scholarly journals An improved life cycle impact assessment principle for assessing the impact of land use on ecosystem services

2019 ◽  
Vol 693 ◽  
pp. 133374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoit Othoniel ◽  
Benedetto Rugani ◽  
Reinout Heijungs ◽  
Marco Beyer ◽  
Miriam Machwitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact ◽  
The Impact

A GIS based method to calculate regionalized land use characterization factors for life cycle impact assessment using LANCA®

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 1259-1277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike Bos ◽  
Stephanie D. Maier ◽  
Rafael Horn ◽  
Philip Leistner ◽  
Matthias Finkbeiner
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Characterization Factors ◽  
Life Cycle Impact

scholarly journals A Practical Comparison of Regionalized Land Use and Biodiversity Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models Using Livestock Production as a Case Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 4089 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Teixeira ◽  
Tiago Morais ◽  
Tiago Domingos
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Spatial Differentiation ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Land Occupation ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Life Cycle Impact

Land use is increasingly important for impact assessment in life cycle assessment (LCA). Its impacts on biodiversity and provision of ecosystem services are crucial to depict the environmental performance of products. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) models are commonly selected by consensus through processes frequently misinformed by the absence of practical application studies. Here, we performed an assessment of all free and peer-reviewed LCIA models for land use. We started with spatial correlation analysis at the country scale. Models that use the same indicators are strongly correlated, suggesting that regionalization is no longer a decisive issue in model selection. We applied these models in a case study for cattle production where feeds are replaced by sown biodiverse pastures (SBP). We tested (1) a non-regionalized inventory from an LCA database and, (2) a regionalized inventory that explicit considered the locations of land occupation and transformation. We found the same qualitative result: the installation of SBP avoids impacts due to feed substitution. Each hectare of SBP installed avoids the occupation of 0.5 hectares per year for feed ingredient production. Adding inventory regionalization for 70% of land use flows leads to a change of 15% in results, suggesting limited spatial differentiation between country-level characterization factors.

Integrated earth system dynamic modeling for life cycle impact assessment of ecosystem services

2014 ◽  
Vol 472 ◽  
pp. 262-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damien Arbault ◽  
Mylène Rivière ◽  
Benedetto Rugani ◽  
Enrico Benetto ◽  
Ligia Tiruta-Barna
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Dynamic Modeling ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
System Dynamic ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Life Cycle Impact

scholarly journals Global land use impacts on biomass production—a spatial-differentiated resource-related life cycle impact assessment method

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 440-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo A. F. Alvarenga ◽  
Karl-Heinz Erb ◽  
Helmut Haberl ◽  
Sebastião R. Soares ◽  
Rosalie van Zelm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Biomass Production ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Land Use Impacts ◽  
Global Land ◽  
Impact Assessment Method ◽  
Life Cycle Impact

Development of Chinese characterization factors for land use in life cycle impact assessment

2010 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1483-1488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Liu ◽  
ZuoRen Nie ◽  
BoXue Sun ◽  
ZhiHong Wang ◽  
XianZheng Gong
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Characterization Factors ◽  
Life Cycle Impact

scholarly journals Critérios para avaliação de modelos de Avaliação de Impacto do Ciclo de Vida Social

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2 esp.) ◽  
pp. 66-81
Author(s):  
Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya ◽  
Alexandre Monteiro Souza ◽  
Sueli Aparecida de Oliveira ◽  
Jaylton Bonacina De Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Spatial Differentiation ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Life Cycle Impact ◽  
The Impact

Modelos de Avaliação de Impacto do Ciclo de Vida Social (AICV-S) podem ser classificados em três tipos, dependendo da forma como o inventário é associado: (I) às partes interessadas; (II) por meio de cadeia de causa-efeito e, (III) com o uso de correlações entre variáveis macroeconômicas. Com o surgimento de modelos, o presente estudo tem como objetivo propor critérios para avaliá-los, baseados na UNEP e SETAC (2009), na JRC (2011) e em Ugaya et al. (2016). Após brainstorming entre os participantes do subgrupo de Avaliação de Impacto do Grupo de Trabalho de Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida (GTACV-S), três critérios foram selecionados: a abrangência do escopo (tipo, diferenciação espacial, inclusão de questões temporais, partes interessadas e subcategorias incluídas, robustez científica (reconhecimento pela comunidade internacional, apresentação de cadeia de causa e efeito, transparência e acessibilidade, disponibilidade de fator de caracterização (FC), possibilidade de regionalização e, FC nacional (existência e viabilidade de obtenção). Cada um dos subcritérios foi classificado (melhor, mediano e pior). Por exemplo, para atender o escopo das partes interessadas e subcategorias, o modelo deveria incluir 5 partes interessadas e 31 subcategorias para receber a melhor classificação). Os critérios foram aplicados parcialmente em 6 artigos e os resultados preliminares demonstram que é possível fazer a diferenciação entre os modelos. Como próximos passos, os critérios serão aplicados para outros artigos levantados na revisão sistemática, a partir da qual será recomendado um modelo para AICV-S.  Palavras-chave: Avaliação Social do Ciclo de Vida. Critérios. Avaliação dos Impactos do Ciclo de Vida Social.ResumenLos modelos de análisis de impacto social del ciclo de vida (AICV-S) pueden clasificarse en tres tipos, dependiendo de cómo se asocie el inventario: (I) a las partes interesadas; (II) por medio de cadena de causa-efecto y, (III) con el uso de correlaciones entre variables macroeconómicas. Con el surgimiento de modelos, el presente estudio tiene como objetivo proponer criterios para evaluarlos, basados en UNEP y SETAC (2009), en la JRC (2011) y en Ugaya et al. (2016). Después de brainstorming entre los participantes del subgrupo de Evaluación de Impacto del Grupo de Trabajo de Análisis Social del Ciclo de Vida (GTACV-S), se seleccionaron tres criterios: la cobertura del alcance (tipo de AICV-S, diferenciación espacial, inclusión de cuestiones temporales, partes interesadas y las subcategorías incluidas, robustez científica (reconocimiento por la comunidad internacional, presentación de cadena de causa y efecto, transparencia y accesibilidad, disponibilidad de factor de caracterización (FC), posibilidad de regionalización del FC y, existencia y viabilidad de obtención de FC nacional. Cada uno de los subcriterios fue clasificado (mejor, mediano y peor). Por ejemplo, para atender el alcance de las partes interesadas y subcategorías, el modelo debería incluir 5 partes interesadas y 31 subcategorías para recibir la mejor clasificación). Los criterios se aplicaron parcialmente en 6 artículos y los resultados preliminares demuestran que es posible distinguir entre los modelos. En los próximos pasos, los criterios se aplican a otros modelos.  Palabras clave: Valoración Social del Ciclo de Vida. Criterios. Evaluación del Impacto del Ciclo de Vida Social.AbstractSocial Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models (S-LCIA) may be classified into three types, depending on the linkage of the inventory to impacts: (I) to stakeholders; (II) through cause-effect chains and, (III) through correlations between macroeconomic variables. With the emergence of models, the present study aims to propose criteria to evaluate them, based on UNEP and SETAC (2009), JRC (2011) and Ugaya et al. (2016). A brainstorming was performed involving the participants of the Impact Assessment subgroup of the Working Group on Social Life Cycle Assessment (GTACV-S) which resulted in three criteria: the scope (type of S-LCIA, spatial differentiation, inclusion of temporal aspects, stakeholders and subcategories included, scientific robustness (recognition by the international community, presentation of the cause-effect chain, transparency and accessibility), availability of characterization factor (CF), possibility of regionalization of the CF and the existence and feasibility of obtaining national CF. Each of the subcriteria was classified in three levels (best, medium and worst). For example, to meet the scope of stakeholders and subcategories, the model should include 5 stakeholders and 31 subcategories to receive the best rating. The criteria were applied partially in 6 papers and the preliminary results showed that it is possible to differentiate between the models. As a next step, the criteria will be applied to other.  Keywords: Social Life Cycle Assessment. Criteria. Social Life Cycle Impact Assessment.

A proposal for using process-based soil models for land use Life cycle impact assessment: Application to Alentejo, Portugal

2018 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 864-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiago G. Morais ◽  
Cláudia Silva ◽  
Asma Jebari ◽  
Jorge Álvaro-Fuentes ◽  
Tiago Domingos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle Impact
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document