Trust, gut feeling, and life cycle assessment: angel approaches to sustainability impact assessments

The sustainable use of renewable resources has become an important issue worldwide in the move towards a less fossil-fuel-intensive future. Mainstream method for fulfilling this aim is to increase the share of renewable energy and materials to substitute fossil fuels and to become fully independent from fossil fuels over the long-term. However, the environmental sustainability of this endeavor has been questioned. In addition, economic and social sustainability issues are also much debated topics in this particular context. Forest resources are often thought to contribute partially to achieving a so-called “carbon-neutral society”. In this review, we discuss sustainability issues of using forest biomass. We present several sustainability indicators for ecological, economic and social dimensions and discuss the issues in applying them in sustainability impact assessments (SIAs). We also present a number of tools and methods previously used in conducting SIAs. We approach our study from the perspective of the Finnish forestry; in addition, various aspects regarding the application of SIAs in a broader context are also presented. One of the key conclusions of the study is that although sufficient data are available to measure many indicators accurately, the impacts may be very difficult to assess (e.g. impact of greenhouse gases on biodiversity) for conducting a holistic SIA. Furthermore, some indicators, such as “biodiversity”, are difficult to quantify in the first place. Therefore, a mix of different methods, such as Multi-criteria Assessment, Life-cycle Assessment or Cost-Benefit Analysis, as well as different approaches (e.g. thresholds and strong/weak sustainability) are needed in aggregating the results of the impacts. SIAs are important in supporting and improving the acceptability of decision-making, but a certain degree of uncertainty will always have to be tolerated.Highlights•Forest bioeconomy involves a range of multidimensional impacts.•A variety of methods exist to assess and evaluate sustainability.•Social sustainability is the most case-specific dimension to assess.•Indicators used in SIAs need case-specific considerations.•More consistency is needed regarding the concept and terminology of sustainability.

Systemising gender integration with rural stakeholders' sustainability impact assessments: A case study with three low-input upgrading strategies

The chapter deals with sustainable land use in the Anthropocene. We present a framework for sustainability impact assessment (SIA), which is a tool to support political decision-making concerning sustainable human space usage. The debate on the Anthropocene calls for social science approaches for an integrative and spatially explicit SIA of land use changes. It influences scientific approaches to the SIA of land use changes due to increasing evidence that planetary boundaries are being exceeded by humankind and that societal value systems are changing. We argue that, in order to correctly identify land use claims, SIA approaches are required that include a representation of humankind as a major geological driver of land use changes. In future SIA research, anthropogenic land use claims and patterns should be linked with the boundaries of bio-geophysical thresholds of the Earth system. This will help to integrate the knowledge base on sustainability gains and deficits of land use changes when addressing issues of global governance.

List of Authors.- List of Authors.- Sustainability Impact Assessment: concepts and approaches.- Ex-ante Impact Assessments (IA) in the European Commission - an overview.- Impact Assessment in the European Commission in relation to Multifunctional Land Use.- An institutional analysis of land use modelling in the European Commission.- Ex ante impact assessment of land use changes in European regions - the SENSOR approach.- Transfer into decision support: The Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT).- Scenario modelling of land use changes.- Scenarios: Driving forces and policies.- Cross sector land use modelling framework.- Tourism geography in Europe.- Landscape level simulation of land use change.- Spatial representation and data issues for European regions.- Regional socio-economic profiles for assessment of European land use related policies: the SENSOR experience.- A Spatial Regional Reference Framework for Sustainability Assessment in Europe.- Requirements for data management and maintenance to support regional land use research.- European level indicator framework.- An indicator framework for analysing sustainability impacts of land use change.- Indicators for assessing the environmental impacts of land use change across Europe.- Reflections on Social and Economic Indicators for Land Use Change.- Weighting and aggregation of indicators for sustainability impact assessment in the SENSOR context.- Regional and local evaluation.- Land use functions - a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability.- Limits and targets for a regional sustainability assessment: an interdisciplinary exploration of the threshold concept.- Sustainability Impact Assessments: limits, thresholds and the Sustainability Choice Space.- Key sustainability issues in European sensitive areas - a participatory approach.- Key sustainability issues and the spatial classification of sensitive regions in Europe.

ABSTRACTThere is a variety of different methods for carrying out sustainability impact assessments of energy value chains. The different methods can use the same, or similarly named, indicators, but the methods make different assumptions about the system boundaries and differ in the purpose of the assessment, and this can lead to confusion when communicating the results of different studies. A method expansion of Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) was developed and tested to allow comparison of environmental indicators of energy use and generation, energy balance and greenhouse gas emission as calculated according to three different methods: (1) direct value chain environmental impacts (referred to as SIA in this paper), (2) direct plus indirect impacts following a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, and (3) a method based on European Sustainability Criteria (ESC) for solid biomass. The Tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment (ToSIA 2.0) was used for this method expansion. Indicator values following the three different approaches were calculated for a typical Nordic bioenergy harvesting chain producing forest wood chips. The indicator values for SIA, LCA and ESC are made comparable side by side, and give thus more insight on the difference and purpose of the three different methods when applied to the same harvesting chain.

SHARE IT: Co-designing a sustainability impact assessment framework for urban food sharing initiatives

Sustainable agricultural development is fundamental to food security and poverty alleviation, notably in developing countries. Many development initiatives focus on the enhancement of smallholder production and productivity because the majority of poor people in developing countries live in rural areas where agriculture is the main source of livelihood. The consequences of these development initiatives need to be assessed before implementation to reduce the risk of possible negative impacts. This can be done by applying ex ante sustainability impact assessment. Here, we compare methods of assessment of sustainability impact for farming interventions. We review methodological approaches and verify whether the requirements of sustainability impact assessment theory are fulfilled. Our major points are the following: (1) main methodological approaches do not fulfill the requirements defined in the theoretical sustainability impact assessment discourse. (2) The active involvement of different stakeholder groups throughout the assessment process and the possibility of learning and exchange are fundamental to sustainability impact assessment. (3) The institutional dimension of sustainability is not yet sufficiently integrated. We therefore suggest institutional criteria and indicators to be also considered in the sustainability impact assessment framework. We argue that sustainability impact assessment, respecting the interactive involvement of all stakeholder groups throughout the whole process, is a compulsory element in project planning for a sustainable agricultural development in developing countries.

The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Böhringer and Löschel (2006)

This paper presents the results of a sustainability impact assessment (SIA) of policy induced land use changes in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The regional problems include rapid expansions of urban areas, due to high population pressure, and the conversion of paddy fields and forests into settlements. The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of two land use policies on social, economic, and environmental Land Use Functions (LUFs) in Yogyakarta. The following scenarios were developed for the SIA: a forest protection scenario (S1), a paddy field conservation scenario (S2), and a counterfactual (no policy) scenario of ‘Business As Usual’ (BAU). The Framework for Participatory Impact Assessment (FoPIA) was applied to conduct an expert-based impact assessment. For the specification of the regional sustainability context, a set of nine key LUFs and associated indicators were developed, including three social, three economic, and three environmental sustainability criteria. The resulting scenario impacts of the assessment differed considerably, with positive impacts of the S1 and S2 scenarios on seven of nine LUFs, and negative impacts of the BAU scenario on six LUFs. The perception of the FoPIA method by the regional stakeholders was positive. We conclude that this method contributes toward an enhanced regional understanding of policy effects and sustainability, particularly in data-poor environments.

Global challenges are increasing for the design of sustainable infrastructure and buildings for engineers. These include resource constraints and limited availability of water. Climate change from increasing greenhouse gas emissions is changing precipitation patterns, putting further constraints on resources. Incorporating sustainable practices into infrastructure projects is becoming increasingly important. However, there are many challenges related to this. Tools and frameworks for sustainability impact assessments have been developed to assist in the decision-making process. Environmental and economic indicators are well developed but social aspects are more difficult to quantify. This paper examines selected tools and frameworks and the requirement for future developments. Sustainability in engineering design is essential for working towards the UN Sustainability Development Goals.

Purpose of ReviewOne of the challenges of forest operations is to consider the consequences of different management strategies and to estimate the economic, environmental and social performance of different processes, products, or services. From the methods available to quantify the impact of alternative forest management, we selected the method of Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA), an iterative process that includes the analysis of the societal, environmental, and economic sustainability pillars and offers a wider assessment framework, which is useful for stakeholders and policy makers. The purpose of this review is to identify the state of the art and trends of SIA in forest operations.Recent FindingsThere are few studies including all pillars of sustainability and most of the studies consider different aspects of environmental or economic impacts. It is important to determine the system boundaries and select the appropriate indicators in order to have a comprehensive SIA. Different harvesting technologies and their deployment can influence costs, productivity, environment, and safety risk. Some indicators, such as cost and productivity, can vary between countries and different scenarios.SummaryEfficient machines, appropriate technical systems, innovative products, and up-to date training of operators can have a positive impact on sustainability. Economic factors can change at a rapid pace, and new machines can play a positive role in forest operations (e.g., lower fuel consumption, higher level of safety and comfort for operators). The inclusion of indicators measuring the extra value of the forest should be considered. We suggest adopting sensitivity analysis during the assessment of key processes to observe the effect on the hot spots.

The global food production industry is responsible for producing high levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Along the entire food supply chain (FSC), potential for mitigation exists because approximately one-third of all food globally produced is wasted, equivalent to 1.3 billion tons per year. On a global scale, emissions from livestock production are about 4600–7100 Mt CO2-eq/year when considered over the whole life cycle. These numbers represent roughly 9.4–14.5% of the total global GHG emissions. In Austria, the livestock sector was responsible for producing about 11.6% of the total GHG emissions in 2012 as a result of the production of about 909,000 t of meat. A high potential for mitigation of GHG emissions from livestock production exists, especially during the farming and production phases. A reduction in meat waste would, in the long-term, directly reduce GHG emissions stemming from livestock production. Two scenarios were considered to assess the GHG mitigation potential of waste from meat production: a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario and a reduction (RED) scenario (assuming a one-third reduction in waste from meat production in Austria). Because food waste is influenced by several phenomena along the FSC, taking an approach such as the life cycle assessment (LCA) offers only a partial solution. By using a Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) approach, researchers can consider social, economic and ecological impacts. It is possible to analyze and compare food waste reduction potentials through the use of such a tool, which can support GHG mitigation efforts in terms of their social, environmental and economic contribution to the livestock and meat processing sector. This approach allowed the identification of indicators that contribute to all sustainability dimensions and support the conclusion that preventing waste from meat processing would save at least 4.8 Mt CO2-eq emissions per year in Austria, which represented 6% of Austria’s total CO2-eq emissions in 2012.

Salinisation is a threat not only to arable land but also to freshwater resources. Nevertheless, salinisation impacts have been rarely and only partially included in life cycle assessment (LCA) so far. The objectives of this review paper were to give a comprehensive overview of salinisation mechanisms due to human interventions, analyse the completeness, relevance and scientific robustness of existing published methods addressing salinisation in LCA and provide recommendations towards a comprehensive integration of salinisation within the impact modelling frameworks in LCA. First, with the support of salinisation experts and related literature, we highlighted multiple causes of soil and water salinisation and presented induced effects on human health, ecosystems and resources. Second, existing life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods addressing salinisation were analysed against the International Reference Life Cycle Data System analysis grid of the European Commission. Third, adopting a holistic approach, the modelling options for salinisation impacts were analysed in agreement with up-to-date LCIA frameworks and models. We proposed a categorisation of salinisation processes in four main types based on salinisation determinism: land use change, irrigation, brine disposal and overuse of a water body. For each salinisation type, key human management and biophysical factors involved were identified. Although the existing methods addressing salinisation in LCA are important and relevant contributions, they are often incomplete with regards to both the salinisation pathways they address and their geographical validity. Thus, there is a lack of a consistent framework for salinisation impact assessment in LCA. In analysing existing LCIA models, we discussed the inventory and impact assessment boundary options. The land use/land use change framework represents a good basis for the integration of salinisation impacts due to a land use change but should be completed to account for off-site impacts. Conversely, the land use/land use change framework is not appropriate to model salinisation due to irrigation, overuse of a water body and brine disposal. For all salinisation pathways, a bottom-up approach describing the environmental mechanisms (fate, exposure and effect) is recommended rather than an empirical or top-down approach because (i) salts and water are mobile and theirs effects are interconnected; (ii) water and soil characteristics vary greatly spatially; (iii) this approach allows the evaluation of both on- and off-site impacts and (iv) it is the best way to discriminate systems and support a reliable eco-design. This paper highlights the importance of including salinisation impacts in LCA. Much research effort is still required to include salinisation impacts in a global, consistent and operational manner in LCA, and this paper provides the basis for future methodological developments.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) plays a crucial role in sustainability evaluations and impact assessments, especially in the field of environmentally and eco-friendly materials or system production and building design for the construction sector. However, stakeholders and professionals tend to use LCA mainly to develop an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) or assess building sustainability certification. This research investigates the possibility of using the LCA results to assess the potential for further mitigation of the environmental impacts on the construction industry. Starting from a previous study on the steel construction value chain performed by authors to develop two steel product datasets for the Italian LCA database, this work aims to identify how sensitivity analysis can guide industries in choosing sustainability strategies to mitigate their impacts further. The study focuses the sensitivity analyses only on one specific sustainability strategy for each of the two previously analyzed steel products (A. beams and angles and B. hollow sections), thus potentially limiting the generalizability of findings to a broader range of sustainability strategies but demonstrating the feasibility of the proposed method and its replicability to other products and production scenarios.

Sub-optimal dietary patterns make major contributions to the Global Burden of Disease and are among the most pressing issues affecting human health. Consequently, they are key to consider when assessing the human health and other environmental impacts of foods and diets within life cycle assessments. The UN Environment Life Cycle Initiative convened a task force on nutrition-related human health impacts as part of the Global Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method (GLAM) project. The health impacts of dietary patterns can be expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), in line with reporting human health impacts of other impact categories within the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework. The task force held a workshop with nutrition experts to receive guidance in its process to develop a consensus-based impact assessment framework for addressing nutrition-related health impacts in LCIA. The workshop aimed to (1) evaluate the general assessment framework, (2) discuss scientific questions for quantifying human health impacts from nutrition for food items and diets, and (3) provide initial guidance for further development. The proposed framework based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) risk ratios was regarded as a good starting point to assess the relative health risks of the general population, provided that the dietary context is considered and several limitations, such as incomplete disease coverage, are acknowledged. The experts advised against a potentially misleading use of adult-derived dietary risk factors for children. To improve global coverage of the GLAM framework, it is important to consider a wider range of dietary patterns. The experts also recommended using a metric complementary to DALYs, such as nutrient adequacy, also considering, e.g., vitamin A and iron, to complement the assessment.