Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Full lifecycle-based sustainability evaluation for remanufacturing

ecosystem services: A novel perspective of technology-ecology synergy
Shixiong Xing a, b, Xugang Zhang a, c, *, Zhigang Jiang a, c, Qingshan Gong d, Yan Wang e
a
Key Laboratory of Metallurgical Equipment and Control Technology, Ministry of Education, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430081, China
b
School of Electromechanical and Automobile Engineering, Huanggang Normal University, Huanggang, 438000, China
c
Hubei Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission and Manufacturing Engineering, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430081, China
d
College of Mechanical Engineering, Hubei University of Automotive Technology, Shiyan, 442002, China
e
School of Architecture, Technology and Engineering, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Kathleen Aviso Ecosystems play a very important role in the sustainable development of remanufacturing. Research has often
focused on the sustainability of remanufacturing systems from the aspect of general technological activities, for
Keywords: which there is a lack of an in-depth consideration of ecological services. This may lead to an imbalanced
Remanufacturing development of ecosystems. This paper proposes a full lifecycle-based sustainability evaluation model for
Sustainable development
remanufacturing ecosystem services (ESs) from the novel perspective of technology-ecology synergy. Firstly, by
Ecosystem service
analyzing the coupling effect of technical activities and ecological services, a technology-ecology synergy in a
TES-LCA
lifecycle assessment (TES-LCA) computing model is established to quantify the sustainability of remanufacturing
ESs. Secondly, the supply and allocation of ESs considering multiple users are proposed and addressed. Thirdly,
regional differences in ESs are investigated. The sustainability of ESs is then analyzed and calculated on a multi-
spatial scale. Finally, the feasibility of the proposed model is verified by performing a case analysis of the
remanufacturing of a spindle of a machine tool that is to be adopted in two regions. The case study results
showed that the air quality control service in both two regions is unsustainable; however, the water supply
service is sustainable. The proposed model can provide data support for governmental policy makers and
businesses to formulate relevant policies to maintain a balanced development of ecosystems.

1. Introduction sustainable development of remanufacturing. Although remanufactur­

The development of science and technology has provided us with
great convenience, however, it also increases concerns about environ­
mental issues worldwide (Jiang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021).
Remanufacturing, as a kind of energy-saving, environmental protection,
and low-cost alternative to manufacturing, has been widely and suc­
cessfully implemented in many industries (Liu et al., 2022).
An ecosystem provides essential resources for remanufacturing and
absorbs emissions from the remanufacturing processes, which are
transformed back into the inputs needed for remanufacturing through
the unique abilities of the ecosystem. Thus, remanufacturing and the
associated ecosystem are mutually beneficial to a certain extent. The
premise of implementing long-term remanufacturing is to maintain the
dynamic balance (sustainability) of an ecosystem to achieve the
ing offers many cost, social, and environmental benefits, it is worth
noting that remanufacturing is not environmental burden free, and there
still exist some negative impacts on ecosystem, which contribute to the
destruction and imbalance of ecosystems. Research has generally
considered advantages of reducing the resource consumption and
pollutant emissions of remanufacturing systems benefiting from rema­
nufacturing technology (Jiang et al., 2019; Lahmar et al., 2022; Zhang
et al., 2019a, 2020b, 2022). However, these advantages have not
significantly improved the sustainability of ecosystems. Instead, they
may lead to an imbalanced development between remanufacturing and
the associated ecosystem and cause irreversible damage to the ecolog­
ical environment. Therefore, more efforts should be made to coordinate
technological activities and ecosystems, to present a more harmonious
development of natural and human activities (Bakshi et al., 2015).

* Corresponding author. Key Laboratory of Metallurgical Equipment and Control Technology, Ministry of Education, Wuhan University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, 430081, China.
E-mail address: whkjdxzxg@wust.edu.cn (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135187
Received 2 March 2022; Received in revised form 9 November 2022; Accepted 11 November 2022
Available online 16 November 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Xing et al.
Enabling multiple lifecycles of a product is the main purpose of
remanufacturing, which means that remanufacturing often involves a
product’s lifecycle. A product’s first lifecycle refers to the initial pro­
duction of corresponding materials, followed by a series of lifecycle
phases, such as usage, until the end-of-life phase, and remanufacturing
builds a bridge between the first lifecycle to subsequent multiple life­
cycles (Zhang et al., 2020c). Therefore, evaluating remanufacturing
systems from multiple life-cycle perspectives can provide effective
guidance for remanufacturing activities.
In summary, this paper aims to establish a full lifecycle-based sus­
tainability evaluation model for remanufacturing ESs from the
perspective of the technology-ecology synergy (TES-LCA), to effectively
prevent unreasonable remanufacturing activities that may cause irre­
versible damages to ecosystems. The TES-LCA computing framework
and model are established considering the synergistic effect of tech­
nology and ecology, the impacts of multi-user service, and a multi-
spatial scale. Regional differences are calculated using the proposed
TES-LCA computing model. This methodology can determine whether a
series of remanufacturing activities are sustainable at the local ecolog­
ical service level, and provide policy guidance for governments and
remanufacturers to mitigate the irreversible damages to local ecosys­
tems originating from the overwhelming demands for resources, energy,
and purification.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 is a literature
review; Section 3 describes the computing framework of the remanu­
facturing TES-LCA service system for a full lifecycle; Section 4 in­
troduces the area and service information of the ecosystem service in the
model; and Sections 5 and 6 cover the application analysis and
conclusion, respectively.
2. Literature review
This section reviews the relevant research progress from three as­
pects, namely ecological services, sustainability assessment, and life­
cycle assessment (LCA) for remanufacturing and outlines the novelty of
this article.
2.1. Ecological service assessment
Technical means and methods have been used to develop industries.
In addition, design and innovation are carried out during this process to
improve the comprehensive performance of industrial products. In
combination with ecological characteristics, human activities are per­
formed within the scope of ecological security (Bakshi et al., 2015). The
environmental and human impacts of production activities can be
reduced through the appropriate management of resource use and
pollution emissions (Bakshi et al., 2015). Existing research has indicated
that 80% of an ecological system is degraded (Villamagna et al., 2013)
during its service, and the collapse of biological species revealed that
human activity has adverse impacts beyond the limit that the ecosystem
can withstand (Rockstrom et al., 2009). Thus, it is paramount to
combine the actual ecological state of affairs in engineering design with
production activities to reduce the damage on ecology through proper
design and management of products (Bakshi et al., 2015).
ES assessments should be established at multiple levels (Arrow et al.,
2000; Comello et al., 2012; Goldman et al., 2007; Richard, 2000), with
services typically described as flow (Villamagna et al., 2013), budget
(Van Oudenhoven et al., 2012), and land management tools (Schulte
et al., 2014). ESs can be classified according to the international prin­
ciples of ES classification and other relevant measures. Therefore, they
can be effectively used to model relevant demands for services (Bakshi
et al., 2015). In addition, ecosystems require regulatory measures, in­
formation collection and accurate quantification, which are quite diffi­
cult to achieve. These regulatory services regulate climate, purify water,
and prevent natural disasters (Zhang et al., 2010). Air pollution, food
security, and water scarcity are global sustainability challenges that are
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187
closely linked in every dimension. In this article, space (“spatial inci­
dence”), time (“temporal incidence”), and the level of ecological orga­
nization (from local to global) are the three characteristics used to
describe synergies (Hernandez et al., 2019).
In summary, ecosystems play an important role in sustaining human
activities and contribute to human well-being. Often, the parameter
used to quantify natural services is economic costs that can be easily
quantified and applied to policies and businesses. However, a few of the
existing approaches consider the sustainability of ESs. The relationship
among sustainable manufacturing and technology, ecology, and techno-
ecology is shown in Fig. 1, which shows the connection among the
subjects. However, the supply and service capacity of ecosystems has not
been addressed in existing research, and there is a gap between the
existing methodologies adopted and the demands for holistically eval­
uating ESs and designing sustainable systems (Abson et al., 2014). To
accurately demonstrate the relationship between ESs and remanu­
facturing, it is essential to establish a corresponding computing frame­
work and structure to quantify the relationship between the two factors.
Hence, this paper proposes a novel TES-LCA model to comprehensively
evaluate the input and output of an ecosystem and remanufacturing
system from the aspect of LCA. The research results can measure the
supply and service capacity of an ecosystem and enable informed
decision-making for remanufacturers and policy makers.
2.2. Sustainability assessment for remanufacturing systems
Some researchers have explored the sustainability of remanufactur­
ing in recent years, and certain research progress has been made. Among
them, sustainability assessments of hybrid manufacturing and remanu­
facturing production systems were conducted using a series of quanti­
tative methods (Alegoz et al., 2021; Assid et al., 2021; Lahmar et al.,
2022; Sarkar and Bhuniya, 2022a). Although research results have
provided relevant management suggestions for hybrid production sys­
tems, their evaluation indicators are usually limited to economic and
environmental impacts. Considering the high uncertainties in the de­
mand and supply for innovative green products due to the rapid ad­
vancements in technology, Sarkar et al. (2022) developed three models
based on different types of production to deal with manufacturing
strategies for two different types of innovative green products and
proposed a novel concept of green innovation through remanufacturing
to improve waste management. Zhang et al. (2019) proposed a sus­
tainability evaluation method for multi-objective remanufacturing sys­
tem synthesis based on energy, economy, and the environment. A series
of emergy-based sustainability assessment models have been developed
for the manufacturing, remanufacturing and outsourcing of machining
resources (Cai et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2018a, 2018b) based on economic,
environmental, resource, and energy indicators.
Existing research on remanufacturability assessments (RAs) for
remanufacturing is similar to those on the sustainability assessments for
manufacturing and remanufacturing. The remanufacturability of used
parts, a unique attribute describing the remanufacturing potential, is
usually determined before physical remanufacturing (Thomas et al.,
2018). Wang et al. (2020) proposed a quantitative model of the rema­
nufacturing critical threshold based on the qualitative relationship be­
tween the fatigue life and remanufacturing requirements, and two
remanufacturability evaluation indices and functions were established
based on the existing remanufacturing evaluation system. Liu et al.
(2019) proposed an RA model based on multi-process routes and further
explored the application of RA in production decision-making routes. To
address the challenges of product and process complexities, customer
requirements, and uncertainties of used products, Omwando et al.
(2018) proposed an RA model based on a bi-level computing approach
for used products. Considering the substantial impacts of product design
on the product remanufacturability and product end-of-life recovery
strategy, some researchers proposed a series of remanufacturability
assessment models based on comprehensive CAD information (Fang
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

Fig. 1. Relationships between sustainability and technology, ecology, and techno-ecology.

et al., 2014, 2015; Ong et al., 2016), which include a bill of materials,
assembly and mating features, and dimensional and tolerance features.
The above researches provide effective suggestions for re­
manufacturers and governments to formulate remanufacturing strate­
gies, and they lay a solid theoretical foundation for further research on
the sustainability of remanufacturing systems. Some evaluation in­
dicators that have been applied in the above-mentioned literatures are
listed in Table 1. As can be seen in the table, many scholars have fully
recognized the importance of environmental indicators for the sustain­
ability of remanufacturing systems. However, since the carrying ca­
pacity(CC) of ecosystem varies from place to place, only assessing the
sustainability of the remanufacturing system from the aspect of
pollutant emissions does not mean that the emission level is within the
tolerance range of the ecosystem. To maintain the sustainable devel­
opment of an ecosystem, both the pollutant emission of the remanu­
facturing system and the CC of the ecosystem should be considered.
Hence, this paper proposed a full lifecycle-based sustainability assess­
ment model from the perspective of technology-ecology synergy to fill
this research gap.
2.3. Lifecycle assessment for remanufacturing
LCAs reveal the influence of human activities on an ecological sys­
tem, including the overuse of natural resources and the collapse of
biological species. These highlight the limitation of the serviceability of
ecosystems (Geyer et al., 2013). However, these methods only consid­
ered the need for ecological services, but their applicability and feasi­
bility were not considered for remanufacturing (Bakshi et al., 2015).
With respect to remanufacturing processes, LCAs have been used to
evaluate the impacts of energy, environments, and economy, establish
the relationship among these three impacts, and conduct the compre­
hensive assessments (Zhang et al., 2020c).
In many lifecycle-oriented approaches, information about ESs is
often obtained using readily available methods (Zhang et al., 2010).
Explicitly including ecosystems in LCAs can avoid having to select
substitutes that rely on scarce ESs. In addition, it can enhance sustain­
ability not only by reducing impacts but also by repairing and protecting
damaged ecosystems and increasing the diversity of ESs as much as
possible (Liu et al., 2018c). This highlights the role of ecosystems in
LCAs, and the net quantification of specific ESs can guide assessments of
the absolute sustainability of the environment and thus improve
ecosystem conservation strategies. However, existing LCAs only provide
indicators of relative sustainability, as they compare options considering
only resource and pollution aspects (Bjørn et al., 2015), and they usually
apply to scenarios that have little impact on the CC of the environment.
Hence, wrong decisions are often made because the capacity of nature to
deal with some of the unintended adverse impacts is limited, increasing
the burden on the already degrading ESs (Urban and Bakshi, 2009).
Therefore, the ecological CC (Bakshi et al., 2015) must be considered. It
is paramount to research the role of ESs to understand its implications
for the exploration of absolute environmental sustainability. It was
suggested to include the impact category and related indicators of ESs in
LCAs (Othoniel et al., 2016). For this to happen, it is necessary to
develop a complete causal chain to describe the impacts of a specific
material and energy flow considering the regional differences related to
environmental interventions on the ES supply.

Table 1
Indicators for remanufacturability and sustainability assessment.
References Indicators

Economy Environment Technology Resource Energy Quality

(Sarkar et al., 2022b) ✓

Lahmar et al. (2022)
Alegoz et al. (2021)
Assid et al. (2021)
(Sarkar et al., 2022b)
Zhang et al. (2019a)
Cai et al. (2020)
Liu et al. (2018a)
Liu et al. (2018b)
Thomas et al. (2018)
Wang et al. (2020)
Liu et al. (2019)
Thomas et al. (2018)
Fang et al. (2014)
Ong et al. (2016)
Fang et al. (2015)
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓

3
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

To solve the above-mentioned problems, this paper proposes a intervention matrix; parameters such as i11 , i12 , i21 and i22 represent the
computing framework of TES-LCA to model technologies and ecosys­ consumption and conversion of the ES (similar to T, the oxygen
tems, based on which adjustments are made to avoid the complexities of consumed and carbon dioxide emitted by a specific technical activity
running ESs at multiple spatial scales. can be regarded as i11 and i21 , respectively, both of which can be
regarded as the ES burden). The positive and negative signs of each item
3. The computational framework of remanufacturing ecosystem in I and T represent the output (+) and input (− ), respectively, in the
services for full lifecycle assessment production process of the unit product. To be precise, when resources
are needed, the ES needs to be configured or allocated accordingly. m is
We defined some of the model parameters as follows: the vector of proportionality factor, which can be regarded as multi­
A Management matrix pliers for technological modules and can be obtained by solving balance
C Characterization factor matrix equations. f is the final demand vector of the related technological
CC Carrying capacity modules that depends on social demands. Once the social demands are
CF Characterization factor
determined and the final demand of the technological module is known,
D Demand of the ecosystem
dr Demand for ecosystem service r Eq. (1) can be transformed to calculate scale factor m, where m = T− 1f. L
E Ecosystem matrix can be considered as the product lifecycle requirements and impacts on
ESs Ecosystem services ES. In a specified process network, resource use (“-”) and emission (“+”)
f Final requirements vector for the technical system information are represented in it. The lifecycle impact can be calculated
fh Final demand vector for the ecological system
using Eq. (2).
G Technological modules
H Ecological modules
p = CL=CIT− 1f (2)
I Environmental intervention matrix
i Serial number of the environmental intervention stream
In Eq (2), C represents the characteristic matrix, in which each row
j Number of the location
l Lifecycle inventory vector represents different impact categories, such as water consumption and
LCA Life cycle assessment acidification, and each column represents the characterization factor
m Vector of the scaling factor for the technical aspect (CF) related to impact categories. The specific CF depends on the char­
mh Vector of the scaling factor for the ecological aspect acteristics of impact categories. p represents the lifecycle impact of
n Activity numbering
p Midpoint indicator, environmental impacts vector
technological activities, which can be aggregated in case of the need to
r Ecosystem service numbering obtain an endpoint indicator or to determine a single impact. (Liu et al.,
RA Remanufacturability assessment 2018a).
S Supply of the ecosystem
sr Supply for ecosystem service R
T Technological matrix 3.2. Technological and ecological synergies in remanufacturing processes
TES Technology-ecological synergy for lifecycle assessment
vr Sustainability metric (dimensionless)
W Allocation weighting factor matrix
Y Identity matrix Bakshi et al. (2015) suggested that ecological sustainability can be
z Numbering of the grid cells determined using Eq. (3), in which i, j, and r are the limits of ESs, that is,
Ψ Aggregation matrix, aggregating various flows the sustainability of the i-th system for the r-th ES at the j-th scale:
Γ Aggregation matrix, aggregating various modules
Attributes selected at assignment time Si,j,r − Di,j,r
(3)
π
Vi,j,r =
β Ecosystems with public ownership properties Di,j,r

Vi,j,r is the sustainability of ESs; a negative value means that it is

3.1. Computational form of the original lifecycle assessment unsustainable. S and D represents the supply and demand of the
ecosystem, respectively.
The traditional LCA model can be written as Eq. (1), which was The TES aims to encourage human activities to be conducted within
rewritten based on a study by Heijungs and Suh (2002). ecologically sustainable limits and corresponding changes to be made to
{ satisfy this requirement, which can be improved by two aspects that
Tm = f
(1) consider technology and ecology: by either improving the efficiency of
Im = f technology to reduce the demand for ESs or by implementing the pres­
[ ] ervation and restoration of ecological systems to increase the supply
t11 − t12
As shown in Fig. 2 and Eq. (1), T = represents the capacity.
− t21 t22
technology matrix, parameters such as t11 , t12 , t21 and t22 represent the
change processes of the technical feature flows during technical activ­ 3.3. Computational framework for remanufacturing ecosystem services
ities (for example, treat the grinding process as a technical activity, the
roughness of a part will decrease as a result of the grinding process, and Technology and ecology, being the two components of the TES-LCA,
the roughness of the part before and after grinding can be regarded as t21 must be considered in the sustainability assessment of remanufacturing
[ ] ecological services. However, because of the complex supply relation­
− i11 − i12
and t11 , respectively). I = is the environmental ship between technological activities and ecological services, and the
i21 i22

Fig. 2. Framework of traditional LCA.

4
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

problems of multi-user allocation, the sustainability evaluation of the and mh are treated as known variables here, because mh can be treated
remanufacturing ecological services is very difficult. Hence, this paper as 1 when it includes all available ecosystem flows in the selected area.
proposes a series of assessment methods to address these problems. Thus, Eq. (4) can be transformed into Eq. (6).
[ ][ ] [ ] [ ]
T 0 m f A
3.3.1. Basic computational structure = − mh (6)
I Y fh 0 E
The TES-LCA framework involves two components, namely tech­
nology and ecology. As shown in the scenarios in Fig. 3, the analysis In Eq. (6), Y represents the identity matrix. According to the above
includes a technical module (G) and an ecological module (H), where assumption that mh = 1, as long as the final demand f is known, then Eq.
the ecological module considered is related to the corresponding tech­ (6) can be used to obtain m and fh. Given that matrix A is a square
nical activities (Liu et al., 2018a). matrix, the left-hand side of Eq. (6) can be transformed into a square
An ecosystem can be regarded as a dual module, which has an input matrix because the identity matrix and zero matrix can be transformed
module for the waste discharged from technical activities and an output appropriately (Hanes et al., 2015).
module for ESs utilized for technical activities. These internal linkages After the calculation of fh, Vr can be obtained according to the
can be integrated into the computing framework. The basic calculation specified fhr, as shown in Eq. (7).
frame of TES-LCA is expressed by Eq. (4), which adds the ecological
f hr
module based on the traditional calculation structure of the LCA. Vr = − (7)
ir ⋅m
[ ][ ] [ ]
T A m f
= (4) Eq. (7) can be used to measure whether the CC of the ES exceed its
I E mh fh
limit, and relevant derivation processes are shown in Eqs. (8) -(11). Eq.
The variables involved in the above equation are illustrated in Fig. 3. (8) is derived from Eq. (4).
Due to the inclusion of the ecological module, two submatrices are
[ ] Im + Emh = fh (8)
e11 − e12
introduced. E = is the “ecosystem matrix”, representing
− e21 − e22 To evaluate the sustainability of a specific ecological service, Eq. (9)
the flows in ecological module H. To coordinate technology with ecol­ is obtained.
ogy, services and products (denoted by E) are provided for technical
activities through the interactions within the ecosystems. A is the ir•m + er•mh = fhr (9)
“technological intervention” or “management” matrix and shows the where ir and er represent row r in matrices I and E, respectively,
flow of economic products between technological activities and the denoting the supply and demand of the r-th ES for all technical activities.
ecosystem. The subscript “h” represents the ecosystem level. For Hence, in terms of the r-th ES, ir•m and er•mh are equivalent to sr and dr
example, mh represents the ecosystem scale factor vector and fh repre­ respectively. When considering resource usage, ir is negative (with a “-”
sents the ecosystem final net demand vector. Eq. (4) can be rewritten as sign), er is positive (with a “+” sign), and ir is positive in Eq. (1).
Eq. (5). Therefore, the calculation method of Vr can be inferred and is shown as
Tgh mgh = f gh (5) Eq. (10).
[ ] [ ] [ ] sr − dr er ⋅mh + ir ⋅m f hr
In Eq. (5), Tgh =
T A
, mgh =
m
and fgh =
f
; subscript gh Vr = = =− (10)
I E mh fh dr − ir ⋅m ir ⋅m
indicates the technical and ecological system. Hence, Tgh is the “techno- When considering pollution emissions, ir is positive (with a “+”
ecological” matrix. Since ecological modules have the same activity sign), and er is negative (with a “-” sign) which is the same as the above
network as technological modules, Eq. (5) has the same composition as derivation. Therefore, Vr can be calculated using Eq. (11).
Eq. (1).
This article establishes a comprehensive network including tech­ Vr =
sr − dr − er ⋅mh − ir ⋅m
= =−
f hr
(11)
nology and ecology, as shown in Fig. 4. The curved arrows show the dr ir ⋅m ir ⋅m
residue flow from the integrated network; the red arrows are the net
impact of the technology after considering the ecosystem’s capabilities; 3.3.2. Allocation accounting of ecosystem services for multi-user
the green arrows represent the extra ES, which may be used by other When ESs are available to multiple users, they should be properly
technological activities that are not presently included in the network. allocated. For such a system, resources and their corresponding emis­
In the TES-LCA, determining the net intervention (A) of a technical sions should be identified, and then the corresponding ESs and flows
system is the main focus, before which the maximum mitigation ca­ should be allocated among the activities involved in producing the
pacity of the ecosystem needs to be considered. For the above reasons, f product. There are generally two ways to allocate the corresponding

Fig. 3. TES-LCA framework.

5
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

Fig. 4. TES-LCA network.

services and products of an ecosystem among multiple users, as follows:
● Proportional allocation
Within a given area, an ES is divided into private and common
ecological services, which is allocated to all technical activities, and the
allocating rules are based on the characteristics of the ecological service.
terms of the n-th activity. If the ES is provided locally by more than one
module, such modules shall be allocated one by one as described above,
in which case Eq. (12) is also applicable.
For the allocation avoidance, ESs are treated as a whole system, and
the total supply of the remanufacturing ES in its service domain should
be clarified. Mathematically, under the condition of public ownership,
the distribution of the r-th ES can be expressed as Eq. (13).

● Allocation avoidance
̃ = S∗ ⋅W
S (13)
⎡ ⎤
This approach avoids the allocation of ESs among multiple users and s∗ s∗12 ⋯ s∗1n
⎢ 11 ⎥
aggregates supply and demand based on the characteristics of a selected ⎢ s∗ s∗22 ⋯ s∗22 ⎥
where, S∗ = ⎢ 21
⎢ ⎥
specific area. ⎥, in which s∗rn represents the entire
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋯ ⋮ ⎥
For proportional allocation, E1, E2, …, and En are set as local eco­ ⎣ ⎦
s∗r1 s∗r2 ⋯ s∗rn
systems that are privately owned by activities T1, …, Tn. For the r-th ES,
the supplied service provided by each ecosystem site is denoted as s1, …, supply of the r-th ES, and the supplied region is the region where the n-th
sr. srnβ means that the r-th ES is common (denoted by β) in the service activity is located. ̃
S and W are consistent with the definitions of the
domain, which can be understood as a public ES, and the object of the corresponding element in Eq. (12).
supply is the n-th technical activity. Such ES should be allocated in In the above two scenarios, Eq. (7) can be used to calculate the
consideration of the characteristics of the activities contained. The corresponding sustainability index within the scope of the service
specific allocation process is to split srnβ between multiple users, and the domain, and the sustainability index obtained accordingly can accu­
proportion of allocation depends on the selected attribute. Both srn and rately indicate whether the activities are sustainable within the service
srnβ serve the same technical activities, that is, they supply the same domain.
ecological service. Therefore, the total supply of an ES in a given region
is calculated by combining srn and srnβ. From a mathematical perspec­ 4. Regional and service information of remanufacturing
tive, the supply of the r-th ES under private ownership can be expressed ecosystem services for full lifecycle assessment
as Eq. (12).
The capacity of remanufacturing ESs varies from region to region,
̃ = S + Sβ ⋅w
S (12)
such as the water resource being different between deserts and oceans.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ Therefore, to obtain accurate results, it is necessary to consider the in­
s̃11 s̃12 … s̃ 1n s11 s12 ⋯ s1n
⎢ s̃ s̃ … s̃ ⎥ ⎢ s21 s22 ⋯ s2n ⎥ fluence of regional differences on the sustainability assessment of
21 22 2n ⎥
in which ̃ S = ⎢ , S = ⎢ ⎥, S =
remanufacturing ESs which are discussed in this section.
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ ⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ β
s̃
r1 s̃ … s̃ sr1 sr2 ⋯ srn
⎡ ⎤r2 rn
⎡ ⎤
s11β s12β ⋯ s1nβ w11 w12 ⋯ w1n 4.1. Regional remanufacturing for full lifecycle assessment
⎢ s21β s22β ⋯ s2nβ ⎥
⎥, and W ¼ ⎢ w21 w22 ⋯ w2n ⎥. The “⋅ ” in Eq.
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ ⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ Different geographical regions have different spatial forms, which
sr1β sr2β ⋯ srnβ wr1 wr2 ⋯ wrn
result in a difference in ecological services. Therefore, the computation
(12) suggests element-wise multiplication between matrices. If these
structure of the LCA has been regionalized and generally refers to
activities are in the same service domain (considering the r-th ES), then
multiple regions. In the setting shown in Fig. 5 (2 regions): T =
sr1β = sr2β = … = srnβ . Moreover, assuming that these activities are the [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
T11 T12 I 0 f C1 0
only consumers in the respective service (r-th ES) domain, and when , I = 11 , f = 1 , and C = .
T21 T22 0 I22 f2 0 C2
assigning ESs between activities according to the selected attribute π,
When regional factors are considered, for technology matrix T, T11
the weighting factor for each activity assignment can be calculated using
and T22 represent the flow of economic products within the region,
wrn = ∑πnπ . s̃rn can be interpreted as the total supply of the r-th ES in while T12 and T21 represent the flow of economic products between the
n

regions in this context. For intervention matrix I, under the

6
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

Fig. 5. Regionalization of traditional LCA framework.

regionalization condition, I11 and I22 represent the environmental 4.2.1. Calculation of regional variation
intervention matrixes determined by the respective characteristics of Considering the spatial characteristics and technology flow between
Regions 1 and 2, and the difference between these two mainly depends regions, a regionalized computing structure can be established.
on technical characteristics. Similarly, the final requirements of Regions Considering z regions, the matrix in Eq. (5) can be transformed into Eq.
1 and 2 can be represented by f1 and f2, respectively. For the feature (17).
matrix (C), when considering the problem of regional differences, C1 and ⎡ ⎤
T11 A11 T12 A12 ⋯ ⋯ T1z A1z
C2 in the matrix represent the spatial characteristics of Regions 1 and 2, ⎢ ⎥
respectively, and the difference between C1 and C2 depends on the ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ I11 E11 I12 E12 ⋯ ⋯ I1z E1z ⎥
Tgh,11 Tgh,12 ⋯ Tgh,1z ⎢ T21 A21 T22 A22 ⋯ ⋯ T2z A2z ⎥
ecological characteristics of their respective regions (Yang and Heijungs, ⎢ ⎥
⎢ Tgh,21 Tgh,22 ⋯ Tgh,2z ⎥ ⎢ I21 E21 I22 E22 ⋯ ⋯ I2z E2z ⎥
2017). Tgh = ⎢
⎣ ⋮
⎥=⎢ ⎥
⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ ⎢ ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
⎥
To meet the final demands (i.e., f), Eq. (2) can be transformed by Tgh,z1 Tgh,2z ⋯ Tgh,zz ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
employing Eqs. (14)–(16). ⎣ Tz1 Az1 Tz2 Az2 ⋯ ⋯ Tzz Azz ⎦
[ ] [ ]− 1 [ ] Iz1 Ez1 Iz2 Ez2 ⋯ ⋯ Izz Ezz
m1 T T12 f1
= 11 (14) ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
m2 T21 T22 f2 m1 f1
⎢ mh1 ⎥ ⎢ fh1 ⎥
[ ][ ] ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥
I11 0 m1 mgh,1 ⎢ m2 ⎥ fgh,1 ⎢ f2 ⎥
L= (15) ⎢ ⎥
⎢ mgh,2 ⎥ ⎢ mh2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ fgh,2 ⎥ ⎢ fh2 ⎥
0 I22 m2
mgh = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⋮ ⎦ = ⎢ ⋮ ⎥, f gh = ⎣ ⋮ ⎦ = ⎢ ⋮ ⎥ (17)
[ ] ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
C1 0 mgh,z ⎢ ⋮ ⎥ fgh,3 ⎢ ⋮ ⎥
p= L (16) ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
0 C2 ⎣ mz ⎦ ⎣ fz ⎦
mhz fhz
Regionalization research has been widely studied, and regional dif­
ferences can be modeled as specific CFs in specific locations (Mutel and On-diagonal elements Tgh,zz can be interpreted as the interactive
Hellweg, 2009), and a computational structure related to this has been relationship between technological activities and the ecosystem within
proposed (Mutel et al., 2011). A CF with spatial characteristics has been Region Z, while other elements represent the interaction relationship
proposed according to the influence category of the existing area. In between the two within the region. Economic products only flow within
addition, the development and improvement of geographic information a region, and there is no regional problem; thus, the submatrix of the
systems also provide a convenient channel for regional research and the non-diagonal matrix contains 0 values. mgh and fgh define the technical
establishment of the spatial model. and ecological scale factors and final requirements for each region,
respectively. As mentioned above, herein, fz and mhz are assumed to be
known, and the scale factor (mz) and the net intervention of the tech­
4.2. Technology-ecology synergies of remanufacturing for regionalized nical system (fhz) are to be calculated, on the premise that the maximum
lifecycle assessment adaptive capacity of the ecosystem is considered. Therefore, Eq. (17) can
be transformed by Eq. (18).
Since the consideration of regional differences increases the
complexity of the sustainability evaluation of remanufacturing ecolog­
ical services, this article establishes a new computational framework to
fit ecological service calculations that are region specific.

7
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
T11 0 T12 0 ⋯ ⋯ T1z 0 m1 f1
⎢ I11 − Y I12 0 ⋯ ⋯ I1z 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ fh1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ T21 0 T22 0 ⋯ ⋯ T2z 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ m2 ⎥ ⎢ f2 ⎥
⎢ I21 0 I22 − Y ⋯ ⋯ I2z 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ fh2 ⎥ = ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮ ⎥
⎣ Tz1 0 Tz2 0 ⋯ ⋯ Tzz 0 ⎦⎣ mz ⎦ ⎣ fz ⎦
Iz1 0 Iz2 0 ⋯ ⋯ Izz − Y fhz 0
⎡ ⎤
A11 A12 ⋯ A1z
⎢ E11 E12 ⋯ E1z ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎡ ⎤
⎢ A21 A22 ⋯ A2z ⎥
⎢ ⎥ mh1
⎢ E21 E22 ⋯ ⎥⎢
E2z ⎥⎢ mh2 ⎥
− ⎢
⎢ ⋮
⎥ (18)
⎢ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥ ⎣
⎥ ⋮
⎦
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⎥
⋮ ⎥ mhz
⎢
⎣ Az1 Az2 ⋯ Azz ⎦
Ez1 Ez2 ⋯ Ezz

The allocation method proposed in Section 3.3.2 is also applicable to

multi-regions. It is worth noting that when calculating absolute envi­
ronmental sustainability, it is necessary to consider spatial and regional
differences, because different ESs correspond to different service do­
mains (Bakshi et al., 2015), which have not been considered by others.

4.2.2. Service accounting of multi-spatial scale

Generally, on a larger scale, small-scale ES information is typically
aggregated to represent large-scale ES information, which is similar to
the aggregation of technical data to complete the life-cycle inventory
database. However, this aggregation is facing serious challenges because
ecological resources vary greatly in characteristics. During the process of
aggregation, if not carefully implemented, it is very likely to lead to
wrong results. Therefore, in the process of integration, information loss
is a common phenomenon (Zhang et al., 2010). Furthermore, during the
actual polymerization process, the properties displayed by natural re­
sources, such as electrical conductivity, heat resistance, hardness,
strength, and appearance which are highly attractive as human prefer­ Fig. 6. Transformation analysis of ES in multi-space scale.
ences, cannot be ignored. Because there are many properties of natural
resources, it is impossible to completely aggregate them. Ideally, a single determine local sustainability. Because the service domain of an ES is
or small group of resources is examined item by item and aggregated broader than the grid cell, absolute sustainability can be evaluated
(Cleveland et al., 2000). directly. To achieve this, the process of aggregation is required.
The proposed computing structure can be applied considering the To enhance its generality, it is assumed that the interactions of
local, global and regionalized multi-spatial scales to interpret multiple technology and ecology among grid cells and within the grids can be
ESs with service nodes. Processing LCA data from the average produc­ derived by some methods, such as tracking supply chains, environ­
tion activities usually involves a rugged hypothesis; thus, the data is not mental transport, and fate models, after which the flow of components
regional. To derive relatively scientific results, using an average figure at between and within the mesh cells and the interference of the internal
a coarse level and employing breakdown data at a finer level is desirable. environment of the mesh cells shown in Fig. 6 are determined. Aggre­
However, in the case that activities are not relevant at a finer level and gating a grid cell means aggregating the activities contained within the
are only rough estimates, data at a coarser level can be aggregated or grid cell to represent the total production activity, which can certainly
used at a finer level. be achieved in the form of an aggregation matrix, and the calculation
Similarly, the ES of multi-spatial scale service domains can also be method is as Eq. (19).
considered. Global ecosystems can undoubtedly be divided into grid
units. Under this partition, we can assume that these grid cells are at
∗
T = Ψ ⋅Tgh ⋅Γ (19)
their current level. Three scenarios are considered as shown in Fig. 6. gh

Situation 1. Assume that the selected grid cell is greater than the
serving cell of the ES. In this state, sustainable development perfor­
mance depends on effective evaluation rather than the average serving
size. As a result, the sustainability conclusions obtained using the
average serving size are often poor and cannot be used. Therefore, the
grid cells need to be further decomposed to match the size of the service
domain, which is situation 2.
Situation 2. This sets the grid cell size to be equal to the service
domain size. In this case, each grid cell is treated as a service domain,
each of which contains various technical activities. fh in each grid cell,
which is regarded as a service domain, can be calculated using Eq. (6);
thus, its corresponding sustainability index can be calculated using Eq.
(7). The sustainability indicators calculated in this case are absolute.
Situation 3. Set the specifications of the grid cell to be smaller than
the size of the service domain. This can be achieved through Vr to
In Eq. (19), Ψ andΓ are aggregating matrices. The difference is that in
each grid cell, the former aggregates rows while the latter aggregates
columns. The asterisk represents the aggregation of the service domain.
Cells can be aggregated to represent the overall technology and
ecosystem at the service scale employing the corresponding matrix
operation. The specific form of the matrix is determined by the prop­
erties of the r-th ES, and strictly speaking, its closeness to the Tgh grid
determines its form. The convergence in Eq. (19) can be used to calculate
the regional index of ESs, which allows for the calculation of absolute
environmental sustainability.
5. Application analysis of methods
To verify the feasibility of the full lifecycle-based sustainability
evaluation, the application analysis of the remanufacturing of failed

8
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

machine tools is conducted, and some interesting findings are discussed 5.2. Implication and results
in this section.
In this case study, cleaning and inspection are regarded as one
5.1. Research object and background technological process, similarly, repairing and retesting are treated as
another technological process for practical reasons, and each is defined
Spindles are one of the most important components of computer as technical module G. In the ecosystem where the four processes are
numerical control milling/turning machine tools because their quality located, trees and grass are taken as components in the ecosystem,
directly affects the processing efficiency and workpiece quality. How­ defined as ecological module H. The relationship between technological
ever, during the actual operation of machine tools, failure of the spindle module G and ecological module H is shown in Fig. 8, and with the help
inevitably occurs under the alternating load of bending and torsion, of Guangzhou Machine Tool Works Co., Ltd, the information flow of the
which in turn affects the operation quality of the entire machine tool. resource usage and generation is also shown in Fig. 8. It is important to
Remanufacturing is undertaken to repair the failed machine tool spindle note that there are spatial differences between regions (e.g., between
to an as-new condition. This paper takes the remanufacturing processes regions 1 and 2, both in terms of technology and ecosystem). In addition,
of the C6132A1 machine tool spindle used at China Guangzhou Machine the data list for each module is indicated in Fig. 8.
Tool Works Co., Ltd. as the case study, and with the help of the machine According to the traditional LCA, previous studies took technology as
tool company, corresponding data were collected. the key research object and only considered the technical system, such
Fig. 7 shows the flow path of spindle remanufacturing, which mainly as T11 and T12. The precision of the spindle after cleaning and inspection
includes the six technology processes (cleaning, inspection, repairing, processes is 0.5 when consuming 0.5 kg of standard coal and emitting 1
etc.). In the case study the four critical processes, namely cleaning, in­ kg of SO2. The repairing and retesting processes increase the precision of
spection, repairing, and retesting are considered. The purpose of spindle the spindle from 0.5 to 0.6 when 1 kg of standard coal and emitting 2 kg
remanufacturing is to restore the function of the defective cylinder of SO2. The main impact on the ecological environment was considered
considering these four remanufacturing processes. Each process requires in terms of SO2. In this study, the acidification potential of SO2 and the
energy, which is mainly embodied in the process. For instance, energy is respiration effect of vegetation were mainly considered. The CFs of the
consumed during cleaning when using a cleaning agent (such as gaso­ two were 1.0 kg SO2 eq/kg and 0.061 kg PM2.5 eq/kg, respectively (Bare,
line, diesel oil, electricity, and water) and during the consumption of 2011). The water consumption potential can be represented by specific
electricity. The energy consumption during the processes of remanu­ H2O flow, the CF of which is 1 eq/m3 (Huijbregts et al., 2017). If the final
facturing generates emissions. Herein, only SO2 emissions are consid­ requirement of precision of the spindle is 0.8 and the total impact on the
ered. In this context, energy consumption and SO2 emissions have an ecosystem during spindle remanufacturing is quantified for Region 1,
impact on ecosystems. To be specific, the ecological system needs to using Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), we obtain the following.
provide energy for remanufacturing processes, absorb SO2, and produce [ ]− 1 [ ] [ ] [ ][ ] [ ]
H2O. m=T− 1 f =
0.5 − 0.5 0
=
1.33
,Im=
− 0.5 − 1 1.33
=
− 1.99
During remanufacturing processes, energy consumption does not 0 0.6 0.8 1.33 1 2 1.33 3.99
simply add various forms of energy (such as gasoline, diesel and elec­
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
tricity) to the system; thus, the convenience of calculation, there should 0 1 [ ] 3.99
− 1.99
be a unified standard for the conversion of various forms of energy p = CL = ⎣ 1 0⎦ = ⎣ − 1.99 ⎦
3.99
consumption to the standard coal consumption. 0.061 0 − 0.24

Vector p indicates the main effects of product lifecycle processes on

water and air. In addition, for Region 1, Eq. (6) can be used to obtain the
following.

Fig. 7. Framework for energy consumption and environmental impact of spindle remanufacturing process.

9
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

Fig. 8. Technology and ecosystem for the case study.

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
0.5 − 0.5 0 0 0 0 m1 for water supply. Assignment can be made according to Eq. (12), with
[
⎢
][ ] ⎢ 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ m2 ⎥
⎥ ⎢
⎥ the assignment of attributes been arbitrarily selected. In the ecological
T 0 m ⎢
=⎢
1 0 − 1 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎢
⎥⎢ fhS1 ⎥
⎥ module, the water supply service is only provided by trees, while the air
I − Y fh ⎢− 0.5 0 0 − 1 0 ⎥ ⎢
0 ⎥⎢ fhH1 ⎥ quality control service is provided by both trees and grass; thus, the
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦⎣ fhS2 ⎦
0 2 0 0 − 1 water supply allocated is only combined with water supply E111 and E121
0 − 1 0 0 0 − 1 f of the tree module. According to the actual situation of this case, the air
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤hH2
0 0 0 0 0 ⎡ ⎤ conditioning ability of trees and grasses is different, therefore, the
⎢ 0.8 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥
[ ] [ ] ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ 1 ecological module should be further divided into trees and grasses. The
f A ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ − 0.6 − 0.3 0 0 ⎥⎢⎥ ⎥
mh = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢1⎥
=
0
−
E ⎢ 0 ⎥ − ⎢ 0.5 − 0.4 0 0 ⎥ ⎣1⎦ allocated ES matrix S
̃ can be obtained using Eq. (12).
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 − 0.8 − 0.4 ⎦ 1
0 0 0 0.6 − 0.3

̃ = S + Sβ ⋅ W
S
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
− 0.6 − 0.3 0 0 − 4 − 4 0 0 0.53 0.28 0 0
⎢ 0.5 − 0.4 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0.6 0.6 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢
=⎣ ⎥+⎢ ⎥⋅⎢ ⎥
0 0 − 0.5 − 0.4 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 − 8 − 8⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0.48 0.32 ⎦
0 0 0.6 − ⎡0.3 0 0 2 2 ⎤0 0 1 0
− 6.72 − 0.82 0 0
⎢ 1.42 − 0.23 0 0 ⎥
=⎢⎣ 0
⎥
0 − 12.34 − 2.96 ⎦
0 0 3.56 − 0.34

From Eq. (18), fh can be calculated as follows. The sustainability indicators for each service in the water supply and
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ air control services can then be calculated using Eq. (7).
m1 1.33
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ As mentioned above, the spatial differences between technology and
[ ] ⎢ m2 ⎥ [ ]− 1 {[ ] [ ] } ⎢ 1.33 ⎥ ecology cannot be ignored. Herein we refer to regions 1 and 2 to
m ⎢ fhS1 ⎥ T 0 f A ⎢ 0.43 ⎥
fh
⎢
=⎢ ⎥
⎥= I Y − mh = ⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥ consider the connections between regions. Therefore, the regionalized
⎢ fhH1 ⎥ 0 E ⎢ − 0.57 ⎥
⎣ fhS2 ⎦ ⎣ 1.47 ⎦ parameters can be calculated using Eqs. (14) -(16).
fhH2 − 1.03 ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
[ ]− 1 [ ] 0.5 − 0.5 0 0 0 − 0.4
Substituting the above values into Eq. (7) gives a number that can be m=
T11 T12 f1
=⎢
⎢ 0 0.6 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎥⎢ 0.8 ⎥ = ⎢ 0.48 ⎥
⎥
⎣ 0 0.5 − 0.5 ⎦⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ − 0.4 ⎦
used to determine the sustainability of each activity. T21 T22 f2 0
In this case (Fig. 7), for Region 1, air and water have corresponding 0 0 0 0.6 0.8 0.48
service domains, and the ecosystem where T11 and T12 are located can be
regarded as two sub-domains. We assume that 4 kg of SO2 and 8 kg of
SO2 are allocated for air quality and 0.6 L and 2 L of water are allocated

10
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
[ ] [ ][ ] 1 2 0 0 − 0.4 0.56 ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ − 0.5 f1 A11 A12 [
L1 I11 0 m1 ⎢ − 1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎥⎢ 0.48 ⎥ = ⎢ − 0.28 ⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢ E11 E12 ⎥ mh1
]
= =⎣
L2 0 I22 m2 0 0 0.8 1.5 ⎦⎣ − 0.4 ⎦ ⎣ 0.4 ⎦ RHS = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ f2 ⎦ −
⎢ ⎥
⎣ A21 A22 ⎦ mh2
0 0 − 0.4 − 1 0.48 − 0.32
0 E21 E22
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 ⎡ ⎤ 0.56 ⎢ 0.8 ⎥ ⎢ 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎥⎡ ⎤
[ ] [ ][ ] ⎢ 1 0 0 0 ⎥ − 0.28 ⎢ − 0.28 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ − 19.06 − 3.78 0 0 ⎥
p1 C1 0 L1 ⎢ 0.061 0 0 0⎥ ⎢ 0.56 ⎥ ⎢ − 0.01 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ 1
= =⎢
⎢ 0
⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ 4.98 − 0.57 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎥⎢ 1 ⎥
p2 0 C2 L2 ⎢ 0 0 1⎥ ⎣
⎥ − 0.32
⎦ ⎢ 0.4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ =⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢ 0 ⎥− ⎢ 0
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦
⎥ 1
0 1 0 0.4 − 0.32 ⎦ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢ 0.8 ⎥ ⎢ 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎥ 1
0 0 0.061 0 − 0.01 ⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 − 20.82 − 4.92 ⎦
0 0 0 5.15 − 0.35
To take regional differences into account, in this case (Fig. 7), an
extra condition related to Region 2 is necessary, similar to that for Re­ [m11 m12 fh1S fh1H m21 m22 fh2S fh2H]T can be obtained by multiplying
gion 1, the supply of ecological modules E21 and E22 in Region 2 needed both sides of this equation by the inverse of the left-hand side square
to be considered, and the area of both modules is assumed to be 0.1 ha. matrix. [fh1H fh2H]T = [8.41 7.87]T represents the net water consumption
In addition, considering regional spatial differences, the water supply intervention of each body of water on the premise that the maximum
service capacities of Regions 1 and 2 are different. However, the air service capacity has been provided by the ecosystem. [m11 mT12] and
control service capacities of the two regions can be combined to repre­ [m21 m22]T are the scaling factors of the technological modules in the
sent the total air control service, in which case, additional information two regions, calculated to be [1.33 1.33]T and [1.33 1.33]T,
about air control service would need to be introduced. For example, the respectively.
capacities of air control service and water service in Region 2 are 9 kg of Based on the net water consumption intervention obtained above,
SO2/ha and 4 L of H2O/ha, respectively; thus, the 0.1-ha ecological the sustainability index for each water area can be calculated using Eq.
module stations E21 and E22 are 0.9 kg of SO2 and 0.4 L of H2O, as shown (7).
in Fig. 7 at E21. The ecological module stations of trees and grass are
fh1H 8.41
assigned as 0.6 + 0.3 = 0.9 kg SO2. We assumed that the corresponding V1H = − =− [ ] = 4.22 > 0
i1H ⋅m1 1.33
service domains, such as water supply service and air control service, [ − 0.5 − 0.1 ]
1.33
supply 0.9 kg of SO2 and 0.2 L of H2O, 12.4 kg of SO2 and 2.8 L of H2O to
T21 and T22 in Region 2, respectively, for air quality regulation and fh2H 7.87
water supply. Partition ecosystem matrix ̃ S can be calculated according V2H = −
i2H ⋅m2
=− [
1.33
] = 4.23 > 0
to Eq. (12). It should be emphasized that the sustainability evaluation of [ − 0.4 − 0.1 ]
1.33
ESs should be based on the corresponding service domains, that is, the
sustainability evaluation should be conducted within specific service If the water supply allocated to the two areas meets the requirements
domains. Therefore, based on Eq. (18), the regionalized techno-ecology of the technical activities and additional water supplies are not required,
matrix is derived as below. the water supply systems of the two regions are sustainable, which can
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ also be inferred from their respective positive Vr. The water supply
T11 0 T12 0 m1 service capacity and air control service capacity of each region differ,
⎢ I11 − Y I12 0 ⎥⎢ f h1 ⎥
⎥ ⎢
LHS = ⎢ ⎥ considering the spatial differences. The two areas have two different
⎣ T21 0 T22 0 ⎦⎣ m2 ⎦
water supplies; therefore, the activities undertaken in the two regions
I21 0 I22 − Y f h2
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ should be allocated from the public lands of a particular watershed. In
0.5 − 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 m11
⎢ 0 ⎥⎢ m12 ⎥ addition, since the air quality control service capabilities are the same
0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0
⎢
⎢ 1 2 − 1 0 0 0 0
⎥⎢
0 ⎥⎢
⎥
⎥ for both regions, all activities should be allocated from the same public
⎢ ⎥⎢ fh1S ⎥ land within the corresponding air quality control service area.
⎢ − 0.5 1 0 − 1 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ fh1H ⎥
=⎢ ⎢ 0
⎥⎢ ⎥
Based on the actual situation of the case in Fig. 7, the aggregation
⎢ 0 0 0 0.5 − 0.5 0 0 ⎥⎢
⎥⎢ m21 ⎥
⎥
⎢ 0
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 ⎥⎢ m22 ⎥
⎥⎢ ⎥ step should be performed to obtain the absolute environmental sus­
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0.8 1.5 − 1 0 ⎦⎣ fh2S ⎦ tainability indicator of the air quality control service. Because the air
0 0 0 0 − 0.4 1 0 − 1 fh2H quality control service domain includes Regions 1 and 2, the aggregation
can be operated using Eq. (19).

⎡ ⎤
[ ] Y1 0
Y1 0 Y2 0 ⎢ 0 Yh1 ⎥
Tgh ∗ = Ψ ⋅ Tgh ⋅ Γ = ⋅ Tgh ⋅ ⎢
⎣ Y2
⎥
0 Yh1 0 Yh2 0 ⎦
0 Yh2
⎡ ⎤
[ ] 1 − 1 0 0
T11 + T12 + T21 + T22 A11 + A12 + A21 + A22 ⎢ 0 1.2 0 0 ⎥
= ⎢
=⎣ ⎥
I11 + I12 + I21 + I22 E11 + E12 + E21 + E22 1.8 3.5 − 39.88 − 8.7 ⎦
− 0.9 2 10.13 − 0.92

11
S. Xing et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187

Table 2 were − 1.60 and − 2.04 respectively, both are negative values, indicating
The uncertainties of the sensitivity analysis. that the service is not sustainable within the service domain.
Total uncertainties Essential uncertainties Abbreviation
5.3. Sensitivity analysis
Final demand for precision Final demand for precision FD

The enhancement degree of the The enhancement degree of the EP

precision by remanufacturing
The consumption of coal
The emissions of SO2
The ability of trees to absorb
SO2
The ability of trees to supply
H2O
The ability of glasses to absorb
SO2
The ability of glasses to
consume SO2
precision by remanufacturing
The service capacity of trees
The service capacity of glasses
A sensitivity analysis was performed to obtain the key drivers of
ecological sustainability. The total uncertainties of the proposed eval­
uation model are shown in the first column of Table 2. However, because
of the correlation of some of these uncertainties, four essential un­
ST
certainties have been chosen and are shown in the second column of
Table 2. Finally, a sensitivity analysis for these essential uncertainties in
Region 1 is conducted, and the analysis results are shown in Fig. 9 (Note,
SG in Fig. 9, ST1 and ST2 represent the service capacity of trees in service
regions 1 and 2, respectively; and SG1 and SG2 represent the service
capacity of glasses in service regions 1 and 2, respectively). The per­
centage change in water supply sustainability is significantly correlated
with the FD and EP because the increase in these two factors led to an
increase in energy consumption and SO2 emissions. However, percent­
age changes in ST and SG have little impact on water supply sustain­
ability because the remanufacturing activities in Region 1 have access to
a large number of public services, and are thus less dependent on
ecological services in the region. In summary, the results show that the
proposed evaluation model is sensitive to FD and EP in Region 1, which
means reasonably decreasing FD and EP values is an effective way to
improve the sustainability of water supply ecological services.

5.4. Discussion

The results of the application analysis show that the ecological ser­
vice is sustainable in the water supply but not in the air quality control
within these two regions. Hence, the local government should consider
developing stricter policies to limit the emissions in these regions, and
reduce technological activities with high emissions or transfer them to
Fig. 9. The results of sensitivity analysis for essential uncertainties. other areas that have stronger ecological tolerance. Furthermore, the
unsustainability of air quality control services is also partially due to the
After the aggregation, T∗gh reached the level for air quality control low ecological capacity of both two regions; therefore, it is necessary to
services. Based on the above results and then applying Eq. (6), the strengthen environmental protection and improve the CC of the
following is obtained. ecological environment (e.g., by planting more trees).
⎡ ⎤ This article mainly expounds on the relationship between ESs and
⎡ ⎤⎢ m∗11 ⎥ ⎡ ⎤ technological activities, and clearly illustrates the synergy between
1 − 1 0 0 0 0 ⎢⎢ m∗ ⎥
⎥ 0 technology and ecology. By establishing the corresponding model and
⎢ 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎥⎢ ∗ ⎥ ⎢ 0.8 ⎥
⎢ 12 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ computing framework based on the traditional LCA, the TES-LCA pro­
⎢ − 0.9 0 − 1 0 0 0 ⎥⎢f ⎥ ⎢
⎥⎢ hH1 ⎥ = ⎢ 0 ⎥ −
⎥
⎢
⎢ 1.8 posed for the study of remanufacturing ES for full LCAs can quantify the
0 0 − 1 0 0 ⎥⎢ f∗ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢
⎣ 0
⎥⎢ hs1 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ absolute sustainability of ES which is a breakthrough compared to the
− 2 0 0 − 1 0 ⎦⎢ ∗ ⎥
⎢ fhH
⎣ 0 ⎦
0 3.5 0 0 0 − 1 ⎣ ∗ ⎦
⎢
⎥
2 ⎥
0 previous relative sustainability. It is a new method for evaluating sus­
fhs2 tainability, and with it, sustainability can be evaluated more accurately.
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ In addition, the distribution of ESs for multi-users can enable the
0 0 0 0 1 effective use of ecosystems, create a reasonable distribution, and achieve
⎢
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥⎢ 1 ⎥
⎥⎢ ⎥ fairness and justice, which will not only ensure the normal operation of
⎢ − 19.06 − 3.78 0 0 ⎥ ⎥⎢ 1 ⎥ fh* can be obtained,
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ 4.98 multi-user production activities but also maintain the balance of eco­
− 0.57 0 0 ⎥⎢ 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ systems. The calculation of ESs considers the specific region and other
⎣ 0 0 − 20.82 − 4.92 ⎦⎣ 1 ⎦
0 0 5.15 − 0.35 1 actual situations, which shows that the same ESs may have different
[ ∗ ] performances and impacts in different regions. Multi-spatial service
m1 , m2 ∗ , fhH1 ∗ , fhs1 ∗ , fhH2 ∗ , fhs2 ∗ =
accounting confirms these deviations in absolute sustainability at
[ 0.66, 0.66, − 23.44, 5.61, − 27.07, 7.13 ], that is,
[ ] different spatial scales, and the scale of ESs can be adjusted according to
fhs1 ∗ fhs2 ∗ = [ 5.61 7.13 ] Sustainability indicators for air quality
the actual situation, such as aggregation and dispersion, to obtain ab­
control services are available based on Eq. (7).
solute sustainability.
5.61 The computational structure of TES-LCA does not only capture the
Vs 1 = − [ ] = − 1.60 < 0
0.66 interaction between technology and ecosystem but also provides in­
[ 1.8 3.5 ]
0.66 sights into absolute sustainability, which can therefore be considered in
lifecycles (Liu et al., 2018a). Furthermore, as the name suggests,
7.13 regional TES-LCA can model the interrelationship between technology
Vs 2 = − [ ] = − 2.04 < 0
0.66 and ecology in different regions and within regions, and then calculate
[ 1.8 3.5 ]
0.66 the process efficiency, ecological CC, regional CF, and operation scale of
ESs in each region. Meanwhile, the technology-ecological synergy in the
The final calculated index values Vr∗ for the air quality control service
TES-LCA method for LCA is modeled to weigh and coordinate

12
S. Xing et al.
ecosystems to quantify the absolute sustainability of the ecology that
considers the restoration of the ecosystem accordingly, thus providing
new conditions for ecosystem transactions (Liu and Bakshi, 2019).
Through the application and analysis of the case, the proposed model
and computational structure in this study are suitable for assessing the
absolute sustainability of ESs. Compared with the previous studies, this
article has two remarkable advantages. First, it focuses on ecological
protection, for which the resultant sustainability of ESs is the core,
rather than only modeling the impact of technical activities on ecology.
Second, based on the quantification of sustainability, factors such as
area, service domain, and assessing absolute sustainability are consid­
ered, which makes the evaluation more accurate.
Compared with existing research (Liu et al., 2018c), this paper
comprehensively considered the factors of regional difference and
multi-spatial scale, making the sustainability indicator of ecological
services more comprehensive and objective and improving the conno­
tation and denotation of the TES-LCA framework. To the government
policy makers, the proposed TES-LCA framework can provide insights
for proper policy suggestions tailored to local conditions, thereby
effectively promoting local sustainable development.
Different from previous research that considered reducing pollutant
emissions as the only way to protect the environment, this paper
considered a balanced development of technological activities and
ecosystems, and the case study results identified the directions for sus­
tainable development. First, because the ecological CC differs region­
ally, the formulation of governmental policies should consider the
requirements of the local ecosystem, instead of applying uniform stan­
dards across the country, so as to effectively protect the ecosystem from
damage. Second, an ecosystem in a region has multiple ecological ser­
vices (such as water supply service and air quality control service), and
the corresponding service capacity is different; thus, the government can
reasonably configure technological activities to make full use of abun­
dant local ecological services and avoid excessive consumption of scarce
ecological service, to achieve win-win outcomes for economic devel­
opment and ecological sustainability.
6. Conclusion
This paper proposes a full lifecycle-based sustainability assessment
model for remanufacturing ESs from the novel perspective of
technology-ecology synergy, which aims to determine whether a series
of remanufacturing activities are sustainable at the local ecological
service level. Different from the traditional LCA computational model, in
this article, the ecosystem is included in the LCA computational model,
to provide quantifiable results to maintain the dynamic balance of the
ecosystem and sustainable production. To improve the accuracy of the
model, multi-user allocation and multi-region service are considered.
The feasibility of the proposed model is verified by a case study of the
remanufacturing of C6132A1 machine tool spindles, of which the
analysis results showed that the ecological service is sustainable in water
supply but not in air quality control within the two case study regions.
From the analysis results, we can derive some policy suggestions.
Regional differences significantly influence the development and
implication of cleaner production technologies. The ecological tolerance
capacity will change with the changes in the ecological condition and
the form of ecological services, cleaner production technologies are
more suitably developed in some areas with poor ecological tolerance,
and necessary specific adjustments should be made according to the
characteristics of local ecological services, so as to make full use of local
ecological services on the premise of protecting ecological balance. The
TES-LCA model can test whether the localized cleaner production
technology exceeds the local ecological capacity and provide directions
for improvement.
Finally, studies should be conducted in the future to explore the TES-
LCA model and promote its efficiency and feasibility. For a variety of
large-scale ecological service assessments, standard measure and
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187
statistical methods for complex ecological services should be analyzed to
increase the accuracy and universality of the evaluation model, and the
assessment efficiency could be improved significantly using appropriate
software. In addition, to achieve long-term sustainable development,
further exploration of the relationship between technological activities
and ESs maybe is essential to reduce the demands on the ecosystem or
enhance the service capacity of ecosystems. Furthermore, an open
database of ESs could increase the reusability of data to reduce the cost
of this evaluation, which allows any appraisal institution or individual to
access and upload ES data.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Shixiong Xing: Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – original
draft, Formal analysis. Xugang Zhang: Conceptualization, Supervision,
Methodology. Zhigang Jiang: Conceptualization, Supervision. Qing­
shan Gong: Conceptualization, Supervision. Yan Wang: Conceptuali­
zation, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
This research is supported by the National Natural Science Founda­
tion of China (Grant No. 51605347, 52075396).
References
Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgartner, S., et al., 2014. Ecosystem services as a
boundary object for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 103, 29–37.
Alegoz, M., Kaya, O., Bayindir, Z.P., 2021. A comparison of pure manufacturing and
hybrid manufacturing–remanufacturing systems under carbon tax policy. Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 294 (1), 161–173.
Arrow, K., Daily, G., Dasgupta, P., et al., 2000. Managing ecosystem resources. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 34 (8), 1401–1406.
Assid, M., Gharbi, A., Hajji, A., 2021. Production planning and control of unreliable
hybrid manufacturing-remanufacturing systems with quality-based categorization of
returns. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 (312), 127800.
Bakshi, B.R., Ziv, G., Lepech, M.D., 2015. Techno-ecological synergy: a framework for
sustainable engineering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 1752–1760.
Bare, J., 2011. Traci 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other
environmental impacts 2.0. Clean. Technol. Environ. 13 (5), 687–696.
Bjørn, A., Diamond, M., Owsianiak, M., Verzat, B., Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Strengthening
the link between lifecycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to
support development within planetary boundaries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (11),
6370–6371.
Cai, W., Liu, C., Jia, S., et al., 2020. An emergy-based sustainability evaluation method
for outsourcing machining resources. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118849.
Cleveland, C., Kaufmann, R., Stern, D., 2000. Aggregation and the role of energy in the
economy. Ecol. Econ. 32, 301–317.
Comello, S., Lepech, M., Schwegler, B., 2012. Project-level assessment of environmental
impact: ecosystem services approach to sustainable management and development.
J. Manag. Eng. 28 (1), 5–12.
Fang, H.C., Ong, S.K., Nee, A.Y.C., 2014. Product remanufacturability assessment based
on design information. Procedia CIRP 15, 195–200.
Fang, H.C., Ong, S.K., Nee, A.Y.C., 2015. Product remanufacturability assessment and
implementation based on design features. Procedia CIRP 26, 571–576.
Geyer, R., Stoms, D., Kallaos, J., 2013. Spatially-explicit lifecycle assessment of sun-to-
wheels transportation pathways in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2),
1170–1176.
Goldman, R.L., Thompson, B.H., Daily, G.C., 2007. Institutional incentives for managing
the landscape: inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services.
Special section - ecosystem services and agriculture ecosystem services and
agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2), 333–343.
Hanes, R.J., Cruze, N.B., Goel, P.K., Bakshi, B.R., 2015. Allocation games: addressing the
ill-posed nature of allocation in life-cycle inventories. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (13),
7996–8003.
S. Xing et al.
Heijungs, R., Suh, S., 2002. The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment.
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Hernandez, R.R., Armstrong, A., Burney, J., et al., 2019. Techno–ecological synergies of
solar energy for global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2 (7), 560–568.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., et al., 2017. ReCiPe2016: a
harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 138–147.
Jiang, Z., Ding, Z., Zhang, H., et al., 2019. Data-driven ecological performance
evaluation for remanufacturing process. Energy Convers. Manag. 198, 111844.
Jiang, X., Tian, Z., Liu, W., et al., 2022. An energy-efficient method of laser
remanufacturing process. Sustain. Energy. Techn. 52, 102201.
Lahmar, H., Dahane, M., Mouss, N.K., et al., 2022. Production planning optimization in a
sustainable hybrid manufacturing remanufacturing production system. Procedia
Comput. Sci. 200, 1244–1253.
Liu, X., Bakshi, B.R., 2019. Ecosystem services in lifecycle assessment while encouraging
techno-ecological synergies. J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (2), 347–360.
Liu, C., Cai, W., Jia, S., et al., 2018a. Emergy-based evaluation and improvement for
sustainable manufacturing systems considering resource efficiency and environment
performance. Energy Convers. Manag. 177, 176–189.
Liu, X., Ziv, G., Bakshi, B.R., 2018b. Ecosystem services in lifecycle assessment - Part 2:
adaptations to regional and service shed information. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 772–780.
Liu, X., Ziv, G., Bakshi, B.R., 2018c. Ecosystem services in lifecycle assessment - Part 1: a
computational framework. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 314–322.
Liu, Q., Shang, Z., Ding, K., et al., 2019. Multi-process routes based remanufacturability
assessment and associated application on production decision. J. Clean. Prod. 240,
118114.
Liu, J., Mantin, B., Song, X., 2022. Rent, sell, and remanufacture: the manufacturer’s
choice when remanufacturing can be outsourced. Eur. J. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2022.02.018.
Mutel, C.L., Hellweg, S., 2009. Regionalized lifecycle assessment: computational
methodology and application to inventory databases. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (15),
5797–5803.
Mutel, C.L., Pfister, S., Hellweg, S., 2011. Gis-based regionalized life cycle assessment:
how big is small enough? methodology and case study of electricity generation.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2), 1096–1103.
Omwando, T.A., Otieno, W.A., Farahani, S., et al., 2018. A bi-level fuzzy analytical
decision support tool for assessing product remanufacturability. J. Clean. Prod. 174,
1534–1549.
Ong, S.K., Fang, H.C., Nee, A.Y.C., 2016. A design feature-based approach for product
remanufacturability assessment and analysis. Procedia CIRP 53, 15–20.
Othoniel, B., Rugani, B., Heijungs, R., Benetto, E., Withagen, C., 2016. Assessment of
lifecycle impacts on ecosystem services: promise, problems, and prospects. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 50 (3), 1077–1092.
Richard, T.C., 2000. Contingent valuation: a user’s guide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34 (8),
1413–1418.
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 381 (2022) 135187
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone1, K., et al., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity.
Nature 461 (7263), 472–475.
Sarkar, B., Bhuniya, S., 2022a. A sustainable flexible manufacturing-remanufacturing
model with improved service and green investment under variable demand. Expert
Syst. Appl. 202, 117154.
Sarkar, B., Ullah, M., Sarkar, M., 2022. Environmental and economic sustainability
through innovative green products by remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 332, 129813.
Schulte, R.P.O., Creamer, R.E., Donnellan, T., et al., 2014. Functional land management:
a framework for managing soil-based ecosystem services for the sustainable
intensification of agriculture. Environ. Sci. Pol. 38, 45–58.
Thomas, A.O., Wilkistar, A.O., Sajjad, F., Anthony, D.R., 2018. A Bi-Level fuzzy
analytical decision support tool for assessing product remanufacturability. J. Clean.
Prod. 174, 1534–1549.
Urban, R.A., Bakshi, B.R., 2009. 1, 3-propanediol from fossils versus biomass: a lifecycle
evaluation of emissions and ecological resources. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (17),
8068–8082.
Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., et al., 2012. Framework for systematic
indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol.
Indicat. 21, 110–122.
Villamagna, A.M., Angermeier, P.L., Bennett, E.M., 2013. Capacity, pressure, demand,
and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and
delivery. Ecol. Complex. 15, 114–121.
Wang, J., Yu, J., Yang, Y., Du, F., Wang, J., 2020. Study of the remanufacturing critical
threshold and remanufacturability evaluation for FV520B-I blade based on fatigue
life and FEA. Eng. Fail. Anal. 112, 104509.
Yang, Y., Heijungs, R., 2017. A generalized computational structure for regional lifecycle
assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 213–221.
Zhang, Y.I., Baral, A., Bakshi, B.R., 2010. Accounting for ecosystem services in lifecycle
assessment, Part II: toward an ecologically based LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (7),
2624–2631.
Zhang, X., Ao, X., Cai, W., et al., 2019. A sustainability evaluation method integrating the
energy, economic and environment in remanufacturing systems. J. Clean. Prod. 239,
118100.
Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, H., et al., 2020b. Remanufacturability evaluation method
and application for used engineering machinery parts based on fuzzy-EAHP.
J. Manuf. Syst. 57, 133–147.
Zhang, X., Zhang, M., Zhang, H., et al., 2020c. A review on energy, environment and
economic assessment in remanufacturing based on lifecycle assessment method.
J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120160.
Zhang, X., Xu, L., Zhang, H., et al., 2021. Emergy based sustainability evaluation model
for retired machineries integrating energy, environmental and social factors. Energy
235, 121331.
Zhang, X., He, Q., Zhang, H., et al., 2022. Big data-based research on active
remanufacturing comprehensive benefits evaluation of mechanical product. Int. J.
Comput. Integrated Manuf. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2022.2128214.