Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2)

被引:218
|
作者
Sala, Serenella [1 ]
Farioli, Francesca [2 ,3 ]
Zamagni, Alessandra [4 ]
机构
[1] Commiss European Communities, Joint Res Ctr, Sustainabil Assessment Unit, Inst Environm & Sustainabil, I-21027 Ispra, Varese, Italy
[2] Univ Roma La Sapienza, Interuniv Res Ctr Sustainable Dev CIRPS, I-00184 Rome, Italy
[3] Univ Roma La Sapienza, Dept Mech & Aerosp Engn, I-00184 Rome, Italy
[4] Italian Natl Agcy New Technol Energy & Sustainabl, LCA & Ecodesign Lab, I-40129 Bologna, Italy
来源
关键词
Life cycle sustainability assessment; Science-policy interface; Stakeholder involvement; Sustainability science; Value choices; IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE; UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS; LCA; METHODOLOGY; BOUNDARIES; EVALUATE; FUTURE; NEEDS;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-012-0509-5
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In the context of progress of sustainability science, life cycle thinking and, in particular, life cycle sustainability assessment may play a crucial role. Environmental, economic and social implications of the whole supply chain of products, both goods and services, their use and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from "cradle to grave" have to be considered to achieve more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Progress toward sustainability requires enhancing the methodologies for integrated assessment and mainstreaming of life cycle thinking from product development to strategic policy support. Life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC) and social LCA (sLCA) already attempt to cover sustainability pillars, notwithstanding different levels of methodological development. An increasing concern on how to deal with the complexity of sustainability has promoted the development of life cycle sustainability frameworks. As a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate after the Rio+20 conference, this paper aims to present and discuss the state of the art of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), giving recommendations for its further development in line with ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of sustainability science. Building on the review about the state of the art of sustainability science and sustainability assessment methods presented in part I, this paper discuss LCA, LCC, sLCA and LCSA against ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of ongoing scientific debate on sustainability. Strengths and weaknesses of existing life cycle-based methodologies and methods are presented. Besides, existing frameworks for LCSA are evaluated against the criteria defined in part I in order to highlight coherence with sustainability science progress and to support better integration and mainstreaming of sustainability concepts. LCSA represents a promising approach for developing a transparent, robust and comprehensive assessment. Nevertheless, the ongoing developments should be in line with the most advanced scientific discussion on sustainability science, attempting to bridge the gaps between the current methods and methodologies for sustainability assessment. LCSA should develop so as to be hierarchically different from LCA, LCC and sLCA. It should represent the holistic approach which integrates (and not substitutes) the reductionist approach of the single part of the analysis. This implies maintaining the balance between analytical and descriptive approaches towards a goal and solution-oriented decision support methodology.
引用
收藏
页码:1686 / 1697
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Product sustainability assessment for product life cycle
    He, Bin
    Luo, Ting
    Huang, Shan
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 206 : 238 - 250
  • [32] The Use of Life Cycle Techniques in the Assessment of Sustainability
    Gundes, Selin
    URBAN PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (UPADSD), 2016, 216 : 916 - 922
  • [33] Principles for the application of life cycle sustainability assessment
    Sonia Valdivia
    Jana Gerta Backes
    Marzia Traverso
    Guido Sonnemann
    Stefano Cucurachi
    Jeroen B. Guinée
    Thomas Schaubroeck
    Matthias Finkbeiner
    Noemie Leroy-Parmentier
    Cássia Ugaya
    Claudia Peña
    Alessandra Zamagni
    Atsushi Inaba
    Milena Amaral
    Markus Berger
    Jolanta Dvarioniene
    Tatiana Vakhitova
    Catherine Benoit-Norris
    Martina Prox
    Rajendra Foolmaun
    Mark Goedkoop
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2021, 26 : 1900 - 1905
  • [34] Life cycle sustainability assessment method for concrete
    Choi, Wonyoung
    Tae, Sungho
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2024,
  • [35] Letter to the Editor – Life cycle sustainability assessment without a life cycle?
    Reinout Heijungs
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2023, 195
  • [36] Letter to the Editor - Life cycle sustainability assessment without a life cycle?
    Heijungs, Reinout
    ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2023, 195 (10)
  • [37] Measuring Sustainability: Life Cycle Approach to Regional Sustainability Assessment on Electricity Options
    Li, Tianqi
    Wang, Yaodong
    Roskilly, Anthony Paul
    2016 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR STUDENTS ON APPLIED ENGINEERING (ICSAE), 2016, : 297 - 302
  • [38] Synchrotron science for sustainability: life cycle of metals in the environment
    Smieska, Louisa
    Guerinot, Mary Lou
    Olson Hoal, Karin
    Reid, Matthew
    Vatamaniuk, Olena
    METALLOMICS, 2023, 15 (08)
  • [39] The sustainability of communicative packaging concepts in the food supply chain. A case study: part 2. Life cycle costing and sustainability assessment
    Dobon, Antonio
    Cordero, Pilar
    Kreft, Fatima
    Ostergaard, Soren R.
    Antvorskov, Helle
    Robertsson, Mats
    Smolander, Maria
    Hortal, Mercedes
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2011, 16 (06): : 537 - 547
  • [40] The sustainability of communicative packaging concepts in the food supply chain. A case study: part 2. Life cycle costing and sustainability assessment
    Antonio Dobon
    Pilar Cordero
    Fatima Kreft
    Søren R. Østergaard
    Helle Antvorskov
    Mats Robertsson
    Maria Smolander
    Mercedes Hortal
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2011, 16 : 537 - 547