Jnsson, Karin. (1998). Defining and Comparing Environmental Impacts. In N.

Jacobsson,
& K. Jnsson, Feasibility Study of Equivalence of Eco-labelling Criteria. Lund:IIIEE. (pp. 1320, 22)

Defining and Comparing Environmental Impacts

.
Defining Environmental Impacts
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment is based on a functional unit approach, where potential
environmental impacts are identified and allocated to a unit representing the function of the
system under study. This distinguishes LCIA from most other impact assessment tools, such as
environmental impact assessment, since the latter employ a site-specific approach in order to
identify actual or predicted impacts and do not perform any allocation based on function.
According to established Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) practice, impact assessment is divided
into the three components classification, characterisation and valuation.1 The definition of
environmental impacts is related to the classification and characterisation. Classification connects the
different inputs and outputs of the studied system with the expected environmental impacts. In
the characterisation step, the relative contributions of each input and output to the relevant
impact categories are assessed and are finally aggregated to a total for each impact category.
According to the Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment, classification as well as
characterisation should be based on a scientific analysis of the environmental processes involved.2
Still, it was acknowledged already by the Nordic Guidelines that the choice of which
environmental impacts and assessment methods to consider in the first place is in itself highly
subjective. Support for this finding can also be found in the final draft version of the ISO
standard 14040, covering the principles and framework of LCA.3 The more recent report of
SETAC s North American Work Group on LCIA goes even further by saying that a major
advance in the state-of-the-art is recognising that subjective judgements and simplifying
assumptions are used extensively in classification and characterisation .4
Environmental impacts have to be defined somewhere along the cause-effect chain of the
environmental intervention.5 The effects in the beginning of the cause-effect chain are generally
chemical or physical, while the effects that occur later in the chain are more often of a biological
nature. Environmental impacts are mostly defined early in the cause-effect chain, which is
possibly explained by the fact that the uncertainty becomes higher along the chain.
The possibility to assess the impacts connected to certain environmental interventions differs a
lot depending on the type of interventions and impacts involved.6 Acidification and
eutrophication for example, are relatively well known and documented environmental problems.
In contrast, the environmental impacts connected to the steadily growing number of new
chemicals introduced on the market are at present more or less impossible to predict.

1 ISO/ FDIS 14040, 1997, Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and

Framework , p 8.
2

Nordic Council of Ministers, 1995, N ordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle A ssessment , p 72.

ISO/FDIS 14040, 1997, Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework , p 8.

SETAC, 1997, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the A rt , p 52.

Gran Finnveden, 1996, Valuation Methods within the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment, p 16.

ibid., p 19.

In the ideal case, a known and homogenous environmental process or mechanism can be used to
connect the inventory data to a certain impact category.7 Global warming is such a case, where
universally applicable equivalency factors for various greenhouse gases can be established based
on a homogenous and scientific mechanism. Most of the impact categories can not be defined
based on a purely scientific mechanism though, due to numerous reasons. The reason might be
that we currently lack the knowledge to identify such a mechanism, the level of complexity might
be too high, or it might not be relevant to describe the issue in those terms.
Equivalency factors to be used in characterisation have thus only been developed for a few
impact categories, mainly global, such as global warming and ozone depletion.8 The relevance of
category indicators tend to diminish, while the subjective element increases, as environmental
processes become more transient and/ or dependent on local circumstances.9 The conclusion is
that subjective elements have to be accepted as an inherent part of the definition and description
of environmental impacts, in order not to severely limit the possible scope of impact assessment.
As a part of the work towards establishing a standardised methodology on Impact Assessment, a
preliminary default list of impact categories has been presented by SETAC-Europe (see Table
1).10 It is important to note that this list has not been presented as a definite or exhausted list. It
should also be noted that SETAC s North American work group on impact assessment did not,
as opposed to their European counterpart, envision such a default list of impact categories in
their report.
In SETAC-Europe s list a categorisation of the impacts into local, regional, continental, and
global is made, based on the reach of the underlying environmental processes. The list also
corresponds to the list preliminary adopted by ISO (Environmental Management-Life Cycle
Assessment-Life Cycle Impact Assessment, ISO/ CD 14042), with the exception that the ISO list
does not consider the local impacts odour, noise, radiation, and casualties.11

SETAC, 1997, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the A rt , p 57f.

Erwin Lindeijer, 1995, V aluation in LCA , http.//www.ivambv.uva.nl/ivam/product/valdraft.html

SETAC, 1997, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the A rt , p 62.

10

SETAC, 1996, Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle A ssessment , p 19.

11

European Environment Agency, Life Cycle A ssessment ,

http://www.eea.dk/Projects/EnvMaST/lca/tab352.htm (971202)

Table 1. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Impact Categories

A. Input related categories

1. abiotic resources
2. biotic resources
3. land

global
global
local

B. Output related categories

4. global warming
5. depletion of stratospheric ozone
6. human toxicological impacts
7. ecotoxicological impacts
8. photo-oxidant formation
9. acidification
10. eutrophication
11. odour
12. noise
13. radiation
14. casualties

global
global
global/continental/regional/local
global/continental/regional/local
continental/regional/local
continental/regional/local
continental/regional/local
local
local
regional/local
local

(SETAC-Europe, 1996, Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact A ssessment , p 19.)

The division of environmental impacts into the categories ranging from local to global is
important in defining and comparing the impacts. Different resources experience different levels
of scarcity in different locations. For emissions, spatial differences occur due to the effects of
transportation of the emissions, the sensitivity of the surrounding environment, and the existing
background levels of the emitted substances.12
Different illustrations of the importance of taking the spatial differences into consideration when
assessing the significance of environmental impacts can be made by referring to the cases of
acidification, and eutrophication. In the case of acidification, emissions of NO x and SO 2 to soil
and water leads to a degradation of ecosystems. The problem of acidification varies from region
to region, due to differences in the buffer capacity of soils. Acidification is mainly a problem in
Europe, China, and the eastern parts of the U.S., while it is a potential problem also in Venezuela,
Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.13 It is important to note though, that emissions of NO x
and SO 2 can be transported over long distances before they are finally deposited. Even if the
emission site is not situated in an area where acidification is likely to be a problem, the place of
deposition might be.
Eutrophication takes place as a consequence of releases of nitrogen and phosphor to soil and
water, where the long-term result might be that the intervention into the nutrient balance will
damage the affected ecosystem.14 In the Netherlands, the intensive agriculture has led to a
situation where the relative loads of nitrogen and phosphor are already very high. Any additional
releases of nitrogen and phosphor must therefore be seen as very serious. In New Zealand
significant amounts of nitrogen and phosphor are released to the soil in connection with sheepbreeding. In contrast to the Dutch case, this fact hardly contributes to eutrophication since the
application of nitrogen and phosphor in New Zealand is respectively 10 to 100 times lower than
in the Netherlands.

12

SETAC, 1994, Integrating Impact A ssessment into LCA , p 19.

13

SETAC, 1994, Integrating Impact A ssessment into LCA , p 93.

14

ibid.

The local differences which affect the severity of environmental interventions are not only related
to natural conditions, but also to differences in technology structures, etc. In areas where
phosphate from laundry detergents is removed in the waste water treatment plants, the
eutrophication aspect will naturally be completely different as compared to areas where such
treatment is not conducted.
An assessment of the environmental impacts connected to the production, use, and disposal of a
product, needs thus to take into consideration that the related interventions will be spread over
different locations with different environmental characteristics. Currently though, Life-Cycle
Impact Assessment is limited in the sense that it is most often not considered feasible to include
local information in the analysis.15 The issue of whether local information about e.g. background
levels is to be included, is not only a practical one though. It is for instance possible to raise the
argument that LCIA should be considered mainly as a preventative tool.16 Thus, an emission
could be considered undesirable also when it doesn t bring concentration levels above threshold
values, since it will still narrow the possibility for further emitting activities in the area.
Life Cycle Stressor-Effects Assessment (LCSEA) is a new methodology which has been
developed in order to overcome some of the limitations connected to Life Cycle Impact
Assessment.17 The strengths of this methodology is that it seeks to include relevant spatial and
temporal detail into the environmental assessment of products by integrating Life Cycle Impact
Assessment with Environmental Impact Assessment techniques. This is done by focusing on the
relevant stressor-effects (or cause-effects) networks as the basis for the LCA. The identification
of these networks and the impact characterisation is done prior to the introduction of the
functional unit and allocation, as opposed to the case in LCIA, in order to incorporate spatial and
temporal information specific for the studied system. In practice, LCSEA will obviously be
hampered by the lack of data and knowledge concerning site-specific processes.18
It is important to note that even though LCSEA may introduce a way around some of the
limitations of LCIA, it does not provide any new means of scientifically defining and comparing
environmental impacts. In conjunction with the work on preparing a framework for LCSEA, it
has been acknowledged that equivalency factors developed for local and regional effects will be
representative only for a specific stressor-effect network connected to a specific activity at a site.19
These equivalency factors are not developed to facilitate a comparison between different stressoreffects networks, since such a procedure will have to rely on a subjective weighting process.20
VALUATION - Comparing Environmental Impacts
It should be recognised at the outset that it will be impossible to
develop an entirely objective method for impact assessment
valuation.
(SETAC, 1992, A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact A ssessment , p 87.)

15

SETAC, 1994, Integrating Impact A ssessment into LCA , p 20.

16

SETAC, 1996, Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle A ssessment , p 23.

17

ISO/CD 14042, 1997, Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Life Cycle Impact A ssessment , p 17.

18

SETAC-Europe News (1998):1, ISO Impact Document Process Sparks Heated Debate , p 14.

19

Working Draft prepared for ISO Task Group on Type III Labelling, 1997, Life-Cycle Stressor-Effects
Assessment: A Framework for Integrating Life-Cycle Impact A ssessment with Environmental A ssessment Techniques , p
26.
20

ibid., p 27.

Valuation, the third and last, component of impact assessment, is the step in which the different
environmental impacts of the system under study are weighted against each other.21 An attempt
to perform a scientific weighting of the impacts would generally be based on criteria such as the
probability of harm caused by the impact, level of harm, the reversibility of harm, the substitutability of
harmed object, and the geographical range of harm.22
A common opinion though is that an assessment of environmental significance of different
impacts will inherently be based on social and economic values and perceptions.23 Since values
and perceptions of environmental problems differ between different regions, as well as the actual
environmental conditions, valuation is therefore likely to also differ from area to area.24
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment in general, and valuation specifically, is an area under
development, where little consensus has been reached so far. Concerning valuation, it is not
expected that consensus will ever be reached due to the subjectivity inherently involved in the
weighting of different environmental impacts.25 It would thus not be possible to construct a
general set of weighting principles for environmental impacts that would be accepted globally.
The Dutch TNO Study Centre for Environmental Research has in a study compared different
weightings associated with a sample of valuation methods.26 The result showed that the valuation
methods tend to produce very different sets of weights for the different environmental impact
categories. The weight given to eutrophication, relative to the dispersion of toxic substances ,
varied by a factor of 13, and the weight given to climate change varied by a factor of 65.
Different valuation methods do most often not explicitly discuss the different values that have
been taken as standpoints in those methods.27 It can thus be difficult to assess which set of values
that comes with the choice of a specific valuation method. Valuation methods can mainly be
divided into the three groups panel methods, monetarisation methods, and distance-to-target methods.28 The
use of the different valuation methods reflects in itself different existing opinions regarding who
should set the environmental priorities in the society; experts, the public, the market, or the
politicians.
Panel methods
In panel methods, the weighting of different environmental impacts is conducted by asking a
group of people about their preferences.29 The panel may consist of environmental experts, a
general sample of the population, international bodies, etc. The answers can be given either in a
quantitative or qualitative way. It has been learnt from different studies of panel methods that the
results achieved depend to a large extent on the way the questions are formulated.30 Examples of
panel methods are the Delphi technique developed by Landbank in the UK, and the Panel
questionnaire developed by IVAM Environmental Research in the Netherlands.

21

Nordic Council of Ministers, 1995, N ordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle A ssessment , p 73.

22

Henrik Wenzel, 1994, Structure of valuation step in LCA , p 160.

23

SETAC, 1993, Guidelines for Life-Cycle A ssessment: A Code of Practice , p 26.

24

Nordic Council of Ministers, 1995, N ordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle A ssessment , p 143.

25

ibid., p 149.

26

ENDS Report 231, 1994, The Elusive Consensus on Life cycle A ssessment , p 21.

27

Gran Finnveden, 1996, Valuation Methods within the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment, p 13.

28

ibid., p 21.

29

Gran Finnveden, 1996, Valuation Methods within the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment, p 23.

30

ibid., p 38.

Monetarisation methods
By using monetarisation methods, an attempt is made to put a monetary value on different
environmental impacts. Monetarisation methods are most often based on the Willingness-ToPay/ Accept approach (WTP/ WTA), where the individual s or the society s willingness to pay for
the conservation of natural resources or the avoidance of environmental damages is assessed and
used as a basis for weighting of different environmental impacts. In order to identify WTP/WTA,
monetarisation methods can either use contingent valuation, where people are directly asked to
reveal their preferences in monetary terms, or indirectly assess the preferences through different
approaches such as hedonic pricing, where an estimate is made concerning how much of the
differences in property values can be explained by differences in environmental conditions.
Examples of monetarisation methods are EPS and the Tellus method. The EPS, Environmental
Priority Strategies, method was developed by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute
and is based on estimations of society s Willingness-To-Pay to restore the environment. In the
Tellus method, developed by the Tellus Institute in the United States, the weighting is instead
based on an assessment of the costs associated with meeting relevant policy targets.
EPS society s WTP to restore the environment
Tellus costs associated with meeting relevant policy targets
Distance to target methods
A third type of valuation methods conducts the weighting of environmental impacts in relation to
different types of environmental targets.31 The targets addressed by the distance-to-target
methods could either be of a political or a scientific nature. One problem with using political
targets might be the difficulty of finding compatible targets for all relevant environmental
impacts.32 The scientific relevance of political targets is also very limited, even though political
targets are also likely to be based on the same type of previously mentioned criteria that would
guide scientific weighting of environmental impacts.33
Political targets are naturally delimited due to the lack of understanding of scientific findings
among political actors, and the general shortcomings of the political decision making process.
Further, political targets relate to politically defined areas. These areas are seldom homogenous in
terms of environmental conditions, and hence the targets are not likely to be relevant for the
entire area from a scientific point of view.34
Relating the targets to some kind of scientific sustainability levels is difficult and probably even
impossible.35 At least, the common opinion is that also scientific sustainability targets is to a large
extent coloured by political values, due to the lack of consensus on the meaning of sustainable
development.36
The type of targets that could be claimed to be the most scientific are targets based on so called
N o Observable Effect Levels (N OEL).37 NOEL is the level up to which the concentration of
a substance can increase without leading to any observable adverse effects. Even though labelling

31

Gran Finnveden, 1996, Valuation Methods within the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment, p 28.

32

ibid., p 35.

33

IW-HSG, 1996, Developments in LCA V aluation , p 96.

34

ibid., p 93.

35

Gran Finnveden, 1996, Valuation Methods within the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment, p 35.

36

SETAC, 1996, Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle A ssessment , p 81.

37

IW-HSG, 1996, Developments in LCA V aluation , p 86.

activities as being with or without observable effects could be considered as a fairly unambiguous
task, it still involves some elements of subjectivity. The initial choice of which effects to observe
is still value based. The problem with using NOEL as target levels, is that the information
provided by these levels are most often too limited to be useful in valuation.38 The reason is that
sustainable levels will most often be considered to be higher than the No Observable Effect
Levels , as certain adverse effects are acceptable also under the sustainability criterion.
Examples of existing methods are the Swiss Critical Volumes, Swiss Eco-points ( the
Ecoscarcity method ), and Eco-indicator 95:
1) Swiss Critical Volume methods measures the media volume that is needed to dilute the
emission to a level in line with the regulatory standards. The values for the emissions are
finally added to a final score for the total critical volume of each media.
2) Swiss Eco-points gives a weight to the emissions as the actual emission within the area
as a proportion of the maximum load accepted within the policy targets. Both Swiss
Critical Volumes and Swiss Eco-points have been developed by the Swiss Environment
Ministry, BUWAL.
3) Eco-indicator 95 only takes into consideration effects that damage human health and
ecosystems on a European level.39 The weighting is done based on the distance between
current and scientific target levels for an effect. Eco-indicator 95 was developed by two
Dutch consultant firms.
Conclusions
.
References
ed. Barnthouse, L. et al. 1997. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art. SETAC-North
America: Pensacola.
Braunschweig, A., Ruth Frster, Patrick Hofstetter, and Ruedi Mller-Wenk.1996. Developments in
LCA V aluation . IW-Diskussionsbeitrag 32. Institut fr Wirtschaft und kologie: St Gallen.
ed. Consoli et al. 1993. Guidelines for Life-Cycle A ssessment: A Code of Practice. SETAC.
ENDS Report 231. April 1994. The Elusive Consensus on Life Cycle Assessment. 20-22.

European Environment Agency. Life Cycle Assessment.

http://www.eea.dk/Projects/EnvMaST/lca/tab352.htm (2 Dec. 1997).
Finnveden, Gran. 1996. Valuation Methods within the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment. IVL Report
B 1231. Institutet fr Vatten- och Luftvrdsforskning (Swedish Environmental Research
Institute): Stockholm.
ISO/FDIS 14040. 1997. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework.
International Organisation for Standardisation: Genve.
ISO/CD 14042. 1997. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Impact Assessment.
International Organisation for Standardisation: Genve.
NOH Report 9523. 1995. The Eco-indicator 95. National reuse of Waste Research Programme: the
Netherlands.

38

ibid., p 93.

39

NOH Report 9523, 1995, The Eco-indicator 95 , p 3.

Nordic Council of Ministers. 1995. Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nord 1995:20.
Copenhagen.
Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL), and Soil
and Water, Ltd. 1997. Life-Cycle Stressor-Effects Assessment (LCSEA): A Framework for Integrating LifeCycle Impact Assessment with Environmental Assessment Techniques. Working Draft prepared for
Distribution to ISO TC207/SC3/TG3-Task Group on Type III Labelling.
SETAC. 1992. A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Sandestin. Florida.
SETAC-Europe. 1994. Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA. Brussels.
ed. Udo de Haes, H. A. 1996. Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. SETACEurope: Brussels.