Linking inventories and impact assessment models for addressing biodiversity impacts: mapping rules and challenges

Purpose An adequate matching between the nomenclature of elementary flows in life cycle inventory (LCI) databases and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods is key for ensuring the proper application of life cycle assessment (LCA). However, the nomenclature of elementary flows lacks harmonizati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The international journal of life cycle assessment 2022-06, Vol.27 (6), p.813-833
Main Authors: Sanyé-Mengual, Esther, Valente, Antonio, Biganzoli, Fabrizio, Dorber, Martin, Verones, Francesca, Marques, Alexandra, Ortigosa Rodriguez, Jorge, De Laurentiis, Valeria, Fazio, Simone, Sala, Serenella
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biodiversity
Biodiversity loss
Climate change
Earth and Environmental Science
Emissions
Environment
Environmental Chemistry
Environmental Economics
Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology
Flow mapping
Land use
Lci Methodology and Databases
Life cycle analysis
Life cycle assessment
Life cycles
Mapping
Nomenclature
Nomenclatures
Particulate emissions
Particulate matter
Toxicity
Water use
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose An adequate matching between the nomenclature of elementary flows in life cycle inventory (LCI) databases and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods is key for ensuring the proper application of life cycle assessment (LCA). However, the nomenclature of elementary flows lacks harmonization among the LCA community. This paper aims at defining mapping rules and discussing main challenges related to the process of systematically mapping LCI nomenclatures to LCIA methods and models addressing biodiversity impacts. Methods Eight LCIA methods and models addressing biodiversity loss are analyzed: five comprehensive LCIA methods (i.e., LC-IMPACT, Impact World + , Ecological Scarcity 2013, ReCiPe 2016, and Stepwise), one land use intensity-specific LCIA model; and two approaches adapting the GLOBIO model to LCIA. These models and methods are mapped to two LCI nomenclatures (ecoinvent v3.6 as implemented in Simapro and Environmental Footprint (EF) 3.0). A mapping tool was developed to support the process of (a) mapping elementary flows by name, Chemical Abstract Service number or available synonyms; (b) implementing specific mapping rules regarding compartment/sub-compartment, and substance name; (c) mapping elementary flows to manually defined proxies (e.g., synonyms, spelling corrections and similar substances); and (d) assigning characterization factors (CFs). The process entails analyzing a case study to identify uncharacterized elementary flows. Results and discussion We present a mapping of LCIA methods and models addressing impacts on biodiversity loss with specific LCI nomenclatures. Mapping rules are proposed for elementary flows regarding chemicals, carbon emissions, land use, water use, and particulate matter. Specific aspects to be considered in mapping elementary flows in LCIA and LCI nomenclatures are discussed. Main gaps in LCI nomenclatures are associated to toxicity and climate change impacts. The EF 3.0 was more aligned than ecoinvent 3.6 with the LCIA methods and models regarding elementary flows coverage and regionalization level. Analyzing uncharacterized flows revealed further coverage needs for “Chemical, organic” (between 19 and 20% uncharacterized flows), “Chemical, inorganic” (between 9 and 18% uncharacterized flows) and “Chemical, radioactive” (between 9 and 14% uncharacterized flows). Conclusions This paper contributes to the operationalization of LCIA methods and models addressing biodiversity impacts by proposing a systemati
ISSN:0948-3349
1614-7502
DOI:10.1007/s11367-022-02049-6