Advertisement

Investigating transparency regarding ecoinvent users’ system model choices

  • Marcella Ruschi Mendes SaadeEmail author
  • Vanessa Gomes
  • Maristela Gomes da Silva
  • Cassia Maria Lie Ugaya
  • Sébastien Lasvaux
  • Alexander Passer
  • Guillaume Habert
COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE
  • 201 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a data-intensive methodology; therefore, experts usually focus collection efforts on a few activities, while generic data on remaining activities are taken from databases. Even though increased availability of databases has facilitated LCA takeoff, assuring data quality is fundamental to ensure meaningful results and reliable interpretation.

Methods

Ecoinvent has become a global reference for inventory data. Its current version released three impact partition modeling options—the recycled content, “allocation at the point of substitution” (APOS), and consequential models—whose adequate choice is crucial for yielding meaningful assessments. Tutorials and manuals describe the distribution algorithm that backs each system model, to ground decision-making regarding the best fit to a study’s goals. We performed a systematic literature review to investigate—within the papers published on the International Journal of LCA (IJLCA)—how transparently authors addressed the system model choices.

Results and discussion

About 70% of LCA practitioners continued to use earlier versions of ecoinvent after version 3 was launched in 2013. The number of papers using versions 3.x only showed an increased growth trend 2 years later. Eighty-three papers actually adopted the newest version of the database. From those, only 29 papers clearly mentioned the adopted system model. Our SLR also suggests a trend regarding authorship profile of LCA-related studies: the number of studies conducted by practitioners aware of the intricacies of sound modeling of background and foreground data might have been surpassed by those conducted by non-LCA specialists who use LCA as a supporting tool for investigations in applied fields, and merely scratch the surface.

Conclusions

Our results point to a need for a caveat: ecoinvent users must take time to understand the general concept behind each system model and practice one of the most important actions when performing an LCA—state methodological choices clearly.

Keywords

LCA Ecoinvent System models Systematic literature review 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development for the financial support provided during the first author’s doctorate thesis development, and to the reviewers who shared their enlightened perspectives and inspired our reflections.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Carvalho M, da Silva ES, Andersen SLF, Abrahão R (2016) Life cycle assessment of the transesterification double step process for biodiesel production from refined soybean oil in Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(11):11025–11033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Seabra JEA, Bonomi A (2013) Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choma EF, Ugaya CML (2017) Environmental impact assessment of increasing electric vehicles in the Brazilian fleet. J Clean Prod 152:497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041 – a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faist Emmenegger M, Pfister S, Koehler A, De Giovanetti L, Arena AP, Zah R (2011) Taking into account water use impacts in the LCA of biofuels: an Argentinean case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(9):869–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frischknecht R (2000) Allocation in life cycle inventory analysis for joint production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glass GV (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5(10):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellweg S, Zah R (2016) What is new at the data front? Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1215–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Helmers E, Dietz J, Hartard S (2017) Electric car life cycle assessment based on real-world mileage and the electric conversion scenario. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(1):15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hou Q, Mao G, Zhao L, Du H, Zuo J (2015) Mapping the scientific research on life cycle assessment: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(4):541–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klöpffer W, Curran MA (2014) How many case studies should we publish, if any? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006) ISO 14044: Environmental Management – Lifecycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva.Google Scholar
  14. Knudsen MT, Fonseca de Almeida G, Langer V, Santiago de Abreu L, Halberg N, (2011) Environmental assessment of organic juice imported to Denmark: a case study on oranges (Citrus sinensis) from Brazil. Org Agric 1 (3):167-185Google Scholar
  15. Lewandowska A, Wawrzynkiewicz Z, Noskowiak A, Foltynowicz Z (2008) Adaptation of ecoinvent database to Polish conditions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Prapaspongsa T, Gheewala SH (2017) Consequential and attributional environmental assessment of biofuels: implications of modelling choices on climate change mitigation strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(11):1644–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part I. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saade MRM, Silva MG, Gomes V (2015) Appropriateness of environmental impact distribution methods to model blast furnace slag recycling in cement making. Resour Conserv Recycl 99:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saade MRM, Silva MGD, Gomes V (2017) Impact distribution methods’ use in multifunctional life cycle assessments: a systematic literature review. PARC research in architecture and building. Construction 8(4):272–285Google Scholar
  20. Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016) Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:976–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steubing B, Wernet G, Reinhard J, Bauer C, Moreno-Ruiz E (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part II): analyzing LCA results and comparison to version 2. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1269–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for {LCA} methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(1):113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weidema BP (2001) Avoiding co-product allocation in life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:11–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1218–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wohlin C (2014) Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 18, 2014. London. Proceedings, New York: ACM, pp 1–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcella Ruschi Mendes Saade
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vanessa Gomes
    • 1
  • Maristela Gomes da Silva
    • 2
  • Cassia Maria Lie Ugaya
    • 3
  • Sébastien Lasvaux
    • 4
  • Alexander Passer
    • 5
  • Guillaume Habert
    • 6
  1. 1.Architecture and Construction DepartmentUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Civil Engineering DepartmentFederal University of Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentFederal University of TechnologyParanáBrazil
  4. 4.Laboratory of Solar Energetics and Building PhysicsUniversity of Applied Sciences of Western SwitzerlandDelémontSwitzerland
  5. 5.Institute of Technology and Testing of Building MaterialsGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria
  6. 6.Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic EngineeringETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations