Evaluating the Sustainability SWOT as a streamlined tool for life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

From a management perspective, there are two main issues in the life cycle sustainability assessment framework which require further work: (1) the approaches to quicken the resource-consuming inventory and assessment process and (2) the easy-to-understand communication of the results. This study aims at contributing to these needs for quicker and cost-efficient ways to draft strategies that include the life cycle perspective and encompasses all three dimensions of sustainability in an easily communicable way. The focus of the study is on a streamlined, rapid assessment the tool proposed by Pesonen (2007) called the Sustainability SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) and on the empirical testing of whether or not it is understood in the corporate world and if it leads to concrete changes in either strategic- or operative-level activities.

Methods

The data for the research were empirically collected from a survey targeted to representatives of organizations having used the Sustainability SWOT within the last 5 years. The primary findings, i.e., the generated changes or improvements, were reflected in the various levels of cooperation in a network (along the value chain, in end users, in the institutional framework).

Results and discussion

The results of the analyses of both the usability of the Sustainability SWOT in business as well as the suggested assessment framework leading to any actual changes were promising. It is encouraging that the streamlined approach tailored according to the logic of business decision-makers (i.e., inclusion of the SWOT) is able to find the acceptance and understanding of that vital group. Remarkably, many changes were initiated—not only at an operative level but also at a strategic level and in the entire value chain—by carrying out an exercise such as the Sustainability SWOT.

Conclusions

The Sustainability SWOT has proven to be usable and able to generate changes and improvements along the value chain and, in some cases, in the institutional context as well.     

Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules

Purpose

The main goal of the paper is to carry out the first implementation of sustainability assessment of the assembly step of photovoltaic (PV) modules production by Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) and the development of the Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD), in order to compare LCSA results of different PV modules. The applicability and practicability of the LCSD is reported thanks to a case study. The results show that LCSA can be considered a valuable tool to support decision-making processes that involve different stakeholders with different knowledge and background.

Method

The sustainability performance of the production step of Italian and German polycrystalline silicon modules is assessed using the LCSD. The LCSD is an application oriented to the presentation of an LCSA study. LCSA comprises life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing and social LCA (S-LCA). The primary data collected for the German module are related to two different years, and this led to the evaluation of three different scenarios: a German 2008 module, a German 2009 module, and an Italian 2008 module.

Results and discussion

According to the LCA results based on Ecoindicator 99, the German module for example has lower values of land use [1.77 potential disappeared fractions (PDF) m²/year] and acidification (3.61 PDF m²/year) than the Italian one (land use 1.99 PDF m²/year, acidification 3.83 PDF m²/year). However, the German module has higher global warming potential [4.5E?C05 disability-adjusted life years (DALY)] than the Italian one [3.00E?05 DALY]. The economic costs of the German module are lower than the Italian one, e.g. the cost of electricity per FU for the German module is 0.12??/m² compared to the Italian 0.85??/m². The S-LCA results show significant differences between German module 2008 and 2009 that represent respectively the best and the worst overall social performances of the three considered scenarios compared by LCSD. The aggregate LCSD results show that the German module 2008 has the best overall sustainability performance and a score of 665 points out of 1,000 (and a colour scale of light green). The Italian module 2008 has the worst overall sustainability performance with a score of 404 points, while the German module 2009 is in the middle with 524 points.

Conclusions

The LCSA and LCSD methodologies represent an applicable framework as a tool for supporting decision-making processes which consider sustainable production and consumption. However, there are still challenges for a meaningful application, particularly the questions of the selection of social LCA indicators and how to weigh sets for the LCSD.     

Comparative life cycle assessment of smartphone reuse: repurposing vs. refurbishment

Purpose

Waste management for end-of-life (EoL) smartphones is a growing problem due to their high turnover rate and concentration of toxic chemicals. The versatility of modern smartphones presents an interesting alternative waste management strategy: repurposing. This paper investigates the environmental impact of smartphone repurposing as compared to traditional refurbishing using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

Methods

A case study of repurposing was conducted by creating a smartphone “app” that replicates the functionality of an in-car parking meter. The environmental impacts of this prototype were quantified using waste management LCA methodology. Studied systems included three waste management options: traditional refurbishment, repurposing using battery power, and repurposing using a portable solar charger. The functional unit was defined as the EoL management of a used smartphone. Consequential system expansion was employed to account for secondary functions provided; avoided impacts from displaced primary products were included. Impacts were calculated in five impact categories. Break-even displacement rates were calculated and sensitivity to standby power consumption were assessed.

Results and discussion

LCA results showed that refurbishing creates the highest environmental impacts of the three reuse routes in every impact category except ODP. High break-even displacement rates suggest that this finding is robust within a reasonable range of primary cell phone displacement. The repurposed smartphone in-car parking meter had lower impacts than the primary production parking meter. Impacts for battery-powered devices were dominated by use-phase charging electricity, whereas solar-power impacts were concentrated in manufacturing. Repurposed phones using battery power had lower impacts than those using solar power, however, standby power sensitivity analysis revealed that solar power is preferred if the battery charger is left plugged-in more than 20 % of the use period.

Conclusions

Our analysis concludes that repurposing represents an environmentally preferable EoL option to refurbishing for used smartphones. The results suggest two generalizable findings. First, primary product displacement is a major factor affecting whether any EoL strategy is environmentally beneficial. The benefit depends not only on what is displaced, but also on how much displacement occurs; in general, repurposing allows freedom to target reuse opportunities with high “displacement potential.” Second, the notion that solar power is preferable to batteries is not always correct; here, the rank-order is sensitive to assumptions about user behavior.     

Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

This study seeks to provide a framework for integrating animal welfare as a fourth pillar into a life cycle sustainability assessment and presents three alternative animal welfare indicators.

Methods

Animal welfare is assessed during farm life and during slaughter. The indicators differ in how they value premature death. All three consider (1) the life quality of an animal such as space allowance, (2) the slaughter age either as life duration or life fraction, and (3) the number of animals affected for providing a product unit, e.g. 1 Mcal. One of the indicators additionally takes into account a moral value denoting their intelligence and self-awareness. The framework allows for comparisons across studies and products and for applications at large spatial scales. To illustrate the framework, eight products were analysed and compared: beef, pork, poultry, milk, eggs, salmon, shrimps, and, as a novel protein source, insects.

Results and discussion

Insects are granted to live longer fractions of their normal life spans, and their life quality is less compromised due to a lower assumed sentience. Still, they perform worst according to all three indicators, as their small body sizes only yield low product quantities. Therefore, we discourage from eating insects. In contrast, milk is the product that reduces animal welfare the least according to two of the three indicators and it performs relatively better than other animal products in most categories. The difference in animal welfare is mostly larger for different animal products than for different production systems of the same product. This implies that, besides less consumption of animal-based products, a shift to other animal products can significantly improve animal welfare.

Conclusions

While the animal welfare assessment is simplified, it allows for a direct integration into life cycle sustainability assessment. There is a trade-off between applicability and indicator complexity, but even a simple estimate of animal welfare is much better than ignoring the issue, as is the common practice in life cycle sustainability assessments. Future research should be directed towards elaborating the life quality criterion and extending the product coverage.

     

Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

Sustainability assessment in life cycle assessment (LCA) addresses societal aspects of technologies or products to evaluate whether a technology/product helps to address important challenges faced by society or whether it causes problems to society or at least selected social groups. In this paper, we analyse how this has been, and can be addressed in the context of economic assessments. We discuss the need for systemic measures applicable in the macro-economic setting.

Methods

The modelling framework of life cycle costing (LCC) is analysed as a key component of the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. Supply chain analysis is applied to LCC in order to understand the relationships between societal concerns of value adding and the basic cost associated with a functional unit. Methods to link LCC as a foreground economic inventory to a background economy wide inventory such as an input–output table are shown. Other modelling frameworks designed to capture consequential effects in LCSA are discussed.

Results

LCC is a useful indicator in economic assessments, but it fails to capture the full dimension of economic sustainability. It has potential contradictions in system boundary to an environmental LCA, and includes normative judgements at the equivalent of the inventory level. Further, it has an inherent contradiction between user goals (minimisation of cost) and social goals (maximisation of value adding), and has no clear application in a consequential setting. LCC is focussed on the indicator of life cycle cost, to the exclusion of many relevant indicators that can be utilised in LCSA. As such, we propose the coverage of indicators in economic assessment to include the value adding to the economy by type of input, import dependency, indicators associated with the role of capital and labour, the innovation potential, linkages and the structural impact on economic sectors.

Conclusions

If the economic dimension of LCSA is to be equivalently addressed as the other pillars, formalisation of equivalent frameworks must be undertaken. Much can be advanced from other fields that could see LCSA to take a more central role in policy formation.     

Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building

Purpose

This paper uses a dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) approach and illustrates the potential importance of the method using a simplified case study of an institutional building. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have consistently found that energy consumption in the use phase of a building is dominant in most environmental impact categories. Due to the long life span of buildings and potential for changes in usage patterns over time, a shift toward DLCA has been suggested.

Methods

We define DLCA as an approach to LCA which explicitly incorporates dynamic process modeling in the context of temporal and spatial variations in the surrounding industrial and environmental systems. A simplified mathematical model is used to incorporate dynamic information from the case study building, temporally explicit sources of life cycle inventory data and temporally explicit life cycle impact assessment characterization factors, where available. The DLCA model was evaluated for the historical and projected future environmental impacts of an existing institutional building, with additional scenario development for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of future impacts.

Results and discussion

Results showed that overall life cycle impacts varied greatly in some categories when compared to static LCA results, generated from the temporal perspective of either the building's initial construction or its recent renovation. From the initial construction perspective, impacts in categories related to criteria air pollutants were reduced by more than 50 % when compared to a static LCA, even though nonrenewable energy use increased by 15 %. Pollution controls were a major reason for these reductions. In the future scenario analysis, the baseline DLCA scenario showed a decrease in all impact categories compared with the static LCA. The outer bounds of the sensitivity analysis varied from slightly higher to strongly lower than the static results, indicating the general robustness of the decline across the scenarios.

Conclusions

These findings support the use of dynamic modeling in life cycle assessment to increase the relevance of results. In some cases, decision making related to building design and operations may be affected by considering the interaction of temporally explicit information in multiple steps of the LCA. The DLCA results suggest that in some cases, changes during a building's lifetime can influence the LCA results to a greater degree than the material and construction phases. Adapting LCA to a more dynamic approach may increase the usefulness of the method in assessing the performance of buildings and other complex systems in the built environment.     

Functional unit influence on building life cycle assessment

Purpose

The building sector is one of the most relevant sectors in terms of environmental impact. Different functional units (FUs) can be used in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies for a variety of purposes. This paper aimed to present different FUs used in the LCA of buildings and evaluate the influence of FU choice and setting in comparative studies.

Methods

As an example, we compared the “cradle to grave” environmental performance of four typical Brazilian residential buildings with different construction typologies, i.e., multi-dwelling and single dwelling, each with high and basic standards. We chose three types of FU for comparison: a dwelling with defined lifetime and occupancy parameters, an area of 1 m² of dwelling over a year period, and the accommodation of an occupant person of the dwelling over a day.

Results and discussion

The FU choice was found to bias the results considerably. As expected, the largest global warming indicator (GWi) values per dwelling unit and occupant were identified for the high standard dwellings. However, when measured per square meter, lower standard dwellings presented the largest GWi values. This was caused by the greater concentration of people per square meter in smaller area dwellings, resulting in larger water and energy consumption per square meter. The sensitivity analysis of FU variables such as lifetime and occupancy showed the GWi contribution of the infrastructure more relevant compared with the operation in high and basic standard dwellings. The definition of lifetime and occupancy parameters is key to avoid bias and to reduce uncertainty of the results when performing a comparison of dwelling environmental performances.

Conclusions

This paper highlights the need for adequate choice and setting of FU to support intended decision-making in LCA studies of the building sector. The use of at least two FUs presented a broader picture of building performance, helping to guide effective environmental optimization efforts from different approaches and levels of analysis. Information regarding space, time, and service dimensions should be either included in the FU setting or provided in the building LCA study to allow adjustment of the results for subsequent comparison.

     

Environmental assessment schemes for non-domestic building refurbishment in the Malaysian context

The increase in global warming, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions has gained attention in various regions. In Malaysia, the government announced a voluntary commitment to reduce 40% of CO₂ emissions by 2020 and to refurbish 100 government buildings. Existing buildings make a large contribution to energy consumption and CO₂ emissions, therefore refurbishing existing buildings is an essential strategy to achieve the commitment. There is no single assessment scheme for building refurbishment in Malaysia and hence, this study aims to develop a comprehensive list of assessment themes and sub-themes for building refurbishment purposes. It examines and compares 10 assessment schemes from various countries: BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, BEAM Plus, GBLS, Green Star, HQE, Green Mark, GBI and MyCrest. The findings revealed fourteen themes that were considered for assessment: management, sustainable site, transport, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), water, waste, material, energy, pollution, innovation, economic, social, culture and quality of services. Energy and IEQ are dominant themes in all assessment schemes. Most of the schemes are considered relatively weak in evaluating economic and social aspects, in comparison to environmental aspects. The assessment of quality of services is overlooked in most of the schemes, including GBI and MyCrest in Malaysia. Outcomes from this paper will form the baseline for a new environmental assessment scheme that aimed at non-domestic building refurbishments in Malaysia. A new model is proposed for the development of an environmental assessment scheme in the further stage.     

Wastepaper in Mumbai (India) an approach for abridged life cycle assessment

In this study, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of waste-paper was conducted in Mumbai (India). The wastepaper cycle was divided into four main life stages - Generation, Collection, Utilisation and Disposal. A survey of major stakeholders involved in this cycle, namely informal waste-pickers, buyers, wholesalers and paper manufacturers, was carried out to determine the socio-economic and environmental aspect of each stage. The LCA Abridged Matrix Method was applied for Life Cycle Assessment. The resulting LCA matrix showed that, while there was a moderate environmental impact of wastepaper during generation, collection and disposal stages, the utilisation stage had a significant impact on the environment, especially during manufacturing in paper factories     

A proposal to measure absolute environmental sustainability in life cycle assessment

Environmental monitoring indicates that progress towards the goal of environmental sustainability in many cases is slow, non-existing or negative. Indicators that use environmental carrying capacity references to evaluate whether anthropogenic systems are, or will potentially be, environmentally sustainable are therefore increasingly important. Such absolute indicators exist, but suffer from shortcomings such as incomplete coverage of environmental issues, varying data quality and varying or insufficient spatial resolution. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that life cycle assessment (LCA) can potentially reduce or eliminate these shortcomings.We developed a generic mathematical framework for the use of carrying capacity as environmental sustainability reference in spatially resolved life cycle impact assessment models and applied this framework to the LCA impact category terrestrial acidification. In this application carrying capacity was expressed as acid deposition (eq. mol H⁺ ha⁻¹ year⁻¹) and derived from two complementary pH related thresholds. A geochemical steady-state model was used to calculate a carrying capacity corresponding to these thresholds for 99,515 spatial units worldwide. Carrying capacities were coupled with deposition factors from a global deposition model to calculate characterisation factors (CF), which expresses space integrated occupation of carrying capacity (ha year) per kg emission. Principles for calculating the entitlement to carrying capacity of anthropogenic systems were then outlined, and the logic of considering a studied system environmentally sustainable if its indicator score (carrying capacity occupation) does not exceed its carrying capacity entitlement was demonstrated. The developed CFs and entitlement calculation principles were applied to a case study evaluating emission scenarios for personal residential electricity consumption supplied by production from 45 US coal fired electricity plant.Median values of derived CFs are 0.16–0.19 ha year kg⁻¹ for common acidifying compounds. CFs are generally highest in Northern Europe, Canada and Alaska due to the low carrying capacity of soils in these regions. Differences in indicator scores of the case study emission scenarios are to a larger extent driven by variations in pollution intensities of electricity plants than by spatial variations in CFs. None of the 45 emission scenarios could be considered environmentally sustainable when using the relative contribution to GDP or the grandfathering (proportionality to past emissions) valuation principles to calculating carrying capacity entitlements. It is argued that CFs containing carrying capacity references are complementary to existing CFs in supporting decisions aimed at simultaneously reducing environmental impacts efficiently and maintaining or achieving environmental sustainability.We have demonstrated that LCA indicators can be modified from being relative to being absolute indicators of environmental sustainability. Further research should focus on quantifying uncertainties related to choices in indicator design and on reducing uncertainties effectively.     

Using life cycle sustainability assessment to trade off sourcing strategies for humanitarian relief items

Purpose

While interest in supply chain sustainability has risen over the past few years in academic and business worlds, very little research has been conducted on sustainability in humanitarian supply chains, specifically. This study aims to contribute to the development of the field by conducting a life cycle sustainability analysis (LCSA) of sourcing scenarios for a core relief item in a humanitarian supply chain.

Methods

This paper is structured according to the LCSA framework developed by Guinée et al. (Environ Sci Technol 45(1):90–96, 2011). The relief item analyzed is a kitchen set supplied by a UN agency. Environmental, social, and economic impacts of two sourcing scenarios for a kitchen set are mapped: one international and one local. Sources of data include interviews, company records, and online databases. Results are analyzed using the ReCiPe method to assess environmental impact and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) guidelines to assess social impact.

Results and discussion

We show how LCSA can be used to map the sustainability of two sourcing scenarios for kitchen sets in a humanitarian supply chain along triple bottom line dimensions. We report findings on sourcing scenarios for distribution to two refugee camps in Kenya: one from a supplier in India and one from a supplier in Kenya. We use an environmental life cycle analysis (LCA), a social LCA, and a life cycle costing (LCC) to analyze differences and similarities. We find that local sourcing is preferred over international sourcing on two out of the three sustainability dimensions—environmental and social impacts. Humanitarian organizations may further use this paper as a guideline to develop their own sustainability assessments of supply chain scenarios.

Conclusions

The results of our study provide a fresh, sustainability-focused perspective on the debate over international vs. local procurement. This paper is the first to apply LCSA to a humanitarian context. It also addresses a void in the sourcing literature by determining the sustainability impacts of different sourcing strategies. The study evaluates only two sourcing options and also uses a limited number of data sources.

     

A framework for implementing holistic and integrated life cycle sustainability assessment of regional bioeconomy

Purpose

Currently, social, environmental, and economic risks and chances of bioeconomy are becoming increasingly a subject of applied sustainability assessments. Based on life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) aims to combine or integrate social, environmental, and economic assessments. In order to contribute to the current early stage of LCSA development, this study seeks to identify a practical framework for integrated LCSA implementation.

Methods

We select possible indicators from existing suitable LCA and LCSA approaches as well as from the literature, and allocate them to a sustainability concept for holistic and integrated LCSA (HILCSA), based on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In order to conduct a practical implementation of HILCSA, we choose openLCA, because it offers the best current state and most future potential for application of LCSA. Therefore, not only the capabilities of the software and databases, but also the supported methods of life cycle impact assessments (LCIA) are evaluated regarding the requirements of the indicator set and goal and scope of future case studies.

Results and discussion

This study presents an overview of available indicators and LCIAs for bioeconomy sustainability assessments as well as their link to the SDGs. We provide a practical framework for HILCSA of regional bioeconomy, which includes an indicator set for regional (product and territorial) bioeconomy assessment, applicable with current software and databases, LCIA methods and methods of normalization, weighting, and aggregation. The implementation of HILCSA in openLCA allows an integrative LCSA by conducting all steps in a single framework with harmonized, aggregated, and coherent results. HILCSA is capable of a sustainability assessment in terms of planetary boundaries, provisioning system and societal needs, as well as communication of results to different stakeholders.

Conclusions

Our framework is capable of compensating some deficits of S-LCA, E-LCA, and economic assessments by integration, and shows main advantages compared to additive LCSA. HILCSA is capable of addressing 15 out of 17 SDGs. It addresses open questions and significant problems of LCSAs in terms of goal and scope, LCI, LCIA, and interpretation. Furthermore, HILCSA is the first of its kind actually applicable in an existing software environment. Regional bioeconomy sustainability assessment is bridging scales of global and regional effects and can inform stakeholders comprehensively on various impacts, hotspots, trade-offs, and synergies of regional bioeconomy. However, significant research needs in LCIAs, software, and indicator development remain.

     

Considering human toxicity as an impact category in life cycle assessment

Characterization of toxic chemicals with relevance to human exposure does normally not belong to Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) and is still a topic of research. The concept of hazard potential classes proposed in this paper is primarily based on threshold limit values that are considered to be a measure of the severity of potential effects. In the absence of threshold limit values the R-phrases of the ordinance of dangerous substances are used. Substances are assigned to five hazard potential classes (A to E). Potentially dangerous chemicals are identified and substances of low toxicological relevance are excluded from further evaluation. The location where a probable exposure might occur (indoor versus outdoor) and inter-media transport of substances is considered. The product comparison is based both on the results of the proposed “semi-quantitative screening method” and on toxicological expert knowledge.     

Integration of system dynamics approach toward deepening and broadening the life cycle sustainability assessment framework: a case for electric vehicles

Purpose

Quantitative life cycle sustainable assessment requires a complex and multidimensional understanding, which cannot be fully covered by the current portfolio of reductionist-oriented tools. Therefore, there is a dire need on a new generation of modeling tools and approaches that can quantitatively assess the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability in an integrated way. To this end, this research aims to present a practical and novel approach for (1) broadening the existing life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework by considering macrolevel environmental, economic, and social impacts (termed as the triple bottom line), simultaneously, (2) deepening the existing LCSA framework by capturing the complex dynamic relationships between social, environmental, and economic indicators through causal loop modeling, (3) understanding the dynamic complexity of transportation sustainability for the triple bottom line impacts of alternative vehicles, and finally (4) investigating the impacts of various vehicle-specific scenarios as a novel approach for selection of a macrolevel functional unit considering all of the complex interactions in the environmental, social, and economic aspects.

Methods

To alleviate these research objectives, we presented a novel methodology to quantify macrolevel social, economic, and environmental impacts of passenger vehicles from an integrated system analysis perspective. An integrated dynamic LCSA model is utilized to analyze the environmental, economic, and social life cycle impact as well as life cycle cost of alternative vehicles in the USA. System dynamics modeling is developed to simulate the US passenger transportation system and its interactions with economy, the environment, and society. Analysis covers manufacturing and operation phase impacts of internal combustion vehicles (ICVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and battery electric vehicles (BEVs). In total, seven macrolevel indicators are selected; global warming potential, particulate matter formation, photochemical oxidant formation, vehicle ownership cost, contribution to gross domestic product, employment generation, and human health impacts. Additionally, contribution of vehicle choices to global atmospheric temperature rise and public welfare is investigated.

Results and discussion

BEVs are found to be a better alternative for most of sustainability impact categories. While some of the benefits such as contribution to employment and GDP, CO₂ emission reduction potential of BEVs become greater toward 2050, other sustainability indicators including vehicle ownership cost and human health impacts of BEVs are higher than the other vehicle types on 2010s and 2020s. While the impact shares of manufacturing and operation phases are similar in the early years of 2010s, the contribution of manufacturing phase becomes higher as the vehicle performances increase toward 2050. Analysis results revealed that the US transportation sector, alone, cannot reduce the rapidly increasing atmospheric temperature and the negative impacts of the global climate change, even though the entire fleet is replaced with BEVs. Reducing the atmospheric climate change requires much more ambitious targets and international collaborative efforts. The use of different vehicle types has a small impact on public welfare, which is a function of income, education, and life expectancy indexes.

Conclusions

The authors strongly recommend that the dynamic complex and mutual interactions between sustainability indicators should be considered for the future LCSA framework. This approach will be critical to deepen the existing LCSA framework and to go beyond the current LCSA understanding, which provide a snapshot analysis with an isolated view of all pillars of sustainability. Overall, this research is a first empirical study and an important attempt toward developing integrated and dynamic LCSA framework for sustainable transportation research.

     

Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks

The extraction of critical minerals used in clean technologies has profound impacts on sustainable development goals (SDGs). Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is used to evaluate the sustainability impacts of products and services, but few frameworks exist to support SDGs assessment for the “green minerals” extraction. Here, we propose a mining-specific framework identifying linkages between LCSA and SDGs, along with a process to integrate methods and data. As a proof of concept, we assess the LCSA performance and local-community level SDG impacts of a nickel mining project in Indonesia. Integrating remote sensing, media sources, stakeholder's data, and expert opinion, we find that LCSA encompasses all 17 goals but only a subset of targets and indicators. The study highlights the need to incorporate indigenous people's perspectives in both LCSA and SDG assessments, and points to priority areas for improving life cycle sustainability and SDG outcomes: fighting corruption, protecting cultural heritage, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We suggest that this framework can inform corporate social responsibility activities, as well as consumer choices for low-carbon technologies.     

Multi-attribute life cycle assessment of preventive maintenance treatments on road pavements for achieving environmental sustainability

Purpose  

Although a significant number of environmental protection measures concerning industrial products and processes have emerged over the past few years, similar measures have only started to appear in road construction and related practices. There is a need for understanding what a “sustainable pavement” would entail in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. Since environmental impact assessment of major projects is becoming mandatory in many countries, various research projects attempt to evaluate the environmental impact of different pavement materials, technologies, or processes over the road life cycle. To support these efforts, there is a need to measure and describe different aspects of sustainability related to road pavements. In particular, keeping road pavements at high service levels through a preventive maintenance approach during the pavement service life has been proven to provide significant improvement of their performance and reduce their deterioration rate.