Analysis of the link between a definition of sustainability and the life cycle methodologies

Purpose

It has been claimed that in order to assess the sustainability of products, a combination of the results from a life cycle assessment (LCA), social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) is needed. Despite the frequent reference to this claim in the literature, very little explicit analysis of the claim has been made. The purpose of this article is to analyse this claim.

Methods

An interpretation of the goals of sustainability, as outlined in the report Our Common Future (WCED 1987), which is the basis for most literature on sustainability assessment in the LCA community, is presented and detailed to a level enabling an analysis of the relation to the impact categories at midpoint level considered in life cycle (LC) methodologies.

Results

The interpretation of the definition of sustainability as outlined in Our Common Future (WCED 1987) suggests that the assessment of a product's sustainability is about addressing the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty levels among the current generation, as well as changes in the level of natural, human and produced and social capital available for the future population. It is shown that the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty to some extent is covered by impact categories included in existing SLCA approaches. It is also found that the extent to which product life cycles affect natural capital is well covered by LCA, and human capital is covered by both LCA and SLCA but in different ways. Produced capital is not to any large extent considered in any of the LC methodologies. Furthermore, because of the present level of knowledge about what creates and destroys social capital, it is difficult to assess how it relates to the LC methodologies. It is also found that the LCC is only relevant in the context of a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) if focusing on the monetary gains or losses for the poor. Yet, this is an aspect which is already considered in several SLCA approaches.

Conclusions

The current consensus that LCSA can be performed through combining the results from an SLCA, LCA and LCC is only partially supported in this article: The LCSA should include both an LCA and an SLCA, which should be expanded to better cover how product life cycles affect poverty and produced capital. The LCC may be included if it has as a focus to asses income gains for the poor.     

Integrating environmental and economic life cycle analysis in product development: a material selection case study

Purpose

Achieving sustainability by rethinking products, services and strategies is an enormous challenge currently laid upon the economic sector, in which materials selection plays a critical role. In this context, the present work describes an environmental and economic life cycle analysis of a structural product, comparing two possible material alternatives. The product chosen is a storage tank, presently manufactured in stainless steel (SST) or in a glass fibre reinforced polymer composite (CST). The overall goal of the study is to identify environmental and economic strong and weak points related to the life cycle of the two material alternatives. The consequential win–win or trade-off situations will be identified via a life cycle assessment/life cycle costing (LCA/LCC) integrated model.

Methods

The LCA/LCC integrated model used consists in applying the LCA methodology to the product system, incorporating, in parallel, its results into the LCC study, namely those of the life cycle inventory and the life cycle impact assessment.

Results and discussion

In both the SST and CST systems, the most significant life cycle phase is the raw materials production, in which the most significant environmental burdens correspond to the Fossil fuels and Respiratory inorganics categories. The LCA/LCC integrated analysis shows that the CST has globally a preferable environmental and economic profile, as its impacts are lower than those of the SST in all life cycle stages. Both the internal and external costs are lower, the former resulting mainly from the composite material being significantly less expensive than stainless steel. This therefore represents a full win–win situation. As a consequence, the study clearly indicates that using a thermoset composite material to manufacture storage tanks is environmentally and economically desirable. However, it was also evident that the environmental performance of the CST could be improved by altering its end-of-life stage.

Conclusions

The results of the present work provide enlightening insights into the synergies between the environmental and the economic performance of a structural product made with alternative materials. Furthermore, they provide conclusive evidence to support the integration of environmental and economic life cycle analysis in the product development processes of a manufacturing company or, in some cases, even in its procurement practices.     

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

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.

Methods

The method was demonstrated by evaluating the characteristics of each phase for each life cycle technique. In defining the goal and scope of an LCSA, for example, different aspects should be taken into account to establish the aim of the study as well as the functional unit, system boundaries, impact category and allocation. Then, the data to be collected for the life cycle sustainability inventory can be either in a unit process or on an organisational level. They can also be quantitative or qualitative. Life cycle sustainability impact assessment should consider the relevance of the impacts as well as the perspective of stakeholders. The interpretation should not add up the results, but rather evaluate them jointly. In order to clarify the approach, a case study is presented to evaluate three types of marble according to the proposed method.

Results and discussion

The authors have identified that while LCSA is feasible, following areas need more development: data production and acquisition, methodological development, discussion about LCSA criteria (e.g. cutoff rules), definitions and formats of communication and dissemination of LCSA results and the expansion of research and applications combining (environmental) LCA, LCC and S-LCA. The authors also indicate that it is necessary to develop more examples and cases to improve user capacity to analyse the larger picture and therefore address the three dimensions or pillars of sustainability in a systematic way. Software and database providers are called for in order to facilitate user-friendly and accessible tools to promote LCSAs.

Conclusions

The application demonstrated that, although methodological improvements are still needed, important steps towards an overarching sustainability assessment have been accomplished. LCSA is possible and should be pursued; however, more efforts should be made to improve the technique and facilitate the studies in order to contribute to a greener economy.     

Geopolitical-related supply risk assessment as a complement to environmental impact assessment: the case of electric vehicles

Purpose

Introducing a geopolitical-related supply risk (GeoPolRisk) into the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework adds a criticality aspect to the current life cycle assessment (LCA) framework to more meaningfully address direct impacts on Natural Resource AoP. The weakness of resource indicators in LCA has been the topic of discussion within the life cycle community for some time. This paper presents a case study on how to proceed towards the integration of resource criticality assessment into LCA under the LCSA. The paper aims at highlighting the significance of introducing the GeoPolRisk indicator to complement and extend the established environmental LCA impact categories.

Methods

A newly developed GeoPolRisk indicator proposed by Gemechu et al., J Ind Ecol (2015) was applied to metals used in the life cycle of an electric vehicle, and the results are compared with an attributional LCA of the same resources. The inventory data is based on the publication by Hawkins et al., J Ind Ecol 17:53–64 (2013), which provides a current, transparent, and detailed life cycle inventory data of a European representative first-generation battery small electric vehicle.

Results and discussion

From the 14 investigated metals, copper, aluminum, and steel are the most dominant elements that pose high environmental impacts. On the other hand, magnesium and neodymium show relatively higher supply risk when geopolitical elements are considered. While, the environmental indicator results all tend to point the same hotspots which arise from the substantial use of resources in the electric vehicle’s life cycle, the GeoPolRisk highlights that there are important elements present in very small amounts but crucial to the overall LCSA. It provides a complementary sustainability dimension that can be added to conventional LCA as an important extension within LCSA.

Conclusions

Resource challenges in a short-term time perspective can be better addressed by including social and geopolitical factors in addition to the conventional indicators which are based on their geological availability. This is more significant for modern technologies such as electronic devices in which critical resources contribute to important components. The case study advances the use of the GeoPolRisk assessment method but does still face certain limitations that need further elaboration; however, directions for future research are promising.

     

Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment?

Purpose

Cultures are increasingly recognised for their inherent value, yet, despite political and societal concern, culture is widely unrecognised in assessment techniques. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), a technique encompassing environmental, social and economic aspects, is growing in popularity. However, cultural values are rarely considered in LCSA. This paper reviews the meaning of culture; current efforts to include culture in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), social LCA (S-LCA) and LCSA; and aspects to address when investigating integration of culture in LCA, S-LCA and LCSA.

Methods

A literature review was undertaken on definitions of culture, recognition of culture in policy and decision making, and how culture is incorporated into assessment techniques. The potential for integrating culture in LCSA was evaluated in terms of the potential benefits and challenges.

Results

Culture is often intangible and inaccessible, which may then lead to a lack of recognition in decision-making processes, or if it is recognised, then it is relegated as an afterthought. Explicitly including consideration of culture within LCSA will allow its representation alongside other sustainability aspects. The challenges of representing culture within LCSA include recognising when ‘culture’ should be distinguished from ‘social’; culture’s dynamic nature; the data collection process; and the diversity of cultures between stakeholders and at different scales from community through to nation. The potential benefits of representing culture within LCSA include greater resonance of LCSA results with stakeholders; a more comprehensive decision support tool which appropriately accounts for values; and an assessment technique which may help protect communities and their diversity of cultures.

Conclusions

Representing culture in LCSA is not straightforward and, to some extent, may be addressed through social indicators. However, developing LCSA to explicitly address cultural values has potential benefits. Future research should focus on opportunities for the development of (a) a culturally inclusive LCSA process and (b) additional cultural indicators and/or dimensions of existing LCSA indicators that represent cultural values.     

Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: drawing on the NEEDS project’s total cost and multi-criteria decision analysis ranking methods

Purpose

In the European Union project New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS), power generation technologies were ranked by means of two sustainability assessment approaches. The total costs approach, adding private and external costs, and a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were used, integrating social, economic and environmental criteria. Both approaches relied on environmental indicators based on life cycle assessment. This study aims to analyse the extent to which the development of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) can draw on these ranking methods.

Methods

The approaches to rank technologies in the NEEDS project are reviewed in terms of similarities and differences in concept, quantification and scope. Identified issues are discussed and set into perspective for the development of a potential future LCSA framework.

Results and discussion

The NEEDS MCDA and total costs considerably overlap regarding issues covered, except for several social aspects. Beyond total costs being limited to private and external costs, most notable conceptual differences concern the coverage of pecuniary (i.e. price change-induced) external effects, and potential double-counting for instance of resource depletion or specific cost components. External costs take account of the specific utility changes of those affected, requiring a rather high level of spatial and temporal detail. This allows addressing intra- and inter-generational aspects. Differences between both ranking methods and current LCSA methods concern the way weighting is performed, the social aspects covered and the classification of indicators according to the three sustainability dimensions. The methods differ in the way waste, accidents or intended impacts are taken into account. An issue regarding the definition of truly comparable products has also been identified (e.g. power plants).

Conclusions

For the development of LCSA, the study suggests that taking a consequential approach allows assessing pecuniary effects and repercussions of adaptation measures, relevant for a sustainability context, and that developing a life cycle impact assessment for life cycle costing would provide valuable information. The study concludes with raising a few questions and providing some suggestions regarding the development of a consistent framework for LCSA: whether the analyses in LCSA shall be distinguished into the three dimensions of sustainable development at the inventory or the impact level also with the aim to avoid double-counting, whether or not LCSA will address exceptional events, whether or not benefits shall be accounted for and how to deal with methodological and value choices (e.g. through sensitivity analyses).     

Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings

Purpose

With the increasing concerns related to integration of social and economic dimensions of the sustainability into life cycle assessment (LCA), traditional LCA approach has been transformed into a new concept, which is called as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This study aims to contribute the existing LCSA framework by integrating several social and economic indicators to demonstrate the usefulness of input–output modeling on quantifying sustainability impacts. Additionally, inclusion of all indirect supply chain-related impacts provides an economy-wide analysis and a macro-level LCSA. Current research also aims to identify and outline economic, social, and environmental impacts, termed as triple bottom line (TBL), of the US residential and commercial buildings encompassing building construction, operation, and disposal phases.

Methods

To achieve this goal, TBL economic input–output based hybrid LCA model is utilized for assessing building sustainability of the US residential and commercial buildings. Residential buildings include single and multi-family structures, while medical buildings, hospitals, special care buildings, office buildings, including financial buildings, multi-merchandise shopping, beverage and food establishments, warehouses, and other commercial structures are classified as commercial buildings according to the US Department of Commerce. In this analysis, 16 macro-level sustainability assessment indicators were chosen and divided into three main categories, namely environmental, social, and economic indicators.

Results and discussion

Analysis results revealed that construction phase, electricity use, and commuting played a crucial role in much of the sustainability impact categories. The electricity use was the most dominant component of the environmental impacts with more than 50 % of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption through all life cycle stages of the US buildings. In addition, construction phase has the largest share in income category with 60 % of the total income generated through residential building’s life cycle. Residential buildings have higher shares in all of the sustainability impact categories due to their relatively higher economic activity and different supply chain characteristics.

Conclusions

This paper is an important attempt toward integrating the TBL perspective into LCSA framework. Policymakers can benefit from such approach and quantify macro-level environmental, economic, and social impacts of their policy implications simultaneously. Another important outcome of this study is that focusing only environmental impacts may misguide decision-makers and compromise social and economic benefits while trying to reduce environmental impacts. Hence, instead of focusing on environmental impacts only, this study filled the gap about analyzing sustainability impacts of buildings from a holistic perspective.     

An approach to LCSA: the case of concrete recycling

Purpose

The framework of life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) has been developed within the CALCAS project but the procedure on how an LCSA should be carried out is still far from standardized. The purpose of this article is to propose an approach to put the LCSA framework into practice. This approach is illustrated with an on-going case study on concrete recycling.

Methods

In the context of an EC-FP7 project on technology innovation for concrete recycling, five operational steps to implement the LCSA framework are proposed: (1) broad system definition, (2) making scenarios, (3) defining sub-questions for individual tools, (4) application of the tools and (5) interpreting the results in an LCSA framework. Focus has been put on the goal and scope definition (steps 1–3) to illustrate how to define a doable and meaningful LCSA. Steps 4–5 are not complete in the case study and are elaborated theoretically in this paper.

Results and discussion

The experience from the case study shows that the operational steps are especially useful at the stage of defining the goal and scope. Breaking down the sustainability questions into different scales and different aspects gives the possibility to define the sub-questions suitable to be assessed by the individual analytical tools (e.g., LCA, LCC, SLCA, MFA, etc.). The C2CA-LCSA shows a practical approach to model the life cycle impacts of the broad system is to start by modelling the technological system at the micro level and then scale it up with the realistic scenario settings that are generated with the knowledge gained from the MFA studies at the meso-level and from the policy/economic studies at the macro level. The combined application of LCA, LCC and SLCA at the project level shows not all the cost items and only one social impact indicator can be modelled in the process-based LCA structure. Thus it is important to address the left out information at the interpretation step.

Conclusions

Defining sub-questions on three different levels seems most useful to frame an LCSA study at the early stage of goal and scope definition. Although this study provides some useful steps for the operationlisation of the LCSA concept, it is clear that additional case studies are needed to move LCSA into a practical framework for the analysis of complex sustainability problems.     

A modeling framework to evaluate sustainability of building construction based on LCSA

Purpose

Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is a method that combines three life cycle techniques, viz. environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This study is intended to develop a LCSA framework and a case study of LCSA for building construction projects.

Methods

A LCSA framework is proposed to combine the three life cycle techniques. In the modeling phases, three life cycle models are used in the LCSA framework, namely the environmental model of construction (EMoC), cost model of construction (CMoC), and social-impact model of construction (SMoC). A residential building project is applied to the proposed LCSA framework from “cradle to the end of construction” processes to unveil the limitations and future research needs of the LCSA framework.

Results and discussion

It is found that material extraction and manufacturing account for over 90 % to the environmental impacts while they contribute to 61 % to the construction cost. In terms of social impacts, on-site construction performs better than material extraction and manufacturing, and on-site construction has larger contributions to the positive social impacts. The model outcomes are validated through interviews with local experts in Hong Kong. The result indicates that the performance of the models is generally satisfactory.

Conclusions

The case study has confirmed that LCSA is feasible. Being one of the first applications of LCSA on building construction, this study fulfills the current research gap and paves the way for future development of LCSA.

     

Application of LCSA to used cooking oil waste management

Purpose

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.

Methods

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).

Results and discussion

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.

Conclusions

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.     

Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules

Purpose

The main goal of the paper is to carry out the first implementation of sustainability assessment of the assembly step of photovoltaic (PV) modules production by Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) and the development of the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), in order to compare LCSA results of different PV modules. The applicability and practicability of the LCSD is reported thanks to a case study. The results show that LCSA can be considered a valuable tool to support decision-making processes that involve different stakeholders with different knowledge and background.

Method

The sustainability performance of the production step of Italian and German polycrystalline silicon modules is assessed using the LCSD. The LCSD is an application oriented to the presentation of an LCSA study. LCSA comprises life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing and social LCA (S-LCA). The primary data collected for the German module are related to two different years, and this led to the evaluation of three different scenarios: a German 2008 module, a German 2009 module, and an Italian 2008 module.

Results and discussion

According to the LCA results based on Ecoindicator 99, the German module for example has lower values of land use [1.77 potential disappeared fractions (PDF) m²/year] and acidification (3.61 PDF m²/year) than the Italian one (land use 1.99 PDF m²/year, acidification 3.83 PDF m²/year). However, the German module has higher global warming potential [4.5E?C05 disability-adjusted life years (DALY)] than the Italian one [3.00E?05 DALY]. The economic costs of the German module are lower than the Italian one, e.g. the cost of electricity per FU for the German module is 0.12??/m² compared to the Italian 0.85??/m². The S-LCA results show significant differences between German module 2008 and 2009 that represent respectively the best and the worst overall social performances of the three considered scenarios compared by LCSD. The aggregate LCSD results show that the German module 2008 has the best overall sustainability performance and a score of 665 points out of 1,000 (and a colour scale of light green). The Italian module 2008 has the worst overall sustainability performance with a score of 404 points, while the German module 2009 is in the middle with 524 points.

Conclusions

The LCSA and LCSD methodologies represent an applicable framework as a tool for supporting decision-making processes which consider sustainable production and consumption. However, there are still challenges for a meaningful application, particularly the questions of the selection of social LCA indicators and how to weigh sets for the LCSD.     

Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

This paper addresses the application and potential of LCSA in the built environment with a focus on refurbishments of residential buildings. It specifically addresses the phenomenon of interchange of building technologies efficiencies under different life time assessments from economy, ecology and social fields. An approach of optimization rather than hard target numbers is proposed as win–win–win situations are unlikely.

Methods

A multidimensional Pareto optimization methodology, using LCC, LCA combined with first stages of a social assessment in a feasibility study but potentially later full SLCA, is proposed, which site-specifically visualizes the interchange between different options in building design or modification, and evaluates optimal overall concepts. LCA and LCC are used to analyze a case study from an EU project named BEEM-UP in which solutions for large-scale uptake of refurbishment strategies are developed. Social frame conditions are taken into account by identifying the driving technologies and feeding the consequences of their implementation for the residents into the tenant involvement part of the project.

Results and discussion

The calculations prove that the general assumptions leading to the methodology hold true at least for this case study. A clear Pareto-optimal curve is visible when assessing LCC and LCA. The example buildings results show certain systems to be dominating clusters on the figures while others clearly can be identified as not relevant. Several of the driving technologies however fail to be applicable because of social frame conditions, e.g., clear requests by the tenants. Based on the conclusions, the potential for including SLCA as a third dimension in the methodology and possible visualization options are discussed.

Conclusions

The development in the field of social indicators in the building sector has to be strengthened in order to come up with a holistic picture and respectively with appropriate responses to current challenges. While some solutions identified in the LCC/LCA assessment also have good social characteristics, several others have not and solutions identified as lacking might have social advantages that are currently left out of consideration The upcoming Standards EN 15643-5 and ISO 15686-x are a promising step in this direction as is the work to create a conceptual framework for impact assessment within SLCA by the scientific community.     

The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating resource use based on life cycle assessment

Purpose

In life cycle assessment (LCA), resource availability is currently evaluated by means of models based on depletion time, surplus energy, etc. Economic aspects influencing the security of supply and affecting availability of resources for human use are neglected. The aim of this work is the development of a new model for the assessment of resource provision capability from an economic angle, complementing existing LCA models. The inclusion of criteria affecting the economic system enables an identification of potential supply risks associated with resource use. In step with actual practice, such an assessment provides added value compared to conventional (environmental) resource assessment within LCA. Analysis of resource availability including economic information is of major importance to sustain industrial production.

Methods

New impact categories and characterization models are developed for the assessment of economic resource availability based on existing LCA methodology and terminology. A single score result can be calculated providing information about the economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) of different resources. Based on a life cycle perspective, the supply risk associated with resource use can be assessed, and bottlenecks within the supply chain can be identified. The analysis can be conducted in connection with existing LCA procedures and in line with current resource assessment practice and facilitates easy implementation on an organizational level.

Results and discussion

A portfolio of 17 metals is assessed based on different impact categories. Different impact factors are calculated, enabling identification of high-risk metals. Furthermore, a comparison of ESP and abiotic depletion potential (ADP) is conducted. Availability of resources differs significantly when economic aspects are taken into account in addition to geologic availability. Resources assumed uncritical based on ADP results, such as rare earths, turn out to be associated with high supply risks.

Conclusions

The model developed in this work allows for a more realistic assessment of resource availability beyond geologic finiteness. The new impact categories provide organizations with a practical measure to identify supply risks associated with resources. The assessment delivers a basis for developing appropriate mitigation measures and for increasing resilience towards supply disruptions. By including an economic dimension into resource availability assessment, a contribution towards life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is achieved.     

Modelling the economic and environmental performance of engineering products: a materials selection case study

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies allow understanding all relevant processes and environmental impacts involved in the life cycle of products. However, in order to fully assess their sustainability, these studies should be complemented by economic (LCC) and societal analyses. In this context, the present work aims at assessing all costs (internal and external) and the environmental performance associated to the full life cycle of specific engineering products. These products are lighting columns for roadway illumination made with three different materials: a glass fibre reinforced polymer composite, steel and aluminium.

Methods

The LCA/LCC integrated methodology used was based in a ??cradle-to-grave?? assessment which considers the raw materials production, manufacture, on-site installation, use and maintenance, dismantlement and end-of-life (EoL) of the lighting columns. The fossil fuels environmental impact category was selected as the key environmental impact indicator to perform the integrated environmental and cost analysis.

Results

The potential total costs obtained for the full life cycle of the lighting columns demonstrated that the one made in steel performs globally worse than those made in composite or aluminium. Although the three systems present very similar internal costs, the steel column has higher external costs in the use phase that contribute for its higher total cost. This column has very high costs associated to safety features, since it constitutes a significant risk to the life of individuals. The raw material and column production stages are the main contributors for the total internal life cycle costs. The EoL treatment is a revenue source in all systems because it generates energy (in the case of the composite incineration) or materials (in the case of metal recycling). The composite and aluminium lighting columns present similar ??cradle-to-grave?? life cycle total cost. However, until the dismantlement phase, the aluminium column presents the highest environmental impact, whereas in the EoL treatment phase this scenario is reversed. The ??cradle-to-grave?? life cycle potential total cost and the environmental impact (fossil fuels) indicator of the steel lighting column are higher than those of the other columns.

Conclusions

Even though the uncertainties in the LCC are larger if external costs are included, their consideration when modelling the economic performance of engineering products increases the probability of developing a more sustainable solution from a societal perspective.     

ILCD Handbook Public Consultation Workshop

Introduction

The European Commission is supporting the development of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD). This consists primarily of the ILCD Handbook and the ILCD Data Network. This paper gives an insight into the scientific positions of business, governments, consultants, academics, and others that were expressed at this public consultation workshop.

Workshop focus

The workshop focused on four of the topics of the main guidance documents of the ILCD Handbook: (1) general guidance on life cycle assessment (LCA); (2) guidance for generic and average life cycle inventory (LCI) data sets; (3) requirements for environmental impact assessment methods, models and indicators for LCA; and (4) review schemes for LCA.

Workshop participation

This consultation workshop was attended by more than 120 participants during the 4 days of the workshop. Representatives came from 23 countries, from both within and outside the European Union.

Workshop structure

Approximately half of the participants were from business associations or individual companies. Another 20% were governmental representatives. Others came predominantly from consultancies and academia.

Results

This public consultation workshop provided valuable inputs into the overall ILCD Handbook developments as well as for further development. This paper focuses on some of the main scientific issues that were raised.     

The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.016

Goal, Scope and Background

Although both cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) have developed from engineering practice, and have the same objective of a holistic ex-ante assessment of human activities, the techniques have until recently developed in relative isolation. This has resulted in a situation where much can be gained from an integration of the strong aspects of each technique. Such integration is now being prompted by the more widespread use of both CBA and LCA on the global arena, where also the issues of social responsibility are now in focus. Increasing availability of data on both biophysical and social impacts now allow the development of a truly holistic, quantitative environmental assessment technique that integrates economic, biophysical and social impact pathways in a structured and consistent way. The concept of impact pathways, linking biophysical and economic inventory results via midpoint impact indicators to final damage indicators, is well described in the LCA and CBA literature. Therefore, this paper places specific emphasis on how social aspects can be integrated in LCA.

