Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

Part 2: Case study

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

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

The principal aim of this paper is to evaluate the environmental attributes and consequences of a ‘rehabilitation for residential redevelopment’ scenario. It is contrasted to a non-intensive and low-cost ‘exposure minimization’ scenario, assumed to be the default intervention option to obtain compliance. This paper also aims to (1) quantitatively evaluate the relative environmental significance of primary, secondary and tertiary impacts, and (2) to compare conclusions obtained from attributional and from consequential LCA of the same decision.

Main Features

An attributional LCA (ALCA) and a consequential LCA (CLCA) are used to compare the two radically different intervention options. The rehabilitation for residential redevelopment scenario involves ‘dig and dump’ remediation, infrastructure material recycling and site backfilling. The ‘exposure minimization’ scenario consists in covering the site with clean soil and subsequently idling the site. The functional unit allowing this comparison is the ‘legal and appropriate intervention on 1 ha of the tracked brownfield’. The inventory analyses are done following the proposals in Part 1. The LCIA is done using IMPACT 2002+ method.

Results and Conclusions

The ALCA results show no clear preference for either intervention option because of the trade-off between the benefits of decontamination and the impacts of the rehabilitation service system. The CLCA, on the other hand, unequivocally supports rehabilitation if it is followed by residential reuse, as long as the development of suburban sites is avoided. In these cases, tertiary environmental benefits dominate other types of impacts. It is concluded that, when brownfield intervention decisions can affect the fate of the site, the scope of brownfield management LCA should always be expanded to account for tertiary impacts.

Perspectives

The methodology proposed was restricted to a single site and to residential redevelopment. It is suggested that the general approach could be used for other types of brownfield redevelopments and for decisions affecting multiple brownfields.

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. Concerted Action ‘Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies’ (CLARINET)

  3. Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L, Samson R (2007): Environmental Assessment of Brownfield Rehabilitation Using Two Different Life Cycle Inventory Models. Part 1: Methodological Approach. Int J LCA 12(6) 391–398

    Google Scholar 

  4. MENV (1998): Politique de protection des sols et de réhabilitation des terrains contaminés. Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec, Québec

  5. QSAR (1997): Redéveloppement du site des ateliers angus à montréal: Analyse des risques pour la santé et plan de gestion des sols — rapport final. Chemin de Fer Canadien Pacifique, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  6. QSAR (1998): Mise à jour du programme de réhabilitation des sols et évaluation complémentaire des impacts associés au développement de la zone commerciale — rapport final. Chemin de Fer Canadien Pacifique, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  7. Quéformat (1998): Rapport de réhabilitation des cours angus. Chemin de Fer Canadien Pacifique, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003): Impact 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Ass 8(6) 324–330

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. European Environmental Agency (2000): Corine land cover. Commission of the European Communities OPOCE, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kratsios J (2001): Personnal communication. L.A. Hébert, St-Constant, Qc.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Page CA, Diamond ML, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999): Life cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: Case study. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(4) 801–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Craighill A, Powell JC (1999): A lifecycle assessment and evaluation of construction and demolition waste. CSERGE Working Paper WM 99-03. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  15. Balázs S, Antonini E, Tarantini M (2000): Application of life cycle assessment (lca) methodology for valorization of building demolition materials and products. In: Proceedings of the Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing Conference, 6–8 November 2000, Boston, Mass, USA

  16. CRDIM (2002): État de la situation en environnement, orientation et interventions proposées. Rapport Technique. Conseil régional de développement de l’île de Montréal; Montréal

  17. MAMM (2001): Cadre d’aménagement et orientations gouvernementales — Région métropolitaine de montréal 2001–2021. Ministère des Affaires Municipales et de la Métropole, Québec

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ville de Montréal (2004): Plan d’urbanisme de montréal. Partie i — les éléments pan-montréalais. Montréal: Ville de Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Statistics Canada (1997): 1996 census of population. Profile of marital status, common-law status, families, dwellings and households, for canada, provinces, territories, census divisions and census subdivisions. Ottawa, Canada

  21. Statistics Canada (2002): 2001 census of population. Profile of marital status, common-law status, families, dwellings and households, for canada, provinces, territories, census divisions and census subdivisions. Ottawa, Canada

  22. Office of Energy Efficiency (2004): Comprehensive energy use database. Residential sector — Quebec. 〈http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Neud/dpa/trends_res_qc.cfm〉

  23. [Anon] (1999): Mobilité des personnes dans la région de montréal. Enquête origine-destination. Traitement: Pascal lesage. Agence métropolitaine de transport, la Société de transport de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal, Société de transport de la Rive-Sud de Montréal, Société de transport de la Ville de Laval, Montréal

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hydro-Québec (2004): Plan statégique 2004–2008. Québec, Québec

  25. Gourvil L, Joubert F (2004): Évaluation de la congestion routière dans la région de Montréal. Ministère des Transports du Québec, Québec

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tremblay P (2002): Survol technique du modèle de transport de la région de Montréal. Service de la modélisation des systèmes de transports, Ministère des Transports du Québec, Québec

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nay-Sour V (2004): Personal communication. Ministère des Transports du Québec, Québec

    Google Scholar 

  28. US EPA (2002): Nonroad model (nonroad engines, equipment and vehicles) 〈http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm〉

  29. EEA (2001): EMEP/Corinair emission inventory guidebook — 3rd edition, technical report no 30, group 8: Other mobile sources and machinery. 〈http://reports.eea.eu.int/technical_report_2001_3/en〉

  30. Althaus H-J, Chudacoff M, Hischier R, Jungbluth N, Osses M, Primas A (2003): Life cycle inventories of chemicals. Final report ecoinvent 2000. Volume 8, Swiss Centre for LCI, EMPA-DU, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kellenberger D, Althaus H-J, Jungbluth N, Künniger T (2003): Life cycle inventories of building products. Final report ecoinvent 2000, Volume 7, Swiss Centre for LCI, EMPA-DU, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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

    Google Scholar 

  33. Doka G (2003): Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services. Final report ecoinvent 2000, Volume 13, Swiss Centre for LCI, EMPA-SG, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jungbluth N (2003): Erdöl. Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen. Final report no. 6, ecoinvent 2000, Swiss Centre for LCI, PSI, Dübendorf and Villigen, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dones R, Bauer C, Bolliger R, Burger B, Faist Emmenegger M, Frischknecht R, Heck T, Jungbluth N, Röder A (2003): Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen. Final report ecoinvent 2000, Volume 6, Swiss Centre for LCI, PSI, Dübendorf and Villingen, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bolliger R (2003): Wasserkraft. Sachbilanzen von Energiesysystemen. Final report no. 6, ecoinvent 2000, Volume 6, Swiss Centre for LCI, PSI, Dübendorf and Villigen, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Humbert S, Margni M, Jolliet O (2004): Impact 2002+: User guide (draft for version 2.0). Industrial Ecology & Life Cycle Systems Group, GECOS, Lausanne, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Faist Emmenegger M, Heck T, Jungbluth N (2003): Erdgas. Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen. Final report no. 6, ecoinvent 2000, Swiss Centre for LCI, PSI, Dübendorf and Villigen, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

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 Samson

  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 Samson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascal Lesage.

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, 497–513 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.2

Keywords

Search

Navigation