Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBerger, Markus
dc.contributor.authorSonderegger, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorAlvarenga, Rodrigo
dc.contributor.authorBach, Vanessa
dc.contributor.authorCimprich, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorDewulf, Jo
dc.contributor.authorFrischknecht, Rolf
dc.contributor.authorGuinée, Jeroen
dc.contributor.authorHelbig, Christoph
dc.contributor.authorHuppertz, Tom
dc.contributor.authorJolliet, Olivier
dc.contributor.authorMotoshita, Masaharu
dc.contributor.authorNorthey, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorPeña, Claudia A.
dc.contributor.authorRugani, Benedetto
dc.contributor.authorSahnoune, Abdelhadi
dc.contributor.authorSchrijvers, Dieuwertje
dc.contributor.authorSchulze, Rita
dc.contributor.authorSonnemann, Guido
dc.contributor.authorValero, Alicia
dc.contributor.authorWeidema, Bo P.
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Steven B.
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-04T08:46:32Z
dc.date.available2021-03-04T08:46:32Z
dc.date.issued2020-02-11
dc.description.abstractPurpose: 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. Method: 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. Results and discussion: 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 (ADP ultimate reserves , SOP URR , LIME2 endpoint , CEENE, ADP economic 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. Conclusion: 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.en
dc.description.sponsorshipTU Berlin, Open-Access-Mittel – 2020en
dc.identifier.eissn1614-7502
dc.identifier.issn0948-3349
dc.identifier.urihttps://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/12716
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-11516
dc.language.isoen
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject.ddc577 Ökologieen
dc.subject.otherlife cycle assessmenten
dc.subject.otherlife cycle impact assessmenten
dc.subject.otherLife Cycle Initiativeen
dc.subject.othermineral resourcesen
dc.subject.otherraw materialsen
dc.subject.otherresource depletionen
dc.subject.otherresource dissipationen
dc.subject.othertask force mineral resourcesen
dc.titleMineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi10.1007/s11367-020-01737-5en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.issue4en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitleThe International Journal of Life Cycle Assessmenten
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublishernameSpringerNatureen
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublisherplaceLondon [u.a.]en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend813en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart798en
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume25en
tub.accessrights.dnbfreeen
tub.affiliationFak. 3 Prozesswissenschaften::Inst. Technischen Umweltschutz::FG Technischer Umweltschutz / Sustainable Engineeringde
tub.affiliation.facultyFak. 3 Prozesswissenschaftende
tub.affiliation.groupFG Technischer Umweltschutz / Sustainable Engineeringde
tub.affiliation.instituteInst. Technischen Umweltschutzde
tub.publisher.universityorinstitutionTechnische Universität Berlinen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Berger_etal_Mineral_2020.pdf
Size:
1.33 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Publications