284 A. Brekke et al.
valuable resources (Olofsson & Börjesson, 2018). The role of residual materials in a circular economy calls for a full life cycle perspective for residues
(Oldfield et al., 2018), but the reasoning for how to include the environmental impacts of residual materials can vary depending on the study scope
and intended use (Olofsson & Börjesson, 2018; Pelletier, Ardente, Brandão,
De Camillis & Pennington, 2015; Svanes, Vold & Hanssen, 2011). In order
to study the most sustainable uses of residues, several pathways and alternative
uses must also be considered (Tonini, Hamelin & Astrup, 2016). In this way,
both new production systems and the mental shift of wastes as resources have
implications as to method considerations in LCA.
LCA as a mindset does not give direct input to governance as the specific
content of policies or regulations such as LCA as results or LCA as a method
might do. Instead, LCA as a mindset provides a frame for governance at all
levels. It challenges every decision- maker to broaden the perspective both in
time and space and keep in mind that no material or energy flows will vanish
but possibly change into something else.
14.5 The different dimensions of life cycle assessment
used in governance
Viewing LCA as results, method and mindset has indicated that there are
several possible dimensions for applying LCA in relation to governance –
each with different possibilities and pitfalls, as displayed in Table 14.1.
When performing LCA of a product or a service, the result is one or
several numbers representing the quantified environmental impacts of the
system(s) under study. This represents the first dimension of using LCA in
governance, presented in Table 14.1. Results for different alternatives can be
compared in order to evaluate which option is preferable, but they should
not be used without keeping in mind the purpose of the study and the underlying assumptions. LCA results can also provide qualitative information about
each life cycle step and which ones contribute the most to the total impact, as
well as the function of the product and the kind of environmental problems
of which one should be aware. LCA results may also reveal important tradeoffs between types of environmental impact, or between optimisation options
in different life cycle stages. To develop effective policy, policymakers should
be informed about possible trade- offs based on life cycle information.
When using LCA as a method in governance (the second dimension presented in Table 14.1), it might be a ready- made procedure to produce results
for a certain application such as the computational rules stated in the Renewable Energy Directive. It can also be the information stemming from discussions about methodological issues, such as what the real function of the
product is and whether there are other ways to fulfil the same function, or
how to view by- products from a production system when allocation is discussed. These methodological discussions thus give input to how specific production systems should be governed.
valuable resources (Olofsson & Börjesson, 2018). The role of residual materials in a circular economy calls for a full life cycle perspective for residues
(Oldfield et al., 2018), but the reasoning for how to include the environmental impacts of residual materials can vary depending on the study scope
and intended use (Olofsson & Börjesson, 2018; Pelletier, Ardente, Brandão,
De Camillis & Pennington, 2015; Svanes, Vold & Hanssen, 2011). In order
to study the most sustainable uses of residues, several pathways and alternative
uses must also be considered (Tonini, Hamelin & Astrup, 2016). In this way,
both new production systems and the mental shift of wastes as resources have
implications as to method considerations in LCA.
LCA as a mindset does not give direct input to governance as the specific
content of policies or regulations such as LCA as results or LCA as a method
might do. Instead, LCA as a mindset provides a frame for governance at all
levels. It challenges every decision- maker to broaden the perspective both in
time and space and keep in mind that no material or energy flows will vanish
but possibly change into something else.
14.5 The different dimensions of life cycle assessment
used in governance
Viewing LCA as results, method and mindset has indicated that there are
several possible dimensions for applying LCA in relation to governance –
each with different possibilities and pitfalls, as displayed in Table 14.1.
When performing LCA of a product or a service, the result is one or
several numbers representing the quantified environmental impacts of the
system(s) under study. This represents the first dimension of using LCA in
governance, presented in Table 14.1. Results for different alternatives can be
compared in order to evaluate which option is preferable, but they should
not be used without keeping in mind the purpose of the study and the underlying assumptions. LCA results can also provide qualitative information about
each life cycle step and which ones contribute the most to the total impact, as
well as the function of the product and the kind of environmental problems
of which one should be aware. LCA results may also reveal important tradeoffs between types of environmental impact, or between optimisation options
in different life cycle stages. To develop effective policy, policymakers should
be informed about possible trade- offs based on life cycle information.
When using LCA as a method in governance (the second dimension presented in Table 14.1), it might be a ready- made procedure to produce results
for a certain application such as the computational rules stated in the Renewable Energy Directive. It can also be the information stemming from discussions about methodological issues, such as what the real function of the
product is and whether there are other ways to fulfil the same function, or
how to view by- products from a production system when allocation is discussed. These methodological discussions thus give input to how specific production systems should be governed.