The formulation of life cycle impact assessment framework for Malaysia using Eco-indicator

Background, aim, and scope  

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an emerging supporting tool designed to help practitioner in systematically assessing the environmental performance of selected product’s life cycle. A product’s life cycle includes the extraction of raw materials, production, and usage, and ends with waste treatment or disposal. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) as a part of LCA is a method used to derive the environmental burdens from selected product’s stages. LCIA is structured in classification, characterization, normalization and weighting. Presently most of the LCIA practices use European database to establish the characterization, normalization and weighting value. However, using these values for local LCA practice might not be able to reflect the actual Malaysian’s environmental scenario. The aim of this study is to create a Malaysian version of normalization and weighting value using the pollution database within Malaysia.     

Evaluation of Long-Term Impacts in LCA

When looking at a product’s life cycle, emissions and resource uses, as well as the resulting impacts, usually occur at different points in time. For instance, construction materials are often ‘stored’ in buildings for many decades before they are recycled or disposed of. The goal of the LCA Discussion Forum 22 was to present and discuss arguments pro and contra a temporally differentiated weighting of impacts. The discussion forum started with three talks that illustrated the importance of temporal aspects in LCI and LCIA. The following two presentations discussed the economical principles of discounting, the adequacy of this concept within LCA, and the ethical questions involved. After one further short presentation, three groups were formed that discussed questions about temporally-differentiated weighting, and consequences for LCI as well as LCIA (damage assessment and final weighting). The discussion forum ended with the following conclusions: (a) long-term impacts should be considered in LCA, and (b) long-term emissions should be inventoried separately from short-term emissions. There was no consensus on whether short-term and long-term impacts should be weighted equally. Some prefer to weigh short-term emissions higher, because they are considered to be closer. Consistent and approved forecasts should be used when considering future changes in environmental conditions in LCI and LCIA.     

Comparative evaluation of Life Cycle Impact assessment methods with a South African case study

Goal and Background  LCIA procedures that have been used in the South Africa manufacturing industry include the CML, Ecopoints, EPS and Eco-indicators 95 and 99 procedures. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and compare the applicability of these European LCIA procedures within the South African context, using a case study. Methods  The five European methods have been evaluated based on the applicability of the respective classification, characterisation, normalization and weighting approaches for the South African situation. Impact categories have been grouped into air, water, land and mined abiotic resources for evaluation purposes. The evaluation and comparison is further based on a cradle-to-gate Screening Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) case study of the production of dyed two-fold wool yarn in South Africa. Results and Discussion  Where land is considered as a separate category (CML, Eco-indicator 99 and EPS), the case study highlights this inventory constituent as the most important. Similarly, water usage is shown as the second most important in one LCIA procedure (EPS) where it is taken into account. However, the impact assessment modelling for these categories may not be applicable for the variance in South African ecosystems. If land and water is excluded from the interpretation, air emissions, coal usage, ash disposal, pesticides and chrome emissions to water are the important constituents in the South African wool industry. Conclusions  In most cases impact categories and procedures defined in the LCIA methods for air pollution, human health and mined abiotic resources are applicable in South Africa. However, the relevance of the methods is reduced where categories are used that impact ecosystem quality, as ecosystems differ significantly between South Africa and the European continent. The methods are especially limited with respect to water and land resources. Normalisation and weighting procedures may also be difficult to adapt to South African conditions, due to the lack of background information and social, cultural and political differences. Recommendations and Outlook  Further research is underway to develop a framework for a South African LCIA procedure, which will be adapted from the available European procedures. The wool SLCA must be revisited to evaluate and compare the proposed framework with the existing LCIA procedures.     

Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts

Purpose  

Weighting is one of the steps involved in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. However, a number of problems still remain. Weighting factors should be based on the preferences of society as a whole so that the life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioner can successfully apply them to every product and service. However, most existing studies do not really measure national averages but only the average of the responses obtained from the people actually sampled. Measuring the degree of uncertainty in LCIA factors is, therefore, one of the most important issues in current LCIA research, and some advanced LCIA methods have tried to deal with the problem of uncertainty. However, few weighting methods take into account the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. LIME2, the updated version of life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME), has been developed as part of the second LCA national project of Japan. One of the aims of LIME2 is to develop new weighting factors which fulfill the following requirements: (1) to accurately represent the environmental attitudes of the Japanese public, (2) to measure the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts and reflect them in the choice of suitable weighting factors.     

Life Cycle Impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept

The impact category ‘land use’ describes in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology the environmental impacts of occupying, reshaping and managing land for human purposes. Land use can either be the long-term use of land (e.g. for arable farming) or changing the type of land use (e.g. from natural to urban area). The impact category ‘land use’ comprises those environmental consequences, which impact the environment due to the land use itself, for instance through the reduction of landscape elements, the planting of monocultures or artificial vegetation, or the sealing of surfaces. Important environmental consequences of land use are the decreasing availability of habitats and the decreasing diversity of wildlife species. The assessment of the environmental impacts of land use within LCA studies is the objective of this paper. Land use leads to a degradation of the naturalness of the area utilised. In this respect the naturalness of any area can be defined as the sum of land actually not influenced by humans and the remaining naturalness of land under use. To determine the remaining naturalness of land under use, this study suggests applying the Hemeroby concept. “Hemeroby is a measure for the human influence on ecosystems” (Kowarik 1999). The Hemeroby level of an area describes the intensity of land use and can therefore be used to characterise different types of land use. Characterization factors are proposed, which allow calculating the degradation of the naturalness of an area due to a specific type of land use. Since the resource ‘nature/naturalness’ is on a larger geographical scale by far not homogeneous, the assessment of land use needs to be regionalised. Therefore, the impact category ‘land use’ has been subdivided into the impact sub-categories ‘land use in European biogeographic regions’. Following the general LCA framework, normalization values for the impact sub-categories are calculated in order to facilitate the evaluation of the characterization results with regard to their share in a reference value. Weighting factors, which enable an aggregation of the results of the different land use sub-categories and make them comparable to other impact categories (e.g. climate change or acidification) are suggested based on the assumption that the current land use pattern in the European biogeographic regions is acceptable.     

Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation

Background, aim, and scope

Many studies evaluate the results of applying different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to the same life cycle inventory (LCI) data and demonstrate that the assessment results would be different with different LICA methods used. Although the importance of uncertainty is recognized, most studies focus on individual stages of LCA, such as LCI and normalization and weighting stages of LCIA. However, an important question has not been answered in previous studies: Which part of the LCA processes will lead to the primary uncertainty? The understanding of the uncertainty contributions of each of the LCA components will facilitate the improvement of the credibility of LCA.

Methodology

A methodology is proposed to systematically analyze the uncertainties involved in the entire procedure of LCA. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to analyze the uncertainties associated with LCI, LCIA, and the normalization and weighting processes. Five LCIA methods are considered in this study, i.e., Eco-indicator 99, EDIP, EPS, IMPACT 2002+, and LIME. The uncertainty of the environmental performance for individual impact categories (e.g., global warming, ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human health) is also calculated and compared. The LCA of municipal solid waste management strategies in Taiwan is used as a case study to illustrate the proposed methodology.

Results

The primary uncertainty source in the case study is the LCI stage under a given LCIA method. In comparison with various LCIA methods, EDIP has the highest uncertainty and Eco-indicator 99 the lowest uncertainty. Setting aside the uncertainty caused by LCI, the weighting step has higher uncertainty than the normalization step when Eco-indicator 99 is used. Comparing the uncertainty of various impact categories, the lowest is global warming, followed by eutrophication. Ecotoxicity, human health, and photochemical smog have higher uncertainty.

Discussion

In this case study of municipal waste management, it is confirmed that different LCIA methods would generate different assessment results. In other words, selection of LCIA methods is an important source of uncertainty. In this study, the impacts of human health, ecotoxicity, and photochemical smog can vary a lot when the uncertainties of LCI and LCIA procedures are considered. For the purpose of reducing the errors of impact estimation because of geographic differences, it is important to determine whether and which modifications of assessment of impact categories based on local conditions are necessary.

Conclusions

This study develops a methodology of systematically evaluating the uncertainties involved in the entire LCA procedure to identify the contributions of different assessment stages to the overall uncertainty. Which modifications of the assessment of impact categories are needed can be determined based on the comparison of uncertainty of impact categories.

Recommendations and perspectives

Such an assessment of the system uncertainty of LCA will facilitate the improvement of LCA. If the main source of uncertainty is the LCI stage, the researchers should focus on the data quality of the LCI data. If the primary source of uncertainty is the LCIA stage, direct application of LCIA to non-LCIA software developing nations should be avoided.     

In reply to hertwich & pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180 — 181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment”

Life Cycle Impact Assessment describes indicators and does not predict actual impacts. The value of an LCA is its comprehensive review of all stages of a product’s life cycle and its synoptic view of all relevant environmental issues. The current version of the 14042 draft describes the uniqueness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment approach which is distinct from other assessment techniques. The wording was designed to help users of the standard understand how and why LCIA is distinct from other assessment methods. In closing, we would like to highlight our opinion that the present document on the level of a DIS is sound, stable and practical within the ISO 14040 series of standards. We do not agree withHertwich & Pease that the present document prevents the use of LCIA. It makes a choice regarding the exclusion of weighting across categories in order to prevent misuse in deriving inappropriate claims. And for characterisation it has achieved a well founded synthesis. In addition, we strongly believe that this standard will stimulate the international scientific discussion of LCA and will substantially contribute to enhanced and more valuable applications of LCA in the future.     

Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA,part 2: case study of broccoli production in the UK and Spain

Background, aim and scope  

Milà i Canals et al. (Int J Life Cycle Ass 14(1):28-42, 2009) referred to as ‘Part 1’ in this paper) showed that impacts associated with use of freshwater must be treated more rigorously than is usual in life cycle assessment (LCA), going beyond the conventional consideration only of ‘blue’ water (i.e. irrigation and other abstractions), and suggested an operational method to include the impacts on freshwater ecosystems (freshwater ecosystem impact) and abiotic resource depletion (freshwater depletion). The inclusion of water-related impacts in LCA is of paramount importance, particularly for agricultural systems due to their large water consumption worldwide. A case study of UK consumption of broccoli grown in the UK and Spain is presented here to illustrate the method suggested in Part 1.     

Life cycle assessment of ferro niobium

Purpose

Ferro niobium (FeNb) is a metallic alloy whose industrial use has been increasing steadily in the last decades. This work aims to systematize the available information on FeNb production, provide its inventory data and generate its first technologically representative publicly available life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).

Methods

The production of 1 kg of FeNb from pyrochlore in the baseline year 2017 was modelled following a cradle-to-gate approach. Primary information on mass, energy and water flows was collected when possible from the Brazilian leading FeNb supplier, CBMM (80% of the world market). The CML method (CML-IA 4.7) was applied for the impact assessment including global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP), ozone layer depletion potential (ODP), abiotic depletion potential (fossil and elemental) (ADP_fossil and ADP_elemental) and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP).

Results and discussion

The first stage of pyrochlore processing (pyrochlore ore extraction, mechanical processing and flotation) and the last stage (aluminothermic reaction) bear the highest impact in all analyzed CML impact categories. The primary aluminium consumption has the most important contribution in five out of seven impact categories (50% in ADP_fossil, 55% in AP, 35% in EP, 57% in GWP and 40% in POCP). In this sense, the industry should promote a higher share of secondary aluminium in the production process. Also, the impact from electricity consumption and processing chemicals showed to be relevant.

Conclusions

This work is the first LCIA on ferro niobium to be published with representative, high-quality data. A dataset was produced in order to enable ferro niobium to be incorporated to future LCIA-modelling.

     

Cradle-to-gate study of red clay for use in the ceramic industry

Background, Goal and Scope  The ceramic tile industry is one of the most important industries in Spain, with the highest concentration of firms to be found in the province of Castellón on the Mediterranean coast. The basic input material for this industry is red clay. The aim of this study was to carry out an LCA of the process of mining, treating and marketing this clay in order to identify the stages and unit processes that have the greatest impact on the environment. This LCA examines all the stages of the red clay from cradle to the customer’s gate, including the process of mining and treating the clay in the mining facilities and its later distribution to end users. Methods  Life cycle inventory (LCI): An exhaustive LCI was performed by collecting data from the mine run by Watts Blake Bearne Spain, S.A. (WBB-Spain) in Castellón. Inputs and outputs were collected for all the unit processes involved in the mining, treatment and marketing of the clay:

Risk Assessment and Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) for Human Health Cancerous and Noncancerous Emissions: Integrated and Complementary with Consistency within the USEPA

The historical parallels, complementary roles, and potential for integration of human health risk assessment (RA) and Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) are explored. Previous authors have considered the comparison of LCA and risk assessment recognizing the inherent differences in LCA and risk assessment (e.g., LCA's focus on the functional unit, and the differences in perspective of LCA and risk assessment), and also the commonalities (e.g., the basis for the modeling). Until this time, however, no one has proposed a coordinated approach for conducting LCA and risk assessment using models consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) handbooks, policies, and guidelines. The current status of LCIA methodology development can be compared to the early days of human health RA when practitioners were overwhelmed with the model choices, assumptions, lack of data, and poor data quality. Although methodology developers can build on the shoulders of the giant, LCIA requires more innovation to deal with more impact categories, more life-cycle stages, and less data for a greater number of stressors. For certain impact categories, LCIA can use many of the guidelines, methodologies, and default parameters that have been developed for human health RA, in conjunction with sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to determine the level of detail necessary for various applications. LCIA can then identify “hot spots” that require the additional detail and level of certainty provided by RA. A comparison of the USEPA's Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) and the USEPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) will be explored.     

Accounting for transportation impacts in the environmental assessment of waste management plans

Background, aim, and scope  Many recent studies on waste management have described in detail the potential impacts of recycling and final treatment of municipal waste. In public debates, the attention has also been focused on the choice of final disposal technologies (e.g. landfilling vs. incineration). However, a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of waste collection and transport was still lacking. In the present study, we use LCA to evaluate the potential impact of the provincial waste management plan of Varese (northern Italy). Particular attention is devoted to the estimation of environmental impacts generated during waste transport. Materials and methods  A detailed Life Cycle Inventory was built for the transportation phase, based on primary data collected by interviewing the agencies involved in waste collection. To model the recycling and final disposal phase we relied on the BUWAL 250 database. Impacts were evaluated with the Eco-Indicator 99 method in its egalitarian formulation. Results  The results of our analysis reveal that the major potential impacts of the plan are associated with waste collection and transport. These impacts are partially compensated by reduced resource consumption through recycling and energy recovery through incineration. Discussion  The outputs of the LCIA were compared with those obtained by using other ecoindicators (Eco-Indicator 99 hierarchist and individualist, CML2, EPS2000). Although not comparable on a quantitative basis, they are qualitatively consistent. Conclusions  Neglecting the effects of collection and transport might result in a severe underestimation of the environmental impacts of a waste management system, especially as refers to depletion of fossil fuels, emission of respiratory inorganics and climate change. To reduce the environmental impact of waste management systems, an accurate optimisation of waste transport is required. Recommendations and perspectives  Effective waste management planning requires the explicit inclusion of waste collection and transport when comparing alternative management policies.     

Comparison between three different LCIA methods for aquatic ecotoxicity and a product environmental risk assessment

Background and Objective  In the OMNIITOX project 11 partners have the common objective to improve environmental management tools for the assessment of (eco)toxicological impacts. The detergent case study aims at: i) comparing three Procter &c Gamble laundry detergent forms (Regular Powder-RP, Compact Powder-CP and Compact Liquid-CL) regarding their potential impacts on aquatic ecotoxicity, ii) providing insights into the differences between various Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods with respect to data needs and results and iii) comparing the results from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with results from an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA). Material and Methods  The LCIA has been conducted with EDIP97 (chronic aquatic ecotoxicity) [1], USES-LCA (freshwater and marine water aquatic ecotoxicity, sometimes referred to as CML2001) [2, 3] and IMPACT 2002 (covering freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity) [4]. The comparative product ERA is based on the EU Ecolabel approach for detergents [5] and EUSES [6], which is based on the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) of the EU on Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) of chemicals [7]. Apart from the Eco-label approach, all calculations are based on the same set of physico-chemical and toxicological effect data to enable a better comparison of the methodological differences. For the same reason, the system boundaries were kept the same in all cases, focusing on emissions into water at the disposal stage. Results and Discussion  Significant differences between the LCIA methods with respect to data needs and results were identified. Most LCIA methods for freshwater ecotoxicity and the ERA see the compact and regular powders as similar, followed by compact liquid. IMPACT 2002 (for freshwater) suggests the liquid is equally as good as the compact powder, while the regular powder comes out worse by a factor of 2. USES-LCA for marine water shows a very different picture seeing the compact liquid as the clear winner over the powders, with the regular powder the least favourable option. Even the LCIA methods which result in die same product ranking, e.g. EDIP97 chronic aquatic ecotoxicity and USES-LCA freshwater ecotoxicity, significantly differ in terms of most contributing substances. Whereas, according to IMPACT 2002 and USES-LCA marine water, results are entirely dominated by inorganic substances, the other LCIA methods and the ERA assign a key role to surfactants. Deviating results are mainly due to differences in the fate and exposure modelling and, to a lesser extent, to differences in the toxicological effect calculations. Only IMPACT 2002 calculates the effects based on a mean value approach, whereas all other LCIA methods and the ERA tend to prefer a PNEC-based approach. In a comparative context like LCA the OMNIITOX project has taken the decision for a combined mean and PNEC-based approach, as it better represents the ‘average’ toxicity while still taking into account more sensitive species. However, the main reason for deviating results remains in the calculation of the residence time of emissions in the water compartments. Conclusion and Outlook  The situation that different LCIA methods result in different answers to the question concerning which detergent type is to be preferred regarding the impact category aquatic ecotoxicity is not satisfactory, unless explicit reasons for the differences are identifiable. This can hamper practical decision support, as LCA practitioners usually will not be in a position to choose the ’right’ LCIA method for their specific case. This puts a challenge to the entire OMNIITOX project to develop a method, which finds common ground regarding fate, exposure and effect modelling to overcome the current situa-tion of diverging results and to reflect most realistic conditions.     

Life cycle assessment of primary magnesium production using the Pidgeon process in China

Background, aims, and scope  China has been the largest primary magnesium producer in the world since year 2000 and is an important part of the global magnesium supply chain. Almost all of the primary magnesium in China is produced using the Pidgeon process invented in the 1940s in Canada. The environmental problems of the primary magnesium production with the Pidgeon process have already attracted much attention of the local government and enterprises. The main purposes of this research are to investigate the environmental impacts of magnesium production and to determine the accumulative environmental performances of three different scenarios. System boundary included the cradle-to-gate life cycle of magnesium production, including dolomite ore extraction, ferrosilicon production, the Pidgeon process, transportation of materials, and emissions from thermal power plant. The life cycle assessment (LCA) case study was performed on three different fuel use scenarios from coal as the overall fuel to two kinds of gaseous fuels, the producer gas and coke oven gas. The burden use of gaseous fuels was also considered. Methods  The procedures, details, and results obtained are based on the application of the existing international standards of LCA, i.e., the ISO 14040. Depletion of abiotic resources, global warming, acidification, and human toxicity were adopted as the midpoint impact categories developed by the problem-oriented approach of CML to estimate the characterized results of the case study. The local characterization and normalization factors of abiotic resources were used to calculate abiotic depletion potential (ADP). The analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the weight factors. Using the Umberto version 4.0, the emissions of dolomite ore extraction were estimated and the transportation models of the three scenarios were designed. Results and conclusions  The emissions inventory showed that both the Pidgeon process of magnesium production and the Fe–Si production were mainly to blame for the total pollutant emissions in the life cycle of magnesium production. The characterized results indicated that ADP, acidification potential, and human toxicity potential decreased cumulatively from scenarios 1 to 3, with the exception of global warming potential. The final single scores indicated that the accumulative environmental performance of scenario 3 was the best compared with scenarios 1 and 2. The impact of abiotic resources depletion deserves more attention although the types and the amount of mineral resources for Mg production are abundant in China. This study suggested that producer gas was an alternative fuel for magnesium production rather than the coal burned directly in areas where the cost of oven gas-produced coke is high. The utilization of “clean” energy and the reduction of greenhouse gases and acidic gases emission were the main goals of the technological improvements and cleaner production of the magnesium industry in China. Recommendation and perspective  This paper has demonstrated that the theory and method of LCA are actually helpful for the research on the accumulative environmental performance of primary magnesium production. Further studies with “cradle-to-cradle” scheme are recommended. Furthermore, other energy sources used in magnesium production and the cost of energy production could be treated in further research.     

Regional normalisation figures for Australia 2005/2006—inventory and characterisation data from a production perspective

Background, aim, and scope  Under ISO 14040, normalisation is an optional step in life-cycle impact assessment designed to provide environmental context by indicating the relative contribution that the product system under investigation makes in the various impact categories, in comparison to a suitable reference scenario. The challenge for many studies, however, is to provide the appropriate context by adopting a normalisation reference scenario that is well matched to the product system’s parent environment. Australia has a highly urbanised population, mainly contained in just eight capital cities. In the context of normalising environmental impacts against the profile of an ‘average’ Australian, this poses a unique problem, compared to other industrialised regions of the world. This study aims to use publicly available data on environmentally relevant emissions and non-renewable resource consumption in 2005/2006 to develop regional normalisation data for Australia, at both inventory and characterisation levels. Methods  The regionalised inventory of emissions and resources production is constructed using a framework of 60 regional Statistical Divisions from the Australian Standard Geographical Classification system. Data from the National Pollutant Inventory, Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (energy and mineral statistics) are used as the basis for the inventories. These data could subsequently be used by any LCA practitioner to construct characterisation or normalisation data by impact category, according to any preferred life-cycle impact assessment methodology, for any of 60 regions in the country. In this study, the regionalised inventory data were assessed using the CML 2001 baseline and IMPACT 2002+ life-cycle impact assessment methods in SimaPro v.7.1.5. Results  Characterisation results from the two LCIA methods for Australia’s eight state and territory capital cities are presented, together with an overall national profile. These data are also shown on a per capita basis to highlight the relative environmental profiles of citizens in the different cities. Interestingly, many significant impacts occur outside of the capital cities but are linked to facilities providing the majority of their services and products to these urban centres (e.g. power stations, minerals processing). Comparison of the average Australian data with the Netherlands, Western Europe and the World shows the results to be broadly similar. Discussion  Analysis of the CML 2001 baseline characterisation results, on a per capita basis, shows substantial differences between the major cities of the country. In each impact category, these differences can be successfully traced to specific emissions in the raw data sources, the influence of prevailing climate conditions, or factors such as the mix of non-renewable energy resources in each state. Some weaknesses are also evident in the collection and estimation techniques of the raw data sources and in the application of European-based impact assessment models. Australia is a net exporter of many products, particularly natural resources. Therefore, a significant part of the characterisation data presented here for Australia represents products that will be consumed in other parts of the world. Similarly, at a regional level, there will be many inventory items produced in one area yet consumed in another. In this way, the impacts associated with consumption (particularly in densely populated but largely industry-free cities) are dissipated into other production centres. Conclusions  This study provides the first set of comprehensive inventory and characterisation data for Australia from a production perspective, disaggregated at a regional level. Despite Australia’s unique spatial demography, it is now possible to properly characterise the relative significance of environmental impacts occurring in any of 60 specific regions across the country. Recommendations and perspectives  Australia’s unique concentration of urban populations demonstrates the importance of regionally specific environmental assessments. Whilst the data presented in this study will be of most use to Australian LCA practitioners, it is also demonstrative of the broader global distribution of environmental impacts between urban and non-urban areas. The disconnection of environmental impacts between the place of production and the place of consumption is highlighted by this study and should be considered in any studies using these normalisation data for environmental profiling. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Philosophy of science, policy sciences and the basis of decision support with LCA Based on the toxicity controversy in Sweden and the Netherlands

Current LCA implicitly assumes that a single rational truth can be found. Mainstream policy sciences has taken a different starting point when analysing decision making in complex and controversial societal debates for already several decades. In such debates, in general, more than one reasonable conceptualisation or ‘framing’ of the problem is at stake which forms the core of the controversy. This paper analyses the Dutch chlorine debate and the Swedish PVC debate and shows that (three) frames also play a role in toxicity controversies: the risk assessment frame, the strict control frame, and the precautionary frame. The latter frame, adhered to by the environmentalists, seeks to judge substances mainly on their inherent safety. The cases show that this logic may be defended as at least being equally reasonable to the emission-effect calculations that form the core of Risk Assessment and Life-cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). As predicted by policy sciences, this finding implies that the political neutrality of tools like LCIA is questionable. In summary, the approaches and procedures developed for LCA have to be reconciled with key lessons from policy science and philosophy of science, i.e. considering the fact that multiple realities play a key role in many decision making processes. This paper suggests some alternative indicators for toxicity evaluations, and indicates the implications of LCA method development.     

Weighting in Life Cycle assessments in a global context

The option of weighting impact categories according to ISO 14042 on Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is particularly difficult for global organizations, as they have to consider a wide range of values. The motivation for employing weighting is usually based on the desire to simplify LCIA output, especially in circumstances where product system tradeoffs occur. Looking globally at regional variations in legislation, consumer values, monetary valuation, existing weighting sets and expert opinions, no globally agreed upon weighting set is likely to be derived. This is due to both the inherent subjectivity of weighting and local variations in environmental imperatives. Hence, the authors recommend that LCIA quantitative weighting, especially those provided in pre-packaged software instruments, should not be employed. Admittedly, to use a spectrum of LCIA results for internal design decisions, some kind of tradeoff analysis has to be performed, especially if comparing competing design alternatives. However, this trade-off analysis should be done separately from the technical LCA study and should reflect values and visions of the global organization, as well as the circumstances of the targeted market, in a qualitative way. For any external communication, none of the quantitative weighting sets can be used.