02.12.2012 Views

LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook - GreenDeltaTC

LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook - GreenDeltaTC

LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook - GreenDeltaTC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Goal <strong>an</strong>d Scope<br />

2.2.4.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessment<br />

For the calculation <strong>of</strong> the environmental impacts, the method “ReCiPe” was selected. 41<br />

ReCiPe is one <strong>of</strong> the most recent life cycle impact assessment methods (LCIAM). Compared<br />

to for example Eco-indicator 99, it contains a sophisticated resource modelling.<br />

ReCiPe combines the midpoint with the endpoint approach. Further, the method is<br />

available in three versions: egalitari<strong>an</strong>, individualist, <strong>an</strong>d hierarchist. The egalitari<strong>an</strong><br />

version is a long-term consideration <strong>of</strong> environmental impacts, while the individualist<br />

version assesses impacts in a short-term view. The hierarchist perspective is a combination<br />

<strong>of</strong> both approaches <strong>an</strong>d is the default version <strong>of</strong> the method, why it is applied in<br />

this case study.<br />

In general, the application <strong>of</strong> ReCiPe is recommended by <strong>LCA</strong> experts. 42<br />

The method addresses the following midpoint impact categories:<br />

� Climate ch<strong>an</strong>ge hum<strong>an</strong> health<br />

� Climate ch<strong>an</strong>ge ecosystems<br />

� Ozone depletion<br />

� Terrestrial acidification<br />

� Freshwater eutrophication<br />

� Marine eutrophication<br />

� Hum<strong>an</strong> toxicity<br />

� Photochemical oxid<strong>an</strong>t formation<br />

� Particulate matter formation<br />

The endpoint categories are as follows:<br />

� Damage to hum<strong>an</strong> health<br />

� Damage to the ecosystem<br />

� Damage to resource availability<br />

Both midpoint <strong>an</strong>d endpoint categories were used, because both approaches have<br />

different adv<strong>an</strong>tages <strong>an</strong>d disadv<strong>an</strong>tages. A midpoint-based assessment allows a tr<strong>an</strong>sparent<br />

<strong>an</strong>alysis <strong>of</strong> environmental impacts with relative low uncertainties, but midpoint<br />

categories are rather difficult to interpret for laypeople. The consideration <strong>of</strong> endpoint<br />

categories is in contrast very easy to underst<strong>an</strong>d, but the results are less detailed <strong>an</strong>d<br />

contain higher uncertainties.<br />

Normalisation is applied in order to facilitate the derivation <strong>of</strong> recommendations.<br />

The endpoint perspective <strong>of</strong> ReCiPe comprises a weighting step. Hum<strong>an</strong> health <strong>an</strong>d<br />

ecosystem quality are both assessed with 40%; depletion <strong>of</strong> resources is weighted with<br />

20%.<br />

41 Goedkoop et al. (2009)<br />

42 Goedkoop et al. (2010)<br />

� Fresh water ecotoxicity<br />

� Marine ecotoxicity<br />

� Ionising radiation<br />

� Agricultural l<strong>an</strong>d occupation<br />

� Urb<strong>an</strong> l<strong>an</strong>d occupation<br />

� Natural l<strong>an</strong>d tr<strong>an</strong>sformation<br />

� Metal depletion<br />

� Fossil depletion<br />

� Terrestrial ecotoxicity<br />

47

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!