sustainability

Article
A Comparative Analysis of the Environmental
Benefits of Drone-Based Delivery Services in Urban
and Rural Areas
Jiyoon Park 1 , Solhee Kim 2 ID
and Kyo Suh 3, *
1 College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul 03080, Korea; [email protected]
2 Institute of Green Bio Science Technology, Seoul National University, Pyeongchang 25354, Korea;
[email protected]
3 Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, and Institute of Green Bio Science Technology,
Seoul National University, Pyeongchang 25354, Korea
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-33-339-5810

Received: 6 February 2018; Accepted: 15 March 2018; Published: 20 March 2018

Abstract: Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV, drones) used as delivery vehicles have received increasing
attention due to their mobility and accessibility to remote areas. The purpose of this study is
to evaluate the environmental impacts of drone versus motorcycle delivery and to compare the
expected environmental improvements due to drone delivery in urban and rural areas. In addition,
the potential environmental contributions of electric motorcycles were assessed to determine the
effects of introducing this new type of vehicle. Changes in the national electricity generation plan
were also examined. The results showed that global warming potential (GWP) per 1 km delivery by
drone was one-sixth that of motorcycle delivery, and the particulates produced by drone delivery
were half that of motorcycle delivery. The actual environmental impact reduction in consideration of
the delivery distance was 13 times higher in a rural area than in an urban area. Increasing the use of
environmentally friendly electricity systems, such as solar and wind power, would further enhance
the environmental effects of a drone delivery system.

Keywords: UAV; life cycle assessment; delivery; logistics; environmental impact

1. Introduction
Since it was first mentioned at the World Economic Forum in 2016, increased attention has focused
on the fourth industrial revolution, which involves maximizing production capacity and efficiency
by adding new technologies to existing industries [1,2]. One innovative technology is adding the use
of drones (or unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs) [3,4]. The global drone market reached $552 million
in 2014 and is expected to grow every year by 16.9% [5]. Unlike conventional drones that have been
widely used for military purposes, the private sector will lead the drone market in the future [6].
Although drones were developed for military purposes and were mainly used as reconnaissance and
assault weapons, their use has greatly expanded due to the advantage of collecting a wide range
of information as they move rapidly through the sky [7–9]. For example, images taken by drones
are used in sports broadcasts, documentaries, and media reports. They are even commonly used
for humanitarian purposes, such as transporting vaccines in low- and middle-income countries and
helping refugees migrate [10–12].
Drone use in logistics services has also become common, taking advantage of drones’ sensing
abilities using cameras and sensors and their accessibility to difficult terrains [13,14]. For example,
Amazon, the largest online retailer in the US, introduced “Amazon Prime Air” in December 2013,
which uses self-developed drones called “Octocopters” to deliver goods up to 55 pounds within 30 min

Sustainability 2018, 10, 888; doi:10.3390/su10030888 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 2 of 15

to a customer within a radius of 16 km [15,16]. Amazon has already succeeded in testing the drones on
several occasions and has acquired a patent for a UAV delivery system [17]. Another global logistics
company, DHL, developed third-generation drones and has assessed the feasibility of use for the entire
delivery system, including flight technology, accurate shipping and storage, flight performance, and
autonomous flight [13]. Drone use for delivery has also been tested for food delivery services, where
delivery speed is critical. For example, in San Francisco, delivering tacos by drones was piloted, and
Domino’s succeeded in developing a commercial delivery of pizza by drone in November 2016 [18–20].
To apply drone capabilities to actual logistics services, research has been conducted on how drones
can be combined with existing truck delivery services. Murray and Chu [6] and Agatz, et al. [21]
proposed a model to solve the travelling salesman problem in the context of drone delivery. Carlsson
and Song [22] also claimed that using drones along with the current delivery system could improve
the efficiency of travel distance by a square root of the ratio of the speeds of a truck and UAV. Based on
these assumptions, scholars have conducted research on the economic efficiency of drone use. Choi and
Schonfeld [23] calculated the necessary size of a drone fleet to minimize delivery costs and found
that the cost varies depending on the working period, operating speed, demand density, and battery
capacity. In addition, Welch [15] conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Amazon Prime Air service,
and it was predicted that Amazon would gain a competitive advantage over other companies through
the introduction of drone delivery and that the benefits would be greater than the initial cost for
system construction.
As the problems related to the drones such as safety and privacy issues were raised, countries
established regulations for the commercial use of drones, and some studies have analyzed and
compared the regulations of each country [24,25]. In February 2015, the US Federal Aviation Authority
(FAA) established an approval process for companies trying to use the drones commercially. According
to this law, operators must pass a written exam developed for a private pilot, which is administered
by the Transportation Security Administration. Also, operators must observe the safety regulations
restricting the flight area of drones to be away from private property, and at least six miles away
from the airport [26]. Not only the government, but also the drone industry, has made efforts to
set up regulations and follow them. Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which represents
the US drones industry, has released a Code of Conduct to protect privacy and liberty rights. Also,
DJI Innovations, a drone manufacturer, recently applied a GPS system to prevent the drones from
entering restricted areas or flying higher than their permitted height.
Other countries also have their own laws regarding the commercial use of drones. According to
Jones, the commercial use of drones is prohibited or practically prohibited due to strict requirements
in 16 countries, and 18 countries, including Korea, allow drones to be operated only within visual
line of sight. On the other hand, 27 countries, including the United States and Japan, have made an
exception to the visual line of sight restriction to allow the commercial use of drones if they have been
approved in advance or the weight or altitude of the drones is within the permitted range. Finally,
six countries have made the drones commercially viable if they meet the simple guidelines such as
obtaining licenses. As the technological and social situations of drones are constantly changing, the
laws regarding drones are also constantly being updated, usually toward permitting drone use [27].
In addition to studies on costs and regulations, studies on environmental impacts should also
be conducted prior to the introduction of this new technology. Stolaroff [28] called for a life cycle
assessment (LCA) of drone delivery to establish rules and regulations; however, to date, limited
research has been done on the relative merit of drone delivery in terms of environmental impacts,
although some studies have analyzed the energy use and CO2 emissions of drones. In particular,
Goodchild and Toy [29] showed that the relative CO2 emissions of drones compared to trucks vary
according to the drones’ energy requirements, travel distances, and number of recipients. To increase
the advantages of drone delivery in terms of CO2 emissions, energy requirements should be low,
the delivery distance should be short, and the number of recipients should be small. Figliozzi [30]
also calculated the life cycle CO2 emissions of drones and conventional diesel vans. While the CO2
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 3 of 15

emissions per unit distance were much lower for drones, the relative advantage of drones was lost
when the customers were grouped because drones can only deliver to one place at a time. Lohn [31]
identified the same weakness of drones and recommended additional drone centers to conserve energy.
Several studies have suggested that drones have the potential to conserve energy and to reduce
CO2 emissions; however, because there is no infrastructure for drone delivery yet, few scholarly
analyses have been conducted to determine the actual CO2 reduction when drones are used in cities.
Other environmental impacts must be considered as well. Many companies are striving to reduce
environmental pollution as part of their corporate social responsibility, and the Korean government
has implemented a certification system and subsidies for green logistics companies [32]. Therefore,
a comprehensive and specific analysis of the environmental impacts of drone delivery is needed in
preparation for the application of drones in the logistics industry.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of an existing
motorcycle delivery system and a new drone delivery system to deliver food using the LCA. Regional
variations of environmental improvement impacts after introducing drones were also evaluated based
on the average delivery distance in urban and rural areas. In addition, other factors that could affect
the results were examined, such as the introduction of electric motorcycles and changes in the way
electricity is produced.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Item to Be Shipped and the Shipping Method

Shipping distance and fuel efficiency were considered to evaluate the amount of pollutants
and the environmental impacts of the delivery method. To focus on the delivery stage to compare
a conventional and drone-based delivery system, information regarding some conditions that
are unavailable for drones was excluded from the scope of this study, including the price and
maintenance costs of drones, the current technology development stage, the delivery failure rate,
and weather conditions.
Using drones for delivery facilitates access to areas that are inaccessible or difficult to reach by
land, and delivery time is decreased by avoiding traffic congestion; however, a limited battery life
and load capacity make drones unsuitable for long distances or large capacity freight. In addition,
previous studies have shown that drones are inefficient compared to other modes of transportation
when delivering to multiple destinations in the same area. Therefore, using drones for food delivery is
more appropriate than parcel delivery because the weight and volume of the products are constant, the
shipping distance is relatively short, and the recipients are much less likely to be absent. In addition,
the advantage of drone delivery speed can be maximized for food delivery because a faster delivery
speed prevents the food from becoming cool or spoiled. Thus, food delivery was selected as the
delivery item for the current study.
Food delivery service is well developed in Korea and is expected to grow more due to structural
changes of the population, such as the increase of single-person households, and the enhanced
convenience of using delivery service according to technological development. Food delivery in Korea
is mostly done by using a motorcycle to deliver to one house at a time, which is a suitable condition to
change the delivery means to drones. Specific delivery distance was necessary in order to make an
accurate comparison between drone and motorcycle delivery. Therefore, in this study, a specific food
and brand was selected. The three most common delivery foods in Korea were chicken, pizza, and
Chinese food [33]. In this study, pizza was selected because there was little volume difference between
each menu and the packaging was light. Also, Domino’s has already tested the use of drones to deliver
pizza and has proven that it is feasible [19].
Unlike packages, which are typically delivered by truck, pizza is mainly delivered by motorcycle
in Korea. Therefore, the environmental impacts of pizza delivery by motorcycle and by drone were
compared in this study. To evaluate the environmental impact of drone delivery, the environmental
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 4 of 15

impact of 1 kWh of electricity was evaluated. Then, shipping distance and electricity consumption per
unit distance were multiplied to calculate the environmental impact value for a single drone delivery.
The electricity consumption per unit distance was obtained by referring to the product information of
a specific drone model. The selected model was MD4-1000 (Microdrones GmbH: Siegen, Germany)
from Microdrones, which was successfully used in DHL’s delivery test of drugs in 2014. MD4-1000
has an average flight time of 45 min and a flight speed of 12 m/s using a 22.2 V, 13,000 mAh battery
(Microdrones). For the motorcycle test, the environmental impact of 1 L of gasoline was evaluated
and then multiplied by the gasoline mileage and the shipping distance to calculate the environmental
impact value for a single delivery. The gasoline mileage value used in this study was 63.5 km, which is
the mileage of a Honda Super Cub, a motorcycle model for business purposes.

2.2. Target Area and Shipping Distance

Drone delivery was introduced to reduce shipping costs in countries with large land areas,
a low population density, and high labor costs. They have been particularly suitable in rural
areas where the population density and accessibility by land are lower than for cities. In addition,
introducing drone delivery to rural areas could be more cost-effective and environmentally friendly.
To compare the environmental improvement effects of using drone delivery in urban and rural
areas, Yangcheon-gu, which has the highest population density (26,463.6 per km2 ) in Seoul, and
Pyeongchang-gun, Gangwon-do, which has a low population density (27.6 per km2 ), were selected.
Since the environmental impacts of delivery increase proportionally with the distance traveled,
it is important to estimate the appropriate shipping distance in each region. The location of elementary
schools in each region was used to determine the shipping distance because the location of elementary
schools can easily be determined in both urban and rural areas and because they reflect the actual
residential area of the local residents. According to Rules on the Structure and the Establishment
of Urban Facilities, schools are constructed to maintain proper distance intervals considering the
population density and estimated student enrollment. One elementary school serves two neighboring
residential districts, and the commute distance should be within 1500 m. In other words, the number
and location of elementary schools are determined based on the population size, density, and residential
areas of the region. Furthermore, according to a study in Pyeongchang-gun by [34], town halls,
which are the center of the living areas in rural regions, are typically within 5 km of convenient
facilities, such as elementary schools, police stations, and public health clinics, suggesting that such
facilities could represent the center of each administrative district. Therefore, for 30 elementary schools
in Yangcheon-gu and 20 elementary schools in Pyeongchang-gun, the distance from each school to
the nearest pizza restaurant was calculated, and the average was used to calculate the environmental
impacts of the delivery method in each region (Figure 1).
For drone delivery, the straight-line distance between the elementary school and the pizza
restaurant was used. For motorcycle delivery, the actual travel distance was estimated by multiplying
the bypass coefficient of Seoul and Gangwon-do to the straight line distance [35]. Pizza restaurants
that do not deliver were excluded. For Pyeongchang-gun, the stores located in a resort area were also
excluded because they usually do not deliver outside the resort.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 5 of 15
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Locations of elementary
Locations of elementaryschools
schoolsand
andpizza
pizzarestaurants
restaurants in in Yangcheon-gu
Yangcheon-gu andand Pyeongchang-
Pyeongchang-gun.
gun. (a) Yangcheon-gu
(a) Yangcheon-gu (Population:
(Population: 460,467;
460,467; Area:km
Area: 17.4 17.4
2 ); (b) 2 ); (b) Pyeongchang-gun
kmPyeongchang-gun (Population:
(Population: 40,470;
40,470; Area: 1464
2
Area: 1464 km ). km 2).

2.3.
2.3. Life
Life Cycle
Cycle Analysis
Analysis (LCA)
(LCA)
LCA quantifiesall
LCA quantifies allinputs
inputs andand outputs
outputs to measure
to measure environmental
environmental impacts impacts and compares
and compares the
the overall
overall environmental
environmental impactsimpacts of particular
of particular productsproducts
or servicesor services
[36]. “Life[36]. “Lifeiscycle”
cycle” a conceptis a that
concept that
includes
includes all the necessary steps to consume a product, including
all the necessary steps to consume a product, including raw material production, manufacturing, raw material production,
manufacturing,
distribution, use,distribution,
disposal, anduse, disposal, and
transportation. transportation.
According According
to ISO 14040, to ISO 14040,
an international standard an
international
for environmental standard for environmental
management, LCA has four management,
stages: goal LCA has four
and scope stages:
definition, lifegoal
cycleand scope
inventory
definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle
analysis, life cycle impact assessment, and interpretation [37]. impact assessment, and interpretation [37].
The
The first
first stage
stage of ofLCALCAisistotodefine
definethe thepurpose
purposeand and scope
scope of of
thethe research.
research.At this stage,
At this the
stage,
background
the background of theofresearch shouldshould
the research be presented. The functional
be presented. unit, scope
The functional of analysis,
unit, scope ofand allocation
analysis, and
method are also determined. A functional unit is a quantitative representation
allocation method are also determined. A functional unit is a quantitative representation of what of what is toisbe
to
analyzed specifically. Especially when comparing various products or services
be analyzed specifically. Especially when comparing various products or services that can replace each that can replace each
other,
other, setting
setting an an appropriate
appropriate functional
functional unitunit isis crucial.
crucial. The
The quantity
quantity or or level
level of
of the
the desired
desired function
function is is
defined first, and the number of products or services needed to achieve
defined first, and the number of products or services needed to achieve the function are then calculated. the function are then
calculated.
In this study, In the
this functional
study, the unit functional
was setunitas awas set delivery
single as a single of delivery
pizza in of pizza in Yangcheon-gu,
Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and
Seoul,
Pyeongchang-gun, Gangwon-do. The system boundary determines the scope of the
and Pyeongchang-gun, Gangwon-do. The system boundary determines scope oftothe
the process be
process
evaluated. The system boundary of this study is the delivery of pizza from the area of production of
to be evaluated. The system boundary of this study is the delivery of pizza from the area to
production
consumption, to consumption,
and drones and and drones andwere
motorcycles motorcycles
selectedwere
as theselected as the transportation
transportation methods (Figure methods
2).
(Figure 2). of inputs and outputs was created during the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis step.
A list
The valuesofofinputs
A list inputsand andoutputs
outputs was created
were applied during the lifeto
according cycle
the inventory
functional(LCI) analysis step.
unit determined inThe
the
values
goal and of scope
inputsdefinition
and outputs step.were applied
In this study,according
the LCI data to the functionalfrom
on electricity unit adetermined
national LCI in database
the goal
and scopebydefinition
provided the Koreastep. In this study,
Environmental the LCI
Industry anddata on electricity
Technology Institute from a national
(KEITI) were used LCIfor database
drones,
provided by the Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute
and the gasoline LCI data from the same database were used for motorcycles. For gasoline usage, (KEITI) were used for
drones, and the gasoline LCI data from the same database were used
LCI data at the use stage were also included because many types of greenhouse gases and pollutants for motorcycles. For gasoline
usage, LCI data
are emitted duringat the
the use stage were
combustion also included
process. The databecause
related to many typescombustion
gasoline of greenhouse weregases and
obtained
pollutants
from the US areLCIemitted during
database the combustion
provided process. The
by the National data related
Renewable Energy to gasoline combustion
Laboratory (NREL)were [38].
obtained
The sum of the environmental impacts from the production and combustion of gasoline was (NREL)
from the US LCI database provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory used as
[38]. The sum of the
the environmental environmental
impact of motorcycle impacts from the production and combustion of gasoline was
delivery.
used as the environmental impact of motorcycle delivery.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 6 of 15

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 15

The purpose of the third step, which is the impact assessment, is to evaluate the actual damage
to theThe purpose ofbased
environment the third step,
on the which
result is the
of the impact assessment,
inventory analysis. The is impact
to evaluate the actual
assessment stepdamage
should
to the environment based on the result of the inventory analysis. The impact
include characterization, which distributes output materials to impact categories and converts themassessment step should
include
into characterization,
a single which distributes
unit. The normalization output steps
and weighting materials
may to impact
then categories
optionally and converts
be performed. them
Weighting
isinto
useda to
single unit. The
determine normalization
the relative importanceand of weighting
each impact steps may then
category optionally
considering its be performed.
social meaning.
Weighting
The is used to
environmental determine
impact valuetheof relative
a product importance
or serviceofcaneachbeimpact
derived category
by summingconsidering its socialof
the products
meaning.
the weightingThefactors
environmental impact value
and the normalized of aofproduct
value or service
each category. can study,
In this be derived
TOTAL by (a
summing the
tool for type
products of the weighting factors and the normalized value of each category.
III labeling and LCA), developed by KEITI, was used for the impact assessment. TOTAL is an LCA In this study, TOTAL
(a tool for
software type III by
developed labeling and LCA),
the Korean developed
government. bythe
Since KEITI, was used Decree
“Enforcement for the of impact assessment.
the Environmental
TOTAL is an
Technology andLCA software
Industry developed
Support by the
Act” came Korean
into effectgovernment. Since the
in 1995, the Korean “Enforcement
government Decree of
has encouraged
the use of LCA. As there was no LCA software developed in Korea, software from EuropeKorean
the Environmental Technology and Industry Support Act” came into effect in 1995, the such as
government
SimaPro has encouraged
and GaBi were used. the use of LCA.
However, As there
they were was no LCA
not compatible due software developed
to different in Korea,
data formats and
software
they werefrom Europe
not easy for such as SimaPro
beginners and GaBi
to access. were
This led toused. However, they
the development of were not compatible due
the government-led LCA
to different
software. dataanalyzing
After formats andthe they were and
strengths not easy for beginners
weaknesses to access.
of various LCAThis led to and
software, the development
gathering the
of the government-led LCA software. After analyzing the strengths
opinions from various experts, TOTAL was born in 2005. TOTAL provides a national and weaknesses of various
database LCAin
software, and gathering the opinions from various experts, TOTAL was born in 2005. TOTAL
the form of an Eco-Spold based on ISO TS 14048, and also provides public databases such as APME
provides a national database in the form of an Eco-Spold based on ISO TS 14048, and also provides
and IISI, so that it can be compatible with other LCA software [39]. The results from TOTAL were
public databases such as APME and IISI, so that it can be compatible with other LCA software [39].
compared in terms of particulates and the 10 categories selected by the Korean Ministry of Trade,
The results from TOTAL were compared in terms of particulates and the 10 categories selected by
Industry, and Energy (Table 1).
the Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (Table 1).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. System
System boundary
boundary of
of aa food
food (pizza)
(pizza) delivery
delivery system
systemfor
fordrone
droneand
andmotorcycle.
motorcycle.

Table 1.
Table 1. Life
Life Cycle
Cycle Impact
Impact Categories.
Categories.
Impact Category Unit
Impact Category Unit
ADP Abiotic Depletion Potential 1/year
ADP Abiotic Depletion Potential 1/year
AP Acidification Potential kg SO 2-eq
AP Acidification Potential kg SO2 -eq
EP
EP Eutrophication
EutrophicationPotential
Potential kg PO 43--eq
kg PO 4
3− -eq

FAETP
FAETP Freshwater
Freshwater AquaticEcotoxicity
Aquatic Ecotoxicity Potential
Potential kg DCB-eq.
kg 1,4 1,4 DCB-eq.
GWP Global Warming Potential kg CO2 -eq.
GWP
HTP
Global Warming Potential
Human Toxicity Potential
kgkgCO 2-eq.
1,4 DCB-eq.
HTP
MAETP Human
Marine Toxicity
Aquatic Potential
Ecotoxicity Potential kg 1,4
kg DCB-eq.
1,4 DCB-eq.
ODP
MAETP Ozone Depletion
Marine Aquatic Potential
Ecotoxicity Potential kg 1,4kgDCB-eq.
CFC11 -eq.
POCP Photochemical Oxidants Creation Potential kg ethylene-eq.
ODP
TETP Ozone Depletion Potential
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential kg kg
CFC -eq.
1,411DCB-eq.
POCP
PM 2.5 Photochemical Particulates
Oxidants Creation
Matter Potential kg ethylene-eq.
kg PM2.5 -eq.
TETP Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Potential kg 1,4 DCB-eq.
PM2.5 Particulates Matter kg PM2.5-eq.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 7 of 15

At the interpretation
Sustainability stage,
2018, 10, x FOR PEER the main issues are summarized, the results are evaluated,7 ofand
REVIEW 15 the

conclusions are drawn. In this study, the results were compared to a third type of transportation,
At the interpretation stage, the main issues are summarized, the results are evaluated, and the
the electric motorcycle, since it is another environmentally friendly means of delivery. The environmental
conclusions are drawn. In this study, the results were compared to a third type of transportation, the
impact of 1 km of delivery distance by electric motorcycle and the environmental impacts of all three
electric motorcycle, since it is another environmentally friendly means of delivery. The
modes of transportation
environmental impact were compared.
of 1 km In addition,
of delivery the
distance by US LCI
electric databaseand
motorcycle wasthe
used to compare the
environmental
reduction
impacts effect
of allofthree
drones based
modes on the national
of transportation power
were generation
compared. schemes.
In addition, the US LCI database was
used to compare the reduction effect of drones based on the national powerenergy
Finally, the environmental impact of the increased use of renewable wasschemes.
generation estimated.
Finally, the environmental impact of the increased use of renewable energy was estimated.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of Motorcycle Delivery and Drone Delivery
3.1. Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of Motorcycle Delivery and Drone Delivery
The global warming potential (GWP) and the amount of particulates generated for 1 km of
delivery The
withglobal
a drone warming potential were
and motorcycle (GWP)calculated
and the amount of TOTAL
using the particulates generated
software for 3).
(Figure 1 km TheofGWP
of 1 delivery with abydrone
km traveled drone and
was motorcycle
4.41 × 10 −3 kg
were calculated
CO2 -eq.using
The the
GWP TOTAL software
of 1 km (Figure
traveled 3). The
by motorcycle
was GWP
2.85 ×of 10
1 km traveled
−2 kg by drone
CO2 -eq. In thewas 4.41 × production
energy 10−3 kg CO2-eq. The electricity
stage, GWP of 1 km traveled bygenerated
production motorcyclemore
was 2.85 × 10 kg CO2-eq. In the energy production stage, electricity production generated more
−2
greenhouse gases than gasoline production; however, the GWP generated by burning gasoline
greenhouse gases than gasoline production; however, the GWP generated by burning gasoline was
was 24 times more than the production stage, leading to a significant difference in the total GWP.
24 times more than the production stage, leading to a significant difference in the total GWP. When
−7 kgPM -eq. were generated for drone delivery,
When particulates
particulates werewere compared,
compared, 9.65 × 109.65 × 10
−7 kgPM 2.5
2.5-eq. were generated for drone delivery, and 2.09 × 10−6
and kg
2.09 × 10 −6 kg PM -eq. were generated for motorcycle delivery. For the particulates, gasoline
2.5
PM2.5-eq. were generated for motorcycle delivery. For the particulates, gasoline emissions were
emissions
higher were
in bothhigher in both the
the production andproduction and combustion
combustion stages. Therefore, itstages. Therefore,
is expected it is expected
that greenhouse gases that
greenhouse gases and
and particulates particulates
would be reducedwould
if the be reduced
existing if the existing
motorcycle deliverymotorcycle
method were delivery method
converted to thewere
converted to the drone
drone delivery delivery method.
method.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Global
3. Global warming
warming potential
potential (GWP)
(GWP) and and particulates
particulates matter
matter (PM(PM 2.5) produced per 1 km
Figure 2.5 ) produced per 1 km delivery
delivery by drone and motorcycle. Energy options for drone and motorcycle are electricity and
by drone and motorcycle. Energy options for drone and motorcycle are electricity and gasoline,
gasoline, respectively. (a) GWP; (b) PM2.5.
respectively. (a) GWP; (b) PM2.5 .
The environmental impacts of the drone and motorcycle delivery methods were analyzed in the
The environmental
same impacts
way for eight other of the drone
environmental and categories,
impact motorcycleincluding
deliveryeutrophication,
methods wereacidification,
analyzed in the
sameandwayozone layer destruction.
for eight Tables 2 andimpact
other environmental 3 showcategories,
the results of the characterization,
including normalization,
eutrophication, acidification,
and weighting by environmental impact category. The environmental impact difference
and ozone layer destruction. Tables 2 and 3 show the results of the characterization, normalization, between
drones and motorcycles ranged from four to 518 times, but the environmental impact
and weighting by environmental impact category. The environmental impact difference between of motorcycle
delivery was higher in nine of the ten categories. On the other hand, the marine aquatic ecotoxicity
drones and motorcycles ranged from four to 518 times, but the environmental impact of motorcycle
potential (MAETP) was about 5.22 times higher when using drones, with drones generating 2.25 ×
delivery was higher in nine of the ten categories. On the other hand, the marine aquatic ecotoxicity
10−3 kg 1,4DCB-eq. and motorcycles producing 4.31 × 10−4 kg 1,4DCB-eq. The weighted environmental
potential (MAETP) was about 5.22 times higher when using drones, with drones generating
impact value was 4.37E × 10−7 for drone delivery and 1.46 × 10−6 for motorcycle delivery. Therefore, if
× 10
2.25 the −3 kg 1,4DCB-eq. and motorcycles producing 4.31 × 10−4 kg 1,4DCB-eq. The weighted
delivery vehicle were changed from motorcycles to drones, the GWP and particulates, as well as
environmental impact valueimpact,
the overall environmental was 4.37E
would 10−7 for drone delivery and 1.46 × 10−6 for motorcycle
×decrease.
delivery. Therefore, if the delivery vehicle were changed from motorcycles to drones, the GWP and
particulates, as well as the overall environmental impact, would decrease.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 8 of 15

Table 2. Environmental impacts of 1 km drone delivery with characterization, normalization,

and weighting.

Category Unit Characterization Normalization Weighting

ADP 1/year 1.54 × 10−5 6.17 × 10−7
AP kg SO2 -eq./kg 7.46 × 10−6 1.87 × 10−7
EP kg PO4 3− -eq./kg 1.39 × 10−6 1.06 × 10−7
FAETP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 3.14 × 10−7 2.10 × 10−7
GWP kg CO2 -eq./kg 4.41 × 10−3 7.97 × 10−7
4.37 × 10−7
HTP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 9.86 × 10−7 6.66 × 10−10
MAETP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 2.25 × 10−3 2.90 × 10−8
ODP kg CFC 11-eq./kg 1.02E × 10−13 2.49 × 10−12
POCP kg ethylene eq./kg 3.05 × 10−6 2.97 × 10−7
TETP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 1.78 × 10−13 1.09 × 10−13

Table 3. Environmental impacts of 1 km motorcycle delivery with characterization, normalization,

and weighting.

Category Unit Characterization Normalization Weighting

ADP 1/year 3.62 × 10−4 1.46 × 10−5
AP kg SO2 -eq./kg 1.13 × 10−4 2.85 × 10−6
EP kg PO4 3− -eq./kg 2.08 × 10−5 1.59 × 10−6
FAETP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 3.76 × 10−6 2.50 × 10−6
GWP kg CO2 -eq./kg 2.85 × 10−2 5.16 × 10−6
5.46 × 10−6
HTP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 5.98 × 10−6 4.04 × 10−9
MAETP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 4.31 × 10−4 5.56 × 10−9
ODP kg CFC 11 -eq./kg 2.92 × 10−12 7.17 × 10−11
POCP kg ethylene eq./kg 1.34 × 10−5 1.30 × 10−6
TETP kg 1,4 DCB eq./kg 9.24 × 10−11 5.67 × 10−11

3.2. Comparison of GWP and the Effects of Particulate Reduction between Urban and Rural Areas
Based on the location of elementary schools in Yangcheon-gu and Pyeongchang-gun, the average
straight distance for pizza delivery in Yangcheon-gu was 0.40 km, and the average distance of pizza
delivery in Pyeongchang-gun was 4.42 km. Therefore, the travel distance of the drones considering
the round trip was 0.80 km in Yangcheon-gu and 8.83 km in Pyeongchang-gun. The distance for
motorcycle delivery was 0.97 km in Yanggcheon-gu and 12.68 km in Pyeongchang-gun, which was
multiplied by the bypass coefficient of each region.
The GWP and particulates generated for one shipment were calculated using the shipping distance
by region and pollutants per the 1 km delivery calculations. The GWP produced when delivering
pizza in Yangcheon-gu was 3.51 × 10−3 kg CO2 -eq. using drone delivery and 2.76 × 10−2 kg CO2 -eq.
using motorcycle delivery. These results indicate that the GWP declined by 2.41 × 10−2 kg CO2 -eq.
when the shipping method changed from motorcycle to drone delivery. In Pyeongchang-gun, it was
3.90 × 10−2 kg CO2 -eq. for drone delivery and 0.362 kg CO2 -eq. for motorcycle delivery, so the GWP
reduction in Pyeongchang-gun was 0.323 kg CO2 -eq. The particulates produced in Yangcheon-gu by
drone and motorcycle were 7.69 × 10−7 kg PM2.5 -eq. and 2.33 × 10−6 kg PM2.5 -eq., respectively,
and 8.52 × 10−6 kg PM2.5 -eq. and 3.05 × 10−5 kg PM2.5 -eq in Pyeongchang-gun, respectively.
These results indicate that the particulate reduction was 1.56 × 10−6 kg PM2.5 -eq. in Yangcheon-gu
and 2.20 × 10−5 kg PM2.5 -eq. in Pyeongchang-gun.
The analysis indicates that the GWP and particulate reduction by converting existing motorcycle
delivery to drone delivery was 13.4 and 14.1 times higher in Pyeongchang-gun than in Yangcheon-gu,
respectively. In other words, the environment improvement effects of introducing drones could be
greater in Pyeongchang-gun, where the delivery distance is relatively longer than Yangcheon-gu.
Because rural areas have a lower population density and their residential areas are more scattered than
cities, the environmental improvement effect of drone usage in rural areas is higher than that of cities.
 Sustainability
Sustainability2018,
2018,10,
10,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 99 of
of 15
15

Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 9 of 15

than
thancities,
cities,the
theenvironmental
environmentalimprovement
improvement effect effect of
of drone usage in rural areas is higher than that that of
of
cities.
cities.
3.3. Comparison of the Reduction Effects between Urban and Rural Areas by Impact Category
3.3.
3.3.Comparison
Comparisonofofthe theReduction
Reduction Effects
Effects between
between Urban
Urban andand Rural Areas by Impact Category
After calculating and normalizing the environmental impacts of drone and motorcycle
After calculating and normalizing the environmental impacts of drone and motorcycle delivery
delivery After calculating
methods andten
for the normalizing
categories thepresented
environmentalin result 1, the reductions in urban delivery
and rural
methods
methods for for the
the ten ten categories
categories presented
presented in in result
result 1,
1, the reductions in urban and rural areas were were
areas were compared by calculating the difference between Yangcheon-gu and Pyeongchang-gun.
compared by calculating the
compared by calculating the difference betweendifference between Yangcheon-gu and Pyeongchang-gun. The
The
The environmental improvement effect of Pyeongchang-gun was relatively higher than that of
environmental
environmental improvement
improvement effect effect of of Pyeongchang-gun
Pyeongchang-gun was relatively higher than that that of
of
Yangcheon-gu in all nine areas except MAETP, where the environment deteriorated when using
Yangcheon-gu in
Yangcheon-gu in all
all nine
nine areas
areas except
except MAETP,
MAETP, wherewhere the environment deteriorated when using using
drones (Figure 4). The difference in the reduction effect was the highest with ADP, where the value was
drones(Figure
drones (Figure4). 4).TheThe difference
difference in in the
the reduction
reduction effect
effect was the highest with ADP, where the value
−4 for Pyeongchang-gun and 1.36 × 10−5 in Yangcheon-gu, which is a difference of 13 times
value
1.79 × 10
was1.79
1.79 ×× 10
10−4−4 for
for Pyeongchang-gun
Pyeongchang-gun and and 1.36
1.36 ×× 10
10−5−5 in Yangcheon-gu, which is a difference of
was of 13
13
higher. To
timeshigher.
times comprehensively
higher.To Tocomprehensively evaluate
comprehensivelyevaluate the environmental
evaluate thethe environmental impact categories, the weighted
environmental impact categories, the weighted results results
results of
Yangcheon-gu
ofof Yangcheon-gu
Yangcheon-gu and Pyeongchang-gun
and Pyeongchang-gun
and Pyeongchang-gun were compared.
were compared.
were The total
compared. Theenvironmental improvement
total environmental effects of
improvement
improvement
alleffects
10 categories were evaluated as 4.94 × 10 −6 in Yangcheon-gu and 6.53 × 10−5 in Pyeongchang-gun
effects ofof all
all 1010 categories
categories werewere evaluated
evaluated as as 4.94
4.94 × 10−6 in Yangcheon-gu and 6.53 × 10−5−5 in
−6
in
(Figure 5). Therefore,(Figure
Pyeongchang-gun
Pyeongchang-gun the environmental
(Figure Therefore,improvement
5). Therefore,
5). the environmental
the environmentaleffect improvement
expected fromeffect
the introduction of drone
expected from
from the
the
delivery in theof
introduction
introduction rural
of drone
drone area was 13in
delivery
delivery times
in higher
the rural
the rural than
area
area wasthat
was in thehigher
13 times
13 urbanthan
area.that in the urban area.

Figure4.4.4.Reduction
Figure
Figure Reductionimpact
Reduction impact in
impact in Yangcheon-gu
in Yangcheon-gu and
Yangcheon-gu and Pyeongchang-gun
Pyeongchang-gunby
andPyeongchang-gun bybycategory.
category.
category.

Figure 5. Weighted reduction impact of drones in Yangcheon-gu and Pyeongchang-gun.

Figure5.5.Weighted
Figure Weighted reduction
reduction impact
impact of
of drones
drones in
inYangcheon-gu
Yangcheon-guand
andPyeongchang-gun.
Pyeongchang-gun.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 10 of 15

3.4. Interpretation
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

3.4.1. Environmental Impact of Delivery Using Electric Motorcycles

3.4. Interpretation
At this stage, the environmental impact of electric motorcycles, an alternative to gasoline
3.4.1. Environmental Impact of Delivery Using Electric Motorcycles
motorcycles, was analyzed and compared considering the mobility, applicability, and efficiency of
delivery.At Interest
this stage, the environmental
in electric motorcycles as impact of electric
low-emission andmotorcycles,
eco-friendlyan alternative
urban vehiclesto hasgasoline
increased.
The use of electric motorcycles is likely to increase, particularly in areas with small passengerofcars
motorcycles, was analyzed and compared considering the mobility, applicability, and efficiency
anddelivery. Interest sectors
small logistics in electric
[40], motorcycles
due to their low as low-emission
fuel cost, easeand eco-friendly urban
of commercialization andvehicles has
development,
increased. The use of electric motorcycles is likely to increase, particularly
and low carbon emissions. In addition, the Seoul Metropolitan Government provides a subsidy of in areas with small
2.5passenger
million won carsfor
andevery
smallelectric
logistics sectors [40],
motorcycle due to their
purchased low fuel purposes.
for delivery cost, ease of commercialization
Recently, the amount of
and development, and low carbon emissions. In addition, the Seoul
the subsidy has gradually increased, and the target supply for 2017 increased by 2.7 times Metropolitan Government
compared to
provides a subsidy of 2.5 million won for every electric motorcycle purchased for delivery purposes.
2016. Electric motorcycles have the advantage that they can be used even when the order quantity
Recently, the amount of the subsidy has gradually increased, and the target supply for 2017 increased
is large because they can carry more products compared to drones. Therefore, it would be possible
by 2.7 times compared to 2016. Electric motorcycles have the advantage that they can be used even
to identify the effect of a more efficient alternative delivery vehicle if electric motorcycles were also
when the order quantity is large because they can carry more products compared to drones.
evaluated to determine the environmental impact.
Therefore, it would be possible to identify the effect of a more efficient alternative delivery vehicle if
The environmental impact of electric motorcycles was calculated using the initial environmental
electric motorcycles were also evaluated to determine the environmental impact.
impactThe data from drone and
environmental impactgasoline motorcycles.
of electric motorcycles Thewaselectricity data
calculated fromthe
using theinitial
national LCI database
environmental
were used as the LCI, and the delivery distance reflecting the bypass coefficient
impact data from drone and gasoline motorcycles. The electricity data from the national LCI database was applied to the
electric motorcycle in the same manner as for the gasoline motorcycle. To determine
were used as the LCI, and the delivery distance reflecting the bypass coefficient was applied to the the power needed
forelectric
1 km of movement,
motorcycle in the
the electric motorcycle
same manner “Valencia”
as for of Green
the gasoline Mobility
motorcycle. Towas selected.
determine theThis model
power
was selected
needed for 1from
km of themovement,
six modelsthe approved by the Ministry
electric motorcycle of Environment
“Valencia” becausewas
of Green Mobility it has signed a
selected.
business agreement
This model with the
was selected fromKorea
the Franchise
six modelsIndustry
approved Association. This model
by the Ministry has a mileage
of Environment of 60itkm
because
andhasuses a 72aV,
signed 30,000 mAh
business battery.
agreement with the Korea Franchise Industry Association. This model has a
mileage
The GWPof 60 km
andand uses a 72 V,
particulates 30,000 mAh
produced when battery.
delivering within 1 km by electric motorcycle were
1.80 kg CO2 -eq. and 3.90 kg CO2 -eq., respectively. Thewithin
The GWP and particulates produced when delivering 1 km
results wereby electric
compared motorcycle
with the were
GWP
and1.80particulates
kg CO2-eq. emissions
and 3.90 kgofCO the2-eq., respectively.
drone and gasoline The results were presented
motorcycle compared with the GWP
in result and 6).
1 (Figure
particulates
Because most emissions of the drone
of the greenhouse gasesandare
gasoline
emitted motorcycle
during the presented in result
combustion stage 1 (Figure 6). Because
of gasoline, the GWP
most of the greenhouse gases are emitted during the combustion stage
was from highest to lowest for the gasoline motorcycle, electric motorcycle, and drone; however, of gasoline, the GWP was
from highest to lowest for the gasoline motorcycle, electric motorcycle,
the electric motorcycle produced the most particulates, followed by the gasoline motorcycle and and drone; however, thethe
electric motorcycle produced the most particulates, followed by the gasoline
drone. In other words, more particulates are generated during electricity production than during motorcycle and the
drone. In other words, more particulates are generated during electricity production than during
gasoline production and combustion. Nonetheless, the particulates are reduced with drone use
gasoline production and combustion. Nonetheless, the particulates are reduced with drone use
compared to both types of motorcycles because they do not consume much electricity, but electric
compared to both types of motorcycles because they do not consume much electricity, but electric
motorcycles generated more particulates than gasoline motorcycles because they consumed more
motorcycles generated more particulates than gasoline motorcycles because they consumed more
electricity when traveling 1 km. Therefore, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, electric vehicles can
electricity when traveling 1 km. Therefore, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, electric vehicles can
bebeenvironmentally friendly, but in terms of particulates, the introduction of electric motorcycles could
environmentally friendly, but in terms of particulates, the introduction of electric motorcycles
have a worse
could have aimpact on the on
worse impact environment than using
the environment conventional
than using gasoline
conventional motorcycles.
gasoline motorcycles.

(a) (b)
Figure 6. GWP and particulates of 1 km delivery by drone, motorcycle, and electric motorcycle.
Figure 6. GWP and particulates of 1 km delivery by drone, motorcycle, and electric motorcycle.
(a) GWP of 1 km delivery; (b) PM2.5 of 1 km delivery.
(a) GWP of 1 km delivery; (b) PM2.5 of 1 km delivery.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 11 of 15

3.4.2. Comparison of the Drones’ Reduction Effect According to the National Power
Generation Scheme
Since the proportion of electricity production varies from country to country, the environmental
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
impact of electricity production can also vary. Therefore, LCAs of electricity production in the
United3.4.2.
States and Korea
Comparison were
of the conducted,
Drones’ Reduction and
Effectthe environmental
According impacts
to the National Power ofGeneration
drones considering
power Scheme
generation were compared after calculating the travel distance. As there are various ways
among countries
Since theto generateofelectricity,
proportion such as coal-fired
electricity production varies from power generation,
country to country, thehydroelectric
environmental power
generation,
impact and nuclear power
of electricity generation,
production eachTherefore,
can also vary. country sets
LCAsan ofacceptable proportion
electricity production forUnited
in the each method
considering
States the
and internal
Korea were andconducted,
external conditions (Table 4). Thus,
and the environmental impactstheofenvironmental impact
drones considering power of drones
generation may
using electricity were vary
comparedfromafter calculating
country the travel
to country distance.
because As there are various
the environmental ways of
impacts among
each power
countries
generation methodto generate electricity, such as coal-fired power generation, hydroelectric power generation,
are different.
and nuclear power generation, each country sets an acceptable proportion for each method
considering theTable
internal and external
4. Shares (%) ofconditions (Table 4). Thus,
national electricity theby
sources environmental impact of drones
country (2011).
using electricity may vary from country to country because the environmental impacts of each power
generation method are different.
Nations Coal Petroleum Gas Nuclear Hydraulic Renewable
Korea 40.3 5.0 of national 20.5
Table 4. Shares (%) 31.1
electricity sources 0.7
by country (2011). 2.5
US 43.3 0.9 24.2 19.0 7.4 5.2
Germany Nations
45.1 Coal Petroleum
1.1 Gas13.9 Nuclear 17.9 Hydraulic Renewable
2.9 19.1
France Korea3.1 40.3 0.65.0 20.54.8 31.1 79.4 0.7 8.02.5 4.0
Japan US27.0 43.3 14.70.9 35.9 19.0
24.2 9.8 7.4 8.05.2 4.7
China 78.9 45.1
Germany 0.21.1 13.92.0 17.9 1.8 2.9 14.7
19.1 2.4
France 3.1 0.6 4.8 79.4 8.0 4.0
Japan 27.0 14.7 35.9 9.8 8.0 4.7
The environmental impact associated with US power generation was analyzed using the US LCI
China 78.9 0.2 2.0 1.8 14.7 2.4
data provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The item used was “Electricity,
at Grid, US,The2008”, and GaBiimpact
environmental was used as thewith
associated LCA USsoftware. First, the
power generation wasGWP and using
analyzed particulates
the US LCIproduced
to generate 1 kWh by
data provided of the
electricity
National were obtained,
Renewable Energyand the GWP
Laboratory andThe
(NREL). particulates
item used wasfor“Electricity,
1 km of delivery
at Grid, US,
travel distance 2008”,
were and GaBi based
calculated was used onasthe
thetravel
LCA software.
distanceFirst,
of athe GWPper
drone andunit
particulates produced
of electricity. The GWP
to −
generate3 1 kWh of electricity were obtained, and the GWP −
and 7particulates
was 1.92 × 10 kg CO2 -eq., and the particulates were 7.77 × 10 kg PM2.5 -eq. per 1 km when drones for 1 km of delivery
travel distance were calculated based on the travel distance of a drone per unit of electricity. The
were powered by electricity produced in the US. These values were compared with the environmental
GWP was 1.92 × 10−3 kg CO2-eq., and the particulates were 7.77 × 10−7 kg PM2.5-eq. per 1 km when
impactdrones
data ofwere
electricity produced in Korea obtained previously (Figure 7).
powered by electricity produced in the US. These values were compared with the
Electricity production
environmental impact data in Korea caused
of electricity more pollution
produced than electricity
in Korea obtained previouslyproduction
(Figure 7). in the US for
both categories. Theproduction
Electricity GWP amount wascaused
in Korea 2.3 times
more higher,
pollutionand
thanthe particulates
electricity amount
production was
in the US 1.24
for times
both categories. The GWP amount was 2.3 times higher, and the particulates
higher in Korea. Therefore, when the use of the existing delivery vehicle is converted to the useamount was 1.24 times
higherthe
of drones, in Korea. Therefore, when
environmental the use of the
improvement existing
impact delivery
seems vehicle
to be is converted
greater in the USto the use of
than in Korea.
drones, the environmental improvement impact seems to be greater in the US than in Korea. In
In Germany, which has a higher proportion of renewable energy than other countries, it is expected
Germany, which has a higher proportion of renewable energy than other countries, it is expected that
that thethe
reduction effect of changing the use of the delivery vehicle would be more remarkable due to
reduction effect of changing the use of the delivery vehicle would be more remarkable due to a
a lowerlower
environmental
environmental impact
impactofofelectricity generation.
electricity generation.

(a) (b)
Figure 7. GWP and particulates of 1 km delivery distance by drone in South Korea and in the U.S. (a)
7. GWP
FigureGWP; and particulates of 1 km delivery distance by drone in South Korea and in the U.S.
(b) PM2.5.
(a) GWP; (b) PM2.5 .
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 12 of 15
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Drones’ GHG
3.4.3. Drones’ GHG Reduction Effect by Expanding Renewable Energy

According to tothe
theelectricity
electricity generation
generation plan of Korea,
plan the share
of Korea, of renewable
the share energy will
of renewable increase.
energy will
To evaluate
increase. To the environmental
evaluate impact of impact
the environmental this transition, an LCA was
of this transition, an conducted for each renewable
LCA was conducted for each
energy generation
renewable energy method,
generation and the environmental
method, impact of drone
and the environmental impactdelivery
of dronewas delivery
comparedwas by
calculatingby
compared thecalculating
travel distance.
the travel distance.
The national
The national LCI LCI database
database of of the Korea Environmental
Environmental Industry Industry and and Technology Institute
Institute was
previously used in this study study to to estimate
estimate thetheenvironmental
environmental impacts impacts of ofelectricity
electricitygeneration
generationin inKorea;
Korea;
however, thethe internal
internalandandexternal
externalconditions
conditions related
related to to
thethe
power
powersupply
supplyare are
constantly
constantly changing
changingdue
to several factors, such as the rising demand for air conditioning, controversies
due to several factors, such as the rising demand for air conditioning, controversies over nuclear over nuclear power
generation,
power and changes
generation, in GHG reduction
and changes conditions.conditions.
in GHG reduction In particular, as it has become
In particular, as it hasincreasingly
become
important to important
increasingly address climate change
to address and tochange
climate reduce and greenhouse
to reduce gases, many countries
greenhouse gases, manyplan to expand
countries
the share
plan of renewable
to expand the share energy in the long-term.
of renewable energy in the long-term.
The Korean government
The government also also establishes
establishes aa plan plan forfor renewable
renewable energyenergy every
every five five years
years in
accordance with
accordance with the
the Framework
Framework Act Act onon Low
Low Carbon,
Carbon, GreenGreen Growth,
Growth, and and the
the Act
Act on the Promotion
Development, Use
of the Development, Use and and Diffusion
Diffusion of of New and Renewable
Renewable Energy. According According to to the
the 2014
2014 4th
Basic Renewable
Basic Renewable Energy Energy Plan Plan of of the
the Ministry
Ministry of of Trade,
Trade, Industry,
Industry, andand Energy,
Energy, Korea is planning to
gradually increase
gradually increase thethe ratio
ratio of of renewable
renewable energy energy and and to supply
supply 13.4%
13.4% of total energy as renewable
energy by by2035.
2035.If If
thethe
supply
supply of renewable
of renewable energy increases,
energy the amount
increases, of greenhouse
the amount gases generated
of greenhouse gases
during the during
generated electricity
thegeneration
electricity process
generation will process
be reduced, willmaking the reduction
be reduced, making effect of drone effect
the reduction delivery
of
even higher.
drone delivery even higher.
To compare
comparethe reduction
the reduction effect of drones
effect based based
of drones on photovoltaic, wind, and
on photovoltaic, solar and
wind, power generation,
solar power
which are proposed
generation, which are asproposed
core energy sources
as core in the
energy Basic Renewable
sources in the BasicEnergy Plan,Energy
Renewable meta-analysis data
Plan, meta-
on GWPdata
analysis generation
on GWP were used forwere
generation eachused
method [41,42].
for each To generate
method [41,42].1To kWh of electricity,
generate 1 kWh of photovoltaic
electricity,
power produced
photovoltaic power0.052 kg CO2 -eq.,
produced 0.052windkg COpower
2-eq.,produced
wind power 0.015 produced
kg CO2 eq., and kg
0.015 solarCOpower produced
2 eq., and solar
0.023 kg
power CO2 eq.0.023
produced of greenhouse
kg CO2 eq. ofgases. The GWP
greenhouse gases.ofThefuture
GWPelectricity production
of future electricity was obtained
production was
accordingaccording
obtained to the Basic PlanBasic
to the usingPlan 86.6%usingof the
86.6%power generated
of the in the conventional
power generated way and using
in the conventional way
the remaining
and 13.4% generated
using the remaining 13.4% from each renewable
generated from each energy.
renewable Thisenergy.
was converted
This wastoconverted
the amount per
to the
1 km of per
amount drone 1 kmdelivery
of drone (Figure
delivery 8). (Figure
Compared to the 4.41to×the
8). Compared − 3
10 4.41kg× CO -eq.CO
10 2kg
−3 of2-eq.
greenhouse
of greenhousegases
for thefor
gases current power generation
the current power generation system, photovoltaic power generation
system, photovoltaic could reduce
power generation greenhouse
could reduce
greenhouse
gases to 3.88gases× 10−to3 kg
3.88CO × 10 −3 kg
2 -eq., CO2-eq.,
wind power wind
could power
reduce could
themreduce × 10to
to 3.84them −33.84
kg CO× 10 −3 kgand
2 -eq., CO2solar
-eq.,
and
powersolar power
could could
reduce themreduce
to 3.85them × 10 − 3
to 3.85kg× CO
10 2 kg
−3 -eq.CO 2-eq. Therefore,
Therefore, as the proportion
as the proportion of renewable
of renewable energy
energy increases,
increases, the reduction
the reduction effect ofeffectdrones of will
dronesalsowill also increase.
increase.

Figure
Figure 8.
8. GWP
GWP of
of 11 km
km drone
drone delivery
delivery under
under renewable
renewable energy scenario.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 13 of 15

4. Conclusions
In this study, the environmental impact of drones, a new means of delivery, was compared with
the environmental impact of conventional delivery vehicles using the LCA. Based on the gasoline
and electricity production data of the national LCI DB, the environmental impacts of a 1-km delivery
distance using each type of vehicle were evaluated. In addition, the environmental improvement
effects of using drones in urban and rural areas were compared based on the actual delivery distances
in the residential areas of Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, and Pyeongchang-gun, Gangwon-do, based on the
locations of elementary schools.
The LCA results showed that the GWP generated by 1 km of drone delivery distance
(4.41 × 10−3 kg CO2 -eq.) was one-sixth that of the GWP generated by 1 km of motorcycle delivery
distance (2.85 × 10−2 kg CO2 -eq.). The particulate emissions of drones (9.65 × 10−7 kg PM2.5 -eq.) was
estimated to be about half that of motorcycles (2.09 × 10−6 kg PM2.5 -eq.). When the comprehensive
environmental impact was evaluated after adding nine impact categories and normalizing and
weighting the data, the environmental impact of drones was found to be one-twelfth that of
the motorcycle.
The reduction of pollution by utilizing drones was more effective in rural areas than in cities.
In Yangcheon-gu, the GWP reduction per delivery was 2.41 × 10−2 kg CO2 -eq., and the particulate
reduction was 1.56 × 10−6 kg PM2.5 -eq. In Pyeongchang-gun, the GWP reduction was 0.323 kg CO2 -eq.,
and the particulate reduction was 2.20 × 10−5 kg PM2.5 -eq. The environmental improvement effect was
higher in Pyeongchang-gun for both GWP and particulates. Pyeongchang-gun had a 13.2 times higher
environmental impact reduction effect than Yangcheon-gu when the ten categories were considered
together because it had a longer delivery distance.
In addition, in preparation for the emergence of new eco-friendly vehicles, electric motorcycles
were added to the comparison to determine the environmental impact per distance. The GWP was
higher for gasoline motorcycles because more greenhouse gases were generated in the combustion
stage of gasoline than in the production stage, but electric motorcycles produced more particulates
because particulates are mostly generated during electricity production. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of various impact categories, as well as the GWP, should be analyzed and compared before
introducing electric vehicles.
Another important consideration is that Korea’s electricity production method generates
2.49 × 10−3 kg CO2 -eq. more GWP and 1.88 × 10−7 kg PM2.5 -eq. more particulates than US electricity
production. As mentioned in the 4th Basic Renewable Energy Plan, if 13.4% of energy could be
supplied as renewable energy such as solar and wind power by 2035, 10~14% of greenhouse gases
could be reduced compared to current emissions. Therefore, if the environmental impact per unit of
electricity could be reduced by the increased use of renewable energy, the environmental improvement
effect of drone use would be higher.
In this study, the environmental impacts of each delivery vehicle type were calculated using
the national LCI database and the US LCI database; however, the baseline year of the LCI data was
2000 for the national LCI database and 2008 for the US LCI database, so the changes in environmental
impacts due to technological developments and changes in the electricity generation plan have not
been adequately considered. Therefore, if the databases were upgraded in the future and the data on
various electricity generation methods were added, the accuracy of the results would improve.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NFR) grant
funded by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. NRF-2017R1E1A1A01078227).
Author Contributions: Jiyoon Park designed, conducted the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript.
Solhee Kim planned specific analysis methods, conducted LCA using the US LCI data, and reviewed and
reformatted the overall paper. And Kyo Suh developed the concept, supervised the project, and provided various
materials and methods related to the research. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 14 of 15

References
1. Evans, M. Future war in cities: Urbanization’s challenge to strategic studies in the 21st century. Int. Rev.
Red Cross 2016, 98, 37–51. [CrossRef]
2. Zhou, K.; Liu, T.; Zhou, L. Industry 4.0: Towards future industrial opportunities and challenges.
In Proceedings of the 2015 12th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery
(FSKD), Zhangjiajie, China, 15–17 August 2015; pp. 2147–2152.
3. Smith, K.W. Drone technology: Benefits, risks, and legal considerations. Seattle J. Environ. L. 2015, 5, 290–302.
4. Xu, J.-F. An Innovative Technology of Distributed Control System Integration for Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles. Acta Simul. Syst. Sin. 2003, 3. Available online: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-
XTFZ200303037.htm (accessed on 19 March 2018).
5. Commercial, U.A.V. Commercial Drone Market Analysis By Product (Fixed Wing, Rotary Blade, Nano, Hybrid),
by Application (Agriculture, Energy, Government, Media & Entertainment) and Segment Forecasts to 2022;
Grand View Research: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016.
6. Murray, C.C.; Chu, A.G. The flying sidekick traveling salesman problem: Optimization of drone-assisted
parcel delivery. Trans. Res. Emerg. Technol. 2015, 54, 86–109. [CrossRef]
7. Nex, F.; Remondino, F. Uav for 3D mapping applications: A review. Appl. Geomat. 2014, 6, 1–15. [CrossRef]
8. Lee, S.H.; Lee, S.; Song, H.; Lee, H.S. Wireless sensor network design for tactical military applications: Remote
large-scale environments. In Proceedings of the MILCOM 2009 Military Communications Conference,
Boston, MA, USA, 18–21 October 2009; pp. 1–7.
9. Springer, P.J. Military Robots and Drones: A Reference Handbook; ABC-CLIO: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2013.
10. Haidari, L.A.; Brown, S.T.; Ferguson, M.; Bancroft, E.; Spiker, M.; Wilcox, A.; Ambikapathi, R.; Sampath, V.;
Connor, D.L.; Lee, B.Y. The economic and operational value of using drones to transport vaccines. Vaccine
2016, 34, 4062–4067. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Boccardo, P.; Chiabrando, F.; Dutto, F.; Tonolo, F.G.; Lingua, A. UAV deployment exercise for mapping
purposes: Evaluation of emergency response applications. Sensors 2015, 15, 15717–15737. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
12. Bravo, R.; Leiras, A. Literature review of the application of UAVs in humanitarian relief. In Proceedings of
the XXXV Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de Producao, Fortaleza, Brazil, 13–16 October 2015; pp. 13–16.
13. Heutger, M. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Logistics. In A DHL Perspective on Implications and Use Cased for the
Logistics Industry; DronesX Media LLC: Burbank, CA, USA, 2014.
14. Wilkinson, P.; Cole, D. The role of radio science in disaster management. URSI Radio Sci. Bull. 2010, 83, 45–51.
15. Welch, A. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Amazon Prime Air. Bachelor’s Thesis, University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN, USA, 2015.
16. Pandit, V.; Poojari, A. A study on amazon prime air for feasibility and profitability: A graphical data analysis.
IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 16, 6–11. [CrossRef]
17. Mohammed, F.; Idries, A.; Mohamed, N.; Al-Jaroodi, J.; Jawhar, I. UAVs for smart cities: Opportunities and
challenges. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS),
Orlando, FL, USA, 27–30 May 2014; pp. 267–273.
18. Bamburry, D. Drones: Designed for product delivery. Des. Manag. Rev. 2015, 26, 40–48.
19. Pepitone, J. Domino’s Tests Drone Pizza Delivery. CNNMoney. 4 June 2013. Available online: http://money.
cnn.com/2013/06/04/technology/innovation/dominos-pizza-drone/index.html (accessed on 19 March 2018).
20. Javaid, A.; Sun, W.; Alam, M. Uavnet simulation in uavsim: A performance evaluation and enhancement.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Testbeds and Research Infrastructures, Guangzhou, China,
5–7 May 2014; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 107–115.
21. Agatz, N.; Bouman, P.; Schmidt, M. Optimization Approaches for the Traveling Salesman Problem with Drone;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
22. Carlsson, J.G.; Song, S. Coordinated logistics with a truck and a drone. Manag. Sci. 2017. [CrossRef]
23. Choi, Y.; Schonfeld, P.M. Optimization of multi-package drone deliveries considering battery capacity.
In Proceedings of the 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA,
8–12 January 2017.
24. Clarke, R.; Moses, L.B. The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on public safety. Comput. Law Secur. Rev.
2014, 30, 263–285. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 888 15 of 15

25. Clarke, R. The regulation of civilian drones’ impacts on behavioural privacy. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2014,
30, 286–305. [CrossRef]
26. Rao, B.; Gopi, A.G.; Maione, R. The societal impact of commercial drones. Technol. Soc. 2016, 45, 83–90.
[CrossRef]
27. Jones, T. International Commercial Drone Regulation and Drone Delivery Services; RR-1718/3-RC; RAND
Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2017.
28. Stolaroff, J. The Need for a Life Cycle Assessment of Drone-Based Commercial Package Delivery; Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL): Livermore, CA, USA, 2014.
29. Goodchild, A.; Toy, J. Delivery by drone: An evaluation of unmanned aerial vehicle technology in reducing
CO2 emissions in the delivery service industry. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017. [CrossRef]
30. Figliozzi, M.A. Lifecycle modeling and assessment of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) CO2 e emissions.
Transp. Res. Transp. Environ. 2017, 57, 251–261. [CrossRef]
31. Lohn, A.J. What’s the Buzz? The City-Scale Impacts of Drone Delivery; RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA,
USA, 2017. [CrossRef]
32. Kim, H. A Study on the main Status of Environment Logistics and Expansion Strategy in Korea. J. Korea Port
Econ. Assoc. 2009, 25. Available online: http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/IS_mvpopo001P.do?method=multMain&
poid=tkpea&kojic=OMGJBU&free= (accessed on 19 March 2018).
33. Kwon, J.; Kim, S.; Park, E.; Song, J. A study on the number of domestic food delivery services. Korean J.
Appl. Stat. 2015, 28, 977–990. [CrossRef]
34. Kim, S.; Kim, T.; Suh, K. Analysis of the implication of accessibility to community facilities for land price in
rural areas using a hedonic land price model. J. Korean Soc. Rural Plan. 2016, 22, 93–100. [CrossRef]
35. Kim, T.; Shin, Y.; Lee, J.; Suh, K. Calculation of regional circuity factors using road network distance in
South Korea. J. Korea Plan. Assoc. 2013, 48, 319–329.
36. Wolf, M.-A.; Chomkhamsri, K.; Brandao, M.; Pant, R.; Ardente, F.; Pennington, D.W.; Manfredi, S.;
de Camillis, C.; Goralczyk, M. ILCD Handbook—General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment-Detailed Guidance;
Joint Research Centre: City of Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
37. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO 14043: Environmental Management—Life Cycle
Interpretation; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998.
38. NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database; National Renewable
Energy Laboratory: Lakewood, CO, USA, 2012.
39. KEITI (Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute). Life Cycle Assessment Software (TOTAL)
Manual for eco Labeling; Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI): Seoul, Korea, 2000.
40. Kil, B.-S.; Kim, G.-C. The analysis of a electric scooter’s performance through motor and battery capacity
changing. Trans. Korean Soc. Automot. Eng. 2011, 19, 7–13.
41. Burkhardt, J.J.; Heath, G.; Cohen, E. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of trough and tower concentrating
solar power electricity generation. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16. [CrossRef]
42. Hsu, D.D.; O’Donoughue, P.; Fthenakis, V.; Heath, G.A.; Kim, H.C.; Sawyer, P.; Choi, J.K.; Turney, D.E.
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of crystalline silicon photovoltaic electricity generation. J. Ind. Ecol.
2012, 16. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).