Skip to main content
Log in

Method to decompose uncertainties in LCA results into contributing factors

  • UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Understanding uncertainty is essential in using life cycle assessment (LCA) to support decisions. Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) is widely used to characterize the variability in LCA results, be them life cycle inventory (LCI), category indicator results, normalized results, or weighted results. In this study, we present a new method to decompose MCS results into underlying contributors using the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) decomposition method with a case study on natural gas focusing on two impact categories: global warming and USETox human health impacts.

Methods

First, after each run of MCS, the difference in simulated and deterministic results is decomposed using the LMDI decomposition method, which returns the contribution of each factor to the difference of the run. After repeating this for 1000 MCS runs, the statistical properties of the contributions by each factor are analyzed. The method quantifies the contribution of underlying variables, such as characterization factors and LCI items, to the overall variability of the result, such as characterized results.

Results

The method presented can decompose the variabilities in LCI, characterized, normalized, or weighted results into LCI items, characterization factors, normalization references, weighting factors, or any subset of them. As an illustrative example, a case study on natural gas LCA was conducted, and the variabilities in characterized results were decomposed into underlying LCI items and characterization factors. The results show that LCI and characterization phases contribute 65% and 35%, respectively, to the uncertainty of the characterized result for global warming. For the human health impact category, LCIs and characterization factors contribute 32% and 68%, respectively, to the overall uncertainty. In particular, methane emissions in LCI contributed the most to the overall uncertainties in global warming impact, while the characterization factor of chromium was identified as the main driver of the overall uncertainties in human health impact of natural gas. 

Conclusions and discussion

Using this approach, LCA practitioners can decompose the overall variability in the results to the underlying contributors under the MCS setting, which can help prioritize the parameters that need further refinement to reduce overall uncertainty in the results. The method reliably estimates the uncertainty contributions of the variables with large variabilities without the need for large computational resources, and it can be applied to any stage of an LCA calculation including normalization and weighting, or to other fields than LCA such as material flow analysis and risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Ghandoor A, Al-Hinti I, Mukattash A, Al-Abdallat Y (2010) Decomposition analysis of electricity use in the Jordanian industrial sector. Int J Sustain Energy 29:233–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang BW (2015) LMDI decomposition approach: a guide for implementation. Energy Policy 86:233–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang BW (2004) Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32:1131–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang BW (2005) The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide. Energy Policy 33:867–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang BW, Liu FL (2001) A new energy decomposition method: perfect in decomposition and consistent in aggregation. Energy 26:537–548

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ang BW, Liu N (2007) Handling zero values in the logarithmic mean Divisia index decomposition approach. Energy Policy 35:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang BW, Zhang FQ, Choi K-H (1998) Factorizing changes in energy and environmental indicators through decomposition. Energy 23:489–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baležentis A, Baležentis T, Streimikiene D (2011) The energy intensity in Lithuania during 1995–2009: a LMDI approach. Energy Policy 39:7322–7334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basson L, Petrie JG (2007) An integrated approach for the consideration of uncertainty in decision making supported by life cycle assessment. Environ Model Softw 22:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beltran MM, Pomponi F, Guinée JB, Heijungs R (2018) Uncertainty analysis in embodied carbon assessments: what are the implications of its omission? In: Embodied Carbon in Buildings. Springer, pp 3–21

  • Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in lca. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:64–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blinder AS (1973) Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. J Hum Resour 436–455

  • Bojacá CR, Schrevens E (2010) Parameter uncertainty in LCA: stochastic sampling under correlation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd G, McDonald JF, Ross M, Hanson DA (1987) Separating the changing composition of US manufacturing production from energy efficiency improvements: a Divisia index approach. Energy J 8:77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd GA, Hanson DA, Sterner T (1988) Decomposition of changes in energy intensity: a comparison of the Divisia index and other methods. Energy Econ 10:309–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag 32:2482–2495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cucurachi S, Borgonovo E, Heijungs R (2016) A protocol for the global sensitivity analysis of impact assessment models in life cycle assessment. Risk Anal 36:357–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Koning A, Schowanek D, Dewaele J et al (2010) Uncertainties in a carbon footprint model for detergents; quantifying the confidence in a comparative result. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher E, Hoekstra R (2002) The RAS structural decomposition approach. In: Trade, networks and hierarchies. Springer, pp 179–199

  • EIA (2019) Short-Term Energy Outlook. U.S, Energy information administration, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortin N, Lemieux T, Firpo S (2011) Decomposition methods in economics. In: Handbook of labor economics. Elsevier, pp 1–102

  • 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 (9 pp + 3 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:184–192. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.09.178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • González PF, Landajo M, Presno MJ (2014) Tracking European Union CO2 emissions through LMDI (logarithmic-mean Divisia index) decomposition. The activity revaluation approach Energy 73:741–750

    Google Scholar 

  • Groen EA, Bokkers EA, Heijungs R, de Boer IJ (2017) Methods for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1125–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson P, Srinivasan C, Wasserman L (1996) Local sensitivity analysis. Bayesian. Stat 5:197–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamby DM (1994) A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ Monit Assess 32:135–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R (1996) Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 4:159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R (2010) Sensitivity coefficients for matrix-based LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:511–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0158-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Huijbregts MA (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. Orlando Fla Elsevier

  • Heijungs R, Kleijn R (2001) Numerical approaches towards life cycle interpretation five examples. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:141–148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Lenzen M (2014) Error propagation methods for LCA—a comparison. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1445–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra R, Michel B, Suh S (2016) The emission cost of international sourcing: using structural decomposition analysis to calculate the contribution of international sourcing to CO2-emission growth. Econ Syst Res 28:151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2016.1166099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra R, Van den Bergh JC (2003) Comparing structural decomposition analysis and index. Energy Econ 25:39–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra R, Van Den Bergh JC (2002) Structural decomposition analysis of physical flows in the economy. Environ Resour Econ 23:357–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes M, Palmer J, Cheng V, Shipworth D (2013) Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of England’s housing energy model. Build Res Inf 41(2):156–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts M (2002) Uncertainty and variability in environmental life-cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:173–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MA, Norris G, Bretz R et al (2001) Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) 14040: Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization.

  • Jann B (2008) The Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. Stata J 8:453–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenne CA, Cattell RK (1983) Structural change and energy efficiency in industry. Energy Econ 5:114–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong K, Kim S (2013) LMDI decomposition analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in the Korean manufacturing sector. Energy Policy 62:1245–1253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jung S, An K-J, Dodbiba G, Fujita T (2012) Regional energy-related carbon emission characteristics and potential mitigation in eco-industrial parks in South Korea: logarithmic mean Divisia index analysis based on the Kaya identity. Energy 46:231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kako T (1978) Decomposition analysis of derived demand for factor inputs: the case of rice production in Japan. Am J Agric Econ 60:628–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd SM, Ries R (2008) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11:161–179. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma M, Yan R, Du Y et al (2017) A methodology to assess China’s building energy savings at the national level: an IPAT–LMDI model approach. J Clean Prod 143:784–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malla S (2009) CO2 emissions from electricity generation in seven Asia-Pacific and North American countries: a decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 37:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlay RC (1984) Trends in industrial use of energy. Science 226:1277–1283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meng Z, Wang H, Wang B (2018) Empirical analysis of carbon emission accounting and influencing factors of energy consumption in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:2467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oaxaca R (1973) Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int Econ Rev 693–709

  • OpenLCA, (2018) User Manual. GreenDelta, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR, et al (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC

  • Patouillard L, Collet P, Lesage P et al (2019) Prioritizing regionalization efforts in life cycle assessment through global sensitivity analysis: a sector meta-analysis based on ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:2238–2254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul S, Bhattacharya RN (2004) CO2 emission from energy use in India: a decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 32:585–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin Y, Cucurachi S, Suh S (2020) Perceived uncertainties of characterization in LCA: a survey. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:1846–1858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS et al (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A, Annoni P, Azzini I et al (2010) Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput Phys Commun 181:259–270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T, et al (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. John Wiley & Sons

  • SimaPro, (2016) User Manual. PRé Consultants, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobol IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55:271–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocker T (2014) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis: Working Group I contribution to the Fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press

  • Su B, Ang BW (2012) Structural decomposition analysis applied to energy and emissions: some methodological developments. Energy Econ 34:177–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarantola S, Gatelli D, Mara TA (2006) Random balance designs for the estimation of first order global sensitivity indices. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:717–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timilsina GR, Shrestha A (2009) Factors affecting transport sector CO2 emissions growth in Latin American and Caribbean countries: an LMDI decomposition analysis. Int J Energy Res 33:396–414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Ang BW, Su B (2017) Assessing drivers of economy-wide energy use and emissions: IDA versus SDA. Energy Policy 107:585–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei W, Larrey-Lassalle P, Faure T et al (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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, et al (2013) Overview and methodology: data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu C, Gertner G (2011) Understanding and comparisons of different sampling approaches for the Fourier Amplitudes Sensitivity Test (FAST). Comput Stat Data Anal 55:184–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ye M, Hill MC (2017) Global sensitivity analysis for uncertain parameters, models, and scenarios. In: Sensitivity Analysis in Earth Observation Modelling. Elsevier, pp 177–210

  • York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 46:351–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang M, Mu H, Ning Y, Song Y (2009) Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emission over 1991–2006 in China. Ecol Econ 68:2122–2128

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Reinout Heijungs for his constructive review comments. This paper has not been formally reviewed by EPA.

Funding

The authors received financial support from the Assistance Agreement No. 83557901 awarded by the US Environmental Protection Agency to University of California Santa Barbara.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sangwon Suh.

Ethics declarations

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Agency. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

Additional information

Communicated by Andreas Ciroth.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qin, Y., Suh, S. Method to decompose uncertainties in LCA results into contributing factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 977–988 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01850-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01850-5

Keywords

Navigation