Effect of different allocation methods on LCA results of products from wild-caught fish and on the use of such results




The purpose of this study has been to investigate the effect of different allocation methods on life cycle assessment (LCA) results of products derived from line-caught cod and the consequences of applying these methods considering the main aims of this case study. These aims were for internal improvement work and communication of results to the market.


Standard LCA methodology was applied. Mass allocation, economic allocation, a novel hybrid allocation and gross energy content allocation have been tested on a case study, and the results are discussed. In the case study, allocation problems in the studied case arose in the fishing and processing stages. Avoidance of allocation by splitting of processes, biological causality and system expansion or the avoided product approach was deemed to be not feasible.

Results and discussion

Economic allocation gave a much larger spread of impacts between the different products than mass allocation, especially for processing residue, due to large price differences. Hybrid allocation gave impacts in between mass and economic allocation because the set factors give a higher value for products that are for human consumption. Energy allocation gave results close to mass allocation because the energy content is quite similar in different species and products. Economic allocation is sensitive to price changes, the others are not. When used for evaluating environmental performance improvement measures that change the relative yields for human consumption and other purposes, the different methods used reflected very different results. When used in communication to the market, the different allocation methods yield results that could lead to different behaviours by market actors.


The different allocation methods gave very different results for the studied products; hence in order to achieve comparability between products, the same method must be used in all the cases. Different allocation methods might be appropriate for different purposes. For external communication to the market, mass allocation might be the preferred method in most cases. For internal improvement work, both economic and mass allocation could be used, but economic allocation might be the best alternative. The comparability of LCA results of products from wild-caught fish is limited, due to the lack of an agreed standard method. It is recommended to consider the different applications of the results when developing such a method. Different purposes might require different methodological choices, e.g. allocation methodology.


Allocation Fish Cod LCA Case Standard Method 


  1. Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Pelletier NL, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):480–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cederberg C, Mattsson B (2000) Life cycle assessment of milk production—a comparison of conventional and organic farming. J Cleaner Prod 8:49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eyjólfsdóttir HR, Jónsdóttir H, Yngvadóttir E et al. (2003) Environmental effects of fish on the consumers dish—life cycle assessment of Icelandic frozen cod products. Final Report May 2003. Icelandic Fisheries Laboratories and IceTec, IcelandGoogle Scholar
  4. Hospido A, Tyedmers P (2005) Life cycle environmental impacts of Spanish tuna fisheries. Fish Res 76:174–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hospido A, Vazquez ME, Cuevas A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT (2006) Environmental assessment of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 47:56–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, Geneva; http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue.htm
  7. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation; http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue.htm. ISO, Geneva
  8. Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schau EM, Ellingsen H, Endal A, Aanondsen SA (2009) Energy consumption in Norwegian fisheries. J Cleaner Prod 17:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Svanes E, Vold M, Hanssen OJ (2011) Environmental sustainability of cod (Gadus morhua) from autoline fisheries. Int J Life Cycle Assess (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Thrane M (2005) LCA on Danish fish products and application of system expansion in the fishery. Life cycle assessment of seafood: 3rd workshop. IFL project report 28–03Google Scholar
  12. Thrane M (2006) LCA of Danish fish products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vázquez-Rowe I, Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Combined application of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis as a methodological approach for the assessment of fisheries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:272–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Winther U, Ziegler F, Skontorp Hognes E et al. (2009) Carbon Footprint and energy use in Norwegian seafood products. SINTEF Fisheries and AquacultureGoogle Scholar
  15. Ziegler F (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of seafood products from capture fisheries. PhD Thesis, Department of Marine Ecology, Faculty of Science, Gothenburg UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Ziegler F (2008) Presentation at open meeting introducing the research project carbon footprint and energy use in Norwegian seafood products. 20 November 2008, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ostfold ResearchKraakeroeyNorway

Personalised recommendations