Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to compare the environmental and social impacts of three types of rafts for mussel farming in Spain. These structures, traditionally made of wood, have a short lifespan and, because of their service conditions, require frequent maintenance in order to be fully operational. An innovative solution made with ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) was developed in 2016 by RDC, being at the base of the pilots of the EU-funded project ReSHEALience (H2020-GA760824).
Methods
In order to quantify the environmental and social impacts generated by alternative solutions for the aquaculture raft, a life cycle approach has been used. The life cycle assessment methodology, according to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards, has been used for the evaluation of the environmental impacts, while the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) methodology, according to the Guidelines for SLCA of Products and the social impact assessment method developed by Ciroth and Franze (2011), has been used for the evaluation of the social impacts: the same functional unit and the same stages of the life cycle to be included in the study has been set for the alternative solutions.
Results and discussion
Based on the LCA results, derived from the system boundary described in the “Goal and scope” section for the mussel aquaculture structures, the highest environmental impacts in the cradle-to-grave analysis are generated by the Traditional Raft with maintenance based on the periodic application of paints; the lowest environmental impacts are generated by the Traditional Raft with maintenance based on the progressive replacement of the damaged logs, while the Innovative Raft has an intermediate behavior in terms of environmental impact generation. Based on the S-LCA results, it can be stated that both the solutions generate high impacts; nevertheless, the Innovative solution has a slight lower impact than the Traditional solutions, which could be lowered if some precautions in the society policy are taken. Social hot-spots are identified in order to help reducing the overall social impacts.
Conclusions
In conclusion, it can be stated that, from both the environmental and social points of view, the Traditional Solutions for the aquaculture raft are the most “impactful,” especially when the maintenance is based on paint application. The use of innovative concretes allows to build longer lifespan rafts with minimum (or no) need of maintenance. Moreover, the behavior of new companies is more attentive to social aspects related to their activities and has a margin of improvement, when compared to traditional companies.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Environmental Science
Reference35 articles.
1. Achten W, Barbeau-Baril J, Barros Telles Do Carmo B, Bolt P, Chandola V, Corona Bellostas B, Dadhish Y, Di Eusanio M, Di Cesare S, Di Noi C, et al (2020) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products and organizations. Guidel Soc Life Cycle Assess Prod Organ 2020, 138. Available online: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/guidelines-for-social-life-cycle-assessment-of-products-and-organisations-2020/. Accessed 2 Feb 2021
2. Al-Obaidi S, Bamonte P, Luchini M, Mazzantini I, Ferrara L (2020) Durability-based design of structures made with UHP/UHDC in extremely aggressive scenarios: application to a geothermal water basin case study. MDPI Infrastructures 5(11):1–44. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures5110102
3. CEN. EN 15804:2012+A1 (2013) Sustainability of construction works - environmental product declarations - core rules for the product category of construction products; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2012
4. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an ecolabeled notebook. Consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle. Berlin: ISBN 978-1-4466-0087-0
5. Criado M, Gimenez M, Menéndez E, Alonso MC (2020) Durability performance of uncracked and cracked nanoadditioned UHPFRCs in a dynamic leaching system Presented at the 74th RILEM Annual Week and 40th Cement and Concrete Science Conference, Hosted by the University of Sheffield | Online: Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4289921
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献