Are Existing LCIA Methods Related to Mineral and Metal Resources Relevant for an AESA Approach Applied to the Building Sector? Case Study on the Construction of New Buildings in France

Nada Bendahmane, Natacha Gondran () and Jacques Chevalier
Additional contact information
Nada Bendahmane: Mines Saint-Etienne, CNRS, Univ Jean Monnet, Univ Lumière Lyon 2, Univ Lyon 3 Jean Moulin, ENS Lyon, ENTPE, ENSA Lyon, UMR 5600 EVS, 42023 Saint-Etienne, France
Natacha Gondran: Mines Saint-Etienne, CNRS, Univ Jean Monnet, Univ Lumière Lyon 2, Univ Lyon 3 Jean Moulin, ENS Lyon, ENTPE, ENSA Lyon, UMR 5600 EVS, 42023 Saint-Etienne, France
Jacques Chevalier: Université Paris-Est, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, 24 rue Joseph Fourier, 38400 Saint-Martin-d’Hères, France

Sustainability, 2024, vol. 16, issue 3, 1-17

Abstract: Considering the challenges that mineral and metallic resources represent for the building sector, there is a need to propose decision-support tools to building stakeholders. One of the possibilities could be to integrate an indicator of pressure on mineral resources in an absolute environmental sustainability assessment (AESA) approach, using life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods. This paper will analyze the existing LCIA indicators that can be used to represent the impact on mineral resources of new constructions, with a case study on new buildings in France in 2015. This analysis aims to find out whether the existing LCIA methods dealing with mineral and metallic resources issues are adapted to the specific stakes of the building sector in an AESA approach. The AESA approach considered is the one proposed by Bjørn and Hauschild. Several steps are detailed in this paper. Firstly, bibliographic research was carried out to identify existing LCIA methods related to the mineral resources. Secondly, selection criteria were defined in order to select those LCIA methods relevant for the building sector. Thirdly, the scope of the case study was defined and its inventory analysis was conducted using the Ecoinvent 3.5 database, selecting only the mineral and metallic input flows. Finally, the comparison between the inventory of mineral and metallic flows issued from the inventory analysis and the substances considered in the selected LCIA methods was effected. The results show that none of the existing LCIA methods are compatible with the aim of developing an LCIA indicator for mineral and metallic resources that is compatible with an AESA approach, in particular for the building sector.

Keywords: sustainable building; mineral and metallic resources; life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators; absolute environmental sustainability assessment (AESA) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1031/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1031/ (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:16:y:2024:i:3:p:1031-:d:1326281

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 ().