Abstract
On November 29 – 30, 1998 in Brussels, an international workshop was held to discuss Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Sophistication. Approximately 50 LCA experts attended the workshop from North America, Europe, and Asia. Prominent practitioners and researchers were invited to present a critical review of the associated factors, including the current limitations of available impact assessment methodologies and a comparison of the alternatives in the context of uncertainty. Each set of presentations, organised into three sessions, was followed by a discussion session to encourage international discourse with a view to improving the understanding of these crucial issues. The discussions were focused around small working groups of LCA practitioners and researchers, selected to include a balance of representatives from industry, government and academia.
This workshop provided the first opportunity for International experts to address the issues related to LCIA Sophistication in an open format. Among the topics addressed were: 1) the inclusion or exclusion of backgrounds and thresholds in LCIA, 2) the necessity and practicality regarding the sophistication of the uncertainty analysis, 3) the implications of allowing impact categories to be assessed at “midpoint” vs. at “endpoint” level, 4) the difficulty of assessing and capturing the comprehensiveness of the environmental health impact category, 5) the implications of cultural/philosophical views, 6) the meaning of terms like science-based and environmental relevance in the coming ISO LCIA standard, 7) the dichotomy of striving for consistency while allowing the incorporation of state-of-the-art research, 8) the role of various types of uncertainty analysis, and 9) the role of supporting environmental analyses (e.g., risk assessments). Many of these topics addressed the need for increased sophistication in LCIA, but recognised the conflict this might have in terms of the comprehensiveness and holistic character of LCA, and LCIA in particular. The participants concluded that the exchange of ideas in this format was extremely valuable and would like to plan successive International workshops on related themes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Coulon, R.;Camobreco, V.;Teulon, H.;Besnainou, J. (1997): Data Quality and Uncertainty in LCI. Int. J. LCA 2 (3) 178–182
Fava, J.;Consoli, F;Denison, R.;Dickson, K.;Mohin, T.;Vigon, B. (1993): A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: Pensacola, FL
Finnveden, G. (1997): Valuation Methods Within LCA — Where are the Values? Int. J. LCA 2 (3) 163–169
Goedkoop, M.;Hofstetter, P.;Muller-Wenk, R.;Spriensma, R. (1998): The Eco-Indicator 98 Explained. Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 352–360
Grahl, B.;Schmincke, E. (1996): Evaluation and Decision-making Processes in Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. LCA 1 (1) 32–35
HertwiCi E.G.;Pease, W.S.;McKone,T.E. (1993): Evaluating Toxic Impact Assessment Methods: What Works Best? Environmental Science and Toxicology 32, 138A-145A
Hkrtwich, E.G. (1999): Toxic Equivalency: Accounting for Human Health in Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. PhD thesis, Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley
Hkrtwich, E. G.;McKonf, T.E.;Pease, W.S. (in press): Parameter Uncertainty and Variability in Evaluative Fate and Exposure Models. Risk Analysis
Hoistkhtr, P. (1998): Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment: A Structure Approach to Combine Models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts
International Organisation for Standardisation (1999): ISO/DIS 14042: Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Owens, J.W.;Amey, E.;Barnthousk, E.;Consoi.i, E;Coulon, R.;Fava, J.;HumPHrEys, K.;Haae, B.;Hunt, B.;Laibson, L.;Mones, E.;Noesen, S.;Norris, G.;Todd, J.A.;Vigon, B.;Weitz, K.;Younc;,J. (1997): Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: State of the Art. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Pensacola, FL
Potting;,J.;Hauschild, M. (1997): Spatial Differentiation in Life-Cycle Assessment via the Site-Dependent Characterisation of Environmental Impact from Emission. Int. J. LCA 2 (4). 209–216
Potting, J.;Hauschild, M.;Wknzel, H. (1999): “Less is Better” and “Only Above Threshold”: Two Incompatible Paradigms for Human Toxicity in Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. LCA 4(1) 16–24
Powell, J.;Pearce, D.W.;Craighill, A.L. (1996): Approaches to Valuation in LCA Impact Assessment. Int. J. LCA 2(1)11–15
Udo de Haes, H.;Jolliet, O.;Finnveden, G.;Schauschild, M.;Krewitt, W;Muller-Wenk, R. (1999a): Best Available Practice Regarding Impact Categories and Category Indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment — Part 1. Int. J. LCA 4 (2) 66–74
Udo de Haes, H.;Jolliet, O.;Finnveden, G.;Hauschild, M.;Krewitt, W;Muller-Wenk, R. (1999b): Best Available Practice Regarding Impact Categories and Category Indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment — Part 2. Int. J. LCA 4 (3) 167–174
Udo de Haes, H. (ed.) (1996): Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. SETAC-Europe Working Group on Impact Assessment, Brussels UNEP Industry and Environment (1996): Life Cycle Assessment: What is it and How to Do It. United Nations Publication Sales no. 9C-III-D.2, Paris, France
UNEP Industry and Environment (1998): Draft Workshop Summary — Towards Global Use of LCA, Paris, France
Volkwein, S.;Gihr, R.;Klöpffer, W. (1996a): The Valuation Step Within LCA. Part I: General Principles. Int. J. LCA 1 (1)36–39
Volkwein, S.;Gihr, R.;Kloim-ter, W. (1996b): The Valuation Step Within LCA. Part II: A Formalized Method of Prioritization by Expert Panels. Int. J. LCA 1 (4) 182–192
Wenzel, H. (1998): Application Dependency of LCA Methodology: Key Variables and Their Mode of Influencing the Method. Int. J. LCA 3 (5) 281–287
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bare, J.C., Pennington, D.W. & Haes, H.A.U.d. Life cycle impact assessment sophistication. Int J LCA 4, 299–306 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979184
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979184