Abstract
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become one of the most widely applied scientific and industrial methods for estimating environmental impacts of products and services. While the necessity to adopt a life cycle perspective as such was rather quickly accepted, the practical application of LCA has met considerable doubt and lagged behind. Strong contributing factors for this slow adaptation have been (i) a poor understanding of the LCA idea as such, (ii) a lack of useful tools for routine application of LCA, (iii) a lack of useful data and databases, (iv) poorly developed practices and processes for monitoring and data acquisition in industry and society in general, and (v) a general resistance to introduce a new concept. Now that these barriers gradually are being overcome, there is a need for some second and critical thoughts around the usefulness and practical applicability of LCA as a standard routine procedure in society. While doubtlessly having contributed to a revolution in systems thinking, the practical current application of LCA has several shortcomings: (i) There is a poor link between estimated emissions and (ia) the geographical location of them and (ib) the occurrence in time of them, (ii) an LCA rarely discusses the total emissions from a production site or service system since emissions are reported and discussed in relation to the functional unit, (iii) the methodology for LCA demands both categorization of material and energy flows into a large number of impact categories while in practice only a few are selected and sometimes in a rather arbitrary way, based more on the availability of data than based on relevance, (iv) the necessity to pull the assessment through the impact stage requires considerable extra skills and work by the assessing industry or agent, (v) when gradually more complex systems are being assessed, the system boundaries become more difficult to identify and the assessor faces the challenge to assess life cycles in different dimensions. The chapter describes the gradual development of life cycle thinking, LCA, and other life cycle thinking tools. It argues for a more differentiated application of life cycle thinking in practical tools in order to increase the practical usefulness of this important approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
R.U. Ayres, Industrial metabolism: theory and policy, in Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development, ed. by R.U. Ayres, U.K. Simonis (United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 1994), p. 3
R.U. Ayres, Toward a zero-emissions economy, Environmental Science & Technology/News, 1 Aug 1998, p. 366
R.U. Ayres, Commentary on the utility of the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 3, 347 (2000)
H. Baumann, A.-M. Tillman, The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA, An Orientation in Life Cycle Assessment Methodology and Application (Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2004)
I. Boustead, LCA – how it came about, the beginning in the UK. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1(3), 147 (1996)
I.L.M. Canals, J. Chenoweth, A. Chapagain, S. Orr, A. Antón, R. Clift, Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: part I – inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(1), 28–42 (2009)
A.K. Chapagain, S. Orr, An improved water footprint methodology linking global consumption to local water resources: a case of Spanish tomatoes. J. Environ. Manage. 90(2), (2009)
R. Clift, Engineering for the environment: the new model engineer and her role. Trans. IChemE 76B, 151 (1998)
M.A. Curran, P. Notten, Summary of global life cycle inventory data resources, report for SETAC/UNEP life cycle initiative, task force 1: database registry (2006), www.epa.gov/NRMRL/lcaccess/pdfs/summary_of_global_lci_data_resources.pdf
P. Dacombe, V. Krivtsov, C. Banks, S. Heaven, in An Energy and Materials Flow Model for Evaluation of Alternatives for Processing Domestic and Commercial Waste – A Case Study of Southampton, School of Civil Engineering & the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, 2004, 171p
J. Elkington, Enter the triple bottom line, in The Triple Bottom Line: Does It all Add Up, ed. by A. Henriques, J. Richardson (EarthScan, London, 2004)
Energetics (2012), Manufacturing Energy and Carbon Footprint, www.energetics.com/resourcecenter/products/misc/Documents/chemicals_footprint.pdf
O. Eriksson, B. Frostell, An approach to sustainability assessment of energy systems, in Chapter 14 in Building Sustainable Energy Systems – Swedish Experiences, ed. by S. Silveria (Swedish National Energy Administration, Stockholm, 2000)
European Commission, European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment (2012a), http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
European Commission, ELCD core database version II (2012b), http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm
European Commission, LCA Resources Directory (2012c), http://lca.europa.eu/lcainfohub/directory.vmnormally
N. Fiala, Measuring sustainability: why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad environmental science. Ecol. Econ. 67, 519 (2008)
