A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in Australia -

Classification, Characterisation and Research Needs

June 2010
By: Jonas Bengtsson, Director and Nigel Howard, Managing Director

Purpose: This paper reports on one of the components of the Australian Building Products Life Cycle
Inventory (BP LCI) toolkit, launched in 2011. The aim of the toolkit is to enable comprehensive level
playing field life cycle assessment (LCA) of building and construction materials and products, building
elements and assemblies, and whole buildings in Australia.
This paper reports on the development of a set of environmental impact categories and characterisation
methods for a mid-point life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).
Methods: To first identify a broad set of environmental impact categories by reviewing international and
Australian LCIA methods and best practice guidelines; secondly, to categorise and group the impact
categories; third, to evaluate the categories against criteria to determine a suitable set of mid-point
categories and characterisation methods for Australian conditions; finally to recommend a level playing
field LCIA method for immediate use in Australian LCAs and what research is needed to develop
underpinning scientific characterisation methods.
Results and discussion: The LCIA method survey identified over 75 environmental impact category
descriptions, which in turn were grouped into 21 overall categories. Further rationalisation reduced the set
to 15 mid-point environmental impact categories, suitable to provide comprehensive coverage of
environmental issues for use in full LCA in Australia.
Conclusions: Continued coordinated work internationally is needed to accelerate the development of
methods required for full LCA. Adaptation of international methods for Australian conditions is required
for the majority of the recommended impact categories.
Keywords: Life cycle assessment, LCA, life cycle impact assessment, LCIA, methodology, classification,
characterisation, Australia.

Edge Environment Pty Ltd

L5, 39 East Esplanade, Manly NSW 2095 Australia
T +61 (2) 9438 0100
F: +61 (2) 99776440
Contact :Jonas Bengtsson, Director
jonas@edgeenvironment.com.au
edgeenvironment.com.au
ABN 941 301 116 16
 Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................... 2
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 BACKGROUND, AIM AND SCOPE ................................................................................................... 3
2 METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 5
3 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1 IMPACT CATEGORY EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Global warming .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Eutrophication ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.1.3 Photochemical smog ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.4 Human toxicity ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.5 Land transformation and use and ecological diversity .............................................................. 8
3.1.6 Eco-toxicity ................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.7 Ozone depletion (stratospheric) ................................................................................................. 8
3.1.8 Acidification................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.9 Abiotic resource depletion (non-renewable fuels and minerals)................................................ 8
3.1.10 Water resource depletion ......................................................................................................... 9
3.1.11 Waste ........................................................................................................................................ 9
3.1.12 Ionising radiation ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.13 Respiratory effects .................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.14 Noise and nuisance................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.15 Indoor environment quality (IEQ)............................................................................................ 9
3.1.16 Soil salinisation ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 RECOMMENDED IMPACT CATEGORIES AND METHODS ...................................................................... 10
4 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 12
5 DISCUSSION AND PERSPECTIVES ............................................................................................... 13
6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 13

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 2

 Abstract
Background, aim and scope: Since the early 1990s numerous life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)
methodologies have been developed. The widespread use of several different methodologies creates
confusion over which methodology to use and criticism when the use of life cycle assessment (LCA) gives
different results depending on the methodology chosen (European Commission Joint Research Centre
2008a).
This paper reports on one of the components of a three-year project completed in 2011. This was jointly
funded by the Building Products Innovation Council (BPIC) and AusIndustry to establish a toolkit of
resources that will permit comprehensive level playing field LCA of building and construction materials
and products, building elements and assemblies, and whole buildings in Australia.
The aim of this paper is to propose a set of environmental impact categories and characterisation methods
for a mid-point LCIA method to allow for consistent comparisons between LCA studies. The optional
LCIA elements of normalisation and weighting (ISO 2006a & b) of environmental impacts are not reported
on in this paper.
Methods: To first identify a broad set of environmental impact categories by reviewing 27 international
and Australian LCIA methods and best practice guidelines; secondly, to categorise and group the impact
categories; third, to evaluate the categories against criteria to determine a suitable set of mid-point
categories and characterisation methods for Australian conditions; finally to recommend a level playing
field LCIA method for immediate use in Australian LCAs and what research is needed to develop
underpinning scientific characterisation methods.
Results and discussion: The LCIA method survey identified over 75 environmental impact category
descriptions, which in turn were grouped into 21 overall categories. Further analysis and rationalisation
reduced the set to 15 mid-point environmental impact categories, suitable to provide comprehensive
coverage of environmental issues for use in full LCA in Australia.
It was found that:
four of the 15 mid-point environmental impact categories are considered ready for use in
Australian LCIA (global warming, ozone depletion, eco-toxicity and human toxicity)
six impact categories have well developed characterisation methods with global scope or they can
be developed for other geographical regions (abiotic resource depletion, eutrophication,
acidification, photochemical oxidation, ionising radiation and respiratory effects)
two impact categories have provisional, but significantly insufficient, characterisation methods
(ecological diversity and freshwater resource depletion)
three impact categories do not have any characterisation method applicable for use in Australian
LCIAs soil salinisation, nuisance and indoor environment quality (IEQ).
Conclusions: Further research and/or adaptation of international methods for Australian conditions is
required for the majority of the recommended impact categories. Continued coordinated work through the
Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS), in collaboration with sectoral initiatives such as the
BPIC and AusIndustry project for the construction sector as well as international collaboration, is needed to
accelerate the development of methods required for full LCA in Australia.
Keywords: Life cycle assessment, LCA, life cycle impact assessment, LCIA, methodology, classification,
characterisation, Australia.

1 Background, aim and scope

Impact assessment models that are used to interpret LCIA data are still emerging and evolving
internationally. Since the early 1990s numerous LCIA methodologies have been developed. The
widespread use of several different methodologies creates confusion over which methodology to use and
criticism when the use of LCA gives different results depending on the methodology chosen (European
Commission Joint Research Centre 2008a).
This paper communicates and summarises the results from one of the components in a three-year project,
completed in 2011, to establish a toolkit of resources that will permit comprehensive LCA of building and

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 3

construction materials and products, building elements and assemblies, and whole buildings in Australia.
An explicit aim of the toolkit was to establish a level playing field between industry sectors and
stakeholders.
This project, known as the Building Products Life Cycle Inventory (BP LCI) project, was jointly funded by
the Building Products Innovation Council (BPIC) and AusIndustry, and conducted in partnership with
Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS) and BRANZ with support and participation of BPICs
ten major building material national representative associations1. The main contract suppliers to the project
included Edge Environment and the CSIRO. The toolkit (available at
www.bpic.asn.au/LCIMethodology.htm) comprises:
1) A consensus agreed standard between material/product supply sectors for the compilation of
LCIA/LCA data.
2) An extensive database of generic average life cycle inventory data for Australian building and
construction materials and products compiled to the methodology.
3) A protocol, and rules for correct and appropriate use of the data.
4) A recommended impact assessment methodology, drawing on best practice internationally, but
adapted appropriately to Australian conditions.
5) An extensive database of replacement life, cleaning and maintenance data for materials, products,
building elements and assemblies and whole buildings.
6) A set of regionally relevant and Australian average weighting factors which reveal the importance
that Australians attach to different environmental impacts in different locations/climates around
Australia.
7) A web-based portal providing access to all of the resources above.
This paper describes the approach taken and results achieved by the ISO 14044 mandatory elements of item
4 above the recommended impact assessment methodology. This comprises a LCIA method founded on
international and Australian best practice. It is recommended for use in Australia in all sectors and in the
construction sector specifically. The LCIA elements of normalisation and weighting of environmental
impacts are not included in this paper.
According to ISO 14044:2006, LCIA results should be classified into impact categories, each with a
category indicator. This indicator can be located at any point between the LCIA results and the category
end-points (where the environmental effect occurs) in the cause-effect chain. ISO 14044 requires that
impact categories be linked to category end-points, which are defined as an attribute or aspect of the natural
environment, human health or resources, identifying an environmental issue giving cause for concern.
Within this framework, two main schools of methods have developed (Jolliet et al, 2003):
Classical impact assessment methods which restrict quantitative modelling to relatively early
stages in the cause-effect chain to limit uncertainties and group LCI results in mid-point
categories, according to themes. Themes are common mechanisms (e.g. global warming) or
commonly accepted groupings (e.g. eco-toxicity).
Damage oriented methods model the cause-effect chain up to the end-point or damage category
such as human health or environmental quality, this approach often comes with higher
uncertainties compared with mid-point modelling.
A mid-point approach was selected as the preferred approach to be established along with corresponding
normalisation and weighting factors for the for the BP LCI project.
The research undertaken to develop the LCIA method for the BP LCI project was undertaken between mid
2009 to early 2010.

1
Australian Steel Institute, Australian Window Association, Concrete Masonry Association of Australia, Cement Concrete &
Aggregates Australia, Forest & Wood Products Australia, Gypsum Board Manufacturers of Australasia, Insulation Manufacturers
Association of Australia, Roofing Tile Association of Australia, Steel Reinforcement Institute of Australia, and Think Brick
representing the Clay Brick & Paver manufacturers.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 4

2 Methods
To minimise value-choices and assumptions during the selection of impact categories, category indicators
and characterisation models for the LCIA method (as recommended in ISO 14044 section 4.4.2.2.3.c) and a
review of 27 international and Australian LCIA methods and best practice guidelines were conducted in
order to identify a broad set of environmental impact category candidates.
The identified impact categories were further grouped into a set of overall categories of similar
environmental impacts. The categories of grouped impacts were assessed considering the following set of
criteria, primarily drawn from Steen (1999) in order to establish a suitable range of impact categories:
1) The impact categories shall fully cover all significant types of environmental effects due to human
activities, without overlapping. The criteria for double counting is aligned with the
recommendation for selecting impact categories in ISO 14044:2006 (section 4.4.2.2.3): The
impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models should avoid double counting
unless required by the goal and scope definition, for example when the study includes both human
health and carcinogenicity.
2) The impact categories shall allow a quantitative characterisation of emissions and other human
activities in terms of category indicators.
3) The impact categories and indicators shall be possible to understand for laypeople..
4) The impact categories shall allow weighting of indicators across categories.
5) The impact categories and indicators shall be common to all types of environments. A change of a
land area from forest to agriculture should be possible to evaluate.
There are no criteria included for assessment of the relative relevance or importance of the respective
impact category. All the impact categories are assumed to have passed the test of basic relevance as they
have been implemented in at least one LCIA method. In other words, some may not consider mineral
depletion, ionising radiation, photochemical smog or perhaps waste as an issue of concern in Australia for
various reasons. The position taken in this work is that such evaluations are best handled in the
normalisation and weighting stages of the LCA and should not be disregarded a priori.
The impact categories that passed consideration of the five criteria were further evaluated against the
following in order to develop recommendations for a suitable category indicator and characterisation
method:
the work on LCIA by the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) (European
Commission Joint Research Centre 2008a & b)
the operational guide to the ISO standards (Guine et al. 2001)
Draft 3 of the Best Practice Guide to Life Cycle Impact Assessment in Australia (Grant & Peters
2009).
3 Results
The impact assessment models that are used to interpret LCA data are still emerging and evolving
internationally. ISO 14044 (section 4.4.2.2.3.c) recommends that value-choices and assumptions made
during the selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models be minimised.
The following multi-impacts methods and guidelines were assessed in order to identify a broad set of
impact category candidates:
AusLCI Draft Best Practice Guidelines (Grant & Peters 2009)
Australian Impact Method, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants 2008)
Draft Methodology for Environmental Profiles of Construction Products (BRE 2007)
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) (National Institute of Standards
and Technology 2010)
CML 1992, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants 2008)
CML 2001 (Guine et al. 2002)
Eco-indicator 95, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants 2008)

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 5

 Eco-indicator 99 (Goedkoop & Spriensma 2001)
Ecological Footprint, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants 2008)
Ecosystem Damage Potential (EDP), as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants 2008)
Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP) 97, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR
Consultants 2008)
EDIP 2003, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants 2008)
Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) 2007, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants
2008)
Enviro-Economic Valuation Model Nat Kerb Study (Nolan), as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR
Consultants 2008)
Environmental Priority Strategies (EPS) 2000, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants
2008)
Equivalents Units Model, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants 2008)
IMPACT 2002+ (Jolliet et al. 2003)
Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method based on end-point modelling (LIME)
Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Australian Rural Industries (URS Australia 2009)
SETAC-Europe: Second Working Group on LCIA (Udo de Haes et al. 1999)
Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI)
(US EPA 2010)
ReCiPe 2008 (Goedkoop et al. 2009)
Waste Impact Model C&I, Including Land Use, as included in SimaPro v7.1 (PR Consultants
2008).
The following methods are included in the Australian version of SimaPro v7.1. These are included in the
review to emphasise specific focus in specific environmental parameters all as included in SimaPro v7.1
(PR Consultants 2008):
Cumulative Exergy Demand
Cumulative Energy Demand
Eutrophication Single Score
Greenhouse Model Single Point.
The frequencies of occurrence of mid-point impact categories in the 27 methods are shown in the diagram
below.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 6

