Support for Sustainable Development Policy Decisions A Case Study from Highway Maintenance

-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.009

Goal, Scope and Method

logy. This paper describes a case study carried out as part of a wider programme to provide support for environmental decision-making in the highway maintenance programme of a local government body: Surrey County Council (SCC). UK local authorities are required to demonstrate that sustainable development principles are addressed in service provision, by improving environmental, economic or social wellbeing and improving public consultation. A methodological approach was developed to meet these requirements by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) through the process of decision conferencing.

Results

In projects requiring strategic decisions, difficulties arise in identifying relevant sustainable development criteria and in evaluating maintenance options against these criteria where the context for decision-making is complex and characterised by uncertainty, where multiple public policy objectives compete and a number of decision-makers and key players are affected by the outcome. Clearly, a structured process is needed to engage such stakeholders in the decision process, utilising quantitative and qualitative information. The approach described proved to be capable of fulfilling these requirements.

Conclusions

and Recommendations. The approach of combining LCA with MCDA through decision conferencing is capable of further development to support other strategic decision-making activities. However, this illustrative case study has revealed a need for methodological developments in LCA for local, project-level decisions.

     

Notions on the Design and Use of an Ideal Regional or Global LCA Database

Goal, Scope and Background

More and more national and regional life cycle assessment (LCA) databases are being established satisfying the increasing demand on LCA in policy making (e.g. Integrated Product Policy, IPP) and in industry. In order to create harmonised datasets in such unified databases, a common understanding and common rules are required. This paper describes major requirements on the way towards an ideal national background LCA database in terms of co-operation, but also in terms of life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) and impact assessment (LCIA) methodology.

Methods

A classification of disputed methodological issues is made according to their consensus potential. In LCI, three main areas of dissent are identified where consensus seems hardly possible, namely system modelling (consequential versus attributional), allocation (including recycling) and reporting (transparency and progressiveness). In LCIA the time aspect is added to the well-known value judgements of the weighting step.

Results and Discussions

It is concluded that LCA methodology should rather allow for plurality than to urge harmonisation in any case. A series of questions is proposed to identify the most appropriate content of the LCA background database or the most appropriate LCI dataset. The questions help to identify the best suited approach in modelling the product system in general and multioutput and recycling processes in particular. They additionally help to clarify the position with regard to time preferences in LCIA. Intentionally, the answers to these questions are not attributed to particular goal and scope definitions, although some recommendations and clarifying explanations are provided.

Recommendations and Perspective

It is concluded that there is not one single ideal background database content. Value judgements are also present in LCI modelling and require pluralistic solutions; solutions possibly based on the same primary data. It is recommended to focus the methodological discussion on aspects where consensus is within reach, sensible and of added value for all parties.

     

Human and Ecological Life Cycle Tools for the Integrated Assessment of Systems (HELIAS)

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.008

Goal, Scope and Background

CML has contributed to the development of life cycle decision support tools, particularly Substance / Material Flow Analysis (SFA respectively MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Ever since these tools emerged there have been discussions on how these tools relate to each other, and how they relate to more traditional tools. Remarkably little, however, has been published on these relationships from an empirical side: which combinations of tools have actually been used, and what is the added value of combining tools in practical case studies. In this paper, we report on CML's experience in this field by presenting a number of case studies with their related research questions, for which different tools were deployed.

Methods

Three case studies are discussed: 1) Waste water treatment: various options for waste water treatment have been assessed on their eco-efficiency, using SFA to comment on the influence of these options on the flows of certain substances in the water system of a geographical area and a combination of LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) to assess the life-cycle impacts and costs of these options; 2) Prioritization of environmental policy measures: A methodology has been developed to prioritize environmental policy measures and investments within companies based on both the environmental impacts and the costs of these measures; and 3) Environmental weighting of materials: to add an environmental dimension to standard MFA accounts, materials were weighted with cradle-to-grave impact factors based on LCA data and impact assessment factors.

Results and Discussion

For each of these cases, the research questions at stake, the tools applied, the results and the added value, limitations and problems of combining the tools are reported.

Conclusions

and Perspective. Based on these experiences, it is concluded that using several tools to address a complicated problem is not only a theoretical proposal, but also something that has been applied successfully in a variety of practical situations. Furthermore, using several tools in combination does not necessarily lead to an increased information supply to decisionmakers. Instead, it may contribute to the comprehensibility and ease of interpretation of the information that would have been provided by using a single tool. Finally, it is concluded that there is not one generally valid protocol for which tools to use for which question. The essential idea of using a combination of tools is exactly the fact that research questions are not simple by nature and cannot be generalized into protocols.

     

A new approach for a modular valuation of LCAs

Goal Scope and Background

Qualitative valuation methods carefully try to avoid an aggregation across impact categories. However, such an aggregation often helps in obtaining a clear result for the valuation (which product scores better?). This article presents a new valuation method that uses an iterative approach. The application is demonstrated by the help of a case study for electric motors in trains.

Methods / Main Features

The approach combines two existing, unique valuation methods described earlier in literature, which both are of a rather non-aggregating nature, in line with ISO requirements, and were designed to be performed by LCA experts. The method is implemented in a computer software. Besides constants used within the method, the software needs as input solely indicator values from the Impact Assessment.

Results and Discussion

The iterative nature of these methods itself, and especially the combination of these methods, helps in achieving a valuation result for the LCA with not more subjective and aggregating elements than necessary. Subjective elements are clearly separated from others. The algorithm seems highly sensitive to changes in impact categories regarded as important ones. The implementation in software greatly eases the application of the method by transferring routine work from LCA experts to a machine. It ensures a reproducible result and prevents erroneous steps in a rather complicated valuation procedure. It further helps in hiding the complexity of the method from the user.

Conclusion

The approach of combining valuation methods in LCAs seems a fruitful one, and shows benefits when implemented in computer software, in terms of usability, and in terms of a more reproducible application. Care has to be taken to make sure users know what they do when performing an automated valuation procedure.

Outlook

We see three ways for extending the approach, namely: (i) become part of a toolbox of different valuation procedures; (ii) explicitly cope with uncertainty, and (iii) include different values for normalisation, in different regions worldwide. The software will be made available also in a stand alone version.

     

Distance-to-Target Weighting in Life Cycle Impact Assessment Based on Chinese Environmental Policy for the Period 1995-2005 (6 pp)

Background and Objective

. Values in the known weighting methods in Life Cycle Assessment are mostly founded by the societal systems of developed countries. What source of weights and which weighting methods are reliable for a big developing country like China? The purpose of this paper is to find a possible weighting method and available data that will work well for LCA practices conducted in China. Since government policies and decisions play a leading role in the process of environmental protection in developing countries, the weights derived from political statements may be a consensus by representatives of the public.

Methods

'Distance-to-political target' principle is used in this paper to derive weights of five problem-oriented impact categories. The critical policy targets are deduced from the environmental policies issued in the period of the Ninth Five-year (1996-2000) and the Tenth Five-year (2001-2005) Plan for the Development of National Economy and Society of China. Policy targets on two five-year periods are presented and analyzed. Weights are determined by the quotient between the reference levels and target levels of a certain impact category.

Results and Discussion

Since the Tenth Five-year Plan put forward the overall objective to reduce the level of regional pollution by 2005, the weights for AP, EP and POCP for 2000-2005 are more than 1. By comparison between the Ninth Five-year and Tenth Five-year period, the results show that the weights obtained in this paper effectively represent Chinese political environmental priorities in different periods. For the weights derived from China's political targets for the overall period 1995-2005, the rank order of relative importance is ODP>AP>POCP>EP>GWP. They are recommended to the potential users for the broader disparity among the five categories. By comparison with the weights presented by the widespread EDIP method, the result shows that there's a big difference in the relative importance of ozone depletion and global warming.

-

In conclusion, the weighting factors and rank order of impact categories determined in this study represent the characteristics of the big developing country. The derived weighting set can be helpful to LCA practices of products within the industrial systems of China.

     

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.

     

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.

     

The EcoSpold 2 format—why a new format?

Purpose

This paper introduces the new EcoSpold data format for life cycle inventory (LCI).

Methods

A short historical retrospect on data formats in the life cycle assessment (LCA) field is given. The guiding principles for the revision and implementation are explained. Some technical basics of the data format are described, and changes to the previous data format are explained.

Results

The EcoSpold 2 data format caters for new requirements that have arisen in the LCA field in recent years.

Conclusions

The new data format is the basis for the Ecoinvent v3 database, but since it is an open data format, it is expected to be adopted by other LCI databases. Several new concepts used in the new EcoSpold 2 data format open the way for new possibilities for the LCA practitioners and to expand the application of the datasets in other fields beyond LCA (e.g., Material Flow Analysis, Energy Balancing).

     

Bridge processes: a solution for LCI datasets independent of background databases

Introduction

New platforms are emerging that enable more data providers to publish life cycle inventory data.

Background

Providing datasets that are not complete LCA models results in fragments that are difficult for practitioners to integrate and use for LCA modeling. Additionally, when proxies are used to provide a technosphere input to a process that was not originally intended by the process authors, in most LCA software, this requires modifying the original process.

Results

The use of a bridge process, which is a process created to link two existing processes, is proposed as a solution.

Discussion

Benefits to bridge processes include increasing model transparency, facilitating dataset sharing and integration without compromising original dataset integrity and independence, providing a structure with which to make the data quality associated with process linkages explicit, and increasing model flexibility in the case that multiple bridges are provided. A drawback is that they add additional processes to existing LCA models which will increase their size.

Conclusions

Bridge processes can be an enabler in allowing users to integrate new datasets without modifying them to link to background databases or other processes they have available. They may not be the ideal long-term solution but provide a solution that works within the existing LCA data model.

     

Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.017

Background, Aims and Scope

Social impacts in supply chains and product life cycles are of increasing interest to policy makers and stakeholders. Work is underway to develop social impact indicators for LCA, and to identify the social inventory data that will drive impact assessment for this category. Standard LCA practice collects and aggregates inventory data of the form \units of input or output (elementary flow) per unit of process output.\ Measurement of social impacts within workplaces as well as host communities and societies poses new challenges not heretofore faced by LCA database developers. Participatory measurement and auditing of social impacts and of workplace health issues has been shown to provide important benefits relative to external auditor-based methods, including greater likelihood of detecting rights abuses, and stronger support of subsequent action for improvement. However, nonstandardized auditing and metrics poses challenges for the supply chain-wide aggregation and comparison functions of LCA. An analogous challenge arises in the case of resource extractive processes, for which the certification of best management practices provides an important and practical environmental metric. In both the social and resource extraction examples, it may be that attributes of the process are more valuable metrics to measure and incentivize than measured quantities per unit of process output. But how to measure, how to aggregate across life cycles, how to compare product life cycles, and how to incentivize progress as with product policy?

Methods

A methodology is presented and demonstrated which estimates the health impacts of economic development stemming from product life cycles. This methodology does not introduce new social indicators; rather, it works with the already common LCA endpoint of human health, and introduces and applies a simplified empirical relationship to characterize the complex pathways from product life cycles' economic activity to health in the aggregate.

Results

A simple case study indicates that the health benefits of economic development impacts in product life cycles have the potential to be very significant, possibly even orders of magnitude greater than the health damages from the increased pollution. While the simple macro model points up the dramatic importance of socio-economic pathways to health in product life cycles, it lacks any sensitivity to the vitally important, contextspecific attributes of the economic development associated with each process. This result begs the question of how to measure, aggregate, compare, and stimulate society-wide improvement of context-dependent attributes within and across product life cycles in LCA.

Discussion

Before attempting an answer to the question noted above, a brief reconsideration is offered concerning life cycle assessment. Namely, where does it come from, and what does it bring?

