Top-down characterization of resource use in LCA: from problem definition of resource use to operational characterization factors for dissipation of elements to the environment

Abstract

Purpose The methods for assessing the impact of using abiotic resources in life cycle assessment (LCA) have always been heavily debated. One of the main reasons for this is the lack of a common understanding of the problem related to resource use. This article reports the results of an effort to reach such common understanding between different stakeholder groups and the LCA community. For this, a top-down approach was applied. Methods To guide the process, a four-level top-down framework was used to (1) demarcate the problem that needs to be assessed, (2) translate this into a modeling concept, (3) derive mathematical equations and fill these with data necessary to calculate the characterization factors, and (4) align the system boundaries and assumptions that are made in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) model and the life cycle inventory (LCI) model. Results We started from the following definition of the problem of using resources: the decrease of accessibility on a global level of primary and/or secondary elements over the very long term or short term due to the net result of compromising actions. The system model distinguishes accessible and inaccessible stocks in both the environment and the technosphere. Human actions can compromise the accessible stock through environmental dissipation, technosphere hibernation, and occupation in use or through exploration. As a basis for impact assessment, we propose two parameters: the global change in accessible stock as a net result of the compromising actions and the global amount of the accessible stock. We propose three impact categories for the use of elements: environmental dissipation, technosphere hibernation, and occupation in use, with associated characterization equations for two different time horizons. Finally, preliminary characterization factors are derived and applied in a simple illustrative case study for environmental dissipation. Conclusions Due to data constraints, at this moment, only characterization factors for “dissipation to the environment” over a very-long-term time horizon could be elaborated. The case study shows that the calculation of impact scores might be hampered by insufficient LCI data. Most presently available LCI databases are far from complete in registering the flows necessary to assess the impacts on the accessibility of elements. While applying the framework, various choices are made that could plausibly be made differently. We invite our peers to also use this top-down framework when challenging our choices and elaborate that into a consistent set of choices and assumptions when developing LCIA methods.

Material system analysis: Functional and nonfunctional cobalt in the EU, 2012–2016

“…Hoarding (Dewulf et al, 2021;Haig et al, 2011;Sarigöllü et al, 2020) refers to the dead storage of a product that is no longer in use, for example, an old mobile phone kept in the attic. This concept is also known as hibernation (Inghels & Bahlmann, 2021;Rizos et al, 2019;Wilson et al, 2017); nevertheless hibernation is a broader concept since materials can also hibernate at companies (stock piling), in landfills, in tailings, whereas hoarding is hibernation at the user (Dewulf et al, 2021;van Oers et al, 2020). The hoarded products conform the stock of EoL products.…”

Midpoint and endpoint characterization factors for mineral resource dissipation: methods and application to 6000 data sets

“…In this context, it is proposed to develop methods to assess the dissipation of mineral resources and its impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA) (Berger et al 2020;Beylot et al 2020bBeylot et al , 2021van Oers et al 2020;Zampori and Sala 2017). Charpentier Poncelet et al (2019) proposed a framework to consider the impacts of the dissipative flows of metals on the area of protection (AoP) natural resources in LCA.…”

Visualizing the hierarchical sustainable human resource management under qualitative information and complex interrelationships

“…Graves and Sarkis (2018) stated that employees' environmental values are essential to ensure green culture, to reduce pollution emissions and waste and to increase recycling. Sustainable human resource management (SHRM) practice is needed to balance the TBL in firms' activities to address human welfare and environmental pollution issues (Tooranloo et al , 2017; Stankevičiūtė and Savanevičienė, 2018; Van Oers et al , 2020). SHRM supports the attainment of firms' goals and involves green hiring and employee involvement (Chams and García-Blandón, 2019; Macke and Genari, 2019).…”