Life Cycle Assessment: A Key Tool for Local Sustainable Food Planning

Redacción HC
04/10/2025

The transition toward sustainable food systems requires more than good intentions—it demands robust, evidence-based tools to guide decision-making. Local governments and communities often lack standardized methods to evaluate the environmental, social, and economic impacts of their food systems. This is where Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) emerges as a transformative framework. A recent study published in Geography and Sustainability explores how LCA can function as a prospective planning tool to design resilient and sustainable agricultural and food systems at the municipal and regional scale (Lulovicova & Bouissou, 2024).

This note unpacks the research findings, explains the methodological approach, and highlights the practical implications of adapting LCA for local food planning.

Why Local Food Systems Need Better Planning Tools

Urbanization, climate change, and shifting consumption patterns are putting unprecedented pressure on food systems. Municipalities face critical questions: should they invest in peri-urban agriculture, promote local markets, or encourage shorter supply chains? Yet, many lack the criteria to compare these options in a transparent and measurable way.

According to Lulovicova and Bouissou, the central question is: Can LCA serve as a forward-looking tool for local food and agricultural planning? Their research suggests that, when adapted, LCA provides a structured, comparative approach to support informed decision-making at the local level.

Methodology: From Global Tool to Local Adaptation

Traditionally, LCA has been applied at national or global scales, often focusing on individual products. This study goes further, proposing a prospective framework that adapts LCA to municipal planning needs.

Key methodological features include:

• System boundaries tailored to local scale: defining what counts as “local” production, transport, or processing.
• Inclusion of territorial indicators: such as biodiversity impacts and land-use change, which are highly relevant for local ecosystems.
• Scenario modeling: comparing, for example, agroecological practices with intensive farming or short vs. long food chains.
• Data sensitivity analysis: recognizing the variability of local data and integrating uncertainty into planning.

Importantly, the authors stress that LCA should not operate in isolation but should be combined with participatory tools, ensuring that community voices and social values influence planning outcomes.

Key Findings: LCA as a Decision-Making Compass

The study highlights several critical insights into how LCA can reshape food planning:

1. Technical feasibility: LCA provides a consistent set of indicators—climate impact, water consumption, acidification—that allow municipalities to compare different policy or project scenarios.
2. Modularity for flexibility: To be practical, LCA models should work in modular blocks (production, processing, logistics, food waste). Municipalities can then activate or deactivate modules depending on local needs.
3. The importance of local data: Global or national databases may not reflect local realities. Incorporating specific data—crop yields, transport distances, waste management—significantly alters outcomes. Robust planning therefore requires investment in standardized local datasets.
4. Trade-offs matter: Interventions can reduce one impact but exacerbate another. For instance, reducing carbon emissions may increase water use or threaten biodiversity if achieved through monocultures. LCA highlights these multi-criteria trade-offs.
5. Policy integration: By providing quantitative evidence, LCA supports the design of local public policies, such as incentives for short supply chains, investments in processing infrastructure, and public procurement strategies.

Practical Relevance: From Theory to Municipal Action

Perhaps the most compelling contribution of this research is its emphasis on making LCA usable by local planners. Applications include:

• Evaluating municipal food plans.
• Designing programs that support local markets.
• Prioritizing infrastructure investments (e.g., cold storage or local processing facilities).
• Defining procurement criteria for schools, hospitals, or public institutions.

For citizens, this translates into more sustainable diets, resilient food supply systems, and better-informed public policies. However, the authors caution against relying on single indicators, such as carbon footprint, when making decisions. Instead, they recommend a comprehensive approach that acknowledges trade-offs and integrates social participation.

Conclusion: Building Sustainable Food Futures

The research by Lulovicova and Bouissou demonstrates that Life Cycle Assessment, when localized and participatory, can become a cornerstone of sustainable food planning. Municipalities and regions that embrace this tool can align environmental targets with social priorities, creating food systems that are not only greener but also fairer and more resilient.

The next challenge is operational: building reliable local databases, training municipal staff, and ensuring inclusive processes that bring farmers, traders, and consumers into the conversation.

For policymakers, planners, and communities seeking to navigate the complex path toward sustainability, LCA offers a compass—illuminating both the opportunities and trade-offs ahead.

Call to Action: Local governments, NGOs, and researchers should collaborate to pilot LCA-based planning tools at the municipal level, setting benchmarks for sustainable food futures.

Topics of interest

Biodiversity