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