calculating CO2 emissions from mobile sources. Retrieved
February 17, 2018 from. https://www.aircanada.com/content/dam/aircanada/
portal/documents/PDF/agents/en/documents/co2-mobile.pdf.
Xu, X.L., 2013. Scheme and benefits of RTG changing from oil to electricity.
Containerization 24 (7), 20e24.
Yang, Y.C., Chang, W.M., 2013. Impacts of electric rubber-tired gantries on green
port performance. Research in Transportation Business and Management (8),
67e76.
Yang, Y.N., 2017. Research on air pollutants of non-road mobile machinery in
Pudong Port Area. Environmental Protection and Circular Economy (7), 60e63.
YGAO (Yiwu Government Affairs Office), 2018. Digital Yiwu. Retrieved December 12,
2018 from. http://www.yw.gov.cn/english/e_gyyw/e_ywgk/ywgk/index.html.
YYEO (Yiwu Yearbook Editorial Office), 2018. Yiwu Yearbook 2018. Shanghai Peo-
ple’s Publishing House, Shanghai.
Zhang, R., Jian, W., Tavasszy, L., 2018. Estimation of network level benefits of reli-
ability improvements in intermodal freight transport. Res. Transport. Econ. 70,
1e8.
Zhao, N., 2018. Thinking on the Development of Port Industry and Port-Centric Sea-
Rail Intermodal Transport. Shanghai International Shipping Institute, Shanghai.
Zhong, D.H., 2014. Demonstration Project for double-stack rail container transport.
Retrieved October 18, 2018 from. http://jtkj.gdcd.gov.cn/net/projectprocess/
detail.action?projectprocessId¼8392271213621251&mainType¼12.
ZJPDRC (Zhejiang Provincial Development and Reform Commission) and ZJC
(Zhejiang Communications), 2017. Action plan for comprehensive trans-
portation infrastructure construction of the yiwu-ningbo-zhoushan great open
corridor. Retrieved November 17, 2018 from. http://www.zjdpc.gov.cn/module/
download/downfile.jsp?classid¼0&filename¼1803061103277068067.pdf.