| |
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Meio Ambiente. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpma.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Meio Ambiente. |
|
Data corrente: |
24/11/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
25/11/2022 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
MACIEL, V. G.; NOVAES, R. M. L.; BRANDÃO, M.; CAVALETT, O.; PAZIANOTTO, R. A. A.; GAROFALO, D. F. T.; MATSUURA, M. I. da S. F. |
|
Afiliação: |
VINÍCIUS GONÇALVES MACIEL; RENAN MILAGRES LAGE NOVAES, CNPMA; MIGUEL BRANDÃO, KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; OTÁVIO CAVALETT, NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; RICARDO ANTONIO ALMEIDA PAZIANOTTO, CNPMA; DANILO FRANCISCO TROVO GAROFALO; MARILIA IEDA DA S F MATSUURA, CNPMA. |
|
Título: |
Towards a non-ambiguous view of the amortization period for quantifying direct land-use change in LCA. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, v. 27, n. 12, p. 1299-1315, 2022. |
|
ISSN: |
1614-7502 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Abstract: Purpose: To clarify the concept of the amortization period (20-year factor) associated with direct land-use change (dLUC) accounting, discuss its main inconsistencies, and propose improvements. The current practice is to divide (amortize) the estimated emissions associated with dLUC that has occurred over the last 20 years by another 20 years. Both periods are referred ambiguously as amortization period. Issues arise when considering them as a single temporal aspect (TA) that cannot fully represent the complexity of diverse research and policy contexts. Methods: First, a systematic review was conducted to understand the 20-year amortization history and concepts and discuss its inconsistencies. Based on the review results, we propose the adoption of two distinct TAs, decomposed from the amortization period. Then, we performed a sensitivity analysis by estimating carbon emissions due to dLUC in six land uses in Brazil: soybean, maize, sugarcane, pasture, planted forest, and mango. Results and discussion: The literature review shows that several strategies have emerged to reduce or avoid adopting the amortization period. However, most of these proposals are based on complex approaches focusing on alternatives associated with the life cycle impact assessment stage. We found that the commonly adopted amortization period has an ambiguous nature that could be explored at the life cycle inventory analysis stage. Thus, we argue that there are two distinct TAs linked to amortization in dLUC: (i) the inventory period adopted to account for land-use changes; and (ii) the period over which carbon emissions are annualized. These temporal aspects were named here the LUC-inventory period (IP) and the LUC-amortization period (AP), for clarification purposes. The sensitivity analysis showed that different values of IP and AP drastically change the emissions results due to dLUC in Brazil for different crops and land uses. Conclusion: We advocate that the amortization period should be decomposed into two TAs: LUC-inventory period and the LUC-amortization period. They affect how the carbon debt incurred by expanding agricultural land is accounted for and amortized over a given period-of-time. Therefore, to ensure regulatory compliance, we argued that these proposed TAs should be explicitly defined, based on three possibilities, depending on the goal and context of LCA studies, such as (i) fixed values set in standards and norms; (ii) IPCC's 20-year defaults; and (iii) customized IP and AP values based on the study's specificities. MenosAbstract: Purpose: To clarify the concept of the amortization period (20-year factor) associated with direct land-use change (dLUC) accounting, discuss its main inconsistencies, and propose improvements. The current practice is to divide (amortize) the estimated emissions associated with dLUC that has occurred over the last 20 years by another 20 years. Both periods are referred ambiguously as amortization period. Issues arise when considering them as a single temporal aspect (TA) that cannot fully represent the complexity of diverse research and policy contexts. Methods: First, a systematic review was conducted to understand the 20-year amortization history and concepts and discuss its inconsistencies. Based on the review results, we propose the adoption of two distinct TAs, decomposed from the amortization period. Then, we performed a sensitivity analysis by estimating carbon emissions due to dLUC in six land uses in Brazil: soybean, maize, sugarcane, pasture, planted forest, and mango. Results and discussion: The literature review shows that several strategies have emerged to reduce or avoid adopting the amortization period. However, most of these proposals are based on complex approaches focusing on alternatives associated with the life cycle impact assessment stage. We found that the commonly adopted amortization period has an ambiguous nature that could be explored at the life cycle inventory analysis stage. Thus, we argue that there are two distinct TAs linked to amor... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Land transformation; LUC; Temporal aspects; Temporal dependence. |
|
Thesagro: |
Agricultura; Cana de Açúcar; Floresta; Manga; Milho; Pastagem; Soja; Uso da Terra. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
Agriculture; Brazil; Carbon footprint; Corn; Greenhouse gas emissions; Land use change; Life cycle assessment; Pastures; Plantation forestry; Soybeans; Sugarcane. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
P Recursos Naturais, Ciências Ambientais e da Terra |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 03887naa a2200481 a 4500
001 2148673
005 2022-11-25
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a1614-7502
100 1 $aMACIEL, V. G.
245 $aTowards a non-ambiguous view of the amortization period for quantifying direct land-use change in LCA.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
520 $aAbstract: Purpose: To clarify the concept of the amortization period (20-year factor) associated with direct land-use change (dLUC) accounting, discuss its main inconsistencies, and propose improvements. The current practice is to divide (amortize) the estimated emissions associated with dLUC that has occurred over the last 20 years by another 20 years. Both periods are referred ambiguously as amortization period. Issues arise when considering them as a single temporal aspect (TA) that cannot fully represent the complexity of diverse research and policy contexts. Methods: First, a systematic review was conducted to understand the 20-year amortization history and concepts and discuss its inconsistencies. Based on the review results, we propose the adoption of two distinct TAs, decomposed from the amortization period. Then, we performed a sensitivity analysis by estimating carbon emissions due to dLUC in six land uses in Brazil: soybean, maize, sugarcane, pasture, planted forest, and mango. Results and discussion: The literature review shows that several strategies have emerged to reduce or avoid adopting the amortization period. However, most of these proposals are based on complex approaches focusing on alternatives associated with the life cycle impact assessment stage. We found that the commonly adopted amortization period has an ambiguous nature that could be explored at the life cycle inventory analysis stage. Thus, we argue that there are two distinct TAs linked to amortization in dLUC: (i) the inventory period adopted to account for land-use changes; and (ii) the period over which carbon emissions are annualized. These temporal aspects were named here the LUC-inventory period (IP) and the LUC-amortization period (AP), for clarification purposes. The sensitivity analysis showed that different values of IP and AP drastically change the emissions results due to dLUC in Brazil for different crops and land uses. Conclusion: We advocate that the amortization period should be decomposed into two TAs: LUC-inventory period and the LUC-amortization period. They affect how the carbon debt incurred by expanding agricultural land is accounted for and amortized over a given period-of-time. Therefore, to ensure regulatory compliance, we argued that these proposed TAs should be explicitly defined, based on three possibilities, depending on the goal and context of LCA studies, such as (i) fixed values set in standards and norms; (ii) IPCC's 20-year defaults; and (iii) customized IP and AP values based on the study's specificities.
650 $aAgriculture
650 $aBrazil
650 $aCarbon footprint
650 $aCorn
650 $aGreenhouse gas emissions
650 $aLand use change
650 $aLife cycle assessment
650 $aPastures
650 $aPlantation forestry
650 $aSoybeans
650 $aSugarcane
650 $aAgricultura
650 $aCana de Açúcar
650 $aFloresta
650 $aManga
650 $aMilho
650 $aPastagem
650 $aSoja
650 $aUso da Terra
653 $aLand transformation
653 $aLUC
653 $aTemporal aspects
653 $aTemporal dependence
700 1 $aNOVAES, R. M. L.
700 1 $aBRANDÃO, M.
700 1 $aCAVALETT, O.
700 1 $aPAZIANOTTO, R. A. A.
700 1 $aGAROFALO, D. F. T.
700 1 $aMATSUURA, M. I. da S. F.
773 $tThe International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment$gv. 27, n. 12, p. 1299-1315, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Meio Ambiente (CNPMA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
