Sarah J. McLaren

Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment

PurposeCultures are increasingly recognised for their inherent value, yet, despite political and societal concern, culture is widely unrecognised in assessment techniques. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), a technique encompassing environmental, social and economic aspects, is growing in popularity. However, cultural values are rarely considered in LCSA. This paper reviews the meaning of culture; current efforts to include culture in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), social LCA (S-LCA) and LCSA; and aspects to address when investigating integration of culture in LCA, S-LCA and LCSA.MethodsA literature review was undertaken on definitions of culture, recognition of culture in policy and decision making, and how culture is incorporated into assessment techniques. The potential for integrating culture in LCSA was evaluated in terms of the potential benefits and challenges.ResultsCulture is often intangible and inaccessible, which may then lead to a lack of recognition in decision-making processes, or if it is recognised, then it is relegated as an afterthought. Explicitly including consideration of culture within LCSA will allow its representation alongside other sustainability aspects. The challenges of representing culture within LCSA include recognising when ‘culture’ should be distinguished from ‘social’; culture’s dynamic nature; the data collection process; and the diversity of cultures between stakeholders and at different scales from community through to nation. The potential benefits of representing culture within LCSA include greater resonance of LCSA results with stakeholders; a more comprehensive decision support tool which appropriately accounts for values; and an assessment technique which may help protect communities and their diversity of cultures.ConclusionsRepresenting culture in LCSA is not straightforward and, to some extent, may be addressed through social indicators. However, developing LCSA to explicitly address cultural values has potential benefits. Future research should focus on opportunities for the development of (a) a culturally inclusive LCSA process and (b) additional cultural indicators and/or dimensions of existing LCSA indicators that represent cultural values.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of food production and processing: an introduction.

Abstract: This chapter provides an introduction to life-cycle thinking, Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Management. It gives a brief history of LCA development, describes LCA methodology, and discusses specific issues that arise in assessment of food systems. These include assessment of land occupation, soil quality, carbon storage, crop rotations, variability in agricultural practices and yields, consumer behaviour, sewage treatment, definition of the functional unit, and co-product allocation.

Rethinking a product and its function using LCA—experiences of New Zealand manufacturing companies

PurposeIt has been recognised that life cycle assessment (LCA) has a role in framing problem situations in environmental management. Yet relatively few studies have investigated whether the use of LCA does actually lead to the reconceptualisation of product systems as opposed to answering predefined questions. This paper discusses the experiences of six manufacturing firms that commissioned LCA studies as part of a life cycle management project managed by Landcare Research in New Zealand.MethodsThe initial goal and scope of the study was developed by each company’s representative in a workshop that was organised as part of the LCM project. The scope for three of the studies was subsequently redefined by the LCA specialists at Landcare Research and agreed with senior managers at the company. The LCA specialists undertook the LCA studies and presented the results to the companies.Results and discussionA significant reconceptualisation of the product system took place in three of the six LCA studies. This reconceptualisation would not have taken place if the scope of the LCA studies had been restricted to address the questions originally asked by the companies. The three companies showed some resistance to expanding the scope.ConclusionsUse of LCA can lead to reconceptualisation of product systems by companies and quite different priorities for improvement options. Initial resistance to expanding a study’s scope may be (partially) overcome by data collection activities and informal discussions between the LCA specialist and company staff during the process of undertaking the LCA study.

Consequential Life Cycle Assessment of Pasture-based Milk Production: A Case Study in the Waikato Region, New Zealand

Summary Farm intensification options in pasture-based dairy systems are generally associated with increased stocking rates coupled with the increased use of off-farm inputs to support the additional feed demand of animals. However, as well as increasing milk production per hectare, intensification can also exacerbate adverse impacts on the environment. The objective of the present study was to investigate environmental trade-offs associated with potential intensification methods for pasture-based dairy farming systems in the Waikato region, New Zealand. The intensification scenarios selected were (1) increased pasture utilization efficiency (PUE scenario), (2) increased use of nitrogen (N) fertilizer to boost on-farm pasture production (N fertilizer scenario), and (3) increased use of brought-in feed as maize silage (MS) (MS scenario). Twelve impact categories were assessed. The PUE scenario was the environmentally preferred intensification method, and the preferred choice between the N fertilizer and MS scenarios depended upon trade-offs between different environmental impacts. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to test the effects of choice associated with: (1) the approaches used to account for indirect land-use change (ILUC) and (2) the competing product systems (conventional beef systems) used to handle the co-product dairy meat for the climate change (CC) indicator. Results showed that the magnitude of the CC indicator results was influenced by the ILUC accounting approaches and the choice associated with a global marginal beef mix, but the relative CC indicator results for the three intensification scenarios remained unchanged.

The distinctive recognition of culture within LCSA: realising the quadruple bottom line

PurposeCultural indicators, although present in S-LCA subcategories, are fairly limited and are not compulsory; performing an S-LCA does not guarantee the inclusion of cultural values. This paper explores the potential to distinctly represent and include cultural aspects within Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) (alongside economic, social and environmental aspects). As such, it demonstrates LCSA’s capability to communicate results along a quadruple bottom line.MethodsA participatory LCSA case study was undertaken using a mixed methods approach. Research was carried out working in close collaboration with three key members of an indigenous community in New Zealand—the Māori tribe of Ngāti Porou. A series of semi-structured interviews with the three participants was undertaken in order to investigate alternative forestry options for Ngāti Porou land. The research involved (1) understanding the decision-making process of Ngāti Porou, (2) recognising Ngāti Porou aspirations and goals, (3) determining a range of forestry land use and product options to be reviewed within the LCSA case study, (4) selection of meaningful (to Ngāti Porou) economic, social and environmental indicators, (5) developing a bespoke cultural indicator and (6) collaboratively reviewing and discussing the results.Results and discussionThe results of the participatory LCSA represented culture in two ways. Firstly, a bespoke cultural indicator (Cultural Indicator Matrix) was created to distinctly represent culture in LCSA. The indicator subjectively measures the perceived impact that a forestry process or product has upon a range of Ngāti Porou aspirations, and the results can be viewed alongside other LCSA indicators. Secondly, the participatory research approach made the LCSA process more culturally-inclusive. Overall, the results of the culturally-inclusive LCSA gave the participants ‘validation’ and ‘direction’ and justified their desire to pursue alternative forestry options for their land.ConclusionsThis first use of the Cultural Indicator Matrix was experienced by the participants as an effective mechanism for gathering community-based impressions of how forestry life cycle processes affect their cultural aspirations. They felt the participatory aspect was important, and considered that the ongoing communication between themselves and the LCSA practitioner provided them with more control, access to information and understanding of the LCSA process and led to higher acceptance of the final results. Thus, this research suggests that there is a place for culture in LCSA, and that distinctive representation of culture (separately from S-LCA) may be beneficial, particularly if the end-users have explicit cultural needs or concerns.

Exploring the Linkages Between the Environmental Sustainable Development Goals and Planetary Boundaries Using the DPSIR Impact Pathway Framework

Most of the conventional environmental sustainability assessment methods, such as Life Cycle Assessment and environmental footprints, evaluate economic goods and services in terms of the nature or the function of the studied systems. As such, these methods overlook the variations in the overall magnitude of production and consumption patterns for the examined systems. As a result, the progress achieved in mitigating global environmental problems is likely to be slow and may be insignificant. Hence this study explores the interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Planetary Boundaries (PBs) using an DPSIR (Drivers-Pressures-State of the Environment-Impacts-Responses) impact pathway framework—in support of developing an absolute sustainability assessment method (ASAM). The study demonstrates that there is a substantial overlap between the SDGs and PBs. The science-based thresholds listed in the PBs can therefore be adopted as a complementary set of environmental boundaries for the SDG indicators. Overall, the study lays the foundation for advancing an ASAM that can guide policy- and decision-makers to operationalize the SDGs effectively.

Product allocation of greenhouse gases produced by coolstorage facilities.

This paper introduces some methodological issues that arise when assessing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with a refrigerated product where several products are stored in one refrigeration facility. These products may be in the same room, or alternatively products in different rooms (at different temperatures) may use a common refrigeration plant. Assessment of the GHG emissions associated with any one product is complicated by differences in heat load (as influenced by initial product cooling, product respiration, room insulation quality, room door usage, seasonal weather conditions and storage temperature), refrigeration system effectiveness (Coefficient of Performance) and facility usage (space utilisation) on a daily basis. A simple hypothetical example is used to compare the results obtained from three alternative allocation methods for allocating GHG emissions between different stored products: allocation by mass (tonnes), storage time (tonne.day), and on the basis of heat load calculation and refrigeration effectiveness estimation (kWh).