Abstract
Purpose
A systematic comparison is made of attributional and consequential results for the same products using the same unit process database, thus isolating the effect of the two system models. An analysis of this nature has only recently been made possible due to the ecoinvent database version 3 providing an access to both unallocated and unlinked unit process datasets as well as both attributional and consequential models based on these datasets. The analysis is therefore limited to the system models provided by ecoinvent.
Methods
For both system models, the analysis was made on the life cycle inventory analysis (LCIA) results as published by ecoinvent (692 impact categories from different methods, for 11,650 product/activity combinations). The comparison was made on the absolute difference relative to the smallest absolute value.
Results and discussion
The comparison provides quantified results showing that the consequential modelling provides large differences in results when the unconstrained (marginal) suppliers have much more/less impact than the average, when analysing the by-products, and when analysing determining products from activities with important amounts of other coproducts.
Conclusions
The analysis confirms that for consequential studies, attributional background datasets are not appropriate as a substitute for consequential background. The overall error will of course depend on the extent to which attributional modelling is used as part of the overall system model. While the identified causes of differences between the attributional and consequential models are of general nature, the identified sizes of the errors are specific to the way the two models are implemented in ecoinvent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrae ASG (2014) Method based on market changes for improvement of comparative attributional life cycle assessments. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(2):263–275
Consequential-LCA (2015) Multiple determining products from joint production. Last updated: 2015–10-27. www.consequential-lca.org
Curran MA, Mann M, Norris G (2005) The international workshop on electricity data for life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod 13(8):853–862
Ecoinvent Centre (2013) ecoinvent data v3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, St. Gallen. Available from www.ecoinvent.org
Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18(1):73–83
Sonnemann G, Vigon B (eds) (2011) Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris/Pensacola
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. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre
Weidema BP, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Consequential LCA. In: Guidelines for applications of deepened and broadened LCA. Deliverable D18 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. http://lca-net.com/p/186
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Shabbir Gheewala
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 17 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weidema, B.P. Estimation of the size of error introduced into consequential models by using attributional background datasets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 1241–1246 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1239-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1239-x