Anders Bjørn

Absolute Versus Relative Environmental Sustainability

The cradle�?to�?cradle (C2C) concept has emerged as an alternative to the more established eco�?efficiency concept based on life cycle assessment (LCA). The two concepts differ fundamentally in that eco�?efficiency aims to reduce the negative environmental footprint of human activities while C2C attempts to increase the positive footprint. This article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each concept and suggests how they may learn from each other. The eco�?efficiency concept involves no long�?term vision or strategy, the links between resource consumption and waste emissions are not well related to the sustainability state, and increases in eco�?efficiency may lead to increases in consumption levels and hence overall impact. The C2C concepts disregard for energy efficiency means that many current C2C products will likely not perform well in an LCA. Inherent drawbacks are restrictions on the development of new materials posed by the ambition of continuous loop recycling, the perception that human interactions with nature can benefit all parts of all ecosystems, and the hinted compatibility with continued economic growth. Practitioners of eco�?efficiency can benefit from the visions of C2C to avoid a narrow�?minded focus on the eco�?efficiency of products that are inherently unsustainable. Moreover, resource efficiency and positive environmental effects could be included more strongly in LCA. Practitioners of C2C on the other hand should recognize the value of LCA in addressing trade�?offs between resource conservation and energy use. Also, when designing a “healthy emission�? it should be recognized that it will often have an adverse effect on parts of the exposed ecosystem.

Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level

PurposeThere is currently a weak or no link between the indicator scores quantified in life cycle assessment (LCA) and the carrying capacity of the affected ecosystems. Such a link must be established if LCA is to support assessments of environmental sustainability and it may be done by developing carrying capacity-based normalisation references. The purpose of this article is to present a framework for normalisation against carrying capacity-based references and to develop average normalisation references (NR) for Europe and the world for all those midpoint impact categories commonly included in LCA that link to the natural environment area of protection.MethodsCarrying capacity was in this context defined as the maximum sustained environmental intervention a natural system can withstand without experiencing negative changes in structure or functioning that are difficult or impossible to revert. A literature review was carried out to identify scientifically sound thresholds for each impact category. Carrying capacities were then calculated from these thresholds and expressed in metrics identical to midpoint indicators giving priority to those recommended by ILCD. NR was expressed as the carrying capacity of a reference region divided by its population and thus describes the annual personal share of the carrying capacity.Results and discussionThe developed references can be applied to indicator results obtained using commonly applied characterisation models in LCIA. The European NR are generally lower than the global NR, mainly due to a relatively high population density in Europe. The NR were compared to conventional normalisation references (NR′) which represent the aggregated interventions for Europe or the world in a recent reference year. For both scales, the aggregated intervention for climate change, photochemical ozone formation and soil quality were found to exceed carrying capacities several times.ConclusionsThe developed carrying capacity-based normalisation references offer relevant supplementary reference information to the currently applied references based on society’s background interventions by supporting an evaluation of the environmental sustainability of product systems on an absolute scale.RecommendationsChallenges remain with respect to spatial variations to increase the relevance of the normalisation references for impact categories that function at the local or regional scale. The sensitivity of NR to different choices, e.g. threshold value, should be quantified with the aim of understanding and managing uncertainties of NR. For complete coverage of the midpoint impact categories, normalisation references based on sustainability preconditions should be developed for those categories that link to the areas of protection human health and natural resources.

IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe 2008 and ILCD’s recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment: a case study-based comparison

PurposeThe European Commission has launched a recommended set of characterization models and factors for application in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). However, it is not known how this recommended practice, referred to as the ILCD 2009, performs relative to some of the most frequently used alternative LCIA methodologies. Here, we compare the ILCD 2009 with IMPACT 2002+ and ReCiPe 2008, focusing on characterization at midpoint based on a case study comparing four window design options for use in a residential building.MethodsRanking of the four window options was done for each impact category within each methodology. To allow comparison across the methodologies both in terms of total impact scores and contribution patterns for individual substances, impact scores were converted into common metrics for each impact category.Results and discussionApart from toxic impacts on human health and ecosystems, all studied methodologies consistently identify the same window option as having the lowest and the highest environmental impact. This is mainly because few processes, associated with production of heat, dominate the total impacts, and there is a large difference in demand for heat between the compared options. Despite this general agreement in ranking, differences in impact scores are above 3 orders of magnitude for human health impacts from ionizing radiation and ecosystem impacts from land use, and they lie between 1 and 3 orders of magnitude for metal depletion and for toxicity-related impact categories. The differences are somewhat smaller (within 1 order of magnitude) for the impact categories respiratory inorganics and photochemical ozone formation, and are within a factor of 3 for the remaining impact categories. The differences in impact scores in our case study are brought about by the differences in underlying characterization models and/or substance coverage, depending on the impact category.ConclusionsIn spite of substantial differences in impact scores for the individual impact categories, we find that the studied LCIA methods point to the same conclusion with respect to identifying the alternative with the lowest environmental burden and ascribe this to the fact that few processes are driving the main environmental impacts, and there is large difference in demand for output from these processes between the compared options. Even though the overall conclusions remain the same for our case study, the choice of the ILCD’s recommended practice over the existing alternatives does matter for the impact categories ionizing radiation and land use and all toxicity-related impact categories.

Analysis of the link between a definition of sustainability and the life cycle methodologies

PurposeIt has been claimed that in order to assess the sustainability of products, a combination of the results from a life cycle assessment (LCA), social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) is needed. Despite the frequent reference to this claim in the literature, very little explicit analysis of the claim has been made. The purpose of this article is to analyse this claim.MethodsAn interpretation of the goals of sustainability, as outlined in the report Our Common Future (WCED 1987), which is the basis for most literature on sustainability assessment in the LCA community, is presented and detailed to a level enabling an analysis of the relation to the impact categories at midpoint level considered in life cycle (LC) methodologies.ResultsThe interpretation of the definition of sustainability as outlined in Our Common Future (WCED 1987) suggests that the assessment of a products sustainability is about addressing the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty levels among the current generation, as well as changes in the level of natural, human and produced and social capital available for the future population. It is shown that the extent to which product life cycles affect poverty to some extent is covered by impact categories included in existing SLCA approaches. It is also found that the extent to which product life cycles affect natural capital is well covered by LCA, and human capital is covered by both LCA and SLCA but in different ways. Produced capital is not to any large extent considered in any of the LC methodologies. Furthermore, because of the present level of knowledge about what creates and destroys social capital, it is difficult to assess how it relates to the LC methodologies. It is also found that the LCC is only relevant in the context of a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) if focusing on the monetary gains or losses for the poor. Yet, this is an aspect which is already considered in several SLCA approaches.ConclusionsThe current consensus that LCSA can be performed through combining the results from an SLCA, LCA and LCC is only partially supported in this article: The LCSA should include both an LCA and an SLCA, which should be expanded to better cover how product life cycles affect poverty and produced capital. The LCC may be included if it has as a focus to asses income gains for the poor.

The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA

PurposePesticides are applied to agricultural fields to optimise crop yield and their global use is substantial. Their consideration in life cycle assessment (LCA) is affected by important inconsistencies between the emission inventory and impact assessment phases of LCA. A clear definition of the delineation between the product system model (life cycle inventory—LCI, technosphere) and the natural environment (life cycle impact assessment—LCIA, ecosphere) is missing and could be established via consensus building.MethodsA workshop held in 2013 in Glasgow, UK, had the goal of establishing consensus and creating clear guidelines in the following topics: (1) boundary between emission inventory and impact characterisation model, (2) spatial dimensions and the time periods assumed for the application of substances to open agricultural fields or in greenhouses and (3) emissions to the natural environment and their potential impacts. More than 30 specialists in agrifood LCI, LCIA, risk assessment and ecotoxicology, representing industry, government and academia from 15 countries and four continents, met to discuss and reach consensus. The resulting guidelines target LCA practitioners, data (base) and characterisation method developers, and decision makers.Results and discussionThe focus was on defining a clear interface between LCI and LCIA, capable of supporting any goal and scope requirements while avoiding double counting or exclusion of important emission flows/impacts. Consensus was reached accordingly on distinct sets of recommendations for LCI and LCIA, respectively, recommending, for example, that buffer zones should be considered as part of the crop production system and the change in yield be considered. While the spatial dimensions of the field were not fixed, the temporal boundary between dynamic LCI fate modelling and steady-state LCIA fate modelling needs to be defined.Conclusions and recommendationsFor pesticide application, the inventory should report pesticide identification, crop, mass applied per active ingredient, application method or formulation type, presence of buffer zones, location/country, application time before harvest and crop growth stage during application, adherence with Good Agricultural Practice, and whether the field is considered part of the technosphere or the ecosphere. Additionally, emission fractions to environmental media on-field and off-field should be reported. For LCIA, the directly concerned impact categories and a list of relevant fate and exposure processes were identified. Next steps were identified: (1) establishing default emission fractions to environmental media for integration into LCI databases and (2) interaction among impact model developers to extend current methods with new elements/processes mentioned in the recommendations.

Chemical footprint method for improved communication of freshwater ecotoxicity impacts in the context of ecological limits.

The ecological footprint method has been successful in communicating environmental impacts of anthropogenic activities in the context of ecological limits. We introduce a chemical footprint method that expresses ecotoxicity impacts from anthropogenic chemical emissions as the dilution needed to avoid freshwater ecosystem damage. The indicator is based on USEtox characterization factors with a modified toxicity reference point. Chemical footprint results can be compared to the actual dilution capacity within the geographic vicinity receiving the emissions to estimate whether its ecological limit has been exceeded and hence whether emissions can be expected to be environmentally sustainable. The footprint method was illustrated using two case studies. The first was all inventoried emissions from European countries and selected metropolitan areas in 2004, which indicated that the dilution capacity was likely exceeded for most European countries and all landlocked metropolitan areas. The second case study indicated that peak application of pesticides alone was likely to exceed Denmarks freshwater dilution capacity in 1999-2011. The uncertainty assessment showed that better spatially differentiated fate factors would be useful and pointed out other major sources of uncertainty and some opportunities to reduce these.

Beyond safe operating space: finding chemical footprinting feasible.

Feasible Leo Posthuma,*,† Anders Bjorn,‡ Michiel C. Zijp,†,∥ Morten Birkved,‡ Miriam L. Diamond, Michael Z. Hauschild,‡ Mark A. J. Huijbregts, Christian Mulder,† and Dik Van de Meent†,∥ †RIVM, Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, P.O. Box 1, 3720BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands ‡DTU Management Engineering, Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark Dept Earth Sciences, 22 Russell Street, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 3B1, Canada Dept Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University, 6525AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Strengthening the Link between Life Cycle Assessment and Indicators for Absolute Sustainability To Support Development within Planetary Boundaries

Indicators for Absolute Sustainability To Support Development within Planetary Boundaries Anders Bjørn,*,† Miriam Diamond,‡ Mikołaj Owsianiak,† Benoît Verzat, and Michael Zwicky Hauschild† †DTU Management Engineering, Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstorvet, Building 424, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark ‡Department of Earth Sciences, University Of Toronto, 22 Russell St., Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada Quantis Lyon, c/o Locaux Motiv, 10 bis, rue Jangot, 69007 Lyon, France

Mapping and characterization of LCA networks

PurposeThe aims of this study were to provide an up-to-date overview of global, regional and local networks supporting life cycle thinking and to characterize them according to their structure and activities.MethodsFollowing a tentative life cycle assessment (LCA) network definition, a mapping was performed based on (1) a literature search, (2) a web search and (3) an inquiry to stakeholders distributed via the two largest LCA fora. Networks were characterized based on responses from a survey.Results and discussionWe identified 100 networks, of which 29 fulfilled all six criteria composing our tentative network definition (the remaining fulfilled four to five criteria). The networks are mainly located in Europe and the USA, whilst Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia are less covered regions. The survey results (from 25 network responses) indicate that LCA networks appear to be primarily small- to medium-sized (<100 members) and to include a large proportion of academia and industries, including small- and medium-sized enterprises, with much less involvement of authorities and non-governmental organisations. Their major activities relate to knowledge sharing and communication, support of case studies, and development of life cycle inventories and impact assessment methods. Networks in developing economies have different structures and activities than networks in developed economies and, for instance, more frequently have members from non-governmental organisations. Globally, an increasing trend in the formation of LCA networks over time is observed, which tends to correlate with the number of LCA scientific publications over the same time period. Continental distributions of networks also show a correlation with the number of LCA publications from the same region.ConclusionsThe provided list of LCA networks is currently the most comprehensive, publicly available mapping. We believe that the results of this mapping can serve as a basis for deciding where priorities should be set to increase the dissemination and development of LCA worldwide. In this aim, we also advocate the creation of an online, regularly updated database of LCA networks supplemented by an online platform that could facilitate network communication and knowledge sharing.

Pesticide emission modelling and freshwater ecotoxicity assessment for Grapevine LCA: adaptation of PestLCI 2.0 to viticulture

PurposeConsumption of high quantities of pesticides in viticulture emphasizes the importance of including pesticide emissions and impacts hereof in viticulture LCAs. This paper addresses the lack of inventory models and characterization factors suited for the quantification of emissions and ecotoxicological impacts of pesticides applied to viticulture. The paper presents (i) a tailored version of PestLCI 2.0, (ii) corresponding characterization factors for freshwater ecotoxicity characterization and (iii) result comparison with other inventory approaches. The purpose of this paper is hence to present a viticulture customized version of PestLCI 2.0 and illustrate the application of this customized version on a viticulture case study.MethodsThe customization of the PestLCI 2.0 model for viticulture includes (i) addition of 29 pesticide active ingredients commonly used in vineyards, (ii) addition of 9 viticulture type specific spraying equipment and accounting the number of rows treated in one pass, and (iii) accounting for mixed canopy (vine/cover crop) pesticide interception. Applying USEtox™, the PestLCI 2.0 customization is further supported by the calculation of freshwater ecotoxicity characterization factors for active ingredients relevant for viticulture. Case studies on three different vineyard technical management routes illustrate the application of the inventory model. The inventory and freshwater ecotoxicity results are compared to two existing simplified emission modelling approaches.Results and discussionThe assessment results show considerably different emission fractions, quantities emitted and freshwater ecotoxicity impacts between the different active ingredient applications. Three out of 21 active ingredients dominate the overall freshwater ecotoxicity: Aclonifen, Fluopicolide and Cymoxanil. The comparison with two simplified emission modelling approaches, considering field soil and air as part of the ecosphere, shows that PestLCI 2.0 yields considerable lower emissions and, consequently, lower freshwater ecotoxicity. The sensitivity analyses reveal the importance of soil and climate characteristics, canopies (vine and cover crop) development and sprayer type on the emission results. These parameters should therefore be obtained with site-specific data, while literature or generic data that are acceptable inputs for parameters whose uncertainties have less influence on the result.ConclusionsImportant specificities of viticulture have been added to the state-of-the-art inventory model PestLCI 2.0. They cover vertically trained vineyards, the most common vineyard training form; they are relevant for other perennial or bush crops provided equipment, shape of the canopy and pesticide active ingredients stay in the range of available options. A similar and compatible model is needed for inorganic pesticide active ingredients emission quantification, especially for organic viticulture impacts accounting.