首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Cleaner Production >Environmental impacts of household consumption in Europe: Comparing process-based LCA and environmentally extended input-output analysis
【24h】

Environmental impacts of household consumption in Europe: Comparing process-based LCA and environmentally extended input-output analysis

机译:欧洲家庭消费对环境的影响:比较基于过程的生命周期评估和环境扩展的投入产出分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The environmental impacts generated by household consumption are generally calculated through footprints, allocating the supply-chain impacts to the final consumers. This study compares the result of the Consumer Footprint indicator, aimed at assessing the impacts of household consumption in Europe, calculated with the two standard approaches usually implemented for footprint calculations: (i) a bottom-up approach, based on process-Life cycle assessment of a set of products and services representing household consumption, and (ii) a top-down approach, based on environmentally extended input-output tables (EXIOBASE 3). Environmental impacts are calculated considering 14 environmental impact categories out of the 16 included in the EF2017 impact assessment method. Both footprints show similar total values regarding climate change, freshwater eutrophication and fossil resource use, but in the meantime very large differences (more than a factor 2) regarding particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, land use and mineral resource use. The exclusion of services in the bottom-up approach can explain only to some extent these differences. However, the two approaches converge in identifying food as the main driver of impact in most of the impact categories considered (with a generally lower contribution in top-down compared to bottom-up). Housing and mobility are relevant as well for some impact categories (e.g. particulate matter and fossil resource depletion). Some substances are identified as hotspot by both approaches, e.g. the emission of NH3 to air (for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication), of NOx to air (for acidification, marine and terrestrial eutrophication, and, to some extent, photochemical ozone formation), of P to water and to soil (for freshwater eutrophication) and of fossil CO2 to air (for climate change). Significant differences at the inventory side are key drivers for the differences in total impacts. These include: (i) differences in the intensity of emissions, (ii) differences in the coverage of elementary flows, (iii) differences in the level of detail relative to elementary flows. Overall, the key converging results from both approaches (in particular regarding most contributing areas of consumption and substances) can be considered as a robust basis to support the definition of policies aimed at reducing the environmental footprint of household consumption in Europe. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译:家庭消费产生的环境影响通常通过足迹进行计算,将供应链影响分配给最终消费者。这项研究比较了消费者足迹指标的结果,该指标旨在评估欧洲家庭消费的影响,该指标是通过通常用于足迹计算的两种标准方法计算得出的:(i)自下而上的方法,基于过程生命周期评估代表家庭消费的一组产品和服务,以及(ii)基于环境扩展的投入产出表(EXIOBASE 3)的自上而下的方法。考虑到EF2017影响评估方法中包括的16种环境影响类别,计算环境影响。这两个足迹在气候变化,淡水富营养化和化石资源利用方面显示出相似的总价值,但与此同时,在颗粒物,光化学臭氧形成,土地利用和矿产资源利用方面存在很大差异(超过2倍)。自下而上的方法排除服务只能在某种程度上解释这些差异。但是,在考虑的大多数影响类别中,这两种方法在确定食品是影响的主要驱动因素上趋于一致(自上而下与自下而上相比,其贡献通常较低)。住房和流动性也与某些影响类别(例如颗粒物和化石资源枯竭)相关。两种方法都将某些物质标识为热点,例如NH3向空气中的排放(用于酸化和陆地富营养化),NOx向空气中的排放(用于酸化,海洋和陆地富营养化,并在一定程度上形成光化学臭氧),P向水和土壤的排放(用于淡水富营养化)以及将化石二氧化碳排放到空气中(用于气候变化)。库存方面的重大差异是造成总体影响差异的主要驱动力。其中包括:(i)排放强度的差异,(ii)基本流量的覆盖范围的差异,(iii)相对于基本流量的详细程度的差异。总体而言,这两种方法(尤其是在消费和物质的最大贡献领域)的关键融合结果可被视为支持制定旨在减少欧洲家庭消费对环境足迹的政策的有力依据。 (C)2019作者。由Elsevier Ltd.发布

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号