Characterization Factors to Assess Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance in Life Cycle Assessment

While wild pollinators play a key role in global food production, their assessment is currently missing from the most commonly used environmental impact assessment method, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This is mainly due to constraints in data availability and compatibility with LCA inventories. To target this gap, relative pollinator abundance estimates were obtained with the use of a Delphi assessment, during which 25 experts, covering 16 nationalities and 45 countries of expertise, provided scores for low, typical, and high expected abundance associated with 24 land use categories. Based on these estimates, this study presents a set of globally generic characterization factors (CFs) that allows translating land use into relative impacts to wild pollinator abundance. The associated uncertainty of the CFs is presented along with an illustrative case to demonstrate the applicability in LCA studies. The CFs based on estimates that reached consensus during the Delphi assessment are recommended as readily applicable and allow key differences among land use types to be distinguished. The resulting CFs are proposed as the first step for incorporating pollinator impacts in LCA studies, exemplifying the use of expert elicitation methods as a useful tool to fill data gaps that constrain the characterization of key environmental impacts.

Approaches to implement safe by design in early product design through combining risk assessment and Life Cycle Assessment

The Safe by Design (SbD) concept aims to ensure the production, use and disposal of materials and products safely. While there is a growing interest in the potential of SbD to support policy commitments, such as the EU Green Deal and the Circular Economy Action Plan in Europe, methodological approaches and practical guidelines on SbD are, however, largely missing. The combined use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Risk Assessment (RA) is considered suitable to operationalize SbD over the whole life-cycle of a product. Here, we explore the potential of the combined use of LCA and RA at Technological Readiness Level (TRL) 1-6. We perform a review of the literature presenting and/or developing approaches that combine LCA and RA at early stages of product design. We identify that basic early-on-evaluations of safety (e.g., apply lifecycle thinking to assess risk hotspots, avoid use of hazardous chemicals, minimize other environmental impacts from chemicals) are more common, while more complex assessments (e.g., ex-ante LCA, control banding, predictive (eco)toxicology) require specialized expertise. The application of these simplified approaches and guidelines aims to avoid some obvious sources of risks and impacts at early stages. Critical gaps need to be addressed for wider application of SbD, including more studies in the product design context, developing tools and databases containing collated information on risk, greater collaboration between RA/LCA researchers and companies, and policy discussion on the expansion from SbD to Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD).

Quantified Uncertainties in Comparative Life Cycle Assessment: What Can Be Concluded?

Interpretation of comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results can be challenging in the presence of uncertainty. To aid in interpreting such results under the goal of any comparative LCA, we aim to provide guidance to practitioners by gaining insights into uncertainty-statistics methods (USMs). We review five USMs-discernibility analysis, impact category relevance, overlap area of probability distributions, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), and modified NHST-and provide a common notation, terminology, and calculation platform. We further cross-compare all USMs by applying them to a case study on electric cars. USMs belong to a confirmatory or an exploratory statistics' branch, each serving different purposes to practitioners. Results highlight that common uncertainties and the magnitude of differences per impact are key in offering reliable insights. Common uncertainties are particularly important as disregarding them can lead to incorrect recommendations. On the basis of these considerations, we recommend the modified NHST as a confirmatory USM. We also recommend discernibility analysis as an exploratory USM along with recommendations for its improvement, as it disregards the magnitude of the differences. While further research is necessary to support our conclusions, the results and supporting material provided can help LCA practitioners in delivering a more robust basis for decision-making.

Setting the stage for debating the roles of risk assessment and life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials

Although technological and environmental benefits are important stimuli for nanotechnology development, these technologies have been contested from an environmental point of view. The steady growth of applications of engineered nanomaterials has heated up the debate on quantifying the environmental repercussions. The two main scientific methods to address these environmental repercussions are risk assessment and life-cycle assessment. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these methods, and the relation between them, have been a topic of debate in the world of traditional chemistry for over two decades. Here we review recent developments in this debate in general and for the emerging field of nanomaterials specifically. We discuss the pros and cons of four schools of thought for combining and integrating risk assessment and life-cycle assessment and conclude with a plea for action.

Comparison of Asian Aquaculture Products by Use of Statistically Supported Life Cycle Assessment

We investigated aquaculture production of Asian tiger shrimp, whiteleg shrimp, giant river prawn, tilapia, and pangasius catfish in Bangladesh, China, Thailand, and Vietnam by using life cycle assessments (LCAs), with the purpose of evaluating the comparative eco-efficiency of producing different aquatic food products. Our starting hypothesis was that different production systems are associated with significantly different environmental impacts, as the production of these aquatic species differs in intensity and management practices. In order to test this hypothesis, we estimated each system's global warming, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity impacts. The contribution to these impacts and the overall dispersions relative to results were propagated by Monte Carlo simulations and dependent sampling. Paired testing showed significant (p < 0.05) differences between the median impacts of most production systems in the intraspecies comparisons, even after a Bonferroni correction. For the full distributions instead of only the median, only for Asian tiger shrimp did more than 95% of the propagated Monte Carlo results favor certain farming systems. The major environmental hot-spots driving the differences in environmental performance among systems were fishmeal from mixed fisheries for global warming, pond runoff and sediment discards for eutrophication, and agricultural pesticides, metals, benzalkonium chloride, and other chlorine-releasing compounds for freshwater ecotoxicity. The Asian aquaculture industry should therefore strive toward farming systems relying upon pelleted species-specific feeds, where the fishmeal inclusion is limited and sourced sustainably. Also, excessive nutrients should be recycled in integrated organic agriculture together with efficient aeration solutions powered by renewable energy sources.

Product carbon footprints and their uncertainties in comparative decision contexts

In response to growing awareness of climate change, requests to establish product carbon footprints have been increasing. Product carbon footprints are life cycle assessments restricted to just one impact category, global warming. Product carbon footprint studies generate life cycle inventory results, listing the environmental emissions of greenhouse gases from a product's lifecycle, and characterize these by their global warming potentials, producing product carbon footprints that are commonly communicated as point values. In the present research we show that the uncertainties surrounding these point values necessitate more sophisticated ways of communicating product carbon footprints, using different sizes of catfish (Pangasius spp.) farms in Vietnam as a case study. As most product carbon footprint studies only have a comparative meaning, we used dependent sampling to produce relative results in order to increase the power for identifying environmentally superior products. We therefore argue that product carbon footprints, supported by quantitative uncertainty estimates, should be used to test hypotheses, rather than to provide point value estimates or plain confidence intervals of products' environmental performance.

Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems-a review of methodologies

PURPOSE

As capture fishery production has reached its limits and global demand for aquatic products is still increasing, aquaculture has become the world's fastest growing animal production sector. In attempts to evaluate the environmental consequences of this rapid expansion, life cycle assessment (LCA) has become a frequently used method. The present review of current peer-reviewed literature focusing on LCA of aquaculture systems is intended to clarify the methodological choices made, identify possible data gaps, and provide recommendations for future development within this field of research. The results of this review will also serve as a start-up activity of the EU FP7 SEAT (Sustaining Ethical Aquaculture Trade) project, which aims to perform several LCA studies on aquaculture systems in Asia over the next few years.

METHODS

From a full analysis of methodology in LCA, six phases were identified to differ the most amongst ten peer-reviewed articles and two PhD theses (functional unit, system boundaries, data and data quality, allocation, impact assessment methods, interpretation methods). Each phase is discussed with regards to differences amongst the studies, current LCA literature followed by recommendations where appropriate. The conclusions and recommendations section reflects on aquaculture-specific scenarios as well as on some more general issues in LCA.

RESULTS

Aquaculture LCAs often require large system boundaries, including fisheries, agriculture, and livestock production systems from around the globe. The reviewed studies offered limited coverage of production in developing countries, low-intensity farming practices, and non-finfish species, although most farmed aquatic products originate from a wide range of farming practices in Asia. Apart from different choices of functional unit, system boundaries and impact assessment methods, the studies also differed in their choice of allocation factors and data sourcing. Interpretation of results also differed amongst the studies, and a number of methodological choices were identified influencing the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Efforts should be made to increase transparency to allow the results to be reproduced, and to construct aquaculture related database(s). More extensive data reporting, including environmental flows, within the greater field of LCA could be achieved, without compromising the focus of studies, by providing supporting information to articles and/or reporting only ID numbers from background databases. More research is needed into aquaculture in Asia based on the latest progress made by the LCA community.

Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Whereas LCA developed from merely energy analysis to a comprehensive environmental burden analysis in the 1970s, full-fledged life cycle impact assessment and life cycle costing models were introduced in the 1980s and 1990 s, and social-LCA and particularly consequential LCA gained ground in the first decade of the 21st century. Many of the more recent developments were initiated to broaden traditional environmental LCA to a more comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA). Recently, a framework for LCSA was suggested linking life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related models, knowledge gaps, and defining research programs to fill these gaps. LCA is evolving into LCSA, which is a transdisciplinary integration framework of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specific sustainability question. Structuring, selecting, and making the plethora of disciplinary models practically available in relation to different types of life cycle sustainability questions is the main challenge.

Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Whereas LCA developed from merely energy analysis to a comprehensive environmental burden analysis in the 1970s, full-fledged life cycle impact assessment and life cycle costing models were introduced in the 1980s and 1990 s, and social-LCA and particularly consequential LCA gained ground in the first decade of the 21st century. Many of the more recent developments were initiated to broaden traditional environmental LCA to a more comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA). Recently, a framework for LCSA was suggested linking life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related models, knowledge gaps, and defining research programs to fill these gaps. LCA is evolving into LCSA, which is a transdisciplinary integration framework of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specific sustainability question. Structuring, selecting, and making the plethora of disciplinary models practically available in relation to different types of life cycle sustainability questions is the main challenge.

Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000

In the methodological context of the interpretation of environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) results, a normalisation study was performed. 15 impact categories were accounted for, including climate change, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, ecotoxicity, depletion of fossil energy resources, and land use. The year 2000 was chosen as a reference year, and information was gathered on two spatial levels: the global and the European level. From the 860 environmental interventions collected, 48 interventions turned out to account for at least 75% of the impact scores of all impact categories. All non-toxicity related, emission dependent impacts are fully dominated by the bulk emissions of only 10 substances or substance groups: CO(2), CH(4), SO(2), NO(x), NH(3), PM(10), NMVOC, and (H)CFCs emissions to air and emissions of N- and P-compounds to fresh water. For the toxicity-related emissions (pesticides, organics, metal compounds and some specific inorganics), the availability of information was still very limited, leading to large uncertainty in the corresponding normalisation factors. Apart from their usefulness as a reference for LCA studies, the results of this study stress the importance of efficient measures to combat bulk emissions and to promote the registration of potentially toxic emissions on a more comprehensive scale.

Allocation and 'what-if' scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems

Many modern waste treatment processes and waste management systems are able to treat many different types of waste at the same time, and deliver a number of useful outputs (secondary materials, energy) as well. These systems are thus increasingly multi-functional. As such, in life cycle assessment studies, they create problems related to multi-functionality and allocation. Especially in LCAs of waste management systems, the solution in the form of system expansion or avoided burdens approach dominates the practice, and the partitioning approach plays a minor role. In this paper, we analyse the logic and problems of these two approaches. It appears that for the avoided burdens approach, the number of 'what-if' assumptions is so large that LCAs on the same topic lead to quite diverging results. Since 'what-if' questions cannot be answered in an unambiguous way, such questions should preferably be left outside of a primarily scientific tool. The partitioning approach is not free from arbitrary choices as well, but, in contrast to the 'what-if' approaches, it does not claim to predict what happens or what would have happened.

Allocation and 'what-if' scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems

Many modern waste treatment processes and waste management systems are able to treat many different types of waste at the same time, and deliver a number of useful outputs (secondary materials, energy) as well. These systems are thus increasingly multi-functional. As such, in life cycle assessment studies, they create problems related to multi-functionality and allocation. Especially in LCAs of waste management systems, the solution in the form of system expansion or avoided burdens approach dominates the practice, and the partitioning approach plays a minor role. In this paper, we analyse the logic and problems of these two approaches. It appears that for the avoided burdens approach, the number of 'what-if' assumptions is so large that LCAs on the same topic lead to quite diverging results. Since 'what-if' questions cannot be answered in an unambiguous way, such questions should preferably be left outside of a primarily scientific tool. The partitioning approach is not free from arbitrary choices as well, but, in contrast to the 'what-if' approaches, it does not claim to predict what happens or what would have happened.

Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. III: Export of potential impact over time and space

Toxicity potentials are scaling factors used in life cycle assessment (LCA) indicating their relative importance in terms of potential toxic impacts. This paper presents the results of an uncertainty assessment of toxicity potentials for 181 substances that were calculated with the global nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. The variance in toxicity potentials resulting from choices in the modelling procedure was quantified by means of scenario analysis. A first scenario analysis showed to what extent potential impacts in the relatively short term are obscured by the inclusion of impacts on the very long term. Toxicity potentials representing potential impacts over time horizons of 20, 100 and 500 years were compared with toxicity potentials representing potential impacts over an infinite time horizon. Time horizon dependent differences up to 6.5 orders of magnitude were found for metal toxicity potentials, while for toxicity potentials of organic substances under study, differences remain within 0.5 orders of magnitude. The second scenario analysis addressed to what extent potential impacts on the continental scale are obscured by the inclusion of impacts on the global scale. Exclusion of potential impacts on the global scale changed the toxicity potentials of metals and volatile persistent halogenated organics up to 2.3 orders of magnitude. These scenario analyses also provide the basis for determining exports to future generations and outside the emission area.

Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA

Toxicity potentials are standard values used in life cycle assessment (LCA) to enable a comparison of toxic impacts between substances. In most cases, toxicity potentials are calculated with multi-media fate models. Until now, unrealistic system settings were used for these calculations. The present paper outlines an improved model to calculate toxicity potentials: the global nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. It is based on the Uniform System for the Evaluation of Substances 2.0 (USES 2.0). USES-LCA was used to calculate for 181 substances toxicity potentials for the six impact categories freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, freshwater sediment ecotoxicity, marine sediment ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity and human toxicity, after initial emission to the compartments air, freshwater, seawater, industrial soil and agricultural soil, respectively. Differences of several orders of magnitude were found between the new toxicity potentials and those calculated previously.

Using SFA indicators to support environmental policy

In order to improve the link from Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) studies to environmental policy, a translation is made from the SFA overview of flows and stocks into a limited set of indicators. This set is designed to evaluate a region's substance regime with regard to environmental quality and sustainable development, including problem shifting in time and space.