Life Cycle Assessment of Peat Extraction Towards Peat-bog Reconversion Strategies: Scenarios Comparison Based on a Real Case Study from a Latvian Peat Extraction Factory

In China, urban renewal and renovation projects generate a large amount of demolition waste every year, the disposal of which has certain impacts on the environment. Therefore, more effective policies should be implemented for the management of demolition waste. This study combines life cycle assessment (LCA) with life cycle costing (LCC) to analyze the environmental and economic drivers of three different waste disposal scenarios in Guangzhou, China, in the context of carbon trading: S1 (landfilling), S2 (recycled aggregate), and S3 (recycled powder). In this study, the carbon emissions of demolition waste were obtained by LCA, and the carbon emission cost was calculated based on the carbon price in the carbon trading market of Guangdong Province. The LCA results showed that waste recycling can greatly reduce carbon emissions. The results showed that compared to S1, S2 reduced 6.790 × 108 kg CO2 eq. Additionally, S3 reduced 4.172 × 108 kg CO2 eq. compared to S2. The LCC results show that waste recycling can greatly reduce the total costs of the demolition sector, while the production of recycled powder can generate 57.35% of the revenue from recycled aggregate to the recycling plant. This study combines LCA and LCC, and considers environmental factors to assess the economic results using carbon emissions cost, thereby forging a new exploration method in the field of life cycle theory. The findings of this study could provide a basis for the formulation of a new demolition waste management policy. In the case of the gradual implementation of carbon trading, it could also provide new ideas for current demolition waste treatment from economic and environmental perspectives.

Greenhouse aquaculture is an increasingly advanced practice in shrimp farming. This study employs Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to systematically evaluate the economic and environmental performance of greenhouse shrimp farming. Research data were collected from field surveys and enterprise production records to analyze the construction and farming processes of the aquaculture facilities. LCC analysis revealed that the life cycle cost was 3.56 USD kg−1 shrimp. The construction cost of the greenhouse was 4.58 USD m−2, with steel pipes and film materials being the dominant cost components. The total farming cost per cultivation cycle reached USD 3510.76 per greenhouse, of which feed (30.54%) and land rent (15.86%) were the primary expenses. This model achieved a net profit of USD 5.31 per m2 per cycle and a cost-profit ratio of 60.47%, values which are significantly higher than those reported for the Indoor Super-Intensive Culture (ISIC) model. LCA results demonstrated that the environmental impact per kilogram of shrimp produced via greenhouse aquaculture was characterized by a global warming potential (GWP) of 3.279 kg CO2 eq, an acidification potential (AP) of 0.369 kg SO2 eq, and a eutrophication potential (EP) of 0.212 kg PO4 equation Furthermore, the abiotic depletion potential (ADP) and human toxicity potential (HTP) were relatively low, at 0.002 kg Sb eq and 0.093 kg 1,4-DCB eq per kilogram of shrimp, respectively. The construction phase had the highest greenhouse gas emissions (GWP 1940.00 kg CO2 eq), mainly due to the consumption of steel (steel pipes accounting for 71.6% of CO2 emissions) and polymer materials. During the farming phase, the primary emissions per kilogram of shrimp produced were GWP (3.23 kg CO2 eq), AP (0.27 kg SO2 eq), and EP (0.212 kg PO4 eq). The findings indicate that this greenhouse model possesses considerable advantages in balancing economic output and risk management, rendering it suitable for promotion in appropriate regions. Further reductions in cost and environmental impact can be achieved by optimizing building material selection, implementing precision feeding strategies, and improving the energy utilization structure. These measures will enhance the economic and environmental benefits of greenhouse shrimp farming and promote the green development of the entire aquaculture industry.

In the mitigation policy, agricultural activities are gaining growing importance. International and national regulations require the use of sustainable production methods. This means that the attention focused on the current recommendations shifts from a set of minimum requirements to recognize environmental effects throughout the life cycle of products. Farming and food production are also expected to comply with the second pillar of sustainability which is related to the economic aspects of production. Important operational dimension of sustainability assessment is a concept of eco-efficiency, which is defined as creating more value or generating less cost with less environmental impact. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) are appropriate methodologies to investigate the eco-efficiency of production systems within the life cycle. The aim of the study was to perform the comparative analysis of cash crop production in different farming types by applying the LCA and LCC methods. Carbon Footprint (CF) was applied as a single most important measure of environmental impact of production. The study was conducted in 69 farms, located in the Wielkopolska and Lubelskie regions (Poland) during the period 2017-2018. The analysed farms represented key agricultural activities, according to the classification of the EU: a) milk production, b) pig production, c) field crops, d) mixed livestock production (pig and milk). The chosen types of production are represented by the largest number of farms in Poland. The selection of the study group, according to the set criteria, were based on the information of Wielkopolski and Lubelski Agricultural Advisory Centres. The LCA and LCC analysis were carried out in similar phases corresponding to LCA standard: goal and scope definition, environmental life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment and interpretation. In winter rape production average value of CF was equal to 1003 kg CO2 eq per 1 tonne of grain (functional unit). The highest value of CF was observed in milk farming in Wielkopolska region of 1254 kg CO2 eq. Average aggregated cost of production related to the functional unit was 1084 PLN, with the highest value of 1222 PLN found in the pig farming in Lubelski region. Preproduction phases linked with the direct inputs levels contributed mostly to a high overall cost of rape production in pig farming and to the CF value of winter rape in farms specialised in milk production. *This work is a part of a research project No. 2016/21/B/HS4/01963 financed by the National Science Centre, Poland.

Benchmarking sidestream shortcut nitrogen removal processes against nitrous oxide recovery from a life cycle perspective

Land development increases impervious surfaces, which requires the implementation of stormwater management solutions. Stormwater management solutions can be a significant cost of a development, as well as a significant contributor to the environmental impact on communities, either negative or positive, depending on the solution chosen and the environmental metric considered. Optimized stormwater solutions require participation from landowners, developers, engineers, community members, and government. When a development is installed on property with a stream and the various stakeholders seek optimized watershed outcomes, an opportunity also exists to improve downstream water quality. This dissertation uses environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) approaches, as well as a social ecological system (SES) framework to understand the environmental and economic implications and tradeoffs of achieving optimized stormwater and watershed management solutions in a community. The combination of these three approaches cover the three pillars of sustainability, namely environmental, economic and social. LCA and LCC methods are applied to compare four cradle-to-grave stormwater and watershed management solutions - stormwater pre-treatment wetland beds with floodplain restoration, underground stormwater infiltration basin (USIB) with stream bank restoration, permeable pavement with stream bank restoration, and surface basins with stream bank restoration, as well as several variants. The site used in the study is a nearly 40-hectare privately-owned new development in a rural area of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, with a watershed feeding the Chesapeake Bay. All solutions are sized to manage 15,000 m3 of stormwater per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for the industrial site development as planned for a 100-year lifetime of the stormwater management solution implemented as well as improvement to the downstream water quality. The LCA method is further applied to bound the cradle-to-gate environmental impact of plastic box and arch USIB stormwater management solutions per cubic meter of stormwater to be managed. Sensitivity analysis is performed on major factors identified in the LCA and LCC. With stormwater and watersheds in the United States being managed in a command and control style, citizens can feel like victims of regulations instead of being partners when embracing solutions [1]. With the involvement of stakeholders who value environmental health, solutions can be sought to not only manage stormwater but to also improve downstream water quality. People make decisions based on a variety of factors including technical data, cost estimates, and personal preference; to reach optimal solutions, input is required from all interested parties. The SES method is applied to three community environmental groups in one county in Pennsylvania to identify the crucial elements of the SES framework to achieve sustainable citizen involvement in stormwater and watershed management whereby those citizens provide grassroots support to implement optimized solutions. In the case study investigated in this dissertation, floodplain restoration and surface basins produce less than 10% of the global warming of the USIB and permeable paving solutions over a 100-year lifetime. For floodplain restoration and surface basins, the global warming potential resulting from the maintenance phase is slightly higher than the installation phase. For the global warming potential of permeable paving and USIB, the installation phase dominates. From a cost perspective, assuming a 5% discount rate over a 100-year lifetime, the floodplain restoration is 80% more costly than surface basins, but 60% of the cost of the permeable paving and less than 20% of the cost of the USIB. Installation phase costs are dominant for all scenarios. With limited LCA research on USIB structures, this first look at installation phase global warming impacts of USIB structures indicates that plastic arch structures, ranging from 55 to 210 kg CO₂ eq. per m3 stormwater, generally result in lower potential global warming impact; but there is significant overlap with plastic box structures, ranging from 70 to 430 CO₂ eq. per m3 stormwater. Therefore, site specific design layout will be important to analyze for each site to choose the best solution within the plastic USIB family of solutions. Analysis of citizen watershed alliance organizations in the Lancaster County geographic region via Ostrom's SES framework identifies the key factors of citizen members in addition to local governmental leadership and local chapters of national advocacy associations to achieve optimized solutions. Citizen involvement increases commitment and passion since citizens are often directly affected by the environmental impact of the projects and solutions selected. They may also be indirectly impacted by taxation for stormwater and watershed costs covered by governing bodies. Similarly, citizens may benefit from avoided taxpayer costs when partnering with business and industry for solutions that address stormwater and water quality improvements on a regional basis rather than only on a site by site basis. Keywords: Chesapeake Bay; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle costing; Social ecological systems; Stormwater; Sustainability

Differential effects of valuation method and ecosystem type on the monetary valuation of dryland ecosystem services: A quantitative analysis

Despite formal recognition of the need to incorporate multiple values in the assessment of ecosystem services, the operationalisation of a consistent integration of different types of values is still limited. This article assesses stakeholders’ perception and monetary (economic) values of ecosystem services delivered by the Kilombero wetland in Tanzania. A mixed-methods approach was employed, which included deliberative elements (diverse stakeholder focus groups) to recognise stakeholders’ perceptions on important ecosystem services alongside a survey to collect data on household characteristics, land use, status of ecosystem services and economic values of six provisioning ecosystem services (paddy production, maize production, water for domestic use, fishing, firewood and thatch grass). Findings revealed that stakeholder groups perceived the importance of ecosystem services differently. Analysis of the six provisioning ecosystem services in economic terms showed that paddy production generated the highest share of monetary value of about 56%. Furthermore, the study found out that there were differences in perceived and monetary values generated; for instance, paddy had much higher economic values than people acknowledged. The combined use of deliberative and monetary values is imperative in the assessment of ecosystem services as it will provide specific and complementary roles in supporting a management plan for the wetland ecosystem. EDITED BY Marta Berbés-Blázques

Environmental and economic assessment of hard apple cider using an integrated LCA-LCC approach

This study compares the environmental and economic impacts of three manufacturing methods for continuous fiber-reinforced composites: traditional autoclave molding (Scenario 1) and two 3D printing technologies, one using thermosetting resin (Scenario 2) and the other using thermoplastic resin (Scenario 3). Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analyses were performed for components with the same geometry, stiffness, and load capacity. Results show that Scenario 1 has the highest environmental impacts, of about 1.87 kg CO2 eq, primarily due to material waste and energy-intensive curing processes. In contrast, 3D printing minimizes material waste, reducing overall impacts to 1.39 kg CO2 eq, with the thermoplastic-based composites in Scenario 3 offering additional benefits through recyclability. However, due to their lower mechanical properties, thicker and heavier parts are required in Scenario 3, leading to higher impacts in structural applications. Scenario 2 presents a balanced solution with similar mechanical properties to traditional composites and lower environmental impacts (1.30 kg CO2 eq). From what concerns the total costs, Scenario 1 resulted as the most costly solution (€ 105.27), while Scenario 3 represents the cheapest alternative (about € 37.89) if high mechanical performances are not necessary. If high mechanical properties are required, the most sustainable alternative both economically and environmentally is represented by Scenario 2. The findings suggest that 3D printing is a promising, cost-effective alternative to traditional methods, particularly for non-structural applications, and point to future improvements in composite manufacturing through material optimization and recycling.

PurposeNowadays, hydroponic cultivation represents a widely used agricultural methodology. The purpose of this paper is to study comparatively on hydroponic substrates. This study is highlighting the best substrate to be involved in hydroponic systems, considering its costs and its sustainability.Design/methodology/approachSeven substrates were evaluated: rock wool, perlite, vermiculite, peat, coconut fibres, bark and sand. Life cycle assessment (life cycle inventory, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and life cycle costing (LCC)) was applied to evaluate the environmental and economic impact. Through the results of the impacts, the carbon footprint of each substrate was calculated.FindingsPerlite is the most impacting substrate, as highlighted by LCIA, followed by rock wool and vermiculite. The most sustainable ones, instead, are sand and bark. Sand has the lower carbon footprint (0.0121 kg CO2 eq.); instead, bark carbon footprint results in one of the highest (1.1197 kg CO2 eq.), while in the total impact analysis this substrate seems to be highly sustainable. Also for perlite the two results are in disagreement: it has a high total impact but very low carbon footprint (0.0209 kg CO2 eq.) compared to the other substrates. From the LCC analysis it appears that peat is the most expensive substrate (€6.67/1,000 cm3), while sand is the cheaper one (€0.26/1,000 cm3).Originality/valueThe LCA and carbon footprint methodologies were applied to a growing agriculture practice. This study has highlighted the economic and environmental sustainability of seven substrates examined. This analysis has shown that sand can be the best substrate to be involved in hydroponic systems by considering its costs and its sustainability.

The growing need for healthy and sustainable food alternatives has led to a rapid increase in vegan burgers on the market. Specifically, plant-based burgers using legumes as a protein substitute are amongst the most widespread choices for consumers. While these products can offer environmental benefits over traditional meat-based options, further optimization in both ecological and economic aspects can be achieved. This study conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) analysis to evaluate and optimize the environmental and economic life cycle of a legume-based vegan burger. LCA was performed in accordance with the recommendations of the ISO 14040 and 14044 series, and ReCiPe 2016 Hierarchist served as the impact assessment methodology. For this purpose, a base case scenario, relying on imported raw materials and conventional packaging for a legume-based vegan burger, was established to serve as the comparison benchmark, and various alternative scenarios were examined, focusing on minimizing the distance between cultivation and processing areas for key legume ingredients and improving packaging materials. The results indicate that reducing transportation distances for raw ingredients and using bio-polyethylene packaging significantly enhance sustainability. Specifically, the legume-based vegan burger of the base case scenario had a carbon footprint of 1.30 kg CO2 eq. and a total life cycle cost of EUR 2.43 per two pieces. In contrast, the optimized scenario, which incorporated shorter transportation distances and bio-polyethylene packaging, achieved a carbon footprint of 0.51 kg CO2 eq. and a reduced cost of EUR 2.37. The findings of the present work highlight the potential for further environmental and economic improvements in vegan burger production through logistics optimization and selection of climate-friendly packaging solutions, thus contributing to sustainable development.

Life cycle costing (LCC) is the state-of-the-art method to economically evaluate long-term projects over their life spans. However, uncertainty in long-range planning raises concerns about LCC results. In Part I of this series, we developed a holistic framework of the different types of uncertainty in infrastructure LCCs. We also collected methods to address these uncertainties. The aim of Part II is to evaluate the suitability of methods to cope with uncertainty in LCC. Part I addressed two research gaps. It presented a systematic collection of uncertainties and methods in LCC and, furthermore, provided a holistic categorization of both. However, Part I also raised new issues. First, a combined analysis of sources and methods is still outstanding. Such an investigation would reveal the suitability of different methods to address a certain type of uncertainty. Second, what has not been assessed so far is what types of uncertainty are insufficiently addressed in LCC. This would be a feature to improve accuracy of LCC results within LCC, by suggesting options to better cope with uncertainty. To address these research gaps, we conducted a systematic literature review. Part II analyzed the suitability of methods to address uncertainties. The suitability depends on data availability, type of data (tangible, intangible, random, non-random), screened hotspots, and tested modeling specifications. We identified types of uncertainties and methods that have been insufficiently addressed. The methods include probabilistic modeling such as design of experiment or subset simulation and evolutionary algorithm and Bayesian modeling such as the Bayesian latent Markov decision process. Subsequently, we evaluated learning potential from other life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This analysis revealed 28 possible applications that have not yet been used in LCC. Lastly, we developed best practices for LCC practitioners. This systematic review complements prior research on uncertainty in LCC for infrastructure, as laid out in Part I. Part II concludes that all relevant methods to address uncertainty are currently applied in LCC. Yet, the level of application is different. Moreover, not all methods are equally suited to address different categories of uncertainty. This review offers guidance on what to do for each source and type of uncertainty. It illustrates how methods can address both based on current practice in LCC, LCA, and LCSA. The findings of Part II encourage a dialog between practitioners of LCC, LCA, and LCSA to advance research and practice in uncertainty analysis.

Within a product system of a life-cycle assessment (LCA), solid waste landfills should be treated as processes, because they are considered to be a part of the technical system. Hence, their inputs and outputs should be included in the life-cycle inventory analysis and evaluated within the life-cycle impact assessment. The aim of this paper is to discuss the consideration of emissions from solid waste landfills within the LCA framework and to investigate the uncertainties in existing modelling approaches. Based on this analysis the main limitations are discussed and recommendations for incorporating long-term emissions from landfills in LCA are made. It is emphasized that the lack of consideration of spatial and temporal characteristics of long-term emissions turns out to be an important source of uncertainty when modelling the environmental impact of landfills. For toxicity categories in particular, the life-cycle impact assessment might be the dominant source of uncertainty. However, in order to understand the reliability of LCA results with respect to landfill emissions, quantitative uncertainty should be routinely included in LCA studies and sources of uncertainty need to be thoroughly discussed.

Circular utilization of urban tree waste contributes to the mitigation of climate change and eutrophication

Objectives. The objective of this Technical Brief is to assess the current use of life cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks in healthcare research and practice, understand the components of those frameworks, review LCA studies that have been conducted, and assess gaps in research and practice to guide future directions. Review methods. A scoping review combined with Key Informant interviews provided the input for the report. We searched a combination of biomedical (PubMed®); environmental (Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection, Environmental Science Database, Environment Index); and technical research (Web of Science, Scopus) databases for this interdisciplinary research topic. Gray literature sources included the research registries ClinicalTrials.gov, National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER, Environmental Protection Agency Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO), European Research Council projects, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for ongoing research. Citation screening involved two independent reviewers who screened full text, supported by machine learning. Data were abstracted in a pilot-tested database. Key Informants included experts in LCA frameworks, healthcare operations, developers of tools for healthcare organizations/providers, researchers, organizational policy, and industry. Findings. Searches identified 5,430 citations, of which 836 were obtained as full text; 178 publications met eligibility criteria. We identified nine LCA frameworks, the majority of which were adapted rather than developed for healthcare, using existing frameworks for LCA on residential construction, financial reporting, health technology assessment, and handprint analysis. The frameworks were published in the last 5 years and were not found to be applied in any other study. In total, we identified 164 LCAs published in the scientific literature, primarily originating in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Additional literature originated from Canada and Asian, European, and Latin American countries. Approximately a third of the studies were published by U.S.-based researchers. The studies explored a wide range of topics, from medical devices, products, and surgeries, to emissions from healthcare systems. The majority of studies addressed the full life cycle, from cradle to grave. Key Informants emphasized the importance of LCA to support reduction of healthcare emissions and waste, but noted time and resource limitations for conducting LCAs in clinical practice. The registered studies on frameworks and future research is sparse; we identified eight relevant projects. Conclusion. LCA frameworks were mainly adapted for healthcare and there is a need to develop a healthcare-specific LCA framework. Future research may need to focus on less resource intensive LCA methods to address the multitude of timely decisions that need to be made in routine healthcare operations. Future work should focus on developing scalable solutions that can be rapidly adopted and implemented in disparate healthcare settings. To address gaps, research should include development of a healthcare-specific life cycle inventory database, a healthcare-specific LCA methodology, and study reporting guidelines to ensure robustness of the LCA studies. It is critical for healthcare to understand the sector’s role in climate change, to assess the impacts from healthcare delivery, and to address healthcare industry waste and greenhouse gas emissions.