Abstract
A technical framework is presented to evaluate the strengths and the limitations of LCA impact assessment categories to yield accurate, useful results. The framework integrates the inherent characteristics of life-cycle inventory (LCI) data sets, characteristics of individual impact categories, how impact categories are defined, and the models used to characterize different categories. The sources for uncertainty in impact assessment are derived from the basic LCI procedures and the complexity of environmental processes and mechanisms. The noteworthy LCI procedures are: (1) the collection and aggregation of data across a comprehensive product system, (2) co-product and recycling allocation for releases and resources, and (3) the conversion of these data by functional unit calculations. These operations largely remove spatial and temporal considerations, resulting in analytical and interpretive limitations that vary in magnitude for different impact assessment categories. The framework shows two groups of categories where LCA results may be insufficient for making comparisons: (1) categories that involve local and/or transient processes and (2) categories that involve non-mass loading, biological parameters, such as biodiversity, habitat alteration, and toxicity. The framework also shows that how impact categories are defined complicates their use. Some categories are based on objective stressor-effect networks using known environmental mechanisms. In contrast, other categories are defined using various levels of subjective judgment to address either highly complex or unknown mechanisms. Finally, the framework shows that differences in the quality and detail of information provided by various models used during characterization also influence the accuracy and usefulness of the results. In summary, the framework indicates that (1) the various uncertainties in each individual category have a a number of different technical origins and that (2) the degree of uncertainty varies significantly between categories. As a result, interpretation and valuation cannot presume an equivalency of processes or merit behind numerical values for different categories. The framework can be used to initially identify and track these uncertainties to improve LCA impact assessment interpretation and application.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnold, F.S. (1995): Why environmental life cycle assessment doesn’t work. J. Environ. Law. Sci. First Quarter, pp. 4–14
Ballschmiter, K.-H. (1992): Transport and fate of organic compounds in the global environment. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 3:487–515
De Smet, B., P.R. White and J.W. Owens. (1996): Integrating life-cycle assessment within an overall framework for environmental management, Chapter 16. In: Environmental life-cycle assessment. Editor: M.A. Curran. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hunt, R.G., J.D. Sellers, and W.E. Franklin (1992): Resource and environmental profile analysis: A life cycle environmental assessment for products and procedures. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 12:245–269
Hunt, R.G., and W.E. Franklin (1996): LCA — How it came about — Personal reflections on the origin and the development of LCA in the USA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1:4–7
IPCC. (1990): Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Eds., J.T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 365 p
IPCC. (1992): Climate change 1992: The supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment. Eds., J.T. Houghton, B.A. Callander and S.K. Varney. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 365p
Linfors, L.-G., K. Christiansen, I., Hoffman, Y. Virtanen, V. Juntilla, A. Leskinen, O.-J. Hanssen, A. Ronning, T. Ekvall, and G. Finnveden (1995a): LCA-Nordic technical reports No. 10. TemaNord 1995:503 Committee on Cleaner Technology, Nordic Council of Ministers. Söborg, DK
Lindfors, L.-G., K. Christiansen, I., Hoffman, Y. Virtanen, V. Juntilla, O.-J. Hanssen, A. Ronning. T. Ekvall, and G. Finnveden. (1995b): Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nordic Council of Ministers. Nord 1995:20. Copenhagen
Owens, J.W. (1996): LCA Impact Assessment: Case study using a consumer product. Int. J. LCA 1: 209–217
Perriman, R.J. (1995): Is LCA losing its way? SETAC-Europe LCA- News, 5(1): 4–5
SETAC. (1991): A technical framework for life-cycle assessment. Eds.: J. Fava, R. Denison, B. Jones, M. Curran, B. Vigon, S. Selke and J. Barnum. Proceedings of a workshop in Smugglers Notch, VT, USA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL. August 18–23, 1990
SETAC. (1993a): Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: A “Code of Practice.” Eds.: F. Consoli, D. Allen, I. Boustead, J. Fava, W. Franklin, A.A. Jensen, N. de Oude, R. Parrish, R. Perriman, D. Postlethwaite, B. Quay, J. Séguin, and B. Vigon. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL
SETAC. (1993b): A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. Eds.: J. Fava, F. Consoli, R. Denison, K. Dickson, T. Mohin and B. Vigon. Proceedings of a workshop in Sandestin, FL, USA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL. February 1–7, 1992
US EPA. (1995): Life-cycle impact assessment: A conceptual framework, key issues, and summary of existing methods EPA/600/R-95/245. Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH
White, P., B. De Smet, H. A. Udo de Haes, and R. Heijungs. (1995a): LCA back on track — But is it one track or two? SETAC-Europe LCA-News, 5(3): 4–5
White, P.R., B. De Smet, J.W. Owens, and P. Hindle. (1995b): Environmental management in an international consumer goods company. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 14:171–184
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Owens, J.W. LCA impact assessment categories. Int. J. LCA 1, 151–158 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978944
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978944