Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment
Regionalized life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has rapidly developed in the past decade, though its widespread application, robustness, and validity still face multiple challenges. Under the umbrella of UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, a dedicated cross-cutting working group on regionalized LCIA aims to provide an overview of the status of regionalization in LCIA methods. We give guidance and recommendations to harmonize and support regionalization in LCIA for developers of LCIA methods, LCI databases, and LCA software.
A survey of current practice among regionalized LCIA method developers was conducted. The survey included questions on chosen method’s spatial resolution and scale, the spatial resolution of input parameters, the choice of native spatial resolution and limitations, operationalization and alignment with life cycle inventory data, methods for spatial aggregation, the assessment of uncertainty from input parameters and model structure, and the variability due to spatial aggregation. Recommendations are formulated based on the survey results and extensive discussion by the authors.
Results and discussion
Survey results indicate that majority of regionalized LCIA models have global coverage. Native spatial resolutions are generally chosen based on the availability of global input data. Annual modeled or measured elementary flow quantities are mostly used for aggregating characterization factors (CFs) to larger spatial scales, although some use proxies, such as population counts. Aggregated CFs are mostly available at the country level. Although uncertainty due to input parameter, model structure, and spatial aggregation are available for some LCIA methods, they are rarely implemented for LCA studies. So far, there is no agreement if a finer native spatial resolution is the best way to reduce overall uncertainty. When spatially differentiated model CFs are not easily available, archetype models are sometimes developed.
Regionalized LCIA methods should be provided as a transparent and consistent set of data and metadata using standardized data formats. Regionalized CFs should include both uncertainty and variability. In addition to the native-scale CFs, aggregated CFs should always be provided and should be calculated as the weighted averages of constituent CFs using annual flow quantities as weights whenever available. This paper is an important step forward for increasing transparency, consistency, and robustness in the development and application of regionalized LCIA methods.
KeywordsArchetypes Impact assessment Regionalization Spatial differentiation Standardization Uncertainty Variability
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the organizations to which they belong. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the state policy of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Although an EPA employee contributed to this article, the research presented was not performed or funded by EPA and was not subject to EPA’s quality system requirements. Consequently, the views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent EPA’s views or policies.
- Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Lathuillière MJ, Manzardo A, Margni M, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Pastor AV, Ridoutt B, Oki T, Worbe S, Pfister S (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bulle C, Jolliet O, Humbert S et al (2012) IMPACT World+: a new global regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. International Conference on Ecobalance. Yokohama, Japan, InGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Jolliet O (2016) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Knöpfel S (2013) Swiss eco-factors 2013 according to the ecological scarcity method. Federal Office of the Environment, BernGoogle Scholar
- Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment–the EDIP2003 methodology. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Kounina A, Margni M, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2018) Global spatial analysis of toxic emissions to freshwater: operationalization for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1476-2
- Motoshita M, Ono Y, Pfister S, Boulay AM, Berger M, Nansai K, Tahara K, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2014) Consistent characterisation factors at midpoint and endpoint relevant to agricultural water scarcity arising from freshwater consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0811-5
- Mutel CL (2017) Ecoinvent geography definitions. https://geography.ecoinvent.org/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
- Scherer L, Venkatesh A, Karuppiah R, Pfister S (2015) Large-scale hydrological modeling for calculating water stress indices: implications of improved spatiotemporal resolution, surface-groundwater differentiation, and uncertainty characterization. Environ Sci Technol 49:4971–4979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T et al (2014) InVEST user’s guide. Nat Cap Proj Stanford, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
- United Nations Statistics Division (2018) Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
- Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Hellweg S, Henderson A, Jolliet O, Laurent A, Liao X, Lindner JP, Maia de Souza D, Michelsen O, Patouillard L, Pfister S, Posthuma L, Prado V, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Sala S, Ugaya C, Vieira M, Fantke P (2017a) LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. J Clean Prod 161:957–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verones F, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ (2016) LC-impact: overall framework Trondheim, NOGoogle Scholar