Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 341–351 | Cite as

Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs

Review

Abstract

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) developments are explained along with key publications which record discussions which comprised ISO 14042 and SETAC document development, UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative research, and research from public and private research institutions. It is recognized that the short list of impact categories has remained fairly constant, even after extensive discussions. The termination point of impact assessment modeling (e.g., inventory, midpoint, endpoint, damage, single score) has been discussed extensively, and the advantages and disadvantages of these different levels are well published. Early LCIAs were conducted independent of system location, but now site-specificity has been a research topic for many of the local and regional categories (e.g., acidification, eutrophication, and smog formation). In reality, even though many advances have been made in site-specific analysis, the life cycle assessment (LCA) case studies are often limited to their inventory data, and as a result, most LCAs are still site-generic even though the LCIA methodologies exist to allow for site-specific analysis. Pollutant-based impacts have received the most research effort and support in the past, but resource depletion categories (e.g., land use and water use) are now recognized as being highly complex, site-specific, data intensive, and important for contributing toward the sustainability of the planet. Efforts in these categories are still in the neophyte stages and are expected to have the greatest advances in the upcoming years.

Keywords

Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) Sustainability metrics Environmental standards Impact assessment 

References

  1. Andersson-Skold Y, Grennfelt P, Pleijel K (1992) Photochemical ozone creation potentials. J Air Waste Manag 42:1152–1158Google Scholar
  2. Anton A, Castells F, Montero JI (2007) Land use indicators in life cycle assessment. Case study: the environmental impact of Mediterranean greenhouses. J Clean Prod 15:432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arpke A, Hutzler N (2006) Domestic water use in the United States—a life-cycle approach. J Ind Ecol 10:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baitz M, Kreissig J, Wolf M (2000) Method for integrating land use into life-cycle-assessment (LCA). Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt 119:128–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bare JC (2000) LCIA midpoints vs. endpoints—how do we decide? International workshop on LCIA midpoints vs. endpoints—the sacrifices and the benefitsGoogle Scholar
  6. Bare JC (2003) Workshop introduction & background of meta model for LCA taxonomy. Taxonomy workshopGoogle Scholar
  7. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2005) A closer look at life cycle impact assessment for the building design and construction industry. Building Design and Construction, Nov 22–24Google Scholar
  8. Bare JC, Gloria TP (2008) Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection. J Clean Prod 16:1021–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bare JC, Udo de Haes HA, Pennington DW (1999) Life cycle impact assessment sophistication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000a) Life cycle impact assessment midpoints vs. endpoints—the sacrifices and the benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bare JC, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000b) An international workshop on life cycle impact assessment sophistication, EPA/600/R-00/023Google Scholar
  12. Bare J, Fava J, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Muller-Wenk R, Owens W, Pennington D, Steen B, Tukker A, Udo de Haes H, Weidema B (2002) The areas of protection debate. In Klopffer W (ed) Gate to EHS: global LCA villageGoogle Scholar
  13. Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI—the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G (2006) Development of the method and U.S. normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 40:5108–5115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Barnthouse L, Fava J, Humphreys K, Hunt R, Laibson L, Noesen S, Norris G, Owens J, Todd J, Vigon B, Weitz K, Young J (1997) Life-cycle impact assessment: the state of the art. SETAC Books, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  16. Bellekom S, Potting J, Benders R (2006) Feasibility of applying site-dependent impact assessment of acidification in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bengtsson M, Steen B (2000) Weighting in LCA—approaches and applications. Environ Prog 19:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Blonk H, Lafleur M, Spriensma R, Goedkoop M, Stevens S, Agterberg A, van Engelenburg B, Blok K (1997) Normalization figures for Dutch territory, Dutch consumption, and West European territory. http://www.pre.nl/normal.html. Accessed 28 Sept 2005
  19. Brand G, Braunschweig A, Scheidegger A, Schwank O (1998) Weighting in ecobalances with the ecoscarcity method—ecofactors 1997, BUWAL Series 297Google Scholar
  20. Breedveld L, Lafleur M, Blonk H (1999) A framework for actualizing normalization data in LCA: experiences in the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Steinbach J (2004) Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessments—a combined model of simulation and approximation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM (1996) Photochemical ozone creation potentials for a large number of reactive hydrocarbons under European conditions. Atmos Environ 30:181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Derwent RG, Jenkin ME, Saunders SM, Pilling MJ (1998) Photochemical ozone creation potentials for organic compounds in Northwest Europe calculated with a master chemical mechanism. Atmos Environ 32:2429–2441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Energy Information Administration—U.S. Department of Energy (2003) Annual energy review, DOE/EIA-0384Google Scholar
  25. Fava J, Denison R, Jones B, Curran M, Vigon B, Selke S, Barnum J (1991) A technical framework for life-cycle assessment. SETAC Books, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  26. Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B (1993) A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. SETAC Books, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  27. Fava J, Jensen A, Lindfors L, Pomper S, Smet Bd, Warren J, Vigon B (1994) Life-cycle assessment data quality: a conceptual framework. SETAC Books, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  28. Finnveden G, Hofstetter P, Bare J, Basson L, Ciroth A, Mettier T, Seppala J, Johansson J, Norris G, Volkwein S (2002) Normalization, grouping, and weighting in life cycle impact assessment. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klopffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Muller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best available practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  29. Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes—development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbuhler K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:184–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gloria TP, Bare JC (2003) Taxonomy of impact categories and the taxonomy structure: results from the UNEP/SETAC/EPA Hamburg workshop. In: LCA-LCMGoogle Scholar
  32. Gloria TP, Lippiatt BC, Cooper J (2007) Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41:7551–7557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goedkoop M (1995) The Eco-indicator 95. Pre consultantsGoogle Scholar
  34. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage orientated method for life cycle impact assessment. Ministry of VROM, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  35. Goedkoop M, Demmers M, Collignon M (1996) The Eco-indicator 95. Pre consultantsGoogle Scholar
  36. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008—a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and endpoint level, 1st edn. Report 1: characterisationGoogle Scholar
  37. Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products. Volume 2: Scientific background. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Hauschild MZ, Potting J, Hertel O, Schopp W, Bastrup-Birk A (2006) Spatial differentiation in the characterisation of photochemical ozone formation—the EDIP2003 methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hauschild M, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, MacLeod M, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum R, McKone T (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42:7032–7036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992a) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgrounds (part 1). CML, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  41. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo De Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992b) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgrounds (part 2). CML, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  42. Heijungs R, Guinée J, Huppes G (1997) Impact categories for natural resources and land use. CML report 138—section substances and products. Centre of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden University, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  43. Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbuhler K (2003) Discounting and the environment—should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hertwich E (1999) Value judgements and the public right—rebuttal to Marsmann et al. on ISO 14042. Int J Life Cycle Assess Gate EHS Glob LCA VillageGoogle Scholar
  45. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001a) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment—part 2: midpoints, endpoints, and criteria for method development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001b) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment—part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hertwich E, Pease W (1998) ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:180–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hertwich E, McKone T, Pease W (1999) Parameter uncertainty and variability in evaluative fate and exposure models. Risk Anal 19:1193–1204Google Scholar
  49. Hertwich EG, McKone TE, Pease WS (2000) A systematic uncertainty analysis of an evaluative fate and exposure model. Risk Anal 20:439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hertwich EG, Pennington DW, Bare JC (2002) Introduction. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klopffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer EW, Muller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best available practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  51. Hettelingh JP, Posch M, Potting J (2005) Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification in Europe—a critical evaluation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heuvelmans G, Muys B, Feyen J (2005) Extending the life cycle methodology to cover impacts of land use systems on the water balance. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  54. Houghton JT, Filho LGM, Bruce JP, Lee H, Callander A, Haites EF (1995) Climate change 1994: radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC 1992 IS92 emission scenarios, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  55. Huijbregts MAJ (1999) Priority assessment of toxic substances in the frame of LCA. Development and application of the multi-media fate, exposure and effect model USES-LCA. Interfaculty Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, University of Amsterdam, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  56. Huijbregts M (2001) Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessmentGoogle Scholar
  57. Huijbregts MAJ, Seppala J (2001) Life cycle impact assessment of pollutants causing aquatic eutrophication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinee JB, Jager T, Kalf D, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Sleeswijk AW, Reijnders L (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 41:541–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Huijbregts MAJ, Breedveld L, Huppes G, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S (2003a) Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment—the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). J Clean Prod 11:737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L (2003b) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37:2600–2608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. International Standards Organization (1997) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle impact assessment. International Standard ISO14040:1997(E)Google Scholar
  62. International Standards Organization (2000) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle impact assessment. International Standard ISO14042:2000(E)Google Scholar
  63. International Standards Organization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle impact assessment. ISO 14042Google Scholar
  64. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996) In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K (eds) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001a) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis: contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001b) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis: contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Table 6.7 and Table 6.8. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) In: Metz B, Kuijpers L, Solomon S, Andersen SO, Davidson O, Pons J, de Jager D, Kestin T, Manning M, Meyer L (eds) Special report on safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  68. Itsubo N, Inaba A (2003) A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Jenkin ME, Hayman GD (1999) Photochemical ozone creation potentials for oxygenated volatile organic compounds: sensitivity to variations in kinetic and mechanistic parameters. Atmos Environ 33:1275–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Itsubo N, Peña C, Potting J, Pennington D, Rebitzer G, Schenck R, Stewart M, Haes HUd, Weidema B (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Koellner T (2002) Land use in product life cycles and its consequences for ecosystem quality. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:130–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2007) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment—part 1: an analytical framework for pure land occupation and land use change. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment—part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in central Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Labouze E, Honore U, Moulay L, Couffignal B, Beekmann M (2004) Photochemical ozone creation potentials—a new set of characterization factors for different gas species on the scale of Western Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lenzen M (2006) Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments—implications for decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lin MY, Zhang SS, Chen Y (2005) Distance-to-target weighting in life cycle impact assessment based on Chinese environmental policy for the period 1995–2005. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lindeijer E (1996) Normalization and valuation. In: Udo de Haes HA (ed) Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. SETAC-Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  80. Lindeijer E, Alfers A (2001) Summary of step A of the Delfts Cluster Research Programme on land use in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Lindeijer E, Kampen M, Fraanje P (1998) Biodiversity and life support indicators for land use impacts in LCA, IVAM and IBN/DLOGoogle Scholar
  82. Lo SC, Ma HW, Lo SL (2005) Quantifying and reducing uncertainty in life cycle assessment using the Bayesian Monte Carlo method. Sci Total Environ 340:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Lundie S, Huijbregts MAJ, Rowley HV, Mohr NJ, Feitz AJ (2007) Australian characterisation factors and normalisation figures for human toxicity and ecotoxicity. J Clean Prod 15:819–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto L, Jolliet O (2008) Evaluation of category indicators and characterization models: application to eutrophication, Task Force 1 of the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  85. Marsmann M, Olaf Ryding S, Udo de Haes H, Fava J, Owens W, Brady K, Saur K, Schenck R (1999) Letters to the editor—in reply to Hertwich & Pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180–181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment”. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity—proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mila i Canals L, Clift R, Basson L, Hansen Y, Brandao M (2006) Expert workshop on land use impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:363–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mila i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Knuchel RF, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Muller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007a) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Mila i Canals L, Romanya J, Cowell SJ (2007b) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Norris G (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:85–88Google Scholar
  91. Norris G (2003) Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts—methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. J Ind Ecol 6:79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Owens JW (2001) Water resources in life cycle impact assessment: considerations in choosing category indicators. J Ind Ecol 5:37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Potting J, Hauschild MZ (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Potting J, Schopp W, Blok K, Hauschild M (1998) Comparison of the acidifying impact from emissions with different regional origin in life-cycle assessment. J Hazard Mater 61:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rosenbaum R, Bachmann T, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen H, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone T, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, Meent D, Hauschild M (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002) How LCA studies deal with uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schmidt JH (2008) Development of LCIA characterisation factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 16:1929–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Schmidt WP, Sullivan J (2002) Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Seppala J (2007) On the meaning of fuzzy approach and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Seppala J, Hamalainen RP (2001a) On the meaning of the distance-to-target weighting method and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Seppala J, Hamalainen RP (2001b) Relationships between weighting factors and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:218–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Seppala J, Knuuttila S, Silvo K (2004) Eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems—a new method for calculating the potential contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Seppala J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh JP (2006) Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:403–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sleeswijk AW, van Oers L, Guinee JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MAJ (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Soares SR, Toffoletto L, Deschenes L (2006) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Clean Prod 14:649–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Alley RB, Berntsen T, Bindoff NL, Chen Z, Chidthaisong A, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Heimann M, Hewitson B, Hoskins BJ, Joos F, Jouzel J, Kattsov V, Lohmann U, Matsuno T, Molina M, Nicholls N, Overpeck J, Raga G, Ramaswamy V, Ren J, Rusticucci M, Somerville R, Stocker TF, Whetton P, Wood RA, Wratt D (2007) Technical summary. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–34Google Scholar
  107. Spitzley DV, Tolle DA (2008) Evaluating land-use impacts: selection of surface area metrics for life-cycle assessment of mining. J Ind Ecol 8:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Steen B (1999a) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in products development (EPS). Version 2000—general system characteristics—CPM report 1999:4. Chalmers University of Technology, GotheburgGoogle Scholar
  109. Steen B (1999b) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in products development (EPS). Version 2000—models and data—CPM report 1999:5. Chalmers University of Technology, GotheburgGoogle Scholar
  110. Strauss K, Brent AC, Hietkamp S (2006) Characterisation and normalisation factors for life cycle impact assessment mined abiotic resources categories in South Africa—the manufacturing of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Swan G (1998) Evaluation of land use in life cycle assessment. Center for Environmental Assessment of Product and Material Systems (CPM), Chalmers University of Technology, GoteborgGoogle Scholar
  112. Toffoletto L, Bulle C, Godin J, Reid C, Deschenes L (2007) LUCAS—A new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Udo de Haes HA (1996) Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. SETAC Books, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  114. Udo de Haes HA (1998) ISO’s compromise on comparative assertions in life cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 2:4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Udo de Haes HA (2006) How to approach land use in LCIA or, how to avoid the Cinderella effect? Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:219–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Udo de Haes H, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klopffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Muller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC Books, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  117. UNFCCC—The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2000) Review of the implementation of commitments and of other provisions of the convention, national communications: greenhouse gas inventories from parties included in Annex 1 to the convention. UNFCCC Guidelines on Reporting and Review. Table 1: 1995 IPCC global warming potential (GWP) values based on the effects of greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon. As provided by the IPCC in its Second Assessment Report, p 14Google Scholar
  118. US Environmental Protection Agency (1989a) Exposure factors handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  119. US Environmental Protection Agency (1989b) Risk assessment guidance for superfund. Volume I. Human health evaluation manual (part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  120. US Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Exposure factors handbook. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  121. US Green Building Council (2008a) Introduction to the LEED 2009 credit weighting toolGoogle Scholar
  122. US Green Building Council (2008b) LEED 2009 credit weightingGoogle Scholar
  123. US Green Building Council (2008c) LEED 2009 weightings backgroundGoogle Scholar
  124. van Oers L, Huppes G (2001) LCA normalization factors for the Netherlands, Western Europe and the World. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Van Jaarsveld HA, Reinds GJ, De Zwart D, Struijs J, Van de Meent D (2007) Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 41:922–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Vogtlander JG, Lindeijer E, Witte JPM, Hendriks C (2004) Characterizing the change of land-use based on flora: application for EIA and LCA. J Clean Prod 12:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wagendorp T, Gulinck H, Coppin P, Muys B (2006) Land use impact evaluation in life cycle assessment based on ecosystem thermodynamics. Energy 31:112–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Wenzel H, Hauschild M (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Volume 1: Methdology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  129. WMO—World Meteorological Organization (1999) Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998. Global ozone research and monitoring project—report no. 44, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  130. WMO—World Meteorological Organization (2003) Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2002. Global ozone research and monitoring project—report no. 47, Geneva, Switzerland, p 498, Table 1.6–1.7Google Scholar
  131. WMO—World Meteorological Organization (2007) Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2006. Global ozone research and monitoring project—report no. 50, Geneva, Switzerland, p 572Google Scholar
  132. Wurtenberger L, Koellner T, Binder CR (2006) Virtual land use and agricultural trade: estimating environmental and socio-economic impacts. Ecol Econ 57:679–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Zhou XY, Schoenung JM (2007) An integrated impact assessment and weighting methodology: evaluation of the environmental consequences of computer display technology substitution. J Environ Manag 83:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Systems Analysis Branch, Sustainable Technology Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and DevelopmentUS Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations