System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA

Outline of methodology and illustrative case study of wheat in Denmark


Background, aim, and scope

When dealing with system delimitation in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), two methodologies are typically referred to: consequential LCA and attributional LCA. The consequential approach uses marginal data and avoids co-product allocation by system expansion. The attributional approach uses average or supplier-specific data and treats co-product allocation by applying allocation factors. Agricultural LCAs typically regard local production as affected and they only include the interventions related to the harvested area. However, as changes in demand and production may affect foreign production, yields and the displacement of other crops in regions where the agricultural area is constrained, there is a need for incorporating the actual affected processes in agricultural consequential LCA. This paper presents a framework for defining system boundaries in consequential agricultural LCA. The framework is applied to an illustrative case study; LCA of increased demand for wheat in Denmark. The aim of the LCA screening is to facilitate the application of the proposed methodology. A secondary aim of the LCA screening is to illustrate that there are different ways to meet increased demand for agricultural products and that the environmental impact from these different ways vary significantly.

Materials and methods

The proposed framework mainly builds on the work of Ekvall T, Weidema BP (Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):pp. 161–171, 2004), agricultural statistics (FAOSTAT, FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2006), (accessed June)), and agricultural outlook (FAPRI, US and world agricultural outlook, Food and Agriculture Research Institute, Iowa, 2006a). The framework and accompanying guidelines concern the suppliers affected, the achievement of increased production (area or yield), and the substitutions between crops. The framework, which is presented as a decision tree, proposes four possible systems that may be affected as a result of the increased demand of a certain crop in a certain area.


The core of the proposed methodology is a decision tree, which guides the identification of affected processes in consequential agricultural LCA. The application of the methodology is illustrated with a case study presenting an LCA screening of wheat in Denmark. Different scenarios of how increased demand for wheat can be met show significant differences in emission levels as well as land use.


The great differences in potential environmental impacts of the analysed results underpin the importance of system delimitation. The consequential approach is appointed as providing a more complete and accurate but also less precise result, while the attributional approach provides a more precise result but with inherent blind spots, i.e. a less accurate result.


The main features of the proposed framework and case study are: (1) an identification of significant sensitivity on results of system delimitation, and (2) a formalised way of identifying blind spots in attributional agricultural LCAs.

Recommendations and perspectives

It is recommended to include considerations on the basis of the framework presented in agricultural LCAs if relevant. This may be done either by full quantification or as qualitative identification of the most likely ways the agricultural product system will respond on changed demand. Hereby, it will be possible to make reservations to the conclusions drawn on the basis of an attributional LCA.


Agriculture Consequential modelling Marginal data System boundaries System delimitation System expansion Wheat 


  1. Andersen JM, Poulsen HD, Børsting CF, Rom HB, Sommer SG, Hutchings NJ (2001) Ammoniakemission fra landbruget siden midten af 80′erne (English—ammonia emission from agriculture since the mid 80s). Faglig rapport fra DMU, No353, Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Miljøministeriet, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergström A-K, Jansson M (2006) Atmospheric nitrogen deposition has caused nitrogen enrichment and eutrophication of lakes in the northern hemisphere. Glob Chang Biol 12:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cederberg C, Stadig M (2003) System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):350–356Google Scholar
  4. Corly RHV, Tinker PB (2003) The oil palm, vol. 4. Blackwell, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Cropper M, Griffiths C (1994) The interaction between population growth and environmental quality. Popul Econ 84(2):250–254Google Scholar
  6. Dalgaard R, Schmidt JH, Halberg N, Christensen P, Thrane M, Pengue WA (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danmarks Statistik (2006) Danmarks Statistik— (English—statistics Denmark—, Copenhagen,
  8. Dejgård JD, Andersen M, Kristensen K (2001) A regional econometric sector model for Danish agriculture—a documentation of the regionalized ESMERALDA model. Statens Jordbrugs— og Fiskeriøkonomiske Institut, Rapport No129, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Fisheries, Copenhagen,–129/129.pdf
  9. Delin S, Lindén B, Berglund K (2005) Yield and protein response to fertilizer nitrogen in different parts of a cereal field potential of site-specific fertilization. Eur J Agron 22:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobermann A (2005) Nitrogen use efficiency—state of the art. IFA international workshop on enhanced-efficiency fertilizers, FrankfurtM., 28–30 JuneGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2006) A framework for social life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):161–171Google Scholar
  13. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M, Molander S (2005) Normative ethics and methodology for life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 13:1225–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellermann T, Andersen HV, Monies V, Kemp K, Bossi R, Bügel Mogensen B, Løfstrøm P, Christensen J, Frohn LM (2005) Atmosfærisk deposition 2004 (English—atmospheric deposition 2004). NOVANA. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. Faglig rapport fra DMU, No555, Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Miljøministeriet, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2006) CAP reform—a long-term perspective for sustainable agriculture. Description of the CAP-reform, European Commission, Brussels, (accessed May)
  16. European Council (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000 P. 0001–0073, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. European Council (1991) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Official Journal L 375, 31/12/1991 P. 0001–0008, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (2003a) Medium-term prospects for agricultural commodities. Projections to the year 2010. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (2003b) Selected indicators of food and agriculture development in Asia-Pacific region 1992–2002. RAP Publication 2003-10, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  20. FAO (2005) The state of food and agriculture, agricultural trade and poverty—can trade work for the poor? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), RomeGoogle Scholar
  21. FAO and IFA (2001) Global estimates of gaseous emissions of NH3, NO and N2O from agricultural land. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), RomeGoogle Scholar
  22. FAOSTAT (2006) FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, (accessed June)
  23. FAPRI (2006a) FAPRI 2006, US and world agricultural outlook. Food and Agriculture Research Institute, IowaGoogle Scholar
  24. FAPRI (2006b) Price elasticity database. Food and Agriculture Research Institute, Iowa, (accessed June)
  25. Finkbeiner M, Inaba A, Tan RBH, Christiansen K, Klüppel H-J (2006) The new international standards for life cycle assessment—ISO 14040 and 14044. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(2):80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. IFA, IFDC, IPI, PPI and FAO (2002) Fertilizer use by crop. IFA, IFDC, IPI, PPI and FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  28. IPCC (2000) Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson GV, Raun WR (2003) Nitrogen response index as a guide to fertilizer management. J Plant Nutr 26(2):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (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 E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life cycle impact assessment—striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  31. Madsen ES et al (1988) Økonomisk Teori i Internationalt Perspektiv (English—economic theory in an international perspective). 2—udgave. Jurist-og Økonomiforbundets Forlag, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  32. Møller J, Thøgersen R, Kjeldsen AM, Weisberg MR, Soegaard K, Hvelplund T, Børsting CF (2000) Fodermiddeltabel—sammensætning og foderværdi af fodermidler til kvæg (English—feeding component table—composition and feeding value of feeding components for cattle), Rapport nr 91 Landsudvalget for Kvæg. FoulumGoogle Scholar
  33. Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2005) LCA food database, (the database is available in the LCA pc-software SimaPro 7.0)
  34. Pedersen CÅ (2005) Oversigt over landsforsøgene, forsøg og undersøgelser i de danske landøkonomiske foreninger 2005 (English—overview of agricultural experiments, experiments and examinations in the Danish agricultural economic associations). Dansk Landbrugsrådgivning, Landscentret, AarhusGoogle Scholar
  35. Plantedirektoratet (2005) Vejledning om gødsknings- og harmoniregler (English—Guidelines on regulations of fertilising and harmony rules). Plantedirektoratet. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
  36. ProForest (2003) Palm oil forests and sustainability—discussion paper for the Round Table on sustainable palm oil. ProForest, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Rathke G-W, Behrens T, Diepenbrock W (2006) Integrated nitrogen management strategies to improve seed yield, oil content and nitrogen efficiency of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)—a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 117(2–3):80–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruser R, Flessa H, Schilling R, Beese F, Munch CJ (2001) Effect of crop-specific field management and N fertilization on N2O emissions from a fine-loamy soil. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 59:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt JH (2007) Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Ph.D. thesis, Part 3—life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Dept. Development and Planning, Aalborg University, (accessed November)
  40. Schmidt AC, Jensen AA, Clausen AU, Kamstrup O, Postlethwaite D (2004) A comparative life cycle assessment of building insulation products made of stone wool, paper wool and flax. Part 1: Background, goal and scope, life cycle inventory, impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(1):53–66Google Scholar
  41. SenterNovem (2005) Participative LCA on biofuels. Rapport 2GAVE-05.08. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  42. Sunderlin W, Resosudarmo IAP (1999) The effect of population and migration on forest cover in Indonesia. J Environ Develop 8(2):152–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Environmental Project No863. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  44. Weidema BP, Nielsen AM, Halberg N, Kristensen IS, Jespersen CM, Thodberg L (2005) Sammenligning af miljøpåvirkningen af konkurrende jordbrugsprodukter (English—comparison of the environmental impacts from competitive agricultural products). Miljøprojekt 1028, Miljøstyrelsen, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  45. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products, Vol 1—methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiebe K (2003) Linking land quality, agricultural productivity, and food security. Agricultural economic report No823, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture—USDA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. Vinther FP, Hansen S (2004) SimDen—en simpel model til kvantificering af N2O-emission og denitrifikation (English—SimDen—a simple model for quantification of N2O-emission and denitrification). DJF rapport. Markbrug nr. 104. Danmarks Jordbrugsforskning, Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Økonomi, TjeleGoogle Scholar
  48. WWF (2006) Forest Conversion News No10 April. World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF Forest Conversion Initiative, ZurichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Development and PlanningAalborg UniversityAalborg EastDenmark

Personalised recommendations