Implicit prioritization in life cycle assessment: text mining and detecting metapatterns in the literature

  • Emily GrubertEmail author



Life cycle assessment aims to evaluate multiple kinds of environmental impact associated with a product or process across its life cycle. Objective evaluation is a common goal, though the community recognizes that implicit valuations of diverse impacts resulting from analytical choices and choice of subject matter are present. This research evaluates whether these implicit valuations lead to detectable priority shifts in the published English language academic LCA literature over time.


A near-comprehensive investigation of the LCA literature is undertaken by applying a text mining technique known as topic modeling to over 8200 environment-related LCA journal article titles and abstracts published between 1995 and 2014.

Results and discussion

Topic modeling using MALLET software and manual validation shows that over time, the LCA literature reflects a dramatic proportional increase in attention to climate change and a corresponding decline in attention to human and ecosystem health impacts, accentuated by rapid growth of the LCA literature. This result indicates an implicit prioritization of climate over other impact categories, a field-scale trend that appears to originate mostly in the broader environmental community rather than the LCA methodological community. Reasons for proportionally increasing publication of climate-related LCA might include the relative robustness of greenhouse gas emissions as an environmental impact indicator, a correlation with funding priorities, researcher interest in supporting active policy debates, or a revealed priority on climate versus other environmental impacts in the scholarly community.


As LCA becomes more widespread, recognizing and addressing the fact that analyses are not objective becomes correspondingly more important. Given the emergence of implicit prioritizations in the LCA literature, such as the impact prioritization of climate identified here with the use of computational tools, this work recommends the development and use of techniques that make impact prioritization explicit and enable consistent analysis of result sensitivity to value judgments. Explicit prioritization can improve transparency while enabling more systematic investigation of the effects of value choices on how LCA results are used.


Environmental impact Life cycle assessment Methodology Prioritization Text mining Topic model Weighting 



Thanks to Mark Algee-Hewitt, Justin Grimmer, Jason Heppler, Stanford’s Environmental Assessment and Optimization group, and E-IPER students for coaching, guidance, and feedback on this project. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE-114747. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1153_MOESM1_ESM.docx (163 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 162 kb)


  1. Altaweel M, Bone C (2012) Applying content analysis for investigating the reporting of water issues. Comput Environ Urban Syst 36(6):599–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres RU (1995) Life cycle analysis: a critique. Resour Conserv Recycl 14(3–4):199–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blei D, Lafferty J (2006) Correlated topic models. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst 18:147Google Scholar
  4. Blei DM, Lafferty JD (2007) A correlated topic model of science. Ann Appl Stat 1(1):17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3:993–1022Google Scholar
  6. Corney M, de Vel O, Anderson A, Mohay G (2002) Gender-preferential text mining of e-mail discourse. Proc 18th Annu Computer Secur Appl Conf. doi: 10.1109/CSAC.2002.1176299 Google Scholar
  7. 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 Manag 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freidberg S (2015) From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0879-6 Google Scholar
  9. Gegick M, Rotella P, Xie T (2010) Identifying security bug reports via text mining: an industrial case study. 7th IEEE W Conf Min Softw Repos. doi: 10.1109/MSR.2010.5463340 Google Scholar
  10. Google (2011) Topic Modeling Tool.
  11. Grubert E (2014) “Life Cycle Topic Modeling Dataset.” Stanford University.
  12. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45(1):90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hauschild MZ (2005) Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 39(4):81A–88ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hertwich EG, Pease WS, Koshland CP (1997) Evaluating the environmental impact of products and production processes: a comparison of six methods. Sci Total Environ 196(1):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Organization for Standardization (1996) ISO 14000: environmental management. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14044 International Standard. In: Environmental management–life cycle assessment–requirements and guidelines. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Jockers M (2011) The LDA Buffet Is Now Open; Or, Latent Dirichlet Allocation for English Majors. Stanford University.
  19. Jockers ML, Witten DM (2010) A comparative study of machine learning methods for authorship attribution. Lit Linguist Comput. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqq001 Google Scholar
  20. Johnsen FM, Løkke S (2013) Review of criteria for evaluating LCA weighting methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(4):840–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kostoff RN, Block JA, Solka JL, Briggs MB, Rushenberg RL, Stump JA, Johnson D, Lyons TJ, Wyatt JR (2008) Literature-related discovery (LRD): lessons learned, and future research directions. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75(2):276–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marsmann M, Ryding SO, de Haes HU, Fava J, Owens W, Brady K, Saur K, Schenck R (1999) In Reply to Hertwich & Pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180–181, ‘ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment’. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masanet E, Chang Y (2014) Who cares about life cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12189 Google Scholar
  24. McCallum AK (2002) MALLET: A machine learning for language toolkit.
  25. McManus MC, Taylor CM (2015) The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.024 Google Scholar
  26. Miller TR, Neff MW (2013) De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3):295–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nash J, Stoughton MD (1994) Learning to live with life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 28(5):236A–237ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neff MW (2011) What research should be done and why? Four competing visions among ecologists. Front Ecol Environ 9(8):462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Neff MW, Corley EA (2009) 35 years and 160,000 articles: a bibliometric exploration of the evolution of ecology. Scientometrics 80(3):657–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Owens JW (1997) Life-cycle assessment: constraints on moving from inventory to impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 1(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Salton G (ed) (1971) The SMART retrieval system: experiments in automatic document processing. Prentice-Hall.
  33. Scanlon KA, Lloyd SM, Gray GM, Francis RA, LaPuma P (2014) An approach to integrating occupational safety and health into life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12146 Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt W-P, Sullivan J (2002) Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(1):5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Souza RG, Rosenhead J, Salhofer SP, Valle RAB, Lins MPE (2014) Definition of sustainability impact categories based on stakeholder perspectives. J Clean Prod 105:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sullivan D (2001) Document warehousing and text mining: techniques for improving business operations, marketing, and sales. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Talamini E, Caldarelli CE, Wubben EFM, Dewes H (2012) The composition and impact of stakeholders’ agendas on US ethanol production. Energy Policy 50:647–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Turconi R, Boldrin A, Astrup T (2013) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28:555–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vasara P, Rouhiainen J, Lehtinen H (2013) Resource convergence and resource power: towards new concepts for material efficiency. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 371(1986):20110562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zamagni A, Amerighi O, Buttol P (2012) Finding life cycle assessment research direction with the aid of meta-analysis. J Ind Ecol 16:S39–S52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang Y, Baral A, Bakshi BR (2010a) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, part II: toward an ecologically based LCA. Environ Sci Technol 44(7):2624–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang Y, Singh S, Bakshi BR (2010b) Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment, part I: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 44(7):2232–2242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and ResourcesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations