Power series expansion and structural analysis for life cycle assessment

Input-Output and Hybrid LCA (Subject Editor: Sangwon Suh)


Goal, Scope and Background

The usefulness of power series expansion for an LCA system has often been doubted, as those systems may not possess the unique properties that enable power series expansion and analyses based on the power series. This paper surveys the existing literature on power series expansion of monetary input-output system and discusses how the power series expansion can be utilized for more general systems including the LCA model.


The inherent properties of matrices that are capable of producing power series forms for their inverse and, further, can utilize structural path analysis are analyzed. Using these analyses, the way how a matrix that is not eligible for structural analyses is converted into an eligible form is investigated. A numerical example is presented to demonstrate the findings.


The necessary and sufficient condition for an indecomposable, real square technology matrix can be expressed using power series was identified. Two additional conditions for a technology matrix to be utilized for structural analyses using power series expansion are discussed as well. It was also shown that an LCA system that fulfills the Hawkins-Simon condition can be easily converted into the form that is eligible for structural analysis by rescaling the columns and rows.


As a numerical example, an application of accumulative structural path analysis for an LCA system is shown. The implications of the results are discussed in a more plain language as well.


The survey presented in this paper provides not only the conditions under which a linear system is expressed using a power series form but also the way to appropriately convert a system to utilize the rich analytical tools using power series expansion for structural analyses.

Recommendations and Perspectives

Widely used LCA databases and software tools have employed the linear systems approach as the basis. Much of these developments in the domain of LCA have been made, however, in isolation of the rich findings of IOA. There will be much to benefit LCA through an active dialogue between the two disciplines.

There are rich analytical tools available through the use of power series expansion. The current survey will help software developers and LCA practitioners to apply such tools in LCA.


Input-output analysis IOA LCA practitioners LCA software developers monetary input-output system power series expansion structural path analysis 


  1. Almon C (2001): Product-to-Product Tables via Product-Technology with No Negative Flows. Economic Systems Research 12, 27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson KE (1989): An introduction to numerical analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey R (2000): Input-output modeling of material flows in industry. Doctoral Dissertation, G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowker AN (1947): On the norm of a matrix. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18, 285–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brauer A (1946): Limits for the Characteristic Roots of a Matrix. Duke Mathematical Journal 13, 387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiang AC (1984): Fundamental methods of mathematical economics. Third edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen V, Pauly D (1992): ECOPATH II — a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem models and calculating network characteristics. Ecological Modeling, 169–185Google Scholar
  8. Debreu G, Herstein IN (1953): Nonnegative Square Matrices. Econometrica, 21, 597–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Defourny J, Thorbecke E (1984): Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework. Economic Journal 94, 111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher FM (1965): Choice of Units, Column Sums, and Stability in Linear Dynamic Systems with Nonnegative Square Matrices. Econometrica 33, 445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiedler M, Pták V (1962): On matrices with non-positive off-diagonal elements and positive principal minors. Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal, 12, 382–400Google Scholar
  12. Frischknecht R, Bollens U, Bosshart S, Ciot M, Ciseri L, Doka G, Dones R, Gantner U, Hischier R, Martin A (1996): Ökoinventare von Energiesystemen. Grundlagen für den Ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz. Auflage No.3, Gruppe Energie-Stoffe-Umwelt (ESU), Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich und Sektion Ganzheitliche Systemanalysen, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villingen, www.energieforschung.ch, Bundesamt für Energie (Hrsg), BernGoogle Scholar
  13. Frischknecht R, Kolm P (1995): Modellansatz und Algorithmus zur Berechnung von Ökobilanzen im Rahmen der Datenbank ECOINVENT. In: Schmidt M, Schorb A (eds), Stoffstromanalysen in Ökobilanzen und Öko-Audits. Springer, Berlin, pp. 80–95Google Scholar
  14. Frobenius G (1908): Über Matrizen aus positiven Elemente. Sitzungsberichte der Königlichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 26, 471–476Google Scholar
  15. Hannon B (1973): Structure of Ecosystems. Journal of Theoretical Biology 41, 535–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins D, Simon HA (1949): Note: Some conditions of macroeconomic stability. Econometrica 17, 245–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heijungs R (1994): A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecological Economics 10, 69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heijungs R, Suh S (2002): The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoekstra R (2003): Structural Change of the Physical Economy — Decomposition Analysis of Physical and Hybrid Input-Output Tables, Doctoral dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam, Tinbergen Institute Research Series, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubacek K, Giljum S (2003): Applying Physical Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Land Appropriation (Ecological Footprints) of International Trade Activities. Ecological Economics 44, 137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Isaacson E, Keller HB (1966): Analysis of numerical methods. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Janiszowksi KB (2003): Inversion of a square matrix in processors with limited calculation abilities. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation Science 13, 199–204Google Scholar
  23. Joshi S (1999): Product Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment Using Input-Output Techniques. Journal of Industrial Ecology 3, 95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kagawa S, Suh S (forthcoming): Multistage process-based make-use system. In: Suh S (ed), forthcoming: Handbook of Input-Output Analysis for Industrial Ecology, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  25. Konijn PJA (1994): The make and use of commodities by industries-On the compilation of input-output data from the national accounts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Twente, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. Konijn PJA, de Boer S, van Dalen J (1997): Input-Output Analysis of Material Flows with Application to Iron, Steel and Zinc. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 8, 31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kop Jansen P, ten Raa T (1990): The choice of model in the construction of input-output coefficients matrices. International Economic Review 31, 213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kratena K, Chovanec A, Konechy R (1992): Eine ökologische volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnung für Österreich. Die Umwelt Input Output Tabelle 1983. Institute für sozial-, wirtschafts-und umweltpolitische Forschung, Wien, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  29. Kratterl A, Kratena K (1990): Reale Input-Output Tabelle und ökologischer Kreislauf. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  30. Lave L, Cobas-Flores E, Hendrickson C, McMichael F (1995): Using input-output analysis to estimate economy wide discharges. Environmental Science & Technology 29, 420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee KS (1982): A Generalized Input-Output Model of an Economy with Environmental Protection, Review of Economics and Statistics 64, 466–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lenzen M (2001): Errors in conventional and input-output-based life-cycle inventories. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4, 127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lenzen M (2003): Environmentally important paths, linkages and key sectors in the Australian economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 14, 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leontief WW (1936): Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic Systems of the United States, The Review of Economic Statistics 18, 105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Londero E (1999): Secondary products, by-products and the commodity technology assumption. Economic Systems Research 11, 195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer CD, Meyer C (2001): Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra, SIAM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller R, Blair P (1985): Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Oldenburger R (1940): Infinite Powers of Matrices and Characteristics roots. Duke Mathematical Journal 6, 357–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Patten BC (1982): Environs — Relativistic Elementary-Particles for Ecology. American Naturalist 119, 179–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedersen OG (1999): Physical Input-Output Tables for Denmark. Products and Materials 1990, Air Emissions 1990–92. Statistics Denmark, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  41. Peters G (2007): Efficient algorithms for life cycle assessment, input-output analysis, and Monte-Carlo analysis. Int J LCA 12(6) 375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poole G, Boullion T (1974): A Survey on M-Matrices. SIAM Review 16, 419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ten Raa T, Chakraborty D, Small, JA (1984): An alternative treatment of secondary products in input-output analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics 66, 88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ten Raa T (1988): An alternative treatment of secondary products in input-output analysis: Frustration. Review of Economics and Statistics 70, 535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt M, Schorb A (eds) (1995): Stoffstromanalysen. In: Ökobilanzen und Öko-Audits. Springer, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  46. Solow R (1952): On the structure of linear models. Econometrica 20, 29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stahmer C, Kuhn M, Braun N (2003): Physische Input-Output Tabellen, Beiträge zu den Umweltönokomischen Gesamtrechnungen. Metzler-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  48. Steenge AE (1990): The commodity technology revisited-Theoretical basis and an application to error location in the make-use framework. Economic Modeling 7, 376–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stone R, Bacharach M, Bates J (1963): Input-Output Relationships, 1951–1966, Program for Growth. Vol. 3. London, Chapman and Hall, UKGoogle Scholar
  50. Suh S (2001): Accumulative Structural Path Analysis for the U.S., Presented at the Danish Prioritization Study Workshop, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  51. Suh S (2004a): Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological economic model. Ecological Economics 48, 451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suh S (2004b): A Note on the Calculus for Physical Input-Output Analysis and its Application to Land Appropriation of International Trade Activities. Ecological Economics 48, 9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suh S (2005): Theory of Materials and Energy Flow Analysis in Ecology and Economics. Ecological Modeling 189, 251–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Suh S, Huppes G (2002): Economic input-output models for allocation in LCA, SETAC-Europe annual meeting, Wien, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  55. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) of a product. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(7) 687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Szyrmer J, Ulanowicz RE (1987): Total Flows in Ecosystems. Ecological Modeling 35, 123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Takayama A (1985): Mathematical Economics. 2nd edition, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  58. Treloar G (1997): Extracting embodied energy paths from input-output tables: towards an input-output-based hybrid energy analysis method. Economic Systems Research 9, 375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waugh FV (1950): Inversion of the Leontief Matrix by Power Series. Econometrica 18, 142–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weber C, Schnabl H (1998): Environmentally Important Intersectoral Flows: Insights from Main Contributions Identification and Minimal Flow Analysis. Economic Systems Research 10, 337–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bio-based Products, College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations