Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Results and discussion

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.

Conclusions

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.     

Comparing land use impacts using ecosystem quality,biogenic carbon emissions,and restoration costs in a case study of hydropower plants in Norway

Purpose

Habitat destruction is today the most severe threat to global biodiversity. Despite decades of efforts, there is still no proper methodology on how to assess all aspects of impacts on biodiversity from land use and land use changes (LULUC) in life cycle analysis (LCA). A majority of LCA studies on land extensive activities still do not include LULUC. In this study, we test different approaches for assessing the impact of land use and land use change related to hydropower for use in LCA and introduce restoration cost as a new approach.

Methods

We assessed four hydropower plant projects in planning phase (two upgrading plants with reservoir and two new run-of-river plants) in Southern Norway with comparable geography, biodiversity, and annual energy production capacity. LULUC was calculated for each habitat type, based on mapping of present and future land use, and was further allocated to energy production for each power plant. Three different approaches to assess land use impact were included: ecosystem scarcity/vulnerability, biogenic greenhouse gas (bGHG) emissions, and the cost of restoring affected habitats. Restoration cost represents a novel approach to LCA for measuring impact of LULUC.

Results and discussion

Overall, the three approaches give similar rankings of impacts: larger impact for small and new power plants and less for larger and expanding existing plants. Reservoirs caused a larger total area affected. Permanent infrastructure has a more similar absolute impact for run-of-river and reservoir-based hydropower, and consequently give relatively larger impact for smaller run-of-river hydropower. All approaches reveal impacts on wetland ecosystems as most important relative to other ecosystems. The methods used for all three approaches would benefit from higher resolution data on land use, habitats, and soil types. Total restoration cost is not accurate, due to uncertainty of offset ratios, but relative restoration costs may still be used to rank restoration alternatives and compare them to the costs of biodiversity offsets.

Conclusions

The different approaches assess different aspects of land use impacts, but they all show large variation of impact between the studied hydropower plants, which shows the importance of including LULUC in LCA for hydropower projects. Improved data of total restoration cost (and cost accounting) are needed to implement this approach in future LCA.

     

A comparison of three methods to assess land use impacts on biodiversity in a case study of forestry plantations in New Zealand

Purpose

The aim of this study is apply available methods to assess impacts on biodiversity from the land use caused by plantation grown radiata pine in New Zealand in a life cycle assessment framework. This is done both to quantify the impact as well as compare the results obtained by different methods.

Methods

Data on location and productivity for wood supply regions in New Zealand was assessed using three methods identified as relevant for the purpose. All data were related to a functional unit of 1 m³ of timber production.

Results and discussion

The results show both a significant difference in impact on biodiversity from land use in the different wood supply regions and a significant difference in the results from the three applied methods. Although some of the results obtained from the three methods were correlated, this was not consistent through all the results. The methodological variation emanates from the treatment of the characteristics of the wood supply regions and underlying assumptions, e.g. reference vegetation. Compared to a case study in Norway, the impact on biodiversity from plantation forestry in New Zealand is found to be relatively low following the applied methods and assumptions taken.

Conclusions

The study shows a significant variation in how impacts on biodiversity are assessed following different approaches. Research to harmonize methods to quantify impact on biodiversity is recommended, as well as exploring effects of different weighting of crucial aspects of biodiversity, such as rarity, abundance and species richness.     

Uncertainty analysis in LCA using precalculated aggregated datasets

Purpose

Some LCA software tools use precalculated aggregated datasets because they make LCA calculations much quicker. However, these datasets pose problems for uncertainty analysis. Even when aggregated dataset parameters are expressed as probability distributions, each dataset is sampled independently. This paper explores why independent sampling is incorrect and proposes two techniques to account for dependence in uncertainty analysis. The first is based on an analytical approach, while the other uses precalculated results sampled dependently.

Methods

The algorithm for generating arrays of dependently presampled aggregated inventories and their LCA scores is described. These arrays are used to calculate the correlation across all pairs of aggregated datasets in two ecoinvent LCI databases (2.2, 3.3 cutoff). The arrays are also used in the dependently presampled approach. The uncertainty of LCA results is calculated under different assumptions and using four different techniques and compared for two case studies: a simple water bottle LCA and an LCA of burger recipes.

Results and discussion

The meta-analysis of two LCI databases shows that there is no single correct approximation of correlation between aggregated datasets. The case studies show that the uncertainty of single-product LCA using aggregated datasets is usually underestimated when the correlation across datasets is ignored and that the magnitude of the underestimation is dependent on the system being analysed and the LCIA method chosen. Comparative LCA results show that independent sampling of aggregated datasets drastically overestimates the uncertainty of comparative metrics. The approach based on dependently presampled results yields results functionally identical to those obtained by Monte Carlo analysis using unit process datasets with a negligible computation time.

Conclusions

Independent sampling should not be used for comparative LCA. Moreover, the use of a one-size-fits-all correction factor to correct the calculated variability under independent sampling, as proposed elsewhere, is generally inadequate. The proposed approximate analytical approach is useful to estimate the importance of the covariance of aggregated datasets but not for comparative LCA. The approach based on dependently presampled results provides quick and correct results and has been implemented in EcodEX, a streamlined LCA software used by Nestlé. Dependently presampled results can be used for streamlined LCA software tools. Both presampling and analytical solutions require a preliminary one-time calculation of dependent samples for all aggregated datasets, which could be centrally done by database providers. The dependent presampling approach can be applied to other aspects of the LCA calculation chain.

     

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

Purpose

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).

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Conclusions and recommendations

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.     

Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change,fine particulate matter formation,water consumption and land use

Purpose

Guidance is needed on best-suited indicators to quantify and monitor the man-made impacts on human health, biodiversity and resources. Therefore, the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative initiated a global consensus process to agree on an updated overall life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework and to recommend a non-comprehensive list of environmental indicators and LCIA characterization factors for (1) climate change, (2) fine particulate matter impacts on human health, (3) water consumption impacts (both scarcity and human health) and 4) land use impacts on biodiversity.

Methods

The consensus building process involved more than 100 world-leading scientists in task forces via multiple workshops. Results were consolidated during a 1-week Pellston Workshop? in January 2016 leading to the following recommendations.

Results and discussion

LCIA framework: The updated LCIA framework now distinguishes between intrinsic, instrumental and cultural values, with disability-adjusted life years (DALY) to characterize damages on human health and with measures of vulnerability included to assess biodiversity loss. Climate change impacts: Two complementary climate change impact categories are recommended: (a) The global warming potential 100 years (GWP 100) represents shorter term impacts associated with rate of change and adaptation capacity, and (b) the global temperature change potential 100 years (GTP 100) characterizes the century-scale long term impacts, both including climate-carbon cycle feedbacks for all climate forcers. Fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) health impacts: Recommended characterization factors (CFs) for primary and secondary (interim) PM_2.5 are established, distinguishing between indoor, urban and rural archetypes. Water consumption impacts: CFs are recommended, preferably on monthly and watershed levels, for two categories: (a) The water scarcity indicator “AWARE” characterizes the potential to deprive human and ecosystems users and quantifies the relative Available WAter REmaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, and (b) the impact of water consumption on human health assesses the DALYs from malnutrition caused by lack of water for irrigated food production. Land use impacts: CFs representing global potential species loss from land use are proposed as interim recommendation suitable to assess biodiversity loss due to land use and land use change in LCA hotspot analyses.

Conclusions

The recommended environmental indicators may be used to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals in order to quantify and monitor progress towards sustainable production and consumption. These indicators will be periodically updated, establishing a process for their stewardship.

     

Bridge processes: a solution for LCI datasets independent of background databases

Introduction

New platforms are emerging that enable more data providers to publish life cycle inventory data.

Background

Providing datasets that are not complete LCA models results in fragments that are difficult for practitioners to integrate and use for LCA modeling. Additionally, when proxies are used to provide a technosphere input to a process that was not originally intended by the process authors, in most LCA software, this requires modifying the original process.

Results

The use of a bridge process, which is a process created to link two existing processes, is proposed as a solution.

Discussion

Benefits to bridge processes include increasing model transparency, facilitating dataset sharing and integration without compromising original dataset integrity and independence, providing a structure with which to make the data quality associated with process linkages explicit, and increasing model flexibility in the case that multiple bridges are provided. A drawback is that they add additional processes to existing LCA models which will increase their size.

Conclusions

Bridge processes can be an enabler in allowing users to integrate new datasets without modifying them to link to background databases or other processes they have available. They may not be the ideal long-term solution but provide a solution that works within the existing LCA data model.

     

Is land use impact assessment in LCA applicable for forest biomass value chains? Findings from comparison of use of Scandinavian wood,agro-biomass and peat for energy

Purpose

A framework for the inclusion of land use impact assessment and a set of land use impact indicators has been recently proposed for life cycle assessment (LCA) and no case studies are available for forest biomass. The proposed methodology is tested for Scandinavian managed forestry; a comparative case study is made for energy from wood, agro-biomass and peat; and sensitivity to forest management options is analysed.

Methods

The functional unit of this comparative case study is 1 GJ of energy in solid fuels. The land use impact assessment framework of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC) is followed and its application for wood biomass is critically analysed. Applied midpoint indicators include ecological footprint and human appropriation of net primary production, global warming potential indicator for biomass (GWP_bio-100) and impact indicators proposed by UNEP-SETAC on ecosystem services and biodiversity. Options for forest biomass land inventory modelling are discussed. The system boundary covers only the biomass acquisition phase. Management scenarios are formulated for forest and barley biomass, and a sensitivity analysis focuses on impacts of land transformations for agro-biomass.

Results and discussion

Meaningful differences were found in between solid biofuels from distinct land use classes. The impact indicator results were sensitive to land occupation and transformation and differed significantly from inventory results. Current impact assessment method is not sensitive to land management scenarios because the published characterisation factors are still too coarse and indicate differences only between land use types. All indicators on ecosystem services and biodiversity were sensitive to the assumptions related with land transformation. The land occupation (m²a) approach in inventory was found challenging for Scandinavian wood, due to long rotation periods and variable intensities of harvests. Some suggestions of UNEP-SETAC were challenged for the sake of practicality and relevance for decision support.

Conclusions

Land use impact assessment framework for LCA and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators could be applied in a comparison of solid bioenergy sources. Although forest bioenergy has higher land occupation than agro-bioenergy, LCIA indicator results are of similar magnitude or even lower for forest bioenergy. Previous literature indicates that environmental impacts of land use are significant, but it remains questionable if these are captured with satisfactory reliability with the applied LCA methodology, especially for forest biomass. Short and long time perspectives of land use impacts should be studied in LCA with characterisation factors for all relevant timeframes, not only 500 years, with a forward-looking perspective. Characterisation factors need to be modelled further for different (forest) land management intensities and for peat excavation.     

Land use impact assessment in the construction sector: an analysis of LCIA models and case study application

Purpose

Land use is a potentially important impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of buildings. Three research questions are addressed in this paper: Is land use a decisive factor in the environmental impact of buildings?; Is it important to include the primary land use of buildings in the assessment?; and How does the environmental performance of solid structure and timber frame dwellings differ when assessed by distinct available models for quantifying land use impacts?

Methods

This paper compares several operational land use impact assessment models, which are subsequently implemented in an LCA case study comparing a building constructed using timber frame versus a solid structure. Different models were used for addressing the different research questions.

Results and discussion

The results reveal that contrasting decisions may be supported by LCA study results, depending on whether or not and how land use is included in the assessment. The analysis also highlights the need to include the building land footprint in the assessment and to better distinguish building locations in current land use impact assessment models.

Conclusions

Selecting land use assessment models that are most appropriate to the goals of the study is recommended as different models assess different environmental issues related to land use. In general, the combination of two land use assessment methods for buildings is recommended, i.e. soil organic matter (SOM) of Milà i Canals and Eco-indicator 99.     

Integration of spatial analyses into LCA—calculating GHG emissions with geoinformation systems

Purpose

Spatial analyses in life cycle assessments are hardly ever conducted. The combination of geoinformation systems and life cycle assessments (LCA) databases is a way to realise such complex calculations. By the example of energetic utilisation of biomass via conditioned biogas a geoinformation systems-based calculation tool is presented which combines geodata on biomass potentials, infrastructure, land use, cost and technology databases with analysis tools for the planning of biogas plants to identify the most efficient plant locations, to calculate balances of emissions, biomass streams and costs.

Methods

The calculations include the impact categories greenhouse gases, acidification, and eutrophication and were tested for the Lower Rhine region and the Altmark region in Germany. The results of the greenhouse gas (GHG) balances are presented. By using only nationwide available datasets, the calculation tool can be used in other regions as well.

Results and discussion

Balances of individual sites, regional balances and their temporal development can be calculated in geoinformation systems (GIS) using LCA methods. The composition of the substrates varies according to site and catchment area and lead to large variations in plant configurations and the resulting GHG balances and cost structures.

Conclusions

GIS tools do not only allow the assessment of individual plants, but also the determination of the GHG reduction potential, the biogas potential as well as the necessary investment costs for entire regions. Thus, the exploitation of regional biogas potentials in a way that is sustainable and climate-friendly becomes simple.     

Review of LCA datasets in three emerging economies: a summary of learnings

Purpose

In response to a need for interoperable LCA databases of adequate quality, a review of 40 datasets from emerging economies has been conducted with UNEP support by independent LCA experts, with the purpose to encourage improvements, either prior to publication or as part of a continuous improvement cycle. We discuss the lessons learned during this reviewing process.

Methods

The review effort had to be delivered in a set and limited timeline of 9 months and covered 20 datasets from Malaysia, ten from Brazil, and ten from Thailand. The developed review process consisted in, among others, (i) developing a set of review criteria for this specific effort, (ii) pairing a local sector reviewer with an international LCA expert to enhance capacity development, (iii) establishing a legal relationship via a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the data provider and the data reviewers, and (iv) providing a review report for each dataset that assesses the presence and magnitude of gaps or deficiencies relative to the criteria, as well as their implications for qualifying usage.

Results and discussion

The reviews provided solid recommendations for improvement to the majority of the datasets submitted by the three countries. This review exercise has been conducted in the given timeframe for the majority of the datasets. Many challenges have been faced along the way; among them agreeing on an NDA, the need for sufficient information, and the question of the confidentiality of the data. The developed set of criteria for this exercise have not been presented or discussed outside of the narrow review exercise and therefore can be seen as a starting point for further debates and improvements that should involve the broad LCA community.

Conclusions

This hands-on exercise provided some valuable insights into the road towards global consensus and guidance on data review. Beyond this time-constrained effort, a broader discussion and consensus at international level on the review of datasets and a continuous effort in reviewing datasets is desirable. Four key aspects were identified as necessary to consider: review criteria, review process, reviewers’ selection criteria, and development of a legal basis which protects the confidentiality of the data, as well as the position of the reviewers. This last aspect is sensitive as, in LCA datasets reviews, companies and/or countries might disclose some information with high stakes regarding competition and trade.

     

Impacts from hydropower production on biodiversity in an LCA framework—review and recommendations

Purpose

Expanding renewable energy production is widely accepted as a promising strategy in climate change mitigation. However, even renewable energy production has some environmental impacts, some of which are not (yet) covered in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). We aim to identify the most important cause-effect pathways related to hydropower production on biodiversity, as one of the most common renewable energy sources, and to provide recommendations for future characterization factor (CF) development.

Methods

We start with a comprehensive review of cause-effect chains related to hydropower production for both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Next, we explore contemporary coverage of impacts on biodiversity from hydropower production in LCA. Further, we select cause-effect pathways displaying some degree of consistency with existing LCA frameworks for method development recommendations. For this, we compare and contrast different hydrologic models and discuss how existing LCIA methodologies might be modified or combined to improve the assessment of biodiversity impacts from hydropower production.

Results and discussion

Hydropower impacts were categorized into three overarching impact pathways: (1) freshwater habitat alteration, (2) water quality degradation, and (3) land use change. Impacts included within these pathways are flow alteration, geomorphological alteration to habitats, changes in water quality, habitat fragmentation, and land use transformation. For the majority of these impacts, no operational methodology exists currently. Furthermore, the seasonal nature of river dynamics requires a level of temporal resolution currently beyond LCIA modeling capabilities. State-of-the-art LCIA methods covering biodiversity impacts exist for land use and impacts from consumptive water use that can potentially be adapted to cases involving hydropower production, while other impact pathways need novel development.

Conclusions

In the short term, coverage of biodiversity impacts from hydropower could be significantly improved by adding a time step representing seasonal ecological water demands to existing LCIA methods. In the long term, LCIA should focus on ecological response curves based on multiple hydrologic indices to capture the spatiotemporal aspects of river flow, by using models based on the “ecological limits to hydrologic alteration” (ELOHA) approach. This approach is based on hydrologic alteration-ecological response curves, including site-specific environmental impact data. Though data-intensive, ELOHA represents the potential to build a global impact assessment framework covering multiple ecological indicators from local impacts. Further, we recommend LCIA methods based on degree of regulation for geomorphologic alteration and a fragmentation index based on dam density for “freshwater habitat alteration,” which our review identified as significant unquantified threats to aquatic biodiversity.

     

Comparing direct land use impacts on biodiversity of conventional and organic milk—based on a Swedish case study

Purpose

Halting the loss of biodiversity while providing food security for a growing and prospering world population is a challenge. One possible solution to this dilemma is organic agriculture, which is expected to enhance biodiversity on the farmland. However, organic products often require larger areas. This study demonstrates how we can quantify and compare the direct land use impacts on biodiversity of organic and conventional food products such as milk.

Material and methods

This study assessed direct land use impacts of 1 l of milk leaving the farm gate. Inventory data on land occupation were extracted from a life cycle assessment study of 15 farms in southern Sweden. Direct land use change data were derived from the FAO statistical database. Spatially differentiated characterization factors of occupation (CF_Occ) and transformation (CF_Trans) were calculated based on the relative difference of plant species richness on agricultural land compared to a (semi) natural regional reference. Data on plant species richness and regeneration times of ecosystems (for calculating transformation impacts) were derived from a literature review. To account for differences in biodiversity value between regions, a weighting system based on absolute species richness, vulnerability and irreplaceability was applied.

Results and discussion

Organic milk had a lower direct land use impact than conventional milk, although it required about double the area. Occupation impacts dominated the results and were much smaller for organic than conventional milk, as CF_Occ of organic land uses were considerably smaller. For transformation impacts, differences between the two farming practices were even more pronounced. The highest impacts were caused by soymeal in concentrate feeds (conventional milk) due to large-scale deforestation in its country of cultivation (i.e. Brazil and Argentina). However, lack of reliable data posed a challenge in the assessment of transformation impacts. Overall, results were highly sensitive to differences in land occupation area between farms, the CF_Occ and assumptions concerning transformed area. Sensitivity and robustness of results were tested and are discussed.

Conclusions

Although organic milk required about twice as much land as conventional, it still had lower direct land use impacts on biodiversity. This highlights the importance of assessing land use impacts not only based on area but also considering the actual impacts on biodiversity. The presented approach allows to quantify and compare hot- and coldspots in the agricultural stage of milk production and could potentially also be applied to other agricultural products. However, more research is needed to allow quantification of indirect land use impacts.     

The Quebec Life Cycle Inventory Database Project

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) in Quebec (Canada) is increasingly important. Yet, studies often still need to rely on foreign life cycle inventory (LCI) data. The Quebec government invested in the creation of a Quebec LCI database. The approach is to work as an ecoinvent “National Database Initiative” (NDI), whereby the Quebec database initiative uses and contributes to the ecoinvent database. The paper clarifies the relationship between ecoinvent and the Quebec NDI and provides details on prioritization and data collection.

Methods

The first steps were to select a partner database provider and to work out the modalities of the partnership. The main criterion for partner selection was database transparency, i.e., availability of unit process data (gate-to-gate), necessary for database adaptation. This and other criteria, such as free access to external reviewers, conservation of dataset copyright, seamless embedding of datasets, and overall database sophistication, pointed to ecoinvent. Once started, the NDI project proceeded as follows: (1) data collection was prioritized based on several criteria; (2) some datasets were “recontextualized,” i.e., existing datasets were duplicated and relocated in Quebec and linked to datasets representing regional suppliers, where relevant; (3) new datasets were created; and (4) Canadian environmentally extended supply-use tables were created for the ecoinvent IO repository.

Results and discussion

Prioritization identified 500 candidate datasets for recontextualization, based on the relative importance of relative contribution of direct electricity consumption to cradle-to-gate impacts, and 12 key sectors from which about 450 data adaptation or collection projects were singled out. Data collection and private sector solicitation are underway. Private sector participation is highly variable. A number of communication tools have been elaborated and a solicitation team formed to palliate this obstacle. The new ecoinvent database protocol (Weidema et al. 2011) increases the amount of information that is required to create a dataset, which can lengthen or, in extreme cases, impede dataset creation. However, this new information is required for the new database functionalities (e.g., providing multiple system models based on the same unit process data and regionalized LCA).

Conclusions

Being an NDI is advantageous for the Quebec LCI database project on multiple levels. By conserving dataset copyright, the NDI remains free to spawn or support other LCI databases. Embedding datasets in ecoinvent enables the generation of LCI results from “day 1.” The costs of IT infrastructure and data review are null. For these reasons, and because every NDI improves the global representativity of ecoinvent, we recommend other regional or national database projects work as NDIs.

     

Life cycle assessment in the minerals and metals sector: a critical review of selected issues and challenges

Background, aim and scope

The mining sector provides materials that are essential elements in a wide range of goods and services, which create value by meeting human needs. Mining and processing activities are an integral part of most complex material cycles so that the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to minerals and metals has therefore gained prominence. In the past decade, increased use of LCA in the mineral and metal sector has advanced the scientific knowledge through the development of scientifically valid life cycle inventory databases. Though scientifically valid, LCA still needs to depend on several technical assumptions. In particular, measuring the environmental burden issues related to abiotic resource depletion, land use impacts and open-loop recycling within the LCA are widely debated issues. Also, incorporating spatial and temporal sensitivities in LCA, to make it a consistent scientific tool, is yet to be resolved. This article discusses existing LCA methods and proposed models on different issues in relation to minerals and metals sector.

Main features

A critical review was conducted of existing LCA methods in the minerals and metals sector in relation to allocation issues related to indicators of land use impacts, abiotic resource depletion, allocation in open-loop recycling and the system expansions and accounting of spatial and temporal dimension in LCA practice.

Results

Evolving a holistic view about these contentious issues will be presented with view for future LCA research in the minerals and metals industry. This extensive literature search uncovers many of the issues that require immediate attention from the LCA scientific community.

Discussion

The methodological drawbacks, mainly problems with inconsistencies in LCA results for the same situation under different assumptions and issues related to data quality, are considered to be the shortcomings of current LCA. In the minerals and metals sector, it is important to increase the objectivity of LCA by way of fixing those uncertainties, for example, in the LCA of the minerals and metals sector, whether the land use has to be considered in detail or at a coarse level. In regard to abiotic resource characterisation, the weighting and time scales to be considered become a very critical issue of judgement. And, in the case of open-loop recycling, which model will best satisfy all the stake holders? How the temporal and spatial dimensions should be incorporated into LCA is one of the biggest challenges ahead of all those who are concerned. Addressing these issues shall enable LCA to be used as a policy tool in environmental decision-making. There has been enormous debate with respect to on land use impacts, abiotic resource depletion, open-loop recycling and spatial and temporal dimensions, and these debates remain unresolved. Discussions aimed at bringing consensus amongst all the stake holders involved in LCA (i.e. industry, academia, consulting organisations and government) will be presented and discussed. In addition, a commentary of different points of view on these issues will be presented.

Conclusions

This review shall bring into perspective some of those contentious issues that are widely debated by many researchers. The possible future directions proposed by researchers across the globe shall be presented. Finally, authors conclude with their views on the prospects of LCA for future research endeavours.

Recommendations and outlook

Specific LCA issues of minerals and metals need to be investigated further to gain more understanding. To facilitate the future use of LCA as a policy tool in the minerals and metals sector, it is important to increase the objectivity with more scientific validity. Therefore, it is essential that the issues discussed in this paper are addressed to a great detail.     

System delimitation in life cycle assessment (LCA) of aquaculture: striving for valid and comprehensive environmental assessment using rainbow trout farming as a case study

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been in the last one decade used as a standardized and structured method of evaluating the environmental impacts of aquaculture arising throughout the entire life cycle. However, aquaculture system hardly applied system expansion whenever a multifunctional process has more than one functional flow. The objective of this study is to develop a methodological approach for consequential LCA and model the system expansion of the different affected processes of aquaculture.

Methods

In this study, we have considered the system expansion in two different stages in the life cycle of the fish production: aquacultural stage, with case study of trout aquaculture, and feed manufacturing stage. Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) production was used as a case study to illustrate the method using different scenarios of system expansion.

Results and discussion

The results of the six different scenarios of system expansion showed considerable variation among the different scenarios towards the environmental impact of trout aquaculture. Regarding global warming potential, the contributions vary by 5-fold; for acidification, variations were up to 32 %, and for land use, the contributions varied from 0.6 to 1.3 m²a/kg of trout demanded in Germany. It appeared that eutrophication is similar in all the scenarios considered.

Conclusions

This article showed that system expansion can be used to handle the allocation issues of the co-products in the rainbow trout supply chain, thus, can be effectively used when analyzing the environmental consequences of changes in future rainbow trout production. Furthermore, consequential LCA may be important when comparing the impacts of alternative meal choices of aquafeeds. This may increase the incentive for speedy replacement of alternative meals, thus, reducing the dependence on the utilization of the limiting fisheries resources.     

The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology

Purpose

Good background data are an important requirement in LCA. Practitioners generally make use of LCI databases for such data, and the ecoinvent database is the largest transparent unit-process LCI database worldwide. Since its first release in 2003, it has been continuously updated, and version 3 was published in 2013. The release of version 3 introduced several significant methodological and technological improvements, besides a large number of new and updated datasets. The aim was to expand the content of the database, set the foundation for a truly global database, support regionalized LCIA, offer multiple system models, allow for easier integration of data from different regions, and reduce maintenance efforts. This article describes the methodological developments.

Methods

Modeling choices and raw data were separated in version 3, which enables the application of different sets of modeling choices, or system models, to the same raw data with little effort. This includes one system model for Consequential LCA. Flow properties were added to all exchanges in the database, giving more information on the inventory and allowing a fast calculation of mass and other balances. With version 3.1, the database is generally water-balanced, and water use and consumption can be determined. Consumption mixes called market datasets were consistently added to the database, and global background data was added, often as an extrapolation from regional data.

Results and discussion

In combination with hundreds of new unit processes from regions outside Europe, these changes lead to an improved modeling of global supply chains, and a more realistic distribution of impacts in regionalized LCIA. The new mixes also facilitate further regionalization due to the availability of background data for all regions.

Conclusions

With version 3, the ecoinvent database substantially expands the goals and scopes of LCA studies it can support. The new system models allow new, different studies to be performed. Global supply chains and market datasets significantly increase the relevance of the database outside of Europe, and regionalized LCA is supported by the data. Datasets are more transparent, include more information, and support, e.g., water balances. The developments also support easier collaboration with other database initiatives, as demonstrated by a first successful collaboration with a data project in Québec. Version 3 has set the foundation for expanding ecoinvent from a mostly regional into a truly global database and offers many new insights beyond the thousands of new and updated datasets it also introduced.