Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models

Part 1: Methodological approach

  • LCA Methodology
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

The primary goal of this paper is to present a LCI modelling approach that allows the inclusion of all three types of impacts. The approach is based on consequential LCA (CLCA) rather than more common attributional LCA (ALCA). In CLCA, system boundaries are expanded in order to include all significantly affected activities. In addition we show how changing from an attributional to a consequential approach alters how the impacts are evaluated, and discuss the applicability of these two distinct approaches to brownfield rehabilitation decision support. The paper is restricted to urban and contaminated brownfields that are the result of industrial use and whose rehabilitation is aimed at allowing residential redevelopment.

Main Features

The approach is based on an analogy between the open-loop recycling of material resources and brownfield rehabilitation. Brownfield rehabilitation is associated with two functions: (1) managing the legacy of past occupations on the site, analogous to a waste management function, and (2) providing redevelopable land, analogous to a commodity production function. The consequential system is expanded to cover the subsequent occupation life cycle of the brownfield and the effects on the occupation life cycles of other sites. The proposed model quantifies effects on sites competing to supply the same occupation function. Two approaches are proposed to determine the nature of the sites that are affected and to what extent they are affected: the first resembling a closed-loop approximation, and the second based on economic partial-equilibrium models.

Results and Conclusions

The scope of the CLCA is far more complex than that of the ALCA. It requires additional data that are associated with important sources of uncertainty. It does allow, however, for the inclusion of tertiary impacts, making it suitable for the evaluation of the often cited environmental benefits of reintegrating the site in the economy. In addition, the ALCA methodology seems to be inappropriate to compare brownfield management options that result in different subsequent uses of the site. Since the effects of this fate are included within the scope of CLCA, however, virtually any brownfield management option available to a decision-maker can aptly be compared. The evaluation of primary and secondary impacts also differs when the consequential approach is used rather than the attributional approach. It is impossible to anticipate the effects of these methodological differences on the results based on the qualitative discussion presented in this paper.

Perspectives

The complexity and uncertainty introduced by switching to a consequential approach is very high: it is therefore recommendable to evaluate the significance in the gain of environmental information in an actual case study to determine if system expansion is recommendable. Such a case study is presented in Part II to this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alker S, Joy V, Roberts P, Smith N (2000): The definition of brownfield. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1) 49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferber U, Grimski D (2002): Brownfields and redevelopment of urban areas. Austrian Federal Environment Agency on behalf of the Concerted Action ‘Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies’ (CLARINET), Vienna, Austria

  3. Doetsch P, Rüpke A, Burmeier H (1999): Brownfields versus greenfields — economic and ecological aspects of land development options. Federal Environmental Agency, Germany — Contaminated Land Section, Berlin, Germany

  4. Grimski D, Doetsch P, Rüpke A (1998): Brownfields versus greenfields sites under economic and long-term environmental considerations. In: Proceedings of Contaminated Soil’ 98, Thomas Telford Publishing, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  5. NRTEE (2003): Cleaning up the past, building the future — A national brownfield redevelopment strategy for canada. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  6. Deason JP, Sherk GW, Carroll GA (2001): Public policies and private decisions affecting the redevelopment of brownfields: An analysis of critical factors, relative weights and areal differentials. The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Mayer E, Miller KT, Solitare L (2001): Brownfield redevelopment as a smart growth option in the united states. The Environmentalist 21, 129–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bardos RP, Kearney TE, Nathanail CP, Weenk A, Martin ID (2000): Assessing the wider environmental value of remediating land contamination. 7th International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, 18–22 September 2000, Leipzig, Germany

  9. NATO/CCMS (2001): Pilot study evaluation of demonstrated and emerging technologies for the treatment of contaminated land and groundwater (phase III) — Special session on decision support tools. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (NATO/CCMS), Wiesbaden, Germany

  10. Bardos P, Lewis A, Nortcliff S, Matiotti C, Marot F, Sullivan T (2002): Review of decision support tools for contaminated land and their use in Europe. Austrian Federal Environment Agency on behalf of the Concerted Action ‘Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies’ (CLARINET), Vienna, Austria

  11. Sullivan T, van Veen HJ, Davidson L, Bardos RP (2001): Review of discussions about decision support issues in Europe and North America at the NATO/CCMS special session, and overall conclusions. In: US EPA: Pilot study evaluation of demonstrated and emerging technologies for the treatment of contaminated land and groundwater (phase III) — Special session on decision support tools. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (NATO/CCMS), Wiesbaden, Germany, pp 113–124

  12. Beinat E, van Drunen MA, Nijboer MH, Koolenbrander JGM, Okx JP, Schütte AR (1997): REC: A methodology for comparing soil remediation alternatives on the basis of risk reduction, environmental merit and costs. CUR/NOBIS, Gouda, The Netherlands

  13. Toffoletto L, Deschênes L, Samson R (2005): LCA of ex-situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil. Int J LCA 10(6) 406–416

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Weth D (2001): Case study: Cost benefit analysis/ multi-criteria analyses for a remediation project. In: Pilot study evaluation of demonstrated and emerging technologies for the treatment of contaminated land and groundwater (phase III) — Special session on decision support tools. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society (NATO/CCMS), Wiesbaden, Germany, pp 69–82

    Google Scholar 

  15. Godin J, Ménard JF, Hains S, Deschênes L, Samson R (2004): Combined use of life cycle assessment and groundwater transport modeling to support contaminated site management. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 10(6) 1099–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Volkwein S, Hurtig H-W, Klöpffer W (1999): Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation. Int J LCA 4(5) 263–274

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Suèr P, Nilsson-Påledal S, Norrman J (2004): LCA for site remediation: A literature review. Soil and Sediment Contamination 13(4) 415–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schrenk V (2002): Environmental balancing of brownfield redevelopment. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Brownfield Sites — Assessment, Rehabilitation and Development, Cadiz, Spain

  19. Page CA, Diamond ML, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999): Life cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: Case study. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4) 801–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Curran MA, Mann M, Norris GA (2001): Report on the international workshop on electricity data for life cycle inventories. US EPA, Cincinnati, USA

  21. ISO (1998): Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. ISO 14041:1998(E). International Organisation of Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M, Molander S (2005): Normative ethics and methodology for life cycle assessment. J Cleaner Prod 13, 1225–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ekvall T (2002): Cleaner production tools: LCA and beyond. J Cleaner Prod 10, 403–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Finnveden G (1999): Long-term emissions from landfills should not be disregarded. Int J LCA 4(3) 125–126

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004): System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J LCA 9(3) 161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001): Allocation in iso 14041 — A critical review. J Cleaner Prod 9(3) 197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Diamond ML, Page CA, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999): Life cycle framework for contaminated site remediation options — Method and generic survey. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4) 788–800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lindeijer E (2000): Review of land use impact methodologies. J Cleaner Prod 8(4) 273–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kohler N, Hassler U (2002): The building stock as a research object. Building Research and Information 30(4) 226–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. DiPasquale D (1999): Why don’t we know more about housing supply? J Real Estate Finance and Economics 18(1) 9–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. US EPA (2005): Brownfields Success Stories 〈http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/success.htm〉, accessed May 2005

  32. Ekvall T (2000): A market-based approach to allocation at openloop recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29, 91–109

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zabel JE (2004): The demand for housing services. J Housing Economics 13, 16–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peuportier B, Kohler N, Boonstra C (1997): Regener. European methodology for evaluation of environmental impact of buildings — Life cycle assessment. REGENER project, summary report, European Commission directorate general XII for science, research and development, Program APAS

  35. Trusty WB, Meil JK (1996): Athena. An LCA model for the building design and research communities. In: Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association’s Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Nashville, TN, USA

  36. Doka G (2003): Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Final report ecoinvent 2000, Vol 13. Swiss Centre for LCI, EMPASG, Dübendorf, Switzerland

  37. Spielmann M, Kägi T, Stadler P, Tietje O (2004): Life cycle inventories of transport services. ecoinvent report no. 14. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland

  38. Rouwendal J (1998): On housing services. J Housing Economics 7, 218–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L Samson R (2006): Environmental Assessment of Brownfield Rehabilitation Using Two Different Life Cycle Inventory Models. Part 2: Case Study. Int J LCA, OnlineFirst 〈DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.2〉

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tomas Ekvall

    Present address: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 5302, 400 14, Göteborg, Sweden

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interpretation and Management of Products, Processes and Services, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Chemical Engineering Department, CIRAIG Interuniversity Reference Center for the Life Cycle Assessment, P.O. Box 6079, Stn. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, H3T 1J4, Canada

    Pascal Lesage, Louise Deschênes & Réjean Samoson

  2. Dept. Energy Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96, Göteborg, Sweden

    Tomas Ekvall

Authors
  1. Pascal Lesage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomas Ekvall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Louise Deschênes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Réjean Samoson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascal Lesage.

Additional information

[39] Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L, Samson R (20006): Environmental Assessment of Brownfield Rehabilitation Using Two Different Life Cycle Inventory Models. Part 2: Case Study. Int J LCA, OnlineFirst (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.2)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lesage, P., Ekvall, T., Deschênes, L. et al. Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12, 391–398 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.1

Keywords

Search

Navigation