Advertisement

Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison

  • Reinout Heijungs
  • Manfred Lenzen
UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA

Abstract

Purpose

The analysis of uncertainty in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies has been a topic for more than 10 years, and many commercial LCA programs now feature a sampling approach called Monte Carlo analysis. Yet, a full Monte Carlo analysis of a large LCA system, for instance containing the 4,000 unit processes of ecoinvent v2.2, is rarely carried out by LCA practitioners. One reason for this is computation time. An alternative faster than Monte Carlo method is analytical error propagation by means of a Taylor series expansion; however, this approach suffers from being explained in the literature in conflicting ways, hampering implementation in most software packages for LCA. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two different approaches from a theoretical and practical perspective.

Methods

In this paper, we compare the analytical and sampling approaches in terms of their theoretical background and their mathematical formulation. Using three case studies—one stylized, one real-sized, and one input–output (IO)-based—we approach these techniques from a practical perspective and compare them in terms of speed and results.

Results

Depending on the precise question, a sampling or an analytical approach provides more useful information. Whenever they provide the same indicators, an analytical approach is much faster but less reliable when the uncertainties are large.

Conclusions

For a good analysis, analytical and sampling approaches are equally important, and we recommend practitioners to use both whenever available, and we recommend software suppliers to implement both.

Keywords

Analytical methods Gaussian error propagation IOA LCA Monte Carlo Sampling methods Uncertainty 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article has been written in the context of the UNEP/SETAC working group on uncertainty. Members of this group include, besides the authors of this article, Andreas Ciroth, Ralph Rosenbaum, Mark Huijbregts, Fausto Freire, Tom McKone, Olivier Jolliet, and Enrico Benetto. The group’s activities and the writing of this article have been made possible through the financial support of The Sustainability Consortium. This work was also financially supported by the National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources project (NeCTAR) through its Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory and by the Australian Research Council through its Discovery Projects DP0985522 and DP130101293. Two anonymous referees have provided valuable comments that helped improving on an early draft of this article.

References

  1. Apostol TM (1967) Calculus, Vol. 1. One-variable calculus, with an introduction to linear algebra. WileyGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayyub BM, Klir GJ (2006) Uncertainty modeling and analysis in engineering and the sciences. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bevington PR, Robinson DK (1994) Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bullard CW, Penner PS, Pilati DA (1978) Net energy analysis—handbook for combining process and input-output analysis. Resour Energ 1:267–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullard CW, Sebald AV (1977) Effects of parametric uncertainty and technological change on input-output models. Rev Econ Stat LIX, pp 75-81Google Scholar
  6. Bullard CW, Sebald AV (1988) Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of input-output models. Rev Econ Stat LXX, pp 708-712Google Scholar
  7. Ciroth A (2001) Fehlerrechnung in Ökobilanzen. PhD thesis, Technischen Universität Berlin, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(4):216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crama Y, Defourny J, Gazon J (1984) Structural decomposition of multipliers in input-output or social accounting matrix analysis. Econ Appl 37:215–222Google Scholar
  10. Defourny J, Thorbecke E (1984) Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework. Econ J 94:111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallego B, Lenzen M (2009) Estimating generalised regional input-output systems: a case study of Australia. In: Ruth M, Davíðsdóttir B (eds) The dynamics of regions and networks in industrial ecosystems. Edward Elgar Publishing, Boston, pp 55–82Google Scholar
  12. Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler 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
  13. 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 (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products. I: Guide—October 1992. II: Backgrounds—October 1992. CML (NOH report 9266 + 9267; ISBN 90-5191-064-9), Leiden, 1992, 96 + 130 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Heijungs R (1994) A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecol Econ 10(1):69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heijungs R (1996) Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 4:159–166Google Scholar
  16. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. p. 332-339. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Schmidt S, Rizzoli AE, Jakeman AJ (eds) Complexity and integrated resources \management. Transactions of the 2nd Biennial Meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Volume 1. iEMSs (ISBN 88-900787-1-5), Osnabrück. 2004, 1533 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Heijungs R, Suh S, Kleijn R (2005) Numerical approaches to life cycle interpretation. The case of the ecoinvent’96 database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heijungs R (2010) Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hong J, Shaked S, Rosenbaum R, Jolliet O (2010) Propagation of uncertainty in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part II: Dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ii R (2000) Changes of uncertainty in life-cycle inventory analysis with I-O tables of different years. The Fourth International Conference on EcoBalance. Tsukuba, Japan, 197-200Google Scholar
  23. Imbeault-Tétrault H, Jolliet O, Deschênes L, Rosenbaum RK (2013) Analytical propagation of uncertainty in life cycle assessment using matrix formulation. J Ind Ecol 17:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ISA (2010) Indicators. Information Sheet 6, Internet site http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/research/InformationSheets/ISATBLInfo6_v1.pdf, Sydney, Australia, ISA, The University of Sydney
  25. Lenzen M (2000) Errors in conventional and input-output-based life-cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4:127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lenzen M (2002) A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid LCA: some Australian results. J Clean Prod 10:545–572Google Scholar
  27. Lenzen M (2006) Uncertainty of end-point impact measures: implications for decision-making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenzen M, Crawford RH (2009) The path exchange method for hybrid LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:8251–8256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenzen M, Peters G (2010) How city dwellers affect their resource hinterland—a spatial impact study of Australian households. J Ind Ecol 14:73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenzen M, Wood R, Wiedmann T (2010) Uncertainty analysis for multi-region input-output models—a case study of the UK’s carbon footprint. Econ Sys Res 22:43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 11(1):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miyazawa K (1966) Internal and external matrix multipliers in the input-output model. Hitotsub J Econ 7:38–55Google Scholar
  33. Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty. A guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moskowitz PD, Rowe MD (1985) A comparison of input-output and process analysis. In: Ricci PF, Rowe MD (eds) Health and environmental risk assessment. NY, USA, Pergamon Press, New York, pp 281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nansai K, Tohno S, Kasahara M (2001) Uncertainty of the embodied CO2 emission intensity and reliability of life cycle inventory analysis by input-output approach. Energ Resour 22, (published by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, in Japanese)Google Scholar
  36. Peters G (2007) Efficient algorithms for life cycle assessment, input-output analysis, and Monte-Carlo analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1992) Numerical recipes in Pascal. The art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Quandt RE (1958) Probabilistic errors in the Leontief system. Naval Res Logistics Quarterly 5:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quandt RE (1959) On the solution of probabilistic Leontief systems. Nav Res Log 6:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sakai S, Tanno S, Hondo H (2000) Uncertainty analysis for I/O analysis using perturbation method. The Fourth International Conference on EcoBalance. Tsukuba, Japan, pp 189-192Google Scholar
  41. Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM (2001) Sensitivity analysis. John Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  42. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Suh S (2004) Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological-economic model. Ecol Econ 48:451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Suh S, Heijungs R (2007) Power series expansion and structural analysis for life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697Google Scholar
  46. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GT, 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. Environ Sci Technol 38:657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suh S, Nakamura S (2007) Five years in the area of input-output and hybrid LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:351–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Williams ED, Weber CL, Hawkins TR (2009) Hybrid approach to characterising and managing uncertainty in life cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol, in pressGoogle Scholar
  50. Yoshida Y, Ishitani H, Matsuhashi R, Kudoh Y, Okuma H, Morita K, Koike A, Kobayashi O (2002) Reliability of LCI considering the uncertainties of energy consumptions in input-output analyses. Appl Energ 73:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yoshida Y, Ishitani H, Matsuhashi R, Kudoh Y, Okuma H, Morita K, Koike A, Kobayashi O, Yoshioka K (2001) Evaluation of uncertainty in LCA based on input-output analysis. Technol 8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Ecology, Institute of Environmental SciencesLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Econometrics and Operations ResearchVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.ISA, School of Physics A28The University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations