Skip to main content
Log in

Uncertainty in life cycle costing for long-range infrastructure. Part I: leveling the playing field to address uncertainties

  • UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle costing (LCC) is a state-of-the-art method to analyze investment decisions in infrastructure projects. However, uncertainties inherent in long-term planning question the credibility of LCC results. Previous research has not systematically linked sources and methods to address this uncertainty. Part I of this series develops a framework to collect and categorize different sources of uncertainty and addressing methods. This systematization is a prerequisite to further analyze the suitability of methods and levels the playing field for part II.

Methods

Past reviews have dealt with selected issues of uncertainty in LCC. However, none has systematically collected uncertainties and linked methods to address them. No comprehensive categorization has been published to date. Part I addresses these two research gaps by conducting a systematic literature review. In a rigorous four-step approach, we first scrutinized major databases. Second, we performed a practical and methodological screening to identify in total 115 relevant publications, mostly case studies. Third, we applied content analysis using MAXQDA. Fourth, we illustrated results and concluded upon the research gaps.

Results and discussion

We identified 33 sources of uncertainty and 24 addressing methods. Sources of uncertainties were categorized according to (i) its origin, i.e., parameter, model, and scenario uncertainty and (ii) the nature of uncertainty, i.e., aleatoric or epistemic uncertainty. The methods to address uncertainties were classified into deterministic, probabilistic, possibilistic, and other methods. With regard to sources of uncertainties, lack of data and data quality was analyzed most often. Most uncertainties having been discussed were located in the use stage. With regard to methods, sensitivity analyses were applied most widely, while more complex methods such as Bayesian models were used less frequently. Data availability and the individual expertise of LCC practitioner foremost influence the selection of methods.

Conclusions

This article complements existing research by providing a thorough systematization of uncertainties in LCC. However, an unambiguous categorization of uncertainties is difficult and overlapping occurs. Such a systemizing approach is nevertheless necessary for further analyses and levels the playing field for readers not yet familiar with the topic. Part I concludes the following: First, an investigation about which methods are best suited to address a certain type of uncertainty is still outstanding. Second, an analysis of types of uncertainty that have been insufficiently addressed in previous LCC cases is still missing. Part II will focus on these research gaps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal aspects

References

  • Aissani A, Chateauneuf A, Fontaine J-P, Audebert P (2014) Cost model for optimum thicknesses of insulated walls considering indirect impacts and uncertainties. Energy Build 84:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allacker K (2012) Environmental and economic optimisation of the floor on grade in residential buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:813–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society of Civil Engineers (2015) J Infrastruct Syst

  • Ammar M, Zayed T, Moselhi O (2013) Fuzzy-based life-cycle cost model for decision making under subjectivity. J Constr Eng Manage 139:556–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade AR, Teixeira PF (2012) A Bayesian model to assess rail track geometry degradation through its life-cycle. Res Transp Econ 36:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anwari M, Rashid M, Muhyiddin H, Ali A (2012) An evaluation of hybrid wind/diesel energy potential in Pemanggil Island Malaysia. IEEE, pp 1–5

  • Apostolakis G (1990) The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science 250:1359–1364

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Asiedu Y, Besant RW (2000) Simulation-based cost estimation under economic uncertainty using kernel estimators. Int J Prod Res 38:2023–2035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asiedu Y, Gu P (1998) Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. Int J Prod Res 36:883–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayyub BM (2001) Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. CRC Press

  • Battke B, Schmidt TS, Grosspietsch D, Hoffmann VH (2013) A review and probabilistic model of lifecycle costs of stationary batteries in multiple applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 25:240–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becheikh N, Landry R, Amara N (2006) Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: a systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003. Technovation 26:644–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford T, Cooke R (2001) Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge University Press

  • Bevington PR, Robinson DK (1992) Error analysis. Data Reduct Error Anal Phys Sci 38–48

  • Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:64–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Book SA (1999) Why correlation matters in cost estimating. pp 2–5

  • Boussabaine HA, Kirkham RJ (2004) Whole life risk analysis techniques. In: Whole life-cycle costing: risk and risk responses. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp 56–83

  • Budnitz RJ, Apostolakis G, Boore DM et al (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts

  • Butry D (2009) Economic performance of residential fire sprinkler systems. Fire Technol 45:117–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalieri S, Maccarrone P, Pinto R (2004) Parametric vs. neural network models for the estimation of production costs: a case study in the automotive industry. Int J Prod Econ 91:165–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2007) Soft computing-based life-cycle cost analysis tools for transportation infrastructure management

  • Chien SI-J, Ding Y, Wei C (2002) Dynamic bus arrival time prediction with artificial neural networks. J Transp Eng 128:429–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole RJ, Sterner E (2000) Reconciling theory and practice of life-cycle costing. Build Res Inf 28:368–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole RC, Morandi F, Avenell J, Daniel GB (2005) Trans-splenic portal scintigraphy in normal dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 46:146–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9:458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danaher AC (2012) Incorporating externalities and uncertainty into life-cycle cost analysis. DTIC document

  • De Leon D, Diaz Camacho S, Gonzalez Perez CA (2013) Reliability-based optimal next inspection time of prestressed concrete bridges including the effect of corrosion deterioration. Rev Tec Fac Ing Univ Zulia 36:114–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Der Kiureghian A, Ditlevsen O (2007) Aleatory or epistemic? Does it matter? Special workshop on risk acceptance and risk communication, March 26–27, 2007. Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhillon BS (1981) Life cycle cost: a survey. Microelectron Reliab 21:495–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Muñoz F, Cejudo-López JM, Carrillo-Andrés A (2010) Uncertainty in peak cooling load calculations. Energy Build 42:1010–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durango-Cohen P, Tadepalli N (2006) Using advanced inspection technologies to support investments in maintenance and repair of transportation infrastructure facilities. J Transp Eng 132:60–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlen MA, Marshall HE (1996) The economics of new-technology materials: a case study of FRP bridge decking. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Applied Economics, Building and Fire Research Laboratory

  • El-Diraby TE, Rasic I (2004) Framework for managing life-cycle cost of smart infrastructure systems. J Comput Civ Eng 18:115–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emblemsvåg J, Bras B (1997) Method for life-cycle design cost assessments using activity-based costing and uncertainty. Eng Des Autom 3:339–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes P, Roy R, Mehnen J, Harrison A (2011) An overview on degradation modelling for service cost estimation. In: Functional thinking for value creation. Springer, pp 309–314

  • Fink A (2013) Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis R, Falconi S, Nateghi R, Guikema S (2011) Probabilistic life cycle analysis model for evaluating electric power infrastructure risk mitigation investments. Clim Change 106:31–55

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Fwa TF, Tan CY, Chan WT (1994) Road-maintenance planning using genetic algorithms. II: analysis

  • GAO (2007) Cost assessment guide best practices for estimating and managing program costs. US Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:184–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gluch P, Baumann H (2004) The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Build Environ 39:571–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh YM, Newnes LB, Mileham AR et al (2010) Uncertainty in through-life costing—review and perspectives. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 57:689–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Mayer H, Lewis D (2004) Life‐cycle cost in a highly uncertain economic environment: the case of managing the US Department of Energy’s nuclear waste legacy. Fed Facil Environ J 15:67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo T, Liu T, Li A (2012) Pavement rehabilitation strategy selection for steel suspension bridges based on probabilistic life-cycle cost analysis. J Perform Constr Facil 26:76–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halog A (2004) An approach to selection of sustainable product improvement alternatives with data uncertainty. J Sustain Prod Des 4:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han G, Srebric J, Enache-Pommer E (2014) Variability of optimal solutions for building components based on comprehensive life cycle cost analysis. Energy Build 79:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Huijbregts MA (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. Osnabruck, Germany

  • Hellweg S (2001) Time-and site-dependent life cycle assessment of thermal waste treatment processes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:46–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helton JC (1994) Treatment of uncertainty in performance assessments for complex systems. Risk Anal 14:483–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrion M, Fischhoff B (2013) Assessing uncertainty in physical constants. Judgm Decis Mak 146

  • Hinow M, Mevissen M (2011) Substation maintenance strategy adaptation for life-cycle cost reduction using genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 26:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere, and valuesphere. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Hong T, Han S, Lee S (2007) Simulation-based determination of optimal life-cycle cost for FRP bridge deck panels. Autom Constr 16:140–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MA (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MA, Gilijamse W, Ragas AM, 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 37:2600–2608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hunkeler DJ, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ilg P, Hoehne C, Guenther E (2016) High-performance materials in infrastructure: a review of applied life cycle costing and its drivers—the case of fiber-reinforced composites. J Clean Prod 12:926–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iman RL, Shortencarier MJ (1984) FORTRAN 77 program and user’s guide for the generation of Latin hypercube and random samples for use with computer models. Sandia National Labs, Albuquerque

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 15686–5 (2008) Buildings and constructed assets—service-life planning—part 5: life-cycle costing

  • Isukapalli SS (1999) Uncertainty analysis of transport-transformation models. The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochimsen R (1966) Theorie der Infrastrucktur: Grundlagen der marktwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Mohr Siebeck

  • Johnson DR, Willis HH, Curtright AE et al (2011) Incorporating uncertainty analysis into life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass production. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2619–2626

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jung P, Seo J, Lee J (2009) Probabilistic value analysis methodology for public water supply systems. Civ Eng Environ Syst 26:141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1982) Variants of uncertainty. Cognition 11:143–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kantola M, Saari A (2013) Renewable vs. traditional energy management solutions—a Finnish hospital facility case. Renew Energy Int J 57:539–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavousi-Fard A, Niknam T, Khooban MH (2014) Intelligent stochastic framework to solve the reconfiguration problem from the reliability view. IET Sci Meas Technol 8:245–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayrbekova D, Markeset T, Ghodrati B (2011) Activity-based life cycle cost analysis as an alternative to conventional LCC in engineering design. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 2:218–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S, Frangopol DM (2011) Inspection and monitoring planning for RC structures based on minimization of expected damage detection delay. Probab Eng Mech 26:308–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkham RJ, Boussabaine AH, Kirkham MP (2002) Stochastic time series forecasting of electricity costs in an NHS acute care hospital building, for use in whole life cycle costing. Eng Constr Archit Manag 9:38–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kishk M (2004) Combining various facets of uncertainty in whole‐life cost modelling. Constr Manag Econ 22:429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer B, Manstetten R, Petersen T, Schiller J (2013) The art of long-term thinking: a bridge between sustainability science and politics. Ecol Econ 93:79–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klir GJ (1996) Uncertainty theories, measures, and principles: an overview of personal views and contributions. In: Natke H, Ben-Haim Y (eds.) Uncertainty: a discussion from various points of view

  • Klöpffer W, Ciroth A (2011) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:99–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans TC (1959) Three essays on the state of economic science. A. M. Kelley Publishers

  • Kostka G, Anzinger N (2015) Large infrastructure projects in Germany—between ambition and realities. Hertie School of Governance, pp 1–3

  • Kumar R, Gardoni P, SanchezSilva M (2009) Effect of cumulative seismic damage and corrosion on the lifecycle cost of reinforced concrete bridges. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:887–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S (1995) The social construction of validity. Qual Inq 1:19–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai J, Zhang L, Duffield CF, Aye L (2013) Engineering reliability analysis in risk management framework: development and application in infrastructure project. Int J Appl Math 43:242–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee J-Y, Yoo M, Cha K et al (2009) Life cycle cost analysis to examine the economical feasibility of hydrogen as an alternative fuel. Int J Hydrog Energy 34:4243–4255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levander E, Schade J, Stehn L (2009) Life cycle cost calculation models for buildings & addressing uncertainties about timber housing by whole life costing

  • Li Q (2015) New generation traction power supply system and its key technologies for electrified railways. J Mod Transp 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s40534-015-0067-1

  • Li Z, Madanu S (2009) Highway project level life-cycle benefit/cost analysis under certainty, risk, and uncertainty: methodology with case study. J Transp Eng 135:516–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindholm A, Suomala P (2007) Learning by costing: sharpening cost image through life cycle costing? Int J Product Perform Manag 56:651–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu G (2014) Development of a general sustainability indicator for renewable energy systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 31:611–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata É, Sasic Kalagasidis A, Johnsson F (2014) Cost-effective retrofitting of Swedish residential buildings: effects of energy price developments and discount rates. Energy Effic 8:223–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavrotas G, Florios K, Vlachou D (2010) Energy planning of a hospital using mathematical programming and Monte Carlo simulation for dealing with uncertainty in the economic parameters. Energy Convers Manag 51:722–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring P (2015) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Beltz Pädagogik

  • McDonald M, Madanat S (2012) Life-cycle cost minimization and sensitivity analysis for mechanistic-empirical pavement design. J Transp Eng 138:706–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menikpura SNM, Gheewala S, Bonnet S (2012) Sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management in Sri Lanka: problems and prospects. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 14:181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishalani RG, Gong L (2009a) Optimal Sampling of Infrastructure condition: motivation, formulation, and evaluation. J Infrastruct Syst 15:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishalani RG, Gong L (2009b) Optimal infrastructure condition sampling over space and time for maintenance decision-making under uncertainty. Transp Res B Methodol 43:311–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitropoulou CC, Lagaros ND, Papadrakakis M (2011) Life-cycle cost assessment of optimally designed reinforced concrete buildings under seismic actions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:1311–1331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Klassen TP, Schulz KF et al (2000) What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 53:964–972

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moore T, Morrissey J (2014) Lifecycle costing sensitivities for zero energy housing in Melbourne, Australia. Energy Build 79:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morcous G, Lounis Z (2005) Maintenance optimization of infrastructure networks using genetic algorithms. Autom Constr 14:129–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press

  • Mullard JA, Stewart MG (2012) Life-cycle cost assessment of maintenance strategies for RC structures in chloride environments. J Bridge Eng 17:353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US National Research Council (2000) Risk analysis and uncertainty in flood damage reduction studies. Committee on Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction

  • Natke HG, Ben-Haim Y (1997) Uncertainty—a discussion from various points of view. Math Res 99:267–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberkampf WL, Helton JC, Sentz K (2001) Mathematical representation of uncertainty. In: AIAA non-deterministic approaches forum. pp 16–19

  • Park CS, Sharp-Bette GP (1990) Advanced engineering economics. Wiley

  • Patra AP, Söderholm P, Kumar U (2009) Uncertainty estimation in railway track life-cycle cost: a case study from Swedish National Rail Administration. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit 223:285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesonen H-L, Horn S (2013) Evaluating the Sustainability SWOT as a streamlined tool for life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1780–1792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rathore C, Roy R (2014) A novel modified GBMO algorithm based static transmission network expansion planning. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 62:519–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich MC (2005) Economic assessment of municipal waste management systems—case studies using a combination of life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). J Clean Prod 13:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert F, Gosselin L (2014) New methodology to design ground coupled heat pump systems based on total cost minimization. Appl Therm Eng 62:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Rivero EJ, Emblemsvåg J (2007) Activity-based life-cycle costing in long-range planning. Rev Account Finance 6:370–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy R (2003) Cost engineering: why, what and how? Cranfield University, ISBN 1-861940-96-3

  • Russell AD (1981) Economic risks in energy conservation strategies. Build Environ 16:109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saassouh B, Lounis Z (2012) Probabilistic modeling of chloride-induced corrosion in concrete structures using first- and second-order reliability methods. Cem Concr Compos 34:1082–1093

