Advertisement

LCA of Forest Products—Challenges and Solutions

  • Gustav Sandin
  • Greg M. Peters
  • Magdalena Svanström
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Molecular Science book series (BRIEFSMOLECULAR)

Abstract

This chapter provides an extensive walkthrough of the important challenges encountered when carrying out life cycle assessment (LCA) of forest products, and proposes some solutions to these challenges, with examples from the scientific literature and technical reports. The topics include: modelling future and/or uncertain product systems, handling multi-functionality (i.e., allocation problems), inventory analysis and impact assessment (carbon flow modelling, assessing climate impact, biodiversity loss, water cycle disturbances and energy use), managing trade-offs and connecting the LCA work to global environmental challenges, and integrating LCA work in the R&D of new products.

Keywords

Inventory data Consequential Attributional Temporal modelling Spatial modelling Baseline Characterisation method Carbon footprint Climate change Land use Water use Planetary boundaries 

References

  1. Agostini A, Giuntilo J, Boulamanti A (2013) Carbon accounting of forest bioenergy: conclusions and recommendations from a critical literature review. JRC Technical Reports, Report EUR 25354 EN. http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/bf-ca/sites/bf-ca/files/files/documents/eur25354en_online-final.pdf. Accessed Dec 2014
  2. Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2008) Building energy performance: a LCA case study of kenaf-fibres insulation board. Energy Build 40:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvidsson R, Fransson K, Fröling M, Svanström M, Molander S (2012) Energy use indicators in energy and life cycle assessments of biofuels: review and recommendations. J Clean Prod 31:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arvidsson R, Baumann H, Hildenbrand J (2015a) On the scientific justification of the use of working hours, child labour and property rights in social life cycle assessment: three topical reviews. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(2), 161–173Google Scholar
  5. Arvidsson R, Ngyen D, Svanström M (2015b). Life cycle assessment of cellulose nanofibrils production by mechanical treatment and two different pretreatment processes. Environ Sci Technol 49(11), 6881–6890Google Scholar
  6. Arvidsson R, Svanström M (2016) A framework for energy use indicators and reporting in life cycle assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1735
  7. Askham C, Gade AL, Hanssen OJ (2012) Combining REACH, environmental and economic performance indicators for strategic sustainable product development. J Clean Prod 35:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baldassarri C, Mathieux F, Ardente F, Wehmann C, Deese K (2016) Integration of environmental aspects into R&D inter-organizational projects management: application of a life cycle-based method to the development of innovative windows. J Clean Prod 112(4):3388–3401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bayart J-B, Bulle C, Margni M, Vince F, Deschenes L, Aoustin E (2009) Operational characterisation method and factors for a new midpoint impact category: freshwater deprivation for human uses. In: Proceedings of the SETAC Europe 19th annual meeting, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. Bayart J-B, Worbe S, Grimaud J, Aoustin E (2014) The water impact index: a simplified single-indicator approach for water footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1336–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2010) Water footprinting: how to address water use in life cycle assessment? Sustainability 2(4):919–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2012) Methodological challenges in volumetric and impact-oriented water footprints. J Ind Ecol 17(1):79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhattacharyya A, Mazumdar A, Roy PK, Sarkar A (2013) Life cycle assessment of carbon flow through harvested wood products. Ecol Environ Conserv 19(4):1195–1209Google Scholar
  14. Bjørn A, Diamond M, Owsianiak M, Verzat B, Hauschild MZ (2015) Strengthening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 20(7):1005–1018Google Scholar
  15. Blengini GA (2009) Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Build Environ 44:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2005) Towards a user’s guide to scenarios—a report on scenario types and scenario techniques. Environmental strategies research, Department of Urban studies, Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  17. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38(7):723–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bösch ME, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ, Frischknecht R (2007) Applying cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bosch-Sijtsema P (2007) The impact of individual expectations and expectation conflicts on virtual teams. Group Organ Manage 32(3):358–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bouhaya L, Le Roy R, Feraille-Fresnet A (2009) Simplified environmental study on innovative bridge structures. Environ Sci Technol 43:2066–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boulay A-M, Motoshita M, Pfister S, Bulle C, Muñoz I, Franceschini H, Margni M (2015a) Analysis of water use impact assessment methods (part A): evaluation of modelling choices based on quantitative comparison of scarcity and human health indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(1):139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boulay A-M, Bare J, De Camillis C, Doll P, Gassert F, Gerten D et al (2015b) Consensus building on the development of a stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: outcome of the expert workshops. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(5):577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2013) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1243–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brandão M, Milà i Canals L, Clift R (2011) Soil organic carbon changes in the cultivation of energy crops: implications for GHG balances and soil quality for use in LCA. Biomass Bioenergy 35(6):2323–2336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF, Weidema BP, Cowie AL, Vedel Jørgensen S et al (2013) Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brander M (2015) Response to “Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary?”—appreciation, renouncement, and further discussion. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0974-8
  27. Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bribián IZ, Capilla AV, Usón AA (2011) Life cycle assessment of building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 26:1133–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agr Ecosyst Environ 104:185–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A (2013) Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 26:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Byggeth S, Broman G, Robért K-H (2007) A method for sustainable product development based on a modular system of guiding questions. J Clean Prod 15:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cai Z, Laughlin R, Stevens R (2001) Nitrous oxide and dinitrogen emissions from soil under different water regimes and straw amendment. Chemosphere 42:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:4697–4705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chang D, Lee CKM, Chen C-H (2014) Review of life cycle assessment towards sustainable product development. J Clean Prod 83:48–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Chapin FS III, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL et al (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Cherubini F, Strømman AH, Ulgiati S (2011) Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products—a case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:1070–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cherubini F, Bright RM, Strømman AH (2012) Site-specific global warming potentials of biogenic CO2 for bioenergy: contributions from carbon fluxes and albedo dynamics. Environ Res Lett 7(4). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045902
  38. Cherubini F, Guest G, Strømman AH (2013) Bioenergy from forestry and changes in atmospheric CO2: reconciling single stand and landscape level approaches. J Environ Manage 129:292–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Ind 46:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Clancy G (2014) Assessing sustainability and guiding development towards more sustainable products. Thesis for the degree of doctor of philosophy, Chalmers University of Technology, Chalmers Reproservice, Gothenburg, Sweden. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/197988. Accessed Nov 2014
  41. Clancy G, Fröling M, Svanström M (2013) Insights from guiding material development towards more sustainable products. Int J Sustain Des 2(2):149–166Google Scholar
  42. Collado-Ruiz D, Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi H (2013) Estimating environmental behaviour without performing a life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 17(1):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Colodel MC, Kupfer T, Barthel L-P, Albrecht S (2009) R&D decision support by parallel assessment of economic, ecological and social impact—adipic acid from renewable resources versus adipic acid from crude oil. Ecol Econ 68(6):1599–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Costa PM, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration—description and applications in forestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 5:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A (2012) Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build Environ 54:86–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Curran M, de Baan L, de Schryver A, van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Koellner S et al (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. de Baan L, Alkemede R, Koellner T (2012) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1216–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. de Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2013) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47:9281–9290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. De Souza DM, Flynn DFB, DeClerck F, Rosenbaum RK, de Melo Lisboa H, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1231–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. De Souza DM, Teixeira RFM, Ostermann OP (2015) Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with life cycle assessment: are we there yet? Glob Change Biol 21:32–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Devanathan S, Ramanujan D, Bernstein WZ, Zhao F, Ramani K (2010) Integration of sustainability into early design through the function impact matrix. J Mech Des 132Google Scholar
  52. Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, Culp CH (2012) Need for an embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:3730–3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Dornburg V, Marland G (2008) Temporary storage of carbon in the biosphere does have value for climate change mitigation: a response to the paper by Miko Kirschbaum. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 13(3):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Du G, Mohammed S, Pettersson L, Karoumi R (2014) Life cycle assessment as a decision support tool for bridge procurement: environmental impact comparison among five bridge designs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1948–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. EC (2009a) Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0088:0113:EN:PDF. Accessed Jan 2015
  56. EC (2009b) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=en. Accessed Jan 2015
  57. EC (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—general guide for the life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  58. EC (2013) Commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013H0179&from=EN. Accessed Feb 2015
  59. European Environment Agency (1995) CORINE land cover. European Environment Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover. Accessed Jan 2015
  60. European Forest Institute (2014) ToSIA—tool for sustainable impact assessment. http://tosia.efi.int/. Accessed Jan 2015
  61. European Space Agency (2011) GlobCover. http://due.esrin.esa.int/globcover. Accessed Jan 2015
  62. Fazeni K, Lindorfer J, Prammer H (2014) Methodological advancements in life cycle process design: a preliminary outlook. Resour Conserv Recycl 92:66–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Fleischer G, Gerner K, Kunst H, Licthenvort K, Rebitzer G (2001) A semi-quantitative method for the impact assessment of emissions within a simplified life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Frijia S, Guhathakurta S, Williams E (2011) Functional unit, technological dynamics, and scaling properties for the life cycle of residencies. Environ Sci Technol 46:1782–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Frischknecht R, Büsser S, Krewitt W (2009a) Environmental assessment of future technologies: how to trim LCA to fit this goal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:584–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2009b) The ecological scarcity method—eco-factors 2006. A method for impact assessment in LCA. Environmental studies no. 0906. Federal Office for the Environment, BernGoogle Scholar
  69. FSC (2016) https://ic.fsc.org. Accessed Jan 2016
  70. Gamfeldt L, Snäll T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P et al (2013) Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun 4. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2328
  71. Garcia R, Freire A (2014) Carbon footprint of particleboard: a comparison between ISO/TS 14067, GHG protocol, PAS 2050 and climate declaration. J Clean Prod 66:199–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Geyer R, Lindner J, Stoms D, Davis F, Wittstock B (2010) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use, part 2: impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:692–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) The eco-indicator 99—a damage-oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, 2nd edn. PRé Consultants, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  74. Grant A, Ries R, Kibert C (2014) Life cycle assessment and service life prediction: a case study of building envelope materials. J Ind Ecol 18(2):187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Guest G, Strømman AH (2014) Climate change impacts due to biogenic carbon: addressing the issue of attribution using two metrics with very different outcomes. J Sustain Forest 33(3):298–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Guest G, Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2013) Global warming potential of carbon dioxide emissions from biomass stored in the anthroposphere and used for bioenergy at end of life. J Ind Ecol 17(1):20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  78. Gunn JS, Ganz D, Keeton W (2012) Biogenic vs. geologic carbon emissions and forest biomass energy production. GCB Bioenergy 4:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Habert G, Arribe D, Dehove T, Espinasse L, Le Roy R (2012) Reducing environmental impact by increasing the strength of concrete: quantification of the improvement to concrete bridges. J Clean Prod 35:250–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August–December 2013. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. http://cices.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CICES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf. Accessed Dec2014
  81. Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manage 27:997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée J (2009) A scientific framework for LCA. Deliverable (D15) of work package 2 (WP2) CALCAS project. http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/calcas_report_d15.pdf. Accessed Dec 2014
  83. Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Pajula T (2013) Approaches for inclusion of carbon cycles in life cycle assessment—a review. GCB Bioenergy 5(5):475–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment. Part 2: midpoints, endpoints, and criteria for method development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Hetherington AC, Borrion AL, Griffiths OG, McManus MC (2014) Use of LCA as a development tool within early research: challenges and issues across different sectors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:130–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Heuvelmans G, Muys G, Feyen J (2005) Extending the life cycle methodology to cover impacts of land use systems on the freshwater balance. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK (2007) Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resour Manage 21(1):35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM (2011) The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard. Water Footprint Network, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  89. Hooper DU, Adair EC, Cardinale BR, Byrnes JEK, Hungate BA, Matulich KL et al (2012) A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486:105–108Google Scholar
  90. Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Frischknecht K, Hendriks HWM, Hungerbühler K, Hendriks AJ (2010) Cumulative energy demand as predictor for the environmental burden of commodity production. Environ Sci Technol 44(6):2189–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. IPCC (2013) In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J et al (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Working group I contribution to the 5th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Accessed Oct 2014
  92. ISO (2006a) 14040: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for StandardisationGoogle Scholar
  93. ISO (2006b) 14044: Environmental management—life cycle assessment – principles and framework. International Organisation for StandardisationGoogle Scholar
  94. ISO (2014) 14046: Environmental management—water footprint—principles, requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for StandardisationGoogle Scholar
  95. Johnson E (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: getting biomass footprints right. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Jørgensen SV, Hauschild MZ, Nielsen PH (2014) Assessment of urgent impacts of greenhouse gas emissions—the climate tipping potential (CTP). Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):919–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Karlsson H, Börjesson P, Hansson P-H, Ahlgren S (2014) Ethanol production in biorefineries using lignocellulosic feedstock—GHG performance, energy balance and implications of life cycle calculation methodology. J Clean Prod 83:420–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Kirschbaum MUF (2006) Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent climate change. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11(5–6):1151–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Klein D, Wolf C, Schulz C, Blaschke-Weber G (2015) 20 years of life cycle assessment (LCA) in the forestry sector: state of the art and a methodological proposal for the LCA of forest production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:556–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Koellner T (2000) Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 8:293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Koellner T, Geyer R (2013) Global land use impact assessment on biodiversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1185–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environmental. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):32–48Google Scholar
  103. Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Goedkoop M et al (2013a) Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1203–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Goedkoop M et al (2013b) 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
  105. Koponen K, Soimakallio S (2015) Foregone carbon sequestration due to land occupation—the case of agro-bioenergy in Finland. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(11):1544–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B, Boulay A-M, Berger M, Bulle C et al (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Kunnari E, Valkama J, Keskinen M, Mansikkamäki P (2009) Environmental evaluation of new technology: printed electronics case study. J Clean Prod 17:791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Kyläkorpi L, Rydgren B, Ellegård A, Miliander S, Grusell E (2005) The biotope method 2005: a method to assess the impact of land use on biodiversity. http://www.vattenfall.com/en/file/2005TheBiotopeMethod_8459811.pdf. Accessed Jan 2013
  109. Launiainen S, Futter MN, Ellison D, Clarke N, Finér L, Högbom L et al (2014) Is the water footprint an appropriate tool for forestry and forest products: the Fennoscandian case. Ambio 43(2):244–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Lindeijer E (2000) Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. J Clean Prod 8:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Lindner JP, Niblick B, Eberle U, Bos U, Schmincke E, Schwarz S, et al. (2014) Proposal of a unified biodiversity impact assessment method. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference LCA of food, San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  113. Lindqvist M, Palme U, Lindner JP (2015) A comparison of two different biodiversity assessment methods in LCA—a case study of Swedish spruce forest. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-1012-6
  114. Liski J, Korotkov AV, Prins CFL, Karjalainen T, Victor DG, Kauppi PE (2003) Increased carbon sink in temporal and boreal forests. Clim Change 61:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Lundie S, Peters G, Beavis P (2004) Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning—options for ecological sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 38:3465–3473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Luo L, Van Der Voet E, Huppes G, Udo De Haes HA (2009) Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(6):529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. MA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  118. Manmek S, Kaebernick H, Kara S (2010) Simplified environmental impact drivers for product life cycle. Int J Sustain Manuf 2(1):30–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Mathiesen BV, Münster M, Fruergaard T (2009) Uncertainties related to the identification of the marginal technology in consequential life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 17:1331–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Mattsson B, Cederberg C, Blix L (2000) Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. J Clean Prod 8:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. McAloone TC, Bey N (2009) Environmental improvement through product development: a guide. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  122. Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity: proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):22–31Google Scholar
  123. Michelsen O, Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2012) Impact assessment of biodiversity and carbon pools from land use and land use change in life cycle assessment, exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. J Ind Ecol 16(2):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Antón A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use in LCA: part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2008). Development of impact assessment method on health damages of undernourishment related to agricultural water scarcity. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on EcoBalance, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  127. Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A, Aoustin E (2009) Development of damage assessment model for infectious diseases arising from domestic water consumption. In: Proceedings of the SETAC Europe: 19th annual meeting, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  128. Muys B, Quijano JG (2002) A new method for land use impact assessment in LCA based on the ecosystem exergy concept. http://www.biw.kuleuven.be/lbh/lbnl/forecoman/pdf/land%20use%20method4.pdf. Accessed Mar 2015
  129. Nielsen PH, Wenzel H (2002) Integration of environmental aspects in product development: a stepwise procedure based on quantitative life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 10:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Núñez M, Antón A, Muñoz P, Rieradevall J (2013) Inclusion of soil erosion impacts in life cycle assessment on a global scale: application to energy crops in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:755–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Ny H (2009) Strategic life-cycle modeling and simulation for sustainable product development. Blekinge Institute of Technology Doctoral Dissertation Series No. 2009:02. http://www.bth.se/fou/forskinfo.nsf/all/d218ba0b67bf3802c12575b400295b6b/$file/Ny_diss.pdf. Accessed Feb 2015
  132. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51(11):933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Ortiz O, Pasqualino JC, Castells F (2010) The environmental impact of the construction phase: an application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:832–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Othman MR, Repke J-U, Wozny G, Huang Y (2010) A modular approach to sustainability assessment and decision support in chemical process design. Ind Eng Chem Res 49:7870–7881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Pawelzik P, Carus M, Hotchkiss J, Narayan R, Selke S, Wellisch M et al (2013) Critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based materials—reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl 73:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. PEFC (2016) http://www.pefc.org. Accessed January 2016
  137. 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(1):74–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Perez-Garcia J, Lippke B, Comnick J, Manriquez C (2005) An assessment of carbon pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood Fiber Sci 37:140–148Google Scholar
  139. Persson C, Fröling M, Svanström M (2006) Life cycle assessment of the district heat distribution system, part 3: use phase and overall discussion. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Pesonen H-L, Ekvall T, Fleischer G, Huppes G, Jahn C, Klos SZ et al (2000) Framework for scenario development in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Peters GM, Wiedemann SG, Rowley HV, Tucker RV (2010) Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Peters GM, Blackburn NJ, Armedio M (2013) Environmental assessment of air to water machines—triangulation to manage scope uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1149–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Pinsonnault A, Lesage P, Levasseur A, Samson R (2014) Temporal differentiation of background systems in LCA: relevance of adding temporal information in LCI databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1843–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Quinteiro P, Cláudia Dias A, Silva M, Ridoutt BG, Arroja L (2015) A contribution to the environmental impact assessment of green water flows. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.022 Google Scholar
  146. 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 Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Rebitzer G (2005) Enhancing the application efficiency of life cycle assessment for industrial uses. Thesis no 3307, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/52216/files/EPFL_TH3307.pdf. Accessed Jan 2015
  148. Repo A, Tuomi M, Liski J (2011) Indirect carbon dioxide emissions from producing bioenergy from forest harvest residues. GCB Bioenergy 3(2):107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Ridoutt BG (2011) Development and application of water footprint metric for agricultural products and the food industry. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Towards life cycle sustainability management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 183–192Google Scholar
  150. Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2013) A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:204–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Ridoutt BG, Sanguansri P, Nolan M, Marks N (2012) Meat consumption and water scarcity: beware of generalizations. J Clean Prod 28:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Rowley HV, Peters GM, Lundie S, Moore SJ (2012) Aggregating sustainability indicators: beyond the weighted sum. J Environ Manage 111:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Røyne F, Peñaloza D, Sandin G, Berlin J, Svanström M (2016) Climate impact assessment in life cycle assessments of forest products: implications of method choice for results and decision-making. J Clean Prod 116:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 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 Life Cycle Assess 16:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Sandén BA, Harvey S (2008) System analysis for energy transition: a mapping of methodologies, co-operation and critical issues in energy systems studies at Chalmers. Report CEC 2008:2, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  156. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2013) Moving down the cause-effect chain of water and land use impacts: an LCA case study of textile fibres. Resour Conserv Recycl 17:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2014a) Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):723–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Sandin G, Clancy G, Heimersson S, Peters GM, Svanström M, ten Hoeve M (2014b) Making the most of LCA in inter-organisational R&D projects. J Clean Prod 70:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Sandin G, Røyne F, Berlin H, Peters GM, Svanström M (2015a) Allocation in LCAs of biorefinery products: implications for results and decision-making. J Clean Prod 93:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Sandin G, Peñaloza D, Røyne F, Svanström M, Staffas L (2015b) The method’s influence on climate impact assessment of biofuels and other uses of forest biomass. Report No 2015:10, f3 The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels, Sweden. www.f3centre.se. Accessed Jan 2016
  161. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2015c) Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(12):1684–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Schmidt JH (2008) Development of LCIA characterisation factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 16:1929–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Schmidt JH, Weidema BP, Brandão M (2015) A framework for modelling indirect land use changes in life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.013 Google Scholar
  164. Schulze E-D, 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. GCB Bioenergy 4:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Schwaiger H, Bird N (2010) Integration of albedo effects caused by land use change into the climate balance: should we still account in greenhouse gas units? Forest Ecol Manage 260:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J et al (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emission from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Singh A, Berghorn G, Joshi S, Syal M (2011) Review of life-cycle assessment applications in building construction. J Arch Eng 17:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Sjølie HK, Solberg B (2011) Greenhouse gas emission impacts of use of Norwegian wood pellets: a sensitivity analysis. Environ Sci Policy 14(8):1028–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Soimakallio S, Cowie A, Brandão M, Finnveden G, Ekvall T, Erlandsson M et al (2015) Attributional life cycle assessment: is a land-use baseline necessary. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(10):1364–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Spielmann M, Scholz RW, Tietje O, de Haan P (2005) Scenario modelling in prospective LCA of transport systems: application of formative scenario analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Spracklen DV, Bonn B, Carslaw KS (2008) Boreal forests, aerosols and the impacts on clouds and climate. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A: Math Phys Eng Sci 366(1885):4613–4626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855 Google Scholar
  173. Stephenson AL, Dupree P, Scott SA, Dennis JS (2010) The environmental and economic sustainability of potential bioethanol from willow in the UK. Bioresour Technol 101(24):9612–9623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Sterman JD (1991) A skeptic’s guide to computer models. In: Barney GO, Kreutzer WB, Garrett MJ (eds) Managing a nation: the microcomputer software catalog, 2nd edn. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  175. Swank WT, Vose JM, Elliot KJ (2001) Long-term hydrologic and water quality responses following commercial clearcutting of mixed hardwoods on a southern Appalachian catchment. Forest Ecol Manage 143:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (2011). Forestry statistics 2011. http://www.slu.se/Global/externwebben/nl-fak/mark-och-miljo/Markinventeringen/Dokument%20MI/Skogsdata2011_temadelen%20om%20markvegetation.pdf. Accessed Jan 2015
  177. Tambouratzis T, Karalekas D, Moustakas N (2014) A methodological study for optimizing material selection in sustainable product design. J Ind Ecol 18(4):508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Teixeira RFM, de Souza DM, Curran MP, Antón A, Michelsen O, Milà i Canals L (2015) Towards consensus on land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative preliminary recommendations based on expert contribution. J Clean Prod. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.118
  179. Ter-Mikaelian MT, Colombo SJ, Chen J (2015) The burning question: does forest bioenergy reduce carbon emissions? A review of common misconceptions about forest carbon accounting. J. Forest 113(1):57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Thompson I (2011) Biodiversity, ecosystem thresholds, resilience and forest degradation. Unasylva 238(62). http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2560e/i2560e05.pdf. Accessed Dec 2014
  181. Thormark C (2002) A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build Environ 37:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Tillman AM (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(1):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Tuomisto HI, Hodge IH, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2012) Exploring a safe operating approach to weighting in life cycle impact assessment—a case study of organic, conventional and integrated farming systems. J Clean Prod 37:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Van Zelm R, Rombouts M, Snepvangers J, Huijbregts MAJ, Aoustin E (2009). Characterization factors for groundwater extraction based on plant species occurrence in the Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the SETAC Europe, 19th annual meeting, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  185. Verbeeck G, Hens H (2007) Life cycle optimization of extremely low energy dwellings. J Build Phys 31(2):143–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Vinodh S, Rathod G (2010) Integration of ECQFD and LCA for sustainable product design. J Clean Prod 18(8):832–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Violle C, Navas M-L, Vile D, Kazakou E, Fortunel C, Hummel I et al (2007) Let the concept of trait be functional! Oikos 116:882–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Vogtländer J, Van Der Velden N, Van Der Lugt P (2014) Carbon sequestration in LCA, a proposal for a new approach based on the global carbon cycle; cases on wood and on bamboo. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Waage SA (2007) Re-considering product design: a practical “road-map” for integration of sustainability issues. J Clean Prod 15:638–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Weidema B (2014) Has ISO 14040/44 failed its role as a standard for life cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol 18:324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRON 1296 LCAGAPS sub-project on land use. Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  192. Wrage N, van Groeningen JW, Oenema O, Baggs EM (2005) A novel dual-isotope labelling method for distinguishing between soil sources of N2O. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 19:3298–3306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. WULCA (2014) Consensual indicator project. http://www.wulca-waterlca.org/project.html. Accessed Jan 2016
  194. Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Zanchi G, Pena N, Bird N (2012) Is woody bioenergy carbon neutral? A comparative assessment of emissions from consumption of woody bioenergy and fossil fuel. GCB Bioenergy 4(6):761–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustav Sandin
    • 1
  • Greg M. Peters
    • 2
  • Magdalena Svanström
    • 2
  1. 1.SP Sustainable Built EnvironmentSP Technical Research Institute of SwedenGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Chemistry and Chemical EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations