Modelling the Valuesphere and the Ecosphere: Integrating the Decision Makers' Perspectives into LCA

Methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment have to cope with two critical aspects, the uncertainty in values and the (unknown) system behaviour. LCA methodology should cope explicitly with these subjective elements. A structured aggregation procedure is proposed that differentiates between the technosphere and the ecosphere and embeds them in the valuesphere. LCA thus becomes a decision support system that models and combines these three spheres. We introduce three structurally identical types of LCA, each based on one coherent but different set of values. These sets of values can be derived from the Cultural Theory and are labeled as ‘egalitarian’, ‘individualistic’, and ‘hierarchic’. Within Life Cycle Impact Assessment, a damage oriented assessment model is complemented with both a newly developed precautionary indicator designed to address unknown damage and an indicator for the manageability of environmental damages. The indicators for unknown damage and for manageability complete the set of indicators judged to be relevant by decision makers. The weights given to these indicators are also value-dependent. The framework proposed here answers the criticisms that present LCA methodology does not strictly enough separate subjective from objective elements and that it fails to accurately model environmental impacts.     

Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: Integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA

Methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment have to cope with two critical aspects, the uncertainty in values and the (unknown) system behaviour. LCA methodology should cope explicitly with these subjective elements. A structured aggregation procedure is proposed that differentiates between the technosphere and the ecosphere and embeds them in the valuesphere. LCA thus becomes a decision support system that models and combines these three spheres. We introduce three structurally identical types of LCA, each based on one coherent but different set of values. These sets of values can be derived from the Cultural Theory and are labeled as ‘egalitarian’, ‘individualistic’, and ‘hierarchic’. Within Life Cycle Impact Assessment, a damage oriented assessment model is complemented with both a newly developed precautionary indicator designed to address unknown damage and an indicator for the manageability of environmental damages. The indicators for unknown damage and for manageability complete the set of indicators judged to be relevant by decision makers. The weights given to these indicators are also value-dependent. The framework proposed here answers the criticisms that present LCA methodology does not strictly enough separate subjective from objective elements and that it fails to accurately model environmental impacts.     

LCA in Japan: policy and progress

A summary of the current Japanese activities related to Life Cycle Assessment are presented with a specific comparison of Life Cycle Impact Assessment in relation to European tendencies. Japanese organizations involved in LCA, recent legislation impacting LCA activities and LCA case studies are also tabulated. The LCA priorities of policy makers and industrialists are discussed in comparison and compared to those in the United States. Projects within the Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan and the Man-Earth Project are highlighted including the construction of a public LCI data base and the prediction of 21st century environmental crises.     

Enhancing life cycle impact assessment from climate science: Review of recent findings and recommendations for application to LCA

Since the Global Warming Potential (GWP) was first presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report, the metric has been scrutinized and alternative metrics have been suggested. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report gives a scientific assessment of the main recent findings from climate metrics research and provides the most up-to-date values for a subset of metrics and time horizons. The objectives of this paper are to perform a systematic review of available midpoint metrics (i.e. using an indicator situated in the middle of the cause-effect chain from emissions to climate change) for well-mixed greenhouse gases and near-term climate forcers based on the current literature, to provide recommendations for the development and use of characterization factors for climate change in life cycle assessment (LCA), and to identify research needs. This work is part of the ‘Global Guidance on Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment’ project held by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and is intended to support a consensus finding workshop. In an LCA context, it can make sense to use several complementary metrics that serve different purposes, and from there get an understanding about the robustness of the LCA study to different perspectives and metrics. We propose a step-by-step approach to test the sensitivity of LCA results to different modelling choices and provide recommendations for specific issues such as the consideration of climate-carbon feedbacks and the inclusion of pollutants with cooling effects (negative metric values).     

Irradiating the environment: Radiological impacts in life cycle assessment

One of the main shortcomings of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) when applied to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, is that there is currently no recognised procedure to deal with radionuclide emissions in the Impact Assessment stage. A framework which considers both human and environmental impacts is required and a methodology which is compatible with the other impact assessment approaches in LCA must be developed. It is important that the discussion is not only restricted to concepts, but that a working methodology is developed which can be readily applied by LCA practitioners. A provisional method is available for assessing radiological impacts on human health, but no consideration has been given to potential effects on the environment. A methodology is proposed in this paper which assesses irradiation of the environment using Environmental Increments (EI) as the quality standard. This approach is based on the same principles as for the Ecotoxicity classification group, and it represents a working methodology which can be continuously improved as knowledge in the area increases.     

Life cycle assessment as a decision support tool for bridge procurement: environmental impact comparison among five bridge designs

Purpose

The conventional decision-making for bridges is mostly focusing on technical, economical, and safety perspectives. Nowadays, the society devotes an ever-increased effort to the construction sector regarding their environmental performance. However, considering the complexity of the environmental problems and the diverse character of bridges, the related research for bridge as a whole system is very rare. Most existing studies were only conducted for a single indicator, part of the structure components, or a specific life stage.

Methods

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized method for quantifying the environmental impact of a product, asset, or service throughout its whole life cycle. However, in the construction sector, LCA is usually applied in the procurement of buildings, but not bridges as yet. This paper presents a comprehensive LCA framework for road bridges, complied with LCA ReCiPe (H) methodology. The framework enables identification of the key structural components and life cycle stages of bridges, followed by aggregation of the environmental impacts into monetary values. The utility of the framework is illustrated by a practical case study comparing five designs for the Karlsnäs Bridge in Sweden, which is currently under construction.

Results and discussion

This paper comprehensively analyzed 20 types of environmental indicators among five proposed bridge designs, which remedies the absence of full spectrum of environmental indicators in the current state of the art. The results show that the monetary weighting system and uncertainties in key variables such as the steel recycling rate and cement content may highly affect the LCA outcome. The materials, structural elements, and overall designs also have varying influences in different impact categories. The result can be largely affected by the system boundaries, surrounding environment, input uncertainties, considered impact indicators, and the weighting systems applied; thus, no general conclusions can be drawn without specifying such issues.

Conclusions

Robustly evaluating and ranking the environmental impact of various bridge designs is far from straightforward. This paper is an important attempt to evaluate various designs from full dimensions. The results show that the indicators and weighting systems must be clearly specified to be applicable in a transparent procurement. This paper provides vital knowledge guiding the decision maker to select the most LCA-feasible proposal and mitigate the environmental burden in the early stage.     

Life Cycle assessment for the implementation of emission control measures for the freight traffic with heavy duty vehicles in germany

This Life Cycle Interpretation Analysis describes the third phase of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for the implementation of emission control measures for the freight traffic with heavy duty vehicles (HDV) in Germany. It is based on the December 1999 edition of ISO/DIS 14043. Special emphasis was placed on the determination of the ecological effectiveness and the ecological category indicator effectiveness for each emission control scenario to compare the overall ecological-economical effect of the emission control measures investigated. Following these steps the main factors influencing the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results were identified. As a result of these analyses only a small number of influencing factors were detected having an influence on the LCIA result of more than 93%. Another result was the determination of the main influence factors from the different phases of the Product Life Cycle (PLC) of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system on the total weighting results of the bulk environmental load. The influence of the Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI) results on the final Category Indicator Effectiveness result was analysed. The contribution of the different phases of the PLC of SCR systems on the total result of the LCI with regard to the bulk environmental load was determined. A completeness and sensitivity check was carried out. The results of the study enable plausible conclusions and recommendations, the absolutely essential one being the introduction of an consumption-optimized Diesel engine with SCR systems by the reference year 2005 for ecological and economical reasons.     

Life cycle assessment for the implementation of emission control measures for the freight traffic with heavy duty vehicles in Germany

Under consideration of the overall Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI) results generated in the first step of this study and based on the February 1999 edition of ISO/DIS 14042 the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) for the introduction of various emission control measures for freight traffic heavy duty vehicles in Germany was determined. For the examination of the several mandatory elements 11 impact categories related to the freight traffic and the LCI results were focussed, the LCI results were designed to these impact categories and with characterization factors of the 11 selected and recognized characterisation models the categories indicator endpoints were quantified. The optional elements for normalization and weighting were added to the analysis. Two reference values are used for normalizing the category indicator results. For the weighting step 8 recognized evaluation methods were selected with the aim to aggregate the LCI results to an overall value. The results enable plausible conclusions with regard to the ecological advantages and disadvantages of the use of each analysed emission control technology for heavy duty diesel vehicles. As no perfectly clear ranking can be distinguished for evaluation of the generated results and no correlation can be established to the economical effects of the corresponding measurements, it is necessary to complete the currently existing recommendation from the ISO/DIS-Standards with further parameters. Phase 1: Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. Int J LCA vn6 (4) 231–242(2001) Phase 3: Life Cycle Interpretation (DOI: http://dx.doi.oro/10.1065/ Ica2000.12.044.3)     

In reply to hertwich & pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180 — 181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment”

Life Cycle Impact Assessment describes indicators and does not predict actual impacts. The value of an LCA is its comprehensive review of all stages of a product’s life cycle and its synoptic view of all relevant environmental issues. The current version of the 14042 draft describes the uniqueness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment approach which is distinct from other assessment techniques. The wording was designed to help users of the standard understand how and why LCIA is distinct from other assessment methods. In closing, we would like to highlight our opinion that the present document on the level of a DIS is sound, stable and practical within the ISO 14040 series of standards. We do not agree withHertwich & Pease that the present document prevents the use of LCIA. It makes a choice regarding the exclusion of weighting across categories in order to prevent misuse in deriving inappropriate claims. And for characterisation it has achieved a well founded synthesis. In addition, we strongly believe that this standard will stimulate the international scientific discussion of LCA and will substantially contribute to enhanced and more valuable applications of LCA in the future.     

Environmental impact assessment of biomass process chains at early design stages using decision trees

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Life cycle assessment (LCA) is generally considered as a suitable methodology for the evaluation of environmental impacts of processes. However,...     

Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments

Purpose

The paper provides a late report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative workshop “Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)—where we are, trends, and next steps;” it embeds this report into recent development with regard to the envisaged development of global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators and related methodologies.

Methods

The document is the output of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s workshop on “Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps.” The presentations and discussions held during the workshop reviewed the first two phases of the Life Cycle Initiative and provided an overview of current LCIA activities being conducted by the Initiative, governments and academia, as well as corporate approaches. The outcomes of the workshop are reflected in light of the implementation of the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative.

Results

The range of views provided during the workshop indicated different user needs, with regards to, amongst other things, the required complexity of the LCIA methodology, associated costs, and the selection of LCIA categories depending on environmental priorities. The workshop’s results signified a number of potential focus areas for Phase 3 of the Initiative, including capacity building efforts concerning LCIA in developing countries and emerging economies, the preparation of training materials on LCIA, the production of global guidance on LCIA, and the potential development of a broader sustainability indicators framework.

Conclusions

These suggestions have been taken into account in the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative in two flagship projects, one on global capability development on life cycle approaches and the other on global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. In the context of the latter project, first activities are being organized and planned. Moreover, UNEP has included the recommendations in its Rio + 20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and SETAC through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.     

Classification in LCA: Building of a coherent family of criteria

There is a very close analogy between Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and decision making tools such as the multicritcria approach. LCA is a particular model of a multicriteria decision making tool which is applied to environmental data. The similarities between LCA and multicriteria decision making tools are highlighted. The strict precision of multicriteria decision making tools is used to improve classification. For this, six dimensions (or axes of significance) of environmental impacts can be distinguished. The aim is to build a coherent family of environmental data from these considerations. Rules for the building of this family are proposed.     

Integrated municipal waste management systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic sustainability

Tools based on Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) are routinely used to assess the environmental and economic performance of integrated municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to quantify the environmental impacts, whereas Life Cycle Costing (LCC) allows financial and economic assessments. These tools require specific experience and knowledge, and a large amount of data.The aim of this project is the definition of an indicator for the assessment of the environmental and economic sustainability of integrated MSW management systems. The challenge is to define a simple but comprehensive indicator that may be calculated also by local administrators and managers of the waste system and not only by scientists or LCT experts.The proposed indicator is a composite one, constituted by three individual indicators: two of them assess the environmental sustainability of the system by quantifying the achieved material and energy recovery levels, while the third one quantifies the costs. The composite indicator allows to compare different integrated MSW management systems in an objective way, and to monitor the performance of a system over time.The calculation of the three individual indicators has been tested on the integrated MSW management systems of the Lombardia Region (Italy) as well as on four of its provinces (Milano, Bergamo, Pavia, and Mantova).     

Selection of industry specific burdens for life cycle inventories

This paper focuses on two principal areas of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-specific burdens in the electronics industry and burden selection criteria. The current list of environmental burdens generally used in the inventory phase of LCA does not cover many potential burdens and may bias the impact assessment stage. Most of the burdens used to date have been selected arbitrarily on data availability. This is a potential weakness in LCA methodology and new selection criteria are suggested for use in determining industry selective burdens to improve the accuracy and value of LCA’s.     

Environmental footprint of cultivating strawberry in Spain

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Strawberry is cultivated worldwide under different production systems. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology has been applied to evaluate...     

Environmental assessment of masonry mortars made with natural and recycled aggregates

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - This study used the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology (ISO 14040, ISO 14044) to quantify and compare the environmental impacts associated...     

Methodology for developing gate-to-gate Life cycle inventory information

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology evaluates holistically the environmental consequences of a product system or activity, by quantifying the energy and materials used, the wastes released to the environment, and assessing the environmental impacts of those energy, materials and wastes. Despite the international focus on environmental impact and LCA, the quality of the underlying life cycle inventory data is at least as, if not more, important than the more qualitative LCA process. This work presents an option to generate gate-to-gate life cycle information of chemical substances, based on a transparent methodology of chemical engineering process design (an ab initio approach). In the broader concept of a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), the information of each gate-to-gate module can be linked accordingly in a production chain, including the extraction of raw materials, transportation, disposal, reuse, etc. to provide a full cradle to gate evaluation. The goal of this article is to explain the methodology rather than to provide a tutorial on the techniques used. This methodology aims to help the LCA practitioner to obtain a fair and transparent estimate of LCI data when the information is not readily available from industry or literature. Results of gate-to-gate life cycle information generated using the cited methodology are presented as a case study. It has been our experience that both LCI and LCA information provide valuable means of understanding the net environmental consequence of any technology. The LCI information from this methodology can be used more directly in exploring engineering and chemistry changes to improve manufacturing processes. The LCA information can be used to set broader policy and to look at more macro improvements for the environment.     

Global life cycle impact assessments of material shifts. The example of a lead-free electronics industry

This book provides detailed information about comparative LCA of different solders used in electronics. As Life Cycle Impact Assessment, the Japanese LIME method is used.     

“Less is better” and “only above threshold”: Two incompatible paradigms for human toxicity in life cycle assessment?

The absence of spatial and temporal information in the data from a typical Life Cycle Inventory puts constraints on the possibilities of subsequent Life Cycle Impact Assessment to predict actual impact. Usual methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (often referred to as “less is better” methods) make only limited use of spatial and temporal information, because they predict concentration increases rather than full concentrations. As a consequence it does not seem possible to evaluate whether a threshold value is surpassed. The resulting poor accordance between the predicted impact and the expected occurrence of actual impact is a major problem. This problem is particularly relevant for human toxicity assessment, since the probability of surpassing thresholds here traditionally is the main point of attention. A considerable group of practitioners suggests to follow an “only above threshold” principle by introduction of assessment tools from risk assessment and environmental impact assessment in LCA. Intensive debate is going on about possibilities and limitations of “less is better” and “only above threshold”. The debate is obscured by two underlying discussions (about no-effect-levels and about data-availability) that are partly, but not fully intertwined. Both principles tend to be given fixed positions in these discussions, and are therefore often put forward as fundamentally different and incompatible with each other. This article entwines the discussions, shows parallels between both principles, and uses these parallels to present a new method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment of human toxicity from air emissions that — with limited data requirement from Life Cycle Inventory — can take as well threshold evaluation and spatial source-differentiation into account.