Published December 2017 | Version v1
Journal article

Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

  • 1. ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Chair of Ecological Systems Design (Switzerland)
  • 2. Ghent University, Department of Sustainable Organic Chemistry and Technology (Belgium)
  • 3. Technical University of Denmark, Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering (Denmark)
  • 4. University of Alberta, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science (Canada)
  • 5. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering (Norway)
  • 6. PRé Consultants (Netherlands)
  • 7. Aalborg University, The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment (Denmark)

Description

Purpose

In this paper, we summarize the discussion and present the findings of an expert group effort under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative proposing natural resources as an Area of Protection (AoP) in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).

Methods

As a first step, natural resources have been defined for the LCA context with reference to the overall UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) framework. Second, existing LCIA methods have been reviewed and discussed. The reviewed methods have been evaluated according to the considered type of natural resources and their underlying principles followed (use-to-availability ratios, backup technology approaches, or thermodynamic accounting methods).

Results and discussion

There is currently no single LCIA method available that addresses impacts for all natural resource categories, nor do existing methods and models addressing different natural resource categories do so in a consistent way across categories. Exceptions are exergy and solar energy-related methods, which cover the widest range of resource categories. However, these methods do not link exergy consumption to changes in availability or provisioning capacity of a specific natural resource (e.g., mineral, water, land etc.). So far, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most relevant type of future resource indicators (depletion, increased energy use or cost due to resource extraction, etc.). To address this challenge, a framework based on the concept of stock/fund/flow resources is proposed to identify, across natural resource categories, whether depletion/dissipation (of stocks and funds) or competition (for flows) is the main relevant aspect.

Conclusions

An LCIA method—or a set of methods—that consistently address all natural resource categories is needed in order to avoid burden shifting from the impact associated with one resource to the impact associated with another resource. This paper is an important basis for a step forward in the direction of consistently integrating the various natural resources as an Area of Protection into LCA.

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Journal Volume
22
Journal Issue
12
Journal Page Range
p. 1912-1927
ISSN
0948-3349

INIS

Country of Publication
Germany
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
50026469
Subject category
S29: ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY;
Descriptors DEI
COST; ENERGY CONSUMPTION; EXERGY; LAND RESOURCES; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; MINERAL RESOURCES; REVIEWS; SOLAR ENERGY; THERMODYNAMICS; UNEP; WATER RESOURCES
Descriptors DEC
DOCUMENT TYPES; ENERGY; ENERGY SOURCES; INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES; RESOURCES

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg