On the boundary between economy and environment in life cycle assessment

  • Bo Pedersen Weidema
  • Jannick Schmidt
  • Peter Fantke
  • Stefan Pauliuk
LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Abstract

Purpose

We investigate how the boundary between product systems and their environment has been delineated in life cycle assessment and question the usefulness and ontological relevance of a strict division between the two.

Methods

We consider flows, activities and impacts as general terms applicable to both product systems and their environment and propose that the ontologically relevant boundary is between the flows that are modelled as inputs to other activities (economic or environmental)—and the flows that—in a specific study—are regarded as final impacts, in the sense that no further feedback into the product system is considered before these impacts are applied in decision-making. Using this conceptual model, we contrast the traditional mathematical calculation of the life cycle impacts with a new, simpler computational structure where the life cycle impacts are calculated directly as part of the Leontief inverse, treating product flows and environmental flows in parallel, without the need to consider any boundary between economic and environmental activities.

Results and discussion

Our theoretical outline and the numerical example demonstrate that the distinctions and boundaries between product systems and their environment are unnecessary and in some cases obstructive from the perspective of impact assessment, and can therefore be ignored or chosen freely to reflect meaningful distinctions of specific life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. We show that our proposed computational structure is backwards compatible with the current practice of LCA modelling, while allowing inclusion of feedback loops both from the environment to the economy and internally between different impact categories in the impact assessment.

Conclusions

Our proposed computational structure for LCA facilitates consistent, explicit and transparent modelling of the feedback loops between environment and the economy and between different environmental mechanisms. The explicit and transparent modelling, combining economic and environmental information in a common computational structure, facilitates data exchange and re-use between different academic fields.

Keywords

Activities Computational structure Flows Impacts Leontief inverse Ontology 

References

  1. Ahbe S, Braunschweig A, Müller-Wenk R (1990) Methodik für Öko-Bilanzen auf der Basis ökologischer Optimierung. Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft. (Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz, no. 133)Google Scholar
  2. Arbault D, Rivière M, Rugani B, Benetto E, Tiruta-Barna L (2014) Integrated earth system dynamic modeling for life cycle impact assessment of ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 472:262–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boustead I, Hancock GF (1979) Handbook of industrial energy analysis. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. BUS. (1984). Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen. Bern: Bundesamt für Umweltschutz. (Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz no. 24)Google Scholar
  5. Daly HE (1968) On economics as a life science. J Polit Econ 76(3):392–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daly HE, Scott K, Strachan N, Barrett J (2015) Indirect CO2 emission implications of energy system pathways: linking IO and TIMES models for the UK. Environ Sci Technol 49(17):10701–10709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer-Kowalski M, Weisz H (1999) Society as hybrid between material and symbolic realms: toward a theoretical framework of society–nature interaction. Adv Hum Ecol 8:215–251Google Scholar
  8. Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Copenhagen: Danish environmental agency. (environmental news no. 80)Google Scholar
  9. Heijungs R (2001) A theory of the environment and economic systems. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) Computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heijungs R, Guinée J B, 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. Vol I: Guide & Vol. II: Backgrounds. Leiden: CML Centre for Environmental Studies, Leiden UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée J (2009) A scientific framework for LCA. Deliverable 15 of Work Package 2 of the CALCAS project. Leiden University. www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/calcas_report_d15.pdf
  13. Hertwich EG, Gibon T, Bouman EA, Arvesen A, Suh S, Heath GA, Bergesen JD, Ramirez A, Vega MI, Shi L (2015) Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. PNAS 112(20):6277–6282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunt RG, Franklin WE, Welch RO, Cross JA, Woodall AE (1974) Resource and environmental profile analysis of nine beverage container alternatives. Washington D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (EPA/530/SW-91c)Google Scholar
  15. Hunt RG, Sellers JD, Franklin WE (1992) Resource and environmental profile analysis: a life cycle environmental assessment for products and procedures. Environ Impact Assess 12:245–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Isard W (1969) Some notes on the linkage of the ecologic and economic systems. Papers Regional Sci Assoc 22(1):85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koellner T, de Baan L, Tabea B, Brandão M, Civit B, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, 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(6):1188–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Koning A, Huppes G, Deetman S, Tukker A (2016) Scenarios for a 2 °C world: a trade-linked input–output model with high sector detail. Climate Policy 16(3). Published online 2015
  19. Lawlor DW (2005) Plant responses to climate change: impacts and adaptation. In: Omasa K, Nouchi I, De Kok L (eds) Plant Responses to Air Pollution and Global Change. Springer Press, Tokyo, pp 81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muller-Wenk R (1978) Die Ökologische Buchhaltung. Campus, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  21. Nagel H-D, Gregor H-D (1999) Ökologische Belastungsgrenzen: Critical Loads and Levels - Ein internationales Konzept für die Luftreinhaltepolitik. Springer Verlag, Berlin http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540624189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Connor FM, Boucher O, Gedney N, Jones CD, Folberth GA, Coppell R, Friedlingstein P, Collins WJ, Chappellaz J, Ridley J, Johnson CE (2010) Possible role of wetlands, permafrost, and methane hydrates in the methane cycle under future climate change: a review. Rev Geophys 48:RG4005Google Scholar
  23. Pauliuk S, Majeau-Bettez G, Hertwich EG, Müller DB (2016) Toward a practical ontology for socioeconomic metabolism. J Ind Ecol 20(6):1260–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenbaum RK, Anton A, Bengoa X, Bjørn A, Brain R, Bulle C, Cosme N, Dijkman TJ, Fantke P, Felix M, Geoghegan TS, Gottesbüren B, Hammer C, Humbert S, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Lewis F, Maxime D, Nemecek T, Payet J, Räsänen K, Roux P, Schau EM, Sourisseau S, van Zelm R, von Streit B, Wallman M (2015) The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(6):765–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sheffield P, Roy A, Wong K, Trasande L (2011) Fine particulate matter pollution linked to respiratory illness in infants and increased hospital costs. Health Aff 30(5):871–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steen B, Ryding S-O (1992) The EPS enviro-accounting method. Göteborg: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. (Report no. B1080)Google Scholar
  27. Suh S (2005) Theory of materials and energy flow analysis in ecology and economics. Ecol Model 189(3–4):251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). The ecoinvent Centre, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  29. Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Vol. I: Methodology, tools, techniques and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bo Pedersen Weidema
    • 1
  • Jannick Schmidt
    • 1
  • Peter Fantke
    • 2
  • Stefan Pauliuk
    • 3
  1. 1.Danish Centre for Environmental AssessmentAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.Faculty of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations