Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle assessment applying planetary and regional boundaries to the process level: a model case study

  • NON-TOXIC IMPACT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMMISIONS TO AIR, WATER, SOIL
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The planetary boundaries framework contains regional boundaries in addition to global boundaries. Geographically resolved methods to assess regional environmental impacts are therefore needed. Existing planetary boundaries-based life cycle assessment (PB-LCA) methods have limited geographical resolution or are not applicable to full product systems, due to high spatial requirements on inventory data. Here, we enable PB-LCA of full product systems across a comprehensive set of regional and global PB impact categories.

Methods

We propose comparing environmental impacts of individual processes within a product system to assigned shares of regional or global safe operating space (SOS). This is followed by aggregation of process-level results so that accumulated exceedance of assigned SOS is derived across the entire life cycle. We then present a procedure for aggregating geographically resolved characterization factors (CFs) and SOS to country, continent and global levels, ensuring compatibility with typical life cycle inventory results. We then apply the new techniques to a model laundry case study. It involves 61 selected processes, two geographically resolved PB-LCA methods, related to impacts from freshwater use and nitrogen emissions, and a largely spatially generic PB-LCA method that covers a comprehensive set of impact categories.

Results and discussion

The calculation of accumulated exceedance of assigned SOS may help inform decisions about where in a life cycle to focus impact reduction efforts most urgently. The number of case study processes that exceed their assigned SOS differs when applying the geographically resolved methods, as opposed to the largely spatially generic method. Case study results differ greatly across PB-LCA impact categories, reaffirming the importance of covering a comprehensive set. Geographically resolved methods are needed for all regional impact categories and software support would be advantageous. Existing methods will require periodic updates to reflect ongoing advancements in PB science. Best practice approaches or a consensus for assigning regional SOS to processes are needed.

Conclusions and outlook

Our study provides a step towards greater operability of geographically resolved PB-LCA methods by enabling application to a full product system within an assessment that covers a comprehensive set of impact categories. The case study application shows potential advantages of the process-level approach and points to the need for quantifying uncertainties in such assessments. Future studies should seek to explore the potential role of PB-LCA in decision support compared with conventional LCA.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agez M, Wood R, Margni M, Strømman AH, Samson R, Majeau-Bettez G (2020) Hybridization of complete LCA and MRIO databases for a comprehensive product system coverage. J Ind Ecol 24:774–790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • AISE (2015a) Pan-European Consumer Survey On Sustainability And Washing Habits - Summary Of Findings, 2014. International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products

  • AISE (2015b) PEF screening report in the context of the EU Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) Pilots - household heavy duty liquid laundry detergents (HDLLD) for machine wash. International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products

  • Bjørn A, Sim S, King H, Keys P, Wang-Erlandsson L, Cornell S, Margni M, Bulle C (2019) Challenges and opportunities towards improved application of the planetary boundary for land-system change in life cycle assessment of products. Sci Total Environ 696:133964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Chandrakumar C, Boulay A-M, Doka G, Fang K, Gondran N, Hauschild MZ, Kerkhof A, King H, Margni M, Mclaren S, Mueller C, Owsianiak M, Peters G, Roos S, Sala S, Sandin G, Sim S, Vargas-Gonzalez M, Ryberg M (2020a) Review of life-cycle based methods for absolute environmental sustainability assessment and their applications. Environ Res Lett 15:083001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab89d7

  • Bjørn A, Sim S, Boulay A-M, King H, Clavreul J, Lam WY, Barbarossa V, Bulle C, Margni M (2020b) A planetary boundary-based method for freshwater use in life cycle assessment: development and application to tomato production case study. Ecol Indic 110:105865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Sim S, King H, Margni M, Henderson A, Payen S, Bulle C (2020c) A comprehensive planetary boundary-based method for the nitrogen cycle in life cycle assessment: development and application to a tomato production case study. Sci Total Environ 715:136813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brook BW, Ellis EC, Perring MP, Mackay AW, Blomqvist L (2013) Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points? Trends Ecol Evol 28:396–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulle C, Margni M, Patouillard L, Boulay AM, Bourgault G, De Bruille V, Cao V, Hauschild M, Henderson A, Humbert S, Kashef-Haghighi S, Kounina A, Laurent A, Levasseur A, Liard G, Rosenbaum RK, Roy PO, Shaked S, Fantke P, Jolliet O (2019) IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1653–1674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01583-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2008) Eurostat manual of supply, use and input--output tables. Methodologies and working papers. European Commission, Luxembourg

  • Fang K, Heijungs R, De Snoo GR (2015) Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint–boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecol Econ 114:218–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GFW (2019) Oil palm concessions. Global Forest Watch. Available: http://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/20398d4dc36e47bd92b559786670f270_1. Accessed 14 May 2019

  • Gleeson T, Erlandsson LW, Zipper SC, Porkka M, Jaramillo F, Gerten D, Fetzer I, Cornell SE, Piemontese L, Gordon L, Rockström J, Oki T, Sivapalan M, Wada Y, Brauman KA, Flörke M, Bierkens MFP, Lehner B, Keys P, Kummu M, Wagener T, Dadson S, Troy TJ, Steffen W, Falkenmark M, Famiglietti JS (2020) The water planetary boundary: interrogation and revision. One Earth 2:223–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahiluoto H, Kuisma M, Kuokkanen A, Mikkilä M, Linnanen L (2015) Local and social facets of planetary boundaries: right to nutrients. Environ Res Lett 10:104013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kummu M, Taka M, Guillaume JHA (2018) Gridded global datasets for gross domestic product and human development index over 1990 – 2015. Sci Data 5:180004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lade SJ, Steffen W, de Vries W, Carpenter SR, Donges JF, Gerten D, Hoff H, Newbold T, Richardson K, Rockström J (2020) Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions. Nat Sustain 3:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0454-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton TM, Williams HTP (2013) On the origin of planetary-scale tipping points. Trends Ecol Evol 28:380–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutel C, Liao X, Patouillard L, Bare J, Fantke P, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, De Souza DM, Laurent A, Pfister S (2019) Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:856–865

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Patouillard L, Bulle C, Querleu C, Maxime D, Osset P, Margni M (2018) Critical review and practical recommendations to integrate the spatial dimension into life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 177:398–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patouillard L, Collet P, Lesage P, Tirado Seco P, Bulle C, Margni M (2019) Prioritizing regionalization efforts in life cycle assessment through global sensitivity analysis: a sector meta-analysis based on ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:2238–2254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01635-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PRé (2019) SimaPro V8.5.2.0. PRé Consultants

  • Randers J (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of value added (“GEVA”) — a corporate guide to voluntary climate action. Energy Policy 48:46–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha J, Peterson G, Bodin Ö, Levin SA (2018) Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science (80-) 362:1379–1383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009a) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Stuart III, Chapin F, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009b) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14:32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryberg MW, Owsianiak M, Richardson K, Hauschild MZ (2016) Challenges in implementing a planetary boundaries based life-cycle impact assessment methodology. J Clean Prod 139:450–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryberg MW, Richardson K, Hauschild MZ (2018a) Development of a life-cycle impact assessment methodology linked to the planetary boundaries framework. Ecol Indic 88:250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.065

  • Ryberg MW, Owsianiak M, Clavreul J, Mueller C, Sim S, King H, Hauschild MZ (2018b) How to bring absolute sustainability into decision-making: an industry case study using a Planetary Boundary-based methodology. Sci Total Environ 634:1406–1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.075

  • Stadler K, Wood R, Bulavskaya T, Södersten CJ, Simas M, Schmidt S, Usubiaga A, Acosta-Fernández J, Kuenen J, Bruckner M, Giljum S, Lutter S, Merciai S, Schmidt JH, Theurl MC, Plutzar C, Kastner T, Eisenmenger N, Erb KH, de Koning A, Tukker A (2018) EXIOBASE 3: developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input-output tables. J Ind Ecol 22:502–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sorlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (80-) 347:736. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1218–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, Declerck F, Crona B, Fox E, Bignet V, Troell M, Lindahl T, Singh S, Cornell SE, Reddy KS, Narain S, Nishtar S, Murray CJL (2019) The Lancet Commissions Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT – Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Maxime Agez, Polytechnique Montréal, for extracting GVA data from Exiobase and for assisting with the linking of Ecoinvent processes and Exiobase products and the merging of Ecoinvent processes that occur within the same production facility. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments.

Funding

This study received funding from Mitacs and Unilever.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CIRAIG, Mathematical and Industrial Engineering Department, Polytechnique Montreal, C.P. 6079, succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, QC, H3C 3A7, Canada

    Anders Bjørn, Laure Patouillard & Manuele Margni

  2. Unilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever R&D, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, MK44 1LQ, UK

    Sarah Sim & Henry King

  3. Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Group, Department of Technology, Management and Economics, Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstorvet, Building 424, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

    Michael Zwicky Hauschild & Morten Ryberg

Authors
  1. Anders Bjørn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Sim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henry King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laure Patouillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manuele Margni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Zwicky Hauschild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Morten Ryberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Bjørn.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Matthias Finkbeiner

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 144 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 40 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjørn, A., Sim, S., King, H. et al. Life cycle assessment applying planetary and regional boundaries to the process level: a model case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 2241–2254 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01823-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01823-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation