Comparative LCA between conventional luminaires and a LED luminaire with a prediction on optimisation of environmental impacts

A. Benali, K. Louhab, H. Aksas, S. Boughrara


Excessive usage of public lighting systems creates considerable environmental impacts.

Impacts before using public lighting, such as carbon dioxide emissions and the depletion of resources, are essentially due to the production of electric energy that is necessary for power supply, as well as transportation and distribution.

The manufacture of the components of a public lighting system also constitutes a life cycle, which creates emissions that have significant impacts on the environment.

After the use of a public lighting system, the strain regarding the management of end-of-life waste of light fixtures arises. Waste such as glass, plastics, metallic waste, as well as lamps of which certain types contain mercury, sodium, and other substances that are more or less harmful.

In addition to the impacts mentioned above, the direct fallouts of exploiting lighting fixtures impact fauna and flora species as well as human health under the effect of artificial light emitted throughout the night.

The present articles aims, according to the approach during the life cycle assessment (LCA), to identify which of the existing technologies can make public lighting a factor of comfort, security, wellbeing on one hand, and offer optimal performances on the environmental, energetic, and economic aspects, thus reducing the risks threatening biodiversity and the equilibrium of ecosystems.

The retained solution must converge towards an “echo-lighting” as well as towards a “smart lighting” which would answer major worries linked to the deployment and irrational use of conventional public lighting, which is energy-intensive and a generator of potential environmental damages. Smart Lighting consists of guaranteeing a dynamic operation of lights through emerging technologies, which would ensure a supply of artificial light based on the existing natural light, with the possibility of taking into account the presence of users (vehicle, pedestrian, etc) or the lack thereof, as well as the automatic adaptation of light intensity to normative demand and needs.

Full Text:



Araujo, J.; Silva, L.; Oliveira, L.; Fortes, M.; Borba, B.; Colombini, A. Assessment of the Technological update of Public Lighting in Brazil. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans 18 6 (2020) 985 - 991.

Challéat, S.; Lapostolle, D. Réconcilier éclairage urbain et environnement nocturne : les enjeux d’une controverse sociotechnique. Natures Sciences Sociétés 328 (2014) 317–328.

Hellweg, S.; Canals, L. M. I. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344 6188 (2014) 1109–1113.

Tähkämö, L.; Halonen, L. Life cycle assessment of road lighting luminaires - Comparison of light-emitting diode and high-pressure sodium technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production 93 (2015) 234 -242.

Frischknecht, R.; Jungbluth, N. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods Data v1.1. ecoinvent Report 3 (2004) 116.

Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91 (2009) 1–21.

Phannil, N.; Jettanasen, C.; Ngaopitakkul, A. Harmonics and Reduction of Energy Consumption in Lighting Systems by Using LED Lamps. Energies 11 (2018) 31- 69.

Sordello, R.; Vanpeene, S.; Azam, C.; Kerbiriou, C.; Leviol, I. Effet fragmentant de la lumière artificielle- Quels impacts sur la mobilité des espèces et comment peuvent-ils être pris en compte dans les réseaux écologiques ?. Rapport de recherche IRSTEA (2014) 31.

Vanpeene, S.; Sordello, R.; Amsallem, J.; Billon, L. Bilan technique et scientifique sur l’élaboration des Schémas régionaux de cohérence écologique Méthodes d’identification des obstacles et d’attribution des objectifs. Centre de ressources TVB Obstacles et objectifs 2 (2017) 8-88.

Sordello, R. Pollution lumineuse et trame verte et bleue : vers une trame noire en France . Territoire en mouvement Revue de géographie et aménagement 2010 (2021) 1–11.

Gronfier, C.; Claustrat, B.; Denis, P.; Cooper, H. Aging of Non-Visual Spectral Sensitivity to Light in Humans: Compensatory Mechanisms ?. PLoS ONE 9 1 (2014) 1–10.

AFE. Eclairage dans les collectivités. Fiches pratiques Association Française d’éclairage (2020) 2-56.

Dale, A.T.; Bilec M. M.; Marriott, J.; Hartley, D.; Jurgens, C.; Zatcoff, E. Preliminary Comparative Life-Cycle Impacts of Streetlight Technology. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 17 (2011) 193–199.

Lundie, S.; Peters, G. M.; Beavis, P. C. Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environmental Science & Technology 38 (2004) 3465–3473.

Tuenge, J. R.; Hollomon, B. J.; Dillon, H. E.; Snowden-Swan, L. J. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Environmental Impacts of LED Lighting Products, Part 3: LED Environmental Testing. Energy efficiency & Renawable Energy (2013) 1-211.

Zhang, H.; Burr, J.; Zhao, F. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of lighting technologies for greenhouse crop production. Journal of Cleaner Production 140 (2017) 705–713.

Abdul Hadi, S.; Al Kaabi, M. R.; Al Ali, M. O.; Arafat, H. A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of streetlight technologies for minor roads in united arab emirates. Energy for Sustainable Development 17 (2013) 438–450.


  • There are currently no refbacks.