The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 508–516 | Cite as

A hybrid life cycle assessment model for comparison with conventional methodologies in Australia

  • Hazel V. Rowley
  • Sven Lundie
  • Gregory M. Peters
Input-Output and Hybrid LCA


Background, aim, and scope

One barrier to the further implementation of LCA as a quantitative decision-support tool is the uncertainty created by the diversity of available analytical approaches. This paper compares conventional (‘process analysis’) and alternative (‘input–output analysis’) approaches to LCA, and presents a hybrid LCA model for Australia that overcomes the methodological limitations of process and input–output analysis and enables a comparison between the results achieved using each method. A case study from the water industry illustrates this comparison.

Materials and methods

We have developed a tiered hybrid model for calculating the life cycle impacts of a system. In so doing, we have developed a novel way of overcoming a key methodological issue associated with this method: avoiding double counting. We calculate ‘system incompleteness factors’ and use these to delete the lower-order burdens in the input–output inventory according to the depth of production taken into account in the process inventory. We apply this method to a case study of Sydney Water Corporation. The functional unit is the provision of water and sewerage services to residential, industrial, and commercial customers in the city of Sydney in the year 2002/03.

Results and discussion

We analysed the case study using three methods: process analysis, input–output analysis, and hybrid analysis. In each case, we obtained results for eight impact categories: water use; primary energy use; global warming potential; carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic human toxicity potentials; and terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecotoxicity potentials. Although the process analysis has a relatively shallow investigative depth, it shows good system coverage (i.e. a small truncation error) for most indicators. The truncation errors for all of the indicators except marine aquatic ecotoxicity potential compare favourably with predicted truncation errors for the relevant industry sector. This suggests that the truncation error of a particular process analysis cannot be accurately predicted using generic system completeness curves, and implies that the truncation error of a typical process analysis may be less severe than is commonly generalised by the proponents of input–output analysis.


The case study supports the largely theoretical claims in the literature about the relative merits and drawbacks of process and input–output analysis. Each method has the potential to highlight different aspects of the system. By estimating the truncation error of the process analysis independently of the relationship between the results obtained using the other methods, our hybrid model enhances the ability to investigate the differences between results and thus adds considerable value to such a study.

Recommendations and perspectives

Input–output LCA has become more popular as computational tools have become more accessible. We directly compare input–output, process and hybrid LCA and recommend that, from an environmental analysis perspective, it would be beneficial to consider the three methodologies in parallel. We highlight the potential for misinterpretation of differences between methods that rely on different reporting frameworks, and recommend that LCA method and practice continue to emphasise the role of careful interpretation.


Hybrid LCA Input–output LCA Process LCA Water systems planning 



We would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Engineering at the University of New South Wales, for providing funding during the initial stages of this research.


  1. ABS (2004) 5209.0.55.001 Australian national accounts: input–output tables—electronic publication, 1998–99: details. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra Available via Google Scholar
  2. Bullard CW, Penner PS, Pilati DA (1978) Net energy analysis. Resour Energy 1:267–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DEH (2004) NPI facility data 2002/03. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra Available via Google Scholar
  4. Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C (2005) Balancing act: a triple bottom line analysis of the Australian economy. CSIRO and The University of Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  5. Heijungs R (1994) A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecol Econ 10(1):69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  7. Lenzen M (2000) Errors in conventional and input–output-based life-cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4(4):127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lenzen M (2002) A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments: some Australian results. J Clean Prod 10:545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lenzen M, Lundie S (2002) Disaggregated input–output database of the Australian economy derived from published 1996–97 Australian input–output tables. ISA, The University of Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  10. Lenzen M, Wood R (2003) An ecological footprint and a triple bottom line report of Wollongong council for the 2001/02 financial year and the Wollongong population for the 1998/99 financial year. The University of Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  11. Lenzen M, Lundie S, Bransgrove G, Charet L, Sack F (2003) Assessing the ecological footprint of a large metropolitan water supplier: lessons for water management and planning towards sustainability. J Environ Plan Manage 46(1):113–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leontief W (1941) The structure of the American economy, 1919–1939. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52(3):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lundie S, Peters GM, Beavis PC (2004) Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environ Sci Technol 38(13):3465–3473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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(8–9):819–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Peters GM, Rowley HV, Lundie S, Flint M (2006) Challenges and opportunities in LCA—the water industry example. 5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment, 22–25 November, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  17. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Suh S, Nakamura S (2007) Five years in the area of input–output and hybrid LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):351–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. SWC (2003) Sydney water annual report 2003: environmental, social and economic performance. Sydney Water Corporation, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  21. UNEP/SETAC (2005) Life cycle approaches: the road from analysis to practice. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, United Nations Environment Programme, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hazel V. Rowley
    • 1
  • Sven Lundie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gregory M. Peters
    • 1
  1. 1.UNSW Water Research Centre, School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of New South WalesUNSW SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.PE InternationalLeinfelden-EchterdingenGermany

Personalised recommendations