Alignment of the life cycle initiative's "principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment" with the LCSA practice: A case study review

被引:6
作者
Leroy-Parmentier, Noemie [1 ]
Valdivia, Sonia [2 ]
Loubet, Philippe [1 ]
Sonnemann, Guido [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bordeaux, CNRS, INP, ISM,UMR 5255, F-33400 Talence, France
[2] Leuphana Univ Luneburg, World Resources Forum Assoc, Luneburg, Germany
关键词
Life cycle sustainability assessment; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle costing; Social life cycle assessment; Principles for LCSA; Literature review; MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING; SOLID-WASTE MANAGEMENT; MICRO-BIO-LOOP; ELECTRICITY-GENERATION; ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK; ENERGY-SYSTEMS; HYDROGEN-PRODUCTION; PRODUCTION PATHWAYS; INDUSTRIAL-SYSTEMS; SUPPORT FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-023-02162-0
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
PurposeThis paper aims at assessing the alignment of eight of the Life Cycle Initiative's ten principles for life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) and the LCSA practice as well as the challenges to reaching the full implementation of the principles as a basis for a harmonized framework.Materials and methodsTo understand the extent of alignment of existing LCSA studies with the principles, 193 case studies published before the Life Cycle Initiative's ten principles' publication were identified. Their levels of alignment were assessed against the criteria designed per principle: full, medium, or no alignment. The principles of "materiality of the system boundaries" and "consistency" could not be assessed as most studies lacked related background information; hence, no objective nor systematic criteria could be designed.ResultsThe alignment of practice with the principles is variable: The vast majority of studies cover the 3 pillars (principle 3 on completeness). Principle 9 (communication of trade-offs) is well addressed in the case studies. Principles 2 (alignment with the phases of ISO 14040: 2006 standard), 4 (taking into account perspectives of key stakeholders), and 8 (transparency) were not properly addressed in a majority of case studies. Principles 1 (understanding the areas of protection and impact pathways), 5 (taking into account product utility beyond functional unit (co-benefits)), and 10 (caution when compensating negative and positive impacts) remain to be implemented as some methodological challenges have to be overcome. Principles 6 and 7 were not assessed.ConclusionsLCSA is gaining momentum due to the communication and dissemination of LCSA among practitioners, potential users, and decision-makers in the public and private sectors. However, some key challenges remain for reaching the implementation of the principles: understanding of the inter-relationships between the three dimensions of sustainability to build impact pathways and select relevant impact categories for LCSA, guidance for communicating trade-offs and decision-making based on LCSA, and generalizing the (open) access to publications and related supplementary information.
引用
收藏
页码:704 / 740
页数:37
相关论文
共 228 条
[1]   An integrated sustainability assessment of synergistic supply of energy and water in remote communities [J].
Aberilla, Jhud Mikhail ;
Gallego-Schmid, Alejandro ;
Stamford, Laurence ;
Azapagic, Adisa .
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION, 2020, 22 :1-21
[2]   Selection of alternative fuel taxis: a hybridized approach of life cycle sustainability assessment and multi-criteria decision making with neutrosophic sets [J].
Aboushaqrah, Nour N. M. ;
Onat, Nuri Cihat ;
Kucukvar, Murat ;
Hamouda, A. M. S. ;
Kusakci, Ali Osman ;
Ayvaz, Berk .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION, 2022, 16 (09) :833-846
[3]   Sustainability assessment of energy systems: A novel integrated model [J].
Abu-Rayash, Azzam ;
Dincer, Ibrahim .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 212 :1098-1116
[4]   Life cycle sustainability assessment of electricity generation in Pakistan: Policy regime for a sustainable energy mix [J].
Akber, Muhammad Zeshan ;
Thaheem, Muhammad Jamaluddin ;
Arshad, Husnain .
ENERGY POLICY, 2017, 111 :111-126
[5]   Sustainability assessment framework for low rise commercial buildings: life cycle impact index-based approach [J].
AL-Nassar, Fawaz ;
Ruparathna, Rajeev ;
Chhipi-Shrestha, Gyan ;
Haider, Husnain ;
Hewage, Kasun ;
Sadiq, Rehan .
CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, 2016, 18 (08) :2579-2590
[6]   A triple bottom line evaluation of solid waste management strategies: a case study for an arid Gulf State, Kuwait [J].
Aleisa, Esra ;
Al-Jarallah, Rawa .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2018, 23 (07) :1460-1475
[7]   Life cycle sustainability assessment: Lessons learned from case studies [J].
Alejandrino, Clarisa ;
Mercante, Irma ;
Bovea, Maria D. .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2021, 87
[8]  
Amienyo D., 2012, LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINAB
[9]  
Angelo A.C.M., 2019, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for DecisionMaking: Methodologies and Case Studies, P253, DOI [10.1016/B978-0-12-818355-7.00012-9, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-818355-7.00012-9]
[10]   Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review [J].
Arendt, Rosalie ;
Bachmann, Till M. ;
Motoshita, Masaharu ;
Bach, Vanessa ;
Finkbeiner, Matthias .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 12 (24) :1-39