Open-loop recycling: Criteria for allocation procedures

LCA Methodology


If the aim of an LCA is to support decisions or to generate and evaluate ideas for future decisions, the allocation procedure should generally be effect-oriented rather than cause-oriented. It is important that the procedure be acceptable to decision makers expected to use the LCA results. It is also an advantage if the procedure is easy to apply. Applicability appears to be in conflict with accurate reflection of effect-oriented causalities. To make LCA a more efficient tool for decision support, a range of feasible allocation procedures that reflect the consequences of inflows and outflows of cascade materials is required.


Allocation procedures cascade materials environment decision making inventory analysis LCA tool for decision support Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Applications methodology LCA open loop recycling recycling open loop system boundaries systems analysis 


  1. Abelson, R.P.;Levi, A (1985): Decision Making and Decision Theory. In: Lindzey, G.; Aronson, E. (Eds.): The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1. Edition 3. Random House, New York, 1985, pp. 231–309Google Scholar
  2. Brealey, R;Myers, S. (1984): Principles of Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill Book Company, USA, 1984Google Scholar
  3. Clift, R. (1994): Chairman’s report of session 3: Causality and allocation procedures. In: (Huppes andSchneider 1994) pp. 3–4Google Scholar
  4. Clift, R. (1996): Report from SETAC-Europe Working Group on Life Cycle Inventory Analysis. In: Abstract Book, 6th SETAC-Europe Annual Meeting, Taormina, May 1996. SETAC-Europe, Brussels, 1996, p. 17Google Scholar
  5. Ekvall, T. (1994): Principles for Allocation at Multi-Output Processes and Cascade Recycling. In (Huppes andSchneider 1994) pp. 91–101Google Scholar
  6. Fleischer, G. (1994): The allocation of Open-Loop-Recycling in LCA. In: (Huppes andSchneider 1994) pp. 61–63Google Scholar
  7. GrubbstrÖm, R.W. (1977): Besluts-och spelteori. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden, 1977 (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  8. GuinÉe, J.B.;Udo DeHaes, H.A.;Huppes, G. (1993a): Quantitative life cycle assessment of products—1: Goal definition and inventory. J. Cleaner Prod. 1993, 1(1) pp. 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GuinÉe, J.B.;Heijungs, R.;Udo deHaes, H.A.;Huppes, G. (1993b): Quantitative life cycle assessment of products—2: Classification, valuation and improvement analysis. J. Cleaner Prod. 1993, 1(2) pp. 81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heijungs, R. (1994): The problem of allocation: some more complications. In: (Huppes andSchneider 1994) pp. 8–12Google Scholar
  11. Huppes, G. (1994): A general method for allocation in LCA. In: (Huppes andSchneider 1994) pp. 74–90Google Scholar
  12. Huppes, G.;Schneider, F. (Eds.) (1994): Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. Leiden, February 1994. SETAC-Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO (1996): ISO/TC207/SC5AVG2: CD 14 041.2. N99, DINGoogle Scholar
  14. Karlsson, R. (1994): LCA as a guide for the improvement of recycling. In: (Huppes andSchneider 1994) pp. 18–28Google Scholar
  15. Karlsson, R. (1995): Recycling in Life Cycle Assessments. Report 1995:6. Technical Environmental Planning, Chalmers University of Technology, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  16. KlÖpffer, W. (1996): Allocation Rule for Open-Loop Recycling in Life Cycle Assessment—A Review. Int. J. LCA. 1996, 1(1) pp. 27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindfors, L.-G.;Christiansen, K.;Hoffman, L.;Virtanen, Y.;Juntilla, V.;Hansen, O.-J.;Ronning, A.;Ekvall, T.;Finnveden, G. (1995): Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nord 1995:20, Nordic Council of Ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. Östermark, U.; Rydberg, T. (1995): Reuse versus recycling of PET-bot-tles—A case study of ambiguities in life cycle assessment proc. R’95Google Scholar
  19. Ryding, S.-O.;Ekvail, T.;Karlsson, L.;Karlsson, R.;NevÉn, C.-O.;Tillman, A.-M.;Steen, B.;Westerlund, G.;Arvidsson, P.;Troberg, H.;MÄlhammar, G.;Sund, L.;Swan, G.;Almgren, R. (1995): Miljöanpassad produktutveckling. Förlags AB Industrilirteratur, Stockholm (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  20. SETAC (1993): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC): Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. From the SETAC Workshop held at Sesimbra, Portugal, March 31—April 3, 1993. Edition 1, August 1993Google Scholar
  21. Tillman, A.-M.;Ekvall, T;Baumann, H.;Rydberg, T. (1994): Choice of system boundaries in life-cycle assessment. J. Cleaner Prod. 1994, 2(1) pp. 21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wenzel, H. (1996): Baggrund for UMlP-metodens allokeringsmodel. In:Hauschild, M. (Ed.): Baggrund for miljovurdering af produkter. Miljøsryrelsen and Dansk Industri. Copenhagen (in Danish)Google Scholar
  23. Wenzel, H.;Hauschild, M.;Rasmussen, E. (1996): Miljøvurdering af produkter. Miljøstyrelsen and Dansk Industri. Copenhagen (in Danish)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical Environmental PlanningChalmers University of TechnologyGoteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations