scholarly journals A life cycle assessment framework for quantifying the carbon footprint of rural households based on survey data

MethodsX ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 101411
Author(s):  
Yechennan Peng ◽  
Liang Emlyn Yang ◽  
Jürgen Scheffran
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 158
Author(s):  
Sishen Wang ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
Pengyu Xie ◽  
Xiaodan Chen

Low-carbon transport system is desired for sustainable cities. The study aims to compare carbon footprint of two transportation modes in campus transit, bus and bike-share systems, using life-cycle assessment (LCA). A case study was conducted for the four-campus (College Ave, Cook/Douglass, Busch, Livingston) transit system at Rutgers University (New Brunswick, NJ). The life-cycle of two systems were disaggregated into four stages, namely, raw material acquisition and manufacture, transportation, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life. Three uncertain factors—fossil fuel type, number of bikes provided, and bus ridership—were set as variables for sensitivity analysis. Normalization method was used in two impact categories to analyze and compare environmental impacts. The results show that the majority of CO2 emission and energy consumption comes from the raw material stage (extraction and upstream production) of the bike-share system and the operation stage of the campus bus system. The CO2 emission and energy consumption of the current campus bus system are 46 and 13 times of that of the proposed bike-share system, respectively. Three uncertain factors can influence the results: (1) biodiesel can significantly reduce CO2 emission and energy consumption of the current campus bus system; (2) the increased number of bikes increases CO2 emission of the bike-share system; (3) the increase of bus ridership may result in similar impact between two systems. Finally, an alternative hybrid transit system is proposed that uses campus buses to connect four campuses and creates a bike-share system to satisfy travel demands within each campus. The hybrid system reaches the most environmentally friendly state when 70% passenger-miles provided by campus bus and 30% by bike-share system. Further research is needed to consider the uncertainty of biking behavior and travel choice in LCA. Applicable recommendations include increasing ridership of campus buses and building a bike-share in campus to support the current campus bus system. Other strategies such as increasing parking fees and improving biking environment can also be implemented to reduce automobile usage and encourage biking behavior.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dewayne L. Ingram ◽  
Charles R. Hall

Life cycle assessment (LCA) was utilized to analyze the global warming potential (GWP), or carbon footprint, and associated costs of the production components of a field-grown, spade-dug, 5 cm (2 in) caliper Cercis canadensis ‘Forest Pansy’ in the Lower Midwest, U.S. A model production system was determined from interviews of nursery managers in the region. Input materials, equipment use and labor were inventoried for each production system component using international standards of LCA. The seed-to-landscape GWP, expressed in kilograms of carbon dioxide emission equivalent (CO2e), was determined to be 13.707. Equipment use constituted the majority (63%) of net CO2-e emissions during production, transport to the customer, and transplanting in the landscape. The model was queried to determine the possible impact of production system modifications on carbon footprint and costs to aid managers in examining their production system. Carbon sequestration of a redbud growing in the landscape over its 40 year life, weighted proportionally for a 100 year assessment period, was calculated to be −165 kg CO2e. The take-down and disposal activities following its useful life would result in the emission of 88.44 kg CO2e. The life-cycle GWP of the described redbud tree, including GHG emissions during production, transport, transplanting, take down and disposal would be −63 kg CO2e. Total variable costs associated with the labor, materials, and equipment use incurred in the model system were $0.069, $2.88, and $34.81 for the seedling, liner, and field production stages, respectively. An additional $18.83 was needed for transport to the landscape and planting in the landscape and after the 40 year productive life of the tree in the landscape, another $60.86 was needed for take-down and disposal activities.


2013 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 215-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Holma ◽  
Kati Koponen ◽  
Riina Antikainen ◽  
Laurent Lardon ◽  
Pekka Leskinen ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Giulia Borghesi ◽  
Giuseppe Vignali

Agriculture and food manufacturing have a considerable effect on the environment emissions: holdings and farms play an important role about greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. This study aims at evaluating the environmental impact of one of the most important Italian DOP product: organic Parmesan Cheese. Environmental performances of the whole dairy supply chain have been assessed according to the life cycle assessment approach (LCA). In this analysis Parmesan Cheese is made from an organic dairy farm in Emilia Romagna, which uses the milk from three different organic livestock productions. Organic agriculture is different from conventional; the major difference is represented by the avoidance of the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides made in chemical industry process. Organic agriculture uses organic fertilizers to encourage the natural fertility of the soil respecting the environment and the agro-system. In this case, life cycle approach is used to assess the carbon footprint and the water footprint of organic Parmesan Cheese considering the milk and cheese production. The object at this level is investigating the environmental impact considering the situation before some improvement changes. The functional unit is represented by 1 kg of organic Parmesan Cheese; inventory data refer to the situation in year 2017 and system boundaries consider the inputs related to the cattle and dairy farm until the ripening (included). The carbon footprint is investigated using IPCC 2013 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 100a method, developed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and reported in kg of CO2eq. Otherwise, water footprint allows to measure the water consumption and in this work it is assessed using AWARE method (Available Water REmaining).


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 3460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Rosa Trovato ◽  
Francesco Nocera ◽  
Salvatore Giuffrida

Energy consumption in public buildings increased drastically over the last decade. Significant policy actions towards the promotion of energy efficiency in the building sector have been developed involving sustainable low-CO2-emission technologies. This paper presents the results of an economic–environmental valuation of a standard energy retrofit project for a public building in a Mediterranean area, integrating a life-cycle assessment (LCA) into the traditional economic–financial evaluation pattern. The study results show that simple retrofit of sustainable low-CO2-emission strategies such as wooden double-glazed windows, organic external wall insulation systems, and green roofs can reduce energy needs for heating and cooling by 58.5% and 33.4%, respectively. Furthermore, the implementation of an LCA highlights that the use of sustainable materials reduces the building’s carbon footprint index by 54.1% after retrofit compared to standard materials, thus providing an additional increase in the socio-environmental–economic–financial results of 18%. Some proposals are made about the accounting of the replacement costs and the residual value as requested in the logic of life-cycle cost (that is the economic extension of the LCA), namely concerning the method to take into account the replacement costs and the residual value. The economic calculation highlights the fundamental role played by tax benefits supporting the building energy retrofit, also in temperate climate zones, thus allowing the creation of environmental benefits in addition to remarkable cost savings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
pp. 109834
Author(s):  
Alessio Mastrucci ◽  
Antonino Marvuglia ◽  
Enrico Benetto ◽  
Ulrich Leopold

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document