Quantitative approaches in life cycle assessment—part 2—multivariate correlation and regression analysis

  • Aneurin GrantEmail author
  • Robert Ries
  • Carla Thompson



This study examines the use of inferential statistics, specifically multivariate correlation and regression, as a means of interpreting LCA data. It is believed that these methods provide additional context in understanding data and results, and may serve as a way to present the uncertain results that are inherent to LCA.


Nine building envelope combinations were analyzed according to five service life models (N = 45). Three environmental indicators were used: global warming potential, atmospheric ecotoxicity, and atmospheric acidification from the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts assessment method. Multivariate correlation was performed using nine variables, including cumulative life cycle impact, major replacement, major replacement (frequency), minor replacement, major repairs, minor repairs, inspections 1 and 2, and total transportation (N = 45, 405 data points). The same data set was used for the regression analysis, although the variables were limited to major replacement, minor replacement, major repair, and minor repair (N = 45, 225 data points). SPSS software was used for all statistical calculations.

Results and discussion

Multivariate correlation analysis showed strong, statistically significant correlations between cumulative life cycle impact and major replacement across all environmental indicators. Similarly, the regression analysis showed strong R 2 values between cumulative life cycle impact and major replacement, such that the influence of all other variables was considerably diminished.


The use of inferential statistics provides useful information with respect to the strength and statistical significance of correlations between variables as in multivariate correlation, and allows for predictive capacity of impact, as demonstrated through regression analysis. Further studies should be conducted to confirm the added value of these analytical tools.


Building materials Construction Inferential statistics Life cycle assessment Uncertainty 


  1. Atkas CB, Bilec MM (2012) Service life prediction of residential interior finishes for life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(3):362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bare JC, Norris G, 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
  3. Berger M, Finkenbeiner M (2011) Correlation analysis of life cycle impact assessment indicators measuring resource use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjorkland AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bojaca CR, Schrevens E (2010) Parameter uncertainty in LCA: stochastic sampling under correlation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ciroth A, Srocka M (2008) How to obtain a precise and representative estimate for parameters in LCA—a case study for the functional unit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Steinbach J (2004) Uncertainty calculation in life cycle assessment—a combined method of simulation and approximation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(4):216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dell‘Isola AJ, Stephen JK (2003) Life Cycle Costing for Facilities: Economic Analysis for Owners and Professionals in Planning, Programming, and Real Estate Development: Designing, Specifying, and Construction: Maintenance, Operations, and Procurement. Reed Construction Data, Kingston, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Fillie C, Lane S, Parham A, Sullivan J, Wahl J (2004) Analysis for gate-to-market effects for building materials in the Orlando, FL, Region. Report prepared for the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (unpublished). August 2004Google Scholar
  10. Fitch P, Smith Cooper J (2005) Life cycle modeling for adaptive and variant design part 2: case study. Res Eng Des 15:229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant A, Ries R (2013) Impact of building service life models on life cycle assessment. Build Res Inf 41(2):168–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grant A, Ries R, Kibert C (2014) Life cycle assessment and service life prediction: a case study of building envelope materials. J Ind Ecol 18(2):187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heijungs R (2010) Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (2005) Representing statistical distributions for uncertain parameters in LCA: relationships between mathematical forms, their representation in EcoSpold, and their representation in CMLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(4):248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heijungs R, Tan RR (2010) Rigorous proof of fuzzy error propagation with matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:1014–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huijbregts MAJ, Norris G, Bretz R, Ciroth A, Maurice B, von Bahr B, Weidema B, de Beaufort ASH (2001) Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hung ML, Ma HW (2009) Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IBM Corp (2010) Released 2012. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 21.0. IBM Corp, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  19. International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006(E)Google Scholar
  20. Kota S, Chakrabarti A (2010) A method for estimating the degree of uncertainty with respect to life cycle assessment during design. J Mech Des 132(9):0910007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kucukvar M, Noori M, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014) Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1185–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment—a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11(1):161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinez E, Jimenez E, Blanco J, Sanz F (2010) LCA sensitivity analysis of a multi-megawatt wind turbine. Appl Energy 87:2293–2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ (2006) Applied multivariate research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreau V, Bage G, Marcotte D, Samson R (2012) Estimating material and energy flows in life cycle inventory with statistical models. J Ind Ecol 16(3):399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morrison Hershfield in collaboration with the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (2002) Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Effects for Building Envelope Materials. Prepared by Morrison Hershfield for Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, Merrickville, Ontario, Canada, January 2002Google Scholar
  28. Neely ES, Neathammer RD, Stirn JR, Winkler RP (1991) Maintenance task data base for buildings: architectural systems. United States Army Corps of Engineers. USACERL Special Report P-91/23Google Scholar
  29. Noori M, Tatari O, Nam B, Golestani B, Greene J (2014) A stochastic optimization approach for the selection of reflective cracking mitigation techniques. Transport Res 69:367–378Google Scholar
  30. Noori M, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2015) A macro-level decision analysis of wind power as a solution for sustainable energy in the USA. Int J Sustain Energy 34(10):629–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. RS Means (1996) Cost planning and Estimating for Facility Maintenance. Rs means, Kingston, MaGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith Cooper J, Kahn E (2012) Commentary on issues in data quality analysis in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:499–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith Cooper J, Noon M, Kahn E (2012) Parameterization in life cycle assessment inventory data: a review of current use and the representation of uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:689–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sugiyama H, Fukushima Y, Hirao M, Hellweg S, Hungerbuhler K (2005) Using standard statistics to consider uncertainty in industry-based life cycle inventory databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sustainable Buildings Industry Council (SBIC) (2005) Energy-10 software. The Building Performance Group. (1999). ―BPG Building Fabric Component Life Manual. E & FN Spon. London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  37. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1989) Exposure factors handbook. Report EPA/600/8-89/043. US EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional, Workforce and Applied TechnologyUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  2. 2.M.E. Rinker School of Building ConstructionUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Research and Advanced StudiesUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations