Abstract
Purpose
Cities contribute to and are affected by several environmental pressures within and beyond city boundaries. Urban decision makers struggle to find environmentally sound strategies while respecting their obligation to provide the basis for a viable society. Methods to assess the environmental performance of cities beyond greenhouse gases either lack a holistic or multi-impact perspective which limits the informational value of recommendations for improvement. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is already seen as a promising tool to overcome this gap although research on LCA at city scale is still in its infancies. This paper introduces a novel approach for city-scale environmental decision support and extends the current methodological discussion to organizational LCA (OLCA).
Methods
A four-step procedure was followed. Firstly, a universal city structure was developed by reviewing different city characteristics and by conducting a virtual case study. Secondly, this structure was split into assessment levels by a stakeholder analysis to reflect different levels of decision support. Thirdly, OLCA’s capabilities to cover the required assessment levels were evaluated. Lastly, methodological uncertainties were discussed, and the assessment framework was finalized by giving guidance on how to extend OLCA to city needs.
Results
An environmental assessment framework containing four assessment levels is proposed. Results show that OLCA is well suited to estimate potential environmental impacts associated with the provision of public services by the local government (level 1) and by contracted companies (level 2). Methodological challenges were encountered regarding the uncertain definition of the local government’s influence on private activities beyond public service provision (level 3a). Including activities that are neither directly nor indirectly influenced by the local government go beyond OLCA’s capabilities (level 3b).
Conclusions
The framework proposed will support local governments in tracking their environmental performance, prioritizing mitigation measures, and considering transformational change in their strategic decisions. The organizational perspective makes OLCA a valuable approach for decision support at city level. This perspective, however, does not allow to capture all activities taking place within the city boundary and methods have to be found that adequately estimate a local government’s influence beyond public service provision. When aiming at developing long-term strategies to improve a city’s environmental performance, future availability of new technologies and business models that may further impact a local government’s influence need to be considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Aspects refer to elements that have a rather informational value while requirements refer to elements that need to be defined based on specific methodological rules.
LCA is an iterative approach and certain elements inevitably influence one another. Iteration is, however, very case specific and not foreseeable in a general sense. Each element of OLCA was therefore assessed individually.
Either being able to implement its financial or operational policies at the public service operation
The same applies, e.g., for introducing a low emission zone
Environment in the sense of economic, technological, societal and ecological environment
References
Ahmadi Achachlouei M (2015) Exploring the effects of ICT on environmental sustainability: from life cycle assessment to complex systems modeling. Dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Albertí J, Balaguera A, Brodhag C, Fullana-I-Palmer P (2017) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment of cities. A review of background knowledge. Sci Total Environ 609:1049–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.179
Albertí J, Roca M, Brodhag C, Fullana-I-Palmer P (2018) Allocation and system boundary in life cycle assessments of cities. Habitat Int 83:41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.11.003
Albertí J, Brodhag C, Fullana-I-Palmer P (2019) First steps in life cycle assessments of cities with a sustainability perspective: a proposal for goal, function, functional unit, and reference flow. Sci Total Environ 646:1516–1527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.377
Baynes TM, Wiedmann T (2012) General approaches for assessing urban environmental sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:458–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.003
Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Rugani B, Lasvaux S, Mailhac A, Popovici E, Sibiude G, Benetto E, Schiopu N (2016) A review of urban metabolism studies to identify key methodological choices for future harmonization and implementation. J Clean Prod 163:S223–S240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.014
CARB (2010) Local Government Operation Protocol: For the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions inventories, Version 1.1. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Caro D, Rugani B, Pulselli FM, Benetto E (2015) Implications of a consumer-based perspective for the estimation of GHG emissions. The illustrative case of Luxembourg. Sci Total Environ 508:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.053
Currie PK, Musango JK, May ND (2017) Urban metabolism: a review with reference to Cape Town. Cities 70:91–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.005
Davis C, Nikolić I, Dijkema GPJ (2009) Integration of life cycle assessment into agent-based modeling. J Ind Ecol 13:306–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00122.x
Dong H, Fujita T, Geng Y, Dong L, Ohnishi S, Sun L, Dou Y, Fujii M (2016) A review on eco-city evaluation methods and highlights for integration. Ecol Indic 60:1184–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.044
EC (2001) Report to the Laeken European Council—Services of General Interest: COM/2001/0598. European Commission, Brussels
Fong WK, Sotos M, Doust M, Schultz S, Marques A, Deng-Beck C (2015) Global protocol for community-scale greenhouse gas emission inventories: an accounting and reporting standard for cities. World Resources Institute; Canadian Electronic Library, Washington, District of Columbia, Ottawa
Frischknecht R, Büsser S, Krewitt W (2009) Environmental assessment of future technologies: how to trim LCA to fit this goal? Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:584–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0120-6
Geng Y, Zhang L, Chen X, Xue B, Fujita T, Dong H (2014) Urban ecological footprint analysis: a comparative study between Shenyang in China and Kawasaki in Japan. J Clean Prod 75:130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.082
Goldstein B, Birkved M, Quitzau M-B, Hauschild M (2013) Quantification of urban metabolism through coupling with the life cycle assessment framework: concept development and case study. Environ Res Lett 8:35024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035024
ISO (2014) ISO/TS 14072: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines for organizational life cycle assessment. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO (2018) ISO 37120: Sustainable cities and communities—Indicators for city services and quality of life. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Kalmykova Y, Rosado L, Patrício J (2016) Resource consumption drivers and pathways to reduction: economy, policy and lifestyle impact on material flows at the national and urban scale. J Clean Prod 132:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.027
Kennedy C, Baker L, Dhakal S, Ramaswami A (2012) Sustainable urban systems. J Ind Ecol 16:775–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00564.x
Lall SV (2013) Planning, connecting, and financing cities now: priorities for city leaders. World Bank, Washington, DC
Li Y, Beeton RJS, Sigler T, Halog A (2016) Modelling the transition toward urban sustainability: a case study of the industrial city of Jinchang, China. J Clean Prod 134:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.053
Loiseau E, Junqua G, Roux P, Bellon-Maurel V (2012) Environmental assessment of a territory: an overview of existing tools and methods. J Environ Manag 112:213–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.024
Loiseau E, Roux P, Junqua G, Maurel P, Bellon-Maurel V (2013) Adapting the LCA framework to environmental assessment in land planning. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1533–1548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0588-y
Loiseau E, Roux P, Junqua G, Maurel P, Bellon-Maurel V (2014) Implementation of an adapted LCA framework to environmental assessment of a territory: important learning points from a French Mediterranean case study. J Clean Prod 80:17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.059
Lombardi M, Laiola E, Tricase C, Rana R (2017) Assessing the urban carbon footprint: an overview. Environ Impact Assess Rev 66:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.06.005
Lugaric L, Krajcar S (2016) Transforming cities towards sustainable low-carbon energy systems using emergy synthesis for support in decision making. Energy Policy 98:471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.028
Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2015) Scoping organizational LCA—challenges and solutions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:829–841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0883-x
Massari S, Sonnemann G, Balkau F (eds) (2016) Life cycle approaches to sustainable regional development. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315674223
Mirabella N, Allacker K, Sala S (2019) Current trends and limitations of life cycle assessment applied to the urban scale: critical analysis and review of selected literature. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1174–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1467-3
Mostafavi N, Farzinmoghadam M, Hoque S (2017) Urban residential energy consumption modeling in the Integrated Urban Metabolism Analysis Tool (IUMAT). Build Environ 114:429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.035
Ramaswami A, Hillman T, Janson B, Reiner M, Thomas G (2008) A demand-centered, hybrid life-cycle methodology for city-scale greenhouse gas inventories. Environ Sci Technol 42:6455–6461. https://doi.org/10.1021/es702992q
Ren W-x, Geng Y, Xue B, Fujita T, Ma Z-x, Jiang P (2012) Pursuing co-benefits in China’s old industrial base: a case of Shenyang. Urban Clim 1:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2012.07.001
Senate (2018) Berlin Mobility Act: GVBI. S. 464. Senate Department for the Environment, Transport and Climate Protection, Berlin (in German)
UNEP (2017) Road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: Applications, experiences and lessons learned. United Nations Environmental Programme, Paris
UNEP/SETAC (2015) Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environmental Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Paris
United Nations (2018) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision – Key Facts. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-KeyFacts.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2019
Viglia S, Civitillo DF, Cacciapuoti G, Ulgiati S (2017) Indicators of environmental loading and sustainability of urban systems. An emergy-based environmental footprint. Ecol Indic 94:82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.060
Yetano Roche M, Lechtenböhmer S, Fischedick M, Gröne M-C, Xia C, Dienst C (2014) Concepts and methodologies for measuring the sustainability of cities. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:519–547. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012913-101223
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Julia Martínez-Blanco
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(XLSX 123 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cremer, A., Müller, K., Berger, M. et al. A framework for environmental decision support in cities incorporating organizational LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 2204–2216 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01822-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01822-9