IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v18y2014i3p366-379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confronting Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Used for Decision Support

Author

Listed:
  • Ivan T. Herrmann
  • Michael Z. Hauschild
  • Michael D. Sohn
  • Thomas E. McKone

Abstract

type="main"> The aim of this article is to help confront uncertainty in life cycle assessments (LCAs) used for decision support. LCAs offer a quantitative approach to assess environmental effects of products, technologies, and services and are conducted by an LCA practitioner or analyst (AN) to support the decision maker (DM) in making the best possible choice for the environment. At present, some DMs do not trust the LCA to be a reliable decision-support tool—often because DMs consider the uncertainty of an LCA to be too large. The standard evaluation of uncertainty in LCAs is an ex-post approach that can be described as a variance simulation based on individual data points used in an LCA. This article develops and proposes a taxonomy for LCAs based on extensive research in the LCA, management, and economic literature. This taxonomy can be used ex ante to support planning and communication between an AN and DM regarding which type of LCA study to employ for the decision context at hand. This taxonomy enables the derivation of an LCA classification matrix to clearly identify and communicate the type of a given LCA. By relating the LCA classification matrix to statistical principles, we can also rank the different types of LCA on an expected inherent uncertainty scale that can be used to confront and address potential uncertainty. However, this article does not attempt to offer a quantitative approach for assessing uncertainty in LCAs used for decision support.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivan T. Herrmann & Michael Z. Hauschild & Michael D. Sohn & Thomas E. McKone, 2014. "Confronting Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Used for Decision Support," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 366-379, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:18:y:2014:i:3:p:366-379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/jiec.12085
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shui, Bin & Harriss, Robert C., 2006. "The role of CO2 embodiment in US-China trade," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 4063-4068, December.
    2. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. De Borger, Bruno & Mulalic, Ismir, 2012. "The determinants of fuel use in the trucking industry—volume, fleet characteristics and the rebound effect," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 284-295.
    4. Stefan Kruger Nielsen & Kenneth Karlsson, 2007. "Energy scenarios: a review of methods, uses and suggestions for improvement," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 27(3), pages 302-322.
    5. Bo P. Weidema, 2009. "Avoiding or Ignoring Uncertainty," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 13(3), pages 354-356, June.
    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. Toniolo, Sara & Mazzi, Anna & Garato, Valentina Giulia & Aguiari, Filippo & Scipioni, Antonio, 2014. "Assessing the “design paradox” with life cycle assessment: A case study of a municipal solid waste incineration plant," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 109-116.
    2. Rickard Arvidsson & Anne‐Marie Tillman & Björn A. Sandén & Matty Janssen & Anders Nordelöf & Duncan Kushnir & Sverker Molander, 2018. "Environmental Assessment of Emerging Technologies: Recommendations for Prospective LCA," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1286-1294, December.
    3. Giancarlo Raschio & Sergiy Smetana & Christian Contreras & Volker Heinz & Alexander Mathys, 2018. "Spatio‐Temporal Differentiation of Life Cycle Assessment Results for Average Perennial Crop Farm: A Case Study of Peruvian Cocoa Progression and Deforestation Issues," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1378-1388, December.
    4. Goldstein, Benjamin & Hansen, Steffen Foss & Gjerris, Mickey & Laurent, Alexis & Birkved, Morten, 2016. "Ethical aspects of life cycle assessments of diets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 139-151.

    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. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    2. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    3. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    4. Iriarte, Alfredo & Rieradevall, Joan & Gabarrell, Xavier, 2012. "Transition towards a more environmentally sustainable biodiesel in South America: The case of Chile," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 263-273.
    5. Kriegler, Elmar, 2011. "Comment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 594-596, July.
    6. Proost, Stef & Van Dender, Kurt, 2012. "Energy and environment challenges in the transport sector," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 77-87.
    7. repec:fpr:ifprib:2012ghienglish is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Canabarro, N.I. & Silva-Ortiz, P. & Nogueira, L.A.H. & Cantarella, H. & Maciel-Filho, R. & Souza, G.M., 2023. "Sustainability assessment of ethanol and biodiesel production in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Guatemala," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    9. De Borger, Bruno & Mulalic, Ismir & Rouwendal, Jan, 2016. "Measuring the rebound effect with micro data: A first difference approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-17.
    10. Baral, Nabin & Rabotyagov, Sergey, 2017. "How much are wood-based cellulosic biofuels worth in the Pacific Northwest? Ex-ante and ex-post analysis of local people's willingness to pay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-106.
    11. Baka, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David, 2009. "Food or fuel? What European farmers can contribute to Europe's transport energy requirements and the Doha Round," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2505-2513, July.
    12. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2010. "Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2561-2571, May.
    13. Sarah Jansen & William Foster & Gustavo Anríquez & Jorge Ortega, 2021. "Understanding Farm-Level Incentives within the Bioeconomy Framework: Prices, Product Quality, Losses, and Bio-Based Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, January.
    14. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.
    15. Argueyrolles, Robin & Delzeit, Ruth, 2022. "The interconnections between Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and biofuels," Conference papers 333492, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    16. Aruga, Kentaka, 2011. "非遺伝子組換え大豆とエネルギーの価格関係について [Relationships among the Non-Genetically Modified Soybean and Energy Prices]," MPRA Paper 38186, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Aug 2011.
    17. Oskar Englund & Ioannis Dimitriou & Virginia H. Dale & Keith L. Kline & Blas Mola‐Yudego & Fionnuala Murphy & Burton English & John McGrath & Gerald Busch & Maria Cristina Negri & Mark Brown & Kevin G, 2020. "Multifunctional perennial production systems for bioenergy: performance and progress," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(5), September.
    18. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Liu, Zhao & Zhou, Si-Ming & Qin, Chang-Xiong & Zhang, Huan, 2018. "The impact of China's Central Rise Policy on carbon emissions at the stage of operation in road sector," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 159-173.
    19. Leonard Goke & Jens Weibezahn & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2021. "A collective blueprint, not a crystal ball: How expectations and participation shape long-term energy scenarios," Papers 2112.04821, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    20. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2012. "Who should bear the cost of China’s carbon emissions embodied in goods for exports?," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 24(2), pages 103-117, June.
    21. Forslund, Agneta & Gohin, Alexandre & Le Mouël, Chantal & Levert, Fabrice, 2014. "Biodiesel vs. ethanol, UE vs. US biofuels: So different in terms of LUC impact?," Working Papers 207810, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:inecol:v:18:y:2014:i:3:p:366-379. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    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.