Towards integrating the ecosystem services cascade framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) cause-effect methodology

Abstract

B. Rugani). Authors' contribution B.R. designed the research work, conceived the methodology, and outlined the article contents. D.M.d.S. and B.W. contributed to the design of the research work and to writing the article; the remaining authors suggested discussion topics, revised the literature, and contributed to writing the article; F.V. and A.L. coordinated the overall initiative. Publisher's Disclaimer: DisclaimerThe views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the organizations to which they belong. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of it authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the state policy of the Life Cycle Initiative, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Although US EPA employees contributed to this article, the research presented was not performed or funded by and was not subject to EPA's quality system requirements. Consequently, the views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent EPA's views or policies.

Reviewing the interface of bioeconomy and ecosystem service research

“…In regard to sustainability assessment of bio-based products and processes , certain scholars have noted that LCA methods fail to capture sustainability issues related to ecosystem services, especially at the land-use level (Rugani et al 2019 ; D’Amato et al 2020 ). This is increasingly important in assessing the sustainability of bioeconomy products and processes, which fundamentally rely on and impact land use.…”

A research agenda on systems approaches to infrastructure

“…A particularly challenging aspect of the impact pathways assessment is the feedback between the environmental damage, which alters ecosystems and consequently impacts both humans and non-humans, and the structure of built environment. Concepts such as the natural capital have been developed to assess the value of ecosystem services provision for people (Costanza et al 1997), however, the link between the direct and indirect impacts assessment, as well as the implications for non-humans is still a scientific and practical challenge (Rugani et al 2019). What is evident, however, is that at a global scale human quality of life measured by indicators such as Human Development Index is directly linked with our ecological footprint (Cumming and von Cramon-Taubadel 2018;Kaklauskas et al 2018).…”

Teaching technosphere safety and environmental culture at a technical university

“…Low, and D. Tan improved the graphical algorithm for determining environmentally efficient ways to convert waste into resources [4], V. Moskvichev reviewed trends in the development of technical systems in terms of reliability, risk analysis, and safety [5], K. Volkart, C. Mutel, and E. Panos assessed the impact of global energy scenarios on the environment and health [6], D. Foo, R. Tan analyze methods for integrating processes to solve various problems related to emissions and the ecological footprint [7]. B. Rugani, D. Souza, and B. Weidema justified the integration of the cascade structure of ecosystem services into the causal methodology for life cycle assessment [8].…”