Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication

Dahlbo, Helena; Koskela, Sirkka; Pihkola, Hanna; Nors, Minna; Federley, Maija; Seppälä, Jyri

doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0498-4

Cited by 45 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We utilize the ReCiPe midpoint environmental impact assessment method (Goedkoop et al 2013) with its 18 impact category indicators to reach wide impact category coverage. This has also been employed recently in a similar context Ng 2014, Dong andNg 2015) and follows the latest recommendations of the LCA community (Dahlbo et al 2013). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-use phase LCA of a multi-story residential building: Can greenhouse gas emissions be used as a more general environmental performance indicator?

Heinonen

Säynäjoki

Junnonen

et al. 2016

Building and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both the construction and use of buildings cause significant environmental pressures. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions imposed by buildings have been studied rather extensively, but less is known about other impacts. Still, climate change is only one harmful impact driven by buildings. Furthermore, no studies exist about how the other impacts are correlated with GHG emissions in the building context, and thus to what extent GHGs could be utilized as a more general environmental performance indicator. This paper fills these gaps by presenting a life cycle assessment of the pre-use phase of a modern concrete-element residential building with a very comprehensive life cycle inventory (LCI). The focus of the study is on the comparison of the accumulation of different environmental impacts relative to GHGs. The accumulation is analyzed from two perspectives common to building LCAs: building systems and different construction materials. The ReCiPe midpoint assessment method is utilized to reach wide impact category coverage. The study shows how GHGs act as a relatively good indicator for eight impact categories, but not for the others. The study also depicts that a very high coverage in the LCI must be reached to capture the majority of the different impacts. Many materials and building systems are considered non-relevant and are often excluded from building LCAs, which are in fact of great importance in many impact categories.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pre-use phase LCA of a multi-story residential building: Can greenhouse gas emissions be used as a more general environmental performance indicator?

Heinonen

Säynäjoki

Junnonen

et al. 2016

Building and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consumptionbased territorial normalisation retains a very marginal role in LCA applications, with only two sets of normalisation references for Finland and the Netherlands (see Table 2) (Breedveld et al, 1999;Dahlbo et al, 2013;Laurent and Hauschild, 2015). The large data requirement for consistent inclusion of environmental flows related to imports still prevents the determination of reliable and comprehensive consumption-based normalisation references (Laurent and Hauschild, 2015).…”

Section: External Normalisation Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Characterized indicator results of the system(s) under study are divided by the characterized indicator results of the total activities taking place in the world over the reference duration (assumed balance between consumption and production) (Huijbregts et al, 2003;Itsubo et al, 2015;Sleeswijk et al, 2008;Stranddorf et al, 2005) Productionbased, territorial systems Characterized indicator results of the system(s) under study are divided by the characterized indicator results associated with all territorial activities in a region or country, including its exports but excluding its imports, thus accounting for all environmental flows that take place within the physical or geographical boundaries of that region/country over the reference duration (Bare et al, 2006;Breedveld et al, 1999;Cucurachi et al, 2014;Dahlbo et al, 2013;Foley and Lant, 2009;Huijbregts et al, 2003;Itsubo et al, 2015;Itsubo et al, 2012;Itsubo et al, 2004;Kim et al, 2013;Laurent and Hauschild, 2015;Laurent et al, 2011a;Laurent et al, 2011b;Lautier et al, 2010;Lundie et al, 2007;Ryberg et al, 2014;Sala et al, 2015;Sleeswijk et al, 2008;Stranddorf et al, 2005;Strauss et al, 2006;Wenzel et al, 1997) Consumptionbased, territorial systems Characterized indicator results of the system(s) under study are divided by the characterized indicator results associated with the total territorial consumption of a region/country, including its imports but excluding its exports. It thus accounts for the environmental flows from all up-and downstream processes needed to support the consumption activities of that region/country over the reference duration, including those that occur outside its physical or geographical boundaries as a consequence of the activities taking place within that region or nation.…”

Section: External Normalisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It thus accounts for the environmental flows from all up-and downstream processes needed to support the consumption activities of that region/country over the reference duration, including those that occur outside its physical or geographical boundaries as a consequence of the activities taking place within that region or nation. (Breedveld et al, 1999;Dahlbo et al, 2013;Laurent and Hauschild, 2015) CarryingCharacterized indicator results are divided by the normalisation references representing (Bjørn and Hauschild, 2015) Pizzol, M, A Laurent, S Sala, F Verones, the carrying capacity of the reference system (e.g. world) for each impact category * Alternatives are defined as any compared system (whether they relate to different scenarios of a same product system or to different product systems).…”

Section: External Normalisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?

Pizzol

Laurent

Sala

et al. 2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

198

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several examples exist about the calculation of normalization factors at the national scale, such as Dahlbo et al (2013) for Finland, Guinée et al (2002) for the Netherlands, Strauss et al (2006) for South Africa (about mined abiotic resources), and Bare et al (2006) for the USA. Wegener-Sleeswijk et al (2008) developed normalization factors taking as reference the situation in EU and the whole world in 2000.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020

Castellani

Benini

Sala

et al. 2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Distance-to-target (DTT) methods are weighting methods aimed at assessing the distance of an existing situation from a desired state (the target). Weighting factors in DTT methods could be based on calculation which is performed on normalization factors (NFs) developed for life cycle assessment (LCA). At present, some DTT weighting sets have been developed. However, there is no DTT weighting set assessing the distance of EU domestic impacts from the desired state set by EU binding or non-binding policy targets (e.g., those related to the "Climate and Energy Package" and the "Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe"). Methods In the present work, a methodology to derive target references from policy-based targets in 2020 (TRs2020), both binding (A) and non-binding (B), is presented. Resulting target factors and DTT weighting factors are then compared to the current normalisation factors (based on 2010 normalization references). The resulting weighting factor (WF) sets are presented and discussed in light of their use for decision support in policy and business contexts. We applied the WF sets to characterization results to an example (the EU energy mix process) aiming at illustrating key differences and effects on the results.Results and discussion The three reference sets (NRs2010, TRs2020A, and TRs2020B) show, in some impact categories, a relatively small difference. WFs referred to set A and set B result to be quite similar, with the only exception of water depletion impact category, for which a very relevant change is foreseen when considering the effect of the non-binding target of limiting the abstraction of water resource to 20 % of the available renewable water resources. This is mainly due to the higher difficulty in deriving quantitative targets from non-binding strategies and policies rather than from binding ones. Conclusions The resulting weighting sets present strengths and limitations. The translation of policy targets into quantitative modifications to the baseline inventories appeared to be not a straightforward task, due to several reasons discussed in the paper (e.g., not all the policy targets are expressed in quantitative terms or can be translated into quantitative reductions and modifications of the elementary flows in the existing baseline inventories). Aiming at improving the effectiveness in supporting policies, further development of the methodology may be the integration with other DTT approaches such those based on carrying capacity, developed to integrate Earth's carrying capacity concept and planetary boundaries.

show abstract

Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication

Cited by 45 publications

References 15 publications

Pre-use phase LCA of a multi-story residential building: Can greenhouse gas emissions be used as a more general environmental performance indicator?

Pre-use phase LCA of a multi-story residential building: Can greenhouse gas emissions be used as a more general environmental performance indicator?

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?

A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About