Critical review: a summary of the current state-of-practice

Purpose

Much collective wisdom and experience have been gained as an increasing number of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reviews are conducted. However, specifics on how and when to conduct critical review of LCA studies are still lacking. Toward this need, a technical session entitled “LCA Critical Review” was held during the Life Cycle Management (LCM) conference in Gothenburg, Sweden, 26 August 2013. The goal of the session was to have experts address LCA critical review as well as engage attendees in discussing gaps in the current guidance and how the review process can be improved.

Methods

The LCM session consisted of six presentations followed by open discussion with all session attendees. This paper begins with a review of the current state-of-the-practice in LCA critical review (CR) followed by a summary of the LCM session. It concludes with suggestions for how the newly drafted technical specification, ISO TS 14071 Critical review processes and reviewer competencies, can be improved as it is being developed.

Results and discussion

ISO TS 14071 promises to provide additional guidance to move the practice forward. But at only eight pages in length, its potential effectiveness appears moderate. Additional detailed guidance is needed to move the critical review process toward increased uniformity and clarity of practice, for example, when critical review is necessary.

Conclusions

A session on LCA critical review is planned to be held during the Life Cycle Management 2015 conference which will occur in Bordeaux, France (http://lcm2015.org/). Discussion on these issues related to LCA review will be continued.     

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Purpose

As a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

Results

Recommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for.

Discussion

The presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected.

Conclusions and recommendations

In this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional ecological models running in the foreground system, relative weighting of the ecosystem services midpoints and indirect land use.     

Integrating participatory approaches into social life cycle assessment: the SLCA participatory approach

Purpose

This article discusses the choice of stakeholder categories and the integration of stakeholders into participatory processes to define impact categories and select indicators.

Methods

We undertook a literature review concerning the roles and the importance of stakeholders in participatory processes, and the use of such processes in environmental and social LCAs (Biswas et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):184-190, 1998; Sonnemann et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(6):325-333, 2001; Baldo Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):269-275, 2002; James et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(3):151-157, 2002; Bras-Kapwijk Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):266-272, 2003; Mettier et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):468-476, 2006). As part of the French National Research Agency Piscenlit project, we adapted the Principle, Criteria, Indicator (PCI) method (Rey-Valette et al. 2008), which is an assessment method of sustainable development, as a way to integrate the participatory approach into Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) methodology, mainly at the impact definition stage.

Results and discussion

Different views of participation were found in the literature; there is no consensual normative approach for the implication of stakeholders in LCA development. Some attempts have been made to integrate stakeholders into environmental LCAs but these attempts have not been generalized. However, they strongly emphasize the interrelationship between research on the growing integration of stakeholders and on the choice of stakeholders. We then propose criteria from stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984; Mitchell et al. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):853-886, 1997; Geibler et al. Bus Strat Environ 15:334-346, 2006) in order to identify relevant stakeholders for SLCA participatory approach. The adaptation of the PCI method to Principles, Impacts, and Indicators (PII) enables stakeholders to express themselves and hence leads to definitions of relevant social indicators that they can appropriate. The paper presents results regarding the selection of stakeholders but no specific results regarding the choice of impact categories and indicators.

Conclusions and recommendations

Integrating a participatory approach into SLCAs is of interest at several levels. It enables various factors to be taken into account: plurality of stakeholder interests, local knowledge, and impact categories that make sense for stakeholders in different contexts. It also promotes dialogue and simplifies the search for indicators. However, it requires a multidisciplinary approach and the integration of new knowledge and skills for the SLCA practitioners.     

Life Cycle Management in Developing Countries: State of the Art and Outlook

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.020

-

UNEP DTIE, through its Life Cycle Initiative, aims to enhance the skills of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries on Life Cycle Management (LCM). This is part of its contribution to the 10-year framework of program on Sustainable Consumption and Production as a follow-up of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002). Apart from the potential of improving their environmental performance, life cycle thinking and the use of LCA can be a business opportunity for SMEs. The development of environmental management expertise may help them to position themselves as reliable suppliers. The Life Cycle Initiative has promoted and facilitated the establishment of regional life cycle networks, and UNEP has started a training program on LCM targeted at National Cleaner Production Centers (NCPCs) and other national institutes that are able to pass on the information to the target groups. Some multinational companies have started to provide capacity building on life cycle management for suppliers in developing countries. More companies could use this approach to help developing countries to tackle environmental requirements in the supply chain and thus the private sector may contribute significantly to eco-efficiency, cost savings and finding new markets for sustainable products and services in developing countries. Life cycle thinking applied to basic services such as water, waste and energy could be another way to directly contribute with life cycle management to human development.

     

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results and discussion

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

Conclusions

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

     

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results and discussion

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

Conclusions

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

     

Choice of land reference situation in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

Land use life cycle impact assessment is calculated as a distance to target value—the target being a desirable situation defined as a reference situation in Milà i Canals et al.’s (Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):2–4, 2007) widely accepted framework. There are several reference situations. This work aims to demonstrate the effect of the choice of reference situation on land impact indicators.

Methods

Various reference situations are reported from the perspective of the object of assessment in land in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies and the modeling choices used in life cycle land impact indicators. They are analyzed and classified according to additional LCA modeling requirements: the type of LCA approach (attributional or consequential), cultural perspectives (egalitarian, hierarchist or individualist), and temporal preference. Sets of characterization factors (CF) by impact pathway, land cover, and region are calculated for different reference situations. These sets of CFs by reference situation are all compared with a baseline set. A case study on different crop types is used to calculate impact scores from different sets of CFs and compare them.

Results and discussion

Comparing the rankings of the CFs from two different sets present inversions from 5% to 35% worldwide. Impact scores of the case study present inversions of 10% worldwide. These inversions demonstrate that the choice of a reference situation may reverse the LCA conclusions for the land use impact category. Moreover, these reference situations must be consistent with the different modeling requirements of an LCA study (approach, cultural perspective, and time preference), as defined in the goal and scope.

Conclusions

A decision tree is proposed to guide the selection of a consistent and suitable choice of reference situation when setting other LCA modeling requirements.

     

Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation, and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level

Purpose

Rarely considered in environmental assessment methods, potential land use impacts on a series of ecosystem services must be accounted for in widely used decision-making tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA). The main goal of this study is to provide an operational life cycle impact assessment characterization method that addresses land use impacts at a global scale by developing spatially differentiated characterization factors (CFs) and assessing the extent of their spatial variability using different regionalization levels.

Methods

The proposed method follows the recommendations of previous work and falls within the framework and principles for land use impact assessment established by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Life Cycle Initiative. Based on the spatial approach suggested by Saad et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 16: 198–211, 2011), the intended impact pathways that are modeled pertain to impacts on ecosystem services damage potential and focus on three major ecosystem services: (1) erosion regulation potential, (2) freshwater regulation potential, and (3) water purification potential. Spatially-differentiated CFs were calculated for each biogeographic region of all three regionalization scale (Holdridge life regions, Holdridge life zones, and terrestrial biomes) along with a nonspatial world average level. In addition, seven land use types were assessed considering both land occupation and land transformation interventions.

Results and discussion

A comprehensive analysis of the results indicates that, when compared to all resolution schemes, the world generic averaged CF can deviate for various ecosystem types. In the case of groundwater recharge potential impacts, this range varied up to factors of 7, 4.7, and 3 when using the Holdridge life zones, the Holdridge regions, and the terrestrial biomes regionalization levels, respectively. This validates the importance of introducing a regionalized assessment and highlights how a finer scale increases the level of detail and consequently the discriminating power across several biogeographic regions, which could not have been captured using a coarser scale. In practice, the implementation of such regionalized CFs suggests that an LCA practitioner must identify the ecosystem in which land occupation or transformation activities occur in addition to the traditional inventory data required—namely, the land use activity and the inventory flow.

Conclusions

The variability of CFs across all three regionalization levels provides an indication of the uncertainty linked to nonspatial CFs. Among other assumptions and value choices made throughout the study, the use of ecological borders over political boundaries was deemed more relevant to the interpretation of environmental issues related to specific functional ecosystem behaviors.     

The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.019

Background

Life cycle assessments have been performed using different methods before the name was coined since about 1970 in several countries of North America and Europe. It was the merit of SETAC to start a standardization process which culminated in the LCA-guidelines ('A code of practice') in 1993. It is the aim of this paper to trace back this and further LCA-related achievements by SETAC on the basis of documents and personal memories. It may be subjective in the selection and weighting of some events, but objectivity is strived for with regard to the whole and, in my view, singular development.

Results and Discussion

Starting 1990 with two workshops in Smuggler's Notch (Vermont) and Leuven (Belgium), SETAC and SETAC Europe organized several workshops during which important topics (framework, impact assessment, data quality, etc.) were treated and published in the form of reports which are still available. The main contribution by CML and its head, Helias Udo de Haes, was a practical method of impact assessment, transforming the formerly more technocratic LCA (energy, resources, waste) into an instrument of environmental assessment of product systems. In addition, important contributions to the allocation problem were made. Starting in 1993, ISO took over the leadership in standardization and SETAC started the famous working groups in North America and Europe, often dealing with the same topics in parallel. Due to the different cultures, the results were frequently complimentary rather than harmonic. The CML-method of LCIA, widely accepted in Europe, had to wait for about 10 years to be accepted at the other side of the Atlantic. It was helpful that SETAC – meanwhile a global organization – looked for a partner in order to implement LCA all over the world. This partner was found in the 'United Nations Environmental Programme' (UNEP) and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was officially launched by Klaus Töpfer in Prague in April 2002. SETAC also assumed an important role in communicating LCA via publications: workshop and conference reports, the 'code of practice', working group results and LCA News Letters. The annual meetings offered forums for LCA scientists, practitioners and users, well prepared by the LCA Steering Committee (SETAC Europe) and the LCA Advisory Group (SETAC North America).

Recommendation

. The main recommendation to SETAC is to adhere to LCA as the main environmental assessment tool for products and to expand it to a true sustainability assessment tool by adding Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and a still to be invented 'Social Life Cycle Assessment'. SETAC is to remain the scientific arm within the UNEP/SETAC LC Initiative, without loosing its identity. Working groups should be global rather than regional in the future, as suggested by the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee at the 2004 World Congress in Portland, Oregon.

     

Salinisation impacts in life cycle assessment: a review of challenges and options towards their consistent integration

Purpose

Salinisation is a threat not only to arable land but also to freshwater resources. Nevertheless, salinisation impacts have been rarely and only partially included in life cycle assessment (LCA) so far. The objectives of this review paper were to give a comprehensive overview of salinisation mechanisms due to human interventions, analyse the completeness, relevance and scientific robustness of existing published methods addressing salinisation in LCA and provide recommendations towards a comprehensive integration of salinisation within the impact modelling frameworks in LCA.

Methods

First, with the support of salinisation experts and related literature, we highlighted multiple causes of soil and water salinisation and presented induced effects on human health, ecosystems and resources. Second, existing life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods addressing salinisation were analysed against the International Reference Life Cycle Data System analysis grid of the European Commission. Third, adopting a holistic approach, the modelling options for salinisation impacts were analysed in agreement with up-to-date LCIA frameworks and models.

Results and discussion

We proposed a categorisation of salinisation processes in four main types based on salinisation determinism: land use change, irrigation, brine disposal and overuse of a water body. For each salinisation type, key human management and biophysical factors involved were identified. Although the existing methods addressing salinisation in LCA are important and relevant contributions, they are often incomplete with regards to both the salinisation pathways they address and their geographical validity. Thus, there is a lack of a consistent framework for salinisation impact assessment in LCA. In analysing existing LCIA models, we discussed the inventory and impact assessment boundary options. The land use/land use change framework represents a good basis for the integration of salinisation impacts due to a land use change but should be completed to account for off-site impacts. Conversely, the land use/land use change framework is not appropriate to model salinisation due to irrigation, overuse of a water body and brine disposal. For all salinisation pathways, a bottom-up approach describing the environmental mechanisms (fate, exposure and effect) is recommended rather than an empirical or top-down approach because (i) salts and water are mobile and theirs effects are interconnected; (ii) water and soil characteristics vary greatly spatially; (iii) this approach allows the evaluation of both on- and off-site impacts and (iv) it is the best way to discriminate systems and support a reliable eco-design.

Conclusions

This paper highlights the importance of including salinisation impacts in LCA. Much research effort is still required to include salinisation impacts in a global, consistent and operational manner in LCA, and this paper provides the basis for future methodological developments.

     

A framework for modelling the transport and deposition of eroded particles towards water systems in a life cycle inventory

Purpose

Topsoil erosion due to land use has been characterised as one of the most damaging problems from the perspective of soil-resource depletion, changes in soil fertility and net soil productivity and damage to aquatic ecosystems. On-site environmental damage to topsoil by water erosion has begun to be considered in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) within the context of ecosystem services. However, a framework for modelling soil erosion by water, addressing off-site deposition in surface water systems, to support life cycle inventory (LCI) modelling is still lacking. The objectives of this paper are to conduct an overview of existing methods addressing topsoil erosion issues in LCA and to develop a framework to support LCI modelling of topsoil erosion, transport and deposition in surface water systems, to establish a procedure for assessing the environmental damage from topsoil erosion on water ecosystems.

Methods

The main features of existing methods addressing topsoil erosion issues in LCA are analysed, particularly with respect to LCI and Life Cycle Impact Assessment methodologies. An overview of nine topsoil erosion models is performed to estimate topsoil erosion by water, soil particle transport through the landscape and its in-stream deposition. The type of erosion evaluated by each of the models, as well as their applicable spatial scale, level of input data requirements and operational complexity issues are considered. The WATEM-SEDEM model is proposed as the most adequate to perform LCI erosion analysis.

Results and discussion

The definition of land use type, the area of assessment, spatial location and system boundaries are the main elements discussed. Depending on the defined system boundaries and the inherent routing network of the detached soil particles to the water systems, the solving of the multifunctionality of the system assumes particular relevance. Simplifications related to the spatial variability of the input data parameters are recommended. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is recommended to evaluate the effects of the transport capacity coefficient in the LCI results.

Conclusions

The published LCA methods focus only on the changes of soil properties due to topsoil erosion by water. This study provides a simplified framework to perform an LCI of topsoil erosion by considering off-site deposition of eroded particles in surface water systems. The widespread use of the proposed framework would require the development of LCI erosion databases. The issues of topsoil erosion impact on aquatic biodiversity, including the development of characterisation factors, are now the subject of on-going research.     

Weighting in LCA Based on Ecotaxes - Development of a Mid-point Method and Experiences from Case Studies

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015

Goal, Scope and Background

The weighting phase in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is and has always been a controversial issue, partly because this element requires the incorporation of social, political and ethical values. Despite the controversies, weighting is widely used in practise. In this paper we will present an approach for monetisation of environmental impacts which is based on the consistent use of ecotaxes and fees in Sweden as a basis for the economic values. The idea behind this approach is that taxes and fees are expressions of the values society places on resource uses and emissions. An underlying assumption for this is that the decisions taken by policy-makers are reflecting societal values thus reflecting a positive view of representative democracy.

Methods

In the method a number of different ecotaxes are used. In many cases they can directly be used as valuation weighting factors, an example is the CO2-tax that can be used as a valuation of CO2-emissions. In some cases, a calculation has to be made in order to derive a weighting factor. An example of this is the tax on nitrogen fertilisers which can be recalculated to an emission of nitrogen which can be used as a weighting factor for nitrogen emissions. The valuation weighting factors can be connected to characterisation methods in the normal LCA practise. We have often used the Ecotax method in parallel to other weighting methods such as the Ecoindicator and EPS methods and the results are compared.

Results and Discussion

A new set of weighting factors has been developed which has been used in case studies. It is interesting to note that the Ecotax method is able to identify different environmental problems as the most important ones in different case studies. In some cases, the Ecotax method has identified some interventions as the most important ones which lack weighting factors in other weighting methods. The midpoint-endpoint debate in the LCA literature has often centred on different types of uncertainties. Sometimes it is claimed that an advantage with having an endpoint approach is that the weighting would be easier and less uncertain. Here we are however suggesting a mid-point weighting method that we claim are no less uncertain than other often used weighting methods based on a damage assessment. This paper can therefore be seen as a discussion paper also in the midpoint-endpoint debate.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The Ecotax method is ready to use. It should be further updated and developed as taxes are changed and new characterisation methods are developed. The method is not only relevant for LCA but also for other environmental systems analysis. The Ecotax method has also been used as a valuation method for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and within the context of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

     

ReCount: A multi-experiment resource of analysis-ready RNA-seq gene count datasets

Background

With next-generation sequencing technologies, experiments that were considered prohibitive only a few years ago are now possible. However, while these technologies have the ability to produce enormous volumes of data, the sequence reads are prone to error. This poses fundamental hurdles when genetic diversity is investigated.

Results

We developed ShoRAH, a computational method for quantifying genetic diversity in a mixed sample and for identifying the individual clones in the population, while accounting for sequencing errors. The software was run on simulated data and on real data obtained in wet lab experiments to assess its reliability.

Conclusions

ShoRAH is implemented in C++, Python, and Perl and has been tested under Linux and Mac OS X. Source code is available under the GNU General Public License at http://www.cbg.ethz.ch/software/shorah.     

Launch of a new report: “Road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: applications,experiences and lessons learned”

Purpose

Organizational life cycle assessment (O-LCA) is still a rather young proposal, but moving towards becoming more broadly accepted as a scientifically mature and practical method. The UNEP/SETAC flagship project “LCA of organizations” concluded its “road-testing” phase and is glad to announce the publication of the final report “Road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: applications, experiences and lessons learned.” The full report can be accessed at http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/download/6060. This article shortly summarizes the flagship project phases and main outcomes, particularly the report recently launched, and pinpoints future actions.

Methods

In 2015, the “Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment” was published. During the following 2 years, the flagship project accompanied 12 organizations in the road testing of that O-LCA Guidance. They represent four world regions, different sectors and sizes. The road testers’ case studies and their feedback are the basis of the Road-testing Report.

Results and discussion

The Road-testing Report aims to complement the O-LCA Guidance through the road testers’ experience, thus delivering advice for future practitioners and inspiration to method developers. It includes executive summaries of the O-LCA road testers’ case studies and the main results of a comprehensive survey through which the road testers share their experience, feedback, and lessons learned. The road testing confirmed the application potential of the O-LCA method and the positive outcomes of the road testing have shown that no immediate updates to the O-LCA Guidance are needed, but some priority actions were identified in order to further ease the application of O-LCA.

Conclusions

Three main tasks for the coming years are identified by the authors: firstly, the challenges highlighted during the road testing should be addressed in the future by the LCA community; specific methodological difficulties of certain kinds of organizations, like the service sector, should be targeted; and finally, the potential revealed by the organizational perspective can be deployed in adjacent LCA fields. The flagship project team hopes that this second publication, together with the great acceptance of the O-LCA Guidance and the contribution of third parties, will pave the way to make O-LCA a mainstream tool.

     

The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.016

Goal, Scope and Background

Although both cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) have developed from engineering practice, and have the same objective of a holistic ex-ante assessment of human activities, the techniques have until recently developed in relative isolation. This has resulted in a situation where much can be gained from an integration of the strong aspects of each technique. Such integration is now being prompted by the more widespread use of both CBA and LCA on the global arena, where also the issues of social responsibility are now in focus. Increasing availability of data on both biophysical and social impacts now allow the development of a truly holistic, quantitative environmental assessment technique that integrates economic, biophysical and social impact pathways in a structured and consistent way. The concept of impact pathways, linking biophysical and economic inventory results via midpoint impact indicators to final damage indicators, is well described in the LCA and CBA literature. Therefore, this paper places specific emphasis on how social aspects can be integrated in LCA.

Methods

and Results. With a starting point in the conceptual structure and approach of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), as developed by Helias Udo de Haes and the SETAC/UNEP Life Cycle Initiative, the paper identifies six damage categories under the general heading of human life and well-being. The paper proposes a comprehensive set of indicators, with units of measurement, and a first estimate of global normalisation values, based on incidence or prevalence data from statistical sources and severity scores from health state analogues. Examples are provided of impact chains linking social inventory indicators to impacts on both human well-being and productivity.

