Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uncertainty in life cycle costing for long-range infrastructure. Part II: guidance and suitability of applied methods to address uncertainty

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

Abstract

Life cycle costing (LCC) is the state-of-the-art method to economically evaluate long-term projects over their life spans. However, uncertainty in long-range planning raises concerns about LCC results. In Part I of this series, we developed a holistic framework of the different types of uncertainty in infrastructure LCCs. We also collected methods to address these uncertainties. The aim of Part II is to evaluate the suitability of methods to cope with uncertainty in LCC. Part I addressed two research gaps. It presented a systematic collection of uncertainties and methods in LCC and, furthermore, provided a holistic categorization of both. However, Part I also raised new issues. First, a combined analysis of sources and methods is still outstanding. Such an investigation would reveal the suitability of different methods to address a certain type of uncertainty. Second, what has not been assessed so far is what types of uncertainty are insufficiently addressed in LCC. This would be a feature to improve accuracy of LCC results within LCC, by suggesting options to better cope with uncertainty. To address these research gaps, we conducted a systematic literature review. Part II analyzed the suitability of methods to address uncertainties. The suitability depends on data availability, type of data (tangible, intangible, random, non-random), screened hotspots, and tested modeling specifications. We identified types of uncertainties and methods that have been insufficiently addressed. The methods include probabilistic modeling such as design of experiment or subset simulation and evolutionary algorithm and Bayesian modeling such as the Bayesian latent Markov decision process. Subsequently, we evaluated learning potential from other life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA). This analysis revealed 28 possible applications that have not yet been used in LCC. Lastly, we developed best practices for LCC practitioners. This systematic review complements prior research on uncertainty in LCC for infrastructure, as laid out in Part I. Part II concludes that all relevant methods to address uncertainty are currently applied in LCC. Yet, the level of application is different. Moreover, not all methods are equally suited to address different categories of uncertainty. This review offers guidance on what to do for each source and type of uncertainty. It illustrates how methods can address both based on current practice in LCC, LCA, and LCSA. The findings of Part II encourage a dialog between practitioners of LCC, LCA, and LCSA to advance research and practice in uncertainty analysis.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASCE:

American Society of Civil Engineers

DQI:

Data quality indicator

EU-COM:

European Commission

GAO:

Government Accountability Office

HOMER:

Hybrid optimization of multiple energy resources

JRC:

European Commission’s Joint Research Center

IEC:

International Electrotechnical Commission

IES:

European Commission’s Institute for Environment and Sustainability

ILCD:

International Reference Life Cycle Data System

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LCC:

Life cycle costing

LCSA:

Life cycle sustainability assessment

LCI:

Life cycle inventory

MCS:

Monte Carlo Simulation

PMS:

Parameter, model, scenario uncertainty

US:

United States

US EPA:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

US NREL:

United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory

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 

  • Albogamy A, Dawood N (2015) Development of a client-based risk management methodology for the early design stage of construction processes: applied to the KSA. Engineering. Constr Archit Manage 22:493–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE (2015) Journal of Infrastructure Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers, available at: http://ascelibrary.org/page/jitse4/editorialboard

  • Andrade AR, Teixeira PF (2012) A Bayesian model to assess rail track geometry degradation through its life-cycle. Res Trans E 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 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolger F (1996) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. J Behav Decis Making 9:147–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC

  • Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A (2013) Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 26:379–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier J-L, Téno J-FL (1996) Life cycle analysis with ill-defined data and its application to building products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:90–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Choe D-E, Gardoni P, Rosowsky D, Haukaas T (2008) Probabilistic capacity models and seismic fragility estimates for RC columns subject to corrosion. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93:383–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A (2009) Cost data quality considerations for eco-efficiency measures. Ecol Econ 68:1583–1590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema B, Lesage P (2013) Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0670-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciuffo B, Miola A, Punzo V, Sala S (2012) Dealing with uncertainty in sustainability assessment. Report on the application of different sensitivity analysis techniques to field specific simulation models

  • Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manage 32:2482–2495

    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 

  • Cooper HM (1982) Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Rev Educ Res 52:291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corominas L, Foley J, Guest JS et al (2013) Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art. Water Res 47:5480–5492

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crane D (1969) Social structure in a group of scientists: a test of the “invisible college” hypothesis. Ame Sociol Rev 34:335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Saxcé M, Rabenasolo B, Perwuelz A (2014) Assessment and improvement of the appropriateness of an LCI data set on a system level—application to textile manufacturing. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:950–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit MK, Fernandez-Solis JL, Lavy S, Culp CH (2010) Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: a literature review. Energ Buildings 42:1238–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt S, Schwarz J, Thewes M (2014) The lifecycle cost concept for implementation of economic sustainability in tunnel construction / Das Lebenszykluskostenkonzept zur Umsetzung der ökonomischen Nachhaltigkeit von Tunnelbauwerken. Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 7:593–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergonul S (2005) A probabilistic approach for earthquake loss estimation. Struct Saf 27:309–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkoyuncu JA, Roy R, Shehab E, Cheruvu K (2011) Understanding service uncertainties in industrial product–service system cost estimation. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 52:1223–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU-COM JRC IES (2015) European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment: ILCD Handbook, available at: http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Firouzi A, Rahai A (2012) An integrated ANN-GA for reliability based inspection of concrete bridge decks considering extent of corrosion-induced cracks and life cycle costs. Sci Iranica 19:974–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavankar S, Anderson S, Keller AA (2015) Critical components of uncertainty communication in life cycle assessments of emerging technologies: nanotechnology as a case study. J Ind Ecol 19:468–479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiadou MC, Hacking T, Guthrie P (2012) A conceptual framework for future-proofing the energy performance of buildings. Energ Policy 47:145–155

    Article  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 Manage 57:689–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gransberg DD, Diekmann J (2004) Quantifying pavement life cycle cost inflation uncertainty. AACE International Transactions, pp 1–1

  • 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 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidmann I, Milde J (2013) Communication about scientific uncertainty: how scientists and science journalists deal with uncertainties in nanoparticle research. Environ Sci Europe 25:25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R (1996) Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 4:159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Settanni E, Guinée J (2013) Toward a computational structure for life cycle sustainability analysis: unifying LCA and LCC. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1722–1733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Heijungs R et al (2014) A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:429–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbold KD (2000) Using Monte Carlo simulation for pavement cost analysis. Public Roads 64:2

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hong T, Hastak M (2007) Life-cycle cost assessment model for fiber reinforced polymer bridge deck panels. Can J Civil Eng 34:976–991

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M (2014) Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess 48:27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Norris G, Bretz R et al (2001) Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEC 62198 (2013) Managing risk in projects—application guidelines

  • IEC 60300-3-3 (2004) Dependability management—part 3–3: Application guide - Life cycle costing

  • 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 112:926–945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 31000 (2009) Risk management—principles and guidelines

  • ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines

  • Jørgensen A, Hermann IT, Mortensen JB (2010) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:531–532

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • Kennedy DJ, Montgomery DC, Quay BH (1996) Data quality: stochastic environmental life cycle assessment modeling a probabilistic approach to incorporating variable input data quality. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:199–207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostka G, Anzinger N (2015) Large infrastructure projects in Germany—between ambition and realities, available at: https://www.hertie-school.org/infrastructure/

  • Kumar YP, Bhimasingu R (2015) Renewable energy based microgrid system sizing and energy management for green buildings. J Modern Power Syst Clean Energy 3:1–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Clavreul J, Bernstad A et al (2014) Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems—Part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manage 34:589–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li C-T, Peng H, Sun J (2014) Life cycle cost analysis of wind power considering stochastic uncertainties. Energy 75:411–418

    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 Z, Atamturktur S, Juang CH (2014) Reliability based multi-objective robust design optimization of steel moment resisting frame considering spatial variability of connection parameters. Eng Struct 76:393–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Chen J, Feng L (2013) Dealing with uncertainty: a survey of theories and practices. IEEE T Knowl Data Eng 25:2463–2482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11:161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata É, Sasic Kalagasidis A, Johnsson F (2015) Cost-effective retrofitting of Swedish residential buildings: effects of energy price developments and discount rates. Energy Efficiency 8:223–237

    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. Energ Convers Manage 51:722–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May J, Brennan D (2003) Application of data quality assessment methods to an LCA of electricity generation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:215–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring P (2003) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken, Springer, Berlin, DE

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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 

  • Muench S, Guenther E (2013) A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments. Appl Energ 112:257–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller S, Lesage P, Ciroth A et al (2014) The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0759-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachtmann H, Needy KL (2003) Methods for handling uncertainty in activity-based costing systems. Eng Econ 48:259–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsen T, Aven T (2003) Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 79:309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noori M, Tatari O, Nam B et al (2014) A stochastic optimization approach for the selection of reflective cracking mitigation techniques. Transport Res A: Pol 69:367–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostermeyer Y, Wallbaum H, Reuter F (2013) Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1762–1779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappenberger F, Beven KJ (2006) Ignorance is bliss: or seven reasons not to use uncertainty analysis: OPINION. Water Resour Res 42:n/a–n/a. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004820

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 PtF: J Rail Rapid Transit 223:285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabl A (1985) Optimizing investment levels for energy conservation: Individual versus social perspective and the role of uncertainty. Energy Econ 7:259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388

    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 

  • Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002) How LCA studies deal with uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:47–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy R (2003) Cost engineering: why, what and how? Available at: https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/64

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schau EM, Traverso M, Lehmann A, Finkbeiner M (2011) Life cycle costing in sustainability assessment—a case study of remanufactured alternators. Sustainability 3:2268–2288

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • Silvestre J, Lasvaux S, Hodková J et al (2015) NativeLCA—a systematic approach for the selection of environmental datasets as generic data: application to construction products in a national context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:731–750

    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 

  • Singh D, Tiong RLK (2005) Development of life cycle costing framework for highway bridges in Myanmar. Int J Project Manage 23:37–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava AK, Nema AK (2012) Fuzzy parametric programming model for multi-objective integrated solid waste management under uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl 39:4657–4678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamford L, Azapagic A (2014) Life cycle sustainability assessment of UK electricity scenarios to 2070. Energ Sust Dev 23:194–211

    Article  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 

  • Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W et al (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. SETAC, Pensacola, US-FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Tähkämö L, Ylinen A, Puolakka M, Halonen L (2012) Life cycle cost analysis of three renewed street lighting installations in Finland. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:154–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truffer B, Störmer E, Maurer M, Ruef A (2010) Local strategic planning processes and sustainability transitions in infrastructure sectors. Environ Policy Gov 20:258–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay TP, Shahi C, Leitch M, Pulkki R (2012) Economic feasibility of biomass gasification for power generation in three selected communities of northwestern Ontario, Canada. Energ Policy 44:235–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walls J, Smith MR (1998) Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design. Interim Technical Bulletin, FHWA, US DOT, available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/21000/21300/21386/PB99114365.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 43:166–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP, Wesnæs MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiler H (1965) The use of the incomplete beta functions for prior distributions inbinomial sampling. Technometrics 7(3):335–347

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams ED, Weber CL, Hawkins TR (2009) Hybrid framework for managing uncertainty in life cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 13:928–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakeri B, Syri S (2015) Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle cost analysis. Renew Sust Energ 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 

  • Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buttol P et al (2012) Finding life cycle assessment research direction with the aid of meta-analysis. J Ind Ecol 16:S39–S52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zayed TM, Chang L-M, Fricker JD (2002) Life-cycle cost based maintenance plan for steel bridge protection systems. J Perform Constr Facil 16:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Liao R, Yang L et al (2014) A cost-effectiveness assessment model using grey correlation analysis for power transformer selection based on life cycle cost. Kybernetes 43:5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y, Tao Y, Rayegan R (2012) A comparison of deterministic and probabilistic life cycle cost analyses of ground source heat pump (GSHP) applications in hot and humid climate. Energy Build 55:312–321

    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”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, Chair of Environmental Management and Accounting, Technische Universität Dresden, Muenchner Platz 1/3, 01062, Dresden, Germany

    Christoph Scope, Patrick Ilg, Stefan Muench & Edeltraud Guenther

Authors
  1. Christoph Scope
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Ilg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Muench
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edeltraud Guenther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edeltraud Guenther.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Table S1

(DOC 312 kb)

Table S2

(DOC 115 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scope, C., Ilg, P., Muench, S. et al. 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 21, 1170–1184 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1086-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1086-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation