Application of territorial emission factors with open-access data—a territorial LCA case study of land use for livestock production in Wallonia

Abstract

Purpose This work aims to facilitate the territorial LCA applications through a case study on land use for livestock production in Wallonia (South region in Belgium), emphasizing the role of GIS and constructing inventory mainly with open-access data at the subnational level. Methods We first established a coherent fodder-livestock interaction (e.g., how much grassland was used for cattle) according to feed requirement and local production. Then we collected data mainly from public data sources to estimate the inventory for a unit head of each animal category and unit area of each fodder crop type at the subnational level. Using the fodderlivestock interaction and collected data, we calculated the territorial emission factors for animal land use, which aggregates the life cycle emissions from unit area of land use containing fodder crops and livestock that these fodder crops feed. We also distinguished the in-and off-territory impacts. Results and discussionBy comparing with local confidential data and life cycle inventory databases, the results calculated with open-access data show a certain level of consistency. Therefore, these open-access data are proved to help conduct the initial territorial assessment to identify the hotspots of farming practices at the subnational level even in the absence of complete information. In addition, by applying the territorial emission factors for animal land use, the case study emphasizes the role of the geographic information system in the territorial LCA. Conclusions This work contributes to operationalizing the territorial LCA study on the animal-related territory, facilitating the development of more uniform methods to establish life cycle inventory across different countries in Europe for the agricultural sector. We also pointed out the potentials for future work.

Coupling optimization with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning

“…We defined the available area from meat production for conversion as 191 Kha, which was calculated based on meat demand (i.e., animal head number) to maintain a healthy and balanced diet (Cornet et al, 2013) and average land area demand per animal head (Ding et al, 2021). This behavior change in meat consumption reduction could lead to an increase in consumption of, e.g., vegetables, which is not considered in this study.…”

“…The tolerance and aspirant values of each objective are defined in SI-1, which were calculated based on the upper bounds and lower bounds. The upper limits of CC and FE were set not to exceed the current impacts caused by feed production, which were based on our previous work (Ding et al, 2021). The energy production bounds were defined as 40% lower or higher than the energy production targets (the target for each energy form is defined as providing 30% of current bioenergy production according to Cornet et al (2013).…”

Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment

“…This represents an additional extension of the LCA method conceptualized to encompass the multiscale spatial and timedependent interactions of human-nature systems generating many outputs and activities. Literature on territorial LCA is relatively recent and mostly limited to multifunctional agrifood systems [110][111][112]. The most insightful developments of territorial LCA are proposed to improve land use planning in combination, or inspired by, other methods such as urban metabolism assessments [113,114], optimization [115], or agent-based modeling [116].…”

Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning

“…"Territory" refers to a geographically contiguous area where local authorities can manage their activities (Moine, 2006). Later, other methodological advancements of the TLCA approach could be found, including increasing spatial accuracy conceptually (Nitschelm et al, 2016) and operationally (Ding et al, 2020(Ding et al, , 2021 and combining with other methods such as environmental management system (Mazzi et al, 2017), participatory approach (Jouini et al, 2019), and economic modeling (Beaussier et al, 2019(Beaussier et al, , 2022.…”