E-Mail Alert

Add your e-mail address to receive forthcoming issues of this journal:

Journal Browser

Journal Browser

Special Issue "Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment"

Quicklinks

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (28 February 2010)

Special Issue Editor

Editorial Advisor
Prof. Dr. Jo Dewulf (Website)

Research Group ENVOC, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Fax: +32 (0)9 264 62 43
Interests: environmental and clean technology, thermodynamics and sustainable engineering, exergy, resource consumption in technology development

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

With the triple bottom line of sustainability (People - Profit - Planet), environmental sustainability has been largely focused since the 1980 through the study of effects of manmade emissions onto natural systems. Classical Life Cycle Assessment has been of huge importance here by taking into account several environmental impacts due to emissions: global warming, ozone layer depletion, eutrophication, acidification, aquatic toxicity, ... Now in the 2000s, we are in an era where the second pressure of our industrial society onto the natural environment gets more and more tangible: the depletion of natural resources. Indeed, with an ever lasting worldwide population growth resulting in an ever lasting growing resource demand, and the awareness of the finity of a number of natural resources, today natural resources are key in fulfilling the needs of the population now and in the future. Definitely, proper resource management is a central issue and it is a challenge to learn from Life Cycle Assessment. The special issue envisages new scientific findings that clarify and substantiate the discussion on how techniques such as life cycle assessment can contribute to better resource management.

Prof. Dr. Jo Dewulf
Editorial Advisor

Keywords

  • resources
  • renewable
  • life cycle assessment
  • resource efficiency
  • resource management

Published Papers (4 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-4
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

Open AccessArticle Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues
Sustainability 2010, 2(2), 604-623; doi:10.3390/su2020604
Received: 22 December 2009 / Accepted: 9 February 2010 / Published: 21 February 2010
Cited by 8 | PDF Full-text (389 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Forest sustainability and forest certification are important natural resource management and environmental issues. Forest certification addresses the social and environmental issues in the acquisition of raw materials (e.g., lumber to be used in the building process). Life cycle assessment is a common [...] Read more.
Forest sustainability and forest certification are important natural resource management and environmental issues. Forest certification addresses the social and environmental issues in the acquisition of raw materials (e.g., lumber to be used in the building process). Life cycle assessment is a common technique used in the evaluation of forest sustainability issues and forest certification programs. Life cycle assessment is a tool to evaluate multiple issue environmental and some social impacts attributed to a product or process (e.g., wood as a building material). Inputs (like raw material extraction) and outputs (like pollution) are measured over the entire life process, with a goal to minimize negative environmental impacts over the life cycle of a product or process. The relationship between forest certification schemes and life cycle assessment is examined and assessed. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

Open AccessReview Water Footprinting: How to Address Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment?
Sustainability 2010, 2(4), 919-944; doi:10.3390/su2040919
Received: 21 January 2010 / Revised: 1 March 2010 / Accepted: 17 March 2010 / Published: 5 April 2010
Cited by 89 | PDF Full-text (506 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
As freshwater is a vital yet often scarce resource, the life cycle assessment community has put great efforts in method development to properly address water use. The International Organization for Standardization has recently even launched a project aiming at creating an international [...] Read more.
As freshwater is a vital yet often scarce resource, the life cycle assessment community has put great efforts in method development to properly address water use. The International Organization for Standardization has recently even launched a project aiming at creating an international standard for ‘water footprinting’. This paper provides an overview of a broad range of methods developed to enable accounting and impact assessment of water use. The critical review revealed that methodological scopes differ regarding types of water use accounted for, inclusion of local water scarcity, as well as differentiation between watercourses and quality aspects. As the application of the most advanced methods requires high resolution inventory data, the trade-off between ‘precision’ and ‘applicability’ needs to be addressed in future studies and in the new international standard. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

Open AccessCommentary Comments on ‘Straka, T.J.; Layton, P.A. Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues. Sustainability 2010, 2, 604–623’
Sustainability 2010, 2(8), 2617-2620; doi:10.3390/su2082617
Received: 13 June 2010 / Accepted: 17 August 2010 / Published: 18 August 2010
PDF Full-text (94 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Unreferenced statement on page 608: “A fundamental difference between FSC and PEFC is the stakeholders. While FSC was founded mainly by environmental groups, PEFC had strong forest industry and trade groups among its founders. This is one reason FSC is not a [...] Read more.
Unreferenced statement on page 608: “A fundamental difference between FSC and PEFC is the stakeholders. While FSC was founded mainly by environmental groups, PEFC had strong forest industry and trade groups among its founders. This is one reason FSC is not a member of PEFC. Both the ATFS and SFI are recognized by PEFC as acceptable standards”. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)
Open AccessReply Response to Comments of Ben Gunneberg
Sustainability 2010, 2(8), 2621-2625; doi:10.3390/su2082621
Received: 18 July 2010 / Accepted: 17 August 2010 / Published: 18 August 2010
PDF Full-text (117 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
An unreferenced statement on page 608 is challenged as being incorrect. FSC and PEFC are competitors and issues on the differences between the programs are often arguable. We do agree that a small portion of the statement could have been more clearly [...] Read more.
An unreferenced statement on page 608 is challenged as being incorrect. FSC and PEFC are competitors and issues on the differences between the programs are often arguable. We do agree that a small portion of the statement could have been more clearly stated, but the intent of the statement was essentially correct. The original article contained 80 references and not every sentence could be referenced. We include 18 additional references below to strengthen and clarify our statement. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)

Journal Contact

MDPI AG
Sustainability Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
sustainability@mdpi.com
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
Editorial Board
Contact Details Submit to Sustainability
Back to Top