JLCA NEWS ENGLISH EDITION OCT.2012

No.15

JLCA
NEWS LETTER

Life-Cycle Assessment Society of Japan

LIME2

Life-cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling

Chapter 2 :Characterization and Damage Evaluation Methods
2.1 Ozone layer depletion
2.2 Global warming
2.3 Acidification

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Life-cycle Impact assessment Method
based on Endpoint modeling

Chapter 2
Characterization and Damage
Evaluation Methods
2.1 Ozone layer depletion
2.2 Global warming
2.3 Acidification
written and edited by
Dr.Norihiro ITSUBO(Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental and Information Studies,Tokyo City University)
Dr. Atsushi INABA(Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Kogakuin University)

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Chapter Ⅱ

Characterization and Damage Evaluation Methods

Contents
2.1

Ozone layer depletion ...................................................................................................... 1

2.1.1

What phenomenon is ozone layer destruction? ........................................................ 1(1)

Cause of ozone layer destruction.............................................................................. 1(2)

Endpoints of ozone layer destruction ....................................................................... 3

2.1.2

Characterization of ozone layer depletion ................................................................ 5(1)

Existing characterization factors for ozone layer depletion ..................................... 5(2)

Characterization factor of ozone layer destruction under LIME .............................. 6

2.1.3

Damage assessment from ozone layer destruction ................................................... 7(1)

Basic policy for calculation of damage factors......................................................... 7(2)

Examination for calculation of damage functions for all types of ODS................... 9(3)

Relation between emission of ODS and the amount of UV-B reaching the ground. 9(4)

Human health: damage functions for skin cancer................................................... 16(5)

Human health: damage functions for cataract ........................................................ 18(6)

Primary production: damage functions for the terrestrial ecosystem ..................... 20(7)

Primary production: damage functions for the aquatic ecosystem ......................... 21(8)Social assets: damage functions for agricultural production .................................. 24(9)Social assets: damage functions for wood production............................................ 25(10) Arrangement of damage functions of ozone layer destruction and damage factors25
2.1.4
2.2

Procedure for impact assessment of ozone layer destruction ................................. 27

Global warming ............................................................................................................. 31

2.2.1

What phenomenon is global warming? .................................................................. 31(1)

Cause of global warming ........................................................................................ 32(2)

Endpoints of global warming.................................................................................. 33

2.2.2

Characterization of global warming ....................................................................... 38(1)

Characterization factors for global warming .......................................................... 38(2)

Characterization factors for global warming under LIME ..................................... 39

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

2.2.3

Damage assessment of global warming.................................................................. 40(1)

Basic policy for calculation of damage factors....................................................... 41(2)

Calculation of temperature change due to GHG emissions.................................... 51(3)

Human health: damage function for heat stress...................................................... 53(4)

Human health: damage function for infection ........................................................ 55(5)

Human health: damage function for disaster damage............................................. 57(6)

Human health: damage function for malnutrition/starvation.................................. 57(7)

Social assets: damage function for agricultural production.................................... 59(8)Social assets: damage function for energy consumption ........................................ 62(9)Social assets: damage function for land loss .......................................................... 66(10) Regionality in the damage function for global warming ........................................ 69(11)

Arrangement of the damage functions for global warming.................................... 70

2.2.4

Procedure for impact assessment of global warming ............................................. 74

2.3

Acidification .................................................................................................................. 80

2.3.1

What phenomenon is acidification?........................................................................ 80(1)

Cause of acidification ............................................................................................. 80(2)

Endpoints of acidification....................................................................................... 82

2.3.2

Characterization of acidification............................................................................. 83(1)

Characterization factor for acidification under the existing LCA method.............. 83(2)

Characterization factor for acidification under LIME ............................................ 85

2.3.3 Damage assessment of acidification ............................................................................ 90(1)

Basic policies for damage factor calculation and uncertainty assessment.............. 90(2)

Primary production: damage functions for terrestrial primary production............. 94(3) Social assets: damage function for fishery production.............................................. 101(4)Social assets: damage functions for wood production.......................................... 107(5)Social assets: damage functions for materials ...................................................... 107(6)

Damage factors for acidification........................................................................... 108

2.3-4

Procedure for impact assessment of acidification ............................................. 110

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Chapter II

Characterization and Damage Evaluation Methods
2.1 Ozone layer depletion
2.1.1

What phenomenon is ozone layer destruction?

(1)

Cause of ozone layer destruction

Ozone (O3) is a gaseous body made from combination of three oxygen atoms. Ninety
percent of the ozone in the atmosphere exists in the stratosphere (WMO 1999). However,there is no clearly defined layer as associated with the name stratospheric ozone layer. The
stratospheric ozone layer is a layer that lies about 15 to 50 km high in the stratosphere andwhere the density of ozone is relatively high. The density of ozone is the highest at analtitude of about 20 to 25 km (Ogura 1999).
Because ultraviolet rays from the sun are strong in the stratosphere, an oxygen molecule
absorbs ultraviolet rays and photo-dissociates into two oxygen atoms. These oxygen atoms
combine with other oxygen molecules into ozone. Meanwhile, an ozone molecule absorbs
ultraviolet rays and photo-dissociates into an oxygen molecule and an oxygen atom. That is,ozone absorbs ultraviolet rays during both processes of formation and resolution. This effectis more conspicuous when ultraviolet rays have a shorter wavelength and higher energy. As
the wavelength of ultraviolet rays become shorter, ultraviolet rays give stronger damage toliving things, which can live on the earth because the stratospheric ozone layer blocks
ultraviolet rays with a short wavelength. If the atmosphere were compressed under standard
conditions (0℃, 1 atmosphere), the thickness between the surface of the earth and the ceilingwould be about 8 km. Ozone would occupy only 3 mm of the thickness (Asakura et al,1995). However, because this is a result of ozone’s absorption of ultraviolent rays throughthe processes of formation and resolution, it is useless to worry so long as the thickness of theozone layer is maintained.
However, the emergence of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) completely changed thecondition of the stratospheric ozone layer. When hydrogen that is an element ofhydrocarbon is partially or completely substituted with fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine(Br) or iodine (I), a hydrocarbon is changed to a halocarbon. Halocarbon that contains Cl,
Br, or I can become an ODS (Table 2.1-1). ODSs exist in the natural world, such as methyl
chloride (CH3Cl). However, ODSs that have strong impact are artificial substances –especially, chlorofluorocarbons (hereinafter referred to as “CFCs”) and bromofluorocarbons(hereinafter referred to as “Halons”). Because CFCs and others have industrially excellent
characteristics, such as non-combustibility, low toxicity, low thermal conductance, volatility,
liquefiability, and low surface tension, they were consumed in large amounts as cooling media,
blowing agents, detergent solvents, sprays, extinguishing agents, etc. Later, however, it
became clear that CFCs emitted into the atmosphere are not resolved in the troposphere, reachthe stratosphere by the global atmospheric circulation, and are resolved by strong ultraviolent
rays in the stratosphere, resulting in the liberation of Cl and Br. Cl atoms and Br atoms
liberated from ODS catalytically resolve O3 molecules one after another. As a result, ozone
decreases in the stratosphere. This is called ozone layer depletion. However, the actual
chemical reaction occurring in the stratosphere is more complex. For details of the cause of1

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

formation of the so-called ozone hole, see existing materials (Fuwa et al. 2002; Environment
Agency’s Global Environmental Department 1995).
As ozone decreases in the stratosphere, more ultraviolet rays reach the ground. Ultraviolet
rays have a wavelength of 100 to 400 nm and are divided into UV-C (a short wavelength of
100 to 290 nm), UV-B (a medium wavelength of 290 to 320 nm), and UV-A (a longwavelength of 320 to 400 nm) (the range of wavelengths for UV-B is that used forphotobiology (Ichihashi et al. 2000)). Because UV-C has a short wavelength, greatly
influences living things, and is highly absorbed in the atmosphere, it hardly reaches theground, even if the amount of stratospheric ozone were to decrease to 10% the amount atpresent (Asakura et al, 1995). On the other hand, because UV-A is hardly absorbed byozone, the intensity on the ground scarcely changes even if the amount of stratospheric ozone
decreases. That is, the ultraviolet ray whose intensity increases on the ground as a result ofozone layer destruction is UV-B. Because UV-B has strong adverse impact on living things,
such as giving damage to DNA, there is concern that an increase in UV-B may have harmful
impact on various endpoints, such as human health and the ecosystem (Figure 2.1-1).

Fluorocarbon

Table 2.1-1: Types of halocarbons
Type of substance
Examples of substance
GWP
Atmospheric
ODP(100
lifetime
Examples ofGeneric name
ODS
(UNEP
years)(Years)substance
2000)
(WMO
(WMO
1999)
1999)
Chlorofluorocarbon
CFC-11
1.0
4600
45

(CFC)
CFC-12
0.82
10600
100
Bromofluorocarbon
Halon-1211
5.1
1300
11

Halon-1301
12.0
6900
65
(Halon）
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HCFC-22
0.034
1700
11.8

HCFC-123
0.012
120
1.4
(HCFC）
Hydrobromofluorocarbon

HBFC-22B1
0.74
470
7.0
(HBFC）
Perfluorocarbon
CF4
5700
50000

C2F6
11900
10000
(PFC）
Hydrofluorocarbon
HFC-2312000
243

HFC-125
3400
32.6
(HFC）
CCl4
1.2
1800
35

Chlorocarbon
CH3CCl3
0.1
140
4.8

Bromocarbon
CH3Br
0.6
5
0.7
• ODS : With ozone depleting capability, ×: Without ozone depleting capability• ODP: Ozone depleting potential (relative value when the ozone depleting capability of CFC-11 is 1).
The source is UNEP (2000).
• GWP (100 years): Global warming potential (relative value when the 100-year greenhouse effect of
CO2 is 1). The source is WMO (1999).
• Atmospheric lifetime: the amount of a substance in the atmosphere at a certain point of time less annual
loss. The source is WMO (1999).
• ODP for HCFC-123 is the value for a typical isomer (CHCl2CF3).
• There are various other substances, such as those including iodine, and both chlorine and bromine.

2

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Emission of ODS

Increase in the density of ODS
in the troposphere

Endpoint impacts
Human healthSocial assets

Primary production

Increase in the density of ODS
in the stratosphere

Skin cancer

Agricultural
production

Terrestrial primary
production

Decrease in ozone in thestratosphere

Cataract

Materials

Aquatic primary
production

Increase in UV-B that reaches
the ground

Biodiversity
Composition of species ofterrestrial plants

Composition of species ofplankton

Immunity
suppression

Figure 2.1-1: Cause of ozone layer destruction(2)

Endpoints of ozone layer destructiona Human health

Although exposure to ultraviolet rays creates vitamin D, it has harmful impact on the skin,eyes, and immune system. The impact of ultraviolent rays can be divided into acute lesions,which appear several hours after exposure and disappear two to three days after, and chronic
lesions, which are caused as a result of repeated exposure over a long time (Table 2.1-2). It
is especially of concern that ozone layer destruction may cause skin cancer and cataract, bothof which are chronic lesions. Although ozone layer destruction is said to have important
impact on the immune system, quantitative data are scarce.
UV-B has strong impact on surface skin and inner skin, but does not reach subcutaneous
tissues. UV-B gives damage to the DNA of skin cells by inducing photochemical reactions.
Usually, however, damage disappears because of living bodies’ defense mechanisms (repair
of DNA and apoptosis of abnormal cells). However, repeated exposure over a long timeincreases the probability of mutating cells and increasing the number of mutated cells, eluding
the living body’s defense mechanism. This may lead to skin cancer. Melanocytes, basal
cells, produce melanin mainly through exposure to UV-A. Because melanin absorbs
ultraviolet rays, it is one of the important defense protectors against ultraviolet lays.
Therefore, the degree of possibility of suffering skin cancer differs according to skin color.
Among Caucasians, skin cancer caused by exposure to ultraviolet rays is a common cancer.
According to an epidemiological survey (Ferlay et al. 1997), Caucasians’ morbidity of skincancer is about ten times that of members of the Asians and black races.
The crystalline lens of an eye mainly consists of crystalline, special water-soluble protein thathas high transparency and refractivity. Although the transparency of a crystalline lensdecreases with age, exposure to ultraviolet rays causes polymer coagulation of crystalline
protein and worsens the opacity of the lens. If opacity worsens to the extent that the sight isdamaged, a cataract occurs, which in the worst case may cause blindness. According to an
epidemiological survey (Sasaki et al. 1999), the ratio of persons who suffer opacity of
crystalline lenses is higher in lower latitudes, which indicates that there is a positive
correlation between the intensity of ultraviolent rays and the morbidity of a cataract.
However, according to an epidemiological survey conducted in Hokkaido, Noto, andOkinawa (Sasaki et al. 1999), there is no significant difference between the intensity ofultraviolet rays and the degree of opacity. This seems to be because actual exposure toultraviolet rays differs depending on differences in climatic conditions and living habits. For
example, exposure to ultraviolet rays is caused by not only sunlight but also snow reflection
3

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

in snow-covered areas, while people in subtropical areas do not often go out during the time
when the solar altitude is high.
Part

Skin

Eye

Table 2.1-2: Impact of ultraviolet rays on human health
Typical acute lesions
Typical chronic lesions• Sunburn (accompanied by red • Photoaging (pigment freckles,
spots and pain; caused by
pigmented nevus, (light) elastic fiber
UV-B exposure; excessive
degeneration)
sunburn becomes a burn or• Intraepidermal cancer (solar
vesicles)keratosis, etc.)• Sunshine allergy• Invasive cancer (squamous cell
carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma,
malignant melanoma, skin cancer)• Actinic keratitis (a typicalcase is snow blindness;caused by UV-B exposure)• Solar conjunctivitis<Light>↓<Heavy>• Cataract (cortical: white turbidity on the surface
of a crystalline lens; nuclear: white turbidity at
the center of a crystalline lens; one of the causes
is long exposure to ultraviolet rays)• Conjunctival lesions, such as pterygium andpinguecula• Impact on immunocompetent • Decline in immune function (it becomes easier tocells (disappearance orsuffer various infectious diseases; a cancer may
decreased function of
occur due to a decline in the function to control
Immuneepidermal Langerhans cells,
cancers.)
systemlymphocytes, epidermal
keratinocytes, or natural killer
cells)•

Arranged based on the Environment Agency’s Global Environmental Department (1995) andIchihashi et al (2000).

b Impact on the ecosystem
UV-B exposure also has impacts on the ecosystem. At the level of cells, impacts include
damage to DNA, obstruction to photosynthesis, abnormal metabolism, and induction to
apoptosis.
Although sunlight is essential for plants’ photosynthesis, ultraviolet rays included in sunlightis harmful to plants. Because, unlike animals, plants cannot actively avoid ultraviolent rays,
terrestrial plants in particular have developed a defense mechanism against ultraviolent rays.
An example is the synthesis of antioxidant substances, such as vitamin C. However, UV-B
exposure may cause obstruction to the growth of leaves, a harmful impact on reproduction, adecline in dry matter production, a decline in the height of grass, occurrence of chlorosis, animpact on competition due to differences in sensitivity to ultraviolet rays among plant species,
etc. Even if the impact is small at the level of individual plant, the total impact may become
enormous. Because there are many research cases concerning the impact of UV-B exposure
on plants, many qualitative data have been gained concerning each plant species’ sensitivity
to UV-B (Krupa et al. 1989). However, because the impacts of other factors are strong, it isdifficult to assess the impact of UV-B exposure only.
Although it can be thought that the impact of ultraviolet rays on terrestrial animals is similar
to that on human health, concrete information is scarce.

4

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Because water absorbs ultraviolet rays well, it is harder for aquatic organisms to receive theimpact of ultraviolet rays than terrestrial organisms. However, because water also absorbs
visible light necessary for photosynthesis, photosynthesis is active on the surface of oceans
and fresh water, where visible light is affluent. Therefore, the nearer the surface, thestronger the impact of ultraviolet rays is. The impact of ultraviolet rays on phytoplankton
includes repression of growth, a decline in survival rate, and obstruction to photosynthesis,
while the impact of ultraviolet rays on zooplankton also includes a decline in the survival rate
and a decline in egg production. At the field level also, a positive correlation has been foundbetween a decrease in stratospheric ozone in the South Pole region and a decrease in the sizeof krill population (Naganobu et al. 1999).
c Impact on social assets
Ultraviolet rays also have impact on farm products. Although the impact of ultraviolet rays
on farm products is similar to that on plants, repression of growth, a decline in yield, andchanges in the sensitivity to pathogens and harmful insects are important impacts related tofood production. Ultraviolet rays also cause the deterioration, color degradation, anddenaturalization of plastic and other materials used in agriculture, resulting in a decline intheir strength and a reduction in their useful lives.
2.1.2

Characterization of ozone layer depletion(1)

Existing characterization factors for ozone layer depletion

In LCA so far, the midpoint approach has been mainly adopted for the assessment of ozone
layer destruction. Under this approach, a total of products of the inventory of each ODS by
the characterization factor for the ODS is calculated and the relative size is assessed.
The indicator that has been frequently used in LCA as a characterization factor of ozone layer
destruction is ozone layer destruction potential (ODP) (Solomon et al. 1992). ODP has been
adopted for the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO)’s “Scientific Assessment of
Ozone Layer Destruction” (WMO 1999) (hereinafter referred to as the “WMO Scientific
Assessment”) and the “Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer”(UNEP 2000) “hereinafter referred to as the “Montreal Protocol”).
ODP is a result of standardization of the volume of ozone depleted in a certain period after
emission of CFC-11, a typical ODS, for a certain period.
T

ODPT ( X )    [O3 ] ( X , t )0 [O3 ] (CFC  11, t ) dt

(2.1-1)In this equation, ODPT (X) is ODP during the period T for the type X of ODS. δ[O3] (X, t)and δ[O3] (CFC-11, t) are the volume of ozone depleted at the point of time t by the emissionof the unit volume of X and CFC-11 respectively at the point of time 0.
If T is infinite, ODP (ODP∞) is the ozone depleting capability in the whole period between
the emission of X and its disappearance from the atmosphere standardized by CFC-11’s
ability (WMO 1992). This ODP has been adopted internationally; for example, by theMontreal Protocol.

5

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Meanwhile, because atmospheric lifetime varies among ODS species, ODP differs dependingon the integration period – that is, the way of dividing T. This is called time-dependent ODP(Fuwa et al. 2002). This is the same way of thinking as setting three levels (20, 100, and 500
years) for the integration period in global warming potential (GWP), which is used in the fieldof global warming. When time-dependent ODP is used, even if ODP∞ is similar, it ispossible to assess separately the impact of ODS species with a short atmospheric lifetime anda strong ozone depleting capability and the impact of ODS species with a long atmospheric
lifetime and a weak ozone depleting capability.
Although time-dependent ODP is recommended as a characterization factor of ozone layer
destruction in some cases (Nichols et al. 1996), ODP∞ is usually used for LCA. It isinferred that this followed international trends.
(2)

Characterization factor of ozone layer destruction under LIMEFor LIME, we also adopted ODP as the characterization factor of ozone layer destruction.
However, because there are several sets of materials for the setting of ODP, we held
discussions about the integration period and the sources of ODP as follows and, under LIME,
we recommended ODP∞ presented in the WMO Scientific Assessment (Asakura et al. 1995)
as the characterization factor of ozone layer destruction. The characterization factor is asshown in Appendix 1.
a Integration period
If all the impacts of the emission of ODS are to be taken into consideration, a longer
integration period is desirable. However, ODP is greatly different from GWP in that no
GWP for an indefinite integration period has been publicly announced, while ODP presented
by international organizations is that for an indefinite integration period.
If an integration period is longer, the fluctuation of environmental conditions and theuncertainty of ODP become greater. If the uncertainty of ODP∞ is so great as not to be used,
ODP∞ should not be recommended. However, because the atmospheric lifetime of CFC,
which is relatively long, is several decades, and because ODP∞ has been presented in the
WMO Scientific Assessment (WMO 1999), which has been verified repeatedly, ODP∞ can bethought to be so reliable as to be used for LCA. Therefore, ODP∞ with an indefinite
integration period has been recommended for LIME.
b Sources of ODP
There are two sources of ODP∞: the WMO Scientific Assessment (WMO 1999) and theMontreal Protocol (UNEP 2000). The WMO Scientific Assessment summarizes the latest
scientific knowledge. Although its scientific grounds for calculation are clear, it only shows
ODP for some types of ODSs. On the other hand, the Montreal Protocol (UNEP 2000),
whose purpose is to regulate ODSs internationally, does not show grounds for calculation, but
specifies ODP for many types of ODSs. In addition, even if two ODSs are of the same type,the value of ODP is not necessarily the same for both.
With regard to an ODS that contains many types of substances, LCA has so far dealt withtypical ODSs. Therefore, instead of increasing the number of types of ODSs, giving priority
to an increase in the reliability of ODP for types of ODSs that can be covered by LCA, we
6LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

recommended ODP presented in the WMO Scientific Assessment (WMO 1999) as thecharacterization factor for LIME.
2.1.3

Damage assessment from ozone layer destruction(1)

Basic policy for calculation of damage factors

Under LCA, the midpoint approach that uses ODP as the characterization factor has so far
been the main impact assessment method for ozone layer destruction. However, because
damage cannot be concretely calculated by the midpoint approach, an endpoint approach isnecessary for damage assessment. There are still only two LCA methods that use an
endpoint approach for the assessment of ozone layer destruction: the Eco-indicator(Goedkoop et al. 2000), which was developed in Europe; and Environmental Priority
Strategies (EPS) (Steen 1999). Under LIME also, we developed an ozone layer destruction
assessment method that uses an endpoint approach.

Area ofprotection

Table 2.1-3: Category endpoints of ozone layer destruction andobjects of calculation of damage functions
Objects of calculation of damage
Category endpoints
functions
Malignant melanoma (MM),Skin cancer basal cell carcinoma (BCC),
squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)

Human
health

MM, BCC, SCC

Cataract (no distinction oftype)

ImmuneImpediment tosuppression immunocompetent skin cells

Scarce quantitative
information

Decline in production of farm
Agricultural
products, impact on harmful
production
insects and pathogens, etc.



Agricultural production(soybean, rice, green pea,
mustard)Impact of decline in primary
production of woodNet primary productivity(NPP) of coniferous forests

Deterioration in quality, decline
in durability, etc.

Scarce quantitative
information

Terrestrial Decline in primary production of
eco-system terrestrial plants

NPP of coniferous forests



NPP of aquatic plankton incold zones

Terrestrial Impact on competition amongeco-system terrestrial plant species



Scarce quantitative
information

Aquatic
Impact on the structure of
eco-system plankton species

×

Scarce quantitative
information-

Secondary impact andscarce quantitative
information

Cataract

Social assets Woodproduction
Materials

Cortical cataract, nuclear
cataract

Primary
production Aquatic
Decline in primary production of
eco-system phytoplankton

Biodiversity

Other

ClimateChanges in atmosphericchemicals, changes in heatbalance in the atmosphere, etc.

7

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

LIME defines a quantitative indicator of the relation between inventory and impact on eachcategory endpoint as a damage function and defines a set of damage functions for each area ofprotection as a damage factor. The category endpoints of ozone layer destruction and theobjects of calculation of damage functions are as shown in Table 2.1-3. The table covers
almost all important category endpoints mentioned in Section 2.1.1.
Figure 2.1-2 shows the flowchart of calculation of damage functions and damage factor.
The damage functions of ozone layer destruction indicate the extent of increase in potential
damage quantity with additional emission of the unit quantity of Type X of ODS. For
example, if 1 kg of CFC-11 is emitted, how many additional persons will potentially suffer
cataract?
An ODS about which quantitative information, such as atmospheric lifetime, can be gained
was used for direct calculation of a damage function of ozone layer destruction. The
calculation procedure can be summarized as follows: 1) calculating an increase in the amountof UV-B that reaches the ground as a result of emission of a unit amount of ODS, comparedwith the amount in the base year; 2) calculating an increase in the amount of potential damage
that accompanies an increase in the unit amount of the UV-B; 3) combining these increases
and calculating an increase in the amount of potential damage as a result of emission of theunit amount of the ODS; and 4) adjusting the increase by the atmospheric lifetime of the ODS.
The methodology is as described in Hayashi et al. (2000, 2004).
* Substances whose
damage factor cannot
be calculated directly
ODP of each
ODS

Damage function (amount of damage to each endpoint as a result of emission of 1 kg yr -1 of ODS)
* 13 substances whose damage factor can be calculated directly
Emission ofunit amount of
ODS
Latitude band,
population,
agricultural
production, etc

Conversion byuse of ODP
ratio

Damage functionsof other ODSs

Latitudeband
initial value

Increase in density of
tropospheric ODS (TCL)

Wavelength
correctionof UV-B

Increase in density ofstratospheric ODS (EESC)

Decrease in totalozone

Terrestrial plants (PAS)

Health (erythema)

Increase in amountof UV-B reaching
the groundPhytoplankton (PhAS)

Morbidity
rate

Morbidity
rate

Decrease rate

Decrease rate

Decrease rate

GlobalMorbidity inamountinitial value

Morbidity inamountDecrease inamountDecrease inamountDecrease inamountGlobaltotal

Morbidity inamountDecrease inamountDecrease inamountDecrease inamountODS
Atmospheric
lifetime
correction
factorMorbidity inamountDALY

Decrease inamountCrop priceTotal DALY

Total DALY

Skin cancer

Cataract

Human health

Decrease inamountWood priceDecrease inamountAgri. production Wood production Terrestrial NPP

Social assets

Aquatic NPP

Primary production

Total of damage functions for areasof protection
Damage factor (DF)by area of protection

Figure 2.1-2:Flowchart of estimation of damage functions and the damage factor
for ozone layer destruction

8

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(2)

Examination for calculation of damage functions for all types of ODS

The following 13 types of ODS were available for the acquisition of quantitative information,such as atmospheric lifetime, and the direct calculation of damage functions. They include
the ODS used for the calculation of characterization factors.
• CFC types: CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 (3 types)• Halon types: Halon-1211, Halon-1301 (2 types)• HCFC types: HCFC-22, HCFC-123, HCFC-124, HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b (5 types)• Chlorocarbon types: carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), 1,1,1- trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCE)(2 types)• Bromocarbon type: methyl bromide (CH3Br) (1 type)
Moreover, with regard to the types of ODS whose damage functions could not be calculated
directly due to a lack of information, damage functions were calculated indirectly by the useof the ODP ratio. That is, CFC-11 (a CFC type), Halon-1211 (a Halon type) and HCFC-22(a HCFC type and a HBFC type) were used as referential substances to calculate damage
functions by multiplying the damage function of each referential substance by the ratio of thesubstance’s ODP∞ corresponding to that of the ODS type in question. The source of ODP∞
is the Montreal Protocol (UNEP 2000). Because the ODP∞ of an ODS type that has astructural isomer is expressed as a range, the maximum value on the safety side was applied.
The ODP in the WMO Scientific Assessment (WMO 1999) was recommended as thecharacterization factor. It was possible to directly calculate the damage functions of ODS types
whose characterization factors were gained. The ODP in the Montreal Protocol was used forindirect calculation of damage functions of ODS types for which ODP is not written in the WMO
Scientific Assessment.

Below, we will explain the method used for directly calculating damage functions.
(3)

Relation between emission of ODS and the amount of UV-B reaching the grounda Relation between emission of ODS and tropospheric chlorine loading

We formulated a primary regression equation by using the annual global amount of CFC-11
emission (Kaye et al. 1994) as the explanatory variable and using an annual increase in the
CFC-11 density converted into tropospheric chlorine loading (TCL) (Daniel et al. 1995)(Equation 2.1-2) as the objective variable (Figure 2.1-3). We regarded the inclination to be
FTCL, the factor for an increase in TCL as a result of emission of a unit amount of CFC-11.
TCL ( X )   nCl ( X )  nBr ( X )    C trop ( X )(2.1-2)In this equation, X is ODS; nCl and nBr are the numbers of Cl and Br atoms respectively in amolecule of X; α is the ratio of Br’s ozone depleting capability to Cl’s (40 to 1 (WMO 1995));
and Ctrop is the tropospheric density of X [pptv].
With regard to FTCL of each of the 12 substances other than CFC-11, because information on
global emissions and tropospheric density is insufficient, we calculated it by correcting FTCL
of CFC-11 based on the molecular weight (MW) of each ODS and the numbers of Cl and Br
atoms in a molecule.
9

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

FTCL ( X )  A  FTCL (CFC  11)(2.1-3)A nCl ( X )  nBr ( X )  
MW ( X )nCl (CFC  11)  nBr (CFC  11)  
MW (CFC11)nCl ( X )  nBr ( X )  
MW ( X )3
137.4

However,

 45.8  nCl ( X )  nBr ( X )  
MW ( X )TCL[ppt[pptv
v yr1]ｙｒ-1]
TCL(CFC-11)(CFC 11) 増加

30

20

10

y = 0.081x - 2.4602
R2 = 0.9807

0
0
100
200
300
-1
CFC-11全球排出量[kt
Global CFC-11 emissions [kt yr -1 ]400

Figure 2.1-3: Relation between the global amount of CFC-11 emission andan increase in TLC
・The source for the global emissions is Kaye et al. (1994).
・Increases in TCL were calculated from results of observation by CMDL (1998).

b Relation between equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine and troposphericchlorine loading
Stratospheric ozone is destroyed by Cl and Br liberated from ODS. The density of Cl and Br
liberated from ODS is expressed as equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC) (Daniel
et al. 1995) (Equation 2.1-4). X’s EESC is expressed as the product of X’s TCL andfractional chlorine release (FC) (Daniel et al. 1995).
EESC ( X , t )   TCL ( X , t  3)  FC ( X )(2.1-4)X

In this equation, t is a year. TCL is three years after EESC, because it takes three years on
average to transport ODS from the troposphere to the stratosphere (Environment Agency’s
Global Environmental Department 1995). FC is expressed by equation 2.1-5 (Daniel et al.
1995).
FC ( X )    entry ( X )    z ( X )   entry ( X )(2.1-5)In this equation, μentry is the density of X that enters into the stratosphere (that is, the density ofnear-tropopause X) and μфz is the density of X at latitude ф and at height z. FC ranges from0 to 1. If FC is 1, this means that Cl and Br are completely liberated. FC varies according
to latitude and height. In this equation, a weighted average of the density of CFC-11 in thestratosphere is calculated by weight of the average air pressure at each altitude, using
observed values of CFC-11 density in the vertical direction in Japan (Environment Agency1998) (Figure 2.1-4). The average FC of CFC-11 was calculated by substituting theweighted average into equation 2.1-5 together with the tropopause density of CFC-11. The
10

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

FCs of the other 12 substances were calculated by substituting the average FC of CFC-11 into
cases where relative values of FCs of the other ODSs to the FC of CFC-11 were estimated(Daniel et al. 1995).
40
Average airpressure
平均気圧

高度[km][km]
Altitude30
20

CFC-11濃度
Densityof CFC-11
10

Tropopause
altitude
圏界面高度

0
0

100
200
Densityof CFC-11[pptv][pptv]
CFC-11濃度
Averageair pressure
平均気圧[hPa][hPa]300

Figure 2.1-4: Relation between density of CFC-11 and altitude
・The source for the density of CFC-11 at each level of latitude is the Environment Agency (1998).
・Average air pressure was calculated based on latitude.

オゾン全量
Total
ozone [m atm-cm]

400
60南緯60-70°
to 70ºsouth9-11月
latitudeSep. to Nov.

300

TotO 3 = -0.062 EESC + 478.55
2

R = 0.5532
200
0

1000

2000
3000
総EESC
[pptv]
Total EESC

4000

Figure 2.1-5: An example of the relation between EESC and total ozone(60 to 70 degrees south latitude; Sep. to Nov.)
・ Total EESC was based on estimation results in WMO (1999).
・ Total ozone for each latitude band and each season was calculated through arrangement of satellite
observed data from MacPeter, Beach (1996).

c Relation between EESC and total ozone
Total ozone is the accumulated amount of ozone between the surface of the ground and theupper edge of the atmosphere. However, because 90% of atmospheric ozone exists in thestratosphere (WMO 1999), we regarded changes in total ozone as changes in the amount ofstratospheric ozone. The global distribution of total ozone (substantially, stratosphericozone) has an inclination in the meridian direction and shows seasonal changes (Ogura 1999).
Therefore, to relate EESC with total ozone, the global total is divided into ten-degree-width
latitude bands (18 zones in total), and one year is divided into four seasons (March to May,
June to August, September to November, and December to February).

11

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

To treat the complex ozone layer destruction mechanism in a simple manner, a group of
primary regression equations was prepared with total EESC as the explanatory variable andtotal ozone as the objective variable for each of the ten-degree-width latitude bands, using
secular changes in total EESC estimated by a numerical model (WMO 1999) and secularchanges in total ozone observed by satellite (Mac Peter et al. 1996) (example: Figure 2.1-5).
d Relation between total ozone and amount of UV-B reaching the ground
If total ozone is given, the theoretical optical thickness of ozone absorption τo3 can becalculated by the use of an ozone molecule’s absorption cross-section of ultraviolet rays
(Houghton 1986). Therefore, we converted the total ozone observed terrestrially at four
points in Japan (Sapporo, Tsukuba, Kagoshima, Naha) (1995) (Japan Meteorological Agency1998) into τo3 in UV-B wavelength bands of 290 to 300 nm, 300 to 310 nm, and 310 to 320
nm.

AO3  1  2  21AO3 ( ) d

(2.1-6)

 O3  1 2  6.0221367  AO3  1  2  10 19  TotO3  10  2 / 22.4141(2.1-7)In this equation, Ao3 (λ) is the absorption cross-section [cm2] if the wavelength of an ozone
molecule is λ [nm]; τo3λ1-λ2 is τ03 in the whole atmosphere within the range of wavelength from
λ1 to λ2 (that is, the total of abruption cross-sections of all ozone molecules included in thewhole vertical atmosphere with a cross-section of 1 m2); and Tot03 is the total ozone [m atm –cm]. In equation 2.1-7, the three items from the left of the right side indicate the optical
thickness of one ozone mole, while the remaining portion indicates the number of moles of
total ozone.
τo3 is the optical thickness of ozone’s UV-B abruption from direct solar radiation.
Meanwhile, because UV-B that reaches the earth is the total solar radiation (diffused anddirect) influenced by the diffusion and absorption in the whole atmosphere including ozone,
τo3 cannot be applied directly to this calculation. Therefore, we calculated the apparent
optical thickness τapp for each wavelength zone of the atmosphere, approximately applying theLambert-Beer Law, which indicates the decline in direct solar radiation, to the decline of
UV-B as total solar radiation and using the theoretical intensity of UV-B at the upper edge ofthe atmosphere and the intensity of UV-B observed simultaneously with the total ozone on the
ground when the weather was fair (Japan Meteorological Agency 1998).

 app  1 2 

 ln I0  1  2

 ln I  1 2  cos ZA(2.1-8)Equation 2.1-11 is a variation of the Lambert-Beer Law. In this equation, I0 and I are UV-B
intensity [W m-2] at the upper edge of the atmosphere and on the ground, respectively, and ZA
is solar zenith angle [rad]. I0 and cosZA can be calculated by equations 2.1-9 and 2.1-10(Aida 1982).
I 0 1  2  S 1  2  (dm / d ) 2
However,

12(2.1-9)

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(dm / d ) 2  1.00011  0.034221 cos   0.00128 sin  0.000719 cos 2  0.000077 sin 2
  2  (n / 365)
cos ZA  sin  sin   cos  cos  cos h(2.1-10)In this equation, S is a solar constant [Wm-2]; (dm/d)2 is a sun-earth distance correction term;n is nth day of a year starting on January 1;  is latitude [rad]; δ is declination of the sun [rad];and h is an hour angle [rad] if the culmination hour is 0.
Next, we used each wavelength zone’s τo3 and τapp calculated from observation data at thesame hour and prepared a primary regression equation for which τo3 was used as the
explanatory variable and τ was used as the objective variable (Figure 2.1-6). Applying thisrelation to the Lambert-Beer Law, we prepared an approximate equation for the calculation of
the intensity of UV-B on the ground in relation to total ozone and solar altitude.

Apparent optical thickness of the
大気の見かけ光学的厚さ
atmosphereI  1 2  I 0  1 2  exp   app 1 2 / cos ZA

(2.1-11)7
290 - 300 nm
65

τ app = 0.5924 τ O 3 + 1.6311
2

R = 0.8649
4
4

5

6

7

8

9

Theoretical
optical thickness of ozone
オゾンの理論光学的厚さ

Figure 2.1-6: Relation between apparent optical thickness of the atmosphere andtheoretical optical thickness of ozone
・ The theoretical optical thickness of ozone was calculated from the observed amount of total ozone andthe absorption cross-section of an ozone molecule.
・ The apparent optical thickness of the atmosphere was calculated by applying the observed amount of
total ozone, the observed intensity of ultraviolet rays on the ground, solar altitude at the time inquestion, etc. to the Lambert-Beer Law.

e Annual amount of UV-B in each latitude band and wavelength correction
We calculated the annual amount of UV-B on the ground in each latitude band in 1998 (thebase year of 1995 plus three years needed for transporting ODS from the troposphere to thestratosphere) (Environment Agency’s Global Environmental Department 1995) (the effect ofclouds was not taken into consideration). Concretely, we calculated a seasonal daily averageamount of UV-B in each wavelength band, multiplied the amount by the number of seasonaldays to calculate an integrated seasonal amount, and totaled the integrated seasonal amounts
to calculate an annual amount. Because the intensity of UV-B on the ground is greatly
13

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

influenced by atmospheric routes, we calculated the daily amount of UV-B, taking into
consideration changes in solar altitude. That is, we calculated the intensity of UV-B thatreached the ground at each of the ten time zones into which a half-day time H [rad], whichindicates the hours from the sunrise or sunset to the culmination hour, was equally divided (11points of time: 0.0H, 0.1H…1.0H), calculated an average intensity during the half-day timefrom the results, and multiplied it by the number of hours in a day to calculate the daily
amount of UV-B (Figure 2.1-7). H can be calculated by equation 2.1-12 (Aida 1982).
(2.1-12)30[mW m-2]

Intensity of 地上UV-B強度（290-300nm）
UV-B on the ground (290-300 nm)

H  (  / 2 )  arcsin ( tan  tan  )30 to 40º
北緯30-40°
north latitude
6-8月
June to August20

The average intensity of UV-B
at theten points of time is the
10点のUV-B強度のaverageintensity of UV-B in the
平均値を半日時間のhalf-daytime.
平均UV-B強度とする

10

0
0.0H

0.2H

0.4H

0.6H

0.8H

1.0H

Half-day time
(0.0H indicates the culmination hour)
半日時間（0.0Hが南中時にあたる）

Figure 2.1-7: Exemplary calculation of the intensity of UV-B reaching the groundat each point of time during the half-day time

Relative intensityof biological action
生物作用の相対強度4
Human
health: Erythema
人間健康：Erythema3

Terrestrial
plants: PAS
陸上植物：PAS
Phytoplankton:
PhAS
植物プランクトン：PhAS

2
1
0
290

300

310

320

Wavelengthof UV-B[nm]
UV-B波長[nm]

Figure 2.1-8: Wavelength dependence of the impact of UV-B on each endpoint

The resultant amount of UV-B is a physical amount. On the other hand, the intensity of thebiological action of UV-B is said to have wavelength dependence, the degree of which varies
among species. The wavelength dependence of the impact of UV-B on human health,terrestrial plants, and phytoplankton was calculated based on the International Commission on
Illumination (CIE) (CIE 1987), Caldwell (1971), and Behrenfeld et al. (1993) respectively(Figure 2.1-8).
After that, we integrated the wavelength dependence made relative by assuming that the
impact of 298 nm on human health and the impact of 300 nm in plants are 1, to derive the14

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

conversion factor for wavelength dependence in each wavelength band. By multiplying thephysical amount of UV-B in each wavelength band by the conversion factor, we derived theamounts of UV-B corrected by wavelength – that is, the corrected amount of UV-B impacting
on human health (erythema), the corrected amount of UV-B impacting on terrestrial plants(PAS: plant action spectra), and the corrected amount of UV-B impacting on phytoplankton(PhAs: phytoplankton action spectra).
f Increase in the amount of UV-B due to new emission of ODS
By the use of the relations derived so far, it is possible to calculate the annual amount of
UV-B corrected by wavelength in each latitude band after additional emission of an arbitraryamount of ODS. This amount of UV-B is the amount three years after emission. The
difference from the annual amount of wavelength-corrected UV-B in 1998 indicates anincrease in the amount due to additional emission of ODS. However, because calculation isneeded for each arbitrary amount of emission, it cannot be treated as a factor suitable for LCA.
We calculated an increase in the amount of wavelength-corrected UV-B if the amount ofemission of ODS was 0, 100, 200, and 500 kt yr-1, and checked the linearity. As a result, we
gained good linearity concerning all types of ODS (example: Figure 2.1-9). Therefore, we
regarded the inclination of each straight line as FUVBI, the factor that indicates an increase in
the amount of wavelength-corrected UV-B due to emission of a unit amount of X. FUVBI canbe calculated as a factor for each type of ODS in each latitude band for each biologicaldivision (human health, terrestrial plants, and phytoplankton).

-2

1,1,1-TCE
10100

Halon-1211

550

30 to 40ºnorth latitude
北緯30-40°
0

0
0

100

200

300

400

Halon-1211

CFC-11

Annual 年間UV-B増加量
increase in UV-B [kJ m-2 yr-1]

150

-1

Annual年間UV-B増加量
increase in UV-B [kJ m yr ]CFC-11, 1,1,1-TCE

15

500

-1
-1

Additional emission of ODS
ODSの付加的な排出[kt[ktyryr ]]Figure 2.1-9: Relation between additional ODS emission and annual UV-B increase
Of the 13 types of ODSs whose damage functions were calculated directly, taking CFC-11,
Halon-1211, and 1,1,1-TCE as examples, the figure shows results in the latitude band between 30 and
40 degrees north latitude.

g Correction by the atmospheric lifetime of ODS
We derived a correction factor by the atmospheric lifetime to estimate the entire impact of
ODS that is emitted at a certain point of time and exists in the atmosphere for a certain period.
This is based on the idea that, if the atmospheric density of the emitted substance at the timeof emission is 1 and the density at the time of complete removal is 0, the impact at a certain
point of time is in proportion to this standardized density. We expressed a decline in thestandardized density by an exponential function, integrated the atmospheric lifetime of each15

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

ODS (WMO 1999), and regarded the result as FLT, an atmospheric lifetime correction factor
that indicates the total amount of impact.
FLT  3

C (t ) dt  3e t / LT dt(2.1-13)

In this equation, C is standardized atmospheric density, and LT is atmospheric lifetime [yr].
The beginning of integration is 3 because it takes three years for the emitted ODS to reach thestratosphere.
The total amount of impact can be calculated by multiplying the initial amount of damage at
the time when the impact of ODS emitted at a certain point of time begins to emerge (three
years after the emission) by FLT.
(4)

Human health: damage functions for skin cancer
a Relation between the amount of UV-B and skin cancer morbidity

We extracted skin cancer morbidity in each country or region from statistics provided by theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (Ferlay et al. 1997) and classified it byskin color (Caucasian, Asian, and black races). Moreover, with regard to Caucasians, weconsidered using an epidemiological survey on skin cancer morbidity in Australia (Armstrong1993). For each skin color or skin cancer type, we formulated a primary regression equationthat uses skin cancer morbidity as the objective variable and the annual amount oferythema-corrected UV-B in 1998 calculated from the latitude of each country or region as
the explanatory variable. After that, we regarded the inclination of the equation as FSCI, afactor that gives an increase in skin cancer morbidity due to an increase in the unit amount ofannual erythema-corrected UV-B (Figure 2.1-10).
1500

80

60

BCC: BCC：基底細胞癌
basal cell carcinoma

900

y = 0.0277x - 7.18
R2 = 0.956
MM: malignant
MM：悪性黒色腫
melanoma

40

20

0
800

1200

y = 1.17x - 654
2
R = 0.998

600

y = 0.509x - 363
SCC: squamous cell R2 = 0.966
SCC：有棘細胞癌
carcinoma

1000

1200

1400

300

0
1600

-1-1 -1-1
BCC, SCC
morbidity[100,000BCC,SCC罹患率[人persons
10万人 yryr] ]-1-1
MMMM罹患率
morbidity [100,000
persons[人 10万人
yr -1] yr-1]

100Annual amount Erythema補正年間UV-B量of erythema-corrected UV-B [kJ-Erythema m -2 yr-1]

Figure 2.1-10: Relation of annual amount of erythema-corrected UV-B andcancer skin morbidity (Caucasians)
We related the annual amount of erythema-corrected UV-B calculated by a method developed under
LIME to an epidemiological survey on skin cancer morbidity (Caucasians) in Australia (Caldwell 1971).

16

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

With regard to Caucasians, the FSCI gained from the epidemiological survey in Australia wasdozens of times larger than that gained from IARC’s statistics. We adopted the FSCI gained
from the epidemiological survey in Australia for LIME in view of the following reasons: 1) It
was thought that skin cancer morbidity in Australia, which is composed mainly of immigrants,
is close to the response to a rapid increase in UV-B; 2) FSCI showed a good correlation withthe amount of wavelength-corrected UV-B; and 3) Factors could be obtained for each of
malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma.
b Calculation of damage functions for skin cancer
We multiplied FUVBI of human health in each latitude band by FSCI to find an increase in skincancer morbidity in each latitude band due to emission of 1 kg yr-1 of ODS [100,000 persons-1
yr-1]. This value corresponds to the point of time when the impact of ODS emission begins
to emerge.
Next, we estimated the population of each race (divided by skin color into Caucasian, Asian,and black races) in each latitude band based on population statistics and the location of eachcountry. We summed up products of the population of each race and an increase in skincancer morbidity in each latitude band to calculate an increase in the global number of skincancer sufferers with additional emission of 1 kg yr-1 of ODS. We regarded this as the initialvalue, multiplied it by FLT, and regarded the result as SCIglobal [person kg-1], the total impactof the newly emitted ODS in the period when the ODS continues to exist.
SCI global ( X )  FLT ( X )   FUVBI ( X , i, Erythema )  FSCI ( j )  Pop (i, j )ij(2.1-14)
In this equation, i is a latitude band, and j is skin color.
Table 2.1-4: Damage functions for skin cancer (partial)
CFC-11
Halon-1211
HCFC-22
MM
Other
Total
MM
Other
Total
MM
Other
Total
0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0
80-90° N lat.
1.86e-9 6.49e-9 8.34e-9 4.69e-9 1.64e-8 2.11e-8 7.47e-11 2.61e-10 3.36e-1070-80° N lat.
1.20e-6 4.20e-6 5.40e-6 3.04e-6 1.06e-5 1.37e-5 4.84e-8 1.69e-7 2.17e-7
60-70° N lat.
2.55e-5 8.90e-5 1.14e-4 6.44e-5 2.25e-4 2.89e-4 1.03e-6 3.58e-6 4.61e-6
50-60° N lat.
5.42e-5 1.89e-4 2.43e-4 1.37e-4 4.77e-4 6.14e-4 2.18e-6 7.59e-6 9.78e-6
40-50° N lat.
2.69e-5 9.16e-5 1.19e-4 6.76e-5 2.30e-4 2.98e-4 1.08e-6 3.69e-6 4.77e-6
30-40° N lat.
3.28e-6 9.32e-6 1.26e-5 8.20e-6 2.33e-5 3.15e-5 1.32e-7 3.75e-7 5.07e-7
20-30° N lat.
1.11e-6 2.43e-6 3.53e-6 2.76e-6 6.05e-6 8.81e-6 4.46e-8 9.77e-8 1.42e-7
10-20° N lat.
Equator to 10° N lat. 4.49e-7 1.25e-6 1.70e-6 1.12e-6 3.13e-6 4.25e-6 1.81e-8 5.04e-8 6.85e-8
Equator to 10° S lat. 2.18e-6 7.15e-6 9.33e-6 5.44e-6 1.79e-5 2.33e-5 8.77e-8 2.88e-7 3.76e-7
10-20° S lat.
4.37e-6 1.46e-5 1.90e-5 1.09e-5 3.65e-5 4.74e-5 1.76e-7 5.89e-7 7.65e-7
20-30° S lat.
5.32e-6 1.82e-5 2.35e-5 1.33e-5 4.54e-5 5.87e-5 2.14e-7 7.32e-7 9.46e-7
30-40° S lat.
6.78e-6 2.35e-5 3.03e-5 1.70e-5 5.90e-5 7.60e-5 2.73e-7 9.47e-7 1.22e-6
40-50° S lat.
1.87e-6 6.53e-6 8.40e-6 4.71e-6 1.65e-5 2.12e-5 7.52e-8 2.63e-7 3.38e-7
50-60° S lat.
3.15e-7 1.10e-6 1.42e-6 8.02e-7 2.80e-6 3.60e-6 1.27e-8 4.43e-8 5.70e-8
60-70° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+070-80° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0
80-90° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0
Global total
1.33e-4 4.58e-4 5.91e-4 3.36e-4 1.15e-3 1.49e-3 5.37e-6 1.84e-5 2.38e-5

Damage function in each latitude band

Latitude band••

The unit of damage function is DALY kg-1. That is, an increase in the number of potential skincancer sufferers with addition emission of 1 kg of the ODS is converted into DALY.
The total of damage functions in each latitude band is used as the global damage function for LIME.

17

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

We regarded SCIglobal converted into DALY as damage functions for skin cancer. As
DALY, we used values calculated by reference to Goedkoop et al. (2000), 5.9 DALY person-1(malignant melanoma), and 0.34 DALY person-1 (other types of skin cancer (basal cell
carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma). Table 2.1-4 shows some of the damage functions
we obtained.
(5)

Human health: damage functions for cataract
a Relation between the amount of UV-B and cataract morbidity

Ratio
of lens opacity sufferers of Level II or
水晶体混濁度II度以上の有所見率[％]
higher [%]Because information on cataract morbidity was scarce, we estimated cataract morbidity by theuse of a survey on the ratio of cataract sufferers (Sasaki et al. 1999). This survey was carriedout in Singapore, which is near the equator, in Amami and Noto in Japan, which are in the
middle latitude band, and Reykjavik in Iceland, which is in a high latitude band. We
regarded the ratio of cataract sufferers in people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s as the ratio for the
median age of each age group (for example, 54.5 years old in the case of people in their 50s)
and drew a regression curve for each place. Because the ratio of cataract sufferers increases
by age and the maximum ratio is 100%, a logistic curve with the maximum value of 100 was
adopted as the form of each regression curve (Figure 2.1-11). The form of the curves
showed the possibility that people in their 40s would suffer a cataract whose severity is Level
II or higher. Moreover, assuming that 1) there is no difference in death rate between cataract
suffers and the others and 2) there is no difference in cataract morbidity between dead people
and living people during a certain period, we regarded the inclination of each regression curveof the ratio of cataract suffers as cataract morbidity. That is, by differentiating the regression
curves, we obtained the equation for the calculation of cataract morbidity at the age of t. We
formulated a regression equation, using morbidity at each place converted into anage-standard rate (ASR) (Ferlay et al. 1997) and using the annual amount oferythema-corrected UV-B at each place as the explanatory variable (Figure 2.1-12) andregarded the inclination as FCATI, a factor that gives an increase in cataract morbidity due to anincrease in the annual amount of erythema-corrected UV-B.

100
シンガポールSingapore

80

Amami
奄美
Noto
能登

60

レイキャビクReykjavik

40
20
0
30

40

50

60
70
Age 年
[years]
齢

80

90

100

Figure 2.1-11: Relation of age and the ratio of lens opacity sufferers

We applied a logistic curve with the maximum value of 100% to the ratio of lens opacity
sufferers by age group obtained by an epidemiological survey (Sasaki et al. 1999) andregarded the inclination of the curves as morbidity.
18

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012-1 -1 -1 1
Cataract白内障罹患率
morbidity [100,000
persons[人 10万人yryr] ]

700

Singapore
シンガポール

600
500

Noto
能登

Amami
奄美

400

Reykjavik
レイキャビク

300
200
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
-2

-1

Annual amount Erythema補正年間UV-B量of erythema-corrected UV-B [kJ-erythema m yr ]Figure 2.1-12: Relation between annual amount of erythema-corrected UV-B
and cataract morbidity

Damage function in each latitude band

Table 2.1-5: Damage functions for cataract (partial)
Latitude band
80-90° N lat.
70-80° N lat.
60-70° N lat.
50-60° N lat.
40-50° N lat.
30-40° N lat.
20-30° N lat.
10-20° N lat.

CFC-11 CFC-12 Halon-1211 Halon-1301
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+02.36e-9 2.47e-9
5.69e-93.47e-8
1.47e-6 1.54e-6
3.71e-6
2.16e-5
3.34e-5 3.49e-5
8.43e-5
4.90e-4
1.34e-4 1.40e-4
3.38e-4
1.97e-3
2.41e-4 2.52e-4
6.06e-4
3.53e-32.00e-4 2.09e-4
4.99e-4
2.91e-3
6.51e-5 6.81e-5
1.62e-4
9.46e-4
7.75e-6 8.11e-6
1.94e-5
1.13e-4
Equator to 10° N lat.
Equator to 10° S lat.
1.94e-5 2.03e-5
4.85e-5
2.83e-4
10-20° S lat.
2.07e-5 2.17e-5
5.18e-5
3.02e-4
20-30° S lat.
1.65e-5 1.73e-5
4.12e-52.40e-430-40° S lat.
1.19e-5 1.25e-5
2.99e-5
1.74e-440-50° S lat.
2.55e-6 2.67e-6
6.43e-6
3.74e-550-60° S lat.
4.20e-7 4.39e-7
1.07e-6
6.20e-660-70° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+070-80° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+080-90° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+0
Global total
7.54e-4 7.89e-4
1.89e-3
1.10e-2••

CCl4
1,1,1-TCE HCFC-22
0.00e+00.00e+00.00e+02.28e-91.60e-10 9.50e-11
1.41e-6
9.96e-8
5.91e-8
3.21e-5
2.26e-6
1.34e-6
1.29e-4
9.09e-6
5.39e-6
2.32e-4
1.64e-59.70e-6
1.92e-4
1.36e-5
8.05e-6
6.27e-5
4.42e-6
2.62e-6
7.46e-6
5.26e-7
3.12e-7
1.87e-5
1.32e-6
7.80e-72.00e-5
1.41e-6
8.35e-7
1.59e-5
1.12e-6
6.64e-7
1.15e-5
8.09e-7
4.80e-7
2.46e-6
1.73e-7
1.03e-7
4.04e-7
2.85e-8
1.69e-80.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+07.26e-4
5.12e-5
3.03e-5

The unit of damage function is DALY kg-1. That is, an increase in the number of potential cataract
sufferers with additional emission of 1 kg of the ODS is converted into DALY.
The total of damage functions in each latitude band is used as the global damage function for LIME.

We related the annual amount of erythema-corrected UV-B calculated by a method developed
under LIME to the cataract morbidity calculated under LIME based on an epidemiologicalsurvey (Sasaki et al. 1999).
b Calculation of damage functions for cataract
As in the case of skin cancer, we calculated an increase in cataract morbidity in each latitude
band with emission of 1 kg yr-1 of ODS [100,000 persons-1 yr-1]. However, we did not
make classification by skin color.
19

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

We calculated the sum of products of population and an increase in cataract morbidity in each
latitude band to obtain an increase in the global number of cataract sufferers with emission of
1 kg yr-1 of ODS. We regarded this value as the initial one, multiplied it by FLT, andregarded the result as CATIglobal [person kg-1], the total impact of the newly emitted ODS in
the period when the ODS continues to exist.
CATI global ( X )  FLT ( X )   FUVBI ( X , i, Erythema )  FCATI  Pop (i )(2.1-15)i

We used CATIglobal converted into DALY as a damage function for cataract. As DALY for
cataract, we used 1.2 DALY person-1, the value calculated by reference to Goedkoop et al.
(2000). Table 2.1-5 shows some of the damage functions we obtained.
(6)

Primary production: damage functions for the terrestrial ecosystem

a Relation between amount of UV-B and plant damage
The primary production of the terrestrial ecosystem is found mainly in forests. There aremany case studies on the impact of UV-B on trees. However, quantitative information on
the relation between the amount of exposure of UV-B and the growth of trees was limited tostudies that used infant Pinus taeda (Sullivan et al. 1992; Naidu et al. 1993). Under LIME,
we obtained the relation between an increase in the annual amount of PAS-corrected UV-B
and a decrease in the growth rate on the dry basis, using data gained from the studies on Pinus
taeda. We obtained the following information: 1) When the amount of ultraviolet rays that
decreases stratospheric ozone by 25% was exposed for three years, biomass decreased by 15
to 20% in the research area (Sullivan et al. 1992); and 2) In a similar study, root, trunk, andleaf biomass decreased by 24%, 16%, and 18% respectively in the research area (Naidu et al.
1993). We estimated the median at a 17.5% decrease from 1) and the average at a 19.3%
decrease from 2). Applying these experimental conditions to 30 to 40 degrees north latitude
and using the method described in 2.1.3 (3), we calculated the annual amount ofPAS-corrected UV-B in the base year and in the case of a 25% decrease in total ozone. With
regard to each of 1) and 2), we calculated a decreasing rate of growth to the unit amount ofannual PAS-corrected UV-B and regarded the average – 0.0193% kJ-PAS-1 m2 yr as FPGDR,
the factor that determines a decreasing rate of growth as a result of the annual amount ofPAS-corrected UV-B.
b Vegetation covered by the estimation of damage functions and its distribution
Pinus taeda is a conifer that mainly distributes on lowlands in the southeast part of the US.
Generally, trees in highlands are resistant to UV-B, while trees in lowlands, such as Pinus
taeda, are sensitive to UV-B (Environment Agency’s Global Environmental Department
1995). Therefore, we calculated damage functions for the net primary productivity (NPP) in
terrestrial areas, applying FPGDR obtained from the studies on Pinus taeda to conifer forests inareas other than mountainous areas. An increase of UV-B due to ozone layer destruction ismore conspicuous at high latitudes, and forests at high latitude bands are mainly coniferous.
Therefore, we thought that damage functions for conifer forests could cover vegetation that
seems to suffer the most from ozone layer destruction.
Under LIME, we estimated the area of conifer forests in each latitude band, extracting
examples of areas mainly occupied by conifer trees from the global data on vegetation in amesh of 1° × 1° (Environment Agency’s Global Environmental Department 1995). The total
20

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

is 35.5 × 106 km2, which is three times as large as 12.0 × 106 km2, the total area of northernconifer forests on the whole earth (Whittaker 1979). We interpreted that this was because
other conifer forests were added to northern conifer forests. We uniformly regarded the NPPof conifer forests as 8000 kg ha-1 yr-1, the average for northern conifer forests (Whittaker1979). We obtained NPP (i), the total amount of NPP in the latitude band i, by multiplying
the area of conifer forests in each latitude band by NPP per unit area.
c Calculation of damage functions for global terrestrial NPP (conifer forest NPP)
We calculated the amount of damage to NPP in each latitude band due to emission of 1 kg
yr-1 of ODS. We regarded this amount as the initial value, multiplied it by FLT, andregarded the result as the total impact of the newly emitted ODS on terrestrial NPP in the
period when the ODS continues to exist – that is, damage functions for terrestrial NPP,
NPPDtr global [kg kg-1]. The table 2.1-6 shows some of the damage functions we obtained.
NPPDtr global ( X )  FLT ( X )   FUVBI ( X , i, PAS )  FPGDR  NPP (i )  10 2i(2.1-16)

Damage function in each latitude band

Table 2.1-6: Damage functions for terrestrial NPP (partial)
Latitude band
80-90° N lat.
70-80° N lat.
60-70° N lat.
50-60° N lat.
40-50° N lat.
30-40° N lat.
20-30° N lat.
10-20° N lat.

CFC-11 CFC-12 Halon-1211 Halon-1301
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+05.96e-3 6.24e-3
1.51e-2
8.76e-2
7.51e-1 7.86e-1
1.90e+01.11e+1
1.75e+0 1.84e+0
4.44e+02.58e+1
1.39e+0 1.45e+0
3.51e+02.04e+1
5.02e-1 5.25e-1
1.26e+07.35e+04.51e-3 4.72e-3
1.13e-2
6.57e-20.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+0
Equator to 10° N lat. 0.00e+0 0.00e+0
Equator to 10° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+0
10-20° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+0
20-30° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+030-40° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+040-50° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+050-60° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+060-70° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+070-80° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+080-90° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0
0.00e+00.00e+0
Global total
4.41e+0 4.61e+0
1.11e+1
6.48e+1
•
•

(7)

CCl4
1,1,1-TCE HCFC-22
0.00e+00.00e+00.00e+05.74e-3
4.05e-42.40e-4
7.24e-1
5.10e-2
3.02e-2
1.69e+01.19e-1
7.06e-2
1.34e+09.44e-2
5.59e-2
4.83e-1
3.41e-2
2.02e-2
4.34e-3
3.06e-4
1.81e-40.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+04.25e+02.99e-1
1.77e-1

The unit of damage function is kg kg-1. That is, an increase in the amount of potential damage to
NPP with additional emission of 1 kg of the ODS is converted into the NPP amount on a dry basis.
The total of damage functions in each latitude band (limited to conifer forests in areas other thanmountainous areas) is used as the global damage function for LIME.

Primary production: damage functions for the aquatic ecosystem
a Relation between amount of UV-B and damage to phytoplankton

The primary production of the aquatic ecosystem is mainly from phytoplankton. Although
the amount of UV-B sharply decreases on the surface of water, UV-B is thought to have a
harmful impact on phytoplankton. As a producer, phytoplankton distributes from the surface
of water to the farthest depth that can receive the amount of sunlight necessary for
21

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

photosynthesis. Phytoplankton near the surface may receive the impact of UV-B exposure.
Therefore, we introduced damage functions, taking into consideration a decline in UV-B withwater depth.
The intensity of UV-B on the surface of water is expressed by the Lambert-Beer Law, and the
UV-B dissipation factor depends on the density of chlorophyll (Saito et al. 1993). The
dissipation factor has a dimension of [m-1] and we regarded the reciprocal as the farthest
depth that can receive the impact of ultraviolet rays. On the other hand, the density ofphytoplankton is indicated by chlorophyll-a, which indicates the amount of photosynthesis.
The NPP of phytoplankton can be calculated by equation 2.1-17.
NPPaq  ( 1  R )  EC C

1

 C fix(2.1-17)

In this equation, NPPaq is the NPP of phytoplankton [kg m-2 yr-1]; R is the ratio of carbon
lost by respiration among the carbon assimilated by photosynthesis (= 0.4) (Aruga 1986);
ECC is the ratio of carbon to the dry weight of phytoplankton (=0.359; the so-called Redfieldratio) (Redfield et al. 1963); and Cfix is the fixed amount of carbon [kgC m-2 yr-1]. Cfix
can be calculated by equation 2.1-18.

C fix  C ufix  D  Z 0  10 6(2.1-18)

In this equation, C ufix is the amount of carbon fixed by 1 mg of chlorophyll in a year [mgC
mg-1 yr-1]; D is the density of chlorophyll on the surface of water [mg m-3]; and Z0 is thefarthest depth of water that can receive the impact of UV-B [m].
On the surface of water, irrespective of water depth, we fixed D and regarded Z0 as thereciprocal of the dissipation factor k. In addition, we expressed k by k = 0.7D, an empiricalequation at a wavelength of 305 nm (Saito et al. 1993). Therefore, the item DZ0 in theequation 2.1-18 becomes a fixed value (= 1.43). Meanwhile, C ufix was calculated
according to the empirical equation obtained from the relation between the amount of
irradiated UV-B and the photosynthesis rate of phytoplankton in high latitude bands(Behrenfeld et al. 1993a). This yields the following equation:

C ufix  ( 1  0.000116 UVBPhAS )  C ufix0(2.1-19)

In this equation, C u0fix is the amount of carbon fixed by 1 mg of chlorophyll per day [mgC
mg-1 day-1] when there is no UV-B exposure (equation 2.1-20) (Behrenfeld et al. 1993b).
UVBPhAS is the daily amount of PhAS-corrected UV-B [J-PhAS m-2 day-1] (equation 2.1-21).

C ufix0  2.87  h day(2.1-20)UVBPhAS ( z )  UVBPhAS (0)  e  k z(2.1-21)In these equations, hday is the number of sunlight hours per day [hr], and z is an arbitrary depthof water [m]. We calculated Z’, the water depth that equally divides the cumulative total of
UV-B amounts between the surface of water (z = 0) and the water depth Z0 and regarded Z’ as
the water depth for equation 2.1-21. Z’ can be calculated by equation 2.1-22.

22

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_201211 
ln  1 k2e If equation 2.1-22 is substituted into equation 2.1-21,
Z' (2.1-22)2e
 UVBPhAS (0)(2.1-23)2 e 1
We grasped the global distribution of water areas from a set of pixel data obtained in asatellite observation project (GSFC 2000). We calculated the amount of damage by pixel.
We regarded the total pixel amount of damage in the water areas in each latitude band as theamount of damage in the whole latitude band. At the other endpoints, we estimated theamount of damage due to an increase in the annual amount of UV-B. However, becauseintervals for the estimation of damage amount should be shorter in light of the lifespan ofphytoplankton, we estimated the amount of damage in each season. Because an experimentthat introduced equation 2.1-19 (Behrenfeld et al. 1993a) dealt with marine plankton in apolar region, and the amount of irradiated UV-B corresponded to that in the polar region, theamounts of UV-B in middle to low latitude bands were beyond the scope of the regression
equation. However, because an increase in the amount of UV-B due to ozone layer
destruction is conspicuous at high latitudes, and damage to NPP in water areas is thought tooccur at high latitudes, we thought that damage functions only for high latitudes (more than
50 degrees north latitude and more than 50 degrees south latitude) could cover most of thedamage to aquatic NPP.
UVBPhAS ( z ) b Calculation of damage functions for global aquatic NPP (NPP of marine andterrestrial phytoplankton)
We calculated the amount of damage to aquatic NPP due to emission of 1 kg yr-1 in each of
the latitude bands beyond 50 degrees north or south latitude, multiplied the amount by FLT,
and regarded the product as the damage function for aquatic NPP, NPPD aq global [kg kg-1] ,which is the total impact on aquatic NPP during the time when the newly emitted ODS
continues to exist in the atmosphere.

Damage function in each latitude
band

Table 2.1-7: Damage functions for NPP in water areas (partial)
Latitude band

CFC-1180-90° N lat.
70-80° N lat.
60-70° N lat.
50-60° N lat.

4.43E-2 4.59E-2
2.33E+0 2.44E+0
7.10E+0 7.43E+0
2.72E+1 2.85E+1

1.11E-1
5.87E+0
1.79E+1
6.86E+1

6.48E-1
3.42E+1
1.04E+2
3.99E+2

4.27E-2
2.25E+0
6.84E+0
2.62E+1

3.00E+3
1.58E-1
4.82E-1
1.85E+0

1.75E-3
9.35E-2
2.86E-1
1.10E+0•CCl4

1,1,1-TCE HCFC-22

1.52E+2
8.64E+1
1.02E+1
0.00E+0

1.59E+2
9.04E+1
1.07E+1
0.00E+0

3.86E+2
2.24E+2
2.73E+1
0.00E+0

2.24E+3
1.30E+3
1.57E+2
0.00E+0

1.46E+2
8.33E+1
9.88E+0
0.00E+0

1.03E+1
5.87E+0
6.95E+1
0.00E+0

6.11E+0
3.47E+0
4.11E-1
0.00E+02.85E+2 2.99E+2

7.29E+2

4.23E+3

2.75E+2

1.94E+1

1.15E+1

Excluding 50° N
lat. - 50° S lat.

50-60° S lat.
60-70° S lat.
70-80° S lat.
80-90° S lat.

Global total•

CFC-12 Halon-1211 Halon-1301

The unit of damage function is kg kg-1. That is, an increase in the amount of potential damage to
NPP with additional emission of 1 kg of the ODS is converted into the NPP amount on the dry basis.
The total of damage functions in each latitude band (more than 50 degrees north latitude and morethan 50 degrees south latitude) is used as the global damage function for LIME.

23

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

NPPDaq ( X , i )  3.683  A(i)  Day( s)  H (i, s)  F

UVBI

i

( X , i, s, PhAS )  10 9s(2.1-24)In this equation, s is the season, A is the area [m2] of the latitude band i, and Days (s) is thenumber of days in the season (s).
Table 2.1-7 shows some of the damage functions we obtained.

(8)

Social assets: damage functions for agricultural production
a Relation between amount of UV-B and damage to farm products

There were a great number of case studies on the impact of UV-B on farm products (Krupa etal. 1989). However, because many of them aimed for qualitative assessment, quantitative
information was extremely limited. In this situation, the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) (UNEP 1998) showed information obtained from 49 existing experimentcases concerning relative changes in yield due to UV-B exposure. Soybean, rice, green pea,
and mustard were used for the experiments. Although conditions differed from case to case,a 20% decrease in the amount of stratospheric ozone was generally assumed. An averagechange in the yield of each crop species was -3.7% for soybean (29 cases), -1.4% for rice (14cases), -11.0% for green pea (4 cases), and -19.5% for mustard (2 cases).
Assuming that these experiments were carried out in the latitude bands between 30 and 40
degrees north latitude, we calculated the annual amount of PAS-corrected UV-B in the baseyear and in the case of a 20% decrease in the total ozone by the method mentioned in 2.1.3 (3).
We calculated the rate of yield decrease with the unit amount of annual Pas-corrected UV-B
and regarded the rate as FCYDR, the factor for the calculation of the yield decrease rate as aresult of an increase in the annual amount of PAS-corrected UV-B.
b Global yield of main farm products
We extracted the production of the crop species m in each country in 1998 from FAOSTAT(FAO 2000), the database of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), andestimated the yield CP (i, m) in the latitude band i. If a country extends over two or more
latitude bands, we proportionally divided the yield according to area, excluding the polar
regions.
c Calculation of global damage functions for farm products
We calculated damage to crop yield in each latitude band resulting from the emission of 1 kg
yr-1 of ODS. We multiplied this initial value by FLT and regarded the result as CPDglobal [kgkg-1], the total impact on the crop species m during the time when the newly emitted ODS
continues to exist.
CPD global (m, X )  FLT ( X )   FUVBI ( X , i, PAS )  FCYDR (m)  CP (i, m)
im(2.1-25)
Moreover, we converted CPDglobal obtained as weight into a monetary value and used it as
the damage function for agricultural production. We estimated the unit prices of soybean,rice, green pea, and mustard to be 240, 243, 550, and 30 yen kg-1 respectively, referring to the24LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

producer unit prices of soybean and rice in Japan (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries 2002a) and the producer unit prices of green pea and mustard in Japan from
FAOSTAT (FAO 2000). Table 2.1-8 shows some of the damage functions we obtained.
Table 2.1-8: Damage functions for agricultural production (partial)

Damage function in each latitude

Latitude band

Rice

CFC-11
Green Mustard Total Soybea
pea
n

Rice

HCFC-22
Green Mustard Total
pea

0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0
4.46e-7 2.33e-7 7.01e-6 6.76e-8 7.75e-6 1.79e-8 9.38e-9 2.82e-7 2.72e-9 3.12e-7
1.10e-3 7.06e-5 4.92e-3 2.74e-5 6.12e-3 4.42e-5 2.84e-6 1.98e-4 1.10e-6 2.46e-4
2.66e-2 1.57e-2 3.21e-1 1.66e-3 3.65e-1 1.07e-3 6.34e-4 1.29e-2 6.69e-5 1.47e-2
6.51e-1 4.13e-1 8.14e-1 1.37e-3 1.88e+0 2.62e-2 1.66e-2 3.27e-2 5.51e-5 7.56e-2
9.50e-1 1.03e+0 3.46e-1 3.22e-4 2.32e+0 3.82e-2 4.14e-2 1.39e-2 1.30e-5 9.35e-2
1.73e-1 1.13e+0 2.81e-1 1.29e-3 1.58e+0 6.96e-3 4.54e-2 1.13e-2 5.19e-5 6.38e-2
2.83e-2 3.66e-1 5.73e-2 2.20e-5 4.51e-1 1.14e-3 1.47e-2 2.31e-3 8.87e-7 1.82e-2
Equator to 10° N lat. 6.12e-3 2.21e-2 1.97e-3 3.45e-7 3.02e-2 2.46e-4 8.92e-4 7.93e-5 1.39e-8 1.22e-3
Equator to 10° S lat. 9.23e-2 1.04e-1 6.97e-3 0.00e+0 2.03e-1 3.72e-3 4.18e-3 2.81e-4 0.00e+0 8.18e-3
10-20° S lat.
1.82e-1 3.39e-2 1.77e-2 4.45e-7 2.33e-1 7.32e-3 1.37e-3 7.12e-4 1.79e-8 9.40e-3
20-30° S lat.
2.56e-1 2.43e-2 3.53e-2 1.42e-6 3.16e-1 1.03e-2 9.77e-4 1.42e-3 5.70e-8 1.27e-2
30-40° S lat.
2.17e-1 1.63e-2 2.98e-2 7.85e-7 2.63e-1 8.74e-3 6.57e-4 1.20e-3 3.16e-8 1.06e-2
40-50° S lat.
9.16e-2 2.22e-3 1.54e-2 3.26e-8 1.09e-1 3.69e-3 8.93e-5 6.22e-4 1.31e-9 4.40e-3
50-60° S lat.
9.14e-3 2.67e-4 6.55e-4 0.00e+0 1.01e-2 3.68e-4 1.07e-5 2.63e-5 0.00e+0 4.05e-4
60-70° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+070-80° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0
80-90° S lat.
0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0 0.00e+0
80-90° N lat.
70-80° N lat.
60-70° N lat.
50-60° N lat.
40-50° N lat.
30-40° N lat.
20-30° N lat.
10-20° N lat.

Global total
•
•

(9)

Soybean

2.68e+0 3.15e+0 1.93e+0 4.70e-3 7.77e+0 1.08e-1 1.27e-1 7.78e-2 1.89e-4 3.13e-1

The unit of damage function is yen kg-1. That is, an increase in the potential damage to agricultural
production as a result of addition emission of 1 kg of the ODS is converted into Japanese yen.
The total of damage functions in each latitude band is used as the global damage function for LIME.

Social assets: damage functions for wood production

Damage to terrestrial NPP as primary production simultaneously brings about damage towood production as social assets. Because the target of the damage functions for terrestrial
NPP is conifer forests, we assumed that all of them have direct impact on wood production.
Based on 9,360 yen m-3, the average producer unit price of wood in Japan (Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2002b) (for sawing, wood chips, and pulp), we estimatedthe wood density to be 500 kg m-3 and gained a unit price of 18.7 yen kg-1. We used the unit
price for converting the damage functions for terrestrial NPP into a monetary value andregarded them as the damage functions for wood production. Table 2.1-9 shows some of thedamage functions we obtained.
(10)
Arrangement of damage functions of ozone layer destruction and damage
factors
We added up endpoint damage functions for each area of protection (human health, social
assets, and primary production) and regarded the result as the damage factor of ozone layer
destruction. That is, the total of damage functions for skin cancer and cataract is used as thedamage factor for human health, the total of damage functions for agricultural production andwood production is used as the damage factor for social assets, and the total of damage
functions for terrestrial NPP and aquatic NPP is used as the damage factor for primary25

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

production. The damage factors are shown in Appendix 2. For reference, Table 2.1-10
shows the damage functions and factors of ODSs whose damage functions could be calculated
directly.

Damage function in each latitude

Table 2.1-9: Damage functions for wood production (partial)
Latitude band

CFC-11

CFC-1280-90° N lat.
70-80° N lat.
60-70° N lat.
50-60° N lat.
40-50° N lat.
30-40° N lat.
20-30° N lat.
10-20° N lat.

0.00e+01.12e-1
1.41e+03.28e+12.60e+1
9.40e+08.44e-20.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+01.17e-1
1.47e+1
3.44e+12.72e+1
9.87e+08.87e-20.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+02.82e-1
3.56e+1
8.31e+1
6.58e+1
2.36e+1
2.11e-1
0.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+01.64e+02.07e+2
4.83e+2
3.83e+2
1.38e+2
1.23e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+0
1.08e-1
1.36e+1
3.16e+1
2.51e+1
9.05e+08.13e-20.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+07.58e-3
9.55e-1
2.23e+01.77e+06.38e-1
5.73e-30.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+04.49e-3
5.66e-1
1.32e+01.05e+03.78e-1
3.40e-30.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+00.00e+08.25e+1

8.64e+1

2.09e+2

1.21e+3

7.95e+1

5.60e+03.32e+0

Equator to 10° N lat.
Equator to 10° S lat.

10-20° S lat.
20-30° S lat.
30-40° S lat.
40-50° S lat.
50-60° S lat.
60-70° S lat.
70-80° S lat.
80-90° S lat.

Global total••

Halon-1211 Halon-1301

CCl4

1,1,1-TCE HCFC-22

The unit of damage function is yen kg-1. That is, we regarded potential damage to terrestrial NPP
due to additional emission of 1 kg of the ODS as damage to wood production and converted it into
Japanese yen.
The total of damage functions in each latitude band (limited to conifer forests in areas other thanmountainous ones) is used as the global damage function for LIME.

Table 2.1-10: Damage functions and factors of ozone layer destruction(limited to ODSs for which direct calculation is possible)
ODS

CFC-11
CFC-12
CFC-113
Halon-1211
Halon-1301
CCl4
1,1,1-TCE
HCFC-22
HCFC-123
HCFC-124
HCFC-141b
HCFC-142b
CH3Br
•

26

Human health(DALY kg-1)

Social assets (Yen kg-1)

Primary production(kg kg-1)

Skin cancer Cataract Total

Agri.
Forestry
Total
production production

Terrestrial Aquatic Total

5.91e-4
6.19e-4
6.33e-4
1.49e-3
8.67e-3
5.70e-44.01e-5
2.38e-5
1.53e-6
9.13e-6
5.25e-5
3.62e-5
2.87e-6

7.54e-4 1.34e-3
7.89e-4 1.41e-3
8.07e-4 1.44e-3
1.89e-3 3.38e-3
1.10e-2 1.97e-2
7.26e-4 1.30e-3
5.12e-5 9.13e-5
3.03e-5 5.41e-5
1.95e-6 3.49e-6
1.16e-5 2.08e-5
6.70e-5 1.20e-4
4.62e-5 8.24e-5
3.66e-6 6.53e-6

7.77e+08.14e+08.33e+01.95e+1
1.14e+2
7.49e+05.28e-1
3.13e-1
2.01e-2
1.20e-1
6.91e-1
4.76e-1
3.78e-2

8.25e+1
8.64e+1
8.84e+1
2.09e+2
1.21e+3
7.95e+1
5.60e+03.32e+02.14e-1
1.27e+07.34e+05.05e+0
4.06e-1

9.03e+1 4.41e+09.45e+1 4.61e+0
9.67e+1 4.72e+02.28e+2 1.11e+1
1.33e+3 6.48e+1
8.70e+1 4.25e+0
6.13e+0 2.99e-1
3.63e+0 1.77e-1
2.34e-1 1.14e-2
1.39e+0 6.80e-2
8.03e+0 3.92e-1
5.53e+0 2.70e-1
4.44e-1 2.17e-2

2.85e+2 2.90e+2
2.99e+2 3.03e+2
3.05e+2 3.10e+2
7.29e+2 7.41e+2
4.23e+3 4.30e+3
2.75e+2 2.79e+2
1.94e+1 1.97e+1
1.15e+1 1.16e+1
7.39e-1 7.51e-1
4.40e+0 8.47e+0
2.53e+1 2.57e+1
1.74e+1 1.77e+1
1.43e+0 1.45e+0

Under LIME, the total of damage functions for each area of protection is used as the damage factor.

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

2.1.4

Procedure for impact assessment of ozone layer destruction

Below, we will concretely describe procedures for characterization of ozone layer destruction
and damage assessment. Those who carry out the procedures can select what is suitable for
their purpose from among characterization, damage assessment, and integration, and use it for
LCA or the like.
The characterization result CIOzone can be obtained from the inventory of the type X of ODS,
Inv (X), and the characterization factor CFOzone(X). CIOzone can be regarded as the total
ODS emissions converted into CFC-11, a typical ODS.

CI Ozone 

 CF

ozone

( X )  Inv( X )(2.1-26)

X

There are several lists of the characterization factor CFOzone (X). Because priority is given
to high scientific reliability and an international organization’s authorization, we
recommended the ODP∞ presented in the WMO Scientific Assessment (WMO 1999) as thecharacterization factor.
In addition, the damage assessment result DI (Safe) can be obtained from each ODS’s Inv (X)and the damage factor for each area of protection DFOzone (Safe, X).
DI ( Safe)   DF Ozone ( Safe，X )  Inv ( X )(2.1-27)

X

DI (Safe) means the potential amount of damage to each area of protection Safe. Thisequation enables damage assessment concerning human health, social assets, and primary
production. With regard to common areas of protection, comparison and integration withamounts of damage that occur through different impact categories are possible.
IFOzone(X), the factor that integrates impacts on human health, social assets, and primary
production, is used for integration. The single index SI can be obtained from each ODS’s
Inv (X) and the integration factor IFOzone(X). The obtained result can be directly compared
and added with the assessment results of other impact categories.

SI   IFOzone (X)  Inv(X)(2.1-28)

X

Appendices 1, 2, and 3 show the characterization factor CFOzone(X), the damage factor
DFOzone(Safe, X), and the integration factor IFOzone(X) respectively.

27

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012[References for Section 2.1]
Armstrong BK (1993): How much melanoma is caused by sun exposure?, Melanoma Research, 3 : 395 401
Behrenfeld BJ, Chapman JW, Hardy JT, Lee IIH (1993a): Is there a common response to ultraviolet ─ Bradiation by marine phytoplankton?, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 102 : 59 68
Behrenfeld BJ, Hardy JT, Gucinski H, Hanneman A, Lee IIH, Wones A (1993b): Effect of Ultraviolet ─
Bon Primary Production along Transects in the South Ocean, Marine Environmental Research, 35 : 349 363
CIE (International Commission on Illumination) (1987): A reference action
ultraviolet-induced erythema in human skin, CIE Research Note, CIE Journal, 6: 17 - 22

spectrum for

CMDL (Climate Monitoring and Diagnostic Laboratory) (1998): Halocompounds Dataset, CMDL/NOAA
Caldwell MM (1971): Solar ultraviolet radiation and the growth and development of higher plants
Photobiology 6, Academic Press, New York, p. 131 - 177
Daniel JS, Solomon S, Albritton DL (1995): On the Evaluation of Halocarbon Radiative Forcing and
Global Warming Potentials. J. Geophys. Res., 100, (D1): 1271 - 1285
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2000): FAOSTAT, FAO
Ferlay J, Black RJ, Whelan SL, Parkin DM (1997): CI5VII: Electronic Database of Cancer Incidence inFive Continents 7, IARC Cancer Base No. 2, IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer)/WHO,CD ─ROM with Booklet
GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) (2000): SeaWiFS Project, GSFC/NASA
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000): The Eco ─ indicator 99, A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle
Impact Assessment, Methodology Report 2nd edition
Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998): Environmental assessment of products, Chapman & Hall, London
Hayashi K, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2000): Development of Damage Function for Stratospheric Ozone Layer
Depletion ─A Tool Towards the Improvement of the Quality of Life Cycle Impact Assessment ─, Int. J.
LCA, 5 :265 - 272
Hayashi K, Nakagawa A, Itsubo N, and Inaba A (2004): Expansion of Damage Function for Stratospheric
Ozone Depletion to Cover Major Endpoints Regarding Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Int. J. LCA, Online
First, DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.11.189, p.12
Houghton JT (1986): The Physics of Atmospheres 2nd edition，Cambridge University Press
Kaye JA，Penkett SA，Ormond FM (eds. ) (1994): Report on Concentrations，Lifetimes， and Trends of
CFCs, Halons and Related Species, NASA Reference Publication, 1339, NASA
Krupa SV，Kickert RN (1989): The greenhouse effect; impacts of ultraviolet ─ B (UV ─ B), carbon dioxide(CO2), and ozone (O3) on vegetation. Env. Poll., 61 : 263 - 293
Mac Peter R, Beach E (1996): TOMS Version 7 O3 Gridded Data: 1978 ─ 1993, GSFC/NASA, CD ─ROM
Matthews E (1983): Global vegetation and land use: new high resolution data bases for climate studies,
Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 22 : 474 - 487

28

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Naganobu M, Kutsuwada K, Sasai Y, Taguchi S, Siegel V (1999): Relationships between Antarctic krill(Euphausia superba) variability and westerly fluctuations and ozone depletion in the Antarctic Peninsulaarea, J. Geophys. Res., 104 : 20651 - 20665
Naidu SL, Sullivan JH, Teramura AH DeLucia EH (1993): The effects of ultraviolet ─ B radiation on
photosynthesis of different aged needles in field ― grown loblolly pine, Tree Physiology, 12 : 151 - 162
Nichols et al. (1996): In Towards a Methodology (Udo de Haes ed. ), SETAC ─ Europe, Brussels
Ozone Research and Monitoring Project, Report No. 37
Redfield AC, Ketchum BH, Richards FA (1963): The Influence of Organisms on the Composition of Sea
Water. In The Sea Vol. 2 (Hill ed.), Interscience, London, 26 - 77
Sasaki K，Sakamoto Y, Fujisawa K, Kojima M, Shibata T (1997): A New Grading System for Nuclear
Cataracts ─An Alternative to the Japanese Cooperative Cataract Epidemiology Study Group’s Grading
System, Cataract Epidemiology, Developments in Ophthalmology, 27, Karger, Basel, p. 42 - 49
Solomon S, Albritton DL (1992): Time ─ dependent ozone depletion potentials for short ─ and long ─ term
forecasts. Nature, 357: 35 - 37
Steen B (1999): A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development(EPS)
Version 2000 ─ Models and Data of the Default Method, CPM Report 1999:5, Chalmers University ofTechnology, Goteborg
Sullivan JH, Teramura AH (1992): The effects of ultraviolet ― B radiation on loblolly pine. 2. Growth offield ─grown seedlings, Trees Structure and Function, 6: 115 - 120
UNEP (1998): Environmental Effect of Ozone depletion 1998 Assessment
UNEP (2000): The Ozone Secretariat (Montreal Protocol) ― UNEP, http://www.unep.ch/ozone/home.htm.
WMO (1992): Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion
WMO (1995): Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 1994, World Meteorological Organization Global
WMO (1999): Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998. WMO Global Ozone Research andMonitoring Project: Report No.44
Whittaker RH (1979): Communities and Ecosystems (trans. Hogetsu K), Baifukan
Aida M (1982): The Atmosphere and Radial Assumption – Investigation on Atmospheric Heat Sources andRadiation Budget, Tokyodo Publishing
Asakura T, Sekiguchi Y, Nitta T (ed.) (1995): New Meteology Meteorological Handbook, Asakura
Publishing, p. 17 - 22
Aruga Y (1986): Production Ecology of Marine Phytoplankton, Ecology of Algae (collectively written by
Akiyama, Aruga, Sakamoto, Yokohama), Uchida Rokakuho Publishing, p. 81 - 121
Ichihashi M, Sasaki M (ed.) (2000): Photo-Developed Bioscience Series 4: Creatures’ Photolesion andProtection Mechanism, Kyoritsu Publishing
Ogura Y (1999): General Meteorology, 2nd edition, University of Tokyo Press
Environment Agency’s Global Environmental Department (supervised) (1995): Ozone Layer Destruction –29

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Impact of Ultraviolet Rays on Human Health and the Plant and Ecological Systems, Chuohoki Publishing,p. 12 - 15
Environment Agency (1998): FY1997 Annual Report on the Results of Observation of the Ozone Layer,
Environment Agency
Meteorological Agency (1998): Annual Report on Monitoring the Ozone Layer Vol. 8, Meteorological
Agency, CD-ROM
Saito H, Kasai H, Taguchi S (1993): Research on Assessment of Impact of an Increase in Ultraviolet Rays
on Phytoplankton, FY1992 Report of Research Results under the Global Environment Research Fund A-5,
Environment Agency, p. 163 - 174
Sasaki K, Kojima M, Sasaki H, Kato N, Ono M, Jonasson F, Cheng HM, Chew SJ, Shui YB, Taylor H,
McCarty C, Robman L (1999): A-4, Research on the Impact of Ultraviolet Rays on Human Health from theEpidemiological Viewpoint, FY1998 Compilation of Reports of Research Results under the Global
Environment Research Fund, Environment Agency, p. 31 - 42
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2002a): 76th Statistical Yearbook of the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2002b): 2000 Report on Supply and Demand of Lumber
Fuwa K, Morita M (written and edited) (2002): Global Environment Handbook 2nd Edition, Asakura
Publishing, 26

30

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

2.2 Global warming(Changes in LIME2)•

Uncertainty assessment of damage factors was carried out.

•
Under LIME1, the degree of temperature rise in the future was estimated by use of
the DICE model based on two types of emissions scenarios: the IS92a scenario and a
scenario that fixes emissions at the amount in 1990. Under LIME2, the degree oftemperature rise in the future was fixed by the use of the result of calculation by thesimplified climate model MAGICC based on two types of emissions scenarios: the medianof the SRES scenario used for the future climate prediction shown in the IPCC Third
Assessment Report, and a scenario that fixes emissions at the amount in 2000. The fixed
degree of temperature rise was applied to the damage function for human health and thedamage function for social assets (energy consumption and farm products). In addition, thecalculation formulas of these damage functions and some of the parameters were reviewed
mutually.
Consequently, the period for adding up differences in the amount of emissions andthe amount of damage was changed from 1990-2063 (the year when carbon dioxide
concentration will double) under LIME1 to the actual 2000-2063 under LIME2.
••
The definitional identity of the damage function for social assets (land loss) due to arise in the sea level was reviewed into a form more consistent with other endpoints, and theresult of output (the amount of rise in sea level) by MAGICC was used in a similar way asin the case of the damage function for human health and the like.
2.2.1

What phenomenon is global warming?

Gases with a high capacity to absorb infrared rays exist in the atmosphere. Although mostof the visible light that constitutes the main part of solar energy penetrates the atmosphere,some infrared rays radiated from the surface of the ground to outer space are absorbed in suchgases, resulting in a rise in temperature. This is called the greenhouse effect, and gases thatare involved in the greenhouse effect are called greenhouse gases (GHG). If there were no
greenhouse effect, the average temperature on the surface of the ground is calculated to beabout –18ºC. Therefore, the greenhouse effect itself is beneficial for the existence of
creatures.
However, as a result of an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels due to rapid
development of economic industries in the modern era, the amount of artificial emission ofcarbon dioxide (CO2), a typical GHG, has sharply increased. In addition, the amount ofartificial emission of gases that have stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, such as methane(CH4), nitrogen monoxide (N2O), and halocarbons (such as CFCs), has been increasing. As
a result, there is fear that the temperature may rise, and the rise in temperature may cause
various effects. This phenomenon is called global warming.

31

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(1)

Cause of global warming

Figure 2.2.1 shows the causal relationship between GHG emissions leading to global warming
and the occurrence of damage and also shows routes of damage. Although the routes exist
theoretically, scientific verification of most of the routes has still not been completed throughobservation thus far (although many scientists have made efforts to solve the problem ofglobal warming, “scientific verification” herein means verification by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)). There are two viewpoints for verification: the viewpointof whether the phenomenon has occurred in reality, and the viewpoint of whether the causal
relationship can be proved.
According to IPCC, among the phenomena in Figure 2.2-1, those that have actually occurred
include an increase in atmospheric GHG concentration, a decrease in glacial areas other thanthe polar areas, a melting or decrease in permanently frozen soil, and a rise in sea level.
Causal relationships have been proved completely only concerning an increase in the artificial
emission of GHG and an increase in atmospheric GHG concentration at the uppermost levelof impact routes (IPCC 2001a). The other phenomena are 1) those about which observation
results that can serve as evidence exist, but the verification of causal relationships issomewhat uncertain, and 2) impacts that have been theoretically predicted (throughlaboratorial observation or computer simulation), but still have not been observed. The
causal relationships in the upper part of the figure, such as a rise in temperature, a change inrainfall, other weather phenomena, and disaster damage directly related to them, fall under 1),
while the causal relationships shown in the lower part of figure, such as impact on agricultural
production, have only undergone laboratorial impact assessment, which falls under 2).

GHG
emissions

Climate changes
Rise in temperature

Increase inatmospheric GHG
concentration

Increase in radioactive
forcingAgri.
production

Ecosystem

Increase in heatwaves
Decrease in cold
waves

Change inheat stress

Weather changes

Rise in averagetemperature

Energysituation

Foodsituation

Changes in rainfall
amount and pattern

Rise in sea
level
Submergence

Endpoint impacts
Primary production

Increase ofdrought

Expansion of
distribution ofanimals carrying
infection

Increase in extreme
weather phenomena

Disaster

Human healthSocial assets

Heat stress, cold stressAgri. production

Terrestrial ecosystem

Composition of terrestrial species

Biodiversity

Infection (malaria, dengue)

Wood production

Aquatic ecosystem

Composition of aquatic species

Death/injury due to disaster

Change in energy consumption

Land loss due to rise in sea level

Malnutrition, starvation

Land loss due to rise in sea level
Loss of assets due to disaster

図2.2-1:
2.2-1Causal
地球温暖化の因果関係
FigureRelationships of Global Warming

32

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

In this way, impact assessment of global warming is rarely confirmed as a fact. Therefore,
attention should be paid to impact assessment often being the result of prediction aboutdamage in the future. Such predictive research has been carried out by the use of many
research resources, because there is the possibility that if damage occurs, serious damage may
spread all over the world for a long time. Therefore, the “precautionary principle” has been
applied to the prediction of impact of global warming to some extent.
IPCC’s WG1, which deals with scientific basics (mainly, weather knowledge), has classified
the certainty of these causal relationships into seven probabilities, ranging from “almost
certain” to “very unlikely” (IPCC 2001a). Its WG2 has classified the reliability of impact
prediction into five ranks, ranging from “very likely” to “very unlikely” (IPCC 2001a).
With regard to the prediction of a rise in temperature, which belongs to causal relationships
shown in the upper part of the figure, IPCC has classified a rise in maximum temperature, anincrease in heat waves, a rise in the lowest temperature, and a decrease in cold waves as “verylikely (probability of 90 to 99%),” while it has applied not probability assessment but
prediction based on GHG emissions scenarios to a rise in the average temperature (IPCC
2001a). That is, although it is highly likely that the temperature will rise in the future (which
will be typically reflected in rises in the maximum and minimum temperatures), the degreesof the rises depend on which scenario is chosen. It has been predicted that a rise in theintensity of rainfall will be “very likely (probability of 90 to 99%)” (IPCC 2001a). Whenselecting category endpoints, we will refer to IPCC’s probability assessment about theoccurrence of damage as a criterion for screening (for the probability assessment mentioned
below, see the IPCC’s third report “Synthesis Report”) (IPCC 2001a).
(2)

Endpoints of global warming

Damage assessment in the area of global warming is greatly different from that in the otherimpact areas, in that the number of category endpoints is large because there are various typesof impact and routes as shown in Figure 2.2-1 “Causal Relationships of Global Warming.”
Under LIME, after preparing a list of category endpoints to be protected, we screened theendpoints by the following criteria to choose objects of assessment.
1) The probability of occurrence of damage should be more than about the middle.
2) Damage should be thought to be large according to existing research or public
perception.
3) There should be quantitative information for assessment.
With regard to 1), we basically referred to IPCC’s second and third reports. With regard to2), we mainly referred to the results of damage accumulation-type economic impact
assessment (Fankhauser 1995, Tol 1995, ExternE 1999) and also examined what are
addressed by other LCA impact assessment methods (Steen 1999, Goedkoop et al. 1999).
With regard to 3), we examined global data availability. However, even if such criteria areused, because the existing research contains uncertainty, note that such screening also has
uncertainty. Table 2.2-1 shows the objects of calculation of damage functions under LIME.

33

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Table 2.2-1: Category Endpoints of Global Warming and the Objects of LIME

Area
of
Category endpoint
protection
Increase in deaths
due to increase inheat stress
Heat stress
Decrease in deaths
due to relaxation ofcold stress
Human
healthSocial asset

Infection

Increase in infection
suffered throughanimals

Object of calculation ofdamage function

(2)

(3)

Heat stress, cold
stressMalaria, dengue





















Yellow fever,schistosomiasis, etc.
Poor quantitative
informationAir
pollution
DisasterdamageWorsening of impact of
tropospheric ozone



Weather disasters, suchas flood and typhoon

Death damage







Malnutritio,
Starvation

Change in the foodsituation due to change
in agri. production

Aspect ofmalnutrition(excluding starvation)







Agri.
production

Changes inquantity/quality of farm
products

Value of agri.
production (limited to
3 main grains)







Wood
production
Fishery
production
EnergyconsumptionChanges in growth
speed/quality of forests

Value of wood
production







Impact on
fish/aquaculture

Poor quantitative
information







ncrease in no. of days ofcooling, decrease in no.
of days of heating

Value of energy
consumption







Land loss

Land loss due tosubmersion caused bysea level riseValue of lost land
area







Water
resources

Change in amount ofavailable fresh waterPoor quantitative
information (impact
is partially reflectedin agri. production)







Immigration immigration cost due toPoor quantitative
information







Loss of social assets due
to weather disaster

Poor quantitative
information







Impact on Increase in insurance
cost
insurance

Poor quantitative
information







Terrestrial
ecosystem

Change in production
capacity of terrestrial
plants

Net primary
production (NPP) oflatent vegetation







Aquatic
ecosystem

Change in production
capacity ofphytoplankton

Poor quantitative
information







rise in sea level

Assets loss

34

(1)



Incurrence ofPrimary
production

Screening

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Land loss

Land loss due tosubmersion caused bysea level rise

NPP corresponding tolost land area







Terrestrial
ecosystem

Change in compositionof species due to climatechange

Poor quantitative
information

-

-

-

Aquatic
ecosystem

Change in compositionof species due to climate
chang



Poor quantitative
information

-

-

-

Biodiversity(Note) Screening criteria
1) The probability of occurrence of damage should be more than about the middle.
2) Damage should be thought to be large according to existing research or public perception.
3) There should be quantitative information for assessment.
: fulfilling the criteria; : in the middle between fulfillment and non-fulfillment; : not fulfilling the criteriaa Impact on human health
The impact of global warming on human health can be divided into direct damage andindirect damage, according to the route of the impact of an aspect of climate change.
The direct damage that is the easiest to imagine and highly interests researchers is the impact
of temperature rise on human health. A temperature rise during summer gives heat stress tohuman bodies and mainly causes metabolic diseases. A typical example is heat stroke.
However, the most common cause of death is sharp worsening of existing diseases (Honda etal. 1998). On the other hand, global warming decreases cold stress in winter, which reduces
the incidence of cerebral disease. IPCC has predicted as follows: “If the frequency andintensity of heat waves increase, impact on death and disease will be the largest in urban areas,and elderly persons, sick persons, and people who cannot use air conditioners in particularwill be influenced (high reliability)”; “Warmer winter and less cold waves will decrease thenumber of deaths caused by coldness in many countries located in the temperate zone (highreliability).” Although health damage by heat stress and cold stress fulfills the screening
criteria 1) and 2), it is difficult to assess globally whether it fulfills criterion 3), because there
are only limited data in advanced countries about the current situation of damage. However,under LIME, we assess health damage by heat stress and cold stress, placing importance on
the probability of occurrence of damage and taking into consideration that there is a precedent(ExternE 1999).
The other direct damage is disaster damage caused by flood and other extreme weather due toglobal warming and an increase in the water cycle on the surface of the ground. According
to IPCC, the criterion for rainfall is “more intense rainfall (highly likely; in all regions),” andthe impact is “an increase in the number of floods, landslides, avalanches or mudslides (highreliability).” The screening criterion 1) was passed. Regarding 2), although this is thesmallest area among the areas covered by economic assessment of global warming damage, it
has been an object of assessment before. As for 3), irrespective of whether the impact of
global warming is included or not, it is possible to grasp the current situation of damage
statistically.
Indirect damage includes an increase in damage from infectious diseases, malaria and dengue.
This is because the ranges of the animals that carry infectious diseases, such as mosquitoes,
expand due to global warming. IPCC has made the following assessments: “In the regions
35

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012with limited or poor public health, a rise in temperature extends the malaria-stricken areas intohigher areas (high-middle reliability) and higher latitude areas (middle-low reliability)” and“With regard to other diseases carried by animals, climate change has impact on the bordersof the current infectious areas (including both beneficial and adverse impacts) (middle-highreliability).” With regard to malaria, although IPCC made these assessments, there arestudies that indicate no relation between global warming and an increase in damage frommalaria (Reiter 2000, Hey et al. 2002). So long as importance is placed on IPCC’s
assessments, damage from malaria fulfills all the screening criteria.
The other indirect damage is what is called “socially contingent damages,” which occurs in
relation to the local social and economic situation in the future. This includes the occurrenceof starvation in developing countries due to continuation of a disaster, such as a drought.
With regard to weather disasters, IPCC has assessed that “These natural disasters not only
directly cause death or injury but also cause an increase in infectious diseases (including
diarrhea and respiratory diseases) and damage to public health infrastructures through housing
loss, movement of population, pollution of feed water, and lack of food production (very highreliability).” In relation to changes in agricultural production, IPCC has assessed that
“Climate change increases the number of undernourished people (middle reliability).”
Although the occurrence of socially contingent damage is highly probable as shown above,the degree of damage is highly uncertain because it depends on social conditions. With
regard to the screening criteria, fulfillment of 2) is problematic, while the other criteria are
fulfilled.
In conclusion, with regard to human health, we assess heat and cold stress, malaria and otherinfectious diseases, disaster damage, and malnutrition as endpoints.
b Impact on the ecosystem
Because the ecosystem is keeping balanced with the current temperature and other weather
conditions, it can be thought that a rise in temperature and other changes in weather
conditions disturb the balance of the ecosystem and have some impact on the ecosystem. In
terms of biodiversity, it is thought that this appears as changes in the composition of terrestrial
and aquatic species. However, because the ecosystem involves highly complicatedphenomena that depend on the interdependence among the activities of animals and plants andon the local environmental characteristics (climate, soil, etc.) and consists of various
sub-ecosystems, it is difficult to find endpoints where the impact of changes in weather
conditions can be observed directly. At present, most research only predicts the impact inspecific regions or under specific conditions. Under LIME, therefore, we do not assess
biodiversity in the category of global warming.
On the other hand, with regard to plant productivity, a basis for biological activity, there arethree main impacts of global warming on plant productivity. This first is the impact ofphotosynthesis on net primary production. For example, a rise in temperature increases plant
respiration and restrains transpiration on the surface of leaves. The second impact is plants’moving to more suitable regions due to a change in temperature, which causes changes in
productivity in each region and a resultant change in global productivity. The third impact is
not directly related to global warming. A rise in CO2 concentration, the main cause of global
warming, activates photosynthesis and increases plant productivity (fertilizer effect).
However, because we could not obtain sufficient findings to assess them, we exclude plant
productivity from the objects of assessment.
36

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

c Impact on social assets
Global warming causes not only a rise in temperature but also changes in weather conditions,such as cloudiness and precipitation. Such weather conditions influence the ecosystemthrough impact on photosynthesis and finally influence the production of the primaryindustries, which include agricultural, forestry, and fisheries industries necessary for humanlife.
In addition, it is thought that a rise in temperature is accompanied by changes in human life.
The plainest example is an increasing in cooling and a decrease in heating, which lead tochanges in the consumption of energy, such as electricity and gas. With regard to changes inenergy consumption, IPCC has specified “a decrease in demand for heating energy (highreliability)” and “an increase in demand for cooling energy (high reliability),” which fulfills
the screening criterion 1). Criterion 2) is also fulfilled, as suggested by other studies(Fankhauser 1995, ExternE 1999). With regard to criterion 3), we decided to use existing
research on the relation between the number of days of cooling and heating and thetemperature.
In the primary industries, assessment of agricultural damage due to impact on vegetation has
been frequently carried out. It is thought that the yield of farm products, such as rice andwheat, changes according to changes in the net primary productivity of vegetation due toclimate changes. It is difficult to assess impact on farm production, because impact may
cause damage or benefits, depending on the region, kind, and remedies, and because it ispredicted that the degree of impact differs. With regard to impact on farm products, IPCC
made the following predictions: “Although CO2 concentration increases the production ofgrain, it is uncertain that this benefit exceeds the decrease in production due to heat anddrought (middle reliability),” “Although a rise in the lowest temperature is beneficial to somefarm products (especially in the temperate zone), it gives damage to other products (especiallyin the low latitude zone) (high reliability),” “A rise in the highest temperature gives harm to
many products (high reliability),” “In the middle latitude zone, if agricultural technicalmeasures are taken, a rise in the temperature by less than 2 to 3ºC increases the production ofgrain, but decreases the production of other products (low to middle reliability),” and “In thetropics, no matter how much the temperature rises, the production of grain decreases (middle
reliability).” Impact on farm products fulfills screening criteria 1) and 2) because of IPCC’s
description, and criterion 3) also is fulfilled because of many assessments in Japan andoverseas.
In the field of forestry, like farm products, the growth of raw lumber is influenced by a change
in net primary productivity. With regard to terrestrial vegetation, IPCC has suggested that“the impact of climate changes may greatly destroy the ecosystem (high reliability)” and has
described that “Although a rise in CO2 concentration increases net primary production, a risein temperature has both beneficial and adverse impacts (high reliability).” In addition, withregard to the value of forests, IPCC has mentioned not only the net primary productivity but
also the values of biodiversity, wood, fuels, non-wood products, and recreation. However,
because, like data on the ecosystem, data on these aspects are insufficient for assessment, thevalue of forests is not addressed under LIME.
It is thought that social adaptation measures are taken, such as irrigation and breed
improvement, to prevent decreases in farm products and wood production that would
otherwise occur due to global warming. In the field of agriculture, since IPCC’s second
37

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

report, research on adaptation to global warming has been carried out. Under LIME,
however, we examined the net impact of global warming without taking into consideration theimpact of possible social adaptation on the production of farm products and wood. In
addition, although the risk of impact of an increase in weeds on farm products has been
predicted, it is not addressed under LIME because there is no result of quantitative
assessment.
Moreover, not only farm products but also livestock and fisheries may receive the impact of
global warming. IPCC has made the following predictions: “The temperature will more
frequently rise due to El Niño (caused by global warming), which will have adverse impact on
fishes (high reliability)” and “With regard to aquaculture, because climate changes haveadverse impact on the amount of cultured fishes’ feed, such as herring and anchovy, theproduction of cultured fishes also receives adverse impact.” However, because global
warming is still under study, and quantitative assessment is difficult, it is impossible to fulfill
screening criterion 3). Therefore, livestock and fisheries are not addressed under LIME. In
addition, there is the feedback effect whereby, if there is a change in energy consumption or
the ecosystem, CO2 emissions also are changed accordingly. However, because it is unclear
how to assess this feedback effect, the effect is not addressed under LIME, but will be
discussed in the future.
2.2.2

Characterization of global warming(1)

Characterization factors for global warming

The characterization of global warming is carried out by adding up the products of theinventory of each GHG and the characterization factor for each GHG. For the purpose of
LCA, global warming potential (GWP) (IPCC 1990) is often used as the characterization
factor for global warming. GWP is an index widely used under IPCC and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). GWP can be calculated by
dividing the time integral value of radiation forcing caused by emission of the unit amount of
the type i of GHG by that of CO2.

GWPT , iTT a  C (t ) dt  a
0

i

i

0

CO2

 CCO2 (t ) dt

(2.2-1)In this equation, a, C (t) and T are infrared absorption capacity [Wm-2 kg-1], atmosphericconcentration [kg m-3] at time t, and the integration period [yr] respectively.
One of the important issues is the fixing of an integration period for GWP. Because
atmospheric lifetime differs among GHGs, GWP changes greatly, depending on the
integration period. IPCC’s third report (IPCC 2001b) specifies GWPs with integration
periods of 20 years, 100 years, and 500 years. The report (IPCC 2001b) states that the
selection of an integration period depends on users’ concerns. That is, the report
recommends that a short-term GWP should be used for short-term impact, such as impact on
clouds, while a long-term GWP should be used for long-term impact, such as a rise in sea
level. In the field of LCA, 100-year GWP has been used frequently. This seems because
100 years is appropriate for considering changes in the quality and scale of human activities.
Leiden University’s Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML) (2000) in Holland has
temporarily recommended the use of the 100-year GWP, taking a moderate stand between the38

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

following ways of thinking: 1) from the viewpoint of uncertainty, it is desirable to use ahighly-reliable short-term GWP; and 2) from the viewpoint of completeness of environmental
impacts, it is desirable to use a long-term GWP.
(2)Characterization factors for global warming under LIME

Under LIME1, we discussed a list of recommendable GWPs based on existing research. We
mainly examined the following three points: 1) Which GWP to select from among thosepublished at various points of time; 2) How many years the integration period should be; and
3) Whether only direct effects should be included or indirect effects should also be included.
a Timing of publication
Depending on the timing of publication, the value of GWP differs due to changes in thestorage of atmospheric GHG and the circulation velocity and improvement in themethodology used for calculation. Under LIME1, for the purpose of use for LCA, werecommended the selection of the latest list as of 2001 contained in IPCC’s third report (IPCC
2001b), which shows the value of GWP recalculated based on GHG concentration at thattime.
b Integration period
The published list shows three types of GWP with integration periods of 20 years, 100 years,
and 500 years.
In the case of the GWP with an integration period of 20 years (GWP20), the GWP of a GHG
whose atmospheric lifetime is comparatively short, such as CH4, appears relatively large.
GWP20 is suitable for assessing the contribution to the progress rate of global warming.
In the case of the GWP with an integration period of 100 years (GWP100), the number of years
is mainly fixed as the period for environmental improvement goals. GWP100 has often beenused for LCA. GWP100 has characteristics somewhere between those of GWP20 and
GWP500.
In the case of the GWP with an integration period of 500 years (GWP500), the GWP of a GHG
whose atmospheric lifetime is extremely long, such as perfluorocarbon, appears relatively
large. GWP500 is suitable for assessing long-term impact, such as a rise in sea level. In
addition, because GWP with an infinite integration period (which covers all the impacts ofatmospheric emissions) has not been published, GWP500 is the most suitable for considering
all the impacts of emissions at present. Moreover, GWP500 is the most suitable at present,
because international organizations only published values with an infinite integration period
concerning the ozone depletion potential (ODP) used for assessment of emission ofsubstances that cause ozone layer destruction.
For the purpose of impact assessment of global warming, the year when CO2 concentration
becomes double (according to a prediction based on the scenario adopted for LIME, 2063) isoften used as the benchmark. In addition, the impacts of global warming vary drastically,and both short-term and long-term impacts are important. Therefore, under LIME, the100-year integration period was recommended.

39

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

c Direct effects and indirect effects
A gas has two types of greenhouse effects: direct effects that accompany the radiation forcingof the gas, and indirect effects caused by the transformation of the gas or the gas’s chemical
reaction with another gas. IPCC (2001b) treats indirect effects differently according to typeof GHG as follows:
1) CH4: presentation of GWP as a net effect resulting from the inclusion of indirect
effects into the numerical table of direct effects
2) Carbon monoxide (CO): presentation of literature data only irrespective of its
indirect contribution to greenhouse effects as a precursor substance3) Ozone depletion substance (ODS): presentation of not representative values ofindirect effects but their estimated range
4) Nitrogen oxide and non-methane hydrocarbon: presentation of not concrete figures
but qualitative expressions
Under LIME1, we recommended a net value of the indirect effects of CH4, because theindirect effects have already been included in the existing GWP and it is unnecessary toseparate them from the direct effects. With regard to CO, because IPCC did not discuss arecommendation value, it did not decide a recommendation value, although it presented
literature data. With regard to the indirect effects of ODS, because uncertainty was so highthat representative values could not be obtained, we only recommended the GWP of the direct
effects. In addition, although GWP values of nitrogen oxide and non-methane hydrocarbon
may be presented in the future, there are no values suitable for LCIA at present. Therefore,
we did not address them.
Recent research recommended that GWP should include indirect effects as a characterization
factor for LCA (Brakkee 2007).
d Recommended characterization factor for global warming under LIME
Under LIME2, based on the above-described discussions, we recommended that the 100-year
GWP presented in IPCC’s fourth report (IPCC 2007), which presents the latest GWPs, should
be used as the characterization factor for global warming. The characterization factor is asshown in Appendix A1.
2.2.3

Damage assessment of global warming

Under LIME2, we evaluated environmental impact coused by the additionalemission of CO2.
By applying GWP to the result of CO2, we calculated damage factors for all the GHGs about
which characterization factors were recommended. However, the fertilizer effect ofagricultural impact depends on CO2 concentration. Therefore, we calculated damage factors
both for the case of inclusion of fertilizer effect and for the case of exclusion of fertilizer
effect. After that, we applied GWP to the result of CO2 in the case of the exclusion to obtain
the damage function for the other GHGs.

40

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(1)

Basic policy for calculation of damage factors
a Flow until calculation of damage factors

Under LCA, a midpoint approach that used GWP as the characterization factor was the main
impact assessment method for global warming. However, because the midpoint approachcannot calculate concrete damage, damage assessment requires an endpoint approach.
Under LIME, we developed a method of assessing global warming by an endpoint approach.
Under LIME, what quantitatively expresses the relation between inventory and impact oneach category endpoint is defined as the damage function, and the damage function for eacharea of protection is defined as the damage factor. The category endpoints for global
warming and the objects of calculation of damage function are as shown in Table 2.2-1, which
includes almost all the important category endpoints described in Section 2.2.1.
Figure 2.2-2 shows a flowchart of calculation of damage functions and factors. The damage
function for global warming indicates how much the amount of latent damage increases withthe emission of a unit amount of the type X of GHG – for example, how many people latently
suffer malaria with the emission of 1 kg of CO2.
We assumed that quantitative information, such as atmospheric lifetime, could be obtained
concerning the GHGs about which the damage function for global warming would be
calculated. The procedure for the calculation can be summarized as follows: 1) estimation ofchanges in climate elements (such as average temperature and precipitation) according to thetwo scenarios (a fixed amount of emissions and an increasing amount of emissions) until CO2
concentration becomes double; 2) calculation of changes in the amount of damage according
to changes in climate elements at each category endpoint (such as malaria and dengue); 3)
calculation of the amount of damage per unit amount of CO2 by dividing the difference
between the amounts of damage in the two scenarios by the difference between the amountsof CO2 emissions in the scenarios; and 4) calculation of damage factors for other GHGs byapplying GWP.
b Method to calculate the amount of damage per unit amount of emissions
The method of calculating marginal damage is useful for assessment of impact ofenvironmentally damaging substances. This method calculates the amount of damage fromadditional emissions in a certain situation. In the field of economic assessment of damage,there are research cases where marginal damage from CO2 emissions is calculated as amarginal cost (Fankhauser 1995, Tol 1995, ExternE 1999). Under LIME also, such researchcases are used for screening. However, some problems exist concerning the calculation of
marginal damage from GHG emissions.
Global warming is a long-term phenomenon. Because damage from temporary emissions
also lasts for a long time, the calculation of marginal damage requires the integration of theamount of damage for a period between the time of emissions and a highly uncertain distantfuture. Because this period greatly differs from scenario to scenario, and the degree ofdamage differs according to CO2 concentration at that time and the amount of emissions in the
future, they greatly influence the result of assessment of the amount of damage. In the caseof monetary assessment, such a problem is addressed by introducing a discount rate. In thiscase, there arises another problem – the total amount of damage greatly differs according to41

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

the size of the discount rate. Because of such reasons, under LIME, we did not select themarginal assessment method that calculates an increase in the integral quantity of damage
with an increase in the annual amount of emissions.
Under LIME, we added up single-year amounts of damage by the use of two types of CO2
emissions scenarios: 1) a fixed baseline amount of emissions (LIME1: 1990; LIME2: 2000)(in this case also, atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing and global warming is
progressing); and 2) a scenario of an increasing amount of emissions (LIME 1: IS92a
scenario; LIME 2: the median of each scenario of SRES) (see Column 2.2-1). However,under LIME2, common actual amounts of emissions between 1990 and 2000 were input toboth the scenario of a fixed amount of emissions and the scenario of an increasing amount ofemissions (Figure 2.2-3). We decided that the calculation period should last until CO2
concentration becomes double (2063). The result of division of the difference between theamounts of damage in the two scenarios (Figures 2.2-4 and 2.2-5) by the difference between
the total amounts of CO2 emissions (Figure 2.2-3) was regarded as the damage function for aunit amount of CO2 emissions. Time-series (annual) global average values of atmospheric
CO2 concentration and temperature was calculated by the DICE model (Fankhauser 1995)
under LIME1 and by the MAGICC model (Wigley 2003) under LIME2. The regionaltemperature and precipitation used for damage assessment for malaria and agriculture wereobtained from several existing general circulation models (GCM) concerning the time when
CO2 concentration becomes double according to the scenario of an increasing amount ofemissions. Under LIME, based on impact assessment at the time when CO2 concentration
becomes double, we calculated single-year amounts of impact under the two scenarios byinterpolation from time-series temperature data. The following equation was used forconstruction of the damage function:[Amount of damage to human health]
D (CO ) 

2

t

1990
t

1990

D (t ) dt  

t

1990
t

E (t )dt  1990

D0 (t )dt

(2.2-2)E 0 (t )dt

D (CO2): damage function (amount of change (damage) per unit amount of CO2
emissions)t:covered years (each of the years between 1990 to the year when CO2
concentration becomes double)
D (t):
amount of damage in covered years (in the case of the increasing emissions
scenario)
D0 (t):
amount of damage in covered years (in the case of the fixed emissions
scenario)
P (t):
production volume in covered years (in the case of the increasing emissions
scenario)
P0 (t):
production volume in covered years (in the case of the fixed emissions
scenario)
E (t):
CO2 emissions in covered years (in the case of the increasing emissions
scenario)
E0 (t):
CO2 emissions in covered years (in the case of the fixed emissions scenario)

42

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Greenhouse gas(GHG)
inventory

Characterization
factor(GWP)

CO2 emissions scenarios(Baseline: fixed amount; comparison: increasing amount)* Period until doubling of CO2 concentration

Difference in total
CO2 emissions
between scenarios

Land loss due to rise in sea level
Total amount of damage

Changes in CO2 concentration and climate elements due toCO2 emissions(Annual calculation results under both scenarios)

Rise in sea level when
CO2 concentration
becomes double

Category
index(Midpoint)

Increasing amount
scenario

Fixed amount scenario

Existing several GCMs
Averagetemperature

CO2 concentration

Averageprecipitation

Area of land lost
due to submersion

Damagefunctions forother GHGs

Total amount of damage to plant growth due to climate changes(Accumulation of annual differences in values calculated under bothscenarios)

Monetary
conversion oflost land

Agriculture:excl.
fertilizer
effect of
CO2

GCM calculation result

Land assets

Averageprecipitation

Social assets
Latent productivityof NIES model

Damagefunction by areaof protection

Damage index(Endpoint)

Averagetemperature

CO2 concentration

Volume of agri.
production

Damagefunction for CO2

Value of agri.

Total amountof damage byendpoint

production

Value of annual
decrease

Total value inperiodIncrease in energy
consumption due totemperature rise(accumulation ofannual differences invalues calculated underboth scenarios)

Agri. production

Social assets
Total amount of damage to human health due to temperature rise (accumulation of annual differences in values calculated under bothscenarios)
MAGICC calculation result

World climate data
Averagetemperature

Increase in amount ofdisaster damage due totemperature rise

Change in
air-conditioning
index

Increase rate

Change in energy
consumption

No. of deaths

Energy balance

Total no. inperiodTotal DALY

Increase rate

No. of deaths

Averagetemperature

Heat stress model

Rise in averagetemperatur

Heat
stressfactorCold
stressfactorIncrease rate ofrisk population

Correction
function fordeath rate

Death rate

Death rate

Economic
growth forecast

No. of deaths

Total no. inperiodTotal DALY

Social assets

Other than typhoon Typhoon
Direct death from disaster

Human health

Risk ratio
betweendengue &malaria

Starvation risk
research case

Increase rate ofrisk population

Changes instarvation risk
population

Death rate

Death rate

Increase rate ofrisk population

No. of deaths

No. of deaths

No. of deaths

No. of deaths

Total no. inperiodTotal no. inperiodTotal no. inperiodTotal no. inperiodTotal no. inperiodTotal
DALY

Total DALY

Total DALY

Total DALY

Total DALY

Malaria

DengueMalnutrition / starvation

Population
forecast

Monetary
conversion
Energy consumption

Malaria risk
population
model

DALY bydiseaseHeat stress

Human health

Figure 2.2-2: Flowchart of Estimation of Damage Functions for Global Warming

43

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012[In the case of damage to the volume of agriculture and other production]tt P (t )dt  P(t )dt
D (CO ) 
 E (t )dt   E (t )dt
2

1990
t

1990

0

(2.2-3)

1990
t

1990

0

CO2 emissions [GtC]

CO2 increase scenario[Year]

Figure 2.2-3: Interannual Changes in CO2 Emissions and the Method of Calculating
Difference between Scenarios(Amount of damage D)

CO2 increase scenario[Year]

Figure 2.2-4: Interannual Changes in the Amount of Damage to Human Health, etc. andthe Method of Calculating Difference between Scenarios(Production volume P)

CO2 increase scenario[Year]

Figure 2.2-5: Interannual Changes in Production Volume and the Method of Calculating
Difference between Scenarios

44LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

With regard to the GHGs other than CO2, the above-mentioned amount of CO2 damage andthe 100-year GWP should be used. Because, in the case of CO2, the fertilizer effect isincluded in the production volume of farm products, the relation between CO2 emissions andthe amount of damage should be calculated, excluding the fertilizer effect, and multiplied by
GWP.
D (GHG) = D (CO2)  GWP (GHG)(2.2-4)

D (GHG): amount of damage per unit amount of GHG emissions (1990 to the year when CO2
concentration becomes double)
D (CO2): amount of damage per unit amount of CO2 emissions (1990 to the year when CO2
concentration becomes double; no fertilizer effect)
GWP (GHG): GWP of the GHG in questionc Benchmark assessment at the time of doubling of CO2 concentration
Damage assessment has so far focused on the damage at the time when CO2 concentration
becomes double, because the time has been used as the benchmark point of time and because
it has been used as the base point of time for time-series prediction. Such prediction is carriedout by interpolating or extrapolating damage in another period from benchmark assessment.
Column 2.2-1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Scenarios
To address criticism of IS92, IPCC organized a special project team in 1996 and publishedthe “Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” (2000) (“SRES Scenarios”).
SRES describes six scenarios corresponding to four storylines.
the characteristics of the storylines and the scenarios.

Table 2.2-A summarizes

Table 2.2-A: SRES’s six scenarios corresponding to four storylines
Storyline
Scenario
A1: continuation of highThree scenarios toward technological innovation
economic growth
A1FI “scenario of high growth society that depends onfossil fuel”
A1T “scenario of high growth society toward advanced
technology”
A1B “scenario of well-balanced high growth”
A2: blocked areas in the world

A2: “scenario of heterogeneous society”

B1: simultaneous realization ofenvironmental conservationand economic growth underinternational cooperation

B1 “scenario of recycling-oriented society”

B2: emphasis on local
problems and fairness

B2 “scenario of regional coexistence society”

45

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

To predict the future climate based on these scenarios, six integrated assessment modelinggroups presented 35 types of emissions estimates.
With regard to the climate response to emissions, we extracted seven GCMs from among 18
GCMs, picked out characteristics as intensification parameters, such as climate sensitivity(1.7 to 4.2ºC; 2.8ºC on average), ocean thermohaline circulation, and the difference inthermal response between land and sea, and matched the seven GCMs with the 35
emissions estimates, resulting in 245 cases (7 × 35). Figure 2.2-A shows the results ofevaluation of climate changes in the 245 cases (summarized and extracted from Matsuoka(2005)).
Mid-range scenarios for the 245 cases are used for the assessment of the increase scenarios
under LIME2.

Figure 2.2-A: Result of Future Estimation of a Range of Temperature under
TAR• The light parts indicate the minimum and maximum values of the 245 cases. They
correspond to the uncertainty and unclearness, into which both the diversity of futuresociety and the unclearness of the climate system are combined.
• The thick parts are the minimum and maximum of the 35 tracks as average resultscorresponding to GMC parameters, which differ among the 35 estimated emissions.
They roughly correspond to the diversity of future society.
• The line graphs on the left are typical emissions scenarios among the 35 tracks (marker
scenarios).
• The bars on the right are ranges of increase in 2100 when the 245 calculated values aregrouped into six emissions scenarios. They correspond to the unclearness for the climate
system.
(Interpretation by Matsuoka (2005) was extracted and referred to.)(Source) http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-14.htm

46

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

d Policy for assessment of damage to human health
Under LIME, damage functions are basically prepared based on changes in the relative risk
per temperature rise. The relative risk (RR) is expressed as the mortality ratio by cause ofdamage at the time of temperature rise and is applied to the current baseline risk by region.
That is, because the death rate by cause (absolute risk) differs from region to region, theimpact of global warming is expressed as the ratio to the baseline risk. The relative risk
should be treated as a variation of the original ratio. Under LIME, however, to simplify
calculation, we assume that the relation between temperature rise and damage is linear andthat the relative risk per temperature rise minus 1 (RR-1) is the increase rate of mortality bycause per temperature rise [%]. We multiply the baseline risk [the current number of deaths]
in each region by the increase rate and then by the temperature rise at a certain point of time[year] to calculate the increased number of deaths by cause due to global warming in that year.
Equation 2.2-5 calculates damage by cause, using the relative risk at the time of temperature
rise.
Dnonadjusted (c,r,t) = BL (c,r)  (RR (c) - 1)  C (t)(2.2-5)In this equation, Dnonadjusted (c, r, t) is the amount of damage by cause c in region r at time t.
BL (c, r) is the amount of damage that occurred by the current cause c in region r. RR (c) isthe damage ratio (relative risk) due to cause c at the time when the temperature rises by 1ºC.
∆C (t) is the global average temperature rise from the base year (1990).
As the index of health damage, LIME has adopted DALY, which integrates death damage andinjury damage. In the field of global warming, the value of DALY for damage is calculated
by estimating the number of deaths and multiplying it by the ratio of deaths to DALY (DALY
per death).1 Basically, the data on the number of deaths by cause and DALY in “The World
Health Report (2000)” published by the World Health Organization (WHO) are used for the
calculation of the ratio of deaths to DALY. Therefore, because the baseline risk is a current
statistical value, the increase rate [%] of death damage by cause per temperature rise based on
the relative risk directly influences the magnitude of the damage function as the increase rateof DALY by cause.
Human health and energy consumption receive impact from regional population changes andeconomic growth. With regard to population, we assumed that the amount of impact is insimple proportion to increase in population. As for impact on human health, we applied thefunction below to the impact calculated for each region and age in every field to reflect anincrease in regional population and impact on regional economy (Equation 2.2-6). However,
because malnutrition and starvation described in 2.2.3 (6) reflect the future population for
impact assessment in the literature used for BL and RR, Equation 2.2-6 itself is notincorporated in the damage function, and an increase in regional population and impact onregional economy are used only for setting a rate of variability of parameters for uncertainty
assessment.
D (c,r,t) = Dnonadjusted (c,r,t) ∆% POP (r,t)Y (r,t) -0.417Y (r,1990)0.417(2.2-6)In this equation, D (c, r, t) is the amount of damage by cause c in region r at time t.
Dnonadjusted (c, r, t) is the amount of damage by cause c in region r. ∆%POP (r, t) is the1

If the number of deaths is small and DALY is large (disease that causes many infant deaths and relatively long periods of disorder), DALY
per case may become longer than taverage life expectancy.

47

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

increase rate of population from base year (1990) in region r at time t. And Y (r, t) is GDP
per capita at purchasing power parity in region r at time t. The second half of this equation
was derived based on the result of regression analysis of the logarithms of the death rate by allcauses in each country (World Bank 2001) and GDP per capita at purchasing power parity(World Bank 2001) (Figure 2.2-6). With regard to the predicted regional GDP per capita,
we used the results of the long-term prediction of IIASA/WEC “Global Energy Perspective”(IIASA/WEC 1988). We also used its classification of regions as it was. We calculated the
population increase rate based on the medium-variant prediction of the UN’s “World
Population Prospects the 2002 Revision” (United Nations 2003) (for the result of calculationof human health damage by region and by cause, see Table 2.2-3).
13.5
Y=-0.417X+15.613
R2=0.74

13
LNLN(死亡率)(death rate)

Actual
Y valuee
Predicted
予測値value
:Y

12.5
12
11.5
11
4

6

8

10

12

LN(GDP per capita)

Figure 2.2-6: Relation of the Death Rate and GDP per Capita by Country(Note)The death rate is the number of deaths per million population.
(Source) World Bank (2001): World Development Indicators for GDP per capita and thedeath rate; values are as of 1990.

e Basic policy for uncertainty assessment
In 2.2.3 (10), referring to Itsubo and Inaba (2005), we arranged uncertainties and issues
concerning the damage function. Table 2.2-2 shows the uncertainties incorporated into thequantitative uncertainty assessment under LIME2.
Table 2.2-2: Basic policy for uncertainty assessment of the damage function for global warming
Process
CoveredParameter for
Assessment policy
element
probability
distribution(2)Changes
Temperature 1) Climate sensitivity Referring to Wigley at al. (2001), set a
in climate
rise(MAGICC model)
lognormal distribution with a 90% confidence
elements
Sea level riseinterval between 1.5 to 4.5ºC and a median of
2.6ºC. Calculate temperature rise and sea level
rise according to climate sensitivity, using a
regression curve of outputs calculated for
different degrees of climate sensitivity under
MAGICC (objective variable: the ratio of atemperature rise or a sea level rise at the climate
sensitivity in question to that at a climate
sensitivity of 2.6ºC; explanatory variable:
climate sensitivity) (determine parameters of theregression curve every decade for each
emissions scenario).

48

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(3) to (6)Changes in
the amountof damage(Humanhealth)Socioeconom 2) Population by
ic scenario
region(Prediction for 2050)

Dose-response relation(Relative riskof -1 pertemperaturerise of 1ºC)

Death rate
decrease
effect byeconomic
growthDALY perdeath

Set a normal distribution, using the median of
the UN population forecast (2003) as the meanvalue and regarding one-tenth of the median as
the standard deviation.

3) GDPppp/cap byregion(Prediction for 2050)

Based on values for each scenario in
IIASA/WEC (1998), set a triangular distribution
with a mode value M as the representative value,with a minimum value of M × 95% and amaximum value of M × 130%.

4) Change in
population by
starvation risk
without global
warming

Set a normal distribution, assuming 20% of thedecrease rate of 0.47% per year set based onParry et al. (1999) to be the standard deviation.

5) Malaria sufferer
risk

Set a gamma distribution by approximating thedispersion and mean values of results of several
GCMs shown in Matsuoka et al. (1994).
Use results concerning malaria.

6) Dengue sufferer
risk7) Prediction of
impact increase byheat stress at the timeof doubling of CO2
concentration
8) Prediction of
impact decrease bycold stress at the timeof doubling of CO2
concentration
9) Disaster damagerisk10) Disaster(typhoon) damagerisk11) Starvation risk(%/(Δ℃)2)

12) Regression
coefficients for
GDP/cap and deathrate

As a multiplier, apply a lognormal distribution
with a geometric standard deviation of 2 to theprediction result of the number of victims (heatstress) or beneficiaries (cold stress) by region.
(Assuming order-level dispersion)

Set a gamma distribution with positive values
approximate to a lognormal distribution.
Set a beta distribution so that low probabilities
will become higher.
Set a normal distribution, using as the standard
deviation the standard error for the regression
analysis that used results shown in Parry et al.
(1999).
Set a normal distribution, using the standard
error for regression analysis as the standard
deviation.

13) Malaria

Set a normal distribution, using 10% of the meanvalue as the standard deviation: MEA: N (84.9,
8.49); AFR: N (88.4, 5.83); other regions: N(79.2, 7.92).

14) Dengue

Set a normal distribution, using 10% of the meanvalue as the standard deviation: N (70.8, 7.08).
Set a lognormal distribution with a mean valueof 2.0 and another one with a standard deviationof 1.8 (assuming order-level dispersion).

15) Heat stress16) Cold stress49

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Changes in
the amountof damage(Socialassets)(9) Rise in
sea level(land)(7)
Agricultural
impact17) Disaster18) Disaster(typhoon)19) Malnutrition

Set a normal distribution, using 10% of the meanvalue as the standard deviation: N (45.1, 4.5).

20) Degree of sea
level rise

See (1) above (assessment of difference
according to climate sensitivity).

21) Area ofsubmergence when
the seal level rises by
50 cm

As the multiplier, apply a lognormal distribution
with a geometrical average of 1 and ageometrical standard deviation of 1.7 (assuming
order-level dispersion).

22) Land priceAs the multiplier, apply a uniform distribution
between 0 and 2 by reference to difference
between documents (Fankhauser (1995), Tol(2002)).

Global total change
in latent productivity(per degree oftemperature rise)(ΔP/℃)

23) Set a normal distribution, using as thestandard deviation the standard error for ΔP/℃
based on the result of regression analysis of theresults of calculation of two conditions about
GCM output and the result calculated by use of
NIES’s model about latent productivity in thebase year.

Set a normal distribution, using 10% of the meanvalue as the standard deviation: N (106.1, 10.6).

24) Select ΔP/℃ based on five different GCM
outputs with equal probability.

(8) Energy
consumption

Calculationof damagefactors forother GHGs

50

GWP

25) Fertilizer effectfactor

Set a normal distribution where therepresentative value of the parameters shown inCure at al. (1986) and a 95% confidence interval
are used as the mean value and the standard
deviation × 1.96, respectively.

26) Farm productprice27) Socioeconomic
scenario28) Heating index /cooling index

Set a distribution based on existing research on
price changes in the future.
Same as for human health.
Apply a lognormal distribution with ageometrical standard deviation of 1.5 as themultiplier, assuming order-level dispersion.

29) Prediction
Set a normal distribution where the standard
equation of energy
error of the regression factor based on the result
consumption perof regression analysis of GDP/cap is used as thecapita for heating
standard deviation.
(household, business)and cooling(household, business)
30) GWP
Set a normal deviation where a 90% confidence
interval (5% to 95%) is ±35% (IPCC AR4 WG1,
p. 214).

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(2)

Calculation of temperature change due to GHG emissions

Under LIME1, we carried out temporal-spatial assessment by the use of the DICE model.
Under LIME2, we calculated a temperature change every year from 1990 (actually 2000) to
2100, using MAGICC (see Column 2.2-2).
Column 2.2-2Classification of climate models and MAGICC model
The climate model used for researching global warming differs according to purpose andis divided into several levels according to degree of detail (Randall et al. 2007, Meehl etal. 2007). The most complicated model is AOGCM (Atmosphere-Ocean General
Circulation Model). A famous global simulator has been carrying out calculation by theuse of several types of AOGCM. One of them is K-1 Coupled GCM (MIROC) 3.2 (highresolution version), which has the highest spatial resolution among the types of AOGCM
included in the list in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (Randall et al. 2007) (Koike
2006). The operation of AOGCM requires many computer resources.
On the other hand, the so-called SCM (Simple Climate Model) is a simple model
expressed by a combination of global boxes. This model uses climate sensitivity andother parameters given beforehand (based on calculation results under AOGCM) to
calculate GHG concentration and radiation forcing in the atmosphere and predict
temperature and sea level rise on global average. Because calculation requires only ashort time, it is easy to repeat calculation many times according to different emissions
scenarios and parameters.
There is a model between the two: EMIC (Earth System Model of Intermediate
Complexity). This model is used for research on interaction among the elements of theclimate system, etc.
A typical SCM is MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-Gas Induced
Climate Change), which has been widely used – for example, IPCC Assessment Reports
issued so far have used it. MAGICC is a model developed by Wigley et al. A versionof the program that runs on a personal computer has been available together with
SCENGEN (a program that produces a spatial climate change scenario by the use of theresults of MAGICC). Under LIME2, for the purpose of damage assessment, we
calculated the degrees of temperature rise and sea level rise in the future by the use of
MAGICC 4.1 (Wigley 2003), the version that IPCC tuned according to each AOGCM andused for predicting global rises in temperature and sea level in the future for its Third
Assessment Report (TAR).
Under LIME2, we conducted analysis by the use of the fixed emissions scenario in 2000
(hereinafter referred to as the “Fixed Emissions Scenario”) and the emissions scenario by the
median (P50) of the SRES scenario presented in MAGICC (“Increasing Emissions Scenario”).
In addition, we conducted uncertainty assessment based on the result of each prediction wherea probability distribution was set for climate sensitivity. Figure 2.2-3 and Figure 2.2-7 showchanges in CO2 emissions according to the Fixed Emissions Scenario and the Increasing
Emissions Scenario, and differences between the two scenarios. Figures 2.2-8 and 2.2-9
show changes in temperature rise according to the two scenarios and differences between thetwo.
51

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

1210Increase in CO2 emissions [GtC]

SRES – Fixed

8

6

4

2

0

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Temperature change [C]

Figure 2.2-7: Changes in the Difference in CO2 Emissions between the Fixed Emissions
Scenario (2000) and the Increasing Emissions Scenario (P50)

Fixed (L)

Fixed (M)

Fixed (H)

Increasing (L)Increasing (M)Increasing (H)Climatesensitivity

Figure 2.2-8: Changes in the degree of temperature rise according to the Fixed Emissions
Scenario (2000) and the Increasing Emissions Scenario (P50) (L, M, H stand for low-level,
mid-level, and high-level estimation, respectively)
1.4

Degree in temperature rise [C]

1.2

SRES – Fixed (LOW)SRES – Fixed (MID)1

SRES – Fixed (HIGH)

0.8

Climate sensitivity(2X)
L:1.5℃, M:2.6℃, H:4.5℃

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Figure 2.2-9: Changes in the difference in temperature rise between the Fixed Emissions
Scenario (2000) and the Increasing Emissions Scenario (P50) (L, M, H stand for low-level,
mid-level, and high-level estimation, respectively)

52

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

We compared the result of the assessment to the figure that shows the prediction resultspresented in TAR (Figure 2.2-A). Although Case M of the P50 scenario will change below
the mean value of GCM in each marker scenario in the first half of the 21st century, it will
become almost the same as A1B in 2100. As a result, the range between L and H is almost
the same as the range in thick envelope.
Initially, Case M of the Fixed Emissions Scenario will change as in the case of IS92a (TAR
method) and become almost the same as B1 in 2100. As a result, Case H is similar to Case
M of the P50 scenario. Case L was found to be smaller than the result of prediction by each
GCM in each SRES scenario.
(3)

Human health: damage function for heat stress

It is thought that the impact of heat stress can be divided into acute damage and chronic
damage. Under LIME, we assessed acute fatal damage rather than restriction of available
information. With regard to the dose-response coefficient of heat stress (D-R coefficient),
we adopted the hypothesis formulated by Honda et al. (1998), which was based on surveys invarious regions in Japan. According to this hypothesis, if the daily maximum temperature ishigher or lower than the optimum value (which varies according to regional annual averagetemperature), the death risk for the elderly increases by 2 × 10-6 ºC-1 day-1. To apply thiscoefficient to regions other than Japan, we used Equation 2.2-6 for adjusting the D-R
coefficient of heat stress (Equation 2.2-7).
DR (n) = 0.000131 Y (n) -0.417(2.2-7)In this equation, DR (n) is the D-R coefficient of heat stress by country, and Y (n) is GDP per
capita based on the purchasing power parity in country n. Because, according to theabove-described hypothesis, Japan’s DR (n) is 2 × 10-6 ºC-1 day-1, and GDP per capita basedon the purchasing power parity in Japan is US$18,700, we obtained a coefficient of 0.000131
by the use of both. Under LIME, we assumed the range of 5ºC centering on the optimum
value as the optimum range and thought that if the daily maximum temperature is higher orlower than the optimum range, damage occurs (Figure 2.2-10). The optimum value V of theannual average daily maximum temperature was obtained from the following equation. The
range of ± 2.5ºC is the optimum range.
V = 2.5 Tnor - 7(2.2-8)In this equation, Tnor is the annual average temperature by region on condition that the upper
limit of the maximum value is 34ºC. This upper limit was calculated by reference toprecious research by Kalkstein (1993) about health damage from heat stress in developing
countries, which found that the threshold of a rise in the death risk in the two cities of
Shanghai and Gaungzhou was 34ºC.
In addition, because it can be thought that the D-R coefficient on the side of lower
temperature includes not only the impact of cold stress but also the impact of an increase inrespiratory disease (such as influenza), under LIME, we referred to Kunst et al. (1993) andestimated the D-R coefficient of cold stress to be half of heat stress.

53

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(-10-7) ｃhange
Changesin death rateof mortality
25
20

Shifting along annual
mean temperatures

15
10
5
0
-5
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

maximum
temperature
dailtyDaily
maximumtemreprature（℃） [C]

Figure 2.2-10: Relation between Daily Maximum Temperature and Death Rate
(Note) The bottom of the V shape is the range of optimum temperatures where the death rate
does not increase. If the daily maximum temperature exceeds or falls below therange, the death rate increases. The inclination of the straight line is the D-R
coefficient. Under LIME, it is assumed that the range of optimum temperatures
moves along the regional average temperature.


































































































































































































 












180,000









Numberof victims of temperature rise
気温上昇被害者数

















































































































































































































































































































































































































Number of victims
被害者数
Number of beneficiaries
便益者数

Figure 2.2-11: Number of Health Victims of Heat Stress due to Global Warming when CO 2
Concentration Becomes Double (by temperature observation point)

The Japan Meteorological Agency’s World Weather Data (1982 to 1998) contains datacollected at 353 observation points before 1995. Based on the data, we calculated the period
average of daily maximum temperature day by day and the period average of annual averagetemperature. Next, we calculated the optimum range of daily maximum temperature at eachpoint by the use of Equation 2.2-8 and counted the number of days when the daily maximum
temperature exceeded or fell below the range as days when damage from heat or cold stressmight occur. We also counted the number of days when the daily maximum temperaturerose uniformly by 1.5ºC (when CO2 concentration became double).
We dealt with the population aged 65 and over and multiplied each country’s population in1994 by 14% (the average ratio of population aged 65 and over according to the Organization
54

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)). If the number of observation points
used for adding up the number of days when damage might occur was one in a country, thecountry’s whole population was allocated to the point. If there were two or more points in acountry, the whole population was equally allocated among the points. If there was noobservation point, we chose the most similar observation point in terms of climate fromamong the observation points in the neighboring countries and allocated the country’s entire
population to the observation point.
With regard to each observation point, each day when the temperature exceeded or fell below
the optimum range, we calculated the number of victims from the temperature beyond therange, the D-R coefficient, and the population (Figure 2.2-11). We added up numbers to
obtain the annual total. With regard to DALY in the case of heat stress and cold stress,
although other research cases (Goedkoop, Spriensma 1999) adopted less than one year per
death, because Honda et al. (1998) suggested a value for two or more years, we assumed 2.0
years per case and multiplied it by the total number of victims to obtain the total DALY. We
obtained the damage function for heat stress by dividing the total of differences between an
increase in DALY according to the CO2 emissions increase scenario and the baseline increasein DALY by the difference in the total amount of CO2 emissions between the scenarios.
Equation 2.2-9 calculates the number of health victims of heat stress, while Equation 2.2-10
calculates the number of health victims of cold stress.
Dheat (n, t) = POPelderly (n, t)  DRheat (n, t)  ∆HD (n ,t)(2.2-9)D cold (n, t) = POPelderly (n, t)  DRcold (n, t)  ∆CD (n ,t)(2.2-10)In these equations, Dheat (n, t) is the number of health victims of heat stress in country n attime t; POPelderly (n, t) is the elderly population in country n at time t; DRheat (n, t) is the D-R
coefficient of heat stress in country n at time t; ∆HD (n, t) is the number of days of the
maximum temperature’s excess of the threshold on the side of high temperature in country n
at time t by point; D cold (n, t) is the number of health victims of cold stress in country n attime t; and DR cold (n, t) is the D-R coefficient of cold stress in country n at time t, and ∆CD (n,t) is the number of days of the maximum temperature’s excess of the threshold on the side of
low temperature in country n at time t by point.
Based on the results, we obtained BL (heat or cold, r)  (RR (heat or cold) -1) and substituted it into
Equation 2.2-5.
(4)

Human health: damage function for infection
a Malaria

Malaria has caused large death damage mainly in developing countries. The population in
infected regions is 2.1 billion, the number of infected persons is 2.7 million every year (WHO1998), and the number of deaths from infection is 1.1 million every year (WHO 2001).
Malaria is a disease that continues to spread through anopheles’ carrying malaria parasites andby the cycle of anopheles to human beings to anopheles. That is, the living cycle of malaria
parasites requires two stages: living in human bodies and living in the bodies of anopheles.
When they live in human bodies, they are not directly exposed to the climatic environment
and therefore receive no effect of climate changes. However, it is predicted that the55

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

existence of parasites in anopheles’ bodies and anopheles will be influenced by climatechanges, such as a rise in temperature.
We calculated the increase rate of deaths from malaria per temperature rise (relative risk),
paying attention to the spread of anopheles over wider areas. Under LIME, however, we
assume that anopheles spread over areas, including developing countries where malaria
damage has occurred at present, but they do not spread in advanced countries where nomalaria damage has occurred at present because of high-level public health infrastructures.
First, based on existing research (Matsuoka et al. 1994), we calculated the increase rate of
population in regions infected with malaria due to temperature rise. The research preparedclimate indices based on temperature, precipitation, and other outputs from six GCMs andpredicted changes in the population in malaria-infected regions, focusing on the climate
adaptability of anopheles. Because the GCMs used for the research are considerably
old-fashioned, each of them assumed the degree of temperature rise at the time of doubling of
CO2 concentration to be 2.85 to 5.29ºC. Therefore, we divided the increase rate of
population in malaria-infected regions predicted based on each GCM by the degree oftemperature rise at the time of doubling of CO2 concentration, obtained an increase rate of
4.63% per rise of 1ºC, and set RR (malaria) in Equation 2.2-5. Under LIME, we calculated thenumber of deaths by multiplying BL (malaria, r), the number of deaths in 1990 in regions infectedwith malaria at present, by the increase rate of population in malaria-infected regions(Equation 2.2-5).
We calculated DALY for malaria based on WHO (2001). Because WHO’s DALY reflects a
discount by the number of years of DALY per case, we calculated the ratio of the discounted
DALY to the undiscounted DALY from literature (Murray et al. 1996) and converted WHO’s
DALY into an undiscounted value. As a result, we found that DALY per death was 88.3.
b Dengue
Dengue can be classified into standard dengue and dengue hemorrhagic fever, a serious typeaccompanied by a bleeding tendency. Dengue virus, regardless of type, is carried by garden
striped mosquitoes or Asian Tiger mosquitoes. According to WHO, every year, about 20
million people contract dengue fever or dengue hemorrhagic fever (WHO 1998) and about
13,000 people die (WHO 2001). The amount of damage from dengue is about 1% that from
Malaria. Therefore, the amount of damage from dengue, the current baseline for predicting
the impact of global warming, is far less than that from malaria. Consequently, during
damage estimation, attention is given to relative risk (the increase rate of health damage pertemperature rise) in the impact of global warming. With regard to this, we referred to a
study on prediction of changes in epidemic potential (EP) due to global warming (Martens etal. 1997).
EP is only an index of potential risk of infection, which is not used for predicting
the occurrence of damage. A rise in EP indicates that it becomes easier for infection to
spread. In this study, based on three GCM outputs, the increase rate of EP due to global
warming in regions infected steadily with malaria or dengue was calculated concerning eachof the two diseases. The increase rate is 12 to 27% for malaria, while it is 31 to 47% fordengue. The ratio between the two indicates that EP for dengue will increase 2.2 times asmuch as EP for malaria. Under LIME, assuming that the increase rate of EP is reflected in
the increase rate of health damage as it is, we estimated the relative risk of dengue pertemperature rise (RR (dengue) in Equation 2.2-5) to be 9.26%, twice as much as 4.63%, therelative risk of malaria. Given that the types of carrier mosquitoes differ between the two
56

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

diseases, this estimation is rather rough. However, this is a result that reflects a shortage ofexisting studies on the impact of global warming on dengue and a low baseline. By the same
method as applied to malaria, we calculated DALY for dengue based on WHO (2001) andobtained a value of 70.8.

Regio
n
AFR
CPA
EEU
FSU
LAM
MEA
NAM
PAO
PAS
SAS
WEU
Total

Table 2.2-3: Increase in the amount of DALYS by region and by cause
at the time of doubling of CO2 concentration
DisasterDisaster
Dengu
Heat
Cold
(excl.
Malnutritio
Malaria(typhoonestressstresstyphoonn))2,433,066
0
27,936-90,077623
487
255,672
18,790033,518-32,392
792
1,310
17,8640
02,727-2,268
8
65
6,408
0
0
6,928
-6,773
129
33
84
4,696
0
9,404
-15,060
776
651
186,468
2,023,595
0
16,586-21,532667
34346,579
0
0
5,982-5,40480
330
17,65600306-2,63114
52
4,840
19,8680
13,148-11,034465
3,303
30,857
146,087 53,126
96,155-47,117
4,191
43,671
325,291
0
0
4,090-7,74057
71
12,342
4,646,102 53,126
216,780 -242,028
7,804
50,007 1,204,063

Total
2,627,707
39,8836,940
401
186,9362,365,929
18,6442,582
56,607
621,404
8,821
5,935,853(Note) Regions are abbreviated as follows: NAM: North America，LAM: Latin America and the Caribbean，
AFR: Sub-Saharan Africa，MEA: Middle East and North Africa，WEU: Western Europe，EEU: Central andEastern Europe，FSU: Newly independent states of the former Soviet Union，CPA: Centrally planned Asia andChina，SAS: South Asia，PAS: Other Pacific Asia，PAO: Pacific OECD

(5)

Human health: damage function for disaster damage

Global warming is thought to increase typhoon, flooding, and other disasters throughactivation of water circulation. The current situation of disaster occurrence, which serves as
the baseline for the estimation of damage from global warming, was grasped from the disasterdatabase of the Louvain Catholic University’s Center for Research on the Epidemiology ofDisasters (EM-DAT). According to this, an average of 24,000 people have died every year
due to types of disasters expected to receive the impact of global warming (flooding, landslide,tidal waves, and typhoon).
Under LIME, we assumed that the relative risk of disaster damage per rise of 1ºC (theincrease rate of damage per temperature rate) increases by 4% for a disaster other thantyphoon and by 10% for typhoon. This is the conversion into the rate per rise of 1ºC of thepredicted increase rate of damage adopted for an existing study (in a study under ExternE,
To1 adopted the prediction that the intensity of precipitation (winter precipitation;
extratropical storm) would increase by 10% and the hurricane activity would increase by 25%(ExternE 1999)). By the same method as applied to malaria, we calculated DALY for
disaster death based on WHO (2001) and obtained a value of 45.1.
(6)

Human health: damage function for malnutrition/starvation

Malnutrition and starvation are directly caused by drought and other disasters or indirectly
57

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

caused through a change in the production of farm products due to progress in global
warming.
We could not find quantitative information on an increase in starvation due to global warming
and drought and other disasters. In addition, we could not find any significant interrelation
between the number of deaths by country due to droughts that occurred in developing
countries between 1960 and 2000 (EM-DAT) and the production of grain by country (UNFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO)),. Meanwhile, in 2000, the number of deaths
from starvation that accompanied disasters was 370 according to EM-DAT, and the numberof deaths from protein-energy malnutrition was 272,000 according to WHO (WHO 2001).
Because the number of deaths from malnutrition is obviously large, attention should be paid
to the indirect impact of malnutrition when considering malnutrition and starvation.
When assessing the impact of global warming on malnutrition, we based our study on Parry etal. (1999) concerning the relation between global warming and the population at risk of
starvation. The research estimated changes in the production of grain by the use of theoutput of GCM, modeled the economic effect into the world’s food distribution, andestimated changes in the population at risk of starvation due to global warming. Therefore,
it estimated the population at risk of starvation not due to disasters but due to malnutrition.
The population at risk of starvation means the population that have the risk, not the number ofdeaths or the number of persons who suffer disease due to starvation. The scenario thatmade a comparison with global warming assumed that no climate change would occur until
2080 and, on this assumption, calculated an increase in the population at risk of starvation.
Because Parry et al. (1999) did not estimate an increase in the population at risk of starvation
for the 2060s when CO2 concentration will become double, we calculated an increase in the
population at risk of starvation, using estimates for other years and the estimated degree oftemperature rise for the 2060s from the output of GCM.
RR (t) – 1 = 0.041846∆C (t)2

(2.2-11)In this equation, RR (t) is the relative risk of the population at risk of starvation at time t.
⊿C (t) is the increase in the global average temperature [ºC] due to global warming at time t.
0.041846 is the regression coefficient in the case of regression of the increase in starvation
risk calculated by Parry et al. (Parry et al. 1999) based on the increase in global averagetemperature. Therefore, RR (t) – 1 is the increase rate of population at risk of starvation attime t.
Assuming that the population at risk of starvation has a proportional relation to the number ofdeaths, we converted the increase in the population at risk of starvation into an increase in thenumber of deaths from malnutrition.
For this damage function, we used the following equation instead of Equation 2.2-5.
Dnonadjusted (c,r,t)=BL(c,r,t)  (RR (t) - 1) = BL(c,r,t)  (0.041846∆C (t)2)(2.2-12)

However,BL(c,r,t)= BL(c,r,1990)  (1+r)  (t - 1990)

58(2.2-13)

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

r is the increase rate of population at risk of starvation in the case of no impact of global
warming, which was calculated based on Parry et al (1999). We calculated the undiscounted
value as in the case of malaria, based on the quotient of the total DALY for protein-energy
malnutrition as a cause of death and the number of deaths. Based on the result, we estimatedthe undiscounted value to be 106.1 by the same method as in the case of malaria.
(7)

Social assets: damage function for agricultural production

The impact of global warming on agricultural production can be divided into the impact of arise in temperature and accompanying climate changes (such as changes in precipitation) andthe beneficial impact (fertilizer effect) of a rise in the concentration of CO2, a typical GHG,
on farm products. During the development of LIME, we considered both impacts to be
impacts of global warming.
a Estimation of changes in agricultural production due to climate changes under amodel for calculating potential production
The impacts of climate change on agricultural production include a rise in temperature, achange in precipitation, a shortage of water, a change in soil, and moving of land suitable forcultivation of farm products. Because, in this way, agricultural production is greatly
influenced by not only temperature but also the values concerning precipitation and otherclimate conditions, the quality of soil, and other factors, it is impossible to express the impacts
simply by a D-R coefficient with temperature.
Under LIME2, to estimate changes in agricultural production due to changes in temperatureand precipitation, we used the model for calculating agricultural potential productivity thatwas developed by the National Institute for Environmental Studies and Kyoto University(Takahashi et al. 1997) and estimated production in 1990 and production at the time of
doubling of CO2 concentration.
Of the information given to the models, the predicted values of temperature and precipitation
are based on GCM output. Because predicted values based on GCM greatly fluctuate fromyear to year and their uncertainty is high, if they are used as they are, it is impossible to obtaintemperature and precipitation in a future year. Because of this, in this model, we corrected
data by adding the average values in the decade after the future year to the values in 1990 asshown in Equation 2.2-14.
X (t ) 1 t
 { x1 (t )  x0 (t )}  X (1990)
10 t 9(2.2-14)

In this equation, X (t) is temperature or precipitation in year t;; x1 (t) is GCM output on
temperature or precipitation in year t under the CO2 Increasing Emissions Scenario; xo (t) is
GCM output on temperature or precipitation in year t under the fixed CO2 concentration
scenario; and X (1990) is temperature or precipitation in 1990.
With regard to GCM, the model and the output differ among research groups. Because there
is no definite difference in validity among models, selecting a model is difficult. Because ofthis, among studies conducted on the impact assessment of global warming, some studies also
use the results of calculation that used some GCMs. Under LIME2, for each calculation trial,
59

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

we selected one of the results of calculation that used five GCM outputs, and had it reflectedin the uncertainty assessment. In addition, we selected rice, wheat, and corn, which occupy
almost 90% of total grain production in the world. Figures 2.2-12 and 2.2-13 show thepotential production of rice in 1990 and at the time of doubling of CO2 concentration, which
was calculated in the model.

Potential

潜在生産性
productivity[t/ha年][t/hayear]
高
High

Low
低

Figure 2.2-12: Potential productivity of rice (1990)

Potential
productivity
潜在生産性[t/ha年][t/hayear]
高
High

Low
低

Figure 2.2-13: Potential productivity of rice (when CO2 concentration becomes double; noconsideration of fertilizer effect; use of output of CCCma)

The model calculates potential production (Takahashi et al. 1997). Because the calculation
is carried out in each 5’ × 5’ mesh under the model, we obtained average potential
productivity, AP (n, t) [t – farm product/hayear], by country/region by the use of Equation
2.2-15 (a is the number of meshes in each country/region; AP (i,t) is the potential productivityof mesh i; n is country; and t is year).

1 aAP(n, t )   AP(i, t )a i 1(2.2-15)

We calculated annual production by multiplying Y (n. 1990), agricultural production in eachcountry/region in 1990 (FAO 2000) by the ratio of AP, average potential productivity, in eachcountry/region in each year to that in 1990, and totaled the annual production to obtain global
production (Ynofertilizereffect is estimated production of farm products [t – farm products/year],excluding fertilizer effect).

60

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012 AP(n, t )
Ynofertiliz ereffect (t )   
 Y (n,1990)
n  AP ( n,1990)


(2.2-16)

Under LIME2, we estimated annual Ynofertilizereffect (t) by calculating ∆Ynofertilizereffect/ºC for each
GCM output and for each farm product through regression analysis on the degree oftemperature rise based on the results of calculation of Ynofertilizereffect (2063) according to the
CO2 Increasing Emissions Scenario and the CO2 Fixed Emissions Scenario, each using
Equation 2.2-16 and the current Y (1990) (Equation 2.2-17).
Ynofertiliz ereffect (t )  Y (1990)  Ynofertiliz ereffect  C (t )(2.2-17)b Estimation of the fertilizer effect of CO2
We considered the fertilizer effect of CO2 on main grains – rice, wheat, and corn. Based on
existing research (Cure 1986), we considered the fertilizer effect to be as shown in equations
2.2-18a and 2.2-18b, if within the range between 340 and 680 ppm.
[Rice, corn] f C (t ) 
Yfertilizereffect (t )  Ynofertilizereffect (t )  1  680   1 100  340 (2.2-18a)2

f 680  C (t )  
Yfertilizer effect (t )  Ynofertiliz ereffect (t )  1  1 
 100  340 (2.2-18b)[Wheat]In this equation, Ynofertilizereffect (t) is production in year t, including the fertilizer effect;
Ynofertilizereffect (t) is production in year t, excluding the fertilizer effect; f680 is the change rate ofpotential productivity at the time of doubling of CO2 concentration (680 ppm) (Cure et al.
1986) (rice: + 15%; wheat: + 35%; corn: + 29%); and C (t) is CO2 concentration [ppm] inyear t.
c Adding up of amounts of damage to farm production and calculation of damage
function
We converted Y (t), production on a weight basis, into money by multiplying the productionof each species by the unit price (see the notes to Table 2.2-6) in order to apply the resultant
production P (t) to the damage function (Equation 2.2-3).
We calculated Y (t) according to the Increasing Emissions Scenario and Y0 (t) according to theFixed Emissions Scenario, both in the case of consideration for the fertilizer effect (Equation
2.2-18) and in the case of no consideration for the fertilizer effect (Equation 2.2-17). After
that, we multiplied them by unit price, expressed the results as P (t) and P0 (t), and applied
Equation 2.2-3. We regarded the result of the application in the case of consideration for thefertilizer effect as the damage function for CO2 and calculated the damage function for the
GHG in question (other than CO2) by multiplying the result of the application in the case ofno consideration by GWP (Equation 2.2-4).

61

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Column 2.2-3
NIES’s model for calculation of potential productivity of farm productsThis model was developed by the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) andKyoto University. The model uses a geographical information system and calculates
potential productivity for each 5’ × 5’ mesh in the world. “Potential productivity” hereinmeans the maximum amount of harvestable farm products per unit area under someconditions. The model can calculate potential productivity for 12 types of products,
including rice and wheat. The effect of irrigation is not taken into consideration.
Figure 2.2-B shows the structure of the model. First, the number of days suitable forcultivation of products during a year (growth period) is calculated based on climate data.
After that, the maximum weights of harvestable farm products are calculated throughsimulation of growth of products during the growth period according to the parameter(growth characteristic parameter) for each species. The maximum weights are multipliedby the harvest coefficient (the ratio of the weight of harvestable and edible products to thetotal weight of cultivated products) to calculate the weight of actually harvestable products.
The calculation of productivity requires the input of climate data, a soil characteristics
parameter, a parameter for the growth characteristics of products, the ratio of harvested
products to produced products, and other numerical values. Under LIME, although we
predict the impact of global warming in the future, we use current values for the soil
parameter, the growth characteristic parameter, and the harvest coefficient. With regard toclimate data, while we use the current value for the amount of clouds, we use the future
values predicted by GCM output for temperature and precipitation.
成長特性
Growth characteristic
parameter
パラメータ

気候データ
Climatedata
Temperature

気温

潜在可能
蒸発散

Potential
evapotranspiration

作物成長
Calculationof productgrowth period

期間の算定

Harvest
収穫係数
coefficient
Biomass
weight by
光合成による
photosynthesis
ﾊﾞｲｵﾏｽ重量

潜在生産性
Potential
productivity(No soil restriction)（土壌制約なし）

Precipitation

降水量

Amount ofclouds雲量

Soil
unit
土壌単位
(106（106種）
types)Phase
フェイズ(12 （12種）
types)

光合成
有効放射

Photosynthetically
active radiation

作物種にDiscountof yieldaccording応じた
to type of
product
収量割引値

Inclination
傾斜(3 types)
（3種）

潜在生産性
Potential
productivity(Soil restriction)（土壌制約あり）

Soil texture
土性(4 types)
（4種）

Soil
parameter
土壌パラメータ

Figure2.2-B:
Flowchart of calculation of potential
図 2.2-B
農作物潜在生産性の算出フロー
farm productivity(8)

Social assets: damage function for energy consumption

Based on the Japan Meteorological Agency’s World Weather Data (1982 to 1998), we
estimated the numbers of heating and cooling indices at present and in the future in eachcountry. The cooling index (cooling degree days) or the heating index (heating degree days)is the annual total of differences between standard temperature and the actual temperature on
the days when the temperature exceeds or falls below the standard temperature. The indices
62

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

are used also for the design of cooling and heating systems (ExternE 1999). The standard
temperature is 22ºC in the case of cooling and 14ºC in the case of heating. We set thesevalues by reference to values adopted for general energy statistics (Institute of Energy
Economics 2002). With regard to the cooling and heating indices, assuming that a rise inannual average temperature due to global warming is added directly to the regional daily
average temperature, we calculated cooling and heating indices at each observation point in
2050 (on the assumption that the temperature rises by 1.5ºC). After that, we divided theresult by the value in 1990 and subtracted 1 from the divided result to calculate the increase
rate of the cooling and heating indices.
 CDD ( r , 2050 ,1 .5)   1
 CDD ( r ,2050 ,1 .5)  
 CDD ( r ,1990 ,0) (2.2-19a)

 HDD ( r , 2050 ,1 .5)   1
 HDD ( r , 2050 ,1 . 5)  
 HDD ( r ,1990 ,0 ) (2.2-19b)

In these equations, ∆CDD (r, t, ∆C) is the increase rate of the cooling index from the baseyear (1990) in region r at time t with global average temperature rise ∆C; CDD (r, t, ∆C) isthe cooling index in region r at time t with global average temperature rise ∆C; ∆HDD (r, t,∆C) is the increase rate of the heating index under the same conditions; and HDD (r, t, ∆C) is
the heating index under the same conditions. An increase in cooling energy consumption
and an increase in heating energy consumption in 2050 (on the assumption that thetemperature rises by 1.5ºC) can be expressed by the following equations (actual minus values
showed a decrease in energy consumption):
Dcoolingenergy (r, 2050, 1.5) = CE (r, 2050)・∆CDD (r, 2050, 1.5) (2.2-20a)
Dheatingenergy (r, 2050, 1.5) = HE (r, 2050)・∆HDD(r, 2050, 1.5) (2.2-20b)
In these equations, Dcoolingenergy (r, t, ∆C) is an increase in cooling energy in region r at time twith global average temperature rise ∆C [Mtoe]: CE (r, t) is cooling energy consumption inregion r at time t [Mtoe]: Dheatingenergy (r, t) is an increase in heating energy under the same
conditions [Mtoe]; and HE (r, t) is heating energy consumption under the same conditions[Mtoe].
Based on regional gross product, population, and the current cooling and heating indices, weestimated the ratio of cooling and heating energy consumption to the total business andhousehold energy consumption in each region. We confirmed the result by the ratio of
cooling and heating energy consumption to the total business and household energy
consumption in each of the countries whose energy consumption statistics are available. We
estimated the growth rate of energy consumption in the future by extrapolating an assumed
regional growth rate that reflects the regional economic level, based on analysis of economic
growth and cooling and heating energy demand in Japan in the past (Institute of Energy
Economics 2002) (Figures 2.2-14 to 2.2-17). Based on this, we calculated the total annual
increase in energy consumption. We used IIASA/WEC (1998) for regional economic
growth (GDP per capita) necessary for extrapolation as in the case of health damage and used
the UN’s document (United Nations 2003) for population forecast. Table 2.2-4 shows theamount of increase in energy consumption by region in 2050 (on the assumption that thetemperature rises by 1.5ºC).
63

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

We added up the regional results by Equation 2.2-20 to obtain the global total, and calculated
an increase in energy consumption in each year by the following equations:Dcoolingenergy (world, t, ∆C (t)) = Dcoolingenergy (world, 2050, 1.5) ÷ 1.5×∆C (t)(2.2-21a)Dheatingenergy (world, t, ∆C (t)) = Dheatingenergy (world, 2050, 1.5) ÷ 1.5×∆C (t)(2.2-21b)

Householdcooling consumption/ capita vs. GDP / capita
家庭冷房消費/capita
vs GDP/capita

冷房エネルギー消費 /capita(kcal)

Cooling energy consumption / capita [kcal]

120,000
100,000
2

y = 8E-05x + 0.0272x

80,000R 2 = 0.7729

60,00040,00020,000005,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
GDP/capita(90US$)

Figure 2.2-14: Relation between household cooling consumption per capita and GDP per
capita (prepared based on data in Japan)

Businesscooling consumptionvs/ capita
vs. GDP / capita
業務冷房消費/capita
GDP/capita

Coolingenergy consumption / capita [kcal]
冷房エネルギー消費/capita(kcal)

300,000
2

250,000

y = 0.0002x + 2.1496x
2

R = 0.9218
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000005,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
GDP/capita(90US$)

Figure 2.2-15: Relation between business cooling consumption and GDP per capita(prepared based on data in Japan)

64

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Householdheating consumption/ capita vs. GDP / capita
家庭暖房消費/capita
vs GDP/capita

Heatingenergy consumption / capita [kcal]
暖房エネルギー消費/capita(kcal)

1,400,000
1,200,000
y = 29.013x + 161304
2

1,000,000

R = 0.8841

800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
005,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
GDP/capita(90US$)

Figure 2.2-16: Relation between household heating consumption per capita and GDP
per capita (prepared based on data in Japan)

Heatingenergy consumption / capita [kcal]
暖房エネルギー消費/capita(kcal)

業務暖房消費/capita
vs GDP/capita
Businessheating consumption/ capita vs. GDP / capita
1,200,000
2

y = 0.0025x + 10.317x

1,000,000

2

R = 0.9836

800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
0

5,000

10,00015,00020,000GDP/capita(90US$)

Figure 2.2-17: Relation between business heating consumption and GDP
per capita (prepared based on data in Japan)

Moreover, we converted the amount of increase in energy consumption into an amount ofmoney based on energy prices in Japan – the wholesale price of kerosene for heating and thetotal unit price of electricity for cooling.
We calculated the damage function by subtracting the total energy consumption calculated
according to the CO2 Fixed Emissions Scenario from the total energy consumption calculated
according to the CO2 Increasing Emissions Scenario and dividing the result by the difference
in total CO2 emissions between the two scenarios (Equation 2.2-2).

65

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Table 2.2-4: Increase in cooling and heating energy consumption by region in 2050
(assuming a 1.5ºC rise) (unit: Mtoe)
RegionHeating

Cooling

Total

HouseholdBusiness

Subtotal

HouseholdBusiness

Subtotal

AFR
CPA-2,099-20,109-487-7,791-2,586-27,900

325
953

5,374
6,440

5,699
7,393

3,113
-20,507

EEU-2,774-1,758-4,532

41

182

223

-4,309FSU-10,642-6,125-16,766

163

730

893

-15,874LAM-3,538-2,318-5,855

1,703

8,700

10,403

4,548

MEA-5,608-1,630-7,239

559

4,720

5,279

-1,960NAM-7,481-7,098-14,579

4,201

12,17016,371

1,793

PAO-1,123-1,081-2,204

1,162

3,249

4,411

2,207

PAS

-645

-426

-1,071

3,429

15,691

19,12018,049SAS-1,935-263-2,199756

10,773

11,5309,331

WEU-6,429-6,396-12,825

1,493

3,830

5,324

-7,502

Total-62,384-35,372-97,756

14,78571,86086,645-11,111(Note) For the classification of regions, see Table 2.2-3.

(9)Social assets: damage function for land loss

There is a time lag between global warming and a rise in the sea level, because of thermal
inertia. With regard to a rise in the surface of sea water, damage assessment concerning arise in sea level in 2100 serves as the benchmark assessment at the time of doubling of CO2
concentration. We assessed the degree of sea level rise until 2100 by the use of MAGICC.
Figure 2.2-18 shows the result of calculation of sea level rise by the use of the Fixed
Emissions Scenario and the Increasing Emissions Scenario (P50) in 2000. The figure also
shows the range of assessment result according to climate sensibility.
Case M (mid-level) of the P50 scenario changes along almost the center of the thick range ofthe result predicted based on SRES in TAR and corresponds to the range between L and H.
With regard to land loss due to a sea level rise, as described in IPCC’s report, damage isusually calculated with consideration for measures for damage prevention. In OECD
countries, it has been predicted that most of the land will be saved from flooding because of
expansion of breakwaters. However, how long coast can be protected differs among
countries and regions. Under LIME, we assumed that at least coasts near residential areas
would be protected. With regard to land loss, there is the possibility that damage may havebeen underestimated, because the cost of protecting coasts near residential areas was not taken
into account.
First, we selected regions whose altitude is 0.5 m or lower, using ETOPO-5 (GRID-Tsukuba),
an altitude data set of the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) of the US, together withthe geographic information system (GIS). Based on the data set, whose graphic mode is 5
minutes latitude and longitude, we predicted that the meshes whose altitude is between -0.5 m
and 0.5 m will be submerged when the sea level rises by 0.5 m (Figure 2.2-20). However,66

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Sea level rise [cm]we assumed that highly populated regions are not submerged, because of anti-flooding
measures. That is, we used UNEP-GRID’s world city population database and assumed thatno submerge occurs within the meshes (whose graphic mode is 30 minutes latitude andlongitude) where a city with a population of 100,000 or more exists. Table 2.2-5 shows thearea of land that will be submerged when the sea level rises by 0.5 m on average, classifying
by region and by type of land.

Fixed (L)

Fixed (M)

Fixed (H)

Increasing (L)Increasing (M)Increasing (H)Climate sensitivity

Figure 2.2-18: Assessment result of sea level change based on the Increasing Emissions
Scenario(P50) and the Fixed Scenario by the use of MAGICC in 2000
(H, M, and L stand for high-level, mid-level, and low-level, respectively)

Figure 2.2-19: Predicted changes in the degree of sea level rise according to TAR (IPCC
2001b)
Although any prediction is considerably uncertain, the figure shows that a scenario with lower CO2
emissions predicted a lower rise in the sea level.

Based on the result, we calculated the area of submergence in 2100 by the following equation:
DLand (r, l, 2100) = PL (r,l) ÷ 0.5Ds (2100)(2.2-22)In this equation, DLand (r, l, t) is the area of land lost from lot l in region r in year t (Table
2.2-5); PL is the area of land lost when the sea level rises by 0.5 m (land with an altitude of67

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

0.5 m or lower, excluding urban districts); and Ds (t) is a rise in the sea level in year t
calculated by MAGICC (Figure 2.2-18). Table 2.2-5 shows the area of land that will be
submerged when the sea level rises by 0.5 m on average in 2100, classifying by region and by
type of land.
We assumed that urban districts are not submerged by a rise in sea level. Although it may bepossible to calculate the prices of lots used for some industries, such as agricultural land andforests, it is very difficult to calculate the prices of coastal lots not used for any industry –especially in developing countries. Moreover, it is more difficult to calculate the prices ofdumping grounds, because they are rarely addressed. Studies in the past mainly adopted amethod whereby land is divided into dry land and wet land before calculation of land prices.
Under LIME, referring to an existing study that adopted such a method (Fankhauser 1995),
we set the price of dry land in OECD countries at US$2M/km2, the price of wet land therein at
US$2.5M/km2, the price of dry land in other countries at US$1M/km2, the price of wet land
therein at US$1.25M/km2, and the price of a tundra or desert at $0.
After that, we calculated the amount of damage for the scenarios by multiplying the result ofEquation 2.2-22 by the land price (Equation 2.2-23).
D( 2100)  r ,l DFland ( r , l ,2100)  A(r , l )(2.2-23)

A (r, l) is the price of lot l in region r. We calculated the price according to the CO2
Increasing Emissions Scenario and the CO2 Fixed Emissions Scenario (expressed as D (2100)
and Do (2100) respectively in the following equation) and divided the price by the total
amount of CO2 emissions under both scenarios during the assessment period as in the case of
Equation 2.2-2 to obtain the damage function for social assets concerning land loss due to sea
level rise (Equation 2.2-24).

D( ECO 2 ) 

D(2100)  D0 (2100)



t

1990

E (t )dt  

t

1990

E0 (t )dt

Areas potentially influenced by sea level rise (altitude: m) ）海面上昇による潜在的影響地域（標高：ｍ
By the use of ETOPO-5 data (excluding meshes with a
ETOP05dataを利用（10万人以上のメッシュ除く）
population of 100,000 or more)

0.5 - 1.5
< 0.5

Figure 2.2-20: Areas potentially influenced by sea level rise

68

(2.2-24)

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Table 2.2-5: Area of land to be lost until 2100 due to a 50 cm rise in sea level [km 2](10)

RegionDry landTundra &desertWet land

Total

AFR

61,464

14,67643,882120,022CPA

56,188711

29,46186,360

EEU

1,648

0

2,484

4,132

FSU

17,03352,433

41,921

111,387

LAM

178,219

11,953

71,832

262,004

MEA

11,59911,525

14,46237,586NAM

45,262

76,28479,451200,997

PAO

51,894711

37,67690,281

PAS

151,818

510

195,699

348,027

SAS

60,8780

14,92875,806

WEU

30,4607,469

33,47071,399

Greenland

0

20,185

5,134

25,319

Total
666,463
196,457
570,400(Note) For the classification of regions, see Table 2.2-3.

1,433,320

Regionality in the damage function for global warming

Tables 2.2-3 to 2.2-5 show damage from global warming by region (when CO2 concentration
becomes double). First, with regard to health damage, Table 2.2-3 shows that AFR and
MEA suffer most of the malaria damage, the largest damage. Although MEA includes theMiddle East and North Africa, North Africa suffers most of the malaria damage according toWHO’s statistics. Therefore, it can be said that most of health damage from global warming
is caused by an increase in malaria damage on the African continent.
The second largest damage is malnutrition. Because the damage is in proportion to thecurrent damage level, large damage has been predicted in AFR, MEA, and SAS, regions with
low incomes. With regard to heat stress, which also causes large damage, most of thedamage has occurred in SAS, which includes India, and CPA, which includes China. On theother hand, with regard to cold stress, which has been assessed to be beneficial (minus
damage), health damage has greatly decreased in AFR. The region that receives the mostdamage from an increase in heat stress due to temperature rise is not the tropical zone, where
the temperature is the highest in the world, but regions a little higher in latitude. The region
that receives the largest benefit from temperature rise is not the far north region but thetropical zone. Although these facts are strange from a common sense standpoint, we havereached these prediction results because the model has a structure where the far north regionis suitable for cold stress, while the tropical zone is suitable for heat stress, and because thesize of regional population has been reflected in the impact. With regard to total damage by
region, AFR and MEA account for most of it due to the size of malaria damage.
With regard to changes in cooling and heating energy consumption (Table 2.2-4), coolingenergy consumption has greatly increased in PAS and other basically warm regions, whileheating energy consumption has greatly decreased in FSU and other cold regions.
With regard to land loss due to sea level rise (Table 2.2-5), we estimated that land will be
69

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

greatly lost in NAM, LAM, and PAS, regions with long coastlines. In PAS especially, theamount of land loss will be large, and the monetary value of the land to be lost also will belarge because tundra areas and deserts, whose land prices are zero, are hardly included in the
land.
(11)

Arrangement of the damage functions for global warming

To obtain a damage factor for global warming, we added up damage functions (damage factor
per GHG emissions) at endpoints by type of substance and by area of protection (humanhealth, social assets). Table 2.2-6 shows damage functions and factors of CO2 by category
endpoint.
With regard to the factors of the damage function, malaria is the largest in the field of healthdamage, and the size of the damage factors for health damage due to global warming is almost
determined by the damage assessment of malaria. This is because the number of malaria
sufferers has remained high mainly in Africa, where malaria is one of the main causes ofdeath, and a rise in the relative risk due to temperature rise directly contributes to an increasein the number of sufferers. Moreover, because death damage is caused mainly at the stage ofyouth (at infancy), DALY per death is high. The second largest factor is malnutrition, but
the size of the factor greatly depends on social conditions. Although heat stress and cold
stress also are large factors in terms of absolute value, the damage (an increase in heat stress)
is offset by the benefit (a decrease in cold stress).
In the field of social assets, the largest factor is agricultural impact. Among farm products,
the production of wheat receives the largest damage. This is because the decrease rate ofpotential productivity per 1ºC was estimated large. The second largest factor is land loss.
This is because land loss reflects land productivity, and coastal lots, which are valued
relatively high, will be lost globally. With regard to the impact on cooling and heatingenergy consumption, although the absolute sizes of the cooling and heating energy
consumption are each near that of land loss, the damage (an increase in cooling) is offset by
the benefit (a decrease in heating), like the case of heat and cold stress.
Figure 2.2-21 and Table 2.2-7 show the uncertainty analysis results and statistical amounts ofthe damage factors of CO2 and CH4 as examples, and Figure 2.2-22 shows the results ofsensitivity analysis (rank correlation among parameters).
The rank correlation of damage factors for the health impact of CO2 (Figure 2.2-22 (1) a)reflects the above-described details of damage functions and has extracted many
malaria-related parameters as uncertainty factors. In addition, the impact of climate
sensibility is large. The rank correlation of damage factors for the health impact of CH4(Figure 2.2-22 (2) a) extracted the GWP of CH4 because of its large impact. The otherresults are the same as those for CO2. In terms of median (Table 2.2-7), the ratio of thedamage factor of CO2 to that of CH4 is 25 times, which is equal to the GWP of CH4 (the100-year GWP presented in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007)).
With regard to the damage factors for social assets, the rank correlation of CO2 (Figure 2.2-22(1) b) indicates that the main uncertainty factors are differences in the GCM output used forthe prediction of potential productivity of each farm product and, like health impact, climate
sensitivity. On the other hand, the rank correlation of CH4 (Figure 2.2-22 (2) b) indicatesthat the amount of damage under the Increasing Emissions Scenario has not been offset by the70

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

fertilizer effect, because the effect is not included in the assessment. Because of this, there
are differences from CO2, such as large damage to rice production and extraction of pricefluctuation as a large uncertainty factor due to the high unit price. As a result, in terms of
median (Table 2.2-7), the ratio of the damage factor of CO2 to that of CH4 is 35 times, whichis larger than 25, the GWP of CH4.

