View
13
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Emergy and End-point Impact Assessment of Agricultural and Food Production in the United States: A Supply Chain-linked Ecologically-based Life Cycle
Assessment
Presenter:Gokhan Egilmez, PhD
Assistant ProfessorMechanical and Industrial Engineering
Young Professionals Chair, IISE CT ChapterUniversity of New Haven
West Haven, CT USA
Session: IS Green BusinessesDate: Sunday, May 22, 2016
Time: 11:00 AM 12: 15 PMLocation: Oasis Adventure
Tower
Co-authors:Murat Kucukvar, PhD
Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Sehir University, Istanbul, Turkey
Yong Shin Park, PhD CandidateUpper Great Plains Transportation and
Logistics InstituteNorth Dakota State University
Fargo, ND, USA
Part 1: Introduction
Why sustainability?3
http://400.350.org/
Why sustainability?4
•Climate Change•T > any T in last 420,000 years
•Global warming is real•Speed of T rise is > any in last 20,000 years
•Wait and see policy did not work, will never work
Old story but bitter truth
•A lot of bad things but some of them are…•Weather fluctuations
•Disastrous events•Agri-food productivity loss•Energy, water and land loss
•Eventually hit to the basic needs of a human according to Maslow’s classification
Global warming will
causeIs already causinghttp://400.350.org/
Ecological Impacts of U.S. Manufacturing Industries
Carbon
20% of total GHG emissions
in the U.S.
The third largest industry after
transportation and electric
power industries (EPA, 2012)
Energy
The third leading sector in
energy usage with a share of
20% (with a usage of 20
quadrillion BTU)
Toxic Release
Metal Mining, Food, Beverage,
Tobacco, Primary Metals and Chemicals Manufacturing
sectors account for
approximately 71% of all toxic releases (EPA,
2010)
Water
Power Generation and
Farming industries
account for 41% of total water withdrawals in U.S (Blackhurst et al., 2010).
Part 1: Introduction
Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Assessment
Sust
aina
ble
Man
ufac
turin
g “The creation of manufactured products that use processes that are non-polluting, conserve energy and natural resources, and are economically sound and safe for employees, communities and consumers” (Dept. of Commerce, 2012)
Life
Cyc
le A
sses
smen
t A well-known and widely used approach to assessing the potential environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product’s life cycle, including raw material acquisition, production, distribution, use, and end-of-life phases (Finnveden et al., 2009)
Part 1: Introduction
Life Cycle Assessment Assess the environmental impact that goes along
with the process, production, distribution and supplychain.
Has been used extensively today and grown rapidlyin terms of activity and interest to assessed differentkind of products and sectors (Westkämper, 2000).
Trace out and find the major processes involved overthe life cycle of certain product by taking intoaccount the environmental burden (Kraft &Kamieniecki, 2006)
Raw material acquisition
Production & Distribution
Use
End of Life• Landfill• Reuse/Recy
cle
Part 1: Introduction
Life Cycle Assessment Models*MRIO Models
*TBL-LCA(UCF)
Eco-LCA(OSU)
EIO-LCA(CMU)
P-LCA(U.S. EPA)
*Kucukvar, M., Egilmez, G., Onat, N. C., & Samadi, H. (2015). A global, scope-based carbon footprint modeling for effective carbon reduction policies: Lessons from the Turkish manufacturing. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 1(February 2016), 47–66. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2015.05.005*Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the US construction industry. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 1-15.*Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2014).“Supply chain sustainability assessment of the U.S. food manufacturing sectors: A life cycle-based frontier approach”, Resources Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier, Volume 82, January 2014, 8–20
Part 1: Introduction
LCA scopes
Ecosystem
Society
Economy
Supply chains
Process
Kucukvar, M., Egilmez G., and Tatari, O (2013). “Sustainable supply chain management and the triple bottom line input-output modeling.” INFORMS Annual Meeting, October 6-9, 2013, Minneapolis, USA.
Part 1: Introduction
How to expand the LCA research?
Vertically improvements
in depth?Horizontal
improvement in breadth?
Part 1: Introduction
Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) Modeling
Transportation Sector
…other sectors
Wood product mfg.
Plastics Packaging
Materials Mfg.
Furniture and Related Product
Mfg.
input economicUnit output talenvironmenUnit Input $ ×
output economicUnit output talenvironmenUnit Output $ ×
PublicDatasets
EconomicInput-Output
Matrix• Life Cycle Inventory
• Carbon Footprint• Energy Use• Water Footprint• Solid Waste• Toxic Releases• Land Use• Etc.
Part 2: Methods
ECO-LCA basicsEcologically based life cycle assessment Scope: Cradle to gate
Onsite (Direct) + Supply chains (Indirect) + Ecosystem (Exergy)
Renewable and nonrenewable resource consumption in terms of Mass Energy Exergy
Based on thermo dynamics laws utilized for eco-system level assessment
Part 2: Methodology
Part 2: Methodology
LCIA method Impact Category Unit of Measurement
ReCiPe midpoint Marine eutrophication kg N eq
Climate change kg CO2 eq
Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq
Ionising radiation KgU235 eq
Land occupation m2a
Metal depletion kg Fe eq
Fossil depletion kg oil eq
Fresh water ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq
Human ecotoxicity kg 1,4-DB eq
ReCiPe endpoint a Human health Daily
Ecosystem Species.yr
Resources Dollar ($)
Part 2: Methodology
Cumulative Mass Consumption• CMC
Industrial Cumulative Exergy Consumption
• I Exergy• Material and energy resources
extracted from nature and consumed in industrial activities
Cumulative Energy Consumption• I+E Exergy
• Extends I Exergy by also accounting for exergyconsumed in ecosystems
The Aggregation Metrics
Part 2: Methodology
Center for Resilience: http://resilience.eng.ohio-state.edu/eco-lca/index.htm
PresenterPresentation NotesAggregation. Eco-LCA includes various aggregation schemes that are based on thermodynamic concepts.Energy includes renewable and nonrenewable energetic sources including fossil fuels, sunlight and wind.�I Exergy is Industrial Cumulative Exergy Consumption, which includes material and energy resources extracted from nature and consumed in industrial activities. This approach is similar to exergy analysis used in engineering (Szargut et al., 1988).�I+E Exergy is Ecological Cumulative Exergy Consumption, which extends I Exergy by also accounting for the exergy consumed in ecosystems. This approach is closely related to energy analysis developed in systems ecology (Odum, 1996).
Resource Intensity• E Exergy/$
Efficiency Ratio• E Exergy / I
Exergy
Loading Ratio• Nonrenewable R
/ Renewable R• By I+E Exergy
Renewability Ratio• Renewable R /
(R+NR)• By I+E Exergy
Eco-efficiency• $1M / Non-
renewable CMC• Based on DEA
Ecological Sustainability Performance Indicators
Part 2: Methodology
Center for Resilience: http://resilience.eng.ohio-state.edu/eco-lca/index.htm
Eco-LCA: Hierarchy of Analysis
Raw Data Classification Aggregation Metrics
Data for $M Output of
Sectors
Renewable versus non-renewable
Mass, Energy, or
Exergy
Renewability Index,
Loading Ratio, etc.
Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2011). A comprehensive life cycle analysis of cofiring algae in a coal power plant as a solution for achieving sustainable energy. Energy, 36(11), 6352-6357.
Part 2: Methodology
Modeling with Eco-LCA:Automobile Manufacturing
http://resilience.eng.ohio-state.edu/eco-lca/index.htm
Part 2: Methodology
Summary of Research Methodology and Current Focus
How to integrate ecological sustainability with end point impacts?
ECO LCA + ReCipe framework
Case Study: Agricultural and Food Production Industries in the U.S.
1
2
3
Part 2: Methodology
Step-by-Step Illustration of Methodology
Part 2: Methodology
Agri-foodSectors
&Abbreviations
SECTOR AcronymAll other crop farming AOCFAll other food manufacturing AOFMAnimal (except poultry) slaughtering, rendering, and processing ASRPAnimal production, except cattle and poultry and eggs APCPEBeet sugar manufacturing BSMBread and bakery product manufacturing BBPMBreakfast cereal manufacturing BCMBreweries BWCattle ranching and farming CRFCheese manufacturing CMChocolate and confectionery manufacturing from cacao beans CCCBCoffee and tea manufacturing CTMConfectionery manufacturing from purchased chocolate CMPCCookie, cracker, and pasta manufacturing CCPMCotton farming CFDistilleries DISDog and cat food manufacturing DCFMDry, condensed, and evaporated dairy product manufacturing DCEPMFats and oils refining and blending FORBFertilizer manufacturing FMFishing FISHFlavoring syrup and concentrate manufacturing FSCMFlour milling and malt manufacturing FMMFluid milk and butter manufacturing FMBMForest nurseries, forest products, and timber tracts FBFTFrozen food manufacturing FFMFruit and vegetable canning, pickling, and drying FVPDFruit farming FFGrain farming GFGreenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production GNFPHunting and trapping HTIce cream and frozen dessert manufacturing ICFMLogging LGNonchocolate confectionery manufacturing NCMOilseed farming OFOther animal food manufacturing OAFMPesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing PACMPoultry and egg production PEPPoultry processing PPSeafood product preparation and packaging SPPSeasoning and dressing manufacturing SDMSnack food manufacturing SFMSoft drink and ice manufacturing SDIMSoybean and other oilseed processing SOPSugar cane mills and refining SCMRSugarcane and sugar beet farming SSBFSupport activities for agriculture and forestry SAAFTobacco farming TFTobacco product manufacturing TPMTortilla manufacturing TMTree nut farming TNFVegetable and melon farming VMFWet corn milling WCMWineries WINE
Part 2: Methods
Rank Indicators Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum 1 Detrital matter 16.76% 8.02% 0.00% 25.38% 2 CO2 (farm) 15.48% 7.41% 0.00% 23.44% 3 Soil erosion (farm) 12.06% 6.08% 0.00% 25.76% 4 Fish 11.14% 20.42% 0.10% 99.98% 5 Phosphorous mineralization 9.81% 4.03% 0.00% 14.53% 6 Water (agriculture & livestock) 8.31% 3.98% 0.00% 12.59% 7 CO2 (forest) 5.70% 13.04% 0.01% 85.97% 8 Nitrogen mineralization 3.80% 1.56% 0.00% 5.63% 9 Wood (dry) 3.46% 8.51% 0.01% 60.14%
10 Hydropotential 2.66% 6.61% 0.00% 37.21% 11 Nitrogen deposition 2.54% 1.04% 0.00% 3.76% 12 Sunlight (farm) 1.83% 0.88% 0.00% 2.77% 13 Water (powerplant) 1.64% 3.79% 0.00% 23.59% 14 Grass 1.55% 3.20% 0.00% 11.21% 15 CO2 (ranch) 1.18% 2.44% 0.00% 8.57% 16 Sunlight (ranch) 1.10% 2.27% 0.00% 7.95% 17 Sunlight (forest) 0.78% 1.78% 0.00% 11.71% 18 Water (public supply) 0.16% 0.18% 0.00% 1.01% 19 Geothermal 0.02% 0.06% 0.00% 0.34% 20 Soil erosion (construction) 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.06% 21 Wind 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
Part 3: Results
Renewable resource usage (% sej)
Rank Indicators Mean Std. Dev. Minimum Maximum 1 Crude oil 23.03% 10.56% 3.71% 70.50% 2 Natural gas 22.03% 9.19% 6.48% 75.65% 3 Crushed stone 16.35% 8.23% 2.12% 46.45% 4 Coal 7.78% 3.26% 1.76% 19.28% 5 Copper ore 7.25% 3.78% 1.79% 25.53% 6 Sand 5.59% 6.48% 0.56% 36.42% 7 Nuclear 5.54% 1.92% 1.59% 9.45% 8 Iron ore 2.46% 1.33% 0.60% 8.95% 9 Salt 1.89% 1.88% 0.27% 11.74%
10 Other Non-metallic 1.60% 1.59% 0.23% 9.94% 11 Gold ore 1.42% 0.83% 0.58% 6.83% 12 Quick lime 1.03% 1.03% 0.15% 6.42% 13 Gypsum 0.97% 0.97% 0.14% 6.07% 14 Apatite 0.96% 1.11% 0.10% 6.23% 15 Potash 0.87% 0.87% 0.13% 5.41% 16 Soda ash 0.57% 0.56% 0.08% 3.52% 17 Clay 0.24% 0.28% 0.02% 1.56% 18 Diatomite 0.09% 0.09% 0.01% 0.54% 19 Barite 0.07% 0.07% 0.01% 0.41% 20 Zinc ore 0.06% 0.03% 0.01% 0.20% 21 Molybdenum ore 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 0.20% 22 Perlite 0.04% 0.04% 0.01% 0.23% 23 Talc and pyrophyllite 0.04% 0.04% 0.01% 0.28% 24 Alumina 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.13% 25 Pumice 0.03% 0.03% 0.00% 0.19% 26 Lead ore 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 27 Mica 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.08% 28 Silver ore 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 29 Chromite 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Feldspar 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.03% 31 Garnet 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 32 Titanium ore 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 33 Tripoli 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03%
Part 3: ResultsNon-renewable resource usage (% sej)
Rank Sector Mean Std. Dev Minimum Maximum Rank Sector Mean Std. Dev Minimum Maximum
1 FBFT 8.29% 24.29% 0.01% 81.34% 28 DCFM 1.24% 0.73% 0.06% 2.25%
2 CRF 7.29% 10.14% 0.03% 30.65% 29 PEP 1.10% 0.83% 0.04% 2.47%
3 LG 5.84% 19.58% 0.00% 89.24% 30 CTM 1.07% 0.74% 0.01% 1.88%
4 CM 4.18% 5.37% 0.02% 16.53% 31 FM 1.02% 1.90% 0.01% 4.90%
5 ASRP 4.16% 4.83% 0.04% 15.17% 32 SCMR 1.00% 1.87% 0.01% 5.05%
6 FMBM 4.11% 5.22% 0.02% 16.12% 33 FFM 0.98% 0.65% 0.03% 2.17%
7 FISH 3.56% 15.46% 0.02% 71.03% 34 AOFM 0.95% 0.60% 0.02% 1.96%
8 BSM 2.90% 2.47% 0.00% 8.26% 35 BCM 0.90% 0.62% 0.01% 1.69%
9 SSBF 2.90% 2.47% 0.00% 8.26% 36 PP 0.87% 0.82% 0.05% 2.36%
10 CF 2.86% 2.37% 0.01% 7.47% 37 CCCB 0.79% 0.50% 0.01% 1.59%
11 GF 2.63% 2.25% 0.00% 5.61% 38 FVPD 0.74% 0.62% 0.01% 1.89%
12 OF 2.60% 2.25% 0.00% 5.49% 39 SFM 0.67% 0.49% 0.02% 1.35%
13 AOCF 2.55% 2.16% 0.00% 5.37% 40 TM 0.67% 0.60% 0.01% 1.83%
14 FF 2.41% 2.10% 0.00% 5.32% 41 CMPC 0.64% 0.46% 0.01% 1.48%
15 TNF 2.38% 2.09% 0.00% 5.25% 42 WINE 0.64% 0.46% 0.01% 1.35%
16 VMF 2.38% 2.13% 0.00% 5.32% 43 SDIM 0.60% 0.80% 0.01% 2.22%
17 DCEPM 2.32% 2.69% 0.02% 8.45% 44 SAAF 0.59% 0.33% 0.01% 1.15%
18 GNFP 2.20% 2.18% 0.00% 5.34% 45 SDM 0.55% 0.66% 0.04% 1.86%
19 TF 2.17% 2.09% 0.00% 5.13% 46 CCPM 0.51% 0.48% 0.01% 1.42%
20 SOP 2.12% 1.65% 0.01% 4.10% 47 BBPM 0.50% 0.45% 0.02% 1.44%
21 WCM 1.89% 1.62% 0.01% 4.70% 48 NCM 0.49% 0.53% 0.01% 1.51%
22 SPP 1.75% 5.89% 0.03% 27.35% 49 PACM 0.49% 0.74% 0.01% 2.03%
23 APCPE 1.72% 1.20% 0.07% 3.56% 50 BW 0.48% 0.69% 0.01% 1.90%
24 FORB 1.55% 1.04% 0.04% 2.54% 51 HT 0.47% 0.26% 0.01% 1.06%
25 FMM 1.55% 1.10% 0.01% 2.64% 52 TPM 0.41% 0.36% 0.00% 0.97%
26 O 4 % 0 8 % 0 0 % 2 24% 3 SC 0 32% 0 24% 0 00% 0 %
Part 3: ResultsRenewable resource usage (% sej)
Rank Sector Mean Std. Dev Minimum Maximum Rank Sector Mean Std. Dev Minimum Maximum
1 SCMR 27.17% 23.08% 2.80% 53.52% 28 BCM 1.12% 0.46% 0.75% 1.95%
2 FM 8.06% 12.96% 0.86% 33.75% 29 SOP 1.09% 0.44% 0.77% 2.73%
3 PACM 3.47% 2.00% 0.65% 5.72% 30 FORB 1.07% 0.52% 0.60% 2.28%
4 GF 2.75% 1.11% 1.58% 7.94% 31 DCEPM 1.00% 0.57% 0.44% 2.06%
5 BW 2.16% 2.73% 0.25% 8.31% 32 DIS 0.99% 1.99% 0.12% 6.26%
6 AOCF 2.12% 1.09% 0.69% 7.49% 33 PP 0.98% 0.50% 0.63% 2.78%
7 WCM 1.94% 1.50% 1.29% 9.22% 34 AOFM 0.97% 0.52% 0.49% 1.90%
8 BSM 1.86% 0.67% 1.48% 4.59% 35 TNF 0.95% 0.37% 0.71% 2.70%
9 SSBF 1.86% 0.67% 1.48% 4.59% 36 CTM 0.92% 0.37% 0.61% 1.71%
10 OAFM 1.83% 0.40% 1.31% 2.81% 37 VMF 0.91% 0.32% 0.70% 2.03%
11 APCPE 1.78% 0.60% 1.30% 3.55% 38 ICFM 0.85% 0.57% 0.33% 2.24%
12 SDIM 1.78% 1.93% 0.28% 6.53% 39 FBFT 0.81% 0.12% 0.54% 0.93%
13 CRF 1.71% 0.64% 1.23% 3.69% 40 FFM 0.79% 0.52% 0.32% 2.17%
14 CF 1.67% 0.41% 1.17% 3.32% 41 SFM 0.79% 0.40% 0.41% 1.58%
15 FMM 1.59% 0.51% 1.24% 4.10% 42 SPP 0.77% 0.65% 0.18% 2.77%
16 SDM 1.57% 2.06% 0.33% 6.80% 43 CCPM 0.75% 0.54% 0.25% 1.71%
17 FVPD 1.56% 1.49% 0.34% 4.33% 44 CCCB 0.74% 0.45% 0.35% 1.59%
18 TF 1.53% 0.63% 0.82% 4.21% 45 NCM 0.72% 0.50% 0.27% 1.56%
19 SAAF 1.52% 0.42% 0.84% 1.86% 46 TM 0.70% 0.34% 0.43% 1.67%
20 WINE 1.49% 2.21% 0.38% 7.29% 47 HT 0.68% 0.10% 0.46% 0.79%
21 ASRP 1.46% 0.56% 0.98% 2.80% 48 CMPC 0.64% 0.44% 0.25% 1.48%
22 DCFM 1.41% 0.91% 0.69% 3.54% 49 FISH 0.61% 0.87% 0.11% 4.80%
23 FF 1.40% 0.38% 0.95% 2.74% 50 BBPM 0.57% 0.32% 0.27% 1.37%
24 FMBM 1.34% 0.62% 0.74% 2.53% 51 GNFP 0.56% 0.34% 0.28% 1.43%
25 CM 1.28% 0.56% 0.74% 2.46% 52 LG 0.49% 0.22% 0.28% 1.08%
26 PEP 1 26% 0 51% 0 95% 3 39% 53 FSCM 0 40% 0 21% 0 20% 0 95%
Part 3: ResultsNon-renewable resource usage (% sej)
Part 3: Results
Emissions, land, water footprint by sector
Part 3: Results
Emissions, land, water footprint by sector
Midpoint impact results
Part 3: Results
End point impacts
Part 3: Results
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Sugar cane mills and refining
Pesticide and other agricultural…Distilleries
Seasoning and dressing…Cookie, cracker, and pasta…
Fruit and vegetable canning,…Wineries
Tortilla manufacturingConfectionery manufacturing…
Poultry processingSnack food manufacturing
Chocolate and confectionery…Frozen food manufacturingPoultry and egg production
Flour milling and malt…Grain farming
Coffee and tea manufacturingBeet sugar manufacturing
All other crop farmingAnimal (except poultry)…
Tobacco farmingCotton farming
Fruit farmingOilseed farming
Vegetable and melon farmingLogging
Seafood product preparation…
Loading Ratio
Loading Ratio
Part 3: Results
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2Sugar cane mills and refining
Pesticide and other agricultural…Distilleries
Seasoning and dressing…Cookie, cracker, and pasta…
Fruit and vegetable canning,…Wineries
Tortilla manufacturingConfectionery manufacturing from…
Poultry processingSnack food manufacturing
Chocolate and confectionery…Frozen food manufacturingPoultry and egg production
Flour milling and malt manufacturingGrain farming
Coffee and tea manufacturingBeet sugar manufacturing
All other crop farmingAnimal (except poultry)…
Tobacco farmingCotton farming
Fruit farmingOilseed farming
Vegetable and melon farmingLogging
Seafood product preparation and…
Renewability Index
Renewability Index
Part 3: Results
Non-renewable Resource Eco-
efficiency (NREE) scores
Part 3: Results
Non-renewable resource sensitivity to
NREE scores
Part 3: Results
The real advantage with Eco-LCA is the inclusion ofecosystem goods and services– gives much better ‘bigpicture’ outlook of system.
Integration of ECO-LCA and ReCipe is the novel part of thecurrent study, which enables the possible inclusion of mid andend point impacts along with an ecologically based LCAframework.
The findings of current study can provide significant insights to policy makers toward improving the overall supply chain-linked ecological sustainability performance of AFI, which will require more detailed analysis of processes and consumption behaviors in the future.
From the analysis results, grain farming, dairy food, and animal production-related sectors were found to have the greatest shares in both environmental and ecological impact categories as well as endpoint impact.
Conclusions
Many research contributions exist related to those sectors to assess environmental impact from life cycle standpoint (Arvanitoyannis et al., 2014).
Adjustment in the Agri-food sectors is already underway with growth interest in renewable resources of energy to reduce environmental pollution, and ecosystem burden (Roy et al., 2009).
Strategies for sustainable agri-food practice should be based on the conservation and careful management of energy, ecological resources, water, and land needed for agri-food production.
The possible implementation would include reduction of waste food production; improve efficiency of operation and process, use of proper solar energy by reducing nonrenewable resource associated with entire life cycle process in Agri-food sector.
Converting intensive agriculture into organic farming would another possible consideration for environmentally friendly farming that may improve landscape image and animal welfare (Arvanitoyannis et al., 2014).
Conclusions
Future Work There is a strong need on analysis of ecological and
socio-economic impacts for green manufacturing. Triple bottom line sustainability accounting is
recommended. Stochastic IO-LCA modeling would be of importance to
handle the critics about the uncertainty of IO results.
Conclusions
Thank you & Questions?Gokhan Egilmez, PhD
E-mail: GEgilmez@NewHaven.eduYou can find the presentation available at my blog:
https://gokhanegilmez.wordpress.com/presentations/
Questions?
mailto:GEgilmez@NewHaven.eduhttps://gokhanegilmez.wordpress.com/presentations/
References Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Sustainability assessment of U.S. manufacturing sectors: an economic input
output-based frontier approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 53, 91–102. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.037 Tarancón, M. A., del Río, P., & Callejas Albiñana, F. (2010). Assessing the influence of manufacturing sectors on electricity
demand. A cross-country input-output approach. Energy Policy, 38, 1900–1908. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.070 Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2014). Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of U.S. residential and commercial
buildings: An input–output hybrid life cycle assessment approach. Building and Environment, 72, 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.10.009
Figures http://livinggreenmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/green-economy.jpg http://web.asidatamyte.com/Portals/155356/images/Capability%20Study.jpg http://blogs.rochester.edu/thegreendandelion/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/sustainable-measures1-980x600.jpg http://csis.msu.edu/sites/csis.msu.edu/files/12-14-13%20world%20puzzle.jpg http://c.asstatic.com/images/1541565_634833558082236250-1.jpg https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAWYAAAAJGZjNWIwYzZiLWE4ZWItNDI0NC04M2YzLWRiM2ExMTJj
NDExMA.png http://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/ecosystem-120717081103-phpapp01-thumbnail-4.jpg?cb=1342512724
INFORMS, Annual Meeting 2015
References
http://livinggreenmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/green-economy.jpghttp://web.asidatamyte.com/Portals/155356/images/Capability%20Study.jpghttp://blogs.rochester.edu/thegreendandelion/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/sustainable-measures1-980x600.jpghttp://csis.msu.edu/sites/csis.msu.edu/files/12-14-13%20world%20puzzle.jpghttp://c.asstatic.com/images/1541565_634833558082236250-1.jpghttps://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAWYAAAAJGZjNWIwYzZiLWE4ZWItNDI0NC04M2YzLWRiM2ExMTJjNDExMA.pnghttp://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/ecosystem-120717081103-phpapp01-thumbnail-4.jpg?cb=1342512724
Emergy and End-point Impact Assessment of Agricultural and Food Production in the United States: A Supply Chain-linked Ecologically-based Life Cycle AssessmentSlide Number 2Why sustainability?Why sustainability?Ecological Impacts of U.S. Manufacturing IndustriesSustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Assessment�Life Cycle AssessmentLife Cycle Assessment ModelsLCA scopesHow to expand the LCA research?Input Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) ModelingECO-LCA basicsSlide Number 13Slide Number 14The Aggregation MetricsEcological Sustainability Performance IndicatorsEco-LCA: Hierarchy of AnalysisModeling with Eco-LCA:�Automobile ManufacturingSummary of Research Methodology and Current FocusStep-by-Step Illustration of MethodologyAgri-food�Sectors �&�AbbreviationsSlide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Midpoint impact resultsEnd point impactsSlide Number 30Slide Number 31Non-renewable Resource Eco-efficiency (NREE) scoresNon-renewable resource sensitivity to NREE scoresSlide Number 34Slide Number 35Future WorkThank you & Questions?References
Recommended