Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
6.8
3.3
Journals
Sustainability
Special Issues
Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment
sustainability-logo
Submit to Sustainability Review for Sustainability Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

► Journal Menu

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser
share announcement

Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section "Resources and Sustainable Utilization".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (28 February 2010) | Viewed by 57598

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Dr. Jo Dewulf

E-Mail Website
Editorial Advisor
Head of the Research Group Sustainable Systems Engineering Group (STEN), Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
Interests: sustainable engineering; clean technology; resource efficiency; Life Cycle Thinking; Thermodynamics
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

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

Prof. Dr. Jo Dewulf
Editorial Advisor

Keywords

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

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

20 pages, 389 KiB  
Article
Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues
by Thomas J. Straka and Patricia A. Layton
Sustainability 2010, 2(2), 604-623; https://doi.org/10.3390/su2020604 - 21 Feb 2010
Cited by 14 | Viewed by 14694
Abstract
Forest sustainability and forest certification are important natural resource management and environmental issues. Forest certification addresses the social and environmental issues in the acquisition of raw materials (e.g., lumber to be used in the building process). Life cycle assessment is a common technique [...] Read more.
Forest sustainability and forest certification are important natural resource management and environmental issues. Forest certification addresses the social and environmental issues in the acquisition of raw materials (e.g., lumber to be used in the building process). Life cycle assessment is a common technique used in the evaluation of forest sustainability issues and forest certification programs. Life cycle assessment is a tool to evaluate multiple issue environmental and some social impacts attributed to a product or process (e.g., wood as a building material). Inputs (like raw material extraction) and outputs (like pollution) are measured over the entire life process, with a goal to minimize negative environmental impacts over the life cycle of a product or process. The relationship between forest certification schemes and life cycle assessment is examined and assessed. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

26 pages, 506 KiB  
Review
Water Footprinting: How to Address Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment?
by Markus Berger and Matthias Finkbeiner
Sustainability 2010, 2(4), 919-944; https://doi.org/10.3390/su2040919 - 5 Apr 2010
Cited by 210 | Viewed by 27143
Abstract
As freshwater is a vital yet often scarce resource, the life cycle assessment community has put great efforts in method development to properly address water use. The International Organization for Standardization has recently even launched a project aiming at creating an international standard [...] Read more.
As freshwater is a vital yet often scarce resource, the life cycle assessment community has put great efforts in method development to properly address water use. The International Organization for Standardization has recently even launched a project aiming at creating an international standard for ‘water footprinting’. This paper provides an overview of a broad range of methods developed to enable accounting and impact assessment of water use. The critical review revealed that methodological scopes differ regarding types of water use accounted for, inclusion of local water scarcity, as well as differentiation between watercourses and quality aspects. As the application of the most advanced methods requires high resolution inventory data, the trade-off between ‘precision’ and ‘applicability’ needs to be addressed in future studies and in the new international standard. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

5 pages, 117 KiB  
Reply
Response to Comments of Ben Gunneberg
by Thomas J. Straka and Patricia A. Layton
Sustainability 2010, 2(8), 2621-2625; https://doi.org/10.3390/su2082621 - 18 Aug 2010
Viewed by 7814
Abstract
An unreferenced statement on page 608 is challenged as being incorrect. FSC and PEFC are competitors and issues on the differences between the programs are often arguable. We do agree that a small portion of the statement could have been more clearly stated, [...] Read more.
An unreferenced statement on page 608 is challenged as being incorrect. FSC and PEFC are competitors and issues on the differences between the programs are often arguable. We do agree that a small portion of the statement could have been more clearly stated, but the intent of the statement was essentially correct. The original article contained 80 references and not every sentence could be referenced. We include 18 additional references below to strengthen and clarify our statement. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)
4 pages, 94 KiB  
Commentary
Comments on ‘Straka, T.J.; Layton, P.A. Natural Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment and Forest Certification and Sustainability Issues. Sustainability 2010, 2, 604–623’
by Ben Gunneberg
Sustainability 2010, 2(8), 2617-2620; https://doi.org/10.3390/su2082617 - 18 Aug 2010
Viewed by 7432
Abstract
Unreferenced statement on page 608: “A fundamental difference between FSC and PEFC is the stakeholders. While FSC was founded mainly by environmental groups, PEFC had strong forest industry and trade groups among its founders. This is one reason FSC is not a member [...] Read more.
Unreferenced statement on page 608: “A fundamental difference between FSC and PEFC is the stakeholders. While FSC was founded mainly by environmental groups, PEFC had strong forest industry and trade groups among its founders. This is one reason FSC is not a member of PEFC. Both the ATFS and SFI are recognized by PEFC as acceptable standards”. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resources Management: Life Cycle Assessment)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop