Advertisement

Geographic variability of agriculture requires sector-specific uncertainty characterization

LCA FOR AGRICULTURE

Abstract

Purpose

Regionalization in life cycle assessment (LCA) has focused on spatially differentiated environmental variables for regional impact assessment models. Relatively less attention has been paid to spatial disparities in intermediate flows for life cycle inventory (LCI).

Methods

First, we compiled state-specific LCIs for four major crops in the USA and evaluated their geographic variability in the characterized results due to the differences in intermediate inputs. Second, we evaluated the consequence of choosing average or region-specific LCIs in understanding the life cycle environmental implications of land use change from cotton to corn or soybean. Finally, we analyzed the implications of our findings in characterizing the uncertainties associated with geographic variability under the conventional pedigree approach.

Results and discussion

Our results show that spatial disparities in LCI alone lead to two to fourfold differences in characterized results for most impact categories. The differences, however, increase to over an order of magnitude for freshwater ecotoxicity and human health non-cancer. Among the crops analyzed, winter wheat shows higher variability partly due to a larger difference in yield. As a result, the use of national average data derived from top corn and soybean producing states significantly underestimates the characterized impacts of corn and soybean in the states where land conversion from cotton to corn or soybean actually took place. The results also show that the conventional pedigree approach to uncertainty characterization in LCA substantially underestimates uncertainties arising from geographic variability of agriculture. Compared to the highest geometric standard deviation (GSD) value of 1.11 under the pedigree approach, the GSDs that we derived are as high as 7.1, with the median around 1.9.

Conclusions

The results highlight the importance of building regional life cycle inventory for understanding the environmental impacts of crops at the regional level. The high geographic variability of crops also indicates the need for sector-specific approaches to uncertainty characterization. Our results also suggest that the uncertainty values in the existing LCI databases might have been signficantly underestimated especially for those products with high geographic variability, demanding a cautious interpretation of the results derived from them. 

Keywords

Life cycle inventory Pedigree approach Spatial variability Staple crops Uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgements

All data are available upon request. The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the quality of the paper. This work was partly funded by US Environmental Protection Agency through Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program Grant No.83557907 (MT and SS). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of US EPA. This work has not been subjected to US EPA review, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1388_MOESM1_ESM.docx (125 kb)
Fig. S1 (DOCX 124kb)

References

  1. Azevedo LB, Henderson AD, van Zelm R et al (2013) Assessing the importance of spatial variability versus model choices in life cycle impact assessment: the case of freshwater eutrophication in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 47:13565–13570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13:687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bare J, Norris G, Pennington D, McKone T (2003) The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthoud A, Maupu P, Huet C, Poupart A (2011) Assessing freshwater ecotoxicity of agricultural products in life cycle assessment (LCA): a case study of wheat using French agricultural practices databases and USEtox model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulay A-M, Bulle C, Bayart J-B et al (2011) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–8957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema B, Lesage P (2013) Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1338–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Civit B, Arena AP, Allende D (2014) Determination of regional acidification factors for Argentina. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1632–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ecoinvent (2014) Database. In: Ecoinvent database V22. http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/
  9. Fréchette-Marleau S, Bécaert V, Margni M et al (2008) Evaluating the variability of aquatic acidification and photochemical ozone formation characterization factors for Canadian emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:593–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fulton J, Cooley H, Cardenas S, Shilling F (2013) Trends and variation in California’s water footprintGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallego A, Rodriguez L, Hospido A et al (2010) Development of regional characterization factors for aquatic eutrophication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gobin A, Kersebaum KC, Eitzinger J et al (2017) Variability in the water footprint of arable crop production across European regions. Water 9:93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goebes MD, Strader R, Davidson C (2003) An ammonia emission inventory for fertilizer application in the United States. Atmos Environ 37:2539–2550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guinée J (2001) Handbook on life cycle assessment—operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:255–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helmes RJ, Huijbregts MA, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2012) Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:646–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill J, Polasky S, Nelson E et al (2009) Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:2077–2082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hybel A-M, Godskesen B, Rygaard M (2015) Selection of spatial scale for assessing impacts of groundwater-based water supply on freshwater resources. J Environ Manag 160:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krauter C, Goorahoo D, Potter C, Klooster S (2002) Ammonia emissions and fertilizer applications in California’ s Central Valley. Atlanta GAGoogle Scholar
  19. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2010) The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products—volume 1: main report. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, DelftGoogle Scholar
  20. Mortvedt J (1995) Heavy metal contaminants in inorganic and organic fertilizers. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 43:55–61Google Scholar
  21. Núñez M, Pfister S, Vargas M, Antón A (2015) Spatial and temporal specific characterisation factors for water use impact assessment in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ogle S, Del Grosso S, Adler P, Parton W (2008) Soil nitrous oxide emissions with crop production for biofuel: implications for greenhouse gas mitigationGoogle Scholar
  23. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Potting J, Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rehr AP, Small MJ, Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT (2010) Economic sources and spatial distribution of airborne chromium risks in the US. Environ Sci Technol 44:2131–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapouri H, Gallagher PW, Nefstead W et al (2010) 2008 energy balance for the corn-ethanol industry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Tessum CW, Hill JD, Marshall JD (2014) Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:18490–18495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. USDA (2004) Energy use on major field crops in surveyed states. Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. USDA (2006) Model simulation of soil loss, nutrient loss, and change in soil organic carbon Associated with crop production. Natural Resource Conservation Service, US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  30. USDA (2016) Agricultural chemical use program. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/. Accessed 12 Dec 2013
  31. Varvel GE, Vogel KP, Mitchell RB et al (2008) Comparison of corn and switchgrass on marginal soils for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 32:18–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wallander S, Claassen R, Nickerson C (2011) The ethanol decade: an expansion of US corn production, 2000–09. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang M (2013) The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation (GREET) model, 2012Google Scholar
  34. Weber CL, Matthews HS (2008) Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 42:3508–3513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weidema BP (1998) Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Weidema BP, Wesnæs MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen AM (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu M, Zhang Z, Chiu Y (2014) Life-cycle water quantity and water quality implications of biofuels. Curr Sustain Energy Rep 1:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang Y (2013) Life cycle freshwater ecotoxicity, human health cancer, and noncancer impacts of corn ethanol and gasoline in the U.S. J Clean Prod 53:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang Y (2015) A note on pesticide-related toxicity impacts of crops in the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1604–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang Y (2016) Toward a more accurate regionalized life cycle inventory. J Clean Prod 112:308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang Y, Suh S (2015a) Land cover change from cotton to corn in the USA relieves freshwater ecotoxicity impact but may aggravate other regional environmental impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang Y, Suh S (2015b) Changes in environmental impacts of major crops in the US. Environ Res Lett 10:94016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang Y, Suh S (2015c) Marginal yield, technological advances, and emission timing in corn ethanol’s carbon payback time. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:226–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S (2012) Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in significant environmental problem-shifting. Environ Sci Technol 46:3671–3678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yienger JJ, Levy H (1995) Empirical model of global soil-biogenic NOχ emissions. J Geophys Res Atmos 100:11447–11464CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSRA Inc.Falls ChurchUSA
  2. 2.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations