On the boundary between economy and environment in life cycle assessment
We investigate how the boundary between product systems and their environment has been delineated in life cycle assessment and question the usefulness and ontological relevance of a strict division between the two.
We consider flows, activities and impacts as general terms applicable to both product systems and their environment and propose that the ontologically relevant boundary is between the flows that are modelled as inputs to other activities (economic or environmental)—and the flows that—in a specific study—are regarded as final impacts, in the sense that no further feedback into the product system is considered before these impacts are applied in decision-making. Using this conceptual model, we contrast the traditional mathematical calculation of the life cycle impacts with a new, simpler computational structure where the life cycle impacts are calculated directly as part of the Leontief inverse, treating product flows and environmental flows in parallel, without the need to consider any boundary between economic and environmental activities.
Results and discussion
Our theoretical outline and the numerical example demonstrate that the distinctions and boundaries between product systems and their environment are unnecessary and in some cases obstructive from the perspective of impact assessment, and can therefore be ignored or chosen freely to reflect meaningful distinctions of specific life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. We show that our proposed computational structure is backwards compatible with the current practice of LCA modelling, while allowing inclusion of feedback loops both from the environment to the economy and internally between different impact categories in the impact assessment.
Our proposed computational structure for LCA facilitates consistent, explicit and transparent modelling of the feedback loops between environment and the economy and between different environmental mechanisms. The explicit and transparent modelling, combining economic and environmental information in a common computational structure, facilitates data exchange and re-use between different academic fields.
KeywordsActivities Computational structure Flows Impacts Leontief inverse Ontology
- Ahbe S, Braunschweig A, Müller-Wenk R (1990) Methodik für Öko-Bilanzen auf der Basis ökologischer Optimierung. Bern: Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft. (Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz, no. 133)Google Scholar
- Boustead I, Hancock GF (1979) Handbook of industrial energy analysis. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- BUS. (1984). Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen. Bern: Bundesamt für Umweltschutz. (Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz no. 24)Google Scholar
- Fischer-Kowalski M, Weisz H (1999) Society as hybrid between material and symbolic realms: toward a theoretical framework of society–nature interaction. Adv Hum Ecol 8:215–251Google Scholar
- Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Copenhagen: Danish environmental agency. (environmental news no. 80)Google Scholar
- Heijungs R (2001) A theory of the environment and economic systems. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
- Heijungs R, Guinée J B, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Vol I: Guide & Vol. II: Backgrounds. Leiden: CML Centre for Environmental Studies, Leiden UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée J (2009) A scientific framework for LCA. Deliverable 15 of Work Package 2 of the CALCAS project. Leiden University. www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/calcas_report_d15.pdf
- Hunt RG, Franklin WE, Welch RO, Cross JA, Woodall AE (1974) Resource and environmental profile analysis of nine beverage container alternatives. Washington D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (EPA/530/SW-91c)Google Scholar
- de Koning A, Huppes G, Deetman S, Tukker A (2016) Scenarios for a 2 °C world: a trade-linked input–output model with high sector detail. Climate Policy 16(3). Published online 2015
- Muller-Wenk R (1978) Die Ökologische Buchhaltung. Campus, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
- O’Connor FM, Boucher O, Gedney N, Jones CD, Folberth GA, Coppell R, Friedlingstein P, Collins WJ, Chappellaz J, Ridley J, Johnson CE (2010) Possible role of wetlands, permafrost, and methane hydrates in the methane cycle under future climate change: a review. Rev Geophys 48:RG4005Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum RK, Anton A, Bengoa X, Bjørn A, Brain R, Bulle C, Cosme N, Dijkman TJ, Fantke P, Felix M, Geoghegan TS, Gottesbüren B, Hammer C, Humbert S, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Lewis F, Maxime D, Nemecek T, Payet J, Räsänen K, Roux P, Schau EM, Sourisseau S, van Zelm R, von Streit B, Wallman M (2015) The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(6):765–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Steen B, Ryding S-O (1992) The EPS enviro-accounting method. Göteborg: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. (Report no. B1080)Google Scholar
- 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). The ecoinvent Centre, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
- Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Vol. I: Methodology, tools, techniques and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar