Advertisement

Outlining reasons to apply hybrid LCA—a reply to “rethinking system boundary in LCA” by Yi Yang (2017)

  • Thomas Schaubroeck
  • Thomas Gibon
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

We appreciate the reply of Yang (2017a) to our letter (Gibon and Schaubroeck 2017). It became clear to us that Yang (2017b) does not mainly criticise the hybrid LCA method, but rather the misconception around the idea that hybrid LCA would lead for sure to higher accuracy if a more complete system boundary is obtained, as also well specified in another work of his (Yang et al. 2017). We agree that this is a misconception because of data and methodological restrictions. However, this does not mean that the method as such, from a conceptual point of view, should be solely criticised for general limitations in the linear framework and system boundaries in comparison to other linear LCA, what Yang (2017b) though appeared to do. This entails another discussion. Likewise, the discussion on rethinking system boundaries in his reply (Yang 2017a) seems to focus on the need (or intention) to have a flexible system boundary and a non-linear framework (which we frankly agree with), rather than on...

Keywords

Life Cycle Inventory System Boundary Production Life Cycle Linear Framework Improve Life Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

11367_2017_1311_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Ban TA (2006) The role of serendipity in drug discovery. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 8:335Google Scholar
  2. Gibon T, Schaubroeck T (2017) Lifting the fog on characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA—a reply to “Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion?” by Yi Yang Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(3):456–406, doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1256-9. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1291-1
  3. Gibon T, Wood R, Arvesen A, Bergesen JD, Suh S, Hertwich EG (2015) A methodology for integrated, multiregional life cycle assessment scenarios under large-scale technological change. Environ Sci Technol 49:11218–11226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Islam S, Ponnambalam SG, Lam HL (2016) Review on life cycle inventory: methods, examples and applications. J Clean Prod 136:266–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Nakamura S, Nansai K (2016) Input–output and hybrid LCA, in: Finkbeiner, M. (Ed.), Special Types of Life Cycle Assessment, LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer Netherlands, pp 219–291Google Scholar
  6. Yang Y (2017a) Rethinking system boundary in LCA—reply to “Lifting the fog on the characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA” by Thomas Gibon and Thomas Schaubroeck (2017). Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1295-x Google Scholar
  7. Yang Y (2017b) Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:456–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Yang Y, Heijungs R, Brandão M (2017) Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. J Clean Prod 150:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Luxembourg Institute of Science and TechnologyEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations