Content uploaded by Gustav Sandin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gustav Sandin on Sep 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Environmental assessment of Swedish clothing consumption – six garments, sustainable futures
Abstract and Figures
The aim of this work was to map and understand the current environmental impact of
Swedish clothing consumption. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to evaluate the
environmental impact of six garments: a T-shirt, a pair of jeans, a dress, a jacket, a pair
of socks, and a hospital uniform, using indicators of climate impact (also called “carbon
footprint”), energy use, water scarcity, land use impact on soil quality, freshwater
ecotoxicity, and human toxicity. The environmental impact of the six garments was then
scaled up to represent Swedish national clothing consumption over one year.
Figures - uploaded by Gustav Sandin
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Gustav Sandin
Content may be subject to copyright.
... [51]. Cotton production, unlike other fabrics, demands substantial water, pesticides, and fertilizers, leading to water scarcity, soil degradation [4,52], energy demand, and land occupation [53]. Wool production, particularly in the farming stage, contributes heavily to greenhouse gas emissions, while water stress and energy demand impacts are distributed across fiber production and fabric processing [5]. ...
... Another significant lifecycle stage-use-involves washing, drying, and ironing, which consumes water, energy, and detergents, releases microplastic emissions when laundering polyester clothes, and significantly contributes to environmental impacts [52,58]. Frequent washing, especially with inefficient machines, and extensive use of dryers increase energy and water consumption, highlighting the potential for environmental improvement through reduced laundering frequency and more efficient care practices [59,60]. ...
... Based on data relevant to the development of the algorithm (Table 2), at this stage, using SimaPro software, a life cycle assessment was performed for eleven fabrics (cotton, polyester, viscose, wool, acrylic, linen, silk, leather, elastane, polyamide, and rubber for shoe soles) taking 1 kg of fabric as a functional unit. Ecoinvent v.3.6 database along with research from the literature (polyester [52], cotton [52], viscose [52], leather [63], wool [64], acrylic [64], elastane [52], polyamide [52], rubber [65], linen [66], silk [67]) were also used. ...
This paper presents an algorithm for evaluating the environmental impact of clothing swaps, promoting extended use and responsible consumption. Implemented in an online swapping platform, the algorithm quantifies reductions in environmental impact due to extended clothing lifespan and avoided purchase of new garments, promoting swapping activities. Developed through scientific literature analysis, life cycle assessment (LCA), and swapping practice studies, the algorithm uses the following key environmental indicators: carbon footprint, water use, energy consumption, and land use. It integrates consumer behavior insights and uses both default and user-entered clothing data to calculate environmental savings. Results show that clothing impact varies by fabric. Viscose and polyester clothing have the lowest environmental impact, while swapping cotton and wool items yields the highest savings, as these materials are more resource intensive. The platform-integrated algorithm recorded 251 swaps over two months, preventing 4203 kg CO2 emissions, 6813 m³ of water use, 3118 m²a crop eq of land use, and 88.79 GJ of energy consumption. These findings highlight the significant environmental benefits of prolonging clothing use through swapping.
... The findings suggest that the climate and water deprivation benefits of substantially increased textile recycling in the EU are small compared to the reductions needed for the Sandin et al. estimated that the water deprivation impact of annual clothing consumption in Sweden is about 610 m 3 world eq. per capita [40]. Applying this figure for all textile products in the EU results in a water deprivation impact of about 270 billion m 3 world eq. ...
... Another study found that the climate impact of clothing consumption is about 3% of the consumption-based climate impact of Swedes, which corresponds to about 330 kg CO 2 eq. per capita annually [40]. ...
... Sandin et al. estimated that the water deprivation impact of annual clothing consumption in Sweden is about 610 m 3 world eq. per capita [40]. Applying this figure for all textile products in the EU results in a water deprivation impact of about 270 billion m 3 world eq. ...
This study examines the environmental consequences of implementing textile-to-textile recycling at scale in the EU by 2035, as this is viewed as a key solution in the sustainable development of the European textile sector. Three research questions are addressed: (i) How likely is it that increased textile-to-textile recycling reduces climate and water deprivation impacts, (ii) What is the extent of these reductions (if any), and (iii) What are the most influential parameters affecting the results? The method used is a consequential life cycle assessment (LCA), coupled with a Monte Carlo analysis to systematically address uncertainties. Results show a 92% probability that increasing textile-to-textile recycling to 10% in the EU will reduce climate impact and an almost 100% probability that it will lower water deprivation impact. Sensitivity analyses indicate climate-impact reduction probabilities ranging from 62% to 98%, and water deprivation impact reduction probabilities consistently above 99%. While recycling is likely to reduce climate impact, there is a notable risk of an increase. On average, climate impact would be reduced by about 0.5%, and water deprivation impact by slightly more than 3%, relative to the estimated impact of current textile consumption in the EU. These reductions increase if the textile recycling sector focuses on producing fibers with low climate and water impact or high replacement rates are ensured. Still, additional measures beyond recycling are needed to cut the textile industry’s environmental impact substantially.
... Ecoinvent 3.7.1 was used for this research to provide the life cycle inventory data needed to support calculation of a range of different environmental impact indicators. This was supplemented by primary data collection and also data sourced from grey and academic literature (Laitala et al. 2018;Sandin et al. 2019;van der Velden et al. 2014). Inventory data for the foreground data covering the use phase, where the data were varied depending on the CCBM used to acquire garments, are provided in Annex 2. ...
Purpose
Clothing Circular Business Models (CCBMs) include resale online and in stores, short-term rental models and longer-term leasing. Interest in CCBMs among consumers encouraged that they can acquire clothes without concern for impact on the environment, makes them an attractive business opportunity. Despite this, few life cycle assessments (LCAs) have quantified the environmental impact of CCBMs, leaving a knowledge gap, which this paper addresses.
Method
A comparative LCA was carried out, concerned with which CCBMs are likely to either increase or decrease the environmental impact of clothing. Retail, distribution and the use phase were therefore included in the foreground and new data were collected for these life cycle stages. The research carried out used data collected from interviews and a large-scale consumer survey to quantify the impacts of five CCBMs. These were: online resale, commercial resale, charity resale, short-term rental and longer-term leasing. The reliability of the input data used in the LCA model was tested using scenario analysis and uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo simulation.
Results
All five CCBMs discussed were found to reduce environmental impact compared to the conventional acquisition of clothing. The results of the LCA showed reduced emissions due to each of the CCBMs ranging from 14 to 26% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, due to the increase in garment use achieved across the wardrobe as a whole. Online resale showed the greatest improvement, and short-term rental the least, when compared to the conventionally acquired wardrobe. Sensitivity testing found the displacement rate was more important than other factors. Uncertainty analysis showed significant savings could be expected due to the three resale CCBMs and leasing but failed to rule out the possibility that the short-term rental model might increase emissions compared to a conventional wardrobe.
Conclusion
This LCA provides new insights by including a wider variety of garment types and business models in the analysis compared to previous research. It can be concluded that resale models offer great potential to reduce the environmental impact of clothing acquisition. This improvement depends more on the ability of CCBMs to replace consumption of new clothing than on other factors.
... The results obtained are consistent with those reported by Farhana et al. (2022). Additionally, the studies conducted by Li et al. (2019) and Sandin et al. (2019) corroborate the observation that energy consumption is one of the primary contributors to the high carbon footprint of the textile and clothing industry. Liu et al. (2020) evaluated the CF of the manufacturing process of melange yarn and identified electricity as the primary CF contributor, accounting for 61.7% of total carbon emissions. ...
This study aimed to develop, implement, and validate a carbon footprint (CF) calculator to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by Portugal´s Textile and Clothing Sector (TCS). To achieve this, the GHG Protocol and life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology were applied to develop the CF and analyse two textile and clothing companies (A and B). Validation was conducted using a self-assessment method that employed 2 online calculators and a LCA software. The CF calculator enables the quantification of the 3 scopes of GHG emissions. Scope 1 includes direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company, such as on-site energy, transportation of raw materials, finished products and personnel, as well as water usage. Scope 2 comprises indirect emissions from the use of purchased energy and Scope 3 includes emissions that occur across the supply chain, such as public water usage, wastewater, transportation, employee business travel, waste disposal and the end-of-life treatment of sold products. Avoided emissions and carbon offsetting measures and carbon sequestration strategies, were included. For Company A, energy consumption was the largest contributor to the CF, accounting for 76% of the contributions. In Company B, the waste component had the greatest impact on the CF, accounted for 38% of the contributions. In the validation process, the electricity and fuel consumption components yielded values that are consistent with those from other calculators. The calculator is a tool that TCS companies can use to quantify their emissions and define measures to reduce or offset their CF.
... However, economists and representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have raised concerns about second-hand clothing exports. [49][50][51][52] The influx of used garments into Asian and African markets has had a negative impact on their domestic apparel industries. ...
The world is on the verge of an impending crisis of textile waste, brought about as a result of the combined effects of a rising global population, burgeoning living standards and the shorter lifecycle of textile products. Textile recycling is the answer to help combat the enormous amount of waste created by the fashion and textile industries. While this is crucial to the growth of the textile waste recycling industry, practical and actionable interim solutions are still necessary. Textile waste is a significant stain on human life from both economic and environmental perspectives. From raw materials to finished products, clothing production from natural or synthetic sources can play a role in pollution and waste generation. This review article analyzes the economic and environmental implications of the fashion and textile industries. It assesses these waste recovery technologies and techniques, as well as the recycling at various stages of production and the use of the resulting recycled products. The recycling processes for textile waste have made some notable advances; however, some gaps remain unaddressed. Challenges include multi-scaler industrialization, waste treatment and separation processes, as well as waste contamination, such as mixed chemicals. And greater awareness is needed among consumers of the value of fiber-to-fiber recycling, as technological progress in this field has not matched its need. On the whole, this article is a good resource to gain a sense of the current landscape of recycling and recovery in textiles, clothing, and fashion.
... D'autres recherches [2], [3] ont montré que l'allongement de cette durée de vie, et plus particulièrement de la durée d'utilisation des vêtements, est un levier majeur de réduction des impacts environnementaux qui leur sont associés. En effet, une durée d'utilisation deux fois plus longue permettrait de réduire de près de 50% les impacts sur l'environnement attribuables au vêtement considéré [4]. ...
... Textile waste is categorized into two distinct types: pre-consumer textile waste, which originates during the manufacturing processes of fibers, yarns, fabrics, and clothing, and post-consumer textile waste, which emerges from consumers in the form of discarded clothing and household textiles (Rissanen, 2013). Waste in the industry in the form of textiles is highly complex and global, with 80% of its environmental impact occurring during the production phase (Sandin et al., 2019). The Zero Waste Fashion pattern technique generates a beneficial outcome by minimizing the volume of textile waste during the production process. ...
The fashion industry is one of the largest economic sectors globally, having a significant impact on the environment and society. Comparison between zero waste fashion pattern techniques and conventional pattern techniques is the main focus in efforts to achieve sustainability in the fashion industry. The zero waste pattern cutting can reduce the amount of waste originating from the clothing industry which is formed during the clothing manufacturing process. This method can also be more environmentally friendly than conventional fashion patterns. There are two approaches to the design process from conventional patterns, namely construction patterns and draping patterns. Likewise, the zero waste fashion design process approach is 'from design to pattern' and from 'pattern to design'. All these approaches are compared to understand the design process, its potentioal, comparison, as well as its application and impact in the fashion industry. In this context, the zero waste fashion pattern is a technique for making clothing patterns which aims to produce clothing with less than 15% textile waste. This study applies qualitative techniques, namely literature studies and simulations which aim to understand and evaluate the differences between zero waste fashion patterns and conventional patterns in the fashion industry. The results of this research in achieving sustainability in the fashion industry, can be proven that the Zero-Waste pattern method has emerged as a more sustainable alternative. Being able to have a positive impact on the environment and the potential for more significant social development with increasing understanding of zero-waste fashion patterns, it is hoped that the fashion industry can experience a positive transformation towards more sustainable practices as a whole.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) establish an outline for addressing global concerns, including those affecting the textile and garment industries. While crucial to global economies, this industry faces severe sustainability issues that influence multiple SDGs. SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) emphasizes the importance of sustainable practices in the textile and garment industries, such as reducing waste, using resources efficiently, and preventing contamination. Furthermore, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) emphasizes the need for fair labour practices and job creation, which are critical in an industry plagued by labour exploitation. In addition, SDG 13 (Climate Action) emphasizes the industry’s role in lowering carbon emissions and implementing eco-friendly manufacturing practices to reduce environmental damage. The textile and apparel sectors may help create a more sustainable future by supporting social justice, economic development, and ecological stewardship through alignment with the SDGs.
The textile and garment industries significantly contribute to carbon emissions, with an enormous environmental impact across their supply chains. Carbon emissions occur at several stages, including the cultivation of raw materials such as cotton or the manufacture of synthetic fibres and the industrial processes involved in spinning, weaving, dyeing, and finishing garments. Furthermore, transporting materials and final products contributes to the carbon footprint. The extensive dependence on fossil fuels for energy in manufacturing facilities worsens the problem. The demand from consumers for fast fashion continues to climb, putting pressure on the organizations to address their environmental effects and implement more sustainable practices to reduce carbon emissions. Efforts like using eco-friendly production practices, using renewable energy sources, and fostering circularity in fashion are critical steps towards lowering the carbon footprint of textile and garment manufacturing.
Carbon emissions are tied to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Excessive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions exacerbate climate change, making SDG 13: Climate Action a critical challenge. This environmental deterioration, in turn, impedes progress towards other SDGs, including poverty eradication (SDG 1), health and well-being (SDG 3), and sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11). Carbon emission reduction activities are therefore critical in addressing the larger range of sustainable development described by the United Nations. Prioritizing climate action allows governments to develop resilience, equity, and prosperity, which aligns with the SDGs’ overarching objective of creating a more sustainable future for all.
This chapter examines both the textile manufacturing and textile recovery sectors in Denmark. It investigates the sustainability measures and circular strategies currently being actioned in the Danish textile manufacturing field and explores, across both sectors (manufacture and recovery), the role of digital technologies towards a circular economy. Using Danish Industrial Classification (DB07) codes and the Danish Central Business Register (CVR) database alongside expert knowledge, a list of 115 textile manufacturers and eleven recovery actors were found and included in the study. Websites from each company were studied and the data was analysed for circular strategies across materials, production, use, recovery and social activities. The findings demonstrate a focus on production and material related strategies and less emphasis on recovery within manufacture. Overall, there was a very limited uptake of digital technologies. The chapter concludes by exploring opportunities for new business models within repair, upgrade and recycling towards a Danish circular textile economy.
This is condensed version of Roos et al. (2019) White paper on textile recycling (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31018.77766), which aims at providing a neutral and scientific state-of-the-art compilation of information on existing and emerging textile recycling technologies,
environmental gains and losses of textile recycling, and important factors influencing the future of textile recycling: challenges of upscaling, geography, logistics, etc. Much of the content is relevant for any actor with an interest in textile recycling globally, but there is a specific focus on the Swedish and Nordic context.
Production of cotton and synthetic fibres are known to cause negative environmental effects. For cotton, pesticide use and irrigation during cultivation contributes to emissions of toxic substances that cause damage to both human health and the ecosystem. Irrigation of cotton fields cause water stress due to large water needs. Synthetic fibres are questionable due to their (mostly) fossil resource origin and the release of microplastics. To mitigate the environmental effects of fibre production, there is an urgent need to improve the production of many of the established fibres and to find new, better fibre alternatives.
For the first time ever, this reports compiles all currently publicly available data on the environmental impact of fibre production. By doing this, the report illuminates two things:
• There is a glaring lack of data on the environmental impact of fibres – for several fibres just a few studies were found, and often only one or a few environmental impacts are covered. For new fibres associated with sustainability claims there is often no data available to support such claims.
• There are no ”sustainable” or ”unsustainable” fibre types, it is the suppliers that differ. The span within each fibre type (different suppliers) is often too large, in relation to differences between fibre types, to draw strong conclusions about differences between fibre types.
Further, it is essential to use the life cycle perspective when comparing, promoting or selecting (e.g. by designers or buyers) fibres. To achieve best environmental practice, apart from considering the impact of fibre production, one must consider the functional properties of a fibre and how it fits into an environmentally appropriate product life cycle, including the entire production chain, the use phase and the end-of-life management. Selecting the right fibre for the right application is key for optimising the environmental performance of the product life cycle.
The report is intended to be useful for several purposes:
• as input to broader studies including later life cycle stages of textile products,
• as a map over data gaps in relation to supporting claims on the environmental preferability of certain fibres over others, and
• as a basis for screening fibre alternatives, for example by designers and buyers (e.g. in public procurement).
For the third use it is important to acknowledge that for a full understanding of the environmental consequences of the choice of fibre, a full cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) is recommended.
Regardless of the life cycle stage, all products and services inevitably produce an impact on the environment. By identifying critical issues present in the life cycle of products and taking constructive response actions in practice, the European Integrated Product Policy (IPP) aims to reduce the environmental impacts of products and to improve their performances with a "life cycle thinking". The first action taken under IPP was to identify the market products contribute most to the environmental impacts in Europe.
Completed in May 2006 by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) study was conducted from a life cycle perspective. The EIPRO study indentified food and drink, transport and private housing as the highest areas of impact. Together they account for 70–80 % of the environmental impact of consumption. Of the remaining areas, clothing dominated across all impact categories with a contribution of 2–10 %.
While initially analysing the current life cycle impacts of products, studies on the Environmental Improvement of Products (IMPRO) have been developed in order to identify technically and socioeconomically feasible means of improving the environmental performance of products.
As identified by the EIPRO study as a priority group which makes a significant contribution to environmental impacts in Europe, textile products are the focus of this study.
The main objectives of this study are to:
- identify the market share and consumption of textile products in the EU-27;
- estimate and compare the potential environmental impacts of textile products consumed in the EU-27, taking into account the entire value chain (life cycle) of these products;
- identify the main environmental improvement options and estimate their potential;
- assess the socioeconomic impacts of the identified options.
Purpose
Toxicity impacts of chemicals have only been covered to a minor extent in LCA studies of textile products. The two main reasons for this exclusion are (1) the lack of life cycle inventory (LCI) data on use and emissions of textile-related chemicals, and (2) the lack of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) data for calculating impacts based on the LCI data. This paper addresses the first of these two.
Methods
In order to facilitate the LCI analysis for LCA practitioners, an inventory framework was developed. The framework builds on a nomenclature for textile-related chemicals which was used to build up a generic chemical product inventory for use in LCA of textiles. In the chemical product inventory, each chemical product and its content was modelled to fit the subsequent LCIA step. This means that the content and subsequent emission data are time-integrated, including both original content and, when relevant, transformation products as well as impurities. Another key feature of the framework is the modelling of modularised process performance in terms of emissions to air and water.
Results and discussion
The inventory framework follows the traditional structure of LCI databases to allow for use together with existing LCI and LCIA data. It contains LCI data sets for common textile processes (unit processes), including use and emissions of textile-related chemicals. The data sets can be used for screening LCA studies and/or, due to their modular structure, also modified. Modified data sets can be modelled from recipes of input chemicals, where the chemical product inventory provides LCA-compatible content and emission data. The data sets and the chemical product inventory can also be used as data collection templates in more detailed LCA studies.
Conclusions
A parallel development of a nomenclature for and acquisition of LCI data resulted in the creation of a modularised inventory framework. The framework advances the LCA method to provide results that can guide towards reduced environmental impact from textile production, including also the toxicity impacts from textile chemicals.
Recommendations
The framework can be used for guiding stakeholders of the textile sector in macro-level decisions regarding the effectiveness of different impact reduction interventions, as well as for guiding on-site decisions in textile manufacturing.
This paper reviews studies of the environmental impact of textile reuse and recycling, to provide a summary of the current knowledge and point out areas for further research. Forty-one studies were reviewed, whereof 85% deal with recycling and 41% with reuse (27% cover both reuse and recycling). Fibre recycling is the most studied recycling type (57%), followed by polymer/oligomer recycling (37%), monomer recycling (29%), and fabric recycling (14%). Cotton (76%) and polyester (63%) are the most studied materials.
The reviewed publications provide strong support for claims that textile reuse and recycling in general reduce environmental impact compared to incineration and landfilling, and that reuse is more beneficial than recycling. The studies do, however, expose scenarios under which reuse and recycling are not beneficial for certain environmental impacts. For example, as benefits mainly arise due to the avoided production of new products, benefits may not occur in cases with low replacement rates or if the avoided production processes are relatively clean. Also, for reuse, induced customer transport may cause environmental impact that exceeds the benefits of avoided production, unless the use phase is sufficiently extended.
In terms of critical methodological assumptions, authors most often assume that textiles sent to recycling are wastes free of environmental burden, and that reused products and products made from recycled materials replace products made from virgin fibres. Examples of other content mapped in the review are: trends of publications over time, common aims and geographical scopes, commonly included and omitted impact categories, available sources of primary inventory data, knowledge gaps and future research needs. The latter include the need to study cascade systems, to explore the potential of combining various reuse and recycling routes.
Purpose
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments.
Methods
In the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning.
Results and discussion
The recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question “What is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?” The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard.
Conclusions
After 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users’ potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensus-based methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.
[Purpose] The dichotomy between the attributional approach and the consequential approach is one of the major unsettled questions in life cycle assessment (LCA). Debates continue on. Here, I suggest a different view that hopefully will help us move past the dichotomy and toward a unified framework for decision support. [Methods] I argue the dichotomy is unnecessary. Attributional LCA, as reflected in how the conventional models like process- and input-output (IO)-based LCA have been applied, is simply a linear consequential modeling that establishes cause and effect through product supply chain. This is how economists see IO analysis, namely, a linear model based on Leontief production functions. There are other consequential and causal models, such as computable general equilibrium(CGE) and system dynamics (SD), that may have different production functions or focus on other aspects of the economy. These models have been increasingly integrated into LCA to estimate the environmental effects, impacts, or consequences of products, which is at the core of LCA. I further argue that as a field, we may be better off eliminating both terms: attributional fails to capture the essence of LCA and consequential is redundant. Likewise, economists did not call IO attributional and CGE consequential because both are consequential models, nor did they use the term consequential as that would be stating the obvious. [Results and discussion] I suggest LCA be unified around its goal to support decision-making, which requires estimating the impact of changes associated with a decision versus that without it (the counterfactual). This is the basic methodology adopted in many other fields. LCA then becomes an overarching framework that encompasses a suite of models, including our conventional IO/process-based LCA, to support different levels of decision-making related to products. Which distinguishes LCA from other fields of study is the focus on product systems. I also discuss, for the linear IO/process-based models, under what circumstances their estimates of the existing systems as an approximation of changes may be meaningful or misleading for decision-making. I further touch upon the importance of understanding the counterfactual, which has been largely neglected in LCA literature. [Recommendations] For an LCA to support decision-making, (1) make explicit what the potential changes are and clearly define the scale of change and (2) derive range estimates to capture the high uncertainties in modeling complex systems and be willing to admit inconclusiveness. For decisions with potentially large impacts across sectors, a multi-model approach may be helpful.
Sweden has a large per capita carbon footprint, particularly compared to the levels recommended for maintaining a stable climate. Much of that footprint falls outside Sweden's territory; emissions occurring abroad are “embodied” in imported goods consumed in Sweden. In this study we calculate the total amount and geographical hotspots of the Swedish footprint produced by different multi-regional input-output (MRIO) models, and compare these results in order to gain a picture of the present state of knowledge of the Swedish global footprint. We also look for insights for future model development that can be gained from such comparisons. We first compare a time series of the Swedish carbon footprint calculated by the Swedish national statistics agency, Statistics Sweden, using a single-region model, with data from the EXIOBASE, GTAP, OECD, Eora, and WIOD MRIO databases. We then examine the MRIO results to investigate the geographical distribution of four types of Swedish footprint: carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas emissions, water use and materials use. We identify the hotspot countries and regions where environmental pressures linked to Swedish consumption are highest. We also consider why the results may differ between calculation methods and types of environmental pressure. As might be expected, given the complexity and modelling assumptions, the MRIO models and Statistics Sweden data provide different (but similar) results for each footprint. The MRIO models have different strengths that can be used to improve the national calculations. However, constructing and maintaining a new MRIO model would be very demanding for one country. It is also clear that for a single country's calculation, there will be better and more precise data available nationally that would not have priority in the construction of an MRIO model. Thus, combining existing MRIO data with national economic and environmental data seems to be a promising method for integrated footprint analysis. Our findings are relevant not just for Sweden but for other countries seeking to improve national consumption-based accounts. Based on our analysis we offer recommendations to guide future research and policy-making to this end.
About 50 percent of earth's land area is used by mankind. Every day 5,000 to 15,000 ha of natural area is sealed worldwide for human purposes. Land use is increasingly becoming not only a scientific but also a political and societal discussion. To cover all relevant environmental impacts of a product or process, land use aspects have to be integrated into methods like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
In this publication country and land use type specific characterization factors are presented for the land use impact categories Erosion Resistance, Mechanical Filtration, Physicochemical Filtration, Groundwater Regeneration, and Biotic Production. All factors are calculated for the land use related flows of the ELCD - European reference Life-Cycle Database based on globally available spatial data. For the calculation of the impact categories, the LANCA method published in 2010 was refined and new background data is used.
The authors have been working on the integration of land use aspects into LCA for several years and contribute to international working groups as well as specific projects on this topic. All of them have been involved in the development of the LANCA tool and in the conduction of respective case studies.
Fast fashion is a clothing supply chain model that is intended to respond quickly to the latest fashion trends by frequently updating the clothing products available in stores. The shift towards fast fashion leads to shorter practical service lives for garments. Collaborative consumption is an alternative way of doing business to the conventional model of ownership-based consumption, and one that can potentially reduce the environmental impacts of fashion by prolonging the practical service life of clothes. In this study, we used life cycle assessment to explore the environmental performance of clothing libraries, as one of the possible ways in which collaborative consumption can be implemented, and compared the advantages and disadvantages in relation to conventional business models. Furthermore, the key factors influencing the environmental impact of clothing libraries were investigated. We based our assessment on three key popular garments that are stocked in clothing libraries: jeans, T-shirts and dresses. The results showed the benefits of implementing clothing libraries associated with the garments´ prolonged service lives. Therefore to achieve environmental gains, it is important to substantially increase garment service life. Moreover, the results quantitatively demonstrated the potential risk of problem shifting: increased customer transportation can completely offset the benefits gained from reduced production. This highlighted the need to account for the logistics when implementing collaborative consumption business models.