UBA impact indicators

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The method for evaluating life cycle assessment of the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), also known as UBA impact indicators or UBA valuation method is a used mainly in Germany Ökobilanzierungsmethode . It was developed by the Federal Environment Agency in the 1990s to assess the environmental impact of products and to compare product and process alternatives and meets the requirements of the DIN EN ISO 14040 ff series of standards.

The concept is not limited to the ecological evaluation of products, but can also be used for the life cycle assessment of processes, services or companies. The cradle-to-gate approach is mostly used as the system boundary.

The structure of the life cycle assessment is based on the classic DIN EN ISO 14040:

  1. Definition of goal and scope of investigation,
  2. Life cycle inventory ,
  3. Impact assessment,
  4. Evaluation.

The special feature of the UBA evaluation method comes into play in the phases of impact assessment and evaluation.

Impact assessment method

  1. Selection of impact categories, impact indicators and models
  2. Classification: Division of the life cycle inventory analysis results into impact categories (multiple assignments are possible here)
  3. Characterization: In the characterization step, the life cycle inventory inventory results of the various impact categories are aggregated into impact indicator results with the help of characterization factors. For this purpose, a reference substance is first determined within each impact category (e.g. CO 2 for the greenhouse effect category ), then the material and energy flows recorded in the life cycle inventory are weighted in relation to this reference value by characterization factors, multiplied by the respective quantities and finally assigned a one-dimensional key figure for each individual impact category, the so-called impact indicator . In this way, an impact indicator result is obtained for each impact category.
  4. Standardization and formation of a hierarchy

The fourth step, the hierarchization of indicator results and thus the impact categories, is only necessary for life cycle assessments that aim to compare two systems (e.g. products, processes). In studies of this kind, the problem often arises that the examined alternatives produce different environmental impacts in the impact categories and these must be made comparable in order to be able to make reliable statements. The numerical values ​​of the impact indicators are then only of limited informative value, mainly because they do not allow a qualitative or quantitative comparison between the different impact categories. For example, no statement can be made as to whether the indicator result “123 kg CO 2 equivalents” in the greenhouse effect category weighs more ecologically than “321 m² surface sealing ” in the land use category .

In the normalization and organization phase, the results of the impact indicators are made comparable so that they can ultimately be evaluated across categories. The potential environmental damage of the impact categories is assessed by the ecological priority: An impact category has a higher ecological priority (is the more environmentally damaging), a) the more severe the threat to the ecological protection goods (e.g. human health, structure and function of ecosystems) is classified , b) the further the existing health and environmental status is removed from the target and c) the higher the proportion of the respective indicator result in a reference value (e.g. proportion of the annual surface sealing or of the total CO 2 emissions in Germany) . The ecological priority is thus measured from a) the ecological hazard, b) the distance-to-target approach and c) the specific contribution. The ranking of the impact categories is based on a five-point ordinal scale from A to E, where A stands for the highest and E for the lowest priority. However, this prioritization should not be interpreted as an absolute judgment, but rather as a relation between the impact categories.

Method of evaluation

Consolidation of the impact indicator results

In the first step of the evaluation, all impact indicator results of the examined systems are compared. This is done by calculating the additional load on the system that has the higher indicator result in the impact category under consideration:

It is the major indicator result in the impact category and the smaller indicator result.

The respective additional loads of the two examination objects can be shown graphically with the help of a T-diagram. The length and direction of the bar indicates the percentage additional load on a system in the respective impact category. However, no statement about the ecological equivalence of both systems or the superiority of one system can be derived from this representation.

Consolidation of the results from standardization and order for ecological priority

In the impact assessment phase, the impact categories were prioritized according to ecological priority. In the evaluation, this ranking is used to compare the indicator results of the different impact categories. The T-diagram created in the first step, which so far only conveys quantitative statements (about the direction and length of the bars), is thus supplemented by a qualitative component (the ecological priority of the impact categories). This enables the bars of the two systems to be compared directly and reliable statements to be made.

The ecological priority of an impact indicator result is a verbal evaluation: it can be very large, large, medium, low or very low. The ecological priority is graphically represented by different shades of gray on the bars.

Comparison of the hierarchized indicator results

In a third step, the respective additional loads of the systems to be compared can be weighed against each other: Bars in the T-diagram with the same color (i.e. the same ecological priority) can be compared with one another. Due to the ordinal scaling, a comparison of bars with different ecological priorities is not permitted. For example, it cannot be said whether a bar with a medium ecological priority and an additional load value of 500% has a higher or lower value than a bar with a very high priority and 10% additional load. When weighing up, the same-tinted bars with similar amounts cancel each other out. In the best case, this procedure can be used to make a clear statement about the ecological advantages of a system, but it can also be that there are “no significant differences” between the systems.

Proceed further

The further evaluation includes sensitivity and significance analyzes as well as the writing of an overall assessment.

Relevance and problem of forming a hierarchy between different environmental impacts

The method for evaluating (prioritizing) life cycle assessments published by the UBA in 1999 takes on the task of making it possible to rank different environmental impacts in life cycle assessments. Weighing up various environmental impacts against one another is “one of the most difficult and sensitive tasks” of an ecological balance sheet, but it is necessary because it enables comprehensive, reliable statements “on the ecological superiority or equivalence of competing products and systems”.

The evaluation in life cycle assessments compares the different environmental impacts that occur during the life cycle of a product. An attempt is therefore made to assess which of the environmental impacts weighs the heaviest: is the contribution of a product to the greenhouse effect or to eutrophication more serious? The associated prioritization between different environmental areas is tricky in that it requires a subjective assessment of the importance of various environmental goods. B. can change through new scientific knowledge.

Practical application examples

The UBA applies the method to all life cycle assessments carried out by the UBA or on behalf of the UBA. Good examples are the life cycle assessments for graphic paper and beverage packaging.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Cf. Günther, E. (2008): Ecology-Oriented Management - Environmental (Weltorientiert) Thinking in Business Administration, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2008, p. 319.
  2. ↑ See Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 11 ff.
  3. ↑ See Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 12ff.
  4. ↑ See graphic in Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 20.
  5. ↑ See Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 21ff.
  6. ↑ See graphic in Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 23.
  7. ↑ See Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 23f.
  8. ↑ Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 1.
  9. ↑ Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , foreword by the President.
  10. ↑ See Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999, http: //www.umweltbundesamt .de / sites / default / files / medien / publikation / long / 3619.pdf , p. 5.
  11. ↑ Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.) (2000): Life cycle assessments for graphic papers: comparison of recovery and disposal processes for graphic waste paper as well as product comparisons for newspaper printing, magazine and copier papers under environmental aspects, Berlin 2000, http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/ sites / default / files / medien / publication / long / 1865.pdf .
  12. ↑ Umweltbundesamt (Hrsg.) (2002): Life cycle assessments for beverage packaging II / Phase 2, Berlin 2002, http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publikation/long/2180.pdf .

literature

  • Günther, E. (2008): Ecology-oriented management - environmental (world-oriented) thinking in business administration, Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart 2008.
  • Schmitz, S .; Paulini, I. (1999): Evaluation in life cycle assessments - method of the Federal Environment Agency for the standardization of impact indicators, order (ranking) of impact categories and for evaluation according to ISO 14042 and 14043 (version ´99), Berlin 1999.
  • Umweltbundesamt (Ed.) (2000): Background paper: Guideline for assessments in life cycle assessments (PDF; 30 kB).