Purpose Assessing impacts of abiotic resource use has been a topic of persistent debate among life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method developers and a source of confusion for life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners considering the different interpretations of the safeguard subject for mineral resources and the resulting variety of LCIA methods to choose from. Based on the review and assessment of 27 existing LCIA methods, accomplished in the first part of this paper series (Sonderegger et al. 2020), this paper provides recommendations regarding the application-dependent use of existing methods and areas for future method development. Method Within the “global guidance for LCIA indicators and methods” project of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment, 62 members of the “task force mineral resources” representing different stakeholders discussed the strengths and limitations of existing LCIA methods and developed initial conclusions. These were used by a subgroup of eight members at the Pellston Workshop® held in Valencia, Spain, to derive recommendations on the application-dependent use and future development of impact assessment methods. Results and discussion First, the safeguard subject for mineral resources within the area of protection (AoP) natural resources was defined. Subsequently, seven key questions regarding the consequences of mineral resource use were formulated, grouped into “inside-out” related questions (i.e., current resource use leading to changes in opportunities for future users to use resources) and “outside-in” related questions (i.e., potential restrictions of resource availability for current resource users). Existing LCIA methods were assigned to these questions, and seven methods (ADPultimate reserves, SOPURR, LIME2endpoint, CEENE, ADPeconomic reserves, ESSENZ, and GeoPolRisk) are recommended for use in current LCA studies at different levels of recommendation. All 27 identified LCIA methods were tested on an LCA case study of an electric vehicle, and yielded divergent results due to their modeling of impact mechanisms that address different questions related to mineral resource use. Besides method-specific recommendations, we recommend that all methods increase the number of minerals covered, regularly update their characterization factors, and consider the inclusion of secondary resources and anthropogenic stocks. Furthermore, the concept of dissipative resource use should be defined and integrated in future method developments. Conclusion In an international consensus-finding process, the current challenges of assessing impacts of resource use in LCA have been addressed by defining the safeguard subject for mineral resources, formulating key questions related to this safeguard subject, recommending existing LCIA methods in relation to these questions, and highlighting areas for future method development.

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.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.  You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain  You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Summary The diversity of raw materials used in modern products, compounded by the risk of supply disruptions—due to uneven geological distribution of resources, along with socioeconomic factors like production concentration and political (in)stability of raw material producing countries—has drawn attention to the subject of raw material “criticality.” In this article, we review the state of the art regarding the integration of criticality assessment, herein termed “product‐level supply risk assessment,” as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment. We describe and compare three methods explicitly developed for this purpose—Geopolitical Supply Risk (GeoPolRisk), Economic Scarcity Potential (ESP), and the Integrated Method to Assess Resource Efficiency (ESSENZ)—based on a set of criteria including considerations of data sources, uncertainties, and other contentious methodological aspects. We test the methods on a case study of a European‐manufactured electric vehicle, and conclude with guidance for appropriate application and interpretation, along with opportunities for further methodological development. Although the GeoPolRisk, ESP, and ESSENZ methods have several limitations, they can be useful for preliminary assessments of the potential impacts of raw material supply risks on a product system (i.e., “outside‐in” impacts) alongside the impacts of a product system on the environment (i.e., “inside‐out” impacts). Care is needed to not overlook critical raw materials used in small amounts but nonetheless important to product functionality. Further methodological development could address regional and firm‐level supply risks, multiple supply‐chain stages, and material recycling, while improving coverage of supply risk characterization factors.

Maintaining biotic capacity is of key importance with regard to global food and biomass provision. One reason for productivity loss is soil compaction. In this paper, we use a statistical empirical model to assess long-term yield losses through soil compaction in a regionalized manner, with global coverage and for different agricultural production systems. To facilitate the application of the model, we provide an extensive dataset including crop production data (with 81 crops and corresponding production systems), related machinery application, as well as regionalized soil texture and soil moisture data. Yield loss is modeled for different levels of soil depth (0-25cm, 25-40cm and >40cm depth). This is of particular relevance since compaction in topsoil is classified as reversible in the short term (approximately four years), while recovery of subsoil layers takes much longer. We derive characterization factors quantifying the future average annual yield loss as a fraction of the current yield for 100years and applicable in Life Cycle Assessment studies of agricultural production. The results show that crops requiring enhanced machinery inputs, such as potatoes, have a major influence on soil compaction and yield losses, while differences between mechanized production systems (organic and integrated production) are small. The spatial variations of soil moisture and clay content are reflected in the results showing global hotspot regions especially susceptible to soil compaction, e.g. the South of Brazil, the Caribbean Islands, Central Africa, and the Maharashtra district of India. The impacts of soil compaction can be substantial, with highest annual yield losses in the range of 0.5% (95% percentile) due to one year of potato production (cumulated over 100y this corresponds to a one-time loss of 50% of the present yield). These modeling results demonstrate the necessity for including soil compaction effects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment.

There are currently limited life cycle impact assessment methods existing for assessing impacts on the natural resource soil. In this paper, we develop methods for the assessment of compaction and water erosion impacts within one framework, which can be expanded with additional degradation processes in the future. Our methods assess potential long-term impacts from agricultural activities on the production capacity of soils and are able to distinguish between different management choices such as machinery selection and tillage practices. Characterization factors are provided as global raster data sets at high spatial resolution (∼1 km) and for larger geographic units including uncertainties of spatial aggregation. Uncertainties due to variability of climate and weather are provided where possible. The application of the methods is demonstrated and discussed in a simplified case study. Results show that in a highly mechanized scenario of global agriculture without any conservation measures, long-term yearly soil productivity losses due to compaction and water erosion can amount to up to double-digit percentages for major crops. This confirms the relevance of compaction and water erosion impacts for agricultural LCAs.

No abstract

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".