Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods

Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Sonderegger, Thomas [verfasserIn] Berger, Markus Alvarenga, Rodrigo Bach, Vanessa Cimprich, Alexander Dewulf, Jo Frischknecht, Rolf Guinée, Jeroen Helbig, Christoph Huppertz, Tom Jolliet, Olivier Motoshita, Masaharu Northey, Stephen Rugani, Benedetto Schrijvers, Dieuwertje Schulze, Rita Sonnemann, Guido Valero, Alicia Weidema, Bo P. Young, Steven B.

Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources

Anmerkung:	© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: The international journal of life cycle assessment - Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996, 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:25 ; year:2020 ; number:4 ; day:04 ; month:02 ; pages:784-797

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6

Katalog-ID:	OLC2051210462

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	OLC2051210462
003	DE-627
005	20230504175002.0
007	tu
008	200820s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)OLC2051210462
035			\|a (DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-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 Sonderegger, Thomas \|e verfasserin \|0 (orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752 \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods
264		1	\|c 2020
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 2020
520			\|a Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development.
650		4	\|a Life cycle assessment
650		4	\|a Life cycle impact assessment
650		4	\|a Method review
650		4	\|a Mineral resources
650		4	\|a Raw materials
650		4	\|a Resource depletion
650		4	\|a Life Cycle Initiative
650		4	\|a Task force mineral resources
700	1		\|a Berger, Markus \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Alvarenga, Rodrigo \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Bach, Vanessa \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Cimprich, Alexander \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Dewulf, Jo \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Frischknecht, Rolf \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Guinée, Jeroen \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Helbig, Christoph \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Huppertz, Tom \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Jolliet, Olivier \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Motoshita, Masaharu \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Northey, Stephen \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Rugani, Benedetto \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Schrijvers, Dieuwertje \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Schulze, Rita \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Sonnemann, Guido \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Valero, Alicia \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Weidema, Bo P. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Young, Steven B. \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t The international journal of life cycle assessment \|d Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 \|g 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 \|w (DE-627)211584533 \|w (DE-600)1319419-7 \|w (DE-576)059728728 \|x 0948-3349 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:25 \|g year:2020 \|g number:4 \|g day:04 \|g month:02 \|g pages:784-797
856	4	1	\|u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 \|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_267
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2016
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2018
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4277
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 25 \|j 2020 \|e 4 \|b 04 \|c 02 \|h 784-797

Indexfelder

author_variant	t s ts m b mb r a ra v b vb a c ac j d jd r f rf j g jg c h ch t h th o j oj m m mm s n sn b r br d s ds r s rs g s gs a v av b p w bp bpw s b y sb sby
matchkey_str	article:09483349:2020----::iearsucsnieylipcassmnpriciiarv
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2051210462 (DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Sonderegger, Thomas verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752 aut Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources Berger, Markus aut Alvarenga, Rodrigo aut Bach, Vanessa aut Cimprich, Alexander aut Dewulf, Jo aut Frischknecht, Rolf aut Guinée, Jeroen aut Helbig, Christoph aut Huppertz, Tom aut Jolliet, Olivier aut Motoshita, Masaharu aut Northey, Stephen aut Rugani, Benedetto aut Schrijvers, Dieuwertje aut Schulze, Rita aut Sonnemann, Guido aut Valero, Alicia aut Weidema, Bo P. aut Young, Steven B. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:25 year:2020 number:4 day:04 month:02 pages:784-797 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4277 AR 25 2020 4 04 02 784-797
spelling	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2051210462 (DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Sonderegger, Thomas verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752 aut Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources Berger, Markus aut Alvarenga, Rodrigo aut Bach, Vanessa aut Cimprich, Alexander aut Dewulf, Jo aut Frischknecht, Rolf aut Guinée, Jeroen aut Helbig, Christoph aut Huppertz, Tom aut Jolliet, Olivier aut Motoshita, Masaharu aut Northey, Stephen aut Rugani, Benedetto aut Schrijvers, Dieuwertje aut Schulze, Rita aut Sonnemann, Guido aut Valero, Alicia aut Weidema, Bo P. aut Young, Steven B. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:25 year:2020 number:4 day:04 month:02 pages:784-797 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4277 AR 25 2020 4 04 02 784-797
allfields_unstemmed	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2051210462 (DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Sonderegger, Thomas verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752 aut Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources Berger, Markus aut Alvarenga, Rodrigo aut Bach, Vanessa aut Cimprich, Alexander aut Dewulf, Jo aut Frischknecht, Rolf aut Guinée, Jeroen aut Helbig, Christoph aut Huppertz, Tom aut Jolliet, Olivier aut Motoshita, Masaharu aut Northey, Stephen aut Rugani, Benedetto aut Schrijvers, Dieuwertje aut Schulze, Rita aut Sonnemann, Guido aut Valero, Alicia aut Weidema, Bo P. aut Young, Steven B. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:25 year:2020 number:4 day:04 month:02 pages:784-797 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4277 AR 25 2020 4 04 02 784-797
allfieldsGer	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2051210462 (DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Sonderegger, Thomas verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752 aut Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources Berger, Markus aut Alvarenga, Rodrigo aut Bach, Vanessa aut Cimprich, Alexander aut Dewulf, Jo aut Frischknecht, Rolf aut Guinée, Jeroen aut Helbig, Christoph aut Huppertz, Tom aut Jolliet, Olivier aut Motoshita, Masaharu aut Northey, Stephen aut Rugani, Benedetto aut Schrijvers, Dieuwertje aut Schulze, Rita aut Sonnemann, Guido aut Valero, Alicia aut Weidema, Bo P. aut Young, Steven B. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:25 year:2020 number:4 day:04 month:02 pages:784-797 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4277 AR 25 2020 4 04 02 784-797
allfieldsSound	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2051210462 (DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Sonderegger, Thomas verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752 aut Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods 2020 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources Berger, Markus aut Alvarenga, Rodrigo aut Bach, Vanessa aut Cimprich, Alexander aut Dewulf, Jo aut Frischknecht, Rolf aut Guinée, Jeroen aut Helbig, Christoph aut Huppertz, Tom aut Jolliet, Olivier aut Motoshita, Masaharu aut Northey, Stephen aut Rugani, Benedetto aut Schrijvers, Dieuwertje aut Schulze, Rita aut Sonnemann, Guido aut Valero, Alicia aut Weidema, Bo P. aut Young, Steven B. aut Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 (DE-627)211584533 (DE-600)1319419-7 (DE-576)059728728 0948-3349 nnns volume:25 year:2020 number:4 day:04 month:02 pages:784-797 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4277 AR 25 2020 4 04 02 784-797
language	English
source	Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 volume:25 year:2020 number:4 day:04 month:02 pages:784-797
sourceStr	Enthalten in The international journal of life cycle assessment 25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797 volume:25 year:2020 number:4 day:04 month:02 pages:784-797
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources
dewey-raw	650
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	The international journal of life cycle assessment
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Sonderegger, Thomas @@aut@@ Berger, Markus @@aut@@ Alvarenga, Rodrigo @@aut@@ Bach, Vanessa @@aut@@ Cimprich, Alexander @@aut@@ Dewulf, Jo @@aut@@ Frischknecht, Rolf @@aut@@ Guinée, Jeroen @@aut@@ Helbig, Christoph @@aut@@ Huppertz, Tom @@aut@@ Jolliet, Olivier @@aut@@ Motoshita, Masaharu @@aut@@ Northey, Stephen @@aut@@ Rugani, Benedetto @@aut@@ Schrijvers, Dieuwertje @@aut@@ Schulze, Rita @@aut@@ Sonnemann, Guido @@aut@@ Valero, Alicia @@aut@@ Weidema, Bo P. @@aut@@ Young, Steven B. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-02-04T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	211584533
dewey-sort	3650
id	OLC2051210462
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">OLC2051210462</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504175002.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051210462</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-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">Sonderegger, Thomas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</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 2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle impact assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Method review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mineral resources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Raw materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Resource depletion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life Cycle Initiative</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Task force mineral resources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Berger, Markus</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alvarenga, Rodrigo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bach, Vanessa</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cimprich, Alexander</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dewulf, Jo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Frischknecht, Rolf</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Guinée, Jeroen</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Helbig, Christoph</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huppertz, Tom</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jolliet, Olivier</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Motoshita, Masaharu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Northey, Stephen</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rugani, Benedetto</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schrijvers, Dieuwertje</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schulze, Rita</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sonnemann, Guido</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Valero, Alicia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weidema, Bo P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Young, Steven B.</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">25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797</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:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:784-797</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6</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_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_4277</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">784-797</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Sonderegger, Thomas
spellingShingle	Sonderegger, Thomas ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment misc Life cycle impact assessment misc Method review misc Mineral resources misc Raw materials misc Resource depletion misc Life Cycle Initiative misc Task force mineral resources Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods
authorStr	Sonderegger, Thomas
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 aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	OLC
remote_str	false
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	0948-3349
topic_title	650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment Method review Mineral resources Raw materials Resource depletion Life Cycle Initiative Task force mineral resources
topic	ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment misc Life cycle impact assessment misc Method review misc Mineral resources misc Raw materials misc Resource depletion misc Life Cycle Initiative misc Task force mineral resources
topic_unstemmed	ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment misc Life cycle impact assessment misc Method review misc Mineral resources misc Raw materials misc Resource depletion misc Life Cycle Initiative misc Task force mineral resources
topic_browse	ddc 650 ddc 690 misc Life cycle assessment misc Life cycle impact assessment misc Method review misc Mineral resources misc Raw materials misc Resource depletion misc Life Cycle Initiative misc Task force mineral resources
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	Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods
ctrlnum	(DE-627)OLC2051210462 (DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-p
title_full	Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods
author_sort	Sonderegger, Thomas
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	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	784
author_browse	Sonderegger, Thomas Berger, Markus Alvarenga, Rodrigo Bach, Vanessa Cimprich, Alexander Dewulf, Jo Frischknecht, Rolf Guinée, Jeroen Helbig, Christoph Huppertz, Tom Jolliet, Olivier Motoshita, Masaharu Northey, Stephen Rugani, Benedetto Schrijvers, Dieuwertje Schulze, Rita Sonnemann, Guido Valero, Alicia Weidema, Bo P. Young, Steven B.
container_volume	25
class	650 330 333.7 VZ 690 VZ
format_se	Aufsätze
author-letter	Sonderegger, Thomas
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6
normlink	(ORCID)0000-0002-7881-3752
normlink_prefix_str_mv	(orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752
dewey-full	650 330 333.7 690
title_sort	mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part i: a critical review of existing methods
title_auth	Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods
abstract	Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
abstractGer	Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
abstract_unstemmed	Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development. © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-UMW SSG-OLC-ARC SSG-OLC-TEC SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2016 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_4277
container_issue	4
title_short	Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods
url	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6
remote_bool	false
author2	Berger, Markus Alvarenga, Rodrigo Bach, Vanessa Cimprich, Alexander Dewulf, Jo Frischknecht, Rolf Guinée, Jeroen Helbig, Christoph Huppertz, Tom Jolliet, Olivier Motoshita, Masaharu Northey, Stephen Rugani, Benedetto Schrijvers, Dieuwertje Schulze, Rita Sonnemann, Guido Valero, Alicia Weidema, Bo P. Young, Steven B.
author2Str	Berger, Markus Alvarenga, Rodrigo Bach, Vanessa Cimprich, Alexander Dewulf, Jo Frischknecht, Rolf Guinée, Jeroen Helbig, Christoph Huppertz, Tom Jolliet, Olivier Motoshita, Masaharu Northey, Stephen Rugani, Benedetto Schrijvers, Dieuwertje Schulze, Rita Sonnemann, Guido Valero, Alicia Weidema, Bo P. Young, Steven B.
ppnlink	211584533
mediatype_str_mv	n
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6
up_date	2024-07-04T03:50:42.395Z
_version_	1803618921905913856
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">OLC2051210462</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504175002.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\| 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2051210462</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11367-020-01736-6-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">Sonderegger, Thomas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-7881-3752</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</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 2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purpose The safeguard subject of the Area of Protection “natural Resources,” particularly regarding mineral resources, has long been debated. Consequently, a variety of life cycle impact assessment methods based on different concepts are available. The Life Cycle Initiative, hosted by the UN Environment, established an expert task force on “Mineral Resources” to review existing methods (this article) and provide guidance for application-dependent use of the methods and recommendations for further methodological development (Berger et al. in Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020). Methods Starting in 2017, the task force developed a white paper, which served as its main input to a SETAC Pellston Workshop® in June 2018, in which a sub-group of the task force members developed recommendations for assessing impacts of mineral resource use in LCA. This article, based mainly on the white paper and pre-workshop discussions, presents a thorough review of 27 different life cycle impact assessment methods for mineral resource use in the “natural resources” area of protection. The methods are categorized according to their basic impact mechanisms, described and compared, and assessed against a comprehensive set of criteria. Results and discussion Four method categories have been identified and their underlying concepts are described based on existing literature: depletion methods, future efforts methods, thermodynamic accounting methods, and supply risk methods. While we consider depletion and future efforts methods more “traditional” life cycle impact assessment methods, thermodynamic accounting and supply risk methods are rather providing complementary information. Within each method category, differences between methods are discussed in detail, which allows for further sub-categorization and better understanding of what the methods actually assess. Conclusions We provide a thorough review of existing life cycle impact assessment methods addressing impacts of mineral resource use, covering a broad overview of basic impact mechanisms to a detailed discussion of method-specific modeling. This supports a better understanding of what the methods actually assess and highlights their strengths and limitations. Building on these insights, Berger et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess, 2020) provide recommendations for application-dependent use of the methods, along with recommendations for further methodological development.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life cycle impact assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Method review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mineral resources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Raw materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Resource depletion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Life Cycle Initiative</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Task force mineral resources</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Berger, Markus</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alvarenga, Rodrigo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bach, Vanessa</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Cimprich, Alexander</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dewulf, Jo</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Frischknecht, Rolf</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Guinée, Jeroen</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Helbig, Christoph</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huppertz, Tom</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jolliet, Olivier</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Motoshita, Masaharu</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Northey, Stephen</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rugani, Benedetto</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schrijvers, Dieuwertje</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schulze, Rita</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sonnemann, Guido</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Valero, Alicia</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Weidema, Bo P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Young, Steven B.</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">25(2020), 4 vom: 04. Feb., Seite 784-797</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:25</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:04</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:784-797</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6</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_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_4277</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">25</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">04</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">784-797</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398716

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?