Skip to main content

G-21 Background databases in LCA studies

Written on .

Aspect G-21 Background databases in LCA studies
Description
 According to the ILCD Handbook, the background system comprises those processes that are not under the direct control or decisive influence of the producer of the good. For attributional modelling these are typically processes for both the upstream and downstream parts of the entire life cycle of a product. For comparative assertions, the use of consistent background data is crucial. Generally, a product or a building process tree always includes intermediate flows (according to ISO 14044), such as energy, electricity, transport and raw materials. These processes may be modelled using background data available in generic databases.
In this context, which database should be used for background data in an LCA study? Which database should be chosen, or which rules should be defined for the use of a database for comparative assertions?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings building products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions All data used in an LCA study should be modelled with a uniform methodology. This can typically be achieved by using a public or commercially available background database and modelling the foreground system in a consistent way.For comparative studies (in simplified or complete LCA studies), it is highly recommended, or even essential, to use datasets that are consistent, e.g. consistent within one database. If this is not possible (e.g. because of data gaps or incomplete documentation), any other data should comply with the methodological rules of the database used for the study.
Rules from:
 ILCD
9 Life cycle interpretation
Provisions:
9.3.4 Consistency check
Guidance
 In general, the LCA practitioner should use consistent data from a single source. For European research projects, the use of European databases such as ecoinvent, GaBi, ELCD or ESUCO may be appropriate. The mixing of background data from different databases should be avoided for comparative assertions. This is especially true if data from different databases are not used similarly in the compared models, or if the methodological rules and the quality guidelines do not match between the mixed data.However, in practice the mixing of background data can occur. For example:– if one background dataset (e.g. raw material production, or energy supply) is more representative for the context of the study than the one in the main database being used;– for EPD databases where no mandatory background database is provided. In this case the background data provider should ensure that the use of their data does not lead to bias in the comparative assertions (as the practitioner cannot influence the background data).In general, the use of different background data is not a problem; it is more the adaptation of data in terms of methodology and cut-off rules that can be a problem (for the LCA study). Some databases providing unit process data can easily be adapted to the goal and scope of the LCA study, and to the other background data that cannot be modified, but some databases cannot be adapted in this way.If the lack of specific datasets in a background database leads practitioners to combine data from different literature sources, they need to decide whether it is more important to use a consistent but roughly estimated dataset (and possibly data that are not relevant for the context of the study), or to use a dataset that may be better in terms of representativeness, but which is methodologically inconsistent with the alternative data.In this context, one possible solution is to use data quality indicators for assessing both the representativeness of the data and the consistency of the methodology, compared with the goal and scope of the study: for example, is the dataset compliant with the national context in terms of representativeness?

G-22 (Buildings) / G-23 (Products) Data quality

Written on .

Aspect G-22 (Buildings) / G-23 (Products) Data quality
Description Generally speaking, the data quality in LCA refers to the relevance of generic or specific LCA data in accordance with the goal and scope of the study. Depending on the background data sources (literature, industry data), and the boundaries and context of the study (e.g. for which purposes or countries are the data being used?), the data quality can be very different within one study. Although data may be of good quality for context Y, this will not necessarily be the case for context Z, as the requirements (e.g. geographical representativeness) may be different. The practitioner should keep in mind that data quality is always a relative concept. In order to point out this aspect as transparently as possible, the quality of the data has to be justified in the context of its use.How should the quality of the LCA data be described, and can the practitioner ensure that data of a specific quality are needed and produced?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings building products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions The data quality of LCA studies should at least meet the requirements of EN 15978 and En 15804, and the documentation, nomenclature, method and review should be implemented accordingly.
Rules from
 EN 15978
10.3 Data quality
Different criteria are given in EN 15978, e.g. technological, geographical and temporal coverage (the data should be not older than 10 years). The data should be based on a one-year average (if relevant); check the plausibility and the significance of the data in the final result.

EN 15804
6.3.7 Data quality requirements

ILCD

6.8 Representativeness and appropriateness of LCI data provisions
6.8.2 Technological representativeness
Provisions 6.8.3 Geographical representativeness
Provisions 6.8.4 Time-related representativeness

12 Annex A: Data quality concept and approach

12.1 Introduction and overview
In the ILCD Handbook, two approaches are defined – 1) data quality in a stricter sense; and 2) the data quality documentation and review:

1) ILCD overall data quality indicators include: technological, geographical, time-related representativeness, completeness, precision/uncertainty, methodological appropriateness and consistency.

2) Data quality documentation aspects cover: documentation, review, nomenclature (e.g. same list of elementary flows)

12.2 Data quality aspects
The ILCD Handbook defines ‘accuracy’ as a term covering all the related data quality aspects, such as:

“Representativeness (technological, geographical, time-related)
Completeness
Methodological appropriateness and consistency”

The ILCD Handbook also provides rules for not mixing the data quality aspects (falling under the term ‘accuracy’) with the other concept of ‘precision’ (or ‘uncertainty’). A graphical illustration (see Figure 11) illustrates this point.

Figure 11: Concept of precision

ISO 14044
4.2.3.6.2. Data quality requirements
Guidance
 In current practice it is usually not possible to choose datasets for quality reasons, but for availability in the construction sector. The practitioner should keep in mind that data quality is crucial for the LCA study. The most appropriate data should be chosen (in terms of representativeness and consistency) as far as possible. Documentation of the used datasets and the quality level is needed as far as possible.The ILCD Handbook provides some recommendations on data quality, depending on the relative significance of the data in the final results. A graphical illustration (see Figure 12) illustrates this point.Figure 12: Focusing efforts on key data

For product LCA, the user of commercial software can also find information on data quality in the documentation for the LCI data used for the process tree of his LCA study.

For building LCA, in dedicated LCA software, information on data quality may not be currently available. The practitioner should, however, be cautious when using LCA data (check whether a methodological report is available, check whether  a critical review or verification was done, assess whether the data are relevant for the context of the study etc.).

In practice, the data quality assessment should be conducted according to the goal and scope of the LCA study. For instance, an LCA study of a building within a European project may require the use of generic European datasets from available LCA databases (ecoinvent, ELCD, ESUCO etc.). By contrast, a screening LCA study in a national context may require the use (if available) of generic national LCA data on building materials, and on components sold on the national market (i.e. representing the ‘consumption mix’ according to ILCD).

For building LCA, the data quality assessment can be conducted at two levels:

– a data quality check for the entry data (depending on the goal and scope of the study) by means of data quality indicators, e.g. A, B, C, D that may be based on the Pedigree matrix [Weidema 1996];

– a data quality check for the LCA results for buildings (depending on the contribution analysis). In this case, if a building material accounts for 1% of, say, the acidification potential indicator, and the data are not very precise or accurate (e.g. generic data, randomly selected), it does not matter. Conversely, if a key building material (e.g. reinforced concrete) accounts for 45% of, say, the GWP indicator, and the data are not of high quality, the practitioner should possibly refine the LCA data, as it is sensitive to the results. These examples are also valid for LCA data on energy and water processes (e.g. fuel, electric mix, water treatment processes), as they may also drive most of the impacts of a building.

G-22 Data selection for a product LCA

Written on .

Aspect G-22 Data selection for a product LCA
Description
 Various data sources exist for the calculation of product LCA data. They differ for example in terms of specificity, age, completeness and certainty. What data requirements apply for the production of product LCA data?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings construction products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions In general, specifications are given with regard to EPD: see 6.3.7 ‘Quality requirements’ in EN 15804. National EPD programmes that apply to the context of the LCA study may give more specific guidance.
Rules from:

EN 15978

 6.3.6 Selection of data
6.3.7 Data quality requirements

CEN/TR 15941

 Sustainability of construction works — Environmental product declarations — Methodology for selection and use of generic data

ILCD

  

ISO 14044

 4.2.3.6 Data quality requirements
Guidance
 Specific data are data relating to the specific process being studied.  Generic data are more general data – they may for example be an average from a trade association, a specific dataset that is used as a proxy for typical production, or a dataset developed from literature sources. Data quality considers the relevance and quality of the dataset relative to the process being considered, taking account of

a)    age of data;

b)   geography;

c)    technology;

d)    precision;

e)    completeness;

f)     representativeness;

g)    consistency;

h)    reproducibility;

i)     sources of the data;

j)     uncertainty.

For screening and simplified LCA, it can be appropriate to use lower data quality requirements: for example, a single database for upstream and downstream data may be used without considering further data quality or appropriateness of individual datasets. For complete LCA, it is necessary to consider and report on the data quality. In some circumstances, where a dataset is of particular relevance to a study, or where no suitable dataset is available, it may be necessary to collect data from upstream or downstream processes rather than use generic data. The scope of this data collection will depend on the detail required.

EPD programmes may require specific databases to be used for comparability purposes in terms of methodology until EN 15804 compliant data are widely available. Once EN 15804 compliant databases are available, there should be no differentiation between EN 15804 compliant datasets, other than the scope of the data used. It may be advisable to use the background database that is required from the EPD programme that lies within the context of the LCA study. This means that, for improved consistency, a product LCA study may/should be based on the national EPD programme’s background study.

ILCD already provides guidance on sources of generic data such as the ELCD and proprietary databases.

G-27 (Buildings) / G-25 (Products) Choice of environmental indicators – screening and simplified LCA

Written on .

Aspect G-27 (Buildings) / G-25 (Products) Choice of environmental indicators – screening and simplified LCA
Description
 The choice of a set of environmental indicators should always try to avoid pollution transfer. Currently, a large number of indicators can be found in the LCA literature. They fall into different: selected LCI indicators, midpoint life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators, and endpoint LCIA indicators. Selected LCI flows can be useful in track some flow quantities: e.g. the use of secondary energy throughout the product’s life cycle. These are not impact indicators directly, but they can be useful in the interpretation phase of any LCA study. Mid-point LCIA indicators (or potential indicators) make it possible to characterize different environmental problems, such as climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation, acidification, eutrophication and resource depletion. End-point LCIA indicators refer to actual damage categories such as damage to resources, damage to human health, and damage to the ecosystem.What are the useful and necessary environmental indicators and impact categories to be reported for an energy-efficient product or building? Which indicators and which methodology should be chosen?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings building products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions In general, the set of indicators should be as comprehensive as possible, to avoid burden shifting. The EeBGuide does not provide predefined provisions regarding the number and the type of indicators for each study type, as they depend on the goal, the scope and the context of the study.Required environmental indicators to use are given in the EN 15978 and EN 15804 standards (which are harmonized indicators between the product and the building level), and also in the ILCD Handbook if other indicators need to be included.For screening and simplified LCA studies the choice of indicators is not regulated or limited. Generally speaking, in screening and simplified LCA a reduced set of indicators may be selected, which means that not all the EN 15804 and EN 15978 indicators have to be considered. In addition, optional indicators taken from the ILCD Handbook may be used to provide a more consistent set of indicators (if relevant).
Rules from:
 EN 15978
11 Calculation of the environmental indicators

EN 15804
7.2.3 Parameters describing environmental impacts

ILCD
Provisions: 6.7 Preparing the basis for impact assessment

“[…] VI) MAY – LCIA methodologies: […] select complete set of single LCIA methods rather than selecting and combining individual LCIA methods”

Provisions: 7.4.3.8 Reminder flows

I) MAY – Use reminder flows to keep original information for specific purposes

II) SHALL – exclude reminder flows from impact assessment

III) SHALL – Clearly identify reminder flows in the flow name

8 Life Cycle Impact Assessment – calculating LCIA results

Provisions: 8.2 Calculation of LCIA results

ILCD Handbook – Part – Analysing of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies for use in Life Cycle Assessment

4 Requirements for specific impact categories

“For some impact categories, many alternative methods have been selected. This can be seen as a sign that there is no clear consensus on how to model such a method. Clear examples are acidification, eutrophication, land use and resources.”
Guidance
 The operational guidance for the environmental indicators can be broken down into two main aspects: the calculation rules for environmental indicators (in both CEN TC 350 standards and in the ILCD Handbook) and the number of indicators to select, depending on the study type.

1) Calculation rules (i.e. characterization factors and associated impact assessment method) for each LCIA indicator in EN 15804/EN 15978
Various LCIA methods are currently available to calculate the LCIA indicators that are mentioned in the CEN TC 350 standards. Recently, the ILCD Handbook has release the report ‘Characterization factors of the ILCD – Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods’. In this report, several methods are analysed, and one is then suggested as the recommended method for each impact category. In the EeBGuide, the ILCD-recommended methods are provided for information in Appendix B for the following LCIA indicators: GWP, ODP, AP, EP, POCP and ADP (both elements and fossils).However, deviations in units are currently found between EN 15804/EN 15978 and the ILCD-recommended methods for:– AP (acidification potential, unit kg SO2-equiv. vs. accumulated exceedance, unit mole H+ eq);– EP (eutrophication potential, unit: kg PO43--equiv. vs. accumulated exceedance, unit: mole Neq).

A new method is now suggested for POCP calculations based on [Van Zelm 2008]. Other LCIA methods have been used so far for POCP calculations: for example the CML 2002 approach based on [Derwent 1998]. As a result, care has to be taken, and the method used for LCIA indicators should be clearly stated. In LCA studies across Europe, CML methods are frequently used for midpoint indicators. Also, EPD programmes usually provide results at indicator level, as is done by some generic databases. Using such data reduces the choice of impact methods and also yields a number of indicators to choose from.

PS: Please note that the ADP guidance is given in a separate aspect.

Harmonization of the LCIA indicators is expected soon. The aspect will be revised once there are agreed methods between CEN and ILCD.

2) Calculation rules for each indicator describing resource use and additional information (wastes etc.) in EN 15804/EN 15978

According to the ILCD Handbook, these flows are called ‘reminder flows’ (see ILCD rules above). The practitioner and LCA tool developer may be aware that, so far, not all the resource use indicators can be easily determined. In fact, the background databases used in LCA studies do not provide this information in a consistent way (e.g. ‘use of non-renewable primary energy excluding primary energy resources used by a raw material’). Others are potentially more easily available (e.g. ‘use of secondary fuels’). As the practitioner cannot influence the background data, this problem ultimately needs to be solved by the data providers.

3) Calculation rules for optional indicators (taken from the ILCD Handbook)

Currently there is no agreement on a single calculation method for impact categories not covered in CEN TC 350 (but available in the ILCD Handbook), such as land use, toxicity or ecotoxicity. The type of LCIA modelling between midpoint indicators and endpoint indicators are is subject to discussion. Therefore the EeBGuide does not provide strict provisions on these aspects. Please consult the corresponding aspects for more detailed guidance on those aspects that are not mandatory in the EeBGuide.

4) Number of indicators to consider, depending on the study type.

To select a relevant set of indicators, the practitioner should also try to have indicators covering the three area of protection: resources, ecosystems and human health. The indicators of EN 15804/EN 15978 correspond to these area of protection, but do not include all the impact categories, as some are still being debated within the LCA community. Additional aspects (see ‘Biodiversity’, ‘Land use’, ‘Toxicity and ecotoxicity’ etc.) provide guidance for the practitioner who would like to use them.

For screening and simplified LCA it may be possible to conduct LCA studies using a single indicator under specific conditions. For example:

– if the decision-maker is not very familiar with the LCA approach, or focuses only on energy or greenhouse gas issues;

– if the full LCI data needed to calculate all the LCIA indicators are not available for some national context.

However, it is strongly recommended that more than one environmental indicator be used, to avoid e.g. shifting of burdens. To that end, a selection of indicators from the EN 15978/EN 15804 standards (and from the ILCD Handbook if relevant) is recommended for screening and simplified LCA.

The indicators considered in the SBA common metrics project may be considered for a screening or simplified LCA (if relevant for the goal and scope of the study): non-renewable primary energy, GWP, water consumption and waste.

G-28 (Buildings) / G-26 (Products) Choice of environmental indicators – Complete LCA

Written on .

Aspect G-28 (Buildings) / G-26 (Products) Choice of environmental indicators – Complete LCA
Description
 The choice of a set of environmental indicators should always try to avoid pollution transfer. Currently, a large number of indicators can be found in the LCA literature. They refer to different types of indicator: selected LCI indicators, midpoint life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators, and endpoint LCIA indicators. Selected LCI flows can be useful in tracking some quantity of flows, e.g. the use of secondary energy throughout the product’s life cycle. These are not impact indicators directly, but they can be useful for the interpretation phase of any LCA study. Midpoint LCIA indicators (or potential indicators) make it possible to characterize different environmental problems, such as climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation, acidification, eutrophication and resource depletion. End-point LCIA indicators refer to actual damage categories, such as damage to resources, damage to human health, and damage to the ecosystem.What are the useful and necessary environmental indicators and impact categories to be reported for an energy-efficient product or building? Which indicators and which methodology should be chosen?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings building products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions In general, the set of indicators should be as comprehensive as possible to avoid burden shifting. The EeBGuide does not provide predefined provisions regarding the number or type of indicators for each study type, as they depend on the goal, the scope and the context of the study.Environmental indicators to choose are given in the EN 15978 and EN 15804 standards (which are harmonized indicators between the product and the building level), and also in the ILCD Handbook, if other indicators need to be included.For complete LCA studies the environmental indicators mentioned in EN 15978 and EN 15804 should be used. However, optional indicators for impact categories not covered by the CEN standards may also be considered, if relevant for the LCA study. In this case, they may be taken from the existing LCIA methods in the ILCD Handbook
Rules from:
 EN 15978
11 Calculation of the environmental indicatorsEN 15804
7.2.3 Parameters describing environmental impacts

ILCD
Provisions: 6.7 Preparing the basis for impact assessment

“[…] VI) MAY – LCIA methodologies: […] select complete set of single LCIA methods rather than selecting and combining individual LCIA methods”

Provisions: 7.4.3.8 Reminder flows

I) MAY – Use reminder flows to keep original information for specific purposes

II) SHALL – exclude reminder flows from impact assessment

III) SHALL – Clearly identify reminder flows in the flow name

8 Life Cycle Impact Assessment – calculating LCIA results

Provisions: 8.2 Calculation of LCIA results

ILCD Handbook – Part – Analysing of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies for use in Life Cycle Assessment

4 Requirements for specific impact categories

“For some impact categories, many alternative methods have been selected. This can be seen as a sign that there is no clear consensus on how to model such a method. Clear examples are acidification, eutrophication, land use and resources.”
Guidance

 The operational guidance for the environmental indicators can be split into two main aspects: the calculations rules for environmental indicators (in both the CEN TC 350 standards and in the ILCD Handbook) and the number of indicators to select, depending on the study type.

1) Calculation rules (i.e. characterization factors and associated method) for each LCIA indicator in EN 15804/EN 15978

Various LCIA methods are currently available to calculate the LCIA indicators mentioned in the CEN TC 350 standards. Recently, the ILCD Handbook has released the report ‘Characterization factors of the ILCD – Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods’. In this report, several methods are analysed, and one is then suggested as the recommended method for each impact category. In the EeBGuide, the ILCD-recommended methods are provided for information in Appendix B for the following LCIA indicators: GWP, ODP, AP, EP, POCP and ADP (both elements and fossils). However, deviations in units are currently found between EN 15804/EN 15978 and the ILCD-recommended methods for:– AP (acidification potential, unit kg SO2-equiv. vs. accumulated exceedance, unit mole H+ eq);

– EP (eutrophication potential, unit: kg PO43--equiv. vs. accumulated exceedance, unit: mole Neq).

A new method is now suggested for the POCP calculations based on [Van Zelm 2008]. Other LCIA methods have been used so far for POCP calculations: for example, the CML 2002 approach based on [Derwent 1998]. As a result, care has to be taken, and the method used for LCIA indicators should be clearly stated.

PS: Please note that the ADP guidance is given in a separate aspect.

Harmonization of the LCIA indicators is expected soon. The aspect will be revised once there are agreed methods between CEN and ILCD.

2) Calculation rules for each indicator describing resources use and additional information (wastes etc.) in EN 15804/EN 15978

According to the ILCD Handbook, these flows are called ‘reminder flows’ (see ILCD rules above). The practitioner and LCA tool developer may be aware that, so far, not all the resource use indicators can be easily determined. In fact, the background databases used in LCA studies do not provide this information in a consistent way (e.g. ‘use of non-renewable primary energy excluding primary energy resources used by a raw material’). Others are potentially more easily available (e.g. ‘use of secondary fuels’). As the practitioner cannot influence the background data, this problem ultimately needs to be solved by the data providers.

3) Calculation rules for optional indicators (taken from the ILCD Handbook)

Currently there is no agreement on a single calculation method for impact categories not covered in CEN TC 350 (but available in the ILCD Handbook), such as land use, toxicity or ecotoxicity. The type of LCIA modelling between midpoint indicators and endpoint indicators are is subject to discussion. Therefore the EeBGuide does not provide strict provisions on these aspects. Please consult the corresponding aspects for more detailed guidance on those aspects that are not mandatory in the EeBGuide.

4) Number of indicators to consider, depending on the study type.

To select a relevant set of indicators, the practitioner should also try to have indicators covering the three area of protection: resources, ecosystems and human health. The indicators of EN 15804/EN 15978 correspond to these area of protection, but do not include all the impact categories, as some are still being debated within the LCA community. Additional aspects (see ‘Biodiversity’, ‘Land use’, ‘Toxicity and ecotoxicity’ etc.) provide guidance for the practitioner who would like to use them.

For complete LCA studies, the full list of impact categories in EN 15978/EN 15804 should be used as well as missing categories taken from the ILCD Handbook if relevant for the goal of the study.

G-29 (Buildings) / G-27 (Products) Abiotic resources depletion indicator

Written on .

Aspect G-29 (Buildings) / G-27 (Products) Abiotic resources depletion indicator
Description
 In LCA, different indicators can be used for assessing the use of resources. These can be based on a thermodynamic approach (use of energy or exergy indicators), on a mass flow approach (use of a total mass requirement indicator), on a surplus of energy that will be needed for future extractions (ecoindicator approach), or on a scarcity approach (use of the ADP indicator developed at CML Leiden). According to the ILCD Handbook, the CML method uses the abiotic depletion potential (ADP), given in kg of antimony equivalents, to be multiplied by the amount of a given resource extracted. For ADP, the annual production of the resource (the extraction rate) is divided by the reserves squared, and the result is divided by the same ratio for the reference resource, antimony [ILCD, 2011a]. The CEN TC 350 standards recommend using the ADP indicator, but different forms of APD can be used, depending on the type of reserve and the available extraction rates.Which indicator and assumptions should be applied in this guidance document?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings building products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions Adopt the provision of the indicators and methodology mentioned in EN 15978 and EN 15804 (‘Depletion of abiotic resources-elements’ and ‘Depletion of abiotic resources-fossil fuels’). EN 15804 refers to CML (Institute of Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science University of Leiden, Netherlands) as the characterization factor for ADP (elements and fossil), and the characterization factors for ADP fossil fuels are based on net calorific values at the point of extraction of the fossil fuels.
Rules from:
 EN 15978:
12.5 List of indicators used for assessment and expression of results
11.1.2 Indicators describing environmental impacts
EN 15804:
6.5 Impact assessment
7.2.3 Parameters describing environmental impactsILCD:
8 Life cycle impact assessment – calculating LCIA results
Provisions: 8.2 Calculation of LCIA results
ILCD Handbook – Part – Analysing of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment

4.11 Resource depletion

 “For some impact categories, many alternative methods have been selected. This can be seen as a sign that there is no clear consensus on how to model such a method. Clear examples are acidification, eutrophication, land use and resources.”

ILCD Handbook: Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context

3.11. Resources depletion

3.11.7 Recommended default method for category 2

“The CML method is recommended in the ILCD framework since it captures scarcity by including extraction as well as reserves of a given resource. Characterization factors are given for metals, fossil fuels and, in the case of reserve base and economic reserves, mineral compounds [Oers 2002]. In addition, the method covers most of the substances/materials identified as critical by the European Commission’s Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials (European Commission 2010).”

[Oers 2002] give characterization factors for economic reserves, reserve base, and ultimate reserves. The characterization factors given for the reserve base are recommended, as this reflects a longer time horizon and the possibility of improvement in mining technology, making feasible the exploitation of previously sub-economic deposits.
Guidance
 Practitioners should keep in mind that for the LCIA indicator ‘Abiotic depletion’ there is a methodology available that provides different assumptions regarding the estimate of reserves, i.e. ultimate, base or economic [Guinée 2001], [Oers 2002].So far, EN 15804 and EN 15978 do not specify which kinds of reserve should be considered for the ADP calculation. Over the past few years, most LCA or EPD data have reported the ADP (both fossil and elements) based on ultimate reserves according to [Guinée 2001]. Recently, the ILCD Handbook released the report ‘Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context’ (First edition, December 2010) [EC 2011]. In this guide, it recommended that the base reserve be used for the ADP calculation for all the elements (aluminium, copper, etc.). This guidance will be updated when EN 15804 and EN 15978 are revised.The ADP (fossil or elements) characterization factors based upon the CML 2002 method can be downloaded from: http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrialecology/researchprojects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide.html. In addition, another link provides the latest version of the characterization factors for the CML 2002 impact categories: http://cml.leiden.edu/software/data-cmlia.html.In the construction sector, such an indicator (ADP) may be adapted to take into account the local depletion of resources such as gravel. This is still a research topic but more information can be found in recent scientific papers, e.g. [Habert 2009]

G-30 (Buildings) / G-28 (Products) Land use indicator

Written on .

Aspect G-30 (Buildings) / G-28 (Products) Land use indicator
Description
 Land-use change is linked to human activities such as the exploitation of land for agricultural, industrial, residential, recreational, or other purposes. Currently, several LCIA methods exist, providing both midpoint and endpoint characterization factors. According to the ILCD Handbook, the midpoint characterization factor for land use, in the earliest stage of the cause–effect chain, is usually taken as the amount and quality deficit of land occupied or transformed. Some midpoint methods use indicators such as soil structure, soil pH or soil organic carbon. The endpoint characterization factor refers mostly to the quantity of species lost due to land use, or to the change in net primary production (NPP) of the land used [ILCD 2011a].Based on these different approaches, should a land-use indicator be included in the LCA of a product or a building?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings building products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions Land use should not be included as a mandatory indicator, as there is currently no agreed scientific method available (as also mentioned in the EN 15804 and EN 15978 standards). Yet, if the goal and scope of the study mention the use of an LCIA indicator for land use, then the indicator that is used for the assessment needs to be described and referenced.
Rules from:
 EN 15978:
11. Calculation of the environmental indicators
“Note: Indicators for which there is no scientifically agreed calculation method within the context of LCA e.g. human health, ecotoxicity, biodiversity, land use are not included”
ILCD:
8 Life CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT – calculating LCIA results
Provisions: 8.2 Calculation of LCIA results
13 Annex B: Calculation of CO2 emissions from land transformation
ILCD Handbook: Analysing of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment
“For some impact categories, many alternative methods have been selected. This can be seen as a sign that there is no clear consensus on how to model such a method. Clear examples are acidification, eutrophication, land use and resources.”

ILCD Handbook: Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context

3.10 Land use

Existing methods for land use that can be used at the midpoint level include: [Baitz 2002] which was further developed by [Bos 2008], [Milà I Canals 2007], [De Schryver 2009] and [Beck 2010].
Guidance
 If land-use change is intended to be assessed, it is recommended that recent LCA literature be consulted to identify a feasible and appropriate indicator. Such literature may include:– the analysis of available existing LCIA methods for land use provided by the ILCD Handbook (report available online: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-LCIA-Background-analysis-online-12March2010.pdf);– the results of the UNEP/SETAC working group on ‘Operational Characterization Factors for Land Use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment’ (LULCIA) [Beck 2010]– several publications in the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, such as a recent paper on the ‘Principles of inventory of land use on a global scale’ [Koellner 2012].This aspect will need to be revised when an approved method is available.

G-31 (Buildings) / G-29 (Products) Biodiversity indicator

Written on .

Aspect G-31 (Buildings) / G-29 (Products) Biodiversity indicator
Description
 The loss of species and their diversity caused by destruction of their habitat has become one of the pivotal topics of environmental political actions in recent years. For years the scientific community has been working on completing a portfolio of considered environmental impacts, including taking biodiversity into account as a subject of protection.Which indicator and which methodology should be used?

related study objective

 ☒ stand-alone LCA ☒ comparative assertion

related study phase

 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
goal and scope definition inventory analysis (LCI) impact assessment (LCIA) interpretation reporting

relevant for
new buildings existing buildings building products screening LCA simplified LCA complete LCA
Provisions Adopt provision of the indicators mentioned in EN 15804 and EN 15978. The standards explicitly exclude biodiversity, because so far no scientifically agreed method is available. Yet, if the goal and scope of the study mention the use of an LCIA indicator for biodiversity, the indicator that is used for the assessment needs to be described.
Rules from
 EN 15978:
11. Calculation of the environmental indicators“Note: Indicators for which there is no scientifically agreed calculation method within the context of LCA e.g. human health, ecotoxicity, biodiversity, land use are not included.”
ILCD:
8 Life cycle impact assessment – calculating LCIA results
Provisions: 8.2 Calculation of LCIA results
ILCD Handbook: Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context
3.2.3 Measuring biodiversity loss
Existing methods for biodiversity that can be used at the midpoint level include: [Baitz 2002], which was further developed by [Bos 2008], [Milà i Canals 2007], [De Schryver 2009] and [Beck 2010].
Guidance
 Currently discussions are ongoing about biodiversity indicators and methodology. So far there is no scientifically sound and commonly agreed method available. This aspect will to be revised if there are new outcomes from the discussions.