Are LCA Studies on Bulk Mineral Waste Management Suitable for Decision Support? A Critical Review

Christian Dierks, Tabea Hagedorn, Alessio Campitelli, Winfried Bulach and Vanessa Zeller
Additional contact information
Christian Dierks: Chair of Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Institute IWAR, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Franziska-Braun-Strasse 7, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
Tabea Hagedorn: Chair of Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Institute IWAR, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Franziska-Braun-Strasse 7, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
Alessio Campitelli: Chair of Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Institute IWAR, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Franziska-Braun-Strasse 7, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
Winfried Bulach: Oeko-Institut e.V., Rheinstrasse 95, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
Vanessa Zeller: Chair of Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Institute IWAR, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Franziska-Braun-Strasse 7, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 9, 1-27

Abstract: Bulk mineral waste materials are one of the largest waste streams worldwide and their management systems can differ greatly depending on regional conditions. Due to this variation, the decision-making context is of particular importance when studying environmental impacts of mineral waste management systems with life cycle assessment (LCA). We follow the premise that LCA results—if applied in practice—are always used in an improvement (i.e., decision-making) context. But how suitable are existing LCA studies on bulk mineral waste management for decision support? To answer this question, we quantitatively and qualitatively assess 57 peer-reviewed bulk mineral waste management LCA studies against 47 criteria. The results show inadequacies regarding decision support along all LCA phases. Common shortcomings are insufficient attention to the specific decision-making context, lack of a consequential perspective, liberal use of allocation and limited justification thereof, missing justifications for excluded impact categories, inadequately discussed limitations, and incomplete documentation. We identified the following significant issues for bulk mineral waste management systems: transportation, the potential leaching of heavy metals, second-order substitution effects, and the choice to include or exclude avoided landfilling and embodied impacts. When applicable, we provide recommendations for improvement and point to best practice examples.

Keywords: life cycle assessment; LCA; mineral waste management; CDW; slag; decision support; critical review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4686/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4686/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4686-:d:541390

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().