A life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) of oxymethylene ether as a diesel additive produced from forest biomass

A life cycle assessment of oxymethylene ether synthesis from biomass-derived syngas as a diesel additive

The global move towards a circular economy, as well as that of achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), has necessitated the search for several sustainable solutions in various sectors. Given this, the provision of sustainable waste management and electricity systems constitute a significant part of the SDGs, and the waste-to-energy (WtE) concept has recently become a key topic given that it can potentially help reduce the dependence on fossil fuels for energy generation, as well as minimizing the need to dispose of waste in landfill. However, to date, the sustainability assessments of WtE generation technologies have been limited in scope concerning the three-dimensional sustainability framework (economic, environmental, and social). Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) has been proposed as a potential approach that could comprehensively address these three pillars of sustainability simultaneously based on life cycle thinking. LCSA, as a holistic method, could also potentially deal with the complexity associated with decision-making by allowing for the consideration of a full range of possible sustainability consequences. LCSA is an analytical tool that integrates the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (sLCA) methodologies, which already exist and continue to be developed. Individually, these life-cycle approaches tend to be used to point out particular ‘hotspots’ in product or service systems, and hence focus on direct impacts in a given sustainability domain, neglecting the indirect ones. LCSA aims for a more holistic sustainability perspective and seeks to address the associated challenge of integrating these three pillars of sustainability into an overall and more comprehensive sustainability assessment. This need for harmonization within the LCSA methodology is a major challenge in its operationalization. In recent years there has been steady progress towards developing and applying LCSA, including for WtE. The aim of this paper is to review the most recent trends and perspectives in developing countries, especially regarding how LCSA could help inform decision-making. The paper also analyses the LCSA literature to set out the theoretical and practical challenges behind integrating the three methods (LCA, LCC, and sLCA). The review was conducted via a search of keywords such as LCSA, waste, and energy in the Web of Science databases, resulting in the selection of 187 publications written in English. Of those, 13 articles operationalized LCSA in specific waste and WtE related case studies. The review provides a review of the application of LCSA for researchers, technological experts, and policymakers through published findings and identifies perspectives on new research. These include uncertainty, subjectivity in weighting, double-counting, the low maturity of sLCA, and the integration of the interconnection between the three dimensions (environmental, economic, and social dimensions) of LCSA results in decision-making. In addition, gaps (such as the integration of the interconnection between the three dimensions) that need to be addressed via further research are highlighted to allow for a better understanding of methodological trade-offs that come from using the LCSA analytical approach to assess the sustainability of WtE generation technologies, especially in developing countries. It is hoped that this study will be a positive contribution to environmental and energy policy decisions in developing countries faced with the dual problems of waste management and electricity supply along with their sustainable development goals.

With the increasing concerns related to integration of social and economic dimensions of the sustainability into life cycle assessment (LCA), traditional LCA approach has been transformed into a new concept, which is called as life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This study aims to contribute the existing LCSA framework by integrating several social and economic indicators to demonstrate the usefulness of input–output modeling on quantifying sustainability impacts. Additionally, inclusion of all indirect supply chain-related impacts provides an economy-wide analysis and a macro-level LCSA. Current research also aims to identify and outline economic, social, and environmental impacts, termed as triple bottom line (TBL), of the US residential and commercial buildings encompassing building construction, operation, and disposal phases. To achieve this goal, TBL economic input–output based hybrid LCA model is utilized for assessing building sustainability of the US residential and commercial buildings. Residential buildings include single and multi-family structures, while medical buildings, hospitals, special care buildings, office buildings, including financial buildings, multi-merchandise shopping, beverage and food establishments, warehouses, and other commercial structures are classified as commercial buildings according to the US Department of Commerce. In this analysis, 16 macro-level sustainability assessment indicators were chosen and divided into three main categories, namely environmental, social, and economic indicators. Analysis results revealed that construction phase, electricity use, and commuting played a crucial role in much of the sustainability impact categories. The electricity use was the most dominant component of the environmental impacts with more than 50 % of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption through all life cycle stages of the US buildings. In addition, construction phase has the largest share in income category with 60 % of the total income generated through residential building’s life cycle. Residential buildings have higher shares in all of the sustainability impact categories due to their relatively higher economic activity and different supply chain characteristics. This paper is an important attempt toward integrating the TBL perspective into LCSA framework. Policymakers can benefit from such approach and quantify macro-level environmental, economic, and social impacts of their policy implications simultaneously. Another important outcome of this study is that focusing only environmental impacts may misguide decision-makers and compromise social and economic benefits while trying to reduce environmental impacts. Hence, instead of focusing on environmental impacts only, this study filled the gap about analyzing sustainability impacts of buildings from a holistic perspective.

Purpose and contextThis paper aims to establish principles for the increased application and use of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). Sustainable development (SD) encompassing resilient economies and social stability of the global system is growingly important for decision-makers from business and governments. The “17 SDGs” emerge as a high-level shared blueprint for peace, abundance, and prosperity for people and the planet, and “sustainability” for supporting improvements of products and organizations. A “sustainability” interpretation—successful in aligning stakeholders’ understanding—subdivides the impacts according to a triple bottom line or three pillars: economic, social, and environmental impacts. These context and urgent needs inspired the LCSA framework. This entails a sustainability assessment of products and organizations in accordance with the three pillars, while adopting a life cycle perspective.MethodsThe Life Cycle Initiative promotes since 2011 a pragmatic LCSA framework based on the three techniques: LCSA = environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) + life cycle costing (LCC) + social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This is the focus of the paper, while acknowledging previous developments. Identified and reviewed literature shows challenges of addressing the three pillars in the LCSA framework implementation like considering only two pillars; not being fully aligned with ISO 14040; lacking interconnectedness among the three pillars; not having clear criteria for results’ weighting nor clear results’ interpretation; and not following cause-effect chains and mechanisms leading to an endpoint. Agreement building among LCSA experts and reviewing processes strengthened the consensus on this paper. Broad support and outreach are ensured by publishing this as position paper.ResultsFor harmonizing practical LCSA applications, easing interpretation, and increasing usefulness, consensed ten LCSA principles (10P) are established: understanding the areas of protection, alignment with ISO 14040, completeness, stakeholders’ and product utility considerations, materiality of system boundaries, transparency, consistency, explicit trade-offs’ communication, and caution when compensating impacts. Examples were provided based on a fictional plastic water bottleConclusionsIn spite of increasing needs for and interest in SD and sustainability supporting tools, LCSA is at an early application stage of application. The 10P aim to promote more and better LCSA applications by ensuring alignment with ISO 14040, completeness and clear interpretation of integrated results, among others. For consolidating its use, however, more consensus-building is needed (e.g., on value-laden ethical aspects of LCSA, interdependencies and interconnectedness among the three dimensions, and harmonization and integration of the three techniques) and technical and policy recommendations for application.

Cultural indicators, although present in S-LCA subcategories, are fairly limited and are not compulsory; performing an S-LCA does not guarantee the inclusion of cultural values. This paper explores the potential to distinctly represent and include cultural aspects within Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) (alongside economic, social and environmental aspects). As such, it demonstrates LCSA’s capability to communicate results along a quadruple bottom line. A participatory LCSA case study was undertaken using a mixed methods approach. Research was carried out working in close collaboration with three key members of an indigenous community in New Zealand—the Māori tribe of Ngāti Porou. A series of semi-structured interviews with the three participants was undertaken in order to investigate alternative forestry options for Ngāti Porou land. The research involved (1) understanding the decision-making process of Ngāti Porou, (2) recognising Ngāti Porou aspirations and goals, (3) determining a range of forestry land use and product options to be reviewed within the LCSA case study, (4) selection of meaningful (to Ngāti Porou) economic, social and environmental indicators, (5) developing a bespoke cultural indicator and (6) collaboratively reviewing and discussing the results. The results of the participatory LCSA represented culture in two ways. Firstly, a bespoke cultural indicator (Cultural Indicator Matrix) was created to distinctly represent culture in LCSA. The indicator subjectively measures the perceived impact that a forestry process or product has upon a range of Ngāti Porou aspirations, and the results can be viewed alongside other LCSA indicators. Secondly, the participatory research approach made the LCSA process more culturally-inclusive. Overall, the results of the culturally-inclusive LCSA gave the participants ‘validation’ and ‘direction’ and justified their desire to pursue alternative forestry options for their land. This first use of the Cultural Indicator Matrix was experienced by the participants as an effective mechanism for gathering community-based impressions of how forestry life cycle processes affect their cultural aspirations. They felt the participatory aspect was important, and considered that the ongoing communication between themselves and the LCSA practitioner provided them with more control, access to information and understanding of the LCSA process and led to higher acceptance of the final results. Thus, this research suggests that there is a place for culture in LCSA, and that distinctive representation of culture (separately from S-LCA) may be beneficial, particularly if the end-users have explicit cultural needs or concerns.

