This paper critically examines the methodological boundaries of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) within the context of sustainable design and infrastructure systems. By contrasting classical and ecological engineering logics, it reveals analytical blind spots in conventional LCA models, particularly the inability to recognize unrecovered resources, ecological co-benefits, and regenerative potentials. Drawing from case analyses and conceptual comparisons, the study questions the adequacy of cradle frameworks in addressing spatial, biological, and systemic complexities. In response, it proposes an expanded evaluation approach grounded in spatial-temporal dynamics, ecosystem integration, and syntropic principles. The findings support a necessary shift from impact-reduction metrics toward context-sensitive methodologies capable of supporting circular and regenerative design in nature-based solutions (NBS) architecture and infrastructure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okilj et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: