Area of Concern: A new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics

Bradley G. Ridoutt, Stephan Pfister, Alessandro Manzardo, Jane Bare, Anne-Marie Boulay, Francesco Cherubini, Peter Fantke, Rolf Frischknecht, Michael Zwicky Hauschild, Andrew Henderson, Olivier Jolliet, Annie Levasseur, Manuele Margni, Thomas McKone, Ottar Michelsen, Llorenç Milà i Canals, Girija Page, Rana Pant, Marco Raugei, Serenella SalaFrancesca Verones

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

    2049 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    As a class of environmental metrics, footprints have been poorly defined, have shared an unclear relationship to life cycle assessment (LCA), and the variety of approaches to quantification have sometimes resulted in confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace. In response, a task force operating under the auspices of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative project on environmental life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been working to develop generic guidance for developers of footprint metrics. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a universal footprint definition and related terminology as well as to discuss modelling implications. The task force has worked from the perspective that footprints should be based on LCA methodology, underpinned by the same data systems and models as used in LCA. However, there are important differences in purpose and orientation relative to LCA impact category indicators. Footprints have a primary orientation toward society and nontechnical stakeholders. They are also typically of narrow scope, having the purpose of reporting only in relation to specific topics. In comparison, LCA has a primary orientation toward stakeholders interested in comprehensive evaluation of overall environmental performance and trade-offs among impact categories. These differences create tension between footprints, the existing LCIA framework based on the area of protection paradigm and the core LCA standards ISO14040/44. In parallel to area of protection, we introduce area of concern as the basis for a universal footprint definition. In the same way that LCA uses impact category indicators to assess impacts that follow a common causeeffect pathway toward areas of protection, footprint metrics address areas of concern. The critical difference is that areas of concern are defined by the interests of stakeholders in society rather than the LCA community. In addition, areas of concern are stand-alone and not necessarily part of a framework intended for comprehensive environmental performance assessment. The area of concern paradigm is needed to support the development of footprints in a way that fulfils their distinctly different purpose. It is also needed as a mechanism to extricate footprints from some of the provisions of ISO 14040/ 44 which are not considered relevant. Specific issues are identified in relation to double counting, aggregation and the selection of relevant indicators. The universal footprint definition and related terminology introduced in this paper create a foundation that will support the development of footprint metrics in parallel with LCA.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
    Volume21
    Issue number2
    Pages (from-to)276-280
    ISSN0948-3349
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2016

    Keywords

    • Area of protection
    • Environmental footprint
    • Environmental labels and declarations
    • Footprint definition
    • Footprint indicator
    • ISO 14044
    • Life cycle impact assessment
    • UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative

    Cite this

    Ridoutt, B. G., Pfister, S., Manzardo, A., Bare, J., Boulay, A-M., Cherubini, F., Fantke, P., Frischknecht, R., Hauschild, M. Z., Henderson, A., Jolliet, O., Levasseur, A., Margni, M., McKone, T., Michelsen, O., i Canals, L. M., Page, G., Pant, R., Raugei, M., ... Verones, F. (2016). Area of Concern: A new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(2), 276-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-1011-7