Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Assessing resource depletion in LCA: a review of methods and methodological issues

Abstract

Purpose

Political interest in the future availability of natural resources has spiked recently, with new documents from the European Union, United Nations Environment Programme and the US National Research Council assessing the supply situation of key raw materials. As resource efficiency is considered a key element for sustainable development, suitable methods to address sustainability of resource use are increasingly needed. Life cycle thinking and assessment may play a principal role here. Nonetheless, the extent to which current life cycle impact assessment methods are capable to answer to resource sustainability challenges is widely debated. The aim of this paper is to present key elements of the ongoing discussion, contributing to the future development of more robust and comprehensive methods for evaluating resources in the life cycle assessment (LCA) context.

Methods

We systematically review current impact assessment methods dealing with resources, identifying areas of improvement. Three key issues for sustainability assessment of resources are examined: renewability, recyclability and criticality; this is complemented by a cross-comparison of methodological features and completeness of resource coverage.

Results and discussion

The approach of LCA to resource depletion is characterised by a lack of consensus on methodology and on the relative ranking of resource depletion impacts as can be seen from a comparison of characterisation factors. The examined models yield vastly different characterisations of the impacts from resource depletion and show gaps in the number and types of resources covered.

Conclusions

Key areas of improvement are identified and discussed. Firstly, biotic resources and their renewal rates have so far received relatively little regard within LCA; secondly, the debate on critical raw materials and the opportunity of introducing criticality within LCA is controversial and requires further effort for a conciliating vision and indicators. We identify points where current methods can be expanded to accommodate these issues and cover a wider range of natural resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Bayart JB, Bulle C, Deschenes L, Margni M, Pfister S, Vince F, Koehler A (2010) A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):439–453

  2. Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2010) Water footprinting: how to address water use in life cycle assessment? Sustainability 2010(2):919–944

  3. Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G, Gracey K, Iha K, Larson J, Lazarous E, Morales JC, Wackernagel M, Galli A (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Indicators 24:518–533

  4. Bösch ME, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ, Frischknecht R (2007) Applying cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(3):181–190

  5. Buijs B, Sievers H (2011) Critical thinking about critical minerals, Clingendael International Energy Program (CIEP) and Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR), Clingendael Briefing Paper. http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/CommunityPosts/tabid/809/PostID/2800/CriticalThinkingaboutCriticalMinerals.aspx. Accessed Jul 2012

  6. Cummings C, Seager T (2008) Estimating exergy renewability for sustainability assessment of corn ethanol. IEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, May 2008, San Francisco

  7. De Groot R, van der Perk J, Chiesura A, van Vliet A (2003) Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital. Ecol Econ 44(2–3):187–204

  8. Dewulf J, Boesch ME, de Meester B, van der Vorst G, van Langenhove H, Hellweg S, Huijbregts AJ (2007) Cumulative Exergy Extraction from the Natural Environment (CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource accounting. Environ Sci Technol 41(24):8477–8483

  9. EC (European Commission) (2008) “The raw materials initiative—meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe”. COM (2008) 699 Communication European Commission, Brussels

  10. EC (2010a) Critical raw materials for the EU: report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. European Commission DG Enterprise, Brussels

  11. EC (2010b) Annex V to the report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. European Commission DG Enterprise, Brussels

  12. EC (2011a) A resource-efficient Europe—Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy. European Commission, Brussels

  13. EC (2011b) Tackling the challenges in commodity markets and on raw materials. COM (2011) 25 Communication. European Commission, Brussels

  14. EC-JRC (European Commission Joint Research Centre) (2010a) ILCD handbook. Analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment, 1st edn. IES, Joint Research Centre, Ispra. Available at http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu

  15. EC-JRC (2010b) ILCD handbook. Framework and requirements for life cycle assessment models and indicators, 1st edn. IES, Joint Research Centre, Ispra. Available at http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu

  16. EC-JRC (2011) ILCD handbook. Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life cycle assessment in European context. IES, Joint Research Centre, Ispra. Available at http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu

  17. EEA (European Environment Agency) (2010) The European environment—state and outlook 2010. Part 4: natural resources and waste. EEA, Copenhagen

  18. Eurostat (2013) Eurostat’s economy-wide material flow accounts. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Material_flow_accounts. Accessed Jan 2013

  19. Finnveden G, Östlund P (1997) Exergies of natural resources in life-cycle assessment and other applications. Energy 22(9):923–931

  20. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21

  21. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2008) Oekobilanzen—Methode der oekologischen Knappheit—Oekofaktoren 2006. BAFU, Zurich

  22. Giljum S, Burger E, Hinterberger F, Lutter S, Bruckner M (2011) A comprehensive set of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(3):300–308

  23. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, de Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterisation. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Amsterdam

  24. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage-oriented method for life cycle impact assessment—methodology report. PRe Consultants, Amersfoort

  25. Guinée J, Heijungs R (1995) A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 14(5):917–925

  26. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

  27. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, vol 2—scientific background. Chapman & Hall, UK

  28. Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, de Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):683–697

  29. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lamkreijer RM, Udo de Haes, HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guide (part 1) and background (part 2). CML Leiden University, Leiden

  30. Heijungs R, Guinée J, Huppes G (1997) Impact categories for natural resources and land use: survey and analysis of existing and proposed methods in the context of environmental life cycle assessment. CML Leiden University, Leiden

  31. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330

  32. Kemna R, van Elburg M, Li W, van Holstein R (2005) MEEuP—the methodology report. European Commission, Brussels

  33. Kitzes J, Galli A, Bagliani M, Barrett J, Dige G, Ede S, Erb K, Giljum S, Haberl H, Jungwirth S, Lenzen M, Lewis K, Loh J, Marchettini N, Messinger H, Milne K, Moles R, Monfreda C, Moran D, Nakano K, Pyhala A, Rees W, Simmons C, Wackernagel M, Wada Y, Walsh C, Wiedmann T (2009) A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts. Ecol Econ 68:1991–2007

  34. Lindeijer E, Mueller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002) Impact assessment of resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes HA et al (eds) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola

  35. Mancini L, De Camillis C, Pennington D (2013) Security of supply and scarcity of raw materials: a methodological framework for sustainability assessment. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemburg

  36. Mudd GM, Ward JD (2008) Will sustainability constraints cause ‘peak minerals’? Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Sustainability Engineering & Science: Blueprints for Sustainable Infrastructure, Auckland, New Zealand, 9–12 Dec 2008

  37. Mueller-Wenk R (1998) Depletion of abiotic resources weighted on base of “virtual” impacts of lower grade deposits used in future. IWOe Universitaet St. Gallen, St. Gallen

  38. NRC (National Research Council) (2007) Minerals, critical minerals, and the US economy. National Academies, Washington, DC

  39. Roma A, Pirino D (2009) The extraction of natural resources: the role of thermodynamic efficiency. Ecol Econ 68(10):2594–2606

  40. Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2012) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment. Part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0508-6

  41. Schneider L, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2011) The anthropogenic stock extended abiotic depletion potential (AADP) as new parameterization to model the depletion of resources. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(9):929–936

  42. Schueler D, Buchert M, Liu R, Dittrich S, Merz C (2011) Study on rare earths and their recycling. Oeko-Institut e.V, Freiburg

  43. Steen BA (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product life development (EPS). Version 2000—models and data of the default method. Chalmers University, Lindholmen

  44. Steen BA (2006) Abiotic resource depletion different perceptions of the problem with mineral deposits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):49–54

  45. Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories (2007) Ecoinvent database. Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf. www.ecoinvent.org. Accessed May 2012

  46. UNEP (2007) Global environmental outlook 4. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

  47. UNEP (2010) Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: priority products and materials. UNEP International Panel for Resource Management, Paris

  48. van der Voet E, van Oers L, de Bruyn S, de Jong F, Tukker A (2009) CML report 184. Environmental impact of the use of natural resources and products. CML Leiden University, Leiden

  49. van Oers L, de Koning A, Guinée JB, Huppes G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute, Ministry of Transport and Water, Amsterdam

  50. Vieira MD, Goedkoop MJ, Storm P, Huijbregts MAJ (2012) Ore grade decrease as life cycle impact indicator for metal scarcity: the case of copper. Environ Sci Technol 46(23):12772–12778

  51. Weidema BP, Finnveden G, Stewart M (2005) Impacts from resource use—a common position paper. International Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):382–382

  52. West J (2011) Decreasing metal ore grades: are they really being driven by the depletion of high-grade deposits? J Ind Ecol 15(2):165–168

  53. Yellishetty M, Ranjith PG, Tharumarajah A, Bhosale S (2009) Life cycle assessment in the minerals and metals sector: a critical review of selected issues and challenges. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):257–267

  54. Zhang Y, Baral A, Bakshi BR (2010) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, part II: toward an ecologically based LCA. Environ Sci Technol 44(7):2624–2631

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Lucia Mancini for her contribution in discussing the content of this paper.

Author information

Correspondence to Manfred Klinglmair.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Göran Finnveden

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(XLSX 75 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klinglmair, M., Sala, S. & Brandão, M. Assessing resource depletion in LCA: a review of methods and methodological issues. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 580–592 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0650-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Critical resources
  • LCIA methodology
  • Life cycle impact assessment
  • Resource depletion