IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i14p3579-d383232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Moretti

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Blanca Corona

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Robert Edwards

    (Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 21027 Ispra, Italy)

  • Martin Junginger

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Alberto Moro

    (Joint Research Centre, European Commission, 21027 Ispra, Italy)

  • Matteo Rocco

    (Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, 21056 Milan, Italy)

  • Li Shen

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The standard ISO 14044:2006 defines the hierarchical steps to follow when solving multifunctionality issues in life cycle assessment (LCA). However, the practical implementation of such a hierarchy has been debated for twenty-five years leading to different implementation practices from LCA practitioners. The first part of this study discussed the main steps where the ISO hierarchy has been implemented differently and explored current multifunctionality practices in peer-reviewed studies. A text-mining process was applied to quantitatively assess such practices in the 532 multifunctional case studies found in the literature. In the second part of the study, citation network analysis (CNA) was used to identify the major publications that influenced the development of the multifunctionality-debate in LCA, i.e., the key-route main path. The identified publications were then reviewed to detect the origins of the different practices and their underlying theories. Based on these insights, this study provided some “food for thought” on current practices to move towards consistent methodology. We believe that such an advancement is urgently needed for better positioning LCA as a tool for sustainability decision-making. In particular, consistent allocation practices could be especially beneficial in bioeconomy sectors, where production processes are usually multifunctional, and where current allocation practices are not harmonized yet.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Robert Edwards & Martin Junginger & Alberto Moro & Matteo Rocco & Li Shen, 2020. "Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:14:p:3579-:d:383232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/14/3579/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/14/3579/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. García, Carlos A. & Fuentes, Alfredo & Hennecke, Anna & Riegelhaupt, Enrique & Manzini, Fabio & Masera, Omar, 2011. "Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy balances of sugarcane ethanol production in Mexico," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 2088-2097, June.
    2. Muench, Stefan & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2013. "A systematic review of bioenergy life cycle assessments," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 257-273.
    3. John S. Liu & Hsiao-Hui Chen & Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho & Yu-Chen Li, 2014. "Citations with different levels of relevancy: Tracing the main paths of legal opinions," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(12), pages 2479-2488, December.
    4. Manninen, Kaisa & Koskela, Sirkka & Nuppunen, Anni & Sorvari, Jaana & Nevalainen, Olli & Siitonen, Sari, 2013. "The applicability of the renewable energy directive calculation to assess the sustainability of biogas production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 549-557.
    5. Shannon M. Lloyd & Robert Ries, 2007. "Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life‐Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Quantitative Approaches," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 11(1), pages 161-179, January.
    6. Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Viola Rühlin & Thomas Götz & Martin Junginger & Thomas Brunner & Ingwald Obernberger & Li Shen, 2020. "Combining Biomass Gasification and Solid Oxid Fuel Cell for Heat and Power Generation: An Early-Stage Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Xiao, Yu & Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Liu, John S. & Zhou, Zhili, 2014. "Knowledge diffusion path analysis of data quality literature: A main path analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 594-605.
    8. Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez & Thomas Dandres & Stefan Pauliuk & Richard Wood & Edgar Hertwich & Réjean Samson & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2018. "Choice of Allocations and Constructs for Attributional or Consequential Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(4), pages 656-670, August.
    9. John S. Liu & Louis Y.Y. Lu, 2012. "An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 528-542, March.
    10. Moretti, Christian & Moro, Alberto & Edwards, Robert & Rocco, Matteo Vincenzo & Colombo, Emanuela, 2017. "Analysis of standard and innovative methods for allocating upstream and refinery GHG emissions to oil products," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 372-381.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svetlana V. Obydenkova & Lucie V. E. Defauw & Panos D. Kouris & David M. J. Smeulders & Michael D. Boot & Yvonne van der Meer, 2022. "Environmental and Economic Assessment of a Novel Solvolysis-Based Biorefinery Producing Lignin-Derived Marine Biofuel and Cellulosic Ethanol," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-29, July.
