Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Materials: A Comprehensive Analysis of Methodological Asymmetries and Environmental Trade-Offs

2Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

El Bachawati, M., Belarbi, Y. E., El Zakhem, H., & Belarbi, R. (2026, April 1). Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Materials: A Comprehensive Analysis of Methodological Asymmetries and Environmental Trade-Offs. Buildings. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16071385

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free