Currently, social, environmental, and economic risks and chances of bioeconomy are becoming increasingly a subject of applied sustainability assessments. Based on life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) aims to combine or integrate social, environmental, and economic assessments. In order to contribute to the current early stage of LCSA development, this study seeks to identify a practical framework for integrated LCSA implementation.
MethodsWe select possible indicators from existing suitable LCA and LCSA approaches as well as from the literature, and allocate them to a sustainability concept for holistic and integrated LCSA (HILCSA), based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In order to conduct a practical implementation of HILCSA, we choose openLCA, because it offers the best current state and most future potential for application of LCSA. Therefore, not only the capabilities of the software and databases, but also the supported methods of life cycle impact assessments (LCIA) are evaluated regarding the requirements of the indicator set and goal and scope of future case studies.
Results and discussionThis study presents an overview of available indicators and LCIAs for bioeconomy sustainability assessments as well as their link to the SDGs. We provide a practical framework for HILCSA of regional bioeconomy, which includes an indicator set for regional (product and territorial) bioeconomy assessment, applicable with current software and databases, LCIA methods and methods of normalization, weighting, and aggregation. The implementation of HILCSA in openLCA allows an integrative LCSA by conducting all steps in a single framework with harmonized, aggregated, and coherent results. HILCSA is capable of a sustainability assessment in terms of planetary boundaries, provisioning system and societal needs, as well as communication of results to different stakeholders.
ConclusionsOur framework is capable of compensating some deficits of S-LCA, E-LCA, and economic assessments by integration, and shows main advantages compared to additive LCSA. HILCSA is capable of addressing 15 out of 17 SDGs. It addresses open questions and significant problems of LCSAs in terms of goal and scope, LCI, LCIA, and interpretation. Furthermore, HILCSA is the first of its kind actually applicable in an existing software environment. Regional bioeconomy sustainability assessment is bridging scales of global and regional effects and can inform stakeholders comprehensively on various impacts, hotspots, trade-offs, and synergies of regional bioeconomy. However, significant research needs in LCIAs, software, and indicator development remain.
相似文献Purpose
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is a method that combines three life cycle techniques, viz. environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This study is intended to develop a LCSA framework and a case study of LCSA for building construction projects.Methods
A LCSA framework is proposed to combine the three life cycle techniques. In the modeling phases, three life cycle models are used in the LCSA framework, namely the environmental model of construction (EMoC), cost model of construction (CMoC), and social-impact model of construction (SMoC). A residential building project is applied to the proposed LCSA framework from “cradle to the end of construction” processes to unveil the limitations and future research needs of the LCSA framework.Results and discussion
It is found that material extraction and manufacturing account for over 90 % to the environmental impacts while they contribute to 61 % to the construction cost. In terms of social impacts, on-site construction performs better than material extraction and manufacturing, and on-site construction has larger contributions to the positive social impacts. The model outcomes are validated through interviews with local experts in Hong Kong. The result indicates that the performance of the models is generally satisfactory.Conclusions
The case study has confirmed that LCSA is feasible. Being one of the first applications of LCSA on building construction, this study fulfills the current research gap and paves the way for future development of LCSA.Life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) is being developed as a holistic tool to evaluate environmental, economic and social impacts of products or services throughout their life cycle. This study responds to the need expressed by the scientific community to develop and test LCSA methodology, by assessing the sustainability of a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant based on HYSOL technology (an innovative configuration delivering improved efficiency and power dispatchability).
MethodsThe methodology proposed consists of three stages: goal and scope definition, modelling and application of tools, and interpretation of results. The goal of the case study was to investigate to what extent may the HYSOL technology improve the sustainability of power generation in the Spanish electricity sector. To this purpose, several sustainability sub-questions were framed and different analysis tools were applied as follows: attributional and consequential life cycle assessment, life cycle cost (LCC) analysis and multiregional input-output analysis (MRIO), and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) in combination with social risk assessment (with the Social Hotspots Database). Visual diagrams representing the sustainability of the analysed scenarios were also produced to facilitate the interpretation of results and decision making.
Results and discussionThe results obtained in the three sustainability dimensions were integrated using a “questions and answers” layout, each answer describing a specific element of sustainability. The HYSOL technology was investigated considering two different operation modes: HYSOL BIO with biomethane as hybridization fuel and HYSOL NG with natural gas. The results indicated that the deployment of HYSOL technology would produce a reduction in the climate change impact of the electricity sector for both operation modes. The LCC analysis indicated economic benefits per MWh for a HYSOL NG power plant, but losses for a HYSOL BIO power plant. The MRIO analysis indicated an increase in goods and services generation, and value added for the HYSOL technology affecting primarily Spain and to a lower extent other foreign economies. The social analysis indicated that both alternatives would provide a slight increase of social welfare Spain.
ConclusionsThe methodological approach described in this investigation provided flexibility in the selection of objectives and analysis tools, which helped to quantify the sustainability effect of the system at a micro and meso level in the three sustainability dimensions. The results indicated that the innovation of HYSOL power plants is well aimed to improve the sustainability of CSP technology and the Spanish electricity sector.
相似文献Decisions based on life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) pose a multi-criteria decision issue, as impacts on the three different sustainability dimensions have to be considered which themselves are often measured through several indicators. To support decision-making at companies, a method to interpret multi-criteria assessment and emerging trade-offs would be beneficial. This research aims at enabling decision-making within LCSA by introducing weights to the sustainability dimensions.
MethodsTo derive weights, 54 decision-makers of different functions at a German automotive company were asked via limit conjoint analysis how they ranked the economic, environmental, and social performance of a vehicle component. Results were evaluated for the entire sample and by functional clusters. Additionally, sustainability respondents, i.e., respondents that dealt with sustainability in their daily business, were contrasted with non-sustainability respondents. As a last step, the impact of outliers was determined. From this analysis, practical implications for ensuring company-optimal decision-making in regard to product sustainability were derived.
Results and discussionThe results showed a large spread in weighting without clear clustering. On average, all sustainability dimensions were considered almost equally important: the economic dimension tallied at 33.5%, the environmental at 35.2%, and the social at 31.2%. Results were robust as adjusting for outliers changed weights on average by less than 10%. Results by function showed low consistency within clusters hinting that weighting was more of a personal than a functional issue. Sustainability respondents weighted the social before the environmental and economic dimension while non-sustainability respondents put the economic before the other two dimensions. Provided that the results of this research could be generalized, the retrieved weighting set was seen as a good way to introduce weights into an operationalized LCSA framework as it represented the quantification of the already existing decision process. Therefore, the acceptance of this weighting set within the respective company was expected to be increased.
ConclusionsIt could be shown that conjoint analysis enabled decision-making within LCSA by introducing weights to solve a multi-criteria decision issue. Furthermore, implications for practitioners could be derived to ensure company-optimal decision-making related to product sustainability. Future research should look at expanding the sample size and geographical scope as well as investigating the weighting of indicators within sustainability dimensions and the drivers that influence personal decision-making in regard to weighting sustainability dimensions.
相似文献Purpose
It has been claimed that in order to assess the sustainability of products, a combination of the results from a life cycle assessment (LCA), social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) is needed. Despite the frequent reference to this claim in the literature, very little explicit analysis of the claim has been made. The purpose of this article is to analyse this claim.Methods
An interpretation of the goals of sustainability, as outlined in the report Our Common Future (WCED 1987), which is the basis for most literature on sustainability assessment in the LCA community, is presented and detailed to a level enabling an analysis of the relation to the impact categories at midpoint level considered in life cycle (LC) methodologies.Results
The interpretation of the definition of sustainability as outlined in Our Common Future (WCED 1987) suggests that the assessment of a product's sustainability is about addressing the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty levels among the current generation, as well as changes in the level of natural, human and produced and social capital available for the future population. It is shown that the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty to some extent is covered by impact categories included in existing SLCA approaches. It is also found that the extent to which product life cycles affect natural capital is well covered by LCA, and human capital is covered by both LCA and SLCA but in different ways. Produced capital is not to any large extent considered in any of the LC methodologies. Furthermore, because of the present level of knowledge about what creates and destroys social capital, it is difficult to assess how it relates to the LC methodologies. It is also found that the LCC is only relevant in the context of a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) if focusing on the monetary gains or losses for the poor. Yet, this is an aspect which is already considered in several SLCA approaches.Conclusions
The current consensus that LCSA can be performed through combining the results from an SLCA, LCA and LCC is only partially supported in this article: The LCSA should include both an LCA and an SLCA, which should be expanded to better cover how product life cycles affect poverty and produced capital. The LCC may be included if it has as a focus to asses income gains for the poor. 相似文献Purpose
Sustainability assessment in life cycle assessment (LCA) addresses societal aspects of technologies or products to evaluate whether a technology/product helps to address important challenges faced by society or whether it causes problems to society or at least selected social groups. In this paper, we analyse how this has been, and can be addressed in the context of economic assessments. We discuss the need for systemic measures applicable in the macro-economic setting.Methods
The modelling framework of life cycle costing (LCC) is analysed as a key component of the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. Supply chain analysis is applied to LCC in order to understand the relationships between societal concerns of value adding and the basic cost associated with a functional unit. Methods to link LCC as a foreground economic inventory to a background economy wide inventory such as an input–output table are shown. Other modelling frameworks designed to capture consequential effects in LCSA are discussed.Results
LCC is a useful indicator in economic assessments, but it fails to capture the full dimension of economic sustainability. It has potential contradictions in system boundary to an environmental LCA, and includes normative judgements at the equivalent of the inventory level. Further, it has an inherent contradiction between user goals (minimisation of cost) and social goals (maximisation of value adding), and has no clear application in a consequential setting. LCC is focussed on the indicator of life cycle cost, to the exclusion of many relevant indicators that can be utilised in LCSA. As such, we propose the coverage of indicators in economic assessment to include the value adding to the economy by type of input, import dependency, indicators associated with the role of capital and labour, the innovation potential, linkages and the structural impact on economic sectors.Conclusions
If the economic dimension of LCSA is to be equivalently addressed as the other pillars, formalisation of equivalent frameworks must be undertaken. Much can be advanced from other fields that could see LCSA to take a more central role in policy formation. 相似文献Purpose
Cultures are increasingly recognised for their inherent value, yet, despite political and societal concern, culture is widely unrecognised in assessment techniques. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), a technique encompassing environmental, social and economic aspects, is growing in popularity. However, cultural values are rarely considered in LCSA. This paper reviews the meaning of culture; current efforts to include culture in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), social LCA (S-LCA) and LCSA; and aspects to address when investigating integration of culture in LCA, S-LCA and LCSA.Methods
A literature review was undertaken on definitions of culture, recognition of culture in policy and decision making, and how culture is incorporated into assessment techniques. The potential for integrating culture in LCSA was evaluated in terms of the potential benefits and challenges.Results
Culture is often intangible and inaccessible, which may then lead to a lack of recognition in decision-making processes, or if it is recognised, then it is relegated as an afterthought. Explicitly including consideration of culture within LCSA will allow its representation alongside other sustainability aspects. The challenges of representing culture within LCSA include recognising when ‘culture’ should be distinguished from ‘social’; culture’s dynamic nature; the data collection process; and the diversity of cultures between stakeholders and at different scales from community through to nation. The potential benefits of representing culture within LCSA include greater resonance of LCSA results with stakeholders; a more comprehensive decision support tool which appropriately accounts for values; and an assessment technique which may help protect communities and their diversity of cultures.Conclusions
Representing culture in LCSA is not straightforward and, to some extent, may be addressed through social indicators. However, developing LCSA to explicitly address cultural values has potential benefits. Future research should focus on opportunities for the development of (a) a culturally inclusive LCSA process and (b) additional cultural indicators and/or dimensions of existing LCSA indicators that represent cultural values. 相似文献Purpose
In the European Union project New Energy Externalities Development for Sustainability (NEEDS), power generation technologies were ranked by means of two sustainability assessment approaches. The total costs approach, adding private and external costs, and a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were used, integrating social, economic and environmental criteria. Both approaches relied on environmental indicators based on life cycle assessment. This study aims to analyse the extent to which the development of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) can draw on these ranking methods.Methods
The approaches to rank technologies in the NEEDS project are reviewed in terms of similarities and differences in concept, quantification and scope. Identified issues are discussed and set into perspective for the development of a potential future LCSA framework.Results and discussion
The NEEDS MCDA and total costs considerably overlap regarding issues covered, except for several social aspects. Beyond total costs being limited to private and external costs, most notable conceptual differences concern the coverage of pecuniary (i.e. price change-induced) external effects, and potential double-counting for instance of resource depletion or specific cost components. External costs take account of the specific utility changes of those affected, requiring a rather high level of spatial and temporal detail. This allows addressing intra- and inter-generational aspects. Differences between both ranking methods and current LCSA methods concern the way weighting is performed, the social aspects covered and the classification of indicators according to the three sustainability dimensions. The methods differ in the way waste, accidents or intended impacts are taken into account. An issue regarding the definition of truly comparable products has also been identified (e.g. power plants).Conclusions
For the development of LCSA, the study suggests that taking a consequential approach allows assessing pecuniary effects and repercussions of adaptation measures, relevant for a sustainability context, and that developing a life cycle impact assessment for life cycle costing would provide valuable information. The study concludes with raising a few questions and providing some suggestions regarding the development of a consistent framework for LCSA: whether the analyses in LCSA shall be distinguished into the three dimensions of sustainable development at the inventory or the impact level also with the aim to avoid double-counting, whether or not LCSA will address exceptional events, whether or not benefits shall be accounted for and how to deal with methodological and value choices (e.g. through sensitivity analyses). 相似文献Purpose
Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries.Methods
The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA).Results and discussion
Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components.Conclusions
The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology. 相似文献Improving human health is a long-lasting endeavour of mankind. In the field of social life cycle assessment (SLCA), the importance of human health is often highlighted, and further development of impact assessment methods has been recommended. The purpose of this article is to present a method for assessing human health impacts within SLCA.
MethodsBy using a systematic combining approach, knowledge and experience about assessing human health impacts were obtained from three previously conducted case studies. The first case study was about an airbag system, the second about a catalytic converter and the third about gold jewellery. The disability-adjusted life years (DALY) indicator was used for impact assessment in all three case studies.
Results and discussionBoth positive and negative human health impacts associated with the products were identified and assessed in the three case studies. For the airbag system, avoided health impacts in the use phase outweighed health impacts during production. For the catalytic converter, whether health impacts avoided exceeded health impacts caused or not depended on which time perspective regarding impacts was employed. Gold jewellery does not help avoiding any health impacts but caused considerable health impacts when produced at a certain location. Based on experience from these case studies, a generic human health impact assessment method was developed, and a life cycle human health typology for products was developed based on the method. The method provides a basis for analysis and interpretation of health impacts along product life cycles, and it is therefore important to report both positive and negative health impacts separately for different actors.
ConclusionsThe developed human health impact assessment method involves the assessment and comparison of both positive and negative human health impacts along product life cycles. In addition to the products assessed in the three case studies, we suggest additional products that could be particularly interesting to assess with the developed method, including medicines, seat belts, other conflict minerals, alcoholic beverages and products with a high chemical impact.
相似文献The purpose of this study is to provide an integrated method to identify the resource consumption, environmental emission, and economic cost for mechanical product manufacturing from economic and ecological dimensions and ultimately to provide theoretical and data support of energy conservation and emission reduction for mechanical product manufacturing.
MethodsThe applied research methods include environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC). In life cycle environmental assessment, the inventory data are referred from Chinese Life Cycle Database and midpoint approach and EDIP2003 and CML2001 models of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) are selected. In life cycle cost assessment, three cost categories are considered. The proposed environment and cost assessment method is based on the theory of social willingness to pay for potential environmental impacts. With the WD615 Steyr engine as a case, life cycle environment and cost are analyzed and evaluated.
Results and discussionThe case study indicates that, in different life cycle phases, the trend of cost result is generally similar to the environmental impacts; the largest proportion of cost and environmental impact happened in the two phases of “material production” and “component manufacturing” and the smallest proportion in “material transport” and “product assembly.” The environmental impact category of Chinese resource depletion potential (CRDP) accounted for the largest proportion, followed by global warming potential (GWP) and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), whereas the impacts of eutrophication potential (EP) and acidification potential (AP) are the smallest. The life cycle “conventional cost” accounted for almost all the highest percentage in each phase (except “material transport” phase), which is more than 80% of the total cost. The “environmental cost” and “possible cost” in each phase are relatively close, and the proportion of which is far below the “conventional cost.”
ConclusionsThe proposed method enhanced the conventional LCA. The case results indicate that, in a life cycle framework, the environment and cost analysis results could support each other, and focusing on the environment and cost analysis for mechanical product manufacturing will contribute to a more comprehensive eco-efficiency assessment. Further research on the life cycle can be extended to phases of “early design,” “product use,” and “final disposal.” Other LCIA models and endpoint indicators are advocated for this environmental assessment. Environmental cost can also be further investigated, and the relevant social willingness to pay for more environmental emissions is advocated to be increased.
相似文献Purpose
With the increasing concerns related to integration of social and economic dimensions of the sustainability into life cycle assessment (LCA), traditional LCA approach has been transformed into a new concept, which is called as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This study aims to contribute the existing LCSA framework by integrating several social and economic indicators to demonstrate the usefulness of input–output modeling on quantifying sustainability impacts. Additionally, inclusion of all indirect supply chain-related impacts provides an economy-wide analysis and a macro-level LCSA. Current research also aims to identify and outline economic, social, and environmental impacts, termed as triple bottom line (TBL), of the US residential and commercial buildings encompassing building construction, operation, and disposal phases.Methods
To achieve this goal, TBL economic input–output based hybrid LCA model is utilized for assessing building sustainability of the US residential and commercial buildings. Residential buildings include single and multi-family structures, while medical buildings, hospitals, special care buildings, office buildings, including financial buildings, multi-merchandise shopping, beverage and food establishments, warehouses, and other commercial structures are classified as commercial buildings according to the US Department of Commerce. In this analysis, 16 macro-level sustainability assessment indicators were chosen and divided into three main categories, namely environmental, social, and economic indicators.Results and discussion
Analysis results revealed that construction phase, electricity use, and commuting played a crucial role in much of the sustainability impact categories. The electricity use was the most dominant component of the environmental impacts with more than 50 % of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption through all life cycle stages of the US buildings. In addition, construction phase has the largest share in income category with 60 % of the total income generated through residential building’s life cycle. Residential buildings have higher shares in all of the sustainability impact categories due to their relatively higher economic activity and different supply chain characteristics.Conclusions
This paper is an important attempt toward integrating the TBL perspective into LCSA framework. Policymakers can benefit from such approach and quantify macro-level environmental, economic, and social impacts of their policy implications simultaneously. Another important outcome of this study is that focusing only environmental impacts may misguide decision-makers and compromise social and economic benefits while trying to reduce environmental impacts. Hence, instead of focusing on environmental impacts only, this study filled the gap about analyzing sustainability impacts of buildings from a holistic perspective. 相似文献Purpose
Quantitative life cycle sustainable assessment requires a complex and multidimensional understanding, which cannot be fully covered by the current portfolio of reductionist-oriented tools. Therefore, there is a dire need on a new generation of modeling tools and approaches that can quantitatively assess the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability in an integrated way. To this end, this research aims to present a practical and novel approach for (1) broadening the existing life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework by considering macrolevel environmental, economic, and social impacts (termed as the triple bottom line), simultaneously, (2) deepening the existing LCSA framework by capturing the complex dynamic relationships between social, environmental, and economic indicators through causal loop modeling, (3) understanding the dynamic complexity of transportation sustainability for the triple bottom line impacts of alternative vehicles, and finally (4) investigating the impacts of various vehicle-specific scenarios as a novel approach for selection of a macrolevel functional unit considering all of the complex interactions in the environmental, social, and economic aspects.Methods
To alleviate these research objectives, we presented a novel methodology to quantify macrolevel social, economic, and environmental impacts of passenger vehicles from an integrated system analysis perspective. An integrated dynamic LCSA model is utilized to analyze the environmental, economic, and social life cycle impact as well as life cycle cost of alternative vehicles in the USA. System dynamics modeling is developed to simulate the US passenger transportation system and its interactions with economy, the environment, and society. Analysis covers manufacturing and operation phase impacts of internal combustion vehicles (ICVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and battery electric vehicles (BEVs). In total, seven macrolevel indicators are selected; global warming potential, particulate matter formation, photochemical oxidant formation, vehicle ownership cost, contribution to gross domestic product, employment generation, and human health impacts. Additionally, contribution of vehicle choices to global atmospheric temperature rise and public welfare is investigated.Results and discussion
BEVs are found to be a better alternative for most of sustainability impact categories. While some of the benefits such as contribution to employment and GDP, CO2 emission reduction potential of BEVs become greater toward 2050, other sustainability indicators including vehicle ownership cost and human health impacts of BEVs are higher than the other vehicle types on 2010s and 2020s. While the impact shares of manufacturing and operation phases are similar in the early years of 2010s, the contribution of manufacturing phase becomes higher as the vehicle performances increase toward 2050. Analysis results revealed that the US transportation sector, alone, cannot reduce the rapidly increasing atmospheric temperature and the negative impacts of the global climate change, even though the entire fleet is replaced with BEVs. Reducing the atmospheric climate change requires much more ambitious targets and international collaborative efforts. The use of different vehicle types has a small impact on public welfare, which is a function of income, education, and life expectancy indexes.Conclusions
The authors strongly recommend that the dynamic complex and mutual interactions between sustainability indicators should be considered for the future LCSA framework. This approach will be critical to deepen the existing LCSA framework and to go beyond the current LCSA understanding, which provide a snapshot analysis with an isolated view of all pillars of sustainability. Overall, this research is a first empirical study and an important attempt toward developing integrated and dynamic LCSA framework for sustainable transportation research.As knowledge grows of the potentially harmful effects of chemicals in widespread use, emerging contaminants have become a major source of concern and uncertainty for public health officials and water quality managers. Perfluorinated alkyl substances, often referred to as perfluorinated compounds, have come under recent scrutiny and are present in groundwater at many sites across the USA. We examine the life cycle impacts of treating drinking water at one such site.
MethodsWe assembled life cycle models for groundwater treatment and bottled water delivery to residents of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, where wells were recently taken out of service due to concerns related to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination. Two treatment methods, granular activated carbon filtration and ion-exchange columns, were modeled under a range of contaminant concentrations covering three orders of magnitude: 0.7, 7.0, and 70 μg/L PFAS. On-site infrastructure, operations, and adsorbent cycling were included in models. Impacts of bottled water production and supply were assessed using two data sets reflecting a range of production and supply chain assumptions. Uncertainty in input data was captured using Monte Carlo simulations.
Results and discussionResults show that for contaminant concentrations below 70 μg/L, the dominant contributor to life cycle impacts is electricity use at the treatment facility. Production, reactivation, and disposal of treatment media become major sources of impact only at very high PFAS concentrations. Though the life cycle impacts of bottled water are up to three orders of magnitude higher than remediated groundwater on a volumetric basis, supplementing a contaminated water supply with bottled drinking water may result in lower life cycle human health impacts when only a small proportion of the total population is vulnerable.
ConclusionsThese results provide quantitative data and proposed scenarios for water quality managers and risk management officials in developing plans to address PFAS contamination and emerging contaminants in general. However, more information on the direct human health effects of these poorly understood pollutants is needed before the trade-offs in life cycle health impacts can be comprehensively assessed.
相似文献The social aspects of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) systems are underpinning their sustainability and effectiveness. The assessment of these systems from a life cycle perspective is widespread throughout environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), but few studies have used social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). The present study is an innovative review with the objective to analyse and describe the current level of development of S-LCA applications in MSWM, and to identify the main methodological challenges and best practices, aiming at recommending approaches to harmonise future S-LCA applications in MSWM.
Materials and methodsA systematic review of the literature found 36 relevant scientific articles. These were submitted to bibliometric and content analysis, which includes an analysis of how methodological aspects of the four phases of S-LCA were applied in comparison with best practice and existing guidelines.
Results and discussionThere was a predominance of case studies in developing countries (59%) and evaluation of the stages of collection/transportation, pre-processing (sorting) and landfilling (55%). There were more studies focusing on stakeholders, “workers” and “local communities” and in the impact subcategories “employment”, “working hours”, “health and safety/working conditions”, “community involvement/participation” and “health and safety/living conditions of community”. There was great variability in the application of the method (47% of the studies included methodological developments). However, the 39% based on UNEP guidelines were closer to a methodological consensus.
ConclusionIn general, studies need more detail and clarity in describing the methodological decisions used. Improvements are needed for issues that limit the S-LCA method, including the difficulties of covering the entire life cycle, relating impacts to the functional unit, standardizing impact assessment methods, addressing allocation and data quality issues and interpretation of results and their limitations. Improvements can be achieved by using participatory methods in the selection of categories, subcategories and impact indicators, as well as by clarifying the definition of a product system and detailing “cut-off criteria” of processes/organizations and the impact of these decisions on results.
相似文献In social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), we can distinguish two main types of impact assessment (LCIA): type I can be seen as a reporting approach with the use of performance reference points and type II aims at including cause-effect chains or impact pathways in the analysis. Given the heterogeneity of those type II approaches, this review provides a classification of existing type II approaches.
MethodsWe reviewed a total of 28 articles against the background of their main purpose, the method used, the issues covered and the origin of data (observation/characterization/ measurement). We checked the articles against (i) the reflection of an impact pathway, (ii) the availability of so-called inventory and impact indicators, and (iii) the presence of characterization models or factors translating correlations or causality.
Results and discussionThe analysis reveals three main paths to include impact pathways in S-LCA, which differ in authors’ intentions: (1) some studies identify and propose variables composing impact pathways, or frameworks gathering several pathways; (2) other studies investigate or test known pathways empirically, and until now seek mainly to link income data with health impacts at a macro scale, and (3) a last batch applies known and already quantified characterization models or factors from other research works in case studies. Until now, these case studies focus mainly on income-related social effects or on health impacts. Further, each path is further characterized and classified under nine approaches. Our findings highlight not only the heterogeneous nature of approaches, but also their common denominator which is to not consider phenomena or impacts in isolation but to consider them in relation to their sources or further impacts. It should be noted that type II studies are not only limited to quantitative approaches and variables, but can also use more qualitative variables and methods.
ConclusionsThe presented classification may be used as a guidance tool for authors to make their methodological choices. Also, our findings indicate the opportunity of extending future type II S-LCA research to variables tackled in type I studies (e.g., safe and fair employment and working conditions), beyond pathways including incomes and health impacts. This can be done by using theories from social sciences for the identification of impact pathways. Those could then further be investigated through statistical approaches or in the framework of S-LCA case studies, with specific data and potentially more qualitative methods to analyze causality or social mechanisms.
相似文献The introduction of renewable materials into automotive applications is perceived as an innovative lightweight solution. Wood-based materials are advantageous in that they have potentially lower environmental impacts as compared with other materials such as steel. However, using wood per se does not automatically ensure more sustainability. Few prospective sustainability assessment methods or studies on the use of wood-based materials in automotive applications have been carried out, although these are needed to reduce unintended, negative sustainability effects and to support sustainable oriented research and innovation. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the potential sustainability effects and consequences of introducing a wood-based component into an automotive application.
MethodsA combination of methods was used to analyze the potential sustainability effects when introducing wood into automotive applications. This prospective life cycle sustainability analysis solely relied on secondary data. The environmental impacts were analyzed using a simplified environmental life cycle assessment on the product level. A multi-regional input-output-based assessment was conducted to model the country-specific environmental and socioeconomic consequences. The potential shift in social risks and opportunities on a national scale was analyzed by conducting a generic social life cycle assessment. Various aspects of each approach differ, with each providing a specific perspective of the system under study.
Results and discussionThe results indicate that implementing wood into automotive application can have environmental, social, and economic benefits, according to most of the indicators analyzed. Mostly due to the product weight reduction due to the use of a wood-based component, the results show that environmental impacts decrease. Some possible consequences of using wood-based materials are increased value added and increasing the number of jobs in European countries. Similarly, the social risks and opportunities are shifted from countries all over the world to European countries, which perform better than developing countries according to several indicators. However, some indicators, such as migrant acceptance or local supplier quantity, perform better in the current situation.
ConclusionsThe presented case study is particularly notable, because the results clearly indicate the advantages of using wood-based materials in automotive applications, although the application of such relatively holistic and complex approaches often may lead to rather indifferent pictures. Policy makers, researchers, and companies can apply this combination of methods that rely solely on generic data to obtain both feasible and informative results. These methods also allow users to link the product level assessment with a regional and social perspective and screen critical topics to support sustainability research and innovation.
相似文献