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.     

Life cycle assessment evaluation of green product labeling systems for residential construction

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be utilized to holistically evaluate novel trends in the construction industry and the associated environmental impacts. Green labels are awarded by several organizations based on single or multiple attributes. The use of multi-criteria labels is a good start to the labeling process as opposed to single criteria labels that ignore a majority of impacts from products. Life cycle thinking, in theory, has the potential to improve the environmental impacts of labeling systems. However, LCA databases currently are lacking in detailed information about products or sometimes provide conflicting information.

Method

This study compares generic and green-labeled carpets, paints, and linoleum flooring using the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) LCA database. The results from these comparisons are not intuitive and are contradictory in several impact categories with respect to the greenness of the product. Other data sources such as environmental product declarations and ecoinvent are also compared with the BEES data to compare the results and display the disparity in the databases.

Results

This study shows that partial LCAs focused on the production and transportation phase help in identifying improvements in the product itself and improving the manufacturing process but the results are uncertain and dependent upon the source or database. Inconsistencies in the data and missing categories add to the ambiguity in LCA results.

Conclusions

While life cycle thinking in concept can improve the green labeling systems available, LCA data is lacking. Therefore, LCA data and tools need to improve to support and enable market trends.     

Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings: A critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on residential buildings

Purpose

Sustainability assessments of buildings using the life cycle approach have become more and more common. This includes the assessment of the environmental performance of buildings. However, the influence of the construction products used for the fabric, the finishing, and the technical building equipment of buildings has hardly been described in literature. For this reason, we evaluated the influence of the technical building equipment and its impact on the environment for different residential buildings.

Materials and methods

Five residential buildings were evaluated by applying the methodology of life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO14040) expressed using quantitative assessment categories according to prEN15978.

Results and discussion

Results show that the optimization of energy performance has already reached a high level in Austria, so that the overall potential for possible improvements is quite low. Especially in low-energy and passive?Chouse-standard residential buildings, the limits for energy optimization in the use phase have mostly been achieved. In contrast to this, the integrated LCA (iLCA) findings attribute a high optimization potential to the construction products used for the technical building equipment as well as to the building fabric and finishing. Additionally, the passive house shows the lowest contribution of the technical building equipment on the overall LCA results.

Conclusions

The iLCA findings suggest that it is recommended to include the technical building equipment for future assessments of the environmental performance of buildings. It is also suggested to use a broad number of environmental indicators for building LCA.     

Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly implemented in analyzing the environmental performance of buildings and construction projects. To assess the life cycle environmental performance, decision-makers may adopt the two life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches, namely the midpoint and endpoint models. Any imprudent usage of the two approaches may affect the assessment results and thus lead to misleading findings. ReCiPe, a well-known work, includes a package of LCIA methods to provide assessments on both midpoint and endpoint levels. This study compares different potential LCIA results using the midpoint and endpoint approaches of ReCiPe based on the assessment of a commercial building in Hong Kong.

Methods

This paper examines 23 materials accounting for over 99 % of the environmental impacts of all the materials consumed in commercial buildings in Hong Kong. The midpoint and endpoint results are compared at the normalization level. A commercial building in Hong Kong is further studied to provide insights as a real case study. The ranking of impact categories and the contributions from various construction materials are examined for the commercial building. Influence due to the weighting factors is discussed.

Results and discussion

Normalization results of individual impact categories of the midpoint and endpoint approaches are consistent for the selected construction materials. The difference in the two approaches can be detected when several impact categories are considered. The ranking of materials is slightly different under the two approaches. The ranking of impact categories demonstrates completely different features. In the case study of a commercial building in Hong Kong, the contributions from subprocesses are different at the midpoint and endpoint. The weighting factors can determine not only the contributions of the damage categories to the total environment, but also the value of a single score.

Conclusions

In this research, the midpoint and endpoint approaches are compared using ReCiPe. Information is whittled down from the inventories to a single score. Midpoint results are comprehensive while endpoint results are concise. The endpoint approach which provides additional information of damage should be used as a supplementary to the midpoint model. When endpoint results are asked for, a LCIA method like ReCiPe that provides both the midpoint and endpoint analysis is recommended. This study can assist LCA designers to interpret the midpoint and endpoint results, in particular, for the assessment of commercial buildings in Hong Kong.     

Temporal differentiation of background systems in LCA: relevance of adding temporal information in LCI databases

Purpose

Because the potential impacts of emissions and extractions can be sensitive to timing, the temporal aggregation of life cycle inventory (LCI) data has often been cited as a limitation in life cycle assessment (LCA). Until now, examples of temporal emission and extraction distributions were restricted to the foreground processes of product systems. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the relevance of considering the temporal distribution of the background system inventory.

Methods

The paper focuses on the global warming impact category for which so-called dynamic characterization factors (CFs) were developed and uses the ecoinvent v2.2 database as both an example database to which temporal information can be added and a source of product systems to test the relevance of adding temporal information to the background system. Temporal information was added to the elementary and intermediate exchanges of 22 % of the unit processes in the database. Using the enhanced structure path analysis (ESPA) method to generate temporally differentiated LCIs in conjunction with time-dependent global warming characterization factors, potential impacts were calculated for all 4,034 product systems in the ecoinvent database.

Results and discussion

Each time, the results were calculated for (1) systems in which temporal information was only added to the first two tiers, representing studies in which only the foreground system is temporally differentiated, and (2) systems in which temporal information was also added to the background system. For 8.6 % of the database product systems, adding temporal differentiation to background unit processes affected the global warming impact scores by more than 10 %. For most of the affected product systems, considering temporal information in the background unit processes decreased the global warming impact scores. The sectors that show most sensitivity to the temporal differentiation of background unit processes are associated with wood and biofuel sectors.

Conclusions

Even though the addition of temporal information to unit processes in LCI databases would not benefit every LCA study, the enhancement can be relevant. It allows for a more accurate global warming impact assessment, especially for LCAs in which products of biomass are present in substantial amounts. Relevance for other impact categories could be discussed in further work.     

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.     

Simplifying a life cycle assessment of a mobile phone

Purpose

The possibilities for full life cycle assessment (LCA) of new Information and Communication Technology (ICT) products are often limited, so simplification approaches are needed. The aim of this paper is to investigate possible simplifications in LCA of a mobile phone and to use the results to discuss the possibilities of LCA simplifications for ICT products in a broader sense. Another aim is to identify processes and data that are sensitive to different methodological choices and assumptions related to the environmental impacts of a mobile phone.

Methods

Different approaches to a reference LCA of a mobile phone was tested: (1) excluding environmental impact categories, (2) excluding life cycle stages/processes, (3) using secondary process data from generic databases, (4) using input-output data and (5) using a simple linear relationship between mass and embodied emissions.

Results and discussion

It was not possible to identify one or a few impact categories representative of all others. If several impact categories would be excluded, information would be lost. A precautionary approach of not excluding impact categories is therefore recommended since impacts from the different life cycle stages vary between impact categories. Regarding use of secondary data for an ICT product similar to that studied here, we recommend prioritising collection of primary (specific) data on energy use during production and use, key component data (primarily integrated circuits) and process-specific data regarding raw material acquisition of specific metals (e.g. gold) and air transport. If secondary data are used for important processes, the scaling is crucial. The use of input-output data can be a considerable simplification and is probably best used to avoid data gaps when more specific data are lacking.

Conclusions

Further studies are needed to provide for simplified LCAs for ICT products. In particular, the end-of-life treatment stage need to be further addressed, as it could not be investigated here for all simplifications due to data gaps.     

Ecodesign requirements for televisions—is energy consumption in the use phase the only relevant requirement?

Purpose

This paper concerns the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) and the implementing measures (IM) in which ecodesign requirements are set up for energy-using and energy-related products. Previous studies have found that the requirements have a unilateral focus on energy consumption and the use phase. This is not in line with the scientific understanding of ecodesign, where attention should be put on all life cycle phases and all relevant environmental impact categories. This study focuses on the requirements for televisions (TV). A life cycle assessment (LCA) is carried out on two TVs to analyse if other environmental hotspots and life cycle phases should be included in the requirements in the IM of the Ecodesign Directive besides energy consumption in the use phase analysis.

Methods

The consequential approach is used. The data for the LCA have been gathered from two manufacturers of TVs. In one case, the data were delivered in Excel spreadsheets; in the other case, the authors of this paper together with the manufacturer disassembled a TV and collected the data manually.

Results and discussion

When applying the consequential approach, the production phase has the highest environmental impact, which is in contradiction with the focus area of the IM. The result of the sensitivity analysis is that the source of electricity is a potentially significant contributor of uncertainty. However, even in a coal-based scenario, the contribution from the production phase is approximately 30 %.

Conclusions

Based on these results, it is concluded that for future requirement setting in IM, it is necessary to set up requirements that cover more life cycle phases of the product in order to address the most important impacts.     

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.     

Life cycle assessment of composite packaging waste management—a Chinese case study on aseptic packaging

Purpose

Approximately 46,000 t/day of packaging waste was generated in China in 2010, of which, 2,500 t was composite packaging waste. Due to the lack of recycling technology and an imperfect recovery system, most of this waste is processed in sanitary landfills. An effective packaging waste management system is needed since this waste not only uses up valuable resources, but also increases environmental pollution. The purpose of this study is to estimate the environmental impact of the treatment scenarios in composite packaging waste which are commonly used in China, to determine the optimum composite packaging waste management strategy, and to design new separating and recycling technology for composite packaging, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) results.

Methods

To identify the best treatment for composite packaging waste, the LCA software SimaPro 7.1.6 was used to assist in the analysis of the environmental impacts, coupled with the impact assessment method Eco-Indicator 99. LCA for composite packaging waste management was carried out by estimating the environmental impacts of the four scenarios most often used in China: landfill, incineration, paper recycling, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum. One ton of post-consumption Tetra Pak waste was selected as the functional unit. The data on the mass, energy fluxes, and environmental emissions were obtained from literature and site investigations.

Results and discussion

Landfill—scenario 1—was the worst waste management option. Paper recycling—scenario 3—was more environmentally friendly than incineration, scenario 2. Scenario 4, separating out polyethylene and aluminum, was established based on the LCA result, and inventory data were obtained from the demonstration project built by this research. In scenario 4, the demonstration project for the separation of polyethylene and aluminum was built based on the optimum conditions from single-factor and orthogonal experiments. Adding this flow process into the life cycle of composite packaging waste treatment decreased the environmental impacts significantly.

Conclusions

The research results can provide useful scientific information for policymakers in China to make decisions regarding composite packaging waste. Incineration could reduce more environmental impacts in the respiratory inorganics category, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum, in the fossil fuel category. If energy saving is the primary governmental goal, the separation of polyethylene and aluminum would be the better choice, while incineration would be the better choice for emission reduction.     

A life cycle assessment study of a Canadian post-combustion carbon dioxide capture process system

Purpose

While carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) has been widely recognized as a useful technology for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, it is necessary to evaluate the environmental performance of CCS from a full life cycle perspective to comprehensively understand its environmental impacts. The primary research objective is to conduct a study on life cycle assessment of the post-combustion carbon dioxide capture process based on data from SaskPower’s electricity generation station at the Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan, Canada. A secondary objective of this study is to identify the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology which is most suitable for the assessment of carbon dioxide capture technology integrated with the power generation system in the Canadian context.

Methods

The study takes a comparative approach by including three scenarios of carbon dioxide capture at the electricity generation station: no carbon dioxide capture (“no capture”), partial capture (“retrofit”), and fully integrated carbon dioxide capture of the entire facility (“capture”). The four LCIA methods of EDIP 97, CML2001, IMPACT2002+, and TRACI are used to convert existing inventory data into environmental impacts. The LCIA results from the four methods are compared and interpreted based on midpoint categories.

Results and discussion

The LCA results showed an increase in the retrofit and capture scenarios compared to the no capture scenario in the impact categories of eutrophication air, ecotoxicity water, ecotoxicity ground surface soil, eutrophication water, human health cancer ground surface soil, human health cancer water, human health noncancer ground surface soil, ozone depletion air, human health noncancer water, and ionizing radiation. The reductions were observed in the retrofit and capture scenarios in the impact categories of acidification, human health criteria air-point source, human health noncancer air, ecotoxicity air, global warming, human health cancer air, and respiratory effects.

Conclusions

Although the four LCIA methodologies significantly differ in terms of reference substances used for individual impact categories, all (TRACI, IMPACT2002+, CML2001, and EDIP 97) showed similar results in all impact categories.     

Life cycle assessment of a biobased chainsaw oil made on the farm in Wallonia

Purpose

The environmental issue is a particular concern for chainsaw oils because these fluids represent a total loss system. The aim of this study is to quantify the environmental impacts of a biobased chainsaw oil made on the farm in Wallonia (a region of Belgium) and to compare it with a model mineral chainsaw oil. With this study, the aim is also to participate in the development of the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology applied to the biolubricant sector since LCAs on these products are quite limited and rarely sufficiently detailed.

Method

In this LCA, the attributional approach is applied. Seven impact categories are studied. The methods for life cycle impact assessment are IPCC, ReCiPe, CML and USEtox. The functional unit is 1 kg of base oil. Seven sensitivity analyses are performed.

Results and discussion

Results indicate that the biobased chainsaw oil made on the farm has a lower impact for the global warming potential, the abiotic depletion potential, the ozone depletion potential and the photochemical oxidation potential. On the contrary, it has larger acidification, aquatic eutrophication and aquatic ecotoxicity potential impacts. Regarding the contribution of the life cycle stages of the biobased chainsaw oil, the agricultural stage causes the highest contribution in all impact categories. For the mineral chainsaw oil, the refining stage is preponderant for all impact categories except for the global warming potential for which the end-of-life stage contributes the most. When taking additives into account, conclusions regarding the comparison between the oils are not reversed. Even if it was necessary to consume more biobased than mineral chainsaw oil, conclusions regarding the comparison of the oils would not be reversed. In the same way, a different allocation procedure for rapeseed oil and rape meal, a different rape seeds yield or different extraction yields in the refining stage of the mineral base oil do not change the results of the comparison. For the biobased chainsaw oil, the substitution of only one active substance in the agricultural stage could result in an important decrease of the freshwater ecotoxicity impact.

Conclusions

The biobased chainsaw oil has a lower impact in four out of the seven impact categories and a higher impact in three impact categories. By providing a detailed LCA on a biobased chainsaw oil, this study contributes to the development of LCA applied to biobased lubricants.     

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.     

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.     

Development of a dynamic LCA approach for the freshwater ecotoxicity impact of metals and application to a case study regarding zinc fertilization

Purpose

Temporal variability is a major source of uncertainty in current life cycle assessment (LCA) practice. In this paper, the recently developed dynamic LCA approach is adapted to assess freshwater ecotoxicity impacts of metals. The objective is to provide relevant information regarding the distribution and magnitude of metal impacts over time and to show whether the dynamic approach significantly influences the conclusions of an LCA. An LCA of zinc fertilization in agriculture was therefore carried out.

Methods

Dynamic LCA is based on the temporal disaggregation of the inventory, which is then assessed using time-horizon-dependent characterization factors. The USEtox multimedia fate model is used to develop time-horizon-dependent characterization factors for the freshwater ecotoxicity impact of 18 metals. Mass balance equations are solved dynamically to obtain fate factors as a function of time, providing both instantaneous (impact at time t following a pulse emission) and cumulative (total time-integrated impact following a pulse emission) characterization factors (CFs).