G. Finnveden, M.Z. Hauschild, T. Ekvall, J. Guinée, R. Heijungs, S. Hellweg, A. Koehler, D. Pennington, S. Suh, Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1 (2009)
Gabi (2012), http://www.gabi-software.com
P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, A.Y. Hoekstra, Th. Van der Meer, The water footprint of energy from biomass: A quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in energy supply, Ecol. Econ. 68, 1052 (2009)
GFN, Global Footprint Network (2012), www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
GGPI, The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative (2012), www.ghgprotocol.org/
B. Giddings, B. Hopwood, G. O’Brian, Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 10(4), 187 (2002)
J.B. Guinée, M. Gorrée, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, R. Kleijn, A. de Koning, L. van Oers, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, S. Suh, H.A. Udo de Haes, J.A. de Bruijn, R. van Duin, M.A.J. Huijbregts, Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Series: Eco-efficiency in Industry and Science (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002)
A.Y. Hoekstra, Water neutral: reducing and offsetting the impacts of water footprints, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 28, UNESCO-IHE (2008)
A.Y. Hoekstra, P.Q. Hung, Globalization of water resources: international virtual water flows in relation to crop trade. Global Environ. Change 15, 45 (2005)
ISO, ISO 14040 International standard, in Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, International Organisation for Standardisation, 2006a
ISO, ISO 14044 International standard, in Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines, International Organisation for Standardisation, 2006b
A. Koehler, Water use in LCA: managing the planet’s. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 451 (2008)
J. Lubchenko, Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279, 491 (1998)
OECD, Extended Producer Responsibility – A Guidance Manual for Governments (OECD, Paris, 2001)
S. Pfister, A. Koehler, S. Hellweg, Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 4098 (2009)
PRé Consultants, SimaPro LCA software (2012), www.pre.nl/default.htm
K. Reimann, M. Finkbeiner, A. Horvath, Y. Matsuno, Evaluation of environmental life cycle approaches for policy and decision making support in micro and macro level applications, editors and project supervisors: U. Pretato, D. Pennington, R. Pant, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2012), http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
SEPA, A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Management – Sweden’s Waste Plan, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2005), http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-1249-5.pdf
SETAC, A Technical Framework for Life Cycle Assessments (Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Washington DC, 1991)
Stern Review, The Economics of Climate Change, executive summary (full) (2006), www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm
L. Strandberg, B. Frostell, Sustainable development – a multitude of concepts, tools and metrics for good or bad? in Science for Sustainable Development – Starting Points and Critical Reflections,Proceedings 1st VHU Conference, Västerås, 2006
A. Triantou, Carbon, Energy and water footprint of three AkzoNobel internal sizing chemicals: a Cradle to Gate LCA related study, M.Sc. Thesis in Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2009
UN, United Nations General Assembly resolution on World Summit on Sustainable Development, resolution No. A/C.257/L.83, adopted 10 Dec 2002
UNEP, Why take a Life Cycle Approach (UNEP, Paris, 2004)
UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme (2012), www.unep.org/Documents
J.C.J.M. Van den Bergh, H. Verbruggen, Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘ecological footprint’. Ecol. Econ. 29, 61 (1999)
P.M. Vitousek, H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, J.M. Melillo, Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494 (1997)
M. Wackernagel, W. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint – Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, 1996)
WBCSD, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2012), www.wbcsd.org/home.aspx
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), Our Common Future (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987)
H. Wentzel, M. Hauschild, L. Alting, Vol. 1: Methodology, Tools and Case Studies in Product Development. Environmental assessment of products (Chapman & Hall, London, 1997)
World Bank, Gross domestic product 2009, Gross domestic product ranking table based on Purchasing Power Parities (2012), http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog#Tables
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Frostell, B. (2013). Life Cycle Thinking for Improved Resource Management: LCA or?. In: Kauffman, J., Lee, KM. (eds) Handbook of Sustainable Engineering. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8939-8_50
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8939-8_50
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8938-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8939-8
eBook Packages: EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering