Jan Streeck , André Baumgart , Helmut Haberl , Fridolin Krausmann , Bowen Cai , Tomer Fishman , Maud Lanau , Peter Berrill , Zhi Cao , Sebastiaan Deetman , David Frantz , Volker Krey , Alessio Mastrucci , Alessio Miatto , Stefan Pauliuk , Lola Sylvie Annie Rousseau , Shoshanna Saxe , Danielle Densley Tingley , Gamze Ünlü , Dominik Wiedenhofer
{"title":"量化长寿命产品的材料库存:为可持续资源利用战略提供信息的挑战和改进","authors":"Jan Streeck , André Baumgart , Helmut Haberl , Fridolin Krausmann , Bowen Cai , Tomer Fishman , Maud Lanau , Peter Berrill , Zhi Cao , Sebastiaan Deetman , David Frantz , Volker Krey , Alessio Mastrucci , Alessio Miatto , Stefan Pauliuk , Lola Sylvie Annie Rousseau , Shoshanna Saxe , Danielle Densley Tingley , Gamze Ünlü , Dominik Wiedenhofer","doi":"10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Material stocks in long-lived products require over half of the annual global resource extraction for their construction and maintenance, and lock in energy use through their technical and geospatial characteristics. A thorough understanding of material stocks is therefore essential to inform sustainable resource use strategies. However, despite substantial advances in material stock research in recent decades, their robust quantification remains challenging and bears considerable uncertainties.</div><div>We assess the (dis)agreement of material stock estimates from 32 recent studies across global, national, and urban scales, and propose recommendations for future work. Overall, we observe medium to high divergences between studies estimating the same material stocks. For end-use categories that aggregate multiple material stocks (e.g., buildings), most global-level estimates show divergences within 140 %. At the national level, most estimates for the USA diverge by <210 %, while those for China by <550 %. At the urban level, most estimates for Beijing fall within 90 %, and for Vienna, within 70 %. For low-income countries, non-residential buildings, and individual materials, the differences are often substantially higher, highlighting the need for an improved scientific basis for policy and planning.</div><div>These disparities arise from differences in system boundaries, methodology, data sources, definitions, and lack of data to capture the diversity of material stock types. To robustly inform sustainable resource use strategies, the scientific community and practitioners should systematically assess and report sensitivity and uncertainty, and reduce the latter through transparent documentation, model intercomparisons, consensus and open-access databases, enhanced data collection, and comprehensive quantification of material stocks.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21153,"journal":{"name":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","volume":"221 ","pages":"Article 108324"},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying material stocks in long-lived products: Challenges and improvements for informing sustainable resource use strategies\",\"authors\":\"Jan Streeck , André Baumgart , Helmut Haberl , Fridolin Krausmann , Bowen Cai , Tomer Fishman , Maud Lanau , Peter Berrill , Zhi Cao , Sebastiaan Deetman , David Frantz , Volker Krey , Alessio Mastrucci , Alessio Miatto , Stefan Pauliuk , Lola Sylvie Annie Rousseau , Shoshanna Saxe , Danielle Densley Tingley , Gamze Ünlü , Dominik Wiedenhofer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108324\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Material stocks in long-lived products require over half of the annual global resource extraction for their construction and maintenance, and lock in energy use through their technical and geospatial characteristics. A thorough understanding of material stocks is therefore essential to inform sustainable resource use strategies. However, despite substantial advances in material stock research in recent decades, their robust quantification remains challenging and bears considerable uncertainties.</div><div>We assess the (dis)agreement of material stock estimates from 32 recent studies across global, national, and urban scales, and propose recommendations for future work. Overall, we observe medium to high divergences between studies estimating the same material stocks. For end-use categories that aggregate multiple material stocks (e.g., buildings), most global-level estimates show divergences within 140 %. At the national level, most estimates for the USA diverge by <210 %, while those for China by <550 %. At the urban level, most estimates for Beijing fall within 90 %, and for Vienna, within 70 %. For low-income countries, non-residential buildings, and individual materials, the differences are often substantially higher, highlighting the need for an improved scientific basis for policy and planning.</div><div>These disparities arise from differences in system boundaries, methodology, data sources, definitions, and lack of data to capture the diversity of material stock types. To robustly inform sustainable resource use strategies, the scientific community and practitioners should systematically assess and report sensitivity and uncertainty, and reduce the latter through transparent documentation, model intercomparisons, consensus and open-access databases, enhanced data collection, and comprehensive quantification of material stocks.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resources Conservation and Recycling\",\"volume\":\"221 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108324\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resources Conservation and Recycling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344925002034\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources Conservation and Recycling","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344925002034","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quantifying material stocks in long-lived products: Challenges and improvements for informing sustainable resource use strategies
Material stocks in long-lived products require over half of the annual global resource extraction for their construction and maintenance, and lock in energy use through their technical and geospatial characteristics. A thorough understanding of material stocks is therefore essential to inform sustainable resource use strategies. However, despite substantial advances in material stock research in recent decades, their robust quantification remains challenging and bears considerable uncertainties.
We assess the (dis)agreement of material stock estimates from 32 recent studies across global, national, and urban scales, and propose recommendations for future work. Overall, we observe medium to high divergences between studies estimating the same material stocks. For end-use categories that aggregate multiple material stocks (e.g., buildings), most global-level estimates show divergences within 140 %. At the national level, most estimates for the USA diverge by <210 %, while those for China by <550 %. At the urban level, most estimates for Beijing fall within 90 %, and for Vienna, within 70 %. For low-income countries, non-residential buildings, and individual materials, the differences are often substantially higher, highlighting the need for an improved scientific basis for policy and planning.
These disparities arise from differences in system boundaries, methodology, data sources, definitions, and lack of data to capture the diversity of material stock types. To robustly inform sustainable resource use strategies, the scientific community and practitioners should systematically assess and report sensitivity and uncertainty, and reduce the latter through transparent documentation, model intercomparisons, consensus and open-access databases, enhanced data collection, and comprehensive quantification of material stocks.
期刊介绍:
The journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling welcomes contributions from research, which consider sustainable management and conservation of resources. The journal prioritizes understanding the transformation processes crucial for transitioning toward more sustainable production and consumption systems. It highlights technological, economic, institutional, and policy aspects related to specific resource management practices such as conservation, recycling, and resource substitution, as well as broader strategies like improving resource productivity and restructuring production and consumption patterns.
Contributions may address regional, national, or international scales and can range from individual resources or technologies to entire sectors or systems. Authors are encouraged to explore scientific and methodological issues alongside practical, environmental, and economic implications. However, manuscripts focusing solely on laboratory experiments without discussing their broader implications will not be considered for publication in the journal.