Select another Impact Assessment Method
Back to EPS default 2000

Impact Indication Principle
Name:
EPS
Version:
2000
Definition:
Introduction

The need for a better environment is
generally accepted in society and numerous activities have evolved with
the intention of promoting a sustainable development. The 'Agenda 21'
-influenced activities of governments and authorities and the
environmental management activities of companies, standardised in the
ISO-14000-series, demonstrates this. Looking back at what has been done so far of the intentions expressed at the Rio conference, you find that there
has been an intensive development of management systems.

The tool described here, the EPS system, (EPS stands for Environmental Priority
Strategies in product design) was developed to meet the requirements of an
everyday product development process, where the environmental concern is
just one among several others. The development of the EPS system was
started during 1989 on a request from Volvo and as a co-operation between
Volvo, the Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL) and the
Swedish Federation of Industries. Since then it has been modified several
times during projects, which have involvied several companies, like in
the Swedish Product Ecology Project (Ryding et. al 1995) and the Nordic
NEP project (Steen et.al, 1996). The last modification is made within
the Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems, CPM (http://www.cpm.chalmers.se).

Goal

To be operative in a normal product-developing environment and to be able to assess which of two (or more) concepts that has the least impact on the environment.
This means that the system must quickly be able to give recommendations in
the early phases of the product development on the basis of general
information. During later phases it shall allow more elaborate and precise recommendations and investigations as more detailed and specific
information on the concepts become available. The demand about the
system being operative contains a demand on usefulness and cost effectiveness. The extra efforts the designer makes are to result in a reasonable improvement for the environment and the product.

To assess the added value from all types of impacts. This requirement is partly
a consequence of the demand on the system to be operative. It is considered
unrealistic to take for granted that a product developer, who already has
many technical and economical considerations to make, would be able to
handle several different impact numbers. He or she ought to have the
possibility of choosing the degree of complexity and detail in the
information. To communicate an understanding of the magnitude of the
impact. The result of the EPS analysis should be possible to be weighed
against other demands on the product. To offer a forum for growth of a
product related environmental strategy within a company in terms of “the 4
p’s”: plan, pattern, position and perspective. A plan is the original
meaning of a strategy. A pattern means that it is not all decided from
the beginning. A strategy grows as a pattern from various actions taken
develops and many actors contribute. Position means that a company’s
environmental activities are profiled in relation to its market and
competitors. Perspective means that it offers a way of
learning.

Scope

The EPS system is mainly aimed to be a tool for a company’s internal
product development process. It may be used externally and for other
purposes, like for environmental declarations, for purchasing decisions,
for education or for environmental accounting, but in those cases, the
knowledge of the EPS system and its features and limitations is
crucial.

The justification of many of the models used in impact assessments
and for estimating inventory data relies on the fact that we analyse
product systems. Such systems generally contain many emission or
resource depletion events in various places, and we can get a fairly good
estimate of the added impacts despite not knowing the individual
impacts.

Like for an aeroplane, the added weight of its next unknown 200 passengers may be estimated with higher relative precision than the weight of its next unknown passenger. The models used may therefore not be applicable in other contexts. In particular, care should be taken when using the default models and data given in this work for specific impact
assessment cases, like single plants or events. The EPS system is a
strategic tool. Like all LCA’s its impact assessment is made in relation to
a functional unit. This means that there is no possibility of detecting
a violation of an emission or a media quality standard. This has to be
done with other methods.

Environmental philosophy

In the development of the EPS system, it was decided to choose a default evaluation
of environmental impacts which as much as possible was compatible with the goals set by the earth summit at Rio.

The Rio conference is to a large extent evaluating the environmental impact in terms of its relation to a "sustainable development". This means that the interest of resources increase compared the focus of earlier environmental concern:
effects of emissions. The Rio conference deal with resource aspects not
only in terms of natural resources but also in terms of society's ability
to respond to environmental threats.

It has not been possible to
find a measure of society's ability to adjust to environmental threats
and in particular to determine how this is influenced by a product concept. Therefore this particular aspect is left out of consideration in the EPS system. The Rio protocol was not the result of an isolated event.
It was to a large extent reflecting the current attitudes on environmental issues, let be of overnement 'environmentalists'.
The issues brought up in Rio were issues that had been under discussion for many years, issues that you may find in most comprehensive literature on
environment and in national environmental goals.

At the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, environmental issues are described as 'threats' and 'safeguard subjects'. Threats are mechanisms, like acidification and global warming. Safeguard subjects are the things we want to safeguard in
the environment, like human health and bio-diversity.

The EPS default method evaluates impact on the environment via its impact on one
or several safeguard subjects. These have been chosen from those that were
included in the Rio protocol, although not necessarily explicitly formulated there: human health, resources, ecosystem production capacity, bio-diversity and esthetical values. Today the safe guard subject ‘esthetical values’ is extended and named ‘cultural and recreational’ values and resources are specified as ‘abiotic stock resources’. You may
argue that bio-diversity and ecosystem production capacities are resources
or that everything is of interest because it sooner or later impacts on
human health. But if you do not know how certain threats will develop,
uncertainty may call for a separate guard. Now, if the default environmental goal used in the EPS system is chosen to be the preservation of the safeguard subjects, a reference state has to be chosen and a way
of\nweighing deviations from the reference state. In line with the
goal to produce an understandable answer and to have as few rules as
possible, the simplest solution to the reference problem is to chose the
current state of the safeguard subjects, and only look for changes in the
safeguard subjects. The present state ought to the one that is easiest
to describe. Besides, in practical use of LCA tools we can hardly ever
use anything else than linear relationships. Under those circumstances,
the choice of reference state will not influence the result, at least
not in an analysis of incremental environmental changes caused by
human activities.

How do we then weight various changes in the safeguard subjects towards each other?

In the goals and superior principles
given above there are some requirements that influence the choice of
weighting principle. First we have the demand on an understandable
measure. Second we have an orientation towards sustainability in
our environmental philosophy. Sustainability has very much to do with resources and reserves. On a long-term basis it is more or less impossible to foresee all problems that will occur. A good strategy is to keep resources to
be able to solve the roblems. Therefore a monetary approach is chosen.

An interesting parallel may be found in psychotherapeutic strategy. If increasing the mental capacity of the patients, they are able to solve the various problems they might face to the best (Pedersen,
1986). This strategy may be compared to the traditional treatment of
physicians: to eliminate the problem at hand. Lohman (1969) concludes
that in health care, problem elimination is a dominating activity. He
explains this with the enormous impact Pasteur and his successors have had on
the society and on disciplines outside their own. Pasteur showed that
it was possible to find the evil and cure it. In environmental strategies the ‘problem eliminating strategy’ is dominating and has been for
long. Among LCA experts there is a common way of expressing the
environmental goal as "less is better" If there are no emissions or resources
used, the environment will be OK.

Looking at some distance at these two
strategies, it seems reasonable that the problem eliminating strategy is applied in acute situations and in a short time perspective. For longer planning, a more resource-oriented approach is to prefer.

A resource oriented, widely understood measure is the monetary measure. However
this can be expressed in several ways. In the EPS system a kind of
‘willingness to pay’(WTP) to restore changes in the safe guard subjects
have been chosen as the monetary measure. The WTP is measured in today’s OECD population and applied to all those, who are affected by a change. No discounting for future effects are made as future generations have the same right to a good environment as we have (Rio Convention).
The basic values of the environment are not considered subject to
change. The OECD values of today are used even for impacts on people
outside OECD and for future generations. This way of looking at the impacts
may be called anthropocentric altruism. Willingness to pay is understood as an expression of an attitude in monetary terms towards a change regardless of whom is guilty to the change. The reason for using the OECD values of today for other populations are mainly two: 1) it is
practical in that it is measurable, 2) it is mostly the OECD inhabitant of
today that are making the decisions as designers. An alternative had
been to choose the restoration cost, or willingness to accept (WTA). Restoration cost would have given some unrealistic results, since we often chose to live with environmental degradation or positive changes rather than restoring them at unreasonable high cost. Bad odour is one
example, noise is another, meadows created by grazing cattle’s a third.
WTA is more difficult to measure than WTP but given the modifications of
WTP expressed above the difference decrease. WTA also has the problem
of claims for compensation that are much higher than the available money. This problem is big enough with the WTP approach as it does not
‘cost’ anything to express a high WTP. To some degree, the technique of
determining WTP can decrease this problem, but not fully. Some results,
like results from CVM (Contingent Valuation Method) studies, are not
directly additive in a strict economic sense. If one wants to use
CVM-based WTP:s together with WTP determined by other methods, for instance
hedonic pricing, one has to ‘translate’ the levels. Many environmental
economists use various discount rates (ExternE, 1995). However,even at
very low discount rates effects lasting for hundreds of years may be
overlooked. For instance the greenhouse effect tend to be more or less
negligible in some studies (Azar,1996).The WTP as used in the EPS default weighting method is separate from the WTP used in\nmany cost-benefit studies in that is does not include direct impacts on the economy. For instance, a loss of income due to hospitalisation which is included in the ExternE study (1995) is not included in the EPS default weighting
method, as the economic system is not included in the safeguard subjects.

The values of the WTP will change from person to person and from
generation to generation. This is not a deficiency, it is simply a part
of reality. Different experiences and life situations most likely will
result in different attitudes to changes in the environment. For future
generations we would ideally like to include their attitudes. But it is
very difficult to understand what another person will think about
changes in their life conditions. The most common way of approaching this
problem is the one we teach our children. We would ask them: what would
you think if this happened to you? The WTP as it is used here is not an
ultimate WTP. For instance, if there was very little food available,
the WTP for crop would probably be as much as there was money available.
The WTP, which is chosen in the EPS default method, relates to everyday
life conditions. Normally you are not willing to pay more than it
takes. There is an easy way a designer can understand the default indices
and the results of an calculation with the indices. They represent the
money he or she together with other OECD inhabitants would be willing to
pay, to avoid the impacts from the design he/she considers. Another way
of looking at the indices and the impact values is as representing an
average risk. Risk is normally understood as a probability of an event
times a consequence. The indices express the most probable change in the
environment times its consequence in terms of WTP
DateCompleted:
1999
MethodologicalRange:
This system is for LCA. Time scale is 1990s and geographical range is Global. WTP (willingness to pay) is for industry
country
Notes:
Ryding, S-O, ed., “Miljöanpassad produktutveckling” Industrilitteratur, Stockholm, 1995

Steen, B., “EPS-Default Valuation of
Environmental Impacts from Emission and Use of Resources, Version 1996”,
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, AFR Report 111, April 1996.

ExternE, (1995) "Externalities of Energy" European Commission, DG-XII,
Vol 2, "Methodology", Brussels-Luxembourg, 1995.

Azar, C. and Sterner, T. (1996). Discounting and distributional Considerations in the context of Global Warming, Ecological Economics 19, 169-185.

Category Indicators
Name:
Ag reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource


Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves




Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Al reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ar reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
As reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Au reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
B reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ba reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Base cat-ion capacity
Description:
Indicators for production capacity of ecosystem



Decreased yields of crop, fish&meat, wood and freshwater are end point effects
associated with production capacity of ecosystems. Different types of crops are grouped
together as they may be exchangeable as a source of carbohydrates. Different types of
fish&meat may be exchangeable as a protein source. Different types of wood may be exchanged in most applications in a modern society. The indicator chosen for these
impact categories is a decreased production capacity of 1 kg. The weight refers to harvest
weight for crop and fish&meat, while the dry substance weight is used for wood.



Choosing dry weight basis for all three had given the most accurate measure, but normally dry weights are not available for crops or fish&meat while the forest industry often monitors the humidity of the wood it is buying.



The default impact categories and category indicators are:



Crop production capacity (Crop)
Wood production capacity (wood)
Fish&meat production capacity (Fish&meat)
Base cat-ion capacity
production capacity of irrigation water (irrigation water)
Production capacity of drinking water (Drinking water)
Default Unit:
H + mole equivalents
Notes:
Base cat-ion capacity



Name:
Be reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Bi reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Br reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Cd reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ce reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Cl reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Co reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Cr reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Cradle to gate GHG index
Description:
Emission of CO2 equivalents caused by the material or component during a selected part of its life cycle (cradle to gate).
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Created for VIEWS. Not original EPS indicator.



Name:
Crop
Description:
Indicators for production capacity of ecosystem



Decreased yields of crop, fish&meat, wood and freshwater are end point effects
associated with production capacity of ecosystems. Different types of crops are grouped
together as they may be exchangeable as a source of carbohydrates. Different types of
fish&meat may be exchangeable as a protein source. Different types of wood may be exchanged in most applications in a modern society. The indicator chosen for these
impact categories is a decreased production capacity of 1 kg. The weight refers to harvest
weight for crop and fish&meat, while the dry substance weight is used for wood.



Choosing dry weight basis for all three had given the most accurate measure, but normally dry weights are not available for crops or fish&meat while the forest industry often monitors the humidity of the wood it is buying.



The default impact categories and category indicators are:



Crop production capacity (Crop)
Wood production capacity (wood)
Fish&meat production capacity (Fish&meat)
Base cat-ion capacity
production capacity of irrigation water (irrigation water)
Production capacity of drinking water (Drinking water)
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Weight at harvest



Name:
Cs reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Cu reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Drinking water
Description:
Indicators for production capacity of ecosystem



Decreased yields of crop, fish&meat, wood and freshwater are end point effects
associated with production capacity of ecosystems. Different types of crops are grouped
together as they may be exchangeable as a source of carbohydrates. Different types of
fish&meat may be exchangeable as a protein source. Different types of wood may be exchanged in most applications in a modern society. The indicator chosen for these
impact categories is a decreased production capacity of 1 kg. The weight refers to harvest
weight for crop and fish&meat, while the dry substance weight is used for wood.



Choosing dry weight basis for all three had given the most accurate measure, but normally dry weights are not available for crops or fish&meat while the forest industry often monitors the humidity of the wood it is buying.



The default impact categories and category indicators are:



Crop production capacity (Crop)
Wood production capacity (wood)
Fish&meat production capacity (Fish&meat)
Base cat-ion capacity
production capacity of irrigation water (irrigation water)
Production capacity of drinking water (Drinking water)
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Fullfilling WHO criteria
on drinking water (1997)



Name:
Dy reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Er reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Eu reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
F reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Fe reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
fish&meat
Description:
Indicators for production capacity of ecosystem



Decreased yields of crop, fish&meat, wood and freshwater are end point effects
associated with production capacity of ecosystems. Different types of crops are grouped
together as they may be exchangeable as a source of carbohydrates. Different types of
fish&meat may be exchangeable as a protein source. Different types of wood may be exchanged in most applications in a modern society. The indicator chosen for these
impact categories is a decreased production capacity of 1 kg. The weight refers to harvest
weight for crop and fish&meat, while the dry substance weight is used for wood.



Choosing dry weight basis for all three had given the most accurate measure, but normally dry weights are not available for crops or fish&meat while the forest industry often monitors the humidity of the wood it is buying.



The default impact categories and category indicators are:



Crop production capacity (Crop)
Wood production capacity (wood)
Fish&meat production capacity (Fish&meat)
Base cat-ion capacity
production capacity of irrigation water (irrigation water)
Production capacity of drinking water (Drinking water)
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Full weight of animals



Name:
Fossil coal
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource



Natural stock resources



Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.



In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.



Anthropogenic stock resources



Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:



“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Fossil oil
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource



Natural stock resources



Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.



In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.



Anthropogenic stock resources



Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ga reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Gd reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ge reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
H reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
He reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Hf reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Hg reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ho reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
I reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
In reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ir reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Irrigation water
Description:
Indicators for production capacity of ecosystem



Decreased yields of crop, fish&meat, wood and freshwater are end point effects
associated with production capacity of ecosystems. Different types of crops are grouped
together as they may be exchangeable as a source of carbohydrates. Different types of
fish&meat may be exchangeable as a protein source. Different types of wood may be exchanged in most applications in a modern society. The indicator chosen for these
impact categories is a decreased production capacity of 1 kg. The weight refers to harvest
weight for crop and fish&meat, while the dry substance weight is used for wood.



Choosing dry weight basis for all three had given the most accurate measure, but normally dry weights are not available for crops or fish&meat while the forest industry often monitors the humidity of the wood it is buying.



The default impact categories and category indicators are:



Crop production capacity (Crop)
Wood production capacity (wood)
Fish&meat production capacity (Fish&meat)
Base cat-ion capacity
production capacity of irrigation water (irrigation water)
Production capacity of drinking water (Drinking water)
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Must be acceptable for
irrigation, e.g. with
respect to persistent toxic
substances



Name:
K reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
La reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Li reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Lu reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Mg reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Mn reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Mo reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Morbidity
Description:
Indicators for human health impacts



A wide spectrum of environmental impacts on human health is described in literature.
Some of the impacts have known mechanisms and some is known from epidemiological studies. The epidemiological studies are valuable as they result in quantitative relations
and as they use response parameters which are experienced by individuals. This meets the
criteria for the selection of impact categories. However epidemiological studies do not cover all types of health effects and therefore information from dose-response studies and other studies must be added in order to select category indicators that can fit into characterisation models.



When choosing impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models there
are a similar situation as when deciding upon air quality criteria (WHO, 1987). Basic
information is compiled in a comprehensive way, but there are many elements of judgement involved to make the final recommendation. For instance, when individuals are exposed to various concentrations of air pollutants and respiratory resistance is measured. The concentration where no effects are measured is determined. Often
information is given about how the individuals in a medical sense reacts on elevated
concentrations, like increase in respiratory resistance, but generally no description of how
the test persons feel are given.
Strand (1991) and ExternE (1995) has reviewed human attitudes towards changes in health conditions in terms of illingness to pay, and from these studies it is possible to see for which types of health category indicators one may find a WTP estimate.



Human health impact indicators may be chosen either to be numerous and very specific,
or to be less and more general. The first may be tempting for the medical expert, but the information on corresponding cause-effects available today does not allow the use of
diagnostic refinements more than in a few cases. There is also a limitation of studies of
attitudes to many environmental related health effects. Besides if there is too many indicators, it will be difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the indicator results. This
together speaks for a limited number of health impact categories.

EPS chose following indicators:

Year of lost life (YOLL)
severe morbidity
morbidity
servere nuisance
nuisance

It may be relevant to separate morbidity from starvation, as starvation is an important end
point for environmental impacts and different in character to normal morbidity, but at
present the understanding of what starvation means is poor for laymen in the industrial world.
An alternative way of defining a health impact indicator is used by Goedkoop et al. (1997). They use WHO’s concept of DALY, ‘disability adjusted life years’. It covers almost all health effects. For each type of health effect the degree of disability or similar is multiplied with its duration resulting in a figure corresponding to “lost person-years”.

There is an advantage in using the DALY system in that it gives an overview of all health
effects. The reason for not adopting it at present as a default method for the EPS impact
indicators is that it includes a large portion of weighting, and that it belongs to the
weighting step. Another reason is that a practical degree of resolution when presenting a
life cycle assessment in terms of category indicator results would contain about ten
indicators. Health effects being perhaps the most important of effects may be expressed
in more indicators than the other. A closer look at what types of health effects that are
related to environmental issues, we find cancer, respiratory effects, starvation, odour and
soiling as common effects. It is regarded desirable to match these types of effects in the
category indicators chosen.

However this does not mean that there could not be a harmonisation against the DALY
concept.
Default Unit:
p yr
Notes:
Reference:

ExternE, (1995) "Externalities of Energy" European Commission, DG-XII, Vol 2, "Methodology", Brussels-Luxembourg, 1995.

Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., “The Eco-indicator 97: Proposal for the impact
assessment methodology”, version 1.1, PréConsultants April 1997.




Name:
N reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Na reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Natural gas
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource



Natural stock resources



Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.



In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.



Anthropogenic stock resources



Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Nb reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Nd reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ne reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
NEX
Description:
NEX is Normalised EXtinction of species. Normalisation is made with respect to the species extinct during one year on a global basis.



Bio-diversity impact indicators



Our present knowledge about the relation between human activities and decrease of bio-diversity
is limited, as is the availability of data on the state of bio-diversity. Some records are kept, e.g. on endangered species (WCMC, 1999) and sometimes the main
threat causes. One of the greatest problem in finding suitable impact category indicators lie in the understanding of the quantitative value of bio-diversity. In short term aspects bio-diversity may be considered to be a resource like others, for instance for more
efficiently producing food and medicine. In the long run a sufficient bio-diversity is
absolutely crucial to human life and there is no trade-off options.
Part of the value of bio-diversity may overlap the safe guard subjects ‘production
capacity of ecosystems’, and ‘recreational and cultural values’. The safeguard subject
‘bio-diversity’ is focussing on the genetic resource values.
The most well known change in the safe guard subject bio-diversity caused by human activities is extinction of species. Each year a number of species is extinct. The value given to this change can be estimated from the cost of counteractive measures. Therefore it seems reasonable to use the yearly extinction of species as an indicator for the safe
guard subject.
There is however a problem of finding the contribution to the yearly depletion from
various activities. One reason is that it is not known exactly which species that are being
extinct.
The only way of estimating the contribution to species extinction is via the probability of extinction of red-listed species. Focussing on preserving red-listed species is claimed to
be a good strategy for preserving other bio-diversity qualities as well.
So, the category indicator is defined as ‘the normalised extinction of species’ The
indicator unit is dimensionless. The category indicator name is shortened to NEX. The
normalisation is made with respect to the species extinct during 1990.
Finding an indicator value may be difficult. However, considering that the main threats
today are habitat reductions, hunting, harvesting, emissions of toxic substances and
similar, estimation of the contribution to extinction may be made on via estimated on
reduction of habitat area, number of individuals or number of species in a group or similar.
Default Unit:
Dimension-less
Notes:
The normalisation is made
with respect to the species extinct during 1990



Name:
Ni reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Nuisance
Description:
Indicators for human health impacts




A wide spectrum of environmental impacts on human health is described in literature.
Some of the impacts have known mechanisms and some is known from epidemiological studies. The epidemiological studies are valuable as they result in quantitative relations
and as they use response parameters which are experienced by individuals. This meets the
criteria for the selection of impact categories. However epidemiological studies do not cover all types of health effects and therefore information from dose-response studies and other studies must be added in order to select category indicators that can fit into characterisation models.



When choosing impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models there
are a similar situation as when deciding upon air quality criteria (WHO, 1987). Basic
information is compiled in a comprehensive way, but there are many elements of judgement involved to make the final recommendation. For instance, when individuals are exposed to various concentrations of air pollutants and respiratory resistance is measured. The concentration where no effects are measured is determined. Often
information is given about how the individuals in a medical sense reacts on elevated
concentrations, like increase in respiratory resistance, but generally no description of how
the test persons feel are given.
Strand (1991) and ExternE (1995) has reviewed human attitudes towards changes in health conditions in terms of illingness to pay, and from these studies it is possible to see for which types of health category indicators one may find a WTP estimate.



Human health impact indicators may be chosen either to be numerous and very specific,
or to be less and more general. The first may be tempting for the medical expert, but the information on corresponding cause-effects available today does not allow the use of
diagnostic refinements more than in a few cases. There is also a limitation of studies of
attitudes to many environmental related health effects. Besides if there is too many indicators, it will be difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the indicator results. This
together speaks for a limited number of health impact categories.



EPS chose following indicators:



Year of lost life (YOLL)
severe morbidity
morbidity
servere nuisance
nuisance

It may be relevant to separate morbidity from starvation, as starvation is an important end
point for environmental impacts and different in character to normal morbidity, but at
present the understanding of what starvation means is poor for laymen in the industrial world.
An alternative way of defining a health impact indicator is used by Goedkoop et al. (1997). They use WHO’s concept of DALY, ‘disability adjusted life years’. It covers almost all health effects. For each type of health effect the degree of disability or similar is multiplied with its duration resulting in a figure corresponding to “lost person-years”.

There is an advantage in using the DALY system in that it gives an overview of all health
effects. The reason for not adopting it at present as a default method for the EPS impact
indicators is that it includes a large portion of weighting, and that it belongs to the
weighting step. Another reason is that a practical degree of resolution when presenting a
life cycle assessment in terms of category indicator results would contain about ten
indicators. Health effects being perhaps the most important of effects may be expressed
in more indicators than the other. A closer look at what types of health effects that are
related to environmental issues, we find cancer, respiratory effects, starvation, odour and
soiling as common effects. It is regarded desirable to match these types of effects in the
category indicators chosen.

However this does not mean that there could not be a harmonisation against the DALY
concept.
Default Unit:
person-year
Notes:
Irritating, but not causing any direct action

Reference:

ExternE, (1995) "Externalities of Energy" European Commission, DG-XII, Vol 2, "Methodology", Brussels-Luxembourg, 1995.

Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., “The Eco-indicator 97: Proposal for the impact
assessment methodology”, version 1.1, PréConsultants April 1997.






Name:
O reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Os reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
P reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Pb reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Pd reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Pr reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Pt reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Rb reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Re reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Rh reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ru reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
S reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Sb reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Sc reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Se reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Severe morbidity
Description:
Indicators for human health impacts



A wide spectrum of environmental impacts on human health is described in literature.
Some of the impacts have known mechanisms and some is known from epidemiological studies. The epidemiological studies are valuable as they result in quantitative relations
and as they use response parameters which are experienced by individuals. This meets the
criteria for the selection of impact categories. However epidemiological studies do not cover all types of health effects and therefore information from dose-response studies and other studies must be added in order to select category indicators that can fit into characterisation models.



When choosing impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models there
are a similar situation as when deciding upon air quality criteria (WHO, 1987). Basic
information is compiled in a comprehensive way, but there are many elements of judgement involved to make the final recommendation. For instance, when individuals are exposed to various concentrations of air pollutants and respiratory resistance is measured. The concentration where no effects are measured is determined. Often
information is given about how the individuals in a medical sense reacts on elevated
concentrations, like increase in respiratory resistance, but generally no description of how
the test persons feel are given.
Strand (1991) and ExternE (1995) has reviewed human attitudes towards changes in health conditions in terms of illingness to pay, and from these studies it is possible to see for which types of health category indicators one may find a WTP estimate.



Human health impact indicators may be chosen either to be numerous and very specific,
or to be less and more general. The first may be tempting for the medical expert, but the information on corresponding cause-effects available today does not allow the use of
diagnostic refinements more than in a few cases. There is also a limitation of studies of
attitudes to many environmental related health effects. Besides if there is too many indicators, it will be difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the indicator results. This
together speaks for a limited number of health impact categories.

EPS chose following indicators:

Year of lost life (YOLL)
severe morbidity
morbidity
servere nuisance
nuisance

It may be relevant to separate morbidity from starvation, as starvation is an important end
point for environmental impacts and different in character to normal morbidity, but at
present the understanding of what starvation means is poor for laymen in the industrial world.
An alternative way of defining a health impact indicator is used by Goedkoop et al. (1997). They use WHO’s concept of DALY, ‘disability adjusted life years’. It covers almost all health effects. For each type of health effect the degree of disability or similar is multiplied with its duration resulting in a figure corresponding to “lost person-years”.

There is an advantage in using the DALY system in that it gives an overview of all health
effects. The reason for not adopting it at present as a default method for the EPS impact
indicators is that it includes a large portion of weighting, and that it belongs to the
weighting step. Another reason is that a practical degree of resolution when presenting a
life cycle assessment in terms of category indicator results would contain about ten
indicators. Health effects being perhaps the most important of effects may be expressed
in more indicators than the other. A closer look at what types of health effects that are
related to environmental issues, we find cancer, respiratory effects, starvation, odour and
soiling as common effects. It is regarded desirable to match these types of effects in the
category indicators chosen.

However this does not mean that there could not be a harmonisation against the DALY
concept.
Default Unit:
person-year
Notes:
Including starvation

Reference:

ExternE, (1995) "Externalities of Energy" European Commission, DG-XII, Vol 2, "Methodology", Brussels-Luxembourg, 1995.

Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., “The Eco-indicator 97: Proposal for the impact
assessment methodology”, version 1.1, PréConsultants April 1997.





Name:
Severe nuisance
Description:
Indicators for human health impacts




A wide spectrum of environmental impacts on human health is described in literature.
Some of the impacts have known mechanisms and some is known from epidemiological studies. The epidemiological studies are valuable as they result in quantitative relations
and as they use response parameters which are experienced by individuals. This meets the
criteria for the selection of impact categories. However epidemiological studies do not cover all types of health effects and therefore information from dose-response studies and other studies must be added in order to select category indicators that can fit into characterisation models.



When choosing impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models there
are a similar situation as when deciding upon air quality criteria (WHO, 1987). Basic
information is compiled in a comprehensive way, but there are many elements of judgement involved to make the final recommendation. For instance, when individuals are exposed to various concentrations of air pollutants and respiratory resistance is measured. The concentration where no effects are measured is determined. Often
information is given about how the individuals in a medical sense reacts on elevated
concentrations, like increase in respiratory resistance, but generally no description of how
the test persons feel are given.
Strand (1991) and ExternE (1995) has reviewed human attitudes towards changes in health conditions in terms of illingness to pay, and from these studies it is possible to see for which types of health category indicators one may find a WTP estimate.



Human health impact indicators may be chosen either to be numerous and very specific,
or to be less and more general. The first may be tempting for the medical expert, but the information on corresponding cause-effects available today does not allow the use of
diagnostic refinements more than in a few cases. There is also a limitation of studies of
attitudes to many environmental related health effects. Besides if there is too many indicators, it will be difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the indicator results. This
together speaks for a limited number of health impact categories.



EPS chose following indicators:

Year of lost life (YOLL)
severe morbidity
morbidity
servere nuisance
nuisance

It may be relevant to separate morbidity from starvation, as starvation is an important end
point for environmental impacts and different in character to normal morbidity, but at
present the understanding of what starvation means is poor for laymen in the industrial world.
An alternative way of defining a health impact indicator is used by Goedkoop et al. (1997). They use WHO’s concept of DALY, ‘disability adjusted life years’. It covers almost all health effects. For each type of health effect the degree of disability or similar is multiplied with its duration resulting in a figure corresponding to “lost person-years”.

There is an advantage in using the DALY system in that it gives an overview of all health
effects. The reason for not adopting it at present as a default method for the EPS impact
indicators is that it includes a large portion of weighting, and that it belongs to the
weighting step. Another reason is that a practical degree of resolution when presenting a
life cycle assessment in terms of category indicator results would contain about ten
indicators. Health effects being perhaps the most important of effects may be expressed
in more indicators than the other. A closer look at what types of health effects that are
related to environmental issues, we find cancer, respiratory effects, starvation, odour and
soiling as common effects. It is regarded desirable to match these types of effects in the
category indicators chosen.

However this does not mean that there could not be a harmonisation against the DALY
concept.
Default Unit:
person-year
Notes:
Would normally cause a
reaction to avoid the nuisance

Reference:

ExternE, (1995) "Externalities of Energy" European Commission, DG-XII, Vol 2, "Methodology", Brussels-Luxembourg, 1995.

Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., “The Eco-indicator 97: Proposal for the impact
assessment methodology”, version 1.1, PréConsultants April 1997.






Name:
Sm reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Sn reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Sr reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ta reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Tb reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Te reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Th reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Ti reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Tl reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Tm reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
U reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
V reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
W reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Wood
Description:
Indicators for production capacity of ecosystem



Decreased yields of crop, fish&meat, wood and freshwater are end point effects
associated with production capacity of ecosystems. Different types of crops are grouped
together as they may be exchangeable as a source of carbohydrates. Different types of
fish&meat may be exchangeable as a protein source. Different types of wood may be exchanged in most applications in a modern society. The indicator chosen for these
impact categories is a decreased production capacity of 1 kg. The weight refers to harvest
weight for crop and fish&meat, while the dry substance weight is used for wood.



Choosing dry weight basis for all three had given the most accurate measure, but normally dry weights are not available for crops or fish&meat while the forest industry often monitors the humidity of the wood it is buying.



The default impact categories and category indicators are:



Crop production capacity (Crop)
Wood production capacity (wood)
Fish&meat production capacity (Fish&meat)
Base cat-ion capacity
production capacity of irrigation water (irrigation water)
Production capacity of drinking water (Drinking water)
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Dry weight basis



Name:
Y reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Yb reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource


Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves
Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
YOLL
Description:
Indicators for human health impacts




A wide spectrum of environmental impacts on human health is described in literature.
Some of the impacts have known mechanisms and some is known from epidemiological studies. The epidemiological studies are valuable as they result in quantitative relations
and as they use response parameters which are experienced by individuals. This meets the
criteria for the selection of impact categories. However epidemiological studies do not cover all types of health effects and therefore information from dose-response studies and other studies must be added in order to select category indicators that can fit into characterisation models.



When choosing impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models there
are a similar situation as when deciding upon air quality criteria (WHO, 1987). Basic
information is compiled in a comprehensive way, but there are many elements of judgement involved to make the final recommendation. For instance, when individuals are exposed to various concentrations of air pollutants and respiratory resistance is measured. The concentration where no effects are measured is determined. Often
information is given about how the individuals in a medical sense reacts on elevated
concentrations, like increase in respiratory resistance, but generally no description of how
the test persons feel are given.
Strand (1991) and ExternE (1995) has reviewed human attitudes towards changes in health conditions in terms of illingness to pay, and from these studies it is possible to see for which types of health category indicators one may find a WTP estimate.



Human health impact indicators may be chosen either to be numerous and very specific,
or to be less and more general. The first may be tempting for the medical expert, but the information on corresponding cause-effects available today does not allow the use of
diagnostic refinements more than in a few cases. There is also a limitation of studies of
attitudes to many environmental related health effects. Besides if there is too many indicators, it will be difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the indicator results. This
together speaks for a limited number of health impact categories.



EPS chose following indicators:

Year of lost life (YOLL)
severe morbidity
morbidity
servere nuisance
nuisance

It may be relevant to separate morbidity from starvation, as starvation is an important end
point for environmental impacts and different in character to normal morbidity, but at
present the understanding of what starvation means is poor for laymen in the industrial world.
An alternative way of defining a health impact indicator is used by Goedkoop et al. (1997). They use WHO’s concept of DALY, ‘disability adjusted life years’. It covers almost all health effects. For each type of health effect the degree of disability or similar is multiplied with its duration resulting in a figure corresponding to “lost person-years”.

There is an advantage in using the DALY system in that it gives an overview of all health
effects. The reason for not adopting it at present as a default method for the EPS impact
indicators is that it includes a large portion of weighting, and that it belongs to the
weighting step. Another reason is that a practical degree of resolution when presenting a
life cycle assessment in terms of category indicator results would contain about ten
indicators. Health effects being perhaps the most important of effects may be expressed
in more indicators than the other. A closer look at what types of health effects that are
related to environmental issues, we find cancer, respiratory effects, starvation, odour and
soiling as common effects. It is regarded desirable to match these types of effects in the
category indicators chosen.

However this does not mean that there could not be a harmonisation against the DALY
concept.



Indicators for human health impacts

YOLL stands for Year of Lost Life.

A wide spectrum of environmental impacts on human health is described in literature.
Some of the impacts have known mechanisms and some is known from epidemiological studies. The epidemiological studies are valuable as they result in quantitative relations
and as they use response parameters which are experienced by individuals. This meets the
criteria for the selection of impact categories. However epidemiological studies do not cover all types of health effects and therefore information from dose-response studies and other studies must be added in order to select category indicators that can fit into characterisation models.

When choosing impact categories, category indicators and characterisation models there
are a similar situation as when deciding upon air quality criteria (WHO, 1987). Basic
information is compiled in a comprehensive way, but there are many elements of judgement involved to make the final recommendation. For instance, when individuals are exposed to various concentrations of air pollutants and respiratory resistance is measured. The concentration where no effects are measured is determined. Often
information is given about how the individuals in a medical sense reacts on elevated
concentrations, like increase in respiratory resistance, but generally no description of how
the test persons feel are given.
Strand (1991) and ExternE (1995) has reviewed human attitudes towards changes in health conditions in terms of illingness to pay, and from these studies it is possible to see for which types of health category indicators one may find a WTP estimate.

Human health impact indicators may be chosen either to be numerous and very specific,
or to be less and more general. The first may be tempting for the medical expert, but the information on corresponding cause-effects available today does not allow the use of
diagnostic refinements more than in a few cases. There is also a limitation of studies of
attitudes to many environmental related health effects. Besides if there is too many indicators, it will be difficult to obtain a comprehensive view of the indicator results. This
together speaks for a limited number of health impact categories.

EPS chose following indicators:

Year of lost life (YOLL)
severe morbidity
morbidity
servere nuisance
nuisance

It may be relevant to separate morbidity from starvation, as starvation is an important end
point for environmental impacts and different in character to normal morbidity, but at
present the understanding of what starvation means is poor for laymen in the industrial world.
An alternative way of defining a health impact indicator is used by Goedkoop et al. (1997). They use WHO’s concept of DALY, ‘disability adjusted life years’. It covers almost all health effects. For each type of health effect the degree of disability or similar is multiplied with its duration resulting in a figure corresponding to “lost person-years”.

There is an advantage in using the DALY system in that it gives an overview of all health
effects. The reason for not adopting it at present as a default method for the EPS impact
indicators is that it includes a large portion of weighting, and that it belongs to the
weighting step. Another reason is that a practical degree of resolution when presenting a
life cycle assessment in terms of category indicator results would contain about ten
indicators. Health effects being perhaps the most important of effects may be expressed
in more indicators than the other. A closer look at what types of health effects that are
related to environmental issues, we find cancer, respiratory effects, starvation, odour and
soiling as common effects. It is regarded desirable to match these types of effects in the
category indicators chosen.

However this does not mean that there could not be a harmonisation against the DALY
concept.
Default Unit:
person-year
Notes:
(shortname:YOLL)
Instead of excess mortality, which was used in earlier
versions


Reference:

ExternE, (1995) "Externalities of Energy" European Commission, DG-XII, Vol 2, "Methodology", Brussels-Luxembourg, 1995.

Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., “The Eco-indicator 97: Proposal for the impact
assessment methodology”, version 1.1, PréConsultants April 1997.






Name:
Zn reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.



Name:
Zr reserves
Description:
Indicators for abiotic stock resource

Natural stock resources

Some authors have suggested impact indicators where several resources are characterised
due to their use to reserve ratio or due to their abundance (Lindfors et al., 1994). The
reason for this is mainly to be able to highlight the use of scarce resources in an LCA, but
it doubtful if this can be regarded as a characterisation based on natural science. It
includes a large part of weighting when aggregating resources, many of which find very
different use, in one measure. There is no common mechanism like in the formulation of the GWP that applies to the consequences of depletion of different resources.

In the choice of category indicators for the EPS default method, a resource, such as a
metal ore is considered unique with regard to the metal. It is only exchangeable with regard to its concentration, chemical composition and location. The impact indicator is therefore defined as 1 kg of the resource in a reference state from which it is mined, i.e. in the state, which is normally referred to as reserves.Land area is sometimes treated as a resource. Following the second and fifth of the
original principles (in table 4.3) for the identification of impact categories and indicators,
we find that no change of global surface areas is possible due to human activities. It is only the quality of areas that can be changed. The quality is described by the impact categories: production capacity, biodiversity and aesthetic values. The qualitative change between land/water may be described by those impact categories.

Anthropogenic stock resources

Buildings, machines, construction materials etc. represent values that can be destroyed by environmental impacts such as corrosion and soiling. There is no separate indicators formulated for these, but the impacts may still be accounted for in the impact modelling.
For instance if there is a destruction of steel by corrosion from SO2, impacts on the safe
guard subjects are modelled through just including new pathways in the model. These
pathways includes impacts from emissions and resource depletion when substituting and repairing the steel constructions. The default category indicators are:

“element name” reserves

Natural gas reserves

Oil reserves

Coal reserves

“mineral name” reserves


Default Unit:
kg
Notes:
Lindfors, L.G.,Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L., Virtanen, Y., Juntilla, V. Leskinen, A.,
Hanssen, O-J., Rønning, A., Ekvall, T. and Finnveden, G., Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle
Assessment, Nordic Council of Ministers, Report Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
1994.