Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment while Encouraging Techno‐Ecological Synergies

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has enabled consideration of environmental impacts beyond the narrow boundary of traditional engineering methods. This reduces the chance of shifting impacts outside the system boundary. However, sustainability also requires that supporting ecosystems are not adversely affected and remain capable of providing goods and services for supporting human activities. Conventional LCA does not account for this role of nature, and its metrics are best for comparing alternatives. These relative metrics do not provide information about absolute environmental sustainability, which requires comparison between the demand and supply of ecosystem services (ES). Techno‐ecological synergy (TES) is a framework to account for ES, and has been demonstrated by application to systems such as buildings and manufacturing activities that have narrow system boundaries. This article develops an approach for techno‐ecological synergy in life cycle assessment (TES‐LCA) by expanding the steps in conventional LCA to incorporate the demand and supply of ecosystem goods and services at multiple spatial scales. This enables calculation of absolute environmental sustainability metrics, and helps identify opportunities for improving a life cycle not just by reducing impacts, but also by restoring and protecting ecosystems. TES‐LCA of a biofuel life cycle demonstrates this approach by considering the ES of carbon sequestration, air quality regulation, and water provisioning. Results show that for the carbon sequestration ecosystem service, farming can be locally sustainable but unsustainable at the global or serviceshed scale. Air quality regulation is unsustainable at all scales, while water provisioning is sustainable at all scales for this study in the eastern part of the United States.     

Life Cycle Assessment of Advanced Industrial Wastewater Treatment Within an Urban Environment

A dissolved air flotation (DAF) system upgrade was proposed for an urban paper mill to recycle effluent. To understand the influence of operating variables on the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water consumption, a dynamic supply chain model was linked with life cycle assessment (LCA) to produce an environmental inventory. Water is a critical natural resource, and understanding the environmental impacts of recycling water is paramount in continued development of sustainable supply chains involving water. The methodology used in this study bridged the gap between detailed process models and static LCA modeling so that operating variables beyond discrete scenario analysis could be investigated without creating unnecessarily complex models. The model performed well in evaluating environmental impacts. It was found that there was no single optimum operating regime for all environmental impacts. For a mill discharging 80 cubic meters of effluent per hour (m³/hour), GHGs could be minimized with a DAF capacity of 17.5 m³/hour, while water consumption could be minimized with a DAF capacity of 25 m³/hour, which allowed insight into where environmental trade‐offs would occur. The study shows that more complexity can be achieved in supply chain modeling without requiring a full technical model. It also illustrates the need to consider multiple environmental impacts and highlights the trade‐off of GHG emissions with water consumption in water recycling. The supply chain model used in this water treatment case study was able to identify the environmental trade‐offs from the operating variables selected.     

Comparison of Tools for Quantifying the Environmental Performance of an Urban Territory

To support effective urban policies aimed at decreasing the environmental impacts of cities, it is important to develop robust tools for accounting those impacts. Environmentally extended input‐output analysis (EEIOA) is among the most used tools for this purpose, allowing the quantification of both direct and indirect impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is also a holistic and comprehensive tool that accounts for direct and indirect impacts—but its application to cities is still very recent. This study aims at applying EEIOA and LCA to the municipality of Aveiro (Portugal) in order to compare the outcomes of the two tools in terms of total impacts (climate change and fossil fuel depletion) and hotspots (sectors/products contributing most to the impacts), to identify limitations and advantages of the tools when applied to Aveiro, and to illustrate how LCA can be applied to cities. The total impacts estimated with LCA and EEIOA were similar and the hotspots were also the same: transports, food, construction, and electricity. However, the relative contribution of some sectors was very different in the two tools due to methodological differences mainly in system boundaries, type of activities or products considered in each sector, and geographical coverage of impact data. This study concludes that the analyzed tools can provide complementary results to support decision making concerning urban planning and management.     

Assessment of Environmental Impacts of an Aging and Stagnating Water Supply Pipeline Network

Aging urban infrastructure is a common phenomenon in industrialized countries. The urban water supply pipeline network in the city of Oslo is an example. Even as it faces increasing operational, maintenance, and management challenges, it needs to better its environmental performance by reducing, for instance, the associated greenhouse gas emissions. In this article the authors examine the environmental life cycle performance of Oslo's water supply pipelines by analyzing annual resource consumption and emissions as well as life cycle assessment (LCA) impact potentials over a period of 16 years, taking into account the production/manufacture, installation, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and retirement of pipelines. It is seen that the water supply pipeline network of Oslo has already reached a state of saturation on a per capita basis, that is, it is not expanding any more relative to the population it serves, and the stock is now rapidly aging. This article is part of a total urban water cycle system analysis for Oslo, and analyzes more specifically the environmental impacts from the material flows in the water distribution network, examining six environmental impact categories using the SimaPro (version 7.1.8) software, Ecoinvent database, and the CML 2001 (version 2.04) methodology. The long‐term management of stocks calls for a strong focus on cost optimization, energy efficiency, and environmental friendliness. Global warming and abiotic depletion emerge as the major impact categories from the water pipeline system, and the largest contribution is from the production and installation phases and the medium‐size pipelines in the network.     

Life Cycle Assessment of Biomass‐based Combined Heat and Power Plants

Norway, like many countries, has realized the need to extensively plan its renewable energy future sooner rather than later. Combined heat and power (CHP) through gasification of forest residues is one technology that is expected to aid Norway in achieving a desired doubling of bioenergy production by 2020. To assess the environmental impacts to determine the most suitable CHP size, we performed a unit process‐based attributional life cycle assessment (LCA), in which we compared three scales of CHP over ten environmental impact categories—micro (0.1 megawatts electricity [MWe]), small (1 MWe), and medium (50 MWe) scale. The functional units used were 1 megajoule (MJ) of electricity and 1 MJ of district heating delivered to the end user (two functional units), and therefore, the environmental impacts from distribution of electricity and hot water to the consumer were also considered. This study focuses on a regional perspective situated in middle‐Norway's Nord‐ and Sør‐Trøndelag counties. Overall, the unit‐based environmental impacts between the scales of CHP were quite mixed and within the same magnitude. The results indicated that energy distribution from CHP plant to end user creates from less than 1% to nearly 90% of the total system impacts, depending on impact category and energy product. Also, an optimal small‐scale CHP plant may be the best environmental option. The CHP systems had a global warming potential ranging from 2.4 to 2.8 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of thermal (g CO₂‐eq/MJ_th) district heating and from 8.8 to 10.5 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per megajoule of electricity (g CO₂‐eq/MJ_el) to the end user.     

Assessing the Environmental Impact of Water Consumption by Energy Crops Grown in Spain

The environmental impact of the water consumption of four typical crop rotations grown in Spain, including energy crops, was analyzed and compared against Spanish agricultural and natural reference situations. The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used for the assessment of the potential environmental impact of blue water (withdrawal from water bodies) and green water (uptake of soil moisture) consumption. The latter has so far been disregarded in LCA. To account for green water, two approaches have been applied: the first accounts for the difference in green water demand of the crops and a reference situation. The second is a green water scarcity index, which measures the fraction of the soil‐water plant consumption to the available green water. Our results show that, if the aim is to minimize the environmental impacts of water consumption, the energy crop rotations assessed in this study were most suitable in basins in the northeast of Spain. In contrast, the energy crops grown in basins in the southeast of Spain were associated with the greatest environmental impacts. Further research into the integration of quantitative green water assessment in LCA is crucial in studies of systems with a high dependence on green water resources.     

Does the Production of an Airbag Injure more People than the Airbag Saves in Traffic?

Social life cycle assessment (S‐LCA) has been discussed for some years in the LCA community. We raise two points of criticism against current S‐LCA approaches. First, the development of S‐LCA methodology has not, to date, been based on experience with actual case studies. Second, for social impacts to be meaningfully assessed in a life cycle perspective, social indicators need to be unambiguously interpreted in all social contexts along the life cycle. We here discuss an empirically based approach to S‐LCA, illustrated by a case study of an automobile airbag system. The aim of the case study is to compare the injuries and lives lost during the product life cycle of the airbag system (excluding waste handling impacts) with the injuries prevented and lives saved during its use. The indicator used for assessing social impacts in this study is disability‐adjusted life years (DALY). The results from this study indicate that the purpose of an airbag system, which is to save lives and prevent injuries, is justified also in a life cycle perspective.     

Characterizing,Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life‐Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches

Life‐cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners build models to quantify resource consumption, environmental releases, and potential environmental and human health impacts of product systems. Most often, practitioners define a model structure, assign a single value to each parameter, and build deterministic models to approximate environmental outcomes. This approach fails to capture the variability and uncertainty inherent in LCA. To make good decisions, decision makers need to understand the uncertainty in and divergence between LCA outcomes for different product systems. Several approaches for conducting LCA under uncertainty have been proposed and implemented. For example, Monte Carlo simulation and fuzzy set theory have been applied in a limited number of LCA studies. These approaches are well understood and are generally accepted in quantitative decision analysis. But they do not guarantee reliable outcomes. A survey of approaches used to incorporate quantitative uncertainty analysis into LCA is presented. The suitability of each approach for providing reliable outcomes and enabling better decisions is discussed. Approaches that may lead to overconfident or unreliable results are discussed and guidance for improving uncertainty analysis in LCA is provided.     

Heat island effects in urban life cycle assessment: Novel insights to include the effects of the urban heat island and UHI‐mitigation measures in LCA for effective policy making

Urbanization often entails a surge in urban temperature compared to the rural surroundings: the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. Such a temperature increase triggers the formation of pollutants worsening the urban air quality. Jointly, bad air quality and UHI affect ecosystems and human health. To alleviate the impacts on the population and the environment, it is crucial to design effective UHI‐mitigation measures. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an assessment tool able to capture the complexity of urban settlements and quantify their impact. Yet, as currently implemented, LCA neglects the interactions between the built environment and the local climate, omitting the resulting impacts. This study reviews the existing literature, showing the lack of studies that organically include interactions between the built environment and local climate in LCA. This forms the basis to identify the unsuitability of the current LCA framework for comprehensively capturing the impact of urban settlements. To overcome this limitation, this research offers a pathway to expand the LCA methodology, indicating the necessity to (a) couple the LCA methodology with climate models or physical relations that quantify the interactions between the local climate and the built environment; (b) include novel impact categories in LCA to address such interactions; and (c) use existing or ad hoc developed characterization factors to assess the impacts related to the UHI effect. The LCA community can build on the frame of reference offered by this research to overcome the current limitations of LCA and enable its use for a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of UHI and its mitigation measures.     

Life cycle assessment of emerging environmental technologies in the early stage of development: A case study on nanostructured materials

The use of nanostructured materials has been recently proposed in the field of environmental nanoremediation. This approach consists in using nanomaterials not directly, but as building blocks for the design of nano‐porous micro‐dimensional systems, overcoming the eco‐ and health‐toxicology risks generally associated with the use of nano‐sized technologies. Herein we report the use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as an eco‐design tool for optimizing the production of cellulose nanosponges (CNS), nanostructured materials recently developed for water remediation purposes. LCA was applied from the acquisition of raw materials to the synthesis of CNS (from cradle‐to‐gate), considering three production systems, from the lab‐level to a modeled scale‐up system. The lab‐scale LCA identified the main environmental hotspots, namely the energy‐consuming steps and the final purification of the material (washing step). In a second lab‐scale production, an improvement action could be implemented, switching the washing solvent from methanol to water and decreasing the washing temperature. A second LCA showed a reduced contribution to the impacts from the materials, while the global impacts remained within the same order of magnitude. A simulated scale‐up of the process allowed to optimize the energy‐consuming steps and the water consumption, through internal recycling. A third LCA assessed the resulting benefits and a decrease in the global impacts by two orders of magnitude. Our study contributes to the discussion of LCA community, providing a focus on the importance of scaling‐up of emerging technologies, namely nanostructured porous materials, highlighting the benefits of a LCA based approach since the very beginning of product design (eco‐design).     

Applying Life Cycle Tools and Process Engineering to Determine the Most Adequate Treatment Process Conditions. A Tool in Environmental Policy (12 pp)

Background The analysis of a wastewater treatment technology, under a expanded boundaries system which includes both the technology and the inputs required for its operation, quantifies the overall environmental impact that may result from the treatment of a wastewater stream. This is particularly useful for environmental policy makers being that a expanded boundaries system tends to provide a holistic view. The former view can be highly enriched with the use of process engineering tools, such as mathematical process modelling, process design, performance assessment and cost optimised models. Main Features The traditional approach used to assess waste treatment technologies is contrasted with a life cycle analysis (LCA) approach. The optimal design of a granular activated carbon adsorption (GAC) process is used as a model system to demonstrate the advantages of LCA approaches over traditional approaches. Further sections of the paper describe a mathematical framework for the assessment of technologies, design considerations applied in the cost optimised carbon adsorption model, the use of LCA techniques to perform an inventory of all emissions associated to the process system and, some of its environmental impacts. Results Economic and environmental considerations regarding the optimum process design are introduced as a basis for decision towards the selection and operating conditions of wastewater treatment technologies. Moreover, the use of LCA has revealed that the environmental burden associated with the wastewater treatment may produce a higher environmental impact than one that can be caused by untreated discharges. Conclusion The paper highlights the string advantages that environmental policy makers may have by combining LCA and process engineering tools. Furthermore, this approach can be incorporated into other existing treatment processes or for process designers.     

The Environmental Importance of Energy Use in Chemical Production

In many cases, policy makers and laymen perceive harmful emissions from chemical plants as the most important source of environmental impacts in chemical production. As a result, regulations and environmental efforts have tended to focus on this area. Concerns about energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, however, are increasing in all industrial sectors. Using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach, we analyzed the full environmental impacts of producing 99 chemical products in Western Europe from cradle to factory gate. We applied several life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to cover various impact areas. Our analysis shows that for both organic and inorganic chemical production in industrial countries, energy‐related impacts often represent more than half and sometimes up to 80% of the total impacts, according to a range of LCIA methods. Resource use for material feedstock is also important, whereas direct emissions from chemical plants may make up only 5% to 10% of the total environmental impacts. Additionally, the energy‐related impacts of organic chemical production increase with the complexity of the chemicals. The results of this study offer important information for policy makers and sustainability experts in the chemical industry striving to reduce environmental impacts. We identify more sustainable energy production and use as an important option for improvements in the environmental profile of chemical production in industrial countries, especially for the production of advanced organic and fine chemicals.     

Combining Material Flow Analysis,Life Cycle Assessment,and Multiattribute Utility Theory

Three assessment methods, material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle analysis (LCA), and multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) are systematically combined for supporting the choice of best end‐of‐life scenarios for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) waste in a municipality of a developing country. MFA analyzes the material and energy balance of a firm, a region, or a nation, identifying the most relevant processes; LCA evaluates multiple environmental impacts of a product or a service from cradle to grave; and MAUT allows for inclusion of other aspects along with the ecological ones in the assessment. We first systematically coupled MFA and LCA by defining “the service offered by the total PET used during one year in the region” as the functional unit. Inventory and impacts were calculated by multiplying MFA flows with LCA impacts per kilogram. We used MAUT to include social and economic aspects in the assessment. To integrate the subjective point of view of stakeholders in the MAUT, we normalized the environmental, social, and economic variables with respect to the magnitude of overall impacts or benefits in the country. The results show large benefits for recycling scenarios from all points of view and also provide information about waste treatment optimization. The combination of the three assessment methods offers a powerful integrative assessment of impacts and benefits. Further research should focus on data collection methods to easily determine relevant material flows. LCA impact factors specific to Colombia should be developed, as well as more reliable social indicators.     