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanyé-Mengual E, Oliver-Solà J, Montero J, Rieradevall J (2015) An environmental and economic life cycle assessment of rooftop greenhouse (RTG) implementation in Barcelona, Spain. Assessing new forms of urban agriculture from the greenhouse structure to the final product level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:350–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt W-P (2003) Life cycle costing as part of design for environment environmental business cases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scope C, Ilg P, Muench S, Guenther E (2016) Uncertainty in life cycle costing for long-range infrastructure. Part II: guidance and suitability of applied methods to address uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1086-9

  • Settanni E, Emblemsvåg J (2010) Applying a non-deterministic conceptual life cycle costing model to manufacturing processes. J Model Manag 5:220–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin H, Singh MP (2014) Minimum failure cost-based energy dissipation system designs for buildings in three seismic regions—part I: elements of failure cost analysis. Eng Struct 74:266–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simões C, Costa Pinto L, Simoes R, Bernardo CA (2013) Integrating environmental and economic life cycle analysis in product development: a material selection case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1734–1746

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sterner E (2000) Life-cycle costing and its use in the Swedish building sector. Build Res Inf 28:387–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stützle T, Hoos HH (2000) MAX–MIN ant system. Futur Gener Comput Syst 16:889–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan WG, Claycombe WW (1977) Fundamentals of forecasting. Prentice Hall

  • Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W et al (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:389–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatikonda MV, Rosenthal SR (2000) Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 47:74–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terzi S, Serin S (2014) Planning maintenance works on pavements through ant colony optimization. Neural Comput Appl 25:143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tighe S (2001) Guidelines for probabilistic pavement life cycle cost analysis. Transp Res Rec 1769:28–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Töpfer A (2012) Wie kann ich mein wissenschaftliches Arbeiten erfolgreich organisieren? In: Erfolgreich Forschen. Springer, pp 367–402

  • Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troldborg M, Heslop S, Hough RL (2014) Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 39:1173–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Exposure factors handbook. Unites States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC

  • Val DV (2007) Factors affecting life-cycle cost analysis of RC structures in chloride contaminated environments. J Infrastruct Syst 13:135–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Noortwijk JM, Klatter HE (2004) The use of lifetime distributions in bridge maintenance and replacement modelling. Adv Probabilistic Mech Struct Reliab 82:1091–1099

    Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg R (1993) Controversies and political decision making. In: Science, politics and morality. Springer, pp 7–26

  • Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J et al (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4:5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls J, Smith M (1998) Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design—interim technical bulletin

  • Wen YK, Kang YJ (2001) Minimum building life-cycle cost design criteria. II: applications. J Struct Eng 127:338–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willuweit L, O’Sullivan JJ (2013) A decision support tool for sustainable planning of urban water systems: presenting the dynamic urban water simulation model. Water Res 47:7206–7220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Elgh F, Erkoyuncu JA et al (2012a) Cost engineering for manufacturing: current and future research. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 25:300–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Xie N, Li W et al (2012b) Phase behaviors and ordering dynamics of diblock copolymer self-assembly directed by lateral hexagonal confinement. J Chem Phys 137:194905

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yoner N (2001) Major weapon systems acquisition and life cycle cost estimation: a case study. M.S. thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1973) Outline of a new approach to the analysis of complex systems and decision processes. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 28–44

  • Zakeri B, Syri S (2015) Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle cost analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42:569–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:373–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Patrick Ilg thanks the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for funding the program “Twenty20—Partnership for Innovation” and the entailed project “Carbon Concrete Composite.” Moreover, we thank Thomas Swarr and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback to an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edeltraud Guenther.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 1.31 mb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ilg, P., Scope, C., Muench, S. et al. Uncertainty in life cycle costing for long-range infrastructure. Part I: leveling the playing field to address uncertainties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 277–292 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1154-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1154-1

Keywords

Navigation