Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?

  • LAND USE IN LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to clarify the application of a land-use baseline in attributional life cycle assessment (ALCA) for product systems involving land use, through consideration of the fundamental purpose of ALCA. Currently, there is no clear view in the literature whether a baseline should be used when accounting for environmentally relevant physical flows related to land use.

Methods

An extensive search of literature was carried out using the key terms ‘attributional life cycle assessment’ and ‘attributional LCA’ in the Google Scholar web search engine. Approximately 700 publications were reviewed and summarised according to their type and scope, relevance of land use, key statements and references given for ALCA, and arguments for and against using a baseline in ALCA. Based on the literature review and supplementary literature references, a critical discussion on the use of a baseline and determination of the most appropriate land-use baseline in ALCA is provided.

Results and discussion

A few studies clearly argued that only absolute (observable) flows without a baseline are to be inventoried in ALCA, while the majority of the studies did not make any clear statement for or against. On the other hand, a land-use baseline was explicitly applied or proposed in a minority of the studies only, despite the fact that we classified land use as highly relevant for the majority of the studies reviewed. Furthermore, the LCA guidelines reviewed give contradictory recommendations. The most cited studies for the definition of ALCA provide general rules for selecting processes based on observable flows but do not argue that observable flows necessarily describe the environmentally relevant physical flows.

Conclusions

We conclude that a baseline is required to separate the studied parts of the technosphere from natural processes and to describe the impact of land use on ecosystem quality, such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity. The most coherent baseline for human-induced land-use in ALCA is natural regeneration. As the natural-regeneration baseline has typically been excluded, may vary bio-geographically and temporally, and is subject to uncertainties, case studies applying it should be performed so that implications can be studied and evaluated. This is particularly important for agricultural and forestry systems, such as food, feed, fibre, timber and biofuels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a comprehensive consequential assessment of UK land-use strategies, see Brandão (2012).

References

  • Arm M, Wik O, Engelse CJ, Erlandsson M, Sundqvist J, Oberender A, Hjelmar O, Wahlström M (2014) ENCORT-CDW : evaluation of the European recovery target for construction and demolition waste. Nordic Working Papers, 2014:916

  • Baumann H, Tillman A (2004) The Hitch Hiker's guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and applications. Studentlitteratur, Lund

  • Beccali M, Cellura M, Finocchiaro P, Guarino F, Longo S, Nocke B (2014) Life cycle performance assessment of small solar thermal cooling systems and conventional plants assisted with photovoltaics. Sol Energy 104:93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellassen V, Luyssaert S (2014) Carbon sequestration: managing forests in uncertain times. Nature 506:153–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandão M (2012) Food, feed, fuel, timber or carbon sink? towards sustainable land use: a consequential life cycle approach. PhD thesis. Centre for Environmental Strategy (Division of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering), Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, UK. 246 pp. Appendices 541 pp

  • Brandão M, i Canals LM (2013) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1243–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brander M, Wylie C (2011) The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment. GGMM:1–6. doi: 10.1080/20430779.2011.637670

  • Brander M, Tipper R, Hutchinson C, Davis G (2009) Consequential and attributional approaches to LCA: a guide to policy makers with specific reference to greenhouse gas LCA of biofuels. http://ecometrica.com/white-papers/consequential-and-attributional-approaches-to-lca-a-guide-to-policy-makers-with-specific-reference-to-greenhouse-gas-lca-of-biofuels/. Accessed 24 May 2014

  • Brander M, Wylie C, Gillenwater M (2012) Substitution: a problem with current life cycle assessment standards (p. 3). http://ecometrica.com/white-papers/substitution-a-problem-with-current-life-cycle-assessment-standards/. Accessed 12 June 2014

  • BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011 - Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/forms/PASs/PAS-2050/. Accessed 4 June 2014

  • Cellura M, Longo S, Marsala G, Mistretta M, Pucci M (2013) The use of genetic algorithms to solve the allocation problems in the life cycle inventory. In: Assessment and simulation tools for sustainable energy systems. Springer, pp 267–284

  • Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Strømman AH, Hertwich E (2011) CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 3:413–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cherubini F, Jungmeier G, Bird DN (2012) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and energy analysis of a bioethanol oriented biorefinery based on wood. In: IEA Bioenergy Task (Vol. 38). task38.org/Bioref_Case_Study_T38_Long_v4_clean.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2014

  • Cherubini F, Guest G, Strømman AH (2013) Bioenergy from forestry and changes in atmospheric CO 2: reconciling single stand and landscape level approaches. J Environ Manag 129:292–301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarucci A, Araújo MB, Decocq G, Beierkuhnlein C, Fernández-Palacios JM (2010) The concept of potential natural vegetation: an epitaph? J Veg Sci 21:1172–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran MA, Mann M, Norris G (2002) Report on the international workshop on electricity data for life cycle inventories. EPA/600/R-02/041. Cincinnati, OH: US EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory. March. nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1001NRO.pdf. Accessed 24 January 2014

  • Curran MA, Mann M, Norris G (2005) The international workshop on electricity data for life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod 13:853–862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1216–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC-JRC-IES (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. First edition. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?page_id=86. Accessed 15 May 2014

  • Ekvall T (2002) Cleaner production tools: LCA and beyond. J Clean Prod 10:403–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Andrae A (2006) Attributional and consequential environmental assessment of the shift to lead-free solders (10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:344–353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Tillman A (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elshout P, van Zelm R, Balkovic J, Obersteiner M, Schmid E, Skalsky R, van der Velde M, Huijbregts MAJ (2015) Greenhouse-gas payback times for crop-based biofuels. Nature Clim Change 5:604--610

  • Erlandsson M, Almemark M (2009) Background data and assumptions made for an LCA on creosote poles, working report. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. 16 October 2009. http://www.ivl.se/download/18.7df4c4e812d2da6a416800072055/B1865.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2014

  • EU (2009) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. 2009/28/EC. The Official Journal of the European Union 05/06/2009

  • Evangelisti S, Lettieri P, Borello D, Clift R (2014) Life cycle assessment of energy from waste via anaerobic digestion: a UK case study. Waste Manag 34:226–237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelisti S, Lettieri P, Clift R, Borello D (2015) Distributed generation by energy from waste technology: a life cycle perspective. Process Saf Environ Protect 93:161–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel P (2013) Land use in LCA: a critical analysis. Master's thesis, Leiden University

  • Guinée JB (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:311–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée J, Kleijn R, Henriksson P (2010) Environmental life cycle assessment of South-East Asian aquaculture systems for tilapia, pangasius, catfish, penaeid shrimp and macrobrachium prawns. Goal & Scope Definition Report-Final version.Sustaining Ethical Aquaculture Trade (SEAT) Deliverable Ref: D 2

  • Guo M, Li C, Bell JNB, Murphy RJ (2011) Influence of agro-ecosystem modeling approach on the greenhouse gas profiles of wheat-derived biopolymer products. Environ Sci Technol 46:320–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberl H (2013) Net land-atmosphere flows of biogenic carbon related to bioenergy: towards an understanding of systemic feedbacks. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 5:351–357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haberl H, Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:12942–12947

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heath LS, Maltby V, Miner R, Skog KE, Smith JE, Unwin J, Upton B (2010) Greenhouse gas and carbon profile of the US forest products industry value chain. Environ Sci Technol 44:3999–4005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2014) Life cycle impact assessment. Life Cycle Assess (LCA):90

  • Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guide and backgrounds. NOH reports 9266 & 9267 Leiden: CML 96pp + 130pp Guide: ISBN: 90-5191-064-9Backgrounds: ISBN: 90-5191-064-9

  • Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Pajula T (2013) Approaches for inclusion of forest carbon cycle in life cycle assessment - A review. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 5:475–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helin T, Salminen H, Hynynen J, Soimakallio S, Huuskonen S, Pingoud K (2015) Global warming potentials of stemwood used for energy and materials in Southern Finland: differentiation of impacts based on type of harvest and product lifetime. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12244

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment - A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Dissertation or Thesis

  • Holtsmark B (2012) Harvesting in boreal forests and the biofuel carbon debt. Clim Chang 112:415–428. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0222-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holtsmark B (2013) The outcome is in the assumptions: analyzing the effects on atmospheric CO 2 levels of increased use of bioenergy from forest biomass. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 5:467–473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts M (2002) Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:173–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) 14040:2006. Environmental management -- Life cycle assessment -- Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 20 p

  • Jackson RB, Banner JL, Jobbágy EG, Pockman WT, Wall DH (2002) Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature 418:623–626

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jury C, Benetto E, Koster D, Schmitt B, Welfring J (2010) Life cycle assessment of biogas production by monofermentation of energy crops and injection into the natural gas grid. Biomass Bioenergy 34:54–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman AS, Meier PJ, Sinistore JC, Reinemann DJ (2010) Applying life-cycle assessment to low carbon fuel standards--How allocation choices influence carbon intensity for renewable transportation fuels. Energ Policy 38:5229–5241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A (2012) Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1042–1049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koellner T (2013) Ecosystem services and global trade of natural resources: ecology, economics and policies. Routledge

  • Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Margni M, i Canals LM, Saad R, de Souza DM, Müller-Wenk R (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koponen K, Soimakallio S, Tsupari E, Thun R, Antikainen R (2013) GHG emission performance of various liquid transportation biofuels in Finland in accordance with the EU sustainability criteria. Appl Energy 102:440–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuczenski B, Geyer R (2011) Life cycle assessment of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage bottles consumed in the State of California. Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management UC Santa Barbara. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/1487/20141487.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2014

  • Kurz WA, Dymond C, Stinson G, Rampley G, Neilson E, Carroll A, Ebata T, Safranyik L (2008) Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452:987–990

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leinonen I, Williams AG, Kyriazakis I (2014) Evaluating methods to account for the greenhouse gas emissions from land use changes in agricultural LCA. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector. LCA Food 2014, pp 8–10

  • Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (eds) (2002) Impact assessment of resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer EW, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (eds) (2002), Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola, USA, pp 11–64

  • Lindholm E (2010) Energy use and environmental impact of roundwood and forest fuel production in Sweden. Dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

  • Malça J, Freire F (2011) Life-cycle studies of biodiesel in Europe: a review addressing the variability of results and modeling issues. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15:338–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marland G, Schlamadinger B, Leiby P (1997) Forest/biomass based mitigation strategies: does the timing of carbon reductions matter? Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 27:213–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila T, Helin T, Antikainen R, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Wessman H (2011) Land use in life cycle assessment. The Finnish Environment 24. Finnish Environment Institute

  • Michelsen O (2006) Eco-efficiency in extended supply chains–methodological development with regulatory and organizational implications. Dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Dissertation or Thesis, Fakultet for samfunnsvitenskap og teknologiledelse

  • Milà i Canals L, Clift R, Basson L, Hansen Y, Brandão M (2006) Expert workshop on land use impacts in life cycle assessment. 12–13 June 2006 Guildford, Surrey (UK). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:363–368

  • Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Knuchel RF, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Mueller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007a) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Romanya J, Cowell SJ (2007b) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of 'fertile land' in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkkinen K, Korhonen R, Savolainen I, Laine J (2002) Carbon balance and radiative forcing of Finnish peatlands 1900–2100–the impact of forestry drainage. Glob Chang Biol 8:785–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogensen L, Kristensen T, Nguyen TLT, Knudsen MT, Hermansen JE (2014) Method for calculating carbon footprint of cattle feeds–including contribution from soil carbon changes and use of cattle manure. J Clean Prod 73:40–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Muys B (2002) Reference system. In: Schweinle J (ed) The assessment of environmental impacts caused by land use in the life cycle assessment of forestry and forest products. Final report. Working group 2, land use of COST action E9. Nr. 209. BFH, Hamburg, pp 56

  • National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) (2013) A review of biomass carbon accounting methods and implications. Technical Bulletin No. 1015. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

  • Núñez M, Pfister S, Antón A, Muñoz P, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Rieradevall J (2013) Assessing the environmental impact of water consumption by energy crops grown in Spain. J Ind Ecol 17:90–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuss P, Bringezu S, Gardner KH (2012) Waste-to-materials: the longterm option. In: Waste to energy. Springer, pp 1–26

  • Oyewole A (2010) Implementation of land use and land use change and its effects on biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Master thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

  • Pelletier N, Ardente F, Brandão M, De Camillis C, Pennington D (2015) Rationales for and limitations of preferred solutions for multi-functionality problems in LCA: is increased consistency possible? Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:74–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopal D, Zilberman D (2013) On market-mediated emissions and regulations on life cycle emissions. Ecol Econ 90:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt WP, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30:701–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Repo A, Tuomi M, Liski J (2011) Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 3:107–115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rödl A (2012) IEA bioenergy task 38 - case study environmental assessment of liquid biofuel from woody biomass. Work Report of the Institute of Forest Based Sector Economics 2012/01. Hamburg

  • Rutland CT (2011) Life cycle assessment applied to 95 representative US Farms. Master thesis, Texas A&M University

  • Samuel-Fitwi B, Nagel F, Meyer S, Schroeder J, Schulz C (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of raising rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in different production systems. Aquacult Eng 54:85–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer F, Blanke M (2012) Farming and marketing system affects carbon and water footprint–a case study using Hokaido pumpkin. J Clean Prod 28:113–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt JH (2007) Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Ph. D. thesis, Part 3: life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil. Dissertation, Aalborg University

  • Schulze E, Körner C, Law BE, Haberl H, Luyssaert S (2012) Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 4:611–616

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scown CD (2010) Life-cycle water impacts of US transportation fuels. Dissertation, University of California

  • Sheehan JJ (2009) Biofuels and the conundrum of sustainability. Curr Opin Biotechnol 20:318–324

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Socolow R (1997) Industrial ecology and global change. Cambridge University Press

  • Sonnemann G, Vigon B (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases. A basis for greener processes and products.UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Paris

  • Thomassen M, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:339–349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tillman A (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufvesson LM, Lantz M, Börjesson P (2013) Environmental performance of biogas produced from industrial residues including competition with animal feed–life-cycle calculations according to different methodologies and standards. J Clean Prod 53:214–223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vázquez-Rowe I, Marvuglia A, Flammang K, Braun C, Leopold U, Benetto E (2014) The use of temporal dynamics for the automatic calculation of land use impacts in LCA using R programming environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:500–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellinga TV, Blonk H, Marinussen M, van Zeist W, de Boer I, Starmans D (2009) Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Lelystad, the Netherlands

  • Weidema B (2000) Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment (Vol. 863, p. 365). Miljøstyrelsen

  • Weidema B, Frees N, Nielsen A (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:48–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss F, Leip A (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: a life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 149:124–134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker C, Borrion AL, Newnes L, McManus M (2014) The renewable energy directive and cereal residues. Appl Energy 122:207–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • WRI, WBCSD (2011) Product life cycle reporting and standard. WRI, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript. Sampo Soimakallio would like to thank Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation for financing.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

ᅟ

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Climate Change Programme, P.O. Box 140, 00251, Helsinki, Finland

    Sampo Soimakallio

  2. NSW Department of Primary Industries, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia

    Annette Cowie

  3. IEA Bioenergy Task 38, Barcelona, Spain

    Miguel Brandão

  4. Division of Environmental Strategies Research (fms), Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

    Göran Finnveden

  5. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 53020, 400 14, Göteborg, Sweden

    Tomas Ekvall & Per-Erik Karlsson

  6. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 210 60, 100 31, Stockholm, Sweden

    Martin Erlandsson

  7. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Energy Systems, P.O. Box 1000, 02044 VTT, Espoo, Finland

    Kati Koponen

Authors
  1. Sampo Soimakallio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annette Cowie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miguel Brandão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Göran Finnveden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tomas Ekvall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin Erlandsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kati Koponen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Per-Erik Karlsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sampo Soimakallio.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Matthias Finkbeiner

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(XLSX 197 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soimakallio, S., Cowie, A., Brandão, M. et al. Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 1364–1375 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0947-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0947-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation