SIST-TP CEN/TR 17005:2017

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
01-februar-2017
7UDMQRVWQRVWJUDGEHQLKREMHNWRY'RGDWQHNDWHJRULMHLQND]DOQLNLYSOLYRYQDRNROMH
7HPHOMQHLQIRUPDFLMHLQPRåQRVWL9UHGQRWHQMHPRåQRVWLGRGDQLKNDWHJRULM
YSOLYRYQDRNROMHLQVRURGQLKND]DOQLNRYWHUUDþXQVNHPHWRGH]DRFHQMHYDQMH
XþLQNRYUDYQDQMD]RNROMHPYVWDYEDK
Sustainability of construction works - Additional environmental impact categories and
indicators - Background information and possibilities - Evaluation of the possibility of
adding environmental impact categories and related indicators and calculation methods
for the assessment of the environmental performance of buildings
Nachhaltigkeit von Bauwerken - Hintergrundinformationen zu möglichen, zusätzlichen
Wirkungskategorien und Indikatoren für die Erfassung der umweltbezogenen Qualität
von Gebäuden
Indicateurs complémentaires pour la déclaration de la performance environnementale
des produits de construction et pour l'évaluation de la performance environnementale
des bâtiments
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 17005:2016
ICS:
13.020.20 Okoljska ekonomija. Environmental economics.
Trajnostnost Sustainability
91.010.99 Drugi vidiki Other aspects
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

CEN/TR 17005
TECHNICAL REPORT
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
October 2016
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
ICS 91.010.99
English Version
Sustainability of construction works - Additional
environmental impact categories and indicators -
Background information and possibilities - Evaluation of
the possibility of adding environmental impact categories
and related indicators and calculation methods for the
assessment of the environmental performance of buildings
Indicateurs complémentaires pour la déclaration de la Nachhaltigkeit von Bauwerken -
performance environnementale des produits de Hintergrundinformationen zu möglichen, zusätzlichen
construction et pour l'évaluation de la performance Wirkungskategorien und Indikatoren für die Erfassung
environnementale des bâtiments der umweltbezogenen Qualität von Gebäuden

This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 26 August 2016. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 350.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and
United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
© 2016 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 17005:2016 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

Contents Page
European foreword . 5
Introduction . 7
1 Scope . 9
2 The need for additional impact categories . 10
2.1 Environmental relevance . 10
2.2 Policy relevance . 13
2.3 Conclusions . 14
3 Evaluation criteria for additional environmental impact categories for CEN/TC 350 . 14
3.1 Introduction . 14
3.1.1 General . 14
3.1.2 Criteria related to standardization . 15
3.1.3 Criteria related to the LCIA models and indicators . 15
3.2 Evaluation framework for additional environmental impact categories for
CEN/TC 350. 16
3.2.1 General . 16
3.2.2 Environmental relevance – Standardization (step 1) . 17
3.2.3 Relevance for buildings (step 2a) . 17
3.2.4 Relevance for construction products (step 2b) . 17
3.2.5 Policy relevance (step 3) . 17
3.2.6 Performance based (step 4a) . 17
3.2.7 Quantifiable (step 4b) . 18
3.2.8 Scientific robustness and certainty (step 5) . 18
3.2.9 Applicability of the life cycle impact assessment method/model (step 6) . 19
3.2.10 Stakeholder acceptance of the impact assessment model (step 7) . 20
3.3 Compliance criteria of the ILCD handbook . 20
3.4 Information sources regarding the additional impact categories . 21
4 The evaluation of additional impact categories . 21
4.1 General . 21
4.2 Human toxicity: Cancer and non-cancer effects . 21
4.2.1 Description . 21
4.2.2 Relevance of human toxicity (step 1+2+3) . 25
4.2.3 List of available LCIA methods (step 4) . 30
4.2.4 Scientific substantiation of available LCIA methods (step 5) . 31
4.2.5 Applicability (step 6) . 33
4.2.6 Stakeholder acceptance (step 7) . 36
4.2.7 Conclusions on methodology . 37
4.2.8 Overall conclusions on human toxicity . 39
4.3 Ecotoxicity: Terrestrial, freshwater and marine . 39
4.3.1 Description of impact category . 39
4.3.2 Relevance of ecotoxicity – standardization (step 1+2+3) . 42
4.3.3 List of available LCIA methods (step 4) . 44
4.3.4 Scientific substantiation of available LCIA methods (step 5) . 45
4.3.5 Applicability (step 6) . 47
4.3.6 Stakeholder acceptance (step 7) . 50
4.3.7 Conclusions on methodology . 50
4.3.8 Overall conclusions on ecotoxicity . 53
4.4 Particulate matter formation . 53
4.4.1 Description of impact category . 53
4.4.2 Relevance of particulate matter formation (step 1+2+3) . 58
4.4.3 List of available LCIA methods (step 4) . 65
4.4.4 Scientific substantiation of the available LCIA methods (step 5) . 68
4.4.5 Applicability (step 6) . 70
4.4.6 Stakeholder acceptance (step 7) . 72
4.4.7 Conclusions on methodology . 72
4.4.8 Overall conclusions on particulate matter . 73
4.5 Ionizing radiation: human health and ecosystem health . 73
4.5.1 Description . 73
4.5.2 Relevance of ionizing radiation (step 1+2+3) . 77
4.5.3 List of available LCIA methods (step 4) . 83
4.5.4 Scientific substantiation of the available LCIA methods (step 5) . 84
4.5.5 Applicability (step 6) . 84
4.5.6 Stakeholder acceptance (step 7) . 85
4.5.7 Conclusions on methodology . 86
4.5.8 Overall conclusions on ionizing radiation . 86
4.6 Land use: Occupation and transformation / Biodiversity . 87
4.6.1 Description . 87
4.6.2 Relevance of land use (step 1+2+3) . 91
4.6.3 List of available LCIA methods (step 4) . 103
4.6.4 Scientific substantiation of the available LCIA methods (step 5) . 104
4.6.5 Applicability (step 6) . 108
4.6.6 Stakeholder acceptance (step 7) . 111
4.6.7 Conclusions on methodology . 111
4.6.8 Overall conclusions on land use . 112
4.7 Water scarcity . 113
4.7.1 Description . 113
4.7.2 Relevance of water scarcity (step 1+2+3) . 120
4.7.3 List of available LCIA methods (step 4) . 122
4.7.4 Scientific substantiation of the available LCIA methods (step 5) . 124
4.7.5 Applicability (step 6) . 126
4.7.6 Stakeholder acceptance (step 7) . 128
4.7.7 Conclusions on methodology . 128
4.7.8 Overall conclusions on water scarcity . 129
5 Overview of intermediate non-LCA indicators . 129
5.1 General . 129
5.2 Land use/biodiversity assessed in BREEAM . 129
5.2.1 General . 129
5.2.2 Land Use and Biodiversity . 131
5.3 DGNB . 133
5.3.1 General . 133
5.3.2 Land Use and Biodiversity . 134
5.4 HQE . 135
Annex A (informative) Possibilities for uptake in standardization process . 137
A.1 Introduction . 137
A.2 Structure of the table . 137
Annex B (informative) Recommended methods for life cycle impact assessment within
ILCD Handbook . 143
Annex C (informative) Life cycle impact assessment within the ILCD Handbook . 146
Annex D (informative) General criteria and sub-criteria for the analysis of characterization
models within ILCD Handbook . 148
Annex E (informative) Description of the general literature sources consulted . 151
Annex F (informative) Illustration of land use types in LCIA methods . 152
Bibliography . 155

European foreword
This document (CEN/TR 17005:2016) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 350
“Sustainability of construction works”, the secretariat of which is held by AFNOR.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
This document has been prepared under a mandate given to CEN by the European Commission and the
European Free Trade Association.

Figure 1 — Domain of LCA ([14], p. 33)
NOTE 1 One of the main drivers for using LCA, is the prevention of burden shifting.
NOTE 2 If in future, models become available that combine global environmental impacts with health impacts
to the building users due to direct exposure, these might be considered in the context of the CEN/TC 350
framework in future.
Although the EN 15804 standard follows the LCA approach, it also states that additional information on
release of dangerous substances to indoor air, soil and water during the use stage shall be provided
(EN 15804:2012+A1:2013, 7.4). EN 15804:2012+A1:2013, 7.4.1 stipulates the requirements related to
releases to indoor air, and EN 15804:2012+A1:2013, 7.4.2 stipulates the requirements related to
releases to soil and water. Such releases are included in EN 15804 as these have a potential direct
impact/risk for the inhabitants/users of the building.
Both EN 15804 and EN 15978 contain seven life cycle environmental impact categories. Since their
publication, however, a perceived need has arisen to include in these standards a broader set of
environmental impacts categories due to the following:
— Additional environmental impact categories are currently part of European recommendations and
of national legislation of several Member States.
— Additional environmental indicators are used in current practice (see EN 15643-2:2011, B.2 [3]).
— New research and developments in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods and the
characterization of environmental impacts.
This Technical Report (TR) has been developed to provide guidance to the working groups of
CEN/TC 350 on the extension of the impact categories in EN 15804 and EN 15978. The TR provides a
framework for the evaluation of environmental impact categories and evaluates the impact categories
human toxicity and ecotoxicity, particulate matter, land use, biodiversity, water scarcity; and ionizing
radiation by implementing the framework developed.
During the preparation of the TR a range of experts, such as developers of impact assessment models,
LCA software developers and experts from the EC-JRC were consulted.
NOTE 3 Although this report is primarily referenced to buildings, the indicators and methods reviewed might
have equal application in other construction works.
Introduction
List of abbreviations:
CDV Critical Dilution Volume
CF Characterization Factor
EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
EPD Environmental Product Declaration
ILCD International Reference Life Cycle Data System
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCI Life Cycle Inventory
LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment
PCR Product Category Rules
PEF Product Environmental Footprint
RA Risk Assessment
TR Technical Report
TSP Total Suspended Particles
The standards EN 15804 [1] and EN 15978 [2] provide a basis for the environmental assessment of
buildings using a life cycle assessment approach.
The EN 15804 standard [1] provides core product category rules (PCR) for Type III environmental
declarations of any construction product and services. An Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a
verified document that reports environmental data of products based on life cycle assessment (LCA)
and other relevant information and in accordance with the international standard ISO 14025 (Type III
Environmental Declarations).
The EN 15978 standard [2] specifies the calculation method to assess the environmental performance
of a building, based on LCA (i.e. using EPD for construction products and services) and other quantified
environmental information (i.e. (1) indicators describing resource use based on input flows of the life
cycle inventory (LCI) and (2) indicators describing waste categories and output flows derived from
scenarios and LCI), and gives the means for the reporting and communication of the outcome of the
assessment.
Life cycle Assessment (LCA) is defined as the “compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the
potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle”. (ISO 14040).
In LCA, the modelling is typically made at the global level, resulting in global characterization factors.
Inherent to the modelling, the (current) environmental impact assessment models within LCA do not
cover local impacts/risks due to direct exposure of some persons to a certain emission/hazardous
substance. As it is acknowledged that the variation in population density influences the exposure rate
and hence also the potential health damage, regional characterization factors (based on regional
differences in population density) for some health related impact categories are being developed. The
same is true for ecosystems related impact categories.
As is illustrated in Figure 1, LCA (in current practice) covers a great part of the total environmental
perspective but is clearly restricted to regional and global impacts to the external environment (i.e. it
does not include effects due to indoor exposure of the users of a building). Effects for which there is a
low plausibility that they will occur (e.g. risks from nuclear waste) and local effects from the products
on the manufacturers or users are disregarded. Recently, research has started to also address health
effects due to indoor emissions on building users with similar approaches as used in LCA [13].
1 Scope
This Technical Report (TR) has been developed by CEN/TC 350/WG 1 and WG 3 to provide a clear and
structured view on the relevance, robustness and applicability of a predefined set of additional impact
categories and related indicators for the assessment of the environmental performance of construction
works, construction products and building materials.
The TR describes the evaluation criteria that are used to determine, for these impact categories, the
suitability of indicators and calculation method(s) for inclusion in the standards EN 15978 and
EN 15804 (or other CEN/TC 350 standards as appropriate) in terms of their:
a) relevance to:
1) the environment,
2) construction works,
3) construction products, and
4) EU policy;
b) scientific robustness and certainty; and
c) applicability of the impact assessment method(s).
The additional impact categories examined in the TR are:
— human toxicity and ecotoxicity;
— particulate matter;
— land use;
— biodiversity;
— water scarcity; and
— ionizing radiation.
Because EN 15978 and EN 15804 are founded on a life cycle approach, the impact categories, indicators
and methods reviewed are predominantly based on their potential suitability for application in LCA. In
relation to some of the areas of concern, however, where LCA methods might not be sufficiently robust
or developed, some non-LCA based indicators and methods are also considered.
Due to the scope of LCA used in the EN 15804 and EN 15978, impacts to users of buildings due to direct
exposure to harmful emissions fall outside the scope of this TR. This falls under the scope of
CEN/TC 351. Important information related to this aspect found during the development of this TR, is
however mentioned in the TR.
Uncertainty is an important issue in LCA. General assessment of the uncertainty related to impact
assessment models is considered in the evaluation framework of this TR. However, the TR does not lay
down a maximum uncertainty level to be considered acceptable in the context of the CEN standards
EN 15804 and EN 15978, nor does it provide exact figures on uncertainties.
Annex A of the TR provides a description of options that may be considered for incorporating selected
impact categories/indicator in the standards EN 15978 and EN 15804.
The TR recognizes and takes account of:
— the work done by the European Commission, Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), in the development of
the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook Recommendations,
— other reports and scientific studies into the methods and application of the indicators reviewed,
— findings of specific activities connected with this work such as of the CEN/TC 350 Workshop, held
in Brussels on 24-25 June 2014.
2 The need for additional impact categories
2.1 Environmental relevance
It is widely recognized that the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels is a dominant cause of the
environmental impact of a building across its life cycle ([23], 22], [24]). This is especially the case for
existing European buildings that were constructed before national and European Energy regulations
were introduced. The use of low efficiency gas and oil heating systems combined with a poorly
insulated building envelop results in a high yearly combustion of fossil fuels and this combined with a
relatively long lifespan of buildings, makes the operational energy use the dominant aspect in the
environmental profile of many existing European buildings.
The extraction and combustion of fossil fuels is responsible for environmental impacts related to:
— Global warming: mainly CO emissions related to the use, production and transport stages
— Depletion of abiotic fossil fuels: extraction of oil, gas and coal related to use, production and
transport processes
— Acidification: SO and NO emissions related to the combustion of fossil fuels related to the
2 x
production or transport phases
— Eutrophication: nitrogen emissions related to the combustion of fossil fuels
— Photochemical ozone creation: emissions of nitrogen oxides related to the combustion of fossil
fuels
— Particulate matter formation: emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxides and small
particulates
These impact categories except particulate matter formation are already integrated in the current
version of the standards EN 15804 (2012+A1:2013) and EN 15978 (2011).
The increase in heating efficiencies and insulation level, and the growing use of renewable energy will
result in a smaller influence of the operational energy of buildings on its overall environmental profile.
With the 2019-2021 EPBD targets in view, the environmental impacts of buildings of the near future
will be less dependent on their operational energy use and increasingly influenced by the life cycle
impacts of the constituent building products (cf. manufacturing, replacement and/or end-of-life) and
other processes during the use phase, such as water consumption and transport of building users (e.g.
commuting related to the dwelling location). [20], [22]

The re-cast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) requires that from 2019 onwards ‘all the new buildings
occupied and owned by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings’ (nZEB) and by the end of 2020 ‘all new buildings
are nearly zero-energy buildings’.
With this gradual shift in the relative environmental importance of a building’s energy use, the need to
consider other types of environmental impact, such as land occupation impacts of the building during
its life cycle and land transformation impacts related to the provisioning of raw materials for building
materials (e.g. sand, gravel, clay, ore and wood) [21] will become more apparent and increasingly
important.
EXAMPLE For a single family dwelling representative for the Belgian building stock, which was upgraded
from current common practice to the passive house standard, it was observed that there was a life cycle decrease
in CO emissions but at the same time there was a life cycle increase in SO emissions (contributing to acidification
2 2
impacts), PM emissions (contributing to particulate matter) and ecotoxicity. [18]
2,5
In order to gain an insight into the potential relevance of the additional impact categories compared to
the ones already included in the CEN standards, a comprehensive life cycle assessment was made of 16
residential buildings in Belgium, ranging in typology and construction period. For each home, an
optimization of the life cycle environmental impact and financial cost was made. The optimization
included both a differentiation in energy performance, heating and ventilation system, material choice,
air tightness and overall design of the building. The outcome of the study is shown in Figure 2.
For the life cycle assessment a comprehensive set of impact categories was included (i.e. the impact
categories included in Eco-indicator99) and an approach was developed to calculate a single score
environmental impact (i.e. based on the calculation of external environmental cost through monetary
valuation). By calculating this single score, it was possible to analyse the relative contribution of each of
the impact categories to the overall environmental impact. This relative contribution can give a rough
idea on the relevance of the impact categories.
The monetary valuation approach used within this study was based on the European project ExternE, in
combination with other monetary valuation studies. For some harmful emissions monetary values were
directly available, others required first an assessment at end point level, which were then translated
into external environmental cost. For this end point impact assessment, Eco-Indicator99 was used.
NOTE The impact assessment method in this study was not in line with the ILCD recommendations (i.e. the
ILCD handbook only recommends midpoint methods). As the impact assessment is partially based on Eco-
Indicator99, there are some methodological limitations.
The results shown in Figure 2, are for one of the 16 residential buildings analysed. For this dwelling
more than 2500 alternatives were analysed ranging in material choice (i.e. solid versus timber frame
structures, different finishing materials at the outside and inside, different glazing and window frames),
in insulation level, in heating system, in air tightness, in ventilation system, etc. For each of the 2500
alternatives, the total life cycle environmental impact (i.e. single score) was calculated and then the
percentage contribution of each of the impact categories to this total score was calculated. The
contribution of a particular impact category to the total environmental impact changed from one
building alternative to another and, therefore, for each impact category the minimum and maximum
contribution was determined; these values are presented in Figure 2. As the majority of the buildings
had an energy performance which was far above the passive standard, the result (i.e. contribution of
each impact category to the total environmental impact) is shown for the life cycle impact of the
building together with the cradle-to-gate impact of the construction materials in the building.
The figure shows the minimum contribution to climate change was 31 % and the maximum
contribution was 54 %. The dwellings with a climate change contribution of 31 % had a better energy
performance than the dwellings with a climate change contribution of 54 %. The analysis revealed that
the following impact categories are relevant (where a threshold of 10 % contribution has been defined
as minimum value to be perceived as relevant), in order of importance:
— climate change;
— acidification;
— eutrophication;
— particulate matter formation;
— ecotoxicity, land use; and
— fossil fuel depletion.
The indicators; particulate matter formation, ecotoxicity, and land use are not currently included in
either EN 15804 or EN 15978.
Similar results were obtained in a more recent Belgian research project, the OVAM:MMG project. [16]

Figure 2 — Relevance of different impact categories on building level based on cradle-to-gate
and cradle-to-grave assessment – impact assessment method = SuFiQuaD, based on [19]
Disclaimer: This figure shall be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations of the impact
assessment method used.
2.2 Policy relevance
Several environmental impact categories and indicators that are additional to those used in current
CEN/TC 350 standards are being advanced in European and national policies/regulations. Furthermore,
as well as specific policies, there are other initiatives that also require additional indicators.
The lists below identify some of these policies and initiatives without describing them in detail.
NOTE Other policies and initiatives are identified in the review of each additional impact category (4.2.2.4,
4.3.2.4, 4.4.2.4, 4.5.2.4, 4.6.2.4 and 4.7.2.4).
a) EU level:
1) The Single Market for Green Products Initiative and Product Environmental Footprint
);
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/index.htm
2) The ‘Resource Efficient Buildings’ study for the 'development of a common EU framework of
indicators for the environmental performance of buildings'
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/buildings.htm); and
3) The construction products regulation BWR7 (http://
http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction/product-regulation/)
These initiatives consider the use of one or more of following impact categories:
— climate change,
— ozone depletion,
— ecotoxicity for aquatic fresh water,
— human toxicity − cancer effects,
— human toxicity – non-cancer effects,
— particulate matter/respiratory inorganics,
— ionizing radiation – human health effects,
— human health effect model,
— photochemical ozone formation,
— acidification,
— eutrophication – terrestrial,
— eutrophication – aquatic,
— resource depletion – water,
— resource depletion – mineral, fossil, and
— land transformation.
b) Member States:
1) Belgium: from 2017 the following additional impact categories and related indicators will be
regulated providing there is a methodology in CEN/TC 350 or in the Product Environmental
Footprint (PEF) method:
i) human toxicity (cancer),
ii) human toxicity (non-cancer),
iii) particulate matter,
iv) depletion of resources (water),
v) ecotoxicity (soil),
vi) ecotoxicity (marine), and
vii) land use (soil quality and biodiversity);
2) France: Pollution of air and water (method: XP P 01-064/CN); and
3) Netherlands: Human and ecotoxicity (method: CML).
2.3 Conclusions
Existing LCA studies of buildings highlight the environmental relevance of additional environmental
impact categories which are not yet included in current versions of standards EN 15804 and EN 15978.
The literature review revealed that this is particularly the case for energy-efficient buildings for which
the environmental impact of the materials, water use, building location, etc. gain in relative importance
in an environmental profile of a building as impacts shift away from mainly energy-related impact
categories to others.
The literature review also identified that there is a need for a more in-depth study of these additional
impact categories and the associated models and indicators in terms of scientific robustness, certainty,
data availability, etc. Finally, the policy relevance of the additional environmental indicators was
identified both at the EU level and the national level of several Member States.
3 Evaluation criteria for additional environmental impact categories for
CEN/TC 350
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 General
The selection of additional environmental impact categories and related assessment models and
indicators for inclusion in the CEN/TC 350 standards shall be transparent and based upon clear and
agreed criteria.
For this TR a framework has been developed for the evaluation of the environmental impact categories.
This framework is based on a set of:
— general criteria related to standardization; and
— specific evaluation criteria related to the LCIA, which are based on the ILCD handbook criteria.
3.1.2 Criteria related to standardization
It is widely accepted that for impact categories and their indicators to be considered appropriate in
their application, and particularly for the purposes of standardization, the following criteria are
important.
Impact categories and indicators should be:
— relevant for the environment and for buildings, construction products, policy;
— performance based;
— quantifiable;
— scientifically robust and sufficiently certain;
— based on stakeholder acceptance; and
— applicable.
For standardization, an additional consideration that might be taken into account is the presence of
existing references to indicators/methods in national, European or International legislation or
recommendations.
3.1.3 Criteria related to the LCIA models and indicators
The ILCD handbook was used as the foundation for the evaluation of the LCIA models and related
indicators. The handbook includes a section on recommended impact assessment models and
indicators with the overall aim of providing guidance on consistent and quality assured LCA data and
studies. The evaluation criteria used in the ILCD handbook to formulate their recommendations are
used for the evaluation of the impact categories in this TR. Further information on the background of
the ILCD handbook is provided in Annex C.
The ILCD Handbook distinguishes five scientific criteria and one stakeholder acceptance criterion for
classifying an LCIA method/model very similar to the criteria mentioned in Subclause 3.1.3:
a) completeness of the scope;
b) environmental relevance;
c) scientific robustness and certainty;
d) documentation, transparency and reproducibility;
e) applicability; and
f) degree of stakeholder acceptance and suitability for communication in a business and policy
contexts.
The set of scientific criteria are further divided into:
1) general sub-criteria based on fundamental requirements for LCIA methods (both characterization
models and factors) – which are the same for all impact categories; and
2) minor groups of specific sub-criteria for 'Environmental relevance' and 'Scientific robustness and
certainty', which address the characteristic features of each individual impact category. General
sub-criteria are given in Annex D. The specific sub-criteria are further outlined by the JRC [5].
As can be seen, many of the criteria related to the JRC evaluation of LCIA models overlap with the
standardization criteria (3.1.1). For the purposes of the evaluation in this TR, therefore, the criteria
were combined to form an overall framework which is described in Subclause 3.2.
3.2 Evaluation framework for additional environmental impact categories for
CEN/TC 350
3.2.1 General
The framework shown in Figure 3 and constituent criteria were developed for the evaluation of the
predefined set of additional indicators. It is intended, however, that in future it could be used to
evaluate impact categories and related assessment models and indicators other than those included in
this TR.
Step 1: Identify the environmental relevance (see 3.2.2) of the
effects and impact categories to be addressed at the
building level
Step 2: Assess the likely relevance of the environmental impact;
both at building and at product level (site specific vs standardization
embodied) relevance for buildings (see 3.2.3) and
criteria
construction products (see 3.2.4).
Step 3: Assess the policy relevance: are the indicators already
referenced in European legislation (see 3.2.5) or in other
European standards?
The first three steps used to establish relevance in relation to the CEN/TC 350 standards of the
impact category and its possible indicators.
Step 4: Establish a list of possible performance based and
quantifiable indicators (LCA-based) (see 3.2.6 and 3.2.7).
Step 5: Assess existing LCIA models based on the science based
ILCD criteria
criteria developed by ILCD Handbook [5] (see 3.2.8).
(slightly adapted
Step 6: Evaluate existing LCIA models based on practice based for specific
criteria: availability of characterization factors and data, context of
and applicability at EU level (see 3.2.9). construction)
Step 7: Determine if there is any authoritative body in place and
their recommendation if any (see Subclause 3.2.10).
If the LCIA models have been identified as having significant drawbacks (i.e. not applicable, or a low
level of scientific robustness), non-LCA methods may be searched for and described.
Figure 3 — Evaluation framework for additional environmental impact categories for
CEN/TC 350
For each identified impact category/group of environmental effects identified in step 1 and found
relevant in step 2 and/or step 3, a list of possible LCA-based assessment models and related indicators
is established (step 4) and a table is developed to provide a clear overview of the outcome of evaluation
from steps 5 and 6. In addition, the outcome of step 7 is described.
If both embodied impacts and site-specific impacts occur in a certain impa
...