基于生命周期方法的城市绿地生态环境负面影响评估

城市绿地在施工建设以及后续的管理养护工作中所产生的生态环境负面影响往往被人们忽视。本研究以天津市城市绿地为对象,通过实地调研收集数据,采用生命周期评价方法,分析比较了城市绿地乔木层、灌木层以及草本层在建设阶段和管养阶段各环节的生命周期环境影响。结果表明：在50年生命周期内,单位面积乔木层、灌木层和草本层的环境影响综合指数分别为5.51×10³、8.75×10³和1.60×10³。城市绿地最主要环境影响类型是淡水毒性和土壤毒性,分别占总环境影响的73.12%和26.65%。病虫害防治为城市绿地环境影响的主要贡献环节,贡献率高达99.33%。与农林业相比,城市绿地的管养环境影响指数处于中高水平。因此,城市绿地所造成的生态环境负面影响不可忽视。研究结果可以为城市建设低碳生态型绿地以及科学化管养提供参考依据。     

生命周期评价方法在城市生活垃圾管理中的应用研究述评

结合城市生活垃圾管理系统特征,系统归纳基于生命周期评价(Life cycle assessment,LCA)方法的城市生活垃圾管理模型的发展现状,并对LCA方法在城市生活垃圾管理中的实践以及在我国开展城市生活垃圾管理LCA研究的应用前景进行评述。分析表明,LCA是城市生活垃圾管理领域的重要工具之一,基于LCA方法的城市生活垃圾管理模型在全生命周期环境影响评价与识别、处置工艺选择与改进、可持续生活垃圾管理决策支持等方面具有十分重要的应用价值。中国在本地化生活垃圾管理系统LCA模型开发、清单数据库和评价指标体系构建以及与其他研究方法集成等方面面临挑战。     

东北有机及常规大豆对环境影响的生命周期评价

选择我国主要有机出口农产品之一——大豆作为研究对象,采用生命周期评价、DNDC模型、实地调研等方法建立大豆生命周期资源消耗和环境排放清单,分析比较了出口型有机大豆、国内消费型有机大豆以及国内消费型常规大豆的生命周期环境影响.结果表明:3种不同生产消费型大豆生命周期中资源消耗、酸化以及全球变暖对综合环境影响贡献最明显,基本上占到综合环境影响评价的30％左右,而富营养化和生态毒性的贡献率较低,小于10％.从生命周期的不同阶段分析,3种消费模式的大豆其运输阶段对于各分类环境影响的贡献率最大,都在50％以上,对资源消耗的贡献率更是在80％以上.从2种不同的生产模式看无论是全球变暖、酸化、资源消耗还是生态毒性都是有机大豆的环境影响综合指数小于常规大豆,对环境产生的负面影响较小.综合比较3种不同生产消费型大豆,国内消费的有机大豆生命周期综合环境影响最小,其环境影响综合指数比常规大豆的减少31％.但是出口有机大豆由于出口使运输距离延长,其生命周期综合环境影响最大.因此,环境管理关键是提倡有机产品本地消费以缩短运输距离,或者采用环保型能源以减少环境排放.     

产业生态学的回顾与展望

对产业生态学的基本概念、研究方法和研究热点进行了总结与评述,认为产业生态学是研究人类产业活动与自然环境相互关系的一门综合性、垮学科的应用科学。它采用工业代谢、生命周期评价和区域生态建设的方法对产业活动全过程(包括原材料采掘、原材料生产、产品制造、产品使用、产品用后处理)进行定性描述和定量模拟。产业生态学着眼于人类和生态系统的长远利益,追求经济效益、生态效益和社会效益的统一。     

产业生态学的回顾与展望

对产业生态学的基本概念、研究方法和研究热点进行了总结与评述,认为产业生态学是研究人类产业活动与自然环境相互关系的一门综合性、垮学科的应用科学．它采用工业代谢、生命周期评价和区域生态建设的方法对产业活动全过程（包括原材料采掘、原材料生产、产品制造、产品使用、产品用后处理）进行定性描述和定量模拟．产业生态学着眼于人类和生态系统的长远利益,追求经济效益、生态效益和社会效益的统一．     

基于GIS的产业生态学研究述评

产业生态学由于缺少关于空间分析的工具,使得研究结果因缺乏空间维度信息而影响对管理效率和精准度的支持。基于GIS的产业生态学相关研究已成为产业生态学研究的一个新的方向。为总结已有的研究成果并展望未来的研究方向,运用文献计量及对比分析的手段,系统分析了国内外基于GIS的产业生态学的相关研究进展,得出以下结论:当前基于GIS的产业生态研究主要集中在物质代谢、产业共生和生命周期评价3个方面,将GIS技术引入到物质代谢研究中,可以更好的展示物质代谢的时空分布格局,为物质代谢研究提供了一种新的方法;基于GIS技术,不仅可以更加高效地挖掘潜在的产业共生机会,还可应用于生态产业园的规划管理如企业的选址、空间布局等以及废弃物的回收再利用方面;将GIS与LCA耦合在一起,可以很好地补充、完善和管理传统数据,有助于探索产品、活动或工艺的环境影响的空间特性以及进行土地利用相关的环境影响评价。另外,国内外研究的侧重点也不尽相同。在物质代谢研究中,国内研究较少,仅在城市尺度上进行了基础设施的物质代谢及其存量分析,国外在国家、城市尺度上研究了铜、锌等金属的物质代谢情况;在产业共生研究中,国内侧重于生态产业园的研究,而国外侧重于城市尺度的产业共生机会识别的研究;在LCA的研究中,国内开展了基于GIS的生命周期评价数据库和产品材料信息管理系统的研究,而国外侧重于进行区域化的生命周期评价、进行土地利用影响类型的相关评价以及污染物的追踪,国内在该方面尚处于起步阶段。国内外在研究方法上存在共性,都是基于GIS的空间分析方法、缓冲区分析方法以及数据库技术等。未来将GIS作为一个平台,面向产业转型展开产业生态学综合理论方法的研究,可以为产业的可持续性管理提供有效支持。     

基于生命周期视角的产业资源生态管理效益分析——以虚拟共生网络系统为例

资源流代谢失调是造成产业生态环境问题的主要原因之一,对其实施基于共生网络的生态管理是解决问题的一项重要的举措。运用全生命周期的思想构建了产业资源共生网络及其管理框架,并运用全生命周期评价的方法,借助生命周期评价软件GaBi4,分别选取EI99 (Eco-Indicator 99)、CML2001 EP评价体系,以武汉市造纸产业为例,通过设计合理的资源流网络关系及中水、废纸和污泥利用共生路径构建虚拟造纸产业共生网络,对比分析了共生设计系统与原有共生系统的各生态环境影响。并运用市场价值法对共生设计系统的经济效益进行了分析。结果表明:共生设计系统总的环境影响、生态系统质量、人体健康、资源损耗值的环境影响分值分别为1166.445、814.509、148.893、203.045,比原有系统分别减少23.91%、19.15%、46.56%、22.26%;其中富营养化、气候变化的影响分别比原有系统降低56.25%、16.62%。同时共生设计系统通过污水、废纸及污泥的回用,在不考虑市场波动的情况下,可获得1018-7252万元的经济效益。可见,通过构建共生网络的生态管理是提高资源利用效率的有效手段之一,在一定条件下可取得明显的环境和经济效益。     

与环境管理有关的生态学研究展望

当今世界 ,自然资源和环境管理间有许多问题需要解决。决策者们不断寻求能够实现环境质量改善和有效、持续利用资源的途径和手段。而环境资源的有限性和稀缺性也决定了必须进行有效的环境管理 ,这就需要借助生态学知识作出有效可行的管理决策 [10 ,11]。然而 ,在我国目前的条件下 ,生态学家和环境管理人员之间通常缺乏联系 ,在许多方面难以达成共识。其原因 ,既有人为造成的 ,也有历史发展的原因。在解决有关生态保护、环境管理和可持续发展之间的种种问题时 ,对生态学研究所处的地位和作用缺乏理论上的探索。另一方面 ,生态系统管理比我们…     

生态系统管理的概念及其要素

生态系统管理起源于传统的自然资源管理和利用领域,形成于本世纪９０年代。它是指基于对生态系统组成、结构和功能过程的最佳理解,在一定的时空尺度范围内将人类价值和社会经济条件整合到生态 营中,以恢复或维持生态系统整体性和可持续性。生态系统管理要求收集被管理系统核心层次的生态学数据并监测生态系统的变化过程。生态系统管理的要素包括：有明确的管理目标,有确定的系统边界昨单元,基于对生态 深刻理解,有适宜的尺度     

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。     

Review of impact categories and environmental indicators for life cycle assessment of geotechnical systems

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has only had limited application in the geotechnical engineering discipline, though it has been widely applied to civil engineering systems such as pavements and roadways. A review of previous geotechnical LCAs showed that most studies have tracked a small set of impact categories, such as energy and global warming potential. Accordingly, currently reported environmental indicators may not effectively or fully capture important environmental impacts and tradeoffs associated with geotechnical systems, including those associated with land and soil resources. This research reviewed previous studies, methods, and models for assessment of land use and soil‐related impacts to understand their applicability to geotechnical LCA. The results of this review show that critical gaps remain in current knowledge and practice. In particular, further development or refinement of environmental indicators, impact categories, and cause–effect pathways is needed as they pertain to geotechnical applications—specifically those related to soil quality, soil functions, and the ecosystem services soils provide. In addition, many existing methods emerge from research on land use and land use change related to other disciplines (e.g., agriculture). For applicability to geotechnical projects, the resolution of many of these methods and resulting indicators need to be downscaled from the landscape/macro scale to the project scale. In the near term, practitioners of geotechnical LCA should begin tracking changes to soil properties and report impacts to land and soil resources qualitatively.     

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.     

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.     

From Life Cycle Assessment to Life Cycle Management

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely accepted methodology to support decision‐making processes in which one compares alternatives, and that helps prevent shifting of environmental burdens along the value chain or among impact categories. According to regulation in the European Union (EU), the movement of waste needs to be reduced and, if unavoidable, the environmental gain from a specific waste treatment option requiring transport must be larger than the losses arising from transport. The EU explicitly recommends the use of LCA or life cycle thinking for the formulation of new waste management plans. In the last two revisions of the Industrial Waste Management Programme of Catalonia (PROGRIC), the use of a life cycle thinking approach to waste policy was mandated. In this article we explain the process developed to arrive at practical life cycle management (LCM) from what started as an LCA project. LCM principles we have labeled the “3/3” principle or the “good enough is best” principle were found to be essential to obtain simplified models that are easy to understand for legislators and industries, useful in waste management regulation, and, ultimately, feasible. In this article, we present the four models of options for the management of waste solvent to be addressed under Catalan industrial waste management regulation. All involved actors concluded that the models are sufficiently robust, are easy to apply, and accomplish the aim of limiting the transport of waste outside Catalonia, according to the principles of proximity and sufficiency.     

Impact Assessment of Biodiversity and Carbon Pools from Land Use and Land Use Changes in Life Cycle Assessment,Exemplified with Forestry Operations in Norway

There is a strong need for methods within life cycle assessment (LCA) that enable the inclusion of all complex aspects related to land use and land use change (LULUC). This article presents a case study of the use of one hectare (ha) of forest managed for the production of wood for bioenergy production. Both permanent and temporary changes in above‐ground biomass are assessed together with the impact on biodiversity caused by LULUC as a result of forestry activities. The impact is measured as a product of time and area requirements, as well as by changes in carbon pools and impacts on biodiversity as a consequence of different management options. To elaborate the usefulness of the method as well as its dependency on assumptions, a range of scenarios are introduced in the study. The results show that the impact on climate change from LULUC dominates the results, compared to the impact from forestry operations. This clearly demonstrates the need to include LULUC in an LCA of forestry products. For impacts both on climate change and biodiversity, the results show large variability based on what assumptions are made; and impacts can be either positive or negative. Consequently, a mere measure of land used does not provide any meaning in LCA, as it is not possible to know whether this contributes a positive or negative impact.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: A review

In recent literature, prospective application of life cycle assessment (LCA) at low technology readiness levels (TRL) has gained immense interest for its potential to enable development of emerging technologies with improved environmental performances. However, limited data, uncertain functionality, scale up issues and uncertainties make it very challenging for the standard LCA guidelines to evaluate emerging technologies and requires methodological advances in the current LCA framework. In this paper, we review published literature to identify major methodological challenges and key research efforts to resolve these issues with a focus on recent developments in five major areas: cross‐study comparability, data availability and quality, scale‐up issues, uncertainty and uncertainty communication, and assessment time. We also provide a number of recommendations for future research to support the evaluation of emerging technologies at low technology readiness levels: (a) the development of a consistent framework and reporting methods for LCA of emerging technologies; (b) the integration of other tools with LCA, such as multicriteria decision analysis, risk analysis, technoeconomic analysis; and (c) the development of a data repository for emerging materials, processes, and technologies.