Abstract
Purpose
It has been recognised by life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners that uncertainty analysis needs to be incorporated into LCA studies to improve the reliability of the results; however, case studies still report results without uncertainty. Reasons for ignoring uncertainty include resource constraints or a lack of knowledge or expertise. This paper presents a structured uncertainty management method that aims to improve uncertainty reporting in LCA.
Methods
The most common uncertainty classification for LCA is parameter, model and scenario; however, multiple classifications exist in literature. The latest classification published by Igos et al. (2019) divides uncertainty into three dimensions: location, level and nature, based on previous research (Walker et al. 2003; Warmink et al. 2010). In this paper, the three-dimensional uncertainty classification is further developed for practical implementation in LCA. The classification is incorporated into an uncertainty management methodology that is divided into five steps: identification, classification, quantification or qualification, reduction and reporting, and is integrated into the iterative steps of an LCA in accordance with ISO 14044 (2006). The method is demonstrated in a tiered-hybrid case study of an Irish apartment development from cradle-to-gate that focuses on climate change. The data sources include the bill of quantities, Ecoinvent datasets, Irish input-output tables and Irish environmental accounts data.
Results and discussion
The initial uncertainty assessment of the case study found that the deterministic value likely underestimates the total tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (t CO2-eq.) for the apartment development. The probability that the impact is greater than the deterministic value is approximately 93%, prior to uncertainty reduction. The main contributors to the total uncertainty were identified as the choice of Ecoinvent dataset, the sectoral emission intensities and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Global Warming Potentials. Therefore, work to reduce the total uncertainty should focus on identifying the most suitable dataset for the building material to reduce the input distribution for that material and on acquiring more product-specific data.
Conclusions and recommendations
The developed uncertainty management method improves the way uncertainty is managed in practice in LCA case studies by providing a detailed and structured way for uncertainty to be identified, classified, measured and reported. It further identifies where resources can be focused to iteratively reduce the overall uncertainty of the results and thus improve their reliability. It is recommended that the developed method is tested across other case studies, life cycle stages and impact categories in further work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Acquaye A (2010) A Stochastic Hybrid Embodied Energy and CO2-eq Intensity Analysis of Building and Construction Processes in Ireland. Dissertation, Dublin Institute of Technology
Acquaye A, Duffy A (2010) Input-output analysis of Irish Construction Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Build Environ 45:784–791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.022
Acquaye A, Duffy AP, Basu B (2011) Stochastic hybrid embodied CO2-eq analysis: an application to the Irish apartment building sector. Energy Build 43:1295–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.01.006
Agez M, Majeau-Bettez G, Margni M et al (2020) Lifting the veil on the correction of double counting incidents in hybrid life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 24:517–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12945
Bach V, Lehmann A, Gormer M, Finkbeiner M (2018) Product environmental footprint (PEF) pilot phase — comparability over flexibility? Sustainability 10:2898. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082898
Bamber N, Turner I, Arulnathan V et al (2020) Comparing sources and analysis of uncertainty in consequential and attributional life cycle assessment: review of current practice and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:168–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01663-1
Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:64–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978849
Booker JM, Ross TJ (2011) An evolution of uncertainty assessment and quantification. Sci Iran 18:669–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2011.04.017
Central Statistics Office (2009) Supply and Use and Input-Output Tables for Ireland 2005: Symmetric Input-Output Table of domestic product flows €m. www.cso.ie. Accessed 31 Jan 2015
Chen X, Griffin WM, Matthews HS (2018) Representing and visualizing data uncertainty in input-output life cycle assessment models. Resour Conserv Recycl 137:316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.011
Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Tonini D, Christensen TH (2013) Stochastic and epistemic uncertainty propagation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1393–1403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0572-6
Coulon R, Camobreco V, Teulon H, Besnainou J (1997) Data quality and uncertainty in LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:178–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978816
Dee DP (1995) A Pragmatic Approach to Model Validation. In: Lynch DR, Davies AM (eds) Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Volume 47: Quantitative Skill Assessment for Coastal Ocean Models. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC
European Commission (2019) The Environmental Footprint transition phase. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/ef_transition.htm. Accessed 1 Nov 2019
European Commission (EC) - Joint Research Centre (JRC) - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance, EUR 24708 EN, 1st edn. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Heijungs R (2014) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:473–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0662-5
Heijungs R (1996) Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 4:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00042-X
Heijungs R, Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB (2017) Pre-calculated LCI systems with uncertainties cannot be used in comparative LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1265-3
Heijungs R, Tan RR (2010) Rigorous proof of fuzzy error propagation with matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:1014–1019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0229-7
Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Heijungs R et al (2014) A protocol for horizontal averaging of unit process data - including estimates for uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:429–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0647-4
Huijbregts M (1998a) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part I: a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:273–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979835
Huijbregts M (1998b) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part II: dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:343–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979345
Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas AMJ, 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. https://doi.org/10.1021/es020971+
Hunsager EA, Bach M, Breuer L (2014) An institutional analysis of EPD programs and a global PCR registry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:786–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0711-8
Igos E, Benetto E, Meyer R et al (2019) How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies? Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:794–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1477-1
Imbeault-Tétreault H, Jolliet O, Deschênes L, Rosenbaum RK (2013) Analytical propagation of uncertainty in life cycle assessment using matrix formulation. J Ind Ecol 17:485–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12001
Ingwersen WW, Stevenson MJ (2012) Can we compare the environmental performance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product category rules and future challenges toward alignment. J Clean Prod 24:102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.040
Iooss B, Ribatet M (2009) Global sensitivity analysis of computer models with functional inputs. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94:1194–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.09.010
ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Johnson DR, Willis HH, Curtright AE et al (2011) Incorporating uncertainty analysis into life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass production. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2619–2626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.046
Kolkman MJ, Kok M, van der Veen A (2005) Mental model mapping as a new tool to analyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management. Phys Chem Earth 30:317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2005.01.002
Lenzen M, Dey C (2000) Truncation error in embodied energy analyses of basic iron and steel products. Energy 25:577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(99)00088-2
Lenzen M, Wood R, Wiedmann T (2010) Uncertainty analysis for multi-region Input-Output models – a case study of the UK’s carbon footprint. Econ Syst Res 22:43–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535311003661226
Lesage P, Mutel C, Schenker U, Margni M (2018) Uncertainty analysis in LCA using precalculated aggregated datasets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:2248–2265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1444-x
Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11:161–181. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1136
Lo S-C, Ma H, Lo S-L (2005) Quantifying and reducing uncertainty in life cycle assessment using the Bayesian Monte Carlo method. Sci Total Environ 340:23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.08.020
Minkov N, Schneider L, Lehmann A, Finkbeiner M (2015) Type III Environmental Declaration Programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges. J Clean Prod 94:235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.012
Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York
Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon FM et al (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Stocker T, Qin D, Plattner GK et al. (eds) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
Nakamura S, Nansai K (2016) Input-Output and Hybrid LCA. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Special Types of Life Cycle Assessment. LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 219–291
Neuman SP (2003) Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 17:291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/800477-00)-0151-7
Owsianiak M, Bjørn A, Laurent A et al (2018) LCA Applications. In: Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (eds) Life cycle assessment - theory and practice. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 31–41
Padey P, Girard R, le Boulch D, Blanc I (2013) From LCAs to simplified models: a generic methodology applied to wind power electricity. Environ Sci Technol 47:1231–1238. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303435e
Pannier M, Schalbart P, Peuportier B (2018) Comprehensive assessment of sensitivity analysis methods for the identification of influential factors in building life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 199:466–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.070
Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2013) Using attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12074
Qin Y, Suh S (2017) What distribution function do life cycle inventories follow? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1138–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1224-4
Rosenbaum RK, Georgiadis S, Fantke P (2018a) Uncertainty Management and Sensitivity Analysis. In: Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (eds) Life Cycle Assessment - Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 271–321
Rosenbaum RK, Hauschild MZ, Boulay A-M et al (2018b) Life cycle impact assessment. In: Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (eds) Life Cycle Assessment - Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 167–270
Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002) How LCA studies deal with uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:47–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978909
Ross TJ, Booker JM, Montoya AC (2013) New developments in uncertainty assessment and uncertainty management. Expert Syst Appl 40:964–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.054
RStudio Team (2016) RStudio: Integrated Development for R. http://www.rstudio.com/
Sala S, Reale F, Cristobal-Garcia J et al (2016) Life cycle assessment for the impact assessment of policies. EUR 28380 EN
Shipworth D (2002) A stochastic framework for embodied greenhouse gas emissions modelling of construction materials. Build Res Inf 30:16–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210110090412
Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK et al (2013) Technical Summary. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, et al. (eds) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
Strømman AH, Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2009) Approaches to correct for double counting in tiered hybrid life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod 17:248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.05.003
Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13:687–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.04.001
Suh S, Qin Y (2017) Pre-calculated LCIs with uncertainties revisited. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:827–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1287-x
Tan RR (2008) Using fuzzy numbers to propagate uncertainty in matrix-based LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:585–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0032-x
The Joint Committee (2009) Agreed Rules of Measurement, 4th edn. The Society of Chartered Surveyors and Construction Industry Federation, Dublin
Tol R, Lyons S, Mayor K (2008) Environmental Accounts for the Republic of Ireland: 1990–2005. http://erc.epa.ie/safer/resource?id=3dd694d8-671c-102b-aa08-55a7497570d3. Accessed 15 Jul 2019
Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J et al (2003) Defining uncertainty- a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4:5–17. https://doi.org/10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466
Warmink JJ, Janssen JAE, Booij MJ, Krol MS (2010) Identification and classification of uncertainties in the application of environmental models. Environ Model Softw 25:1518–1527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.04.011
Weidema B (2014) Has ISO 14040 / 44 failed its role as a standard for life cycle assessment? J Ind Ecol 18:324–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12139
Weidema BP (1998) Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:259–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979832
Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. In: Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre
Weidema BP, Wesnaes MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories- an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4:167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00043-1
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B et al (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
Williams E (2004) Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: hybrid assessment combining process and economic input-output methods. Environ Sci Technol 38:6166–6174. https://doi.org/10.1021/es035152j
Williams ED, Weber CL, Hawkins TR (2009) Hybrid framework for managing uncertainty in life cycle inventories. J Ind Ecol 13:928–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00170.x
Wissema W (2006) Building Social Accounting Matrix for Ireland with specific details in relation to energy and carbon dioxide emissions. Institute for International Integration Studies Discussion Paper Series, iiisdp170, IIIS
Yamakawa A, Peters GP (2009) Using time-series to measure uncertainty in environmental input-output analysis. Econ Syst Res 21:337–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310903444766
Yang Y, Heijungs R, Brandão M (2017) Hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) does not necessarily yield more accurate results than process-based LCA. J Clean Prod 150:237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.006
Ye M, Meyer PD, Lin Y-F, Neuman SP (2010) Quantification of model uncertainty in environmental modeling. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 24:807–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-010-0377-0
Zadeh LA (1973) Outline of a New Approach to the Analysis of Complex Systems and Decision Processes. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-3:28–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.5408575
Zampori L, Pant R (2019) Suggestions for updating the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) method, EUR 29682 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, ISBN 978–92–76–00654–1, https://doi.org/10.2760/424613, JRC115959, Luxembourg
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Aidan Duffy, Deidre Wolff; methodology: Deidre Wolff; formal analysis and investigation: Deidre Wolff; writing—original draft preparation: Deidre Wolff; writing—review and editing: Aidan Duffy, Deidre Wolff; funding acquisition: Aidan Duffy; resources: Aidan Duffy; supervision: Aidan Duffy.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by Andreas Ciroth.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wolff, D., Duffy, A. Development and demonstration of an uncertainty management methodology for life cycle assessment in a tiered-hybrid case study of an Irish apartment development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 989–1007 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01872-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01872-7