Showing papers in "International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment in 2013"

Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

Abstract: Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC). Existing LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders. Recommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development. The level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Abstract: As a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Recommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for. The presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected. In this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional ecological models running in the foreground system, relative weighting of the ecosystem services midpoints and indirect land use.

Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach

Abstract: Land use is a main driver of global biodiversity loss and its environmental relevance is widely recognized in research on life cycle assessment (LCA). The inherent spatial heterogeneity of biodiversity and its non-uniform response to land use requires a regionalized assessment, whereas many LCA applications with globally distributed value chains require a global scale. This paper presents a first approach to quantify land use impacts on biodiversity across different world regions and highlights uncertainties and research needs. The study is based on the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) land use assessment framework and focuses on occupation impacts, quantified as a biodiversity damage potential (BDP). Species richness of different land use types was compared to a (semi-)natural regional reference situation to calculate relative changes in species richness. Data on multiple species groups were derived from a global quantitative literature review and national biodiversity monitoring data from Switzerland. Differences across land use types, biogeographic regions (i.e., biomes), species groups and data source were statistically analyzed. For a data subset from the biome (sub-)tropical moist broadleaf forest, different species-based biodiversity indicators were calculated and the results compared. An overall negative land use impact was found for all analyzed land use types, but results varied considerably. Different land use impacts across biogeographic regions and taxonomic groups explained some of the variability. The choice of indicator also strongly influenced the results. Relative species richness was less sensitive to land use than indicators that considered similarity of species of the reference and the land use situation. Possible sources of uncertainty, such as choice of indicators and taxonomic groups, land use classification and regionalization are critically discussed and further improvements are suggested. Data on land use impacts were very unevenly distributed across the globe and considerable knowledge gaps on cause–effect chains remain. The presented approach allows for a first rough quantification of land use impact on biodiversity in LCA on a global scale. As biodiversity is inherently heterogeneous and data availability is limited, uncertainty of the results is considerable. The presented characterization factors for BDP can approximate land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA studies that are not intended to directly support decision-making on land management practices. For such studies, more detailed and site-dependent assessments are required. To assess overall land use impacts, transformation impacts should additionally be quantified. Therefore, more accurate and regionalized data on regeneration times of ecosystems are needed.

Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment

Abstract: In recent years, several methods have been developed which propose different freshwater use inventory schemes and impact assessment characterization models considering various cause–effect chain relationships. This work reviewed a multitude of methods and indicators for freshwater use potentially applicable in life cycle assessment (LCA). This review is used as a basis to identify the key elements to build a scientific consensus for operational characterization methods for LCA. This evaluation builds on the criteria and procedure developed within the International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook and has been adapted for the purpose of this project. It therefore includes (1) description of relevant cause–effect chains, (2) definition of criteria to evaluate the existing methods, (3) development of sub-criteria specific to freshwater use, and (4) description and review of existing methods addressing freshwater in LCA. No single method is available which comprehensively describes all potential impacts derived from freshwater use. However, this review highlights several key findings to design a characterization method encompassing all the impact pathways of the assessment of freshwater use and consumption in life cycle assessment framework as the following: (1) in most of databases and methods, consistent freshwater balances are not reported either because output is not considered or because polluted freshwater is recalculated based on a critical dilution approach; (2) at the midpoint level, most methods are related to water scarcity index and correspond to the methodological choice of an indicator simplified in terms of the number of parameters (scarcity) and freshwater uses (freshwater consumption or freshwater withdrawal) considered. More comprehensive scarcity indices distinguish different freshwater types and functionalities. (3) At the endpoint level, several methods already exist which report results in units compatible with traditional human health and ecosystem quality damage and cover various cause–effect chains, e.g., the decrease of terrestrial biodiversity due to freshwater consumption. (4) Midpoint and endpoint indicators have various levels of spatial differentiation, i.e., generic factors with no differentiation at all, or country, watershed, and grid cell differentiation. Existing databases should be (1) completed with input and output freshwater flow differentiated according to water types based on its origin (surface water, groundwater, and precipitation water stored as soil moisture), (2) regionalized, and (3) if possible, characterized with a set of quality parameters. The assessment of impacts related to freshwater use is possible by assembling methods in a comprehensive methodology to characterize each use adequately.

Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting

Abstract: Purpose Biological sequestration can increase the carbon stocks of non-atmospheric reservoirs (e.g. land and land-based products). Since this contained carbon is sequestered from, and retained outside, the atmosphere for a period of time, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is temporarily reduced and some radiative forcing is avoided. Carbon removal from the atmosphere and storage in the biosphere or anthroposphere, therefore, has the potential to mitigate climate change, even if the carbon storage and associated benefits might be temporary. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and carbon footprinting (CF) are increasingly popular tools for the environmental assessment of products, that take into account their entire life cycle. There have been significant efforts to develop robust methods to account for the benefits, if any, of sequestration and temporary storage and release of biogenic carbon. However, there is still no overall consensus on the most appropriate ways of considering and quantifying it.

Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1

Abstract: Purpose Sustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definitionofa common scientificparadigminwhich integrationand interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to sustainability assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for sustainability assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive sustainability assessment. Methods The current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on sustainability assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those

Comparative LCA of recycled and conventional concrete for structural applications

Abstract: Construction and demolition (C&D) waste recycling has been considered to be a valuable option not only for minimising C&D waste streams to landfills but also for mitigating primary mineral resource depletion. However, the potentially higher cement demand due to the larger surface of the coarse recycled aggregates challenges the environmental benefits of recycling concrete. Furthermore, it is unclear how the environmental impacts depend on concrete mixture, cement type, aggregates composition and transport distances. We therefore analysed the life cycle impacts of 12 recycled concrete (RC) mixtures with two different cement types and compared it with corresponding conventional concretes (CC) for three structural applications. The RC mixtures were selected according to laws, standards and construction practice in Switzerland. We compared the environmental impacts of ready-for-use concrete on the construction site, assuming equal lifetimes for recycled and conventional concrete in a full life cycle assessment. System expansion and substitution are considered to achieve the same functionality for all systems. The results show clear (∼30 %) environmental benefits for all RC options at endpoint level (ecoindicator 99 and ecological scarcity). The difference is mainly due to the avoided burdens associated to reinforcing steel recycling and avoided disposal of C&D waste. Regarding global warming potential (GWP), the results are more balanced and primarily depend on the additional amount of cement needed for RC. Above 22 to 40 kg additional cement per cubic metre of concrete, RC exhibits a GWP comparable to CC. Additional transport distances above 15 km for the RC options do result in environmental impacts higher than those for CC. In summary, the current market mixtures of recycled concrete in Switzerland show significant environmental benefits compared to conventional concrete and cause similar GWP, if additional cement and transport for RC are limited.

Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2)

Abstract: Purpose In the context of progress of sustainability science, life cycle thinking and, in particular, life cycle sustainability assessment may play a crucial role. Environmental, economic and social implications of the whole supply chain of products, both goods and services, their use and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from “cradle to grave” have to be considered to achieve more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Progress toward sustainability requires enhancing the methodologies for integrated assessment and mainstreaming of life cycle thinking from product development to strategic policy support. Life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC) and social LCA (sLCA) already attempt to cover sustainability pillars, notwithstanding different levels of methodological development. An increasing concern on how to deal with the complexity of sustainability has promoted the development of life cycle sustainability frameworks. As a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate after the Rio+20 conference, this paper aims to present and discuss the state of the art of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), giving recommendations for its further development in line with ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of sustainability science.

Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building

Abstract: This paper uses a dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) approach and illustrates the potential importance of the method using a simplified case study of an institutional building. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have consistently found that energy consumption in the use phase of a building is dominant in most environmental impact categories. Due to the long life span of buildings and potential for changes in usage patterns over time, a shift toward DLCA has been suggested. We define DLCA as an approach to LCA which explicitly incorporates dynamic process modeling in the context of temporal and spatial variations in the surrounding industrial and environmental systems. A simplified mathematical model is used to incorporate dynamic information from the case study building, temporally explicit sources of life cycle inventory data and temporally explicit life cycle impact assessment characterization factors, where available. The DLCA model was evaluated for the historical and projected future environmental impacts of an existing institutional building, with additional scenario development for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of future impacts. Results showed that overall life cycle impacts varied greatly in some categories when compared to static LCA results, generated from the temporal perspective of either the building's initial construction or its recent renovation. From the initial construction perspective, impacts in categories related to criteria air pollutants were reduced by more than 50 % when compared to a static LCA, even though nonrenewable energy use increased by 15 %. Pollution controls were a major reason for these reductions. In the future scenario analysis, the baseline DLCA scenario showed a decrease in all impact categories compared with the static LCA. The outer bounds of the sensitivity analysis varied from slightly higher to strongly lower than the static results, indicating the general robustness of the decline across the scenarios. These findings support the use of dynamic modeling in life cycle assessment to increase the relevance of results. In some cases, decision making related to building design and operations may be affected by considering the interaction of temporally explicit information in multiple steps of the LCA. The DLCA results suggest that in some cases, changes during a building's lifetime can influence the LCA results to a greater degree than the material and construction phases. Adapting LCA to a more dynamic approach may increase the usefulness of the method in assessing the performance of buildings and other complex systems in the built environment.

