+2 votes
736 views
Dear openLCA team,

I recently downloaded the new methods (2.0.4) and tried out the updated EF method (adapted) with OpenLCA 1.9 and Ecoinvent 3.5.

After comparing it with the impact method set I used before (ILCD 2.0 2018 midpoint) I am shocked about the differences in 'land use'. While all the other impact categories show very similar results (plusminus a few percent), land use differs drastically.

For example the two following Ecoinvent 3.5 datasets:

Extrusion, plastic film
ILCD 2.0 2018: 19.92762 Pt
EF method: 0.38889 Pt

Kraft paper production, bleached
ILCD 2.0 2018: 525.79875 Pt
EF method: 2.04827 Pt

Do you have any idea about the reasons of these dramatic differences?

Kind regards
Bernhard
in openLCA by (1.1k points)

4 Answers

0 votes
by (1.1k points)
This is a critical issue. Does anyone have an answer?
0 votes
by (3.8k points)

Dear Bernhard,

ILCD and EF are different methods, thus they are supposed to give you different results. The European commission reports says "The model for land use impact assessment is changed. In ILCD the model assessing Soil Organic Matter (SOM) loss, developed by Mila I Canals (2007) was adopted, in EF the method, a soil quality index built aggregating the indicators provided by the LANCA model (Bos et al, 2016) is implemented."

source: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/permalink/supporting_Information_final.pdf

by (1.1k points)
Dear Tim,
thank you again for engaging in this conversation. However, I already know and read this information. This does not change the fact that the land use calculations in the EF (adapted) method do not make any sense since forestry seems to be not included in the calculations (see screenshot)
0 votes
by (1.1k points)
I calculated a bunch of other datasets and it is evident that the land use method in the EF (adapted) impact method set does not include forestry!
0 votes
by (1.1k points)
After a thorough investigation I found the problem (and the solution). The EF method (adapted) is compatible with Ecoinvent (elementary flows) except regarding the land use impact category. In this method, there are elementary flows missing (e.g. "Occupation, forest, intensive, normal") that are responsible for the wrong results. After manually adding the missing elementary flows in the EF method that are associated with Ecoinvent datasets, I come up with the same results as in the ILCD method.
...