Review of impact categories and environmental indicators for life cycle assessment of geotechnical systems

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has only had limited application in the geotechnical engineering discipline, though it has been widely applied to civil engineering systems such as pavements and roadways. A review of previous geotechnical LCAs showed that most studies have tracked a small set of impact categories, such as energy and global warming potential. Accordingly, currently reported environmental indicators may not effectively or fully capture important environmental impacts and tradeoffs associated with geotechnical systems, including those associated with land and soil resources. This research reviewed previous studies, methods, and models for assessment of land use and soil‐related impacts to understand their applicability to geotechnical LCA. The results of this review show that critical gaps remain in current knowledge and practice. In particular, further development or refinement of environmental indicators, impact categories, and cause–effect pathways is needed as they pertain to geotechnical applications—specifically those related to soil quality, soil functions, and the ecosystem services soils provide. In addition, many existing methods emerge from research on land use and land use change related to other disciplines (e.g., agriculture). For applicability to geotechnical projects, the resolution of many of these methods and resulting indicators need to be downscaled from the landscape/macro scale to the project scale. In the near term, practitioners of geotechnical LCA should begin tracking changes to soil properties and report impacts to land and soil resources qualitatively.     

A cost–benefit analysis of the environmental taxation policy in China: A frontier analysis‐based environmentally extended input–output optimization method

China's high‐speed economic development and reliance on overconsumption of natural resources have led to serious environmental pollution. Environmental taxation is seen as an effective economic tool to help mitigate air pollution. In order to assess the effects of different scenarios of environmental taxation policies, we propose a frontier‐based environmentally extended input–output optimization model with explicit emission abatement sectors to reflect the inputs and benefits of abatement. Frontier analysis ensures policy scenarios are assessed under the same technical efficiency benchmark, while input–output analysis depicts the wide range of economic transactions among sectors of an economy. Four scenarios are considered in this study, which are increasing specific tax rates of SO₂, NO_x, and soot and dust separately and increasing all three tax rates simultaneously. Our estimation results show that: raising tax rates of SO₂, NO_x, and soot and dust simultaneously would have the highest emission reduction effects, with the SO₂ tax rate making the greatest contribution to emission reduction. Raising the soot and dust tax rate is the most environmentally friendly strategy due to its highest abatement to welfare through avoided health costs. The combination of frontier analysis and input–output analysis provides policy makers a comprehensive and sectoral approach to assess costs and benefits of environmental taxation.     

Comparing urban food system characteristics and actions in US and Indian cities from a multi‐environmental impact perspective: Toward a streamlined approach

Food action plans in many global cities articulate interest in multiple objectives including reducing in‐ and trans‐boundary environmental impacts (water, land, greenhouse gas (GHG)). However, there exist few standardized analytical tools to compare food system characteristics and actions across cities and countries to assess trade‐offs between multiple objectives (i.e., health, equity) with environmental outcomes. This paper demonstrates a streamlined model applied for analysis of four cities with varying characteristics across the United States and India, to quantify system‐wide water, energy/GHG, and land impacts associated with multiple food system actions to address health, equity, and environment. Baseline diet analysis finds key differences between countries in terms of meat consumption (Delhi 4; Pondicherry 16; United States 59, kg/capita/year), and environmental impact of processing of the average diet (21%, 19%, <1%, <1% of community‐wide GHG‐emissions for New York, Minneapolis, Delhi, and Pondicherry). Analysis of supply chains finds city average distance (food‐miles) varies (Delhi 420; Pondicherry 200; United States average 1,640 km/t‐food) and the sensitivity of GHG emissions of food demand to spatial variability of energy intensity of irrigation is greater in Indian than US cities. Analysis also finds greater pre‐consumer waste in India versus larger post‐consumer accumulations in the United States. Despite these differences in food system characteristics, food waste management and diet change consistently emerge as key strategies. Among diet scenarios, all vegetarian diets are not found equal in terms of environmental benefit, with the US Government's recommended vegetarian diet resulting in less benefit than other more focused targeted diet changes.     

Using anticipatory life cycle assessment to enable future sustainable construction

The built environment is the largest single emitter of CO₂ and an important consumer of energy. Much research has gone into the improved efficiency of building operation and construction products. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is commonly used to assess existing buildings or building products. Classic LCA, however, is not suited for evaluating the environmental performance of developing technologies. A new approach, anticipatory LCA (a‐LCA), promises various advantages and can be used as a design constraint during the product development stage. It helps overcome four challenges: (i) data availability, (ii) stakeholder inclusion, (iii) risk assessment, and (iv) multi‐criteria problems. This article's contribution to the line of research is twofold: first, it adapts the a‐LCA approach for construction‐specific purposes in theoretical terms for the four challenges. Second, it applies the method to an innovative prefabricated modular envelope system, the CleanTechBlock (CTB), focusing on challenge (i). Thirty‐six CTB designs are tested and compared to conventional walls. Inclusion of technology foresight is achieved through structured scenario analysis. Moreover, challenge (iv) is tackled through the analysis of different environmental impact categories, transport‐related impacts, and thickness of the wall assemblies of the CTB. The case study results show that optimized material choice and product design is needed to reach the lowest environmental impact. Methodological findings highlight the importance of context‐specific solutions and the need for benchmarking new products.     

Supply versus use designs of environmental extensions in input–output analysis: Conceptual and empirical implications for the case of energy

Input–output analysis is one of the central methodological pillars of industrial ecology. However, the literature that discusses different structures of environmental extensions (EEs), that is, the scope of physical flows and their attribution to sectors in the monetary input–output table (MIOT), remains fragmented. This article investigates the conceptual and empirical implications of applying two different but frequently used designs of EEs, using the case of energy accounting, where one represents energy supply while the other energy use in the economy. We derive both extensions from an official energy supply–use dataset and apply them to the same single‐region input–output (SRIO) model of Austria, thereby isolating the effect that stems from the decision for the extension design. We also crosscheck the SRIO results with energy footprints from the global multi‐regional input–output (GMRIO) dataset EXIOBASE. Our results show that the ranking of footprints of final demand categories (e.g., household and export) is sensitive to the extension design and that product‐level results can vary by several orders of magnitude. The GMRIO‐based comparison further reveals that for a few countries the supply‐extension result can be twice the size of the use‐extension footprint (e.g., Australia and Norway). We propose a graph approach to provide a generalized framework to disclosing the design of EEs. We discuss the conceptual differences between the two extension designs by applying analogies to hybrid life‐cycle assessment and conclude that our findings are relevant for monitoring of energy efficiency and emission reduction targets and corporate footprint accounting.     

Lifting the veil on the correction of double counting incidents in hybrid life cycle assessment

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmentally extended input–output analyses (EEIOA) are two techniques commonly used to assess environmental impacts of an activity/product. Their strengths and weaknesses are complementary, and they are thus regularly combined to obtain hybrid LCAs. A number of approaches in hybrid LCA exist, which leads to different results. One of the differences is the method used to ensure that mixed LCA and EEIOA data do not overlap, which is referred to as correction for double counting. This aspect of hybrid LCA is often ignored in reports of hybrid assessments and no comprehensive study has been carried out on it. This article strives to list, compare, and analyze the different existing methods for the correction of double counting. We first harmonize the definitions of the existing correction methods and express them in a common notation, before introducing a streamlined variant. We then compare their respective assumptions and limitations. We discuss the loss of specific information regarding the studied activity/product and the loss of coherent financial representation caused by some of the correction methods. This analysis clarifies which techniques are most applicable to different tasks, from hybridizing individual LCA processes to integrating complete databases. We finally conclude by giving recommendations for future hybrid analyses.     

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?

The restoration community continues to discuss what constitutes good environmental stewardship. One area of tension is the extent to which the well‐being of wild animals should inform restoration efforts. We discuss three ways that the perspective of wild animal welfare can augment restoration ecology: strengthening people's relationship with nature, reinforcing biotic integrity, and reducing mechanistic uncertainty. The animal welfare movement elevates sentient animals as stakeholders and explores how environmental context directly impacts the well‐being of individuals. Viewing wild animals through this lens may encourage people to think and act with empathy and altruism. Second, we incorporate animal welfare into the concept of biotic integrity for ecological and ethical reasons. Restoring ecosystem processes may enhance animal welfare, and vice versa. Alternatively, there may be a trade‐off between these factors, requiring local decision‐makers to prioritize between restoring ecosystem function and promoting individuals' well‐being. We conclude by discussing how welfare can impact population recovery, thereby adding insights about mechanisms underpinning restoration objectives. Ultimately, restoration ecologists and proponents of wild animal welfare could enjoy a productive union.     

Potential of restored gravel pits to provide suitable habitats for Eurasian otters in anthropogenic landscapes

In anthropogenic landscapes, which are usually characterized by the existence of highly heterogeneous patchworks of habitats with different conservation status, restored gravel pits have the potential to play a conservation role for semiaquatic species such as Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra). Here, we report an otter habitat suitability analysis on a complex fluvial system in an anthropogenic landscape to understand the role of different artificial water bodies (i.e. irrigation channels and ditches) and natural water bodies (i.e. rivers) related to a restored gravel pit lagoon system as providers of suitable habitats for otters. We implemented seven sampling campaigns during 2016 and 2017 consisting of 19 transects across all existing types of water bodies. We integrated 34 environmental variables with otter habitat use, measured by three spraint marking intensity indicators. We found that otter use of water bodies was not related to the natural or artificial origin of the water. Three key factors influenced habitat suitability: riparian vegetation tree cover, forestland use (either natural or planted) within 100 m from the banks, and the level of human disturbance. Our results suggest that otters' tolerance of human activities might be lower in key areas of their territory compared to areas they pass through or explore. We argue that restored gravel pit lagoon systems can potentially play a role in providing suitable habitats for otters in anthropogenic landscapes.