A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty

PurposeQuantitative uncertainties are a direct consequence of averaging, a common procedure when building life cycle inventories (LCIs). This averaging can be amongst locations, times, products, scales or production technologies. To date, however, quantified uncertainties at the unit process level have largely been generated using a Numerical Unit Spread Assessment Pedigree (NUSAP) approach and often disregard inherent uncertainties (inaccurate measurements) and spread (variability around means).MethodsA decision tree for primary and secondary data at the unit process level was initially created. Around this decision tree, a protocol was developed with the recognition that dispersions can be either results of inherent uncertainty, spread amongst data points or products of unrepresentative data. In order to estimate the characteristics of uncertainties for secondary data, a method for weighting means amongst studies is proposed. As for unrepresentativeness, the origin and adaptation of NUSAP to the field of life cycle assessment are discussed, and recommendations are given.Results and discussionBy using the proposed protocol, cross-referencing of outdated data is avoided, and user influence on results is reduced. In the meantime, more accurate estimates can be made for horizontally averaged data with accompanying spread and inherent uncertainties, as these deviations often contribute substantially towards the overall dispersion.ConclusionsIn this article, we highlight the importance of including inherent uncertainties and spread alongside the NUSAP pedigree. As uncertainty data often are missing in LCI literature, we here describe a method for evaluating these by taking several reported values into account. While this protocol presents a practical way towards estimating overall dispersion, better reporting in literature is promoted in order to determine real uncertainty parameters.

[1]  J. R. Ravets,et al.  Post-Normal Science , 2006 .

[2]  Vamilson Prudêncio da Silva,et al.  Variability in environmental impacts of Brazilian soybean according to crop production and transport scenarios. , 2010, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  W. Stahel,et al.  Log-normal Distributions across the Sciences: Keys and Clues , 2001 .

[4]  Anna Björklund,et al.  Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca , 2002 .

[5]  Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.  Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems—a review of methodologies , 2011, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[6]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy , 1990 .

[7]  Troy R. Hawkins,et al.  Hybrid Framework for Managing Uncertainty in Life Cycle Inventories , 2009 .

[8]  N. Brandt,et al.  The application of life cycle thinking in the context of European waste policy , 2012 .

[9]  M. Finkbeiner.  Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats , 2009 .

[10]  T. Nemecek,et al.  Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3 , 2013 .

[11]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories , 2001 .

[12]  G. Psacharopoulos.  Overview and methodology , 1991 .

[13]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model‐Based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  Bo Pedersen Weidema,et al.  Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators☆ , 1996 .

[15]  Max Henrion,et al.  Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis , 1990 .

[16]  M. Ortiz,et al.  Alternative error distribution models for standardization of catch rates of non-target species from a pelagic longline fishery: billfish species in the Venezuelan tuna longline fishery , 2004 .

[17]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Part II: Dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in life cycle assessment , 1998 .

[18]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[19]  David Evans,et al.  How LCA studies deal with uncertainty , 2002 .

[20]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments , 1996 .

[21]  Robert Ries,et al.  Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life‐Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches , 2007 .

[22]  Jeroen B. Guinée,et al.  Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents; quantifying the confidence in a comparative result , 2009 .

[23]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA , 1998 .