References
Ferng J-J (2009) Applying input–output analysis to scenario analysis of ecological footprints. Ecol Econ 69:345–354
Gibon T, Schaubroeck T (2017) Lifting the fog on the 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, doi:10.1007/s11367–016–1256-9. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367–017–1291-1
Haberl H, Sprinz D, Bonazountas M et al (2012) Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy 45:18–23
Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Pub, Dordrecht
Hill J, Tajibaeva L, Polasky S (2016) Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: the United States Renewable Fuel Standard. Energy Policy 97:351–353
Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2011) Evaluation of process- and input–output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ Sci Technol 45:10170–10177
McManus MC, Taylor CM (2015) The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 82:13–26
Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83
Rajagopal D, Hochman G, Zilberman D (2011) Indirect fuel use change (IFUC) and the lifecycle environmental impact of biofuel policies. Energy Policy 39:228–233
Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton R et al (2008a) Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240
Searchinger TD, Heimlich R et al (2008b) Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from soy-based US biodiesel when factoring in emissions from land use change. Lifecycle Carbon Footpr Biofuels 35–45
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 17:199–207
Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697
Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar G et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664
Yang Y (2017) Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:456–460
Yang Y (2016) Two sides of the same coin: consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework. J Clean Prod 127:274–281
Yang Y, Campbell JE (2017) Improving attributional life cycle assessment for decision support: the case of local food in sustainable design. J Clean Prod 145:361–366
Yang Y, Heijungs R (2016) Consequential life cycle assessment: different models for the same question. Int J Life Cycle Assess (in review)
York R (2012) Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? Nat Clim Chang 2:441–443
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Mary Ann Curran
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, Y. Rethinking system boundary in LCA—reply to “Lifting the fog on the characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA” by Thomas Gibon and Thomas Schaubroeck (2017). Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 1009–1011 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1295-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1295-x