Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment

  • LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Regionalized life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has rapidly developed in the past decade, though its widespread application, robustness, and validity still face multiple challenges. Under the umbrella of UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, a dedicated cross-cutting working group on regionalized LCIA aims to provide an overview of the status of regionalization in LCIA methods. We give guidance and recommendations to harmonize and support regionalization in LCIA for developers of LCIA methods, LCI databases, and LCA software.

Methods

A survey of current practice among regionalized LCIA method developers was conducted. The survey included questions on chosen method’s spatial resolution and scale, the spatial resolution of input parameters, the choice of native spatial resolution and limitations, operationalization and alignment with life cycle inventory data, methods for spatial aggregation, the assessment of uncertainty from input parameters and model structure, and the variability due to spatial aggregation. Recommendations are formulated based on the survey results and extensive discussion by the authors.

Results and discussion

Survey results indicate that majority of regionalized LCIA models have global coverage. Native spatial resolutions are generally chosen based on the availability of global input data. Annual modeled or measured elementary flow quantities are mostly used for aggregating characterization factors (CFs) to larger spatial scales, although some use proxies, such as population counts. Aggregated CFs are mostly available at the country level. Although uncertainty due to input parameter, model structure, and spatial aggregation are available for some LCIA methods, they are rarely implemented for LCA studies. So far, there is no agreement if a finer native spatial resolution is the best way to reduce overall uncertainty. When spatially differentiated model CFs are not easily available, archetype models are sometimes developed.

Conclusions

Regionalized LCIA methods should be provided as a transparent and consistent set of data and metadata using standardized data formats. Regionalized CFs should include both uncertainty and variability. In addition to the native-scale CFs, aggregated CFs should always be provided and should be calculated as the weighted averages of constituent CFs using annual flow quantities as weights whenever available. This paper is an important step forward for increasing transparency, consistency, and robustness in the development and application of regionalized LCIA methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apte JS, Bombrun E, Marshall JD, Nazaroff WW (2012) Global intraurban intake fractions for primary air pollutants from vehicles and other distributed sources. Environ Sci Technol 46:3415–3423

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo LB, De Schryver AM, Hendriks AJ, Huijbregts MAJ (2015) Calcifying species sensitivity distributions for ocean acidification. Environ Sci Technol 49:1495–1500

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo LB, Henderson AD, van Zelm R, Jolliet O, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Assessing the importance of spatial variability versus model choices in life cycle impact assessment: the case of freshwater eutrophication in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 47:13565–13570

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13:687–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Lathuillière MJ, Manzardo A, Margni M, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Pastor AV, Ridoutt B, Oki T, Worbe S, Pfister S (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:368–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulle C, Jolliet O, Humbert S et al (2012) IMPACT World+: a new global regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. International Conference on Ecobalance. Yokohama, Japan, In

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhary A, Brooks TM (2018) Land use intensity-specific global characterization factors to assess product biodiversity footprints. Environ Sci Technol 52:5094–5104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2012) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1216–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2013) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47:9281–9290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fantke P, Jolliet O, Apte JS, Hodas N, Evans J, Weschler CJ, Stylianou KS, Jantunen M, McKone TE (2017) Characterizing aggregated exposure to primary particulate matter: recommended intake fractions for indoor and outdoor sources. Environ Sci Technol 51:9089–9100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham AS, Wong DWS (1991) The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environ Plan A Econ Sp 23:1025–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Jolliet O (2016) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Knöpfel S (2013) Swiss eco-factors 2013 according to the ecological scarcity method. Federal Office of the Environment, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuglestvedt JS, Shine KP, Berntsen T, Cook J, Lee DS, Stenke A, Skeie RB, Velders GJM, Waitz IA (2010) Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: metrics. Atmos Environ 44:4648–4677

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanafiah MM, Xenopoulos MA, Pfister S, Leuven RSEW, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Characterization factors for water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions based on freshwater fish species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 45:5272–5278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild M, Potting J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment–the EDIP2003 methodology. Copenhagen

  • Helmes RJK, Huijbregts MAJ, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2012) Spatially explicit fate factors of phosphorous emissions to freshwater at the global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:646–654

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hodas N, Loh M, Shin H-M, Li D, Bennett D, McKone TE, Jolliet O, Weschler CJ, Jantunen M, Lioy P, Fantke P (2016) Indoor inhalation intake fractions of fine particulate matter: review of influencing factors. Indoor Air 26:836–856

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Humbert S, Manneh R, Shaked S, Wannaz C, Horvath A, Deschênes L, Jolliet O, Margni M (2009) Assessing regional intake fractions in North America. Sci Total Environ 407:4812–4820

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Humbert S, Marshall JD, Shaked S, Spadaro JV, Nishioka Y, Preiss P, McKone TE, Horvath A, Jolliet O (2011) Intake fraction for particulate matter: recommendations for life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:4808–4816

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland

  • ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland

  • Kounina A, Margni M, Henderson AD, Jolliet O (2018) Global spatial analysis of toxic emissions to freshwater: operationalization for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1476-2

  • Kounina A, Margni M, Shaked S, Bulle C, Jolliet O (2014) Spatial analysis of toxic emissions in LCA: a sub-continental nested USEtox model with freshwater archetypes. Environ Int 69:67–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lam NSN, Quattrochi D (1992) On the issues of scale, resolution, and fractal analysis in the mapping sciences. Prof Geogr 44:88–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motoshita M, Ono Y, Pfister S, Boulay AM, Berger M, Nansai K, Tahara K, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2014) Consistent characterisation factors at midpoint and endpoint relevant to agricultural water scarcity arising from freshwater consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0811-5

  • Mutel CL (2017) Ecoinvent geography definitions. https://geography.ecoinvent.org/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018

  • Mutel CL, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2012) GIS-based regionalized life cycle assessment: how big is small enough? Methodology and case study of electricity generation. Environ Sci Technol 46:1096–1103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez M, Antón A, Muñoz P, Rieradevall J (2012) Inclusion of soil erosion impacts in life cycle assessment on a global scale: application to energy crops in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:755–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez M, Civit B, Muñoz P, Arena AP, Rieradevall J, Antón A (2010) Assessing potential desertification environmental impact in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owsianiak M, Rosenbaum RK, Huijbregts MAJ, Hauschild MZ (2013) Addressing geographic variability in the comparative toxicity potential of copper and nickel in soils. Environ Sci Technol 47:3241–3250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Bayer P (2014) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Suh S (2015) Environmental impacts of thermal emissions to freshwater: spatially explicit fate and effect modeling for life cycle assessment and water footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:927–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Projected water consumption in future global agriculture: Scenarios and related impacts Science of The Total Environment 409:4206–4216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.019

  • Potting J, Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:11–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roy P-O, Azevedo LB, Margni M et al (2014) Characterization factors for terrestrial acidification at the global scale: a systematic analysis of spatial variability and uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 500–501:270–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roy P-O, Huijbregts M, Deschênes L, Margni M (2012) Spatially-differentiated atmospheric source–receptor relationships for nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and ammonia emissions at the global scale for life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ 62:74–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer L, Pfister S (2015) Modelling spatially explicit impacts from phosphorus emissions in agriculture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:785–795

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer L, Venkatesh A, Karuppiah R, Pfister S (2015) Large-scale hydrological modeling for calculating water stress indices: implications of improved spatiotemporal resolution, surface-groundwater differentiation, and uncertainty characterization. Environ Sci Technol 49:4971–4979

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T et al (2014) InVEST user’s guide. Nat Cap Proj Stanford, CA, USA

  • Sonderegger T, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2015) Criticality of water: aligning water and mineral resources assessment. Environ Sci Technol 49:12315–12323

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Statistics Division (2018) Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49). https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018

  • van Zelm R, Preiss P, van Goethem T, van Dingenen R, Huijbregts M (2016) Regionalized life cycle impact assessment of air pollution on the global scale: damage to human health and vegetation. Atmos Environ 134:129–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Zelm R, Schipper AM, Rombouts M et al (2011) Implementing groundwater extraction in life cycle impact assessment: characterization factors based on plant species richness for the Netherlands. Environ Sci Technol 45:629–635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Hellweg S, Henderson A, Jolliet O, Laurent A, Liao X, Lindner JP, Maia de Souza D, Michelsen O, Patouillard L, Pfister S, Posthuma L, Prado V, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Sala S, Ugaya C, Vieira M, Fantke P (2017a) LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. J Clean Prod 161:957–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verones F, Hanafiah MM, Pfister S, Huijbregts MAJ, Pelletier GJ, Koehler A (2010) Characterization factors for thermal pollution in freshwater aquatic environments. Environ Sci Technol 44:9364–9369

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verones F, Hellweg S, Huijbregts MAJ (2016) LC-impact: overall framework Trondheim, NO

  • Verones F, Pfister S, van ZR, Hellweg S (2017b) Biodiversity impacts from water consumption on a global scale for use in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1247–1256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verones F, Saner D, Pfister S, Baisero D, Rondinini C, Hellweg S (2013) Effects of consumptive water use on biodiversity in wetlands of international importance. Environ Sci Technol 47:12248–12257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wannaz C, Fantke P, Jolliet O (2018a) Multiscale spatial modeling of human exposure from local sources to global intake. Environ Sci Technol 52:701–711

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wannaz C, Fantke P, Lane J, Jolliet O (2018b) Source-to-exposure assessment with the Pangea multi-scale framework—case study in Australia. Environ Sci Process Impacts 20:133–144. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EM00523G

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wegener Sleeswijk A, Heijungs R (2010) GLOBOX: a spatially differentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA. Sci Total Environ 408:2817–2832

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the organizations to which they belong. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the state policy of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Although an EPA employee contributed to this article, the research presented was not performed or funded by EPA and was not subject to EPA’s quality system requirements. Consequently, the views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent EPA’s views or policies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI, 5232, Villigen, Switzerland

    Chris Mutel

  2. Industrial Process and Energy Systems Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL Valais Wallis, Rue de l′Industrie 17, 1951, Sion, Switzerland

    Xun Liao

  3. Quantis, EPFL Innovation Park (EIP-D), Lausanne, Switzerland

    Xun Liao

  4. CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, P.O. Box 6079, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3A7, Canada

    Laure Patouillard

  5. IFP Energies nouvelles, 1-4 avenue de Bois-Préau, 92852, Rueil-Malmaison, France

    Laure Patouillard

  6. UMR 0210 INRA-AgroParisTech Economie publique, INRA, Thiverval-Grignon, France

    Laure Patouillard

  7. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA

    Jane Bare

  8. Quantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

    Peter Fantke, Michael Hauschild & Alexis Laurent

  9. Treeze, 8610, Uster, Switzerland

    Rolf Frischknecht

  10. Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Olivier Jolliet

  11. Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2P5, Canada

    Danielle Maia de Souza

  12. Département de Stratégie, Responsabilité Sociale et Environnementale, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC, H3C 3P8, Canada

    Danielle Maia de Souza

  13. Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Stephan Pfister

  14. Industrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Francesca Verones

Authors
  1. Chris Mutel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xun Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laure Patouillard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jane Bare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Fantke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rolf Frischknecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Hauschild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Olivier Jolliet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Danielle Maia de Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alexis Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stephan Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Francesca Verones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Mutel.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Ralph K. Rosenbaum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mutel, C., Liao, X., Patouillard, L. et al. Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 856–865 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1539-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1539-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation