Notions on the Design and Use of an Ideal Regional or Global LCA Database

Goal, Scope and Background

More and more national and regional life cycle assessment (LCA) databases are being established satisfying the increasing demand on LCA in policy making (e.g. Integrated Product Policy, IPP) and in industry. In order to create harmonised datasets in such unified databases, a common understanding and common rules are required. This paper describes major requirements on the way towards an ideal national background LCA database in terms of co-operation, but also in terms of life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) and impact assessment (LCIA) methodology.

Methods

A classification of disputed methodological issues is made according to their consensus potential. In LCI, three main areas of dissent are identified where consensus seems hardly possible, namely system modelling (consequential versus attributional), allocation (including recycling) and reporting (transparency and progressiveness). In LCIA the time aspect is added to the well-known value judgements of the weighting step.

Results and Discussions

It is concluded that LCA methodology should rather allow for plurality than to urge harmonisation in any case. A series of questions is proposed to identify the most appropriate content of the LCA background database or the most appropriate LCI dataset. The questions help to identify the best suited approach in modelling the product system in general and multioutput and recycling processes in particular. They additionally help to clarify the position with regard to time preferences in LCIA. Intentionally, the answers to these questions are not attributed to particular goal and scope definitions, although some recommendations and clarifying explanations are provided.

Recommendations and Perspective

It is concluded that there is not one single ideal background database content. Value judgements are also present in LCI modelling and require pluralistic solutions; solutions possibly based on the same primary data. It is recommended to focus the methodological discussion on aspects where consensus is within reach, sensible and of added value for all parties.

     

Human and Ecological Life Cycle Tools for the Integrated Assessment of Systems (HELIAS)

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.008

Goal, Scope and Background

CML has contributed to the development of life cycle decision support tools, particularly Substance / Material Flow Analysis (SFA respectively MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Ever since these tools emerged there have been discussions on how these tools relate to each other, and how they relate to more traditional tools. Remarkably little, however, has been published on these relationships from an empirical side: which combinations of tools have actually been used, and what is the added value of combining tools in practical case studies. In this paper, we report on CML's experience in this field by presenting a number of case studies with their related research questions, for which different tools were deployed.

Methods

Three case studies are discussed: 1) Waste water treatment: various options for waste water treatment have been assessed on their eco-efficiency, using SFA to comment on the influence of these options on the flows of certain substances in the water system of a geographical area and a combination of LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) to assess the life-cycle impacts and costs of these options; 2) Prioritization of environmental policy measures: A methodology has been developed to prioritize environmental policy measures and investments within companies based on both the environmental impacts and the costs of these measures; and 3) Environmental weighting of materials: to add an environmental dimension to standard MFA accounts, materials were weighted with cradle-to-grave impact factors based on LCA data and impact assessment factors.

Results and Discussion

For each of these cases, the research questions at stake, the tools applied, the results and the added value, limitations and problems of combining the tools are reported.

Conclusions

and Perspective. Based on these experiences, it is concluded that using several tools to address a complicated problem is not only a theoretical proposal, but also something that has been applied successfully in a variety of practical situations. Furthermore, using several tools in combination does not necessarily lead to an increased information supply to decisionmakers. Instead, it may contribute to the comprehensibility and ease of interpretation of the information that would have been provided by using a single tool. Finally, it is concluded that there is not one generally valid protocol for which tools to use for which question. The essential idea of using a combination of tools is exactly the fact that research questions are not simple by nature and cannot be generalized into protocols.

     

Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles - Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.017

Background, Aims and Scope

Social impacts in supply chains and product life cycles are of increasing interest to policy makers and stakeholders. Work is underway to develop social impact indicators for LCA, and to identify the social inventory data that will drive impact assessment for this category. Standard LCA practice collects and aggregates inventory data of the form \units of input or output (elementary flow) per unit of process output.\ Measurement of social impacts within workplaces as well as host communities and societies poses new challenges not heretofore faced by LCA database developers. Participatory measurement and auditing of social impacts and of workplace health issues has been shown to provide important benefits relative to external auditor-based methods, including greater likelihood of detecting rights abuses, and stronger support of subsequent action for improvement. However, nonstandardized auditing and metrics poses challenges for the supply chain-wide aggregation and comparison functions of LCA. An analogous challenge arises in the case of resource extractive processes, for which the certification of best management practices provides an important and practical environmental metric. In both the social and resource extraction examples, it may be that attributes of the process are more valuable metrics to measure and incentivize than measured quantities per unit of process output. But how to measure, how to aggregate across life cycles, how to compare product life cycles, and how to incentivize progress as with product policy?

Methods

A methodology is presented and demonstrated which estimates the health impacts of economic development stemming from product life cycles. This methodology does not introduce new social indicators; rather, it works with the already common LCA endpoint of human health, and introduces and applies a simplified empirical relationship to characterize the complex pathways from product life cycles' economic activity to health in the aggregate.

Results

A simple case study indicates that the health benefits of economic development impacts in product life cycles have the potential to be very significant, possibly even orders of magnitude greater than the health damages from the increased pollution. While the simple macro model points up the dramatic importance of socio-economic pathways to health in product life cycles, it lacks any sensitivity to the vitally important, contextspecific attributes of the economic development associated with each process. This result begs the question of how to measure, aggregate, compare, and stimulate society-wide improvement of context-dependent attributes within and across product life cycles in LCA.

Discussion

Before attempting an answer to the question noted above, a brief reconsideration is offered concerning life cycle assessment. Namely, where does it come from, and what does it bring?

Recommendations and Outlook

Finally, the paper concludes by sketching a life cycle approach to promoting localized assessments, to summarizing their results over supply chains and life cycles, and to comparing product life cycles in terms of their results. Often, localized assessments will yield information on the attributes of a process, rather than (or in addition to) the traditional form of life cycle inventory information, which is \units of something per unit of process output.\ The methodology can enable product policy users to promote reporting of basic attributes of processes within supply chains, together with local measurement and reporting of context-relevant impacts. For attributes linked to progress on impacts of local and global concern, promotion of these attributes within supply chain processes will bring strong benefits. In addition, over time it may be possible for researchers to develop and refine models that estimate, based on cross-sectional and time series analysis of attributes and impacts, relationships between attributes and impacts. In any case, while local impacts across supply chains may not be precisely knowable – let alone controllable – by a microdecision maker at the time of their product-related decision, life cycle attribute analysis may give such decision makers an opportunity to empower progress throughout life cycles and supply chains, which is after all a motivating goal of LCA.

     

The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.016

Goal, Scope and Background

Although both cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) have developed from engineering practice, and have the same objective of a holistic ex-ante assessment of human activities, the techniques have until recently developed in relative isolation. This has resulted in a situation where much can be gained from an integration of the strong aspects of each technique. Such integration is now being prompted by the more widespread use of both CBA and LCA on the global arena, where also the issues of social responsibility are now in focus. Increasing availability of data on both biophysical and social impacts now allow the development of a truly holistic, quantitative environmental assessment technique that integrates economic, biophysical and social impact pathways in a structured and consistent way. The concept of impact pathways, linking biophysical and economic inventory results via midpoint impact indicators to final damage indicators, is well described in the LCA and CBA literature. Therefore, this paper places specific emphasis on how social aspects can be integrated in LCA.

Methods

and Results. With a starting point in the conceptual structure and approach of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), as developed by Helias Udo de Haes and the SETAC/UNEP Life Cycle Initiative, the paper identifies six damage categories under the general heading of human life and well-being. The paper proposes a comprehensive set of indicators, with units of measurement, and a first estimate of global normalisation values, based on incidence or prevalence data from statistical sources and severity scores from health state analogues. Examples are provided of impact chains linking social inventory indicators to impacts on both human well-being and productivity.

Recommendation and Perspective

It is suggested that human well-being measured in QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) may provide an attractive single-score alternative to direct monetarisation.

