Moving from completing system boundaries to more realistic modeling of the economy in life cycle assessment

  • Yi YangEmail author
  • Reinout Heijungs



Existing process-based life cycle assessment (LCA) models can be supplemented by input-output (IO) models to correct for the so-called truncation error resulting from an “incomplete” system boundary. The resulting hybrid LCA is not necessarily but probably a closer approximation to an ideally complete process model with a global all-inclusive system boundary. Here, we discuss whether such a complete process model is a goal worth pursuing and whether system boundary is the main limitation of process-based LCA.


We argue that the results of the ideally complete process model, with every single economic activity on earth embodied within, have little to limited implications and relevance for the decisions which LCA seeks to support and which involve changes aimed at reducing environmental impacts through altering product systems or promoting alternatives. The main limitations of process-based LCA, as a supply chain based linear model, lie not in the “incomplete” system boundary but in the narrow focus on supply chain and the unrealistic assumptions, such as omission of price effects and constraints. These assumptions reflect poorly how the economy works. Hybrid LCA, through adding IO models, which are also supply chain and linearity based, doubles down on both the narrow focus on supply chain and the unrealistic assumptions, and thus is a step forward but in the wrong direction.

Results and discussion

Reflecting on advances in corn ethanol research, we show that pursuing a more complete system boundary by, for instance, covering Chinese stuffed animal production does not make the LCA results more accurate or relevant for determining if corn ethanol in the US should be promoted. Not only is the theoretical argument for including Chinese stuffed animal industry tenuous, but there is no evidence it has been affected by US corn ethanol expansion. And by worrying about processes far away up the supply chain could distract us from focusing on the actual market mechanisms, such as indirect land use change, that are more likely to occur and are essential to predicting whether promoting corn ethanol would reduce total carbon emissions.


We suggest future studies shifting focus from “completing” system boundary within the conventional supply chain and linear framework towards more realistic modeling of our complicated human-environment system. Instead of trying to always include everything, we argue for a flexible and market-based system boundary tailored to the decision in question, particularly considering the scale of potential changes it may cause and how it may affect the economy. A change at larger scales is likely to have a broader impact, thus justifying the definition of a broader system boundary. But to cover a broad system boundary for a small change will likely result in overestimates. More is not necessarily better.


Hybrid life cycle assessment Consequential System boundary Marginal changes 


  1. Chen X-P, Cui Z-L, Vitousek PM, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Bai JS, Meng QF, Hou P, Yue SC, Romheld V, Zhang FS (2011) Integrated soil-crop system management for food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:6399–6404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davis C, Nikolić I, Dijkema GPJ (2009) Integration of life cycle assessment into agent-based modeling. J Ind Ecol 13:306–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dervis K, Dervis K (1982) General equilibrium models for development policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 512Google Scholar
  4. Dixon PB, Jorgenson DW (2012) Handbook of computable general equilibrium modeling. Newnes, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliott J, Deryng D, Müller C, Frieler K, Konzmann M, Gerten D, Glotter M, Flörke M, Wada Y, Best N, Eisner S, Fekete BM, Folberth C, Foster I, Gosling SN, Haddeland I, Khabarov N, Ludwig F, Masaki Y, Olin S, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Satoh Y, Schmid E, Stacke T, Tang Q, Wisser D (2014) Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:3239–3244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO (2011) Global food loses and food waste—extent, causes, and prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  7. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319:1235–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrell A, Plevin R, Turner B, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferng J-J (2009) Applying input–output analysis to scenario analysis of ecological footprints. Ecol Econ 69:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibon T, Schaubroeck T (2017) Lifting the fog on characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA—a reply to “Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion?” by Yi Yang. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(3):456–406. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1005–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Golev A, Scott M, Erskine PD, Ali SH, Ballantyne GR (2014) Rare earths supply chains: current status, constraints and opportunities. Resour Policy 41:52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heijungs R (2012) Spatial differentiation, GIS-based regionalization, hyperregionalization and the boundaries of LCA. In: Ioppolo G (ed) Environment and energy. Milano, Italy, pp 165–176Google Scholar
  13. Hertel TW, Golub AA, Jones AD, O'Hare M, Plevin RJ, Kammen DM (2010) Effects of US maize ethanol on global land use and greenhouse gas emissions: estimating market-mediated responses. BioScience 60:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:11206–11210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hons FM, Saladino VA (1995) Yield contribution of nitrogen fertilizer, herbicide, and insecticide in a corn-soybean rotation. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 26:3083–3097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Isard W (1951) Interregional and regional input-output analysis: a model of a space-economy. Rev Econ Stat 33:318–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO (2006) ISO 14040: environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight L, Pfeiffer A, Scott J (2015) Supply market uncertainty: exploring consequences and responses within sustainability transitions. J Purch Supply Manag 21:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenzen M (2001) Errors in conventional and input output-based life-cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4:127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lundie S, Ciroth A, Huppes G (2007) Inventory methods in LCA: towards consistency and improvement. Final Rep UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiat Life Cycle Inventory LCI Programme Taskforce 3:Google Scholar
  21. Miller R, Blair P (2009) Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mirza M (2008) Economic impact of airplane turn-times. AERO Mag Q408Google Scholar
  23. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pomponi F, Lenzen M (2018) Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) will likely yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. J Clean Prod 176:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rajagopal D, Vanderghem C, MacLean HL (2017) Life cycle assessment for economists. Annu Rev Resour Econ 9:361–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rose A (1995) Input-output economics and computable general equilibrium models. Struct Change Econ Dyn 6:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaubroeck T, Gibon T (2017) Outlining reasons to apply hybrid LCA—a reply to “rethinking system boundary in LCA” by Yi Yang (2017). Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1012–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R et al (2008) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stasinopoulos P, Compston P, Newell B, Jones HM (2012) A system dynamics approach in LCA to account for temporal effects—a consequential energy LCI of car body-in-whites. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stiglitz J (2018) Where modern macroeconomics went wrong. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 34:70–106Google Scholar
  31. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar G et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Env Sci Technol 38:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ten Raa T (2006) The economics of input-output analysis. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Thirlwall AP (1983) Input-output analysis. In: Growth and development with special reference to developing economies. Palgrave, London, pp 231–248Google Scholar
  34. Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515:518–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wallander S, Claassen R, Nickerson C (2011) The ethanol decade: an expansion of US corn production, 2000–09. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang M, Wu M, Huo H (2007) Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types. Environ Res Lett 2:024001–024013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weidema PB (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  38. West GR (1995) Comparison of input–output, input–output+ econometric and computable general equilibrium impact models at the regional level. Econ Syst Res 7:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yang Y (2016) Two sides of the same coin: consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework. J Clean Prod 127:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang Y (2017) Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:456–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang Y, Heijungs R (2018) On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S (2012) Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in significant environmental problem-shifting. Environ Sci Technol 46:3671–3678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang Y, Heijungs R, Brandão M (2017) Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. J Clean Prod 150:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zink T, Geyer R, Startz R (2016) A market-based framework for quantifying displaced production from recycling or reuse. J Ind Ecol 20:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and BehaviorUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Econometrics and Operations ResearchVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands
  3. 3.Department of Industrial Ecology, Institute of Environmental SciencesLeiden UniversityLeidenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations