Abstract

PurposeThe methods for assessing the impact of using abiotic resources in life cycle assessment (LCA) have always been heavily debated. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of a common understanding of the problem related to resource use. This article reports the results of an effort to reach such common understanding between different stakeholder groups and the LCA community. For this, a top-down approach was applied.MethodsTo guide the process, a four-level top-down framework was used to (1) demarcate the problem that needs to be assessed, (2) translate this into a modeling concept, (3) derive mathematical equations and fill these with data necessary to calculate the characterization factors, and (4) align the system boundaries and assumptions that are made in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) model and the life cycle inventory (LCI) model.ResultsWe started from the following definition of the problem of using resources: the decrease of accessibility on a global level of primary and/or secondary elements over the very long term or short term due to the net result of compromising actions. The system model distinguishes accessible and inaccessible stocks in both the environment and the technosphere. Human actions can compromise the accessible stock through environmental dissipation, technosphere hibernation, and occupation in use or through exploration. As a basis for impact assessment, we propose two parameters: the global change in accessible stock as a net result of the compromising actions and the global amount of the accessible stock. We propose three impact categories for the use of elements: environmental dissipation, technosphere hibernation, and occupation in use, with associated characterization equations for two different time horizons. Finally, preliminary characterization factors are derived and applied in a simple illustrative case study for environmental dissipation.ConclusionsDue to data constraints, at this moment, only characterization factors for “dissipation to the environment” over a very-long-term time horizon could be elaborated. The case study shows that the calculation of impact scores might be hampered by insufficient LCI data. Most presently available LCI databases are far from complete in registering the flows necessary to assess the impacts on the accessibility of elements. While applying the framework, various choices are made that could plausibly be made differently. We invite our peers to also use this top-down framework when challenging our choices and elaborate that into a consistent set of choices and assumptions when developing LCIA methods.

Highlights

  • Since the early development of life cycle assessment (LCA), the use of abiotic resources as one of the impact categories for the life cycle impact assessment has been heavily debated

  • Most presently available life cycle inventory (LCI) databases are far from complete in registering the flows necessary to assess the impacts on the accessibility of elements

  • Definitions of the role, goal, and scope led to the following definition of the problem with the present use of resources for future generations: The decrease of accessibility on a global level of primary and/or secondary elements over the very long term (VLT) or short term (ST: 25 years) due to the net result of compromising actions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since the early development of life cycle assessment (LCA), the use of abiotic resources as one of the impact categories for the life cycle impact assessment has been heavily debated. Natural (or primary) resources are defined as an area of protection by the SETAC WIA (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment) (Udo de Haes et al 1999) and are part of the life cycle impact midpoint-damage framework developed by the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program)/ SETAC life cycle initiative (Jolliet et al 2004). This work has shown that the debate on how to assess abiotic resource use in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has partly been a result of modelers adopting different views on what the problem of resource use and the related impact mechanism are

Objectives
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.