THEORY AND
2. Analysis of Inventory
115
emissions of products, processes, or activities throughout their life cycle stages. The core of inventory analysis is to establish input and output expressed in product systems of product functional units(H.L. Cao, 2004) . It can be divided into two steps: first, establish a life cycle model according to the definition of the system boundary, construct a system composed of product functional units, and draw a specific process flow chart (H.L. Cao, 2004, p282); Input and output in. The input resources include materials and energy, and the output is discharged into the atmosphere, water, and soil in addition to products.
In addition to the recording of basic data, the source of the data needs to be marked in detail.
116
final disposal. Using the systemic design method alone can provide a macro analysis of the metabolism in the system. Life cycle assessment can quantify all environmental impacts from a life cycle perspective (Inter national Organization for Standardization [ ISO ], 2006, p. 1) and help identify new measures to improve environmental management (Guinee et al., 2011) . However, the research process of life cycle assessment needs to involve a large amount of data and units, and the system defined in this paper is relatively complex, and the life cycle assessment method alone is not operable. Therefore, the author draws on the research ideas in the life cycle assessment method, talks about the determination of the target range and the steps of inventory analysis to integrate into the systemic design process, and provides a specific operation guide.
117
Since there is no clear standard for measuring environmental impact in the systemic design method, design authors lack an evaluation basis when evaluating and analyzing the current status of the system. This can easily lead to subjective assumptions by design authors and affect the rationality and validity of conclusions.
Besides, because it is impossible to quantify the environmental impact value, it also brings many difficulties to the identification of the influencing factors and the choice of alternatives.
Therefore, in this section, the author introduces the ecological footprint component method as a measure of environmental impact.
Since the 1960s, problems such as the energy crisis and ecological destruction have caused scholars in various f ields to rethin k the existing development model. The limited resources of the earth and the development model of pursuing economic growth and overproduction have formed a huge contradiction.
Mankind is already in a state of overshoot, and the continuously increasing demand will inevitably exceed the carrying capacity of the earth.
To ensure the endurance of the
‘Spaceship’, humans need to change the way they interact with nature and restrict human activities that break the ecological balance. Ecological Footprint (EP) provides a method to quantify the degree of human society’s impact on the ecological e n v i r o n m e n t , t a k i n g t h e b i o -productive land area required by human activities (including resource utilization and waste discharge) as a quantitative indicator sustainability analysis. By determining ‘whether hu m a n c o n s u m pt io n c u r r e nt ly exceeds the regeneration capacity of the biosphere, and how much it exceeds.’(Wacker nagel, 1999) measures the state of the earth’s bioburden to avoid overloading.
The ecological footprint of a region refers to the biologically productive land area needed to produce all the resources consumed by these populations and absorb all the waste generated by these populations(M.
Wackernagel, L. Onisto, & P. A. Bello, 1997) . According to the types of land required for various resources, bio-productive land can be divided into six categories, namely fossil energy (fossil energy), arable land (arable land), Ecological Footprint
3.3.3
118
macro statistics of various substances and applies to the global and national scope. The component method is suitable for the calculation of small unit objects. Its calculation steps can be summarized into 3 steps:
(1) According to the type of land occupied by each component, the qu a nt it y of each component is converted into the corresponding bio-productive land area required to provide or absorb the component.
(2) Summarize all types of land area required by all components and calculate the total area of each land type according to the formula.
(3) Multiply the equivalent factors of various types of land by the total area of the corresponding type of land and sum up to obtain the total area occupied by the land in terms of a global hectare (global hectare), that is, the ecological footprint (M.
Wackernagel, L. Onisto, & P. A. Bello, 1997) .
119
120
Figure 37. System design research framework for green campus building.
Designed by the author.
Based on the author’s explanation of each method in this chapter, the author attempts to combine the LCA(Life Cycle Assessment) method and
eco-logical footprint method into the systemic design process and provide guidance for the application in green campus construction.
121
Before carrying out the investigation, the first and second steps in the Life Cycle Assessment method need to be carried out, that is, Goal and Scope Definition and Analysis of Inventory.
The purpose of these two steps is to clarify the scope of the system design investigation and data collection tasks.
When design authors participate in field research, they take multiple roles as observers, data clerks, and interviewers, to obtain quantitative and qualitative data in a comprehensive manner, observe the environment on campus, record detailed data and
information, and access stakeholders.
At the analysis stage of the current system situation, except for the calculation of quantitative data, the text data collected should be analyzed by the qualitative research method.
At t h e s t a g e of p r o ble m s a n d opportunities analysis, the ecological footprint method is used to measure the substances in the list. At the stage of determining a systemic plan, designers use the system map to describe the design outcomes.
122
Boehnert, J. (2018). Design, ecology, politics: Towards the ecocene. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Wang, H. T. (2011). A new approach to energy conservation and emission reduction goals-life cycle energy conservation and emission reduction evaluation method.
High Technology and Industrialization, (8), 49-53.
Zhuang, W. Y., & Ke, W. Y. (2018) Design and practice of digital communication platform interface based on information visualization. Communication Power Research, (10), 208.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. MIT press.
Sterling, S. (2003). Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education. PhD paper, University of Bath.
Sun, Q. H., Wan, N. Q., & Fan Y. H. (2000). A review of foreign life cycle assessment (LCA) research . World Standardization and Quality Management, (12), 24-25.
Cao, H.L. (2004) Research on the Theory and Methods of Product Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 25(2), 281-284.
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management:
Life cycle assessment; requirements and guidelines. Geneva: ISO.
Guinee, J. B., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Zamagni, A., Masoni, P., Buonamici, R., ...
& Rydberg, T. (2011). Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future.
Wackernagel, M. (1999). An evaluation of the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics, 31(3), 317-318.
123
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., & Bello, P. A. (1997). Ecological footprints of nations.
Universidad Anahuac de Xalapa, Centro de Estudios para la Sustentabilidad.
Gu, X. W., Li, G. J., Wang, Q., Liu, J. X., Ding, Y., & Liu, J.Z. (2005).
Ecological footprint in the construction of a green university. Environmental Science,(04),200-204.