Abstract
Purpose
In LCA, the intrinsic dependence of productions to human labour (HL) activities is usually neglected, without providing any clear arguments. HL is not considered to be related to and affected by, changes to the functional unit, although this is evidently not the case. This research aims at investigating the relationship between HL and LCA and at developing an operational framework to assess the life cycle environmental impact of HL in LCA.
Materials and methods
System boundaries and functional unit (euro/working-hour) of HL were defined. Statistical datasets of household expenditures (HEs) allowed differentiating among human consumption behaviours and the definition of three HL types, based on different work skills: HL-1 (qualified worker), HL-2 (technician), and HL-3 (manual worker). The HEs framework of Luxembourg was used because of data availability and was then extended to other EU-27 countries. A comparative LCIA of the HLs types was carried out using an environmentally extended input–output model (EU-27). Afterwards, ten agri-food and industrial LCAs case studies were modified for hybrid LCAs, adding HL input to LCIs and using the ReCiPe midpoint method for LCIA.
Results and discussion
The LCIA comparison of HLs shows that HL-1 generates environmental impacts that are always greater than HL-2 and HL-3, e.g. 1 h of HL-1, which involves workers with the highest consumption of goods and services, does generate 0.52 kg CO2-eq, whereas HL-2 and HL-3 generate 0.46 and 0.41 kg CO2-eq, respectively. The impact of average HL is higher in EU countries with the highest HEs budgets, e.g. the average HL impact in Luxembourg is 28% to 79% higher than the corresponding HL impact in other EU-27 countries. Within the case studies, the HL significantly contributes to the total impact for several categories (e.g. fossil and ozone depletion up to 16% and 20%, respectively). Despite these important results, some limitations due to data and models used are investigated to suggest further methodological improvements.
Conclusions
The integration of HL inputs to product LCIs can improve accuracy of the entire life cycle analysis, since no product would exist without direct and/or indirect HL. This leads considering humans at the same level of technological/economic activities that cause environmental damage, with humans being perceived as leading actors and explicitly responsible for the impacts. What remains an open question is how to account for non-physical information, such as knowledge/education/culture, which distinguish humans from machinery and are essential items for our future sustainable development.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abel T (2010) Human transformities in a global hierarchy: emergy and scale in the production of people and culture. Ecol Model 221(17):2112–2117
Bender MH (2003) Energy budget of an energy-integrated organic farm. In: Proceedings of organic agriculture research symposium 2003, ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meetings, Denver, Colorado, USA
Brandt-Williams S (2002) Handbook of emergy evaluation—folio#4—Emergy of Florida Agriculture. Centre for Environmental Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. http://www.emergysystems.org/downloads/Folios/Folio_4.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2011
Brown MT, Herendeen RA (1996) Embodied energy analysis and emergy analysis: a comparative view. Ecol Econ 19(3):219–235
Campbell DE (1998) Emergy analysis of human carrying capacity and regional sustainability: an example using the State of Maine. Environ Monit Assess 51(1–2):31–569
Ciotola RJ, Lansing S, Martin JF (2011) Emergy analysis of biogas production and electricity generation from small-scale agricultural digesters. Ecol Eng 37(11):1681–1691
Claro RM, Levy RB, Bandoni DH, Mondini L (2010) Per capita versus adult-equivalent estimates of calorie availability in household budget surveys. Cad Saude Publica 26(11):2188–2195
Crawford RH (2008) Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. J Environ Manage 88(3):496–506
Da Costa R, de Laiglesia JR, Martínez E, Melguizo A (2011) The economy of the possible pensions and informality in Latin America. Working Paper No. 295, OECD Development Centre, Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/22/46937116.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2011
Dreyer LC, Hauschild MZ, Schierbeck J (2010) Characterisation of social impacts in LCA part 1: development of indicators for labour rights. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):247–259
Druckman A, Jackson T (2009) The carbon footprint of UK households 1990–2004: a socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multiregional input–output model. Ecol Econ 68(7):2066–2077
Druckman P, Sinclair P, Jackson T (2008) A geographically and socio-economically disaggregated local household consumption model for the UK. J Clean Prod 16(7):870–880
Ecoinvent (2010) Ecoinvent database v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland. http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/. Accessed 19 September 2011
Eurostat (2008a). European price statistics—an overview. Eurostat statistical books, European Commission, Luxembourg. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-70-07-038/EN/KS-70-07-038-EN.PDF. Accessed 19 September 2011
Eurostat (2008b) NACE Rev.2—Statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community. Methologies and Working papers, Eurostat-European Commission, Luxembourg. http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/nacecpacon/info/data/en/NACE%20Rev%202%20structure%20+%20explanatory%20notes%20-%20EN.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2011
Eurostat (2011) Mean consumption expenditure by detailed COICOP level (in PPS), year 2005. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database. Accessed 19 September 2011
Eurostat-OECD (2006) Methodological manual on purchasing power parities. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/10/37984252.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2011
EXIOPOL (2011) A new environmental accounting framework using externality data and input–output tools for policy analysis. http://www.feem-project.net/exiopol/index.php. Accessed 19 September 2011
Fluck RC (1981) Net energy sequestered in agricultural labor. T Am Soc Agr Eng 24(6):1449–1455
Fluck RC (1992) Energy of human labor. In: Fluck RC (ed) Energy in Farm production, vol. 6. of energy in world agriculture. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 31–36
Giampietro M (1997) Socioeconomic pressure, demographic pressure, environmental loading and technological changes in agriculture. Agr Ecosys Environ 65(3):201–229
Giampietro M, Pimentel D (1990) Assessment of the energetics of human labour. Agr Ecosys Environ 32(3–4):257–272
Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Munda G (2006) Integrated assessment and energy analysis: quality assurance in multi-criteria analysis of sustainability. Energy 31(1):59–86
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, de Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition, report I: characterisation. The Hague: Ministry of VROM, The Netherlands
Guzmán GI, Alonso AM (2008) A comparison of energy use in conventional and organic olive oil production in Spain. Agr Syst 98(3):167–176
Haberl H (2001a) The energetic metabolism of societies—part I: accounting concepts. J Ind Ecol 5(1):11–33
Haberl H (2001b) The energetic metabolism of societies—part II: empirical examples. J Ind Ecol 5(2):71–88
Haberl H, Weisz H, Amann C, Bondeau A, Eisenmenger N, Erb K-H, Fischer-Kowalski M, Fridolin Krausmann F (2006) The energetic metabolism of the European Union and the United States decadal energy input time-series with an emphasis on biomass. J Ind Ecol 10(4):151–171
Hau JL, Bakshi BR (2004) Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecol Model 178(1–2):215–225
Heijungs R, Suh S (2006) Reformulation of matrix-based LCI: from product balance to process balance. J Cleaner Prod 14(1):47–51
Hertwich EG (2005) Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 39(13):4673–4684
Hertwich EG (2011) The life cycle environmental impacts of consumption. Econ Sys Res 23(1):27–47
Ingwersen WW (2010) Uncertainty characterization for emergy values. Ecol Model 221(3):445–452
Jørgensen A, Lai LCH, Hauschild MZ (2010) Assessing the validity of impact pathways for child labour and well-being in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):5–16
Kondo Y, Nakamura S (2004) Evaluating alternative life-cycle strategies for electrical appliances by the waste input–output model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(4):236–246
Krausmann F (2004) Milk, manure, and muscle power. Livestock and the transformation of preindustrial agriculture in Central Europe. Hum Ecol 32(6):735–772
Krausmann F, Haberl H (2002) The process of industrialization from the perspective of energetic metabolism—socioeconomic energy flows in Austria 1830–1995. Ecol Econ 41(2):177–201
Lenzen M, Peters G (2010) How city dwellers affect their resource hinterland—a spatial impact study of Australian households. J Ind Ecol 14(1):73–90
Lenzen M, Schaeffer R (2004) Environmental and social accounting for Brazil. Environ Res Econ 27(2):201–226
Lenzen M, Treloar G (2003) Differential convergence of life-cycle inventories toward upstream production layers implications for life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):137–160
Lin C (2009) Hybrid input–output analysis of wastewater treatment and environmental impacts: a case study for the Tokyo Metropolis. Ecol Econ 68(7):2096–2105
Loake C (2001) Energy accounting and well-being—examining UK organic and conventional farming systems through a human energy perspective. Agr Syst 70(1):275–294
Milà L, Domènech X, Rieradevall J, Fullana P, Puig R (1998) Application of life cycle assessment to footwear. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(4):203–208
Miller RE (1980) The relationship between type I and type II income multipliers in an input–output model: a comment. Int Regional Sci Rev 5(2):185–188
Moll HC, Noorman KJ, Kok R, Engström R, Throne-Holst H, Clark C (2005) Pursuing more sustainable consumption by analyzing household metabolism in European countries and cities. J Ind Ecol 9(1):259–276
Mongelli I, Suh S, Huppes G (2005) A structure comparison of two approaches to LCA inventory data, based on the MIET and ETH databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(5):317–324
Munksgaard J, Wier M, Lenzen M, Dey C (2005) Using input–output analysis to measure the environmental pressure of consumption at different spatial levels. J Ind Ecol 9(1–2):169–185
Muñoz I, Milà i Canals L, Clift R (2008) Consider a spherical man—a simple model to include human excretion in life cycle assessment of food products. J Ind Ecol 12(4):521–538
Muñoz I, Milà i Canals L, Fernández-Alba AR (2010) Life cycle assessment of the average Spanish diet including human excretion. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(8):794–805
Nakamura S, Kondo Y (2002) Input–output analysis of waste management. J Ind Ecol 6(1):39–63
Nebel B, Zimmer B, Wegener G (2006) Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings—a representative study for the German flooring industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):172–182
Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH (2008a) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cane molasses in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):301–311
Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH (2008b) Life cycle assessment of fuel ethanol from cassava in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):147–154
Nguyen TLT, Gheewala SH, Garivait S (2007) Full chain energy analysis of fuel ethanol from cassava in Thailand. Environ Sci Technol 41(11):4135–4142
Nijdam DS, Wilting HC, Goedkoop MJ, Madsen J (2005) Environmental load from Dutch private consumption. J Ind Ecol 9(1–2):147–168
Odum HT (1988) Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science 242(4882):1132–1139
Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. Wiley, New York, USA
Ortega E (1997) Handbook of emergy calculation. http://www.unicamp.br/fea/ortega/curso/handbook.htm. Accessed 19 September 2011
Paoli C, Vassallo P, Fabiano M (2008) Solar power: an approach to transformity evaluation. Ecol Eng 34(3):191–206
Pimentel D (1993) Economics and energetics of organic and conventional farming. J Agric Environ Ethics 6(1):53–60
Pulselli RM (2010) Integrating emergy evaluation and geographic information systems for monitoring resource use in the Abruzzo region (Italy). J Environ Manage 91(11):2349–2357
Pulselli RM, Simoncini E, Ridolfi R, Bastianoni S (2008) Specific emergy of cement and concrete: an energy-based appraisal of building materials and their transport. Ecol Indic 8(5):647–656
Pulselli FM, Patrizi N, Focardi S (2011) Calculation of the unit emergy value of water in an Italian watershed. Ecol Model 222(16):2929–2938
Rowley HV, Lundie S, Peters GM (2009) A hybrid life cycle assessment model for comparison with conventional methodologies in Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(6):508–516
Rugani B, Huijbregts MAJ, Mutel C, Bastianoni S, Hellweg S (2011) Solar energy demand (SED) of commodity life cycles. Environ Sci Technol 45(12):5426–5433
Sciubba E, Ulgiati S (2005) Emergy and exergy analyses: complementary methods or irreducible ideological options? Energy 30(10):1953–1988
Sciubba E, Bastianoni S, Tiezzi E (2008) Exergy and extended exergy accounting of very large complex systems with an application to the province of Siena, Italy. J Environ Manage 86(2):372–382
Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH (2009) Environmental sustainability assessment of bio-ethanol production in Thailand. Energy 34(11):1933–1946
Sorrells NR, Pimentel D (1981) Food, energy, and the environment: alternatives for creating new lifestyles. Am Biol Teach 43(4):190–195
Spirinckx C, Ceuterick D (1996) Biodiesel and fossil diesel fuel: comparative life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(3):127–132
STATEC (2008) Dépenses annuelles moyennes par ménage selon la catégorie socio-professionnelle de la personne de reference. http://www.statistiques.public.lu/stat/TableViewer/tableViewHTML.aspx?ReportId=517&IF_Language=fra&MainTheme=3&FldrName=1&RFPath=28. Accessed 19 September 2011
UN Statistics Division (2011) COICOP—classification of individual consumption according to purpose. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl = 5. Accessed 19 September 2011
Suh S (2003) MIET 3.0 User Guide—an inventory estimation tool for missing flows using input–output techniques. SimaPro Database Manual, PRé Consultants, The Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DatabaseManualUSAIODatabase98.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2011
Suh S, Huppes G (2002) Missing inventory estimation tool using extended input–output analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(3):134–140
Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13(7):687–697
Suh S, Nakamura S (2007) Five years in the area of input–output and hybrid LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):351–352
Tedford JR, Capps OJ, Havlicek JJ (1986) Adult equivalent scales once more: a developmental approach. Am J Agr Econ 68(2):322–333
Tukker A et al (2006) Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO)—analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. In: Eder P, Delgado L (eds) Main Report, European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre (JRC). ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/eur22284en.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2011
Ulgiati S, Raugei M, Bargigli S (2006) Overcoming the inadequacy of single criterion approaches to life cycle assessment. Ecol Model 190(3–4):432–442
Vassallo P, Paoli C, Fabiano M (2009) Emergy required for the complete treatment of municipal wastewater. Ecol Eng 35(5):687–694
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499
Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96
Weidema BP, Christiansen K, Nielsen AM, Norris GA, Notten P, Suh S, Madsen J (2005) Prioritisation within the integrated product policy. Environmental project no. 980. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen. http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-517-4/pdf/87-7614-518-2.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2011
Wier M, Lenzen M, Munksgaard J, Smed S (2001) Environmental effects of household consumption pattern and lifestyle. Econ Sys Res 13(3):259–274
Zhang TW, Dornfeld DA (2007) Energy use per worker-hour: a method of evaluating the contribution of labour to manufacturing energy use. In: Shozo T, Yasushi U (eds) Proceedings of the 14th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering 2007, advances in life cycle engineering for sustainable manufacturing businesses. Waseda University, Tokyo, pp 189–194
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Research Fund of Luxembourg and cofounded under the Marie Curie Actions of the European Commission (FP7-COFUND). These are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Dr. Alex Cornelissen for the English proof-reading and Colin Jury for his helpful comments on the preliminary idea behind this paper. We would like also to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, which notably contributed to improve the quality of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Shinichiro Nakamura
Electronic Supplementary Materials
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOC 1681 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rugani, B., Panasiuk, D. & Benetto, E. An input–output based framework to evaluate human labour in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 795–812 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0403-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0403-1