You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Environments
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

5 February 2021

Status of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in Africa

,
,
,
and
1
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tokyo City University, Tokyo 158-0087, Japan
2
Department of Health Sciences, Université Privée de Marrakech, Marrakech 42312, Morocco
3
Higher Institute of the Sciences and Techniques of Water of Gabes, University of Gabès, Gabes 6029, Tunisia
4
Graduate Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei City 106032, Taiwan
Environments2021, 8(2), 10;https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8020010
This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Sustainability-Life Cycle Assessment-Energy and Environmental Technology
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has received attention as a tool to evaluate the environmental impacts of products and services. In the last 20 years, research on the topic has increased, and now more than 25,000 articles are related to LCA in scientific journals databases such as the Scopus database; however, the concept is relatively new in Africa, where the number of networks has been highlighted to be very low when compared to the other regions. This paper focuses on a review of life cycle assessments conducted in Africa over the last 20 years. It aims at highlighting the current research gap for African LCA. A total of 199 papers were found for the whole continent; this number is lower than that for both Japan and Germany (more than 400 articles each) and nearly equal to developing countries such as Thailand. Agriculture is the sector which received the most attention, representing 53 articles, followed by electricity and energy (60 articles for the two sectors). South Africa (43), Egypt (23), and Tunisia (19) were the countries where most of the research was conducted. Even if the number of articles related to LCA have increased in recent years, many steps still remain. For example, establishing a specific life cycle inventory (LCI) database for African countries or a targeted ideal life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method. Several African key sectors could also be assessed further.

1. Introduction

According to United Nations (UN) projections, the African population, which is composed of more than 1.2 billion people at present, is expected to double by 2050 [1]. By this time, Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt might also enter the list of the top 30 global economies by 2050 [2]. The high population and economic growth may have an impact on environmental problems in Africa. According to an Africa Environmental Outlook (AEO3) [3] report, several environmental problems already exist in Africa, including air pollution (more than one million people die every year in Africa due to air pollution [4]), water scarcity, and toxicity due to the heavy use of chemicals.
The economies of the 54 countries of Africa are mainly based on raw products [5,6] such as oil (Angola, Algeria, and Nigeria), metals (Egypt, Ghana, and South Africa), agrcultural products (cocoa beans in Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana), oilseeds (Ethiopia and Togo), or coffee (Ethiopia and Uganda).
As highlighted by Bjorn et al. (2013) [7], little has been done concerning life cycle assessment (LCA) in Africa, where networks/research groups are notably limited. LCA is a useful technique to assess the environmental impacts of a product or service throughout its entire life cycle, i.e., from the extraction of raw material through to processing, transport, use, and finally recycling/disposal [8]. By considering several different impacts over the entire life cycle, it is possible to identify potential tradeoffs from transitioning one stage to another or from one environmental problem to another. These are major differences with other assessment methods, such as the carbon/water footprint (focusing only on one environmental aspect) or the methods focusing only on the direct emissions of products during operation. Several global life cycle inventory databases [9] and life cycle impact assessment methods [10] exist that include African information, although the impact resolutions or data are limited.
Several country reviews have been conducted in recent years, such as in Austria [11], Brazil [12], Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Nigeria [13], Indonesia [14], Portugal [15], South Arica [16], and Sweden [17]. When focusing on the reviews published for African countries, it was found that several existing studies have been omitted, and several of the reported studies were not peer-reviewed and were sometimes ordered by private sector information. Additionally, key information has not been extracted (for example, the results or type of LCI database and the data used for the assessments). The existing research gaps for African countries are similar and it would be interesting to produce a clear overview of the situation for the whole continent.
Given this situation, we decided to focus on the current pub-lished studies in Africa while focusing on life cycle assessment in order to highlight what has been done so far, but also to identify possible research gaps. This review does not apply to African LCA researchers alone, but also to anyone who has a possible interest in conducting LCA rsearch in Africa.

2. Materials and Methods

This review was conducted with “Google Scholar” and “Scopus”, research articles published between 2000 and 2020. Keywords for this review were “life cycle assessment”, “life-cycle assessment”, “LCA”, and the name of each African country (e.g., “life cycle assessment” and “Morocco”). A total of 25,000 research articles were found when only using the keyword “life cycle assessment”, while around 400 were found for African countries. As the focus was on environmental impacts, research based on other types of life cycle assessments such as life cycle costing (LCC) or social life cycle assessment (SCLA) were excluded. Research that was not peer-reviewed was also withdrawn to preserve the neutrality of the review. As the results found in the research articles were mainly based on life cycle inventory databases based on situations in developed countries (e.g., Ecoinent v2 [9]) or European life cycle assessment methods (e.g., CML-IA [18]), similar to previous reviews, we chose to not directly compare data from one region with data from another (i.e., Asia, Europe, or America). The LCIA results that were extracted from research articles are included in the Supplementary Materials.

3. Results

3.1. Overview

A total of 199 research articles related to African LCA were found.
Table A1 shows the Gross Domestic Product (GDP; Purchasing power parity (PPP), 2017 data) for each African country, as well as the main economic sector in each country and the number of published LCA studies. From Table A1 and Figure A1, it can be observed that the research published so far has not followed the economic situation in each country.
Africa’s top economies (Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Algeria, and Morocco) are among the most active countries concerning LCA research. On the other hand, the least developed economies (Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, and Djibouti) do not even have a single research article focused on LCA. Surprisingly, some advanced African economies, such as Angola or Sudan, do not have a single research article either, despite the potential interesting research topics (oil and agricultural products for example). Mauritius’s situation is singular, where, as a very active country with a relatively small GDP, Mauritius shows a good example for other African countries as the key drivers of the economy. Overall, North Africa has been the most active region, whereas many countries in Central Africa have not received any attention. South Africa is the leading country on the continent, with more than 40 LCA studies focused on the country. South Africa has the longest history with LCA research, starting from the beginning of the 2000s. Further recommendations concerning potential research topics in the future are provided in Section 4.3.
The number of research articles published from 2010 increased when compared with 2000–2010 (Figure 1), proving that LCA received more attention; however, it can be observed that publications in recent years (2017–2020), have not followed a constant pace. Therefore, the concept is still under development for the African continent, especially when considering that the number of LCA studies conducted by African research institutes/universities is still limited (The first author was based in Africa for 121 research articles).
Figure 1. Research articles published by year.
When looking at which types of product/services have been studied the most (Figure 2), two topics received the most attention, namely, agriculture (53 articles) and energy/electricity (a total of 60 articles). This can be well understood, as many African countries rely on the agricultural sector for revenue (both from domestic consumption and overseas demand). For the electricity and energy sector, several problems exist in Africa due to solid fuel consumption in households, causing severe indoor air pollution [3]. The total electricity generation of Africa was around 800 TWh in 2020 [19] (which is nearly equal to the production of a developed country such as South Korea).
Figure 2. Research articles published by product type.
A description of each study is provided in Table 1. The main details of each research article are provided, such as the year of publication, country, product, functional unit, LCI database, and LCIA method used. In addition, Table A2 presents information such as the allocation, system boundaries, and institution of the first author for each study.
Table 1. Summary of available life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies in Africa.
Concerning the life cycle inventory (LCI) database chosen, almost half of the research articles (100) used Ecoinvent as their LCI database, including 35 studies that used Ecoinvent v2 (mainly containing processes based on the situations in developed countries).
Concerning the Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) method, CML was the most widely chosen (45) followed by ReCiPe (39), and EcoIndicator (24). It has to be noted that only nine studies chose ReCiPe2016 [10], one of the latest global LCIA methods, that contains characterization factors specific to African countries.
A map of the research articles published per country is provided Figure 3. Additionally, a bar graph is presented in Figure 4, with the number of articles for the top eight most studied countries. It can be observed that these eight countries account for two thirds of the total number of African LCA publications. This highlights the fact that currently only 15% of Africa has been more or less covered whereas the environmental impacts of products or services in the 85% remaining countries remain mostly undetermined. It also shows the importance of the South African LCA community compared with most of the African countries.
Figure 3. Research articles published per African country.
Figure 4. Research articles published for the eight most studied African countries.
When looking at the institution of the first author in each article, it was found that outside Africa, France (17), Spain (10), and the UK (10) were the three countries the most linked to the African LCA research. The information for each research article is presented in Table A2.

