Please login first
Serenella Sala  - - - 
Top co-authors See all
Jo Dewulf

215 shared publications

Reinout Heijungs

92 shared publications

Manuele Margni

86 shared publications

Rolf Frischknecht

48 shared publications

Joachim Maes

45 shared publications

17
Publications
0
Reads
0
Downloads
86
Citations
Publication Record
Distribution of Articles published per year 
(2014 - 2016)
Total number of journals
published in
 
8
 
Publications See all
Article 1 Read 15 Citations How well does LCA model land use impacts on biodiversity?—A comparison with approaches from ecology and conservation Michael Curran, Danielle Maia de Souza, Assumpció Antón, Ric... Published: 01 March 2016
Environmental Science & Technology, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04681
DOI See at publisher website
PubMed View at PubMed
ABS Show/hide abstract
The modeling of land use impacts on biodiversity is considered a priority in life cycle assessment (LCA). Many diverging approaches have been proposed in an expanding literature on the topic. The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative is engaged in building consensus on a shared modeling framework to highlight best-practice and guide model application by practitioners. In this paper, we evaluated the performance of 31 models from both the LCA and the ecology/conservation literature (20 from LCA, 11 from non-LCA fields) according to a set of criteria reflecting (i) model completeness, (ii) biodiversity representation, (iii) impact pathway coverage, (iv) scientific quality, and (v) stakeholder acceptance. We show that LCA models tend to perform worse than those from ecology and conservation (although not significantly), implying room for improvement. We identify seven best-practice recommendations that can be implemented immediately to improve LCA models based on existing approaches in the literature. We further propose building a "consensus model" through weighted averaging of existing information, to complement future development. While our research focuses on conceptual model design, further quantitative comparison of promising models in shared case studies is an essential prerequisite for future informed model choice.
Article 0 Reads 4 Citations Area of concern: a new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics Bradley G. Ridoutt, Stephan Pfister, Alessandro Manzardo, Ja... Published: 08 December 2015
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-1011-7
DOI See at publisher website
Article 0 Reads 4 Citations Resource footprint of Europe: Complementarity of material flow analysis and life cycle assessment for policy support Lucia Mancini, Lorenzo Benini, Serenella Sala Published: 01 December 2015
Environmental Science & Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.025
DOI See at publisher website
Article 0 Reads 6 Citations Session “Midpoint, endpoint or single score for decision-making?”—SETAC Europe 25th Annual Meeting, May 5th, 2015 Thomas Kägi, Fredy Dinkel, Rolf Frischknecht, Sébastien Humb... Published: 20 November 2015
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0998-0
DOI See at publisher website
Article 0 Reads 5 Citations Toward an Overall Analytical Framework for the Integrated Sustainability Assessment of the Production and Supply of Raw ... Jo Dewulf, Lucia Mancini, Gian Andrea Blengini, Serenella Sa... Published: 03 June 2015
Journal of Industrial Ecology, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12289
DOI See at publisher website
ABS Show/hide abstract
The sustainable production and supply of raw materials (“nonenergy raw materials”) and primary energy carriers (“energy raw materials”) is a core element of many policies. The natural resource base for their production and supply, and the access thereto, are limited. Moreover, raw material supply is high on environmental and social impact agendas as well. A broad, quantitative framework that supports decision makers is recommended so as to make use of raw materials and primary energy carriers more sustainably. First, this article proposes a holistic classification of raw materials and primary energy carriers. This is an essential prerequisite for developing an integrated sustainability assessment framework (ISAF). Indeed, frequently, only a subset of raw materials and primary energy carriers are considered in terms of their source, sector, or final application. Here, 85 raw materials and 30 primary energy carriers overall are identified and grouped into seven and five subgroups, respectively. Next, this article proposes a quantitative ISAF for the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers, covering all the sustainability pillars. With the goal of comprehensiveness, the proposed ISAF integrates sustainability issues that have been covered and modeled in quite different quantitative frameworks: ecosystem services; classical life cycle assessment (LCA); social LCA; resource criticality assessment; and particular international concerns (e.g., conflict minerals assessment). The resulting four areas of concerns (i.e., environmental, technical, economic, and social/societal) are grouped into ten specific sustainability concerns. Finally, these concerns are quantified through 15 indicators, enabling the quantitative sustainability assessment of the production and supply of raw materials and primary energy carriers.
Article 1 Read 18 Citations Rethinking the Area of Protection “Natural Resources” in Life Cycle Assessment Jo Dewulf, Lorenzo Benini, Lucia Mancini, Serenella Sala, Gi... Published: 17 April 2015
Environmental Science & Technology, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00734
DOI See at publisher website
PubMed View at PubMed
ABS Show/hide abstract
Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in classical life cycle assessment (LCA) aims at analyzing potential impacts of products and services typically on three so-called areas of protection (AoPs): Natural Environment, Human Health, and Natural Resources. This paper proposes an elaboration of the AoP Natural Resources. It starts with analyzing different perspectives on Natural Resources as they are somehow sandwiched in between the Natural Environment (their cradle) and the human-industrial environment (their application). Reflecting different viewpoints, five perspectives are developed with the suggestion to select three in function of classical LCA. They result in three safeguard subjects: the Asset of Natural Resources, their Provisioning Capacity, and their role in Global Functions. Whereas the Provisioning Capacity is fully in function of humans, the global functions go beyond provisioning as they include nonprovisioning functions for humans and regulating and maintenance services for the globe as a whole, following the ecosystem services framework. A fourth and fifth safeguard subject has been identified: recognizing the role Natural Resources for human welfare, either specifically as building block in supply chains of products and services as such, either with or without their functions beyond provisioning. But as these are far broader as they in principle should include characterization of mechanisms within the human industrial society, they are considered as subjects for an integrated sustainability assessment (LCSA: life cycle sustainability assessment), that is, incorporating social, economic and environmental issues.