Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to answer the following three questions: (1) What are the reference values of normalisation for Finnish production and Finnish consumption and how do they differ from the European reference values?, (2) How do these differences influence the interpretation of normalised LCIA results?, and (3) How can normalised LCIA results be made more comprehensible to non-LCA experts with the help of communication material?

Methods

Finnish reference values for normalisation were calculated on the basis of the Finnish environmentally extended input–output model and ReCiPe LCIA method. The influence of different normalised results on the interpretation of LCIA was assessed based on an LCA study of print products. LCA communication material (product-specific fact sheets) was developed by organising workshops and interviews with stakeholders in the paper and printing industry.

Results and discussion

A comparison of the production based Finnish reference values to the European reference values shows that Finland contributes roughly 1 % to the European values in all impact categories except in the fossil depletion category where the contribution is 3 %. The order of magnitude of the impact categories varies depending on the reference system used for normalisation, which influences the interpretation of LCIA results. The normalised results were made more comprehensible by developing fact sheets including background information and guidance for interpretation of the LCIA results.

Conclusions

The interpreter of normalised LCIA results does not usually have the information to estimate how the chosen reference system influences the results. A sensitivity analysis with different reference values may help to highlight this effect. When communicating to non-LCA-practitioners, LCIA results need to be connected to a wider context, which can be achieved by using normalisation to give an idea of the order of magnitude of the results. However, the harmfulness of the impact categories in relation to each other cannot be judged on the basis of the normalised results, which seems to be a difficult concept for non-LCA-practitioners to understand.     

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: <Emphasis Type="Italic">quo vadis</Emphasis>?

Purpose

Building on the rhetoric question “quo vadis?” (literally “Where are you going?”), this article critically investigates the state of the art of normalisation and weighting approaches within life cycle assessment. It aims at identifying purposes, current practises, pros and cons, as well as research gaps in normalisation and weighting. Based on this information, the article wants to provide guidance to developers and practitioners. The underlying work was conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Cross-Cutting issues in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).

Methods

The empirical work consisted in (i) an online survey to investigate the perception of the LCA community regarding the scientific quality and current practice concerning normalisation and weighting; (ii) a classification followed by systematic expert-based assessment of existing methods for normalisation and weighting according to a set of five criteria: scientific robustness, documentation, coverage, uncertainty and complexity.

Results and discussion

The survey results showed that normalised results and weighting scores are perceived as relevant for decision-making, but further development is needed to improve uncertainty and robustness. The classification and systematic assessment of methods allowed for the identification of specific advantages and limitations.

Conclusions

Based on the results, recommendations are provided to practitioners that desire to apply normalisation and weighting as well as to developers of the underlying methods.

     

Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation

Background, aim, and scope

Many studies evaluate the results of applying different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to the same life cycle inventory (LCI) data and demonstrate that the assessment results would be different with different LICA methods used. Although the importance of uncertainty is recognized, most studies focus on individual stages of LCA, such as LCI and normalization and weighting stages of LCIA. However, an important question has not been answered in previous studies: Which part of the LCA processes will lead to the primary uncertainty? The understanding of the uncertainty contributions of each of the LCA components will facilitate the improvement of the credibility of LCA.

Methodology

A methodology is proposed to systematically analyze the uncertainties involved in the entire procedure of LCA. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to analyze the uncertainties associated with LCI, LCIA, and the normalization and weighting processes. Five LCIA methods are considered in this study, i.e., Eco-indicator 99, EDIP, EPS, IMPACT 2002+, and LIME. The uncertainty of the environmental performance for individual impact categories (e.g., global warming, ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human health) is also calculated and compared. The LCA of municipal solid waste management strategies in Taiwan is used as a case study to illustrate the proposed methodology.

Results

The primary uncertainty source in the case study is the LCI stage under a given LCIA method. In comparison with various LCIA methods, EDIP has the highest uncertainty and Eco-indicator 99 the lowest uncertainty. Setting aside the uncertainty caused by LCI, the weighting step has higher uncertainty than the normalization step when Eco-indicator 99 is used. Comparing the uncertainty of various impact categories, the lowest is global warming, followed by eutrophication. Ecotoxicity, human health, and photochemical smog have higher uncertainty.

Discussion

In this case study of municipal waste management, it is confirmed that different LCIA methods would generate different assessment results. In other words, selection of LCIA methods is an important source of uncertainty. In this study, the impacts of human health, ecotoxicity, and photochemical smog can vary a lot when the uncertainties of LCI and LCIA procedures are considered. For the purpose of reducing the errors of impact estimation because of geographic differences, it is important to determine whether and which modifications of assessment of impact categories based on local conditions are necessary.

Conclusions

This study develops a methodology of systematically evaluating the uncertainties involved in the entire LCA procedure to identify the contributions of different assessment stages to the overall uncertainty. Which modifications of the assessment of impact categories are needed can be determined based on the comparison of uncertainty of impact categories.

Recommendations and perspectives

Such an assessment of the system uncertainty of LCA will facilitate the improvement of LCA. If the main source of uncertainty is the LCI stage, the researchers should focus on the data quality of the LCI data. If the primary source of uncertainty is the LCIA stage, direct application of LCIA to non-LCIA software developing nations should be avoided.     

On the use of weighting in LCA: translating decision makers’ preferences into weights via linear programming

Purpose

The main goal of any life cycle assessment (LCA) study is to identify solutions leading to environmental savings. In conventional LCA studies, practitioners select from some alternatives the one which better matches their preferences. This task is sometimes simplified by ranking these alternatives using an aggregated indicator defined by attaching weights to impacts. We address here the inverse problem. That is, given an alternative, we aim to determine the weights for which that solution becomes optimal.

Methods

We propose a method based on linear programming (LP) that determines, for a given alternative, the ranges within which the weights attached to a set of impact metrics must lie so that when a weighting combination of these impacts is optimized, the alternative can be optimal, while if the weights fall outside this range, it is guaranteed that the solution will be suboptimal. A large weight value implies that the corresponding LCA impact is given more importance, while a low value implies the converse. Furthermore, we provide a rigorous mathematical analysis on the implications of using weighting schemes in LCA, showing that this practice guides decision-making towards the adoption of some specific alternatives (those lying on the convex envelope of the resulting trade-off curve).

Results and discussion

A case study based on the design of hydrogen infrastructures is taken as a test bed to illustrate the capabilities of the approach presented. Given are a set of production and storage technologies available to produce and deliver hydrogen, a final demand, and cost and environmental data. A set of designs, each achieving a unique combination of cost and LCA impact, is considered. For each of them, we calculate the minimum and maximum weight to be given to every LCA impact so that the alternative can be optimal among all the candidate designs. Numerical results show that solutions with lower impact are selected when decision makers are willing to pay larger monetary penalties for the environmental damage caused.

Conclusions

LP can be used in LCA to translate the decision makers’ preferences into weights. This information is rather valuable, particularly when these weights represent economic penalties, as it allows screening and ranking alternatives on the basis of a common economic basis. Our framework is aimed at facilitating decision making in LCA studies and defines a general framework for comparing alternatives that show different performance in a wide variety of impact metrics.     

Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA)

Purpose

Comparative life-cycle assessments (LCAs) today lack robust methods of interpretation that help decision makers understand and identify tradeoffs in the selection process. Truncating the analysis at characterization is misleading and existing practices for normalization and weighting may unwittingly oversimplify important aspects of a comparison. This paper introduces a novel approach based on a multi-criteria decision analytic method known as stochastic multi-attribute analysis for life-cycle impact assessment (SMAA-LCIA) that uses internal normalization by means of outranking and exploration of feasible weight spaces.

Methods

To contrast different valuation methods, this study performs a comparative LCA of liquid and powder laundry detergents using three approaches to normalization and weighting: (1) characterization with internal normalization and equal weighting, (2) typical valuation consisting of external normalization and weights, and (3) SMAA-LCIA using outranking normalization and stochastic weighting. Characterized results are often represented by LCA software with respect to their relative impacts normalized to 100 %. Typical valuation approaches rely on normalization references, single value weights, and utilizes discrete numbers throughout the calculation process to generate single scores. Alternatively, SMAA-LCIA is capable of exploring high uncertainty in the input parameters, normalizes internally by pair-wise comparisons (outranking) and allows for the stochastic exploration of weights. SMAA-LCIA yields probabilistic, rather than discrete comparisons that reflect uncertainty in the relative performance of alternatives.

Results and discussion

All methods favored liquid over powder detergent. However, each method results in different conclusions regarding the environmental tradeoffs. Graphical outputs at characterization of comparative assessments portray results in a way that is insensitive to magnitude and thus can be easily misinterpreted. Typical valuation generates results that are oversimplified and unintentionally biased towards a few impact categories due to the use of normalization references. Alternatively, SMAA-LCIA avoids the bias introduced by external normalization references, includes uncertainty in the performance of alternatives and weights, and focuses the analysis on identifying the mutual differences most important to the eventual rank ordering.

Conclusions

SMAA-LCIA is particularly appropriate for comparative LCAs because it evaluates mutual differences and weights stochastically. This allows for tradeoff identification and the ability to sample multiple perspectives simultaneously. SMAA-LCIA is a robust tool that can improve understanding of comparative LCA by decision or policy makers.     

An AHP-weighted aggregated data quality indicator (AWADQI) approach for estimating embodied energy of building materials

Purpose

Aggregated data quality indicator (ADQI) method has been used to estimate probability distributions of the input data in a life cycle assessment (LCA) to compensate for insufficient data in a statistical analysis. In a traditional ADQI, a multicriteria evaluation process, the impacts of various quality indicators under investigation are often equally weighted or unweighted despite the fact that some of them may weight more than the others on contributing to the overall data uncertainty. An unweighted ADQI (UWADQI) approach, though simple, may lead to incorrect conclusions. This paper aims to develop a weighted ADQI to overcome the deficiency of the unweighted ADQI to make it more reliable for LCA uncertainty analysis.

Method

To improve the UWADQI approach, an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is introduced in this research for estimating weighting factors in the ADQI aggregation process. An AHP??s pairwise comparison function is used to determine the weighting of each data quality indicator. Three common building materials of concrete, steel, and glass were chosen to validate the presented method.

Results and discussion

Using the published results from the statistical method as the benchmarks, it was found that the proposed AHP-weighted ADQI (AWADQI) method lead to better estimated probabilistic values of embodied energy intensity than the traditional UWADQI approach for the three building materials.

Conclusions and recommendations

In conclusion, using AHP to incorporate weighing factors into an ADQI process can improve the uncertainty estimate of embodied energy of building materials, and consequently, the method can improve the reliability of a building LCA.     

Life cycle assessment as a decision support tool for bridge procurement: environmental impact comparison among five bridge designs

Purpose

The conventional decision-making for bridges is mostly focusing on technical, economical, and safety perspectives. Nowadays, the society devotes an ever-increased effort to the construction sector regarding their environmental performance. However, considering the complexity of the environmental problems and the diverse character of bridges, the related research for bridge as a whole system is very rare. Most existing studies were only conducted for a single indicator, part of the structure components, or a specific life stage.

Methods

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an internationally standardized method for quantifying the environmental impact of a product, asset, or service throughout its whole life cycle. However, in the construction sector, LCA is usually applied in the procurement of buildings, but not bridges as yet. This paper presents a comprehensive LCA framework for road bridges, complied with LCA ReCiPe (H) methodology. The framework enables identification of the key structural components and life cycle stages of bridges, followed by aggregation of the environmental impacts into monetary values. The utility of the framework is illustrated by a practical case study comparing five designs for the Karlsnäs Bridge in Sweden, which is currently under construction.

Results and discussion

This paper comprehensively analyzed 20 types of environmental indicators among five proposed bridge designs, which remedies the absence of full spectrum of environmental indicators in the current state of the art. The results show that the monetary weighting system and uncertainties in key variables such as the steel recycling rate and cement content may highly affect the LCA outcome. The materials, structural elements, and overall designs also have varying influences in different impact categories. The result can be largely affected by the system boundaries, surrounding environment, input uncertainties, considered impact indicators, and the weighting systems applied; thus, no general conclusions can be drawn without specifying such issues.

Conclusions

Robustly evaluating and ranking the environmental impact of various bridge designs is far from straightforward. This paper is an important attempt to evaluate various designs from full dimensions. The results show that the indicators and weighting systems must be clearly specified to be applicable in a transparent procurement. This paper provides vital knowledge guiding the decision maker to select the most LCA-feasible proposal and mitigate the environmental burden in the early stage.     

Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings: A critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on residential buildings

Purpose

Sustainability assessments of buildings using the life cycle approach have become more and more common. This includes the assessment of the environmental performance of buildings. However, the influence of the construction products used for the fabric, the finishing, and the technical building equipment of buildings has hardly been described in literature. For this reason, we evaluated the influence of the technical building equipment and its impact on the environment for different residential buildings.

Materials and methods

Five residential buildings were evaluated by applying the methodology of life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO14040) expressed using quantitative assessment categories according to prEN15978.

Results and discussion

Results show that the optimization of energy performance has already reached a high level in Austria, so that the overall potential for possible improvements is quite low. Especially in low-energy and passive?Chouse-standard residential buildings, the limits for energy optimization in the use phase have mostly been achieved. In contrast to this, the integrated LCA (iLCA) findings attribute a high optimization potential to the construction products used for the technical building equipment as well as to the building fabric and finishing. Additionally, the passive house shows the lowest contribution of the technical building equipment on the overall LCA results.

Conclusions

The iLCA findings suggest that it is recommended to include the technical building equipment for future assessments of the environmental performance of buildings. It is also suggested to use a broad number of environmental indicators for building LCA.     

Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison

Purpose

The analysis of uncertainty in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies has been a topic for more than 10 years, and many commercial LCA programs now feature a sampling approach called Monte Carlo analysis. Yet, a full Monte Carlo analysis of a large LCA system, for instance containing the 4,000 unit processes of ecoinvent v2.2, is rarely carried out by LCA practitioners. One reason for this is computation time. An alternative faster than Monte Carlo method is analytical error propagation by means of a Taylor series expansion; however, this approach suffers from being explained in the literature in conflicting ways, hampering implementation in most software packages for LCA. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two different approaches from a theoretical and practical perspective.

Methods

In this paper, we compare the analytical and sampling approaches in terms of their theoretical background and their mathematical formulation. Using three case studies—one stylized, one real-sized, and one input–output (IO)-based—we approach these techniques from a practical perspective and compare them in terms of speed and results.

Results

Depending on the precise question, a sampling or an analytical approach provides more useful information. Whenever they provide the same indicators, an analytical approach is much faster but less reliable when the uncertainties are large.

Conclusions

For a good analysis, analytical and sampling approaches are equally important, and we recommend practitioners to use both whenever available, and we recommend software suppliers to implement both.     

Uncertainty in environmentally conscious decision making: beer or wine?

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is being used increasingly in decision support situations. In actual cases, the sources of uncertainty are easily hidden in the complexity. Methods for taking uncertainty into account are recommended by LCA guidelines, but actual application remains rare. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the sources of uncertainty in a practical simple selection case wherein a customer makes a decision between beer and wine in a restaurant, considering the selected criteria and the given information. The uncertainty in LCA results is connected to the broader scope of decision analysis.

Methods

Life cycle inventories were collected for beer and wine production from existing literature. The functional unit was chosen to be one serving of alcohol: beer or wine. For illustrative purposes, only the global warming potential indicator was included in the LCA through carbon footprint (CF). Probabilistic uncertainty analysis was applied to the CF system using Monte Carlo simulation. Water footprint was also roughly considered. In addition, three non-environmental indicators were included in the decision: weight control, price, and taste. The comparison between the two products was constructed as a multiple-criteria decision analytical problem.

Results and discussion

The results indicated that beer had, on average, a higher CF value than wine did. However, the difference was not significant, and within the uncertainty range, also the opposite conclusion was possible. The ratio of wine to beer CF was dominated by the uncertainty in the N₂O emissions of wine production. When all of the decision criteria were included, the level of uncertainty prevented robust overall conclusions about preference for beer or wine. However, depending on the utility differences assigned to subjective indicators, there existed also cases wherein decisions could be made at a 10?% risk level regardless of high overall uncertainty.

Conclusions

In many cases, the uncertainties of LCA are dwarfed by the overall uncertainty of the decision situation. However, as shown by our example, in many cases, reasonable decisions can be made in spite of high uncertainties. The uncertainties of single LCA indicators should be considered in relation to the decision-making problem, which depends on the uncertainty of LCA indicators but also significantly on the weighting of the indicators and the related uncertainty. Successful decision making depends on both the magnitude of uncertainty and the differences in expected utility value between alternatives. More attention should be paid to uncertainty analysis considering the weighting factors.     

Life cycle assessment in the minerals and metals sector: a critical review of selected issues and challenges

Background, aim and scope

The mining sector provides materials that are essential elements in a wide range of goods and services, which create value by meeting human needs. Mining and processing activities are an integral part of most complex material cycles so that the application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to minerals and metals has therefore gained prominence. In the past decade, increased use of LCA in the mineral and metal sector has advanced the scientific knowledge through the development of scientifically valid life cycle inventory databases. Though scientifically valid, LCA still needs to depend on several technical assumptions. In particular, measuring the environmental burden issues related to abiotic resource depletion, land use impacts and open-loop recycling within the LCA are widely debated issues. Also, incorporating spatial and temporal sensitivities in LCA, to make it a consistent scientific tool, is yet to be resolved. This article discusses existing LCA methods and proposed models on different issues in relation to minerals and metals sector.

Main features

A critical review was conducted of existing LCA methods in the minerals and metals sector in relation to allocation issues related to indicators of land use impacts, abiotic resource depletion, allocation in open-loop recycling and the system expansions and accounting of spatial and temporal dimension in LCA practice.

Results

Evolving a holistic view about these contentious issues will be presented with view for future LCA research in the minerals and metals industry. This extensive literature search uncovers many of the issues that require immediate attention from the LCA scientific community.

Discussion

The methodological drawbacks, mainly problems with inconsistencies in LCA results for the same situation under different assumptions and issues related to data quality, are considered to be the shortcomings of current LCA. In the minerals and metals sector, it is important to increase the objectivity of LCA by way of fixing those uncertainties, for example, in the LCA of the minerals and metals sector, whether the land use has to be considered in detail or at a coarse level. In regard to abiotic resource characterisation, the weighting and time scales to be considered become a very critical issue of judgement. And, in the case of open-loop recycling, which model will best satisfy all the stake holders? How the temporal and spatial dimensions should be incorporated into LCA is one of the biggest challenges ahead of all those who are concerned. Addressing these issues shall enable LCA to be used as a policy tool in environmental decision-making. There has been enormous debate with respect to on land use impacts, abiotic resource depletion, open-loop recycling and spatial and temporal dimensions, and these debates remain unresolved. Discussions aimed at bringing consensus amongst all the stake holders involved in LCA (i.e. industry, academia, consulting organisations and government) will be presented and discussed. In addition, a commentary of different points of view on these issues will be presented.

Conclusions

This review shall bring into perspective some of those contentious issues that are widely debated by many researchers. The possible future directions proposed by researchers across the globe shall be presented. Finally, authors conclude with their views on the prospects of LCA for future research endeavours.

Recommendations and outlook

Specific LCA issues of minerals and metals need to be investigated further to gain more understanding. To facilitate the future use of LCA as a policy tool in the minerals and metals sector, it is important to increase the objectivity with more scientific validity. Therefore, it is essential that the issues discussed in this paper are addressed to a great detail.     

Environmental assessment of sewage effluent disinfection system: electron beam, ultraviolet, and ozone using life cycle assessment

Purpose

This study assesses the impacts of three different disinfection processes of sewage effluent, namely the electron beam (E-beam), ultraviolet (UV), and ozone systems, on the environment by using life cycle assessment (LCA).

Methods

The LCA employed was the comparative LCA which consists of three parts according to life cycle stages. Electricity consumption was the reference flow that can yield 99% disinfection efficiency for microorganisms present in a 1?×?10⁵?m³?day^?1 sewage treatment plant effluent over 20?years.

Results

The comparison of the LCA results indicated that the environmental impact of the UV disinfection system was the lowest, followed by the E-beam and ozone disinfection systems. The key issues of the E-beam, UV, and ozone disinfection systems are electricity consumption and SF₆ usage, electricity consumption and UV lamp, and electricity consumption and liquid oxygen feeding system, respectively.

Conclusions

Electricity consumption is the key input parameter that determines the LCA results.     

Review of criteria for evaluating LCA weighting methods

Purpose

In the process of selecting where effective environmental measures should be directed, the weighting step of life cycle assessment (LCA) is an optional, controversial, but nevertheless important tool. A set of criteria for evaluating weighting methods has relevance in the process of acquiring meta-knowledge, and thus competence, in assigning relative weights to environmental impact categories. This competence is helpful when choosing between presently available weighting methods, and in creating new weighting methods.

Methods

Criteria in LCA-related literature are reviewed. The authors have focused on identifying lists of criteria rather than extracting criteria from bulks of text. An important starting point has been the actual use of the term “criterion”, while at the same time disqualifying certain definitions of the term which are too far removed from the two definitions provided in this article.

Results and discussion

Criteria for evaluating weighting methods are shown to fall into two general categories. The first being general criteria for weighting methods, demanding that weighting methods have a broad scope, are practical for users and scientists, are scientific and have ethical goals. The second being criteria proposing characteristics of concrete environmental damage which should be taken into account by a weighting method. A noteworthy example is reversibility.

Conclusions

While the comprehensive tables of criteria speak for themselves, it can be observed that the need for transparency is particularly highlighted in literature. Furthermore, ISO 14044’s statement that the weighting step is “not scientifically based” would appear to defy a significant proportion of the other criteria reviewed; this, however, depends on its interpretation.     

LCA as an element in environmental management systems—comparison of conditions in selected organisations in Poland, Sweden and Germany

Purpose

In this two-part paper (Background and Initial Assumptions (part 1) and Results of Survey Research (part 2)), we present surveys whose main objective is to determine whether, and to what extent, the life cycle assessment (LCA) technique is used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems (EMS) and whether there are any differences in this respect between the companies and countries analysed.

Methods

The survey research was carried out using the computer assisted self-administered interviewing method among selected Polish, German and Swedish organisations which implement EMS in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14001 and/or the EMAS regulation.

Results

The organisations investigated, regardless of their country, are dominated by qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques of assessment and identification of environmental aspects. LCA was used sporadically, although some differences can be observed between the countries analysed.

Conclusions

The environmental managers accustomed to traditional qualitative and semi-quantitative solutions have not been given preparation to enable them to understand and adopt different approaches such as LCA. On the other hand, representatives of the organisations investigated declared that they were ready to accept an even longer timescale for the identification and assessment processes relating to environmental aspects, which represents a potential opportunity for LCA. The more precise understanding and definition of environmental problems that are precisely defined in LCA would represent a novelty for environmental managers. In practice, environmental problems are defined in a general sense and rather ambiguously, as this level of detail is sufficient in the context of qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques commonly used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.     

Rethinking a product and its function using LCA—experiences of New Zealand manufacturing companies

Purpose

It has been recognised that life cycle assessment (LCA) has a role in framing problem situations in environmental management. Yet relatively few studies have investigated whether the use of LCA does actually lead to the reconceptualisation of product systems as opposed to answering predefined questions. This paper discusses the experiences of six manufacturing firms that commissioned LCA studies as part of a life cycle management project managed by Landcare Research in New Zealand.

Methods

The initial goal and scope of the study was developed by each company’s representative in a workshop that was organised as part of the LCM project. The scope for three of the studies was subsequently redefined by the LCA specialists at Landcare Research and agreed with senior managers at the company. The LCA specialists undertook the LCA studies and presented the results to the companies.

Results and discussion

A significant reconceptualisation of the product system took place in three of the six LCA studies. This reconceptualisation would not have taken place if the scope of the LCA studies had been restricted to address the questions originally asked by the companies. The three companies showed some resistance to expanding the scope.

Conclusions

Use of LCA can lead to reconceptualisation of product systems by companies and quite different priorities for improvement options. Initial resistance to expanding a study’s scope may be (partially) overcome by data collection activities and informal discussions between the LCA specialist and company staff during the process of undertaking the LCA study.     

Weighting in LCA Based on Ecotaxes - Development of a Mid-point Method and Experiences from Case Studies

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015

Goal, Scope and Background

The weighting phase in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is and has always been a controversial issue, partly because this element requires the incorporation of social, political and ethical values. Despite the controversies, weighting is widely used in practise. In this paper we will present an approach for monetisation of environmental impacts which is based on the consistent use of ecotaxes and fees in Sweden as a basis for the economic values. The idea behind this approach is that taxes and fees are expressions of the values society places on resource uses and emissions. An underlying assumption for this is that the decisions taken by policy-makers are reflecting societal values thus reflecting a positive view of representative democracy.

Methods

In the method a number of different ecotaxes are used. In many cases they can directly be used as valuation weighting factors, an example is the CO2-tax that can be used as a valuation of CO2-emissions. In some cases, a calculation has to be made in order to derive a weighting factor. An example of this is the tax on nitrogen fertilisers which can be recalculated to an emission of nitrogen which can be used as a weighting factor for nitrogen emissions. The valuation weighting factors can be connected to characterisation methods in the normal LCA practise. We have often used the Ecotax method in parallel to other weighting methods such as the Ecoindicator and EPS methods and the results are compared.

Results and Discussion

A new set of weighting factors has been developed which has been used in case studies. It is interesting to note that the Ecotax method is able to identify different environmental problems as the most important ones in different case studies. In some cases, the Ecotax method has identified some interventions as the most important ones which lack weighting factors in other weighting methods. The midpoint-endpoint debate in the LCA literature has often centred on different types of uncertainties. Sometimes it is claimed that an advantage with having an endpoint approach is that the weighting would be easier and less uncertain. Here we are however suggesting a mid-point weighting method that we claim are no less uncertain than other often used weighting methods based on a damage assessment. This paper can therefore be seen as a discussion paper also in the midpoint-endpoint debate.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The Ecotax method is ready to use. It should be further updated and developed as taxes are changed and new characterisation methods are developed. The method is not only relevant for LCA but also for other environmental systems analysis. The Ecotax method has also been used as a valuation method for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and within the context of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

     

Cross-platform microarray data normalisation for regulatory network inference

Background

Inferring Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs) from time course microarray data suffers from the dimensionality problem created by the short length of available time series compared to the large number of genes in the network. To overcome this, data integration from diverse sources is mandatory. Microarray data from different sources and platforms are publicly available, but integration is not straightforward, due to platform and experimental differences.

Methods

We analyse here different normalisation approaches for microarray data integration, in the context of reverse engineering of GRN quantitative models. We introduce two preprocessing approaches based on existing normalisation techniques and provide a comprehensive comparison of normalised datasets.

Conclusions

Results identify a method based on a combination of Loess normalisation and iterative K-means as best for time series normalisation for this problem.     

Weighting environmental effects: Analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to supply an open method for weighting different environmental impacts, open to basically different evaluation approaches and open to easy revisions. From the partial, diverse and conflicting weighing methods available, a most consistent and flexible meta-method is constructed, allowing for a transparent discussion on weighting.

Methods

The methods incorporated are as general as possible, each single one being as pure as possible. We surveyed encompassing operational methods for evaluation, applicable in LCA and in larger systems like countries. They differ in terms of modelling, as to midpoint or as to endpoint; as to evaluation set-up, in terms of collective preferences or individual preferences; and as to being either revealed or stated. The first is midpoint modelling with collectively stated preferences, with operational weighting schemes from Dutch and US government applications. Second is the LCA-type endpoint approach using individual stated preferences, with public examples from Japan and the Netherlands. The third is the integrated modelling approach by economists.

Results

All methods are internally inconsistent, as in terms of treatment of place and time, and they are incomplete, lacking environmental interventions and effect routes. We repaired only incompleteness, by methods transfer. Finally, we combined the three groups of methods into a meta-weighting method, aligned to the ILCD Handbook requirements for impact assessment. Application to time series data on EU-27 consumption shows how the EU developed in terms of overall environmental decoupling.

Conclusions

The disparate methods available all can be improved substantially. For now, a user adjustable meta-method is the best option, allowing for public discussion. A flexible regularly updated spreadsheet is supplied with the article.     

Carbon sequestration in LCA,a proposal for a new approach based on the global carbon cycle; cases on wood and on bamboo

Purpose

There are many recent proposals in life cycle assessment (LCA) to calculate temporary storage of carbon in bio-based products. However, there is still no consensus on how to deal with the issue. The main questions are: how do these proposals relate to each other, to what extent are they in line with the classical LCA method (as defined in ISO 14044) and the global mass balances as proposed by the IPCC, and is there really a need to introduce a discounting system for delayed CO₂ emissions?

Methods

This paper starts with an analysis of the widely applied specification of PAS 2050 and the ILCD Handbook, both specifying the credit for carbon sequestration as ‘optional’ in LCA. From this analysis, it is concluded that these optional calculations give rather different results compared to the baseline LCA method. Since these optional calculations are not fully in line with the global carbon mass balances, a new calculation method is proposed. To validate the new method, two cases (one on wood and one bamboo products) are given. These cases show the practical application and the consequences of the new approach. Finally, the main issue is evaluated and discussed: is it a realistic approach to allocate less damage to the same emission, when it is released later in time?

Results and discussion

This paper proposes a new approach based on the global carbon cycle and land-use change, translated to the level of individual products in LCA. It is argued that only a global growth of forest area and a global growth of application of wood in the building industry contribute to extra carbon sequestration, which might be allocated as a credit to the total market of wood products in LCA. This approach is different from approaches where temporary storage of carbon in trees is directly allocated to a product itself.

Conclusions

In the proposed approach, there seems to be no need for a discounting system of delayed CO₂ emissions. The advantage of wood and wood-based products can be described in terms of land-use change on a global scale in combination with a credit for heat recovery at the end-of-life (if applicable).     

System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA

Background, aim, and scope

When dealing with system delimitation in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), two methodologies are typically referred to: consequential LCA and attributional LCA. The consequential approach uses marginal data and avoids co-product allocation by system expansion. The attributional approach uses average or supplier-specific data and treats co-product allocation by applying allocation factors. Agricultural LCAs typically regard local production as affected and they only include the interventions related to the harvested area. However, as changes in demand and production may affect foreign production, yields and the displacement of other crops in regions where the agricultural area is constrained, there is a need for incorporating the actual affected processes in agricultural consequential LCA. This paper presents a framework for defining system boundaries in consequential agricultural LCA. The framework is applied to an illustrative case study; LCA of increased demand for wheat in Denmark. The aim of the LCA screening is to facilitate the application of the proposed methodology. A secondary aim of the LCA screening is to illustrate that there are different ways to meet increased demand for agricultural products and that the environmental impact from these different ways vary significantly.

Materials and methods

The proposed framework mainly builds on the work of Ekvall T, Weidema BP (Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):pp. 161–171, 2004), agricultural statistics (FAOSTAT, FAOSTAT Agriculture Data, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2006), http://apps.fao.org/ (accessed June)), and agricultural outlook (FAPRI, US and world agricultural outlook, Food and Agriculture Research Institute, Iowa, 2006a). The framework and accompanying guidelines concern the suppliers affected, the achievement of increased production (area or yield), and the substitutions between crops. The framework, which is presented as a decision tree, proposes four possible systems that may be affected as a result of the increased demand of a certain crop in a certain area.

Results

The core of the proposed methodology is a decision tree, which guides the identification of affected processes in consequential agricultural LCA. The application of the methodology is illustrated with a case study presenting an LCA screening of wheat in Denmark. Different scenarios of how increased demand for wheat can be met show significant differences in emission levels as well as land use.

Discussion

The great differences in potential environmental impacts of the analysed results underpin the importance of system delimitation. The consequential approach is appointed as providing a more complete and accurate but also less precise result, while the attributional approach provides a more precise result but with inherent blind spots, i.e. a less accurate result.

Conclusions

The main features of the proposed framework and case study are: (1) an identification of significant sensitivity on results of system delimitation, and (2) a formalised way of identifying blind spots in attributional agricultural LCAs.

Recommendations and perspectives

It is recommended to include considerations on the basis of the framework presented in agricultural LCAs if relevant. This may be done either by full quantification or as qualitative identification of the most likely ways the agricultural product system will respond on changed demand. Hereby, it will be possible to make reservations to the conclusions drawn on the basis of an attributional LCA.