    2. Eliana Mancini & Viviana Negro & Davide Mainero & Andrea Raggi, 2022. "The Use of a Simplified Carbon Footprint Tool for Organic Waste Managers: Pros and Cons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Braud, L. & McDonnell, K. & Murphy, F., 2023. "Environmental life cycle assessment of algae systems: Critical review of modelling approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Thomas Schaubroeck & Simon Schaubroeck & Reinout Heijungs & Alessandra Zamagni & Miguel Brandão & Enrico Benetto, 2021. "Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-47, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu, Dejian & Sheng, Libo, 2021. "Influence difference main path analysis: Evidence from DNA and blockchain domain citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    2. Bruno Miranda Henrique & Vinicius Amorim Sobreiro & Herbert Kimura, 2018. "Building direct citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 817-832, May.
    3. Hiran H. Lathabai & Susan George & Thara Prabhakaran & Manoj Changat, 2018. "An integrated approach to path analysis for weighted citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1871-1904, December.
    4. Yu, Dejian & Pan, Tianxing, 2021. "Tracing the main path of interdisciplinary research considering citation preference: A case from blockchain domain," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    5. Huang, Chen-Hao & Liu, John S. & Ho, Mei Hsiu-Ching & Chou, Tzu-Chuan, 2022. "Towards more convergent main paths: A relevance-based approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    6. Dejing Kong & Jianzhong Yang & Lingfeng Li, 2020. "Early identification of technological convergence in numerical control machine tool: a deep learning approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1983-2009, December.
    7. Liao, Shu-Chun & Chou, Tzu-Chuan & Huang, Chen-Hao, 2022. "Revisiting the development trajectory of the digital divide: A main path analysis approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Yu, Dejian & Yan, Zhaoping, 2023. "Main path analysis considering citation structure and content: Case studies in different domains," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    9. Liu, John S. & Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Lu, Wen-Min, 2016. "Research fronts in data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 33-45.
    10. Xiaorui Jiang & Junjun Liu, 2023. "Extracting the evolutionary backbone of scientific domains: The semantic main path network analysis approach based on citation context analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(5), pages 546-569, May.
    11. Sastre, C.M. & González-Arechavala, Y. & Santos, A.M., 2015. "Global warming and energy yield evaluation of Spanish wheat straw electricity generation – A LCA that takes into account parameter uncertainty and variability," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 900-911.
    12. Chen, Liang & Xu, Shuo & Zhu, Lijun & Zhang, Jing & Xu, Haiyun & Yang, Guancan, 2022. "A semantic main path analysis method to identify multiple developmental trajectories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    13. Abderahman Rejeb & Karim Rejeb & Suhaiza Zailani & Yasanur Kayikci & John G. Keogh, 2023. "Examining Knowledge Diffusion in the Circular Economy Domain: a Main Path Analysis," Circular Economy and Sustainability,, Springer.
    14. Ichiro Watanabe & Soichiro Takagi, 2021. "Technological Trajectory Analysis of Patent Citation Networks: Examining the Technological Evolution of Computer Graphic Processing Systems," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, June.
    15. Flavia Filippin, 2021. "Do main paths reflect technological trajectories? Applying main path analysis to the semiconductor manufacturing industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6443-6477, August.
    16. Ichiro Watanabe & Soichiro Takagi, 2022. "NK model-based analysis of technological trajectories: a study on the technological field of computer graphic processing systems," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 119-140, April.
    17. Francesco Pasimeni, 2020. "The Origin of the Sharing Economy Meets the Legacy of Fractional Ownership," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Jiang, Xiaorui & Zhuge, Hai, 2019. "Forward search path count as an alternative indirect citation impact indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    19. Junmo Kim & Juneseuk Shin, 2018. "Mapping extended technological trajectories: integration of main path, derivative paths, and technology junctures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1439-1459, September.
    20. Kim, Erin H.J. & Jeong, Yoo Kyung & Kim, YongHwan & Song, Min, 2022. "Exploring scientific trajectories of a large-scale dataset using topic-integrated path extraction," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:14:p:3579-:d:383232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.