 Hazardous Waste
Salinisation Mul)"Impacts"Method"
Indoor Environment Quality
Nuclear Fuel Depletion Single"Impact"Methods"
Nuisance
Respiratory Inorganic
Radioactive Waste / Radiation
Ecological Diversity
Solid Waste
Embodied Energy
Water Use
Mineral Resource Depletion
Fossil Fuel Depletion
Acidification
Ozone Depletion
Eco-toxicity
Land Transformation and Use
Human Toxicity
Photochemical Smog
Eutrophication
Global Warming

0" 5" 10" 15" 20"

Occurences([#](
Figure 1: Frequency of use of environmental impact categories in the 27 recognised or evolving LCIA methods. It should be noted
that the categories on the Y-axis have been derived and abstracted from over 75 specifically defined impact categories in the surveyed
LCIA methods.
A certain measure of subjectivity has been introduced in summarising and categorising over 75 impact
category definitions from the assessed 27 LCIA methods. For instance, the Eco-indicator 95 method has
separate impact categories for carcinogens, heavy metals, pesticides and summer and winter smog to
describe human and ecological toxicity impacts, where CML 2001 uses human toxicity, freshwater aquatic
toxicity, marine eco-toxicity and photochemical oxidation to describe similar environmental impacts.
3.1 Impact category evaluation
This section presents the main findings and recommendations that have been developed based on
assessment of the 21 impact categories. These have been assessed against the five criteria for suitable
impact categories (i.e. avoid overlap, quantitative category indicators, understandable for laymen, allow for
weighting, common across environment types) and literature research into available category indicators and
characterisation methods.
3.1.1 Global warming
Most international reporting standards and the Australian national regulatory carbon accounting
frameworks use the 100-year global warming potential factors (GWP100) based on the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Changes (IPCCs) characterisation factors.
3.1.2 Eutrophication
Several of the LCIA methods available have separate treatment of terrestrial and aquatic systems, and most
of them only address one of the two. The European Commission Joint Research Centre (2008a) has found
that the Accumulated Exceedence (AE) method is the preferred mid-point evaluation of terrestrial
eutrophication, and that most models for aquatic eutrophication have rather weak modelling of the fate and
ignore some of the important removal processes for both N and P.
Overestimation of environmental burdens is likely in Australia due to the deposition of nitrogen oxide
emissions in insensitive environments. Grant and Peters (2009) recommend using the method by Krrman
and Jnsson (2001).
3.1.3 Photochemical smog
The European Commission Joint Research Centre (2008a) recommends the LOTUS-EUROS model (as
applied in the ReCiPe method) for photochemical ozone formation. The method consists of a detailed fate
and exposure model for human health impacts which makes it readily adaptable for calculation of a set of
consistent characterisation factors for each continent.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 7

3.1.4 Human toxicity
Lundie et al. (2007) have adapted the fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA 2.0 to calculate
characterisation factors for toxic chemicals (separated into carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects) for
Australian conditions.
3.1.5 Land transformation and use and ecological diversity
Land transformation and use are much-debated and controversial topics within LCIA. The ILCD Handbook
(European Commission Joint Research Centre 2010) describes the impact category as the damage to
ecosystems due to the effects of occupation and transformation of land. Examples of land use are
agricultural production, mineral extraction and human settlement. Transformation is the conversion of land
from one state to another state e.g. from its original state to an altered state or from an altered state to
another altered state.
There are a number of existing direct and indirect measures of biodiversity within the ecological field but
these are largely inappropriate for LCA. The main problem is that most measures are site-based, require
direct measurement and are therefore inappropriate for the process-based analysis of LCA (Penman et al.
2009). In many LCA/LCIA studies land use or land transformation is recorded, but without a clear
indication of the purpose for the indicator. For example it is not clear whether an increase in a particular
land use is desirable or not desirable (see also Baumann & Tillman 2004; Guine et al. 2001). It is not
known how the species-based approach in the Eco-indicator model would translate to Australia, which
includes large areas of low productivity (Grant & Peters 2009).
Penman et al. (2009) have proposed an ecological diversity index method based on the outcomes from
ALCASs biodiversity roundtable in 2007, and later discussed in the 2009 roundtable. In the authors view
this represents a genuine effort to include measurements of ecological diversity into LCA. Further work is
needed to determine how normalisation can be applied to the Penman et al. approach.
3.1.6 Eco-toxicity
Lundie et al. (2007) have adapted the fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA 2.0 to calculate
characterisation factors for toxic chemicals emitted under Australian conditions. Eco-toxicity includes three
sub-categories of freshwater aquatic eco-toxicity, marine aquatic eco-toxicity and terrestrial eco-toxicity.2
3.1.7 Ozone depletion (stratospheric)
All major mid-point LCIA methodologies use the Ozone Depletion Potentials (ODPs) published by the
World Meteorological Organisation. This defines ODPs of different gases in terms of chlorinated
fluourocarbon 11 equivalents (kg CFC-11 equivalent/kg emission).
3.1.8 Acidification
Accumulated Exceedence (AE) is the preferred global default method by the European Commission Joint
Research Centre (2008a), with the method by Posch et al. (2008) providing a good scientific and
stakeholder acceptance basis. AE-type calculations are used for policy purposes and by the UNECE
Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution.
3.1.9 Abiotic resource depletion (non-renewable fuels and minerals)
The abiotic resource depletion category includes depletion of fossil and nuclear fuels (non-renewable), and
of mineral resource embodied energy. It is common to include measures of energy consumption within
LCIA categories, but at the same time, these may often be considered as proxy measures for other classes
of impact under the widely used term embodied energy. There are many definitions of embodied energy
taking in different scopes and boundaries relevant to different goals and purposes. For the BP LCI project
the scope is limited to only non-renewable fuel resources consumed (renewable fuel resources come free of
burden in terms of depleting resources).

2
Eco-toxicity can be expanded to include characterisation of marine and freshwater sediment eco-toxicity.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 8

3.1.10 Water resource depletion
There are significant national and international efforts in the area of developing appropriate LCA methods
to account for water depletion. The process to date has allocated water resource depletion to the ecological
quality damage category. This requires the assessment of water depletion in terms of the consequential
impacts on the ecological function of water bodies.
Robust methodologies for assessing water use impacts have been under-represented since the start of LCA
methodology in the late 1960s, probably due to LCA being developed for industrial systems (usually less
dependent on water resources than agricultural ones) in water-abundant countries. Basically, LCA studies
report the total amount of water used by the production system from cradle (raw material acquisition) to
grave (waste management). One possible reason why water has not yet been properly assessed in LCA is
the plethora of forms and routes in which water enters and exits production systems (Mila i Canals et al.
2009).
Noteworthy Australian progress and research include Peters et al. (2010) who suggest classifying water use
according to the degree of contamination caused by its use and of environmental damage associated with
extraction until a suitable mid-point or end-point indicator for water use has been developed.
3.1.11 Waste
Waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) can be seen as an early indicator of leakage of toxic and global
warming emissions, a source of land use change, and an indicator of resource depletion. It is debatable
whether characterisation of waste output adds another dimension without significant overlap to the above-
mentioned impact categories. Waste indicators can be useful in improving the eco-efficiency of products
and processes, but should not be included as an LCIA category in its own right.
3.1.12 Ionising radiation
The European Commission Joint Research Centre (2008a & b) reports that for mid-point and end-point
characterisation, Frischknecht et al. (2000) include all vital model elements in a scientifically sound way.
The model scope is applicable to the comparative evaluation of impact of radioactive substances on human
health. It is valid on a global and European scale and is compatible with human toxicity category, also
leading to Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY) impact measures, although the damage assessment is
done with a high degree of uncertainty. Some methods (e.g. ReCiPe) use DALY assessments at mid-point.
There are currently no spatially differentiated factors available, and suitable methods for mid-point
characterisation of impacts on ecosystems are under development and review internationally.
3.1.13 Respiratory effects
A number of international LCIA methods include models for characterising respiratory effects, but the
authors are not aware of any corresponding works for Australian conditions (or whether it is necessary to
Australianise the overseas models).
3.1.14 Noise and nuisance
In principle, these noise and nuisance impacts could cover at least human health and ecosystem health, but
the environmental mechanisms are complex, non-linear and highly dependent upon local circumstances.
Moreover, noise is similar to odour in that any given level of exposure is experienced differently by
different individuals. Something considered a nuisance by one person might be appreciated by another (as
exemplified by the case of loud music). Hence, whether or not sound waves will lead to nuisance depends
partly on the actual situation and partly on the person interviewed (Guine et al. 2001).
Noise, or noise nuisance, refers to the environmental impacts of sound. Althaus et al. (2009) report that
according to some recent studies, noise from road transport is estimated to cause human health effects of
the same order of magnitude as the sum of all other emissions from the transport life cycle. However, at
present, none of them is implemented in any of the major life cycle inventory databases and commonly
used in LCA studies (see also Mller-Wenk 2004)
3.1.15 Indoor environment quality (IEQ)
In LCA, information about specific exposures will not always be available and health effects from indoor
exposure are generally excluded from LCA. Hellweg et al., (2009) report that the comparison between
indoor and outdoor human exposure per unit of emission shows that for many pollutants, intake per unit of

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 9

indoor emission may be several orders of magnitude higher than for outdoor emissions. Hellweg et al.
conclude that indoor exposure should be routinely addressed within LCA.
3.1.16 Soil salinisation
Soil salinisation (or salination) is arguably an important environmental issue in Australia. It was noted in
the review notes from the AusLCI LCIA Development Committee that the soil salinisation indicator
requires input of specific data related to water quality and is best applied in detailed agricultural LCAs, and
that soil salinisation can be used as a mid-point indicator without overlap with other land use categories.
The authors recommend excluding soil salinisation from the LCIA method until a proven characterisation
method has been developed for easy adoption by the construction sector.

3.2 Recommended impact categories and methods

Based on the above overview and discussion of identified impact categories we propose to use the 15 mid-
point categories:
Australian relevant impact assessment methods:
1. Global warming: based on the IPCCs characterisation factors using the 100-year GWP
factors for CO2 equivalents (kg CO2-eq).
2. Ozone layer depletion: based on the WMOs characterisations factors.
3. Human toxicity: based on characterisation factors in DALY developed by Lundie et al.
(2007).
4. Eco-toxicity: based on characterisation factors in Potentially Disappeared Fractions
(PDFs) developed by Lundie et al. (2007).
Non-Australian relevant impact assessment methods:
5. Eutrophication: an Australian appropriate method is under development, which
specifically aims at adequately incorporating contributions to eutrophication from
airborne emissions (e.g. power plants). Meanwhile use CML 2 baseline 2001
characterisation factors in phosphate equivalents (kg PO4-eq).
6. Photochemical smog: develop Australian characterisation factors using the LOTUS-
EUROS method. Meanwhile use ReCiPe global mid-point characterisation factors with
impacts from emissions characterised for their potency in terms of non-methane VOC
equivalents (kg NMVOC-eq).
7. Abiotic resource depletions (excluding water): based on available resource and reserves,
as opposed to the alternative based on marginal changes in extraction energy.3 Australian
characterisation and normalisation factors should be developed compliant with
international consensus building projects i.e. use the EDIP97 methodology as
recommended by the European Commissions Joint Research Centre. Use of the CML 2
baseline 2001 characterisation for abiotic resource depletion potential in antimony
equivalents (kg Sb-eq) is recommended in the interim.
8. Acidification: further research is required to confirm applicability of international
characterisation factors from, for example, CML and ReCiPe for Australian conditions.
Meanwhile use ReCiPe global (H) mid-point characterisation factors in sulphur dioxide
equivalents (kg SO2-eq).
9. Ionising radiation: further investigation into the availability of appropriate model(s) for
Australia, including fate and exposure (i.e. DALY). Meanwhile use ReCiPe global mid-
point characterisation factors in Uranium 235 equivalence (kg 235Ueq).

3
This position is taken based on the following input from the BPIC Technical Working Group to: ensure that the
metric and methodology is easily understood by laypeople; and to stay consistent with a mid-point approach
the marginal change approach is considered closer to an end-point indicator.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 10

 10. Respiratory effects: the scientific basis is well developed but there are gaps in the
Australian characterisation factors for several key emissions. Further research based on
(preferably) RiskPoll should be conducted to establish characterisation and normalisation
factors for Australia. Meanwhile use the characterisation factors developed for IMPACT
2002+ expressed in particulates with a diameter of 2.5 m equivalence (kg PM2.5-eq)
Provisional characterisation methods:
11. Land transformation and use: a method assessing land transformation and use based on
the land use categories (i.e. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2009),
aligned with international best practice, should be developed. Meanwhile use the Land
Use Impact Method implemented in the SimaPro Australian Impact Method with
characterisation factors in hectare.years (ha.a).
12. Water resource depletion: an appropriate method recognising the complexity of the issue
is under development by the University of New South Wales (Peters et al. 2010). Use
total freshwater consumed (kL water) in the interim.
No characterisation methods identified:
13. Soil salinisation: requires further discussion and analysis before any recommendation can
be made. Evaluate emerging impact assessment models for inclusion into the LCIA
method.
14. Noise and nuisance: should arguably be included in full LCAs, but the scientific
methodology and coverage of the issue is deemed currently inadequate. Evaluate
emerging impact assessment models for inclusion into the LCIA method. No interim
method identified.
15. IEQ: should arguably be included in full LCAs, but the scientific methodology and
coverage of the issue is deemed currently inadequate. Evaluate emerging impact
assessment models for inclusion into the LCIA method. No interim method identified.
The authors recommend excluding the waste impact category aligned with Goedkoop et al. (2009) as
impact categories are supposed to reflect issues of direct environmental relevance. This implies that waste
is not an impact category but that the effects of waste processing should be part of the method in terms of
its effects on climate change, toxicity, ecological diversity etc.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 11

 Figure 2: Framework of impact categories for characterisation modelling at midpoint.

The proposed set of impact categories and methodology closely resemble the established CML 2001,
IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe and TRACI 2 methods in taking a mid-point indicator approach and in the set of
impact categories included.
The proposed LCIA method differs significantly from the only other known Australian sectoral framework
for LCA identified, the Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Australian Rural Industries (URS Australia
2009), which requires reporting on three impact categories, namely greenhouse gas emissions, energy and
water in the LCIA phase.4
4 Conclusion
A categorisation and characterisations LCIA method has been proposed for adoption into a level playing
field full LCA framework in Australia. The majority of required characterisation models are
underdeveloped or non-existing for Australian conditions, and significant research and development is
required to complete and adapt the proposed LCIA method.
Continued coordinated work through ALCAS, in collaboration with sectoral initiatives such as the BP LCI
project for the construction sector as well as international collaboration is needed to accelerate the
development and refinement of methods required for full LCA in Australia.

4
URS Australia note that industry may need to think about/prepare going beyond these three indicators to consider
eutrophication and toxicity as well to meet future requirements or comparisons with other countries (p. 3).

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 12

5 Discussion and perspectives
LCA is an environmental decision-making tool with a significant degree of flexibility and adaptability to
specific goals and scope of studies. However, in the case of using LCA for comparative or environmental
labelling purposes, some degree of freedom needs to be sacrificed in order to achieve a level playing field
between industry sectors and stakeholders. The proposed LCIA method presented in this paper is not
intended to be the sole method for use in LCAs in Australia, but rather a resource and part of a toolkit for
an unbiased comprehensive assessment method that covers a broad range of environmental impact
categories suitable for LCA.
It should be noted that the scope of covering all relevant environmental impact categories comes in some
instances at the price of resorting to global or even non-Australian specific models. It is also noted that a
large number of alternative methods are used for some impact categories, suggesting that there is not yet a
clear consensus on how to model such impacts (e.g. acidification, eutrophication, land transformation and
resource depletion). In other cases (e.g. global warming, ozone depletion and ionising radiation) there
appears to be one method commonly used which indicates a higher degree of consensus.
The method proposed in this paper is anticipated to be used with normalisation and weighting factors as
developed for and presented in the BP LCI toolkit.

6 References
Althaus, H-J., de Haan, P. and Scholz, R.W. (2009) Traffic noise in LCA. Part 1: State-of-science and
requirement profile for consistent context-sensitive integration of traffic noise in LCA, Int J Life Cycle
Assess, 14: 560570.
Baumann H. and Tillman A-H. (2004) The hitch hikers guide to LCA An orientation in life cycle
assessment methodology and application, Studentlitteratur, Sweden, ISBN 91-44-02364-2.
Bsch M.E., Hellweg S., Huijbregts M.A.J. and Frischknecht R. (2007) Applying cumulative energy
demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent databases. Int J LCA 12(3): 181190.
De Schryver, A.M., Brakkee, K.W., Goedkoop, M.J. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2009) Characterization
factors for global warming in life cycle assessment based on damage to humans and ecosystems,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 43(6): 16891695.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2009) Australian Land Use and Management
(ALUM) Classification, Commonwealth of Australia,
http://adl.brs.gov.au/mapserv/landuse/docs/ALUMv6.pdf [accessed on 2 March 2010].
Department of Climate Change [DCC] (2008) Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Australias low
pollution future, White Paper, Commonwealth of Australia, ISBN 978-1-921298-30-1.
Department of Climate Change [DCC] (2009) National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors, June
2009, Commonwealth of Australia, www.climatechange.gov.au [accessed 11 January 2010].
European Commission Joint Research Centre (2008a) Recommendation of methods for LCIA,
Working Draft 0.7, http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ [accessed 11 January 2010].
European Commission Joint Research Centre (2008b) Analysis of LCIA methodologies, Working
Draft 0.8, http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ [accessed 11 January 2010].
European Commission Joint Research Centre (2010) Framework and requirements for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment models and indicators, First edition, http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ [accessed 13 April
2010].
Frischknecht, R., Braunschweig, A., Hofstetter, P. and Suter, P. (2000) Modelling human health effects
on radioactive releases in life cycle impact assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
20(2): 159189.
Frischknecht R., Jungbluth N., Althaus H.J., Doka G., Dones R., Hischier R., Hellweg S., Humbert S.,
Margni M., Nemecek T., and Spielmann M. (2007) Implementation of life cycle impact assessment
methods: Data v2.0. ecoinvent Report No. 3, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dbendorf,
Switzerland.

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 13

 Goedkoop M. and Spriensma R. (2001) The Eco-indicator 99: A damage oriented method for life cycle
impact assessment, Methodology Report, Third Edition. Pr Consultants, Amersfoort (NL),
Netherlands.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Heijungs, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J. and van Zelm, R. (2009)
ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicators at the mid-point and the end-point level, First edition, Report I: Characterisation, VROM,
Holland.
Grant T. and Peters G. (2009) Best practice guide to life cycle impact assessment in Australia, Draft 3
http://150.229.66.74/auslci/resources/publications/best_practice_guide_to_LCI_in_Australia_v3.pdf
[accessed 12 July 2010].
Guine et al. (2001) LCA An operational guide to the ISO-standards, Final report,
http://cml.leiden.edu/research/industrialecology/researchprojects/finished/new-dutch-lca-guide.html
[accessed 8 July 2010].
Hellweg, S., Demou,E., Bruzzi, R., Meijer, A., Rosenbaum, R.K., Huijbregts, M.A.J. and McKone
T.E. (2009) Integrating human indoor air pollutant exposure within life cycle impact assessment,
Environ Sci Technol., 43(6): 16701679.
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management Life cycle assessment Principles and
framework, Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO (2006b) ISO14044:2006 Environmental management Life cycle assessment Requirements and
guidelines, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jolliet O., Margni M., Charles R., Humbert S., Payet J., Rebitzer G. and Rosenbaum R. (2003)
IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology, Int J LCA, 8(6): 324330.
Krrman, E., and Jnsson, H. (2001) Including oxidisation of ammonia in the eutrophication impact
category, Int J LCA, 6(1): 2933.
Lundie S., Huijbregts M.A.J., Rowley H.V., Mohr N.J. and Feitz A.J. (2007) Australian
characterisation factors and normalization figures for human toxicity and ecotoxicity, Journal of
Cleaner Production, 15: 819832.
Mila i Canals, L., Chenoweth, J., Chapagain, A., Orr, S., Anton, A. and Clift, R. (2009) Assessing
freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part IInventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main
impact pathways, Int J Life Cycle Assess,14: 2842.
Mller-Wenk, R. (2004) A method to include in LCA road traffic noise and its health effects, Int J
LCA, 9(2): 7685.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (2010) BEES 4.0,
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/bees.html [accessed 14 July 2010].
Penman, T.D., Law, B.S. and Ximenes, F. (2009) A potential accounting method of biodiversity in life
cycle assessment, Discussion Paper, Forest Science Centre, NSW Department of Primary Industries,
Beecroft NSW 2119, Australia.
Peters G.M., Wiedemann, S.G., Rowley, H.V. and Tucker, R.W. (2010) Accounting for water use in
Australian red meat production, Int J LCA, 15(3): 311-320.
Posch, M., Aherne, J., Forsius, M., Fronzek, S., and Veijalainen, N. (2008) Modelling the impacts of
European emission and climate change scenarios on acid-sensitive catchments in Finland, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 12 (Special Issue).
PR Consultants (2008) SimaPro Database Manual Methods library,
http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf [accessed 14 December 2009].
Spadaro, J.V. and Rabl, A. (2004) Pathways analysis for population-total health impacts of toxic metal
emissions, Risk Analysis, 24(5): 1121-1141.
Steen B. (2001) Identification of significant environmental aspects and their indicators, CPM, Centre
of Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems, and Department of Environmental
Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden,

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 14

 http://eps.esa.chalmers.se/Identification%20of%20significant%20environmental%20aspects.pdf
[accessed on 25 September 2009].
Udo de Haes H.A., Jolliet O., Finnveden G., Hauschild M., Krewitt W. and Mller-Wenk R. (1999)
Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact
assessment, Background Document for the Second Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment
of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2), Int. J. LCA 4(3): page numbers?.
URS Australia Pty Ltd (2009) Life cycle assessment methodology for Australian Rural Industries,
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, RIRDC Publication No 09/028, Australian
Government, Canberra.
US EPA (2010) Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts
(TRACI), http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/sab/traci/ [accessed 3 August 2010].

A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method for Use in in Australia 15