However, it is not fully accepted as such due to a perceived lack of robustness (Herrmann et al. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is intended as a quantitative decision support tool.
SINGLE SCORE OPENLCA SOFTWARE
Improved practices should be encouraged and supported by peer-reviewers, editors, LCI databases and LCA software developers.
More frequent and comprehensive reporting of uncertainty analysis is strongly recommended for published LCA studies. More standardized methods based upon context-specific data that strike the right balance between comprehensiveness and usability are, however, necessary in order to better account for both the shared and unique sources of uncertainty in attributional and consequential LCAs. There are hence no obvious barriers to quantifying parameter uncertainty in LCA studies. Moreover, uncertainty propagation for parameter uncertainty is supported by LCA modelling software. stochastic) uncertainty data are widely available in LCI databases, and researchers should generally be able to define comparable uncertainty information for their primary data. Conclusionsĭata quality scores and inherent (i.e. Monte Carlo sampling was the most popular method used for propagating uncertainty results, regardless of LCA type. However, there are currently no widely applied methods to specifically account for these sources of uncertainty other than sensitivity analysis. allocation in attributional LCA versus the definition of market-mediated substitution scenarios in consequential LCA). There are also sources of uncertainty specific to each kind of LCA-in particular related to the resolution of multi-functionality problems (i.e. Parameter uncertainty is most often reported, although the other types are considered equally important. There are many different sources of uncertainty in LCA, which can be classified as parameter, scenario or model uncertainty. Less than 20% of LCA studies published in the past five years reported any kind of uncertainty analysis. Observed practices were compared to best practice recommendations from methods papers, and additional recommendations were advanced. Common sources and methods for analysis of uncertainty in both attributional and consequential LCA were described, and their frequency of application evaluated. MethodsĪll relevant LCA methods papers as well as case studies (amounting to 2687 journal articles) published from 2014 to 2018 in the top seven journals publishing LCA studies were reviewed. This paper answers these questions based on a review of recent LCA studies and methods papers, and advances recommendations for improved practice. To date, little research has been reported regarding the comparative sources of uncertainty (and their relative importance) and how, or how commonly, they are quantified in attributional and consequential LCA. However, the large amount of uncertainty characteristic of LCA studies reduces confidence in results. For each of them, we therefore provide detailed recommendations to practitioners of waste management LCAs.Life cycle assessment (LCA) is intended as a quantitative decision support tool. Many of these aspects are important for the reliability of the results. an unclear delimitation of the system boundaries, a truncated impact coverage, difficulties in capturing influential local specificities such as representative waste compositions into the inventory, and a frequent lack of essential sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Examples are a frequent neglect of the goal definition, a frequent lack of transparency and precision in the definition of the scope of the study, e.g. Results show that malpractices exist in several aspects of the LCA with large differences across studies.
SINGLE SCORE OPENLCA ISO
We analyse the past practice against the ISO standard requirements and the ILCD Handbook guidelines for each major step within the goal definition, scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation phases of the methodology. How has LCA been applied until now? Are there any inconsistencies in the past practice? To answer these questions, we draw on a critical review of 222 published LCA studies of solid waste management systems. However, the quality of the provided support to decision- and policy-makers is strongly dependent on a proper conduct of the LCA. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly used in waste management to identify strategies that prevent or minimise negative impacts on ecosystems, human health or natural resources.