Recommendations and Outlook

Finally, the paper concludes by sketching a life cycle approach to promoting localized assessments, to summarizing their results over supply chains and life cycles, and to comparing product life cycles in terms of their results. Often, localized assessments will yield information on the attributes of a process, rather than (or in addition to) the traditional form of life cycle inventory information, which is \units of something per unit of process output.\ The methodology can enable product policy users to promote reporting of basic attributes of processes within supply chains, together with local measurement and reporting of context-relevant impacts. For attributes linked to progress on impacts of local and global concern, promotion of these attributes within supply chain processes will bring strong benefits. In addition, over time it may be possible for researchers to develop and refine models that estimate, based on cross-sectional and time series analysis of attributes and impacts, relationships between attributes and impacts. In any case, while local impacts across supply chains may not be precisely knowable – let alone controllable – by a microdecision maker at the time of their product-related decision, life cycle attribute analysis may give such decision makers an opportunity to empower progress throughout life cycles and supply chains, which is after all a motivating goal of LCA.

     

The Application of the Environmental Product Declaration to Waste Disposal in a Sanitary Landfill - Four Case Studies (10 pp)

Goal, Scope and Background

The aim of the present study is to evaluate, through LCA, the potential environmental impact associated to urban waste dumping in a sanitary landfill for four case studies and to compare different technologies for waste treatment and leachate or biogas management in the framework of the EPD® system. Specific data were collected on the four Italian landfills during a five-year campaign from 2000 to 2004. This work also analyses the comparability of EPD results for different products in the same product category. For this purpose, a critical review of PSR 2003:3, for preparing an EPD on ‘Collection, transfer and disposal service for urban waste in sanitary landfills', is performed.

Methods

PSR 2003:3 defines the requirements, based on environmental parameters, that should be considered in an LCA study for collecting and disposal service of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in a sanitary landfill. It defines functional unit, system boundaries towards nature, other technical systems and boundaries in time, cut-off rules, allocation rules and parameters to be declared in the EPD. This PSR is tested on four case studies representing the major landfills located from the farthest west to the farthest east side of the Ligurian Region. Those landfills are managed with different technologies as concerns waste pre-treatment and leachate or biogas treatment. For each landfill, a life cycle assessment study is performed.

Results and Discussion

The comparison of the LCA results is performed separately for the following phases: Transport, Landfill, Leachate and Biogas. The following parameters are considered: Resource use (Use of non-renewable resources with and without energy content, Use of renewable resources with and without energy content, Water consumption); Pollutant emissions expressed as potential environmental impact (Global Warming Potential from biological and fossil sources, Acidification, Ozone depletion, Photochemical oxidant formation, Eutrophication, Land use, Hazardous and other Waste production). The comparison of the LCA results obtained for alternative landfill and biogas management techniques in the case studies investigated shows that the best practicable option that benefits the environment as a whole must be identified and chosen in the LCA context. For example, a strong waste pre-treatment causes a high biological GWP in the Landfill phase, but a low GWP contribution in the Biogas phase, due to the consequent low biogas production, evaluated for 30 years since landfill closure.

Conclusion

The analysis of four case studies showed that, through the EPD tool, it is possible to make a comparison among different declarations for the same product category only with some modification and integration to existent PSR 2003:3. Results showed that different products have different performances for phases and impact categories. It is not possible to identify the \best product\ from an environmental point of view, but it is possible to identify the product (or service) with the lowest impact on the environment for each impact category and resource use.

Recommendation and Perspective

In consequences of the verification of the comprehensiveness of existent PSR 2003:3 for the comparability of EPD, some modifications and integration to existent rules are suggested.

     

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.

     

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: <Emphasis Type="Italic">quo vadis</Emphasis>?

Purpose

Building on the rhetoric question “quo vadis?” (literally “Where are you going?”), this article critically investigates the state of the art of normalisation and weighting approaches within life cycle assessment. It aims at identifying purposes, current practises, pros and cons, as well as research gaps in normalisation and weighting. Based on this information, the article wants to provide guidance to developers and practitioners. The underlying work was conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Cross-Cutting issues in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).

Methods

The empirical work consisted in (i) an online survey to investigate the perception of the LCA community regarding the scientific quality and current practice concerning normalisation and weighting; (ii) a classification followed by systematic expert-based assessment of existing methods for normalisation and weighting according to a set of five criteria: scientific robustness, documentation, coverage, uncertainty and complexity.

Results and discussion

The survey results showed that normalised results and weighting scores are perceived as relevant for decision-making, but further development is needed to improve uncertainty and robustness. The classification and systematic assessment of methods allowed for the identification of specific advantages and limitations.

Conclusions

Based on the results, recommendations are provided to practitioners that desire to apply normalisation and weighting as well as to developers of the underlying methods.

     

Criteria for the evaluation of life cycle assessment software packages and life cycle inventory data with application to concrete

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) software packages have proliferated and evolved as LCA has developed and grown. There are now a multitude of LCA software packages that must be critically evaluated by users. Prior to conducting a comparative LCA study on different concrete materials, it is necessary to examine a variety of software packages for this specific purpose. The paper evaluates five LCA tools in the context of the LCA of seven concrete mix designs (conventional concrete, concrete with fly ash, slag, silica fume or limestone as cement replacement, recycled aggregate concrete, and photocatalytic concrete).

Methods

Three key evaluation criteria required to assess the quality of analysis are adequate flexibility, sophistication and complexity of analysis, and usefulness of outputs. The quality of life cycle inventory (LCI) data included in each software package is also assessed for its reliability, completeness, and correlation to the scope of LCA of concrete products in Canada. A questionnaire is developed for evaluating LCA software packages and is applied to five LCA tools.

Results and discussion

The result is the selection of a software package for the specific context of LCA of concrete materials in Canada, which will be used to complete a full LCA study. The software package with the highest score is software package C (SP-C), with 44 out of a possible 48 points. Its main advantage is that it allows for the user to have a high level of control over the system being modeled and the calculation methods used.

Conclusions

This comparative study highlights the importance of selecting a software package that is appropriate for a specific research project. The ability to accurately model the chosen functional unit and system boundary is an important selection criterion. This study demonstrates a method to enable a critical and rigorous comparison without excessive and redundant duplication of efforts.

     

A new hybrid method for reducing the gap between WTW and LCA in the carbon footprint assessment of electric vehicles

Purpose

The well-to-wheel (WTW) methodology is widely used for policy support in road transport. It can be seen as a simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) that focuses on the energy consumption and CO₂ emissions only for the fuel being consumed, ignoring other stages of a vehicle’s life cycle. WTW results are therefore different from LCA results. In order to close this gap, the authors propose a hybrid WTW+LCA methodology useful to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) profiles of road vehicles.

Methods

The proposed method (hybrid WTW+LCA) keeps the main hypotheses of the WTW methodology, but integrates them with LCA data restricted to the global warming potential (GWP) occurring during the manufacturing of the battery pack. WTW data are used for the GHG intensity of the EU electric mix, after a consistency check with the main life cycle impact (LCI) sources available in literature.

Results and discussion

A numerical example is provided, comparing GHG emissions due to the use of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) with emissions from an internal combustion engine vehicle. This comparison is done both according to the WTW approach (namely the JEC WTW version 4) and the proposed hybrid WTW+LCA method. The GHG savings due to the use of BEVs calculated with the WTW-4 range between 44 and 56 %, while according to the hybrid method the savings are lower (31–46 %). This difference is due to the GWP which arises as a result of the manufacturing of the battery pack for the electric vehicles.

Conclusions

The WTW methodology used in policy support to quantify energy content and GHG emissions of fuels and powertrains can produce results closer to the LCA methodology by adopting a hybrid WTW+LCA approach. While evaluating GHG savings due to the use of BEVs, it is important that this method considers the GWP due to the manufacturing of the battery pack.

     

Happiness and Sustainable Consumption: Psychological and physical rebound effects at work in a tool for sustainable design

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.018

Goal, Scope and Background

Life cycle assessment has emerged into a useful tool to assess and potentially reduce the environmental impacts per functional unit. This has contributed to increase eco-efficiency but not necessarily to decrease absolute pollution per capita. The number of functional units is increasing and new functions add to the impacts of consumption. Despite the attempts to use different levels of definitions for the functional unit and applying LCA in the field of lifestyle studies there has been little success to grasp the consumption side of sustainable production and consumption. This contribution aims to tackle the consumption side by at least two extensions: the function of products, services, and activities is assessed with a multi-attribute need function and the propensity to cause both psychological and physical rebound effects are considered in the design phase.

Methods

We develop a checklist approach with an evaluation and assessment table. The elements of the checklist are rooted in a number of independent fields of science: needs matrix, happiness enhancing factors, a number of limiting factors that can cause rebound effects, and streamlined LCA.

Results and Conclusion

For illustration purposes we comparatively evaluate gardening, having a dog, a weekend house, and starting yoga classes and show that the new analysis framework is able to make transparent and operable the inclusion of a number of additional factors that remained so far implicit or neglected. The additional factors considered can be grouped into factors that may cause rebound effects through psychological or physical mechanisms. The assessment table combines the degree of satisfying needs and enhancing happiness in a psychological rebound score. The physical rebound score considers six factors that may constrain consumption: Costs, time, space, other scarce resources, information, and skills. This allows predicting the potential for rebound effects that would increase total impacts from consumption. In addition, it gives also a handle on how to use the knowledge on rebound effects to not only reduce the impacts of the product or activity at hand but also reducing other consumption that in turn might have adverse impacts.

Recommendation and Perspective

Many assumptions in selecting and quantifying the additional factors and the final assessment procedure remain conceptual and therefore provisional. This contribution opens new avenues of investigations that need both further refinements of the theories and empirical evidence. Consumerism and materialism has undermined much of the success stories of improved eco-efficiency and LCA. We suggest using some of the very same psychological and physical mechanisms to foster sustainable consumption.

     

Regionalization of agri-food life cycle assessment: a review of studies in Portugal and recommendations for the future

Purpose

One of the main trends in life cycle assessment (LCA) today is towards increased regionalization in inventories and impact assessment methods. LCA studies require the collection of activity data but also of increasingly region-specific background data to accurately depict supply chain processes and enable the application of an increasing number of geographically explicit impact assessment models. This is particularly important for agri-food products. In this review, we assess progress in Portugal towards this goal and provide recommendations for future developments.

Methods

We perform a comprehensive review of available LCA studies conducted for Portuguese agri-food products, in order to evaluate the current state of Portuguese agri-food LCA. Among other issues, we assess availability of data, methods used, level of regionalization, impact assessment model relevance and coherence for inter-product comparability. We also provide conclusions and recommendations based on recent developments in the field.

Results and discussion

We found 22 LCA studies, covering 22 different products. The analysis of these studies reveals limitations in inter-study comparability. The main challenges have to do with a lack of country-specific foreground data sources applied consistently in the studies found, with discrepancies in impact assessment categories, and with the use of simple functional units that may misrepresent the product analyzed.

Conclusions

We conclude that Portuguese agri-food LCA studies do not have a systematic and country-scale approach in order to guarantee regional accuracy and comparability. We propose a research strategy to engage the Portuguese agri-food LCA community in devising a consistent framework before practical application studies are conducted.

     

What causes more LCA research—subjective values,objective problems,or scientific traditions?

Purpose

This paper aims to verify whether life cycle assessment (LCA) research can be mainly treated as a kind of pro-environmental behavior due to public environment concerns, or academic and research activities based on scientific traditions.

Methods

This paper uses the international comparisons method for modeling and SPSS 16.0 for data processing. The data in this study were obtained from the Human Development Report by the United Nations Development Programme and the Web of Science by the Institute for Scientific Information.

Results and discussion

Our empirical study shows that the two main factors influencing the outputs per capita of the research articles in LCA in a particular country are the value of Environmental Performance Index, which represents the overall environmental quality, as well as the outputs per capita of the research articles in environmental science and technology. The results of statistical analysis show two J-type curves: with the change of the independent variables, the dependent variable changes in the same direction, but at a rate that is first slow, then fast.

Conclusions

LCA research results from scientific traditions and can only develop based on fundamental research in environmental science and technology. Further, LCA research is a pro-environmental behavior due to actual and objective effects rather than subjective motives as more research on LCA can accompany, even in some degree may lead to better overall environmental qualities. However, although environmental concerns are likely to affect the number of LCA studies as an implicit variable, this has not been empirically confirmed in our optimization model.