The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative

Jolliet, Olivier; Müller-Wenk, Ruedi; Bare, Jane; Brent, Alan C.; Goedkoop, Mark; Heijungs, Reinout; Itsubo, Norihiro; Peña, Claudia; Pennington, David; Potting, José; Rebitzer, Gerald; Stewart, Mary; Haes, Helias Udo de; Weidema, Bo Pedersen

doi:10.1007/bf02979083

Cited by 248 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Land use intentionally and unintentionally influences the biodiversity as well as the structure and functions of ecosystems, causing damages to the areas of protection as defined in Jolliet et al (2004). Figure 4 shows the cause-effect chain linking the land use with impacts on the four areas of protection.…”

Section: Modelled Impact Pathwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biogeographical differentiation in land use LCIA is a major aspect to be considered since the same type of land use may trigger different impacts at different locations of the globe (Jolliet et al 2004). Koellner et al (2013) in this special issue suggest a hierarchical regionalisation on a global scale based on the classification system of biomes and ecoregions (Olson et al 2001).…”

Section: Biogeographical Differentiation In Land Use Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Koellner

Baan

Beck

et al. 2013

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

285

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose As a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Results Recommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for. Discussion The presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected. Conclusions and recommendations In this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional...

show abstract

Section: Modelled Impact Pathwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biogeographical Differentiation In Land Use Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Koellner

Baan

Beck

et al. 2013

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

285

290

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Damage to human health is a broadly known and defined impact category on the endpoint level [51]. Originally used within the LCA framework the discussion nowadays leads to include it rather into SLCA, as it addresses rather social than environmental impacts [9].…”

Section: Damage To Human Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A possible definition could be that, if "the hourly wage, usual benefits and overtime, paid in the largest city in each county, to the majority of workers, laborers, and mechanics" [50] a local prevailing industry wage is established. In addition the living wage concept has been developed to give a reference salary, which allows the workers and their families to afford not only basic needs, but also a decent life style that is considered acceptable by society at its current level of economic development [51].…”

Section: Fair Wagementioning

confidence: 99%

Impact Pathways to Address Social Well-Being and Social Justice in SLCA—Fair Wage and Level of Education

Neugebauer

Traverso²,

Scheumann

et al. 2014

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the notion of a label potentially carries the same power exercised by one actor on the others as what was identified in the dominant food systems. It is precisely to meet the objective of offering a multicriteria framework and limiting the risks of transfer of impacts that Life Cycle Analysis has been developed [3][4]. In this paper two assumptions are made: first modeling a value chain and its environmental, economic and social assessment offers a systemic framework that is superior to what labels offer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability for the actors of a food value chain: How to cooperate?

Petit¹,

Bertoluci²,

Trystram³

et al. 2017

Int. J. SDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To tackle sustainability issues, food value chain actors have to study the nature and objectives of the sustainable performance they want to achieve, both individually and also for the value chain as a whole. But they have different interests, goals and strategies. Consequently if they want to cooperate on a shared device because this represents a possible solution to improve the value chain sustainability, they need to find a way to meet a minimum level of each actor expectations. This case study is about possibilities for actors of a pork value chain representative of one type of French production to cooperate in sharing sustainability improvement solutions. The sustainable impacts of the value chain comprising a shared methanation plant with externalization of 3% of heat and 1% of electricity produced are described and analyzed. The multicriteria evaluation of the value chain is based on a life cycle analysis model with associated environmental and social indicators. The behavior of the methanation plant is simulated using Methasim tool and the input/output flows of the software are bridged to the LCA model. A focus is made on comparing the sustainable performance of two scenarios (standard i.e. without methanation plant and with shared methanation plant) and on confronting results with respective expectations of various players of the value chain in terms of sustainable performance. Is sharing a methanation plant a good solution for the economic actors of the value chain? How to create cooperation between the actors of a value chain in order to increase sustainability of their products and practices? The results and analysis will focus on each actor's contribution to the sustainable footprint and values destroyed or created. New intermediate solutions can be then proposed. The discussion is about methodological ways to facilitate the cooperation and the data flows to be exchanged between value chain actors.

show abstract

The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative

Cited by 248 publications

References 8 publications

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Impact Pathways to Address Social Well-Being and Social Justice in SLCA—Fair Wage and Level of Education

Sustainability for the actors of a food value chain: How to cooperate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About