Consensus-based framework for the impact assessment of natural resource use in life cycle assessment: generalized impact pathways and recommended methods for abiotic resource use
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to establish a consistent framework for assessing the impacts of natural resource use within Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). As part of the outcomes of the UNEP Life Cycle Initiative's GLAM Phase 3 Task Force on Natural Resources, the work defines the safeguard subject, generalized impact pathways applicable across all types of natural resources, and recommended methods for abiotic resource use that aligns with the developed assessment framework for natural resources. Methods An expert consensus was achieved through a structured evaluation of twenty existing methods using ten criteria, including relevance to the defined safeguard subject, consistency with impact pathways, data quality, and compatibility with Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases. The generalized impact pathways were developed to encompass abiotic, biotic and other renewable resources, integrating mechanisms such as dissipation, degradation, and occupation. ResultsThe consensus-building process resulted in the definition of a common safeguard subject for natural resource use: the potential to make use of the instrumental values of natural resources. Generalized impact pathways were established to consistently describe cause-effect mechanisms across different categories of natural resources. The Future Welfare Loss (FWL) model was selected as the recommended approach for assessing mineral and fossil resource use. Characterization factors (CFs) were recalculated using updated 2018 commodity price data for 81 minerals, 3 fossil resources, and 2 energy carriers. The global annual impact of mineral and fossil resource use (using extraction flows as inputs) was estimated at approximately USD 3,483 billion, equivalent to about 4% of the 2018 global GDP. Conclusions While the generalized impact pathways are intended to be broadly applicable across natural resource categories, the operational recommendation and updated characterization factors currently focus on mineral and fossil resource use, whereas only interim recommendations could be identified for water resource use and land use assessment. Further methodological refinement is needed for renewable resources. Finally, we encourage LCI databases developers to improve the coverage of mineral and fossil resource dissipative flows in LCI databases to enhance the characterization of resource dissipation.
Related
- A cloud-native framework for seismic waveform data quality assessment: Performance evaluation under equivalent resource constraints
- The MERCI-Cor Method Recommended for the Environmental Assessment of Galisbay Port (Saint Martin, French West Indies)
- A global consensus life cycle impact assessment method - GLAM: impacts on ecosystem quality
- Towards sustainable catalyst production: A prospective life cycle assessment of resource-efficient Ni-CeO2 scale-up across current and future electricity mixes
- From Hazard to Resource: A Screening‐Level Assessment of Glacial Lake Hydropower Potential and Development Suitability in the Poiqu River Basin, Central Himalaya
BibTeX
@article{motoshita2026consensusbased,
title = {{Consensus-based framework for the impact assessment of natural resource use in life cycle assessment: generalized impact pathways and recommended methods for abiotic resource use}},
author = {Masaharu Motoshita and Ryosuke Yokoi and Titouan Greffe and Olivier Jolliet and Rodrigo Alvarenga and Antoine Beylot and Johannes Drielsma and Tom Huppertz and Manish Kumar and Stephen Northey and Mikołaj Owsianiak and Amandine Valérie Pastor and Charlotte Pradinaud and Stephan Pfister and Rita Schulze},
journal = {International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1007/s11367-026-02733-x},
url = {https://brgm.hal.science/hal-05761384v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Consensus-based framework for the impact assessment of natural resource use in life cycle assessment: generalized impact pathways and recommended methods for abiotic resource use
AU - Masaharu Motoshita
AU - Ryosuke Yokoi
AU - Titouan Greffe
AU - Olivier Jolliet
AU - Rodrigo Alvarenga
AU - Antoine Beylot
AU - Johannes Drielsma
AU - Tom Huppertz
AU - Manish Kumar
AU - Stephen Northey
AU - Mikołaj Owsianiak
AU - Amandine Valérie Pastor
AU - Charlotte Pradinaud
AU - Stephan Pfister
AU - Rita Schulze
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/21
JO - International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
DO - 10.1007/s11367-026-02733-x
UR - https://brgm.hal.science/hal-05761384v1
AB - Purpose This study aimed to establish a consistent framework for assessing the impacts of natural resource use within Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). As part of the outcomes of the UNEP Life Cycle Initiative's GLAM Phase 3 Task Force on Natural Resources, the work defines the safeguard subject, generalized impact pathways applicable across all types of natural resources, and recommended methods for abiotic resource use that aligns with the developed assessment framework for natural resources. Methods An expert consensus was achieved through a structured evaluation of twenty existing methods using ten criteria, including relevance to the defined safeguard subject, consistency with impact pathways, data quality, and compatibility with Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases. The generalized impact pathways were developed to encompass abiotic, biotic and other renewable resources, integrating mechanisms such as dissipation, degradation, and occupation. ResultsThe consensus-building process resulted in the definition of a common safeguard subject for natural resource use: the potential to make use of the instrumental values of natural resources. Generalized impact pathways were established to consistently describe cause-effect mechanisms across different categories of natural resources. The Future Welfare Loss (FWL) model was selected as the recommended approach for assessing mineral and fossil resource use. Characterization factors (CFs) were recalculated using updated 2018 commodity price data for 81 minerals, 3 fossil resources, and 2 energy carriers. The global annual impact of mineral and fossil resource use (using extraction flows as inputs) was estimated at approximately USD 3,483 billion, equivalent to about 4% of the 2018 global GDP. Conclusions While the generalized impact pathways are intended to be broadly applicable across natural resource categories, the operational recommendation and updated characterization factors currently focus on mineral and fossil resource use, whereas only interim recommendations could be identified for water resource use and land use assessment. Further methodological refinement is needed for renewable resources. Finally, we encourage LCI databases developers to improve the coverage of mineral and fossil resource dissipative flows in LCI databases to enhance the characterization of resource dissipation.
SN - 0948-3349
SN - 1614-7502
ER -