A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20

Abstract: Purpose To contribute to the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in 2012 by introducing a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) and showing how it can play a crucial role in moving towards sustainable consumption and production. The publication, titled Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, and published by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative aims to show how three life cycle techniques—(environmental) LCA, S-LCA and LCC—can be combined as part of an over-arching LCSA.

From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: Concept, practice and future directions

Abstract: More than 1 year ago, the subject area on Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment has been launched (Zamagni 2012) in order to provide a virtual place in which scientists from different disciplinary fields could discuss the main challenges in addressing sustainability with a life cycle perspective. The challenge has been taken on also by the editors of three subject areas that deal with sustainability from complementary angles—Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). The result was the launch of a call for papers for a special issue on LCSA, whose results we are glad to present. Our initiative took its point of departure from two facts: (1) sustainability has become quite a keyword in any decisioncontext situation and the scientific community has the duty to provide its contribution in demonstrating what might be sustainable and how to measure it with a scientific approach; (2) the life cycle approach is considered to provide a valuable support in integrating sustainability into the design, innovation, and evaluation of products and services, as can be seen in several environmental policies at the European and international level in which life cycle thinking represents the backbone. As far as the timely and challenging aspects of sustainability are concerned, the EU has mainstreamed sustainable development into a broad range of its policies, such as the initiatives against climate change and the promotion of a low-carbon economy. The European Council (2009) confirmed that sustainable development remains a fundamental objective of the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, as emphasized in the Presidency’s report on the review of the Union’s Sustainable Development Strategy, the strategy will continue to provide a long-term vision and constitute the overarching policy framework for all Union policies and strategies (Council of the European Union 2009). Sustainability is a concept that needs to be addressed not only at the policy level but also in the business context: many companies have included sustainability in their mission, also driven by an increasing demand for sustainable products by more aware consumers. Although the policy and the business context deal with sustainability in different ways, given the diversity of needs, a common element for both is the complexity entailed by the assessment. Such a complexity is due to the followingmain aspects, as pointed out byHeijungs et al. (2010)

A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator

Abstract: Purpose A complete assessment of water use in life cycle assessment (LCA) involves modelling both consumptive and degradative water use. Due to the range of environmental mechanisms involved, the results are typically reported as a profile of impact category indicator results. However, there is also demand for a single score stand-alone water footprint, analogous to the carbon footprint. To facilitate single score reporting, the critical dilution volume approach has been used to express a degradative emission in terms of a theoretical water volume, sometimes referred to as grey water. This approach has not received widespread acceptance and a new approach is proposed which takes advantage of the complex fate and effects models normally employed in LCA.

Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods

Abstract: The main objective of this study is to expand the discussion about how, and to what extent, the environmental performance is affected by the use of different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) illustrated by the case study of the comparison between environmental impacts of gasoline and ethanol form sugarcane in Brazil. The following LCIA methods have been considered in the evaluation: CML 2001, Impact 2002+, EDIP 2003, Eco-indicator 99, TRACI 2, ReCiPe, and Ecological Scarcity 2006. Energy allocation was used to split the environmental burdens between ethanol and surplus electricity generated at the sugarcane mill. The phases of feedstock and (bio)fuel production, distribution, and use are included in system boundaries. At the midpoint level, comparison of different LCIA methods showed that ethanol presents lower impacts than gasoline in important categories such as global warming, fossil depletion, and ozone layer depletion. However, ethanol presents higher impacts in acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and agricultural land use categories. Regarding to single-score indicators, ethanol presented better performance than gasoline using ReCiPe Endpoint LCIA method. Using IMPACT 2002+, Eco-indicator 99, and Ecological Scarcity 2006, higher scores are verified for ethanol, mainly due to the impacts related to particulate emissions and land use impacts. Although there is a relative agreement on the results regarding equivalent environmental impact categories using different LCIA methods at midpoint level, when single-score indicators are considered, use of different LCIA methods lead to different conclusions. Single-score results also limit the interpretability at endpoint level, as a consequence of small contributions of relevant environmental impact categories weighted in a single-score indicator.

Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: a case study in Jambi Province of Indonesia

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the social implications of palm oil biodiesel via a case study using a life cycle assessment framework. The case study was conducted in Jambi Province of Indonesia and involved several stakeholders, such as value chain actors, employees, local community members, government, and nongovernmental organization representatives related in palm oil industry. The assessment was carried out using social criteria developed by adopting the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry/United Nations Environment Programme Code of Practice, supplemented by an expert survey, and supported by literature review. Stakeholders’ perspectives were evaluated by determining the gaps between expected and perceived quality of each social criterion, which are gauged using seven-point Likert scale. Twenty-four social criteria were developed and aggregated into five social impact categories: human rights, working condition, cultural heritage, social–economic repercussion, and governance. These criteria have been weighted, useful for further application in multicriteria decision analysis. The results of the stakeholders’ survey reveal the critical social hotspots, which are the issues within the impact categories of working conditions and cultural heritage. In order to achieve the social equitability of palm oil biodiesel, which is an important pillar to sustainability, efforts must be put to address these social hotspots through actions in various policy level.

LCA applied to perennial cropping systems: a review focused on the farm stage

Abstract: Perennial crops globally provide a lot of fruit and other food products. They may also provide feedstock for bioenergy and have been, notably to this end, the subject of several LCA-based studies mostly focusing on energy and GHG balances. The purpose of this review was to investigate the relevance of LCAs on perennial crops, especially focusing on how the perennial crop specificities were accounted for in the farm stage modelling. More than 100 papers were reviewed covering 14 products from perennial crops: apple, banana (managed over several years), orange and other citrus fruits, cocoa, coconut, coffee, grape fruit, Jatropha oil, kiwi fruit, palm oil, olive, pear and sugarcane. These papers were classified into three categories according to the comprehensiveness of the LCA study and depending on whether they were peer-reviewed or not. An in-depth analysis of the goal and scope, data origin for farming systems, modelling approach for the perennial cropping systems and methods and data for field emissions helped reveal the more critical issues and design some key recommendations to account better for perennial cropping systems in LCA. In the vast majority of the reviewed papers, very little attention was paid on integrating the perennial cropping cycle in the LCA. It is especially true for bioenergy LCA-based studies that often mostly focused on the industrial transformation without detailing the agricultural raw material production, although it might contribute to a large extent to the studied impacts. Some key parameters, such as the length of the crop cycle, the immature and unproductive phase or the biannual yield alternance, were mostly not accounted for. Moreover, the lack of conceptual modelling of the perennial cycle was not balanced by any attempt to represent the temporal variability of the system with a comprehensive inventory of crop managements and field emissions over several years. According to the reviewed papers and complementary references, we identified the gaps in current LCA of perennial cropping systems and proposed a road map for scientific researches to help fill-in the knowledge-based gaps. We also made some methodological recommendations in order to account better for the perennial cycle within LCA considering the aim of the study and data availability.

Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC

Abstract: A widely used theory of the computational structure of life cycle assessment (LCA) has been available for more than a decade. The case of environmental life cycle cost (LCC) is still less clear: even the recent Code of Practice does not specify any formula to use. This paper does not aim to resolve all the issues at stake. But it aims to provide an explicit and transparent description of how to calculate the life cycle cost (in whatever way defined), and the value added across the life cycle. The expressions obtained can be fed into the formulas for eco-efficiency, so that an explicit and reproducible eco-efficiency indicator can be calculated. The results are useful for developing life cycle sustainability analysis, combining LCA, LCC, and social LCA.

Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius

Abstract: Improper disposal of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles constitute an eyesore to the environmental landscape and is a threat to the flourishing tourism industry in Mauritius. It is therefore imperative to determine a suitable disposal method of used PET bottles which not only has the least environmental load but at the same time has minimum harmful impacts on peoples employed in waste disposal companies. In this respect, the present study investigated and compared the environmental and social impacts of four selected disposal alternatives of used PET bottles. Environmental impacts of the four disposal alternatives, namely: 100 % landfilling, 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling, 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling, were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:2006) and with the support of SimaPro 7.1 software. Social life cycle assessments were performed based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. Three stakeholder categories (worker, society and local community) and eight sub-category indicators (child labour, fair salary, forced labour, health and safety, social benefit/social security, discrimination, contribution to economic development and community engagement) were identified to be relevant to the study. A new method for aggregating and analysing the social inventory data is proposed and used to draw conclusions. Environmental life cycle assessment results indicated that highest environmental impacts occurred when used PET bottles were disposed by 100 % landfilling while disposal by 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling gave the least environmental load. Social life cycle assessment results indicated that least social impacts occurred with 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling. Thus both E-LCA and S-LCA rated 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling to be the best disposal option. Two dimensions of sustainability (environmental and social) when investigated using the Life Cycle Management tool, favoured scenario 4 (75 % % flake production and 25 % landfilling) which is a partial recycling disposal route. One hundred percent landfilling was found out to be the worst scenario. The next step will be to explore the third pillar of sustainability, economic, and devise a method to integrate the three dimensions with a view to determine the sustainable disposal option of used PET bottles in Mauritius.

Life cycle assessment of the supply chain of a Portuguese wine: from viticulture to distribution

Abstract: Purpose This paper performs a life cycle assessment study for a white wine produced in the northern part of Portugal, i.e. the white vinho verde. The purpose is to identify the environmental impacts occurring along the wine life cycle as well as the stages that mostly contribute to the environmental impact, as well as the associated causes. The stages considered include: (1) viticulture, (2) wine production (vinification to storage), (3) wine distribution and (4) bottles production.

Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production

Abstract: Purpose The inclusion of land-use activities in life cycle assessment (LCA) has been subject to much debate in the LCA community. Despite the recent methodological developments in this area, the impacts of land occupation and transformation on its long-term ability to produce biomass (referred to here as biotic production potential [BPP]) — an important endpoint for the Area of Protection (AoP) Natural Resources — have been largely excluded from LCAs partly due to the lack of life cycle impact assessment methods.

Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry

Abstract: The construction industry has considerable impacts on the environment, economy, and society. Although quantifying and analyzing the sustainability implications of the built environment is of great importance, it has not been studied sufficiently. Therefore, the overarching goal of this study is to quantify the overall environmental, economic, and social impacts of the U.S. construction sectors using an economic input–output-based sustainability assessment framework. In this research, the commodity-by-industry supply and use tables published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, as part of the International System of National Accounts, are merged with a range of environmental, economic, and social metrics to develop a comprehensive sustainability assessment framework for the U.S. construction industry. After determining these sustainability assessment metrics, the direct and indirect sustainability impacts of U.S construction sectors have been analyzed from a triple bottom-line perspective. When analyzing the total sustainability impacts by each construction sector, “Residential Permanent Single and Multi-Family Structures" and "Other Non-residential Structures" are found to have the highest environmental, economic, and social impacts in comparison with other construction sectors. The analysis results also show that indirect suppliers of construction sectors have the largest sustainability impacts compared with on-site activities. For example, for all U.S. construction sectors, on-site construction processes are found to be responsible for less than 5 % of total water consumption, whereas about 95 % of total water use can be attributed to indirect suppliers. In addition, Scope 3 emissions are responsible for the highest carbon emissions compared with Scopes 1 and 2. Therefore, using narrowly defined system boundaries by ignoring supply chain-related impacts can result in underestimation of triple bottom-line sustainability impacts of the U.S. construction industry. Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies that consider all dimensions of sustainability impacts of civil infrastructures are still limited, and the current research is an important attempt to analyze the triple bottom-line sustainability impacts of the U.S. construction sectors in a holistic way. We believe that this comprehensive sustainability assessment model will complement previous LCA studies on resource consumption of U.S. construction sectors by evaluating them not only from environmental standpoint, but also from economic and social perspectives.

Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale

Abstract: Purpose To assess the diverse environmental impacts of land use, a standardization of quantifying land use elementary flows is needed in life cycle assessment (LCA). The purpose of this paper is to propose how to standardize the land use classification and how to regionalize land use elementary flows.

Potential hotspots identified by social LCA—part 1: a case study of a laptop computer

Abstract: A generic hotspot assessment of social impacts from a product was conducted, using a laptop computer as a case. The aims of the case study were to identify social hotspots of the laptop and to test and evaluate the methodology. The case study was based on the social LCA methodology described in the Guidelines for social LCA and included the product system from ‘cradle to grave’ as well as the impacts on all relevant stakeholders. We focused on a simplified list of materials and used mainly country-specific data. A new method for impact assessment of hotspots was developed. The total activity in each phase was distributed among countries. The countries were divided into groups related to the extent of activity in the product system, as well as to their performance on a subcategory. High values in both groups were highlighted and hotspots were identified. The results revealed some hotspots, some hot countries and some hot issues, all indicating a risk of negative social impacts in the product system of a laptop. It also identified workers and the local community as the stakeholders most at risk of negative social impacts. Among the hotspots identified, the following subcategories were of importance: safe and healthy living conditions, social benefit/social security, access to material resources, involvement in areas with armed conflicts, community engagement (lack of), corruption, and access to immaterial resources. The study showed it is possible to conduct a social LCA on a generic complex product using the Guidelines, even though data collection was impaired by lack of data and low data quality. It identified methodological issues that need further attention, for example the indicator impact pathways. Still, it is clear that new insights can be gained by social LCA, where the life cycle perspective and the systematic approach help users identify potentially important aspects that could otherwise have been neglected.

Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management

Abstract: Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology.

Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA)

Abstract: Technologies can contribute to sustainable development (e.g., improving living conditions) and at the same time cause sustainability problems (e.g., emissions). Decisions on alternative technologies should thus ideally be based on the principle to minimize the latter. Analyzing environmental, economic, and social aspects related to technologies supports decisions by identifying the “more sustainable” technology. This paper focuses on social issues. First, it discusses the applicability of the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) guidelines for a comparative technology analysis, taking the example of two case studies in developing countries. Indicating technologies as “sustainable” also means that they are indeed operated over the expected lifetime, which, in development projects, is often not guaranteed. Consequently, social aspects related to implementation conditions should be considered in an SLCA study as well. Thus, a second focus is laid on identifying appropriate indicators to address these aspects. First, the SLCA guidelines were examined with regard to applying this product-related approach to two real case studies (analysis of technologies/plants for water supply and for decentralized fuel production) for a comparative technology analysis. Suitable indicators are proposed. To address the second focus, a literature research on technology assessment and implementation in developing countries was conducted. Moreover, socioeconomic studies in the investigation areas of the case studies were consulted. Based on this, indicators addressing implementation conditions were identified from the SLCA guidelines and additional literature. The study shows social issues and indicators found in the SLCA guidelines and considered suitable for a comparative technology analysis in the case studies. However, for a sustainability assessment of technologies, especially in developing countries, further indicators are required to address technology implementation conditions. A set of additional social indicators like reported trust in institutions or fluctuation of personnel is proposed. Though these indicators were derived based on specific case studies, they can also be suggested to other technologies and are not necessarily limited to developing countries. The study pointed out that an application of the SLCA guidelines considering the whole life cycle was not (yet) feasible for the case studies considered. This is mainly due to the lack of data. Regarding technology implementation, it was examined which indicators are available in this SLCA approach and which could additionally be integrated and applied. This is relevant as a potential contribution of technologies to sustainable development can only be achieved when the technologies are successfully implemented.

Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks

Abstract: The UK carbonated drinks sector was worth £8 billion in 2010 and is growing at an annual rate of 4.9 %. In an attempt to provide a better understanding of the environmental impacts of this sector, this paper presents, for the first time, the full life cycle impacts of carbonated soft drinks manufactured and consumed in the UK. Two functional units are considered: 1 l of packaged drink and total annual production of carbonated drinks in the UK. The latter has been used to estimate the impacts at the sectoral level. The system boundary is from ‘cradle to grave’. Different packaging used for carbonated drinks is considered: glass bottles (0.75 l), aluminium cans (0.33 l) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (0.5 and 2 l). The study has been carried out following the ISO 14040/44 life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Data have been sourced from a drink manufacturer as well as the CCaLC, Ecoinvent and Gabi databases. The LCA software tools CCaLC v2.0 and GaBi 4.3 have been used for LCA modelling. The environmental impacts have been estimated according to the CML 2001 method. Packaging is the main hotspot for most environmental impacts, contributing between 59 and 77 %. The ingredients account between 7 and 14 % mainly due to sugar; the manufacturing stage contributes 5–10 %, largely due to the energy for filling and packaging. Refrigeration of the drink at retailer increases global warming potential by up to 33 %. Transport contributes up to 7 % to the total impacts. The drink packaged in 2 l PET bottles is the most sustainable option for most impacts, including the carbon footprint, while the drink in glass bottles is the worst option. However, reusing glass bottles three times would make the carbon footprint of the drink in glass bottles comparable to that in aluminium cans and 0.5 l PET bottles. If recycling of PET bottles is increased to 60 %, the glass bottle would need to be reused 20 times to make their carbon footprints comparable. The estimates at the sectoral level indicate that the carbonated drinks in the UK are responsible for over 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 eq. emissions per year. This represented 13 % of the GHG emissions from the whole food and drink sector or 0.26 % of the UK total emissions in 2010.

LCA’s theory and practice: like ebony and ivory living in perfect harmony?

Abstract: Life cycle assessment (LCA) is recognized as a trustworthy, scientific while understandable approach to address the environmental sustainability of human activities. It is applied for multiple uses in internal and external information supply and for decision support. However, LCA application in practice must fulfill three basic criteria: (1) It must be reliable in order to ensure the credibility of information and results generated, (2) it must fit into existing information routines and practices in business to ensure applicability, and (3) it must provide quantitative and relevant information to inform decision makers. Over the last two decades, LCA methodology and related data have become a suitable and professional

Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation, and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level

Abstract: Rarely considered in environmental assessment methods, potential land use impacts on a series of ecosystem services must be accounted for in widely used decision-making tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA). The main goal of this study is to provide an operational life cycle impact assessment characterization method that addresses land use impacts at a global scale by developing spatially differentiated characterization factors (CFs) and assessing the extent of their spatial variability using different regionalization levels. The proposed method follows the recommendations of previous work and falls within the framework and principles for land use impact assessment established by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Life Cycle Initiative. Based on the spatial approach suggested by Saad et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 16: 198–211, 2011), the intended impact pathways that are modeled pertain to impacts on ecosystem services damage potential and focus on three major ecosystem services: (1) erosion regulation potential, (2) freshwater regulation potential, and (3) water purification potential. Spatially-differentiated CFs were calculated for each biogeographic region of all three regionalization scale (Holdridge life regions, Holdridge life zones, and terrestrial biomes) along with a nonspatial world average level. In addition, seven land use types were assessed considering both land occupation and land transformation interventions. A comprehensive analysis of the results indicates that, when compared to all resolution schemes, the world generic averaged CF can deviate for various ecosystem types. In the case of groundwater recharge potential impacts, this range varied up to factors of 7, 4.7, and 3 when using the Holdridge life zones, the Holdridge regions, and the terrestrial biomes regionalization levels, respectively. This validates the importance of introducing a regionalized assessment and highlights how a finer scale increases the level of detail and consequently the discriminating power across several biogeographic regions, which could not have been captured using a coarser scale. In practice, the implementation of such regionalized CFs suggests that an LCA practitioner must identify the ecosystem in which land occupation or transformation activities occur in addition to the traditional inventory data required—namely, the land use activity and the inventory flow. The variability of CFs across all three regionalization levels provides an indication of the uncertainty linked to nonspatial CFs. Among other assumptions and value choices made throughout the study, the use of ecological borders over political boundaries was deemed more relevant to the interpretation of environmental issues related to specific functional ecosystem behaviors.

Life cycle assessment of cheese and whey production in the USA

Abstract: A life cycle assessment was conducted to determine a baseline for environmental impacts of cheddar and mozzarella cheese consumption Product loss/waste, as well as consumer transport and storage, is included The study scope was from cradle-to-grave with particular emphasis on unit operations under the control of typical cheese-processing plants SimaPro© 73 (PRe Consultants, The Netherlands, 2013) was used as the primary modeling software The ecoinvent life cycle inventory database was used for background unit processes (Frischknecht and Rebitzer, J Cleaner Prod 13(13–14):1337–1343, 2005), modified to incorporate US electricity (EarthShift 2012) Operational data was collected from 17 cheese-manufacturing plants representing 24 % of mozzarella production and 38 % of cheddar production in the USA Incoming raw milk, cream, or dry milk solids were allocated to coproducts by mass of milk solids Plant-level engineering assessments of allocation fractions were adopted for major inputs such as electricity, natural gas, and chemicals Revenue-based allocation was applied for the remaining in-plant processes Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are of significant interest For cheddar, as sold at retail (632 % milk solids), the carbon footprint using the IPCC 2007 factors is 860 kg CO2e/kg cheese consumed with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) of 586–122 kg CO2e/kg For mozzarella, as sold at retail (514 % milk solids), the carbon footprint is 728 kg CO2e/kg mozzarella consumed, with a 95 % CI of 513–989 kg CO2e/kg Normalization of the results based on the IMPACT 2002+ life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework suggests that nutrient emissions from both the farm and manufacturing facility wastewater treatment represent the most significant relative impacts across multiple environmental midpoint indicators Raw milk is the major contributor to most impact categories; thus, efforts to reduce milk/cheese loss across the supply chain are important On-farm mitigation efforts around enteric methane, manure management, phosphorus and nitrogen runoff, and pesticides used on crops and livestock can also significantly reduce impacts Water-related impacts such as depletion and eutrophication can be considered resource management issues—specifically of water quantity and nutrients Thus, all opportunities for water conservation should be evaluated, and cheese manufacturers, while not having direct control over crop irrigation, the largest water consumption activity, can investigate the water use efficiency of the milk they procure The regionalized normalization, based on annual US per capita cheese consumption, showed that eutrophication represents the largest relative impact driven by phosphorus runoff from agricultural fields and emissions associated with whey-processing wastewater Therefore, incorporating best practices around phosphorous and nitrogen management could yield improvements

Exergy-based accounting for land as a natural resource in life cycle assessment

Abstract: Purpose In life cycle assessment (LCA), literature suggests accounting for land as a resource either by what it delivers (e.g., biomass content) or the time and space needed to produce biomass (land occupation), in order to avoid double-counting. This paper proposes and implements a new framework to calculate exergy-based spatial explicit characterization factors (CF) for land as a resource, which deals with both biomass and area occupied on the global scale.

An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe

Abstract: The year-round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables in Europe requires a complex logistics system. In this study, the most common European fruit and vegetable transport packaging systems, namely single-use wooden and cardboard boxes and re-useable plastic crates, are analyzed and compared considering environmental, economic, and social impacts. The environmental, economic, and social potentials of the three transport packaging systems are examined and compared from a life cycle perspective using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) methodologies. Relevant parameters influencing the results are analyzed in different scenarios, and their impacts are quantified. The underlying environmental analysis is an ISO 14040 and 14044 comparative Life Cycle Assessment that was critically reviewed by an independent expert panel. The results show that wooden boxes and plastic crates perform very similarly in the Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential categories; while plastic crates have a lower impact in the Eutrophication Potential and Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential categories. Cardboard boxes show the highest impacts in all assessed categories. The analysis of the life cycle costs show that the re-usable system is the most cost effective over its entire life cycle. For the production of a single crate, the plastic crates require the most human labor. The share of female employment for the cardboard boxes is the lowest. All three systems require a relatively large share of low-qualified employees. The plastic crate system shows a much lower lethal accident rate. The higher rate for the wooden and cardboard boxes arises mainly from wood logging. In addition, the sustainability consequences due to the influence of packaging in preventing food losses are discussed, and future research combining aspects both from food LCAs and transport packing/packaging LCAs is recommended. For all three systems, optimization potentials regarding their environmental life cycle performance were identified. Wooden boxes (single use) and plastic crates (re-usable) show preferable environmental performance. The calibration of the system parameters, such as end-of-life treatment, showed environmental optimization potentials in all transport packaging systems. The assessment of the economic and the social dimensions in parallel is important in order to avoid trade-offs between the three sustainability dimensions. Merging economic and social aspects into a Life Cycle Assessment is becoming more and more important, and their integration into one model ensures a consistent modeling approach for a manageable effort.