Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reducing bias through process inventory dataset normalization

  • LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This paper explores a computational method to resolve some of the problems of external normalization in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) process of midpoint characterized impacts. Problems inherent to external normalization (per capita per year for a defined region) that reduce the ability to accurately calculate the most significant impact categories include

  1. a)

    Bias created by a range of measurement disparities

  2. b)

    Inverse proportion of the scale of the reference system impacts to the normalized product system impacts

  3. c)

    Measurement and methodological uncertainties

Methods

This paper demonstrates a method called Process Inventory Dataset (PID) normalization. PID normalization modifies the normalized impact value by a normalizing factor which puts a probability distribution on average normalized impact categories for an entire process inventory dataset.

Results

PID normalization allows for significant variation of normalized impact ratio impact values among impact categories and among materials and processes. PID normalization works with incomplete process inventory and normalization data to deliver normalized impact ratio values that more accurately identify the impact categories with the most significant impacts in the LCIA process.

Conclusions

Although PID normalization does not eliminate all of the bias that can occur from midpoint characterization and external normalization and may not reduce all uncertainties, it substantially trims the effects of normalization bias and eliminates inverse proportionality within one normalization dataset. It allows for a more accurate interpretation of normalized and weighted life cycle assessment results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bare J, Gloria T (2006) Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environ Sci Technol 40:1104–1113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G (2006) Development of the method and U.S. normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 40:5108–5115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J, Hofstetter P, David W, Helias A, Udo de Haes H (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(6):319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J, Norris G, Pennington D, McKone T (2003) The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:3–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop C (2006) Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciroth A (2009) Mathematical analysis of the ecoinvent database with the purpose of developing new validation tools. Life Cycle Assessment IX Conference http://lcacenter.org/LCA9/sessions/Databases.html. Accessed Oct 2009

  • Feller W (1968) An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G (1996) Valuation methods within the framework of life cycle assessment. Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes, development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2007) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friely N, Pettitt N, Reeves R, Wit E (2003) Bayesian inference in hidden Markov random fields for binary data defined on large lattices. J R Stat Soc 65(1):236–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloria T, Lippiatt B, Cooper J (2007) Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41(21):7551–7557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn J, van Duin R, Huijbregts M (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée J, Klijn R, Rovers V (2007) Bias in normalisation: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(4):211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Environmental Sciences (2002) Handbook on impact categories, CML 2001, Leiden University

  • International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14044. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H (2002) Difficulties in estimating the normalizing constant of the posterior for a neural network. J Comput Graph Stat 11:222–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippiatt B (2007) Building for environmental and economic sustainability technical manual and user guide 4.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris G (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(2):85–88

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppäla J, Hämäläinen R (2001) On the meaning of the distance-to-target weighting method and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(4):211–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares S, Toffoletto L, Dechênes L (2006) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Cleaner Prod 14:649–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Design Innovation and School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Philip White

  2. Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA

    Mark Carty

Authors
  1. Philip White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Carty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip White.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Michael Hauschild

Appendix

Appendix

Table 7 Normalized impact ratio values of selected homogeneous processes (thermoplastics)
Full size table
Table 8 Normalized impact ratio values of selected heterogeneous processes
Full size table
Table 9 PID normalized impact ratio values selected homogeneous processes (thermoplastics)
Full size table
Table 10 PID Normalized impact ratio values selected heterogeneous processes
Full size table
Table 11 PID weighted impact ratio values of selected homogeneous processes (thermoplastics)
Full size table
Table 12 PID weighted impact ratio values of selected heterogeneous processes
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

White, P., Carty, M. Reducing bias through process inventory dataset normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15, 994–1013 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0215-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0215-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation