Karen Allacker

The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements

PurposeThe European Commission (EC) has developed a reference method for organisation environmental footprinting (OEF) in support of improving the sustainability of production and consumption. This methodological development was guided by four core criteria. Specifically, it was deemed necessary that the method provides for a (1) multi-criteria, (2) life cycle-based approach that considers all organisational and related activities across the supply chain, (3) provides for reproducibility and comparability over flexibility, and (4) ensures physically realistic modelling.MethodsHere, we review a subset of existing organisation environmental footprinting methods. We evaluate key areas of convergence (very limited!) and divergence between these methods, and the extent to which the methodological specifications they provide satisfy the four aforementioned criteria for the EC OEF method. On this basis, we specify where and why the EC OEF method necessarily diverges from and/or goes beyond the reviewed methods.Results and discussionWe found little consistency between the reviewed methods, and few instances where our four criteria for the EC OEF method were satisfied. We specify the methodological norms for the EC OEF method for, among other things, definition of the unit of analysis (the organisation) and reference flow; organisation and analytical boundaries; cut-off criteria; impact categories and models; allocation solutions; and data quality. We further provide a rationale for each norm, in particular why they diverge from the various options presented in the reviewed methods.ConclusionsIn order to satisfy the four core criteria, the EC OEF method diverges from/goes beyond the reviewed methods in a variety of important respects. We suggest that the end result represents a significant advance in the standardization of life cycle-based organisation environmental footprinting.

Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries

PurposeGrowing awareness of the environmental performance of construction products and buildings brings about the need for a suitable method to assess their environmental performance. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become a widely recognised and accepted method to assess the burdens and impacts throughout the life cycle. This LCA-based information may be in the form of environmental product declarations (EPD) or product environmental footprints (PEF), based on reliable and verifiable information. All of these use LCA to quantify and report several environmental impact categories and may also provide additional information. To better understand on the one hand existing EPD programmes (EN 15804) for each country and on the other the recent developments in terms of EU reference document (e.g. PEF), the authors decided to write this review paper based on the outcomes of the EPD workshop that was held prior to SB13 Graz conference.MethodsThis paper presents the state of the art in LCA and an overview of the EPD programmes in five European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland) based on the workshop in the first part and a comprehensive description and comparison of the PEF method and EN 15804 in the second part. In the last part, a general conclusion will wrap up the findings and results will provide a further outlook on future activities.Results and discussionThe high number of EPD programmes underlines the fact that there is obviously a demand for assessments of the environmental performance of construction materials. In the comparison between and experiences of the different countries, it can be seen that more similarities than differences exist. A comparison between PEF and EPD shows differences, e.g. LCIA impact categories and recycling methodology.ConclusionsIndependent of raising awareness of the construction material environmental performance, the existence of so many environmental claims calls for clarification and harmonisation. Additionally, construction materials being assessed in the voluntary approaches have to follow the harmonised approach following the principles of the European Construction Products Regulation (regulated) not to foster barriers of trade. The authors therefore highly appreciate the most recent activities of the sustainability of construction works (CEN/TC 350 committee http://portailgroupe.afnor.fr/public_espacenormalisation/CENTC350/index.html) currently working on these issues at the EU level. Finally, the LCA community is further encouraged to increase the background life cycle inventory data and life cycle inventory modelling as well as the meaningfulness of certain environmental impact categories, such as toxicity, land use, biodiversity and resource usage.

Comparing the European Commission product environmental footprint method with other environmental accounting methods

PurposeThis paper presents a structured comparison of the European Commission (EC) Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method with a number of existing European environmental accounting methods and standards that were taken into account during its development. In addition to the ISO 14040 and 14044 which represent the main reference, also the ISO/TS 14067, ILCD Handbook, PAS 2050, Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Ecological Footprint and BPX 30-323-0 were considered. This comparison aims at evaluating the extent to which the EC PEF method contributes to filling the identified methodological gaps and, ultimately, the extent to which it meets a number of key principles for PEF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency. The EC PEF method has been developed by the Directorate General Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission (EC) in close cooperation with the Directorate General for Environment (DG ENV). It aims at providing a European, common methodology for evaluating the environmental performance of products. Its use for undertaking product environmental footprint studies is supported by the 2013 Recommendation to the EC Communication “Building the single market for green products – Facilitating better information on the environmental performance of products and organisations.”MethodsIn this paper, the selected environmental accounting methods are compared against a set of nine identified core criteria for EF studies. These criteria include, e.g. applicability of results, boundary of the evaluation, requirements on data type and quality, requirements on uncertainty evaluation, requirements on reporting and review. Results from this comparison have been used to evaluate the extent to which the methods considered meet a number of key identified principles for EF studies: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency.Results and discussionOverall, results of the analysis demonstrate that the EC PEF method resolves most shortcomings identified in the other methods with respect to the core comparison criteria. This, in turn, allows the EC PEF method to largely satisfy all of the key identified principles for PEF studies, and in particular the consistency principle, which is often not fulfilled by the other environmental accounting methods.ConclusionsThe EC PEF method provides for a greater degree of methodological consistency and establishes unambiguous requirements, hence facilitating increased consistency, comparability and reproducibility of results. It fills most of the shortcomings of the other methods, meeting virtually all of the key principles for PEF studies.

Land use impact assessment in the construction sector: an analysis of LCIA models and case study application

PurposeLand use is a potentially important impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of buildings. Three research questions are addressed in this paper: Is land use a decisive factor in the environmental impact of buildings?; Is it important to include the primary land use of buildings in the assessment?; and How does the environmental performance of solid structure and timber frame dwellings differ when assessed by distinct available models for quantifying land use impacts?MethodsThis paper compares several operational land use impact assessment models, which are subsequently implemented in an LCA case study comparing a building constructed using timber frame versus a solid structure. Different models were used for addressing the different research questions.Results and discussionThe results reveal that contrasting decisions may be supported by LCA study results, depending on whether or not and how land use is included in the assessment. The analysis also highlights the need to include the building land footprint in the assessment and to better distinguish building locations in current land use impact assessment models.ConclusionsSelecting land use assessment models that are most appropriate to the goals of the study is recommended as different models assess different environmental issues related to land use. In general, the combination of two land use assessment methods for buildings is recommended, i.e. soil organic matter (SOM) of Milà i Canals and Eco-indicator 99.

Design for the Ecological Age: Rethinking the Role of Sustainability in Architectural Education

While sustainability has become a mainstream concern in design thinking and practice, the debate is fragmented and the concept of sustainable architecture remains contested. We interpret this as symptomatic of a widening gap between architectural academe and the world of practice. Inspired by the “pluralist imagination,” we propose a meta-framework based on analyses of competing discourses at three levels: conceptual, performance, and pedagogical. With the intention of inspiring a critical attitude among designers, the value of such a framework lies in its ability to promote dialogue across theoretical boundaries in order to impede both notions of theoretical determinism and panacean interpretations of proliferating sustainable practices.

The search for an appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental Footprint initiative

PurposeThis paper explains in details the rationale behind the choice of the end-of-life allocation approach in the European Commission Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organisational Environmental Footprint (OEF) methods. The end-of-life allocation formula in the PEF/OEF methods aims at enabling the assessment of all end-of-life scenarios possible, including recycling, reuse, incineration (with heat recovery) and disposal for both open- and closed-loop systems in a consistent and reproducible way. It presents how the formula builds on existing standards and how and why it deviates from them.MethodsVarious end-of-life allocation approaches and formulas, mainly taken not only from/based on existing environmental impact assessment methods and/or standards but also one original linearly degressive approach, were analysed against a predetermined set of criteria, reflecting the overall aim of the PEF/OEF methods. This set of criteria is physical realism, distribution of burdens and benefits in a product cascade system and applicability. Besides the qualitative analysis, the various formulas were implemented for several products and for different scenarios regarding recycled content and recyclability to check the robustness of the outcomes, exemplary expressed for the Global Warming Potential impact category.Results and discussionAs reaching physical realism was impossible at both the product and overall product cascade system level by any of the end-of-life approaches analysed, one of both had to be prioritised. The paper explains in details why a product level approach was preferred in the context of the PEF/OEF methods. In consequence, allocation of the end-of-life processes which are related to more than one product in a product cascade system is needed and should be carefully considered as it has a major influence on the results and decision taking.ConclusionsA formula taking into account the number of recycling cycles of a material was identified as preferred to reach physical realism and to allocate burdens and benefits of repeatedly recycling of a material over the different products in a product cascade system. However, this approach was not selected for the PEF/OEF methods as data on the number of recycling cycles was insufficiently available (for the time being) for all products on the market and hence fails the criterion of “applicability”. This explains why, instead, a formula based on the 50:50 approach—allocating shared end-of-life processes equally between the previous and subsequent product—was selected for the PEF/OEF methods.

Geometric service life modelling and discounting, a practical method for parametrised life cycle assessment

PurposeTo evaluate the long-term advantage of reusing building elements, including reduced material consumption and waste production, life cycle assessments are purposeful. To translate these assessments in relevant design advices, it is necessary to model accurately the service life of the considered elements and acknowledge the related uncertainties. Practical methods to do this are nevertheless lacking. In reaction, this paper proposes a new assessment method: geometric service life modelling and discounting.MethodsThe developed method is extensively parametric. Its formulas express an element’s service life in terms of a limited number of variables. This facilitates the evaluation of large series of elements as well as the automation of uncertainty analyses. Further, the method tackles different modelling complexities such as the interaction between replacements and refurbishments. Taking into account these complexities aligns the assessments with realistic service lives. For the presentation of the developed method, a focus on life cycle costing is chosen.Results and discussionIn this paper, the outcomes of the newly developed method are compared to those of an existing calculation method and benchmarked with the manual modelling and assessment of 390 simplified building elements. This comparison is based on three indicators characterising the methods’ accuracy: the number of interventions, their individual impact and their resulting net present value. For each indicator, geometric discounting led to a considerable increase of accuracy compared to the existing method.ConclusionsFrom this comparison, it is concluded that geometric service life modelling and discounting offers not only a well-defined procedure for parametrised life cycle assessment studies, this method is also more accurate than the existing one. Moreover, the uncertainty analyses it facilitates illustrate how detailed assessment outcomes and relevant design advices about the effectiveness of element reuse can be obtained. Nevertheless, further research about the method’s practical implementation is required.

Current trends and limitations of life cycle assessment applied to the urban scale: critical analysis and review of selected literature

PurposeFrom 2010, more than half of human beings live in cities and global urbanization is growing at a fast pace. This leads to threats for the associated potential environmental burdens, but also to opportunities for cities to gain a leading role as hubs of interventions in favor of sustainability. The Life Cycle Thinking approach is suitable to account direct and indirect urban impacts, although methodological refinements are necessary to make it applicable at the urban level.MethodsThe goal of the present review is to provide a comprehensive insight in the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) at the city scale, highlighting good and working points to properly identify and address the future research agenda to make LCA suitable to this challenge. The review considers a wide range of urban sub-sectors and activities (namely, built environment, energy systems, waste and water sector, transportation, consumption patterns, and urban ecosystems), as well as hybrid and upscaling approaches. The relevant papers were selected according to two criteria: (i) comprehensive impact assessment and (ii) and wide spatial scale of application. Subsequently, key features were screened and critically analyzed: (i) functional unit, (ii) system boundaries, (iii) data sources and granularity, and (iv) impact assessment methods.Results and discussionA short list of 65 papers published from 2010 was reviewed with no geographical restrictions. The analysis of the selected literature shows that no applications of a comprehensive LCA at the urban scale exist to date. Waste and water sub-sectors account for about the 20% of the coverage in literature. Transportation sectors and energy systems follow (about 10 and 9%, respectively), while a total of five studies take into account consumption patterns and urban ecosystems. Even if really relevant for the topic, the built environment is an unexplored sector yet. Methodological considerations are poorly addressed. First attempts of upscaling and hybrid approaches are available in literature, but most of the time still limited in scope, and only two researches try a full integration and propose methodological reflections.ConclusionsThe findings emerged from the present review trace the lines of a feature research agenda. Most of the applications to the different urban sectors are still immature for a transfer from product/process level to system level. Main research challenges include the definition of proper system boundaries and an appropriate functional unit, able to take into account the dynamics inherent to the city. An adequate data granularity and a proper organization of the life cycle inventory shall be time efficient and capable to detect in a precise way the potential hot spots at the macro- and micro-scale level. Furthermore, the urban context may require more specificity when applying impact assessment, as current impact assessment models have usually a coarse resolution. Proposals are made for an improved definition of the functional unit and data collection process.