Health impact

Social assets

Generally, the variation coefficient of each damage function is about 0.6, which seems lower
than expected as uncertainty in assessment of global warming damage. This is because of
the following reasons: only a single Increasing Emissions Scenario was addressed; the amountof damage was assessed for a short period until 2063, when CO2 concentration becomesdouble; and the calculated amount of impact of temperature rise reflects the uncertainty ofparameters based on the impact assessment research cited under LIME1, but cannot reflect
differences in prediction results among various impact assessment studies.
Table 2.2-6: List of damage functions for global warming (CO2)Sub-impact
Category endpoint
Index
Damage/kg CO2
category
Sea level rise・Submergence
Land price
Dry land: 0.00011 US$¶damageWet land: 0.00012 US$¶
Impact on
・Decrease in
Farm
Rice
0.27g
agriculture
potential
production [g](0.065 yen)***production
Corn
0.61g
(0.0082 yen)****
Wheat
1.50g
(0.262 yen)*****
Energy・Change in energy Secondary
Heating increase 5.1 kcal
consumption
consumption due energy(－0.019 yen) *to cooling
consumption
Cooling increase 1.3 kcal
increase and[kcal](0.0018kWh) **heating decrease(0.031 yen)
[Direct]
・Change in death Loss of life
Heat stress3.9×10－9 DALY
・Heat stress,
damage due to
expectancy
Cold stress －4.3×10－9 DALY
cold stressheat stress(DALY)
increase and cold
stress decrease・Death damage due Loss of life
Disaster (excl. typhoon)
・Disaster
to increase in
expectancy
1.4×10－10 DALY
damagefloods and(DALY)
Typhoon
8.8×10－10 DALY
typhoons[Indirect]
Malaria death
Loss of life
Malaria
7.7×10－8 DALY
・Death damage damage
expectancy
Dengue9.3×10－10 DALY
due toDengue death(DALY)
increase indamageanimalvector-borne
infection
・Malnutrition ・Death damage due Loss of life
1.8×10－8DALY
to malnutrition
expectancy(DALY)

Damagefactor

3.0×10－1
yen/kg9.7×10－8
DALY/kg・ Because these are results of calculation of damage functions through substitution of representative values(point estimates) in parameters, they are not the same as representative values (median values) of uncertainty
analysis results.
* Using the wholesale kerosene price of 3.67 yen/1,000 kcal (2000); source: Institute of Economy Economics,
Japan “Handbook of Energy & Economic Statistics in Japan,” 2002** Using the total unit price of electricity of 17.76 yen/kWh (2000); source: Institute of Economy Economics,

71

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Japan “Handbook of Energy & Economic Statistics in Japan,” 2002*** Using farmer’s selling price of rice of 243.42 yen/kg (government-selling/free distribution, 2000); source:
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries “Farm Price Statistics,” 2000**** Using the unit import price of 12.62 yen/kg (amount and volume of import) (2000); source: Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries “76th Statistical Yearbook,” 2000***** Using farmer’s selling price of class-1 wheat of 164.28 yen/kg (government-selling, 2000); source:
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries “Farm Price Statistics,” 2000
¶ Land prices were calculated at the rate of 1US$=111 yen.

Table 2.2-7: Examples of results (statistical amounts) of uncertainty analysis ofdamage factors (CO2, CH4)
Damage factor (CO2)
Damage factor (CH4)
Health impact

Social assets

Health impact

Social assets

DALY/kgCO2

Yen/kgCO2

DALY/kgCH4

Yen/kgCH4

No. of trials

50000

50000

50000

50000

Average value

1.63E-07

3.86E-01

4.07E-06

1.37E+01

Median1.31E-07

3.23E-01

3.27E-06

1.21E+01

Standard deviation

1.02E-07

2.62E-01

2.73E-06

7.34E+00

Dispersion

1.04E-14

6.89E-02

7.46E-12

5.39E+01

Degree of skew

2.49

1.39

2.63

1.44

Kurtosis

12.7

6.15

14.5

6.42

Variation coefficient

0.624

0.680

0.671

0.535

10% value

8.00E-08

1.24E-01

1.80E-06

6.29E+00

90% value

2.87E-07

7.50E-01

7.30E-06

2.35E+01

4.55E-10

1.17E-03

1.22E-08

3.28E-02

Statistical amountstandard

Frequency

Probability

Averageerror

Suitable lognormal
distribution

Preheat value

Figure 2.2-21a: Frequency distribution of prediction results of damage factors(health impact)

72

Frequency

Probability

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Figure 2.2-21b: Frequency distribution of prediction results of damage factors (social assets)5) ⑤相対リスク_マラリア
Relative risk_malaria
1) Climate①気候感度
sensitivity

0.84
0.42
0.17

13)
⑬DALY/1case_マラリア_AFR
DALY/1 case_malaria_AFR②AFR_人口_2050
2) AFR_population_2050②MEA_人口_2050
2) MEA_population_2050

0.10
0.09

16) DALY/1 case_cold stress_World⑯DALY/1case_寒冷ストレス_World

0.05

15)
DALY/1 case_heat stress_World⑮DALY/1case_熱ストレス_World

0.05

11)
Relative risk_starvation risk
⑪相対リスク_飢餓リスク

0.03③MEA_GDPpp_2050
3) MEA_GDPpp_2050

0.03

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Figure 2.2-22 (1) a: Rank correlation among damage factors (health impact) (CO 2)• Parameters of 0.03 and more were extracted.
• Numbers correspond to parameters shown in Table 2.2-2.

24) GCM_index used for farm product impact assessment[24]農作物影響評価使用GCM_index
1) Climate
sensitivity①気候感度26) Rice_price fluctuation multiplier[26]コメ_価格変動multiplier22) Multiplier of uncertainty of land prices[22]土地価格の不確実性のmultiplier25) Fertilizer effect factor_wheat[25]肥料効果係数_コムギ
26)
Wheat_corn_price fluctuation[26]コムギ_トウモロコシ_価格変動…
21) Uncertainty
of area of submerged land[21]水没面積の不確実性
28)[28]CDD増加予測
CDD increase prediction
23) D_Wheat_GDFL[23]D_Wheat_GDFL
23) D_Wheat_MPI[23]D_Wheat_MPI28)[28]HDD減少予測
HDD decrease prediction25) Fertilizer effect factor_corn[25]肥料効果係数_トウモロコシ
23) D_Wheat_CCCma[23]D_Wheat_CCCma
23) D_Wheat_CSIRO[23]D_Wheat_CSIRO
25)
Fertilizer
effect factor_rice[25]肥料効果係数_コメ
23)
D_Wheat_CCSRNIES[23]D_Wheat_CCSRNIES

0.63
0.52
0.19
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Figure 2.2-22 (1) b: Rank correlation among damage factors (social assets) (CO 2)• Parameters of 0.03 and more were extracted.
• Numbers correspond to parameters shown in Table 2.2-2.

73

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_20125)⑤相対リスク_マラリア
Relative risk_malaria
30)
GWP_Methane[30]GWP_Methane

0.39

①気候感度
1) Climate
sensitivity

0.37

0.76

0.15

⑬DALY/1case_マラリア_AFR
13) DALY/1
case_malaria_AFR

0.09②AFR_人口_2050
2) AFR_population_2050②MEA_人口_2050
2) MEA_population_2050

0.08⑯DALY/1case_寒冷ストレス_World16) DALY/1 case_cold stress_World
15)
DALY/1
case_heat stress_World⑮DALY/1case_熱ストレス_World

0.05
0.05

11) Relativerisk_starvation risk
⑪相対リスク_飢餓リスク

0.03

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Figure 2.2-22 (2) a: Rank correlation among damage factors (health impact) (CH 4)•Parameters of 0.03 and more were extracted.
•Numbers correspond to parameters shown in Table 2.2-2.

[26]コメ_価格変動multiplier26) Rice_pricefluctuation multiplier

0.5824) GCM_index used for farm product impact[24]農作物影響評価使用GCM_index
assessment30) GWP_Methane[30]GWP_Methane

0.43
0.42

1) Climate
sensitivity
①気候感度

0.34

[26]コムギ_トウモロコシ_価格変動…
26) Wheat_corn_price fluctuation

0.0922) Multiplier of uncertainty of land prices[22]土地価格の不確実性のmultiplier

0.0721) Uncertainty
of area of submerged land[21]水没面積の不確実性

0.0628) CDD [28]CDD増加予測
increase prediction

0.05

23)
D_Wheat_GDFL[23]D_Wheat_GDFL

0.04[28]HDD減少予測
28) HDD decrease
prediction

0.04

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Figure 2.2-22 (2) b: Rank correlation among damage factors (social assets) (CH 4)•Parameters of 0.03 and more were extracted.
•Numbers correspond to parameters shown in Table 2.2-2.

2.2.4

Procedure for impact assessment of global warming

In this section, we describe the procedure for impact assessment of global warming by the useof LIME. Those who carry out the procedure can select what is suitable for their purpose
from among characterization, damage assessment, and weighting and use it for LCA, etc.
For the purpose of characterization, an index for midpoint approach – that is, a category
indicator CI Global warming – can be obtained from the inventory of GHG X Inv (X) and thecharacterization factor CF Global warming (X) (Equation 2.2-25). Although there are two or
more CI Global warming (X), GWP100 has been recommended under LIME. CI Global warming can be
expressed as an amount of CO2 emissions, the referential substance.

CI Global wamring  { CF Global wamring ( X )  Inv ( X )}X

74

(2.2-25)

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

The damage factor DF Global warming (Safe, X) is used for damage assessment. In the case of
global warming, damage factors have been provided for human health, for which DALY isused as the index, and for social assets, for which monetary value [yen] is used as the index.
Moreover, the damage index DI (Safe) can be obtained from each GHG’s Inv (X) and thedamage factor DF Global warming (Safe, X). This index means the amount of potential damage
to each area of protection due to GHG emissions (Equation 2.2-26). It is possible tocompare the index directly with results of damage assessment in other impact categories or
add it to them on condition that the area of protection is the same.

DI (Safe)   { DF Globalwamring ( Safe，X )  Inv ( X )}(2.2-26)

X

IF Global warming, the factor that weights impact on human health and social assets, is used forweighting. The weighting index SI can be obtained from each GHG’s Inv (X) and theweighting factor IF Global warming. The index can be compared directly with results of damage
assessment in other impact categories or add it to them (Equation 2.2-27).

SI   ( IF Globalwamring ( X )  Inv ( X ))(2.2-27)

X

The characterization factor CF Global warming (X), the damage factor DF Global warming (Safe, X),
and the weighting factor IF Global warming (X) are attached hereto as Appendix 1, Appendix 2,
and Appendix 3 respectively.
Many of the ozone depleting substances (ODS) mentioned in Section 2.1 are also GHGs.
However, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 do not necessarily address the same substances. Because ofthis, note that, if any of the substances (ODS) included in the list of factors in Section 2.1 is
not included in the list of factors in Section 2.2, it does not necessarily mean that thesubstance is not a GHG (and vice versa).
Acknowledgement
With regard to various aspects of the development of an LCIA method for global warming,
we received advice from the committee members and the experts who reviewed our
methodology. In addition, with regard to agricultural impact, Mr. Kiyoshi Takahashi, aresearcher of the National Institute for Environmental Studies, provided us with a model for
calculation of the potential productivity of farm products. We would like to express our
deep gratitude to all of them. The responsibility for the contents of this chapter entirely
belongs to the authors.
Column 2.2-4
Climate sensibility
For the purpose of discussions about the global warming problem, (equilibrium) climate
sensibility generally means “a long-term equilibrium change in global mean
near-surface air temperature that results from doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent)
CO2 concentration” (IPCC 1996). Because climate sensibility indicates how much thetemperature finally rises when GHG concentration rises, it is a very important figure
and an element whose uncertainty has great impact on the result of impact assessmentin the upper part of the influence path between GHG emissions and occurrence ofdamage.
75

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

In the past, IPCC set climate sensibility at 1.5 to 4.5ºC, which was not changed during
the period between its first report in 1990 and the third report in 2001 (IPCC 2001b).
This was estimated by experts mainly based on results of prediction under (two ormore) GCMs. Differences in climate sensibility among GCMs are mainly due to the
feedback component of clouds.
After the third report, many studies were carried out to estimate climate sensibility andimprove quantitative probability assessment, including a likelihood value. Because
climate sensibility cannot be measured directly, the relation between observable
quantity and climate sensibility was established and new methods were used for
estimating the range or probability density distribution of climate sensibility consistent
with observation. Concretely, two new methods were used: a method that uses
restrictions obtainable from past climate changes and a method that uses an extent ofclimate sensibility results of model ensemble experiments (Meehl 2007: IPCC AR4WG1 Report Box 10.2).
In the fourth report, IPCC states that the level of scientific understanding and reliability
concerning quantitative assessment of equilibrium climate sensibility has greatly
improved since the third report and drew the following conclusions from the results
mentioned in Figure 2.2-C (assuming that there is no official method established toobtain a single probability density distribution from different studies): equilibrium
climate sensibility is likely to be between 2 to 4.5ºC; the best estimate is about 3ºC; andit is highly unlikely to be less than 1.5ºC. Although it might be rather higher than
4.5ºC, such a case is generally thought to be inconsistent with observation results(Meehl 2007).
Extent where the probability
is lower than “highly
unlikely”

Cumulative probability

Extentwhere
theprobability is lower than“unlikely”

Extentwhere
theprobability is lower than“unlikely”
Extent where the probability
is lower than “highly
unlikely”

Climate sensibility [C」
Figure 2-2-C: Cumulative distribution of climate sensibility by various methods• Cumulative distribution of the climate sensibility calculated from observed temperaturerise of the 20th-century (------), model climatology ( —— ), and alternative evidence(───) and the cumulative distribution of climate sensibility of AOGCM (……).
Horizontal lines and arrows are estimated probabilities defined in IPCC Fourth
Assessment Uncertainty Guidance.
Source: Japan Meteorological Agency “IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group
1 Report, Technical Summary”(http://www.data.kishou.go.jp/climate/cpdinfo/ipcc/ar4/ipcc_ar4_wg1_ts_Jpn.pdf)

76

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Under LIME2, the version of simplified climate model MAGICC used for the third
report (see Column 2.2-2) was used for prediction of the degree of temperature rise, etc.
and the lognormal probability density distribution described in Wigley & Raper (2001)
was used as climate sensibility (Figure 2.2-D).
As defined above, climate sensibility is a long-term equilibrium change. Because thetemperature is not in equilibrium at the time of doubling of CO2 concentration in 2063,
a rise in the temperature at that time is predicted to be lower than climate sensibility(under LIME2, 1.85ºC if climate sensibility is 2.6ºC under the Increasing Emissions
Scenario).

Figure 2.2-D: Probability density distribution of climate sensitivity established under LIME2• 90% reliability section between 1.5ºC and 4.5ºC in either case
• Under LIME 2, a lognormal distribution case was used for the probability density
distribution of climate sensibility.
Source: Wigley & Raper (2001)[References for Section 2.2]
Brakkee KW ; Huijbregts MAJ ; Eickhout B ; Hendriks AJ ; Meent D van de, 2008, Int J LCA 2008; 13(3):191-201
CML (2000)
Cure, Acock (1986): Agriculture and Forest Meteorology, 38: 127-14
ExternE (1999): Externality of Energy: Global Warming Damages
Fankhauser (1995): Valuing Climate Change; The Economics of the Greenhouse, Earthscan Publication Ltd.,
LondonFAO (2000): FAOSTAT (FAO Statistical Database)
Goedkoop, Spriensma (1999): The Eco-indicator 99; A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact
Assessment; Pethodology Report, PRe Consultants

77

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

GRID─Tsukuba，http://www-cger.nies.go.jp/grid-j/gridtxt/grid1.html
Hay, et al (2002): Climate change and the resurgence of malaria in the East African Highlands. Nature 415: 905909
Honda, et al (1998): J. Risk Res., 1:209-220
IIASA/WEC (1998): Global Energy Perspective
IPCC (1990): Climate Change 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkIPCC (1995): Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
and New YorkIPCC (2001a): Climate Change 2001: The Synthesis Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New
York
IPCC (2001b): Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New
York
IPCC (2001c): Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge and New YorkIPCC (2007): IPCC AR4 WG1: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Kalkstein, et al (1993): The impact of climate change on human health: some international implications,
Experientia 49, p.969-979
Kunst, et al (1993): J. Epidemiol., 137: 331-341
Martens, et al (1997): Sensitivity of malaria, schistosomiasis and dengue to global warming. Climatic Change,
35(2):145-156
Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M.
Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao (2007) Global Climate Projections.
In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Murray, et al (1996): The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from
disease, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020, Harvard University Press
Nordhaus (1994): Managing the global commons: The economics of climate change, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA
Olson, et al (1983): Carbon in Live Vegetation of Major World Ecosystems, Report ORNL-5862, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
Parry, et al (1999): Climate change and world food security: a new assessment, Global Environment Change, 9,
S51-S67
Randall, D.A., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Colman, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, A. Pitman, J. Shukla, J.
Srinivasan, R.J. Stouffer, A. Sumi and K.E. Taylor (2007): Cilmate Models and Their Evaluation. In: Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis,
K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.

78

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Reiter (2000): BITING BACK, New Scientist, 23 September
Steen (1999): A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS) Version
2000-General system characteristics, CPM reportTol( 1995): The damage cost of Climate Change Toward More Comprehensive Calculations
Tol (2002):Dynamic Estimates,Environmental and Resource Economics 21:47-73,2002.
Estimates of the Damage Costs of Climate Change. Part 1: Benchmark Estimates, Environmental and Resource
Economics, 21 (1), 47-73
United Nations (2003): World Population Prospects : The 2002 Revision, United Nations, New YorkWHO (1998): 21st Century, Health, World – World Health Report edited by WHO, Eidensha
WHO (2001): The World Health Report 2000
Wigley & Raper (2001)：Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming, Science, 293, No.5529,
p.451-454
Wigley (2003)：MAGICC/SCENGEN 4.1:USER MANUALWorld Bank (2001): World Development Indicators 2001(CD─ROM), Washington D.C.
Itsubo, Inaba (2005): Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Method Based on Endpoint Modeling LIME-LCA,
Environmental Accounting, Assessment Methods and Databases for Environmental Efficiency, Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry
Environment Agency’s Research Group on the Global Warming Problem (edit.) (1990): Prevention of Global
Warming, NHK Publishing
Koike (2006): To What Extent Has Global Warming Been Clarified?, Maruzen
Takahashi et al. (1997): Environmental System Study, 25: 121-131
Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (2002): Handbook of Energy & Economic Statistics 2002, Energy
Conservation Center
Hayakawa K (1992): Regional Cooling and Heating Systems, Inoueshoin
Matsuoka, et al. (1994): Prospects for Impact of Global Warming on Prevalence of Malaria, National Institute forEnvironmental Studies
Matsuoka (2005): Integrated Assessment Modeling for the Climate Change Problem: International Economy(2005) Vol. 56: 5-29

79

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

2.3 Acidification(Changes under LIME2)• Uncertainty analysis of the damage factors for primary production (terrestrial ecosystem)and social assets (fishery production) was carried out.
• With regard to the calculation of the source attribution of sulfur dioxide (SO2) andnitrogen oxides (NOx), under LIME1 we calculated a domestic average for terrestrial
areas from prediction results of the OPU model and the ratio of total terrestrial area tototal marine area within the model region. Under LIME2, however, we divided Japan
into six zones, taking into account geographical fluctuation, and calculated the source
attribution by zone based on the ratio of terrestrial area and marine area.
• Naturally produced SO2 was excluded from the amount of emissions used for the
calculation of the source attribution of SO2 to the extent possible.
• While LIME1 used only one type of relational equation for aluminum ion (Al3+) and the
dry matter growth rate of trees, LIME2 uses three types by collecting knowledge.

2.3.1

What phenomenon is acidification?

(1)

Cause of acidification

For the purpose of this section, acidification means that terrestrial environments and groundwater have gradually become acid through long-term continuation of acidic deposition fromthe air to the ground. Generally known acid rain is included in acidification. However, as
described later, the term “acid rain” refers to only a part of acidic deposition.
Acid substances are substances that emit hydrogen ion (H+) in a water solution (so-called
Arrhenius acid). Main acid substances are sulfuric acid (H2SO4), nitric acid (HNO3),hydrochloric acid (HCl), and organic acid (RCOOH). In the atmosphere, ammonia (NH3), a
basic substance, also creates two moles of H+ when receiving microbes’ nitrification after
being deposited to the ground from the atmosphere (Pierzynski et al. 1994) and thereby
functions as a net monovalent acid. Therefore, from the viewpoint of acidification, NH3
must be considered potential acid. For the purpose of this section, acid substances and NH3
are collectively expressed as acidifying substances. The main causative substances of H2SO4
are sulfur oxides (SOx) (especially, sulfur dioxide (SO2)), and the main causative substancesof HNO3 are nitrogen oxides (NOx) (especially, nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogendioxide (NO2)). These causative substances, including NH3, emerge often, accompanying
human activities. The main artificial source of SOx and NOx is burning of fossil fuels,
while that of NH3 is stockbreeding and application of fertilizers. Table 2.3-1 shows main
acidifying substances and their causative substances.
When causative substances are emitted in the atmosphere, they spread widely by atmosphericcurrents (advection diffusion process). During this process, various reactions occur(alteration process) – for example, the change of SOx into H2SO4 , the change of NOx into
HNO3, and the ion binding of H2SO4 and NH3 into particle ammonium sulfate ((NH4)2SO4).
In parallel with this, deposition on the surface of the ground occurs (deposition process).
The deposition process can be roughly divided into two types. One of them is acid load that
accompanies precipitation (wet deposition).
Acid substances are incorporated into
80

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

precipitation, such as rain, snow, and fog, and are deposited on the surface of the ground. Ina strict sense, acid rain refers only to acidized rainwater. The other is acid load that
accompanies gaseous or particle substances’ direct deposition on the surface of the ground(dry deposition). Because this cannot be observed directly, it is hard to recognize.
However, because precipitation is high in Japan, it has been thought that the load of
substances is almost the same between wet deposition and dry deposition. For the purposeof this document, acidic deposition means both the wet and dry deposition of acid substances.
Table 2.3-1: Typical acid substances and their causative substances
Causative substance
Main source of causative substance
Main acidifying(●: contribution of artificial sources issubstance
Artificial source
Natural source
large)
Sulfuric acid
(H2SO4)
Nitric acid (HNO3)
Hydrochloric acid(HCl)
Organic acid
(RCOOH) †1
Ammonia (NH3) †2● Sulfur oxides (mainly, SO2)
Deoxidized sulfur oxides(H2S, DMS, etc.)● Nitrogen oxides(mainly, NO and NO2)
● Direct generation as hydrochloric gas
Hydrocarbon (HC)● Direct generation as ammonia

Burning

Volcanoes

DrainageSea, substratum

BurningLightning

Burning, chlorine
factory

Volcanoes

Burning

Vegetation

Chemical fertilizer,
livestockSoil†1. Organic acid is the generic term for various substances (R widely refers to organic matters). Main
organic acids in the atmosphere are formic acid (HCOOH), acetic acid (CH3COOH), and oxalic acid((COOH)2).
†2. Ammonia itself is a basic substance. However, because ammonia functions as a net monovalent aciddue to nitrification after deposition on the surface of the ground, from the viewpoint of acidification,ammonia must be considered latent acid.

The geographical range of acidification is between a regional level (such as the Kanto region)
and a transnational level (such as East Asia). In Europe and North America, the cross-border
air pollution problem has become an important political issue (Environmental Agency(supervised) 1993). In Asia, where energy and food consumption have been increasing
because of economic and population growth, the same problem is highly likely to arise.
There are various impacts of acidification (Figure 2.3-1). Once the environment is acidified,
it cannot be recovered easily, with the result that great damage will continue to exist for along time. Like other global environment problems, it is extremely important to prevent theoccurrence of acidification.
There are other effects of acidic deposition in addition to acidification of the environment.
Nitrogen (N), which is an element of HNO3 and NH3, is an element essential for living thingsand is generally considered the scarcest element in terms of the amount demanded in forests.
Therefore, if the ratio of nitrogenous compounds deposited from the atmosphere to the whole
nitrogen circulation is low, they may greatly influence the growth of forests. The state
where the amount of nitrogen is greater than the amount demanded by living things is called“nitrogen saturation”) (Aber et al. 1989). The effects of nitrogen saturation vary, including
not only effects on the ecosystem but also pollution of groundwater due to nitrate-nitrogen,eutrophication of water areas, and an increase in the amount of GHG emitted from forest soil
81

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(Orui 1997, Izuta 2001). Under LIME, although inclusion of nitrogen saturation in the
category of “acidification” was considered, it was judged that there is a shortage ofknowledge necessary for the quantification of the impact at present and nitrogen saturation
was not assessed.
Emission of acidifying
causative substances

Endpoint impacts
Human healthSocial assets
Agri. production

Advection, spread,transformation

Little primary
impactWood production
Fishery production

Material
Deposition of acidifying
substances

Cultural assets

Primary
production
Terrestrial
primary
production

Biodiversity

Other

Composition of
species ofterrestrial
plantsPopulation of
acid-sensitive
terrestrialorganisms

Composition of
species ofaquaticorganisms

Population of
acid-sensitive
aquaticorganisms

Figure 2.3-1: Causation of acidification(2)

Endpoints of acidificationa Human health

In Japan, acid rain was recognized when stimuli to eyes and throat occurred due to drizzle
mainly in the Kanto region during the rainy season in 1973 to 1975 (Okita 1982). This wascaused by rain considerably polluted by highly concentrated air pollutants. Because air
quality has greatly improved recently, rainfall that gives a stimulus to eyes and throat is
unlikely to occur, and there is little fear that acidification gives direct impact to human health.
At present, however, there is an increasing fear that pollution of groundwater due tonitrate-nitrogen (Ministry of the Environment (ed.) 2002) might give indirect impact tohuman health.
b Impact on the ecosystem
Impact on the ecosystem can be roughly divided into impact on the terrestrial ecosystem andimpact on the aquatic (land water) ecosystem.
The impact on the terrestrial ecosystem can be divided into direct impact and indirect impact.
Direct impact is the direct harmful impact of highly concentrated acid on trees, etc. Usually,
the acid level (pH) of rainfall is not so high as to give direct impact to trees. However, inregions where fog easily occurs, there is fear that acid fog might have direct impact.
Because, compared with a raindrop, a fog droplet has a far smaller diameter and a larger
specific surface area, fog droplets very easily cause pollution. Moreover, because it is hardfor fog drops to fall, trees covered by fog are exposed for a long time. It is even said that fog
droplets enter leaves through stomata and give harmful effect to the leaves (Murano 1993).
On the other hand, indirect impact means that the physical and chemical characteristics of soilchange due to the acidification of soil and give harmful effect to growing trees.
Acidification of soil makes it easier to cause eluviation of bases, elution of inorganic
aluminum (Al), and elution of precious metals, such as manganese (Mn) (Totsuka 1996).
Eluviation of bases brings about a shortage of nourishment for plants, and inorganic Al is
known to have phytotoxicity (Japan Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition (ed.) 1994).
Both might hinder the growth of plants and reduce the primary production of plants, the basic
82

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

production of the ecosystem. However, general soil has high buffer capacity, and changes in
the physical and chemical characteristics of soil due to acidic deposition are extremely slow
and hard to detect. In addition, because many factors are involved in indirect impact, it isdifficult to prove indirect impact at the field level.
Because acidification of land water is caused through acidification of terrestrial water
catchment areas, the contribution of acid substances directly depositing on terrestrial waterfrom the atmosphere is usually small. Therefore, indirect impact is problematic to the
freshwater ecosystem. Because, if the load of substances is the same, water quality change
becomes more conspicuous as nutrition is poorer, aquatic organisms in an oligotrophic
environment are susceptible to the impact of acidification. Both the degree of acidity (= low
pH) and inorganic Al have harmful effect on aquatic organisms (Ikuta 1999). However,there is little quantitative information on the impact of inorganic Al.
c Impact on social assets
Because large quantities of fertilizers are scattered on farmland, acidic deposition has
extremely little impact on the soil of farmland. Therefore, it can be thought that acidic
deposition has direct influence on farm products only through low pH rainfall. However,unless the rainfall pH falls to about 2, it hardly has an effect to farm products (Nouchi 1996).
With regard to forestry, because it takes dozens of years to grow trees, it is difficult toquantitatively assess long-term impact of acidification. As for fisheries, acidification has
caused serious damage to salmon fishery in lakes and rivers in Northern Europe (Hesthagen etal. 1999).
Acid substances corrode metals and stones. Although they rarely have serious structural
impact, they might cause problems related to maintenance, such as an increase in thefrequency of repair. In addition, they might impart damage to structures as well as art
objects and other cultural assets placed outdoors (Komeiji 1993).
2.3.2

Characterization of acidification(1)

Characterization factor for acidification under the existing LCA method

Acidification potential (AP) has been frequently adopted for LCA as the characterization
factor for acidification (Heijungs et al. 1992). AP is calculated by relativizing the amount of
H+ produced through the emission of a unit amount of causative substances of acidification by
the amount of H+ produced through the emission of a unit amount of SO2.
AP1  (  i

Mi )(  SO2

M SO2 )

(2.3-1)In this equation, ηi is the valence of the substance i serving as an acid, and Mi is the molecularweight of the substance i.
AP (Heijungs et al. 1992) is the characterization factor from the viewpoint of sources.
However, the degree of impact of acidification varies where and in what quantity thecausative substance emitted at a certain place deposits as an acid substance and the kind ofsensitivity of the soil and vegetation of the place of deposition. Recently, therefore,characterization factors that take into account regional characteristics have been drawing
83

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

attention. There are four approaches for taking into account regional characteristics: 1)
covering only highly sensitive regions (Hogan et al. 1996); 2) setting sensitivity for eachregion and weighting the amount of emissions (Hauschild et al. 1998); 3) comparing andassessing the maximum scenario and the minimum scenario (Lindfors et al. 1996; Nichols etal. 1996); and 4) introducing a numerical model into atmospheric transport and taking into
consideration differences in sensibility among regions (Potting et al. 1997; Huijbregts 1999).
Of them, approaches 1) to 3) do not solve the problem because they do not take into
consideration fate analysis between emission and deposition. Therefore, we examined two
methods that adopt approach 4).
Potting et al. (1998) introduced a characterization factor employing the atmospheric transportmodel developed according to the European Monitoring and Evaluation Program (EMEP)(Amman et al. 1996; Berrett et al. 1996) and the acidic deposition impact assessment model(Posch et al. 1997).

IAe  Europee jDj     D j  CL e  j  ti acid j  Europe

r ,i, j E r,i(2.3-2)(2.3-3)In this equation, I is the total impact of emission of acidifying causative substances; A is theratio of the ecosystem e (such as spruce forests) in the mesh j; CL is the critical load of theecosystem e in the mesh j (Posch et al. 1997); Dj is the amount of acid deposition in the meshj (amount of load as H+);  is the step function, which is 1 if acidic deposition exceeds thecritical load of the ecosystem e or 0; tr,i,j is the ratio of the acidifying substance i emitted in theregion r and deposited in the mesh j; and Er,i is the amount of emissions as the amount of
produced H+ of the acidifying substance i in the region r.
The method adopted by Potting et al. (1998) is better than other approaches in that it takes
into consideration both the fate of the emitted substance and differences in sensibility.
However, because it uses a step function, the relation between the amount of acidic deposition
and the cumulative ratio of the fragile ecosystem becomes a discontinuous function with aslope of 0 or infinity. Therefore, the method is unsuitable for assessing the impact ofadditional emission of an acidification causative substance to the baseline load.
On the other hand, Huijbregts (1999) used the ratio between the amount of acidic deposition
and the critical load and introduced a characterization factor that expresses a change in the
total risk of the ecosystem’s receiving harmful effect from acidification.

IAe  Europe

e j

 Dj

CL e  j(2.3-4)This method has an advantage in that it can express the total impact by a continuous function,
because it uses a concept similar to the characteristic factor obtained from the relation
between the amount of exposure and no observed effect level for the purpose of toxic
assessment.

84

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(2)

Characterization factor for acidification under LIME

Application of the characterization factors developed by Potting et al. (1998) and Huijbregts(1999) to Japan has the following problems: 1) consideration is given only to terrestrial
vegetation, excluding impact on aquatic organisms; 2) the results have been obtained inEurope, whose geographical conditions are different from those in Japan; 3) not all theacidifying causative substances to be considered are covered; and 4) because thecharacterization factors are biased toward endpoints, uncertainty caused by models is large.
To cope with these problems, under LIME we developed a characterization factor foracidification with consideration for the geographical characteristics found in Japan. As main
acidifying causative substances, we gave consideration to SO2, NOx (NO and NO2),hydrochloric acid (HCl), and NH3. Although it is usually rare to regard HCl as aproblematic substance, we gave consideration to it because it is produced during the processof burning substances that contain chlorine (Cl). As described above, we regarded NH3,
which functions as a base in the atmosphere, as a latent acid, because it contributes as a net
monovalent acid due to nitrification after deposition from the atmosphere. The geographicalextent of emission and deposition was limited to Japan. Figure 2.3-2 shows a flowchart ofestimation of the characterization factor.
Atmospheric deposition factor (ADF)(Increase in acidic deposition per 1 km2 due to emission of 1 kg/yr of AS)
Atmospherictransport model,
etc.

Observed data on
atmosphericdeposition

Source-receptor
relationship
SRR

Emission of unit
amount of AS

Non-neutralizing
rate
NNR

Increase in acidic
deposition
ADF

ADF for each acidifying
causative substance

Relativation on the basis of SO 2

Characterization factor for acidification (AP)Figure 2.3-2: Flowchart of estimation of characterization factor for acidification

a Source-receptor relationship of acidifying causative substanceSource-receptor relationship (SRR) (Ichikawa 1998) indicates where and to what degree an
acidifying causative substance (AS) emitted in a region deposits (example: what percentage ofSO2 emitted in the Kanto region is deposited in the Kanto region and what percentage isdeposited in the Tohoku region?).
The SRR of SO2 and the SRR of NOx were calculated for each of the six zones in Japan basedon estimation of SRR in 1991 for each of the six zones (Nakaminami 2000) and the ratio
between terrestrial and marine areas for each of them (see Figure 2.3-3). The calculation
was based on the results obtained from an atmospheric transport model of Eulerian type (fixed85

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

system of coordinates) developed by Osaka Prefecture University (Ikeda et al. 1997, 2001)(for details of the model developed by Osaka Prefecture University, see Section 2.4) and theresults of research on the positional relationships of the grids of the second mesh system.
We calculated the domestic average of SRR by averaging each zone’s SRR, weighting thearea of each zone, and as a result the SRR of SO2 and the SRR of NOx were estimated to be
0.166 and 0.150 respectively. The details of SRR of SO2 and NOx are shown in Table 2.3-2
and 2.3-3.
Relative probability

Custom distribution

Figure 2.3-3: Probability distribution among the emission zones of air polluting substances(1 to 6 are zone numbers) (example: SO2)
Table 2.3-2: Source-receptor matrix of SRR of SO2
Terrestrial
area

Table 2.3-3: Source-receptor matrix of SRR of NOx (NO, NO2)

Terrestrial
area

Because there was little information on the SRR of HCI, an average SRR in Japan was
calculated by estimating the amount of emissions to the atmosphere and the amount ofdeposition from the atmosphere between 1993 and 1997. It was assumed that the main
sources of HCl were incineration of waste and combustion of fossil fuels. The amount of86

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

HCl produced by incineration was calculated by multiplying the amount of incinerated waste(Statistical Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (ed.) (each fiscal
year)) by the volatile Cl content ratio of incinerated waste (Japan Waste Management
Association, Japan Waste Research Foundation 1999) and took into consideration theelimination efficiency of exhaust gas treatment systems (Shigaki 1998) to obtain the amountof emissions to the atmosphere. The average amount of emissions between 1993 and 1997
was estimated to be 4.2 GgCl/yr. In addition, we also calculated the amount of emissions to
the atmosphere by converting primary energy consumption of oil and coal (Agency for
Natural Resources and Energy (ed.) 2000) into weight, multiplying the result by the Cl
content ratio (Okita 1982) to obtain the amount of HCl produced by full incineration, andtaking into consideration the elimination efficiency at the time of refining and combustion (byapplying the elimination efficiency of exhaust gas treatment systems). The average amountof emissions between 1993 and 1997 was 137.4 GgCl/yr for HCl originated in oil and 3.2
GgCl/yr for HCl originated in coal. As a result, the average amount of HCl emissions wasestimated to be 144.7 GgCl/yr. Meanwhile, we calculated the average amount of depositionin each urban or non-urban district based on the amount of wet deposition and the amount ofdry deposition of chloride ion (Cl–) at 15 monitoring points in urban zones and 29 monitoring
points (excluding 1 point where the value was extremely large) in non-urban zones between
1993 and 1997 obtained from a dataset of the third acid rain monitoring survey (Committee
for Acid Rain Measures 2004). After that, we calculated the total domestic amount of Cl–
deposition by multiplying each average amount of deposition by the area of each urban or
non-urban district. When calculating the amount of non-seasalt Cl– deposition by the use of
seawater composition, it is assumed that the total amount of sodium ion (Na+) originates fromseawater droplets (seasalt origin).
nssCl dep  Cl dep  Na dep  SW (Cl / Na )(2.3-5)In this equation, nssCldep, Cldep, and Nadep are the amounts of deposition of non-seasalt Cl–,
Cl–, and Na+, respectively. SW (Cl/Na) is the composition ratio of Cl– to Na+ in seawater.
As a result of the calculation, the average domestic amount of deposition (total amount of dry
deposition and wet deposition) between 1993 and 1997 was estimated to be 57.0 GgCl/yr.
We divided the estimate by the amount of emissions and obtained 0.394 as the SRR of HCl.
With regard to NH3 also, because there was little information on SRR, we calculated theaverage SRR in Japan as in the case of HCl.
According to an existing study (Kannari et al. 2001), we assumed that the amount ofemissions in Japan was 430.1 GgN/yr, an estimate for 1994. We calculated the averageamount of dry deposition in Japan based on the estimate between 1987 and 1989 at 15
monitoring points obtained from Fujita et al. (2000). Meanwhile, we calculated the averageamount of dry deposition in each urban or non-urban zone based on the amount of dry
deposition of ammonium ion (NH4+) in 1994 at 15 monitoring points in urban districts and 26
monitoring points (excluding 4 points where the value was extremely large) in non-urban
districts obtained from a dataset of the third acid rain monitoring survey (Committee for Acid
Rain Measures 2004). After that, we calculated the total domestic amount of NH4+
deposition by multiplying each average amount of deposition by the area of the respective
urban or non-urban district. As a result of the calculation, the average domestic amount ofdeposition (total amount of dry deposition and wet deposition) was estimated to be 190.9
GgN/yr. We divided the estimate by the amount of emissions and obtained 0.444 as the
SRR of NH3.
87

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

b Degree of neutralization in the atmosphere
Atmospheric acid substances are neutralized by coexisting basic substances. It is assumed
herein that additionally emitted acid also is neutralized by the same degree as at present.
The effective amount of acid load divided by the latent amount of acid load was defined as the
non-neutralizing ratio. The effective amount of acid load was calculated by adding theamount of H+ produced by nitrification of NH4+ to the amount of deposited H+. Because twomoles of H+ are produced from one mole of NH4+ through nitrification:
Acid eff  H dep  2 NH 4 dep(2.3-6)In this equation, Acideff is the effective amount of acid load [eq]; and Hdep and NH4dep are theobserved amounts of atmospheric deposition of H+ and NH4+ respectively (wet + dry) [eq].
Additionally, NH4+ contributes to the observed deposition of H+ as a monovalent basic
substance. If the production of H+ as a result of nitrification of NH4+ (in this sense, abivalent acid substance) is taken into account, NH4+ is regarded as a net monovalentacidifying substance (a monovalent base and a bivalent acid). Meanwhile, the latent amountof acid load indicates the total amount of an acidifying substance before neutralization - that is,
the total amount of non-seasalt sulfate ion (SO42–), nitrate ion (NO3–), non-seasalt Cl–, andNH4+. Non-seasalt substances are excluded, because a negative ion originated from sea salt
has alkali metal or alkali earth metal as a counter ion and does not function as an acid. NO3–
and NH4+ originated from sea salt are ignored because they are extremely scarce.

Acid ini  nssCl dep  NO3 dep  nssSO4 dep  NH 4 dep(2.3-7)In this equation, nssCldep, NO3dep, and nssSO4dep are the amounts of atmospheric deposition of
non-seasalt Cl–, NO3–, and non-seasalt SO42– respectively. The amount of non-seasalt ion
was calculated by the use of the ratio of Na+ and the precursor ion in seawater as in the caseof Equation 2.3-5.
The non-neutralizing rate (NNR) can be calculated by Equation 2.3-8.
NNR  Acid eff

Acid ini(2.3-8)In this equation, the average NNR in each urban or non-urban zone was calculated based on
the amount of deposition between 1993 and 1997 at 15 monitoring points in urban zones and
30 monitoring zones in non-urban zones obtained from a dataset of the third acid rainmonitoring survey (Committee for Acid Rain Measures 2004). We calculated the domestic
average NNR by averaging the NNRs in the two zones, weighting the area of each zone.
The result was 0.769.
c Atmospheric deposition factor
An increase in the amount of H+ deposited due to the emission of 1 kg/yr of an acidifying
causative substance [eq/km2/yr] was defined as the atmospheric deposition factor (ADF).
ADF ( j )  SRR( j )  MW ( j ) 1  VA( j )  LA 1  NNR  10 3

(2.3-9)In this equation, j is each acidifying causative substance; MW and VA are the molecular
88

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

weight and acid valence of j respectively; and LA is land area [km2].
Table 2.3-4: DAP, ADF, and parameters used for these calculations
Causative
substance

SO2

Emissionunit

kgSO2 / yr

NO

kgNO / yr

NOx

NO2

kgNO2 / yr

Characterization factor

Parameter used for calculationMW

VA LA (km2) NNR

DAP

ADF

Zone

SRR

1.00

1.10 E-5

Av. in Japan

0.166

361,680

0.34

3.79 E-6

Zone 1

0.009

53,8381.04

1.15 E-5

Zone 20.011

23,083

1.57

1.73 E-5

Zone 3

0.056

1.64

1.80 E-5

Zone 40.055

73,4450.72

7.93 E-6

Zone 50.019

56,341

0.46

5.10 E-6

Zone 60.016

76,9730.97

1.06 E-5

Av. in Japan

0.150

361,680

0.50

5.48 E-6

Zone 1

0.012

53,8380.94

1.04 E-5

Zone 20.009

23,083

1.23

1.42 E-5

Zone 3

0.043

1.87

2.06 E-5

Zone 40.059

73,4450.72

7.94 E-6

Zone 50.017

56,341

0.29

3.20 E-6

Zone 60.010

76,973

0.63

6.93 E-6

Av. in Japan

0.150

361,680

0.32

3.57 E-6

Zone 1

0.012

53,8380.62

6.78 E-6

Zone 20.009

23,0830.84

9.25 E-6

Zone 3

0.043

1.22

1.34 E-5

Zone 40.059

73,4450.47

5.18 E-6

Zone 50.017

56,3410.19

2.09 E-6

Zone 60.010

76,973

64.1

30.0

46.0

2

1

1

78,00178,001
0.769

78,001HCl

kgHCl / yr

2.02

2.23 E-5

Av. in Japan

0.394

36.5

1

372,798

NH3

kgNH3 / yr

4.89

5.38 E-5

Av. in Japan

0.444

17.0

1

372,798

Zones 1 to 6 are six divisions in Japan used for the source-receptor matrix used for the calculation of source
contribution of an acidifying causative substance (see Figure 2.4-7).
• DAP: Deposition-oriented acidification potential (the quotient of ADF of each substance to ADF of
SO2)• ADF: Atmospheric deposition factor (see Equation 2.3-9)• SRR: Source-receptor relationship (see Section 2.3.2)• MW: Molecular weight• VA: Valence in the case of functioning as acidifying substance• LA: Land area (in the case of SO2 and NOx, estimated terrestrial areas included in grids to be
calculated under Osaka Prefecture University’s model; in the case of HCl and NH3, statisticalvalues in 1995)• NNR: Non-neutralizing rate (see equations 2.3-6 to 2.3-8)

89

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

d Characterization factor for acidification (deposition-oriented acidification
potential)“Deposition-oriented acidification potential” (DAP) that took SRR into account can beobtained by dividing ADF of each acidifying causative substance by the average ADF of SO2
in Japan. Under LIME, DAP was recommended as the characterization factor foracidification for the following reasons: 1) DAP took into account the SRR of each acidifying
causative substance in Japan; 2) taking SRR into account enables assessment not on the sideof emission but on the side of deposition; and 3) DAP covers four main substances that canbecome acidifying causative substances. Table 2.3-4 shows DAP, ADF, and parameters
used for these calculations. DAP and ADF of HCl and NH3 are larger than those of SO2 andNOx, main causative substances for acidification, largely because the SRRs of HCl and NH3
are high. With regard to NH3 especially, because its molecular weight is light, the number ofmolecules is larger in relation to the emission of 1 kg. DAP is the characterization factor
that has taken into account the processes between the emission of a causative substance andits deposition, but has not taken into account the sensitivity of the zone that undergoes
deposition. However, the impact on the zone has been taken into account for the damage
factor.
2.3.3 Damage assessment of acidification(1)

Basic policies for damage factor calculation and uncertainty assessment

LCA so far has mainly been based on the midpoint approach that uses AP (Heijungs et al.
1992) and other characterization factors for the impact assessment of acidification. However,
because the midpoint approach cannot concretely calculate damage, under LIME wedeveloped a method of assessing the impact of acidification by the use of the endpoint
approach.
Under LIME, what quantitatively expresses the relation between inventories and the impact
on each category endpoint is defined as a damage factor, and a set of damage functions ineach area of protection is defined as a damage factor. Table 2.3-5 shows category endpoints
for acidification and items used for the calculation of damage functions. The table covers
almost all important category endpoints. In addition, Figure 2.3-4 shows the flowchart ofcalculation of damage functions and factors.
The damage function for acidification indicates how much the amount of latent damage
increases with additional emission of a unit amount of an acidifying causative substance.
For example, it indicates how much the production of forests latently decreases if 1 kg of SO2
is emitted. As in the case of characterization, under LIME, we covered only zones ofemission of acidifying causative substances, zones of acceptance of the impact, and Japan.
In addition, we extracted causes of uncertainty during the calculation of the damage functions
for acidification and establish probability distributions mainly for the items predicted to behighly uncertain. Table 2.3-6 shows main causes of uncertainty in the damage functions foracidification and policies for dealing with them, and Table 2.3-7 shows details of the items forwhich probability distributions were established.

90

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Table 2.3-5: Category endpoints for acidification and object of damage function calculation
Area ofprotection
Human
healthObject of damage function
calculation

Category endpoint

While secondary impact of NO3– and Al3+ may occur- Not available
via drinking water, primary impact is rare in Japan.
Agri.
Decrease in production of farm
Hard for impact to occur
production products, etc.
in the current situation
Wood
Impact of decrease in primary
Net primary productivity

production production of trees(NPP) of forests
SocialFishery
Impact on freshwater fish with high Catch of salmonidae
assetsproduction acid sensitivity
Reduction in quality, reduction inMaterial
 Maintenance cost
durability, etc.
Cultural Hard to quantify impact
Loss of value, etc.
assetsPrimary
Terrestrial Decrease in primary production of NPP of existing vegetation
production ecosystem terrestrial plants
Terrestrial Decrease in the number of terrestrial
Scarce qualitative
ecosystem species, changes in species structure
information
Biodiversity
Aquatic
Decrease in the number of aquatic
Scarce qualitative
ecosystem species, changes in species structure
information
Terrestrial
Scarce qualitative
Existing amount of terrestrial organisms ecosystem
information
Other
Aquatic
Scarce qualitative
Existing amount of aquatic organisms
ecosystem
information

Atmospheric deposition factor(ADF)(Increase in the amount of acidic
deposition per km2 with emissionof 1 kg/yr of AS)
See Figure 2.3-2.

Damage functions foreach endpoint
ADF•EF

Total for each area ofprotection

Damage factor (DF)by area of protection

Effect factor (EF)(Amount of damage to each endpoint with increase in acidic deposition by 1 eq/km2/yr)
Increase in acidic
deposition

Concentration
neutralization

Decrease in land
water pH

Decrease in soil
solution pH

Decrease in land
water pH

Material corrosion

Increase in soil
solution Al3+
concentration

Decrease in intrinsic
natural increase rate ofsalmonid

Increase inmaintenancefrequency

Separation of
NPP of forests

Decease in plant
growth rate

Decrease in salmonid
production volume

Increase inmaintenance cost

Decrease in wood
production volume

Decrease in NPP ofexisting vegetation

Decrease in salmonid
production value

Total cost formaterial corrosion

Decrease in wood
production value

Materials

Wood production

Fishery production

Social assets

Terrestrial NPP
Primary production

Figure 2.3-4: Flowchart of calculation of acidification damage functions and factors
The shaded items are those for which an uncertainty distribution has been established. Dotted lines
encircle the items for which a variability distribution has been established.

91

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Table 2.3-6: Policies for treating main causes of uncertainty in acidification damage functions
No

Endpoint

1

2
Common toacidification
3

4

5

6

7

Primary
production(Terrestrial
primary
ecosystem)

8

9

10

11

12

92

Social assets(Fishery
production)

Main possible cause of uncertainty

Policy for uncertainty assessment

Regional variations are not taken into
account for the source-receptor
relationship of SO2 and NOx, and a
uniform average is used all over Japan.
Based on a national average from
actual data at two or more points, theamounts of wet and dry deposition of
NH4+ were fixed.
Based on a national average from
actual data at two or more points, theamounts of wet and dry deposition ofCl– were fixed.
Based on a national average from
actual data at two or more points, theatmospheric non-neutralizing rate was
fixed.
Each soil’s pH was fixed based on the
median of the soil pH dataset
corresponding to FAO/UNESCO soil
classification of ISRIC.
Uncertainty exists in the equations(approximate equation, linear function
equation) of pH and Al3+ concentration
calculated based on actual values.
As a relation equation between Al3+
concentration and the plant growth rate
(quadratic function equation), therelation equation for red pine has been
adopted to all kinds of vegetation.

Adopt a probability distribution to
selection of emission zones and use
the source-receptor relationship byzone.
Establish a probability distribution
based on the amount of statistics on
two or more sets of actual data.

Uncertainty exists in the equation(quadratic function equation) of Al3+
concentration and the plant growth rate
calculated based on actual values.
Uncertainty is included in
preconditions for the calculation of anacid neutralization rate for each surface
geological type in water catchment
areas.
It is assumed that the decrease rate of
frequency of female salmonid’s
digging due to decrease in pH is thesame as the decrease in spawning rate.
Uncertainty exists in the relation
equation (log approximate equation)
between pH and the intrinsic natural
increase rates of various salmonidae
calculated based on actual values.
Life history of salmonidae has been
estimated based on existing materials.

Establish a probability distribution
based on the amount of statistics on
two or more sets of actual data.
Establish a probability distribution
based on the amount of statistics on
two or more sets of actual data.
Establish a probability distribution
together with data on the minimum
and maximum values of soil pH
entered in the dataset.
Establish a probability distribution
concerning parameters for eachapproximate equation.
The relation equations for cedar andJapanese cypress were newly added.
Regarding the relation equations
formulated for some types of trees,
there were some cases where a
probability distribution wasestablished as to which equation to
adopt.
Conduct uncertainty assessment byuse of the boot strap method
concerning parameters for eachapproximate equation.
Because the uncertainty of thisassumption is very high, this should
be reflected in establishment of aprobability distribution.
Because no data are available onquantitative relation, uncertainty
should be widely reflected inestablishment of a probability
distribution.
Establish a probability distribution
concerning parameters for eachapproximate equation.
If values entered in existing materials
vary widely, establish a probability
distribution based on them.

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Table 2.3-7: Uncertainty of acidification, details of establishment of probability distribution
Unit

Probability
distribu
tion

Source-receptor
relationship of
SO2, NOx-

Customdistribution

Wet deposition of
NH4+

eq/km2/
yr

No

Item

1

2

3

4

5

Dry deposition of
NH4+ (urbanzones)
Wet deposition of
NH4+ (non-urbanzones)
Dry and wet
deposition of Cl–(urban districts)
Dry and wet
deposition of Cl–(non-urban
districts)
Atmospheric
non-neutralizing
rate (urban
districts)
Atmospheric
non-neutralizing
rate (non-urban
districts)

pH of each soil

meq/
m2/yr

meq/
m2/yr

-

-

Value
(Rep.
value)

-

34.22
(Av.)
Normaldistribu
tion

3.50
(Av.)
2.49
(Av.)

Normaldistribu
tion

Normaldistribu
tion

Triangu
lar
distribu
tion

9.97
(Av.)

Parameter(standard
deviate)Standard
deviation:
1.23
Standard
deviation:
0.53Standard
deviation:
0.60Standard
deviation:
4.07

4.03
(Av.)

Standard
deviation:
1.54

0.636
(Av.)

Standard
deviation:
0.03

0.778
(Av.)

Standard
deviation:
0.02(Med.)Max.
likelihood
value:Max.
value:Min.
value:-(Partial
regression
coefficient)
6

7

Relation equation
between pH
decrease and Al3+
concentration

Power
of
μmol/Lt-distrib
ution

Relation equation
between Al3+
concentration andplant growth rate-

Customdistribu
tion(Constantterm)-Standard:Latitude:--Parameter setting method
From the result of atmosphericmodel prediction by Ikeda et al.
(1997, 2001) and the result of
estimation of natural SO2
emissions by Fujita et al. (1992)
From the result of measurementof Fujita et al. (2000)
From dry deposition data of theCommittee for Acid Rain
Measures (2004)

From dry deposition data of theCommittee for Acid Rain
Measures (2004)

From dry deposition data of theCommittee for Acid Rain
Measures (2004)

From median, minimum, andmaximum values of pH of eachmain soil entered in the soil pH
dataset corresponding to the
FAO/UNESCO soil
classification of ISRIC
From measurement data on pH,
eluted Al3+ concentration, or
exchangeable acidity of black
humic soil, brown forest soil,
red yellow soil, crystalline clay
minerals, and podsol soil (So etal. 1999, Shioiri 1934, Kitagawa
1966, Yamatani 1968, Umemura
1968, Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries’ Forestry
Experiment Station, Maruyama
1995)
Adopt the relation equation forred pine to the vegetation
classes other than “cedar andJapanese cypress.” Adopt theratio between the area ofartificial cedar forests and the93

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_20128

Relation equation
between Al3+
concentration andthe plant growth
rate

9

Acid
neutralization rateby surface
geological type inwater catchment
areas

10

Relation equation
between pH anddecrease in the
spawning rate ofsalmonid

11

Relation equation
between pH andeach salmonid
type’s intrinsic
natural increase
rate

12

(2)

Life history timeof salmonid

-

-

-

-

hr

Boot
strap
methodTriangu
lar
distribu
tion-(Representativevalue)

Triangu
lar
distribution(Calculated
value)

t-distrib
ution(Partial
regression
coefficient)(Constantterm)

Uniform
distribu
tion(Intermediate value)-Max.
likelihood
value:Max.
value:1.0
Min.
value:0.0
Max.
likelihood
value:Max.
value:1.0
Min.
value:0.0

Standard:Latitude:--area of artificial Japanesecypress forests in each zone
(Forest Agency) to “cedar andJapanese cypress.”
Actual measurement data on
Al3+ concentration in soil
solution and dry increment of
red pine seedling (Ri et al. 1997)
and actual measurement data on
Ca concentration and Al
concentration in soil solution
and increment of cedar andJapanese cypress seedling(Kono et al. 1998)
From measurement data on theamount of eluted base due toconsumption of proton (Kozuki
et al. 1997)

From measurement data on
decrease in pH and frequency offemale red salmon’s digging of
spawning beds (Ikuta et al.
2000)
From measurement data on
median lethal time in relation tosalmonid (Ikuta et al. 1992)(Rombough 1983)

From data on each salmonid
type’s accumulated temperatureand life history time (Miyaji etal. 1976, Masuda et al. 1984,
Ochiai et al. 1986, Nagata et al.
1997, Japan Fisheries Resource
Conservation Association 1981)

Primary production: damage functions for terrestrial primary productiona Object of calculation of damage functions for terrestrial primary production

Acidic deposition is a phenomenon that occurs in all terrestrial areas, and vegetation covering
the ground surface is an important receptive field.
Under LIME, we considered indirect impact on plant growth through soil acidification due toacidic deposition and calculated the damage function for terrestrial net primary productivity(NPP). Although the causes of indirect impact of acidification vary, we focused on thephytotoxicity of Al – that is, the impact of an increase in the concentration of inorganic
aluminum ion (Al3+) due to soil acidification (for details of methodology, see Hayashi et al.
(2004)).
Under LIME, to obtain the damage function for terrestrial primary production, we calculated
94

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

the effect factor (EF), which gives damage when the amount of H+ deposition increases by 1
eq/km2/yr, and multiplied the result by ADF obtained through calculation of thecharacterization factor – that is, an increase in the amount of H+ deposition per unit area when
1 kg/yr of an acidifying causative substance is emitted [eq/km2/yr]. The calculation of EF
requires geographical information, such as vegetation distribution and climate conditions.
Under LIME, we used geographical information on the second mesh system (10-km meshes;
latitude 5’ × longitude 7.5’).
b Relation between acidic deposition and soil acidification
We assumed that the entire increase in the amount of H+ deposition as a result of additionalemission of an acidifying causative substance contributes to soil acidification.
Q [mm/yr], the annual quantity of water that penetrates from soil vertically downward, isannual precipitation less the annual quantity of evaporation. Annual precipitation was
calculated as that in each 10-km mesh by averaging the normal values between 1961 and 1990
by the use of the mesh climate values prepared by the third mesh system (1-km meshes;
latitude 30’ × longitude 45’) (Japan Meteorological Agency 1996). Annual evaporation was
estimated by the Thornthwaite method (edited by the Japan Institute of Construction
Engineering, 1993). The monthly average temperature necessary for the Thornthwaite
method was obtained from the mesh climate values (Japan Meteorological Agency 1996).
An increment in H+ concentration in soil solution can be calculated by dividing an increase in
H+ deposition by Q.
[ H  ]inc  H add  dep  Q 1  10 6(2.3-10)In this equation, Hadd–dep is an increment in H+ deposition [eq/km2/yr], and [H+] inc is anincrement in H+ concentration in soil solution [eq/L].
Next, the main soil type for each 10-km mesh was selected based on a one-millionth soil map(Group of Japanese Pedologists, Committee for Soil Classification and Nomenclature 1990).
We establish a probability distribution (triangular distribution) based on the minimum,
maximum, and median values obtained from the soil pH dataset (Batjes 1995) corresponding
to the legend of FAO-UNESCO World Soil Map (FAO-UNESCO 1990) as soil pH for eachsoil type. Assuming that soil pH is equal to soil solution pH, we calculated soil solution pH
after an increase in H+ in soil solution.
pH 1 (lea )   log ( 10  pH 0 (lea )  [ H  ]inc )(2.3-11)In this equation, pH1 (lea) and pH0 (lea) are soil solution pH after an increase in H+
concentration and early soil solution H+, respectively.
c Relation between soil acidification and inorganic aluminum ion concentration
Based on observed data from existing research cases (So et al. 1999; Shiori et al. 1934;
Kitagawa 1966; Yamatani 1968; Umemura 1968; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries’ Forestry Experiment Station 1968; Maruyama 1995), for each soil type (podsol soil,brown forest soil, black humic soil, red yellow soil and others), we prepared an index
95

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

approximation equation (in the case of podsol soil, we used a primary expression, taking into
account the excessive uncertainty of an index approximation equation) that gave inorganic
Al3+ concentration in soil solution [μmol/L], using soil solution pH as the explanatory variable.
With regard to parameters for the prepared equation, we established a probability distribution(t-distribution) based on the result of variance analysis of observed data. We carried out
uncertainty analysis of a linear function equation, converting the y-axis of the basic index
approximation equation into an index and the x-axis into pH (except in the case of podsolsoil).
d Relation between inorganic aluminum ion concentration and plant growthBased on the results of experiments on red pine, cedar, and Japanese cypress (Li et al. 1997;
Kono et al. 1998), we examined the relation between inorganic Al3+ and the growth of trees inJapan. After that, we prepared a quadratic approximation equation that gives a dry growthrate, using Al3+ concentration as an explanatory variable. With regard to parameters for the
prepared approximation equation, we established an uncertainty distribution by the boot strap
method based on observed data.
e Net primary productivity for existing vegetation
We calculated the average NPP per 10-km mesh [kg/ha/yr] as follows (see Section 2.10):
We extracted examples of existing vegetation in units of 100-m mesh (100 m × 100 m) fromNatural Environment Information GIS (Ministry of the Environment 1999). After that, werearranged vegetation information on about 900 examples into 30 examples where NPP was
calculated concerning main vegetation and land use (Iwaki 1981). However, examples of
100-m meshes that fall under building sites or highways in the Dataset of Numerical
Information on National Land Use (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism2002) are included in “Other.”In the vegetation information, both cedar forests and Japanese cypress forests are included in
the division “Cedar and Japanese cypress forests,” but are not subdivided further. On theother hand, a relation equation between inorganic Al3+ concentration and the growth of trees
in Japan exist for both cedar and Japanese cypress. Because of this, with regard to which
equation to adopt, herein a probability distribution (custom distribution Figure 2.3-5) wasestablished for each of zones 1 to 6 based on the Forest Agency’s data by type of tree and by
age group, using the meshes of “cedar and Japanese cypress forests.”
Because the NPP values of 30 examples offered by Iwaki (1981) were fixed values, werevised them to reflect climate differences. Using a dataset of the normalized difference
vegetation index (NDVI) obtained through satellite observation (Center for Global
Environmental Research 2000), we calculated an average of the NDVI values of all the
relevant 100-m meshes by type of example. In addition, we corrected the NPPs by
multiplying the fixed NPPs by a correction coefficient – that is, the ratio between the NDVI
value of each 100-m mesh and the average NDVI value of the relevant examples.
It was assumed that the average of the corrected NPP values of all the 100-m meshes within a
10-km mesh was the average NPP of the mesh [kg/ha/yr].

96

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Custom distribution
Relative probability

Relative probability

Custom distribution

Zone 2

Zone 3Figure 2.3-5: Probability distribution for selection of a relation equation concerning
growth of trees in the division “cedar and Japanese cypress forests” by zone
(examples: Zone 2 at left, Zone 3 at right)
If [1] is selected, use the relation equation for cedar forests; if [2] is selected, use the relation equation
for Japanese cypress forests.
2.5E+07

Total amount of damage to domestic NPP [kg/yr]

10% value

2.0E+07

Median value

90% value

L - NPPact (Median value) = 36195・Hadd-dep
R2 = 1.00

1.5E+07

1.0E+07

5.0E+06

0.0E+00
0

50

100
+

150

200
2

Hadd-dep (increase in the amount of H deposition) [eq/km /yr]

Figure 2.3-6: Relation between an increase in the amount of H+ ion deposition and anincrease in the total amount of damage to domestic NPP

f Damage function for terrestrial primary production
The amount of damage to NPP in each 10-km mesh can be calculated by Equation 2.3-12:
L  NPPact  NPPact  A ( GR0  GR1 )GR0(2.3-12)In this equation, L-NPPact is the amount of damage to NPP in a 10-km mesh [kg/yr]; NPPact isthe average NPP in a 10-km mesh [kg/ha/yr]; A is the area of a 10-km mesh [ha]; GR0 is theearly growth rate [%]; and GR1 is the growth rate [%] after additional emission of anacidifying causative substance.
The total amount of damage to all the 10-km meshes in Japan indicates the total amount ofdamage in Japan.
n

L  NPPact (tot )   L  NPPact (i)(2.3-13)i

In this equation, L-NPPact (tot) and L-NPPact (i) are the amount of damage to NPP [kg/yr] inJapan and the amount of damage to NPP [kg/yr] in the ith 10-km mesh, respectively.
97

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

In this equation, assuming that the acidifying causative substance has been averagely
deposited all over Japan, we calculated L-NPPact (tot) in the case where the average amount ofdeposition Hadd-dep was changed from 0 to 200 eq/km2/yr. It is assumed herein that the slopeof the resultant median value, 36195, is the EF of the terrestrial primary production.
However, because the calculation of the damage function and factors is based on uncertainty
analysis of zones where the acidifying causative substance is emitted, the damage function is
not the same as the product of ADF and EF as described above.
Table 2.3-8 shows statistical amounts obtained from the calculation of the acidification
damage function for terrestrial primary production accompanied by uncertainty assessment,
and Figure 2.3-7 shows the probability density distribution of the damage function for SO2 as
an example. In addition, Table 2.3-9 shows the rank correlation coefficients of theacidification damage function for terrestrial primary production, and Figure 2.3-8 shows theresult of comparison between LIME1 and LIME2 concerning the damage function.
Table 2.3-8: Statistical amounts of acidification damage functions
for terrestrial primary production
Division
SO2
NO
NO2
HCl
Unit

NH3

kgDW/kg

kgDW/kg

kgDW/kg

kgDW/kg

kgDW/kg

No. of trials

50,00050,00050,00050,00050,000

Average value

0.417

0.481

0.314

1.267

3.120

Median value

0.301

0.365

0.238

0.853

2.091

Standard deviation

0.565

0.578

0.377

1.534

3.442

Dispersion

0.320

0.334

0.142

2.355

11.846

Kurtosis143.443198.269

198.22849.79745.791

Variation coefficient

1.355

1.202

1.202

1.211

1.103

10 percentile value

0.134

0.149

0.097

0.409

1.344

90 percentile value

0.674

0.810

0.529

2.329

5.707

Average standard error

0.003

0.003

0.002

0.007

0.015

Table 2.3-9: Rank correlation coefficients of acidification damage function
for terrestrial primary production (example: SO2)
Coefficient
Correlation coefficient3+
Linear coefficient of relation equation between pH and Al- 0.28(podsol soil)
3+
Relation equation between Al concentration and plant grown rate
0.28
(red pine)
Soil pH (typical podzolic soil)
0.26
Zone of SO2 emissions
0.26
Soil pH (typical gley soil)
0.19
Soil pH (typical gray paddy field soil)
0.09
Relation equation between Al3+ concentration of “cedar and
0.08
Japanese cypress forests” and plant growth rate in Zone 33+
Linear coefficient of relation equation between pH and Al
0.06
concentration (gley soil)
Relation equation between Al3+ concentration and plant growth rate
0.05
(cedar)•98

Variable numbers with a coefficient of correlation value of 0.05 or more were extracted.

Frequency

Probability

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Distribution
Average valueStandard
deviation

Lognormal distribution
4.00E-1
3.00E-1[kgDW/kg]
Predicted value

Fitted lognormal
distribution

Figure 2.3-7: Probability density distribution of acidification damage functions forterrestrial primary production (example: SO2)
6.0

(10 to 90% value)

LIME2[kgDW/kg]

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

1.0
LIME1

2.0

3.0

[kgDW/kg]

Figure 2.3-8: Comparison between LIME1 and LIME2(acidification (terrestrial primary production))

Column 2.3-1
Method to assess the impact of soil acidification on plant growthWith progress in soil acidification, base cation (BC) – especially, potassium ion (K+),
magnesium ion (Mg+), and calcium ion (Ca2+) – decreases and facilitates a decline in trees,
while Al and heavy metals become soluble. Al hinders the growth of plant roots and reduces
their efficiency in absorption of Ca and other nutrients, causing harmful effects.
Under LIME, based on data on the growth of red pine, cedar, and Japanese cypress actually
measures by Li et al. (1997) and Kono et al. (1998), a quadratic approximation equation wasformulated by the use of Al3+ as the explanatory variable and the growth rate of trees as thedependent variable to assess the impact of soil acidification on plant growth.
Meanwhile, because, as described above, plant growth is influenced by heavy metal
concentration and BC concentration in soil solution, recently the ratio between BC
concentration and AL3+ concentration in soil solution has been frequently used as the index of
the impact of acidification on plants. Sverdrup and Warfvinge (1993) used existingmaterials for arranging differences in plant growth rate according to the pH change and99

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

concentration change of Ca, Mg, K, and Al in soil solution, and proposed “(Ca + Mg + K) / Alratio (converted into moles)” as the most suitable impact index for vegetation. Based on thisindex and the actually measured growth rate, they created a model of calculation of thecritical load of acidic deposition to the growth of each type of tree (Figure 2.3-A) and, withregard to some types of trees, proposed the relation equation between leaf loss rate and trunk
growth rate and the relation equation between root growth rate and plant survival rate. In
Japan also, the Committee for Acid Rain Measures (2004) presented “the ratio of Ex-BC(total of exchangeable Ca, Mg, and K) and Al (exchangeable Al)” as the index of soil
acidification. Hayashi et al. (2003) have developed a screening method for zones where soil
acidification due to acidic deposition may cause forest decline. This method also has
adopted the assessment index “(K + Mg + Ca) / Al ratio.”
Although their use as indices requires information on BC concentration in soil solution, data
for analysis of constituents of soil solution are not sufficient to cover every type of soil. In
addition, because the geographical fluctuation of BC concentration in soil solution is large,
BC concentration is highly likely to fluctuate greatly even by a slight difference in location.
Because of this, there are many problems concerning the application of LIME and other LCIA
models that cover all of Japan.
Vegetation map
Plant test experiment atlaboratory

Literature data on tolerance
to soil acidification
Ecosystem classification

Integration (BC/Al ratio)

Plant data applied to Asian flora

BC/Al ratio of existing plants

Existing plants

Distribution of critical points of
BC/Al ratio

Distribution of plants

Selection of plant distribution byprotection standards

BC/Al ratio of indicator plants

Critical point of BC/Al ratio in theecosystem
Weathering rate map

Indicator plants and theircritical points

SMB model(Simple Mass
Balance Model)

Critical load of acid

Figure 2.3-A: Flowchart of calculation of critical load of acidified soil on plant growth(Sverdrup et al. 1993)
The critical point of the BC/Al ratio is a value when the plant growth rate becomes 80% during anexperiment.

100

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(3) Social assets: damage function for fishery productiona Object of calculation of damage function for fishery production
With progress in terrestrial acidification, land water may be acidified in areas that serve aswater catchment areas. In North Europe and North America, a problem arose about thedisappearance of fishes due to acidification of lakes and marshes. Acidification of land
water has impact on all the organism species constituting the terrestrial ecosystem. However,
because tolerability for acid and Al differs among the organism species, it is difficult toquantify the impact on the whole ecosystem.
Meanwhile, some organisms constituting the terrestrial ecosystem have important values asfood for human beings. Among of them, salmonidae are valuable as aquatic resources,
spend the time from egg to juvenile (or adult) in rivers, lakes, or marshes so oligotropic as tobe relatively susceptible to the impact of the load of acidifying substances, and are known tobe highly sensitive to acid.
Under LIME, a damage function of acidification for salmonidae production was calculated
from the aspect of social assets. This can be said to indirectly take into account the impactof acidification on the terrestrial ecosystem. The salmonidae covered by LIME are
white-spotted char (including char), dolly varden, chum salmon (so-called salmon), pinksalmon, cherry salmon (including seema; broadly including red-spotted trout), and sockeye
salmon (including kokanee). The basic unit of geographical distribution necessary for the
calculation of damage function is 10-km mesh as in the case of the terrestrial ecosystem.
b Relation between acidic deposition and land water pH
Because soil percolation water is fully neutralized until leaching into land water, the pH ofriver water in Japan usually exceeds 7. Therefore, if the amount of acidic deposition
increases a little, land water pH will hardly change. Herein, however, thinking that a part of
H+ whose amount of deposition has increased due to additional emission leaches into rivers, it
is assumed that the degree of neutralization depends on the nature of surface soil in the zone
in question.
The legend of the Geological Map of Japan (Geological Survey of Japan (ed.) 1995) was
reclassified into seven classes in order of latent acid neutralization capacity: 1) ultramafic
rock; 2) mafic rock; 3) limestone; 4) basalt; 5) felsic rock; 6) debris/chert; and 7) sedimentaryrock (Okazaki). With regard to the neutralization rate for each class, by reference toexperimental calculation of soil’s H+ consumption by base material (Kozuki et al. 1997), a
triangular probability distribution was formulated with a minimum value of 0%, a maximum
value of 100%, and an apex of 1) 95%, 2) 65%, 3) 45%, 4) 30%, 5) 20%, 6) 15%, and 7) 5%.
The non-neutralizing rate NR of river leachate was calculated by subtracting 1 from theneutralizing rate.
It is assumed that the quantity of river leachate is the same as the quantity of percolation water
Q and that the baseline leachate pH is the same as river pH. The annual average at the river
pH monitoring points was extracted from the Public Water Quality Monitoring Data in 1997
(Environment Agency (supervised) 1998). If two or more monitoring points exist within a
10-km mesh, the arithmetic average is used as the river pH in the mesh. If there is nomonitoring point in a 10-km mesh, the average in the first mesh (40’ latitude, 1’ longitude) is
101

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

used as the river pH in the mesh.
The river pH after an increase in acidic deposition can be calculated by Equation 2.3-14.
pH1 (river )   log ( 10 pH 0 ( river )  NR [ H  ]inc )(2.3-14)

In this equation, pH1 (river) and pH0 (river) are the river pH after additional emission of anacidifying causative substance and the baseline river pH, respectively. [H+] inc is anincrement on H+ concentration after additional emission of the acidifying causative substance(Equation 2.3-10).
c Relation between a decrease in pH and the cumulative mortality rate andreproduction rate of salmonidae
Female sockeye salmon’s digging a spawning bed is remarkably controlled by a decrease in
pH (Ikuta et al. 2000). On the assumption that a decrease in the frequency of digging aspawning bed directly indicates a decrease in the spawning rate, the relation between pH andthe frequency of digging was standardized through approximation by a logistic curve anddivision by the maximum value, and a regression equation for the calculation of a spawning
rate (NestR, 0 - 1) was formulated by the use of river pH (pHriver) as the explanatory variable.
Moreover, for the purpose of uncertainty assessment, a triangular probability distribution wasformulated with an apex of the calculated NestR, a minimum value of 0, and a maximum
value of 1.
NestR 1
1  1.794  10 exp (7.503 pH river )21(2.3-15)

During the life history of salmonidae, their sensitivity to acid becomes especially high in the
period between hatched fry and surfacing fry – that is, the period between hatching andbeginning to go down a river (Ikuta et al. 1992). Under LIME, a damage function wasformulated with consideration for each of the life history stages: egg, hatched fry, surfacing
fry, and young fish (land water). By the use of results of observation of pH to salmonidae
and the median lethal time (T50: hr) (Ikuta et al. 1992, Rombough 1983), an index
approximation equation for the calculation of a cumulative mortality rate was formulated by
the use of pH as the explanatory variable at each stage of life history. Moreover, for the
purpose of uncertainty assessment, with regard to the parameters for the formulated equation,a probability distribution (t-distribution) was formulated based on the result of dispersion
analysis of observed data.
MR  1  exp (  ln 2  t

T50 )(2.3-16)

In this equation, MR and t are a cumulative mortality rate (0 - 1) during a life history and thenumber of hours passed from the beginning of the life history [hr], respectively.
d Estimation of spawning areas and life history time of salmonidae
The damage function is calculated for a 10-km mesh where salmonidae live. However, it isdifficult to estimate spawning areas themselves. In addition, there is another problem:
although salmonidae exist near spawning beds from the egg stage to the hatched fry stage,102

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

they spread downstream after surfacing (that is, they move beyond a mesh). Because it isextremely difficult to estimate them strictly, the existence of spawning in each 10-km mesh
was estimated by the use of water temperature as an index, but without consideration for
diffusion after surfacing.
By reference to information on the distribution areas and spawning period of each type of
salmonid (Miyaji et al. 1976; Masuda et al. 1984; Ochiai et al. 1986; Japan Fisheries Resource
Conservation Association 1981; Sapporo Salmon Museum), the existence of spawning in each
10-km mesh was estimated from the geographical position of the mesh and the daily averagetemperature and water temperature during the spawning period. The daily averagetemperature was calculated by creating a temperature model where a cosine function wasapplied to the normal monthly average temperature of the Mesh Climate Value (Japan
Meteorological Agency 1996). The daily average temperature was calculated by creating amodel for the calculation of water temperature fluctuation by multiplying the temperaturefluctuation fixed through the temperature model by the ratio of difference in the monthly
average water temperature (maximum water temperature – minimum water temperature) tothe monthly average temperature by the use of a case where the annual average watertemperature was expressed as an annual average temperature function (Kitano et al. 1995).
After that, with regard to each of the 10-km meshes judged as spawning areas, the time ofeach life history was calculated by deducting the estimated time of each life history obtained
from existing materials (Miyaji et al. 1976; Masuda et al 1984; Ochiai et al. 1986; Nagata et al.
1997; Japan Fisheries Resource Conservation Association 1981) by the above-describedmodel for the calculation of daily average water temperature.
Moreover, for the purpose of uncertainty assessment, with regard to the ratio of difference inthe monthly average water temperature to the monthly average temperature and the estimatedtime of each life history, a probability distribution (normal distribution) was formulated basedon the obtained annual average temperature data, if possible.
e Changes in intrinsic natural increase rate due to changes in the cumulative
mortality rate and reproduction rate of salmonidae
Given the whole population, TIpH (0 - 1), the total impact of pH on avoidance of spawning and
an increase in the mortality rate during the period between the egg stage and the young fish
stage can be expressed by the product of impact at each stage. If the impact on the spawning
rate is expressed by the spawning avoidance rate NAR = 1 – NestR to indicate the total impact:
4

TI pH  1   ai  1  ( 1  NAR ) ( 1  MR0 )(2.3-17)i 0

In this equation, ao, a1, a2, a3, and a4 are the spawning rate of adult fish (= 1 – NAR), the egg
survival rate, the fry survival rate, the surfacing fry survival rate, and young fish survival rate,
respectively.
The intrinsic natural increase rate r refers to the population increase rate per unit time and is afunction for the increase potential P (the average number of descendants that a new individual
leaves during its lifetime). The estimation of the amount of damage requires a decrease in r
– that is, the difference in r before and after an increase in the amount of H+ deposition. It is
known that r can be approximated by P (Tanaka et al. 1998).

103

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012r  ln P

T(2.3-18)

In this equation, T is the average generation time expressed by Equation 2.3-19.
T   t  l t  mtt 0 l mt(2.3-19)tt 0

In this equation, lt is the survival rate at the age of t, and mt is the number of eggs laid at theage of t. The average generation time (weighted average of age that weights the product of
the survival rate of egg-laying females and the number of laid eggs) of each type of salmonid
was estimated by reference to existing materials (Miyaji et al. 1976; Masuda et al. 1984;
Ochiai et al. 1986; Nagata et al. 1997; Japan Fisheries Resource Conservation Association
1981).
If the baseline pH is pHo, and the pH after additional emission of an acidifying causative
substance is pH1, the impact on r, rdamage can be expressed by Equation 2.3-20.

rdamage  rpH 0  rpH1  ln ( 1  TI pH 0 )( 1  TI pH1 ) T(2.3-20)

Decrease in the intrinsic natural increase rate (non-dimensional)

0.25
10% valueMedian value

90% value

0.20
rdamage-6
 H add-dep2+ 1.044  10-4  H add-dep
R2 = 1.00(Median value) = 3.840  10

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0

50

100

150
+

200
2

Hadd-dep (increase in the amount of H deposition) [eq/km /yr]

Figure 2.3-9: Relation between an increase in the amount of H+ deposition andthe impact on the intrinsic natural increase rate of salmonid (example: chum salmon)f Estimation of catch of salmonidae
Although grasping the current amount is ideal for assessing the impact on fishery resources, it
is extremely difficult to estimate the current amount. Therefore, the catch (weight andmonetary amount) of salmonidae was grasped based on the Fisheries Statistics (Statistics andInformation Department of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries).

104

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

g Damage function for fishery production
With regard to each type of salmonid, EF of fishery production in each 10-km mesh can becalculated by Equation 2.3-14 to Equation 2.3-20. The total amount of damage to fisheryproduction can be obtained by calculating rdamage in each 10-km mesh in areas where salmon
lay eggs, averaging the rdamage by weighting the area of each terrestrial area, and multiplying
the result by the catch in Japan.
On the assumption that an acidifying causative substance averagely deposits all over Japan,
rdamage per 10-km mesh concerning each type of salmonid was calculated in the case of achange in the average deposition Hadd-dep from 0 to 200 eq/km2/yr, and a weighted average
was calculated by weighting the area. After that, a quadratic approximation equation was
prepared by plotting the average value of rdamage corresponding to Hadd-dep (Figure 2.3-9), andthe approximation equation was multiplied by the catch to obtain the EF of fishery production.
However, because the calculation of damage functions and factors are based on uncertainty
analysis, it is necessary to note that it is not the same as the product of ADF and EF as
described above.
Table 2.3-10 shows statistical amounts obtained from the calculation of the acidification
damage functions for fishery production accompanied by uncertainty assessment, and Figure
2.3-10 shows the probability density distribution of the damage functions for SO2. In
addition, Table 2.3-11 shows the rank correlation coefficients of the acidification damage
functions for fishery production, while Figure 2.3-11 shows the result of comparison with
LIME1 concerning damage function values.
Table 2.3-10: Statistical amounts of acidification damage functions for fishery production
Division

SO2

NO

NO2

HCl

NH3

Unit

Yen/kg

Yen/kg

Yen/kg

Yen/kg

Yen/kgNo. of trials

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

Average value

234.3

288.2

188.8

562.5

1,359.9

Median value

97.9

121.2

77.6

212.9

520.4

Standard deviation

679.1

651.9

529.0

1,365.1

3,784.8

Dispersion

461,226.6

425,006.9

279,803.8

2,673,497

14,324,720

Skewness

23.8

8.6

15.8

16.3

17.7

Kurtosis

1,017.8

128.6

398.4

407.9

532.8

Variation coefficient

2.9

2.3

2.8

2.9

2.8

10 percentile value

13.6

27.8

17.6

74.1

240.2

90 percentile value

447.4

607.5

368.5

1,085.8

2,609.3

9.6

9.2

7.5

23.1

53.53

Average standard error••

With regard to the calculation of damage functions for fishery production, because of thecomplicatedness of the model, the number of trials is fixed at 10,000 for the purpose of uncertainty
assessment.
In this table, damage functions are calculated by dividing the amount of damage from the emissionof 1,000 kg of each acidifying substance by 1,000.

105

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Lognormal distribution
219.7
496.7

Probability

Distribution
Average valueStandard deviation[Yen/kg]
Lognormal
distribution

Acidification: social assets (fishery production)

Figure 2.3-10: Probability density distribution of acidification damage functions forfishery production (example: SO2)
Table 2.3-11: Rank correlation coefficients of acidification damage factors
for fishery production (example: SO2)
Coefficient

Correlation coefficientSO2 emission zone

0.69

Linear coefficient of relation equation between pH and inner
natural increase rate of salmonidae (salmon; hatch stage; when
pH is high)0.32

Linear coefficient of relation equation between pH and inner
natural increase rate of salmonidae (salmon; surfacing stage)

0.19

Acid neutralization rate by type of surface soil in water
catchment area (sedimentary rock)-0.18

Acid neutralization rate by type of surface soil in water
catchment area (felsite)-0.06

pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)

0.06

pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)

0.06

pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)

0.05

pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)

0.05

Variables with a correlation coefficient of 0.05 or more are extracted.

[Yen/kg])
LIME2 (yen/kg](20 to 80% value)

1500

1000

500

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

LIME1 (yen/kg )Figure 2.3-11: Comparison between LIME1 and LIME2(acidification (fishery production))

106

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012(4)Social assets: damage functions for wood production

Acid damage to primary production of the terrestrial ecosystem is also damage to social assets,
because it causes a decrease in the amount of resources as wood. Based on an NPP dataseton the existing vegetation in a 10-km mesh prepared in the section on the terrestrial ecosystem,
the total NPP value of the part of legend corresponding to forests and the total NPP value ofthe whole legend, and the EF of the terrestrial ecosystem was multiplied by 0.715, the ratio
between the two NPP values, to obtain the EF of the forest NPP. It was assumed that theforest NPP can be divided into trunks and branches and that damage to the forest NPP
indicates damage to wood production. On this assumption, the EF of the forest NPP was
multiplied by the average wood density of 500 kg/m3 and the wood producer’s unit price(Statistics and Information Department of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries2001) [yen/m3] to obtain the EF of wood production.
Table 2.3-12 shows the statistical amounts obtained from the calculation of acid damage
functions for wood production accompanied by uncertainty assessment. The probability
density distribution, rank correlation coefficients, and other factors related to damage
functions were omitted because their forms, variants, etc. are the same as those for terrestrial
primary production.
Table 2.3-12: Statistical amounts of acidification damage functions for wood production(example: SO2)
Division
SO2
NO
NO2
HCl
NH3
Unit
No. of trials(5)

Yen/kg

Yen/kg

Yen/kg

Yen/kg

Yen/kg

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

5,000

Average value

9.84

11.35

7.30

29.15

70.67

Median value

7.08

8.62

5.55

19.76

48.17

Standard deviation

14.88

13.32

8.15

34.20

72.05

Dispersion

221.50177.3366.36

1,169.66

5,191.20

Skewness

14.94

8.71

7.91

5.48

4.36

Kurtosis419.59124.50123.32

54.06

28.94

Variation coefficient

1.51

1.17

1.12

1.17

1.02

10 percentile value

3.16

3.46

2.28

9.52

31.29

90 percentile value

15.90

19.13

12.23

54.08

131.82Average standard error

0.21

0.19

0.12

0.48

1.02

Social assets: damage functions for materials

Of the materials used for buildings and other structures, some types of metals and stones are
susceptible to the impact of acidification. LIME used the dose-response function (ICP 2001)
obtained from the Europe International Co-operative Programme (ICP). This function isused for calculating the amount of corrosion of materials due to the impact of the dry
deposition of SO2 and the wet deposition of H+.
Under LIME, only the impact of wet deposition was considered. On the assumption that thedry deposition item of the dose-response function (ICP 2001) does not change before andafter an increase in the amount of H+ deposition, an increase in the degree of corrosion of107

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

each material due to an increase in the amount of H+ deposition was replaced with a functionof the amount of H+ deposition and a function of time. With regard to time, based on thethinking that maintenance would be required when corrosion progresses to some extent(metal: 50 μm; stone; 4 mm), the wet deposition item of the dose-response function wastransformed to the time when maintenance would be required. The time was multiplied by
the repair cost (metal: 3,000 yen/m2; stone; 30,000 yen/m2) to obtain an equation for the
calculation of the annual repair cost per unit area. However, because it was extremely
difficult to estimate the exposed area of materials in Japan, it was impossible to calculate the
EF and damage function of materials. Under LIME, no consideration was given to materials
as cultural assets.
(6)

Damage factors for acidification

The damage functions obtained at each endpoint were added up for each area of protection(social assets and primary production), and the total was used as the damage factor foracidification for each area of protection. That is, the total of damage functions for fisheryproduction and wood production is the damage factor for social assets, and the damage
function for the terrestrial NPP is the damage factor for primary production as it is.
Table 2.3-13 shows the statistical amounts obtained from the calculation of the acidification
damage factor for social assets, accompanied by uncertainty assessment. Figure 2.3-12
shows the probability density distribution of the damage factor of SO2 as an example. Table
2.3-14 shows the rank correlation coefficients of acidification damage factors for social assets.
Figure 2.3-13 shows the result of comparison with LIME1 concerning the damage factor. In
addition, the damage factors for primary production are as shown in Table 2.3-8, Figure 2.3-7,
Table 2.3-9, and Figure 2.3-8.
Table 2.3-15 shows the damage factor for each area of protection. Uncertainty assessment
was conducted for both social assets and primary production, and the median value of thestatistical amounts was used as the representative value.
Table 2.3-13: Statistical amounts of acidification damage factors for social assets
Division
SO2
NO
NO2
HCl
NH3
Unit
Yen/kgYen /kg
Yen /kg
Yen /kg
Yen /kg
No. of trials
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Average value
244.2
299.6
188.8
591.6
1,430.6
Median value
108.5
134.4
77.6
243.7
602.8
Standard deviation
679.2
652.4
529.0
1,636.9
3,785.2
Dispersion
461276.3 425,580.4
279,803.8
2,679,345
14,327,548
Skewness
23.8
8.6
15.8
16.2
17.7
Kurtosis
1,017.1
128.2
398.4
405.9
532.4
Variation coefficient
2.78
2.18
2.80
2.77
2.65
10 percentile value
22.9
35.8
17.6
93.1
299.3
90 percentile value
457.7
617.2
368.5
1,124.4
2,706.9
Average standard error
9.6
9.2
7.5
23.1
53.5
•
•

108

With regard to the calculation of the damage function for social assets, because of thecomplicated nature of the model, the number of trials is fixed at 10,000 for the purpose of
uncertainty assessment.
In this table, the damage factor was calculated by dividing the amount of damage from theemission of 1,000 kg of each acidifying substance by 1,000.

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Distribution
Average valueStandard
deviation

Probability

Probability

Lognormal distribution
212.6
367.5

[Yen/kg]
Lognormal distribution

Acidification: social assets

Figure 2.3-12: Probability density distribution of acidification damage factors for social
assets (example: SO2)
Table 2.3-14: Rank correlation coefficients of acidification damage function
for social assets (example: SO2)
Coefficient
Correlation coefficientSO2 emission zone

0.67

Linear coefficient of relation equation between pH and inner natural
increase rate of salmonidae (salmon; hatch stage; when pH is high)Linear coefficient of relation equation between pH and inner natural
increase rate of salmonidae (salmon; surfacing stage)
Acid neutralization rate by type of surface soil in water catchment
area (sedimentary rock)
Acid neutralization rate by type of surface soil in water catchment
area (felsite)
pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)
pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)

0.32
0.19
-0.18
-0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.05

pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)
pH – female salmonid’s spawning rate (a mesh)
Variables with a correlation coefficient of 0.05 or more are extracted.

(20 to 80% value)

LIME2 (yen/kg] )

1500

1000

500

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

LIME1 (yen/kg )Figure 2.3-13: Comparison between LIME1 and LIME2 (acidification (social assets))

109

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Table 2.3-15: Acidification damage factors
NOX
Acidifying causative substance
SO2
NO
NO2
DamagefactorHCl

NH3

Social assets(Yen/kg)

108.5

134.4

85.8

243.7

602.8

Primary production(kgDW/kg)

0.301

0.365

0.238

0.853

2.091

Because a damage calculation model that combines amounts of damage to wood production and fisheryproduction is used for uncertainty analysis concerning social assets, the total representative value ofdamage functions for wood production and fishery production is not the same as the representativevalue for social assets.

2.3-4 Procedure for impact assessment of acidification
Concretely, the procedures for characterization and impact assessment of acidification can be
carried out as described below.
Users can select what is suitable for their purpose from among characterization, damage
assessment, and integration, and use it for LCA.
The characterization result CIAcidification can be obtained from Inv (X), the inventory of anacidifying causative substance X, and CFAcidification (X), the characterization factor.
CI Acidification  CF Acidification ( X )  Inv ( X )(2.3-21)

X

There are several lists of the characterization factor CFAcidification (X). Under LIME, thecharacterization factor DAP was recommended because it is based on the environmental
conditions in Japan and has been obtained through quantitative linkage from occurrence anddeposition. CIAcidification is regarded as the total emissions of the acidifying causative
substance converted into SO2, a typical causative substance.
In addition, the damage assessment result DI (Safe) can be obtained from Inv (X) of eachacidifying causative substance and DFAcidification (Safe, X), the damage factor for each area ofprotection Safe.
DI ( Safe )   DF Acidificat ion ( Safe ，X )  Inv ( X )(2.3-22)X

DI (Safe) means the potential amount of damage to each area of protection Safe due toemissions of the acidifying causative substance. This equation enables damage assessment
concerning social assets and primary production. With regard to common areas ofprotection, comparison and integration with amounts of damage that occur through different
impact categories are possible.
IFAcidification (X), the factor that integrates impacts on social assets and primary production, isused for integration. The single index SI can be obtained from each acidifying causative
substance’s Inv (X) and the integration factor IFAcidification (X). The obtained result can bedirectly compared and added with the assessment results of other impact categories.
110

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

SI   {IF Acidification ( X )  Inv( X )}(2.3-23)

X

Appendices A1, A2, and A3 show the characterization factor CFAcidification (X), the damage
factor DFAcidification (Safe, X), and the integration factor IFAcidification (X), respectively.

[References for Section 2.3]
Aber JD, Nadelhoffer KJ, Steudler P, Melillo JM (1989): Nitrogen saturation in northern forest ecosystems,
BioScience, 39: 378-386
Amman, et al (1996): Cost-effective control of acidification and ground-level ozone. Second interim report toEuropean Commision, DG-XI, IIASA, Luxembourg
Batjes，N.H. (1995): A Global Data Set of Soil pH Properties．Technical Paper 27, International Soil Reference
and Information Centre (ISRIC)
Berrett, et al (1996): Transboundary Air Pollution in Europe.Research Report 32, EMEP/MSC-W, Report 1/96, Oslo
FAO-UNESCO (1990): Soil Map of the World
Hayashi K, Okazaki M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2004): Development of Damage Function of Acidification for
Terrestrial Ecosystems Based on the Effect of Aluminium Toxicity on Net Primary Production．Int J LCA, 9:
13-22
Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998): Environmental Assessment of Products. Volume 2: Scientific background.
Chapman & Hall, London
Heijungs R, Guinee J, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, AMM Ansems, PG
Eggels, R van Duin, HP de Goede (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of products. Guide andBackgrounds. CML, Leiden University, Leiden
Hesthagen T, Sevaldrud IH, Berger HM (1999): Assessment of Damage to Fish Populations in Norwegian Lakes
Due to Acidification, Ambio, 28: 112-117
Hogan LM, Beal RT, Hunt RG (1996): Threshold Inventory Interpretation. Methodology - A Case Study of Three
Juice Container Systems, Int. J. LCA , 1: 159-167
Huijbregts MAJ (1999): Life cycle impact assessment of acidifying and eutrophying air pollutants: Calculationof equivalency factors with RAINS-LCA，Interfaculty Department of Environ，Sci., Faculty of Environ, Sci,
Univ. of Amsterdam
ICP Materials (2001): Main Centre web page, Swedish Corrosion Institute, http://www. corr-institute.
se/ICP-Materials/
Ikuta K, Yada T, Kitamura S, Ito F, Yamaguchi M, Nishimura T, Kaneko T, Nagae M, Ishimatsu A, Iwata M(2000): Recent Studies on the Effects of Acidification on Fish in Japan, Global Environ. Res., 4: 79-87
Lindfors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Leskinen A, Hansen OJ, Ronning A, Ekvall T,
Finnveden G( 1995): LCA-NORDIC Technical Reports No. 1-9, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen

111

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Nichols, et al (1996): In Towards a Methodology (Udo de Haes ed.), SETAC─Europe, Brussels
Pierzynski GM, Sims JT, Vance GF (1994): Soil Nitrogen and Environmental Quality, In Soils andEnvironmental Quality, CRC Press, p.55-102
Posch M, Hettelingh J-P, de Smet PAM, Downing RJ (1997): Calcutaion and Mapping of Critical Thresholds in
Europe, CCE Status Report 1997, RIVM, Bilthoven
Potting J, Hauschild M (1997): Predicted Environmental Impact and Expected Occurrence of Actual Environmental
Impact Part II: Spatial Differentiation in Life-Cycle Assessment via the Site-Dependent Characterization ofEnvironmental Impact from Emissions, Int. J. LCA, 2 (4): 209-216
Rombough, P.J. (1983): Effects of Low pH on eyed embroys and Alevins of Pacific Salmon ．
Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci., 40: 1575-1582
Sverdrup, H., Warfvinge, P.(1993): The effect of soil acidification on the growth of trees, grass and herbs as
expressed by the (Ca+Mg+K)/Al ratio, Reports in ecology and environmental engineering, Lund, Sweden, p. 177
Ikuta K (1999): Impact of Land Water Acidification on Fishes, Journal of Japan Society on Water Environment,
22: 181-185
Ikuta K, Kashima T, Oda S, Okumoto N (1992): Acid-Resistance Assessment of the Eyed Eggs and Fry of
Salmonidae, Bulletin of National Research Institute of Aquaculture, 21: 39-45
Ikeda Y, Higashino H (1997): Measurement of Deposition of Acidifying Droppings in East Asia (ii), Journal ofJapan Society for Atmospheric Environment, 32 (3): 175-186
Ikeda Y et al. (2001): Establishment of a Comprehensive Method for Control of Emissions of Air Polluting
Substances in the Whole East Asia, Report on Research Results for FY1997 to FY2000 Scientific Research
Subsidies (Basic Research (B) (1))
Ichikawa Y (1998): Long-Distance Transportation of Acid Substances, Journal of Japan Society for Atmospheric
Environment, 33: A9-18
Izuta T (2001): Nitrogen Saturation in the Forest Ecosystem and Its Impact on Trees, Journal of Japan Society
for Atmospheric Environment, 36: A1-13
Iwaki H (1981): Regional Distribution of Phytomass Resources, Environment Information Science, 10: 54-61
Umemura H (1968): Podsol Soil on the Central High Mountain Range in Japan, Pedologist, 12 (2): 110-117
Okita T (1982): Atmospheric Conservation Science, Sangyo Tosho
Ohrui K (1997): Nitrogen Saturation in the Forest Ecosystem, Forest Environment, 39: 1-9
Okazaki M: private letter
Ochiai A, Tanaka M (1986): Ichthyology (New Edition) (Vol. 2), Koseisha Koseikaku, p. 1140
Ministry of the Environment (1999): Natural Environment Information GIS, CD-ROM
Ministry of the Environment (edit.) (2002): Handbook of Groundwater Pollution Measures by Nitrate Nitrogen,Environmental Research and Control Center
Ministry of the Environment (supervised) (1993): Acid Rain Science and Measures, Maruzen
Ministry of the Environment (supervised) (1998): Yearbook of National Water Quality 1998, Fuji ResearchInstituteKannari A, Baba T, Hayami H (2001): Estimation of Ammonia Emissions in Japan, Journal of Japan Society for112

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Atmospheric Environment, 36: 29-38
Japan Meteorological Agency (1996): Normal Values (Mesh Statistical Values) Observed by Japan
Meteorological Agency, CD-ROM
Kitagawa Y (1966): Clay Mineral in Podsol Soil in Sarufutu, Hokkaido, Pedologist, 10: 11-17
Kitano F, Nakano S, Maekawa K, Ono Y (1995): Impact of Water Temperature on the Stream Distribution ofRiver Dolly Varden and Prediction of Shrinkage of Biotope due to Global Warming, Wildlife Conservation, 1:
1-12
Kozuki S, Higashi T (1997): Typification of Forest Soil in Japan from Soil Organic and Inorganic Ingredient
Amounts by Use of Multivariate Analysis and Evaluation of Each Component of Proton Consumption ofForested Soil in Japan, Journal of Japanese Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 68 (3): 272-284
Kawano Y, Umezawa T, Morakoshi M (1998): Impact and Critical Point of Ca/Al on the Growth of Cedar,
Japan Cypress, and Spanish Mackerel under the Condition of Inference Cultivation, Journal of Japan Society for
Atmospheric Environment, 33 (6): 335-343
National Land Development Technology Center (ed.) (1993): Groundwater Research and Observation
Guidelines (draft), Sankaido, p. 110-111
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2002): National Land Numerical Information Land Use,
National and Regional Planning Bureau of Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Komeji T (1993): Impact of Air Pollution on Cultural Assets, Journal of Japan Society for Atmospheric
Environment, 28: A103-111
Sapporo Salmon Museum
Committee for Acid Rain Measures (2004): Comprehensive Report on Acid Rain Research, CD-ROM
Shioiri M (1934): Chemical Research on Gelatinous Substance of Clay in Soil, Japan Academic Association
Report, 10 (3): 694-699
Shigaki M (edited and written) (1998): Illustrated Waste Incineration Technology [2nd Revision], Ohmsha, p. 86
Planning and Research Division, Director-General’s Secretariat, Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (ed.)(2000): General Energy Statistics, Tsusho Sangyo Kenkyusha
Japan Waste Management Association, Japan Waste Management Research Foundation (1999): Guide toPlanning and Designing of Waste Disposal Facilities, p. 138
Statistics Bureau of Management and Coordination Agency (ed.) (each fiscal year): Statistics in Japan, Japan
Statistical Association
So Y, Kohira T, Oakazaki M (1999): Case Study on the Impact of Acidic Deposition of Acidifying Droppings on
Cedar, Japanese Cypress, and Quercus Serrata on Kazusa Hills, 13th Anthology of Environment Information
Science Treatises, Center for Environmental Information Science, p. 263-268
Tanaka Y, Nakanishi J (1998): Application of Ecological Models to Ecological Risk Analysis – Effectiveness ofExtrapolation and Life History Sensitivity Analysis, Journal of Water and Environment Technology, 21: 616-623
Center for Global Environmental Research (2000): Monthly Mosaic Diagram of Vegetation Indices in East Asia,
CD-ROM, National Institute for Environmental Studies
Geological Survey of Japan (ed.) (1995): One-Millionth Geological Map of Japan, CD-ROM
Totsuka M (1996): Impact of Acid Droppings on the Forest Ecosystem, Acid Rain – Compound Effect andImpact of the Ecosystem – (new edition) (supervised by Okita), Hakuyusha, p. 163-181

113

LIME2_C2.1-C2.3_2012

Nagata Y, Hosoya K (ed.) (1997): Current Situation and Systematic Conservation of Rare Freshwater Fishes inJapan (supervised by Ichthyological Society of Japan), Midoro Shobo, p. 379
Nakaminami H (2000): Study on Measures to Control the Transportation and Emissions of Sulfur Compound in
East Asia – Centering on China’s Control Measures, Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Environmental
Science and Technology, Osaka Prefecture University
Japan Fisheries Resource Conservation Association (1981): Material on Ecology of Aquatic Organisms, p. 361
Japan Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition (ed.) (1994): Low pH Soil and Plants, Hakuyusha
Nouchi I (1996): Impact of Acid Rain on Farm Products, Acid Rain – Compound Effect and Impact of the
Ecosystem – (new edition) (supervised by Okita), Hakuyusha, p. 233-251
Forestry Research Institute of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (1968): Collection of Cross-Section
Drawings of Forest Soil 2, p. 84
Statistics and Information Department of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (each fiscal year):
Annual Statistics of Fishery and Fish Culture 2003, Norin Tokei Kyokai
Statistics and Information Department of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2001): Report on
Supply and Demand of Lumber 2000
Hayashi K, Okazaki M (2003): Development of a Regional Screening Method by the Use of the BC/Al Ratio as
the Index Concerning the Possibility of Forest Decline due to Acidic Deposition – Case Study in South Kanto,
Journal of Society of Environmental Science, 16: 377-392
Fujita S, Sotooka Y, Ohta I (1992): Estimation of Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide from Volcanoes in Japan, Journalof Japan Society for Atmospheric Environment, 27 (6): 336-343
Fujita S, Takahashi A, Hayami H, Sakurai T (2000): Wet Deposition of Nitrate Ion and Ammonium Ion in
Japanese Islands, Journal of Society of Environmental Science, 13: 491-502
Group of Japanese Pedologists, Committee for Soil Classification and Nomenclature (1990): One-Millionth Soil
Map of Japan
Masuda H, Amaoka K, Araga C, Ueno T, Yoshino T (ed.) (1984): Illustrated Guide to Japanese Fishes<Explanation>, Tokai University Press, p. 448
Maruyama A (1995): Comparison of Soil Properties between Sloping Terrains and Sharp Sloping Terrains in
Tertiary Areas – Example Seen in Mamurogawa-cho, Yamagata, Pedologist, 35 (1): 12-25
Miyaji H, Kawanabe H, Mizuno N (1976): Illustrated Color Guide to Japanese Waterproof Fishes (fully revised
new version), Hoikusha, p. 462
Murano K (1993): Acid Rain and Acid Fog, Shokabo Publishing
Yamatani K (1968): Podsol Soil in Forests in Japan – Centering on the Tohoku Region, Pedologist, 12 (1): 2-11
Li T, Izuta T, Aoki M, Totsuka M (1997): Sole and Multiple Impact of Al and Mn on the Growth and Nutritionof Hydroponically-Cultured Red Pine Seedlings, Journal of Japan Society for Atmospheric Environment, 32 (5):371-382
Current Situation of Forest Resources, Website of Forestry Agency (as of March 31, 2002)

114