The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying the Total Environmental Impacts of an Industrial Symbiosis - a Comparison of Process-, Hybrid and Input−Output Life Cycle Assessment
Abstract
Industrial symbiosis, representing resource sharing and byproduct use among colocated firms, is a key concept of industrial ecology. Local co-operation in industrial symbioses can reduce raw material use and waste disposal, but material and energy flows extending outside symbiosis boundaries can cause considerable environmental impacts. These external impacts are often ignored in industrial symbiosis studies. In this study, we compared process, hybrid and input-output life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches in quantifying the overall environmental impacts of a forest industrial symbiosis, situated in Kymenlaakso, Finland. Conclusions from an earlier process-LCA were strengthened by the use of hybrid-LCA as local emissions were found to cause less than half of the global impacts. In some impact categories, the whole impact was caused by supply chain emissions (land use, metal depletion and ozone depletion). The cutoff in process-LCA was found to be less than 25%, except in metal depletion and terrestrial ecotoxicity. Input-output LCA approximated hybrid-LCA results well in most impact categories, but seriously underestimated land use and overestimated terrestrial ecotoxicity. Based on the results we conclude, that input-output based LCA can be used to analyze the global impacts of an industrial symbiosis, but a careful interpretation of the results is necessary in order to understand the influence of aggregation and allocation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
I NDUSTRIAL S YMBIOSIS : Literature and Taxonomy
Chertow, M. R. (2000) · Annual Review of Energy and the Environment · doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.313 · Cited by 1,917
System Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches
Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G. J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Jolliet, O., Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Moriguchi, Y., et al. (2004) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es0263745 · Cited by 1,025
Cited by
Circular economy: The concept and its limitations
Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041 · Cited by 3,961
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A., & Koh, S. C. L. (2017) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015 · Cited by 1,502
Lai, X., Chen, Q., Tang, X., Zhou, Y., Gao, F., Guo, Y., Bhagat, R., & Zheng, Y. (2022) · eTransportation · doi:10.1016/j.etran.2022.100169 · Cited by 566
Domenech, T., & Bahn-Walkowiak, B. (2019) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.001 · Cited by 481
Theoretical contribution of industrial ecology to circular economy
Saavedra, Y. M. B., Iritani, D. R., Pavan, A. L. R., & Ometto, A. R. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.260 · Cited by 369
Energy consumption for water use cycles in different countries: A review
Wakeel, M., Chen, B., Hayat, T., Alsaedi, A., & Ahmad, B. (2016) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.114 · Cited by 312
Boons, F., Spekkink, W., & Mouzakitis, Y. (2011) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.01.003 · Cited by 290
Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction
Densley Tingley, D., & Davison, B. (2012) · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.005 · Cited by 164
Omar, W. M. S. W., Doh, J.-H., Panuwatwanich, K., & Miller, D. (2014) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2013.06.002 · Cited by 139
Liang, S., Zhang, T., & Xu, Y. (2012) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.020 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Mattila, T. J., Pakarinen, S., & Sokka, L.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-04-21
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4309-4314
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2055050065
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
