Stakeholder Consultation: What do Decision Makers in Public Policy and Industry Want to Know Regarding Abiotic Resource Use?

  • Marisa Vieira
  • Per Storm
  • Mark Goedkoop
Conference paper


There is no agreement on what the issue of concern is regarding resource use. A stakeholder consultation was carried out in order to clarify this issue. The objective was to identify decision contexts in which stakeholders would use an indicator related to resource use, and what such indicator should express. Industry representatives were interested in the short term economic consequences of depleting resources whereas policy makers were more concerned with the robustness and reliability of the indicator over a longer time horizon. Some of the aspects the indicator should cover include availability, effort increase, substitution, and societal value. The stakeholder consultation resulted in the selection of three indicators for mineral resources and two for fossil using different time horizons; the short term perspective prioritises political constraints, the midterm focuses on the increase in effort while the long term focuses on overall availability.


Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Impact Assessment Resource Depletion Decision Context Life Cycle Assess 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    European Commission, Joint Research Centre (2010) ILCD Handbook: Analysing of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies for use in Life Cycle Assessment. European Union, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2011) Correlation analysis of life cycle assessment indicators measuring resource use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99 - A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. VROM, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 10:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. VROM, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AmersfoortThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Raw Materials GroupSolnaSweden

Personalised recommendations