Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bridging Arctic environmental science and life cycle assessment: a preliminary assessment of regional scaling factors

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current research aims to make the impact assessment module of life cycle assessment (LCA) less site-generic and thus more relevant to particular regions. The Arctic region attracts its share of interest when it comes to environmental issues, but little research has been performed with the explicit aim to incorporate its particular features into LCA. Through a survey directed to individual experts and a brief literature review, this article identifies environmental impact categories of particular relevance to this region. Findings should be interpreted with caution; nevertheless, impact categories connected to POPs, heavy metals, ecotoxicity, acidification and the cryosphere are with confidence identified as important. The regional scaling factors resulting from the survey could in principle be employed in LCA calculations, but optimally require verification by specified future research. However, indications of a certain resistance to a full quantitative clarification of priorities in the Arctic environment are identified.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 2.-0 LCA consultants (2014) Impact assessment with option of full monetarisation. http://www.lca-net.com/projects/stepwise_ia/. Accessed 24.03.2014

  • ACIA (2005) Arctic climate impact assessment. ACIA overview report. Cambridge University Press, USA, p 1020

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and evaluation in environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further development. J Clean Prod 19(2–3):145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (1998) AMAP assessment report: Arctic pollution issues. AMAP, Oslo, p 859

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2005) AMAP assessment 2002: Heavy metals in the Arctic. AMAP, Oslo, p 265

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2006) AMAP assessment 2006: acidifying pollutants, Arctic haze, and acidification in the Arctic. AMAP, Oslo, p 112

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2009) AMAP assessment 2009: human health in the Arctic. AMAP, Oslo, p 254

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2010a) AMAP assessment 2009: persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the Arctic. In: Muir and de Wit (eds) (2010) Levels, trends and effects of legacy and new persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic: an AMAP assessment. Sci Total Environ Special Issue 408:2851–3051

  • AMAP (2010b) AMAP assessment 2009: radioactivity in the Arctic. AMAP, Oslo, p 92

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2010c) Assessment 2007: oil and gas activities in the Arctic—EFFECTS and potential effects, vol 1. AMAP, Oslo, p 423

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2010d) Assessment 2007: oil and gas activities in the Arctic—effects and potential effects, vol 2. AMAP, Oslo, p 277

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2011a) AMAP assessment 2011: mercury in the Arctic. AMAP, Oslo, p 193

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2011b) The Arctic as a messenger for global processes—climate change and pollution. Copenhagen May 3–6 2011. Abstract volume. Aarhus University, Denmark. p 175

  • AMAP (2011c) Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): climate change and the cryosphere. AMAP, Oslo, p 538

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2011d) The impact of black carbon on Arctic climate. AMAP, Oslo, p 72

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP (2013a) Document repository AMAP. http://www.amap.no/documents. Accessed 03.10.2013

  • AMAP (2013b) Arctic ocean acidification assessment: summary for policymakers. AMAP, Oslo, p 12

    Google Scholar 

  • AMAP/CAFF/SDWG (2013) Identification of Arctic marine areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance: Arctic marine shipping assessment (AMSA) IIc. AMAP, Oslo, p 114

    Google Scholar 

  • Arctic Environment Protection Strategy (1997) Guidelines for Environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the Arctic. Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Finland, p 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks WP, Coleman MJ (1981) Two subjective scales of number. Percept Psychophys 29(2):95–105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13(5):687–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur, Lund, p 544

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren N, Jordahl H, Stern C (2009) A left-right divide: the political opinions of Swedish social scientists. Finn Econ Papers 22(2):75–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortés-Borda D, Guillén-Gosálbez G, Esteller LJ (2013) On the use of weighting in LCA: translating decision makers’ preferences into weights via linear programming. Int J LCA 18(5):948–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit CA, Muir D (2010) Levels and trends of new contaminants, temporal trends of legacy contaminants and effects of contaminants in the Arctic: preface. Sci Total Environ 408:2852–2853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene S, Izard V, Spelke E, Pica P (2008) Log or linear? Distinct intuitions of the number scale in Western and Amazonian indigene cultures. Science 320(5880):1217–1220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G (1997) Valuation methods within LCA—where are the values? Int J LCA 2(3):163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2013) Recipe 2008. 1st edn (revised). Report I: Characterisation. February 2013. http://www.lcia-recipe.net/. Accessed 24.03.2014

  • Hadorn GH, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U (2006) Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecol Econ 60(1):119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 18(3):683–697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000) A theoretical foundation for Life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4(1):13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in Life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huntington HP (2009) A preliminary assessment of threats to arctic marine mammals and their conservation in the coming decades. Mar Policy 33(1):77–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huppes G, van Oers L (2011) Background review of existing weighting approaches in Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). European Commission Joint Research Centre EUR 24997 EN-2011. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg, p 96

    Google Scholar 

  • Huppes G, van Oers L, Pretato U, Pennington DW (2012) Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(7):876–891

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2013) Working group I contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report on climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. http://ipcc.ch. Accessed 03.10.2013

  • ISO (2006) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen FM, Løkke S (2013) Review of criteria for evaluating LCA weighting methods. Int J LCA 18(4):840–849

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald RW, Harner T, Fyfe J, Loeng H, Weingartner T (2003) AMAP assessment 2002: the influence of global change on contaminant pathways to, within, and from the Arctic. AMAP, Oslo, p 65

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir DCG, De Wit CA (2010) Trends of legacy and new persistent organic pollutants in the circumpolar arctic: overview, conclusions, and recommendations. Sci Total Environ 408:3044–3051

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Myllyviita T, Leskinen P, Seppälä J (2013) Impact of normalisation, elicitation technique and background information on panel weighting results in life cycle assessment. Int J LCA. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0645-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (2013) Frp i nord skuffet over Lofoten-fredning. http://www.nrk.no/nordland/frp-skuffet-over-lofoten-fredning-1.11271767. Accessed 07.10.2013

  • Posch M, Seppälä J, Hettelingh J-P, Johansson M, Margni M, Jolliet O (2008) The role of atmospheric dispersion models and ecosystem sensitivity in the determination of characterisation factors for acidifying and eutrophying emissions in LCIA. Int J LCA 13(6):477–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Potting J, Hauschild MZ (2006) Spatial differentiation in Life cycle impact assessment: A decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J LCA 11(Special Issue 1):11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J LCA 13(5):374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saad R, Margni M, Koellner T, Wittstock B, Deschênes L (2011) Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions: development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a Canadian context. Int J LCA 16(3):198–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt J, Thrane M (2009) Life cycle assessment of aluminium production in new Alcoa smelter in Greenland. Government of Greenland, Greenland, p 202

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppälä J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh J-P (2006) Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator. Int J LCA 11(6):403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw GE (1995) The Arctic haze phenomenon. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 76(12):2403–2413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (2006) Describing values in relation to choices in LCA. Int J LCA 11(4):277–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toffoletto L, Bulle C, Godin J, Reid C, Deschênes L (2007) LUCAS—a new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int J LCA 12(2):93–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tolle DA (1997) Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA. Int J LCA 2(4):197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope Y, Liberman N, Wakslak C (2007) Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J Consum Psychol 17(2):83–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF (2012) RACER. Rapid assessment of circum-Arctic ecosystem resilience, 2nd edn. WWF Global Arctic Programme, Ottawa p 72

Download references

Acknowledgments

This article is part of a PhD study connected to the EDecIDe project, financed by the Research Council of Norway via Gassnova SF, Statoil ASA and A/S Norske Shell. Supervisors have been Søren Løkke, Aalborg University and Andreas Brekke, Ostfold Research.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ostfold Research, Stadion 4, 1671, Kråkerøy, Norway

    Fredrik Moltu Johnsen

  2. The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment, Aalborg University, Skibbrogade 5, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark

    Fredrik Moltu Johnsen

Authors
  1. Fredrik Moltu Johnsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Moltu Johnsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnsen, F.M. Bridging Arctic environmental science and life cycle assessment: a preliminary assessment of regional scaling factors. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16, 1713–1724 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0752-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0752-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation