China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Urban metabolism and Water Sensitive Cities governance
Published in Thomas Bolognesi, Francisco Silva Pinto, Megan Farrelly, Routledge Handbook of Urban Water Governance, 2023
Steven J. Kenway, Marguerite Renouf, J. Allan, KMN Islam, N. Tarakemehzadeh, M. Moravej, B. Sochacka, M. Surendran
Examples from other fields are available of the directions in which urban water metabolism evaluation may head in its evolution from concept to method. For example, if we consider product life cycle assessment (LCA), the techniques for quantifying the environmental impacts of products started from the framework of “life cycle thinking” in the 1990s (UNEP 1999) and developed into a suite of recognised methods for product life cycle assessment (LCA) and “footprinting.” These are now governed by international standards (Finkbeiner 2014), and they underpin environmental regulations and certification standards for products. There was an initial emphasis on GHGs (carbon footprinting), and now water footprinting methods are fast evolving (Hoekstra et al. 2011).
LCA: A Tool to Develop Sustainable Microalgal Biorefineries
Published in Shashi Kant Bhatia, Sanjeet Mehariya, Obulisamy Parthiba Karthikeyan, Algal Biorefineries and the Circular Bioeconomy, 2022
N.S. Caetano, P.S. Corrêa, W.G. de Morais Júnior, T.M. Mata, A.A.A. Martins, M. Branco-Vieira
The current methodologies/frameworks for the sustainability evaluation are based on a life cycle thinking (LCT) approach and combine life-cycle based methodologies, in which life cycle assessment (LCA) and its extensions especially life cycle costing (LCC), social LCA (S-LCA) is a key part (Figure 10.2). The integration of the three methodologies is normally called life cycle sustainability assessment (LSCA), which is described and analyzed later in this chapter.
Sustainable Development and Role of Engineers
Published in Toolseeram Ramjeawon, Introduction to Sustainability for Engineers, 2020
Sustainable development redefines the contexts within which engineering skills must be deployed. It is a new integrative principle and it is therefore very important for graduate engineers to gain a feel for sustainable development during their studies, so that, as with concepts such as justice, they can recognize it as a guiding principle to be interpreted for each instance in which the principle is needed in their future professional career. Concepts such as life cycle thinking, industrial ecology, circular economy, sustainable consumption and production, systems thinking, and stakeholder engagement are now important elements in the education of the modern engineer.
The influence of multiple logics on the work of sustainability professionals
Published in Construction Management and Economics, 2023
Pernilla Gluch, Stina Hellsvik
A central element in sustainability logic is life cycle thinking, which supports a holistic long-term approach toward sustainable development (Goh et al.2020). Capturing the embedded dimensions of sustainability requires an integrative mindset (Kurucz et al.2017), one that enables reflecting on and understanding the connections and consequences of underlying assumptions. That view stresses scientific research, expertise and education as important elements of sustainability logic (cf. O’Connor et al.2021), from which a source of identity can follow (Månsson 2021). Strategies for work range from creating visions to implementing tools and methods to performing consolidative work by spreading knowledge via networking, communication and training (cf. Mazutis and Abolina 2019). The identity narrative also builds on the idea of the hyper-agency of heroic individuals as change agents who can single-handedly solve environmental challenges (Heizmann and Liu 2018).
Transforming road freight transportation from fossils to hydrogen: Opportunities and challenges
Published in International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2023
Sandun Wanniarachchi, Kasun Hewage, Chan Wirasinghe, Gyan Chhipi-Shrestha, Hirushie Karunathilake, Rehan Sadiq
The main expectation of transformation into alternative fuel sources for transportation is to reduce emissions and other environmental impacts caused by conventional ICEVs. However, it is challenging to assess the actual costs and environmental benefits of this transformation due to complexities in the fuel supply chain and vehicle parameters. Despite both BEVs and HFCVs having zero emissions at the tailpipe, the emissions while producing, distributing, and storing respective fuels should be considered when assessing each fuel's emission reduction potential compared with conventional fuels. Accordingly, it is integral that the whole life cycle of fuels is considered when assessing the feasibility and comparing different fuel alternatives. This brings up the requirement for integrating life cycle thinking in the decision-making process via a thorough life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). A LCSA comprises three major evaluations namely; life cycle assessment, life cycle costing, and social life cycle assessment (Finkbeiner et al., 2010; Zamagni, 2012). Hence, an LCSA would evaluate the environmental, economic, and social impacts (the triple bottom line performance) of the refueling infrastructure network throughout the life cycle and would benefit toward making more sustainable decisions (Feng et al., 2020). Furthermore, the embodied emissions of the in-place infrastructure and the overall impact on the environment should be taken into account in such studies (Karunathilake et al., 2019).
Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing for assessing maritime transport: a comprehensive literature review
Published in Maritime Policy & Management, 2023
Giovanni Mondello, Roberta Salomone, Giuseppe Saija, Francesco Lanuzza, Teresa Maria Gulotta
In this context, focusing on the environmental and economic concerns, two methods based on the so-called Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) (UNEP 2021) approach have been developed: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). LCA is a standardised method that allows assessment of the potential environmental impacts of a product, process, or service throughout its entire life cycle, from raw material extraction and processing, through manufacturing, transport, use and final disposal (ISO 2006a, 2006b). Similarly, the LCC method permits evaluation of the positive and negative potential economic impacts of a product, process or service following a life cycle perspective (Hunkeler, Lichtenvort, and Rebitzer 2008;). The LCC method, unlike LCA, is not specifically standardised, with the exception of ISO 15686 (ISO 2017), which provides a framework aimed at applying the LCC in the building sector. Both methods, and particularly the LCA, have been implemented for evaluating the environmental and economic impacts related to the different life cycle phases of maritime means of transport, such as ship design, shipbuilding, operation, maintenance, and End-of-Life (EoL). Despite this, to the authors’ knowledge, among the international scientific literature, no studies aimed at providing a review-based assessment on the application of both LCA and LCC for evaluating maritime means of transport have been carried out. Such an assessment could provide significant support to both the research community and shipping companies.