Recommendation and Perspective

It is suggested that human well-being measured in QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) may provide an attractive single-score alternative to direct monetarisation.

     

Water in life cycle assessment—50th Swiss Discussion Forum on Life Cycle Assessment—Zürich, 4 December 2012

Water use, its impacts and management, have become a focus of attention in the past decade in the context of climate change and increasing consumption (in particular of food and agricultural products) due to a growing global population. Many efforts have been made to include water-related issues in life cycle assessment (LCA) in various ways, from the long-standing eutrophication, acidification, and ecotoxicity methods, to the more recent water consumption aspects. Four years on from the first discussion forum on water in LCA (35th Swiss Discussion Forum on LCA, Zürich, 5 June 2008), numerous developments have occurred, resulting in a rich palette of approaches. Significant challenges still remain, related to the complexity of water systems and ecosystems, and certain impacts are still not considered. New challenges have emerged, such as how to fit these “pieces” together to form a coherent and comprehensive approach for assessing the impacts of water use (both degradative and consumptive). Practice has started to apply certain water consumption-related approaches and an early feedback between practitioners and developers is essential to ensure a harmonious further development. The 50th Swiss Discussion Forum on Life Cycle Assessment (DF-50) gave a brief overview of the current status of water use in LCA, and then focused on the following topics in three main sessions: (1) a selection of recent research developments in the field of impact assessment modeling; (2) identification of new and remaining challenges where future effort could be concentrated, with a focus on spatial and temporal resolution; (3) and experiences and learnings from application in practice. Furthermore, several short presentations addressed the issues of inventory requirements and comparison of impact assessment approaches. The DF-50 was concluded with a discussion workshop, focusing on four issues: which degree of regionalization is desirable, how to address data gaps in inventories, the comparability of different impact assessment approaches, and the pros and cons of including positive impacts (benefits). Numerous recent developments in life cycle impact assessment have tackled impact pathways, spatial and temporal resolutions, and uncertainties. They have lead to an increase of the completeness of impact assessment, but also of its complexity. Although developments have also occurred in inventories, the gap between impact assessment and inventory is challenging, which in turn limits the applicability of the methods. Regionalization is confirmed as an essential aspect in water footprinting; however, its implementation requires concerted effort by impact assessment developers and software developers. Therefore, even though immense progress has been made, it may be time to think of putting the pieces together in order to simplify the applicability of these tools: enabling the support of improvements in companies and policy is the ultimate goal of LCA. The recordings and presentations of the DF-50 are available for download from www.lcaforum.ch.     

System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA

Background, aim, and scope

When dealing with system delimitation in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), two methodologies are typically referred to: consequential LCA and attributional LCA. The consequential approach uses marginal data and avoids co-product allocation by system expansion. The attributional approach uses average or supplier-specific data and treats co-product allocation by applying allocation factors. Agricultural LCAs typically regard local production as affected and they only include the interventions related to the harvested area. However, as changes in demand and production may affect foreign production, yields and the displacement of other crops in regions where the agricultural area is constrained, there is a need for incorporating the actual affected processes in agricultural consequential LCA. This paper presents a framework for defining system boundaries in consequential agricultural LCA. The framework is applied to an illustrative case study; LCA of increased demand for wheat in Denmark. The aim of the LCA screening is to facilitate the application of the proposed methodology. A secondary aim of the LCA screening is to illustrate that there are different ways to meet increased demand for agricultural products and that the environmental impact from these different ways vary significantly.

Materials and methods

The proposed framework mainly builds on the work of Ekvall T, Weidema BP (Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):pp. 161–171, 2004), agricultural statistics (FAOSTAT, FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2006), http://apps.fao.org/ (accessed June)), and agricultural outlook (FAPRI, US and world agricultural outlook, Food and Agriculture Research Institute, Iowa, 2006a). The framework and accompanying guidelines concern the suppliers affected, the achievement of increased production (area or yield), and the substitutions between crops. The framework, which is presented as a decision tree, proposes four possible systems that may be affected as a result of the increased demand of a certain crop in a certain area.

Results

The core of the proposed methodology is a decision tree, which guides the identification of affected processes in consequential agricultural LCA. The application of the methodology is illustrated with a case study presenting an LCA screening of wheat in Denmark. Different scenarios of how increased demand for wheat can be met show significant differences in emission levels as well as land use.

Discussion

The great differences in potential environmental impacts of the analysed results underpin the importance of system delimitation. The consequential approach is appointed as providing a more complete and accurate but also less precise result, while the attributional approach provides a more precise result but with inherent blind spots, i.e. a less accurate result.

Conclusions

The main features of the proposed framework and case study are: (1) an identification of significant sensitivity on results of system delimitation, and (2) a formalised way of identifying blind spots in attributional agricultural LCAs.

Recommendations and perspectives

It is recommended to include considerations on the basis of the framework presented in agricultural LCAs if relevant. This may be done either by full quantification or as qualitative identification of the most likely ways the agricultural product system will respond on changed demand. Hereby, it will be possible to make reservations to the conclusions drawn on the basis of an attributional LCA.     

LCA capability roadmap—product system model description and revision

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners face many challenges in their efforts to describe, share, review, and revise their product system models, and to reproduce the models and results of others. Current life cycle inventory modeling techniques have weaknesses in the areas of describing model structure, documenting the use of proxy or non-ideal data, specifying allocation, and including modeler’s observations and assumptions—all affecting how the study is interpreted and limiting the reuse of models. Moreover, LCA software systems manage modeling information in different and sometimes non-compatible ways. Practitioners must also deal with licensing, privacy/confidentiality of data, and other issues around data access which impact how a model can be shared.

Methods

This letter was prepared by a working group of the North American Life Cycle Assessment Advisory Group to support the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s Flagship Activity on Data, Methods, and Product Sustainability Information. The aim of the working group is to define a roadmap of the technical advances needed to achieve easier LCA model sharing and improve replicability of LCA results among different users in a way that is independent of the LCA software used to compute the results and does not infringe on any licensing restrictions or confidentiality requirements. This is intended to be a consensus document providing the state of the art in this area, with milestones for research and implementation needed to resolve current issues.

Results and Conclusions

The roadmap identifies fifteen milestones in three areas: “describing model contents,” “describing model structure,” and “collaborative use of models.” The milestones should support researchers and software developers in advancing practitioners’ abilities to share and review product system models.

     

Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the transition towards sustainable production and consumption

Purpose

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Social Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) are tools acknowledged to have a role to play in the transition towards Sustainable Production and Consumption patterns (SPC). However, the role they play in this transition is seldom discussed, especially for SLCA. In addition, although the importance of taking a life cycle thinking (LCT) in the progression towards SPC seems indisputable, its added value is seldom made explicit. This article wishes to highlight the role of SLCA in the transition towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns and questions the relevance of LCT in this role.

Methods

To answer this question, we first identify the applications of SLCA that correspond to actions that have to be taken in the transition towards SPC based on the SPC and SLCA literature. Then, the relevance of LCT in the context of the different applications identified previously is questioned through a qualitative discursive analysis approach.

Results

The social goal of SPC is poorly discussed, and the SLCA literature can be one source of inspiration to define what this goal could be. On the basis of the UNEP-SETAC (2009) Guidelines’ SLCA ultimate goal, SPC could be a means to improve stakeholders’ social conditions through the improvement of enterprises’ behaviours. The intended applications of SLCA for potentially supporting the improvement of enterprises’ behaviours are found to be the identification of hotspots in order to highlight areas of improvement inside the sphere of influence of the SLCA user and the guidance of purchasing and substitution choices on the basis of enterprises’ behaviours. In this article, it is suggested that, for SLCA to deserve the “LCT label”, it has to capture impact transfers along the products’ life cycle. Otherwise, an “ability-to-act-on” perspective is the proper angle to adopt in the identification of areas of improvement inside the sphere of influence and a “cradle-to-retailer”, the one to adopt when SLCA is used to guide buy/boycott.

Conclusions

Aside from revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in SPC and the raison d’être of LCT, we discuss some considerations which we believe should be taken into account when developing SLCA in the context of SPC. In conclusion, this article points to the importance of framing the use of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment tools in their context of use.