Decision Analysis Utilizing Data from Multiple Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methods Part I: A Theoretical Basis

Numerous methodologies for the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) step of life-cycle assessment (LCA) are currently in popular use. These methods, which are based on a single method or level of analysis, are limited to the environmental fates, impact categories, damage functions, and stressors included in the method or model. Because of this, it has been suggested within the LCA community that LCIA data from multiple methods and/or levels of analysis, that is, end-point and midpoint indicators, be used in LCA-based decision analysis to facilitate better or, at least more informed, decision making. In this (two-part) series of articles, we develop and present a series of LCA-based decision analysis models, based on multiattribute value theory (MAVT), which utilize data from multiple LCIA methods and/or levels of analysis. The key to accomplishing this is the recognition of what LCIA damage indicators represent with respect to decision analysis, namely, decision attributes and, in most cases, proxy attributes. The use of proxy attributes in a decision model, however, poses certain challenges, such as the assessment of decision-maker preferences for actual consequences that are only known imprecisely because of inherent limits of both LCA and scientific knowledge. In this article (part I), we provide a brief overview of MAVT and examine some of the decision-theoretic issues and implications of current LCIA methods. We illustrate the application of MAVT to develop a decision model utilizing damage indicators from a single LCIA methodology; and, we identify the decision-theoretic issues that arise when attempting to combine LCIA indicators from multiple methods and/or levels of analysis in a single decision model. Finally, we introduce the use in our methodology of constructed attributes to combine related end-point damage indicators into single decision attributes and the concept and evaluation of proxy attributes.     

A Practical Method for Quantifying Eco-efficiency Using Eco-design Support Tools

Eco-efficiency at the product level is defined as product value per unit of environmental impact. In this paper we present a method for quantifying the eco-efficiency using quality function deployment (QFD) and life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA). These well-known tools are widely used in the manufacturing industry.
QFD, which is one of the methods used in product development based on consumer preferences, is introduced to calculate the product value. An index of the product value is calculated as the weighted average of improvement rates of quality characteristics. The importance of customer requirements, derived from the QFD matrix, is applied.
Environmental impacts throughout a product life cycle are calculated based on an LCIA method widely used in Japan. By applying the LCIA method of endpoint type, the endpoint damage caused by various life-cycle inventories is calculated. Willingness to pay is applied to integrate it into a single index.
Eco-design support tools, namely, the life-cycle planning (LCP) tool and the life-cycle assessment (LCA) tool, have already been developed. Using these tools, data required for calculation of the eco-efficiency of products can be collected. The product value is calculated based on QFD data stored in the LCP tool and the environmental impact is calculated using the LCA tool.
Case studies of eco-efficiency are adopted and the adequacy of this method is clarified. Several advantages of this method are characterized.     

On the meaning of the distance-to-target weighting method and normalisation in Life Cycle Impact assessment

Distance-to-target weighting methods are widely used in life cycle impact assessment. The methods rank impacts as being more important the further away society’s activities are from achieving the desired targets for the pollutants. However, we feel that the scientific bases of the distance-to-target methods still need more clarification. This article illustrates how multiattribute value theory (MAVT) can be applied to interpret the impact category weights as well as the aggregation rule and normalisation used in the distant-to-target methods. Our comparison revealed that under certain conditions two of the three commonly used impact assessment methods (Ecoindicator 95, ET-method) applying distance-to-target weighting are consistent with the impact assessment framework derived from MAVT. This consistency holds for non-zero targets with equal importance and linear damage functions passing through the origin. We show that the MAVT framework offers a foundation for the methodological development in life cycle impact assessment.     

A Theoretical Foundation for Life-Cycle Assessment

The presence of value judgments in life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been a constant source of controversy. According to a common interpretation, the international standard on LCIA requires that the assessment methods used in published comparisons be "value free." Epistemologists argue that even natural science rests on "constitutive" and "contextual" value judgments. The example of the equivalency potential for climate change, the global warming potential (GWP), demonstrates that any impact assessment method inevitably contains not only constitutive and contextual values, but also preference values. Hence, neither life-cycle assessment (LCA) as a whole nor any of its steps can be "value free." As a result, we suggest a more comprehensive definition of objectivity in LCA that allows arguments about values and their relationship to facts. We distinguish three types of truth claims: factual claims, which are based on natural science; normative claims, which refer to preference values; and relational claims, which address the proper relation between factual knowledge and values. Every assessment method, even the GWP, requires each type of claim. Rational arguments can be made about each type of claim. Factual truth claims can be assessed using the scientific method. Normative claims can be based on ethical arguments. The values of individuals or groups can be elicited using various social science methods. Relational claims must follow the rules of logic. Relational claims are most important for the development of impact assessment methods. Because LCAs are conducted to satisfy the need of decision makers to consider environmental impacts, relational claims about impact assessment methods should refer to this goal. This article introduces conditions that affect environmental decision making and discusses how LCA—values and all—can be defended as a rational response to the challenge of moving uncertain scientific information into the policy arena.     

Streamlined LCA of soy-based ink printing

This study provides a benchmark of the life cycle environmental impact characteristics associated with a typical soybased ink used for sheetfed lithographic printing. The scope ineluded a streamlined Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Impact Assessment (LCIA). Materials, processes, and life cycle stages that are the same between different printing inks, or were less than one percent by mass of the printing system input materials, were excluded. The LCIA included identification of specific processes in the life cycle of soy-based ink printing that make the greatest contribution to the overall environmental hazard potential in 13 impact categories for the baseline printing system selected. The LCIA approach included both regional scaling for areas that differ in sensitivity to certain impact indicators and normalization against a reference value. Reduction in the use of tall oil rosin and switching from conventional to low or no-till farming appear to be promising opportunities for reducing the environmental hazard potential.     

Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is a field of active development. The last decade has seen prolific publication of new impact assessment methods covering many different impact categories and providing characterization factors that often deviate from each other for the same substance and impact. The LCA standard ISO 14044 is rather general and unspecific in its requirements and offers little help to the LCA practitioner who needs to make a choice. With the aim to identify the best among existing characterization models and provide recommendations to the LCA practitioner, a study was performed for the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC).

Methods

Existing LCIA methods were collected and their individual characterization models identified at both midpoint and endpoint levels and supplemented with other environmental models of potential use for LCIA. No new developments of characterization models or factors were done in the project. From a total of 156 models, 91 were short listed as possible candidates for a recommendation within their impact category. Criteria were developed for analyzing the models within each impact category. The criteria addressed both scientific qualities and stakeholder acceptance. The criteria were reviewed by external experts and stakeholders and applied in a comprehensive analysis of the short-listed characterization models (the total number of criteria varied between 35 and 50 per impact category). For each impact category, the analysis concluded with identification of the best among the existing characterization models. If the identified model was of sufficient quality, it was recommended by the JRC. Analysis and recommendation process involved hearing of both scientific experts and stakeholders.

Results and recommendations

Recommendations were developed for 14 impact categories at midpoint level, and among these recommendations, three were classified as “satisfactory” while ten were “in need of some improvements” and one was so weak that it has “to be applied with caution.” For some of the impact categories, the classification of the recommended model varied with the type of substance. At endpoint level, recommendations were only found relevant for three impact categories. For the rest, the quality of the existing methods was too weak, and the methods that came out best in the analysis were classified as “interim,” i.e., not recommended by the JRC but suitable to provide an initial basis for further development.

Discussion, conclusions, and outlook

The level of characterization modeling at midpoint level has improved considerably over the last decade and now also considers important aspects like geographical differentiation and combination of midpoint and endpoint characterization, although the latter is in clear need for further development. With the realization of the potential importance of geographical differentiation comes the need for characterization models that are able to produce characterization factors that are representative for different continents and still support aggregation of impact scores over the whole life cycle. For the impact categories human toxicity and ecotoxicity, we are now able to recommend a model, but the number of chemical substances in common use is so high that there is a need to address the substance data shortage and calculate characterization factors for many new substances. Another unresolved issue is the need for quantitative information about the uncertainties that accompany the characterization factors. This is still only adequately addressed for one or two impact categories at midpoint, and this should be a focus point in future research. The dynamic character of LCIA research means that what is best practice will change quickly in time. The characterization methods presented in this paper represent what was best practice in 2008–2009.     

Fate modelling within LCA

For an accurate assessment of the toxic effects of chemicals during their life cycle, LCA developers try more and more to include chemical fate into the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) procedure. In this study the application of multi-media partitioning models within LCIA is discussed. With the case of textile chemicals as an example, USES-LCA and a simple river model (box approach) are compared according to their practicability and the value added to the assessment results. It is shown that emissions from the supply and use of energy still dominate the LCIA results even if ecotoxicity is assessed with a rather complex fate model such as USES-LCA. Second, the treatment of modelling results is addressed for persistent substances with low or unknown toxicity. A possible approach to include such chemicals into valuation is to define an exposure-based impact category additionally to the existing effect-oriented ones (toxicity scores) or a combination of different methods. A combined presentation of results from complementary tools is proposed, providing a more detailed background for decision making while avoiding aggregation and leaving the final weighting between the categories to the user.     

Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations

We provide a review of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods that may potentially be used during systematic conservation planning for the design of conservation area networks (CANs). We review 26 methods and present the core ideas of 19 of them. We suggest that the computation of the non-dominated set (NDS) be the first stage of any such analysis. This process requires only that alternatives be qualitatively ordered by each criterion. If the criteria can also be similarly ordered, at the next stage, Regime is the most appropriate method to refine the NDS. If the alternatives can also be given quantitative values by the criteria, Goal Programming will prove useful in many contexts. If both the alternatives and the criteria can be quantitatively evaluated, and the criteria are independent of each other but may be compounded, then multi-attribute value theory (MAVT) should be used (with preferences conveniently elicited by a modified Analytic Hierarchy Process (mAHP) provided that the number of criteria is not large).     

A life cycle impact assessment procedure with resource groups as areas of protection

Goal and Background  Current Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) procedures have demonstrated certain limitations in the South African manufacturing industry context. The aim of this paper is to propose a modified LCIA procedure, which is based on the protection of resource groups. Methods  A LCIA framework is introduced that applies the characterisation procedure of available midpoint categories, with the exception of land use. Characterisation factors for land occupation and transformation is suggested for South Africa. A distanceto-target approach is used for the normalisation of midpoint categories, which focuses on the ambient quality and quantity objectives for four resource groups: Air, Water, Land and Mined Abiotic Resources. The quality and quantity objectives are determined for defined South African Life Cycle Assessment (SALCA) Regions and take into account endpoint or damage targets. Following the precautionary approach, a Resource Impact Indicator (RII) is calculated for the resource groups. Subjective weighting values for the resource groups are also proposed, based on survey results from the manufacturing industry sector and the expenditure trends of the South African national government. The subjective weighting values are used to calculate overall Environmental Performance Resource Impact Indicators (EPRIIs) when comparing life cycle systems with each other. The proposed approaches are evaluated with a known wool case study. Results and Discussion  The calculation of a RJI ensures that all natural resources that are important from a South African perspective are duly considered in a LCIA. The results of a LCIA are consequently not reliant on a detailed Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and the number of midpoint categories that converge on a single resource group. The case study establishes the importance of region-specificity, for LCIs and LCIAs. Conclusions  The proposed LCIA procedure demonstrates reasonable ease of communication of LCIA results. It further allows for the inclusion of additional midpoint categories and is adaptable for specific regions. Recommendations and Outlook  The acceptance of the LCIA procedure must be evaluated for different industry and government sectors. Also, the adequate incorporation of Environmental Performance Resource Impact Indicators (EPRIIs) into decision-making for Life Cycle Management purposes must be researched further. Specifically, the application of the procedures for supply chain management will be investigated.     

Ecological Toxicity Methods and Metals. An examination of two case studies (8 pp + 1)

Goal, Scope and Background The Apeldoorn Workshop (April 15th, 2004, Apeldoorn, NL) brought together specialists in LCA and Risk Assessment to discuss current practices and complications of the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) ecological toxicity (ecotox) methodologies for metals. The consensus was that the LCIA methods currently available do not appropriately characterize impacts of metals due to lack of fundamental metals chemistry in the models. A review of five methods available to perform ecotox impact assessment for metals has been prepared to provide Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) practitioners with a better understanding of the current state of the science and potential biases related to metals. The intent is to provide awareness on issues related to ecotox impact assessment. Methods In this paper two case studies, one a copper based product (copper tube), the other a zinc-based product (gutter systems), were selected and examined by applying freshwater ecological toxicity impact models – USES-LCA, Eco-indicator 99 (EI 99), IMPACT 2002, EDIP 97, and CalTOX-ETP. Both studies are recent, comprehensive, cradle-to-gate, and peer-reviewed. The objective is to review the LCIA results in the context of the practical concerns identified by the Apeldoorn Declaration, in particular illustrating any inconsistencies such as chemical characterization coverage, species specificity, and relative contribution to impact results. Results and Discussion The results obtained from all five of the LCIA methods for the copper tube LCI pointed to the same substance as being the most important – copper. This result was obtained despite major fundamental differences between the LCIA methods applied. However, variations of results were found when examining the freshwater ecological toxicity potential of zinc gutter systems. Procedural difficulties and inconsistencies were observed. In part this was due to basic differences in model nomenclature and differences in coverage (IMPACT 2002+ and EDIP 97 contained characterization factors for aluminium that resulted in 90% and 22% contribution to burden respectively, the other three methods did not). Differences were also observed relative to the emissions source compartment. In the case of zinc, air emissions were found to be substantial for some ecotox models, whereas, water emissions results were found to be of issue for others. Conclusions This investigation illustrates the need to proceed with caution when applying LCIA ecotox methodologies to life cycle studies that include metals. Until further improvements are made, the deficiencies should be clearly communicated as part of LCIA reporting. Business or policy decisions should not without further discussion be based solely on the results of the currently available methods for assessing ecotoxicity in LCIA. Outlook The outlook to remedy deficiencies in the ecological toxicity methods is promising. Recently, the LCIA Toxic Impacts Task Force of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has formed a subgroup to address specific issues and guide the work towards establishment of sound characterization factors for metals. Although some measure of precision of estimation of potential impact has been observed, such as in the case of copper, accuracy is also a major concern and should be addressed. Further investigation through controlled experimentation is needed, particularly LCIs composed of a variety of inorganics as well as organics constituents. Support for this activity has come from the scientific community and industry as well. Broader aspects of structure and nomenclature are being collectively addressed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. These efforts will bring practical solutions to issues of naming conventions and LCI to LCIA flow assignments.     

The Environmental Importance of Energy Use in Chemical Production

In many cases, policy makers and laymen perceive harmful emissions from chemical plants as the most important source of environmental impacts in chemical production. As a result, regulations and environmental efforts have tended to focus on this area. Concerns about energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, however, are increasing in all industrial sectors. Using a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach, we analyzed the full environmental impacts of producing 99 chemical products in Western Europe from cradle to factory gate. We applied several life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to cover various impact areas. Our analysis shows that for both organic and inorganic chemical production in industrial countries, energy‐related impacts often represent more than half and sometimes up to 80% of the total impacts, according to a range of LCIA methods. Resource use for material feedstock is also important, whereas direct emissions from chemical plants may make up only 5% to 10% of the total environmental impacts. Additionally, the energy‐related impacts of organic chemical production increase with the complexity of the chemicals. The results of this study offer important information for policy makers and sustainability experts in the chemical industry striving to reduce environmental impacts. We identify more sustainable energy production and use as an important option for improvements in the environmental profile of chemical production in industrial countries, especially for the production of advanced organic and fine chemicals.     

Comparative evaluation of Life Cycle Impact assessment methods with a South African case study

Goal and Background  LCIA procedures that have been used in the South Africa manufacturing industry include the CML, Ecopoints, EPS and Eco-indicators 95 and 99 procedures. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and compare the applicability of these European LCIA procedures within the South African context, using a case study. Methods  The five European methods have been evaluated based on the applicability of the respective classification, characterisation, normalization and weighting approaches for the South African situation. Impact categories have been grouped into air, water, land and mined abiotic resources for evaluation purposes. The evaluation and comparison is further based on a cradle-to-gate Screening Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) case study of the production of dyed two-fold wool yarn in South Africa. Results and Discussion  Where land is considered as a separate category (CML, Eco-indicator 99 and EPS), the case study highlights this inventory constituent as the most important. Similarly, water usage is shown as the second most important in one LCIA procedure (EPS) where it is taken into account. However, the impact assessment modelling for these categories may not be applicable for the variance in South African ecosystems. If land and water is excluded from the interpretation, air emissions, coal usage, ash disposal, pesticides and chrome emissions to water are the important constituents in the South African wool industry. Conclusions  In most cases impact categories and procedures defined in the LCIA methods for air pollution, human health and mined abiotic resources are applicable in South Africa. However, the relevance of the methods is reduced where categories are used that impact ecosystem quality, as ecosystems differ significantly between South Africa and the European continent. The methods are especially limited with respect to water and land resources. Normalisation and weighting procedures may also be difficult to adapt to South African conditions, due to the lack of background information and social, cultural and political differences. Recommendations and Outlook  Further research is underway to develop a framework for a South African LCIA procedure, which will be adapted from the available European procedures. The wool SLCA must be revisited to evaluate and compare the proposed framework with the existing LCIA procedures.     

Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation

Background, aim, and scope

Many studies evaluate the results of applying different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to the same life cycle inventory (LCI) data and demonstrate that the assessment results would be different with different LICA methods used. Although the importance of uncertainty is recognized, most studies focus on individual stages of LCA, such as LCI and normalization and weighting stages of LCIA. However, an important question has not been answered in previous studies: Which part of the LCA processes will lead to the primary uncertainty? The understanding of the uncertainty contributions of each of the LCA components will facilitate the improvement of the credibility of LCA.

Methodology

A methodology is proposed to systematically analyze the uncertainties involved in the entire procedure of LCA. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to analyze the uncertainties associated with LCI, LCIA, and the normalization and weighting processes. Five LCIA methods are considered in this study, i.e., Eco-indicator 99, EDIP, EPS, IMPACT 2002+, and LIME. The uncertainty of the environmental performance for individual impact categories (e.g., global warming, ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human health) is also calculated and compared. The LCA of municipal solid waste management strategies in Taiwan is used as a case study to illustrate the proposed methodology.

Results

The primary uncertainty source in the case study is the LCI stage under a given LCIA method. In comparison with various LCIA methods, EDIP has the highest uncertainty and Eco-indicator 99 the lowest uncertainty. Setting aside the uncertainty caused by LCI, the weighting step has higher uncertainty than the normalization step when Eco-indicator 99 is used. Comparing the uncertainty of various impact categories, the lowest is global warming, followed by eutrophication. Ecotoxicity, human health, and photochemical smog have higher uncertainty.

Discussion

In this case study of municipal waste management, it is confirmed that different LCIA methods would generate different assessment results. In other words, selection of LCIA methods is an important source of uncertainty. In this study, the impacts of human health, ecotoxicity, and photochemical smog can vary a lot when the uncertainties of LCI and LCIA procedures are considered. For the purpose of reducing the errors of impact estimation because of geographic differences, it is important to determine whether and which modifications of assessment of impact categories based on local conditions are necessary.

Conclusions

This study develops a methodology of systematically evaluating the uncertainties involved in the entire LCA procedure to identify the contributions of different assessment stages to the overall uncertainty. Which modifications of the assessment of impact categories are needed can be determined based on the comparison of uncertainty of impact categories.

Recommendations and perspectives

Such an assessment of the system uncertainty of LCA will facilitate the improvement of LCA. If the main source of uncertainty is the LCI stage, the researchers should focus on the data quality of the LCI data. If the primary source of uncertainty is the LCIA stage, direct application of LCIA to non-LCIA software developing nations should be avoided.     

Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly implemented in analyzing the environmental performance of buildings and construction projects. To assess the life cycle environmental performance, decision-makers may adopt the two life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches, namely the midpoint and endpoint models. Any imprudent usage of the two approaches may affect the assessment results and thus lead to misleading findings. ReCiPe, a well-known work, includes a package of LCIA methods to provide assessments on both midpoint and endpoint levels. This study compares different potential LCIA results using the midpoint and endpoint approaches of ReCiPe based on the assessment of a commercial building in Hong Kong.

Methods

This paper examines 23 materials accounting for over 99 % of the environmental impacts of all the materials consumed in commercial buildings in Hong Kong. The midpoint and endpoint results are compared at the normalization level. A commercial building in Hong Kong is further studied to provide insights as a real case study. The ranking of impact categories and the contributions from various construction materials are examined for the commercial building. Influence due to the weighting factors is discussed.

Results and discussion

Normalization results of individual impact categories of the midpoint and endpoint approaches are consistent for the selected construction materials. The difference in the two approaches can be detected when several impact categories are considered. The ranking of materials is slightly different under the two approaches. The ranking of impact categories demonstrates completely different features. In the case study of a commercial building in Hong Kong, the contributions from subprocesses are different at the midpoint and endpoint. The weighting factors can determine not only the contributions of the damage categories to the total environment, but also the value of a single score.

Conclusions

In this research, the midpoint and endpoint approaches are compared using ReCiPe. Information is whittled down from the inventories to a single score. Midpoint results are comprehensive while endpoint results are concise. The endpoint approach which provides additional information of damage should be used as a supplementary to the midpoint model. When endpoint results are asked for, a LCIA method like ReCiPe that provides both the midpoint and endpoint analysis is recommended. This study can assist LCA designers to interpret the midpoint and endpoint results, in particular, for the assessment of commercial buildings in Hong Kong.     

Characterisation and Normalisation Factors for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Mined Abiotic Resources Categories in South Africa: The manufacturing of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study (10 pp)

Goal and Background Current Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) procedures have demonstrated certain limitations in the South African manufacturing industry. The aim of this paper is to propose new characterisation and normalisation factors for classified mined abiotic resource depletion categories in the South African context. These factors should reflect the importance of mined resources as they relate to region-specific resource depletion. The method can also be applied to determine global factors. Methods The reserve base (as in 2001) of the most commonly produced minerals in South Africa is used as basis to determine characterisation factors for a non-renewable mineral resources category. The average production of these minerals from 1991 to 2000 is compared to economically Demonstrated and Demonstrated Marginal Reserves (and not ultimate reserves) to obtain the characterisation factors in equivalence units, with platinum as the reference mineral. Similarly, for a non-renewable energy resources category, coal is used in South Africa as equivalent unit as it is the most important fossil fuel for the country. Crude oil and natural gas resources are currently obtained from reserves elsewhere in the world and characterisation factors are therefore determined using global resources and production levels. The normalisation factors are based on the total economic reserves of key South African minerals and world non-renewable energy resources respectively. A case study of the manufacturing of an exhaust system for a standard sedan is used to compare LCIA results for mined abiotic resource categories that are based on current LCIA factors and the new South African factors. Results and Discussion The South African LCIA procedure differs from current methods in that it shows the importance of other mined resources, i.e. iron ore and crude oil, relative to PGMs and coal for the manufacturing life cycle of the exhaust system. With respect to PGMs, the current characterisation factors are based on the concentrations of the metals in the ores and the ultimate reserves, which are erroneous with respect to the actual availability of the mineral resources and the depletion burden placed on these minerals is consequently too high. Conclusions The South African LCIA procedure for mined abiotic resources depletion shows the significance of choosing a method, which is inline with the current situation in the mining industry and its limitations. Recommendations and Outlook It is proposed to similarly investigate the impacts of the use of other natural resource groups. Water, specifically, must receive attention in the characterisation phase of LCIAs in South African LCAs.     

Helias A. Udo De Haes: A Practical Scientist

Goal, Scope and Background The importance of the social dimension of sustainable development increased significantly during the last decade of the twentieth century. Industry has subsequently experienced a shift in stakeholder pressures from environmental to social-related concerns, where new developments in the form of projects and technologies are undertaken. However, the measurement of social impacts and the calculation of suitable indicators are less well developed compared to environmental indicators in order to assess the potential liabilities associated with undertaken projects and technologies. The aim of this paper is to propose a Social Impact Indicator (SII) calculation procedure based on a previously introduced Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) calculation procedure for environmental Resource Impact Indicators (RIIs), and to demonstrate the practicability of the SII procedure in the context of the process industry in South Africa. Methods A framework of social sustainability criteria has been introduced for the South African process industry. The social sub-criteria of the framework are further analyzed, based on project and technology management expertise in the South African process industry, to determine whether the criteria should be addressed at project or technology management level or whether they should rather form part of an overall corporate governance policy for new projects and technologies. Furthermore, the proposed indicators for criteria that are considered appropriate for project or technology evaluation purposes are constrained by the type of information that is available, i.e. the calculation methodology relies on the availability of regional or national social information where the project will be implemented, as well as the availability of project- or technology-specific social information during the various phases of the project or technology development life cycle. Case studies in the process industry and statistical information for South Africa are subsequently used to establish information availability for the SII calculation procedure, demonstrate the SII method together with the RII method, and determine the practical use of the SII method. Results and Conclusion The case studies establish that social footprint information as well as project- and technology social data are not readily available in the South African process industry. Consequently, the number of mid-point categories that can be evaluated are minimal, which results in an impaired social picture when compared to the environmental dimension. It is concluded that a quantitative social impact assessment method cannot be applied for project and technology life cycle management purposes in industry at present. Recommendation and Perspective Following the outcomes of the case studies in the South African process industry, it is recommended that checklists and guidelines be used during project and technology life cycle management practices. Similar to the environmental dimension, it is envisaged that such checklists and guidelines would improve the availability of quantitative data in time, and would therefore make the SII procedure more practical in the future.     

Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods

Purpose

The main objective of this study is to expand the discussion about how, and to what extent, the environmental performance is affected by the use of different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) illustrated by the case study of the comparison between environmental impacts of gasoline and ethanol form sugarcane in Brazil.

Methods

The following LCIA methods have been considered in the evaluation: CML 2001, Impact 2002+, EDIP 2003, Eco-indicator 99, TRACI 2, ReCiPe, and Ecological Scarcity 2006. Energy allocation was used to split the environmental burdens between ethanol and surplus electricity generated at the sugarcane mill. The phases of feedstock and (bio)fuel production, distribution, and use are included in system boundaries.

Results and discussion

At the midpoint level, comparison of different LCIA methods showed that ethanol presents lower impacts than gasoline in important categories such as global warming, fossil depletion, and ozone layer depletion. However, ethanol presents higher impacts in acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and agricultural land use categories. Regarding to single-score indicators, ethanol presented better performance than gasoline using ReCiPe Endpoint LCIA method. Using IMPACT 2002+, Eco-indicator 99, and Ecological Scarcity 2006, higher scores are verified for ethanol, mainly due to the impacts related to particulate emissions and land use impacts.

Conclusions

Although there is a relative agreement on the results regarding equivalent environmental impact categories using different LCIA methods at midpoint level, when single-score indicators are considered, use of different LCIA methods lead to different conclusions. Single-score results also limit the interpretability at endpoint level, as a consequence of small contributions of relevant environmental impact categories weighted in a single-score indicator.     

Time Horizon and Dominance in Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment

Temporal aspects have traditionally not been recognized adequately in life cycle assessment (LCA). The dynamic LCA model recently proposed offers a significant step forward in the dynamic assessment of global warming impacts. The results obtained with dynamic LCA are highly sensitive to the choice of a time horizon. Therefore, decision making between alternative systems can be critical because conclusions are dependent on the specific time horizon. In this article, we develop a decision‐making methodology based on the concept of time dominance. We introduce instantaneous and cumulative time dominance criteria to the dynamic LCA context and argue why the dominance of an alternative should also imply preference. Our approach allows for the rejection of certain alternatives without the determination of a specific time horizon. The number of decision‐relevant alternatives can thereby be reduced and the decision problem facilitated. We demonstrate our methodology by means of a case study of end‐of‐life alternatives for a wooden chair derived from the original authors of dynamic LCA and discuss the implications and limitations of the approach. The methodology based on time dominance criteria is supplementary to the dynamic LCA model, but does not substitute it. The overall value of this article stretches beyond LCA onto more general assessments of global warming, for example, in policy where the choice of a time horizon is equally significant.     

Reviewing the potential for including habitat fragmentation to improve life cycle impact assessments for land use impacts on biodiversity

Purpose

The biosphere is progressively subjected to a variety of pressures resulting from anthropogenic activities. Habitat conversion, resulting from anthropogenic land use, is considered the dominant factor driving terrestrial biodiversity loss. Hence, adequate modelling of land use impacts on biodiversity in decision-support tools, like life cycle assessment (LCA), is a priority. State-of-the-art life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) characterisation models for land use impacts on biodiversity translate natural habitat transformation and occupation into biodiversity impacts. However, the currently available models predominantly focus on total habitat loss and ignore the spatial configuration of the landscape. That is, habitat fragmentation effects are ignored in current LCIAs with the exception of one recently developed method.

Methods

Here, we review how habitat fragmentation may affect biodiversity. In addition, we investigate how land use impacts on biodiversity are currently modelled in LCIA and how missing fragmentation impacts can influence the LCIA model results. Finally, we discuss fragmentation literature to evaluate possible methods to include habitat fragmentation into advanced characterisation models.

Results and discussion

We found support in available ecological literature for the notion that habitat fragmentation is a relevant factor when assessing biodiversity loss. Moreover, there are models that capture fragmentation effects on biodiversity that have the potential to be incorporated into current LCIA characterisation models.

Conclusions and recommendations

To enhance the credibility of LCA biodiversity assessments, we suggest that available fragmentation models are adapted, expanded and subsequently incorporated into advanced LCIA characterisation models and promote further efforts to capture the remaining fragmentation effects in LCIA characterisation models.

     

A framework for implementing holistic and integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of regional bioeconomy

Purpose

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.

Methods

We 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 discussion

This 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.

Conclusions

Our 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.