Please login first
Serenella Sala   Dr.  Research or Laboratory Scientist 
Timeline See timeline
Serenella Sala published an article in January 2019.
Top co-authors See all
Peter Nijkamp

68 shared publications

Adam Mickiewicz University

Marco Vighi

57 shared publications

IMDEA Water Institute; Science and Technology Campus of the University of Alcalá; Alcalá de Henares Madrid Spain

Miguel Brandão

32 shared publications

Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation; 24-100 Pulawy Poland

E. Collina

24 shared publications

Università di Milano-Bicocca

Valentina Castellani

16 shared publications

European Commission Joint Research Centre, Directorate D - Sustainable Resources - Bio-Economy Unit, Ispra, Italy

Publication Record
Distribution of Articles published per year 
( - 2018)
Total number of journals
published in
Publications See all
Article 0 Reads 0 Citations National inventories of land occupation and transformation flows in the world for land use impact assessment Maria Faragò, Lorenzo Benini, Serenella Sala, Michela Secchi... Published: 09 January 2019
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, doi: 10.1007/s11367-018-01581-8
DOI See at publisher website
Article 0 Reads 0 Citations Energy simulation and LCA for macro-scale analysis of eco-innovations in the housing stock Karen Allacker, Valentina Castellani, Giorgio Baldinelli, Fr... Published: 14 December 2018
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, doi: 10.1007/s11367-018-1548-3
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
Energy consumption of buildings is one of the major drivers of environmental impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) may support the assessment of burdens and benefits associated to eco-innovations aiming at reducing these environmental impacts. Energy efficiency policies however typically focus on the meso- or macro-scale, while interventions are typically taken at the micro-scale. This paper presents an approach that bridges this gap by using the results of energy simulations and LCA studies at the building level to estimate the effect of micro-scale eco-innovations on the macro-scale, i.e. the housing stock in Europe. LCA and dynamic energy simulations are integrated to accurately assess the life cycle environmental burdens and benefits of eco-innovation measures at the building level. This allows quantitatively assessing the effectiveness of these measures to lower the energy use and environmental impact of buildings. The analysis at this micro-scale focuses on 24 representative residential buildings within the EU. For the upscaling to the EU housing stock, a hybrid approach is used. The results of the micro-scale analysis are upscaled to the EU housing stock scale by adopting the eco-innovation measures to (part of) the EU building stock (bottom–up approach) and extrapolating the relative impact reduction obtained for the reference buildings to the baseline stock model. The reference buildings in the baseline stock model have been developed by European Commission-Joint Research Centre based on a statistical analysis (top–down approach) of the European housing stock. The method is used to evaluate five scenarios covering various aspects: building components (building envelope insulation), technical installations (renewable energy), user behaviour (night setback of the setpoint temperature), and a combined scenario. Results show that the proposed combination of bottom–up and top–down approaches allow accurately assessing the impact of eco-innovation measures at the macro-scale. The results indicate that a combination of policy measures is necessary to lower the environmental impacts of the building stock to a significative extent. Interventions addressing energy efficiency at building level may lead to the need of a trade-off between resource efficiency and environmental impacts. LCA integrated with dynamic energy simulation may help unveiling the potential improvements and burdens associated to eco-innovations.
Article 0 Reads 1 Citation Benchmarks for environmental impact of housing in Europe: Definition of archetypes and LCA of the residential building s... Monica Lavagna, Catia Baldassarri, Andrea Campioli, Serena G... Published: 01 November 2018
Building and Environment, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.008
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
The study describes the results of a full LCA applied to 24 statistically-based dwelling archetypes, representative of the EU housing stock in 2010. The aim is to quantify the average environmental impacts related to housing in Europe and to define reference values (baseline scenario) for policies development. The average environmental impacts has been calculated accounting for the number of dwellings (clustered per typology, year of construction and climate zone) related to each representative model. System boundaries include production, construction, use (energy and water consumption), maintenance/replacement, and end-of-life phases of each dwelling. The environmental life cycle impact assessment is carried out using the ILCD method. EU average annual environmental impact per person, per dwelling and per m2 were calculated. Results show that the average life cycle greenhouse gases emissions related to housing per person per year are 2.62 t CO2eq and related to a representative dwelling per year are of 6.36 t CO2eq. The use phase (energy and water consumption) is the most relevant one, followed by the production of construction materials and by replacement operations. Single-family houses are responsible for the highest share of impacts from housing in Europe. The same type of building has different impacts in different climatic zones, especially because of differences in the need for space heating. In general, electricity use and space heating are the activities that contribute the most to the overall impacts. The overall results could be used as a baseline scenario for testing eco-innovation scenarios for impact reduction and for setting targets.
Article 0 Reads 0 Citations Estimating chemical ecotoxicity in EU ecolabel and in EU product environmental footprint Erwan Saouter, An De Schryver, Rana Pant, Serenella Sala Published: 01 September 2018
Environment International, doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.05.022
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
The EU Commission Ecolabel and the Product and Environmental Footprint (PEF) aim at promoting the development and consumption of greener products. The product aquatic toxicity score from these 2 methods may lead in some circumstances to opposite conclusions. Although this could be interpreted as an inconsistency, the score should not be compared to each other but used in a complementary way. In short, CDV provided a “full” product formula aquatic toxicity score, even if some chemicals may never reach or persist in freshwater ecosystems. The USEtox® score, by integrating fate and exposure, focuses on the potential toxicity of persistent-water-soluble chemicals at steady state. Since no risk or safety assessment can be conducted with USEtox® nor with the CDV, both are a hazard-based scoring system. This short communication clarifies the difference between approaches underpinning the toxicity scores used in Ecolabel and PEF, providing guidance on how to interpret the results.
Article 0 Reads 1 Citation Food waste accounting along global and European food supply chains: State of the art and outlook Sara Corrado, Serenella Sala Published: 01 September 2018
Waste Management, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.032
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
Contributing to environmental pollution and resources depletion, food waste represents a considerable inefficiency of the global food system. Within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 12.3, countries committed to halve per-capita food waste generated at retail and consumer levels and to decrease food waste along the food supply chain by 2030. Reliable and detailed information on food waste is of utmost importance for the actors of the food supply chain, organizations and governments willing to implement and monitor effective reduction strategies. The present paper is a review of existing studies on food waste generation at the global and European scales and aims primarily at describing and comparing the approaches adopted, and secondarily at analysing their potential in supporting food waste related European interventions and policies. Ten studies were selected among relevant scientific papers and grey literature and their underlying quantification methodologies were systematically analysed. Methodological elements discussed in the paper include type of waste streams captured by estimations, distinction between edible and inedible food waste along the agro-food supply chain, reported units of measure, overall inefficiencies of the food system, and uncertainty of data. Current estimations of food loss and waste generation range between 194–389 kg per person per year at the global scale, and between 158–298 kg per person per year at the European scale. However, further efforts are needed to improve their level of detail and reliability and to foster their support to food loss and waste-related strategies.
Article 0 Reads 3 Citations Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks Lucia Mancini, Serenella Sala Published: 01 August 2018
Resources Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.02.002
DOI See at publisher website
Conference papers
CONFERENCE-ARTICLE 6 Reads 0 Citations Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Research Needs and Challenges from Science to Policy Making David Pennington, Miguel Brandao, Rana Pant, Serenella Sala Published: 02 November 2011
doi: 10.3390/wsf-00709
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
Environmental implications of the whole supply-chain of products, both goods and services, their use, and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from "cradle to grave" have to be considered to achieve more sustainable production and consumption patterns. In the Communication on Integrated Product Policy (IPP), the European Commission committed to produce a handbook on best practice in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) Action Plan (EC, 2008) confirmed that "(…) consistent and reliable data and methods are required to assess the overall environmental performance of products (…)". In this context, JRC led a "science to policy" process which resulted in the ILCD International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook ILCD Handbook is a series of detailed technical documents, providing guidance for good practice in Life Cycle Assessment in business and government, serving as. "parent" document for developing sector- and product-specific guidance documents, criteria and simplified tools. For Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), the Handbook provide guidelines to methods and assessments to analyse the emissions into air, water and soil, as well as the natural resources consumed in terms of their contributions to different impacts on human health, natural environment, and availability of resources. Several methodologies have been developed for LCIA and some efforts have been made towards harmonisation. In order to support the selection of the methods, criteria for good characterisation modelling practice were developed in advance to be used in the evaluation and comparison of the selected methods. The criteria include scientific, applicability and stakeholder acceptance issues. Methods and models for LCIA were reviewed, covering different impact categories such as climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation, respiratory inorganics, ionising radiation, acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, ecotoxicity, land use and resource depletion. The guidelines for LCIA come from a comprehensive process of selection of methods based on a set of scientific and stakeholder acceptance criteria and involving extensive hearings of domain experts, advisory groups and the public, during a public consultation. In this "from science to policy support" process a number of research needs, critical issues and challenges for Life Cycle Impact Assessment emerged. Robustness of models and reliability of characterisation factors must be the basis for further development in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).