System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis
- 2.7k Downloads
Goal, Scope and Background
A consequential life cycle assessment (LCA) is designed to generate information on the consequences of decisions. This paper includes a comprehensive presentation of the consequential approach to system boundaries, allocation and data selection. It is based on a text produced within the SETAC-Europe working group on scenarios in LCA. For most of the methodological problems, we describe ideal methodological solutions as well as simplifications intended to make the method feasible in practice.
We compile, summarize and refine descriptions of consequential methodology elements that have been presented in separate papers, in addition to methodological elements and general conclusions that have not previously been published.
Results and Conclusions
A consequential LCA ideally includes activities within and outside the life cycle that are affected by a change within the life cycle of the product under investigation. In many cases this implies the use of marginal data and that allocation is typically avoided through system expansion. The model resulting from a consequential life cycle inventory (LCI) also includes the alternative use of constrained production factors as well as the marginal supply and demand on affected markets. As a result, the consequential LCI model does not resemble the traditional LCI model, where the main material flows are described from raw material extraction to waste management. Instead, it is a model of causal relationships originating at the decision at hand or the decision-maker that the LCI is intended to inform.
KeywordsAllocation consequential life cycle inventory analysis input data methodology modelling system boundaries
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Azapagic A (1996) Environmental System Analysis: the Application of Linear Programming to Life Cycle Assessment — Volume 1. PhD thesis. University of Surrey, Guilford, UKGoogle Scholar
- Baumann H (1998): Life Cycle Assessment and Decision Making — Theories and Practices. Ph.D thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- Baumann H, Ekvall T, Eriksson E, Kullman M, Rydberg T, Ryding S-O, Steen B, Svensson G (1993): Environmental comparison between recycling/re-use and incineration/landfilling. FoU nr 79, REFORSK, Malmö, Sweden (in Swedish)Google Scholar
- Cowell SJ (1998): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Agricultural Systems: Integration Into Decision-Making. Ph.D thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford, UKGoogle Scholar
- Curran MA, Mann M, Norris G (2001): Report on the International Workshop on Electricity Data for Life Cycle Inventories, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USAGoogle Scholar
- Ekvall T (1999a): System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment — With Implications for Wastepaper Management. Ph.D thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- Ekvall T (2003): Tools for consequential modelling. Poster presented at 13th SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Ekvall T, Person L, Ryberg A, Widheden J, Frees N, Nielsen PH, Pedersen BW, Wesnös M (1998): Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Systems for Beer and Soft Drinks — Main Report. Miljøprojekt nr. 399, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- Finnveden G, Ekvall T (1997): On the Usefulness of LCA in Decision-Making — the Case of Recycling vs. Incineration of Paper. Presentation Summaries, 5th LCA Case Studies Symposium, Brussels, Belgium, 9–17Google Scholar
- Frischknecht R (1997): Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. In: Udo de Haes H, Wrisberg N (eds) Life Cycle Assessment: State-of-the-Art and Research Priorities. LCA Documents, Vol. 1, Ecoinforma Press Bayreuth and ecomed publishers, Landsberg, Germany, 59–88Google Scholar
- Grubbström RW (1977): Decision and gambling theory. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden (in Swedish)Google Scholar
- Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998): Environmental Assessment of Products — Vol. 2: Scientific Background. Chapman & Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
- Heijungs R (1997): Economic Drama and the Environmental Stage — Formal Derivation of Algorithmic Tools for Environmental Analysis and Decision Support from a Unified Epistemological Principle. Ph.D thesis, Leiden University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Heintz B, Baisnée P-F (1992): System Boundaries. In: Life Cycle Assessment — Workshop Report, Leiden, The Netherlands, 35–52Google Scholar
- Hofstetter P (1998): Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment — A Structured Approach to Combine Models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- ISO (1998): Environmental Management- Life Cycle Assessment — Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. ISO 14041:1998(E) International Organisation of Standardisation, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Mattsson N, Unger T, Ekvall T (2001): Marginal Effects in a Dynamic System — The Case of the Nordic Power System. Presented to the International Workshop on Electricity Data for Life Cycle Inventories, Cincinnati, USA, 2001.10.23-25Google Scholar
- Steen B (1999): A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS). Version 2000 — Models and Data of the Default Method. CPM report 1999:5, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- Tillman A-M (1998): Use of LCA and its Implications for LCA Methodology. Handout, Environmental Engineering Research Event 1998, New South Wales, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Weidema BP (1993): Development of a Method for Product Life Cycle Assessment with Special bl]References to Food Products (Summary). PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- Weidema BP (2003): Market Information in LCA. Environmental Project no. 863. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- Weidema BP, Ekvall T, Pesonen H-L, Rebitzer G, Sonnemann GW, Spielmann M (2004): Scenarios in LCA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels/Pensacola (in press)Google Scholar