The Experts below are selected from a list of 457233 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Sheng Wen Wang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an analytical framework for social life cycle impact Assessment Part 2 case study of labor impacts in an ic packaging company
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017Co-Authors: Sheng Wen Wang, Allen H. HuAbstract:Purpose The pressure on brand firms in the electronics industry to improve the labor conditions of their workers in their global production networks is increasing. Given the significance of mitigating the impacts of production on labor, this study used the new development method of social life cycle impact Assessment (SLCIA) for conducting labor impact Assessment. An illustrative example in an integrated circuit (IC) packaging company is presented to demonstrate the Assessment of the impacts and the identification of the potential for improvement of labor practices among three factories.
-
an analytic framework for social life cycle impact Assessment Part 1 methodology
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2016Co-Authors: Sheng Wen Wang, Allen H. HuAbstract:Purpose This study aims to develop a new framework of social life cycle impact Assessment (SLCIA) method based on the United Nations Environment Program/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) Guidelines for analyzing the social impact in Taiwan, Particularly in the electronics industry.
David Pennington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
life cycle Assessment Part 2 current impact Assessment practice
Environment International, 2004Co-Authors: David Pennington, E. Lindeijer, Tomas Rydberg, Olivier Jolliet, José Potting, Göran Finnveden, Gerald RebitzerAbstract:Providing our society with goods and services contributes to a wide range of environmental impacts. Waste generation, emissions and the consumption of resources occur at many stages in a product's life cycle-from raw material extraction, energy acquisition, production and manufacturing, use, reuse, recycling, through to ultimate disposal. These all contribute to impacts such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, photooxidant formation (smog), eutrophication, acidification, toxicological stress on human health and ecosystems, the depletion of resources and noise-among others. The need exists to address these product-related contributions more holistically and in an integrated manner, providing complimentary insights to those of regulatory/process-oriented methodologies. A previous article (Part 1, Rebitzer et al., 2004) outlined how to define and model a product's life cycle in current practice, as well as the methods and tools that are available for compiling the associated waste, emissions and resource consumption data into a life cycle inventory. This article highlights how practitioners and researchers from many domains have come together to provide indicators for the different impacts attributable to products in the life cycle impact Assessment (LCIA) phase of life cycle Assessment (LCA).
-
life cycle Assessment Part 1 framework goal and scope definition inventory analysis and applications
Environment International, 2004Co-Authors: Gerald Rebitzer, Tomas Rydberg, Rolf Frischknecht, Tomas Ekvall, Daniel Hunkeler, Gregory A Norris, W P Schmidt, Sangwon Suh, Bo Pedersen Weidema, David PenningtonAbstract:Abstract Sustainable development requires methods, and tools, to measure and compare the environmental impacts of human activities for the provision of goods and services (both of which are summarized under the term products). Environmental impacts include those from emissions into the environment and through the consumption of resources, as well as other interventions (e.g. land use) associated with providing products that occur when extracting resources, producing materials, manufacturing the products, during consumption/use, and at the products end-of-life (collection/sorting, reuse, recycling, waste disposal). These emissions and consumptions contribute to a wide range of impacts, such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone (smog) creation, eutrophication, acidification, toxicological stress on human health and ecosystems, the depletion of resources, water use, land use, and noise among others. A clear need, therefore, exists to be proactive and to provide complimentary insights, aPart from current regulatory practices, to help reduce such impacts. Practitioners and researchers from many domains come together in life cycle Assessment (LCA) to calculate indicators of the aforementioned potential environmental impacts that are linked to products - supporting the identification of opportunities for pollution prevention and reductions in resource consumption while taking the entire product life cycle into consideration. This paper, Part 1 in a series of 2, introduces the LCA framework and procedure, outlines how to define and model a products life cycle, and provides an overview of available methods and tools for tabulating and compiling associated emissions and resource consumption data in a life cycle inventory. It also discusses the application of LCA in industry and policy-making. The second paper, by Pennington et al. (2003), highlights the key features, summarises available approaches, and outlines the key challenges of assessing the aforementioned inventory data in terms of contributions to environmental impacts (life cycle impact Assessment).
-
life cycle Assessment Part 1 framework goal and scope definition inventory analysis and applications
Environment International, 2004Co-Authors: Gerald Rebitzer, Tomas Rydberg, Rolf Frischknecht, Tomas Ekvall, Daniel Hunkeler, Gregory A Norris, W P Schmidt, Sangwon Suh, Bo Pedersen Weidema, David PenningtonAbstract:Sustainable development requires methods and tools to measure and compare the environmental impacts of human activities for the provision of goods and services (both of which are summarized under the term "products"). Environmental impacts include those from emissions into the environment and through the consumption of resources, as well as other interventions (e.g., land use) associated with providing products that occur when extracting resources, producing materials, manufacturing the products, during consumption/use, and at the products' end-of-life (collection/sorting, reuse, recycling, waste disposal). These emissions and consumptions contribute to a wide range of impacts, such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone (smog) creation, eutrophication, acidification, toxicological stress on human health and ecosystems, the depletion of resources, water use, land use, and noise-among others. A clear need, therefore, exists to be proactive and to provide complimentary insights, aPart from current regulatory practices, to help reduce such impacts. Practitioners and researchers from many domains come together in life cycle Assessment (LCA) to calculate indicators of the aforementioned potential environmental impacts that are linked to products-supporting the identification of opportunities for pollution prevention and reductions in resource consumption while taking the entire product life cycle into consideration. This paper, Part 1 in a series of two, introduces the LCA framework and procedure, outlines how to define and model a product's life cycle, and provides an overview of available methods and tools for tabulating and compiling associated emissions and resource consumption data in a life cycle inventory (LCI). It also discusses the application of LCA in industry and policy making. The second paper, by Pennington et al. (Environ. Int. 2003, in press), highlights the key features, summarises available approaches, and outlines the key challenges of assessing the aforementioned inventory data in terms of contributions to environmental impacts (life cycle impact Assessment, LCIA).
Valerio Cozzani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
safety Assessment in plant layout design using indexing approach implementing inherent safety perspective Part 1 guideword applicability and method description
Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2008Co-Authors: Alessandro Tugnoli, Faisal Khan, Paul Amyotte, Valerio CozzaniAbstract:Layout planning plays a key role in the inherent safety performance of process plants since this design feature controls the possibility of accidental chain-events and the magnitude of possible consequences. A lack of suitable methods to promote the effective implementation of inherent safety in layout design calls for the development of new techniques and methods. In the present paper, a safety Assessment approach suitable for layout design in the critical early phase is proposed. The concept of inherent safety is implemented within this safety Assessment; the approach is based on an integrated Assessment of inherent safety guideword applicability within the constraints typically present in layout design. Application of these guidewords is evaluated along with unit hazards and control devices to quantitatively map the safety performance of different layout options. Moreover, the economic aspects related to safety and inherent safety are evaluated by the method. Specific sub-indices are developed within the integrated safety Assessment system to analyze and quantify the hazard related to domino effects. The proposed approach is quick in application, auditable and shares a common framework applicable in other phases of the design lifecycle (e.g. process design). The present work is divided in two Parts: Part 1 (current paper) presents the application of inherent safety guidelines in layout design and the index method for safety Assessment; Part 2 (accompanying paper) describes the domino hazard sub-index and demonstrates the proposed approach with a case study, thus evidencing the introduction of inherent safety features in layout design.
-
Safety Assessment in Plant Layout Design using Indexing Approach: Implementing Inherent Safety Perspective. Part 1 – Guideword applicability and method description
2008Co-Authors: Alessandro Tugnoli, Faisal Khan, Paul Amyotte, Valerio CozzaniAbstract:Layout planning plays a key role in the inherent safety performance of process plants since this design feature controls the possibility of accidental chain-events and the magnitude of possible consequences. A lack of suitable methods to promote the effective implementation of inherent safety in layout design calls for the development of new techniques and methods. In the present paper, a safety Assessment approach suitable for layout design in the critical early phase is proposed. The concept of inherent safety is implemented within this safety Assessment; the approach is based on an integrated Assessment of inherent safety guideword applicability within the constraints typically present in layout design. Application of these guidewords is evaluated along with unit hazards and control devices to quantitatively map the safety performance of different layout options. Moreover, the economic aspects related to safety and inherent safety are evaluated by the method. Specific sub-indices are developed within the integrated safety Assessment system to analyze and quantify the hazard related to domino effects. The proposed approach is quick in application, auditable and shares a common framework applicable in other phases of the design lifecycle (e.g. process design). The presentwork is divided in two Parts: Part 1 (current paper) presents the application of inherent safety guidelines in layout design and the index method for safety Assessment; Part 2 (accompanying paper) describes the domino hazard sub-index and demonstrates the proposed approach with a case study, thus evidencing the introduction of inherent safety features in layout design
Rolf Frischknecht - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mineral resources in life cycle impact Assessment Part ii recommendations on application dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Markus Berger, Jeroen B Guinee, Thomas Sonderegger, Rodrigo Freitas De Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Christoph Helbig, Tom HuppertzAbstract: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. 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. 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. 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.
-
mineral resources in life cycle impact Assessment Part i a critical review of existing methods
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Thomas Sonderegger, Jeroen B Guinee, Markus Berger, Rodrigo Freitas De Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Christoph Helbig, Tom HuppertzAbstract: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 (R) 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.
-
mineral resources in life cycle impact Assessment Part i a critical review of existing methods
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Thomas Sonderegger, Jeroen B Guinee, Markus Berger, Rodrigo Freitas De Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Christoph Helbig, Tom HuppertzAbstract: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). 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. 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. 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 Part 1 framework goal and scope definition inventory analysis and applications
Environment International, 2004Co-Authors: Gerald Rebitzer, Tomas Rydberg, Rolf Frischknecht, Tomas Ekvall, Daniel Hunkeler, Gregory A Norris, W P Schmidt, Sangwon Suh, Bo Pedersen Weidema, David PenningtonAbstract:Abstract Sustainable development requires methods, and tools, to measure and compare the environmental impacts of human activities for the provision of goods and services (both of which are summarized under the term products). Environmental impacts include those from emissions into the environment and through the consumption of resources, as well as other interventions (e.g. land use) associated with providing products that occur when extracting resources, producing materials, manufacturing the products, during consumption/use, and at the products end-of-life (collection/sorting, reuse, recycling, waste disposal). These emissions and consumptions contribute to a wide range of impacts, such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone (smog) creation, eutrophication, acidification, toxicological stress on human health and ecosystems, the depletion of resources, water use, land use, and noise among others. A clear need, therefore, exists to be proactive and to provide complimentary insights, aPart from current regulatory practices, to help reduce such impacts. Practitioners and researchers from many domains come together in life cycle Assessment (LCA) to calculate indicators of the aforementioned potential environmental impacts that are linked to products - supporting the identification of opportunities for pollution prevention and reductions in resource consumption while taking the entire product life cycle into consideration. This paper, Part 1 in a series of 2, introduces the LCA framework and procedure, outlines how to define and model a products life cycle, and provides an overview of available methods and tools for tabulating and compiling associated emissions and resource consumption data in a life cycle inventory. It also discusses the application of LCA in industry and policy-making. The second paper, by Pennington et al. (2003), highlights the key features, summarises available approaches, and outlines the key challenges of assessing the aforementioned inventory data in terms of contributions to environmental impacts (life cycle impact Assessment).
-
life cycle Assessment Part 1 framework goal and scope definition inventory analysis and applications
Environment International, 2004Co-Authors: Gerald Rebitzer, Tomas Rydberg, Rolf Frischknecht, Tomas Ekvall, Daniel Hunkeler, Gregory A Norris, W P Schmidt, Sangwon Suh, Bo Pedersen Weidema, David PenningtonAbstract:Sustainable development requires methods and tools to measure and compare the environmental impacts of human activities for the provision of goods and services (both of which are summarized under the term "products"). Environmental impacts include those from emissions into the environment and through the consumption of resources, as well as other interventions (e.g., land use) associated with providing products that occur when extracting resources, producing materials, manufacturing the products, during consumption/use, and at the products' end-of-life (collection/sorting, reuse, recycling, waste disposal). These emissions and consumptions contribute to a wide range of impacts, such as climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, tropospheric ozone (smog) creation, eutrophication, acidification, toxicological stress on human health and ecosystems, the depletion of resources, water use, land use, and noise-among others. A clear need, therefore, exists to be proactive and to provide complimentary insights, aPart from current regulatory practices, to help reduce such impacts. Practitioners and researchers from many domains come together in life cycle Assessment (LCA) to calculate indicators of the aforementioned potential environmental impacts that are linked to products-supporting the identification of opportunities for pollution prevention and reductions in resource consumption while taking the entire product life cycle into consideration. This paper, Part 1 in a series of two, introduces the LCA framework and procedure, outlines how to define and model a product's life cycle, and provides an overview of available methods and tools for tabulating and compiling associated emissions and resource consumption data in a life cycle inventory (LCI). It also discusses the application of LCA in industry and policy making. The second paper, by Pennington et al. (Environ. Int. 2003, in press), highlights the key features, summarises available approaches, and outlines the key challenges of assessing the aforementioned inventory data in terms of contributions to environmental impacts (life cycle impact Assessment, LCIA).
Tom Huppertz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mineral resources in life cycle impact Assessment Part ii recommendations on application dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Markus Berger, Jeroen B Guinee, Thomas Sonderegger, Rodrigo Freitas De Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Christoph Helbig, Tom HuppertzAbstract: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. 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. 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. 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.
-
mineral resources in life cycle impact Assessment Part i a critical review of existing methods
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Thomas Sonderegger, Jeroen B Guinee, Markus Berger, Rodrigo Freitas De Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Christoph Helbig, Tom HuppertzAbstract: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 (R) 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.
-
mineral resources in life cycle impact Assessment Part i a critical review of existing methods
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Thomas Sonderegger, Jeroen B Guinee, Markus Berger, Rodrigo Freitas De Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Christoph Helbig, Tom HuppertzAbstract: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). 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. 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. 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.