Analyzing the Practice of Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a quantitative tool used to evaluate the environmental impacts of products or processes. With respect to buildings, LCA can be used to evaluate the environmental impacts of an entire building's life cycle. Currently LCA in the building area is used in a limited capacity, primarily to select building products. In order to determine the causality for the lack of whole‐building LCAs, focus groups with members of the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) communities were held. This article investigates the current level of knowledge of LCA in the AEC community and then discusses the benefits and barriers to the practice of LCA. In summary, the goal of the research was to identify why LCA is not used to its fullest potential in a whole‐building LCA. In an open forum and moderated setting, focus group participants were asked individually to self‐identify their experience with LCA, a brief education session on LCA was held, and then benefits and barriers to LCA were discussed. The focus group sessions were transcribed and systematically coded by social researchers in order to analyze the results. Hybrid flow and radar charts were developed. From the focus group results, the most important benefit to LCA was “provides information about environmental impacts.” The results did not identify a prominent barrier; however, building‐related metrics were ascertained to be one of the more crucial barriers. The benefits and barriers classified by this analysis will be utilized to develop a subsequent online survey to further understand the LCA and AEC community.     

Identifying Stakeholders’ Views on the Eco‐efficiency Assessment of a Municipal Solid Waste Management System

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most popular methods of technical‐environmental assessment for informing environmental policies, as, for instance, in municipal solid waste (MSW) management. Because MSW management involves many stakeholders with possibly conflicting interests, the implementation of an LCA‐based policy can, however, be blocked or delayed. A stakeholder assessment of future scenarios helps identify conflicting interests and anticipate barriers of sustainable MSW management systems. This article presents such an approach for Swiss waste glass‐packaging disposal, currently undergoing a policy review. In an online survey, stakeholders (N = 85) were asked to assess disposal scenarios showing different LCA‐based eco‐efficiencies with respect to their desirability and probability of occurrence. Scenarios with higher eco‐efficiency than the current system are more desirable and considered more probable than those with lower eco‐efficiency. A combination of inland recycling and downcycling to foam glass (insulation material) in Switzerland is desired by all stakeholders and is more eco‐efficient than the current system. In contrast, institutions of MSW management, such as national and regional environmental protection agencies, judge a scenario in which nearly all cullet would be recycled in the only Swiss glass‐packaging factory as more desirable than supply and demand stakeholders of waste glass‐packaging. Such a scenario involves a monopsony rejected by many municipalities and scrap traders. Such an assessment procedure can provide vital information guiding the formulation of environmental policies.     

Life Cycle Attribute Assessment

Practitioners of life cycle assessment (LCA) have recently turned their attention to social issues in the supply chain. The United Nations life cycle initiative's social LCA task force has completed its guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, and awareness of managing upstream corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues has risen due to the growing popularity of LCA. This article explores one approach to assessing social issues in the supply chain—life cycle attribute assessment (LCAA). The approach was originally proposed by Gregory Norris in 2006, and we present here a case study. LCAA builds on the theoretical structure of environmental LCA to construct a supply chain model. Instead of calculating quantitative impacts, however, it asks the question “What percentage of my supply chain has attribute X?” X may represent a certification from a CSR body or a self‐defined attribute, such as “is locally produced.” We believe LCAA may serve as an aid to discussions of how current and popular CSR indicators may be integrated into a supply chain model. The case study demonstrates the structure of LCAA, which is very similar to that of traditional environmental LCA. A labor hours data set was developed as a satellite matrix to determine number of worker hours in a greenhouse tomato supply. Data from the Quebec tomato producer were used to analyze how the company performed on eight sample LCAA indicators, and conclusions were drawn about where the company should focus CSR efforts.     

Insights on the Use of Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment for Environmental Footprinting

Establishing a comprehensive environmental footprint that indicates resource use and environmental release hotspots in both direct and indirect operations can help companies formulate impact reduction strategies as part of overall sustainability efforts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful approach for achieving these objectives. For most companies, financial data are more readily available than material and energy quantities, which suggests a hybrid LCA approach that emphasizes use of economic input‐output (EIO) LCA and process‐based energy and material flow models to frame and develop life cycle emission inventories resulting from company activities. We apply a hybrid LCA framework to an inland marine transportation company that transports bulk commodities within the United States. The analysis focuses on global warming potential, acidification, particulate matter emissions, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and water use. The results show that emissions of greenhouse gases, sulfur, and particulate matter are mainly from direct activities but that supply chain impacts are also significant, particularly in terms of water use. Hotspots were identified in the production, distribution, and use of fuel; the manufacturing, maintenance, and repair of boats and barges; food production; personnel air transport; and solid waste disposal. Results from the case study demonstrate that the aforementioned footprinting framework can provide a sufficiently reliable and comprehensive baseline for a company to formulate, measure, and monitor its efforts to reduce environmental impacts from internal and supply chain operations.     

LEED v4: Where Are We Now? Critical Assessment through the LCA of an Office Building Using a Low Impact Energy Consumption Mix

Various green building rating systems (GBRSs) have been proposed to reduce the environmental impact of buildings. However, these GBRSs, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) v4, are primarily oriented toward a building's use stage energy consumption. Their application in contexts involving a high share of renewable energy, and hence a low‐impact electricity mix, can result in undesirable side effects. This paper aims to investigate such effects, based on an existing office building in Quebec (Canada), where more than 95% of the electricity consumption mix is renewable. This paper compares the material impacts from a low‐energy context building to material considerations in LEED v4. In addition to their contributions to the building impacts, material impacts are also defined by their potential to change impacts with different material configurations. Life cycle assessment (LCA) impacts were evaluated using Simapro 8.2, the ecoinvent 3.1 database, and the IMPACT 2002+ method. The building LCA results indicated higher environmental impact contributions from materials (>50%) compared to those from energy consumption. This is in contrast with the LEED v4 rating system, as it did not seem to be as effective in capturing such effects. The conclusions drawn from this work will help stakeholders from the buildings sector to have a better understanding of building environmental profiles, and the limitations of LEED v4 in contexts involving a low‐impact energy mix. In addition, this critical assessment can be used to further improve the LEED certification system.     

Evaluation of Life Cycle Assessment Recycling Allocation Methods

Life cycle assessment practitioners struggle to accurately allocate environmental burdens of metals recycling, including the temporal dimension of environmental impacts. We analyze four approaches for calculating aluminum greenhouse gas emissions: the recycled content (RC) or cut‐off approach, which assumes that demand for recycled content displaces primary production; end‐of‐life recycling (EOLR), which assumes that postuse recycling displaces primary production; market‐based (MB) approaches, which estimate changes in supply and demand using price elasticities; and value‐corrected substitution (VCS), which allocates impact based on price differences between primary and recycled material. Our analysis suggests that applications of the VCS approach do not adequately account for the changing scrap to virgin material price ratio over time, whereas MB approaches do not address stock accumulation and depletion. The EOLR and RC approaches were analyzed using two case studies: U.S. aluminum beverage cans and vehicle engine blocks. These approaches produced similar results for beverage cans, which have a closed material loop system and a short product life. With longer product lifetimes, as noted with the engine blocks, the magnitude and timing of the emissions differs greatly between the RC and EOLR approaches. The EOLR approach indicates increased impacts at the time of production, offset by negative impacts in future years, whereas the RC approach assumes benefits to increased recycled content at the time of production. For vehicle engine blocks, emissions using EOLR are 140% higher than with RC. Results are highly sensitive to recycled content and future recycling rates, and the choice of allocation methods can have significant implications for life cycle studies.     

Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems—the BioImpact metric

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful method for assessing environmental impacts at large scales. Biodiversity and ecosystem diversity are...