Results and discussion

Time-horizon-dependent CFs for freshwater ecotoxicity depend on the emission compartment and the metal itself. The two variables clearly influence metal fate aspects such as the maximum mass loading reaching freshwater and the persistence time of metals into this compartment. The time needed to reach the total impact for each metal may exceed thousands of years, so the time horizon used in the analysis constitutes a determining factor. The case study reveals that the results of a classical LCA are always higher than those obtained from a dynamic LCA, especially for short time horizons. For instance, at the end of a 100-year fertilization treatment, only 25 % of the impacts obtained through traditional LCA occurred.

Conclusions

Results show that dynamic LCA enables assessing freshwater ecotoxicity impacts of metals over time, allowing decision makers to test the sensitivity of their results to the choice of a time horizon. For the particular case study of zinc fertilization over a period of 20 years, the use of time-horizon-dependent CFs is more important in determining the dynamics of impacts than the timing of emission.     

On the boundary between economy and environment in life cycle assessment

Purpose

We investigate how the boundary between product systems and their environment has been delineated in life cycle assessment and question the usefulness and ontological relevance of a strict division between the two.

Methods

We consider flows, activities and impacts as general terms applicable to both product systems and their environment and propose that the ontologically relevant boundary is between the flows that are modelled as inputs to other activities (economic or environmental)—and the flows that—in a specific study—are regarded as final impacts, in the sense that no further feedback into the product system is considered before these impacts are applied in decision-making. Using this conceptual model, we contrast the traditional mathematical calculation of the life cycle impacts with a new, simpler computational structure where the life cycle impacts are calculated directly as part of the Leontief inverse, treating product flows and environmental flows in parallel, without the need to consider any boundary between economic and environmental activities.

Results and discussion

Our theoretical outline and the numerical example demonstrate that the distinctions and boundaries between product systems and their environment are unnecessary and in some cases obstructive from the perspective of impact assessment, and can therefore be ignored or chosen freely to reflect meaningful distinctions of specific life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. We show that our proposed computational structure is backwards compatible with the current practice of LCA modelling, while allowing inclusion of feedback loops both from the environment to the economy and internally between different impact categories in the impact assessment.

Conclusions

Our proposed computational structure for LCA facilitates consistent, explicit and transparent modelling of the feedback loops between environment and the economy and between different environmental mechanisms. The explicit and transparent modelling, combining economic and environmental information in a common computational structure, facilitates data exchange and re-use between different academic fields.

     

Inclusion of discard assessment indicators in fisheries life cycle assessment studies. Expanding the use of fishery-specific impact categories

Purpose

The main purpose of this article is to propose specific discard indexes for their development in fisheries life cycle assessment (LCA). The objective of these is to characterize and standardize discards in worldwide fisheries.

Methods

The global discard index (GDI) is intended to be an easily understood index whose use is extendible to any fishery in the world. It is presented as a dynamic index that aims to characterize and standardize discard rates between fisheries by direct comparison with the global discard rates reported periodically by FAO. Furthermore, a simplified approach excluding characterization is presented for scenarios in which the data quality linked to discards is poor. Two additional indicators, survival rate of discards and slipping, are proposed to improve the reporting and quantification of biomass waste by fishing vessels.

Results

GDI implementation, together with two other fishery-specific impact categories, showed remarkable differences in the environmental impacts of several fishing fleets when compared with the obtained results for conventional impact categories. Results for the conventional categories were strongly influenced by the energy use in the fishery, while results obtained for fishery-specific categories presented variable trends due to the dependence on a wider range of factors. GDI inclusion favored direct comparison with worldwide average discard rates on a time scale basis, from a wet weight or a net primary productivity perspective, depending on the selected approach.

Conclusions

Proposed indicators achieved the important objective of integrating discard data as a fishery-specific impact in fishery LCAs, increasing the benefits of implementing LCA in fisheries assessment. Specific advantages of these indicators include assessing changes in capture and landing composition, evaluating the selectivity of the fishing gears, and monitoring the behavior of fisheries in a normalized context respect to other fisheries. GDI was identified as an adequate methodological improvement for regular use in fisheries LCA. Future developments GDI include its harmonization for inclusion in damage assessment.