Methods

and Results. With a starting point in the conceptual structure and approach of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), as developed by Helias Udo de Haes and the SETAC/UNEP Life Cycle Initiative, the paper identifies six damage categories under the general heading of human life and well-being. The paper proposes a comprehensive set of indicators, with units of measurement, and a first estimate of global normalisation values, based on incidence or prevalence data from statistical sources and severity scores from health state analogues. Examples are provided of impact chains linking social inventory indicators to impacts on both human well-being and productivity.

Recommendation and Perspective

It is suggested that human well-being measured in QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) may provide an attractive single-score alternative to direct monetarisation.

     

Assessment of ecological sustainability of a building subjected to potential seismic events during its lifetime

Purpose

Sustainable development aims to enhance the quality of life by improving the social, economic and environmental conditions for present and future generations. A sustainable engineering decision-making strategy for design and assessment of construction works (i.e., civil engineering and buildings) should take into account considerations regarding the society, the economy and the environment. This study presents a novel approach for the life cycle assessment (LCA) of a case-study building subjected to seismic actions during its service life, accounting for structural reliability.

Methods

A methodology is presented that evaluates the time-dependent probability of exceeding a limit state considering the uncertainty in the representation of seismic action. By employing this methodology, the earthquake-induced damages are related to the environmental and social losses caused by the occurrence of the earthquake. A LCA of a case-study building accounting for the time-dependent seismic reliability is conducted using a damage-oriented LCA approach.

Results and discussion

The contributions of the different life cycle phases to the total environmental impact related to the building lifetime are in agreement with previous results in this field of study. However, the LCA results revealed significant risk-based contributions for the rehabilitation phase due to the induced damage resulting in seismic events. Particularly, the rehabilitation phase is expected to contribute to the total environmental impact with around the 25 % of the initial environmental impact load (related to the pre-use phase) as a consequence of seismic damage.

Conclusions and recommendations

The probability of occurrence of seismic events affects the LCA results for various life cycle phases of a building in terms of all the indicators adopted in the analysis. The time-dependent probability of collapse in a year can represent a benchmark indicator for human safety in the context of social sustainability for the building sector. The proposed approach can be implemented in a sustainable decision-making tool for design and assessment.     

Quantifying anthropogenic mobilization,flows (in product systems) and emissions of fixed nitrogen in process-based environmental life cycle assessment: rationale,methods and application to a life cycle inventory

Purpose

Anthropogenic perturbation of the nitrogen cycle is attracting increasing attention as both an environmental and societal concern. Here, we provide the rationale and propose methods for independent treatment of anthropogenic mobilization, flows (in product systems) and emissions of fixed nitrogen in process-based environmental life cycle assessment.

Methods

We propose a simple methodology for aggregating N flows in life cycle assessment (LCA), with supporting characterization factors for all nitrogen-containing compounds on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development High Production Volume Chemical List for which specific chemical formulae are available, as well as all nitrogen-containing flows in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System. We subsequently apply our method and characterization factors to a life cycle inventory data set representing a subset of the consumption attributable to an average EU-27 consumer and compare the results against previously published estimates for nitrogen emissions at the consumer level that were generated using alternative methods/approaches.

Results and discussion

We derive a suite of over 2,000 characterization factors for nitrogen-containing compounds. Overall, the results generated by applying our method and characterization factors to the European Commission Basket-of-Products life cycle inventory data set are consistent with those observed from studies having a similar scope but different methodological approach.

Conclusions

This outcome suggests that anthropogenic mobilization, flows (in product systems) and emissions of fixed nitrogen can, indeed, be systematically inventoried and aggregated in process-based LCA for the purpose of better understanding and managing anthropogenic impacts on the global nitrogen cycle using the methods and characterization factors we propose.