Advertisement

Development of Eco-factors for the European Union based on the Ecological Scarcity Method

  • Marco MuhlEmail author
  • Markus Berger
  • Matthias Finkbeiner
POLICIES AND SUPPORT IN RELATION TO LCA
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Weighting as an optional step in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has recently gained momentum through increased policy requirements in the European Union. In this context, the existing Ecological Scarcity Method (ESM), published and developed in Switzerland, is one method for Distance-to-Target (DtT) weighting which is based on the ratio of desired policy targets to the current environmental situation. The purpose of this study is the application of the ESM to the European Union (EU) as well as its application in a case study.

Methods

Based on the ESM, a baseline set of eco-factors was determined, including weighting factors for a broad set of substances and resource uses based on the current environmental situation and policy targets of the EU. This includes data collection for a wide range of emissions and resource uses, as well as the identification of corresponding binding and non-binding policy targets. In addition to the baseline set, two other sets, considering the short-term and binding character of targets, were compiled for a sensitivity analysis. By applying all sets to the current European environmental situation, a comparative case study was conducted.

Results and discussion

A baseline set including eco-factors for various emissions and resource uses for a total of 11 environmental issues was developed. The application of this baseline set to the current environmental situation of the EU showed a high relative importance of climate change (28%) and main air pollutants (30%) in the aggregated results. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that if only short-term or binding targets are considered, weighting results in comparison to the baseline set are 43 to 60% lower, respectively. The main reasons for this shift are less restrictive reduction targets (e.g., climate targets) from a short-term perspective or non-existing binding targets.

Conclusions

The ESM was transferred to the EU as a DtT weighting method. The presented eco-factors take into account long-term targets, which could make it a meaningful method for decision-makers promoting forward-looking actions in the EU. Nonetheless, it was not possible to cover all substances (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into surface waters and soil, heavy metals and pesticides in soil, mineral primary resources, and radioactive waste) due to the lack of quantitative policy targets and current emission data. Such missing substances or environmental issues should be integrated in the development of future methodologies.

Keywords

LCIA Distance to target Weighting Normalization Policy targets Ecological scarcity method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Daimler AG for its support in the development of Eco-factors for the European Union based on the Ecological Scarcity Method. We also would like to express our gratitude to Rolf Frischknecht for his contributions to this research. The authors thank the valuable comments and suggestions of the two anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1577_MOESM1_ESM.docx (196 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 195 kb)

References

  1. Ahbe S, Schebek L, Jansky N et al (2014) Methode der ökologischen Knappheit für Deutschland – Eine Initiative der Volkswagen AG. Logos Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahbe S, Weihofen S, Wellge S (2017) The ecological scarcity method for the European Union—a Volkswagen research initiative: environmental assessments. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlroth S (2014) The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 85:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2002) TRACI—the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benini L, Mancini L, Sala S et al (2014) Normalisation method and data for environmental footprints. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger M, Pfister S, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2015) Saving the Planet’s climate or water resources? The trade-off between carbon and water footprints of European biofuels. Sustainability 7:6665–6683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1005–1018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Büsser S, Frischknecht R, Hayashi K, Kono J (2012) Ecological scarcity Japan. ESU-Services Ltd., UsterGoogle Scholar
  10. Castellani V, Benini L, Sala S, Pant R (2016) A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1159–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheroennet N, Pongpinyopap S, Leejarkpai T, Suwanmanee U (2016) A trade-off between carbon and water impacts in bio-based box production chains in Thailand: a case study of PS, PLAS, PLAS/starch, and PBS. J Clean Prod 167:987–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (2011) COM(2011) 112 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  13. EC (2016) Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance document - Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase, version 5.2. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  14. ECE/EB.AIR/114 (2012) Gothenburg Protocol, 2005 emission level and national emission reduction commitments in 2020 and beyond. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/press/pr2012/GothenburgProtocol_Table_Eng.pdf. Accessed 28 Jun 2018
  15. EEA (2016a) Air pollutant emissions data viewer (LRTAP Convention). In: Eur. Environ. Agency. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/data-viewers/air-emissions-viewer-lrtap. Accessed 10 Apr 2017
  16. EEA (2016b) E-PRTR pollutant releases. In: Eur. Environ. Agency. http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/#/pollutantreleases. Accessed 10 Apr 2017
  17. EEA (2016c) European Union emission inventory report 1990–2014 under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP). 1–122.  https://doi.org/10.2800/18374
  18. EP (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Comm. 327:0001-0073.Google Scholar
  19. EP (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 140:16–62.Google Scholar
  20. EP (2013) Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy Text with EEA relevance. Off. J. Eur. Union 226:1–17.Google Scholar
  21. EP (2016) Directive 2016/2284 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, amending Directive 2003/35/EC and repealing Directive 2001/81/EC (Text with EEA relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 344:1–31.Google Scholar
  22. EU (2013) 2013/179/EU: Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations Text with EEA relevance. 124:1–210.Google Scholar
  23. European Council (2014) EUCO 169/14, European Council (23 and 24 October 2014 - Conclusions). In: Eur. Counc. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/145397.pdf. ​Accessed 10 Apr 2017
  24. Eurostat (2016a) Eurostat—Data Explorer, Pesticide sales. In: Eurostat. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=aei_fm_salpest09&lang=en. Accessed 10 Apr 2017
  25. Eurostat (2016b) Primary energy consumption. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_33&plugin=1. Accessed 12 Jun 2017
  26. FAO (2016) AQUASTAT database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en. Accessed 12 Jun 2017
  27. Finkbeiner M, Ackermann R, Bach V et al (2014) Challenges in life cycle assessment: an overview of current gaps and research needs. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 207–258Google Scholar
  28. Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes: development of a mid-point method and experiences fromcase studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88.  https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015
  29. French Ministry for Agriculture. Food and Forests (2010) Ecophyto 2018. Progress Report. Initial changes 2008-2009 in the NODU, the Ecophyto 2018 progress indicator. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries (MAAP)Google Scholar
  30. Frischknecht R, Büsser Knöpfel S (2013) Swiss Eco-Factors 2013 according to the Ecological Scarcity Method. Methodological fundamentals and their application in Switzerland. Environmental studies no. 1330. Federal Office for the Environment, BernGoogle Scholar
  31. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99 A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology Report. B.V. Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  32. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M et al (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition (version 1.08). Report I: characterisationGoogle Scholar
  33. Grinberg M, Ackermann R, Finkbeiner M (2012) Ecological scarcity method: adaptation and implementation for different countries. Sci J Riga Tech Univ Environ Clim Technol 10:9–15Google Scholar
  34. Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle impact assessment - The EDIP2003 methodology. Danish Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  35. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products: scientific background (Vol. 2). Chapman & Hall, United Kingdom/ Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Huppes G, Van Oers L (2011) Background review of existing weighting approaches in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 88 pp.  https://doi.org/10.2788/88828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huppes G, Van Oers L, Pretato U, Pennington DW (2012) Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:876–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. ISO 14044 (2006) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment— requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organization.Google Scholar
  40. Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Inaba A (2012) Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kägi T, Dinkel F, Frischknecht R, Humbert S, Lindberg J, de Mester S, Ponsioen T, Sala S, Schenker UW (2016) Session “Midpoint, endpoint or single score for decision-making?”—SETAC Europe 25th Annual Meeting, May 5th, 2015. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lecksiwilai N, Gheewala SH, Silalertruksa T, Mungkalasiri J (2017) LCA of biofuels in Thailand using Thai Ecological Scarcity method. J Clean Prod 142:1183–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lindfors LG, Kim Christiansen K, Hoffman L et al (1995) Nordic guidelines on life-cycle assessment. Nordic Council of Ministers, ÅrhusGoogle Scholar
  45. Miyazaki N, Siegenthaler C, Schoenbaum T, Azuma K (1994) Japan Environmental Policy Priorities Index (JEPIX) – Calculation of Ecofactors for Japan: Method for Environmental Accounting based on the EcoScarcity Principle. 7. International Christian University Social Science Research Institute, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  46. Modahl IS, Askham C, Lyng K-A, Brekke A (2012) Weighting of environmental trade-offs in CCS? An LCA case study of electricity from a fossil gas power plant with post-combustion CO2 capture, transport and storage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:932–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Müller-Wenk R (1978) Die ökologische Buchhaltung: Ein Informations- und Steuerungsinstrument für umweltkonforme Unternehmenspolitik. Campus-Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD (2003) Environmental performance reviews: water; performance and challenges in OECD countries. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  49. Payen S, Basset-Mens C, Perret S (2015) LCA of local and imported tomato: an energy and water trade-off. J Clean Prod 87:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pizzol M, Weidema B, Brandão M, Osset P (2015) Monetary valuation in life cycle assessment: a review. J Clean Prod 86:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S, Weidema B, Verones F, Koffler C (2017) Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:853–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sala S, Benini L, Mancini L, Pant R (2015) Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1568–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2015) Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1684–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steen B, Arvidsson P, Nobel Gunnar Borg A, et al (1999a) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000 – General system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental PlanningGoogle Scholar
  56. Steen B, Arvidsson P, Nobel Gunnar Borg A, et al (1999b) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000 – Models and data of the default method. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental PlanningGoogle Scholar
  57. Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, MacDonald DW (2012) Exploring a safe operating approach to weighting in life cycle impact assessment—a case study of organic, conventional and integrated farming systems. J Clean Prod 37:147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UNEP (2016) Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Tenth edition (2016). Secretariat for The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer & The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. United Nations Environment Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  59. Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang C, Anadon LD, Mo H, Zhao Z, Liu Z (2014) Water-carbon trade-off in China’s coal power industry. Environ Sci Technol 48:11082–11089CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Department of Environmental TechnologyTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations