Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the Arctic: Challenges and Research Needs

Johan Pettersen,Xingqiang Song

doi:10.3390/su9091605

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used for environmental assessment of products and production processes to support environmental decision-making both worldwide and in the Arctic. However, there are several weaknesses in the impact assessment methodology in LCA, e.g., related to uncertainties of impact assessment results, absence of spatial differentiation in characterization modeling, and gaps in the coverage of impact pathways of different “archetypal” environments. Searching for a new resource base and areas for operation, marine and marine-based industries are continuously moving north, which underlines the need for better life cycle impact assessment in the Arctic, particularly to aid in industrial environmental management systems and stakeholder communications. This paper aims to investigate gaps and challenges in the application of the currently available impact assessment methods in the Arctic context. A simplified Arctic mining LCA case study was carried out to demonstrate the relevance of Arctic emissions at the midpoint and endpoint levels, as well as possible influences of the Arctic context on the impact assessment results. Results of this study showed that significant research gaps remain in Arctic-dependent life cycle impact assessment, particularly on: (i) the possible influences of the Arctic-specific features on characterization factors for impact assessment (such as seasonality, cold climate, precipitation, and marine dependence); and (ii) the coverage of impact pathways, especially on the under-addressed marine impacts and marine/near-shore dispersion processes. Addressing those identified research gaps and demand for future Arctic life cycle impact assessment could increase the credibility of LCA as an environmental decision-making support tool for Arctic industries and better support sustainable Arctic development.

Highlights

Sustainable development in the Arctic has attracted growing attention within the North Polar Region and beyond, largely owing to environmental challenges and emerging human interventions
Influences of the Arctic Context on Impact Assessment in the Mining Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Case Study. In this pre-study, we identified some possible Arctic-induced uncertainty sources of the impact assessment results from the Arctic mining LCA case study, which serves as a basis for further discussions about research needs of future Arctic LCAs in general
Including Arctic characteristics in Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is likely to eschew the importance of onsite (Arctic) emissions relative to those occurring in non-Arctic regions upstream or downstream in the value-chain

Summary

Introduction

Sustainable development in the Arctic has attracted growing attention within the North Polar Region and beyond, largely owing to environmental challenges and emerging human interventions. Because of low temperatures and low biological activity, pollutants in the Arctic tend to persist for long periods of time in the environment and pose health risks to local ecosystems and humans [3]. The expected increase in Arctic industrial activities, such as Arctic shipping and exploration of resources, could potentially cause negative impacts on the local environment, which needs to be assessed in a prospective manner. Besides the long-range transport of pollutants, local pollutants from industrial activities in the Arctic could lead to increased pollutant concentrations in the environment and bioaccumulation in food chains. In support of sustainable Arctic development, it is crucial to understand the impacts of local emissions from emerging industrial activities on the Arctic environment in a holistic and proactive way to avoid the late-recognition syndrome of environmental problems. The current impact assessment models are still in their infancy, especially in the development of some important water- and land-related impact categories, incorporating spatial and temporal differentiation, and addressing ecosystem services [11] and marine ecological impacts [12]

Objectives

Results

Conclusion