scholarly journals Integrating Life Cycle Assessment and Other Tools for Ex Ante Integrated Sustainability Assessment in the Minerals Industry

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1214-1227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shields
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Integrated Sustainability

scholarly journals Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 7386
Author(s):  
Thomas Schaubroeck ◽  
Simon Schaubroeck ◽  
Reinout Heijungs ◽  
Alessandra Zamagni ◽  
Miguel Brandão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Product Life Cycle ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Consequential Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Modelling Framework ◽  
Potential Environmental Impact ◽  
Reference Environment ◽  
The Impact

To assess the potential environmental impact of human/industrial systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a very common method. There are two prominent types of LCA, namely attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA). A lot of literature covers these approaches, but a general consensus on what they represent and an overview of all their differences seems lacking, nor has every prominent feature been fully explored. The two main objectives of this article are: (1) to argue for and select definitions for each concept and (2) specify all conceptual characteristics (including translation into modelling restrictions), re-evaluating and going beyond findings in the state of the art. For the first objective, mainly because the validity of interpretation of a term is also a matter of consensus, we argue the selection of definitions present in the 2011 UNEP-SETAC report. ALCA attributes a share of the potential environmental impact of the world to a product life cycle, while CLCA assesses the environmental consequences of a decision (e.g., increase of product demand). Regarding the second objective, the product system in ALCA constitutes all processes that are linked by physical, energy flows or services. Because of the requirement of additivity for ALCA, a double-counting check needs to be executed, modelling is restricted (e.g., guaranteed through linearity) and partitioning of multifunctional processes is systematically needed (for evaluation per single product). The latter matters also hold in a similar manner for the impact assessment, which is commonly overlooked. CLCA, is completely consequential and there is no limitation regarding what a modelling framework should entail, with the coverage of co-products through substitution being just one approach and not the only one (e.g., additional consumption is possible). Both ALCA and CLCA can be considered over any time span (past, present & future) and either using a reference environment or different scenarios. Furthermore, both ALCA and CLCA could be specific for average or marginal (small) products or decisions, and further datasets. These findings also hold for life cycle sustainability assessment.

scholarly journals Sustainability Assessment with Integrated Circular Economy Principles: A Toy Case Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 3856
Author(s):  
Rebeka Kovačič Lukman ◽  
Vasja Omahne ◽  
Damjan Krajnc
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Environmental Impacts ◽  
Circular Economy ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Product Life Cycle ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Social Impacts ◽  
Life Cycle Costing ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment

When considering the sustainability of production processes, research studies usually emphasise environmental impacts and do not adequately address economic and social impacts. Toy production is no exception when it comes to assessing sustainability. Previous research on toys has focused solely on assessing environmental aspects and neglected social and economic aspects. This paper presents a sustainability assessment of a toy using environmental life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment. We conducted an inventory analysis and sustainability impact assessment of the toy to identify the hotspots of the system. The main environmental impacts are eutrophication, followed by terrestrial eco-toxicity, acidification, and global warming. The life cycle costing approach examined the economic aspect of the proposed design options for toys, while the social assessment of the alternative designs revealed social impacts along the product life cycle. In addition, different options based on the principles of the circular economy were analysed and proposed in terms of substitution of materials and shortening of transport distances for the toy studied.

scholarly journals Mitigation Life Cycle Assessment: Best Practices from LCA of Energy and Water Infrastructure That Incurs Impacts to Mitigate Harm

Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 992 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Grubert ◽  
Jennifer Stokes-Draut
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Functional Unit ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Environmental Costs ◽  
Lca Results

Climate change will require societal-scale infrastructural changes. Balancing priorities for water, energy, and climate will demand that approaches to water and energy management deviate from historical practice. Infrastructure designed to mitigate environmental harm, particularly related to climate change, is likely to become increasingly prevalent. Understanding the implications of such infrastructure for environmental quality is thus of interest. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) is a common sustainability assessment tool that aims to quantify the total, multicriteria environmental impact caused by a functional unit. Notably, however, LCA quantifies impacts in the form of environmental “costs” of delivering the functional unit. In the case of mitigation infrastructures, LCA results can be confusing because they are generally reported as the harmful impacts of performing mitigation rather than as net impacts that incorporate benefits of successful mitigation. This paper argues for defining mitigation LCA as a subtype of LCA to facilitate better understanding of results and consistency across studies. Our recommendations are informed by existing LCA literature on mitigation infrastructure, focused particularly on stormwater and carbon management. We specifically recommend that analysts: (1) use a performance-based functional unit; (2) be attentive to burden shifting; and (3) assess and define uncertainty, especially related to mitigation performance.

A multi-criteria sustainability assessment for biodiesel alternatives in Spain: Life cycle assessment normalization and weighting

2021 ◽  
Vol 164 ◽  
pp. 1195-1203
Author(s):  
Francisca Fernández-Tirado ◽  
Carlos Parra-López ◽  
Mercedes Romero-Gámez
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Sustainability Assessment

scholarly journals Ex ante life cycle assessment of GaAs/Si nanowire–based tandem solar cells: a benchmark for industrialization

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1767-1782
Author(s):  
Georgios Pallas ◽  
Martina G. Vijver ◽  
Willie J. G. M. Peijnenburg ◽  
Jeroen Guinée
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Solar Cells ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Tandem Solar Cells ◽  
Si Nanowire ◽  
Ex Ante

scholarly journals Upscaling methods used in ex ante life cycle assessment of emerging technologies: a review

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 1680-1692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalya Tsoy ◽  
Bernhard Steubing ◽  
Coen van der Giesen ◽  
Jeroen Guinée
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Emerging Technologies ◽  
Ex Ante

scholarly journals Comprehensive Evaluation of the Sustainable Development of Battery Electric Vehicles in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (20) ◽  
pp. 5635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang ◽  
Zhou ◽  
Li ◽  
Wei
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Electric Vehicles ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Social Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Battery Electric Vehicles ◽  
The Social

Due to the rapid growth in the total number of vehicles in China, energy consumption and environmental pollution are serious problems. The development of electric vehicles (EVs) has become one of the important measures for solving these problems. As EVs are in a period of rapid development, sustainability research on them is conducive to the timely discovery of—and solution to—problems in the development process, but current research on the sustainability of EVs is still scarce. Based on the strategic development direction of EVs in China, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) were chosen as the research object of this study. The theory and method of the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) were used to study the sustainability of BEVs. Specifically, the indicators of the life cycle assessment (LCA) were constructed, and the GaBi software was used to assess the environmental dimensions. The framework of life cycle costing (LCC) was used to assess the economic dimensions from the perspective of consumers. The indicators of the social life cycle assessment (SLCA) of stakeholders were constructed to assess the social dimension. Then, the method of the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) was selected for multicriteria decision-making in order to integrate the three dimensions. A specific conclusion was drawn from a comparison of BEVs and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The study found that the life cycle sustainability of ICEVs in China was better than that of BEVs. This result might be unexpected, but there were reasons for it. Through sensitivity analysis, it was concluded that the current power structure and energy consumption in the operation phase of BEVs had a higher environmental impact, and the high cost of batteries and the government subsidy policy had a higher impact on the cost of BEVs. Corresponding suggestions are put forward at the end of the article.

scholarly journals A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oriana Gava ◽  
Fabio Bartolini ◽  
Francesca Venturi ◽  
Gianluca Brunori ◽  
Angela Zinnai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Sustainability Assessment ◽  
Consumer Information ◽  
Policy Interventions ◽  
Security Research ◽  
Business To Consumer ◽  
Development Goals

In pursuit of agricultural sustainability and food security, research should contribute to policy-making by providing scientifically robust evidence. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an excellent candidate for generating that evidence, thereby helping the selection of interventions towards more sustainable agri-food. The purpose of this article is proposing a basis for discussion on the use of the LCA tool for targeting and monitoring of environmental policy interventions in agri-food. The problem of reducing the environmental burden in agri-food can be tackled by acting on the supply and/or demand sides and may benefit from the collaboration of supply chain stakeholders. Agri-food policies that most benefit from LCA-based data concern cross-border pollution, transaction costs following the adoption of environmental standards, adoption of less polluting practices and/or technologies, and business-to-consumer information asymmetry. The choice between the methodological options available for LCA studies (attributional, consequential, or hybrid models) depends on the purpose and scope of the study. The possibility of integrating the LCA with economic and social impact assessments—e.g., under the life cycle sustainability assessment framework—makes LCA an excellent tool for monitoring business or sectoral-level achievements with respect to UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document