4.6 Review

Life cycle assessment of industrial symbiosis: A critical review of relevant reference scenarios

Journal

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages 972-985

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12842

Keywords

allocation; environmental assessment; industrial ecology; scenario analysis; sensitivity analysis; territory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper highlights the methods and parameters used to define and design a reference scenario to be compared with an industrial symbiosis (IS) scenario using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. To this end, a critical review was conducted of 26 peer-reviewed papers using LCA in the field of IS. The analysis focuses on the definition and design of reference scenarios through five cross-analyses to determine correlations between the type and the number of reference scenarios and the type of IS scenarios studied and also some LCA characteristics such as the functional unit, the type of data used, and the use of sensitivity analysis. Results show that the definition of reference scenarios depends mainly on the type of IS scenario considered. For a current IS developed at an industrial scale, the suitable reference scenario is mainly a hypothetical nonsymbiotic reference scenario. For a prospective IS, the suitable reference scenario is mainly a current nonsymbiotic reference scenario. Due to this critical review, the problem of variability of reference scenarios emerges. To resolve it, the authors analyze different reference scenarios or use sensitivity analysis. What is more, territorial aspects are rarely taken into account in the design of reference scenarios. It is clearly a gap for LCA of IS because of the influence of territorial factors. The new research challenge is to include the consideration of territorial aspects to define and design the worst- and best-case reference scenarios to assess strict environmental performances of IS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available