Abstract
Purpose
Uncertainty is present in many forms in life cycle assessment (LCA). However, little attention has been paid to analyze the variability that methodological choices have on LCA outcomes. To address this variability, common practice is to conduct a sensitivity analysis, which is sometimes treated only at a qualitative level. Hence, the purpose of this paper was to evaluate the uncertainty and the sensitivity in the LCA of swine production due to two methodological choices: the allocation approach and the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method.
Methods
We used a comparative case study of swine production to address uncertainty due to methodological choices. First, scenario variation through a sensitivity analysis of the approaches used to address the multi-functionality problem was conducted for the main processes of the system product, followed by an impact assessment using five LCIA methods at the midpoint level. The results from the sensitivity analysis were used to generate 10,000 independent simulations using the Monte Carlo method and then compared using comparison indicators in histogram graphics.
Results and discussion
Regardless of the differences between the absolute values of the LCA obtained due to the allocation approach and LCIA methods used, the overall ranking of scenarios did not change. The use of the substitution method to address the multi-functional processes in swine production showed the highest values for almost all of the impact categories, except for freshwater ecotoxicity; therefore, this method introduced the greater variations into our analysis. Regarding the variation of the LCIA method, for acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity, the results were very sensitive. The uncertainty analysis with the Monte Carlo simulations showed a wide range of results and an almost equal probability of all the scenarios be the preferable option to decrease the impacts on acidification, eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity. Considering the aggregate result variation across allocation approaches and LCIA methods, the uncertainty is too high to identify a statistically significant alternative.
Conclusions
The uncertainty analysis showed that performing only a sensitivity analysis could mislead the decision-maker with respect to LCA results; our analysis with the Monte Carlo simulation indicates no significant difference between the alternatives compared. Although the uncertainty in the LCA outcomes could not be decreased due to the wide range of possible results, to some extent, the uncertainty analysis can lead to a less uncertain decision-making by demonstrating the uncertainties between the compared alternatives.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some authors argue that system expansion and the substitution method are equivalent concepts (Tillman et al. 1994; Ekvall and Tillman 1997; Ekvall and Finnveden 2001). However, equivalent does not mean equal, and the two concepts will not generate the same results, so the concepts can be compatible (Wardenaar et al. 2012; Heijungs 2014).
References
Alvarenga RAF, Prudêncio da Silva V, Soares SR (2012) Comparison of the ecological footprint and a life cycle impact assessment method for a case study on Brazilian broiler feed production. J Clean Prod 28:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.023
AzariJafari H, Yahia A, Amor B (2017) Assessing the individual and combined effects of uncertainty and variability sources in comparative LCA of pavements. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1400-1
Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78
Baustert P, Benetto E (2017) Uncertainty analysis in agent-based modelling and consequential life cycle assessment coupled models: a critical review. J Clean Prod 156:378–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.193
Bovea MD, Gallardo A (2006) The influence of impact assessment methods on materials selection for eco-design. Mater Design 27(3):209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2004.10.015
Cavalett O, Chagas MF, Seabra JEA, Bonomi A (2013) Comparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):647–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0465-0
Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(9):4697–4705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.082
Cherubini E, Zanghelini GM, Alvarenga RAF, Franco D, Soares SR (2015a) Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems. J Clean Prod 87:68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.035
Cherubini E, Zanghelini GM, Tavares JMR, Belettini F, Soares SR (2015b) The finishing stage in swine production: influences of feed composition on carbon footprint. Environ Dev Sustain 17(6):1313–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9607-9
Cherubini F, Strømman AH, Ulgiati S (2011) Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products—a case study. Resour Conserv Recy 55(11):1070–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.06.001
Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag 32(12):2482–2495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.008
Curran MA (2007) Studying the effect on system preference by varying coproduct allocation in creating life-cycle inventory. Environ Sci Technol 41(20):7145–7151. https://doi.org/10.1021/es070033f
Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N, Christensen P, Thrane M, Pengue WA (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):240–254. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.06.342
de Koning A, Schowanek D, Dewaele J, Weisbrod A, Guinée J (2010) Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents; quantifying the confidence in a comparative result. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):79–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0123-3
Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and eco-indicator 99. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978471
EC-JRC (2011) Recommendations based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors for life cycle assessment in European context. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24571 EN. ISBN 978-92-79-17451-3. At http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC61049. Accessed 22 April 2015
EC-JRC (2010) General guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. ILCD Handbook—International Reference Life Cycle Data System, European Union EUR24708 EN. ISBN 978-92-79-19092-6. At http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC48157. Accessed 13 January 2015
Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9(3):197–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00052-4
Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(3):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978810
European Commission (2002) Evaluation of the community policy for starch and starch products. European Commission—DG Agriculture. At http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/amidon/full.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2015
European Commission (2013) 2013/179/EU: commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. At http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013H0179. Accessed 29 April 2015
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Gac A, Salou T, Espagnol S, Ponchant P, Dollé JB, van der Werf HMG (2014) An original way of handling co-products with a biophysical approach in LCAs of livestock systems. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA, San Francisco, USA
Galindro BM (2012) Análise técnica e avaliação do ciclo de vida de culturas de produção de microalgas para biodiesel. Master dissertation, Federal University of Santa Catarina. At http://www.ciclodevida.ufsc.br/publicacoes.php. Accessed 08 January 2015
Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making (3 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):184–192. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.09.178
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008: a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition report I: characterisation. RIVM, Bilthoven, May 2013. At http://www.lcia-recipe.net/file-cabinet Accessed 05 January 2015
Gregory JR, Noshadravan A, Olivetti EA, Kirchain RE (2016) A methodology for robust comparative life cycle assessments incorporating uncertainty. Environ Sci Technol 50(12):6397–6405. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04969
Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn JA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (Hardbound, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9; Paperback, ISBN 1-4020-0557-1)
Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental News no. 80. The Danish Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen
Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):683–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0489-5
Heijungs R (2014) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(3):473–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0662-5
Heijungs R, Guinée JB (2007) Allocation and “what-if” scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag 27(8):997–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.02.013
Heijungs R, Lenzen M (2014) Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(7):1445–1461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0751-0
Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9900-9
Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Part II: dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):343–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979345
Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L (2003) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37(11):2600–2608. https://doi.org/10.1021/es020971+
Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks HWM, Hungerbühler K, Hendriks AJ (2010) Cumulative energy demand as predictor for the environmental burden of commodity production. Environ Sci Technol 44(6):2189–2196. https://doi.org/10.1021/es902870s
Huijbregts MAJ, Norris G, Bretz R, Ciroth A, Maurice B, von Bahr B, Weidema B, Beaufort ASH (2001) Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):127–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978728
Hung M-L, Ma H (2009) Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):19–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0034-8
International Starch Institute (2015) Statistic on starch raw materials, composition and worldwide use. At http://starch.dk/isi/stat/rawmaterial.asp. Accessed 22 April 2015
Ipharraguerre IR, Clark JH (2003) Soyhulls as an alternative feed for lactating dairy cows: a review. J Dairy Sci 86(4):1052–1073. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73689-3
ISO (2006a) 14040:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standards Organization, Geneva (Switzerland)
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standards Organization, Geneva (Switzerland)
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505
Jungbluth N, Chudacoff M, Dauriat A, Dinkel F, Doka G, Faist-Emmenegger M, Gnansounou E, Kljun N, Schleiss K, Spielmann M, Stettler C, Sutter J (2007) Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. Ecoinvent report no. 17. Swiss Centre for the Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland
Kaufman AS, Meier PJ, Sinistore JC, Reinemann DJ (2010) Applying life-cycle assessment to low carbon fuel standards—how allocation choices influence carbon intensity for renewable transportation fuels. Energy Policy 38(9):5229–5241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.008
Kim S, Dale B (2005) Life cycle assessment study of biopolymers (polyhydroxyalkanoates)—derived from no-tilled corn (11 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):200–210. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.08.171
Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G, Udo de Haes HA (2009) Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(6):529–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0112-6
Mendoza Beltran A, Heijungs R, Guinée J, Tukker A (2016) A pseudo-statistical approach to treat choice uncertainty: the example of partitioning allocation methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(2):252–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0994-4
Mendoza Beltran A, Chiantore M, Pecorino D, Corner RA, Ferreira JG, Cò R, Fanciulli L, Guinée JB (2017) Accounting for inventory data and methodological choice uncertainty in a comparative life cycle assessment: the case of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in an offshore Mediterranean enterprise. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1363-2
Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840609
Owsianiak M, Laurent A, Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2014) IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe 2008 and ILCD’s recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment: a case study-based comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(5):1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0708-3
Pedroso AM, Santos FAP, Bittar CMM (2009) Substituição do milho em grão por farelo de glúten de milho na ração de vacas em lactação em confinamento. Rev Bras Zootecn 38(8):1614–1619. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982009000800028
Pizzol M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Thomsen M (2011) Eco-toxicological impact of “metals” on the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem: a comparison between eight different methodologies for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). J Clean Prod 19(6-7):687–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.008
Prudêncio da Silva V, van der Werf HMG, Soares SR, Corson MS (2014) Environmental impacts of French and Brazilian broiler chicken production scenarios: an LCA approach. J Environ Manag 133:222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.011
Prudêncio da Silva V, van der Werf HMG, Spies A, Soares SR (2010) Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. J Environ Manag 91(9):1831–1839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.04.001
Rankins D (2015) Feeding soybean hulls. Personal homepage, At http://www.auburn.edu/~rankidl/. Accessed 25 March 2015
Renou S, Thomas JS, Aoustin E, Pons MN (2008) Influence of impact assessment methods in wastewater treatment LCA. J Clean Prod 16(10):1098–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.003
Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Köhler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (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(7):532–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4
Santos FA (2004) Glúten de milho na alimentação de aves e suínos. R Eletrônica Nutritime 1:79–100
Schmidt JH (2010) Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):183–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0142-0
Schmidt JH, Dalgaard R (2012) National and farm level carbon footprint of milk—methodology and results for Danish and Swedish milk 2005 at farm gate. Arla Foods, Aarhus, Denmark
Soares SR, Finotti AR, Prudêncio da Silva V, Alvarenga RAF (2013) Applications of life cycle assessment and cost analysis in health care waste management. Waste Manag 33(1):175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.021
Tillman A-M, Ekvall T, Baumann H, Rydberg T (1994) Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 2(1):21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-6526(94)90021-3
Wardenaar T, van Ruijven T, Beltran A, Vad K, Guinée JB, Heijungs R (2012) Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0431-x
Weidema BP (1999) System expansions to handle co-products of renewable materials. pp 45–48. At http://lca-net.com/files/casestudy99.pdf. Accessed 10 February 2015
Weidema BP, Schmidt JH (2010) Avoiding allocation in life cycle assessment revisited. J Ind Ecol 14(2):192–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00236.x
Weidema BP, Wesnæs MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4(3-4):167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00043-1
Würdinger E, Roth U, Wegener A, Peche R, Rommel W, Kreibe S, Nikolakis A, Rüdenauer I, Pürschel C, Ballarin P, Knebel T, Borken J, Detzel A, Fehrenbach H, Giegrich J, Möhler S, Patyk A, Reinhardt GA, Vogt R, Mühlberger D, Wante J (2002) Kunststoffe aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen: Vergleichende Ökobilanz für Loose-fill-Packmittel aus Stärke bzw. Polystyrol, Umwelt Stiftung
Zamagni A, Buonamici R, Buttol P, Masoni P (2009) Main R&D lines to improve reliability, significance and usability of standardised LCA. ENEA, Italian National Agency on new technologies, energy and the environment
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the financial support and to the anonymous reviewers for the important suggestions that considerably increased the quality of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Nydia Suppen-Reynaga
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(PDF 87 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cherubini, E., Franco, D., Zanghelini, G.M. et al. Uncertainty in LCA case study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 2055–2070 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1432-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1432-6