Life cycle impact assessment sophistication

International workshop
  • Jane C. Bare
  • David W. Pennington
  • Helias A. Udo de Haes
LCIA: State-of-art


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.


Decision making LCA LCIA Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Impact Assessment sustainable development uncertainty analysis valuation value choices weighting 


  1. Coulon, R.;Camobreco, V.;Teulon, H.;Besnainou, J. (1997): Data Quality and Uncertainty in LCI. Int. J. LCA 2 (3) 178–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, FLGoogle Scholar
  3. Finnveden, G. (1997): Valuation Methods Within LCA — Where are the Values? Int. J. LCA 2 (3) 163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goedkoop, M.;Hofstetter, P.;Muller-Wenk, R.;Spriensma, R. (1998): The Eco-Indicator 98 Explained. Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 352–360Google Scholar
  5. Grahl, B.;Schmincke, E. (1996): Evaluation and Decision-making Processes in Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. LCA 1 (1) 32–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. HertwiCi E.G.;Pease, W.S.;McKone,T.E. (1993): Evaluating Toxic Impact Assessment Methods: What Works Best? Environmental Science and Toxicology 32, 138A-145AGoogle Scholar
  7. Hkrtwich, E.G. (1999): Toxic Equivalency: Accounting for Human Health in Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. PhD thesis, Energy and Resources Group, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Hkrtwich, E. G.;McKonf, T.E.;Pease, W.S. (in press): Parameter Uncertainty and Variability in Evaluative Fate and Exposure Models. Risk AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  10. International Organisation for Standardisation (1999): ISO/DIS 14042: Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Life Cycle Impact AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, FLGoogle Scholar
  12. 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). 209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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) 16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Powell, J.;Pearce, D.W.;Craighill, A.L. (1996): Approaches to Valuation in LCA Impact Assessment. Int. J. LCA 2(1)11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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) 66–74Google Scholar
  16. 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) 167–174Google Scholar
  17. 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, FranceGoogle Scholar
  18. UNEP Industry and Environment (1998): Draft Workshop Summary — Towards Global Use of LCA, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  19. Volkwein, S.;Gihr, R.;Klöpffer, W. (1996a): The Valuation Step Within LCA. Part I: General Principles. Int. J. LCA 1 (1)36–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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) 182–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wenzel, H. (1998): Application Dependency of LCA Methodology: Key Variables and Their Mode of Influencing the Method. Int. J. LCA 3 (5) 281–287Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ecomed publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane C. Bare
    • 1
  • David W. Pennington
    • 2
  • Helias A. Udo de Haes
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Risk Management Research LaboratoryCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Risk Management Research LaboratoryCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Centre of Environmental Science (CML)Leiden UniversityNetherlands

Personalised recommendations