% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Wulf:845249,
author = {Wulf, Christina and Werker, Jasmin and Zapp, Petra and
Schreiber, Andrea and Schlör, Holger and Kuckshinrichs,
Wilhelm},
title = {{S}ustainable {D}evelopment {G}oals as a {G}uideline for
{I}ndicator {S}election in {L}ife {C}ycle {S}ustainability
{A}ssessment},
journal = {Procedia CIRP},
volume = {69},
issn = {2212-8271},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2018-02532},
pages = {59 - 65},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) emerged as a
methodology allowing a detailed representation of
technologies in their processes from a life cycle
perspective. To conduct a profound LCSA a plausible
indicator selection is needed. From a Sustainability
perspective, the currently dominant political framework is
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United
Nations. In this paper, LCSA indicators are selected based
on the SDGs, comparing in a first approach the implication
due to the selection based on overall goals and SDG
indicators level. The applicability of this selection is
tested by a case study of electrolytic hydrogen production.
The analysis shows meaningful differences between the
goal-based and the indicator-based assessment. Only the
goal-based indicator set comprises all dimensions of
sustainability.},
cin = {IEK-STE},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013},
pnm = {153 - Assessment of Energy Systems – Addressing Issues of
Energy Efficiency and Energy Security (POF3-153)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-153},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000435141900011},
doi = {10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.144},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/845249},
}