Skip to main content
Log in

Impact assessment of abiotic resource consumption conceptual considerations

  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The impact assessment of the consumption of abiotic resources, such as fossil fuels or minerals, is usually part of the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) in LCA studies. The problem with the consumption of such resources is their decreasing availability for future generations. In currently available LCA methods (e.g. Eco-indicator’ 99/Goedkoop and Spriensma 1999, CML/Guinée 2001), the consumption of various abiotic resources is aggregated into one summarizing indicator within the characterization phase of the LCIA. This neglects that many resources are used for different purposes and are not equivalent to each other. Therefore, the depletion of reserves of functionally non-equivalent resources should be treated as separate environmental problems, i.e. as separate impact sub-categories. Consequently, this study proposes assigning the consumption of abiotic resources to separate impact sub-categories and, if possible, integrating them into indicators only according to their primary function (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil → consumption of fossil fuels; phosphate rock → consumption of phosphate). Since this approach has been developed in the context of LCA studies on agricultural production systems, the impact assessment of the consumption of fossil fuels, phosphate rock, potash salt and lime is of particular interest and serves as an example. Following the general LCA framework (Consoli et al. 1993, ISO 1998), a normalization step is proposed separately for each of the subcategories. Finally, specific weighting factors have been calculated for the sub-categories based on the ’distance-to-target’ principle. The weighting step allows for further interpretation and enables the aggregation of the consumption of different abiotic resources to one summarizing indicator, called the Resource Depletion Index (RDI). The proposed method has been applied to a wheat production system in order to illustrate the conceptual considerations and to compare the approach to an established impact assessment method for abiotic resources (CML method, Guinée 2001).

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BMWi (1995): Energiedaten ‘95, Nationale und internationale Entwick-lung. BMWi (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft), Bonn, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Barraclough P, Kuhlmann H (2002): Investigation of the Environmental Impact of Agricultural Crop Production using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Methodology. Part II: Application of the LCA methodology to investigate the environmental impact of different N fertilizer rates in cereal production. Europ. J. Agronomy, submitted for publication

  • BUWAL (1998): Bewertung in ökobilanzen mit der Methode der ökologischen Knappheit, ökofaktoren 1997, Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 297. BUWAL (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft), Bern, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Cqnsoli F et al. (1993): Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA (1998): Europe’s Environment: The Second Assessment. EEA (European Environment Agency), Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • EFMA (2000): Understanding Phosphorus and its Use in Agriculture. EFMA (European Fertilizer Manufactures Association), Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • EIA (2000): Annual Energy Review 1999. EIA (Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html

  • FAO (2001): FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), FAO Statistical Databases, http://apps.fao.org/

  • Finnveden G (1996): Resources and related impact categories, in: Udo de Haes H A (1996): Towards a methodology of life cycle impact assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M (1995): NOH report 9523. The Eco-Indicator 95. Final Report. Pré Consultants, Amersfoort, Netherlands, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999): The Eco-Indicator 99. A damage oriented method of Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. Preliminary Internet version. Pré Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, The Netherlands, http://www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/default.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée J B, Heijungs R (1995): A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14, 917–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée J B (2001): Life Cycle Assessment: An operational guide to the ISO standards. Centre of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden University, The Netherlands, http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/lca2/index.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée J B, Huppes G (1997): Impact categories for natural resources and land use, CML report 138, Section Substances & Products. Centre of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden University, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2000): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life cycle impact assessment, International Standard ISO 14042:2000. ISO (International Organization for Standardization), Geneva, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Küsters J, Jenssen T (1998): Selecting the right fertilizer from an environmental life cycle perspective. IFA 1998 Technical Conference, Marrakech, Morocco. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA), Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wenk R (1998): Depletion of abiotic resources weighted on base of ‘virtual’ impacts of lower grade deposits used in future, IWö-Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 57. Institut für Wirtschaft und ökologie (IWö), St. Gallen University, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Patyk A, Reinhardt G A (1997): Düngemittel — Energie- und Stoffstrom-bilanzen. Vieweg, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes H A, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild, M., Krewitt, W., Müller-Wenk, R. (1999): Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Part II. Int JLCA 4, 167–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Unternehmensgruppe Schöndorfer (2001): http://www.dolomit.de/

  • USGS Minerals Information (2001): Mineral Commodity Summaries. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), Reston, USA. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/

  • Van Oers L (Ed.) (2001): LCA normalization data for the Netherlands 1997/1998, Western Europe 1995 and the World 1990 and 1995. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • VROM (1998): National Environmental Policy Plan 3. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), The Hague, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987): Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • WEC (2002): World Energy Survey 2001. WEC (World Energy Council), London, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Brentrup.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brentrup, F., Küsters, J., Lammel, J. et al. Impact assessment of abiotic resource consumption conceptual considerations. Int J LCA 7, 301–307 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978892

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978892

Keywords

Navigation