Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Materials: A Comprehensive Analysis of Methodological Asymmetries and Environmental Trade-Offs
持続可能な材料のライフサイクルアセスメント：方法論的非対称性と環境トレードオフの包括的分析 (AI 翻訳)
Makram El Bachawati, Yassine Elias Belarbi, Henri El Zakhem, R. Belarbi
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本レビューは、50以上のバイオベース材料のLCA研究を分析し、方法論的選択（帰属vs.帰結モデリング、生物起源炭素の扱い、土地利用変化、配分ルール）が結果のばらつきを生むことを示した。建築用途では木質材料が温暖化ポテンシャルを30-70%削減するが、バイオプラスチックではILUCや農業投入を考慮すると気候便益が消える可能性がある。環境性能は原料起源ではなく方法論に依存する。
English
This review analyzes over 50 LCAs of bio-based materials, showing that methodological choices (attributional vs. consequential modeling, biogenic carbon timing, LUC/ILUC, allocation) drive variability. Wood reduces GWP by 30-70% in buildings, but bioplastics' climate benefits disappear when ILUC is included. Environmental performance depends on methods, not just bio-based origin.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では、SSBJがサプライチェーン排出量開示を求めており、本レビューの方法論的知見はScope 3算定の精度向上に寄与する。特にバイオマス材料の炭素収支算定はグリーン成長戦略の課題であり、LCAの一貫性確保が重要。
In the global GX context
As ISSB and CSRD mandate robust carbon accounting, this review highlights how LCA methodological choices can lead to vastly different reported impacts for bio-based materials. It provides critical guidance for avoiding greenwashing and improving transparency in climate disclosures.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Methodological asymmetries identified here should guide future LCA harmonization efforts and sensitivity analyses.
🏢実務担当者:Corporate sustainability teams can use these findings to critically evaluate bio-based material claims and avoid misleading emissions reductions.
🏛政策担当者:Regulators setting standards for bio-based product claims should consider the methodological variability documented in this review.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Comparative Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of bio-based materials are highly influenced by methodological choices, so the term “bio-based” does not necessarily imply a low environmental impact. This review analyzes over 50 peer-reviewed LCAs (2010–2024) to quantify how four methodological pillars—(i) attributional versus consequential modeling, (ii) timing and storage of biogenic carbon, (iii) Direct Land-Use Change (LUC) and Indirect Land-Use Change (ILUC), and (iv) allocation in multifunctional systems—drive variability across long-life construction and short-life packaging/composites; adding regionalized perspectives (e.g., water scarcity according to the AWARE initiative, and relevant inventories for the MENA region) and ex-ante LCA guidance aligned with technology readiness levels. Methods included systematic selection from Web of Science/Scopus databases, standardized functional units, system boundaries, impact methods (ReCiPe/EF/TRACI/AWARE), biogenic carbon conventions (GWP100, dynamic/GWPbio), LUC/ILUC handling, allocation rules, and end-of-life scenarios, followed by qualitative meta-synthesis. Results show ~85% of studies used attributional approaches; consequential models typically report higher climate impacts when ILUC is included. In the building applications, bio-based alternatives—particularly wood—reduced cradle-to-critical-state global warming potential (GWP) by 30–70%; a “negative GWP” only emerged when storage balances or dynamic characterization were applied. For bioplastics, climate benefits are context-dependent and can disappear once ILUC and agricultural inputs are considered; acidification and eutrophication frequently increase. We conclude that environmental performance is subject to methodological choices rather than bio-based origin; systematic trade-offs persist between reducing GWP, increasing eutrophication/acidification, and increasing pressure on water/biodiversity.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16071385first seen 2026-06-29 07:32:43
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。