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 Environ...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Sonderegger, Thomas [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2020 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
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: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
OLC2051210462 |
---|
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 |
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 |