IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i23p9948-d452496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Database Selection on Environmental Impact Results. Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Using GaBi, Ecoinvent 3.6, and the Environmental Footprint Database

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Pauer

    (Section of Packaging Technology and Resource Management, University of Applied Science, 1030 Vienna, Austria)

  • Bernhard Wohner

    (Section of Packaging Technology and Resource Management, University of Applied Science, 1030 Vienna, Austria)

  • Manfred Tacker

    (Section of Packaging Technology and Resource Management, University of Applied Science, 1030 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

This research analyses the differences in impact assessment results depending on the choice of a certain software-database combination. Six packaging systems were modelled in three software-database combinations (GaBi database in GaBi software, ecoinvent 3.6 database in openLCA, Environmental Footprint database in openLCA). The chosen Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) method is EF 2.0. Differences and errors in the implementation of the LCIA method are a possible source of deviations. We compared the published characterisation factors with the factors implemented in the software-database combinations. While results for the climate change category are similar between the different databases, this is not the case for the other impact categories. In most cases, the use of the ecoinvent 3.6 database leads to higher results compared to GaBi. This is partly due to the fact, that ecoinvent datasets often include more background processes than the corresponding GaBi datasets. We found striking discrepancies in LCIA implementation, including the lack of regionalisation for water use in ecoinvent. A meaningful communication of LCIA results requires an excellent knowledge of the analysed product system, as well as of database quality issues and LCIA methodology. We fully acknowledge the constant efforts of database providers to improve their databases.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Pauer & Bernhard Wohner & Manfred Tacker, 2020. "The Influence of Database Selection on Environmental Impact Results. Life Cycle Assessment of Packaging Using GaBi, Ecoinvent 3.6, and the Environmental Footprint Database," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:9948-:d:452496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9948/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9948/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ricky Speck & Susan Selke & Rafael Auras & James Fitzsimmons, 2016. "Life Cycle Assessment Software: Selection Can Impact Results," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(1), pages 18-28, February.
    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. Francisco Portillo & Rosa María García & Alfredo Alcayde & José Antonio Gázquez & Manuel Fernández-Ros & Nuria Novas, 2021. "Prospective Environmental and Economic Assessment of a Sensor Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Marco Vacchi & Cristina Siligardi & Erika Iveth Cedillo-González & Anna Maria Ferrari & Davide Settembre-Blundo, 2021. "Industry 4.0 and Smart Data as Enablers of the Circular Economy in Manufacturing: Product Re-Engineering with Circular Eco-Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Sileryte, Rusne & Sabbe, Arnout & Bouzas, Vasileios & Meister, Kozmo & Wandl, Alexander & van Timmeren, Arjan, 2022. "European Waste Statistics data for a Circular Economy Monitor: opportunities and limitations from the Amsterdam Metropolitan Region," OSF Preprints da6f2, Center for Open Science.
    4. Davide Rovelli & Carlo Brondi & Michele Andreotti & Elisabetta Abbate & Maurizio Zanforlin & Andrea Ballarino, 2022. "A Modular Tool to Support Data Management for LCA in Industry: Methodology, Application and Potentialities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    5. Rosaliya Kurian & Kishor Sitaram Kulkarni & Prasanna Venkatesan Ramani & Chandan Swaroop Meena & Ashok Kumar & Raffaello Cozzolino, 2021. "Estimation of Carbon Footprint of Residential Building in Warm Humid Climate of India through BIM," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Brenda Miranda Xicotencatl & René Kleijn & Sander van Nielen & Franco Donati & Benjamin Sprecher & Arnold Tukker, 2023. "Data implementation matters: Effect of software choice and LCI database evolution on a comparative LCA study of permanent magnets," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(5), pages 1252-1265, October.

    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. Cátia da Silva & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa & Ana Carvalho, 2022. "Towards sustainable development: Green supply chain design and planning using monetization methods," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1369-1394, May.
    2. Brenda Miranda Xicotencatl & René Kleijn & Sander van Nielen & Franco Donati & Benjamin Sprecher & Arnold Tukker, 2023. "Data implementation matters: Effect of software choice and LCI database evolution on a comparative LCA study of permanent magnets," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(5), pages 1252-1265, October.
    3. Bruna Alexandra Elias Mota & Ana Isabel Cerqueira de Sousa Gouveia Carvalho & Maria Isabel Azevedo Rodrigues Gomes & Ana Paula Ferreira Dias Barbosa‐Povoa, 2020. "Business strategy for sustainable development: Impact of life cycle inventory and life cycle impact assessment steps in supply chain design and planning," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 87-117, January.
    4. Pan, W. & Teng, Y., 2021. "A systematic investigation into the methodological variables of embodied carbon assessment of buildings," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    5. Elif Oğuz & Ayşe Eylül Şentürk, 2019. "Selection of the Most Sustainable Renewable Energy System for Bozcaada Island: Wind vs. Photovoltaic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-33, July.
    6. Cagatay Tasdemir & Rado Gazo & Henry J. Quesada, 2020. "Sustainability benchmarking tool (SBT): theoretical and conceptual model proposition of a composite framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(7), pages 6755-6797, October.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:9948-:d:452496. 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.