This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Notice that Huijbregts et al. (in press) write \(\approx\) rather than \(=\), and they refer to it as an “approximation”. It is unclear why. My original text clearly stated that “an average, per-item value, multiplied by the number of items, should give the total value”. I only used an \(\approx\)−sign in the numerical example, because round-off introduced a small deviation.
Notice that I not only added tildes, but also changed the subscript \(1-i\) into \(n-i\) to correct a likely typo.
As a justification, the authors add that solution II is “conceptually equal to the way average characterisation factors are derived” by Chaudhary et al. (2015). I think this is debatable. Chaudhary et al. (2015) present an “average assessment”, but they do not define average characterization factors. And their characterization factors are sometimes dimensionless (as in Eq. (3)) and sometimes not (as in Eq. (6)), further complicating the comparison.
References
Chaudhary A, Verones F, De Baan L, Hellweg S (2015) Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species-area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:9987–9995. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02507
Heijungs R (2021) The average versus marginal debate in LCIA: paradigm regained. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:22–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01835-4
Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Hertwich E (2011) Do we need a paradigm shift in life cycle impact assessment? Environ Sci Technol 45:3833–3834. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200918b
Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Hertwich EG (in press). Theory without practice: a reply to the note from Heijungs on the average versus marginal debate in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01970-6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Matthias Finkbeiner.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heijungs, R. Practice without theory: a reply to the note from Huijbregts, Hellweg, and Hertwich on the average versus marginal debate in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 2196–2198 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01997-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01997-9