<abstract> <p>Development of Environmental Product Declarations (EPD)s used for green marketing, specification, procurement, certification and green building rating systems are important for documenting and understanding product environmental performance. Considering such applications any misleading of stakeholders has serious legal ramifications. Various studies have highlighted EPD veracity depends mainly on the data quality of underpinning life cycle assessment (LCA). This paper compares data quality across polyester product case studies, literature surveys and EPDs. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) results are presented and interpreted. Surveys show recycled polyester fibre results are most sensitive to melt spinning energy data which varies over a wide range. The case studies compare results from median, lower and upper energy use in melt spinning. The work highlights that, accurate, clear definitions and vocabulary is as vital for specific foreground process data as it is for generic background supply chain data. This is to avoid misconceptions and mismatched assumptions in respect of EPD data quality and incorrect acceptance of inadequate charting of all essential processes. If product-specific accurate data is inaccessible, EPD options include presenting impact assessment results from LCI of best and worst-case scenarios. This is preferable to legal risks of using junk data that misleads stakeholders in marketing. General recommendations are presented for LCA practitioners to improve EPD data quality and accuracy. These include using multiple data sources to avoid reliance on any single database. Data also needs to be verified by a third-party with industry expertise independent of the specific manufacturer. It recommends using suitable, comprehensive and specific product-related scenarios for data development in any EPD.</p> </abstract>
The needs for environmental reporting to include positive outcomes considering differences between creation of less harm, benefits and net benefits are explored. To become mainstream, nature-positive development needs positive messaging, measures and metrics to guide, plan and assess urban outcomes. With the accelerating climate crisis and negative messages getting the upper-hand, it’s important to avoid paralysis by bad news. Whilst striving for a nature-positive world, more effort should be on moving beyond zero to qualify and quantify benefits, gains, and regenerative outcomes instead of oscillating around damage and loss sticking points. Life Cycle Benefit Assessment (LCBA) is a method to measure gains in accelerating restoration and climate security. It enables a good news focus as its reach is to quantify and show positive gains beyond the negative and zero loss outcomes. The paper aims to clarify concepts, challenges and quantitative methods then review real-world third-party-certified case studies. Climate security, human wellness and resource viability gains inside safe operating space within planetary boundaries are quantified as positive benefits. Contrary to conventional Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) LCBA assigns damage and loss as negative debts and benefit as positive gains. It concludes that LCBA offers business and design a new environment assessment tool, with research needed on economic and other outcomes.
To become mainstream, Nature Positive development needs positive messaging, measures and metrics to guide, plan and assess urban outcomes. With accelerating climate crisis and negative messages getting the upper-hand, it is important to avoid paralysis by bad news. Whilst striving for a nature positive world, more effort should be on moving beyond zero to qualify and quantify benefits, gains and regenerative outcomes instead of around damage and loss sticking points. Life Cycle Benefit Assessment (LCBA) methods measure gains in accelerating regeneration and climate security that enables a good news focus. Its reach beyond negative quantifies and shows positive gain beyond zero loss outcomes. The aims are to clarify concepts, challenges and quantitative methods then review real-world 3rd party Certified nature positive case studies. Climate security, human wellness and resource viability gains inside safe operating space within planetary boundaries are quantified as positive benefits. contrary to conventional Life Impact Cycle Impact Assessment LCBA assigns damage losses as negatives debts and benefit gains as positive savings. It concludes that LCBA remains under development with more research needed to model economic outcomes.
To become mainstream, Nature Positive development needs positive messaging, measures and metrics to guide, plan and assess urban outcomes. With accelerating climate crisis and negative messages getting the upper-hand, it is important to avoid paralysis by bad news. Whilst striving for a nature positive world, more effort should be on moving beyond zero to qualify and quantify benefits, gains and regenerative outcomes instead of around damage and loss sticking points. Life Cycle Benefit Assessment (LCBA) methods measure gains in accelerating regeneration and climate security that enables a good news focus. Its reach beyond negative quantifies and shows positive gain beyond zero loss outcomes. The aims are to clarify concepts, challenges and quantitative methods then review real-world 3rd party Certified nature positive case studies. Climate security, human wellness and resource viability gains inside safe operating space within planetary boundaries are quantified as positive benefits. contrary to conventional Life Impact Cycle Impact Assessment LCBA assigns damage losses as negatives debts and benefit gains as positive savings. It concludes that LCBA remains under development with more research needed to model economic outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.