Implementing hybrid LCA routines in an input–output virtual laboratory
 406 Downloads
Abstract
Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) has been developed for almost 40 years, but its applications are still limited to certain products/industries. This study endeavors to expand the accessibility of hybrid LCA from specialists to practitioners by developing a streamlined and semiautomated hybrid LCA data compilation routine in an input–output virtual laboratory. Data from the Australian Life Cycle Inventory Database (AusLCI) and the Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory are used to demonstrate this routine. A hybridized AusLCI database is generated and used to calculate the hybrid carbon footprint intensities (CFIs) of all AusLCI processes. How different assumptions and settings on the hybridization influence the difference between processbased and hybrid results is further investigated and discussed intensively. Major inputs from the IO system are identified, and the sensitivity and uncertainty of hybrid results against unit price variations and EEIO table uncertainties are quantified via Monte Carlo simulations. On average, processbased CFIs are 21–32% lower than the corresponding hybrid CFIs, which is larger than the uncertainties resulting from either price variation, EEIO data uncertainty or scenarios on how the hybridization is conducted. Although the data are Australian specific, the underlying procedure is applicable to any country as long as suitable data are available.
Keywords
Hybrid life cycle assessment Input–output virtual laboratory Carbon footprint intensity Uncertainty AustraliaAbbreviations
 AGEIS
Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System
 ANZSIC
Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification
 AusLCI
Australian National Life Cycle Inventory Database
 BP
basic price
 C^{d}
downstream cutoff matrix
 C^{u}
upstream cutoff matrix
 CFIs
carbon footprint intensities
 CH_{4}
methane
 CO_{2}
carbon dioxide
 DCC
doublecounting correction
 EEIOA
environmentally extended input–output analysis
 GGBFS
groundgranulated blastfurnace slag
 GHG
greenhouse gas
 hLCA
hybrid life cycle assessment
 IELab
Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory
 IO
input–output
 IOA
input–output analysis
 IOIG
input–output industry group
 IOPC
input–output product category
 IOPG
input–output product group
 IO VLs
input–output virtual laboratories
 ISIC
International Standard Industry Classification
 LCA
life cycle assessment
 LCI
life cycle inventory
 MCA
Monte Carlo analysis
 N_{2}O
nitrous oxide
 PP
purchasers’ price
 PPI
producer price index
 ROW
rest of the world
 RSD
relative standard deviation
 SUT
supply and use table
1 Introduction
Hybrid life cycle assessment (hLCA)—combining conventional processbased LCA and environmentally extended input–output analysis (EEIOA) in a variety of ways—has been developed for almost 40 years (Crawford et al. 2018). The primary motivations behind developing various hLCA models are to reduce the truncation errors inherent in processbased LCA (Lenzen 2000; Suh et al. 2004; Suh 2004; Crawford et al. 2018) and/or to mitigate the aggregation errors rooted in EEIOA (Suh and Huppes 2005; Peters 2010), while maintaining the specificity and completeness of the system under study.
Driven by different research questions and model designs, a range of hLCA methods have been developed (Suh 2004; Nakamura and Nansai 2016; Crawford et al. 2018). Tiered hybrid analysis uses a selective combination of process and input–output data to extend the system boundary (Zhai and Williams 2010; Changbo et al. 2012; Bullard et al. 1978). This normally requires a casespecific definition of the system boundary as well as the boundary between process data and input output data, which, if not done properly, may not prevent the truncation errors completely but introduce the double counting (Crawford et al. 2018). Input–output based hybrid LCA is developed to mitigate the aggregation errors of EEIOA by either disaggregating a sector in the EEIO table into subsectors using processspecific information (Wiedmann et al. 2011; Wolfram et al. 2016; Teh et al. 2017) or by using process data to add new sectors to the EEIO table (Malik et al. 2015, 2016). In practice, this approach is typically tailored to specific products and/or industries and can therefore not be done for many products/industries at the same time. Similarly, in the path exchange method (PXC), individual supply chain impacts are identified via structural path analysis and then modified by replacing parts of these paths with superior process data, if available (Lenzen and Crawford 2009; Stephan et al. 2018). Finally, integrated hLCA (Suh and Huppes 2000) is essentially an organic integration of the first two approaches in matrix form as it endeavors to tackle truncation errors and aggregation errors at the same time. A complete set of process data (e.g., the whole ecoinvent database (Frischknecht et al. 2005) is formulated as a process matrix, and then connected to a complete EEIO table via upstream and downstream cutoff matrices (Suh 2004; Acquaye et al. 2011b; Suh and Huppes 2005; Baboulet and Lenzen 2010). Similar to tiered hybrid analysis but more comprehensively, the upstream cutoff matrix complements missing inputs in the process matrix with inputs from the EEIO table in monetary units so that the boundary of the process system can be expanded to avoid truncation errors. Similar to input–output based hybrid LCA, the downstream cutoff matrix can be used to represent the inputs of products from the process matrix to the background economy in physical units, thus helping to make IO input recipes (and therefore technical coefficients) more specific. When all four matrices are populated, feedback loops between individual processes and industries can be modeled and reflected in the hybrid results (Suh and Huppes 2005). Although integrated hLCA tends to be a more sophisticated way of combining processbased LCA and EEIOA, its application is still limited to certain specific products and/or industries (Inaba et al. 2010; Wiedmann et al. 2011; Bush et al. 2014) due to the complexity incurred by compiling the cutoff matrices (Suh and Lippiatt 2012; Yang et al. 2017; MajeauBettez et al. 2014).
In order to support a wider uptake of hLCA among LCA practitioners, a more generalized and streamlined hybrid LCA routine is developed in this study to semiautomatically hybridize a complete process database. The routine is similar to the integrated hLCA framework where all elements are presented and connected by a consistent matrixbased computational structure that assists automation and allows for the simultaneous hybridization across all individual processes (Suh 2004). However, under its current status, this routine is not dealing with the downstream cutoff matrix \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{d}}} \) because the creation of \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{d}}} \) requires laborintensive data collection on product volumes and sales to the background economy as well as their specific destinations (Suh 2004). This effort is beyond the scope of this paper and only pays off if the intention is to make the background IO system more productspecific (Suh 2006; Peters and Hertwich 2006; Acquaye et al. 2011a). The present system therefore represents a tiered hybrid system, which, however, can be extended to a truly integrated system once the downstream cutoff matrix is populated with scaled process data, subtracted from the IO background system (see, e.g., Teh et al. 2018).
The hLCA system used here contains the most detailed national supply and use table (SUT) and the most detailed process database available for Australia. The hybridization procedure is implemented in a highperformance computing virtual laboratory that enables efficient processing at large scale (Geschke and Hadjikakou 2017).
As a generalized and streamlined hLCA routine becomes available through our research, an important question to consider is the uncertainty and accuracy compared to pure processbased analysis (Yang 2016, 2017; Yang et al. 2017; Gibon and Schaubroeck 2017; Schaubroeck and Gibon 2017; MajeauBettez et al. 2011; Pomponi and Lenzen 2018). Fundamentally, there is a tradeoff between gaining completeness by avoiding truncation and loosing precision by using aggregated IO industries (Williams et al. 2009; Lenzen 2000; Miller and Blair 2009). Several studies find truncation errors dominant, with processbased results being 30–80% lower than their corresponding EEIO or hybrid LCA results (Junnila 2006; Ferrão and Nhambiu 2009; Zhai and Williams 2010; Acquaye et al. 2011b; Lenzen 2000; Rowley et al. 2009; Crawford 2008; Ward et al. 2018). However, Yang et al. (2017) show in a hypothetical example that aggregation errors can be larger than truncation errors, potentially leading to less accurate hybrid results. Pomponi and Lenzen (2018) disagree and demonstrate in a more realistic example that truncation errors most likely outweigh aggregation errors in practice. Our study intends to contribute to this discussion by showing how different assumptions and settings on the hybridization influence the difference between pure processbased and hybrid lifecycle greenhouse gas (carbon footprint) inventories. We also test the sensitivity and uncertainty of our hybrid results against unit price variations and EEIO table uncertainties, respectively, via Monte Carlo simulations.
2 Methods and data
2.1 Model setup

\( {\mathbf{q}}_{{\mathbf{h}}} \) = total (direct and indirect) environmental impacts (e.g., CO_{2}e emissions) vector associated with an arbitrary vector of demand \( \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\tilde{\mathbf{y}}}} \\ {\mathbf{y}} \\ \end{array} } \right) \) for the hybrid system under study (dimension: z × d; z is the number of rows of extensions, d is the number of columns of demand);

\( {\tilde{\mathbf{R}}} \) = coefficient matrix for process inventory environmental extensions (dimension: z × n; n is the number of processes covered by the process coefficient matrix \( {\mathbf{T}} \));

\( {\mathbf{R}} \) = coefficient matrix for IO environmental extensions (dimension: z × m; m is the total number of industries covered by the IO system \( {\mathbf{A}} \));

\( {\mathbf{T}} \) = process coefficient matrix, derived from the process life cycle inventory database (dimension: n × n);

\( {\mathbf{I}} \) = identity matrix (dimension: m × m);

\( {\mathbf{A}} \) = IO technology coefficient matrix, derived from IO or supply and use tables (dimension: m × m);

\( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) = upstream cutoff matrix (dimension: m × n);

\( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{d}}} \) = downstream cutoff matrix (dimension: n × m); in our case, \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{d}}} \) is populated with 0 s.

\( \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\tilde{\mathbf{y}}}} \\ {\mathbf{y}} \\ \end{array} } \right) \) = vector of demand for products from processes \( {\tilde{\mathbf{y}}} \) or commodities \( {\mathbf{y}} \) from IO industries (dimension: (n + m) × d). In our case, \( {\tilde{\mathbf{y}}} \) is a 1column vector containing 1 s meaning one functional unit of products produced from each process in the process coefficient matrix; and \( {\mathbf{y}} \) contains 0 s as our model focuses on hybridizing process coefficients only.
The following subsections elaborate on how each part of the hybrid model is set up with an emphasis on the upstream cutoff matrix.
2.2 Process coefficient matrix \( {\mathbf{T}} \) and corresponding environmental extension coefficient matrix \( {\tilde{\mathbf{R}}} \)
The process coefficient matrix T, which is also known as productbyprocess coefficient matrix (Heijungs and Suh 2002; Suh 2004), shows all inputs (recorded as negative values) and outputs (recorded as positive values) associated with the production of one functional unit of products in physical units. It is a symmetric matrix extended at the bottom with the environmental extension coefficient matrix \( {\tilde{\mathbf{R}}} \) that shows the amount of direct environmental interventions per functional unit.
The Australian National Life Cycle Inventory Database (AusLCI) is used in this study (http://www.auslci.com.au), which contains 4463 processes (Grant 2015). Three hundred and seventynine of these possess foreground datasets that are gathered from Australianspecific sources, whereas the rest of them are considered as background processes that are derived by adjusting similar processes from ecoinvent version 2.2 (Grant 2015). In this study, the process coefficient matrix T is augmented with AusLCI emissions data for three greenhouse gases (GHGs)—CO_{2}, CH_{4} and N_{2}O. Characterization factors for CH_{4} and N_{2}O are retrieved from the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System (AGEIS 2016).
2.3 IO technology coefficient matrix A and corresponding environmental extension coefficient matrix \( {\mathbf{R}} \)
The IO technology coefficient matrix A with dimensions m*m is in SUT format (Eurostat 2008) and includes both imports and exports (see Fig. 1). A is derived by dividing total transactions by total industry and commodity outputs, respectively (Miller and Blair 2009). The first onethird (m/3) columns of matrix R are the direct environmental interventions associated with one monetary unit output of each industry.
IO and GHG data as well as the associated uncertainty information for the accounting year 2008/09 are extracted from the Australian Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (IELab, http://ielab.info) (Lenzen et al. 2014, 2017). IELab provides the possibility of creating detailed subnational multiregion IO tables of the Australian economy with up to 2214 spatial areas and up to 1284 industries, depending on the research question and computational capacity (Lenzen et al. 2014; Wiedmann 2017). In this study, a national SUT with 1284 industries is derived using detailed product information published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2012) and suitable IELab datafeed scripts (Lenzen 2017; Geschke 2017). The same three GHG extensions as in the process system are included (Lane 2017). Apart from providing data, the IELab also serves as the computational platform where the hybrid model is being developed and implemented.
2.4 Upstream cutoff matrix \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \)
The upstream cutoff matrix represents those inputs from the IO system that are missing in the process system (Suh 2004). A concordance matrix and the price information of each AusLCI process need to be compiled before creating the upstream cutoff matrix.
A concordance matrix is created with 1284 rows representing industries in the SUT (based on the Australian Input–Output Product Classification, IOPC) (ABS 2012) and 4463 columns representing processes in the AusLCI database. First, a preliminary concordance is established by multiplying the concordance matrix between 1284 IOPC industries and 12966 ecoinvent v3.2 processes (Additional file 1: Figure S1) with the concordance matrix between 12966 ecoinvent v3.2 processes and 4463 AusLCI processes (Additional file 1: Figure S2). Since the concordances involved are adopting different classification systems with lower resolutions, the resulting aggregated concordance matrix is then reviewed carefully and adjusted manually. When one process can be the output of multiple industries, the concordance coefficient (1 for each process) is allocated pro rata according to the total economic outputs of the corresponding industries so that the matrix sum is equal to the number of processes (n) in T.
Workflow I: initial estimation of \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \)
 Step 1: Use the sectorbyprocess concordance matrix \( {\mathbf{C}}_{{{\mathbf{con}}}} \) to turn matrix \( {\mathbf{A}}^{*} \) into an extended matrix \( {\mathbf{A}}_{\varvec{e}}^{*} \) where the technology coefficients of industries are allocated to n processes.$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{\varvec{e}}^{*} = {\mathbf{A}}^{*} *{\mathbf{C}}_{{{\mathbf{con}}}} $$(4)
 Step 2: Each row of \( {\mathbf{A}}_{\varvec{e}}^{*} \) is elementwise multiplied (symbol: ⊗) with the transposed adjusted unit price vector \( {\mathbf{p}}_{{\mathbf{a}}}^{{\prime }} \) to yield price weighted coefficients \( {\mathbf{A}}_{{\varvec{ep}}}^{*} \), which is the initial estimation of \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \).$$ {\mathbf{A}}_{{\varvec{ep}}}^{*} = {\mathbf{A}}_{\varvec{e}}^{*} \varvec{ } \otimes {\mathbf{p}}_{{{\mathbf{a}} }}^{{\prime }} $$(5)
Workflow II: preliminary treatment of double counting
IO inputs that are obviously already represented in the process matrix need to be removed from the initial estimation of \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) (Suh 2004; Wiedmann et al. 2011; Feng et al. 2014). In detail, the workflow proceeds via the following steps:
 Step 3: Premultiply the process coefficient matrix \(\mathbf{T}\) with the sectorbyprocess concordance matrix \( {\mathbf{C}}_{{{\mathbf{con}}}} \) to vertically aggregate n process flows to the industrial level of the SUT matrix.$$ \mathbf{T}_{\mathbf{a}} = \mathbf{C}_{{\mathbf{con}}} * \mathbf{T} $$(6)
 Step 4: Delete those upstream inputs that are already represented (in physical units) in the process coefficient matrix by setting them to zeros in the initial estimate of \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \). This results in an initially adjusted version of \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) (Fig. 5).$$ {\text{If}}\;\mathbf{T}_{{\mathbf{a},\mathbf{ ij}}} \varvec{ } \ne 0;\;{\text{then}}\;\mathbf{C}_{{\mathbf{ij}}}^{\mathbf{u}} = 0\varvec{ }\;\left(i={\mathit{1},\;\mathit{2}, \ldots ,m;\; \, j = \mathit{1},\;\mathit{2}, \ldots ,n} \right) $$(7)$$ {\text{If}}\;\mathbf{T}_{{\mathbf{a},\mathbf{ ij}}} = 0;\;{\text{then}}\;\mathbf{C}_{{\mathbf{ij}}}^{\mathbf{u}} = \mathbf{A}_{{\mathbf{ep},\mathbf{ ij}}}^{\mathbf{*}} \varvec{ }\;\left( {i = \mathit{1},\;\mathit{2}, \ldots ,m;\;j = \mathit{1},\;\mathit{2}, \ldots ,n} \right) $$(8)
Workflow III: final adjustment of \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) for double counting
 (a)
The initially adjusted \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) might include inputs from the IO system that are not actually relevant to the specific process of interest because of aggregation. Industries are always an aggregation of heterogeneous processes, and therefore, the technical IO coefficients cannot perfectly represent the production recipe of each individual process belonging to an industry.
 (b)
Some processes, which are categorized as “processing” in the process coefficient matrix (e.g., “mowing, by rotary mower,” “milling, aluminum, large parts,” “laminating, foil, with acrylic binder”), are manufacturing subprocesses. These internal subprocesses do not enter the market directly; therefore, upstream inputs should not be allocated to these subprocesses, but only to the final marketable products.
 (c)
Process data should already cover all physical material and energy inputs so that equivalent inputs from the IO system would cause double counting (and overestimation of impacts). Due to possible mismatches in concordance and/or aggregation, however, residual inputs from IO material or energy industries may remain in \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) after workflow II.
To understand which reason (or reasons in combination) listed above is applicable to each specific process requires detailed expert knowledge and casebycase investigation. This would be very timeconsuming and not universally applicable, and therefore beyond the scope of this study. Two scenarios are adopted to deal with possible cases of double counting and overestimation. Scenario 1 applies moderate doublecounting correction (DCC) (\( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \)_upper in Fig. 3) and leads to upperboundary results for the hybrid analysis. DCC is more complete in Scenario 2 (\( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \)_lower in Fig. 3), leading to lowerboundary results. In other words, instead of generating one single hybrid result for each AusLCI process, we generate two sets of hybrid results for each, demonstrating the impact certain assumptions have on the final results.
DCC 1 (\( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \)_upper):
DCC 2 (\( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \)_lower):
2.5 Monte Carlo analysis
Both processbased LCA and EEIOA are associated with various types of assumptions and uncertainties on their own, including parameter and input data uncertainty (e.g., allocation errors, price homogeneity, linearity, aggregation uncertainty, geographical variation, temporal discrepancies), model uncertainty (e.g., impact categories, characterization factors), and scenario uncertainty (e.g., different choices of scope, cutoff criteria) (Peters 2006; Wiedmann 2009; Rowley et al. 2009; Lenzen 2000; Heijungs and Lenzen 2014; Ercan and Tatari 2015; Williams et al. 2009). Specific to the hLCA model developed in this study, two major stochastic uncertainties are investigated further: (1) the unit conversion conducted during the creation of the \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) matrix because of price uncertainty (see Sect. 2.4); and (2) the uncertainty associated with adding the EEIO data in the upstream cutoff matrix (Wiedmann et al. 2011; Wolfram et al. 2016; Teh et al. 2017).
Monte Carlo simulation is commonly employed in LCA and EEIOA to quantify the propagation of errors in the model (Peters 2006; Bullard and Sebald 1977; Lenzen 2000). In this study, a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for price variation and a Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis for EEIOA data variation are conducted for each DCC scenario to demonstrate the effect on hybrid carbon footprint intensities (CFIs). As for price variation, it is assumed to follow normal distribution with a relative standard deviation (σ) of 30%, which means 99.7% of the prices vary between 10% (1 − 3σ) and 190% (1 + 3σ) of the original prices. Regarding the EEIO data uncertainty, the relative standard deviation for each cell of the SUT and extension matrix has been taken from the routine outputs of MRIO table compilation in the IELab (Lenzen et al. 2014).
3 Results
After creating the upstream cutoff matrix according to Sect. 2.4, the hybrid matrix is completed and presented in Sect. 3.1. Hybrid carbon footprint intensities [CFIs or lifecycle GHG inventories, equivalent to \( \mathbf{q}_{\mathbf{h}} \) in Eq. (1)] are then calculated for all AusLCI processes, and the shares of IO inputs are quantified (Sect. 3.2). Upstream IO inputs are further decomposed to show the major contributions from the background economy (Sect. 3.3). Following that, the results of the Monte Carlo simulations are presented in Sect. 3.4.
3.1 Results from different \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) doublecounting correction scenarios
Following Eq. (1) with \( {\tilde{\text{y}}} \) being a column of 1 s, hybrid CFIs of all AusLCI processes are calculated after initial adjustment, upper and lowerbound DCC, respectively. Out of 4463 hybrid CFIs, 138 are zero, including 32 disposal processes, 17 dummy processes and 89 byproduct processes, which have no direct inputs, no direct emissions and no unit prices from the process coefficient matrix. In the following, results for the remaining 4325 processes are presented.
Closer analysis reveals that the difference between initially adjusted and DCCcorrected hybrid CFIs is largest where corresponding IO industries are highly aggregated. For example, the process “2332 irrigation, pipe irrigation system” is corresponding to the IO industry “5290020 Services to agriculture nec,” but this industry covers not only farm irrigation service, but also other agricultural support services like fruit or vegetable picking, seed grading or cleaning. As a result, the technical IO coefficients of this industry cannot perfectly represent the inputs of the targeted process “pipe irrigation system,” potentially giving rise to overestimation. The upperbound DCC scenario can effectively treat this type of overestimation by removing this industry from the upstream cutoff matrix. Similar examples are processes that correspond to IO industries like “29000010 Waste collection, treatment disposal remediation and materials recovery services,” “26190010 Electricity generation nec,” “31090010 Nonbuilding construction nec,” “18130090 Other inorganic chemicals nec,”. In contrast, if a process has a more equivalent match with an IO industry, then the differences caused by different DCC scenarios are not that significant. For example, the hybrid CFI of process “1833 general purpose cement, Australian average” is only reduced by 16% when adopting the upperbound DCC scenario because its corresponding IO industry “20310010 Cement (incl hydraulic and portland)” is a more equivalent representative.
On average, the hybrid CFIs are reduced by 16% when going from the upper to the lowerbound DCC scenario. (This is different from the 8% mentioned above. The denominator of the 8% is the hybrid CFIs after initial adjustment of C^{u}, while the denominator of the 16% is the upperbound hybrid CFIs.) In reverse, the hybrid CFIs are increased by 19% from lowerbound to upperbound. This means scenarios made for doublecounting correction lead to an average variation of (− 16% to + 19%). In addition to the aggregation errors mainly dealt with by the upperbound DCC scenario, the lowerbound scenario deals with double counting related to physical process inputs. If physical process inputs are complete but the corresponding C^{u} cells are still filled with irrelevant IO inputs, the lowerbound scenario can help remove these IO inputs, leading to a larger reduction from upperbound scenario. For instance, process “600 Cottonseed oil, at oil mill” is a complete process that has already covered all physical inputs, but its corresponding IO industry “11500010 Crude soya bean, cotton seed, peanut, sunflower, safflower, rape seed, coconut and vegetable oils” has too many irrelevant inputs which can be effectively removed by the lowerbound scenario. Larger gaps between upper and lower bound also occur if process inputs are incomplete, and the lowerbound DCC incorrectly eliminates necessary inputs from the upstream cutoff matrix so that the resulting hybrid CFIs are underestimated. Take process “86 Aircraft, freight” as an example. In the process coefficient matrix, this process has inputs from “Aluminum’,” “Electricity,” “Light fuel oil,” “Natural gas,” “Polyethylene, HDPE,” “Tap water,” “Transport” and “Treatment, sewage,” but some important inputs are missing, which can be found from its corresponding IO industry “23940010 Aircraft and aircraft parts,” including “Tires, rubber nec,” “Safety glass,” “Iron and steel bars,” “Painted, varnished or coated steel sheet,” “Copper, copper alloy and semifinished products,” “Radio and radar equipment, navigational aids, and radio remote control equipment” and “dry cell battery.” These missing inputs are incorrectly deleted by the lowerbound scenario, enlarging the difference between upper and lowerbound DCC.
To sum up, the upperbound scenario may overestimate the hybrid CFIs for complete processes, and the lowerbound scenario may underestimate the hybrid CFIs for incomplete processes. Since evaluating the completeness of every process is practically impossible without investigating every process individually, simply applying the lowerbound scenario for all processes is a better way to treat double counting (and overestimation). Even if this simplified DCC might cause underestimation for certain processes, the resulting hybrid CFIs can be seen as conservative, yet more realistic, estimate than their corresponding processbased CFIs. With that being said, the most robust outcomes of this hybrid analysis apply to processes whose IO counterparts are equivalent representations, because the hybrid CFIs for these processes remain relatively stable, regardless of the scenarios made for DCC.
3.2 Hybrid carbon footprint intensities
3.3 Nature of IO contributions to hybrid CFIs
In order to demonstrate where the missing upstream inputs come from, the contributions from the IO system to hybrid CFIs are decomposed further. For easier presentation, the original 1284 IO industries are aggregated into 19 broad industries following ANZSIC06 divisions (ABS 2008).
3.4 Monte Carlo analysis
Assuming the unit price of each AusLCI process follows normal distribution with a relative standard deviation of 30%, we find the resulting hybrid CFIs vary from − 31% to + 33% for the upperbound scenario and ± 31% for the lowerbound scenario. The average variation across 4325 hybrid CFIs is from − 4.7% to + 5.1% for upperbound DCC and from − 3.3% to + 3.2% for lowerbound DCC. In general, all upperbound hybrid CFIs have slightly wider ranges than their corresponding lowerbound ones because upperbound DCC involves more IO inputs, requiring more unit conversions. Larger variations are normally associated with processes having lower ratios of processbased CFI to hybrid CFI. These processes have higher percentages of IO inputs, which makes them more sensitive to price variations.
The Monte Carlo analysis of SUT data shows that, again, all upperbound hybrid CFIs have slightly higher uncertainties (ranging from − 5% to + 15%) than their corresponding lowerbound ones (ranging from − 2% to + 11%). On average, the upperbound hybrid CFIs across 4325 processes change between + 1.4% and + 2.4%, and the lowerbound hybrid CFIs change between + 0.7% and + 1.4%. The bias toward higher values is due to the idiosyncrasies of the IO calculus, which involves a matrix inversion, and is well known from the literature (Lenzen 2000; Lenzen et al. 2010).
Again, a correlation between larger uncertainty and lower ratios of processbased CFI to hybrid CFI can be observed. This is also because low ratios mean relative higher IO shares, leading to larger uncertainty attributed to IO data uncertainty. As a consequence, processes with very high hybrid CFIs, relative to their corresponding processbased CFIs, are more uncertain than the ones with relatively lower hybrid CFIs.
4 Discussion and conclusion
4.1 Opportunities and advantages
Although hybrid LCA is developed with the intention to deal with the shortcomings of processbased LCA and EEIOA to enable a specific as well as complete LCA, its practical application is still rather limited. The hLCA framework presented in this study expands the accessibility of hybrid LCA from specialists to LCA practitioners by developing a streamlined and semiautomated hybrid LCA routine that allows for any process database (in matrix form) to be hybridized with IO data and to be read by LCA software in the same way as conventional databases. The workflow routines generate hybridized database independent of the size of either process or IO data, as long as suitable price information and concordance matrix are available.

the truncation of pure processbased analysis is between 21% (lowerbound scenario) and 32% (upperbound scenario);

scenarios on doublecounting correction set boundaries for the hybrid system where the upper boundary is 19% higher than the lower boundary and the lower boundary is 16% lower than the upper boundary;

uncertainty of price variation introduces a stochastic error from − 4.7% to + 5.1% (upperbound scenario) and from − 3.3% to + 3.2% (lowerbound scenario);

uncertainty of IO data introduces a stochastic error between + 1.4% and + 2.4% (upperbound scenario) and between + 0.7% and + 1.4% (lowerbound scenario).
These results clearly suggest that truncation is a more significant source of (systematic) error than either price variation, IO data uncertainty or scenarios on how the upstream cutoff matrix is populated.
Which hybrid result to take for further applications depends on the quality of source data (i.e., IO data, process data, price data and the concordance matrix) as well as the representativeness of the IO data. Higher quality of source data and more equivalent representation of IO data would generally suggest the upper side of the hybrid results, while lower quality of source data and less equivalent representation of IO data would suggest lowerbound results which also constitute a more conservative, i.e., cautious estimate. In this study, for 91% of the modeled processes, the upper bound and lower bound of each process lies between + /− 20% of the average hybrid CFI, respectively, and the mean average value is recommended.
Although the data employed in our work are Australian specific, the underlying procedure can be applied to any country or region with available IO tables. The benefit for decisionmakers and LCA practitioners lies in the fact that upstream sources of environmental impacts are automatically included, which are usually neglected in conventional LCA studies (Lake et al. 2015; Kjaer et al. 2015).
It should also be noted that the hybrid LCA routine is flexible in the way that once specific process flows to the background economy become necessary for a specific research question, the downstream cutoff matrix \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{d}}} \) can be efficiently added to this routine to accomplish a fully integrated hLCA.
4.2 Limitations and challenges
In spite of the advances made here, several limitations and challenges remain in implementing this hLCA model. As demonstrated above, the most significant impact on the results stems from correcting for double counting when creating the \( {\mathbf{C}}^{{\mathbf{u}}} \) matrix. Several approaches have been described previously to deal with double counting, including Leontief’s price model (Strømman and Solli 2008), adjustments based on structural path analysis (Strømman et al. 2009) and system incompleteness factors (Rowley et al. 2009). However, none of them have been applied to multiple processes simultaneously due to the nature of the method and/or the complexity of the algorithms. To enable hybrid analysis at the database level, a more generalized method is adopted in this study, but admittedly, the accurate removal of double counting cannot be guaranteed because the actual data employed are not ideal.
First and foremost, the availability of price data is one of major concerns when constructing the upstream cutoff matrix. Since finding accurate price data of all Australian processes is unrealistically timeconsuming, ecoinvent price information is used instead which reflects a different economy and can only be seen as an estimate. Even though we find a low sensitivity to prices from the Monte Carlo simulation, country, sector and yearspecific price databases would certainly increase accuracy.
The second major concern is related to the concordance matrix between process and IO industries. Although the most detailed SUT available is used, correctly matching processes with industries is potentially prone to inconsistencies and mistakes. There are cases where heterogeneous processes have to be matched with one single broad industry (e.g., both “disposal of plastic” and “waste treatment, textiles” are allocated to “waste collection, treatment disposal remediation and materials recovery services”) or one single process might be matched to multiple industries (e.g., “transport, passenger car” can belong to both “urban road passenger transport services” and “interurban road passenger transport services”).
Thirdly, the temporal dimension is not consistent between the process and IO systems. The process system covers multiple years and could potentially be matched to IO systems from different years. However, this would be substantially more difficult to implement, and in this work, IO data for one year only are used (2008/09), because this is the base year in IELab which produces the most reliable IO table. For industries with more advanced technology, matching data years will be more important than for established technologies.
Lastly, the discrepancy of elementary flows between two systems confines the studies to a certain number of indicators. Given the process system has thousands of elementary flows, considerable amount of effort is needed to deliver a comparable elementary flow database for the IO system to enable more comprehensive environmental studies.
4.3 Outlook and further research
As suggested by Suh (2004) and Hertwich et al. (2018), detailed data collection and documentation has always been highly requested for LCA studies. For hybrid LCA, in particular, the prices and sales of products, specific description of input–output industries and wide coverage of environmental extensions for IO tables all play crucial roles. As individual process database and IO table continue to grow and improve, more automated, streamlined and validated ways of compiling hybrid life cycle inventories become more important to produce quality assessments (Crawford et al. 2017). The framework presented in this paper is a step in that direction. Further development of this model can take advantage of highly disaggregated, multiscale, multiunit and/or continuously updated input–output tables to create a regionalized and temporally differentiated hybrid LCI database with multiple environmental indicators. The trend to regionalization in LCA is being followed in the IOA community with the creation of more subnational multiregion input–output databases (Wiedmann and Lenzen 2018), but no efforts have been made yet to create regionalized hybrid datasets.
Notes
Authors’ contribution
All authors contributed to the research, analysis and manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This research is funded by the Australian Research Council under the Discovery Project DP150100962. The IELab is supported by the Australian Research Council, Grant Number LE160100066. The authors would like to thank PaulAntoine Bontinck from The University of Melbourne for his help in the construction of the process coefficient matrix and the preliminary concordance matrix (Additional file 1: Figure S1). The authors are grateful to Dr. Majeau‐Bettez Guillaume for his discussions regarding the hybrid LCA model.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author Thomas Wiedmann is also an Editor of the Journal of Economic Structures.
Availability of data and materials
The Australian National Life Cycle Inventory Database (AusLCI) is a major initiative currently being delivered by the Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS). All foreground datasets are freely available to the public (http://www.auslci.com.au/index.php/datasets), but the background datasets are owned by ecoinvent (http://www.ecoinvent.org/) requiring additional license for acquisition. The input–output datasets employed are created with the Australian IELab (https://IELabaus.info) where all data and Matlab scripts are available to registered users (access fees and license restrictions for LCI data apply). The concordance matrix is created as described in Sect. 2.4, and the finalized concordance matrix can be provided upon request. The majority of price data are from ecoinvent (http://www.ecoinvent.org/) that requires additional license for acquisition. The model is developed and executed with Matlab on the Australian IELab.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary material
References
 ABS (2008) 1292.0.55.005—Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZIC) 2006 Correspondence Tables, Table 5 Correspondences ISIC Rev 4—ANZIC 2006. Australian Bureau of StatisticsGoogle Scholar
 ABS (2010) Producer Price Indexes, Australia, Dec 2009. ABS Catalogue Number 6247.0. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/3273FC7113E0CBD9CA25770E0019138E?opendocument. Accessed 01 Oct 2016
 ABS (2012) Australian National Accounts: Input–Output Tables (Product Details)—Electronic Publication, 200809. ABS Catalogue Number 5215.0.55.001. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/116C97E206DE3464CA257C310015E231?opendocument. Accessed 08 Sept 2016
 Acquaye AA, Wiedmann T, Feng K, Crawford RH, Barrett J, Kuylenstierna J, Duffy AP, Koh SC, McQueenMason S (2011a) Identification of ‘carbon hotspots’ and quantification of GHG intensities in the biodiesel supply chain using hybrid LCA and structural path analysis. Environ Sci Technol 45(6):2471–2478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Acquaye AA, Wiedmann T, Kuishang F, Crawford RH, Barrett J, Kuylenstierna J, Duffy AP, Koh SCL, McQueenMason S (2011b) Identification of ‘carbon hotspots’ and quantification of GHG intensities in the biodiesel supply chain using hybrid LCA and structural path analysis. Environ Sci Technol 45(6):2471–2478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 AGEIS (2016) Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System. http://www.environment.gov.au/climatechange/climatesciencedata/greenhousegasmeasurement/ageis. Accessed 15 Sept 2016
 Baboulet O, Lenzen M (2010) Evaluating the environmental performance of a university. J Clean Prod 18(12):1134–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bullard CW, Sebald AV (1977) Effects of parametric uncertainty and technological change on input–output models. Rev Econ Stat 59(1):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bullard CW, Penner PS, Pilati DA (1978) Net energy analysis—handbook for combining process and input–output analysis. Res Energy 1(3):267–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bush R, Jacques DA, Scott K, Barrett J (2014) The carbon payback of microgeneration: an integrated hybrid input–output approach. Appl Energy 119:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Changbo W, Lixiao Z, Shuying Y, Mingyue P (2012) A hybrid lifecycle assessment of nonrenewable energy and greenhousegas emissions of a villagelevel biomass gasification project in China. Energies 5(8):2708–2723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Crawford RH (2008) Validation of a hybrid lifecycle inventory analysis method. J Environ Manage 88(3):496–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Crawford RH, Bontinck PA, Stephan A, Wiedmann T (2017) Towards an automated approach for compiling hybrid life cycle inventories. Proc Eng 180(Supplement C):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Crawford RH, Bontinck PA, Stephan A, Wiedmann T, Yu M (2018) Hybrid life cycle inventory methods—a review. J Clean Prod 172(SupplementC):1273–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dadhich P, Genovese A, Kumar N, Acquaye AA (2015) Developing sustainable supply chains in the UK construction industry: a case study. Int J Prod Econ 164:271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ercan T, Tatari O (2015) A hybrid life cycle assessment of public transportation buses with alternative fuel options. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(9):1213–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Eurostat (2008) Eurostat manual of supply, use and input–output tables. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
 Feng K, Hubacek K, Siu YL, Li X (2014) The energy and water nexus in Chinese electricity production: a hybrid life cycle analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 39:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ferrão P, Nhambiu J (2009) A comparison between conventional LCA and hybrid EIOLCA: analyzing crystal giftware contribution to global warming potential. In: Suh S (ed) Handbook of input–output economics in industrial ecology. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
 Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Geschke A (2017) Balancing datafeed. Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (Australian IELab). https://ielab.info, https://ielabaus.info. Sept 2017
 Geschke A, Hadjikakou M (2017) Virtual laboratories and MRIO analysis—an introduction. Econ Syst Res 29(2):143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gibon T, Schaubroeck T (2017) Lifting the fog on characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA—a reply to “Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion?” by Yang Y (Int J Life Cycle Assess) 22(3):456–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1136701612569. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(6):1005–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Grant T (2015) AusLCI Database Manual v1.1. Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS)Google Scholar
 Heijungs R, Lenzen M (2014) Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(7):1445–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. In: Tukker A (ed) Ecoefficiency in industry and science. Springer, Dordrecht, vol 11Google Scholar
 Hertwich E, Heeren N, Kuczenski B, MajeauBettez G, Myers RJ, Pauliuk S, Stadler K, Lifset R (2018) Nullius in verba: advancing data transparency in industrial ecology. J Ind EcolGoogle Scholar
 Inaba R, Nansai K, Fujii M, Hashimoto S (2010) Hybrid lifecycle assessment (LCA) of CO2 emission with management alternatives for household food wastes in Japan. Waste Manage Res 28(6):496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Junnila SI (2006) Empirical comparison of process and economic input–output life cycle assessment in service industries. Environ Sci Technol 40(22):7070–7076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kjaer LL, HøstMadsen NK, Schmidt JH, McAloone TC (2015) Application of environmental input–output analysis for corporate and product environmental footprintslearnings from three cases. Sustainability 7(9):11438–11461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lake A, Acquaye A, Genovese A, Kumar N, Koh SCL (2015) An application of hybrid life cycle assessment as a decision support framework for green supply chains. Int J Prod Res 53(21):6495–6521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lane J (2017) Greenhouse gas datafeed. Industrial ecology virtual laboratory (Australian IELab), https://ielab.info, https://ielabaus.info. Sept 2017
 Lenzen M (2000) Errors in conventional and input–outputbased lifecycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4(4):127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lenzen M (2008) Errors in conventional and input–output—based life—cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 4(4):127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lenzen M (2017) Initial estimate datafeed. Industrial Ecology Virtual Laboratory (Australian IELab), https://ielab.info, https://ielabaus.info. Sept 2017
 Lenzen M, Crawford RH (2009) The path exchange method for hybrid LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(21):8251–8256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lenzen M, Wood R, Wiedmann T (2010) Uncertainty analysis for multiregion input–output models—a case study of the UK’s carbon footprint. Econ Syst Res 22(1):43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lenzen M, Geschke A, Wiedmann T, Lane J, Anderson N, Baynes T, Boland J, Daniels P, Dey C, Fry J, Hadjikakou M, Kenway S, Malik A, Moran D, Murray J, Nettleton S, Poruschi L, Reynolds C, Rowley H, Ugon J, Webb D, West J (2014) Compiling and using input–output frameworks through collaborative virtual laboratories. Sci Total Environ 485–486:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lenzen M, Geschke A, Malik A, Fry J, Lane J, Wiedmann T, Kenway S, Hoang K, CadoganCowper A (2017) New multiregional input–output databases for Australia—enabling timely and flexible regional analysis. Econ Syst Res 29(2):275–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 MajeauBettez G, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2011) Evaluation of process and input–outputbased life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ Sci Technol 45(23):10170–10177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 MajeauBettez G, Wood R, Stromman AH (2014) Unified theory of allocations and constructs in life cycle assessment and input–output analysis. J Ind Ecol 5:747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Malik A, Lenzen M, Ralph PJ, Tamburic B (2015) Hybrid lifecycle assessment of algal biofuel production. Biores Technol 184:436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Malik A, Lenzen M, Geschke A (2016) Triple bottom line study of a lignocellulosic biofuel industry. GCB Bioener 8:96–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis : foundations and extensions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nakamura S, Nansai K (2016) Input–output and hybrid LCA. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Special types of life cycle assessment. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
 OFX (2017) Historical exchange rates. https://www.ofx.com/enau/forexnews/historicalexchangerates/. Accessed 16 Feb 2017
 Peters GP (2006) Efficient algorithms for life cycle assessment, input–output analysis, and MonteCarlo analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Peters GP (2010) Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2006) A comment on “Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecologicaleconomic model”. Ecol Econ 59(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pomponi F, Lenzen M (2018) Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) will likely yield more accurate results than processbased LCA. J Clean Prod 176:210–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Rowley HV, Lundie S, Peters GM (2009) A hybrid life cycle assessment model for comparison with conventional methodologies in Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(6):508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Schaubroeck T, Gibon T (2017) Outlining reasons to apply hybrid LCA—a reply to “rethinking system boundary in LCA” by Yi Yang (2017). Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(6):1012–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Stephan A, Crawford RH, Bontinck P (2018) A model for streamlining and automating path exchange hybrid life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle AssessGoogle Scholar
 Strømman AH, Solli C (2008) Applying Leontief’s price model to estimate missing elements in hybrid life cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 12(1):26–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Strømman AH, Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2009) Approaches to correct for double counting in tiered hybrid life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod 17:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Suh S (2004) Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecologicaleconomic model. Ecol Econ 48(4):451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Suh S (2006) Reply: downstream cutoffs in integrated hybrid lifecycle assessment. Ecol Econ 59(1):7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Suh S, Huppes G (2000) Gearing input–output model to LCA, part I: general framework for hybrid approach. CML, Leiden University, LeidenGoogle Scholar
 Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for Life Cycle Inventory of a Product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Suh S, Lippiatt BC (2012) Framework for hybrid life cycle inventory databases: a case study on the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in lifecycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Teh SH, Wiedmann T, Castel A, de Burgh J (2017) Hybrid life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from cement, concrete and geopolymer concrete in Australia. J Clean Prod 152(Supplement C):312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Teh SH, Wiedmann T, Moore S (2018) Mixedunit hybrid life cycle assessment applied to the recycling of construction materials. J Econ Struct 7(13)Google Scholar
 Ward H, Wenz L, Steckel JC, Minx JC (2018) Truncation error estimates in process life cycle assessment using input–output analysis. J Ind Ecol 22:1080–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodology, Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3Google Scholar
 Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multiregion input–output models used for consumptionbased emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69(2):211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Wiedmann T (2017) An input–output virtual laboratory in practice—survey of uptake, usage and applications of the first operational IELab. Econ Syst Res 29(2):296–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Wiedmann T, Lenzen M (2018) Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat Geosci 11:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Wiedmann TO, Suh S, Feng K, Lenzen M, Acquaye AA, Scott K, Barrett JR (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies—the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45(13):5900–5907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Williams ED, Weber CL, Hawkins TR (2009) Hybrid framework for managing uncertainty in life cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 13(6):928–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Wolfram P, Wiedmann T, Diesendorf M (2016) Carbon footprint scenarios for renewable electricity in Australia. J Clean Prod 124:236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Yang Y (2016) Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(3):456–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Yang Y (2017) Rethinking system boundary in LCA—reply to “Lifting the fog on the characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA” by Thomas Gibon and Thomas Schaubroeck (2017). Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(6):1009–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Yang Y, Heijungs R, Brandão M (2017) Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than processbased LCA. J Clean Prod 150:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Zhai P, Williams ED (2010) Dynamic hybrid life cycle assessment of energy and carbon of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems. Environ Sci Technol 44(20):7950–7955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.