A generalized computational structure for regional life-cycle assessment

  • Yi Yang
  • Reinout Heijungs



Regional life-cycle assessment (LCA) is gaining an increasing attention among LCA scholars and practitioners. Here, we present a generalized computational structure for regional LCA, discuss in-depth the major challenges facing the field, and point to a direction in which we believe regional LCA should be headed.


Using an example, we first demonstrate that when there is regional heterogeneity (be it due to environmental conditions or technologies), average data would be inadequate for estimating the life-cycle impacts of a product produced in a specific region or even that of an average product produced in many regions. And when there is such regional heterogeneity, an understanding of how regions are connected through commodity flows is important to the accuracy of regional LCA estimates. Then, we present a generalized computational structure for regional LCA that takes into account interregional commodity flows, can evaluate various cases of regional differentiation, and can account for multiple impact categories simultaneously. In so doing, we show what kinds of data are required for this generalized framework of regional LCA.

Results and discussion

We discuss the major challenges facing regional LCA in terms of data requirements and computational complexity, and their implications for the choice of an optimal regional scale (i.e., the number of regions delineated within the geographic boundary studied).


We strongly recommend scholars from LCI and LCIA to work together and choose a spatial scale that not only adequately captures environmental characteristics but also allows inventory data to be reasonably compiled or estimated.


Commodity flow Heterogeneity Regional life-cycle assessment Spatial differentiation Spatial scale 


  1. 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 6:49–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu Y, Walseth B, Suh S (2009) Water embodied in bioethanol in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 43:2688–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Du L, Wei C, Cai S (2012) Economic development and carbon dioxide emissions in China: provincial panel data analysis. China Econ Rev 23:371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frischknecht R, Rebitzer G (2005) The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database. J Clean Prod 13:1337–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geyer R, Stoms D, Kallaos J (2013) Spatially-explicit life cycle assessment of sun-to-wheels transportation pathways in the US. Environ Sci Technol 47:1170–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heijungs R (2012) Spatial differentiation, GIS-based regionalization, hyperregionalization and the boundaries of LCA. In: Ioppolo G (ed) Environment and energy. Milano, Italy, pp 165–176Google Scholar
  7. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer Academic Pub, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heijungs R, de Koning A, Wegener Sleeswijk A (2015) Sustainability analysis and systems of linear equations in the era of data abundance. J Environ Account Manag 3:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellweg S, i Canals LM (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:1109–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lenzen M, Wachsmann U (2004) Wind turbines in Brazil and Germany: an example of geographical variability in life-cycle assessment. Appl Energy 77:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller S, Landis A, Theis T (2006) Use of Monte Carlo analysis to characterize nitrogen fluxes in agroecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 40:2324–2332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mutel CL, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2011) GIS-based regionalized life cycle assessment: how big is small enough? Methodology and case study of electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 46:1096–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mutel CL, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2013) Two-step sensitivity testing of parametrized and regionalized life cycle assessments: methodology and case study. Environ Sci Technol 47:5660–5667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Núñez M, Pfister S, Vargas M, Antón A (2015) Spatial and temporal specific characterisation factors for water use impact assessment in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Potting J, Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Potting J, Schöpp W, Blok K, Hauschild M (1998) Site‐dependent life‐cycle impact assessment of acidification. J Ind Ecol 2:63–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, Jolliet O (2007) A flexible matrix algebra framework for the multimedia multipathway modeling of emission to impacts. Environ Int 33:624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS et al (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tessum CW, Marshall JD, Hill JD (2012) A spatially and temporally explicit life cycle inventory of air pollutants from gasoline and ethanol in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 46(20):11408–11417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wegener Sleeswijk A, Heijungs R (2010) GLOBOX: a spatially differentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA. Sci Total Environ 408:2817–2832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yang Y (2016) Toward a more accurate regionalized life cycle inventory. J Clean Prod 112:308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yang Y, Suh S (2015) Land cover change from cotton to corn in the USA relieves freshwater ecotoxicity impact but may aggravate other regional environmental impacts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yang Y, Bae J, Kim J, Suh S (2012) Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol results in significant environmental problem-shifting. Environ Sci Technol 46:3671–3678CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSRA Inc.Falls ChurchUSA
  2. 2.Bren School of Environmental Science and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.Department of Econometrics and Operations ResearchVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Industrial Ecology, Institute of Environmental SciencesLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations