The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Karen Allacker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Life Cycle assessment and Life Cycle Costing of road infrastructure in residential neighbourhoods
    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Damien Trigaux, Lien Wijnants, Frank De Troyer, Karen Allacker
    Abstract:

    The built environment consists of a huge amount of infrastructure, such as roads and utilities. The objective of this paper is to assess the Life Cycle financial and environmental impact of road infrastructure in residential neighbourhoods and to analyse the relative contribution of road infrastructure in the total impact of neighbourhoods. Various road sections are analysed based on an integrated Life Cycle approach, combining Life Cycle Costing and Life Cycle assessment. To deal with complexity, a hierarchic assessment structure, using the principles of the “element method for cost control”, is implemented. Four neighbourhood models with diverse built densities are compared to gain insight in the relative impact of road infrastructure in neighbourhoods. The results reveal important financial and environmental impact differences between the road sections analysed. Main contributors to the Life Cycle financial and environmental impact are the surface layer and electrical and piped services. The contribution of road infrastructure to the total neighbourhood impact, ranging from 2 to 9 % of the total cost, is relatively limited, compared to buildings, but not negligible in low built density neighbourhoods. Good spatial planning of the neighbourhood is recommended to reduce the amount of road infrastructure and the related financial and environmental impact. The priority should be to design denser neighbourhood layouts, before decreasing the financial and environmental impact of the road sections.

Marcus Carlsson Reich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • economic assessment of municipal waste management systems case studies using a combination of Life Cycle assessment lca and Life Cycle Costing lcc
    Journal of Cleaner Production, 2005
    Co-Authors: Marcus Carlsson Reich
    Abstract:

    Abstract This paper examines some possibilities and limitations of linking economic information to an Life Cycle assessment, LCA, when studying municipal waste management systems. A terminology and methodology for economic assessment of municipal waste management systems is proposed and tested through a case study. The methodology consists of a financial LCC, Life Cycle Costing, (which is used in parallel with an LCA) and an environmental LCC (functioning as a consecutive, weighting tool). In the case study, the financial LCC covers all the costs incurred by the extended waste management system, as though the LCA system was a single economic actor. The environmental LCC uses three different weighting methods to monetarise environmental effects such as emissions and resource use. As both LCCs use the same unit of account, they can easily be added together to a welfare economic tool. This step-by-step aggregation leads to a transparent, reproducible analysis method. A conclusion is that the methodology facilitates the analysis, but that problems remain as municipal waste management often diverge from existing economic systems.

Edeltraud Guenther - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • uncertainty in Life Cycle Costing for long range infrastructure part i leveling the playing field to address uncertainties
    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Patrick Ilg, Christoph Scope, Stefan Muench, Edeltraud Guenther
    Abstract:

    Purpose Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is a state-of-the-art method to analyze investment decisions in infrastructure projects. However, uncertainties inherent in long-term planning question the credibility of LCC results. Previous research has not systematically linked sources and methods to address this uncertainty. Part I of this series develops a framework to collect and categorize different sources of uncertainty and addressing methods. This systematization is a prerequisite to further analyze the suitability of methods and levels the playing field for part II.

  • high performance materials in infrastructure a review of applied Life Cycle Costing and its drivers the case of fiber reinforced composites
    Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016
    Co-Authors: Patrick Ilg, Christoph Hoehne, Edeltraud Guenther
    Abstract:

    Abstract In recent years, an investment bottleneck for public infrastructure has accumulated in many industrial countries. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is an appropriate management instrument for long-term and sustainable investment. This article addresses the evaluation of high-performance materials (HPM) using LCC to reduce that investment bottleneck. Our research questions are, first, whether and how LCC can be applied to HPM, second, which drivers are primarily influencing the results of a LCC analysis for HPM, and finally, whether HPM are suitable for infrastructure investments, according to economic, social and environmental criteria. We use a comprehensive literature review to analyze existing case studies that apply LCC to HPM. Our review shows that LCC is applied to HPM for structural applications with different levels of detail and quality. The initial results indicate that total Life Cycle costs for HPM are on average 10% higher. We urge the optimization of the cost structure of HPM to achieve the same level of Life Cycle costs as conventional construction materials. Moreover, we argue for a more holistic approach that does not ignore sustainability criteria throughout the Life Cycle of HPM based on the identified drivers of Life Cycle costs: external costs, an extended Life Cycle, the discount rate and the expected service Life. Indeed, a screened subsample of eight cases is very competitive, with average total Life Cycle costs for HPM that are 8.4% lower. We share the belief in a more eco-centric approach and, therefore, demand further research into a societal type of LCC that improves the mechanical properties while not ignoring sustainability criteria for new product systems such as HPM.

Thomas Fruergaard Astrup - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Life Cycle Costing of food waste management in denmark importance of indirect effects
    Environmental Science & Technology, 2016
    Co-Authors: Veronica Martinezsanchez, Davide Tonini, Flemming Moller, Thomas Fruergaard Astrup
    Abstract:

    Prevention has been suggested as the preferred food waste management solution compared to alternatives such as conversion to animal fodder or to energy. In this study we used societal Life-Cycle Costing, as a welfare economic assessment, and environmental Life-Cycle Costing, as a financial assessment combined with Life-Cycle assessment, to evaluate food waste management. Both Life-Cycle Costing assessments included direct and indirect effects. The latter are related to income effects, accounting for the marginal consumption induced when alternative scenarios lead to different household expenses, and the land-use-changes effect, associated with food production. The results highlighted that prevention, while providing the highest welfare gains as more services/goods could be consumed with the same income, could also incur the highest environmental impacts if the monetary savings from unpurchased food commodities were spent on goods/services with a more environmentally damaging production than that of the (p...

  • Life Cycle Costing of food waste management in denmark importance of indirect effects
    Environmental Science & Technology, 2016
    Co-Authors: Veronica Martinezsanchez, Davide Tonini, Flemming Moller, Thomas Fruergaard Astrup
    Abstract:

    Prevention has been suggested as the preferred food waste management solution compared to alternatives such as conversion to animal fodder or to energy. In this study we used societal Life-Cycle Costing, as a welfare economic assessment, and environmental Life-Cycle Costing, as a financial assessment combined with Life-Cycle assessment, to evaluate food waste management. Both Life-Cycle Costing assessments included direct and indirect effects. The latter are related to income effects, accounting for the marginal consumption induced when alternative scenarios lead to different household expenses, and the land-use-changes effect, associated with food production. The results highlighted that prevention, while providing the highest welfare gains as more services/goods could be consumed with the same income, could also incur the highest environmental impacts if the monetary savings from unpurchased food commodities were spent on goods/services with a more environmentally damaging production than that of the (prevented) food. This was not the case when savings were used, e.g., for health care, education, and insurances. This study demonstrates that income effects, although uncertain, should be included whenever alternative scenarios incur different financial costs. Furthermore, it highlights that food prevention measures should not only demote the purchase of unconsumed food but also promote a low-impact use of the savings generated.

  • Life Cycle Costing of waste management systems overview calculation principles and case studies
    Waste Management, 2015
    Co-Authors: Veronica Martinezsanchez, M Kromann, Thomas Fruergaard Astrup
    Abstract:

    Abstract This paper provides a detailed and comprehensive cost model for the economic assessment of solid waste management systems. The model was based on the principles of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and followed a bottom-up calculation approach providing detailed cost items for all key technologies within modern waste systems. All technologies were defined per tonne of waste input, and each cost item within a technology was characterised by both a technical and an economic parameter (for example amount and cost of fuel related to waste collection), to ensure transparency, applicability and reproducibility. Cost items were classified as: (1) budget costs, (2) transfers (for example taxes, subsidies and fees) and (3) externality costs (for example damage or abatement costs related to emissions and disamenities). Technology costs were obtained as the sum of all cost items (of the same type) within a specific technology, while scenario costs were the sum of all technologies involved in a scenario. The cost model allows for the completion of three types of LCC: a Conventional LCC, for the assessment of financial costs, an Environmental LCC, for the assessment of financial costs whose results are complemented by a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for the same system, and a Societal LCC, for socio-economic assessments. Conventional and Environmental LCCs includes budget costs and transfers, while Societal LCCs includes budget and externality costs. Critical aspects were found in the existing literature regarding the cost assessment of waste management, namely system boundary equivalency, accounting for temporally distributed emissions and impacts, inclusions of transfers, the internalisation of environmental impacts and the coverage of shadow prices, and there was also significant confusion regarding terminology. The presented cost model was implemented in two case study scenarios assessing the costs involved in the source segregation of organic waste from 100,000 Danish households and the subsequent co-digestion of organic waste with animal manure. Overall, source segregation resulted in higher financial costs than the alternative of incinerating the organic waste with the residual waste: 1.6 M€/year, of which 0.9 M€/year was costs for extra bins and bags used by the households, 1.0 M€/year for extra collections and −0.3 M€/year saved on incineration.

Damien Trigaux - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Life Cycle assessment and Life Cycle Costing of road infrastructure in residential neighbourhoods
    International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017
    Co-Authors: Damien Trigaux, Lien Wijnants, Frank De Troyer, Karen Allacker
    Abstract:

    The built environment consists of a huge amount of infrastructure, such as roads and utilities. The objective of this paper is to assess the Life Cycle financial and environmental impact of road infrastructure in residential neighbourhoods and to analyse the relative contribution of road infrastructure in the total impact of neighbourhoods. Various road sections are analysed based on an integrated Life Cycle approach, combining Life Cycle Costing and Life Cycle assessment. To deal with complexity, a hierarchic assessment structure, using the principles of the “element method for cost control”, is implemented. Four neighbourhood models with diverse built densities are compared to gain insight in the relative impact of road infrastructure in neighbourhoods. The results reveal important financial and environmental impact differences between the road sections analysed. Main contributors to the Life Cycle financial and environmental impact are the surface layer and electrical and piped services. The contribution of road infrastructure to the total neighbourhood impact, ranging from 2 to 9 % of the total cost, is relatively limited, compared to buildings, but not negligible in low built density neighbourhoods. Good spatial planning of the neighbourhood is recommended to reduce the amount of road infrastructure and the related financial and environmental impact. The priority should be to design denser neighbourhood layouts, before decreasing the financial and environmental impact of the road sections.