IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v73y2013icp211-228.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based materials – Reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Pawelzik, P.
  • Carus, M.
  • Hotchkiss, J.
  • Narayan, R.
  • Selke, S.
  • Wellisch, M.
  • Weiss, M.
  • Wicke, B.
  • Patel, M.K.

Abstract

Concerns over non-renewable fossil fuel supply and climate change have been driving the Renaissance of bio-based materials. To substantiate environmental claims, the impacts of bio-based materials are typically quantified by applying life cycle assessment (LCA). The internationally agreed LCA standards provide generic recommendations on how to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and services but do not address details that are specifically relevant for the life cycles of bio-based materials. Here, we provide an overview of key issues and methodologies explicitly pertinent to the LCA of bio-based materials. We argue that the treatment of biogenic carbon storage is critical for quantifying the greenhouse gas emissions of bio-based materials in comparison with petrochemical materials. We acknowledge that biogenic carbon storage remains controversial but recommend accounting for it, depending on product-specific life cycles and the likely time duration of carbon storage. If carbon storage is considered, co-product allocation is nontrivial and should be chosen with care in order to: (i) ensure that carbon storage is assigned to the main product and the co-product(s) in the intended manner and (ii) avoid double counting of stored carbon in the main product and once more in the co-product(s). Land-use change, soil degradation, water use, and impacts on soil carbon stocks and biodiversity are important aspects that have recently received attention. We explain various approaches to account for these and conclude that substantial methodological progress is necessary, which is however hampered by the complex and often case- and site-specific nature of impacts. With the exception of soil degradation, we recommend preliminary approaches for including these impacts in the LCA of bio-based materials. The use of attributional versus consequential LCA approaches is particularly relevant in the context of bio-based materials. We conclude that it is more challenging to prepare accurate consequential LCA studies, especially because these should account for future developments and secondary impacts around bio-based materials which are often difficult to anticipate and quantify. Although hampered by complexity and limited data availability, the application of the proposed approaches to the extent possible would allow obtaining a more comprehensive insight into the environmental impacts of the production, use, and disposal of bio-based materials.

Suggested Citation

  • Pawelzik, P. & Carus, M. & Hotchkiss, J. & Narayan, R. & Selke, S. & Wellisch, M. & Weiss, M. & Wicke, B. & Patel, M.K., 2013. "Critical aspects in the life cycle assessment (LCA) of bio-based materials – Reviewing methodologies and deriving recommendations," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 211-228.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:73:y:2013:i:c:p:211-228
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344913000359
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jane C. Bare, 2002. "Traci: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 6(3‐4), pages 49-78, July.
    2. Martin Weiss & Juliane Haufe & Michael Carus & Miguel Brandão & Stefan Bringezu & Barbara Hermann & Martin K. Patel, 2012. "A Review of the Environmental Impacts of Biobased Materials," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(s1), pages 169-181, April.
    3. van Dam, J. & Junginger, M. & Faaij, A.P.C., 2010. "From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(9), pages 2445-2472, December.
    4. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. William H. Schlesinger & John Lichter, 2001. "Limited carbon storage in soil and litter of experimental forest plots under increased atmospheric CO2," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6836), pages 466-469, May.
    6. Annie Levasseur & Miguel Brandão & Pascal Lesage & Manuele Margni & David Pennington & Roland Clift & Réjean Samson, 2012. "Valuing temporary carbon storage," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 6-8, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Risse, Michael & Weber-Blaschke, Gabriele & Richter, Klaus, 2017. "Resource efficiency of multifunctional wood cascade chains using LCA and exergy analysis, exemplified by a case study for Germany," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 141-152.
    2. Cambero, Claudia & Hans Alexandre, Mariane & Sowlati, Taraneh, 2015. "Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of bioenergy generation alternatives using forest and wood residues in remote locations: A case study in British Columbia, Canada," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 105(PA), pages 59-72.
    3. Huysveld, Sophie & De Meester, Steven & Van linden, Veerle & Muylle, Hilde & Peiren, Nico & Lauwers, Ludwig & Dewulf, Jo, 2015. "Cumulative Overall Resource Efficiency Assessment (COREA) for comparing bio-based products with their fossil-derived counterparts," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 113-127.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beike Sumfleth & Stefan Majer & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "Recent Developments in Low iLUC Policies and Certification in the EU Biobased Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-34, October.
    2. Buytaert, V. & Muys, B. & Devriendt, N. & Pelkmans, L. & Kretzschmar, J.G. & Samson, R., 2011. "Towards integrated sustainability assessment for energetic use of biomass: A state of the art evaluation of assessment tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(8), pages 3918-3933.
    3. Albers, Ariane & Collet, Pierre & Lorne, Daphné & Benoist, Anthony & Hélias, Arnaud, 2019. "Coupling partial-equilibrium and dynamic biogenic carbon models to assess future transport scenarios in France," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 316-330.
    4. Milazzo, M.F. & Spina, F. & Cavallaro, S. & Bart, J.C.J., 2013. "Sustainable soy biodiesel," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 806-852.
    5. Panichelli, Luis & Gnansounou, Edgard, 2015. "Impact of agricultural-based biofuel production on greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change: Key modelling choices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 344-360.
    6. Jianliang Wang & Yuru Yang & Yongmei Bentley & Xu Geng & Xiaojie Liu, 2018. "Sustainability Assessment of Bioenergy from a Global Perspective: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Brinkman, Marnix L.J. & Wicke, Birka & Faaij, André P.C. & van der Hilst, Floor, 2019. "Projecting socio-economic impacts of bioenergy: Current status and limitations of ex-ante quantification methods," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    8. García, Carlos A. & Manzini, Fabio & Islas, Jorge M., 2017. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol production from two crops in Mexico," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1199-1207.
    9. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François, 2011. "Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1630-1646, March.
    10. Popp, J. & Lakner, Z. & Harangi-Rákos, M. & Fári, M., 2014. "The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 559-578.
    11. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    12. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    13. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    14. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    15. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    16. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    17. repec:fpr:ifprib:2012ghienglish is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    19. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    20. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    21. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:73:y:2013:i:c:p:211-228. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.