Beyond pedigree—optimizing and measuring representativeness in large-scale LCAs




Data sampling strategies in large-scale life-cycle assessments (LCAs) are often developed informally based on a combination of sector expertise, common sense, resource restrictions, and politics. The assessment of the representativeness of the acquired sample is then assessed ex post in a qualitative fashion or using a semi-quantitative approach based on pedigree matrices. The purpose of this paper is twofold: provide a structured framework for both designing a representative sample for these types of studies as well as for assessing the representativeness of the sample one was able to obtain.


For sample design, we propose the use of proportionate stratified sampling after defining the strata through the identification of those population characteristics that are able to introduce a relevant bias to average specific environmental burdens of the product system under study. For assessment of the final representativeness of the acquired sample, we propose a metric based on the weighted average deviation between population and sample based on the identified strata for technological and geographical representativeness and another metric for temporal representativeness that is based on a weighting scale applied to the years that data was collected from.

Results and discussion

The proposed approach is pragmatic and practical and helps to improve representativeness compared to simple random sampling. The general principles can inform the discussions about how many and which sites to sample even if detailed data on the composition of the population is missing. Its key strength is that it is not a one-size-fits-all methodology, but that it can and needs to be adapted to the product system under study, which in return requires the transparent documentation of all rationales and value choices along the way.


The proposed approach provides practitioners with a flexible framework to plan data collection in a way that increases representativeness compared to simple random sampling. The representativeness can be quantified and discussed using a defined scale that is based on quantitative measures rather than based on qualitative descriptions or pedigrees. If the underlying rationales and value choices are transparently documented and justified, the framework can help to improve how representativeness of primary data is addressed in large-scale LCAs.


Data collection Data quality Representativeness Sampling strategies Stratified sampling 

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1223_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (502 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 502 kb)


  1. AA (2013) The environmental footprint of semi-finished aluminum products in North America. Arlington: The Aluminum Association. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  2. Athena Institute (2014) A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of ready-mixed concrete manufacture by NRMCA members. Silver Spring: National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA). Accessed March 29, 2016.
  3. Bauer C, Treyer K, Mutel C, Zhang X (2015) The electricity sector in the ecoinvent database: updates & extensions of inventory data for ecoinvent v3.2. LCA XV. Vancouver: American Center of Life Cycle Assessment.
  4. CARS (2012) National scan-level life cycle assessment for production of US peanut butter. Center for Agricultural and Rural Sustainability, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Accessed March 29, 2016. Google Scholar
  5. CIRAIG (2009) Comparative life cycle assessment report for food packaging products. Kindsey Falls: Cascades Inc. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  6. Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema BP, Lesage P (2016) Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1338–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotton Inc. (2012) Life cycle assessment of cotton fiber & fabric. Cary: Cotton Incorporated. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  8. Creative Research Systems (2012) Sample size formulas for our sample size calculator. Accessed March 30, 2016.
  9. DLR (2013) Life cycle assessment of magnesium components in vehicle construction. Stuttgart: German Aerospace Centre e.V. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  10. EA (2011) Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006. Bristol: Environmental Agency. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  11. ENVIRON (2012) Life cycle assessment of deinked and virgin pulp. Denver: ENVIRON International Corporation. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  12. EPA (2013) Application of life-cycle assessment to nanoscale technology: lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  13. ISO (2006) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. Koffler C, Stoffregen A, Diem A, Hwang I (2013) Production, consumption, or utility mix: does it really matter?” LCA XIII. Orlando, FL: American Center for Life Assessment (ACLCA).
  15. National Statistical Service (2016) Sample size calculator. Accessed March 30, 2016.
  16. Quantis (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of horticultural growing media based on peat and other growing media constituents. Brussels: European Peat and Growing Media Association (EPAGMA). Accessed March 29, 2016.
  17. Quantis (2010) Environmental life cycle assessment of drinking water alternatives and consumer beverage consumption in North America. Framingham: Nestlé Waters North America. Accessed March 29, 2016.
  18. Quantis (2015) Life cycle assessment of coffee consumption: comparison of single-serve coffee and bulk coffee brewing. Toronto: Packaging Consortium (PAC). Accessed March 29, 2016.
  19. Salkind NJ (2010) Stratified sampling. In: Encyclopedia of Research Design, by NJ Salkind, 1451–1454. Thousand Oaks: Sage PublisherGoogle Scholar
  20. Stat Trek (2016a) Sample size: simple random samples. Accessed March 30, 2016.
  21. Stat Trek (2016b) Sample size: stratified random samples. Accessed March 30, 2016.
  22. Stat Trek (2016c) Statistics and probability dictionary. Accessed March 30, 2016.
  23. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology—data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. St Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre. Accessed March 29, 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.thinkstep Inc.BostonUSA
  2. 2.thinkstep Ltd.SheffieldUK
  3. 3.thinkstep Ltd.WellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations