IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i7p1223-d104495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Support Phosphorus Recycling Policy with Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Case of Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Heng Yi Teah

    (Graduate Program in Sustainability Science—Global Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI), Division of Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 332 Building of Environmental Studies, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa City, Chiba 277-8563, Japan)

  • Motoharu Onuki

    (Graduate Program in Sustainability Science—Global Leadership Initiative (GPSS-GLI), Division of Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 332 Building of Environmental Studies, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa City, Chiba 277-8563, Japan)

Abstract

Producing phosphorus (P) fertilizers with recycled P is desirable for efficient use of P resource. However, the current cost of P recycling facilities in Japan strongly discourages the government from adopting this practice. To expand consideration for a P recycling policy, the concept of social externality was introduced. Social issues, such as the violation of human rights in P mining in the Western Sahara, have been identified in recent studies; nevertheless, a systematic approach towards accountability was lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to support a P recycling policy with a social life cycle assessment (SLCA) by contrasting the social impacts associated with mineral and recycled P fertilizers using the case study of Japan. We developed a framework based on the UNEP-SETAC SLCA Guidelines with a supplementary set of P-specific social indicators. The results showed that the marginal social impact associated with recycled P was much less relative to mineral P; however, even if we factored in the maximum recycling capacity, a mandate of P recycling policy in Japan would not mitigate the impacts significantly relative to the current situation because only 15% of P rocks could be substituted. In short, we showed that a semi-quantitative SLCA framework would be useful to communicate the wide spectrum of social impacts to policymakers.

Suggested Citation

  • Heng Yi Teah & Motoharu Onuki, 2017. "Support Phosphorus Recycling Policy with Social Life Cycle Assessment: A Case of Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:7:p:1223-:d:104495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/7/1223/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/7/1223/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dana Cordell & Stuart White, 2011. "Peak Phosphorus: Clarifying the Key Issues of a Vigorous Debate about Long-Term Phosphorus Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(10), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Ruqun Wu & Dan Yang & Jiquan Chen, 2014. "Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-27, July.
    3. Catherine Benoit-Norris & Deana Aulisio Cavan & Gregory Norris, 2012. "Identifying Social Impacts in Product Supply Chains:Overview and Application of the Social Hotspot Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(9), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Ekener-Petersen, Elisabeth & Höglund, Jonas & Finnveden, Göran, 2014. "Screening potential social impacts of fossil fuels and biofuels for vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 416-426.
    5. Kazuyo Matsubae‐Yokoyama & Hironari Kubo & Kenichi Nakajima & Tetsuya Nagasaka, 2009. "A Material Flow Analysis of Phosphorus in Japan," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(5), pages 687-705, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Louisa Pollok & Sebastian Spierling & Hans-Josef Endres & Ulrike Grote, 2021. "Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-29, September.
    2. Manjengwa, Evelyn Ruvimbo & Dorfling, Christie & Tadie, Margreth, 2023. "Development of a conceptual framework to evaluate factors that affect drivers for stakeholder engagement in mine waste management," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Manuela D’Eusanio & Monica Serreli & Luigia Petti, 2019. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment of a Piece of Jewellery. Emphasis on the Local Community," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-14, September.
    4. Irene Huertas-Valdivia & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo & Fernando E. García-Muiña, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Thomassen, G. & Taelman, S.E. & Dewulf, J., 2022. "Exploring the global and local social sustainability of wind energy technologies: An application of a social impact assessment framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    2. Hannah Karlewski & Annekatrin Lehmann & Klaus Ruhland & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "A Practical Approach for Social Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Industry," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-60, August.
    3. Ming Tang & Huchang Liao & Zhengjun Wan & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Marc A. Rosen, 2018. "Ten Years of Sustainability (2009 to 2018): A Bibliometric Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    4. Chowdhury, Rubel Biswas & Moore, Graham A. & Weatherley, Anthony J. & Arora, Meenakshi, 2014. "A review of recent substance flow analyses of phosphorus to identify priority management areas at different geographical scales," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 213-228.
    5. Irene Huertas-Valdivia & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo & Fernando E. García-Muiña, 2020. "Social Life-Cycle Assessment: A Review by Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Stanley Udochukwu Ofoegbu, 2019. "Technological Challenges of Phosphorus Removal in High-Phosphorus Ores: Sustainability Implications and Possibilities for Greener Ore Processing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-38, November.
    7. Somayeh Rezaei Kalvani & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Ibrahim Kabir Abdullahi, 2021. "Social Consideration in Product Life Cycle for Product Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-22, October.
    8. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Enrica Imbert, 2018. "Social Life Cycle Approach as a Tool for Promoting the Market Uptake of Bio-Based Products from a Consumer Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Andrea E. Ulrich & Ewald Schnug, 2013. "The Modern Phosphorus Sustainability Movement: A Profiling Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(11), pages 1-23, October.
    10. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    11. Vanessa Bach & Markus Berger & Natalia Finogenova & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2017. "Assessing the Availability of Terrestrial Biotic Materials in Product Systems (BIRD)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, January.
    12. Christina Wulf & Jasmin Werker & Christopher Ball & Petra Zapp & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs, 2019. "Review of Sustainability Assessment Approaches Based on Life Cycles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-43, October.
    13. Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Sara González García & Enrica Imbert & Lucía Lijó & María Teresa Moreira & Almona Tani & Valentina Elena Tartiu & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2019. "Transitioning towards the bio‐economy: Assessing the social dimension through a stakeholder lens," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1135-1153, September.
    14. Datu Buyung Agusdinata & Wenjuan Liu & Sinta Sulistyo & Philippe LeBillon & Je'anne Wegner, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 746-759, June.
    15. Jianing Wei & Jixiao Cui & Yinan Xu & Jinna Li & Xinyu Lei & Wangsheng Gao & Yuanquan Chen, 2022. "Social Life Cycle Assessment of Major Staple Grain Crops in China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, April.
    16. Vibeke Grupe Larsen & Valentina Antoniucci & Nicola Tollin & Peter Andreas Sattrup & Krister Jens & Morten Birkved & Tine Holmboe & Giuliano Marella, 2023. "A Methodological Framework to Foster Social Value Creation in Architectural Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-25, January.
    17. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    18. Marek Kopecký & Ladislav Kolář & Petr Konvalina & Otakar Strunecký & Florina Teodorescu & Petr Mráz & Jiří Peterka & Radka Váchalová & Jaroslav Bernas & Petr Bartoš & Feodor Filipov & Daniel Bucur, 2020. "Modified Biochar—A Tool for Wastewater Treatment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-13, October.
    19. Ashton W. Merck & Khara D. Grieger & Alison Deviney & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-10, July.
    20. Anja Hansen & Jörn Budde & Annette Prochnow, 2016. "Resource Usage Strategies and Trade-Offs between Cropland Demand, Fossil Fuel Consumption, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Building Insulation as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-24, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:7:p:1223-:d:104495. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.