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.

     

Developing characterisation factors for land fragmentation impacts on biodiversity in LCA: key learnings from a sugarcane case study

Purpose

Habitat change was identified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as the main direct driver of biodiversity loss. However, while habitat loss is already implemented in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) methods, the additional impact on biodiversity due to habitat fragmentation is not assessed yet. Thus, the goal of this study was to include fragmentation effects from land occupation and transformation at both midpoint and endpoint levels in LCIA.

Methods

One promising metric, combining the landscape spatial configuration with species characteristics, is the metapopulation capacity λ, which can be used to rank landscapes in terms of their capacity to support viable populations spatially structured. A methodology to derive worldwide regionalised fragmentation indexes based on λ was used and combined with the Species Fragmented-Area Relationship (SFAR), which relies on λ to assess a species loss due to fragmentation. We adapted both developments to assess fragmentation impacts due to land occupation and transformation at both midpoint and endpoint levels in LCIA. An application to sugarcane production occurring in different geographical areas, more or less sensitive to land fragmentation, was performed.

Results and discussion

The comparison to other existing LCIA indicators highlighted its great potential for complementing current assessments through fragmentation effect inclusion. Last, both models were discussed through the evaluation grid used by the UNEP-SETAC land use LCIA working group for biodiversity impact assessment models.

Conclusions

Midpoint and endpoint characterisation factors were successfully developed to include the impacts of habitat fragmentation on species in LCIA. For now, they are provided for bird species in all forest ecoregions belonging to the biodiversity hotspots. Further work is required to develop characterisation factors for all taxa and all terrestrial ecoregions.

     

Life cycle assessment of a steam thermolysis process to recover carbon fibers from carbon fiber-reinforced polymer waste

Purpose

Carbon fibers have been widely used in composite materials, such as carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP). Therefore, a considerable amount of CFRP waste has been generated. Different recycling technologies have been proposed to treat the CFRP waste and recover carbon fibers for reuse in other applications. This study aims to perform a life cycle assessment (LCA) to evaluate the environmental impacts of recycling carbon fibers from CFRP waste by steam thermolysis, which is a recycling process developed in France.

Methods

The LCA is performed by comparing a scenario where the CFRP waste is recycled by steam-thermolysis with other where the CFRP waste is directly disposed in landfill and incineration. The functional unit set for this study is 2 kg of composite. The inventory analysis is established for the different phases of the two scenarios considered in the study, such as the manufacturing phase, the recycling phase, and the end-of-life phase. The input and output flows associated with each elementary process are standardized to the functional unit. The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is performed using the SimaPro software and the Ecoinvent 3 database by the implementation of the CML-IA baseline LCIA method and the ILCD 2011 midpoint LCIA method.

Results and discussion

Despite that the addition of recycling phase produces non-negligible environmental impacts, the impact assessment shows that, overall, the scenario with recycling is less impactful on the environment than the scenario without recycling. The recycling of CFRP waste reduces between 25 and 30% of the impacts and requires about 25% less energy. The two LCIA methods used, CML-IA baseline and ILCD 2011 midpoint, lead to similar results, allowing the verification of the robustness and reliability of the LCIA results.

Conclusions

The recycling of composite materials with recovery of carbon fibers brings evident advantages from an environmental point of view. Although this study presents some limitations, the LCA conducted allows the evaluation of potential environmental impacts of steam thermolysis recycling process in comparison with a scenario where the composites are directly sent to final disposal. The proposed approach can be scaled up to be used in other life cycle assessments, such as in industrial scales, and furthermore to compare the steam thermolysis to other recycling processes.

     

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.

     

Uncertainty in LCA case study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods

Purpose

Uncertainty is present in many forms in life cycle assessment (LCA). However, little attention has been paid to analyze the variability that methodological choices have on LCA outcomes. To address this variability, common practice is to conduct a sensitivity analysis, which is sometimes treated only at a qualitative level. Hence, the purpose of this paper was to evaluate the uncertainty and the sensitivity in the LCA of swine production due to two methodological choices: the allocation approach and the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method.

Methods

We used a comparative case study of swine production to address uncertainty due to methodological choices. First, scenario variation through a sensitivity analysis of the approaches used to address the multi-functionality problem was conducted for the main processes of the system product, followed by an impact assessment using five LCIA methods at the midpoint level. The results from the sensitivity analysis were used to generate 10,000 independent simulations using the Monte Carlo method and then compared using comparison indicators in histogram graphics.

Results and discussion

Regardless of the differences between the absolute values of the LCA obtained due to the allocation approach and LCIA methods used, the overall ranking of scenarios did not change. The use of the substitution method to address the multi-functional processes in swine production showed the highest values for almost all of the impact categories, except for freshwater ecotoxicity; therefore, this method introduced the greater variations into our analysis. Regarding the variation of the LCIA method, for acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity, the results were very sensitive. The uncertainty analysis with the Monte Carlo simulations showed a wide range of results and an almost equal probability of all the scenarios be the preferable option to decrease the impacts on acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity. Considering the aggregate result variation across allocation approaches and LCIA methods, the uncertainty is too high to identify a statistically significant alternative.

Conclusions

The uncertainty analysis showed that performing only a sensitivity analysis could mislead the decision-maker with respect to LCA results; our analysis with the Monte Carlo simulation indicates no significant difference between the alternatives compared. Although the uncertainty in the LCA outcomes could not be decreased due to the wide range of possible results, to some extent, the uncertainty analysis can lead to a less uncertain decision-making by demonstrating the uncertainties between the compared alternatives.

     

A generalized computational structure for regional life-cycle assessment

Purpose

Regional life-cycle assessment (LCA) is gaining an increasing attention among LCA scholars and practitioners. Here, we present a generalized computational structure for regional LCA, discuss in-depth the major challenges facing the field, and point to a direction in which we believe regional LCA should be headed.

Methods

Using an example, we first demonstrate that when there is regional heterogeneity (be it due to environmental conditions or technologies), average data would be inadequate for estimating the life-cycle impacts of a product produced in a specific region or even that of an average product produced in many regions. And when there is such regional heterogeneity, an understanding of how regions are connected through commodity flows is important to the accuracy of regional LCA estimates. Then, we present a generalized computational structure for regional LCA that takes into account interregional commodity flows, can evaluate various cases of regional differentiation, and can account for multiple impact categories simultaneously. In so doing, we show what kinds of data are required for this generalized framework of regional LCA.

Results and discussion

We discuss the major challenges facing regional LCA in terms of data requirements and computational complexity, and their implications for the choice of an optimal regional scale (i.e., the number of regions delineated within the geographic boundary studied).

Conclusions

We strongly recommend scholars from LCI and LCIA to work together and choose a spatial scale that not only adequately captures environmental characteristics but also allows inventory data to be reasonably compiled or estimated.

     

Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo,harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward

Purpose

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results.

Methods

We analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality.

Results and discussion

We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richness-related metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators—which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss—should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

We call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.

     

Impacts of onshore wind energy production on birds and bats: recommendations for future life cycle impact assessment developments

Purpose

Models for quantifying impacts on biodiversity from renewable energy technologies are lacking within life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). We aim to provide an overview of the effects of wind energy on birds and bats, with a focus on quantitative methods. Furthermore, we investigate and provide the necessary background for how these can be integrated into new developments of LCIA models in future.

Methods

We reviewed available literature summarizing the effects of wind energy developments on birds and bats. We provide an overview of available quantitative assessment methods that have been employed outside of the LCIA framework to model the different impacts of wind energy developments on wildlife. Combining the acquired knowledge on impact pathways and associated quantitative methods, we propose possibilities for future approaches for a wind energy impact assessment methodology for LCIA.

Results and discussion

Wind energy production has impacts on terrestrial biodiversity through three main pathways: collision, disturbance, and habitat alterations. Birds and bats are consistently considered the most affected taxonomic groups, with different responses to the before-mentioned impact pathways. Outside of the LCIA framework, current quantitative impact assessment prediction models include collision risk models, species distribution models, individual-based models, and population modeling approaches. Developed indices allow scaling of species-specific vulnerability to mortality, disturbance, and/or habitat alterations.

Conclusions

Although insight into the causes behind collision risk, disturbance, and habitat alterations for bats and birds is still limited, the current knowledge base enables the development of a robust assessment tool. Modeling the impacts of habitat alterations, disturbance, and collisions within an LCIA framework is most appropriate using species distribution models as those enable the estimation of species’ occurrences across a region. Although local-scale developments may be more readily feasible, further up-scaling to global coverage is recommended to allow comparison across regions and technologies, and to assess cumulative impacts.

     

A spatially explicit life cycle assessment midpoint indicator for soil quality in the European Union using soil organic carbon

Purpose

Improving land use assessment in life cycle assessment (LCA) is a priority. Recently, soil organic carbon (SOC) depletion has been proposed as a transformation and occupation midpoint indicator to estimate impacts on biotic production potential (BPP). SOC depletion is recommended by the European Union in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook as a land use indicator. There is a consensus method to calculate SOC depletion in LCA, and ILCD proposes a set of characterization factors (CFs), but these lack geographical discrimination.

Methods

Our method of calculation for midpoint CFs follows Brandão and Milà i Canals (Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1243–1252, 2013). We operationalize the method using SOC stocks from the LUCASOIL database of field measurements in Europe. We use potential natural vegetation (PNV) as the reference situation. CFs were calculated on a cell basis for 23 countries in Europe and grouped in three spatial scales (an administrative classification, NUTS II, and two biophysical classifications, ecoregion and climate region) according to soil type and land cover following a consensus map of cover classes. To evaluate the method’s results, CFs were applied in a case study.

Results and discussion

SOC stocks of European soils were obtained according to land use and soil type classes (excluding non-European Union countries) for the three spatial scales. A database of European transformation and occupation CFs is also presented and analyzed. The aggregation of CFs at biophysical scales (ecoregion and climate region) is similar, but NUTS II aggregation of CFs is problematic. The application of the CFs in the case study revealed significant differences compared to the outcome of using CFs collected from other land use models.

Conclusions

This paper is the first operationalization using field measurements of an updated version of the ILCD-recommended model for land use impacts in LCA. We obtained CFs for SOC depletion in Europe that can be nested within CFs suggested by ILCD since our results possess better spatial resolution but are only for European Union countries. The case study application highlighted the need for inventories to improve the spatial resolution of the life cycle processes to match the detail of LCIA models.

     

Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

In this paper, we summarize the discussion and present the findings of an expert group effort under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative proposing natural resources as an Area of Protection (AoP) in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).

Methods

As a first step, natural resources have been defined for the LCA context with reference to the overall UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) framework. Second, existing LCIA methods have been reviewed and discussed. The reviewed methods have been evaluated according to the considered type of natural resources and their underlying principles followed (use-to-availability ratios, backup technology approaches, or thermodynamic accounting methods).

Results and discussion

There is currently no single LCIA method available that addresses impacts for all natural resource categories, nor do existing methods and models addressing different natural resource categories do so in a consistent way across categories. Exceptions are exergy and solar energy-related methods, which cover the widest range of resource categories. However, these methods do not link exergy consumption to changes in availability or provisioning capacity of a specific natural resource (e.g., mineral, water, land etc.). So far, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most relevant type of future resource indicators (depletion, increased energy use or cost due to resource extraction, etc.). To address this challenge, a framework based on the concept of stock/fund/flow resources is proposed to identify, across natural resource categories, whether depletion/dissipation (of stocks and funds) or competition (for flows) is the main relevant aspect.

Conclusions

An LCIA method—or a set of methods—that consistently address all natural resource categories is needed in order to avoid burden shifting from the impact associated with one resource to the impact associated with another resource. This paper is an important basis for a step forward in the direction of consistently integrating the various natural resources as an Area of Protection into LCA.

     

Conceptualising attributional LCA is necessary for resolving methodological issues such as the appropriate form of land use baseline

Purpose

The purposes of this commentary are to further an on-going debate concerning the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and to respond to a number of arguments advanced by Soimakallio (Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1364–1375, 2016). The commentary also seeks to clarify the conceptual nature of attributional LCA.

Methods

The overarching approach for resolving the question of the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional LCA is to clarify what attributional LCA is seeking to represent, i.e. methodological questions can only be resolved if it is clear what the method is seeking to do. An illustrative example is used to explore the different results produced by ‘natural regeneration’ and ‘natural’ baselines.

Results and discussion

It is proposed that attributional LCA should be conceptualised as an inventory of anthropogenic impacts, conceptually akin to other forms of environmental inventory, such as national GHG inventories. The use of natural regeneration baselines is not consistent with this conceptualisation of attributional LCA, and such baselines necessitate further ad hoc or arbitrary adjustments, such as arbitrary temporal windows or the inconsistent treatment of natural emissions.

Conclusions

The use of natural regeneration baselines may be motivated by the impulse to make attributional LCA both an inventory-type method and an assessment of system-wide change. Pulling attributional LCA in two different directions at once results in a conceptually and methodologically incoherent method. The solution is to recognise attributional LCA as an inventory-type method, which therefore has distinct but complementary uses to consequential LCA, which is an assessment of system-wide change.

     

The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA

Purpose

Pesticides are applied to agricultural fields to optimise crop yield and their global use is substantial. Their consideration in life cycle assessment (LCA) is affected by important inconsistencies between the emission inventory and impact assessment phases of LCA. A clear definition of the delineation between the product system model (life cycle inventory—LCI, technosphere) and the natural environment (life cycle impact assessment—LCIA, ecosphere) is missing and could be established via consensus building.

Methods

A workshop held in 2013 in Glasgow, UK, had the goal of establishing consensus and creating clear guidelines in the following topics: (1) boundary between emission inventory and impact characterisation model, (2) spatial dimensions and the time periods assumed for the application of substances to open agricultural fields or in greenhouses and (3) emissions to the natural environment and their potential impacts. More than 30 specialists in agrifood LCI, LCIA, risk assessment and ecotoxicology, representing industry, government and academia from 15 countries and four continents, met to discuss and reach consensus. The resulting guidelines target LCA practitioners, data (base) and characterisation method developers, and decision makers.

Results and discussion

The focus was on defining a clear interface between LCI and LCIA, capable of supporting any goal and scope requirements while avoiding double counting or exclusion of important emission flows/impacts. Consensus was reached accordingly on distinct sets of recommendations for LCI and LCIA, respectively, recommending, for example, that buffer zones should be considered as part of the crop production system and the change in yield be considered. While the spatial dimensions of the field were not fixed, the temporal boundary between dynamic LCI fate modelling and steady-state LCIA fate modelling needs to be defined.

Conclusions and recommendations

For pesticide application, the inventory should report pesticide identification, crop, mass applied per active ingredient, application method or formulation type, presence of buffer zones, location/country, application time before harvest and crop growth stage during application, adherence with Good Agricultural Practice, and whether the field is considered part of the technosphere or the ecosphere. Additionally, emission fractions to environmental media on-field and off-field should be reported. For LCIA, the directly concerned impact categories and a list of relevant fate and exposure processes were identified. Next steps were identified: (1) establishing default emission fractions to environmental media for integration into LCI databases and (2) interaction among impact model developers to extend current methods with new elements/processes mentioned in the recommendations.

     

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.

     

Environmental impacts of food consumption and nutrition: where are we and what is next?

Purpose

This article introduces the special issue “LCA of nutrition and food consumption” and 14 papers selected from the Ninth LCA Food Conference in San Francisco in October 2014.

Literature overview

The scientific literature in the field of food LCA has increased more than ten times during the last 15 years. Nutrition has a high contribution to the total environmental impacts of consumption. Agricultural production often dominates the impacts, but its importance depends on the type of product, its production mode, transport, and processing. Local or domestic products reduce transports, but this advantage can be lost if the impacts of the raw material production are substantially increased. Diets containing less meat tend to be more environmentally friendly. Several studies concluded that respecting the dietary recommendations for a healthy diet would reduce the overall environmental impacts in the developed countries, although this is not a universal conclusion.

Contribution of this special issue

Eight papers analyze the environmental impacts of catering and in-house food consumption and impacts on sectoral and national levels; four papers presents tools and methods to better assess the impacts of nutrition and to implement the results in practical decision-making. Finally, two contributions analyze the impacts of food waste and reduction options.

