Évaluation des impacts de l'utilisation des terres en analyse du cycle de vie: caractérisation axée sur la qualité des sols

RÉSUMÉ Les mécanismes à la base d’une détérioration de la qualité de l’environnement naturel sont majoritairement d’origine anthropique. Bien qu’elles ne soient pas intentionnelles, les conséquences de cette emprise humaine sont nombreuses sur les écosystèmes naturels et leur durabilité. Compte tenu de son rôle central et complexe, le sol est essentiel au maintien du fonctionnement des écosystèmes terrestres puisqu’il assure de multiples fonctions fondamentales. Sa qualité écologique est donc déterminante. Fondée sur une approche holistique, l’Analyse du Cycle de Vie (ACV) est un outil de prise de décision qui permet de quantifier différents impacts environnementaux potentiels en considérant l’ensemble des étapes du cycle de vie d’un produit. Il est bien établi que l’exploitation des terres engendre des impacts sur la biodiversité et est une source primaire de dégradation des sols affectant leur qualité écologique. Pourtant, les méthodes d’évaluation des impacts en ACV les comptabilisent de manière sommaire. Les approches publiées sont plutôt orientées vers les impacts sur la biodiversité ou encore vers une seule fonction écologique fournie par le sol, sa capacité productive. De plus, sur le plan spatial, la régionalisation des impacts qui varient selon les conditions de l’emplacement où l’intervention a lieu n’est pas pleinement explorée. Développés pour un contexte européen, les facteurs de caractérisation (FCs) disponibles sont généralement génériques et ne tiennent pas compte de la différenciation spatiale. La portée géographique des résultats obtenus en ACV pour la caractérisation des impacts de l’utilisation des terres peut donc être jugée insuffisante ce qui remet en question leur crédibilité, surtout pour un contexte canadien qui s’étend sur de nombreuses zones écologiques différentes. L’hypothèse de recherche sur laquelle se base ce projet est: L’adoption d’un modèle spatialisé permet de discriminer la variabilité spatiale des paramètres biogéographiques et améliore la représentativité géo-spatiale des FCs dans un contexte d’évaluation des impacts de l’utilisation des terres en ACV. Les objectifs sont: 1) d’établir un cadre d’analyse conceptuel pour considérer les impacts potentiels en ACV de l’utilisation des terres sur la qualité écologique du sol, 2) de développer des FCs par une approche spatialisée pour un contexte canadien et 3) d’opérationnaliser l’approche spatialisée à une échelle mondiale. Le cadre d’analyse conceptuel est établi dans le but d’harmoniser l’ensemble des voies d’impact majeures en ACV.----------ABSTRACT The mechanisms underlying the deterioration of natural environmental quality are mainly anthropogenic. Although they are not intentional, the consequences of human dominance are numerous, especially on natural ecosystems and their sustainability. Given its essential and complex role in maintaining terrestrial ecosystem functioning, the soil performs many fundamental functions. Thus, its ecological quality is crucial. Based on a holistic approach, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a decision-support tool used for the assessment of potential environmental impacts of a product over its entire life cycle. It is well established that land use causes impacts on biodiversity and is a primary source of soil degradation affecting its ecological quality. However, land use impact assessment methods are still lacking within LCA. So far, several published studies have only focused on the assessment of impacts on biodiversity and biotic production capacity, the latter being one ecological function among others. Moreover, the concept of regionalization (i.e. considering different impacts depending on the conditions of the location where they occur) is hardly explored. Indeed, developed within a European context, characterization factors (CFs) are often generic and do not account for spatial differentiation. Therefore, the geographic scope of land use impacts characterization is judged insufficient, creating doubts regarding LCA results credibility, especially for a Canadian context which spreads over several distinct ecological regions. The research hypothesis of this project is as follows: Using a spatial model allows discriminating spatial variability of biogeographical parameters and improves the geo-spatial representativeness of CFs within the context of LCA land use impact assessment. The main goals are: 1) to establish a conceptual framework accounting for LCA land use impacts on soil ecological quality, 2) to develop CFs for a Canadian context using a spatially-explicit approach and 3) to operationalize the approach at a global scale. The conceptual framework is established in order to harmonize major impact pathways suggested in LCA. It mainly focuses on the impact pathway regarding soil ecological quality by considering the multifunctional aspect of soil and emphasizing its contribution to more global ecosystem services at a larger scale. Thus, impacts are evaluated based on the soil’s performance to fulfill a range of intended ecological functions and for which impact indicators have to be selected

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Purpose As a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Results Recommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for. Discussion The presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is Negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected. Conclusions and recommendations In this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the Assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional ecological models running in the foreground system, relative weighting of the ecosystem services midpoints and indirect land use.Fil: Koellner, Thomas . University of Bayreuth. Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and Geosciences; AlemaniaFil: De Baan, Laura. Institute for Environmental Decisions. Natural and Social Science Interface; SuizaFil: Beck, Tabea. University of Stuttgar. Department Life Cycle Engineering; AlemaniaFil: Brandão, Miguel. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Sustainability. Assessment Unit, European Commission; ItaliaFil: Civit, Bárbara María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; Argentina. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Mendoza; ArgentinaFil: Margni, Manuele . École Polytechnique de Montréal. Département de génie chimique; CanadáFil: Milà i Canals, Llorenç. Unilever R&D. Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Saad, Rosie. École Polytechnique de Montréal. Département de génie chimique; CanadáFil: De Souza, Danielle Maia. Joint Research Centre. Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Sustainability. Assessment Unit, European Commission; ItaliaFil: Müller Wenk, Ruedi . University of St. Gallen. Institute for Economy and the Environment; Alemani

Proceedings of Patient Reported Outcome Measure’s (PROMs) Conference Oxford 2017: Advances in Patient Reported Outcomes Research

A33-Effects of Out-of-Pocket (OOP) Payments and Financial Distress on Quality of Life (QoL) of People with Parkinson’s (PwP) and their Carer

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions : Development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a caandian context

Purpose Among other regional impact categories in LCA, land use still lacks a suitable assessment method regarding the least developed soil ecological quality impact pathway. The goals of this study are to scope the framework addressing soil ecological functions and to improve the development of regionalized characterization factors (CFs). A spatially explicit approach was developed and illustrated for the Canadian context using three different regional scales and for which the extent of spatial variability was assessed. Materials and methods A model framework based on the multifunctional character of soil and the ecosystem services defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is suggested. This framework includes land use impacts on soil ecological quality evaluated regarding the change in soil capacity to fulfill a range of soil ecological functions. Four impact indicators, namely erosion resistance, groundwater recharge, mechanical, and physicochemical filtration, proposed by the functional method of Baitz (2002), were used to assess three major degraded regulating services: erosion regulation, freshwater regulation, and water purification. Spatially differentiated CFs were calculated based on the principles proposed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative for two Canadian spatial models (15 ecozones, 193 ecoregions) along with a non-spatial one (one generic). Seven representative land use types were tested. Results and discussion Using the ecozone-based scale, an overall result comparison between the non-spatial and spatial models indicates significant differences between ranges across land use types and results up to four times larger than what the generic scale can capture. This highlights the importance of introducing a regionalized assessment. When considering the impacts from a specific land use type, such as urban land use, generic CFs fail to adequately represent spatial CFs because they tend to be highly dependent on the biogeographical conditions of the location. When comparing all three resolution scales, CF results calculated using the ecoregions spatial scale generally show a larger spread across each land use type. Interesting variations and extreme scenarios are revealed which could not be observed using a coarser scale-based model such as the ecozone resolution scheme. Conclusions This work demonstrates the accomplishment of developing spatially differentiated CFs addressing impacts of different land use types on soil ecological functions. For a large territorial area spreading over many biomes, such as Canada, accounting for ecological unit boundaries proves to be necessary since the generic scale is not sufficiently representative. An evaluation of the extent of spatial differentiation emphasized the influence on the variability of regionalized CFs

Spatialized Life Cycle Assessment of Fluid Milk Production and Consumption in the United States

Purpose: Understanding the main factors affecting the environmental impacts of milk production and consumption along the value chain is key towards reducing these impacts. This paper aims to present detailed spatialized distributions of impacts associated with milk production and consumption across the United States (U.S.), accounting for locations of both feed and on-farm activities, as well as variations in impact intensity. Using a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach, focus is given to impacts related to (a) water consumption, (b) eutrophication of marine and freshwater, (c) land use, (d) human toxicity and ecotoxicity, and (e) greenhouse gases. Methods: Drawing on data representing regional agricultural practices, feed production is modelled for 50 states and 18 main watersheds and linked to regions of milk production in a spatialized matrix-based approach to yield milk produced at farm gate. Milk processing, distribution, retail, and consumption are then modelled at a national level, accounting for retail and consumer losses. Custom characterization factors are developed for freshwater and marine eutrophication in the U.S. context. Results and discussion: In the overall life cycle, up to 30% of the impact per kg milk consumed is due to milk losses that occur during the retail and consumption phases (i.e., after production), emphasizing the importance of differentiating between farm gate and consumer estimates. Water scarcity is the impact category with the highest spatial variability. Watersheds in the western part of the U.S. are the dominant contributors to the total water consumed, with 80% of water scarcity impacts driven by only 40% of the total milk production. Freshwater eutrophication also has strong spatial variation, with high persistence of emitted phosphorus in Midwest and Great Lakes area, but high freshwater eutrophication impacts associated with extant phosphorus concentration above 100 µg/L in the California, Missouri, and Upper Mississippi water basins. Overall, normalized impacts of fluid milk consumption represent 0.25% to 0.8% of the annual average impact of a person living in the U.S. As milk at farm gate is used for fluid milk and other dairy products, the production of milk at farm gate represents 0.5% to 3% of this annual impact. Dominant contributions to human health impacts are from fine particulate matter and from climate change, whereas ecosystem impacts of milk are mostly due to land use and water consumption. Conclusion: This study provides a systematic, national perspective on the environmental impacts of milk production and consumption in the United States, showing high spatial variation in inputs, farm practices, and impacts

Spatialized Life Cycle Assessment of Fluid Milk Production and Consumption in the United States

Purpose: Understanding the main factors affecting the environmental impacts of milk production and consumption along the value chain is key towards reducing these impacts. This paper aims to present detailed spatialized distributions of impacts associated with milk production and consumption across the United States (U.S.), accounting for locations of both feed and on-farm activities, as well as variations in impact intensity. Using a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach, focus is given to impacts related to (a) water consumption, (b) eutrophication of marine and freshwater, (c) land use, (d) human toxicity and ecotoxicity, and (e) greenhouse gases. Methods: Drawing on data representing regional agricultural practices, feed production is modelled for 50 states and 18 main watersheds and linked to regions of milk production in a spatialized matrix-based approach to yield milk produced at farm gate. Milk processing, distribution, retail, and consumption are then modelled at a national level, accounting for retail and consumer losses. Custom characterization factors are developed for freshwater and marine eutrophication in the U.S. context. Results and discussion: In the overall life cycle, up to 30% of the impact per kg milk consumed is due to milk losses that occur during the retail and consumption phases (i.e., after production), emphasizing the importance of differentiating between farm gate and consumer estimates. Water scarcity is the impact category with the highest spatial variability. Watersheds in the western part of the U.S. are the dominant contributors to the total water consumed, with 80% of water scarcity impacts driven by only 40% of the total milk production. Freshwater eutrophication also has strong spatial variation, with high persistence of emitted phosphorus in Midwest and Great Lakes area, but high freshwater eutrophication impacts associated with extant phosphorus concentration above 100 µg/L in the California, Missouri, and Upper Mississippi water basins. Overall, normalized impacts of fluid milk consumption represent 0.25% to 0.8% of the annual average impact of a person living in the U.S. As milk at farm gate is used for fluid milk and other dairy products, the production of milk at farm gate represents 0.5% to 3% of this annual impact. Dominant contributions to human health impacts are from fine particulate matter and from climate change, whereas ecosystem impacts of milk are mostly due to land use and water consumption. Conclusion: This study provides a systematic, national perspective on the environmental impacts of milk production and consumption in the United States, showing high spatial variation in inputs, farm practices, and impacts