Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
A recent paper in this journal by Mozaffari et al. (2023) reported an analysis of the optimal location of a site for landfill operations in the city of Bardaskan, Iran. In their analysis, the authors claim to integrate life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) and GIS-based multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). While we appreciate the authors’ appeal to GIS and MCDM, their idea of LCSA seems to be incorrect.
The authors correctly argue that LCSA is an integrated approach to cover the three aspects of sustainability: environmental, economic and social (Klöpffer, 2003, 2008). However, an equally indispensable characteristic of LCSA is its life cycle perspective. Mozaffari et al. (2023) cite Ren and Toniolo (2018) to prove that “traditional approaches of sustainability assessment have only concentrated upon one-step of the life cycle of the processes”. But this is not what Ren and Toniolo (2018) have in mind. In fact, those authors follow Klöpffer’s argument that a sustainability assessment should include more than an environmental analysis, covering the three pillars of sustainability. The life cycle of a product or system includes many steps, such as acquisition of raw materials, manufacture, transportation, use, maintenance and disposal. This is so, regardless the scope being environmental, economic, social, or a combination of the three.
If we have a closer look at the study by Mozaffari et al. (2023), we find none of the typical hallmarks of a life cycle perspective. To mention just a few of such characteristics:
-
almost all life cycle studies rely on and cite the ISO 14040/14044 standards;
-
a life cycle study is based on a functional unit;
-
they are typically reported in terms of “goal and scope definition”, “inventory”, “characterisation”, “impact assessment”, “allocation”, “system boundary”, “unit process”, and similar terms.
All of this is missing in the study by Mozaffari et al. (2023). As such, we dare to doubt if the study is in any sense based on the idea of a life cycle.
Their study combines an analysis of the environmental, economic and social aspects of an activity (landfilling) at a location (Bardaskan). That is valuable. But an activity is not a life cycle (Heijungs & Cucurachi, 2021). The study by Mozaffari et al. (2023) could be extended to cover the life cycle, for instance following the framework of Hu et al. (2013). But right now, there is nothing life cycle-ish about it, hence any claim regarding LCSA is inappropriate.
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
References
Heijungs, R., & Cucurachi, S. (2021). One process does not make a life cycle. Comment to Marcinkowski and Kopania. Energies, 14, 1956.
Hu, M., Kleijn, R., Bozhilova-Kisheva, K. P., & Di Maio, F. (2013). An approach to LCSA: The case of concrete recycling. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1793–1803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0599-8
Klöpffer, W. (2003). Life-cycle based methods for sustainable product development. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8, 157–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978462
Klöpffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2008.02.376
Mozaffari, M., Bemani, A., Erfani, M., Yarami, N., & Siyahati, G. (2023). Integration of LCSA and GIS-based MCDM for sustainable landfill site selection: A case study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195, 510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11112-0
Ren, J., & Toniolo, S. (2018). Life cycle sustainability decision-support framework for ranking of hydrogen production pathways under uncertainties. An interval multi-criteria decision making approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.070
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RH is the sole author of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The author declares no financial or non-financial competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Heijungs, R. Letter to the Editor – Life cycle sustainability assessment without a life cycle?. Environ Monit Assess 195, 1234 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11878-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11878-3