生命周期管理研究述评

生命周期管理起源于生命周期思想,它是生命周期思想在实践中的具体应用,是面向可持续生产和消费,对产品、工艺和服务的全生命周期环境影响进行的综合管理,是解决复合生态系统中结构无序、效率不高和代谢冗余的有效途径,是基于生命周期评价原则与框架的一种环境管理手段或环境管理体系。全面回顾了生命周期管理的起源与内涵,阐述了生命周期管理与生命周期评价的区别与联系,梳理了生命周期管理与环境管理体系的关系。对生命周期管理在产品、企业、行业及城市等层次上的具体应用进行了总结与述评,并对其今后需深入研究的方向进行了展望。     

Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: Review and prospectus

Goal, Scope and Background In face of continued declines in global fisheries landings and concurrent rapid aquaculture development, the sustainability of seafood production is of increasing concern. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) offers a convenient means of quantifying the impacts associated with many of the energetic and material inputs and outputs in these industries. However, the relevant but limited suite of impact categories currently used in most LCA research fails to capture a number of important environmental and social burdens unique to fisheries and aquaculture. This article reviews the impact categories used in published LCA research of seafood production to date, reports on a number of methodological innovations, and discusses the challenges to and opportunities for further impact category developments. Main Features The range of environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with fisheries and aquaculture production are introduced, and both the commonly used and innovative impact categories employed in published LCA research of seafood production are discussed. Methodological innovations reported in agricultural LCAs are also reviewed for possible applications to seafood LCA research. Challenges and options for including additional environmental and socioeconomic impact categories are explored. Results A review of published LCA research in fisheries and aquaculture indicates the frequent use of traditional environmental impact categories as well as a number of interesting departures from the standard suite of categories employed in LCA studies in other sectors. Notable examples include the modeling of benthic impacts, by-catch, emissions from anti-fouling paints, and the use of Net Primary Productivity appropriation to characterize biotic resource use. Socio-economic impacts have not been quantified, nor does a generally accepted methodology for their consideration exist. However, a number of potential frameworks for the integration of such impacts into LCA have been proposed. Discussion LCA analyses of fisheries and aquaculture call attention to an important range of environmental interactions that are usually not considered in discussions of sustainability in the seafood sector. These include energy use, biotic resource use, and the toxicity of anti-fouling paints. However, certain important impacts are also currently overlooked in such research. While prospects clearly exist for improving and expanding on recent additions to environmental impact categories, the nature of the LCA framework may preclude treatment of some of these impacts. Socio-economic impact categories have only been described in a qualitative manner. Despite a number of challenges, significant opportunities exist to quantify several important socio-economic impacts. Conclusion The limited but increasing volume of LCA research of industrial fisheries and aquaculture indicates a growing interest in the use of LCA methodology to understand and improve the sustainability performance of seafood production systems. Recent impact category innovations, and the potential for further impact category developments that account for several of the unique interactions characteristic of fisheries and aquaculture will significantly improve the usefulness of LCA in this context, although quantitative analysis of certain types of impacts may remain beyond the scope of the LCA framework. The desirability of incorporating socio-economic impacts is clear, but such integration will require considerable methodological development. Recommendations and Perspectives While the quantity of published LCA research for seafood production systems is clearly increasing, the influence this research will have on the ground remains to be seen. In part, this will depend on the ability of LCA researchers to advance methodological innovations that enable consideration of a broader range of impacts specific to seafood production. It will also depend on the ability of researchers to communicate with a broader audience than the currently narrow LCA community.     

农业生命周期评价研究进展

作为评价产品系统全链条环境影响的有效工具,生命周期评价（LCA）方法已广泛用于工业领域。农业领域也面临着高强度的资源和环境压力,LCA在农业领域的应用应运而生。旨在综述已有农业LCA研究的基础上,鉴别农业LCA应用存在的问题,并为农业LCA未来的发展提出建议。目前农业LCA存在系统边界和功能单位界定不明晰、缺少区域清单数据库、生命周期环境影响评价模型（LCIA）不能准确反映农业系统环境影响、结果解释存在误区等方面的问题。为了科学准确地衡量农业系统的环境影响,促进农业系统的可持续发展,文章认为农业LCA应该从以下几个方面加强研究,即科学界定评价的参照系、系统边界的扩大及功能单位的合理选取、区域异质性数据库构建与LCIA模型开发、基于组织农业LCA的开发以及对于利益相关者行为的研究。     

Using anticipatory life cycle assessment to enable future sustainable construction

The built environment is the largest single emitter of CO₂ and an important consumer of energy. Much research has gone into the improved efficiency of building operation and construction products. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is commonly used to assess existing buildings or building products. Classic LCA, however, is not suited for evaluating the environmental performance of developing technologies. A new approach, anticipatory LCA (a‐LCA), promises various advantages and can be used as a design constraint during the product development stage. It helps overcome four challenges: (i) data availability, (ii) stakeholder inclusion, (iii) risk assessment, and (iv) multi‐criteria problems. This article's contribution to the line of research is twofold: first, it adapts the a‐LCA approach for construction‐specific purposes in theoretical terms for the four challenges. Second, it applies the method to an innovative prefabricated modular envelope system, the CleanTechBlock (CTB), focusing on challenge (i). Thirty‐six CTB designs are tested and compared to conventional walls. Inclusion of technology foresight is achieved through structured scenario analysis. Moreover, challenge (iv) is tackled through the analysis of different environmental impact categories, transport‐related impacts, and thickness of the wall assemblies of the CTB. The case study results show that optimized material choice and product design is needed to reach the lowest environmental impact. Methodological findings highlight the importance of context‐specific solutions and the need for benchmarking new products.     

A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment

Understanding the environmental consequences of actions is becoming increasingly important in the field of industrial ecology in general, and in life cycle assessment (LCA) more specifically. However, a consensus on how to operationalize this idea has not been reached. A variety of methods have been proposed and applied to case studies that cover various aspects of consequential life cycle assessment (CLCA). Previous reviews of the topic have focused on the broad agenda of CLCA and how different modeling frameworks fit into its goals. However, explicit examination of the spectrum of methods and their application to the different facets of CLCA are lacking. Here, we provide a detailed review of methods that have been used to construct models of the environmental consequences of actions in CLCA. First, we cover the following structural modeling approaches: (a) economic equilibrium models, (b) system dynamics models, (c) technology choice models, and (d) agent‐based models. We provide a detailed review of particular applications of each model in the CLCA domain. The advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed, and their relationships with CLCA are clarified. From this, we are able to map these models onto the established aspects of CLCA. We learn that structural models alone are not sufficient to quantify the uncertainty distributions of underlying parameters in CLCA, which are essential components of a robust analysis of consequences. To address this, we provide a brief introduction to a counterfactual‐based causal inference approach to parameter identification and uncertainty analysis that is emerging in the CLCA literature. We recommend that one potential research path forward is the establishment of feedback loops between empirical estimates and structural models.     

Soil salinisation: a local life cycle assessment impact category

Salinity is an increasing environmental problem in agricultural ecosystems and is not adequately represented in conventional life cycle assessment (LCA) impact categories. It is often not the total quantity of salts emitted or the proportion of salt accumulated in the soil profile that is the primary mechanism for deteriorating soil conditions for irrigated salinity, rather the ratio of major cations in the soil matrix and the potential for colloid dispersion and reduced permeability. A soil salinisation potential (SP) is proposed as an indicator for irrigated salinity and potential soil degradation from poor irrigation practices. The indicator uses the threshold electrolyte concentration concept that predicts the adjusted sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)/ Electrical conductivity (EC) ratio that soil will no longer flocculate, but potentially disperse. The SAR is converted to a threshold EC and compared to the measured EC in order to develop a site-specific irrigation equivalence factor (EF). This site/region/process specific EF is then used to weight the sodium load to soil and repeated for each stage throughout the entire life cycle to determine the overall Salinisation Potential (SP). The data required for calculating the SP is generally readily available either on site or from the water chemistry of the local watercourses. Preliminary calculations simply require the volume, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), alkalinity and the concentrations of Na, Ca, and Mg of the irrigation water. The site/process/region specific nature of the indicator ensures a quantitative measure to enable comparisons between different systems and is useful for identifying stages in the life cycle of a product (particularly food products), where the potential for soil salinisation and soil degradation is most severe.     

环境足迹的核算与整合框架——基于生命周期评价的视角

环境足迹及其与生命周期评价(LCA)的关系是工业生态学关注的新热点。从探讨环境足迹与LCA的关系入手,以碳足迹、水足迹、土地足迹和材料足迹为例,分别对每一项足迹指标两个版本的核算方法进行了比较。根据清单加和过程的特点,将所有足迹指标划分为基于权重因子和基于特征因子两类,总结了两者的适用性和局限性。在此基础上提出了一个环境足迹核算与整合的统一框架。该框架基于LCA视角建立,但对系统边界和清单数据的要求相对灵活,因而也适用于生命周期不甚明确的情形。研究在一定程度上揭示了足迹指标的方法学实质,同时也为环境影响综合评估提供了一条规范化的途径。     

中国生命周期评价理论与实践研究进展及对策分析

主要分析了我国生命周期评价的理论与实践研究进展与数据库构建现状,针对当前我国生命周期评价理论与应用研究的关键薄弱环节即不确定性分析、本土化数据库构建、本土化生命周期环境影响评价模型构建,指出了利用泰勒系列展开模型进行符合我国产业链生产现状的精确、完整、具有代表性、具有时空动态特征的生命周期数据库构建的必要性;并指出需要根据我国国情(例如:环境、地理、人口、暴露等)来构建生命周期环境影响评价模型的紧迫性。     

Lifting the veil on the correction of double counting incidents in hybrid life cycle assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmentally extended input–output analyses (EEIOA) are two techniques commonly used to assess environmental impacts of an activity/product. Their strengths and weaknesses are complementary, and they are thus regularly combined to obtain hybrid LCAs. A number of approaches in hybrid LCA exist, which leads to different results. One of the differences is the method used to ensure that mixed LCA and EEIOA data do not overlap, which is referred to as correction for double counting. This aspect of hybrid LCA is often ignored in reports of hybrid assessments and no comprehensive study has been carried out on it. This article strives to list, compare, and analyze the different existing methods for the correction of double counting. We first harmonize the definitions of the existing correction methods and express them in a common notation, before introducing a streamlined variant. We then compare their respective assumptions and limitations. We discuss the loss of specific information regarding the studied activity/product and the loss of coherent financial representation caused by some of the correction methods. This analysis clarifies which techniques are most applicable to different tasks, from hybridizing individual LCA processes to integrating complete databases. We finally conclude by giving recommendations for future hybrid analyses.     

Material life cycle assessment in china

From the very beginning, the research of Material Life Cycle Assessment (MLCA) has been an important part of the ecomaterials research in China, and large numbers of researchers have been focusing their efforts on it. From 1998, and supported by the National High-tech Program-863 Projects, the study of some typical materials has been put into practice. Thus far, the first phase of the project has been finished smoothly. The practical MLCA methods have been developed, and the manufacturing technologies and processes of the steel and iron, aluminum, cement, ceramic, polymer and construction coatings have been assessed. The relevant assessment software has been developed. Reference systems are being set up for evaluation by studying typical materials. In this paper, the main achievements are reviewed. Some other developments of MLCA in China are also introduced.     

A screening level life cycle assessment of the ABB EU 2000 air handling unit

The screening level LCA places itself amongst the many approaches to LCA, including full LCA and streamlined LCA. The screening level LCA combines the quantitative nature of the full LCA with the low effort of the streamlined LCA. This paper presents, as an example, a screening level LCA of the EU 2000 air handling unit from ABB Ventilation Products AB, Sweden, using the Danish EDIP impact assessment method, the EDIP software and database. This study proved that major improvement potentials can indeed be identified with screening level LCA, and argues that the screening level LCA is a suitable approach in the early stages of a company’s life cycle engineering efforts Contact for the screening level LCA method Corresponding author at ABB Corporate Research     

Quantifying environmental impacts of primary aluminum ingot production and consumption : A trade‐linked multilevel life cycle assessment

Aluminum is one of the most used metals of modern civilization, but its production is responsible for multiple adverse environmental impacts mostly due to aluminum smelting and alumina refining. Previous life cycle assessments (LCAs) have aggregated alumina refining into a single global process even though refining processes are highly spatially differentiated and alumina is highly traded. Our work improves on existing LCAs of primary aluminum by including temporal and spatial differentiation in alumina refining and aluminum smelting and trade of alumina and primary aluminum ingots. We build country‐level impact factors for primary aluminum ingot production and consumption, with the spatial distributions of environmental impacts, from 2000 to 2017, by combining a trade‐linked multilevel material flow analysis with LCA using six midpoint categories of the ReCiPe method. Climate change impacts of primary aluminum production range from 4.5 to 33.6 kg CO₂ eq./kg. We then estimate the life cycle production‐ and consumption‐based environmental burdens of primary aluminum ingot by country. High spatial variations exist among impact factors of primary aluminum production. Aggregating the alumina refining processes into a single process may cause important deviations on the impact factors of primary aluminum ingot production (up to 38% differences in climate change impacts). Finally, we estimate the climate change impacts of worldwide primary aluminum production at 1.2 Gt CO₂ eq. in 2017 and untangle their spatial origins, localized at 70% in China. Overall, we show the importance of spatial differentiation for highly traded products that rely on highly traded inputs and offer recommendations for LCA practitioners. This article met the requirements for a gold‐gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges .     

Methodological framework to find links between life cycle sustainability assessment categories and the UN Sustainable Development Goals based on literature

Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) can be used as a tool to understand how products and operating systems can meet the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, existing linkages between SDGs and LCSA are limited and an analysis of coverage in literature is needed. In this paper, we propose a generic methodological framework establishing connections between LCSA categories at micro-level and SDGs at macro-level based on derivation from the literature. The qualitative heuristic research method developed builds on keyword literature search, bibliometric analysis, mapping, and narrative literature review for connection rationales. By using qualitative assessment levels, an assessment of linkages between LCSA categories and SDGs reveal that “technology development,” “public commitment to sustainability issues,” “access to material resources,” and “education provided in the local community” have the highest number of reported relationships with SDGs. Twenty-two LCSA categories were found with no direct/indirect connection with any SDG; reasons include absence of life cycle thinking perspective in SDGs and lack of sustainability-based discussion for workers, consumers, and value chain actors' stakeholder groups. Despite these gaps, the results provide new insights for industries looking to measure the contribution of their product systems along their life cycle in the context of SDGs supporting them to some extent, to select LCSA categories with either highest number of identified relationships to SDGs or that contribute to prioritized list of SDGs. The approach provides a starting point to improve transparency and consistency of reporting of sustainability performance of product systems by connecting LCSA to the global agenda for sustainable development.     

Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies at the lab scale: The case of nanowire‐based solar cells

Nanomaterials are expected to play an important role in the development of sustainable products. The use of nanomaterials in solar cells has the potential to increase their conversion efficiency. In this study, we performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) for an emerging nanowire‐based solar technology. Two lab‐scale manufacturing routes for the production of nanowire‐based solar cells have been compared—the direct growth of GaInP nanowires on silicon substrate and the growth of InP nanowires on native substrate, peel off, and transfer to silicon substrate. The analysis revealed critical raw materials and processes of the current lab‐scale manufacturing routes such as the use of trifluoromethane (CHF₃), gold, and an InP wafer and a stamp, which are used and discarded. The environmental performance of the two production routes under different scenarios has been assessed. The scenarios include the use of an alternative process to reduce the gold requirements—electroplating instead of metallization, recovery of gold, and reuse of the InP wafer and the stamp. A number of suggestions, based on the LCA results—including minimization of the use of gold and further exploration for upscaling of the electroplating process, the increase in the lifetimes of the wafer and the stamp, and the use of fluorine‐free etching materials—have been communicated to the researchers in order to improve the environmental performance of the technology. Finally, the usefulness and limitations of lab‐scale LCA as a tool to guide the sustainable development of emerging technologies are discussed.     

Development of a Consumer Environmental Index and Results for Washington State Consumers

Consumer choices affect sustainability of societal systems, and state governments increasingly are interested in environmental impacts of consumption. This article describes a Consumer Environmental Index (CEI) to track the impacts of product purchase, use, and disposal and applies this initial CEI to Washington State in the United States. CEI has modules for product and service use, upstream resource extraction and manufacturing, and downstream disposal. CEI uses hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) methods, combined with purchasing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Expenditure Survey. For Washington State, when human health and ecosystem toxicity impact was assessed with the TRACI/CalTOX methods, weighted aggregate and per consumer impacts in all categories increased during the 6 years from 2000 to 2005. For impacts per real dollar spent, only the CEI's climate change component declined, falling nearly 7% between 2000 and 2005. Purchasing details in the BLS expenditure surveys enable the CEI to track environmental impact details on 700 individual categories of products and services. For example, sugar, motor oil, and wood heat appear to have serious environmental impacts, whereas recycling of paper, cardboard, and food and beverage container discards can be as effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as cutting vehicle fuel usage nearly in half. Such results may serve to increase understanding of environmentally effective actions to reduce climate, human health, and ecosystem impacts of consumption.     

Land use and biodiversity indicators for life cycle impact assessment

Background  The primary purpose of environmental assessment is to protect biological systems. Data collected over the last several decades indicates that the greatest impacts on biological resources derive from physical changes in land use. However, to date there is no consensus on indicators of land use that could be applicable worldwide at all scales. This has hampered the assessment of land use in the context of LCA. Objectives  The Institute for Environmental Research and Education and its partner Defenders of Wildlife have begun an effort to develop the necessary consensus. Methods  In July 2000, they held a workshop attended by a diverse group of interested parties and experts to develop a preliminary list of life cycle indicators for land use impacts. Results  Their preliminary list of impact indicators includes: protection of priority habitats/species; soil characteristics: soil health; proximity to & protection of high priority vegetative communities; interface between water and terrestrial habitats/buffer zones; assimilative capacity of water and land; hydrological function; percent coverage of invasive species within protected areas; road density; percent native-dominated vegetation; restoration of native vegetation; adoption of Best Management Practices linked to biodiversity objectives; distribution (patchiness; evenness, etc.); and connectivity of native habitat. Conclusion  The list of indicators conforms well to other efforts in developing indicators. There appears to be convergence among experts in the field and in related fields on the appropriate things to measure. Future Prospects  These indicators are currently being tested in the United States. Further workshops and testing is planned towards developing internationally recognized indicators for land use.     

Life Cycle Assessment Software: Selection Can Impact Results

When software is used to facilitate life cycle assessments (LCAs), the implicit assumption is that the results obtained are not a function of the choice of software used. LCAs were done in both SimaPro and GaBi for simplified systems of creation and disposal of 1 kilogram each of four basic materials (aluminum, corrugated board, glass, and polyethylene terephthalate) to determine whether there were significant differences in the results. Data files and impact assessment methodologies (Impact 2002, ReCiPe, and TRACI 2) were ostensibly identical (although there were minor variations in the available ReCiPe version between the programs that were investigated). Differences in reported impacts of greater than 20% for at least one of the four materials were found for 9 of the 15 categories in Impact 2002+, 7 of the 18 categories in ReCiPe, and four of the nine categories in TRACI. In some cases, these differences resulted in changes in the relative rankings of the four materials. The causes of the differences for 14 combinations of materials and impact categories were examined by tracing the results back to the life cycle inventory data and the characterization factors in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods. In all cases examined, a difference in the characterization factors used by the two programs was the cause of the differing results. As a result, when these software programs are used to inform choices, the result can be different conclusions about relative environmental preference that are functions purely of the software implementation of LCIA methods, rather than of the underlying data.     

Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: Examining methods for product‐level supply risk assessment

The diversity of raw materials used in modern products, compounded by the risk of supply disruptions—due to uneven geological distribution of resources, along with socioeconomic factors like production concentration and political (in)stability of raw material producing countries—has drawn attention to the subject of raw material “criticality.” In this article, we review the state of the art regarding the integration of criticality assessment, herein termed “product‐level supply risk assessment,” as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment. We describe and compare three methods explicitly developed for this purpose—Geopolitical Supply Risk (GeoPolRisk), Economic Scarcity Potential (ESP), and the Integrated Method to Assess Resource Efficiency (ESSENZ)—based on a set of criteria including considerations of data sources, uncertainties, and other contentious methodological aspects. We test the methods on a case study of a European‐manufactured electric vehicle, and conclude with guidance for appropriate application and interpretation, along with opportunities for further methodological development. Although the GeoPolRisk, ESP, and ESSENZ methods have several limitations, they can be useful for preliminary assessments of the potential impacts of raw material supply risks on a product system (i.e., “outside‐in” impacts) alongside the impacts of a product system on the environment (i.e., “inside‐out” impacts). Care is needed to not overlook critical raw materials used in small amounts but nonetheless important to product functionality. Further methodological development could address regional and firm‐level supply risks, multiple supply‐chain stages, and material recycling, while improving coverage of supply risk characterization factors.