Advertisement

How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies?

  • Elorri IgosEmail author
  • Enrico Benetto
  • Rodolphe Meyer
  • Paul Baustert
  • Benoit Othoniel
UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA

Abstract

Purpose

The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a decision support tool can be hampered by the numerous uncertainties embedded in the calculation. The treatment of uncertainty is necessary to increase the reliability and credibility of LCA results. The objective is to provide an overview of the methods to identify, characterize, propagate (uncertainty analysis), understand the effects (sensitivity analysis), and communicate uncertainty in order to propose recommendations to a broad public of LCA practitioners.

Methods

This work was carried out via a literature review and an analysis of LCA tool functionalities. In order to facilitate the identification of uncertainty, its location within an LCA model was distinguished between quantity (any numerical data), model structure (relationships structure), and context (criteria chosen within the goal and scope of the study). The methods for uncertainty characterization, uncertainty analysis, and sensitivity analysis were classified according to the information provided, their implementation in LCA software, the time and effort required to apply them, and their reliability and validity. This review led to the definition of recommendations on three levels: basic (low efforts with LCA software), intermediate (significant efforts with LCA software), and advanced (significant efforts with non-LCA software).

Results and discussion

For the basic recommendations, minimum and maximum values (quantity uncertainty) and alternative scenarios (model structure/context uncertainty) are defined for critical elements in order to estimate the range of results. Result sensitivity is analyzed via one-at-a-time variations (with realistic ranges of quantities) and scenario analyses. Uncertainty should be discussed at least qualitatively in a dedicated paragraph. For the intermediate level, the characterization can be refined with probability distributions and an expert review for scenario definition. Uncertainty analysis can then be performed with the Monte Carlo method for the different scenarios. Quantitative information should appear in inventory tables and result figures. Finally, advanced practitioners can screen uncertainty sources more exhaustively, include correlations, estimate model error with validation data, and perform Latin hypercube sampling and global sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Through this pedagogic review of the methods and practical recommendations, the authors aim to increase the knowledge of LCA practitioners related to uncertainty and facilitate the application of treatment techniques. To continue in this direction, further research questions should be investigated (e.g., on the implementation of fuzzy logic and model uncertainty characterization) and the developers of databases, LCIA methods, and software tools should invest efforts in better implementing and treating uncertainty in LCA.

Keywords

Communication LCA software Life cycle assessment Sensitivity analysis Uncertainty analysis Uncertainty characterization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the members of the SCORELCA association for their feedback on the review of and recommendations for uncertainty treatment methods.

Funding

This work was funded by the SCORELCA association (study 2014-03).

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1477_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (31 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 30 kb)

References

  1. Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M (2004) F.A.L.C.A.D.E.: a fuzzy software for the energy and environmental balances of products. Ecol Model 176:359–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baudrit C, Guyonnet D, Dubois D (2005) Post-processing the hybrid method for addressing uncertainty in risk assessments. Environ Eng 131:1750–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benetto E, Dujet C, Rousseaux P (2008) Integrating fuzzy multicriteria analysis and uncertainty evaluation in life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 23:1461–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bisinella V, Conradsen K, Christensen TH, Astrup TF (2016) A global approach for sparse representation of uncertainty in life cycle assessments of waste management systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:378–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bojaca CR, Schrevens E (2010) Parameter uncertainty in LCA: stochastic sampling under correlation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema B, Lesage P (2015) Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1338–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Tonini D, Christensen TH (2013) Stochastic and epistemic uncertainty propagation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1393–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruze N, Goel PK, Bakshi BR (2013) On the “rigorous proof of fuzzy error propagation with matrix-based LCI”. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cucurachi S, Heijungs R (2014) Characterisation factors for life cycle impact assessment of sound emissions. Sci Total Environ 468:280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Koning A, Schowanek D, Dewaele J, Weisbrod A, Guinée J (2010) Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents; quantifying the confidence in a comparative result. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context—based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors. Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey HC, Li S (2002) Methods and example for development of a probabilistic per-capita emission factor for VOC emissions from consumer/commercial product use. In Proceedings of the 95th Annual Conference & Exhibition of Air & Waste Management, Baltimore, MD, June 2002; Paper 42162Google Scholar
  14. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzger G, Spielmann M, Wernet G (2007) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report no. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf Google Scholar
  15. Gavankar S, Anderson S, Keller AA (2014) Critical components of uncertainty communication in life cycle assessments of emerging technologies–nanotechnology as a case study. J Ind Ecol 19(3):468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment—case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115:45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groen EA, Heijungs R (2016) Ignoring correlation in uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: what is the risk? Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groen EA, Heijungs R, Bokkers EAM, de Boer IJM (2014) Methods for uncertainty propagation in life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 62:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groen EA, Bokkers EAM, Heijungs R, de Boer IJM (2016) Methods for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(7):1125–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Güereca LP, Agel N, Baldasano JM (2007) Fuzzy approach to life cycle impact assessment—an application for biowaste management systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):486–496Google Scholar
  22. Guo M, Murphy RJ (2012) LCA data quality: sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Sci Total Environ 435-436:230–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guyonnet D, Bourgine B, Dubois D, Fargier H, Côme B, Chilès JP (2003) Hybrid approach for addressing uncertainty in risk assessments. Environ Eng 129:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heijungs R (1994) A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecol Econ 10:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heijungs R (2010) Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (2005) Representing statistical distributions for uncertain parameters in LCA—relationships between mathematical forms, their representation in EcoSpold, and their representation in CMLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(4):248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. In complexity and integrated resources management. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Schmidt S, Rizzoli AE, Jakeman AJ (eds) Complexity and integrated resources management, University of Osnabrück, Germany, 14–17 June 2004. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Manno, pp 332–339Google Scholar
  28. Heijungs R, Kleijn R (2001) Numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation—five examples. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heijungs R, Lenzen M (2014) Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1445–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heijungs R, Tan RR (2010) Rigorous proof of fuzzy error propagation with matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:1014–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, de Koning A, Green DM (2014) A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hong J, Shaked S, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2010) Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas ADMJ, Reijnders L (2003) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37:2600–2608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hung ML, Ma HW (2009) Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Igos E, Benetto E (2015) Uncertainty sources in LCA, calculation methods and impacts on interpretation. Study no. 2014-03, SCORELCA association, available at https://www.scorelca.org/en/studies-lca.php Accessed 29 August 2017
  36. Imbeault-Tétrault H, Jolliet O, Deschênes L, Rosenbaum RK (2013) Analytical propagation of uncertainty in life cycle assessment using matrix formulation. J Ind Ecol 17(4):485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006a) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006; Second Edition 2006-06. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006b) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006; First edition 2006-07-01. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  39. Jung J, von der Assen N, Bardow A (2014) Sensitivity coefficient-based uncertainty analysis for multi-functionality in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:661–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kätelhön A, Bardow A, Suh S (2016) Stochastic technology choice model for consequential life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 50:12575–12583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lacirignola M, Blanc P, Girard R, Pérez-López P, Blanc I (2017) LCA of emerging technologies: addressing high uncertainty on inputs' variability when performing global sensitivity analysis. Sci Total Environ 578:268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 11(1):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lo SC, Ma H, Lo SL (2005) Quantifying and reducing uncertainty in life cycle assessment using the Bayesian Monte Carlo method. Sci Total Environ 340:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Malça J, Freire F (2012) Addressing land use change and uncertainty in the life-cycle assessment of wheat-based bioethanol. Energy 45:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maurice B, Frischknecht R, Coelho-Schwirtz V, Hungerbühler K (2000) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle inventory. Application to the production of electricity with French coal power plants. J Clean Prod 8:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mendoza Beltran A, Heijungs R, Guinée J, Tukker A (2016) A pseudo-statistical approach to treat choice uncertainty: the example of partitioning allocation methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mery Y, Tiruta-Barna L, Baudin I, Benetto E, Igos E (2014) Formalization of a technical procedure for process ecodesign dedicated to drinking water treatment plants. J Clean Prod 68:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan MG, Henrion M, Small M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Muller S, Lesage P, Ciroth A, Mutel C, Weidema BP, Samson R (2016a) The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):11327–11337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Muller S, Lesage P, Samson R (2016b) Giving a scientific basis for uncertainty factors used in global life cycle inventory databases: an algorithm to update factors using new information. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1185–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mutel CL, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2013) Two-step sensitivity testing of parametrized and regionalized life cycle assessments: methodology and case study. Environ Sci Technol 47:5660–5667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Noori M, Tatari O, Nam B, Golestani B, Greene J (2014) A stochastic optimization approach for the selection of reflective cracking mitigation techniques. Transp Res 69:367–378Google Scholar
  53. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263(5147):641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Padey P, Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Girard R, Le-Boulch D, Blanc I (2012) Understanding LCA results variability: developing global sensitivity analysis with Sobol indices. Int Symp Life Cycle Assess Constr Civ Eng Build, July 2012. RILEM Publications, Nantes, p 19–27Google Scholar
  55. Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Brown J, van der Keur (2006) A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error. Adv Water Resour 29:1586–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Röder M, Whittaker C, Thornley P (2015) How certain are greenhouse gas reductions from bioenergy? Life cycle assessment and uncertainty analysis of wood pellet-to-electricity supply chains from forest residues. Biomass Bioenergy 79:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sakai S, Yokoyama K (2002) Formulation of sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment using a perturbation method. Clean Tech Environ 4:72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Saltelli A, Annoni P (2010) How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis. Environ Model Softw 25:1508–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sonnemann GW, Schuhmacher M, Castells F (2003) Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator. J Clean Prod 11:279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sugiyama H, Fukushima Y, Hirao M, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Using standard statistics to consider uncertainty in industry-based life cycle inventory databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tan RR (2008) Using fuzzy numbers to propagate uncertainty in matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thabrew L, Lloyd S, Cypcar C, Hamilton JD, Ries R (2008) Life cycle assessment of water-based acrylic floor finish maintenance programs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Asselt MBA, Rotmans J (2001) Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling–from positivism to pluralism. Clim Chang 54:75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Quantifying the trade-off between parameter and model structure uncertainty in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 47:9274–9280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs JP, van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang E, Shen Z (2013) A hybrid data quality Indicator and statistical method for improving uncertainty analysis in LCA of complex system - application to the whole-building embodied energy analysis. J Clean Prod 43:166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weckenmann A, Schwan A (2001) Environmental life cycle assessment with support of fuzzy-sets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(1):13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wei W, Larrey-Lassalle P, Faure T, Dumoulin N, Roux P, Mathias JD (2015) How to conduct a proper sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: taking into account correlations within LCI data and interactions within the LCA calculation model. Environ Sci Technol 49:377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weidema BP, Wesnaes MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4(3–4):167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C et al (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. The ecoinvent Centre, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  71. Zamagni A, Buttol P, Porta PL, Buonamici R et al (2008) Critical review of the current research needs and limitations related to ISO-LCA practice - Deliverable D7 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. http://www.estis.net/builder/includes/page.asp?site=calcas&page_id=8215FF89-5114-4748-BE6C-1F0F1E69DAF5. Accessed 29 August 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Research and Innovation (ERIN)Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)BelvauxLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations