How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies?

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Tập 24 - Trang 794-807 - 2018
Elorri Igos1, Enrico Benetto1, Rodolphe Meyer1, Paul Baustert1, Benoit Othoniel1
1Environmental Research and Innovation (ERIN), Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Belvaux, Luxembourg

Tóm tắt

The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) as a decision support tool can be hampered by the numerous uncertainties embedded in the calculation. The treatment of uncertainty is necessary to increase the reliability and credibility of LCA results. The objective is to provide an overview of the methods to identify, characterize, propagate (uncertainty analysis), understand the effects (sensitivity analysis), and communicate uncertainty in order to propose recommendations to a broad public of LCA practitioners. This work was carried out via a literature review and an analysis of LCA tool functionalities. In order to facilitate the identification of uncertainty, its location within an LCA model was distinguished between quantity (any numerical data), model structure (relationships structure), and context (criteria chosen within the goal and scope of the study). The methods for uncertainty characterization, uncertainty analysis, and sensitivity analysis were classified according to the information provided, their implementation in LCA software, the time and effort required to apply them, and their reliability and validity. This review led to the definition of recommendations on three levels: basic (low efforts with LCA software), intermediate (significant efforts with LCA software), and advanced (significant efforts with non-LCA software). For the basic recommendations, minimum and maximum values (quantity uncertainty) and alternative scenarios (model structure/context uncertainty) are defined for critical elements in order to estimate the range of results. Result sensitivity is analyzed via one-at-a-time variations (with realistic ranges of quantities) and scenario analyses. Uncertainty should be discussed at least qualitatively in a dedicated paragraph. For the intermediate level, the characterization can be refined with probability distributions and an expert review for scenario definition. Uncertainty analysis can then be performed with the Monte Carlo method for the different scenarios. Quantitative information should appear in inventory tables and result figures. Finally, advanced practitioners can screen uncertainty sources more exhaustively, include correlations, estimate model error with validation data, and perform Latin hypercube sampling and global sensitivity analysis. Through this pedagogic review of the methods and practical recommendations, the authors aim to increase the knowledge of LCA practitioners related to uncertainty and facilitate the application of treatment techniques. To continue in this direction, further research questions should be investigated (e.g., on the implementation of fuzzy logic and model uncertainty characterization) and the developers of databases, LCIA methods, and software tools should invest efforts in better implementing and treating uncertainty in LCA.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M (2004) F.A.L.C.A.D.E.: a fuzzy software for the energy and environmental balances of products. Ecol Model 176:359–379 Baudrit C, Guyonnet D, Dubois D (2005) Post-processing the hybrid method for addressing uncertainty in risk assessments. Environ Eng 131:1750–1754 Benetto E, Dujet C, Rousseaux P (2008) Integrating fuzzy multicriteria analysis and uncertainty evaluation in life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 23:1461–1467 Bisinella V, Conradsen K, Christensen TH, Astrup TF (2016) A global approach for sparse representation of uncertainty in life cycle assessments of waste management systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:378–394 Bojaca CR, Schrevens E (2010) Parameter uncertainty in LCA: stochastic sampling under correlation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:238–246 Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema B, Lesage P (2015) Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1338–1348 Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Tonini D, Christensen TH (2013) Stochastic and epistemic uncertainty propagation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1393–1403 Cruze N, Goel PK, Bakshi BR (2013) On the “rigorous proof of fuzzy error propagation with matrix-based LCI”. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:516–519 Cucurachi S, Heijungs R (2014) Characterisation factors for life cycle impact assessment of sound emissions. Sci Total Environ 468:280–291 De Koning A, Schowanek D, Dewaele J, Weisbrod A, Guinée J (2010) Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents; quantifying the confidence in a comparative result. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:79–89 European Commission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg European Commission (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context—based on existing environmental impact assessment models and factors. Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg Frey HC, Li S (2002) Methods and example for development of a probabilistic per-capita emission factor for VOC emissions from consumer/commercial product use. In Proceedings of the 95th Annual Conference & Exhibition of Air & Waste Management, Baltimore, MD, June 2002; Paper 42162 Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzger G, Spielmann M, Wernet G (2007) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report no. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf Gavankar S, Anderson S, Keller AA (2014) Critical components of uncertainty communication in life cycle assessments of emerging technologies–nanotechnology as a case study. J Ind Ecol 19(3):468–479 Geisler G, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle assessment (LCA): case study on plant-protection products and implications for decision making. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):184–192 Geldermann J, Spengler T, Rentz O (2000) Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment—case study: iron and steel making industry. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115:45–65 Groen EA, Heijungs R (2016) Ignoring correlation in uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: what is the risk? Environ Impact Assess Rev 62:98–109 Groen EA, Heijungs R, Bokkers EAM, de Boer IJM (2014) Methods for uncertainty propagation in life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 62:316–325 Groen EA, Bokkers EAM, Heijungs R, de Boer IJM (2016) Methods for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(7):1125–1137 Güereca LP, Agel N, Baldasano JM (2007) Fuzzy approach to life cycle impact assessment—an application for biowaste management systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):486–496 Guo M, Murphy RJ (2012) LCA data quality: sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Sci Total Environ 435-436:230–243 Guyonnet D, Bourgine B, Dubois D, Fargier H, Côme B, Chilès JP (2003) Hybrid approach for addressing uncertainty in risk assessments. Environ Eng 129:68–78 Heijungs R (1994) A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecol Econ 10:69–81 Heijungs R (2010) Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26:511–520 Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (2005) Representing statistical distributions for uncertain parameters in LCA—relationships between mathematical forms, their representation in EcoSpold, and their representation in CMLCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(4):248–254 Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. In complexity and integrated resources management. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Schmidt S, Rizzoli AE, Jakeman AJ (eds) Complexity and integrated resources management, University of Osnabrück, Germany, 14–17 June 2004. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Manno, pp 332–339 Heijungs R, Kleijn R (2001) Numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation—five examples. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):141–148 Heijungs R, Lenzen M (2014) Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1445–1461 Heijungs R, Tan RR (2010) Rigorous proof of fuzzy error propagation with matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:1014–1019 Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, de Koning A, Green DM (2014) A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data—including estimates for uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:429–436 Hong J, Shaked S, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2010) Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:499–510 Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas ADMJ, Reijnders L (2003) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37:2600–2608 Hung ML, Ma HW (2009) Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:19–27 Igos E, Benetto E (2015) Uncertainty sources in LCA, calculation methods and impacts on interpretation. Study no. 2014-03, SCORELCA association, available at https://www.scorelca.org/en/studies-lca.php Accessed 29 August 2017 Imbeault-Tétrault H, Jolliet O, Deschênes L, Rosenbaum RK (2013) Analytical propagation of uncertainty in life cycle assessment using matrix formulation. J Ind Ecol 17(4):485–492 ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006a) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006; Second Edition 2006-06. ISO, Geneva ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006b) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006; First edition 2006-07-01. ISO, Geneva Jung J, von der Assen N, Bardow A (2014) Sensitivity coefficient-based uncertainty analysis for multi-functionality in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:661–676 Kätelhön A, Bardow A, Suh S (2016) Stochastic technology choice model for consequential life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 50:12575–12583 Lacirignola M, Blanc P, Girard R, Pérez-López P, Blanc I (2017) LCA of emerging technologies: addressing high uncertainty on inputs' variability when performing global sensitivity analysis. Sci Total Environ 578:268–280 Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 11(1):161–179 Lo SC, Ma H, Lo SL (2005) Quantifying and reducing uncertainty in life cycle assessment using the Bayesian Monte Carlo method. Sci Total Environ 340:23–33 Malça J, Freire F (2012) Addressing land use change and uncertainty in the life-cycle assessment of wheat-based bioethanol. Energy 45:519–527 Maurice B, Frischknecht R, Coelho-Schwirtz V, Hungerbühler K (2000) Uncertainty analysis in life cycle inventory. Application to the production of electricity with French coal power plants. J Clean Prod 8:95–108 Mendoza Beltran A, Heijungs R, Guinée J, Tukker A (2016) A pseudo-statistical approach to treat choice uncertainty: the example of partitioning allocation methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:252–264 Mery Y, Tiruta-Barna L, Baudin I, Benetto E, Igos E (2014) Formalization of a technical procedure for process ecodesign dedicated to drinking water treatment plants. J Clean Prod 68:16–24 Morgan MG, Henrion M, Small M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York Muller S, Lesage P, Ciroth A, Mutel C, Weidema BP, Samson R (2016a) The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):11327–11337 Muller S, Lesage P, Samson R (2016b) Giving a scientific basis for uncertainty factors used in global life cycle inventory databases: an algorithm to update factors using new information. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1185–1196 Mutel CL, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2013) Two-step sensitivity testing of parametrized and regionalized life cycle assessments: methodology and case study. Environ Sci Technol 47:5660–5667 Noori M, Tatari O, Nam B, Golestani B, Greene J (2014) A stochastic optimization approach for the selection of reflective cracking mitigation techniques. Transp Res 69:367–378 Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263(5147):641–646 Padey P, Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Girard R, Le-Boulch D, Blanc I (2012) Understanding LCA results variability: developing global sensitivity analysis with Sobol indices. Int Symp Life Cycle Assess Constr Civ Eng Build, July 2012. RILEM Publications, Nantes, p 19–27 Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Brown J, van der Keur (2006) A framework for dealing with uncertainty due to model structure error. Adv Water Resour 29:1586–1597 Röder M, Whittaker C, Thornley P (2015) How certain are greenhouse gas reductions from bioenergy? Life cycle assessment and uncertainty analysis of wood pellet-to-electricity supply chains from forest residues. Biomass Bioenergy 79:50–63 Sakai S, Yokoyama K (2002) Formulation of sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment using a perturbation method. Clean Tech Environ 4:72–78 Saltelli A, Annoni P (2010) How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis. Environ Model Softw 25:1508–1517 Sonnemann GW, Schuhmacher M, Castells F (2003) Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator. J Clean Prod 11:279–292 Sugiyama H, Fukushima Y, Hirao M, Hellweg S, Hungerbühler K (2005) Using standard statistics to consider uncertainty in industry-based life cycle inventory databases. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(6):399–405 Tan RR (2008) Using fuzzy numbers to propagate uncertainty in matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):585–592 Thabrew L, Lloyd S, Cypcar C, Hamilton JD, Ries R (2008) Life cycle assessment of water-based acrylic floor finish maintenance programs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):65–74 Van Asselt MBA, Rotmans J (2001) Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling–from positivism to pluralism. Clim Chang 54:75–105 Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Quantifying the trade-off between parameter and model structure uncertainty in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 47:9274–9280 Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs JP, van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17 Wang E, Shen Z (2013) A hybrid data quality Indicator and statistical method for improving uncertainty analysis in LCA of complex system - application to the whole-building embodied energy analysis. J Clean Prod 43:166–173 Weckenmann A, Schwan A (2001) Environmental life cycle assessment with support of fuzzy-sets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(1):13–18 Wei W, Larrey-Lassalle P, Faure T, Dumoulin N, Roux P, Mathias JD (2015) How to conduct a proper sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: taking into account correlations within LCI data and interactions within the LCA calculation model. Environ Sci Technol 49:377–385 Weidema BP, Wesnaes MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4(3–4):167–174 Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C et al (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. The ecoinvent Centre, St. Gallen Zamagni A, Buttol P, Porta PL, Buonamici R et al (2008) Critical review of the current research needs and limitations related to ISO-LCA practice - Deliverable D7 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project. http://www.estis.net/builder/includes/page.asp?site=calcas&page_id=8215FF89-5114-4748-BE6C-1F0F1E69DAF5. Accessed 29 August 2017