Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

There is currently a weak or no link between the indicator scores quantified in life cycle assessment (LCA) and the carrying capacity of the affected ecosystems. Such a link must be established if LCA is to support assessments of environmental sustainability and it may be done by developing carrying capacity-based normalisation references. The purpose of this article is to present a framework for normalisation against carrying capacity-based references and to develop average normalisation references (NR) for Europe and the world for all those midpoint impact categories commonly included in LCA that link to the natural environment area of protection.

Methods

Carrying capacity was in this context defined as the maximum sustained environmental intervention a natural system can withstand without experiencing negative changes in structure or functioning that are difficult or impossible to revert. A literature review was carried out to identify scientifically sound thresholds for each impact category. Carrying capacities were then calculated from these thresholds and expressed in metrics identical to midpoint indicators giving priority to those recommended by ILCD. NR was expressed as the carrying capacity of a reference region divided by its population and thus describes the annual personal share of the carrying capacity.

Results and discussion

The developed references can be applied to indicator results obtained using commonly applied characterisation models in LCIA. The European NR are generally lower than the global NR, mainly due to a relatively high population density in Europe. The NR were compared to conventional normalisation references (NR′) which represent the aggregated interventions for Europe or the world in a recent reference year. For both scales, the aggregated intervention for climate change, photochemical ozone formation and soil quality were found to exceed carrying capacities several times.

Conclusions

The developed carrying capacity-based normalisation references offer relevant supplementary reference information to the currently applied references based on society’s background interventions by supporting an evaluation of the environmental sustainability of product systems on an absolute scale.

Recommendations

Challenges remain with respect to spatial variations to increase the relevance of the normalisation references for impact categories that function at the local or regional scale. The sensitivity of NR to different choices, e.g. threshold value, should be quantified with the aim of understanding and managing uncertainties of NR. For complete coverage of the midpoint impact categories, normalisation references based on sustainability preconditions should be developed for those categories that link to the areas of protection human health and natural resources.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Wildlife management, chemistry, medicine, economics, anthropology, engineering and population biology are listed as examples by Sayre (2008).

  2. The concept of resilience may offer a bridge between anthropocentric and eco-centric approaches to environmental management since studies generally show that ecosystems with high genotype diversity and species diversity has a high resilience, meaning in general terms, that they are better at adapting to sudden changes in conditions than ecosystems with lower diversity (Scheffer et al. 2001; Carpenter et al. 2001). The protection of ecosystem structure can therefore be seen both as eco-centric and as being in the enlightened self-interest of man.

  3. Ionizing radiation effects on the natural environment was excluded since the recommended LCIA model was classified as interim by Hauschild et al. (2013).

  4. The reason we could not use the FF of the GWP100 model to make the conversion is that the FF calculates a time integrated increase in radioactive forcing caused by an emission rather than the steady state increase in radioactive forcing or temperature required to convert the two thresholds (1 W/m2 and 2 °C) into carrying capacities according to our definition.

  5. Note that this carrying capacity is much lower than the 2050 goal of 2 tons per capita often mentioned in the climate change debate. The 2 tons per capita target was derived from the RCP2.6 reduction pathway designed to stay below the 2 °C threshold by 2100 (Van Vuuren et al. 2011; IPCC 2013). In the year 2100 of the RCP2.6 reduction pathway CO2 emissions are nearly zero, which is consistent with our low carrying capacity figures for CO2.

  6. We could not use the FF of CFC-11 of the ODP model because it is expressed relative to a reference substance (CFC-11) and not as an absolute steady-state ozone response to changes in emission.

  7. Although the number of daylight hours exceed 8 per day during May–July at all latitudes within Europe, we chose a time frame of 8 h/day for the translation of the time integrated concentration threshold (3 ppm × h AOT40) to a concentration threshold (ppb) to be compatible with the time frame of the recommended indicator of Van Zelm et al. (2008). Had we chosen a longer time frame, e.g. 12 h/day, the concentration threshold would have been only slightly lower (43 ppb instead of 44 ppb) and so would the resulting carrying capacity calculated.

  8. This number is in good agreement with recent conclusions that around 34 % of global terrestrial coverage should be conserved to achieve biodiversity protection goals given patterns and effects of current land conservation (Butchart et al. 2015).

  9. The difference between these two rules is not trivial. Consider the potentially large differences between per capita domestic carrying capacities of Canada and Singapore for the many impact categories related to the availability of land and water as source or sink.

  10. A hysteresis is a phenomenon which causes the exceedance of a threshold to be difficult to revert because the natural system has entered a new stable state characterized by stabilizing feedback mechanisms. In practice, this means that a reduction in environmental intervention of a similar magnitude as the increase in interventions that previously caused the threshold to be exceeded is not sufficient to bring the system back to its original state. Hysteresis has been observed for e.g. the response of shallow lakes to changes in phosphorous loadings (Scheffer 2001).

  11. For instance, increased run-off due to the exceedance of the climate change carrying capacity can lead to a higher loss of reactive nitrogen and phosphorous from fertilizer application, thereby increasing the risk of exceeding carrying capacities for freshwater and marine eutrophication. See Steffen et al. (2015) for elaboration on this topic.

  12. Midpoint is here understood as the point at which the impact pathway of different substances converge (Hauschild et al. 2013). Because this point of convergence varies the impact pathway location of the midpoint varies across impact categories. In comparison the endpoint is consistently located at the of the impact pathway and typically expressed in a metric related to the disappearance of species (Hauschild et al. 2013).

References

  • Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benini L, Mancini L, Sala S, Manfredi S, Schau EM, Pant R (2014) Normalisation method and data for Environmental Footprints. Report EUR 26842 EN. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability. European Commission. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union

  • Berner RA, Kothavala Z (2001) GEOCARB III: a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over phanerozoic time. Am J Sci 301:182–204

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Diamond M, Birkved M, Hauschild MZ (2014) Chemical footprint method for improved communication of freshwater ecotoxicity impacts in the context of ecological limits. Environ Sci Technol 48:13253–13262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Richardson K, Hauschild MZ (2015) Environmentally sustainable or not? Managing and reducing indicator uncertainties. Ecological Indicators. Submitted

  • Bobbink R, Hicks K, Galloway J, Spranger T, Alkemade R, Ashmore M, Bustamante M, Cinderby S, Davidson E, Dentener F, Emmett B, Erisman JW, Fenn M, Gilliam F, Nordin A, Pardo L, De Vries W (2010) Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis. Ecol Appl 20:30–59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G et al (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Ind 24:518–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouwman AF, Van Vuuren DP, Derwent RG, Posch M (2002) A global analysis of acidification and eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut 141:349–382

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart SHM, Clarke M, Smith RJ et al (2015) Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv Lett. doi:10.1111/conl.12158

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4:765–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries W, Kros J, Kroeze C, Seitzinger SP (2013) Assessing planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:392–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearing JA, Wang R, Zhang K, Dyke JG, Haberl H, Hossain MS et al (2014) Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Global Environ Change 28:227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2011) Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/EC) guidance document. Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. Off J Eur Comm

  • EEA (1998) Tropospheric ozone in EU—the consolidated report. Topic report no. 8/1998. European Environmetal Agency, Copenhagen http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/TOP08-98 accessed 14.11.2014

  • EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical report No 25. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

  • Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Chapter 2. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, (eds), the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

  • Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2008) Methode der ökologischen Knappheit—Ökofaktoren 2006, ö.b.u. und Bundesamt für Umwelt, Bern

  • Gerten D, Hoff H, Rockström J, Jägermeyr J, Kummu M, Pastor A (2013) Towards a revised planetary boundary for consumptive freshwater use: role of environmental flow requirements. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:551–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodland R (1995) The concept of environmental sustainability. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 26:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Chesire D (2006) Defining and identifying environmental limits for sustainable development. A scoping study. Final Full Technical Report to Defra, 103 pp + appendix 77 pp, Project Code NR0102

  • Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products. Vol. 2—scientific background, Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA. USA. ISBN 0412 80810 2

  • 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 Life Cycle Assess 18:683–697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • HELCOM (2013) Approaches and methods for eutrophication target setting in the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 133. Helsinki Commission

  • Hettelingh JP, Posch M, Slootweg J, Reinds GJ, Spranger T, Tarrason L (2007) Critical loads and dynamic modelling to assess european areas at risk of acidification and eutrophication. Water Air Soil Pollut 7:379–384

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2013) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change. IPCC WGI AR5. Summary for Policymakers

  • ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38498 . Accessed 14.11.2014

  • Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011a) Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011b) Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox™ characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:728–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Hauschild MZ, Golsteijn L, Simas M, Fontes J, Wood R (2013) PROSUITE Deliverable 5.2: Normalisation factors for environmental, economic and socio-economic indicators

  • Mace GM, Reyers B, Alkemade R, Biggs R, Chapin FS, Cornell SE et al (2014) Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global Environ Change 28:289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Synthesis. World Resources Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 15:1426–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montzka SA, Fraser PJ (1999) Controlled substances and other source gases. Chapter 2 in scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—report no. 44, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

  • Noss RF, Dobson AP, Baldwin R et al (2012) Bolder thinking for conservation. Conserv Biol 26:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP (1971) Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd edn. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Posch M, Seppälä J, Hettelingh JP, 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 Life Cycle Assess 13:477–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP (eds) (2002) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. CRC Press LLC, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Köhler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saad R, Koellner T, Margni M (2013) Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation, and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1253–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1686–1697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sala S, Benini L, Mancini L, Pant R (2015) Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess. Submitted

  • Sayre NF (2008) The genesis, history, and limits of carrying capacity. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 98:120–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B (2001) Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591–596

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seppälä J, Hämäläinen RP (2001) On the meaning of the distance-to-target weighting method and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:393–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Shine KP, Fuglestvedt JS, Hailemariam K, Stuber N (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Chang 68:281–302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smakhtin V, Revenga C, Döll P (2004) A pilot global assessment of environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water Int 29:307–317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W et al (2004) Global change and the earth system, A planet under pressure. The IGBP series, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:736

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Struijs J, Beusen A, van Jaarsveld H, Huijbregts MAJ (2009) Aquatic eutrophication. Chapter 6. In: GoedkoopM, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (eds) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009 http://www.lcia-recipe.net—accessed 14.11.2014

  • Struijs J, Beusen A, de Zwart D, Huijbregts M (2011) Characterization factors for inland water eutrophication at the damage level in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:59–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P (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 37:147–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umweltbundesamt (2004) Manual on methodologies and criteria for modelling and mapping critical loads and levels and air pollution effects, risks and trends. Mapping Manual 2004. Federal Environmental Agency. Berlin

  • UNDESA (2012) World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. Total population—both sexes, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs http://esa.un.org/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm accessed 14.11.2014

  • Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climate Change 109:5–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Den Hollander HA, Van Jaarsveld HA, Sauter FJ, Struijs J, VanWijnen HJ, Van de Meent D (2008) European characterization factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ 42:441–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velders GJM, Daniels JS (2013) Uncertainty analysis of projections of ozone-depleting substances: mixing ratios, EESC, ODPs, and GWPs. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 13:28017–28066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheijen F, Jones R, Rickson R, Smith C (2009) Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Sci Rev 94:23–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD (2000) Eco-efficiency—creating more value with less impact. World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Guus Velders (RIVM), Rosalie van Zelm (Radboud University Nijmegen) and Annie Levasseur (CIRAIG) for assisting with quantifying the carrying capacity for stratospheric ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation and climate change respectively and Tue Vissing Jensen (DTU) for technical support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DTU Management Engineering, Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstorvet, Building 424, 2800 Kgs., Lyngby, Denmark

    Anders Bjørn & Michael Zwicky Hauschild

Authors
  1. Anders Bjørn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Zwicky Hauschild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Bjørn.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Jeroen Guinée

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1 elaborates on the carrying capacity quantifications for each impact category and ESM 2 contains all calculations in spread sheet format.

ESM 1

(DOCX 4472 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 68 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M.Z. Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 1005–1018 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation