Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems
Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
Attributional life cycle assessment |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: The international journal of life cycle assessment - Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996, 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:24 ; year:2018 ; number:5 ; day:18 ; month:10 ; pages:848-855 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2051209006 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2051209006 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230504090557.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2018 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2051209006 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 650 |a 330 |a 333.7 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 690 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Wiedemann, Stephen G. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 | ||
| 520 | |a Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Apparel | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Attributional life cycle assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a cLCA | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Consequential life cycle assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Fabric | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Wool | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Higg MSI aLCA | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Life cycle assessment | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Simmons, Aaron |0 (orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Watson, Kalinda J. L. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Biggs, Leo |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The international journal of life cycle assessment |d Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 |g 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 |w (DE-627)211584533 |w (DE-600)1319419-7 |w (DE-576)059728728 |x 0948-3349 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:24 |g year:2018 |g number:5 |g day:18 |g month:10 |g pages:848-855 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-UMW | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-ARC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-TEC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-FOR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_267 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2016 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2018 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4277 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4319 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 24 |j 2018 |e 5 |b 18 |c 10 |h 848-855 | ||
| author_variant |
s g w sg sgw a s as k j l w kjl kjlw l b lb |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:09483349:2018----::fetfehdlgclhienhetmtdmatowopoutoadhsgii |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018 |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2051209006 (DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Wiedemann, Stephen G. verfasserin aut Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. Apparel Attributional life cycle assessment cLCA Consequential life cycle assessment Fabric Wool Higg MSI aLCA Life cycle assessment Simmons, Aaron (orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945 aut Watson, Kalinda J. L. aut Biggs, Leo aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:24 year:2018 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:848-855 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4277 GBV_ILN_4319 AR 24 2018 5 18 10 848-855 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2051209006 (DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Wiedemann, Stephen G. verfasserin aut Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. Apparel Attributional life cycle assessment cLCA Consequential life cycle assessment Fabric Wool Higg MSI aLCA Life cycle assessment Simmons, Aaron (orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945 aut Watson, Kalinda J. L. aut Biggs, Leo aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:24 year:2018 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:848-855 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4277 GBV_ILN_4319 AR 24 2018 5 18 10 848-855 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2051209006 (DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Wiedemann, Stephen G. verfasserin aut Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. Apparel Attributional life cycle assessment cLCA Consequential life cycle assessment Fabric Wool Higg MSI aLCA Life cycle assessment Simmons, Aaron (orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945 aut Watson, Kalinda J. L. aut Biggs, Leo aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:24 year:2018 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:848-855 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4277 GBV_ILN_4319 AR 24 2018 5 18 10 848-855 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2051209006 (DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Wiedemann, Stephen G. verfasserin aut Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. Apparel Attributional life cycle assessment cLCA Consequential life cycle assessment Fabric Wool Higg MSI aLCA Life cycle assessment Simmons, Aaron (orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945 aut Watson, Kalinda J. L. aut Biggs, Leo aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:24 year:2018 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:848-855 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4277 GBV_ILN_4319 AR 24 2018 5 18 10 848-855 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 doi (DE-627)OLC2051209006 (DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Wiedemann, Stephen G. verfasserin aut Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. Apparel Attributional life cycle assessment cLCA Consequential life cycle assessment Fabric Wool Higg MSI aLCA Life cycle assessment Simmons, Aaron (orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945 aut Watson, Kalinda J. L. aut Biggs, Leo aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:24 year:2018 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:848-855 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4277 GBV_ILN_4319 AR 24 2018 5 18 10 848-855 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 volume:24 year:2018 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:848-855 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855 volume:24 year:2018 number:5 day:18 month:10 pages:848-855 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Apparel Attributional life cycle assessment cLCA Consequential life cycle assessment Fabric Wool Higg MSI aLCA Life cycle assessment |
| dewey-raw |
650 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. @@aut@@ Simmons, Aaron @@aut@@ Watson, Kalinda J. L. @@aut@@ Biggs, Leo @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-10-18T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
211584533 |
| dewey-sort |
3650 |
| id |
OLC2051209006 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2051209006</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504090557.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2018 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051209006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wiedemann, Stephen G.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Apparel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Attributional life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cLCA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consequential life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fabric</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Wool</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Higg MSI aLCA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Simmons, Aaron</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Watson, Kalinda J. L.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Biggs, Leo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)211584533</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1319419-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)059728728</subfield><subfield code="x">0948-3349</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:848-855</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-UMW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-ARC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4277</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4319</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield><subfield code="h">848-855</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. |
| spellingShingle |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Apparel misc Attributional life cycle assessment misc cLCA misc Consequential life cycle assessment misc Fabric misc Wool misc Higg MSI aLCA misc Life cycle assessment Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems |
| authorStr |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)211584533 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
650 - Management & auxiliary services 330 - Economics 333 - Economics of land & energy 690 - Buildings |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0948-3349 |
| topic_title |
650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems Apparel Attributional life cycle assessment cLCA Consequential life cycle assessment Fabric Wool Higg MSI aLCA Life cycle assessment |
| topic |
ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Apparel misc Attributional life cycle assessment misc cLCA misc Consequential life cycle assessment misc Fabric misc Wool misc Higg MSI aLCA misc Life cycle assessment |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Apparel misc Attributional life cycle assessment misc cLCA misc Consequential life cycle assessment misc Fabric misc Wool misc Higg MSI aLCA misc Life cycle assessment |
| topic_browse |
ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Apparel misc Attributional life cycle assessment misc cLCA misc Consequential life cycle assessment misc Fabric misc Wool misc Higg MSI aLCA misc Life cycle assessment |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
211584533 |
| dewey-tens |
650 - Management & public relations 330 - Economics 690 - Building & construction |
| hierarchy_top_title |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 |
| title |
Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2051209006 (DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p |
| title_full |
Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems |
| author_sort |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. |
| journal |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| journalStr |
The international journal of life cycle assessment |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology 300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
848 |
| author_browse |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. Simmons, Aaron Watson, Kalinda J. L. Biggs, Leo |
| container_volume |
24 |
| class |
650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Wiedemann, Stephen G. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0002-3638-4945 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945 |
| dewey-full |
650 330 333.7 690 |
| title_sort |
effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for lca-based rating systems |
| title_auth |
Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems |
| abstract |
Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 |
| abstractGer |
Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry. © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4277 GBV_ILN_4319 |
| container_issue |
5 |
| title_short |
Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Simmons, Aaron Watson, Kalinda J. L. Biggs, Leo |
| author2Str |
Simmons, Aaron Watson, Kalinda J. L. Biggs, Leo |
| ppnlink |
211584533 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T03:50:24.807Z |
| _version_ |
1803618903468802048 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2051209006</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504090557.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2018 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051209006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-018-1538-5-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">650</subfield><subfield code="a">330</subfield><subfield code="a">333.7</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">690</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wiedemann, Stephen G.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change. Methods Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool. Results and discussion Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production. Conclusions This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Apparel</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Attributional life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cLCA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consequential life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fabric</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Wool</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Higg MSI aLCA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Simmons, Aaron</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-3638-4945</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Watson, Kalinda J. L.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Biggs, Leo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of life cycle assessment</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996</subfield><subfield code="g">24(2018), 5 vom: 18. Okt., Seite 848-855</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)211584533</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1319419-7</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)059728728</subfield><subfield code="x">0948-3349</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:24</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:5</subfield><subfield code="g">day:18</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:848-855</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1538-5</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-UMW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-ARC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4277</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4319</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">24</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">5</subfield><subfield code="b">18</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield><subfield code="h">848-855</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3990755 |