USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70191261

Abiotic raw-materials in life cycle impact assessments: An emerging consensus across disciplines

Johannes Drielsma·Ruth Allington·Thomas Brady·Jeroen Guinee·Jane M. Hammarstrom·Torsten Hummen·Andrea Russell-Vaccari·Laura Schneider·Guido Sonnemann·Par Weihed
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper captures some of the emerging consensus points that came out of the workshop “Mineral Resources in Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Mapping the path forward”, held at the Natural History Museum London on 14 October 2015: that current practices rely in many instances on obsolete data, often confuse resource depletion with impacts on resource availability, which can therefore provide inconsistent decision support and lead to misguided claims about environmental performance. Participants agreed it would be helpful to clarify which models estimate depletion and which estimate availability, so that results can be correctly reported in the most appropriate framework. Most participants suggested that resource availability will be more meaningfully addressed within a comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework rather than limited to an environmental Life Cycle Assessment or Footprint. Presentations from each of the authors are available for download.

Explore related subjects

ResourcesArticle

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Johannes Drielsma, Ruth Allington, Thomas Brady, Jeroen Guinee, Jane M. Hammarstrom, Torsten Hummen, Andrea Russell-Vaccari, Laura Schneider, Guido Sonnemann, Par Weihed. 2016-02-26. Abiotic raw-materials in life cycle impact assessments: An emerging consensus across disciplines. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources5010012

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2018

Ecological drought: Accounting for the non-human impacts of water shortage in the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin, Montana, USA

Water laws and drought plans are used to prioritize and allocate scarce water resources. Both have historically been human-centric, failing to account for non-human water needs. In this paper, we examine the development of instream flow legislation and the evolution of drought planning to highlight the growing concern for the non-human impacts of water scarcity. Utilizing a new framework for ecological drought, we analyzed five watershed-scale drought plans in southwestern Montana, USA to understand if, and how, the ecological impacts of drought are currently being assessed. We found that while these plans do account for some ecological impacts, it is primarily through the narrow lens of impacts to fish as measured by water temperature and streamflow. The latter is typically based on the same ecological principles used to determine instream flow requirements. We also found that other resource plans in the same watersheds (e.g., Watershed Restoration Plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Watershed Assessments or United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plans) identify a broader range of ecological drought risks. Given limited resources and the potential for mutual benefits and synergies, we suggest greater integration between various planning processes could result in a more holistic consideration of water needs and uses across the landscape.

Montana↗