Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a case study on the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) database

INPUT-OUTPUT AND HYBRID LCA

Abstract

Purpose

In an effort to develop a whole building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is transforming new bottom-up Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) data into a hybrid database in which the strengths of both bottom-up and top-down approaches can be combined. The objective of this paper is to describe the framework and the process under which the hybrid BEES database is being built, with an emphasis on its accounting structure. This paper can support other efforts to build hybrid Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases.

Methods

The BEES hybridization utilizes the most detailed supply and use tables (SUTs)—known as item-level data—focusing particularly on the construction sectors. First, the partial SUTs at the item level are constructed and connected to standard SUTs that describe the rest of the economy, which is then followed by balancing and “redefinition.” Second, item-level environmental data are compiled and then also balanced and redefined, which completes the compilation of the bi-resolution SUTs with environmental data. Third, the bi-resolution SUTs are integrated with the BEES data that have been converted into matrix form. Because the completely rolled out BEES technology matrix involves a significant number of products, the integration prioritizes the product groups that are potentially the most significant contributors to the LCIA results for buildings.

Results

This step-by-step procedure will enable the creation of a hybridized BEES database, combining the strengths of both the bottom-up, process-based data and the top-down, input-output data with enhanced resolution. The benefit of hybridization at the database level—as opposed to at the individual LCA study level—is that whole-building LCA users can adopt the hybrid BEES approach, with its benefit of a more complete system definition, without the training or effort that would be required to construct a hybrid system from scratch. In addition, reformulation of new BEES data into a matrix structure better facilitates the parametric LCA application that is central to NIST’s vision to develop a tool for assessing the sustainability performance of energy technologies and systems in an integrated building design context.

Conclusions

There are currently a number of initiatives being organized to implement a hybrid approach at the LCI database level. In laying out the methodological framework for efficiently transforming an existing LCI database into a hybrid database, this paper can support future development of hybrid LCI databases.

Keywords

BEES Building industry Hybrid Input–output LCI database 

References

  1. Bright RM, Strømman AH, Hawkins TR (2010) Environmental assessment of wood-based biofuel production and consumption scenarios in Norway. J IndEcol 14:422–439Google Scholar
  2. Chang Y, Ries RJ, Wang Y (2010) The embodied energy and environmental emissions of construction projects in China: an economic input–output LCA model. Energ Policy 38:6597–6603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heijungs R (1994) A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecol Econ 10:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Hendrickson CT, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave LB (1998) Economic input–output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 32:184ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horowitz K, Planting M (2006) Concepts and methods of the input-output accounts. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO (1998) ISO 14041: Environmnetal management—life cycle assessment—goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  9. ISO (2006) ISO 14044: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Joshi S (1999) Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input-output techniques. J Ind Ecol 3:95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kofoworola O, Gheewala S (2008) Environmental life cycle assessment of a commercial office building in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:498–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Konijn P (1994) The make and use of commodities by industries. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  13. Lave LB, Cobras-Flores E, Hendrickson C, McMichael F (1995) Using input–output analysis to estimate economy wide discharges. Environ Sci Technol 29:420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lenzen M (2002) A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments: some Australian results. J Clean Prod 10:545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lin C (2009) Hybrid input–output analysis of wastewater treatment and environmental impacts: a case study for the Tokyo Metropolis. Ecol Econ 68:2096–2105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lippiatt B (2010) Building for environmental and economic sustainability online. NIST, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Marheineke T, Friedrich R, Krewitt W (1998) Application of a hybrid-approach to the Life Cycle Inventory Analysis of a Freight Transport Task. In: SAE 1998 Transactions—Journal of Passenger Cars, Section 6 Volume 107. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, PAGoogle Scholar
  18. Matthews HS, Small MJ (2000) Extending the boundaries of life-cycle assessment through environmental economic input–output models. J Ind Ecol 4:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moriguchi Y, Kondo Y, Shimizu H (1993) Analyzing the life cycle impact of cars: the case of CO2. Ind Environ 16:42–45Google Scholar
  20. Nakamura S, Kondo Y (2002) Input–output analysis of waste management. J Ind Ecol 6:39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peters G, Hertwich E (2006) A comment on “Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model”. Ecol Econ 59:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peters G, Wiedmann S, Rowley H, Tucker R (2010a) Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters G, Rowley H, Wiedmann S, Tucker R, Short MD, Schulz M (2010b) Red meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas studies. Environ Sci Technol 44:1327–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reich-Weiser C, Ace F, Brooks C, Suh S (2010) An iterative hybrid carbon footprint. In: Murray J, Wood R (eds) In: The sustainability practitioner’s guide to input–output analysis. Common Ground Publishing, Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharrard AL, Matthews HS, Ries RJ (2008) Estimating construction project environmental effects using an input-output-based hybrid life-cycle assessment model. J Infrastruct Syst 14:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stone R, Bacharach M, Bates J (1963) Input–output relationships, 1951–1966, programme for growth, vol 3. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Strømman A, Peters G, Hertwich E (2009) Approaches to correct for double counting in tiered hybrid life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod 17:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Suh S (2004) Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model. Ecol Econ 48:451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Suh S (2005) Developing sectoral environmental database for input-output analysis: comprehensive environmental data archive of the U.S. Econ Syst Res 17:449–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Suh S (2006) Reply: downstream cut-offs in integrated hybrid life cycle assessment. Eco Econ 59:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suh S (ed) (2009) Handbook of input–output economics in industrial ecology. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Suh S (2010) Comprehensive environmental data archive (CEDA). In: Murray J, Wood R (eds) The sustainability practitioner’s guide to input–output analysis. Common Ground Publishing, Urbana-ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  33. Suh S, Huppes G (2002) Missing inventory estimation tool using extended input-output analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:134–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar G, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suh S, Weidema B, Schmidt J, Heijungs R (2010) Generalized make and use framework for allocation in LCA. J Ind Ecol 14:335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Treloar G (1997) Extracting embodied energy paths from input–output tables: towards an input–output-based hybrid energy analysis method. Econ Syst Res 9:375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weidema B (2011) Steps toward a global hybrid database, International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE) meeting, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiedmann TO, Suh S, Feng K, Lenzen M, Acquaye A, Scott K, Barrett JR (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies—the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45(13):5900–5907CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  2. 2.Office of Applied Economics, Building and Fire Research LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations