The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp 1912–1927 | Cite as

Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

  • Thomas Sonderegger
  • Jo Dewulf
  • Peter Fantke
  • Danielle Maia de Souza
  • Stephan Pfister
  • Franziska Stoessel
  • Francesca Verones
  • Marisa Vieira
  • Bo Weidema
  • Stefanie Hellweg



In this paper, we summarize the discussion and present the findings of an expert group effort under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative proposing natural resources as an Area of Protection (AoP) in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).


As a first step, natural resources have been defined for the LCA context with reference to the overall UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) framework. Second, existing LCIA methods have been reviewed and discussed. The reviewed methods have been evaluated according to the considered type of natural resources and their underlying principles followed (use-to-availability ratios, backup technology approaches, or thermodynamic accounting methods).

Results and discussion

There is currently no single LCIA method available that addresses impacts for all natural resource categories, nor do existing methods and models addressing different natural resource categories do so in a consistent way across categories. Exceptions are exergy and solar energy-related methods, which cover the widest range of resource categories. However, these methods do not link exergy consumption to changes in availability or provisioning capacity of a specific natural resource (e.g., mineral, water, land etc.). So far, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most relevant type of future resource indicators (depletion, increased energy use or cost due to resource extraction, etc.). To address this challenge, a framework based on the concept of stock/fund/flow resources is proposed to identify, across natural resource categories, whether depletion/dissipation (of stocks and funds) or competition (for flows) is the main relevant aspect.


An LCIA method—or a set of methods—that consistently address all natural resource categories is needed in order to avoid burden shifting from the impact associated with one resource to the impact associated with another resource. This paper is an important basis for a step forward in the direction of consistently integrating the various natural resources as an Area of Protection into LCA.


Abiotic resources Biotic resources Land LCA LCIA Method review Soil Water 



We thank Johannes Drielsma (Euromines) for valuable comments on the manuscript and for fruitful discussions as well as two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and helpful suggestions. This work was supported by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. P. Fantke was supported by the Marie Curie project Quan-Tox (GA No. 631910) funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme. D. Maia de Souza is funded by the Alberta Livestock Meat Agency Ltd., grant number 2015E034R.

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1297_MOESM1_ESM.docx (227 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 226 kb)


  1. Alvarenga RAF, Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Exergy-based accounting for land as a natural resource in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:939–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarenga RAF, Erb K-H, Haberl H et al (2015) Global land use impacts on biomass production—a spatial-differentiated resource-related life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:440–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13:687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bare J, Norris GA, Pennington DW (2003) TRACI-the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayart J-B, Bulle C, Deschênes L et al (2010) A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:439–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayart J-B, Worbe S, Grimaud J, Aoustin E (2014) The Water Impact Index: a simplified single-indicator approach for water footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1336–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck T, Bos U, Wittstock B et al (2010) LANCA ® land use indicator value calculation in life cycle assessment. Fraunhofer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger M, van der Ent R, Eisner S et al (2014) Water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE): considering atmospheric evaporation recycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 48:4521–4528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Introducing carrying capacity based normalization in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1005–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borucke M, Moore D, Cranston G et al (2013) Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: the National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. Ecol Indic 24:518–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bos U, Horn R, Beck T (2016) LANCA ® characterization factors for life cycle impact assessment-version 2.0. Fraunhofer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  12. Bösch ME, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ, Frischknecht R (2007) Applying cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boulay A-M, Bulle C, Bayart J-B et al (2011) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–8957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boulay A-M, Motoshita M, Pfister S et al (2015a) Analysis of water use impact assessment methods (Part A): Evaluation of modeling choices based 15 on a quantitative comparison of scarcity and human health indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:139–160. doi: 10.1007/s11367-014-0814-2
  15. Boulay A-M, Bare J, De Camillis C et al (2015b) Consensus building on the development of a stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: outcome of the expert workshops. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2013) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1243–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowell SJ, Clift R (2000) A methodology for assessing soil quantity and quality in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 8:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crowson P (2012) Some observations on copper yields and ore grades. Resour Policy 37:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dewulf J, Boesch ME, De Meester B et al (2007) Cumulative exergy extraction from the naural environment (CEENE): a comprehensive life cycle impact assessment method for resource accounting. Environ Sci Technol 41:8477–8483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dewulf J, Benini L, Mancini L et al (2015a) Rethinking the area of protection “natural resources” in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 49:5310–5317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewulf J, Mancini L, Blengini GA et al (2015b) Toward an overall analytical framework for the integrated sustainability assessment of the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers. J Ind Ecol 19:963–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Drielsma JA, Russell-Vaccari AJ, Drnek T et al (2016) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—defining the path forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:85–105. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0991-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EC (2006) Establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending directive 2004/35/EC. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. EC (2012) The implementation of the soil thematic strategy and ongoing activities. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. EC (2015) Soil. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
  26. EC-JRC (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook: framework and requirements for life cycle impact assessment models and indicators. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, IspraGoogle Scholar
  27. EC-JRC (2011) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, IspraGoogle Scholar
  28. Ecoinvent (2015) Activity Overview for ecoinvent 3.2, Undefined. Accessed 1 Feb 2015
  29. EEX (2016) Mining. Accessed 17 Mar 2016
  30. Emanuelsson A, Ziegler F, Pihl L et al (2014) Accounting for overfishing in life cycle assessment: new impact categories for biotic resource use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1156–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Finnveden G (2005) The resource debate needs to continue. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fischer-Kowalski M, Swilling M (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Google Scholar
  34. Frischknecht R (2010) LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:666–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frischknecht R, Büsser Knöpfel S (2013) Swiss eco-factors 2013 according to the ecological scarcity method. Methodological fundamentals and their application in Switzerland. Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, BernGoogle Scholar
  36. Frischknecht R, Jolliet O (2016) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators: volume 1. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H et al (2007) Overview and Methodology. Ecoinvent Report No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  38. Garrigues E, Corson MS, Angers DA et al (2012) Soil quality in life cycle assessment: towards development of an indicator. Ecol Indic 18:434–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Garrigues E, Corson MS, Angers DA et al (2013) Development of a soil compaction indicator in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1316–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gerst MD (2008) Revisiting the cumulative grade-tonnage relationship for major copper ore types. Econ Geol 103:615–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99 a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment-methodology report. Ministerie van VROM, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  42. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, de Schryver A et al (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Characterisation. Ministerie van VROM, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  43. Guinée JB, Heijungs R (1995) A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (eds) (2015) Life cycle impact assessment. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  45. Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J et al (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:683–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heijungs R, Guinée J, Huppes G (1997) Impact categories for natural resources and land use. Centre of Environmental Science (CML), LeidenGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, Chapagain AK et al (2012) Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032688 Google Scholar
  48. Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R et al (2010) Cumulative energy demand as predictor for the environmental burden of commodity production. Environ Sci Technol 44:2189–2196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ISO (2006) ISO 14040: environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  50. Itsubo N, Inaba A (2012) Lime2. JLCA Newsl Life-Cycle Assess Soc Japan 16Google Scholar
  51. Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T et al (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R et al (2003) IMPACT 2002 +: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J et al (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Klinglmair M, Sala S, Brandão M (2014) Assessing resource depletion in LCA: a review of methods and methodological issues. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:580–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T et al (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1185–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B et al (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:707–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Langlois J, Fréon P, Delgenes J-P et al (2014) New methods for impact assessment of biotic-resource depletion in life cycle assessment of fisheries: theory and application. J Clean Prod 73:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002) Impact assessment of resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M et al (eds) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, pp 11–64Google Scholar
  59. Mancini L, De Camillis C, Pennington D (2013) Security of supply and scarcity of raw materials. doi:  10.2788/94926. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
  60. McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J et al (2007a) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007b) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of “fertile land” in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A et al (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: part I - inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mudd GM (2009) Historical trends in base metal mining: backcasting to understand the sustainability of mining. In: Canadian Metallurgical Society (ed) 48th Annual Conference of Metallurgists proceedings. Sudbury, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  65. Mudd GM, Jowitt SM (2014) A detailed assessment of global nickel resource trends and endowments. Econ Geol 109:1813–1841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mudd GM, Ward JD (2008) Will Sustainability Constraints Cause “Peak Minerals”? In: 3rd International Conference on Sustainability Engineering & Science: Blueprints for Sustainable Infrastructure. Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  67. Northey S, Mohr S, Mudd GM et al (2014) Modelling future copper ore grade decline based on a detailed assessment of copper resources and mining. Resour Conserv Recycl 83:190–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Núñez M, Civit B, Muñoz P et al (2010) Assessing potential desertification environmental impact in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Núñez M, Antón A, Muñoz P, Rieradevall J (2013) Inclusion of soil erosion impacts in life cycle assessment on a global scale: application to energy crops in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:755–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Oberholzer H-R, Weisskopf P, Gaillard G et al (2006) Methode zur Beurteilung der Wirkungen landwirtschaftlicher Bewirtschaftung auf die Bodenqualität in Ökobilanzen. Agroscope FAL ReckenholzGoogle Scholar
  71. van Oers L, de Koning A, Guinée JB, Huppes G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute of the Dutch Ministry of TransportGoogle Scholar
  72. Payen S, Basset-Mens C, Núñez M et al (2016) Salinisation impacts in life cycle assessment: a review of challenges and options towards their consistent integration. Int J Life Cycle Assess:577–594Google Scholar
  73. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impact of freshwater consumption in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Potting J, Hauschild MZ (2005) Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment-The EDIP 2003 methodology. Danish Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  75. Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2010) A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Glob Environ Chang Policy Dimens 20:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rørbech JT, Vadenbo C, Hellweg S, Astrup TF (2014) Impact assessment of abiotic resources in LCA: quantitative comparison of selected characterization models. Environ Sci Technol 48:11072–11081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rugani B, Huijbregts MAJ, Mutel CL et al (2011) Solar energy demand (SED) of commodity life cycles. Environ Sci Technol 45:5426–5433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Saad R, Koellner T, Margni M (2013) Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation, and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1253–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Saurat M, Ritthoff M (2013) Calculating MIPS 2.0. Resources 2:581–607. doi: 10.3390/resources2040581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Scherer L, Pfister S (2015) Modelling spatially explicit impacts from phosphorus emissions in agriculture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:785–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schmidt JH, Weidema BP, Brandão M (2015) A framework for modelling indirect land use changes in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 99:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schneider L, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2011) The anthropogenic stock extended abiotic depletion potential (AADP) as a new parameterisation to model the depletion of abiotic resources. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:929–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schneider L, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2015) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA—background and update of the anthropogenic stock extended abiotic depletion potential (AADP) model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:709–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development. CPM-Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material SystemsGoogle Scholar
  85. Steen BA (2006) Abiotic resource depletion. Different perceptions of the problem with mineral deposits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Steen B (2015) The EPS 2015d impact assessment method – an overviewGoogle Scholar
  87. Stewart M, Weidema B (2005) A consistent framework for assessing the impacts from resource use: a focus on resource functionality. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stoessel F, Bachmann D, Hellweg S (2016) Assessing the environmental impacts of agricultural production on soil in a global Life Cycle Impact Assessment method: A framework. In: LCA Food 2016- ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  89. Swart P, Dewulf J (2013) Quantifying the impacts of primary metal resource use in life cycle assessment based on recent mining data. Resour Conserv Recycl 73:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Swart P, Alvarenga RAF, Dewulf J (2015) Abiotic Resource Use. In: Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 247–271Google Scholar
  91. Taelman SE, De Meester S, Schaubroeck T et al (2014) Accounting for the occupation of the marine environment as a natural resource in life cycle assessment: an exergy based approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 91:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Taelman SE, Schaubroeck T, De Meester S et al (2016) Accounting for land use in life cycle assessment: the value of NPP as a proxy indicator to assess land use impacts on ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 550:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tilton JE, Lagos G (2007) Assessing the long-run availability of copper. Resour Policy 32:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M et al (eds) (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  95. Vidal Legaz B, Maia De Souza D, Teixeira RFM et al (2016) Soil quality, properties, and functions in life cycle assessment: an evaluation of models. J Clean Prod 140(Part 2):502–515Google Scholar
  96. Vieira MDM, 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 46:12772–12778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vieira MDM, Ponsioen TC, Goedkoop MJ, Huijbregts MAJ (2016a) Surplus cost potential as a life cycle impact indicator for metal extraction. Resources 5:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vieira MDM, Ponsioen TC, Goedkoop MJ, Huijbregts MAJ (2016b) Surplus ore potential as a scarcity indicator for resource extraction. J Ind Ecol. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12444 Google Scholar
  99. Weidema BP, Hauschild MZ, Jolliet O (2007) Preparing characterisation methods for endpoint impact assessment. Available from
  100. West J (2011) Decreasing metal ore grades: are they really being driven by the depletion of high-grade deposits? J Ind Ecol 15:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. WTO (2010) World Trade Report 2010: Trade in natural resources. World Trade Organization (WTO)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Sonderegger
    • 1
  • Jo Dewulf
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter Fantke
    • 4
  • Danielle Maia de Souza
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  • Stephan Pfister
    • 1
  • Franziska Stoessel
    • 1
  • Francesca Verones
    • 8
  • Marisa Vieira
    • 9
  • Bo Weidema
    • 10
  • Stefanie Hellweg
    • 1
  1. 1.ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, Chair of Ecological Systems DesignZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Sustainable Organic Chemistry and TechnologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.European Commission–Joint Research CenterInstitute for Environment and SustainabilityIspraItaly
  4. 4.Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  5. 5.Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  6. 6.Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research CentreLethbridgeCanada
  7. 7.Department of Energy and TechnologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  8. 8.Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  9. 9.PRé ConsultantsAmersfoortThe Netherlands
  10. 10.The Danish Centre for Environmental AssessmentAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations