Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Climate impact assessment in life cycle assessments of forest products: Implications of method choice for results and decision-making
RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Built Environment. Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Built Environment. KTH, Stockholm, Sweden.
RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Bioeconomy, Biorefinery and Energy.
RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Built Environment.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526, E-ISSN 1879-1786, Vol. 116, 90-99 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

As life cycle assessments are often conducted to provide decision support, it is important that impact assessment methodology is consistent with the intended decision context. The currently most used climate impact assessment metric, the global warming potential, and how it is applied in life cycle assessments, has for example been criticised for insufficiently accounting for carbon sequestration, carbon stored in long-lived products and timing of emission. The aim of this study is to evaluate how practitioners assess the climate impact of forest products and the implications of method choice for results and decision-making.

To identify current common practices, we reviewed climate impact assessment practices in 101 life cycle assessments of forest products. We then applied identified common practices in case studies comparing the climate impact of a forest-based and a non-forest-based fuel and building, respectively, and compared the outcomes with outcomes of applying alternative, non-established practices.

Results indicate that current common practices exclude most of the dynamic features of carbon uptake and storage as well as the climate impact from indirect land use change, aerosols and changed albedo. The case studies demonstrate that the inclusion of such aspects could influence results considerably, both positively and negatively. Ignoring aspects could thus have important implications for the decision support. The product life cycle stages with greatest climate impact reduction potential might not be identified, product comparisons might favour the less preferable product and policy instruments might support the development and use of inefficient climate impact reduction strategies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2016. Vol. 116, 90-99 p.
Keyword [en]
Environment, Life cycle assessment, LCA, Environmental assessment, Carbon footprint, Wood, Forest, Carbon model, Forest model, Global warming, Climate change, Carbon, Fuel, Biofuel, Construction, Building, GWP, GWPbio, Climate impact assessment, Decision making, Carbon storage, sequestration, albedo, land use change, LUC, indirect land use change, ILUC, System boundaries, Spatial, Temporal, Time horizon, End of life, Soil disturbance, Aerosol, Concrete, Timber, Dynamic LCA, Literature review
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-29994DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.009OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-29994DiVA: diva2:1115540
Available from: 2017-06-27 Created: 2017-06-27 Last updated: 2017-06-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text
By organisation
Built EnvironmentBiorefinery and Energy
In the same journal
Journal of Cleaner Production
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 1 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.26.0