{"title":"Life cycle assessment of leather treatment at various scales: comparison between chrome and vegetable processes","authors":"Mariana Oliveira, Amalia Zucaro, Renato Passaro, Sergio Ulgiati","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02232-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02232-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135816893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-20DOI: 10.1007/s11367-023-02234-1
Ian Vázquez-Rowe, Ulrike Eberle, Sergiy Smetana
{"title":"The role of developing and emerging economies in sustainable food systems","authors":"Ian Vázquez-Rowe, Ulrike Eberle, Sergiy Smetana","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02234-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02234-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136308761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-19DOI: 10.1007/s11367-023-02230-5
Maziar Ramezani Moziraji, Ghorban Ali Dezvareh, Majid Ehteshami, Mohammad Reza Sabour, Alireza Bazargan
{"title":"Life cycle assessment of gas-based EAF steel production: environmental impacts and strategies for footprint reduction","authors":"Maziar Ramezani Moziraji, Ghorban Ali Dezvareh, Majid Ehteshami, Mohammad Reza Sabour, Alireza Bazargan","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02230-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02230-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135060757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-14DOI: 10.1007/s11367-023-02223-4
Michelle Savian, Carla da Penha Simon, Nicholas M. Holden
Abstract Purpose The objective of this work was to quantify and understand the impacts of intensive pig production at family-farm level. A case study from the west of Santa Catarina State was used to identify adverse issues (hotspots) of pig production by integrating the assessment of the environmental, economic, and social aspects of the system. The quantitative and qualitative indicators calculated can guide and support the decision-making processes for a variety of stakeholders and actors. Methods The environmental performance of the pig production system was assessed from cradle-to-farm gate using environmental Life Cycle Assessment methodology set out in ISO 14040 (ISO 2006a). The functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of Liveweight (kg-LW). The structure of the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) was based on Neugebauer et al. (J Clean Prod 102:165–176, 2015) and Chen and Holden (J Clean Prod 172:1169–1179, 2018), who proposed a tiered framework to evaluate the impacts on the environmental, social, and financial aspects of a product. The economic dimension or Life Cycle Cost (Hunkeler et al. in Environmental life cycle costing. Crc Press, London, 2008) focused on farm-level activities. The social impact was calculated based on the UNEP/SETAC (2009) guidelines. Results and discussion The environmental performance of the finishing pig production was slightly lower than reference value for climate impacts, acidification, and eutrophication. The economic impacts tended to be positive, reflecting the efforts of the farmer and employee to maintain high productivity and reduce the number of pig losses in comparison with the reference values. However, this effort did not result in greater profitability, causing low farm income. The impacts of low profitability were not transferred to the employee since the wage were above the reference value. There is a need for more education for small farmers, which is known to have a positive correlation with the adoption of new technologies, thus reducing adverse environmental and social impacts and increasing economic return. Conclusions The interaction of social and economic factors suggests it is unlikely that the farm can achieve better environmental performance. The limited economic return and low level of education have a negative impact on the farmer’s capacity to adopt new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. The use of LCSA, based on a consistent model across the three aspects of sustainability, made it possible to understand the interaction of these factors.
{"title":"Evaluating environmental, economic, and social aspects of an intensive pig production farm in the south of Brazil: a case study","authors":"Michelle Savian, Carla da Penha Simon, Nicholas M. Holden","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02223-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02223-4","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose The objective of this work was to quantify and understand the impacts of intensive pig production at family-farm level. A case study from the west of Santa Catarina State was used to identify adverse issues (hotspots) of pig production by integrating the assessment of the environmental, economic, and social aspects of the system. The quantitative and qualitative indicators calculated can guide and support the decision-making processes for a variety of stakeholders and actors. Methods The environmental performance of the pig production system was assessed from cradle-to-farm gate using environmental Life Cycle Assessment methodology set out in ISO 14040 (ISO 2006a). The functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of Liveweight (kg-LW). The structure of the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) was based on Neugebauer et al. (J Clean Prod 102:165–176, 2015) and Chen and Holden (J Clean Prod 172:1169–1179, 2018), who proposed a tiered framework to evaluate the impacts on the environmental, social, and financial aspects of a product. The economic dimension or Life Cycle Cost (Hunkeler et al. in Environmental life cycle costing. Crc Press, London, 2008) focused on farm-level activities. The social impact was calculated based on the UNEP/SETAC (2009) guidelines. Results and discussion The environmental performance of the finishing pig production was slightly lower than reference value for climate impacts, acidification, and eutrophication. The economic impacts tended to be positive, reflecting the efforts of the farmer and employee to maintain high productivity and reduce the number of pig losses in comparison with the reference values. However, this effort did not result in greater profitability, causing low farm income. The impacts of low profitability were not transferred to the employee since the wage were above the reference value. There is a need for more education for small farmers, which is known to have a positive correlation with the adoption of new technologies, thus reducing adverse environmental and social impacts and increasing economic return. Conclusions The interaction of social and economic factors suggests it is unlikely that the farm can achieve better environmental performance. The limited economic return and low level of education have a negative impact on the farmer’s capacity to adopt new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. The use of LCSA, based on a consistent model across the three aspects of sustainability, made it possible to understand the interaction of these factors.","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135488163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-13DOI: 10.1007/s11367-023-02229-y
Rose Nangah Mankaa, Marzia Traverso, Yichen Zhou
Abstract Purpose Abiotic resource is included as an impact category in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The most widely accepted LCIA method is abiotic resource depletion potential (ADP). However, numerous studies have illustrated the limitations of the ADP method, such as the neglect of resources that can be recycled. This paper aims to develop a comprehensive and objective method for assessing the impact of resource use on future generations, which can be used at different stages of the life cycle. Methods Based on the above research objectives, this paper proposes a new method, the abiotic resource expected dissipation potential (AEDP) method, for assessing the impacts of current resource use on the abiotic resource accessibility. The method is divided into four impact categories based on different endpoints of the dissipative flow and replaces the resource extraction rate with the global annual dissipation rate and adds anthropogenic stocks to the total reserves, resulting in the characterization factor AEDPs. Finally, the four impact categories are weighted to obtain a final impact score for resource use. Results Results of the new method are presented as a multi-dimensional reflection of natural reserves, dissipation rates, and extraction rates of resources. The comparison between AEDPs and ADPs revealed differences between them, but they were not significant. A higher power of the total reserves in the AEDP formula can overemphasize the effect of natural reserves on the characterization factor. Furthermore, other natural reserve data was used as alternative indicators in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion The new assessment method enables the future impacts of abiotic resource use to be more accurately assessed. It can be used at any life cycle stage to support relevant stakeholder decision-making. However, a broader database is required to be developed to calculate more characterization factors. Moreover, the over-dominance of reserve data in the characterization factors overshadows the influence of other dimensions. Consequently, further research is necessary to improve the operability and plausibility of this method.
{"title":"A new life cycle impact assessment methodology for assessing the impact of abiotic resource use on future resource accessibility","authors":"Rose Nangah Mankaa, Marzia Traverso, Yichen Zhou","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02229-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02229-y","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose Abiotic resource is included as an impact category in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). The most widely accepted LCIA method is abiotic resource depletion potential (ADP). However, numerous studies have illustrated the limitations of the ADP method, such as the neglect of resources that can be recycled. This paper aims to develop a comprehensive and objective method for assessing the impact of resource use on future generations, which can be used at different stages of the life cycle. Methods Based on the above research objectives, this paper proposes a new method, the abiotic resource expected dissipation potential (AEDP) method, for assessing the impacts of current resource use on the abiotic resource accessibility. The method is divided into four impact categories based on different endpoints of the dissipative flow and replaces the resource extraction rate with the global annual dissipation rate and adds anthropogenic stocks to the total reserves, resulting in the characterization factor AEDPs. Finally, the four impact categories are weighted to obtain a final impact score for resource use. Results Results of the new method are presented as a multi-dimensional reflection of natural reserves, dissipation rates, and extraction rates of resources. The comparison between AEDPs and ADPs revealed differences between them, but they were not significant. A higher power of the total reserves in the AEDP formula can overemphasize the effect of natural reserves on the characterization factor. Furthermore, other natural reserve data was used as alternative indicators in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion The new assessment method enables the future impacts of abiotic resource use to be more accurately assessed. It can be used at any life cycle stage to support relevant stakeholder decision-making. However, a broader database is required to be developed to calculate more characterization factors. Moreover, the over-dominance of reserve data in the characterization factors overshadows the influence of other dimensions. Consequently, further research is necessary to improve the operability and plausibility of this method.","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135689591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-13DOI: 10.1007/s11367-023-02231-4
Olubukola Tokede, Rob Rouwette
Abstract Purpose A recent update to the Product Category Rules (PCRs) for Construction Products (of the International EPD System) has triggered a methodological issue for owners and users of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). The updated PCR has led to capital goods data being implicitly included in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of EPDs. This paper critically examines the role of capital goods in EPDs and establishes major shortcomings in the current methodology, LCI datasets and interpretation. Methods To evaluate the role of capital goods in EPDs, this paper provides a discourse on the fundamentals of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, scope, available LCI data and the impact of capital goods on EPD outcomes. Using the ecoinvent database, we analyse the impact of the inclusion and exclusion of capital goods in selected 38 construction products based on the EN 15804+A2 (2019) Standard. Finally, we estimate the relative contribution of capital goods to a suite of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) indicators based on the archetypes of capital goods available in ecoinvent and apply Monte Carlo simulation to establish the range of uncertainties in the capital goods data for the selected construction products. Results and discussion Our research confirms that when capital goods are included based on currently available background LCI data, they mostly have a low effect (<10% increase) on climate change, but they can have an enormous effect (>100% increase) on abiotic depletion (minerals and metals), land use and/or human toxicity indicators. Interestingly, when looking further into the ecoinvent capital goods LCI datasets, it becomes clear that there are inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and possibly incorrect estimates of capital goods and infrastructure data. These findings raise questions about the suitability of the underlying LCI background data and whether non-attributable capital goods should be allowed to define EPD outcomes. Conclusion The requirement for the inclusion of capital goods leads to a major conundrum for LCA practitioners. It is suggested that capital goods be excluded until there is better refinement and improvement of the quality of LCI datasets and EPD programs provide clearer guidance on dealing with capital goods. Alternatively, EPDs could document transparently the inclusion or exclusion of capital goods, so that there is a clear separation of the effects of capital goods on LCIA indicators.
{"title":"Problematic consequences of the inclusion of capital goods inventory data in Environmental Product Declarations","authors":"Olubukola Tokede, Rob Rouwette","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02231-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02231-4","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose A recent update to the Product Category Rules (PCRs) for Construction Products (of the International EPD System) has triggered a methodological issue for owners and users of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). The updated PCR has led to capital goods data being implicitly included in the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of EPDs. This paper critically examines the role of capital goods in EPDs and establishes major shortcomings in the current methodology, LCI datasets and interpretation. Methods To evaluate the role of capital goods in EPDs, this paper provides a discourse on the fundamentals of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology, scope, available LCI data and the impact of capital goods on EPD outcomes. Using the ecoinvent database, we analyse the impact of the inclusion and exclusion of capital goods in selected 38 construction products based on the EN 15804+A2 (2019) Standard. Finally, we estimate the relative contribution of capital goods to a suite of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) indicators based on the archetypes of capital goods available in ecoinvent and apply Monte Carlo simulation to establish the range of uncertainties in the capital goods data for the selected construction products. Results and discussion Our research confirms that when capital goods are included based on currently available background LCI data, they mostly have a low effect (<10% increase) on climate change, but they can have an enormous effect (>100% increase) on abiotic depletion (minerals and metals), land use and/or human toxicity indicators. Interestingly, when looking further into the ecoinvent capital goods LCI datasets, it becomes clear that there are inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and possibly incorrect estimates of capital goods and infrastructure data. These findings raise questions about the suitability of the underlying LCI background data and whether non-attributable capital goods should be allowed to define EPD outcomes. Conclusion The requirement for the inclusion of capital goods leads to a major conundrum for LCA practitioners. It is suggested that capital goods be excluded until there is better refinement and improvement of the quality of LCI datasets and EPD programs provide clearer guidance on dealing with capital goods. Alternatively, EPDs could document transparently the inclusion or exclusion of capital goods, so that there is a clear separation of the effects of capital goods on LCIA indicators.","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135689435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Estimation of the potential changes in the social impacts of transitioning to circular economy for multiple stakeholders — a case of Indian transportation infrastructure","authors":"Purva Mhatre-Shah, Vidyadhar Gedam, Seema Unnikrishnan","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02215-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02215-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136108720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-08DOI: 10.1007/s11367-023-02227-0
Erik Roos Lindgreen, Milan van Schendel, Nicole Jonker, J. Kloek, Lonneke de Graaff, Marc Davidson
{"title":"Author Correction to: Evaluating the environmental impact of debit card payments","authors":"Erik Roos Lindgreen, Milan van Schendel, Nicole Jonker, J. Kloek, Lonneke de Graaff, Marc Davidson","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02227-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02227-0","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42050501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-05DOI: 10.1007/s11367-023-02218-1
Blanca Corona, Vivian S. C. Tunn, Karlijn L. van den Broek
{"title":"Integrating consumer behaviour into the environmental assessment of circular packaging: a scoping review","authors":"Blanca Corona, Vivian S. C. Tunn, Karlijn L. van den Broek","doi":"10.1007/s11367-023-02218-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02218-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54952,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48378533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：