A novel social life cycle assessment method for determining workers’ human development: a case study of the sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - The social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology needs to advance in its methodological development, mainly regarding the impact assessment...     

Applying social life cycle assessment in the early stages of a project development — an example from the mining sector

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Mining of raw materials have both positive (e.g., creation of values and jobs along their supply chains and the supply chains they enter) and...     

Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies—challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA)

Purpose

Technologies can contribute to sustainable development (e.g., improving living conditions) and at the same time cause sustainability problems (e.g., emissions). Decisions on alternative technologies should thus ideally be based on the principle to minimize the latter. Analyzing environmental, economic, and social aspects related to technologies supports decisions by identifying the “more sustainable” technology. This paper focuses on social issues. First, it discusses the applicability of the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) guidelines for a comparative technology analysis, taking the example of two case studies in developing countries. Indicating technologies as “sustainable” also means that they are indeed operated over the expected lifetime, which, in development projects, is often not guaranteed. Consequently, social aspects related to implementation conditions should be considered in an SLCA study as well. Thus, a second focus is laid on identifying appropriate indicators to address these aspects.

Methods

First, the SLCA guidelines were examined with regard to applying this product-related approach to two real case studies (analysis of technologies/plants for water supply and for decentralized fuel production) for a comparative technology analysis. Suitable indicators are proposed. To address the second focus, a literature research on technology assessment and implementation in developing countries was conducted. Moreover, socioeconomic studies in the investigation areas of the case studies were consulted. Based on this, indicators addressing implementation conditions were identified from the SLCA guidelines and additional literature.

Results and discussion

The study shows social issues and indicators found in the SLCA guidelines and considered suitable for a comparative technology analysis in the case studies. However, for a sustainability assessment of technologies, especially in developing countries, further indicators are required to address technology implementation conditions. A set of additional social indicators like reported trust in institutions or fluctuation of personnel is proposed. Though these indicators were derived based on specific case studies, they can also be suggested to other technologies and are not necessarily limited to developing countries.

Conclusions

The study pointed out that an application of the SLCA guidelines considering the whole life cycle was not (yet) feasible for the case studies considered. This is mainly due to the lack of data. Regarding technology implementation, it was examined which indicators are available in this SLCA approach and which could additionally be integrated and applied. This is relevant as a potential contribution of technologies to sustainable development can only be achieved when the technologies are successfully implemented.     

The need for co-product allocation in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systems—is “biophysical” allocation progress?

Purpose

Several new “biophysical” co-product allocation methodologies have been developed for LCA studies of agricultural systems based on proposed physical or causal relationships between inputs and outputs (i.e. co-products). These methodologies are thus meant to be preferable to established allocation methodologies such as economic allocation under the ISO 14044 standard. The aim here was to examine whether these methodologies really represent underlying physical relationships between the material and energy flows and the co-products in such systems, and hence are of value.

Methods

Two key components of agricultural LCAs which involve co-product allocation were used to provide examples of the methodological challenges which arise from adopting biophysical allocation in agricultural LCA: (1) the crop production chain and (2) the multiple co-products produced by animals. The actual “causal” relationships in these two systems were illustrated, the energy flows within them detailed, and the existing biophysical allocation methods, as found in literature, were critically evaluated in the context of such relationships.

Results and discussion

The premise of many biophysical allocation methodologies has been to define relationships which describe how the energy input to agricultural systems is partitioned between co-products. However, we described why none of the functional outputs from animal or crop production can be considered independently from the rest on the basis of the inputs to the system. Using the example of manure in livestock systems, we also showed why biophysical allocation methodologies are still sensitive to whether a system output has economic value or not. This sensitivity is a longstanding criticism of economic allocation which is not resolved by adopting a biophysical approach.

Conclusions

The biophysical allocation methodologies for various aspects of agricultural systems proposed to date have not adequately explained how the physical parameters chosen in each case represent causal physical mechanisms in these systems. Allocation methodologies which are based on shared (but not causal) physical properties between co-products are not preferable to allocation based on non-physical properties within the ISO hierarchy on allocation methodologies and should not be presented as such.

     

A comparative life cycle assessment of the sugarcane value chain in the province of Tucumán (Argentina) considering different technology levels

Purpose

The purpose of this work is to quantify the environmental impact of the sugarcane industry in Tucumán (Argentina) through the life cycle analysis (LCA). The distinctive feature is the consideration of different technology levels (TLs) in the agricultural stage: high (HTL), medium (MTL), and low (LTL).

Methods

The scope of the study covers the agricultural and industrial stages through a “from cradle to gate” approach (from sugarcane cultivation until production of finished products: sugar and alcohol). The system is divided into Agriculture, Sugar Factory, and Distillery. Data used for the inventory are mainly provided by local experts, sugarcane growers, and processing companies. The characteristics of each TL are taken from a regional classification. For the impact assessment, the CML 2001 model (nine impact categories) is used.

Results and discussion

Regardless of the TL, in most of the impact categories, an important contribution attributable to the use of synthetic agrochemicals is evident. As for the comparison among TLs, the ethanol produced with HTL has less impact values than the ones produced with MTL and LTL in seven categories. These results can be mainly explained by the better cultural yields obtained with HTL, and to the fact that sugarcane is not burnt before harvesting in HTL as it is in MTL and LTL.

Conclusions

This study explores the implications of using different TLs for the agricultural tasks on the sugarcane supply chain in Tucumán, which is characterized by a vertically nonintegrated productive scheme. If practices associated to HTL are implemented, a reduction of the environmental impact is observed in most categories. It is necessary to compare these results with economic and social implications to ensure sustainability of the sugarcane value chain.

     

Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems—the BioImpact metric

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful method for assessing environmental impacts at large scales. Biodiversity and ecosystem diversity are...     

Nutrition in the life cycle assessment of foods—function or impact?

Purpose

This work provides an unambiguous conceptual framework for inclusion of nutrition in Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of food that enables the distinction between two different roles of nutrition, namely serving as the basis of food comparisons via the functional unit and as an impact pathway that links food ingestion with human health effects.

Methods

We compare how nutritional aspects have been considered in the functional unit of published LCAs of food with the procedural requirements for ensuring comparability of the functional units. We consider the relevance of nutrient profiling models for assessing food- and diet-related health damages and benefits in the context of LCAs of food. We finally recommend a method that will enable a systematic, comparative, and holistic assessment of the marginal health effect of food products on human health.

Results and discussion

Satiety is proposed as a central attribute for comparisons of food products, while weighted measures of nutrient content are suggested to be largely misplaced as part of the functional unit. In contrast, nutritional measures have a large role to play in assessing the human health impacts of the marginal ingestion of specific food products. Such measures should enable a direct quantification of human health effect and benefits and should take advantage of robust epidemiological evidence.

Conclusions

Nutritional measures enter into both the functional unit in the form of satiety measures and into the calculation of impacts in the form of the marginal influence of the specific food item on the human health impact of the overall diet. To enhance the differentiation of health impacts at the level of individual food items, it is recommended to combine the nutrient balance indicator with the DALY Nutritional Index (DANI) in each specific dietary context.

     

Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment?

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.     

A life cycle method for assessment of a colliery’s eco-indicator

Global Scope and Background  The study was aimed at presenting the methodology of the process eco-indicator, in relation to hard coal mines, and thereby making evaluation of the impact of the mine’s coal extraction process on the environment. The life cycle of a mine is made up of three phases: opening and developing the mine’s deposit, extraction of the mine’s deposit, closing the mine. Methods  The assessment of environmental influence of mining operation of a colliery was executed on a basis of the life cycle analysis, in accordance with the standard series PN-EN 14040. The environmental loads caused by individual unit processes were calculated by means of the aforementioned methodology with division into the basic influence categories: human health, ecosystem quality and natural resources. The obtained values of eco-indicators for the individual unit processes made it possible to compare the unit-process-caused environmental loads. Mean values of the eco-indicators of the individual unit processes were calculated by means of the inventory analysis covering 38 collieries. Next, these indicators were used to compare environmental load values by each similar process in a colliery. A total eco-indicator was calculated for colliery by summing up the eco-indicators of the individual unit processes. The eco-indicators, structured as above, were calculated for the phase of opening out a deposit and for the phase of extraction. Results and Discussion  The model mine in the phase of extraction of a deposit causes a total environmental load which expressed in points of the eco-indicator 99 amounts to 23.9 [MEw]. In the ‘human health’ category losses amount to 8.4 per cent, in the ‘quality of ecosystem’ 0.6 per cent and in the ‘resourses’ category 91 per cent. The greatest losses in all categories are caused by the process of getting body of coal and the next greatest ones are:

How can a life cycle inventory parametric model streamline life cycle assessment in the wooden pallet sector?

Purpose

This study discusses the use of parameterization within the life cycle inventory (LCI) in the wooden pallet sector, in order to test the effectiveness of LCI parametric models to calculate the environmental impacts of similar products. Starting from a single case study, the objectives of this paper are (1) to develop a LCI parametric model adaptable to a range of wooden pallets, (2) to test this model with a reference product (non-reversible pallet with four-way blocks) and (3) to determine numerical correlations between the environmental impacts and the most significant LCI parameters; these correlations can be used to improve the design of new wooden pallets.

Methods

The conceptual scheme for defining the model is based on ISO14040-44 standards. First of all, the product system was defined identifying the life cycle of a generic wood pallet, as well as its life cycle stages. A list of independent and dependent parameters was used to describe the LCI flows of a generic wooden pallet. The LCI parametric model was applied to calculate the environmental impacts of the reference product, with regard to a selection of impact categories at midpoint level (climate change, human toxicity, particulate matter formation, agricultural land occupation, fossil depletion). The model was then applied to further 11 wooden pallets belonging to the same category.

Results and discussion

The definition of a LCI parametric model based on 31 independent parameters and 21 dependent parameters streamlined the data collection process, as the information required for fulfilling the LCI are standard information about the features of the wooden pallet and its manufacturing process. The contribution analysis on the reference product revealed that the most contributing life cycle stages are wood and nails extraction and manufacturing (positive value of environmental impact) and end-of-life (avoided impact). This result is driven by two parameters: mass of wood and average distance for transport of wood. Based on the results of the application of the LCI parametric model to the identified products, one parameter-based regression and one multiple non-linear regression allowed to define a correlation between the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) category indicators considered and the most influencing parameters.

Conclusions

The definition of LCI parametric model in the wooden pallet sector can effectively be used for calculating the environmental impacts of products with different designs, as well as for obtaining a preliminary estimation of the life cycle environmental impacts of new products.     

A climate goal–based,multicriteria method for system evaluation in life cycle assessment

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Our ability to restrict global warming to the established objectives in the Paris Agreement depends on the metrics used to evaluate the climate...     

Importance of functional classification in the use of carabids for the environmental risk assessment of the GE crops and other agricultural practices

Carabids(Coleoptera:Carabidae)seem to be suitable bioindicalors of the environmental impacts of novel agrotechnologies,including deployment of the genetically engineered(GE)crops.In this article,we describe our effort to employ carabids in the environmental risk assessment(ERA).GE maize MON88017,its near-isogenic hybrid nontreated or treated with the soil insccticide chlorpyrifos,and two reference hybrids were used to compare three different ways how to utilize carabids in ERA.The analysis of abundance of all captured carabids or of the most abundant carabid specics did not disclose any differences between the treatments.The analysis based on the categories of functional traits revealed distinct fecatures of some treatments and proved suitable for ERA because it permitted field data transportability in spite of different species compositions.Our results indicate that GE maize has no detrimental environmental effecl,On the other hand,we found significant trends toward lower abundance and lower species number(including analysis of all carabid species together)in plots treated with the insecticide,and some tendencies to higher abundance and higher species number in plots sown with the reference hybrid PR38N86.Using functional group indicators alows identification of unintended changes in ecological functions of agroecosystem and comparability across geographics.We recommend data evaluation at the level of the categories of functional traits in ERA of GE crops and other agricultural practices.     

Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches

Purpose

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.

Methods

We 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 discussion

The 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

     

Preface—a new paradigm for life cycle thinking: exploring sustainability in urban development scenarios

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - The main goal of this special issue is to further the understanding of how to integrate life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methods and...     

Land use planning in Ireland—a life cycle energy analysis of recent residential development in the Greater Dublin Area

Background, aim, and scope  One third of the total housing stock in the Republic of Ireland has been built in 10 years up to and including 2006 and of this approximately 34% was built in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA). Much of the housing was low-density with poor public transport links leading to doubts over its sustainability—particularly in terms of energy use. Although the country is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above 1990 levels by the period 2008–2012, by 2005, emissions were already 25.4% higher than the baseline and current projections are that this figure will rise to 37% over the period. The residential sector is estimated to contribute to approximately 24.5% of energy-related CO₂ emissions. This paper estimates total emissions from residential developments in the GDA constructed between 1997 and 2006. Materials and methods  Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂) emissions are estimated using a life cycle assessment approach over a 100-year building lifespan and employing process, input–output and hybrid energy techniques. Life cycle stages include: construction, operation, transport, maintenance and demolition. The main data sources include: national population and industry census data, household travel survey data, residential energy performance surveys and national accounts. The GDA was split into four zones each encompassing development at increasing radii from Dublin’s city centre, namely: city centre, suburbs, exurbs and commuter towns. Results  Per capita CO₂ life cycle emissions in the GDA were found to be approximately 50–55% greater in the exurbs and commuter towns than in the city centre. Of the five life cycle stages studied, operational energy requirements (predominantly space heating and hot water, but including power) contributed most significantly to emissions (68%), followed by transport (17%), construction (9%) and maintenance/renovation (6%). Discussion  Operating emissions from dwellings in the commuter town and extra-urban zones were almost twice those in the city centre both due to larger dwelling sizes and the predominance of detached and semi-detached dwellings (with large amounts of exposed walls) in the former and the prevalence of smaller apartments in the latter. Car use was most pronounced in the zones furthest from the city centre where per capita emissions were almost twice those of residents in the city centre. Despite their smaller size, the per capita construction CO₂ emissions of apartments were approximately one third greater than for low-rise dwellings due to the greater energy intensity of the structure. However, this difference was more than compensated for by the significantly lower operational emissions referred to above. Conclusions  In 2006, recurrent CO₂ emissions (operational, transport and maintenance) from dwellings built in the GDA over the ten preceding years were 2,108 kt while construction-related emissions in that year were 1,325 kt giving a total contribution from the residential sector of 3,434 kt CO₂/annum—representing 4.9% of national emissions for that year. Had the development policy prescribed ‘city centre’-type development and transport modes, then emissions for the year 2006 would have been 2,892 kt CO₂—a reduction of almost 16% over the actual figure. However, in this scenario recurrent emissions would have been reduced to 1,417 kt CO₂—a reduction of 33% over actual levels. Recommendations and perspectives  This study supports Irish and international governments’ policies aimed at curbing CO₂ emissions from the domestic sector which focus primarily on reducing operational emissions from new and existing housing through design and construction improvements. However, it demonstrates that significant reductions in operational emissions are associated with high-density residential development with modest floor areas. Furthermore, it highlights the scope for transport emissions’ reductions through better spatial planning leading to reduced car travel.     

Capability of social life cycle assessment for analyzing the artisanal small-scale gold mining sector—case study in the Amazonian rainforest in Brazil

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Gold extraction in the Amazonian rainforest is accompanied by ecological threats and social grievances, but at the same time, the artisanal...