Representativeness of environmental impact assessment methods regarding Life Cycle Inventories.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) characterises all the exchanges between human driven activities and the environment, thus representing a powerful approach for tackling the environmental impact of a production system. However, LCA practitioners must still choose the appropriate Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) method to use and are expected to justify this choice: impacts should be relevant facing the concerns of the study and misrepresentations should be avoided. This work aids practitioners in evaluating the adequacy between the assessed environmental issues and studied production system. Based on a geometrical standpoint of LCA framework, Life Cycle Inventories (LCIs) and LCIA methods were localized in the vector space spanned by elementary flows. A proximity measurement, the Representativeness Index (RI), is proposed to explore the relationship between those datasets (LCIs and LCIA methods) through an angular distance. RIs highlight LCIA methods that measure issues for which the LCI can be particularly harmful. A high RI indicates a close proximity between a LCI and a LCIA method, and highlights a better representation of the elementary flows by the LCIA method. To illustrate the benefits of the proposed approach, representativeness of LCIA methods regarding four electricity mix production LCIs from the ecoinvent database are presented. RIs for 18 LCIA methods (accounting for a total of 232 impact categories) were calculated on these LCIs and the relevance of the methods are discussed. RIs prove to be a criterion for distinguishing the different LCIA methods and could thus be employed by practitioners for deeper interpretations of LCIA results.

[1]  Gerald Rebitzer,et al.  IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology , 2003 .

[2]  Guido Sonnemann,et al.  Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[3]  Sangwon Suh,et al.  What distribution function do life cycle inventories follow? , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[4]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0 , 2011 .

[5]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[6]  Anders Bjørn,et al.  IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe 2008 and ILCD’s recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment: a case study-based comparison , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[7]  Barbara C. Lippiatt,et al.  BEES 4.0: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability. Technical Manual and User Guide , 1998 .

[8]  Brian E. Granger,et al.  IPython: A System for Interactive Scientific Computing , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[9]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  SETAC-Europe: Second working group on LCIA (WIA-2): Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment: Background document for the second working group on life cycle impact assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2) , 1999 .

[10]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[11]  J. Bare,et al.  Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  Anand Rajaraman,et al.  Mining of Massive Datasets , 2011 .

[13]  Monia Niero,et al.  Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems--part II: methodological guidance for a better practice. , 2014, Waste management.

[14]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  Comparison of Three Different LCIA Methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99 , 2003 .

[15]  Jean-Francois Le Téno,et al.  Visual data analysis and decision support methods for non-deterministic LCA , 1999 .

[16]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment - the EDIP-2003 methodology. Guidelines from the Danish EPA , 2004 .

[17]  Mark A J Huijbregts,et al.  How Many Environmental Impact Indicators Are Needed in the Evaluation of Product Life Cycles? , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[18]  P. Christensen,et al.  Impacts of “metals” on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) , 2011 .

[19]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance , 2010 .

[20]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  The computational structure of life cycle assessment , 2002 .

[21]  Fausto Freire,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods , 2012 .

[22]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment , 1999 .