When it comes to evaluating the sustainability of materials, lifecycle assessment (LCA) is the industry standard. Architects, interior designers, and builders rely on these tools to assess the environmental impact of their choices. But here’s the issue: traditional LCAs stop short of protecting what I care about most – wildlife. Hence our reason to cover lifecycle assessment for wildlife conservation efforts.
LCAs often reduce complex environmental impacts into simplified metrics. They might deem a material “sustainable” based on carbon emissions or water use but completely overlook how it disrupts the lives of real animals. For example, bamboo might score high on sustainability metrics, but its farming practices can destroy the habitats of red pandas.
As a designer focused on wildlife conservation, I’ve found that LCAs alone aren’t enough. I take their insights further—evaluating not just the lifecycle of materials but how each choice ripples through the lives of wildlife. From an animal’s ability to find food and water to their health and ability to raise young, these impacts are often ignored by traditional approaches.
In this post, I’ll explain the limitations of LCAs, introduce a new way to think about material impacts, and show why prioritizing wildlife leads to different and often better results.
Limitations of Traditional Lifecycle Assessment for Wildlife Conservation
Traditional lifecycle assessments (LCAs) are designed to quantify environmental impacts, such as carbon emissions, energy use, and water consumption, across a material’s lifecycle. While these metrics are valuable, they paint an incomplete picture when it comes to wildlife.
The Problem with Oversimplified Metrics
LCAs translate complex impacts into numbers. This simplification is meant to make decision-making easier, but it often glosses over critical effects on animals. A material might earn a high sustainability score because it uses less water or produces fewer emissions. But these metrics say nothing about how its production affects the survival of specific species.
For example:
- Timber harvested for construction might score well if it’s replanted quickly. However, reforestation efforts don’t account for how logging interrupts the nesting and feeding cycles of birds like the spotted owl, which relies on old-growth forests.
- Concrete made with recycled aggregates can reduce emissions compared to traditional concrete. But sourcing those aggregates might involve dredging riverbeds, destroying habitats for fish and amphibians.
What Standard LCAs Miss
LCAs typically assess materials based on broad environmental categories: land use, resource depletion, or pollution. These are important, but they don’t get granular enough to account for how specific wildlife populations are impacted. For example:
- A material might score well on land use efficiency but destroy food sources for bees, reducing their ability to pollinate and reproduce.
- It could minimize water consumption but pollute nearby water sources with runoff that harms frogs, turtles, or fish.
- Even materials considered non-toxic to humans might leach chemicals that interfere with the communication signals of aquatic species, such as dolphins and fish.
Wildlife is More Than “Biodiversity”
LCAs often treat wildlife as a single metric—biodiversity loss. But biodiversity doesn’t tell the full story. It’s not just about the number of species affected; it’s about the specific ways animals live.
- Does a material interfere with animals’ ability to find food or drink clean water?
- Does it expose them to harmful toxins that affect their ability to care for offspring?
- Does it fragment habitats, making it harder for species to migrate, find mates, or raise young?
Traditional LCAs don’t answer these questions. That’s why I take a different approach—one that prioritizes the lives and well-being of wildlife, not just their habitats.
A Wildlife-Centric Approach to Lifecycle Assessment
To address the gaps in traditional LCAs, I’ve developed a more detailed and wildlife-focused approach. It goes beyond environmental metrics like carbon emissions and water use. Instead, it examines the ripple effects of materials on the lives of animals—right down to how specific ingredients in those materials affect their ability to thrive.
Breaking Down the Lifecycle—For Wildlife
Rather than just assessing a material’s overall lifecycle, I look at every step with wildlife in mind. This includes:
- Raw Material Extraction:
- Does mining for minerals or harvesting disrupt nesting grounds or migration patterns?
- Are the byproducts from extraction contaminating food or water sources?
- Manufacturing Processes:
- Are chemicals used in production affecting nearby ecosystems?
- Does noise, vibration, or light pollution from factories stress local wildlife or disrupt breeding?
- Transportation Impacts:
- Are shipping routes crossing through critical wildlife corridors?
- Do emissions from transport harm nearby air or water quality, affecting species like birds and amphibians?
- Installation and Use:
- Does the material release toxins or microplastics that accumulate in nearby soils or waterways?
- Does its presence alter the behavior of local species—such as bright surfaces disorienting nocturnal animals?
- End-of-Life Considerations:
- Does disposal release harmful compounds into landfills or incinerators?
- Could the material break down into particles that infiltrate water systems, impacting aquatic life?
How Wildlife Prioritization Changes the Equation
When you shift the focus to wildlife, material rankings look very different.
- A material with low carbon emissions might score high in traditional LCAs. But if its production requires clearing mangroves—critical habitats for fish nurseries—it’s not acceptable from a wildlife perspective.
- A recycled plastic might reduce landfill waste, but if microplastics leach into streams and harm aquatic species, it’s not a true solution.
By prioritizing wildlife, I often reject materials that LCAs would deem sustainable. The result is a smaller pool of options—but also a greater opportunity for creativity. I pair unconventional materials with designs that meet both human and wildlife needs.
Thinking Beyond Sustainability
This approach isn’t about balancing sustainability and wildlife. It’s about reshaping the criteria entirely. Wildlife impacts aren’t just an “add-on” to existing metrics—they are the foundation of the evaluation. That’s how I ensure that every choice I make aligns with the well-being of the natural world.
Examples of Wildlife-Centric Material Evaluations
Now that we’ve discussed the importance of prioritizing wildlife in lifecycle assessments, let’s take a closer look at how this framework plays out in practice. Here are a few examples where traditional LCAs would lead to an entirely different outcome than my wildlife-first approach.
Example 1: Bamboo Flooring
Bamboo is often celebrated for being an eco-friendly material because it’s fast-growing and can replace hardwoods like oak or maple. In a traditional LCA, bamboo flooring would likely score very well due to its low carbon footprint and renewable nature.
But bamboo farming can have unintended consequences for wildlife. In some regions, the expansion of bamboo plantations leads to the displacement of natural forests, threatening species like the red panda. These animals depend on old-growth forests for food, shelter, and nesting sites. Bamboo farming can disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem, eliminating crucial foraging grounds and even exposing the animals to predators.
From a wildlife perspective, bamboo flooring isn’t as sustainable as it seems. I evaluate bamboo on a more granular level, looking at where and how it’s sourced and the potential ripple effects on local species. If it disrupts a habitat for a threatened species, it doesn’t make the cut for my designs.
Example 2: Recycled Plastics
Recycled plastic is another material that typically scores well on traditional LCAs. It reduces waste, conserves resources, and often comes with a lower environmental footprint. But from a wildlife standpoint, recycled plastic can be problematic.
Recycled plastics, when improperly processed, can still release harmful chemicals like phthalates or BPA. These toxins can leach into water systems, poisoning fish, amphibians, and even the animals that drink from contaminated streams. Microplastics are also a growing concern, with particles infiltrating food chains and harming marine life.
While traditional LCAs may give recycled plastic high marks for sustainability, my evaluation takes these biological threats into account. The potential harm to aquatic species from leaching chemicals or microplastics is significant. As a result, I prioritize materials that are both low-impact and non-toxic to wildlife, steering clear of recycled plastic options when the risks outweigh the benefits.
Example 3: Concrete with Recycled Aggregates
Concrete is one of the most commonly used materials in construction, and its sustainability score improves when recycled aggregates are used. Traditional LCAs might give this version of concrete an edge over conventional concrete, as it reduces the demand for raw materials and lowers emissions.
But what traditional LCAs don’t account for is how these recycled aggregates are sourced. In some cases, they come from riverbeds or other sensitive ecosystems. The extraction process disrupts local habitats, harms aquatic life, and destroys breeding grounds for species like fish, amphibians, and insects.
When I assess concrete, I don’t just look at the recycled content—it’s also about how the materials are extracted and the lasting impact on wildlife. For my projects, I choose concrete options that minimize disturbance to ecosystems, often opting for locally sourced aggregates that have minimal impact on animal habitats.
Example 4: Timber Sourcing
Sustainable timber is often promoted as an eco-friendly building material because it is renewable. Traditional LCAs may favor certified timber from responsible forestry programs like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). But sustainable certification doesn’t always equate to wildlife protection.
In some regions, timber harvesting might be certified sustainable, but it still results in habitat fragmentation, which disrupts species migration patterns, alters feeding areas, and isolates animal populations. A common example is the impact of logging on the habitat of forest-dwelling species such as the spotted owl or caribou.
For me, it’s not enough for timber to be labeled sustainable. I dig deeper into the sourcing process, looking at factors like the specific type of forest it comes from, whether it’s near critical wildlife corridors, and how logging practices affect local species. Timber that disrupts migratory routes or breeding habitats isn’t an option for my designs, even if it’s certified as sustainable by traditional standards.
Rethinking Lifecycle Assessment for Wildlife Conservation
The traditional lifecycle assessment framework, while valuable, often fails to consider the true impact on wildlife. The broad environmental metrics it uses—carbon emissions, water use, and resource depletion—oversimplify the complex relationships between materials and the lives of animals.
By adopting a wildlife-centric approach, I dig deeper into the specific effects that materials have on wildlife populations, from disrupting food sources and mating behaviors to contaminating water systems. Traditional LCAs may miss these nuances, leading to the selection of materials that seem sustainable on paper but cause real harm to the ecosystems and species that rely on them.
My approach doesn’t just assess materials for their sustainability; it evaluates how they impact the actual well-being of wildlife—whether it’s disrupting the life cycle of an endangered bird or poisoning aquatic life. It’s about looking at the full lifecycle, from extraction to disposal, and prioritizing wildlife survival in every step.
The result is a smaller, more curated selection of materials—one that requires creativity but aligns with my commitment to wildlife conservation. It’s not just about finding materials that are less harmful; it’s about finding materials that actively support the well-being of animals, their habitats, and the ecosystems we all share.
This is where my design process steps in. By rethinking lifecycle assessment through a wildlife-focused lens, I can ensure that every choice I make helps create spaces that are not only beautiful but also nurturing to the natural world.
If we all start thinking beyond the numbers, we can change the way we build and live—creating homes that truly coexist with wildlife, rather than contributing to their decline.
