• Energy Research
• natural sciences close

Every decision-oriented life cycle assessment (LCAs) entails, at least to some extent, a future-oriented feature. However, apart from the ex-ante LCAs, the majority of LCA studies are retrospective in nature and do not explicitly account for possible future effects. In this review a generic theoretical framework is proposed as a guideline for ex-ante LCA. This framework includes the entire technology life cycle, from the early design phase up to continuous improvements of mature technologies, including their market penetration. The compatibility with commonly applied system models yields an additional aspect of the framework. Practical methods and procedures are categorised, based on how they incorporate future-oriented features in LCA. The results indicate that most of the ex-ante LCAs focus on emerging technologies that have already gone through some research cycles within narrowly defined system boundaries. There is a lack of attention given to technologies that are at a very early development stage, when all options are still open and can be explored at a low cost. It is also acknowledged that technological learning impacts the financial and environmental performance of mature production systems. Once technologies are entering the market, shifts in market composition can lead to substantial changes in environmental performance.

Abstract The majority of impact assessments for the biobased economy are primarily focused on the environmental and (techno-)economic aspects, while social aspects are rarely considered. This study proposes a modified systemic approach for a social sustainability impact assessment of the biobased economy, based on a review on the common methodologies for assessing social impacts. Accordingly, the proposed approach follows the four general iterative steps of social life cycle analysis (SLCA) as it considers all life cycle phases of the biobased economy. The systemic approach considers the potential social impacts on local communities, workers, and consumers as the main three groups of the stakeholders. The review showed that the most common social indicators for inventory analysis within the biobased economy include health and safety, food security, income, employment, land- and worker-related concerns, energy security, profitability, and gender issues. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was also highlighted as the broadly utilized methodology for aggregating the results of impact assessments within the biobased economy. Taking a life cycle perspective, this study provides a holistic view of the full sustainability of research, design, and innovation in the biobased economy by suggesting the integration of the social aspects with techno-economic and an environmental life cycle assessment. Our proposed systemic approach makes possible to integrate the social impacts that are highly valued by the affected stakeholders into the existing sustainability models that focus only on environmental and techno-economic aspects. We discuss the steps of the proposed systemic approach in order to identify the challenges of applying them within the biobased economy. These challenges refer mainly to the definition of the functional unit and system boundaries, the selection and the analysis of social indicators (inventory analysis), the aggregation of the inventory to impact categories, and the uncertainties associated with the social sustainability evaluation. The result of this review and the proposed systemic approach serve as a foundation for industry and policy makers to gain a better insight into the importance of social sustainability impacts assessment within the biobased economy.

Drought is regarded as a slow-onset natural disaster that causes inevitable damage to water resources and to farm life. Currently, crisis management is the basis of drought mitigation plans, however, thus far studies indicate that effective drought management strategies are based on risk management. As a primary tool in mitigating the impact of drought, vulnerability assessment can be used as a benchmark in drought mitigation plans and to enhance farmers’ ability to cope with drought. Moreover, literature pertaining to drought has focused extensively on its impact, only awarding limited attention to vulnerability assessment as a tool. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework for designing a vulnerability model in order to assess farmers’ level of vulnerability before, during and after the onset of drought. Use of this developed drought vulnerability model would aid disaster relief workers by enhancing the adaptive capacity of farmers when facing the impacts of drought. The paper starts with the definition of vulnerability and outlines different frameworks on vulnerability developed thus far. It then identifies various approaches of vulnerability assessment and finally offers the most appropriate model. The paper concludes that the introduced model can guide drought mitigation programs in countries that are impacted the most by drought.

AbstractIn this paper, the technical and economic advantages of combining conversion technologies into a multi‐dimensional plant primarily using regional biomass residues are investigated. The main objective is to show how locally available biomass can be used more efficiently as a source for renewable energy and bio‐based products. Therefore, not only is the theoretical perspective considered, but also a reality check for the local situation is taken into account. Although industrial attitude toward biorefineries is positive, the efficient production of a portfolio of bio‐based products has not yet been implemented. A biorefinery concept for Moerdijk (the Netherlands) was developed, focusing on grass refining, production of pyrolysis oil, biodiesel production, and bio‐LNG production. Grass refining is the most experimental technique of all proposed conversion techniques. In terms of development, pyrolysis oil and bio‐LNG production are in the demonstration phase. Anaerobic digestion and biodiesel production are proven techniques. It is shown that this concept allows for synergies with regard to the utilization of residue flows from internal processes. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that by integrating different conversion technologies, an economically feasible concept can be developed in which technologies, currently residing in a demonstration phase, can also be brought to the market. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

In this paper, we evaluate the potential of life cycle assessment (LCA) to support environmental decision making at commercial dairy farms. To achieve this, we follow a four-step method that allows converting environmental assessment results using LCA into case-specific advice for farmers. This is illustrated in a case-study involving 20 specialized Flemish dairy farms. Calculated LCA indicators are normalized into scores between 0 and 100, whereby a score of 100 is assumed optimal, to allow for a mutual comparison of indicators for different environmental impact categories. Next, major farm and management characteristics affecting environmental performance are identified using multiple regression and correlation analyses. Finally, comparing specific farm and management characteristics with those of best performing farms identifies farm-specific optimization strategies. We conclude that this approach complies with most of the identified critical success factors for the successful implementation of LCA as a decision support system for farmers. Key aspects herein are (i) the flexibility and accessibility of the model, (ii) the use of readily available farm data, (iii) farm advisors being intended model users, (iv) the identification of key farm and management characteristics affecting environmental performance and (v) the organization of discussion sessions involving farmers and farm advisors. However, attention should be paid (i) to provide sufficient training and guidance for farm advisors on the use of the applied LCA model and the interpretation of results, (ii) to evaluate the correctness of the used data and (iii) to keep the model up-to-date according to new scientific insights and knowledge concerning LCA methodology. Keywords Life cycle assessment; Dairy farms; Decision support system; MOTIFS

Market power is a complex matter that is approximated with quantitative indicators within economics. However, these indicators may not fully capture market power, or they may fail to identify it, although it may be present. Moreover, a quantitative approach restricts market power as a concept, impeding the ability to discuss its relationship with other concepts, such as sustainability. This paper extends the definition of market power, following Foucault’s understanding of power and the associated theoretical discussions of power from different disciplines. We extended Foucault’s work by including systems thinking to capture the importance of the prevalent system’s paradigm, which is the ultimate initiator of action. Apart from distinguishing different elements of power, we also integrate an instrumental view on the elements of power. The developed frame allows us to understand the dynamic character of power as a force that strives to maintain or ameliorate the position of the paradigm that it serves. Based on this frame, we outline how this extended understanding of power can be used to analyze market power itself, and its relation with sustainability.

Environmentalists generally argue that ecological damage will (eventually) lead to declines in human well-being. From this perspective, the recent introduction of the "environmentalist's paradox" in BioScience by Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) is particularly significant. In essence, Raudsepp-Hearne and colleagues (2010) claimed that although ecosystem services have been degraded, human well-being—paradoxically—has increased. In this article, we show that this debate is in fact rooted in a broader discussion on weak sustainability versus strong sustainability (the substitutability of human-made capital for natural capital). We warn against the reductive nature of focusing only on a stock-flow framework in which a natural-capital stock produces ecosystem services. Concretely, we recommend a holistic approach in which the complexity, irrevers- ibility, uncertainty, and ethical predicaments intrinsic to the natural environment and its connections to humanity are also considered.

Abstract Companies dealing with chemical products have to cope with large amounts of waste and environmental risk due to the use and production of toxic substances. Against this background, increasing attention is being paid to “green chemistry” and the translation of this concept into biobased chemicals. Given the multitude of economic, environmental and societal impacts that the production and use of biobased chemicals have on sustainability, assessment approaches need to be developed that allow for measurement and comparison of these impacts. To evaluate sustainability in the context of policy and decision-making, indicators are generally accepted means. However, sustainability indicators currently predominantly exist for low-value applications in the bioeconomy, like bioenergy and biofuels. In this paper, a review of the state-of-the-art sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals is conducted and a gap analysis is performed to identify indicator development needs. Based on the analysis, a clear hierarchy within the concept of sustainability is found where the environmental aspect dominates over economic and social indicators. All one-dimensional indicator-sets account for environmental impacts (50%), whereas two-dimensional sets complement the environmental issues with economic indicators (34%). Moreover, even the sets encompassing all three sustainability dimensions (16%) do not account for the dynamics and interlinkages between the environment, economy and society. Using results from the literature review, an indicator list is presented that captures all indicators currently used within sustainability assessment of biobased chemicals. Finally, a framework is proposed for future indicator selection using a stakeholder survey to obtain a prioritized list of sustainability indicators for biobased chemicals.