Challenges for the environmental assessment of nutrition

(i) Comprehensive assessment. Most studies only analyze climate impacts, although data, methods, and tools are readily available for a more comprehensive analysis. (ii) Assessment of sustainability. The social dimension remains the weakest pillar. (iii) Data availability is still an obstacle, but significant progress has been made in recent years. (iv) Lack of harmonization of methodologies makes comparisons among studies difficult. (v) Land use. Enhanced consideration of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services is required in LCA. (vi) Defining the functional unit including nutritional aspects, food security, and health needs further work. (vii) Consumer behavior. Its impacts are still little assessed. (viii) Communication of the environmental impact assessment results to stakeholders including policy-makers and consumers needs additional efforts.

Research needs and outlook

(i) Development of holistic approaches for the assessment of sustainable food systems, (ii) assessment of land use related impacts and inclusion of ecosystem services, (iii) exploration of LCA results for policy support and decision-making, (iv) investigation of food consumption patterns in developing and emerging countries, and (v) harmonization of databases.

     

Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale

Purpose

To assess the diverse environmental impacts of land use, a standardization of quantifying land use elementary flows is needed in life cycle assessment (LCA). The purpose of this paper is to propose how to standardize the land use classification and how to regionalize land use elementary flows.

Materials and methods

In life cycle inventories, land occupation and transformation are elementary flows providing relevant information on the type and location of land use for land use impact assessment. To find a suitable land use classification system for LCA, existing global land cover classification systems and global approaches to define biogeographical regions are reviewed.

Results and discussion

A new multi-level classification of land use is presented. It consists of four levels of detail ranging from very general global land cover classes to more refined categories and very specific categories indicating land use intensities. Regionalization is built on five levels, first distinguishing between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine biomes and further specifying climatic regions, specific biomes, ecoregions and finally indicating the exact geo-referenced information of land use. Current land use inventories and impact assessment methods do not always match and hinder a comprehensive assessment of land use impact. A standardized definition of land use types and geographic location helps to overcome this gap and provides the opportunity to test the optimal resolution of land cover types and regionalization for each impact pathway.

Conclusions and recommendation

The presented approach provides the necessary flexibility to providers of inventories and developers of impact assessment methods. To simplify inventories and impact assessment methods of land use, we need to find archetypical situations across impact pathways, land use types and regions, and aggregate inventory entries and methods accordingly.

     

Data strategy for environmental assessment of agricultural regions via LCA: case study of a French catchment

Purpose

Various approaches have been carried out to extrapolate environmental assessments of farms to the regional level, some of them oversimplified and thus leading to high uncertainty. Key challenges include selection of a representative sample, construction of a farm/land use typology, the extrapolation strategy and dealing with data limitations. This work proposes a method for addressing these issues by means of statistically supported approaches.

Methods

We applied a novel approach combining a sampling strategy, estimation of farm-level environmental impacts via life cycle assessment (LCA), a farm typology based on principal component analysis, a statistical method for extending the farm sample given data constraints and finally linear extrapolation based on regional production and land use, taking into account the regional import–export balance. The approach was applied to a French case study, the Lieue de Grève catchment in the dairy-intensive Brittany region. A decision flowchart was developed to generalise the approach for similar applications dealing with farm and LCA data constraints. Additionally, innovative farm practices were modelled and their impacts propagated to the regional level.

Results and discussion

The typology developed identified “dairy”, “beef”, “dairy + beef” and “swine” farms as the dominant farm types in the region. While swine farms had the highest mean impacts per hectare, dairy and dairy + beef farms had impacts two to five times as high as those of beef and swine farms, when extrapolated to the entire catchment. Multiple linear regressions based on an extended farm and LCA dataset were used to predict environmental impacts of dairy farms lacking LCA results, thus increasing their sample size before extrapolation. The inclusion of farm and LCA data from a neighbouring region did not contribute to the accuracy of predicted impacts, as determined by comparing them to those of the farm closest to the dairy cluster’s centre, but rather produced significantly larger coefficients of variation. Results of tests of including two extra-regional farm and LCA datasets helped determine decision rules for the decision flowchart. Modelling of innovative agricultural practices yielded regional impacts consistent with previous estimates.

Conclusions

This approach provides a generalisable approach for farm typologies, data handling and regional extrapolation of farm-level LCAs, applicable to estimate environmental impacts of any agricultural area if requirements of a representative farm sample are met. We demonstrate the utility of the method for estimating effects of innovative agricultural practices on a region’s impacts by modelling practices on virtual farms and extrapolating their results.

     

Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences

Purpose

Identification of environmentally preferable alternatives in a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) can be challenging in the presence of multiple incommensurate indicators. To make the problem more manageable, some LCA practitioners apply external normalization to find those indicators that contribute the most to their respective environmental impact categories. However, in some cases, these results can be entirely driven by the normalization reference, rather than the comparative performance of the alternatives. This study evaluates the influence of normalization methods on interpretation of comparative LCA to facilitate the use of LCA in decision-driven applications and inform LCA practitioners of latent systematic biases. An alternative method based on significance of mutual differences is proposed instead.

Methods

This paper performs a systematic evaluation of external normalization and describes an alternative called the overlap area approach for the purpose of identifying relevant issues in a comparative LCA. The overlap area approach utilizes the probability distributions of characterized results to assess significant differences. This study evaluates the effects in three LCIA methods, through application of four comparative studies. For each application, we call attention to the category indicators highlighted by each interpretation approach.

Results and discussion

External normalization in the three LCIA methods suffers from a systematic bias that emphasizes the same impact categories regardless of the application. Consequently, comparative LCA studies that employ external normalization to guide a selection may result in recommendations dominated entirely by the normalization reference and insensitive to data uncertainty. Conversely, evaluation of mutual differences via the overlap area calls attention to the impact categories with the most significant differences between alternatives. The overlap area approach does not show a systematic bias across LCA applications because it does not depend on external references and it is sensitive to changes in uncertainty. Thus, decisions based on the overlap area approach will draw attention to tradeoffs between alternatives, highlight the role of stakeholder weights, and generate assessments that are responsive to uncertainty.

Conclusions

The solution to the issues of external normalization in comparative LCAs proposed in this study call for an entirely different algorithm capable of evaluating mutual differences and integrating uncertainty in the results.

     

Life cycle assessment of construction and renovation of sewer systems using a detailed inventory tool

Purpose

The objective was to provide comprehensive life cycle inventories for the construction and renovation of sewers. A detailed inventory was provided with multiple options of pipe materials, diameters and site-specific characteristics, and was embedded into the Excel^®-based tool SewerLCA. The tool allows for life cycle evaluation of different sewers. It was applied to determine the most important phases, processes, and related parameters involved in the construction and renovation of sewers from an environmental and economical perspective.

Methods

Comprehensive life cycle inventories (LCIs) for sewers construction and renovation were obtained by first identifying all processes involved after interviewing construction experts and reviewing sewer construction budgets from a Catalan company; and second transforming the processes into masses of materials and energy usage using construction databases. In order to run the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) the materials and energy typologies from the inventories were matched to their corresponding equivalents into available LCI databases. Afterwards the potential impacts were calculated through the use of LCIA characterization factors from ReCiPe. Life cycle assessment (LCA) was run several times to assess the construction of a 1-km-long sewer with varying pipe materials, life spans for each material, diameters, transport distances, site-specific characteristics, and pipe deposition options.

Results and discussion

The environmental impacts generated by construction and renovation of a 1 km Polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe with a diameter of 40 cm are mainly associated with pipe laying and backfilling of the trench. The evaluation of several pipe materials and diameters shows that the exclusion of renovation would underestimate the impacts by 38 to 82 % depending on the pipe materials and diameters. Including end-of-life phase for plastic pipe materials increases climate change (up to an extra 71 %) and human toxicity (up to an extra 147 %) impacts (among all diameters). The preferred pipe materials from an environmental point of view are precast concrete and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE). Site-specific characteristics (specially the presence of rocky soil and asphalt placement) and material life span have a high influence on the overall environmental profile, whereas changes in transport distances have only a minor impact (<4 %).

Conclusions

Environmental impacts during the construction and renovation of sewers are subject to differences in material type, site-specific characteristics and material life span. Renovation of sewers has a large influence on all potential environmental impacts and costs and, hence, should not be omitted in LCA studies. The treatment and disposal processes of plastic pipes at the end of their life has to be accounted in LCA studies.