     

Happiness and Sustainable Consumption: Psychological and physical rebound effects at work in a tool for sustainable design

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.018

Goal, Scope and Background

Life cycle assessment has emerged into a useful tool to assess and potentially reduce the environmental impacts per functional unit. This has contributed to increase eco-efficiency but not necessarily to decrease absolute pollution per capita. The number of functional units is increasing and new functions add to the impacts of consumption. Despite the attempts to use different levels of definitions for the functional unit and applying LCA in the field of lifestyle studies there has been little success to grasp the consumption side of sustainable production and consumption. This contribution aims to tackle the consumption side by at least two extensions: the function of products, services, and activities is assessed with a multi-attribute need function and the propensity to cause both psychological and physical rebound effects are considered in the design phase.

Methods

We develop a checklist approach with an evaluation and assessment table. The elements of the checklist are rooted in a number of independent fields of science: needs matrix, happiness enhancing factors, a number of limiting factors that can cause rebound effects, and streamlined LCA.

Results and Conclusion

For illustration purposes we comparatively evaluate gardening, having a dog, a weekend house, and starting yoga classes and show that the new analysis framework is able to make transparent and operable the inclusion of a number of additional factors that remained so far implicit or neglected. The additional factors considered can be grouped into factors that may cause rebound effects through psychological or physical mechanisms. The assessment table combines the degree of satisfying needs and enhancing happiness in a psychological rebound score. The physical rebound score considers six factors that may constrain consumption: Costs, time, space, other scarce resources, information, and skills. This allows predicting the potential for rebound effects that would increase total impacts from consumption. In addition, it gives also a handle on how to use the knowledge on rebound effects to not only reduce the impacts of the product or activity at hand but also reducing other consumption that in turn might have adverse impacts.

Recommendation and Perspective

Many assumptions in selecting and quantifying the additional factors and the final assessment procedure remain conceptual and therefore provisional. This contribution opens new avenues of investigations that need both further refinements of the theories and empirical evidence. Consumerism and materialism has undermined much of the success stories of improved eco-efficiency and LCA. We suggest using some of the very same psychological and physical mechanisms to foster sustainable consumption.

     

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).

     

The legitimacy of life cycle assessment in the waste management sector

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is commonly presented as a tool for rational decision-making. It has been increasingly used to support decision-making in situations where multiple actors possess diverse, and sometimes conflicting, perspectives, values and motives. Yet, little effort has been placed on understanding LCA in a social framework of action. This paper aims to analyse the legitimacy of LCA in public sector decision-making situations, the criticisms presented against LCA, and suggest potential ways to alleviate these criticisms.

Methods

This study consists of a case study of the application of LCA in the waste management sector in England and France. To gain an understanding of the justification and criticism of LCA, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with national and local level waste management actors. The justifications and criticism of the application of LCA was analysed through an analytical framework, the economies of worth. This suggests that in situations of disagreement, actors’ justifications are required to show their attachment to plural forms of common good. This work analyses the orders of worth in which justifications and criticisms of the application of LCA were based.

Results and discussion

LCA is applied primarily as a test of environmental efficiency, illustrating a collaboration between the industrial and green orders of worth. Actors apply LCA with the aspiration of replicating the scientific method and producing robust evidence to support the most efficient waste treatment option. In this case, efficiency is coupled with the green order of worth, where gains in efficiency mean lower environmental impacts. Internal criticisms of LCA, based in the industrial order of worth, highlights the limitations of LCA to act as a test of environmental efficiency. Furthermore, criticism based in the civic order of worth highlights the friction which arises in decision-making situations when LCA has been seen to subjugate the civic nature of waste management decisions.

Conclusions

One potential way forward for LCA may be to introduce aspects relevant in the civic order of worth which aims at achieving a compromise between the industrial and civic orders of worth. Envisioning LCA as a process-oriented tool, as opposed to an outcome-oriented tool, can allow for aspects on public involvement in the LCA process, thereby increasing its civic legitimacy.

     

The application of life cycle assessment to public policy development

Purpose

Despite the potential value it offers, integration of life cycle assessment (LCA) into the development of environmental public policy has been limited. This paper researches potential barriers that may be limiting the use of LCA in public policy development, and considers process opportunities to increase this application.

Methods

Research presented in this paper is primarily derived from reviews of existing literature and case studies, as well as interviews with key public policy officials with LCA experience. Direct experience of the author in LCA projects with public policy elements has also contributed to approaches and conclusions.

Results and discussion

LCAs have historically been applied within a rational framework, with experts conducting the analysis and presenting results to decision-makers for application to public policy development. This segmented approach has resulted in limited incorporation of LCA results or even a broader approach of life cycle thinking within the public policy development process. Barriers that limit the application of LCA within the public policy development process range from lack of technical knowledge and LCA understanding on the part of policy makers, to a lack of trust in LCA process and results. Many of the identified barriers suggest that the failure of LCAs to contribute positively to public policy development is due to the process within which the LCA is being incorporated, rather than technical problems in the LCA itself. Overcoming the barriers to effective use of LCAs in public policy development will require a more normative approach to the LCA process that incorporates a broad group of stakeholders at all stages of the assessment. Specifically, a set of recommendations have been developed to produce a more inclusive and effective process.

Conclusions

In an effort to effectively incorporate LCA within the overall public policy decision-making process, the decision-making process should incorporate a multi-disciplinary approach that includes a range of stakeholders and public policy decision-makers in a collaborative process. One of the most important aspects of incorporating LCA into public policy decisions is to encourage life cycle thinking among policy makers. Considering the life cycle implications will result in more informed and thoughtful decisions, even if a full LCA is not undertaken.

     

The Application of the Environmental Product Declaration to Waste Disposal in a Sanitary Landfill - Four Case Studies (10 pp)

Goal, Scope and Background

The aim of the present study is to evaluate, through LCA, the potential environmental impact associated to urban waste dumping in a sanitary landfill for four case studies and to compare different technologies for waste treatment and leachate or biogas management in the framework of the EPD® system. Specific data were collected on the four Italian landfills during a five-year campaign from 2000 to 2004. This work also analyses the comparability of EPD results for different products in the same product category. For this purpose, a critical review of PSR 2003:3, for preparing an EPD on ‘Collection, transfer and disposal service for urban waste in sanitary landfills', is performed.

Methods

PSR 2003:3 defines the requirements, based on environmental parameters, that should be considered in an LCA study for collecting and disposal service of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in a sanitary landfill. It defines functional unit, system boundaries towards nature, other technical systems and boundaries in time, cut-off rules, allocation rules and parameters to be declared in the EPD. This PSR is tested on four case studies representing the major landfills located from the farthest west to the farthest east side of the Ligurian Region. Those landfills are managed with different technologies as concerns waste pre-treatment and leachate or biogas treatment. For each landfill, a life cycle assessment study is performed.

Results and Discussion

The comparison of the LCA results is performed separately for the following phases: Transport, Landfill, Leachate and Biogas. The following parameters are considered: Resource use (Use of non-renewable resources with and without energy content, Use of renewable resources with and without energy content, Water consumption); Pollutant emissions expressed as potential environmental impact (Global Warming Potential from biological and fossil sources, Acidification, Ozone depletion, Photochemical oxidant formation, Eutrophication, Land use, Hazardous and other Waste production). The comparison of the LCA results obtained for alternative landfill and biogas management techniques in the case studies investigated shows that the best practicable option that benefits the environment as a whole must be identified and chosen in the LCA context. For example, a strong waste pre-treatment causes a high biological GWP in the Landfill phase, but a low GWP contribution in the Biogas phase, due to the consequent low biogas production, evaluated for 30 years since landfill closure.

Conclusion

The analysis of four case studies showed that, through the EPD tool, it is possible to make a comparison among different declarations for the same product category only with some modification and integration to existent PSR 2003:3. Results showed that different products have different performances for phases and impact categories. It is not possible to identify the \best product\ from an environmental point of view, but it is possible to identify the product (or service) with the lowest impact on the environment for each impact category and resource use.

Recommendation and Perspective

In consequences of the verification of the comprehensiveness of existent PSR 2003:3 for the comparability of EPD, some modifications and integration to existent rules are suggested.

     

The EcoSpold 2 format—why a new format?

Purpose

This paper introduces the new EcoSpold data format for life cycle inventory (LCI).

Methods

A short historical retrospect on data formats in the life cycle assessment (LCA) field is given. The guiding principles for the revision and implementation are explained. Some technical basics of the data format are described, and changes to the previous data format are explained.

Results

The EcoSpold 2 data format caters for new requirements that have arisen in the LCA field in recent years.

Conclusions

The new data format is the basis for the Ecoinvent v3 database, but since it is an open data format, it is expected to be adopted by other LCI databases. Several new concepts used in the new EcoSpold 2 data format open the way for new possibilities for the LCA practitioners and to expand the application of the datasets in other fields beyond LCA (e.g., Material Flow Analysis, Energy Balancing).

     

Determining the value contribution of selexipag for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in Spain using reflective multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)

Background

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) is a chronic rare disease that can lead to serious cardiovascular problems and death. Additional treatments that increase effectiveness, that are safe and with a convenient administration that improve outcomes and quality of life for patients are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the value contribution of the new, oral prostacyclin receptor agonist, selexipag, for PAH treatment in Spain through reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was performed to develop an evidence matrix, composed of twelve quantitative criteria and four contextual criteria, based on an EVIDEM MCDA framework adapted to orphan drugs evaluation by the Spanish region of Catalonia. Quantitative performance scores, qualitative impact of contextual criteria and individual reflections from stakeholders were collected for each MCDA framework criteria. The value contribution of selexipag to PAH treatment compared to inhaled iloprost was calculated.

Results

Oral selexipag for PAH treatment was considered as a treatment which adds value, compared to iloprost, in the following MCDA quantitative criteria: comparative efficacy, patient reported outcomes, preventive benefit, therapeutic benefit, other medical costs and other non-medical costs, without significant differences in safety profile but with a higher acquisition cost than inhaled iloprost.

Conclusions

Selexipag was considered to provide value to PAH treatment. It was perceived as an intervention indicated for a severe rare disease with high unmet needs, supported by high quality clinical evidence. When compared to inhaled iloprost, oral selexipag has demonstrated improvements in efficacy and patient reported outcomes, with a similar safety profile and some additional costs.Reflective MCDA provided a standardised, transparent approach to evaluate multiple criteria relating to the overall value contribution of selexipag to PAH treatment facilitating decision-making.

     

Conceptualising attributional LCA is necessary for resolving methodological issues such as the appropriate form of land use baseline

Purpose

The purposes of this commentary are to further an on-going debate concerning the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and to respond to a number of arguments advanced by Soimakallio (Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1364–1375, 2016). The commentary also seeks to clarify the conceptual nature of attributional LCA.

Methods

The overarching approach for resolving the question of the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional LCA is to clarify what attributional LCA is seeking to represent, i.e. methodological questions can only be resolved if it is clear what the method is seeking to do. An illustrative example is used to explore the different results produced by ‘natural regeneration’ and ‘natural’ baselines.

Results and discussion

It is proposed that attributional LCA should be conceptualised as an inventory of anthropogenic impacts, conceptually akin to other forms of environmental inventory, such as national GHG inventories. The use of natural regeneration baselines is not consistent with this conceptualisation of attributional LCA, and such baselines necessitate further ad hoc or arbitrary adjustments, such as arbitrary temporal windows or the inconsistent treatment of natural emissions.

Conclusions

The use of natural regeneration baselines may be motivated by the impulse to make attributional LCA both an inventory-type method and an assessment of system-wide change. Pulling attributional LCA in two different directions at once results in a conceptually and methodologically incoherent method. The solution is to recognise attributional LCA as an inventory-type method, which therefore has distinct but complementary uses to consequential LCA, which is an assessment of system-wide change.

     

Distance-to-Target Weighting in Life Cycle Impact Assessment Based on Chinese Environmental Policy for the Period 1995-2005 (6 pp)

Background and Objective

. Values in the known weighting methods in Life Cycle Assessment are mostly founded by the societal systems of developed countries. What source of weights and which weighting methods are reliable for a big developing country like China? The purpose of this paper is to find a possible weighting method and available data that will work well for LCA practices conducted in China. Since government policies and decisions play a leading role in the process of environmental protection in developing countries, the weights derived from political statements may be a consensus by representatives of the public.

Methods

'Distance-to-political target' principle is used in this paper to derive weights of five problem-oriented impact categories. The critical policy targets are deduced from the environmental policies issued in the period of the Ninth Five-year (1996-2000) and the Tenth Five-year (2001-2005) Plan for the Development of National Economy and Society of China. Policy targets on two five-year periods are presented and analyzed. Weights are determined by the quotient between the reference levels and target levels of a certain impact category.

Results and Discussion

Since the Tenth Five-year Plan put forward the overall objective to reduce the level of regional pollution by 2005, the weights for AP, EP and POCP for 2000-2005 are more than 1. By comparison between the Ninth Five-year and Tenth Five-year period, the results show that the weights obtained in this paper effectively represent Chinese political environmental priorities in different periods. For the weights derived from China's political targets for the overall period 1995-2005, the rank order of relative importance is ODP>AP>POCP>EP>GWP. They are recommended to the potential users for the broader disparity among the five categories. By comparison with the weights presented by the widespread EDIP method, the result shows that there's a big difference in the relative importance of ozone depletion and global warming.

-

In conclusion, the weighting factors and rank order of impact categories determined in this study represent the characteristics of the big developing country. The derived weighting set can be helpful to LCA practices of products within the industrial systems of China.

     

Bridge processes: a solution for LCI datasets independent of background databases

Introduction

New platforms are emerging that enable more data providers to publish life cycle inventory data.

Background

Providing datasets that are not complete LCA models results in fragments that are difficult for practitioners to integrate and use for LCA modeling. Additionally, when proxies are used to provide a technosphere input to a process that was not originally intended by the process authors, in most LCA software, this requires modifying the original process.

Results

The use of a bridge process, which is a process created to link two existing processes, is proposed as a solution.

Discussion

Benefits to bridge processes include increasing model transparency, facilitating dataset sharing and integration without compromising original dataset integrity and independence, providing a structure with which to make the data quality associated with process linkages explicit, and increasing model flexibility in the case that multiple bridges are provided. A drawback is that they add additional processes to existing LCA models which will increase their size.

Conclusions

Bridge processes can be an enabler in allowing users to integrate new datasets without modifying them to link to background databases or other processes they have available. They may not be the ideal long-term solution but provide a solution that works within the existing LCA data model.

     

The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.019

Background

Life cycle assessments have been performed using different methods before the name was coined since about 1970 in several countries of North America and Europe. It was the merit of SETAC to start a standardization process which culminated in the LCA-guidelines ('A code of practice') in 1993. It is the aim of this paper to trace back this and further LCA-related achievements by SETAC on the basis of documents and personal memories. It may be subjective in the selection and weighting of some events, but objectivity is strived for with regard to the whole and, in my view, singular development.

Results and Discussion

Starting 1990 with two workshops in Smuggler's Notch (Vermont) and Leuven (Belgium), SETAC and SETAC Europe organized several workshops during which important topics (framework, impact assessment, data quality, etc.) were treated and published in the form of reports which are still available. The main contribution by CML and its head, Helias Udo de Haes, was a practical method of impact assessment, transforming the formerly more technocratic LCA (energy, resources, waste) into an instrument of environmental assessment of product systems. In addition, important contributions to the allocation problem were made. Starting in 1993, ISO took over the leadership in standardization and SETAC started the famous working groups in North America and Europe, often dealing with the same topics in parallel. Due to the different cultures, the results were frequently complimentary rather than harmonic. The CML-method of LCIA, widely accepted in Europe, had to wait for about 10 years to be accepted at the other side of the Atlantic. It was helpful that SETAC – meanwhile a global organization – looked for a partner in order to implement LCA all over the world. This partner was found in the 'United Nations Environmental Programme' (UNEP) and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was officially launched by Klaus Töpfer in Prague in April 2002. SETAC also assumed an important role in communicating LCA via publications: workshop and conference reports, the 'code of practice', working group results and LCA News Letters. The annual meetings offered forums for LCA scientists, practitioners and users, well prepared by the LCA Steering Committee (SETAC Europe) and the LCA Advisory Group (SETAC North America).

Recommendation

. The main recommendation to SETAC is to adhere to LCA as the main environmental assessment tool for products and to expand it to a true sustainability assessment tool by adding Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and a still to be invented 'Social Life Cycle Assessment'. SETAC is to remain the scientific arm within the UNEP/SETAC LC Initiative, without loosing its identity. Working groups should be global rather than regional in the future, as suggested by the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee at the 2004 World Congress in Portland, Oregon.

     

Uncertainty in LCA case study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods

Purpose

Uncertainty is present in many forms in life cycle assessment (LCA). However, little attention has been paid to analyze the variability that methodological choices have on LCA outcomes. To address this variability, common practice is to conduct a sensitivity analysis, which is sometimes treated only at a qualitative level. Hence, the purpose of this paper was to evaluate the uncertainty and the sensitivity in the LCA of swine production due to two methodological choices: the allocation approach and the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method.

Methods

We used a comparative case study of swine production to address uncertainty due to methodological choices. First, scenario variation through a sensitivity analysis of the approaches used to address the multi-functionality problem was conducted for the main processes of the system product, followed by an impact assessment using five LCIA methods at the midpoint level. The results from the sensitivity analysis were used to generate 10,000 independent simulations using the Monte Carlo method and then compared using comparison indicators in histogram graphics.

Results and discussion

Regardless of the differences between the absolute values of the LCA obtained due to the allocation approach and LCIA methods used, the overall ranking of scenarios did not change. The use of the substitution method to address the multi-functional processes in swine production showed the highest values for almost all of the impact categories, except for freshwater ecotoxicity; therefore, this method introduced the greater variations into our analysis. Regarding the variation of the LCIA method, for acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity, the results were very sensitive. The uncertainty analysis with the Monte Carlo simulations showed a wide range of results and an almost equal probability of all the scenarios be the preferable option to decrease the impacts on acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity. Considering the aggregate result variation across allocation approaches and LCIA methods, the uncertainty is too high to identify a statistically significant alternative.

Conclusions

The uncertainty analysis showed that performing only a sensitivity analysis could mislead the decision-maker with respect to LCA results; our analysis with the Monte Carlo simulation indicates no significant difference between the alternatives compared. Although the uncertainty in the LCA outcomes could not be decreased due to the wide range of possible results, to some extent, the uncertainty analysis can lead to a less uncertain decision-making by demonstrating the uncertainties between the compared alternatives.

     

From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA

Purpose

Practitioners of life cycle assessment (LCA) acknowledge that more input from social scientists can help advance the cause of life cycle management (LCM). This commentary offers a social science perspective on a long-running question within LCA, namely, how the field should manage not only stakeholders’ values but also those of practitioners themselves.

Methods

More than 60 interviews were conducted with LCA practitioners and their industry clients. Qualitative data were also collected through participant observation at several LCA and LCM conferences, a study of the field’s history, and extensive content and discourse analysis of LCA publications and online forums.

Results and discussion

Results show that LCA practitioners’ values are informed partly by the knowledge acquired through their LCA work. At the same time, LCA standards and professional norms implicitly advise practitioners to keep those values out of their work as much as possible, so as not to compromise its apparent objectivity. By contrast, many social scientists contend openly that value-based judgments, based on “situated knowledge,” can actually enhance the rigor, accountability, and credibility of scientific assessments.

Conclusions

LCA practitioners’ own situated knowledge justifies not only the value choices required by LCA but also their evaluative judgments of contemporary life cycle-based sustainability initiatives. This more critical voice could advance the goals of LCM while also boosting the credibility of LCA more generally.

     

Status update on LCA studies and networking in Tanzania

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become a standard for assessing what impacts do products and/or services have throughout their entire life cycle. Since the inception of LCA technique, studies have been conducted in different parts of the world, including Tanzania. This study describes the current status of LCA, capacities, and networking in Tanzania. The study has identified what has already been done and potential research gaps that could be explored in future LCA studies.

Methods

A state-of-the-art review was conducted on published articles, reports, and other materials on LCA in Tanzania (covering a time frame of 1990–2015) which were searched on databases of scientific research and the general internet using a combination of keywords: “life cycle assessment and Tanzania,” “LCA and Tanzania,” and “life cycle assessment and LCA and Tanzania.” Reviews were on current status, research gaps, and the need for future research. Information related to education or training activities and networking were also gathered and reviewed.

Results and discussion

Literature review has revealed that in Tanzania the first LCA study was published in 2007. Few articles and reports were identified in which LCA technique was used mainly for academic research in agriculture, electricity generation, charcoal, biodiesel production from jatropha oil, bioethanol production from sugarcane molasses, production of biofuels from pyrolysis of wood, and production of charcoal from sawmill residues. The very small number of LCA studies conducted in the country could be due to the lack of skilled personnel, lack of local data, and lack of research funds. Tanzania Life Cycle Assessment Network was created to link LCA practitioners and to promote and support further development of LCA in the country. Also, LCA potential is huge yet to be fully explored.

Conclusions

This state-of-the-art review is the first of its kind that summarizes and puts together all LCA studies in Tanzania. Most studies faced the challenge of lack of local data, which resulted to the use of secondary data from the literature. In LCA, the use of data from different geographical conditions could cause bias of the results and consequently could affect the decision made or to be made from the study. In this regard, the study recommends the establishment of national LCI database to solve this problem. Also, most studies covered only few impact categories prompting for full LCA studies in future studies. The study also found that there is a need to establish regular LCA training and courses for capacity development.

     

Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback

Background

A range of evidence informs decision-making on innovation in health care, including formal research findings, local data and professional opinion. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of evidence for innovations into practice. In addition to the characteristics of evidence, it is known that processes at the individual level influence its impact on decision-making. Less is known about the ways in which processes at the professional, organisational and local system level shape evidence use and its role in decisions to adopt innovations.

Methods

A systematic scoping review was used to review the health literature on innovations within acute and primary care and map processes at the professional, organisational and local system levels which influence how evidence informs decision-making on innovation. Stakeholder feedback on the themes identified was collected via focus groups to test and develop the findings.

Results

Following database and manual searches, 31 studies reporting primary qualitative data met the inclusion criteria: 24 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the thematic analysis. Evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by multi-level processes (professional, organisational, local system) and interactions across these levels. Preferences for evidence vary by professional group and health service setting. Organisations can shape professional behaviour by requiring particular forms of evidence to inform decision-making. Pan-regional organisations shape innovation decision-making at lower levels. Political processes at all levels shape the selection and use of evidence in decision-making.

Conclusions

The synthesis of results from primary qualitative studies found that evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by processes at multiple levels. Interactions between different levels shape evidence use in decision-making (e.g. professional groups and organisations can use local systems to validate evidence and legitimise innovations, while local systems can tailor or frame evidence to influence activity at lower levels). Organisational leaders need to consider whether the environment in which decisions are made values diverse evidence and stakeholder perspectives. Further qualitative research on decision-making practices that highlights how and why different types of evidence come to count during decisions, and tracks the political aspects of decisions about innovation, is needed.