Purpose The 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... Show morePurpose The 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. Methods To 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. Results We started from the followingdefinition of the problemof 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 thenetresult of compromising actions. Thesystem modeldistinguishes 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 abasis 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. Conclusions Due 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. Show less
At the beginning of the SUPRIM project, there was no global consensus on the assessment of impacts from the use of abiotic resources (minerals and metals), in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).... Show moreAt the beginning of the SUPRIM project, there was no global consensus on the assessment of impacts from the use of abiotic resources (minerals and metals), in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Unlike with other impact categories such as global warming, there is not just one single, explicitly agreed-upon problem arising from the use of abiotic resources. The topic is complex and new methods are still being developed, all with different perspectives and views on resource use. For this reason, the SUPRIM project initiated a consensus process together with members from the research and mining communities, with the aim to obtain an understanding of different stakeholders’ views and concerns regarding potential issues resulting from the use of resources. This paper reports on this consensus process and its outcomes. Insights from this process are twofold: First, the outcome of the process is a clear definition of the perspectives on abiotic resources which form the starting point to further refine or develop LCIA methods on abiotic resource use. Second, the process itself has been a challenging but valuable exercise, which can inspire the evolution of other complex issues in life cycle impact assessment, where research communities face similar issues as experienced with abiotic resources (e.g. water and land use, social LCA, etc.). Show less
Inventory and characterization schemes play different roles in shaping a variety of footprint indicators. This paper performs a systematic and critical investigation of the hidden inventory aspect... Show moreInventory and characterization schemes play different roles in shaping a variety of footprint indicators. This paper performs a systematic and critical investigation of the hidden inventory aspect and characterization aspect of selected footprints with implications for classification and integration of those footprints. It shows that all of the carbon, water, land and material footprints have two fundamentally distinct versions, addressing the environmental exchange of substances in terms of emissions and/or extractions either at the inventory level or at the impact assessment level. We therefore differentiate two broad categories of footprints, namely the inventory-oriented footprints and the impact-oriented footprints. The former allow for a physical interpretation of human pressure by inventorying emissions and extractions and aggregating them with value-based weighting factors, whereas the latter assess and aggregate the inventory results according to their potential contributions to a specific environmental impact using science-based characterization factors, with the recognition that these contributing substances are too different to be compared by mass, volume or area. While both categories have individual strengths and weaknesses, the impact-oriented footprints have a better performance than the inventory-oriented footprints on the integration of footprints into a single-score metric in support of policy making. Resembling the general procedure for life cycle impact assessment, we formulate a three-step framework for characterization, normalization and weighting of a set of impact-oriented footprints to yield a composite footprint index, which would allow policy makers to better assess the overall environmental impacts of entities at multiple scales ranging from single products, organizations, nations, even to the whole economy. The main value added of this paper is the establishment of a unified framework for structuring, categorizing and integrating different footprints. It may serve as a starting point for clearing the footprint jungle and for facilitating the ongoing discourse on a truly integrated footprint family. Show less
In the last three decades, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework has grown to establish itself as the leading tool for the assessment of the environmental impacts of product systems.LCA studies... Show moreIn the last three decades, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework has grown to establish itself as the leading tool for the assessment of the environmental impacts of product systems.LCA studies are now conducted globally both in and outside the academia and also used as a basis for policy making.Now that the science behind existing and established impact assessment models is more solid, LCA modellers may work on deepening and broadening LCA, and on tackling the issues that make the framework incomplete or uncertain.This work of thesis deals with the complete modelling of stressors that are not related to the standard extraction/emission pattern, thus that do not relate to the extraction of a certain quantity of matter or to the emission of matter to the environment.These stressors may be defined in this acceptation as matter-less.The thesis analyses the development of impact assessment models for the case of sound emissions determining noise impacts, radio-frequency electromagnetic emissions leading to electromagnetic pollution, and light emissions determining ecological light pollution.Through the study of these matter-less stressors the computational structure and other methodological topics of the LCA framework are put to the test. Show less
