IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i10p2060-d170981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China

Author

Listed:
  • Shanshan Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University, No. 159, Longpan Road, Nanjing 210037, China
    Research Center for Economics and Trade in Forest Products of the State Forestry Administration (SINO-RCETFOR), No. 159, Longpan Road, Nanjing 210037, China)

  • Weifeng Wang

    (College of Biology and the Environment, Nanjing Forestry University, No. 159, Longpan Road, Nanjing 210037, China
    Co-Innovation Center for the Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Nanjing Forestry University, No. 159, Longpan Road, Nanjing 210037, China)

  • Hongqiang Yang

    (College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University, No. 159, Longpan Road, Nanjing 210037, China
    Center for the Yangtze River Delta’s Socioeconomic Development, Nanjing University, No. 22 Hankou Road, Nanjing 210093, China)

Abstract

Carbon footprint (CF) analysis is widely used to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a product during its life cycle. A number of protocols, such as Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, GHG Protocol Product Standard (GHG Protocol), and ISO 14067 Carbon Footprint of Products (ISO 14067), have been developed for CF calculations. This study aims to compare the criteria and implications of the three protocols. The medium-density fiberboard (MDF) (functional unit: 1 m 3 ) has been selected as a case study to illustrate this comparison. Different criteria, such as the life cycle stage included, cut-off criteria, biogenic carbon treatment, and other requirements, were discussed. A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA) for MDF was conducted. The CF values were −667.75, −658.42, and 816.92 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) with PAS 2050, GHG protocol, and ISO 14067, respectively. The main reasons for the different results obtained were the application of different cut-off criteria, exclusion rules, and the treatment of carbon storage. A cradle-to-grave assessment (end-of-life scenarios: landfill and incineration) was also performed to identify opportunities for improving MDF production. A sensitivity analysis to assess the implications of different end-of-life disposals was conducted, indicating that landfill may be preferable from a GHG standpoint. The comparison of these three protocols provides insights for adopting appropriate methods to calculate GHG emissions for the MDF industry. A key finding is that for both LCA practitioners and policy-makers, PAS 2050 is preferentially recommended to assess the CF of MDF.

Suggested Citation

  • Shanshan Wang & Weifeng Wang & Hongqiang Yang, 2018. "Comparison of Product Carbon Footprint Protocols: Case Study on Medium-Density Fiberboard in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:10:p:2060-:d:170981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/10/2060/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/10/2060/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wu, Peng & Xia, Bo & Wang, Xiangyu, 2015. "The contribution of ISO 14067 to the evolution of global greenhouse gas standards—A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 142-150.
    2. Tao Gao & Qing Liu & Jianping Wang, 2014. "A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 237-243.
    3. Fei Lun & Moucheng Liu & Dan Zhang & Wenhua Li & Junguo Liu, 2016. "Life Cycle Analysis of Carbon Flow and Carbon Footprint of Harvested Wood Products of Larix principis-rupprechtii in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Whittaker, Carly & McManus, Marcelle C. & Hammond, Geoffrey P., 2011. "Greenhouse gas reporting for biofuels: A comparison between the RED, RTFO and PAS2050 methodologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 5950-5960, October.
    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. Astrid Weyand & Phillip Bausch & Benedikt Engel & Joachim Metternich & Matthias Weigold, 2023. "Analysis of Uncertainty Factors in Part-Specific Greenhouse Gas Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.

    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. Kai Xue & Md. Uzzal Hossain & Meng Liu & Mingjun Ma & Yizhi Zhang & Mengqiang Hu & XiaoYi Chen & Guangyu Cao, 2021. "BIM Integrated LCA for Promoting Circular Economy towards Sustainable Construction: An Analytical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Manninen, Kaisa & Koskela, Sirkka & Nuppunen, Anni & Sorvari, Jaana & Nevalainen, Olli & Siitonen, Sari, 2013. "The applicability of the renewable energy directive calculation to assess the sustainability of biogas production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 549-557.
    3. Whittaker, Carly & Borrion, Aiduan Li & Newnes, Linda & McManus, Marcelle, 2014. "The renewable energy directive and cereal residues," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 207-215.
    4. Aditya Prana Iswara & Aulia Ulfah Farahdiba & Rachmat Boedisantoso & Anwar Rosyid & Sunu Priambodo & Lin-Han Chiang Hsieh, 2023. "Carbon footprint of offshore platform in Indonesia using life cycle approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(10), pages 11263-11284, October.
    5. Rainer Kasperzak & Marko Kureljusic & Lucas Reisch & Simon Thies, 2023. "Accounting for Carbon Emissions—Current State of Sustainability Reporting Practice under the GHG Protocol," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Tam, Vivian W.Y. & Le, Khoa N. & Zeng, S.X. & Wang, Xiangyu & Illankoon, I.M. Chethana S., 2017. "Regenerative practice of using photovoltaic solar systems for residential dwellings: An empirical study in Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Fabio Menten & Benoît Chèze & Laure Patouillard & Frédérique Bouvart, 2013. "The use of Meta-Regression Analysis to harmonize LCA literature: an application to GHG emissions of 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels," Working Papers 2013/01, INRA, Economie Publique.
    8. Cristiane Karyn de Carvalho Araújo & Rodrigo Salvador & Cassiano Moro Piekarski & Carla Cristiane Sokulski & Antonio Carlos de Francisco & Sâmique Kyene de Carvalho Araújo Camargo, 2019. "Circular Economy Practices on Wood Panels: A Bibliographic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Oliver Lange & Julian Plath & Timo F. Dziggel & David F. Karpa & Mattis Keil & Tom Becker & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2022. "A Transparency Checklist for Carbon Footprint Calculations Applied within a Systematic Review of Virtual Care Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-14, June.
    10. Natalia V. Starodubets & Irina S. Belik & Natalia L. Nikulina & Tamila T. Alikberova, 2023. "Assessment and Forecasting of Metallurgical Enterprises Carbon Footprint in the Sverdlovsk Region," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 22(3), pages 572-599.
    11. Menten, Fabio & Chèze, Benoît & Patouillard, Laure & Bouvart, Frédérique, 2013. "A review of LCA greenhouse gas emissions results for advanced biofuels: The use of meta-regression analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 108-134.
    12. Mohr, Alison & Raman, Sujatha, 2013. "Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 114-122.
    13. Xiaorong Sun & Xueping Pan & Chenhao Jin & Yihan Li & Qijie Xu & Danxu Zhang & Hongyang Li, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment-Based Carbon Footprint Accounting Model and Analysis for Integrated Energy Stations in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Khatiwada, Dilip & Seabra, Joaquim & Silveira, Semida & Walter, Arnaldo, 2012. "Accounting greenhouse gas emissions in the lifecycle of Brazilian sugarcane bioethanol: Methodological references in European and American regulations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 384-397.
    15. Fang, Zigeng & Yan, Jiayi & Lu, Qiuchen & Chen, Long & Yang, Pu & Tang, Junqing & Jiang, Feng & Broyd, Tim & Hong, Jingke, 2023. "A systematic literature review of carbon footprint decision-making approaches for infrastructure and building projects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 335(C).
    16. Mengwan Zhang & Ning Ma & Youneng Yang, 2023. "Carbon Footprint Assessment and Efficiency Measurement of Wood Processing Industry Based on Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.
    17. Adams, P.W.R. & Mezzullo, W.G. & McManus, M.C., 2015. "Biomass sustainability criteria: Greenhouse gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 95-109.
    18. Fengsong Pei & Rui Zhong & Li-An Liu & Yingjuan Qiao, 2021. "Decoupling the Relationships between Carbon Footprint and Economic Growth within an Urban Agglomeration—A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, September.
    19. Eugene Yin Cheung Wong & Danny C. K. Ho & Stuart So & Mark Ching‐Pong Poo, 2022. "Sustainable consumption and production: Modelling product carbon footprint of beverage merchandise using a supply chain input‐process‐output approach," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 175-188, January.
    20. Monteleone, Massimo & Cammerino, Anna Rita Bernadette & Garofalo, Pasquale & Delivand, Mitra Kami, 2015. "Straw-to-soil or straw-to-energy? An optimal trade off in a long term sustainability perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 891-899.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:10:p:2060-:d:170981. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.