Assessing the sustainability of products (e.g., chemicals) and their process technologies is a challenging task, and hence key indicators and tools have to be developed continually to manage the impacts of social and economic threats while operating within ecological limits. The conventional life cycle assessment (LCA) method is one of such systems‐based tools, and standardized for environmental impact evaluation of product systems. However, LCA is pertinent to assessing mainly the “environmental dimension” of systems' sustainability; it was not historically developed to evaluate the other sustainability dimensions: economic and social. Hence, recent challenges in LCA have led to its broadening to encompass these other dimensions, which has resulted in what we call now the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). LCSA needs to be a systemwide, integrated, and interdisciplinary analysis over space and time whereby an integrated modeling tool is needed to simulate and analyze the inter‐relationships among/between social, ecological, and economic systems. This article explains the basics of LCSA, LCA, life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment and includes an initial LCSA application to palm oil‐based products. We introduced a framework here to provide a systematic basis for LCSA operationalization and identified a set of key economic, environmental, and social indicators at each stage of the palm oil biodiesel life cycle. The LCSA application thus helps to understand the complexity of a palm oil biodiesel life cycle through an integrated sustainability assessment and modeling.

PurposeCurrently, social, environmental, and economic risks and chances of bioeconomy are becoming increasingly a subject of applied sustainability assessments. Based on life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) aims to combine or integrate social, environmental, and economic assessments. In order to contribute to the current early stage of LCSA development, this study seeks to identify a practical framework for integrated LCSA implementation.MethodsWe select possible indicators from existing suitable LCA and LCSA approaches as well as from the literature, and allocate them to a sustainability concept for holistic and integrated LCSA (HILCSA), based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In order to conduct a practical implementation of HILCSA, we choose openLCA, because it offers the best current state and most future potential for application of LCSA. Therefore, not only the capabilities of the software and databases, but also the supported methods of life cycle impact assessments (LCIA) are evaluated regarding the requirements of the indicator set and goal and scope of future case studies.Results and discussionThis study presents an overview of available indicators and LCIAs for bioeconomy sustainability assessments as well as their link to the SDGs. We provide a practical framework for HILCSA of regional bioeconomy, which includes an indicator set for regional (product and territorial) bioeconomy assessment, applicable with current software and databases, LCIA methods and methods of normalization, weighting, and aggregation. The implementation of HILCSA in openLCA allows an integrative LCSA by conducting all steps in a single framework with harmonized, aggregated, and coherent results. HILCSA is capable of a sustainability assessment in terms of planetary boundaries, provisioning system and societal needs, as well as communication of results to different stakeholders.ConclusionsOur framework is capable of compensating some deficits of S-LCA, E-LCA, and economic assessments by integration, and shows main advantages compared to additive LCSA. HILCSA is capable of addressing 15 out of 17 SDGs. It addresses open questions and significant problems of LCSAs in terms of goal and scope, LCI, LCIA, and interpretation. Furthermore, HILCSA is the first of its kind actually applicable in an existing software environment. Regional bioeconomy sustainability assessment is bridging scales of global and regional effects and can inform stakeholders comprehensively on various impacts, hotspots, trade-offs, and synergies of regional bioeconomy. However, significant research needs in LCIAs, software, and indicator development remain.

Critical indicators of sustainability for biofuels: An analysis through a life cycle sustainabilty assessment perspective

The main goal of the paper is to carry out the first implementation of sustainability assessment of the assembly step of photovoltaic (PV) modules production by Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) and the development of the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), in order to compare LCSA results of different PV modules. The applicability and practicability of the LCSD is reported thanks to a case study. The results show that LCSA can be considered a valuable tool to support decision-making processes that involve different stakeholders with different knowledge and background. The sustainability performance of the production step of Italian and German polycrystalline silicon modules is assessed using the LCSD. The LCSD is an application oriented to the presentation of an LCSA study. LCSA comprises life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing and social LCA (S-LCA). The primary data collected for the German module are related to two different years, and this led to the evaluation of three different scenarios: a German 2008 module, a German 2009 module, and an Italian 2008 module. According to the LCA results based on Ecoindicator 99, the German module for example has lower values of land use [1.77 potential disappeared fractions (PDF) m2/year] and acidification (3.61 PDF m2/year) than the Italian one (land use 1.99 PDF m2/year, acidification 3.83 PDF m2/year). However, the German module has higher global warming potential [4.5E–05 disability-adjusted life years (DALY)] than the Italian one [3.00E−05 DALY]. The economic costs of the German module are lower than the Italian one, e.g. the cost of electricity per FU for the German module is 0.12 €/m2 compared to the Italian 0.85 €/m2. The S-LCA results show significant differences between German module 2008 and 2009 that represent respectively the best and the worst overall social performances of the three considered scenarios compared by LCSD. The aggregate LCSD results show that the German module 2008 has the best overall sustainability performance and a score of 665 points out of 1,000 (and a colour scale of light green). The Italian module 2008 has the worst overall sustainability performance with a score of 404 points, while the German module 2009 is in the middle with 524 points. The LCSA and LCSD methodologies represent an applicable framework as a tool for supporting decision-making processes which consider sustainable production and consumption. However, there are still challenges for a meaningful application, particularly the questions of the selection of social LCA indicators and how to weigh sets for the LCSD.

Used cooking oil (UCO) is a domestic waste generated as the result of cooking and frying food with vegetable oil. The purpose of this study is to compare the sustainability of three domestic UCO collection systems: through schools (SCH), door-to-door (DTD), and through urban collection centres (UCC), to determine which systems should be promoted for the collection of UCO in cities in Mediterranean countries. The present paper uses the recent life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) methodology. LCSA is the combination of life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). Of the three UCO collection systems compared, the results show that UCC presents the best values for sustainability assessment, followed by DTD and finally SCH system, although there are no substantial differences between DTD and SCH. UCC has the best environmental and economic performance but not for social component. DTD and SCH present suitable values for social performance but not for the environmental and economic components. The environmental component improves when the collection points are near to citizens’ homes. Depending on the vehicle used in the collection process, the management costs and efficiency can improve. UCO collection systems that carry out different kind of waste (such as UCC) are more sustainable than those that collect only one type of waste. Regarding the methodology used in this paper, the sustainability assessment proposed is suitable for use in decision making to analyse processes, products or services, even so in social assessment an approach is needed to quantify the indicators. Defining units for sustainability quantification is a difficult task because not all social indicators are quantifiable and comparable; some need to be adapted, raising the subjectivity of the analysis. Research into S-LCA and LCSA is recent; more research is needed in order to improve the methodology.

Sustainability assessments considering the three dimensions environment, economy, and society are needed to evaluate manufacturing processes and products with regard to their sustainability performance. This chapter focuses on Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), which considers all three sustainability dimensions by combining the three methods Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). Existing LCSA approaches as well as selected ongoing work are introduced, both regarding the individual approaches as well as the combined LCSA approach. This includes, for instance, the Tiered Approach. This approach facilitates the implementation of LCSA, for instance, within the manufacturing sector, by providing a category hierarchy and guiding practitioners through the various impact and cost categories proposed for the three methods. Furthermore, ongoing developments in LCC and SLCA are presented, such as the definition of first economic and social impact pathways (linking fair wage and level of education to social damage levels) for addressing the current challenges of missing impact pathways for economic and social aspects. In addition, the Sustainability Safeguard Star suggests a new scheme for addressing the inter-linkages between the three sustainability dimensions. These approaches foster the application and implementation of LCSA and thus contribute to developing sustainable processes and products.

With the emergence of energy problems, how to ensure the sustainability of the energy system has become an important issue. There are already a number of ways to evaluate and rank the sustainability of energy systems. Among them, the method of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) has been paid the most attention by researchers, because it reflects the life cycle thinking and makes the sustainability assessment more comprehensive. However, LCSA also has some weaknesses. In order to solve the problems existing in LCSA, this paper uses multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to integrate the sustainability evaluation criteria with the idea of life cycle. Using grey-DEMATEL and TOPSIS method combined with LCSA, comparable, more objective, more real and more directive sustainability evaluation results were obtained. The case study of power generation system proves that our sustainability evaluation system is effective and can accurately identify key criteria and provide suggestions for subsequent optimization. In this paper, MCDA method is used to integrate life cycle evaluation criteria, which overcomes the difficulty of comprehensive treatment of criteria in LCSA process and reduces the uncertainty in the evaluation process. LCSA also provides good data for the MCDA process and reduces the negative impact of MCDA. A new way of thinking is proposed for the development of sustainability evaluation process.

Quantitative life cycle sustainable assessment requires a complex and multidimensional understanding, which cannot be fully covered by the current portfolio of reductionist-oriented tools. Therefore, there is a dire need on a new generation of modeling tools and approaches that can quantitatively assess the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability in an integrated way. To this end, this research aims to present a practical and novel approach for (1) broadening the existing life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework by considering macrolevel environmental, economic, and social impacts (termed as the triple bottom line), simultaneously, (2) deepening the existing LCSA framework by capturing the complex dynamic relationships between social, environmental, and economic indicators through causal loop modeling, (3) understanding the dynamic complexity of transportation sustainability for the triple bottom line impacts of alternative vehicles, and finally (4) investigating the impacts of various vehicle-specific scenarios as a novel approach for selection of a macrolevel functional unit considering all of the complex interactions in the environmental, social, and economic aspects. To alleviate these research objectives, we presented a novel methodology to quantify macrolevel social, economic, and environmental impacts of passenger vehicles from an integrated system analysis perspective. An integrated dynamic LCSA model is utilized to analyze the environmental, economic, and social life cycle impact as well as life cycle cost of alternative vehicles in the USA. System dynamics modeling is developed to simulate the US passenger transportation system and its interactions with economy, the environment, and society. Analysis covers manufacturing and operation phase impacts of internal combustion vehicles (ICVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and battery electric vehicles (BEVs). In total, seven macrolevel indicators are selected; global warming potential, particulate matter formation, photochemical oxidant formation, vehicle ownership cost, contribution to gross domestic product, employment generation, and human health impacts. Additionally, contribution of vehicle choices to global atmospheric temperature rise and public welfare is investigated. BEVs are found to be a better alternative for most of sustainability impact categories. While some of the benefits such as contribution to employment and GDP, CO2 emission reduction potential of BEVs become greater toward 2050, other sustainability indicators including vehicle ownership cost and human health impacts of BEVs are higher than the other vehicle types on 2010s and 2020s. While the impact shares of manufacturing and operation phases are similar in the early years of 2010s, the contribution of manufacturing phase becomes higher as the vehicle performances increase toward 2050. Analysis results revealed that the US transportation sector, alone, cannot reduce the rapidly increasing atmospheric temperature and the negative impacts of the global climate change, even though the entire fleet is replaced with BEVs. Reducing the atmospheric climate change requires much more ambitious targets and international collaborative efforts. The use of different vehicle types has a small impact on public welfare, which is a function of income, education, and life expectancy indexes. The authors strongly recommend that the dynamic complex and mutual interactions between sustainability indicators should be considered for the future LCSA framework. This approach will be critical to deepen the existing LCSA framework and to go beyond the current LCSA understanding, which provide a snapshot analysis with an isolated view of all pillars of sustainability. Overall, this research is a first empirical study and an important attempt toward developing integrated and dynamic LCSA framework for sustainable transportation research.

Improper disposal of post-consumer Polythylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles constitutes an eyesore to the environmental landscape and gives rise to numerous envi- ronmental and health-related nuisances. These problems impact negatively on the flour- ishing tourism industry in Mauritius. The present study was therefore undertaken to determine a sustainable disposal method among four selected disposal alternatives of post- consumer PET bottles in Mauritius. The disposal scenarios investigated were: 100 % landfilling (scenario 1); 75 % incineration with energy recovery and 25 % landfilling (scenario 2); 40 % flake production (partial recycling) and 60 % landfilling (scenario 3); and 75 % flake production and 25 % landfilling (scenario 4). Environmental impacts of the disposal alternatives were determined using ISO standardized life cycle assessment (LCA) and the SimaPro 7.1 software. Cost-effectiveness was determined using Life cycle costing (LCC) as described by the recent Code of Practice on LCC. An excel-based model was constructed to calculate the various costs. Social impacts were evaluated using Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) based on the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment. For this purpose, a new and simple social life cycle impact assessment method was developed for aggregating inventory results. Finally, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) was conducted to conclude the sustainable disposal route of post- consumer PET bottles in Mauritius. The methodology proposed to work out LCSA was to combine the three assessment tools: LCA, LCC and S-LCA using the Analytical Hierarchy Process. The results indicated that scenario 4 was the sustainable disposal method of post- consumer PET bottles. Scenario 1 was found to be the worst scenario.

Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is a method that combines three life cycle techniques, viz. environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA). This study is intended to develop a LCSA framework and a case study of LCSA for building construction projects. A LCSA framework is proposed to combine the three life cycle techniques. In the modeling phases, three life cycle models are used in the LCSA framework, namely the environmental model of construction (EMoC), cost model of construction (CMoC), and social-impact model of construction (SMoC). A residential building project is applied to the proposed LCSA framework from “cradle to the end of construction” processes to unveil the limitations and future research needs of the LCSA framework. It is found that material extraction and manufacturing account for over 90 % to the environmental impacts while they contribute to 61 % to the construction cost. In terms of social impacts, on-site construction performs better than material extraction and manufacturing, and on-site construction has larger contributions to the positive social impacts. The model outcomes are validated through interviews with local experts in Hong Kong. The result indicates that the performance of the models is generally satisfactory. The case study has confirmed that LCSA is feasible. Being one of the first applications of LCSA on building construction, this study fulfills the current research gap and paves the way for future development of LCSA.