|
|
“Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools”. Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 48, 27 (2014). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2014.05.001
Abstract: Increasing interest in sustainability has led to the development of sustainability assessment tools such as Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Due to methodological disparity of these three tools, conflicting assessment results generate confusion for many policy and business decisions. In order to interpret and integrate assessment results, the paper provides a framework that clarifies the connections and coherence between the included assessment methodologies. Building on this framework, the paper further focuses on key aspects to adapt any of the methodologies to full sustainability assessments. Aspects dealt with in the review are for example the reported metrics, the scope, data requirements, discounting, product- or project-related and approaches with respect to scarcity and labor requirements. In addition to these key aspects, the review shows that important connections exist: (i) the three tools can cope with social inequality, (ii) processes such as valuation techniques for LCC and CBA are common, (iii) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is used as input in both LCA and CBA and (iv) LCA can be used in parallel with LCC. Furthermore, the most integrated sustainability approach combines elements of LCA and LCC to achieve the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). The key aspects and the connections referred to in the review are illustrated with a case study on the treatment of end-of-life automotive glass. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 3.094
Times cited: 93
DOI: 10.1016/J.EIAR.2014.05.001
|
|
|
|
“Advantages and limitations of exergy indicators to assess sustainability of bioenergy and biobased materials”. Maes D, Van Passel S, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 45, 19 (2014). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2013.11.002
Abstract: Innovative bioenergy projects show a growing diversity in biomass pathways, transformation technologies and end-products, leading to complex new processes. Existing energy-based indicators are not designed to include multiple impacts and are too constrained to assess the sustainability of these processes. Alternatively, indicators based on exergy, a measure of “qualitative energy”, could allow a more holistic view. Exergy is increasingly applied in analyses of both technical and biological processes. But sustainability assessments including exergy calculations, are not very common and are not generally applicable to all types of impact. Hence it is important to frame the use of exergy for inclusion in a sustainability assessment. This paper reviews the potentials and the limitations of exergy calculations, and presents solutions for coherent aggregation with other metrics. The resulting approach is illustrated in a case study. Within the context of sustainability assessment of bioenergy, exergy is a suitable metric for the impacts that require an ecocentric interpretation, and it allows aggregation on a physical basis. The use of exergy is limited to a measurement of material and energy exchanges with the sun, biosphere and lithosphere. Exchanges involving services or human choices are to be measured in different metrics. This combination provides a more inclusive and objective sustainability assessment, especially compared to standard energy- or carbon-based indicators. Future applications of this approach in different situations are required to clarify the potential of exergy-based indicators in a sustainability context. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering sciences. Technology; Engineering Management (ENM)
Impact Factor: 3.094
Times cited: 18
DOI: 10.1016/J.EIAR.2013.11.002
|
|
|
|
“Multilevel and multi-user sustainability assessment of farming systems”. Van Passel S, Meul M, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32, 170 (2012). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2011.08.005
Abstract: Sustainability assessment is needed to build sustainable farming systems. A broad range of sustainability concepts, methodologies and applications already exists. They differ in level, focus, orientation, measurement, scale, presentation and intended end-users. In this paper we illustrate that a smart combination of existing methods with different levels of application can make sustainability assessment more profound, and that it can broaden the insights of different end-user groups. An overview of sustainability assessment tools on different levels and for different end-users shows the complementarities and the opportunities of using different methods. In a case-study, a combination of the sustainable value approach (SVA) and MOTIFS is used to perform a sustainability evaluation of farming systems in Flanders. SVA is used to evaluate sustainability at sector level, and is especially useful to support policy makers, while MOTIFS is used to support and guide farmers towards sustainability at farm level. The combined use of the two methods with complementary goals can widen the insights of both farmers and policy makers, without losing the particularities of the different approaches. To stimulate and support further research and applications, we propose guidelines for multilevel and multi-user sustainability assessments.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering sciences. Technology
Impact Factor: 3.094
Times cited: 49
DOI: 10.1016/J.EIAR.2011.08.005
|
|
