Girija Page

Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators.

Bradley Ridoutt,*,† Peter Fantke,‡ Stephan Pfister, Jane Bare, Anne-Marie Boulay, Francesco Cherubini, Rolf Frischknecht, Michael Hauschild,‡ Stefanie Hellweg, Andrew Henderson, Olivier Jolliet, Annie Levasseur, Manuele Margni, Thomas McKone, Ottar Michelsen, Llorenc Mila i Canals, Girija Page, Rana Pant, Marco Raugei, Serenella Sala, Erwan Saouter, Francesca Verones, and Thomas Wiedmann †Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Clayton, Victoria 3169, Australia ‡Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Department for Management Engineering, Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland United States Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Technology Division, Systems Analysis Branch, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, United States CIRAIG, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Montreal, Canada Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway treeze Ltd., Uster, Switzerland University of Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, Houston, Texas 77030, United States University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Environmental Health Sciences, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States University of California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and School of Public Health, Berkeley, California 94720, United States Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Division for Finance and Property, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Division for Technology, Industry and Economics, 15 Rue de Milan, 75009 Paris, France University of Western Sydney, School of Science and Health, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, Ispra, I-21027, Italy Oxford Brookes University, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Oxford OX33 1HX, United Kingdom UNSW Australia, Sustainability Assessment Program, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

Area of concern : a new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics

PurposeAs a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to life cycle assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications.MethodsThe task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be based on LCA methodology, underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the area of protection paradigm and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44.Results and discussionIn parallel to area of protection, we introduce area of concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common cause-effect pathway toward areas of protection, footprint metrics address areas of concern. The critical difference is that areas of concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, areas of concern are stand-alone and not necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The area of concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation and the selection of relevant indicators.ConclusionsThe universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA.

Direct and indirect land-use change as prospective climate change indicators for peri-urban development transitions

With urban areas responsible for a significant share of total anthropogenic emissions, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to land-use change (LUC) induced by peri-urban (PU) development have the potential to be considerable. Despite this, there is little research into the transition from PU cropland to housing in terms of contribution to global warming. This paper presents a cross-sectoral integrative method for prospective climate change evaluation of PU LUC. Specifically, direct LUC (dLUC) GHG emissions from converting PU cropland to greenfield housing were examined. Additionally, GHG emissions due to displaced crop production inducing indirect LUC (iLUC) elsewhere were assessed. GHG impacts of dLUC and iLUC were each determined to be approximately 8 per cent of total GHG emissions due to a greenfield housing development displacing PU cropland. This magnitude of dLUC and iLUC emissions suggests that both have importance in future land-use decision making with respect to PU environments.

Modelling sustainability: what are the factors that influence sustainability of organic fruit production systems in New Zealand?

Although many believe that organic systems are sustainable as compared to conventional systems, there is a need to study the sustainability of organic systems per se. In this paper, sustainability of organic kiwifruit and apple production systems is modelled based on the concept of strong sustainability which gives utmost importance to environmental sustainability. Sustainability assessment is undertaken through analyses of key energy and material flows of the orchard system and their impacts on the environment. The proposed approach is based on two high level criteria for sustainability: energy efficiency and non-degradation of the environment. Five indicators which address the two criteria for sustainability are the energy ratio, carbon ratio, change in soil carbon level, soil nutrient balances and leaching of nitrogen. Sustainability indicators are estimated over one production year using two computer modelling tools, Overseer® and Stella®. Sustainability assessment indicates that the organic kiwifruit and apple systems are efficient in energy use and are a net carbon sink over a typical production year. The apple systems mined potassium from the soil which may be a threat to future yield and sustainability. Transition to sustainable farming systems implies reliance to a lesser extent on non-renewable energies and recognising the environmental bottom line.