IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i10p6144-d818500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Land Use Efficiencies and Land Quality Impacts of Renewable Transportation Energy Systems for Passenger Cars Using the LANCA ® Method

Author

Listed:
  • Ville Uusitalo

    (Department of Sustainability Science, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT, Mukkulankatu 19, 15210 Lahti, Finland)

  • Rafael Horn

    (Department of Life Cycle Engineering, University of Stuttgart, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
    Department of Life Cycle Engineering, Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Stephanie D. Maier

    (Department of Life Cycle Engineering, University of Stuttgart, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany
    Department of Life Cycle Engineering, Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, 70563 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

Targets to reduce global warming impacts of the transportation sector may lead to increased land use and negative land quality changes. The aim of this paper is to implement the Land Use Indicator Calculation in Life Cycle Assessment (LANCA ® ) model to assess land quality impacts and land use efficiencies (concerning occupation and transformation) of different example renewable transport energy systems for passenger cars. In addition, the land use impacts are normalized according to the Soil Quality Index building on LANCA ® and included in the environmental footprint. The assessment is based on information from GaBi life cycle assessment software databases and on literature. Functional unit of the model is to provide annual drive of 18,600 km for a passenger car in the EU. The analysis includes examples of biomass, electricity, electricity to fuels and fossil-based energy systems. Our findings confirm previous research that biomass-based transport energy systems have risks to lead to significantly higher land occupation and transformation impacts than do fossil oil or electricity-based ones. According to the LANCA ® model, methane from Finnish wood and German corn has the highest impacts on filtration and the physicochemical filtration reduction potential. Sugarcane ethanol and palm oil diesel systems, on the other hand, lead to the highest erosion potential. Electricity-based transportation energy systems appear to be superior to biomass-based ones from the perspectives of land occupation, land transformation, and soil quality impacts for the selected examples. Land quality impacts should be taken into account when developing and expanding renewable transportation energy systems. The paper shows that the LANCA ® method is applicable for the assessment of transport systems in order to provide extended information on environmental sustainability, which should be included more often in future analysis. However, it can be challenging to interpret underlaying assumptions, especially when aggregated information is used from databases.

Suggested Citation

  • Ville Uusitalo & Rafael Horn & Stephanie D. Maier, 2022. "Assessing Land Use Efficiencies and Land Quality Impacts of Renewable Transportation Energy Systems for Passenger Cars Using the LANCA ® Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6144-:d:818500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6144/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/6144/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pasquale Borrelli & David A. Robinson & Larissa R. Fleischer & Emanuele Lugato & Cristiano Ballabio & Christine Alewell & Katrin Meusburger & Sirio Modugno & Brigitta Schütt & Vito Ferro & Vincenzo Ba, 2017. "An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Uusitalo, V. & Väisänen, S. & Havukainen, J. & Havukainen, M. & Soukka, R. & Luoranen, M., 2014. "Carbon footprint of renewable diesel from palm oil, jatropha oil and rapeseed oil," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 103-113.
    3. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    4. Stephanie D. Maier & Jan Paul Lindner & Javier Francisco, 2019. "Conceptual Framework for Biodiversity Assessments in Global Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-34, March.
    5. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    6. Leino, M. & Uusitalo, V. & Grönman, A. & Nerg, J. & Horttanainen, M. & Soukka, R. & Pyrhönen, J., 2016. "Economics and greenhouse gas balance of distributed electricity production at sawmills using hermetic turbogenerator," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 102-111.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Huiyuan Guan & Yongping Bai & Chunyue Zhang, 2022. "Research on Ecosystem Security and Restoration Pattern of Urban Agglomeration in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    3. Panos Panagos & Pasquale Borrelli & David Robinson, 2020. "FAO calls for actions to reduce global soil erosion," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 789-790, May.
    4. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    5. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    6. Kristina Henzler & Stephanie D. Maier & Michael Jäger & Rafael Horn, 2020. "SDG-Based Sustainability Assessment Methodology for Innovations in the Field of Urban Surfaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-32, June.
    7. Carina Mueller & Christopher West & Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Bob Doherty, 2023. "Demand-Side Actors in Agricultural Supply Chain Sustainability: An Assessment of Motivations for Action, Implementation Challenges, and Research Frontiers," World, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    9. Janet Judy McIntyre‐Mills, 2013. "Anthropocentrism and Well‐being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 136-155, March.
    10. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    11. Ronja Teschner & Jessica Ruppen & Basil Bornemann & Rony Emmenegger & Lucía Aguirre Sánchez, 2021. "Mapping Sustainable Diets: A Comparison of Sustainability References in Dietary Guidelines of Swiss Food Governance Actors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Barbara Predan & Petra Černe Oven, 2023. "Developing a Pedagogical Approach with the Aim of Empowering Educators and Students to Address Emerging Global Issues such as Climate Change and Social Justice: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-22, December.
    13. Hörisch, Jacob & Ortas, Eduardo & Schaltegger, Stefan & Álvarez, Igor, 2015. "Environmental effects of sustainability management tools: An empirical analysis of large companies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 241-249.
    14. Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Telmo José Mendes & Diego Silva Siqueira & Eduardo Barretto Figueiredo & Ricardo de Oliveira Bordonal & Mara Regina Moitinho & José Marques Júnior & Newton La Scala Jr., 2021. "Soil carbon stock estimations: methods and a case study of the Maranhão State, Brazil," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16410-16427, November.
    16. Sergio Genovesi & Julia Maria Mönig, 2022. "Acknowledging Sustainability in the Framework of Ethical Certification for AI," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-10, March.
    17. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    18. Jean-François Ruault & Alice Dupré La Tour & André Evette & Sandrine Allain & Jean-Marc Callois, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03365820, HAL.
    19. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    20. Pires, Aliny P.F. & Rodriguez Soto, Clarita & Scarano, Fabio R., 2021. "Strategies to reach global sustainability should take better account of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:10:p:6144-:d:818500. 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.