3.2. A Focus on LCA for Agricultural Products

Several points can be highlighted regarding the research on agricultural products.
For fisheries, Lourguioui et al. [26] found in Algeria that a reduction of 3150 MJ and 156 kg CO2eq per ton of fresh mussels could be reached if mussel farming activities would be operated in cooperation, instead of the traditional competitive scheme, as the resulting efficiency would be higher. The authors also highlighted the importance of applying LCA to the seafood production sector in Algeria. In Egypt [50], the importance of management practices was also highlighted to produce Nile Tilapia, carps, and mullets. By choosing better practices, life cycle impacts could be reduced by 22%. In Tunisia [184,191], it was shown that the production of seabass was an important source of nitrogen and phosphorus releases due to the fish feed. Cascade raceways featured higher impacts than traditional raceways. In sub-Saharan Africa, fish also constitute one of the main sources of animal protein. In Cameroon [37], the eutrophication impact was higher for Cameroon farms than for an intensive trout monoculture (France) or extensive carp polyculture (Brazil) due to poor water and poor manure management. In Senegal [132], F. Ziegler et al. found that artisanal fisheries have far lower inputs and emissions in the fishing phase compared with industrial fisheries. The global warming impacts from artisanal fisheries mainly come from the use of heavy fuel oil and low-quality refrigerants.
For the beef and dairy industries, D. Woldegebriela et al. [65] found out that milk production in Ethiopia had a higher global warming impact (1.75–2.22 kg CO2eq/kg milk) than other developing countries due to the large amounts of low-quality feeds fed.
For fruit and vegetable products, C. Basset-Mens et al. [107] showed that compared with mangoes from Brazil or peaches/apples from France, it could be observed that except for terrestrial acidification and marine eutrophication, the results were higher for all the other impact categories for clementine production in Morocco. There are several reasons that explain these results: the higher amount of fertilizer used (6 kgN/kg) and the high amount of water needed to grow clementines (8000 m3/hectare compared with 2.767 for apples grown in France), despite the fact that water is scarce in Morocco and it has to be withdrawn from more than 100 meter deep wells. The energy required to pump this water is also important (22,830 MJ per hectare compared with 2946 for mangoes grown in Brazil). Moreover, the Moroccan electricity mix is composed of more than 50% fossil energy (coal), which explains why the impact of climate change was also high. S. Peyen et al. [105] also showed that tomato cultivation had a higher impact in Morocco than in France (28 vs. 7.5 L H2Oeq/kg). They highlighted the importance of LCA for other impact categories (e.g., total energy consumption and global warming), which showed higher results in the case of France.
For forestry, in Ghana [73], it was found that the wastage of wood during timber processing contributed considerably to resource depletion, and land use impact was also a major concern, while kiln-dried lumber, plywood, and veneer production lines affected CO2 emissions considerably. Relatively high energy consumption was also reported due to biomass combustion for drying wood products.
For other types of crops such as cocoa [69], it was revealed that even though fertilizer and pesticide usage was low, the water consumption was higher in Ghana’s plantations than in other parts of the world such as Ecuador or Indonesia. For cassava, a major crop cultivated mainly in Western Africa, it was calculated that the higher energy consumption came from planting operations, where the global warming potential (GWP) per one hectare was about 80 kg CO2eq.

3.3. A Focus on LCA for Energy

The second topic that has received interest is life cycle assessment for energy and electricity systems.
Jatropha is often one of the preferred choices in Africa to replace conventional transport fuel. In Burkina Faso [33], it was found that its production could reduce both GHG emissions and energy consumption by around 80% when compared with diesel fuel. One of the main challenges is the land transformation that implies the quantity of energy output per hectare was limited (less than 10 GJ/ha). Therefore it could become a competitor of food crops. Another type of biodiesel is made using palm oil [35], where the results for Cameroon confirmed this tendency with a reduction of 70% compared with conventional fuel in the range of 60–80 g CO2/MJ. Proton-exchange membrane fuel cells have also received attention; however, the results found in Morocco [111] were much higher than those in Norway (4040 g CO2 vs. 239 g/kWh) due to the electricity generation primarily based on fossil fuels for hydrogen production.
For cooking fuel, biogas is also an option to reduce the impacts of indoor air pollution. J. Lanche et al. [64] showed that 130,542 t CO2eq could be saved annually in Ethiopia if dung cakes were replaced with biogas. Indoor air pollution could also be avoided as dung combustion contributes to significant Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions.
The use of renewables for electricity has been studied extensively. Several researchers have pointed out the need to develop photovoltaic (PV) systems and biomass power plants. R. Brizmohun et al. [103] pointed out the impacts of African fossil fuel power plant plants by analyzing the emissions of Mauritian plants. The global warming potential of electricity from coal was estimated to be 1444 kg CO2eq/MWh, which is about six times the minimum value obtained in the literature. The lack of abatement technology for PM2.5, SO2, and NOx was highlighted, as well as the higher sulphur content of the coal.
Wind power also received attention in Ethiopia [66]. Similar to studies conducted in developed countries, the CO2 emissions per kWh output were low, around 35 g CO2/kWh.
Electricity demand in the Middle East and North African (MENA) region has increased at a rate of 6–8% in recent years. To limit the impacts of this increase, a hybrid solar and biomass power plant was evaluated in Tunisia [199]; the GWP impact was found to be 22 kg CO2eq/MWh, with the boiler system and field having the greatest impact. Resource depletion and human toxicity were not negligible due to the solar field. Similar results were obtained in Morocco [113]. One of the solutions to promote renewables would be to retrofit existing dams to generate electricity from hydro power. This option was studied in Nigeria [125], finding corresponding values between 1.6 and 5.5 kg CO2eq/MWh. It was highlighted that there were advantages in terms of saving on economic investments as well in that case.
Finally, the extraction of raw materials such as coal, oil or natural gas has not received as much attention, as further highlighted by A. Irhoma et al. [82] in Libya. The study showed that crude oil production and distillation had significant impacts. The impact of respiratory inorganics was also highlighted. The authors pushed for a reduction in fossil resources at refineries but also raised concerns for flaring and venting issues.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Need for an African LCI Database

As observed in several studies [26,74,87,179] and highlighted furthermore in Table 1, many of the LCA results obtained in the different studies were based on data from European-based LCI databases, namely, Ecoinvent or Gabi. Even though there has been progress in globalizing inventory processes from Ecoinvent v2 to Ecoinvent v3 [217], most of the processes are based on the situations in developed countries. Therefore, several important uncertainties may exist when using these data to evaluate African conditions, especially for the least developed African economies. To solve these limitations, the Life-Cycle Initiative has promoted the “Global LCA Data Access network” (GLAD) to encourage the compatibility between the LCI databases and share information between different countries [218]. Several datasets can be found for African countries and future research could focus on improving these datasets.

4.2. The Need for an African LCIA Method

A second comment can be made when looking at the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods used in the different studies. Many of the models have been developed based on the situation in developed countries (i.e., in terms of the population, population density, meteorological conditions, etc.). This point has also been raised by M. Ghazi et al [20]. Only a few studies in our review used a global life cycle impact assessment method, namely, ReCiPe2016 [10], Impact World+ [219] or LIME3 [220]. These methods provide characterization factors for each impact that is specific to the global region or country. The accuracy of the damage assessment can be greatly improved; however, limitations still exist, for example, models for air pollution damage in these methods divided Africa into only a limited number of regions. Some improvements could be made to further take into account the specific socio-economic disparities between African countries in these methods.

4.3. Future Possible Topics of LCA Research

In this section, some potential research topics are raised from economic and environmental points of view. Environmental data were mainly collected from global popular databases used in LCA such as EDGARv5.0 [221] or FAOSTAT [6], economic information from OEC [5], and the world factbook from CIA [222].
A remark concerning all African countries can be raised, even though several reports from the UNEP [223] have highlighted the potential impacts of second-hand vehicles in African countries (imported mainly from Europe and the USA), there is no research paper that has focused on second-hand vehicles in Africa, despite the fact that the global LCA community has focused extensively on transport. The impact of tourism could be also studied furthermore, as the concern for sustainable tourism has been raised in recent years [224].
A description for each African country is provided in Table 2, regarding each aforementioned topic.
Table 2. Potential future topics of research. (x: no discussion topic).

5. Conclusions

A total of 199 peer-reviewed LCA articles were found for Africa. The interest in LCA for the continent has been growing in the last ten years, but it remains far less than in other countries, including developing countries, located in Asia such as Thailand. The most active African countries are South Africa (43), Egypt (23), and Tunisia (19). It was observed that several countries (especially those in central Africa) were not paid attention. For example, a country such as the DR Congo, whose population may exceed 200 million in 2050, has not yet been the subject of research. With the predicted economic and population growth, the already existing environmental impacts might increase in Africa in the near future. The number of LCA researchers based in Africa is still limited, and it appears important to prioritize education and training of the life cycle thinking for the continent.
African LCA has mainly focused on agricultural products and energy, representing almost half of the research topics. Fisheries, fruits, and vegetables have received considerable attention as well as biofuel. However, several key products of the African economy were not paid attention such as second-hand vehicles or natural resources (oil, natural gas, mining products, etc.). With the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) commencing as of 1 January 2021, trade between African countries might intensify, and the need for sustainable production could become very important.
As shown in Table 1, one of this review’s key messages is that research has been mainly conducted with LCI databases that are not specific to African countries. The usage of global LCIA methods also remains scarce. Several key economic sectors for African countries have not yet been assessed.
This lack of tools specific to African countries to conduct LCA could lead to uncertainties in consequent results. Future research could probably focus on developing an LCI database that is specific to the African continent and on improving the resolution of impact assessment models to include a higher number of African regions.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3298/8/2/10/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K. and N.I.; methodology, S.K.; formal analysis, S.K. and S.R.; investigation, S.K., S.R., M.M., C.-C.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K.; supervision, N.I.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data is available in this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Gross domestic product (GDP) [224] of African countries and articles per sector (the sum of the different columns is not necessarily always equal to the sum of the last column, as, for example, “reviews” cannot be inserted into any sector).
Table A1. Gross domestic product (GDP) [224] of African countries and articles per sector (the sum of the different columns is not necessarily always equal to the sum of the last column, as, for example, “reviews” cannot be inserted into any sector).
CountryTotal GDP (PPP, Million USD)Share of GDP, Agriculture (%) [Nb of Articles]Share of GDP, Industry (%) [Nb of Articles]Share of GDP, Services (%) [Nb of Articles]Total Number of Research Articles
Algeria630,00013.3 [1]39.3 [4]47.4 [0]16
Angola193,60010.2 [0]61.4 [0]28.4 [0]0
Benin25,39026.1 [2]22.8 [0]51.1 [0]1
Botswana39,0101.8 [0]27.5 [0]70.6 [0]0
Burkina Faso35,85031 [0]23.9 [4]44.9 [0]4
Burundi800739.5 [0]16.4 [0]44.2 [0]0
Cameroon89,54016.7 [1]26.5 [3]56.8 [1]5
Cape Verde37778.9 [0]17.5 [0]73.7 [0]0
Central African Republic339043.2 [0]16 [0]40.8 [0]0
Chad28,62052.3 [0]14.7 [0]33.1 [0]0
Comoros131947.7 [0]11.8 [0]40.5 [0]0
Democratic Republic of the Congo68,60019.7 [0]43.6 [0]36.7 [0]0
Djibouti36402.4 [0]17.3 [0]80.2 [0]0
Egypt1,204,00011.7 [4]34.35413
Equatorial Guinea31,5202.5 [0]54.6 [0]42.9 [0]0
Eritrea940211.7 [0]29.6 [0]58.7 [0]0
Eswatini11,6006.5 [0]45 [0]48.6 [0]0
Ethiopia200,60034.8 [2]21.6 [2]43.64
Gabon36,6605 [0]44.7 [0]50.4 [0]0
Gambia555620.4 [0]14.2 [0]65.4 [0]0
Ghana134,00018.3 [4]24.5 [4]57.2 [0]8
Guinea27,97019.8 [0]32.1 [0]48.1 [0]0
Guinea-Bissau317150 [0]13.1 [0]36.9 [0]0
Ivory Coast97,16020.1 [0]26.6 [1]53.3 [0]1
Kenya163,70034.517.847.57
Lesotho66565.8 [0]39.2 [0]54.9 [1]1
Liberia611234 [0]13.8 [0]52.2 [0]0
Libya61,9701.3 [0]52.3 [2]46.4 [0]2
Madagascar39,85024 [0]19.5 [1]56.4 [0]2
Malawi22,42028.6 [1]15.4 [2]56 [0]3
Mali41,22041.8 [3]18.1 [1]40.5 [0]6
Mauritania17,28027.8 [1]29.3 [1]42.9 [0]2
Mauritius28,2704 [2]21.8 [2]74.1 [9]13
Morocco298,60014 [4]29.5 [6]56.5 [1]11
Mozambique37,09023.9 [0]19.3 [2]56.8 [0]2
Namibia26,6006.7 [0]26.3 [0]67 [0]0
Niger21,86041.6 [0]19.5 [0]38.7 [0]0
Nigeria1,121,00021.122.556.419
Republic of the Congo29,3909.3 [0]51 [0]39.7 [0]0
Rwanda24,68030.9 [1]17.6 [0]51.5 [0]1
São Tomé and Príncipe68611.8 [0]14.8 [0]73.4 [0]0
Senegal54,80016.9 [1]24.3 [0]58.8 [0]1
Seychelles27502.5 [0]13.8 [0]83.7 [0]0
Sierra Leone11,55060.7 [0]6.5 [0]32.9 [0]0
Somalia20,44060.2 [0]7.4 [0]32.5 [1]1
South Africa767,2002.829.767.521
South Sudan - [0]- [0]- [0]0
Sudan177,40039.6 [0]2.6 [0]57.8 [0]0
Tanzania162,50023.4 [1]28.6 [6]47.6 [0]7
Togo12,97028.8 [0]21.8 [0]49.8 [0]0
Tunisia137,70010.1 [12]26.2 [5]63.8 [1]19
Uganda89,19028.2 [1]21.1 [1]50.7 [4]7
Zambia68,9307.5 [1]35.3 [1]57 [0]2
Zimbabwe34,27012 [0]22.2 [5]65.8 [2]7
Environments 08 00010 g0a1
Figure A1. Correlation between the GDP (PPP) with the number of LCA research articles concerning each African country.
Table A2. Summary of available life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies in Africa (Annex to Table 1).
Table A2. Summary of available life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies in Africa (Annex to Table 1).
Country [Ref.]System BoundariesAllocationInstitution of the First AuthorLocation of the First Author
Algeria [20]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationEOSTFrance
Algeria [21]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationBoumerdes UniversityAlgeria
Algeria [22]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationBoumerdes UniversityAlgeria
Algeria [23]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of BoumerdesAlgeria
Algeria [24]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationBADJI Mokhtar UniversityAlgeria
Algeria [25]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of BoumerdesAlgeria
Algeria [26]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationENSSMALAlgeria
Algeria [27]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity Saad Dahlab Algeria
Algeria [28]Well-to-TankNo indication/no allocationEcole Nationale PolytechniqueAlgeria
Algeria [29]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationBougara UniversityAlgeria
Benin [30]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCIRADFrance
Benin [31]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCIRADFrance
Burkina Faso [32]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationEscola Tècnica Superior d’Enginyeries Industrial Spain
Burkina Faso [33]Well-to-Tankenergy allocationBoumerdes UniversityGermany
Burkina Faso [34]Cradle to siteNo indication/no allocationUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)Spain
Cameroon [35]Well-to-WheelNo indication/no allocationKU LeuvenBelgium
Cameroon [36]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of YaoundéCameroon
Cameroon [37]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationINRAFrance
Cameroon [38]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationUniversity of YaoundéCameroon
Cameroon [39]Well-to-Tankenergy allocationUniversity of UdineItaly
Egypt [40]Cradle to site/end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationEnvironment and Climate Research Institute, EgyptEgypt
Egypt [41]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationNational Water Research Center, EgyptEgypt
Egypt [42]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [43]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [44]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [45]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationUniversita Politecnica delle MarcheItaly
Egypt [46]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [47]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationRiga Technical UniversityLatvia
Egypt [48]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [49]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationParthenope University of NaplesItaly
Egypt [50]Cradle to gateMass and economic allocationWorldFishMalaysia
Egypt [51]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationMenoufia UniversityEgypt
Egypt [52]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [53]Cradle to gateMass and energy allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [54]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationAlexandria UniversityEgypt
Egypt [55]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [56]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationAlexandria UniversityEgypt
Egypt [57]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationE-JUSTEgypt
Egypt [58]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationMinistry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Alexandria, EgyptEgypt
Egypt [59]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationMansoura UniversityEgypt
Egypt [60]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationMansoura UniversityEgypt
Egypt [61]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCairo UniversityEgypt
Egypt [62]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of SienaItaly
Ethiopia [63]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationWageningen UniversityNetherlands
Ethiopia [64]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversitat HohenheimGermany
Ethiopia [65]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationWageningen UniversityNetherlands
Ethiopia [66]Cradle to graveEcoinvent 3-allocation, default unitAddis Ababa UniversityEthiopia
Ghana [67]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of GhanaGhana
Ghana [68]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHong Kong
Ghana [69]Cradle to graveMass and energy allocationUniversity of GenoaItaly
Ghana [70]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationWageningen UniversityNetherlands
Ghana [71]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of GhanaGhana
Ghana [72]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationCurtin UniversityAustralia
Ghana [73]Cradle to gatePhysical and economical allocationWageningen UniversityNetherlands
Ghana [74]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationKwame Nkrumah University of Science & TechnologyGhana
Ivory Coast [75]Well-to-Tankenergy allocationUniversite de ToulouseFrance
Kenya [76]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationMarks and SpencerUK
Kenya [77]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationTechnical University of DenmarkDenmark
Kenya [78]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of CaliforniaUSA
Kenya [79]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of MichiganUSA
Kenya [80]Gate to graveNo indication/no allocationUmeå UniversitySweden
Libya [81]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationNottingham Trent UniversityUK
Libya [82]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationThe Higher Institute of Polytechnic ProfessionsLibya
Madagascar [83]Cradle to grave?No indication/no allocationUniversity of AntananarivoMadagascar
Madagascar [84]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversité de la RéunionFrance
Malawi [85]Gate to gateNo indication/no allocationStellenbosch UniversitySouth Africa
Malawi [86]Cradle to siteNo indication/no allocationEdinburgh Napier UniversityUK
Malawi [87]Cradle to gateEconomic and mass allocationUniversity of ExeterUK
Mali [88]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationHigher Technical Institute, CyprusCyprus
Mali [89]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationKU LeuvenBelgium
Mali [90]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationKU LeuvenBelgium
Mali [91]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of South FloridaUSA
Mali [92]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationCIRADFrance
Mauritania [93]Cradle to gateMass allocationUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSpain
Mauritania [94]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationInstituto Eduardo Torroja de ciencias de la construcciónSpain
Mauritius [99]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [100]Cradle to graveEconomic allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [101]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [102]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [103]Cradle to siteEconomic and mass allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [104]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationSotravic LteMauritius
Mauritius [95]Cradle to graveEconomic allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [96]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [97]Cradle to siteEconomic allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Mauritius [98]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of MauritiusMauritius
Morocco [105]Cradle to gateMass allocationADEMEFrance
Morocco [106]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCIRADFrance
Morocco [107]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationCIRADFrance
Morocco [108]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversidad Politécnica de MadridSpain
Morocco [109]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationINESFrance
Morocco [110]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCIRADFrance
Morocco [111]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of LjubljanaSlovenia
Morocco [112]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationAbdelmalek Essaadi UniversityMorocco
Morocco [113]Cradle to graveEconomic allocationCIEMATSpain
Morocco [114]Cradle to grave?No indication/no allocationMohammed V UniversityMorocco
Morocco [115]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationMohammadia School of EngineeringMorocco
Mozambique [116]Well-to-WheelMass allocationChalmers University of TechnologySweden
Mozambique [117]Cradle to siteMass allocationSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesMorocco
Nigeria [118]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of ManchesterUK
Nigeria [119]Cradle to grave?No indication/no allocationIowa State UniversityUSA
Nigeria [120]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCovenant UniversityNigeria
Nigeria [121]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationNational Water Quality Reference Laboratory MinnaNigeria
Nigeria [122]Well-to-WheelMass allocationCranfield UniversityUK
Nigeria [123]Gate to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of IbadanNigeria
Nigeria [124]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of TlemcenAlgeria
Nigeria [125]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationHohai UniversityChina
Nigeria [126]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationNigerian Stored Products Research InstituteNigeria
Nigeria [127]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationLandmark UniversityNigeria
Nigeria [128]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationAdeleke UniversityNigeria
Nigeria [129]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationThe University of ManchesterUK
Nigeria [130]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationLadoke Akintola University of TechnologyNigeria
Nigeria, ghhana, ivory coast [13]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationThe University of ManchesterSouth Africa
Rwanda [131]Cradle to gateMass allocationCIRADFrance
Senegal [132]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationThe Swedish Institute for Food and BiotechnologySweden
Somalia [133]Cradle to graveMass allocationUniversity of SienaItaly
South Africa [134]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationUniversity of PretoriaSouth Africa
South Africa [135]Cradle to gateMass allocationUniversity of PretoriaSouth Africa
South Africa [136]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of NatalSouth Africa
South Africa [137]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationUniversity of PretoriaSouth Africa
South Africa [138]Cradle to siteNo indication/no allocationUniversity of Pretoria,South Africa
South Africa [139]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalSouth Africa
South Africa [140]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCSIR, South africaSouth Africa
South Africa [141]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationHuawei Technologies CO., LtdChina
South Africa [142]end-of-lifeMass allocationUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
South Africa [143]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of PretoriaSouth Africa
South Africa [144]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of CataniaItaly
South Africa [145]Well-to-WheelEconomic allocationUniversity of StellenboschSouth Africa
South Africa [146]Cradle to gateMass allocationUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalSouth Africa
South Africa [147]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
South Africa [148]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
South Africa [149]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationStellenbosch UniversitySouth Africa
South Africa [150]Cradle to gravePhysical allocationStellenbosch UniversitySouth Africa
South Africa [151]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationZurich University of Applied SciencesSwiss
South Africa [152]Cradle to gateMass allocationUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
South Africa [153]Cradle to gateEconomic and energy allocationStellenbosch UniversitySouth Africa
South Africa [154]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationUniversity of StellenboschSouth Africa
South Africa [155]Cradle to gateEconomic and energy allocationUniversity of StellenboschSouth Africa
South Africa [156]Cradle to gateEconomic allocationUniversity of Stell+D170:D182enboschSouth Africa
South Africa [157]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationInstitute of Electronic Structure & Laser Greece
South Africa [158]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
South Africa [16]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationUniversity of the WitwatersrandSouth Africa
South Africa [159]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
South Africa [160]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCouncil for Scientific and Industrial Research(CSIR)South Africa
South Africa [161]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationCranfield UniversityUK
South Africa [162]Well-to-WheelMass allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
South Africa [163]Well-to-TankNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
South Africa [164]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalSouth Africa
South Africa [165]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
South Africa [166]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationMount Royal University CalgaryCanada
South Africa [167]Cradle to graveMass allocationUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
South Africa [168]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationTshwane University of TechnologySouth Africa
South Africa [169]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationSouth African Sugarcane Research InstituteSouth Africa
South Africa [170]Cradle to gateMass allocationKU LeuvenBelgium
South Africa [171]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
South Africa [172]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa
South Africa [173]Well-to-WheelEconomic allocationUniversity of CambridgeUK
South Africa [174]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationStellenbosch UniversitySouth Africa
South Africa [175]Cradle to gateMass allocationUniversity of NatalSouth Africa
Tanzania [176]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of Dar es SalaamTanzania
Tanzania [177]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationKing Mongkut’s University of TechnologyThailand
Tanzania [178]Well-to-Wheelenergy allocationUniversity of Dar es SalaamTanzania
Tanzania [179]Cradle to siteNo indication/no allocationTropical Pesticides Research InstituteTanzania
Tanzania [180]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationYara InternationalGermany
Tanzania [181]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationTropical Pesticides Research InstituteTanzania
Tanzania [182]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationResearch Institute of Electric Power Industry, JapanJapan
Tunisia [183]Not applicableNo indication/no allocationCNRSFrance
Tunisia [184]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversité de MonastirTunisia
Tunisia [185]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of SfaxTunisia
Tunisia [186]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaSpain
Tunisia [187]Cradle to grave?No indication/no allocationIRSTEAFrance
Tunisia [188]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationInstitut National des Sciences Appliquée TechnologieTunisia
Tunisia [189]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversité de CarthageTunisia
Tunisia [190]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversité de CarthageTunisia
Tunisia [191]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversité de CarthageTunisia
Tunisia [192]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationNational School of Engineers of GabesTunisia
Tunisia [193]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationGabes UniversityTunisia
Tunisia [194]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversité de CarthageTunisia
Tunisia [195]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCIRADFrance
Tunisia [196]Cradle to grave?No indication/no allocationCIRADFrance
Tunisia [197]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversité de GabèsTunisia
Tunisia [198]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationCIEMATSpain
Tunisia [199]Cradle to graveEconomic allocationCIEMATSpain
Tunisia [200]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocation(IFAPA)Spain
Tunisia [201]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationCranfield UniversityUK
Uganda [202]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationMakerere UniversityUganda
Uganda [203]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationNational Water & Sewerage Corporation, UgandaUganda
Uganda [204]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of HohenheimGermany
Uganda [205]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of South FloridaUSA
Uganda [206]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationMakerere UniversityUganda
Uganda [207]Gate to gateNo indication/no allocationMakerere University College of Agricultural & Environmental SciencesUganda
Zambia [208]Cradle-to-gate?No indication/no allocationNorwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)Norway
Zambia [209]Cradle-to-gate?No indication/no allocationNorwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)Norway
Zimbabwe [210]Cradle to gateMass allocationUniversity of Zimbabwe,Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe [211]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
Zimbabwe [212]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity Of JohannesburgSouth Africa
Zimbabwe [213]Cradle to gateNo indication/no allocationUniversity Of JohannesburgSouth Africa
Zimbabwe [214]Cradle to graveNo indication/no allocationUniversity of ZimbabweZimbabwe
Zimbabwe [215]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa
Zimbabwe [216]end-of-lifeNo indication/no allocationUniversity of JohannesburgSouth Africa

References

  1. United Nations. 2019 Revision of World Population Prospects. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/ (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  2. PWC. The World in 2050. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/research-insights/economy/the-world-in-2050.html (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  3. UNEP. AEO3. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8391 (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  4. WHO. Available online: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.BODAMBIENTAIRDTHS?lang=en (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  5. MIT Media Lab, OEC. Available online: https://oec.world/en (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  6. FAO. Faostat Database. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  7. Bjørn, A.; Owsianiak, M.; Laurent, A.; Molin, C.; Westh, T.B.; Hauschild, M.Z. Mapping and characterization of LCA networks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 812–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Karkour, S.; Ichisugi, Y.; Abeynayaka, A.; Itsubo, N. External-Cost Estimation of Electricity Generation in G20 Countries: Case Study Using a Global Life-Cycle Impact-Assessment Method. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ecoinvent Database. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/ (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  10. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Steinmann, Z.J.N.; Elshout, P.M.F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollender, A.; Zelm, v.R. ReCiPe2016: A harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ladenika, A.O.; Bodunrin, M.O.; Burman, N.W.; Croft, J.; Engelbrecht, S.; Goga, T.; MacGregor, O.S.; Maepa, M.; Harding, K.G. Assessing the availability of life cycle assessments in Austria. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 614–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zanghelini, G.M.; de Souza Junior, H.R.A.; Kulay, L.; Cherubini, E.; Ribeiro, P.T.; Soares, S.R. A bibliometric overview of Brazilian LCA research. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1759–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Maepa, M.; Bodunrin, M.O.; Burman, N.W.; Croft, J.; Engelbrecht, S.; Ladenika, A.O.; MacGregor, O.S.; Harding, K.G. Review: Life cycle assessments in Nigeria, Ghana, and Ivory Coast. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1159–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wiloso, E.I.; Nazir, N.; Hanafi, J.; Siregar, K.; Harsono, S.S.; Setiawan, A.A.R.; Muryanto; Romli, M.; Utama, N.A.; Shantiko, B. Life cycle assessment research and application in Indonesia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Burman, N.W.; Croft, J.; Engelbrecht, S.; Ladenika, A.O.; MacGregor, O.S.; Maepa, M.; Bodunrin, M.O.; Harding, K.G. Review: Life-cycle assessment, water footprinting, and carbon footprinting in Portugal. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1693–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Harding, K.G.; Friedrich, E.; Jordaan, H.; le Roux, B.; Notten, P.; Russo, V.; Notten, P.; Russo, V.; Suppen-Reynaga, N.; Laan, M.v.d.; et al. Status and prospects of life cycle assessments and carbon and water footprinting studies in South Africa. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 26, 26–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Croft, J.; Engelbrecht, S.; Ladenika, A.O.; MacGregor, O.S.; Maepa, M.; Bodunrin, M.O.; Burman, N.W.; Goga, T.; Harding, K.G. Review: The availability of life-cycle studies in Sweden. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Life Cycle Assessment Theory and Practice; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
  19. IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics?country=WEOAFRICA&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=ElecGenByFuel (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  20. Ghazi, M.; Quaranta, G.; Duplay, J.; Hadjamor, R.; Khodja, M.; Amar, H.A.; Kessaissia, Z. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of oil drilling mud system in Algerian arid area. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 1222–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Messaoud-Boureghda, M.Z.; Fegas, R.; Louhab, K. Study of the Environmental Impacts of Urban Wastewater Recycling (Case of Boumerdes-Algeria) by the Life Cycle Assessment Method. Asian J. Chem. 2012, 24, 339. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mohamed-Zine, M.; Hamouche, A.; Krim, L. The study of potable water treatment process in Algeria (boudouaou station) -by the application of life cycle assessment (LCA). J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2013, 11, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Boughrara, S.; Chedri, M.; Louhab, K. Evaluation of Environmental Impact of Cement Production in Algeria Using Life Cycle Assessment. ILCPA 2015, 45, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Makhlouf, A.; Serradj, T.; Cheniti, H. Life cycle impact assessment of ammonia production in Algeria: A comparison with previous studies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2015, 50, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mohamed–Zine, M.B.; Ali, L.; Hamouche, A. Comparison of treatment methods for the assessment of environmental impacts of drilling muds by the LCA approach. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 2016, 3, 108–115. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lourguioui, H.; Brigolin, D.; Boulahdid, M.; Pastres, R. A perspective for reducing environmental impacts of mussel culture in Algeria. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1266–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kaoula, D.; Bouchair, A. Evaluation of environmental impacts of hotel buildings having different envelopes using a life cycle analysis approach. Indoor Built Environ. 2018, 27, 561–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Amouri, M.; Mohellebi, F.; Zaïd, T.A.; Aziza, M. Sustainability assessment of Ricinus communis biodiesel using LCA Approach. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017, 19, 749–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Deriche, M.A.; Hafaifa, A.; Tahri, A.; Mohammedi, K.; Tahri, F. Energy and environmental performance analysis of grid-connected photovoltaic systems under similar outdoor conditions in the Saharan environment. Diagnostyka 2020, 21, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Perrin, A.; Basset-Mens, C.; Huat, J.; Yehouessi, W. High environmental risk and low yield of urban tomato gardens in Benin. Agron Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  31. Perrin, A.; Basset-Mens, C.; Huat, J.; Gabrielle, B. The variability of field emissions is critical to assessing the environmental impacts of vegetables: A Benin case-study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Amante-García, B.; López Grimau, V.; Canals Casals, L. LCA of different energy sources for a water purification plant in Burkina Fasso. DWT 2017, 76, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Baumert, S.; Khamzina, A.; Vlek, P.L. Greenhouse gas and energy balance of Jatropha biofuel production systems of Burkina Faso. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 42, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Olmedo-Torre, N.; Canals Casals, L.; Amante García, B. Sustainable design of a thermosolar electricity generation power plant in Burkina Faso. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 226, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Achten, W.M.J.; Vandenbempt, P.; Almeida, J.; Mathijs, E.; Muys, B. Life Cycle Assessment of a Palm Oil System with Simultaneous Production of Biodiesel and Cooking Oil in Cameroon. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4809–4815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mpele, M.; Elime Bouboama, A.; Ayina Ohandja, L.M.; Madjadoumbaye, J. Life cycle assessment of the overall energy consumption of a road construction project and its management in Cameroon. Agric. Eng. Int. Cigr J. 2010, 12, 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  37. Efole Ewoukem, T.; Aubin, J.; Mikolasek, O.; Corson, M.; Tomedi Eyango, M.; Tchoumboue, J. Environmental impacts of farms integrating aquaculture and agriculture in Cameroon. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 28, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elime Bouboama, A.; Mamba, M.; Tsimi, N.I. Life Cycle Assessment of Domestic Wastewater in a Neighborhood with Spontaneous Housing—A Case Study of Bonamoussadi, Yaoundé-Cameroon. Available online: http://www.aascit.org/journal/archive2?journalId=816&paperId=4171 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  39. Vrech, A.; Ferfuia, C.; Bessong Ojong, W.; Piasentier, E.; Baldini, M. Energy and environmental sustainability of Jatropha-Biofuels Chain from nontoxic accessions in Cameroon. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2019, 38, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. El-Sayed Mohamed Mahgoub, M.; van der Steen, N.P.; Abu-Zeid, K.; Vairavamoorthy, K. Towards sustainability in urban water: A life cycle analysis of the urban water system of Alexandria City, Egypt. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1100–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Roushdi, M.; El-Hawary, A.; Maghoub, M. Environmental improvement of Alexandria’s wastewater treatment plants using life cycle assessment approach. Glob. Nest J. 2012, 14, 450–459. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ali, A.A.M.; Negm, A.; Bady, M.; Ibrahim, M.G.E. Towards an Integrated Tool to Estimate Carbon Emissions from life Cycle Assessment of Building Materials in Egypt. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dr_Ahmed_Ali2/publication/269393690_TOWARDS_AN_INTEGRATED_TOOL_TO_ESTIMATE_CARBON_EMISSIONS_FROM_LIFE_CYCLE_ASSESSMENT_OF_BUILDING_MATERIALS_IN_EGYPT/links/548877560cf289302e30afb2.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  43. Ali, A.A.M.M.; Negm, A.M.; Bady, M.F.; Ibrahim, M.G. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a Residential Building in Egypt: A Case Study. Procedia Technol. 2015, 19, 349–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ali, A.A.M.; Negm, A.M.; Bady, M.F.; Ibrahim, M.G.E. Moving towards an Egyptian national life cycle inventory database. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1551–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F.E.; Mazzuto, G.; Paciarotti, C. Environmental analysis of a cotton yarn supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 82, 154–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Armanuos, A.M.; Negm, A.; Tahan, A.H.M.E. Life Cycle Assessment of Diesel Fuel and Solar Pumps in Operation Stage for Rice Cultivation in Tanta, Nile Delta, Egypt. Procedia Technol. 2016, 22, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fawzy, M.M.; Romagnoli, F. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment for Jatropha Biodiesel in Egypt. Energy Procedia 2016, 95, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  48. Sharaan, M.; Negm, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Dredged Materials Placement Strategies: Case Study, Damietta Port, Egypt. Procedia Eng. 2017, 181, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Petrillo, A.; De Felice, F.; Jannelli, E.; Autorino, C.; Minutillo, M.; Lavadera, A.L. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis model for a stand-alone hybrid renewable energy system. Renew. Energy 2016, 95, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Henriksson, P.J.; Dickson, M.; Allah, A.N.; Al-Kenawy, D.; Phillips, M. Benchmarking the environmental performance of best management practice and genetic improvements in Egyptian aquaculture using life cycle assessment. Aquaculture 2017, 468, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Younes, M.; Huang, Y.; Hashim, I. Towards an Integrated Tool of a Life Cycle Assessment for Construction of Asphalt Pavements in Egypt. J. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng. 2016, 6, 377–388. [Google Scholar]
  52. Elkafoury, A.; Negm, A. Assessment Approach of Life Cycle of Vehicles Tyres on Egyptian Road Network. Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng. 2016, 44, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yacout, D.M.M.; Soliman, N.F.; Yacout, M.M. Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of Tilapia in two production systems: Semi-intensive and intensive. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 806–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yacout, D.M.M.; Abd El-Kawi, M.A.; Hassouna, M.S. Cradle to gate environmental impact assessment of acrylic fiber manufacturing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ali, A.A.M.; Negm, A.M.; Bady, M.F.; Ibrahim, M.G.E.; Suzuki, M. Environmental impact assessment of the Egyptian cement industry based on a life-cycle assessment approach: A comparative study between Egyptian and Swiss plants. Clean. Tech. Environ. Policy 2016, 18, 1053–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yacout, D.M.M.; Hassouna, M.S. Identifying potential environmental impacts of waste handling strategies in textile industry. Environ. Monit Assess. 2016, 188, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ibrahim, M.; Ali, A.A.M. Practical Case Study for Life Cycle Assessment of the Egyptian Brick Industry: A Comparative Analysis of the Japanese Industry. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5Ng0zOMAAAAJ&hl=en (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  58. Hassanain, E.M.; Yacout, D.M.M.; Metwally, M.A.; Hassouna, M.S. Life cycle assessment of waste strategies for used lubricating oil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1232–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Awad, H.; Gar Alalm, M.; El-Etriby, H.K. Environmental and cost life cycle assessment of different alternatives for improvement of wastewater treatment plants in developing countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Atia, N.G.; Bassily, M.A.; Elamer, A.A. Do life-cycle costing and assessment integration support decision-making towards sustainable development? J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 267, 122056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Morsy, K.M.; Mostafa, M.K.; Abdalla, K.Z.; Galal, M.M. Life Cycle Assessment of Upgrading Primary Wastewater Treatment Plants to Secondary Treatment Including a Circular Economy Approach. Air Soil Water Res. 2020, 13, 117862212093585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Patrizi, N.; Bruno, M.; Saladini, F.; Parisi, M.L.; Pulselli, R.M.; Bjerre, A.B.; Bastianoni, S. Sustainability Assessment of Biorefinery Systems Based on Two Food Residues in Africa. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sahle, A.; Potting, J. Environmental life cycle assessment of Ethiopian rose cultivation. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 443, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lansche, J.; Müller, J. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biogas versus dung combustion household cooking systems in developing countries—A case study in Ethiopia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 828–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Woldegebriel, D.; Udo, H.; Viets, T.; van der Harst, E.; Potting, J. Environmental impact of milk production across an intensification gradient in Ethiopia. Livestock Sci. 2017, 206, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Teffera, B.; Assefa, B.; Björklund, A.; Assefa, G. Life cycle assessment of wind farms in Ethiopia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 21, 76–96. [Google Scholar]
  67. Afrane, G.; Ntiamoah, A. Analysis of the life-cycle costs and environmental impacts of cooking fuels used in Ghana. Appl. Energy 2012, 98, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ansah, M.K.; Chen, X.; Yang, H.; Lu, L.; Lam, P.T. An integrated life cycle assessment of different façade systems for a typical residential building in Ghana. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 53, 101974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bianchi, F.R.; Moreschi, L.; Gallo, M.; Vesce, E.; Del Borghi, A. Environmental analysis along the supply chain of dark, milk and white chocolate: A life cycle comparison. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Eshun, J.F.; Potting, J.; Leemans, R. LCA of the timber sector in Ghana: Preliminary life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 625–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Afrane, G.; Ntiamoah, A. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Charcoal, Biogas, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas as Cooking Fuels in Ghana. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15, 539–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Engelbrecht, D.; Thorpe, M.; Mearns, K. The life cycle assessment of cyanide containers in Ghana. Ghana Min. J. 2012, 13, 56–66. [Google Scholar]
  73. Eshun, J.F.; Potting, J.; Leemans, R. Inventory analysis of the timber industry in Ghana. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 715–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ntiamoah, A.; Afrane, G. Environmental impacts of cocoa production and processing in Ghana: Life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1735–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ndong, R.; Montrejaud-Vignoles, M.; Saint Girons, O.; Gabrielle, B.; Pirot, R.; Domergue, M.; Sablayrolles, C. Life cycle assessment of biofuels fromJatropha curcasin West Africa: A field study. GCB Bioenergy 2009, 1, 197–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sim, S.; Barry, M.; Clift, R.; Cowell, S.J. The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2007, 12, 422–431. [Google Scholar]
  77. Owsianiak, M.; Lindhjem, H.; Cornelissen, G.; Hale, S.E.; Sørmo, E.; Sparrevik, M. Environmental and economic impacts of biochar production and agricultural use in six developing and middle-income countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 142455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Bilich, A.; Langham, K.; Geyer, R.; Goyal, L.; Hansen, J.; Krishnan, A.; Bergesen, J.; Sinha, P. Life Cycle Assessment of Solar Photovoltaic Microgrid Systems in Off-Grid Communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 1043–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Heller, M.C.; Walchale, A.; Heard, B.R.; Hoey, L.; Khoury, C.K.; De Haan, S.S.; Burra, D.; Duong, T.T.; Osiemo, J.; Trinh, T.H.; et al. Environmental analyses to inform transitions to sustainable diets in developing countries: Case studies for Vietnam and Kenya. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1183–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Carvalho, R.L.; Yadav, P.; García-López, N.; Lindgren, R.; Nyberg, G.; Diaz-Chavez, R.; Krishna Kumar Upadhyayula, V.; Boman, C.; Athanassiadis, D. Environmental Sustainability of Bioenergy Strategies in Western Kenya to Address Household Air Pollution. Energies 2020, 13, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Irhoma, A.; Su, D.; Higginson, M. Life Cycle Assessment of Libyan Crude Oil. Available online: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/7491/ (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  82. Al-Behadili, S.; El-Osta, W. Life Cycle Assessment of Dernah (Libya) wind farm. Renew. Energy 2015, 83, 1227–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Andrianaivo, L.; Ramasiarinoro, V.J. Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Impact Evaluation of the Parabolic Solar Cooker SK14 in Madagascar. J. Clean Energy Technol. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  84. Praene, J.; Rakotoson, V. Environmental sustainability of electricity generation under insular context, An LCA-based scenario for Madagascar and Reunion island by 2050. Int. J. Eng. Res. Manag. Stud. 2017, 2, 24–42. [Google Scholar]
  85. Taulo, J.; Sebitosi, A. Material and energy flow analysis of the Malawian tea industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 1337–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mpakati-Gama, E.C.; Brown, A.; Sloan, B. Embodied energy and carbon analysis of urban residential buildings in Malawi. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2016, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pell, R.; Wall, F.; Yan, X.; Li, J.; Zeng, X. Mineral processing simulation based-environmental life cycle assessment for rare earth project development: A case study on the Songwe Hill project. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 249, 109353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Kalogirou, S. Thermal performance, economic and environmental life cycle analysis of thermosiphon solar water heaters. Sol. Energy 2009, 83, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Almeida, J.; Moonen, P.; Soto, I.; Achten, W.M.; Muys, B. Effect of farming system and yield in the life cycle assessment of Jatropha-based bioenergy in Mali. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 23, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Roffeis, M.; Almeida, J.; Wakefield, M.; Valada, T.; Devic, E.; Koné, N.; Kenis, M.; Nacambo, S.; Fitches, E.; Koko, G. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of Prospective Insect Based Feed Production in West Africa. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Naughton, C.C.; Zhang, Q.; Mihelcic, J.R. Modelling energy and environmental impacts of traditional and improved shea butter production in West Africa for food security. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Avadí, A.; Marcin, M.; Biard, Y.; Renou, A.; Gourlot, J.; Basset-Mens, C. Life cycle assessment of organic and conventional non-Bt cotton products from Mali. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 678–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Environmental assessment of frozen common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) captured by Spanish fishing vessels in the Mauritanian EEZ. Mar. Policy 2012, 36, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Martín-Consuegra Ávila, F.; Alonso Ruiz-Rivas, C.; Salas Serrano, J.; Legarra Sadaba, J.; Frutos Vázquez, B. Environmental assessment of a constructive system for living spaces made in Mauritania. Available online: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC28312.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2021).
  95. Ramjeawon, T. Life cycle assessment of cane-sugar on the island of mauritius. Int. J. LCA 2004, 9, 254–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mohee, R. Life Cycle Assessment technique for sound management of organic municipal solid wastes. PIE 2005, 2, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ramjeawon, T. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation from bagasse in Mauritius. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1727–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Foolmaun, R.K.; Ramjeawon, T. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius. IJEWM 2008, 2, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Unmar, G.; Mohee, R.; Rughoonundun, M. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in Mauritius from a Life Cycle Perspective. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Assessing-the-environmental-impacts-of-municipal-in-Unmar-Rughoonundun/db12311c369508646cff5abb3e28486d97c74bf6 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  100. Foolmaun, R.K.; Ramjeeawon, T. Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Foolmaun, R.K.; Ramjeeawon, T. Disposal of post-consumer polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles: Comparison of five disposal alternatives in the small island state of Mauritius using a life cycle assessment tool. Environ. Technol. 2012, 33, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Foolmaun, R.K.; Ramjeeawon, T. Comparative life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of four disposal scenarios for used polyethylene terephthalate bottles in Mauritius. Environ. Technol. 2012, 33, 2007–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Brizmohun, R.; Ramjeawon, T.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mauritius. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Rajcoomar, A.; Ramjeawon, T. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste management scenarios on the small island of Mauritius. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Payen, S.; Basset-Mens, C.; Perret, S. LCA of local and imported tomato: An energy and water trade-off. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Bessou, C.; Basset-Mens, C.; Latunussa, C.; Velu, A.; Heitz, H.; Vannières, H.; Caliman, J.P. LCA of perennial crops: Implications of modeling choices through two contrasted case studies. In Proceedings of the LCAfood 2014, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–10 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  107. Basset-Mens, C.; Vannière, H.; Grasselly, D.; Heitz, H.; Braun, A.; Payen, S.; Koch, P.; Biard, Y. Environmental impacts of imported and locally grown fruits for the French market: A cradle-to-farm-gate LCA study. Fruits 2016, 71, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Corona, B.; Escudero, L.; Quéméré, G.; Luque-Heredia, I.; San Miguel, G. Energy and environmental life cycle assessment of a high concentration photovoltaic power plant in Morocco. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ito, M.; Lespinats, S.; Merten, J.; Malbranche, P.; Kurokawa, K. Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of very large-scale PV systems and suitable locations in the world. Prog. Photovolt Res. Appl. 2016, 24, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bessou, C.; Basset-Mens, C.; Latunussa, C.; Vélu, A.; Heitz, H.; Vannière, H.; Caliman, J.P. Partial modelling of the perennial crop cycle misleads LCA results in two contrasted case studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 297–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Stropnik, R.; Sekavčnik, M.; Ferriz, A.; Mori, M. Reducing environmental impacts of the ups system based on PEM fuel cell with circular economy. Energy 2018, 165, 824–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Errouame Mohammed and Amrani Mahacine. The Headrest Manufacturing Industry: Evaluation The Environmental impacts. Available online: http://www.arpnjournals.org/jeas/research_papers/rp_2019/jeas_0119_7540.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  113. Herrera, I.; Rodríguez-Serrano, I.; Garrain, D.; Lechón, Y.; Oliveira, A. Sustainability assessment of a novel micro solar thermal: Biomass heat and power plant in Morocco. J. Ind. Ecol. 2020, 24, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Kouroum, L.A.E.; Bahi, L.; Bahi, A. Impact of Solar Water Heaters Systems on the Environment Case Study in Morocco. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3628490 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  115. Bahi, Y.; Akhssas, A.; Bahi, A.; Driss Elhachmi, D. Environmental assessment of a wastewater treatment plant using life cycle assessment (lca) approach: Case of ain taoujdate morocco. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. Technol. (Ijaret) 2020, 11, 3628407. [Google Scholar]
  116. Hagman, J.; Nerentorp, M.; Arvidsson, R.; Molander, S. Do biofuels require more water than do fossil fuels? Life cycle-based assessment of jatropha oil production in rural Mozambique. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Porsö, C.; Mate, R.; Vinterbäck, J.; Hansson, P. Time-Dependent Climate Effects of Eucalyptus Pellets Produced in Mozambique Used Locally or for Export. Bioenerg. Res. 2016, 9, 942–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gujba, H.; Mulugetta, Y.; Azapagic, A. Environmental and economic appraisal of power generation capacity expansion plan in Nigeria. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 5636–5652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bartlett, Z.; Olivares, A.; Yang, L.; Rosentrater, K.A. Economic and Environmental Analysis of Farm-Scale Biodigesters to Produce Energy for Kitchen Stove Use. Available online: https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=44877 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  120. Ezema, I.C.; Olutuah, A.O.; Fagbenle, O.I. Estimating Embodied Energy in Residential Buildings in a Nigerian Context. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2015, 10, 44140–44149. [Google Scholar]
  121. Ogundipe, F.O.; Jimoh, O.D. Life Cycle Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2015, 9, 1305–1314. [Google Scholar]
  122. Onabanjo, T.; Di Lorenzo, G. Energy Efficiency and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha for Energy in Nigeria: A “Well-To-Wheel” Perspective. Available online: https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ES/proceedings-abstract/ES2015/56840/V001T06A004/228261 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  123. Ewemoje, T.A.; Oluwaniyi, O.O. Mechanised Shea Butter Production in South-Western Nigeria Using Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) Approach from Gate-To-Gate. Available online: https://cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/3557 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  124. Abubakar Jumare, I.; Bhandari, R.; Zerga, A. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Grid-Integrated Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems in Northern Nigeria. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yuguda, T.K.; Li, Y.; Xiong, W.; Zhang, W. Life cycle assessment of options for retrofitting an existing dam to generate hydro-electricity. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ogunjirin, O.C.; Jekayinfa, S.O.; Olaniran, J.A.; Ogunjirin, O.A. Environmental life cycle assessment of cowpea production, storage and disposal in Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria. Iop Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 445, 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Olaniran, J.A.; Jekayinfa, S.O.; Adekanye, T.A. Energy consumption and environmental burden analysis of cassava tuber production in Ogbomoso southwest Nigeria. Iop Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 445, 012062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ogunlade, C.A.; Jekayinfa, S.O.; Olaniran, J.A.; Adebayo, A.O. Energy life-cycle assessment and economic analysis of sweet orange production in Nigeria. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342452508_Energy_life-cycle_assessment_and_economic_analysis_of_sweet_orange_production_in_Nigeria (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  129. Gujba, H.; Mulugetta, Y.; Azapagic, A. Passenger transport in Nigeria: Environmental and economic analysis with policy recommendations. Energy Policy 2013, 55, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Jekayinfa, S.O.; Olaniran, L.A.; Sasanya, B.F. Life cycle assessment of soybeans production and processing system into soy oil using solvent extraction process. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 2013, 6, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Basset-Mens, C.; Rhino, B.; Ndereyimana, A.; Kleih, U.; Biard, Y. Eco-efficiency of tomato from Rwamagana district in Rwanda: From field constraints to statistical significance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ziegler, F.; Emanuelsson, A.; Eichelsheim, J.L.; Flysjö, A.; Ndiaye, V.; Thrane, M. Extended Life Cycle Assessment of Southern Pink Shrimp Products Originating in Senegalese Artisanal and Industrial Fisheries for Export to Europe. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15, 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Rossi, F.; Parisi, M.L.; Maranghi, S.; Manfrida, G.; Basosi, R.; Sinicropi, A. Environmental impact analysis applied to solar pasteurization systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1368–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Brent, A.C.; Rohwer, M.B.; Friedrich, E.; Blottnitz, H.V. Status of life cycle assessment and engineering research in South Africa. Int. J. LCA 2002, 7, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Brent, A.C.; Hietkamp, S. Comparative evaluation of Life Cycle Impact assessment methods with a South African case study. Int. J. LCA 2003, 8, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Friedrich, E. Life-cycle assessment as an environmental management tool in the production of potable water. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 46, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Brent, A.C. A proposed lifecycle impact assessment framework for South Africa from available environmental data. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2003, 99, 115–122. [Google Scholar]
  138. Landu, L.; Brent, A.C. Environmental life cycle assessment of water supply in South Africa: The Rosslyn industrial area as a case study. Water SA 2006, 32, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Friedrich, E.; Pillay, S.; Buckley, C.A. Environmental life cycle assessments for water treatment processes—A South African case study of an urban water cycle. Water SA 2009, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Mashoko, L.; Mbohwa, C.; Thomas, V.M. LCA of the South African sugar industry. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2010, 53, 793–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Anders, S.G.A.; Han, D.; Luo, S.; Belfqih, M.; Gerber, E. Added value of Life Cycle Assessment to a Business Case Analysis of a Photovoltaic/Wind Radio Base Site Solution in South Africa. Intelec 2012, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Vossberg, C.; Mason-Jones, K.; Cohen, B. An energetic life cycle assessment of C&D waste and container glass recycling in Cape Town, South Africa. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 88, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
  143. Rice, G.A.; Vosloo, P.T. A life cycle assessment of the cradle-to-gate phases of clay brick production in South Africa. Eco-Archit. V Harmon. Archit. Nat. 2014, 142, 471. [Google Scholar]
  144. Siracusa, V.; Ingrao, C.; Lo Giudice, A.; Mbohwa, C.; Dalla Rosa, M. Environmental assessment of a multilayer polymer bag for food packaging and preservation: An LCA approach. Food Res. Int. 2014, 62, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Petersen, A.; Melamu, R.; Knoetze, J.; Görgens, J. Comparison of second-generation processes for the conversion of sugarcane bagasse to liquid biofuels in terms of energy efficiency, pinch point analysis and Life Cycle Analysis. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 91, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Pryor, S.W.; Smithers, J.; Lyne, P.; van Antwerpen, R. Impact of agricultural practices on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for South African sugarcane production. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Ngwepe, L.L.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Thwala, W.D. The Benefits of life Cycle Assessment: A Methodology for Buildings in South Africa. Available online: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:21123?site_name=GlobalView&f0=bs_metadata.fulltext%3A%22false%22&f1=sm_creator%3A%22Aigbavboa%2C+C.O.%22 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  148. Naicker, V.; Cohen, B. A life cycle assessment of e-books and printed books in South Africa. J. Energy S. Afr. 2016, 27, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Daful, A.G.; Haigh, K.; Vaskan, P.; Görgens, J.F. Environmental impact assessment of lignocellulosic lactic acid production: Integrated with existing sugar mills. Food Bioprod. Process. 2016, 99, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Crafford, P.L.; Blumentritt, M.; Wessels, C.B. The potential of South African timber products to reduce the environmental impact of buildings. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2017, 113, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. The Environmental Mitigation Potential of Photovoltaic-Powered Irrigation in the Production of South African Maize. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1772. [CrossRef]
  152. Russo, V.; von Blottnitz, H. Potentialities of biogas installation in South African meat value chain for environmental impacts reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 465–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Farzad, S.; Mandegari, M.A.; Guo, M.; Haigh, K.F.; Shah, N.; Görgens, J.F. Multi-product biorefineries from lignocelluloses: A pathway to revitalisation of the sugar industry? Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Mandegari, M.A.; Farzad, S.; van Rensburg, E.; Görgens, J.F. Multi-criteria analysis of a biorefinery for co-production of lactic acid and ethanol from sugarcane lignocellulose. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 2017, 11, 971–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ali Mandegari, M.; Farzad, S.; Görgens, J.F. Economic and environmental assessment of cellulosic ethanol production scenarios annexed to a typical sugar mill. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 224, 314–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Farzad, S.; Mandegari, M.A.; Görgens, J.F. Integrated techno-economic and environmental analysis of butadiene production from biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 239, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Papadaki, D.; Foteinis, S.; Mhlongo, G.; Nkosi, S.; Motaung, D.; Ray, S.; Tsoutsos, T.; Kiriakidis, G. Life cycle assessment of facile microwave-assisted zinc oxide (ZnO) nanostructures. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Madushela, N. Process Evaluation of a Domestic Biogas Digester. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 7, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Agwa-Ejon, J.F.; Pradhan, A. Life cycle impact assessment of artisanal sandstone mining on the environment and health of mine workers. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 72, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Masindi, V.; Chatzisymeon, E.; Kortidis, I.; Foteinis, S. Assessing the sustainability of acid mine drainage (AMD) treatment in South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 793–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Anastasopoulou, A.; Kolios, A.; Somorin, T.; Sowale, A.; Jiang, Y.; Fidalgo, B.; Parker, A.; Williams, L.; Collins, M.; McAdam, E.; et al. Conceptual environmental impact assessment of a novel self-sustained sanitation system incorporating a quantitative microbial risk assessment approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 639, 657–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Pradhan, A.; Mbohwa, C. Life Cycle Assessment of Soybean Biodiesel Production in South Africa: A Preliminary Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC), Tangier, Morocco, 4–7 December 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Pradhan, A.; Mbohwa, C. Development of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) for Sugarcane Ethanol Production in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC), Tangier, Morocco, 4–7 December 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Goga, T.; Friedrich, E.; Buckley, C. Environmental life cycle assessment for potable water production–a case study of seawater desalination and mine-water reclamation in South Africa. Water SA 2019, 45, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Kwofie, T.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O.; Thwala, W.D. Measures to improve the adoption of life cycle assessment in the South African construction industry. JEDT 2019, 18, 480–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Dunmade, I.; Madushele, N.; Adedeji, P.A.; Akinlabi, E.T. A streamlined life cycle assessment of a coal-fired power plant: The South African case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 18484–18492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Chitaka, T.Y.; Russo, V.; von Blottnitz, H. In pursuit of environmentally friendly straws: A comparative life cycle assessment of five straw material options in South Africa. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1818–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Mavhungu, A.; Foteinis, S.; Mbaya, R.; Masindi, V.; Kortidis, I.; Mpenyana-Monyatsi, L. Environmental sustainability of municipal wastewater treatment through struvite precipitation: Influence of operational parameters. J. Clean. Prod. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Van der Laan, M.; Jumman, A.; Perret, S.R. Environmental Benefits of Improved Water and Nitrogen Management in Irrigated Sugar Cane: A Combined Crop Modelling and Life Cycle Assessment Approach. Irrig. Drain. 2015, 64, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Devers, L.; Kleynhans, T.; Mathijs, E. Comparative life cycle assessment of Flemish and Western Cape pork production. Agrekon 2012, 51, 105–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Fernández-Torres, M.; Randall, D.; Melamu, R.; von Blottnitz, H. A comparative life cycle assessment of eutectic freeze crystallisation and evaporative crystallisation for the treatment of saline wastewater. Desalination 2012, 306, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Ras, C.; Von Blottnitz, H. A comparative life cycle assessment of process water treatment technologies at the Secunda industrial complex, South Africa. Water SA 2012, 38, 549–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Stephenson, A.L.; von Blottnitz, H.; Brent, A.C.; Dennis, J.S.; Scott, S.A. Global Warming Potential and Fossil-Energy Requirements of Biodiesel Production Scenarios in South Africa. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 2489–2499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Brent, A.; Sigamoney, R.; Von Blottnitz, H.; Hietkamp, S. Life cycle inventories to assess value chains in the South African biofuels industry. J. Energy S. Afr. 2010, 21, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Pillay, S.D.; Friedrich, E.; Buckley, C.A. Life cycle assessment of an industrial water recycling plant. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 46, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Manyele, S.V. Lifecycle assessment of biofuel production from wood pyrolysis technology. Educ. Res. Rev. 2007, 2, 141–150. [Google Scholar]
  177. Felix, M.; Gheewala, S.H. Environmental assessment of electricity production in Tanzania. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2012, 16, 439–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Eshton, B.; Katima, J.H.; Kituyi, E. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of jatropha biodiesel as an alternative fuel in Tanzania. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 58, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Felix, M.; Gheewala, S.H. Environmental toxicity potential from electricity generation in Tanzania. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1424–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Plassmann, K.; Brentrup, F.; Lammel, J. Trade-offs between agricultural product carbon footprints and land use: A case study from Tanzania. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katharina_Plassmann (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  181. Felix, M. Status update on LCA studies and networking in Tanzania. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1825–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Tsuchiya, Y.; Swai, T.A.; Goto, F. Energy payback time analysis and return on investment of off-grid photovoltaic systems in rural areas of Tanzania. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 42, 100887. [Google Scholar]
  183. Hadj Amor, R.; Quaranta, G.; Gueddari, F.; Million, D.; Clauer, N. The life cycle impact assessment applied to a coastal lagoon: The case of the Slimane lagoon (Tunisia) by the study of seasonal variations of the aquatic eutrophication potential. Environ. Geol. 2008, 54, 1103–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Jerbi, M.; Aubin, J.; Garnaoui, K.; Achour, L.; Kacem, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of two rearing techniques of sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Aquac. Eng. 2012, 46, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Fersi, S. Energy analysis and potentials of biodiesel production from Jatropha Curcas in Tunisia. Int. J. Glob. Energy Issues 2012, 35, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Hjaila, K.; Baccar, R.; Sarrà, M.; Gasol, C.; Blánquez, P. Environmental impact associated with activated carbon preparation from olive-waste cake via life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 130, 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Pradeleix, L.; Roux, P.; Bouarfa, S.; Jaouani, B.; Lili-Chabaane, Z.; Bellon-Maurel, V. Environmental Impacts of Contrasted Groundwater Pumping Systems Assessed by Life Cycle Assessment Methodology: Contribution to the Water-Energy Nexus Study. Irrig. Drain. 2015, 64, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Ben Jaballah, H.J.; ben Ammar, F. Life Cycle Assessment impact of fraking shale gas in Tunisia. In Proceedings of the IREC2015 The Sixth International Renewable Energy Congress, Sousse, Tunisia, 24–26 March 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Ibidhi, R.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Gerbens-Leenes, P.; Chouchane, H. Water, land and carbon footprints of sheep and chicken meat produced in Tunisia under different farming systems. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 77, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Abdou, K.; Ben Rais Lasram, F.; Romdhane, M.S.; Le Loc’h, F.; Aubin, J. Rearing performances and environmental assessment of sea cage farming in Tunisia using life cycle assessment (LCA) combined with PCA and HCPC. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 1049–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Abdou, K.; Aubin, J.; Romdhane, M.S.; Le Loc’h, F.; Lasram, F.B.R. Environmental assessment of seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and seabream (Sparus aurata) farming from a life cycle perspective: A case study of a Tunisian aquaculture farm. Aquaculture 2017, 471, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Mami, M.; Jeday, M.R.; Hajjaji, N. Life Cycle Assessment of Sulfuric Acid Production System in Tunisia. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-70548-4_148 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  193. Maaoui, M.; Boukchina, R.; Hajjaji, N. LCA and Cherry Tomato Production in the South of Tunisia. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-70548-4_319 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  194. Abdou, K.; Gascuel, D.; Aubin, J.; Romdhane, M.S.; Ben Rais Lasram, F.; Le Loc’h, F. Environmental life cycle assessment of seafood production: A case study of trawler catches in Tunisia. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 298–307. [Google Scholar]
  195. Jouini, M.; Burte, J.; Biard, Y.; Benaissa, N.; Amara, H.; Sinfort, C. A framework for coupling a participatory approach and life cycle assessment for public decision-making in rural territory management. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 1017–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Pradeleix, L.; Bouarfa, S.; Bellon-Maurel, V.; Roux, P. Assessing Environmental Impacts of Groundwater Irrigation Using the Life Cycle Assessment Method: Application to a Tunisian Arid Region. Irrig. Drain. 2020, 69, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Maaoui, M.; Boukchina, R.; Hajjaji, N. Environmental life cycle assessment of Mediterranean tomato: Case study of a Tunisian soilless geothermal multi-tunnel greenhouse. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Herrera, I.; Rodríguez-Serrano, I.; Lechón, Y.; Oliveira, A.; Krüger, D.; Bouden, C. Sustainability assessment of a hybrid CSP/biomass. Results of a prototype plant in Tunisia. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 42, 100862. [Google Scholar]
  199. Banacloche, S.; Herrera, I.; Lechón, Y. Towards energy transition in Tunisia: Sustainability assessment of a hybrid concentrated solar power and biomass plant. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 744, 140729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Ben Abdallah, S.; Elfkih, S.; Suárez-Rey, E.M.; Parra-López, C.; Romero-Gámez, M. Evaluation of the environmental sustainability in the olive growing systems in Tunisia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 282, 124526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Abdou, K.; Le Loc’h, F.; Gascuel, D.; Romdhane, M.S.; Aubin, J.; Ben Rais Lasram, F. Combining ecosystem indicators and life cycle assessment for environmental assessment of demersal trawling in Tunisia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Musaazi, M.K.; Mechtenberg, A.R.; Nakibuule, J.; Sensenig, R.; Miyingo, E.; Makanda, J.V.; Hakimian, A.; Eckelman, M.J. Quantification of social equity in life cycle assessment for increased sustainable production of sanitary products in Uganda. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Oyoo, R.; Leemans, R.; Mol, A.P. Comparison of environmental performance for different waste management scenarios in East Africa: The case of Kampala City, Uganda. Habitat. Int. 2014, 44, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Ekeh, O.; Fangmeier, A.; Müller, J. Quantifying greenhouse gases from the production, transportation and utilization of charcoal in developing countries: A case study of Kampala, Uganda. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1643–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Prouty, C.; Zhang, Q. How do people’s perceptions of water quality influence the life cycle environmental impacts of drinking water in Uganda? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Komakech, A.; Zurbrügg, C.; Miito, G.; Wanyama, J.; Vinnerås, B. Environmental impact from vermicomposting of organic waste in Kampala, Uganda. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Mfitumukiza, D.; Nambasa, H.; Walakira, P. Life cycle assessment of products from agro-based companies in Uganda. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 1925–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Sparrevik, M.; Field, J.L.; Martinsen, V.; Breedveld, G.D.; Cornelissen, G. Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate the Environmental Impact of Biochar Implementation in Conservation Agriculture in Zambia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1206–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Smebye, A.B.; Sparrevik, M.; Schmidt, H.P.; Cornelissen, G. Life-cycle assessment of biochar production systems in tropical rural areas: Comparing flame curtain kilns to other production methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 101, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Mbohwa, C.; Manjera, G. An Environmental Assessment of the Life Cycle of the Plastic Carrier Bag in Zimbabwe. AMR 2007, 18–19, 501–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Mbohwa, C.T.; Mashoko, L. Application of Life Cycle Assessment in the Zimbabwean Pulp and Paper industry. Available online: http://www.lcm2007.ethz.ch/paper/Mbohwa.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  212. Mbohwa, C.; Ganyo, B. Using Life Cycle Assessment to Assess and Identify Improvements of the Environmental Impacts of the Vehicle Leaf Spring. Available online: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:5174?site_name=GlobalView&view=null&f0=sm_creator%3A%22Mbohwa%2C+Charles%22&sort=ss_dateNormalized%2F (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  213. Mbohwa, C.; Moyo, S. Life Cycle Assessment of the Cement Industry in Zimbabwe. Available online: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:5183?site_name=GlobalView&view=null&f0=sm_identifier%3A%22uj%3A5183%22&sort=ss_dateNormalized%2F (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  214. Gudekeya, L.; Mbohwa, C. Life Cycle Assessment of Steel Balls. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7093841 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  215. Nhubu, T.; Muzenda, E. Determination of the Least Impactful Municipal Solid Waste Management Option in Harare, Zimbabwe. Processes 2019, 7, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Nhubu, T.; Muzenda, E.; Mbohwa, C.; Agbenyeku, E.O.M. Comparative assessment of compositing and anaerobic digestion of municipal biodegradable waste in Harare, Zimbabwe. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2020, 39, e13376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1218–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Life Cycle Initiative. Available online: https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/applying-lca/lca-databases-map/ (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  219. Bulle, C.; Margni, M.; Patouillard, L.; Boulay, A.; Bourgault, G.; De Bruille, V.; Cao, V.; Hauschild, M.; Henderson, A.; Humbert, S.; et al. IMPACT World+: A globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 1653–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Inaba, A.; Itsubo, N. Preface. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 2271–2275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. JRC. EDGARv5.0. Available online: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=50_GHG (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  222. CIA. the World Factbook. Available online: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ (accessed on 28 January 2021).
  223. UNEP. Global Trade in Used Vehicles Report. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-trade-used-vehicles-report (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  224. Lenzen, M.; Sun, Y.; Faturay, F.; Ting, Y.; Geschke, A.; Malik, A. The carbon footprint of global tourism. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Available online: https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/15/1577/2011/ (accessed on 2 February 2021).
  226. WHO. Available online: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/households-that-use-solid-fuels-for-cooking-(-) (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  227. WHO. Available online: https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.A995 (accessed on 31 December 2020).
  228. World Bank. International Tourism, Number of Arrivals. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL (accessed on 2 February 2021).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Relating Hydro-Meteorological Variables to Water Table in an Unconfined Aquifer via Fuzzy Linear Regression
Previous
Influence of Biochar Derived Nitrogen on Cadmium Removal by Ryegrass in a Contaminated Soil
Next