## 2 Method  
Electric mobility is a complex theme. In order to have a complete comprehension of this phenomenon, its assessment has moved from the well-to-wheel analysis to complete LCA over the years [12]. This aspect was formalised according to the scheme of [PERSON] et al. [13]. However, an aspect was missing in their scheme--the infrastructure. In the case of an emerging technology, such as DWPT, the impact of the infrastructure cannot be neglected a priori. Thus, a holistic structure should include a third axis--the life cycle of the infrastructure. This study formalised this concept in Figure 1.  
At the beginning, LCA in the transportation field focused only on a well-to-wheel analysis, since the use phase was considered the most impacting one [14], since the focus was on the CO\({}_{2}\) emissions of conventional vehicles. As the picture frame opened up to other impact categories (resource depletion, toxicity,...) and to other powertrains (EVs), the role of the equipment (vehicle and battery production and dismantling) came to the fore, and the analysis moved to a complete LCA, as it has been defined by [PERSON] et al. [13]. The equipment has shown an impact ranging from 25% [15] to almost 100% when fully charged from renewable energy [16] of the Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of the life cycle of an EV. Its share is even more relevant on such impact categories as abiotic depletion, toxicity etc. These percentages vary significantly, depending on the lifetime and mileage of the vehicle [16], on the energy mix accounted for  
Figure 1: A schematic view of a complete life cycle assessment (LCA) of electric mobility. The impacts of infrastructure of an emerging technology should not be excluded a priori. when recharging the vehicle [12], and on other parameters, such as the driving patterns [15], climatic conditions, etc. Until recently, the role of the infrastructure has often been neglected in the LCA of traditional transportation. When infrastructure is compared with the use phase, its role usually appears to be negligible, because of the high exploitation of the roads and the predominance of the use phase. Infrastructures are usually analyzed independently from the rest of the transportation system, and their impacts are eclipsed by the use phase, if it is included. [PERSON] et al., in their LCA of roads [17] included emissions from the vehicle use phase and found that the GHG emissions of vehicles are 1000 times higher than those of the construction of the road. Similar results were found by [PERSON] et al. [18] for energy use. The first LCAs of roads only included the construction phase [19; 20; 21], but the relevance of maintenance operations soon became clear. [PERSON] et al. highlighted that the durability of an asphalt pavement is a significant parameter in the calculation of the environmental impact of roads [22]. The role played by maintenance has been highlighted in various studies [23; 24; 25]. Its impact is still mainly due to material production [26; 27]. According to [PERSON] et al. [25], asphalt production accounts for 45-95% of the environmental impact over the lifetime of roads. Similar results on the predominance of material extraction and production were also found by [PERSON] et al. [24], and by [PERSON] et al. [23]. As far as electric mobility is concerned, infrastructure also has to include charging infrastructure. [PERSON] et al., in their model designed to harmonize the LCA of EVs, suggested the inclusion of infrastructure in the analysis [16]. However, very few LCAs have actually taken infrastructure into consideration. Among these, the studies by [PERSON] et al. [28], [PERSON] et al. [29] and [PERSON] et al. [30] should be mentioned. [PERSON] et al. analyzed the installation of charging infrastructure in different regions in Japan, and found that the CO\({}_{2}\) emissions, due to the recharging infrastructure, accounted for 16% of the total emissions in an electric vehicle's life cycle [28]. [PERSON] et al.