Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Responsible editor: Andrea J Russell-Vaccari
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01737-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Assessing impacts of abiotic resource use has been a topic of persistent debate among life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method developers and a source of confusion for life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners considering the different interpretations of the safeguard subject for mineral resources and the resulting variety of LCIA methods to choose from. Based on the review and assessment of 27 existing LCIA methods, accomplished in the first part of this paper series (Sonderegger et al. 2020), this paper provides recommendations regarding the application-dependent use of existing methods and areas for future method development.
Within the “global guidance for LCIA indicators and methods” project of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment, 62 members of the “task force mineral resources” representing different stakeholders discussed the strengths and limitations of existing LCIA methods and developed initial conclusions. These were used by a subgroup of eight members at the Pellston Workshop® held in Valencia, Spain, to derive recommendations on the application-dependent use and future development of impact assessment methods.
First, the safeguard subject for mineral resources within the area of protection (AoP) natural resources was defined. Subsequently, seven key questions regarding the consequences of mineral resource use were formulated, grouped into “inside-out” related questions (i.e., current resource use leading to changes in opportunities for future users to use resources) and “outside-in” related questions (i.e., potential restrictions of resource availability for current resource users). Existing LCIA methods were assigned to these questions, and seven methods (ADPultimate reserves, SOPURR, LIME2endpoint, CEENE, ADPeconomic reserves, ESSENZ, and GeoPolRisk) are recommended for use in current LCA studies at different levels of recommendation. All 27 identified LCIA methods were tested on an LCA case study of an electric vehicle, and yielded divergent results due to their modeling of impact mechanisms that address different questions related to mineral resource use. Besides method-specific recommendations, we recommend that all methods increase the number of minerals covered, regularly update their characterization factors, and consider the inclusion of secondary resources and anthropogenic stocks. Furthermore, the concept of dissipative resource use should be defined and integrated in future method developments.
In an international consensus-finding process, the current challenges of assessing impacts of resource use in LCA have been addressed by defining the safeguard subject for mineral resources, formulating key questions related to this safeguard subject, recommending existing LCIA methods in relation to these questions, and highlighting areas for future method development.
Bach V, Berger M, Henßler M et al (2016) Integrated method to assess resource efficiency – ESSENZ. J Clean Prod 137:118–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.077 CrossRef
Cimprich A, Young SB, Helbig C et al (2017) Extension of geopolitical supply risk methodology: characterization model applied to conventional and electric vehicles. J Clean Prod 162:754–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.063 CrossRef
CML (2016) CML-IA Characterisation Factors - Leiden University. https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/research/research-output/science/cml-ia-characterisation-factors. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
EC-JRC (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: Framework and Requirements for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Models and Indicators. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra
EC-JRC (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European context. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy
El Serafy S (1989) The proper calculation of income from Depletable natural resources. In: Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Fraunhofer (2018) Science meets business workshop, march 6, 2018. Germany, Stuttgart
Frischknecht R (2014) Impact assessment of abiotic resources: the role of borrowing and dissipative resource use. LCA DF 55, Zuerich
Frischknecht R (2016) Impact assessment of abiotic resources: the role of borrowing and dissipative resource use. Presentation at Ecobalance 2016
Frischknecht R, Büsser Knöpfel S (2013) Swiss eco-factors 2013 according to the ecological scarcity method. Fed off environ FOEN 256
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99 a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment - methodology report. Ministerie van VROM, Den Haag
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, de Schryver A et al (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Characterisation. Ministerie van VROM, Den Haag
Helbig C, Gemechu ED, Pillain B et al (2016) Extending the geopolitical supply risk indicator: application of life cycle sustainability assessment to the petrochemical supply chain of polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fibers. J Clean Prod 137:1170–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.214 CrossRef
Itsubo N, Inaba A (2014) LIME2 - Chapter 2 : Characterization and Damage Evaluation Methods. Tokyo
Life Cycle Initiative (2019) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators volume 2. Paris, France. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/training-resources/global-guidance-for-life-cycle-impact-assessment-indicators-volume-2/2019
Mancini L, Camillis C de Pennington D (2013) Security of supply and scarcity of raw materials
Reller A (2016) Criticality of metal based functional materials – how multi-functional trans-technical metal based materials are mobilized and how they get lost by dissipation. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem 1:25–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGSC.2016.08.001 CrossRef
Schulze R, Guinée J, Dewulf J, et al (2020) Abiotic resource use in life cycle impact assessment—Part I- towards a common perspective. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104596 CrossRef
Sonderegger T, Dewulf J, Fantke P, Souza DM, Pfister S, Stoessel F, Verones F, Vieira M, Weidema B, Hellweg S (2017) Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1912–1927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1297-8 CrossRef
Sonderegger T, Berger M, Alvarenga R, et al (2020) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment part I: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6
Sonnemann G, Gemechu ED, Adibi N et al (2015) From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 94:20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.082 CrossRef
Sprecher B, Daigo I, Spekkink W, Vos M, Kleijn R, Murakami S, Kramer GJ (2017) Novel indicators for the quantification of resilience in critical material supply chains, with a 2010 rare earth crisis case study. Environ Sci Technol 51:3860–3870. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05751 CrossRef
Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development. Version 2000 – general system characteristics. CPM - Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems
Stolz P, Messmer A, Frischknecht R (2016) Life cycle inventories of road and non-road transport services
Swart P, Dewulf J (2013) Quantifying the impacts of primary metal resource use in life cycle assessment based on recent mining data. Resour Conserv Recycl 73:180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.007 CrossRef
Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR (1988) Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical, and metallurgical processes. Hemisphere
Valero AV, Valero A (2014) Thanatia: the Destiny of the Earth’s mineral resources. WORLD SCIENTIFIC
van Oers L, Koning A de Guinée JB, Huppes G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA
van Oers, L., Guinée, J. B., & Heijungs, R. (2019). Abiotic resource depletion potentials (ADPs) for elements revisited—updating ultimate reserve estimates and introducing time series for production data. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01683-x CrossRef
Vieira MDM (2018) Fossil and mineral resource scarcity in life cycle assessment, available online: https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/199716. Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Netherlands
Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2008.01.019 CrossRef
Weidema BP, Wesnæs M, Hermansen J, et al (2008) Environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. (EUR 23491 EN)
Zampori L, Sala S (2017) Feasibility study to implement resource dissipation in LCA
- Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs
Claudia A. Peña
Bo P. Weidema
Steven B. Young
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502