Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Excluding site-specific data from the lca inventory: how this affects life cycle impact assessment

  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The exclusion of site-specific data from the inventory phase of an LCA continues to be a point of controversy. Though the current simplified data collection strategy is widely supported by the LCA community, there are still many who are concerned about the implications this limitation has for the utility and reliability of LCA results. This is particularly relevant to practitioners who are attempting to draw conclusions about the environmental performance of different systems for the development of environmental policy. The current site-generic methodology introduces uncertainties into LCA results that have the potential to misdirect decisions on improvement measures. Therefore, in this paper we assess the practicality of collecting site-specific data and examine its value for study interpretation and decision-making. In our case study, we compare the contribution of a number of plastics-based packaging systems to photochemical oxidant formation. Our results demonstrate that the aggregation of photochemical oxidant precursor emissions into a single global parameter is an unreliable indicator of environmental burden and that the real significance of each packaging’ contribution to the formation of photochemical smog in the atmosphere can only be understood after the addition of spatial and temporal information. We conclude that for non-global cumulative impact categories, additional spatial and temporal data should be collected, and that the benefits to decision makers far outweigh the additional effort needed to acquire this data for the LCA inventory.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perriman R (1995): Is LCA losing its way? LCA News 5(1)4–5

    Google Scholar 

  2. Owens JW (1996): The technical feasibility and accuracy of LCA impact assessment categories. Int J LCA 1 (3) 151–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnthouse L, Fava J, Humphries K, Hunt R, Laibson L, Noesen S, Owens J, Todd J, Vigon B, Weitz K, Young J (1997): Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art. Report of the Work Group on LCA Impact Assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL 145 pp

    Google Scholar 

  4. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999): Best Available Practice Regarding Impact Categories and Cetegory Indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J LCA 4 (2) 66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Owens WJ (1996): LCA impact assessment: Case study using a consumer product. Int J LCA 1 (4) 209–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Owens WJ (1999): Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an indicator system. Int J LCA 4 (2) 81–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. White P, De Smet B, Udo de Haes H, Heijungs R (1995): LCA back on track. But is it one track or two? LCA News 5 (3) 2–4

    Google Scholar 

  8. Klöpffer W (1996): Reductionism versus expansionism in LCA. Int J LCA 1 (2)61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Potting J, Wolfgang S, Blok K, Hauschild M (1998): Comparison of the acidifying impact from emissions with different regional origin in life-cycle assessment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 61, 155–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Potting J, Hauschild M (1997): Spatial Differentiation in Life-Cycle Assessment via the Site-Dependent charaterisation of Environmental Impact from Emissions. Int J LCA 2 (4) 209–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Owens JW (1997): Constraints on moving from inventory to impact assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1 (1) 37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ehrenfeld JR (1997): The importance of LCAs — Warts and All. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1 (2) 41–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. SETAC-Europe (1999): Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 4 (2) 66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Duda M, Shaw JS (1997): life Cycle Assessment. society 35 (1) 38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Curran MA (1999): Editorial — The status of LCA in the USA. Int J LCA 4 (3)123–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. International Standardisation Organisation (1997): AS/NZS ISO 14040. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. Homebush: Standards Australia

    Google Scholar 

  17. International Standardisation Organisation (2000): ISO 14042:2000(E) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment- Life cycle impact assessment. Geneva: ISO Central Secretariat

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002): How LCA studies deal with Uncertainty. Int J LCA 7 (1) 47–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, Van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992): Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Guide and background. Centre of Environmental Science of Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  20. Udo de Haes HA, Bovy M, Christiansen K, Finnveden G, Frischknecht R, Giegrich J, Guinée JB, Hauschild M, Heijungs R, Hofstetter P, Jensen AA, Jolliet O, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Nichols P, Potting J, Wenzel-Christensen H, White P (Eds) (1996): Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment, SETAC-Europe, Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moriarty F (1988): Ecotoxicology. The study of pollutants in Ecosystems. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Römbke J, Moltmann J (1996): Applied ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  23. Connell D, Lam P, Richardson B, Wu R (1999): Introduction to Ecotoxicology. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  24. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R (1999): Best Available Practice Regarding Impact Categories and Cetegory Indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J LCA 4 (2) 66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hogan LM, Beal RT, Hunt RG (1997): Threshold Inventory Interpretation Methodology: An Explanation and Demonstration of This New LCA Technique. International Journal of Environmentally Conscious Design & Manufacturing 6 (2) 51–62

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moriguchi Y, Terazono A (2000): A Simplified Model for Spatially Differentiated Impact Assessment of Air Emissions. Int J LCA 5 (5) 281–286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Colbeck I, MacKenzie AR (1994): Air pollution by photochemical oxidants. Amsterdam: Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  28. Strong AB (2000): Plastics Materials and Processing. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  29. Evans DG, Ross SD (2000): Life Cycle Assessment of Refrigeration Packaging: Comparison of Vacufoam Packaging and Corrugated Cardboard Packaging. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  30. Boustead I (1993): Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry Report 2: Olefin feedstock sources. Brussels: European Centre for Plastics in the Environment (PWMI)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Boustead I (1993): Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry Report 4: Polystyrene. European Brussels: Centre for Plastics in the Environment (PWMI)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Evans DG, Ross SD (1996): Lifecycle analysis of produce boxes: comparison of expanded polystyrene and corrugated cardboard. Melbourne: University of Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  33. Swiss Federal Office of Environment, Forests and Landscape (FOEFL) (1991): Ecobalance of packaging materials state of 1990. Environmental Series No. 132, Waste. Berne: FOEFL

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tillman A, Baumann H, Eriksson E, Rydberg T (1991): Packaging and the Environment: Life-cycle analyses of selected packaging materials. Göteborg: Chalmers Industriteknik

    Google Scholar 

  35. Boustead I (1992): Eco-balance methodology for Commodity Thermoplastics. Brussels: European Centre for Plastics in the Environment (PWMI)

    Google Scholar 

  36. International Standardisation Organisation (1999): AS/NZS ISO 14041. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. Homebush: Standards Australia

    Google Scholar 

  37. Boustead I, Hancock GF (1979): Handbook of industrial energy analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  38. Boguski TK, Hunt R, William F (1994): General Mathematical Models for LCI Recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling; 12, 147–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rydberg T (1995): Cascade Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment Applied to Polymer Recycling. Polymer Recycling 1 (4) 233–241

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Patel M, von Thienen N, Jochem E, Worrell E (2000): Recycling of plastics in Germany. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 29, 65–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Newell SA, Field FR (1998): Explicit accounting methods for recycling in LCI. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 22, 31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M (1997): Open-Loop Recycling: Criteria for Allocation Procedures. Int J LCA 2 (3) 155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee (1998): Energy workbook for fuel combustion activities (Stationary sources). Canberra, Australian Greenhouse Office

    Google Scholar 

  44. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Committee (1998): Energy workbook for transport (Mobile sources). Canberra, Australian Greenhouse Office

    Google Scholar 

  45. Victorian Environment Protection Authority (2000): Air monitoring report 2000. Publication 778. Melbourne: Victorian EPA

    Google Scholar 

  46. Victorian Environment Protection Authority (1999): Annual Report 1999. Melbourne: Victorian EPA

    Google Scholar 

  47. NSW Environment Protection Authority (1999): Annual Report 1998-99. Sydney: NSW EPA

    Google Scholar 

  48. Galbally IE, Miller A J, Hoy RD, Ahmet S, Joynt RC, Attwood D (1986): Surface Ozone at Rural Sites in the Latrobe Valley and Cape Grim, Australia. Atmospheric Environment 20 (12) 2403–2422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Anthropology, Geography and Environmental Studies (SAGES), University of Melbourne, 3010, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    Stuart Ross

  2. Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, 3010, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

    David Evans

Authors
  1. Stuart Ross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart Ross.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ross, S., Evans, D. Excluding site-specific data from the lca inventory: how this affects life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 7, 141–150 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02994048

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02994048

Keywords

Search

Navigation