IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i13p7386-d586878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Schaubroeck

    (Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, 5 Avenue des Hauts-Fourneaux, Esch-sur-Alzette, 4362 Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

  • Simon Schaubroeck

    (Suda Limited, Hong Kong, China
    Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering Science, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1-Box 2431, 3001 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Reinout Heijungs

    (Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Einsteinweg 2, 2333 CC Leiden, The Netherlands
    Department of Operations Analytics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Alessandra Zamagni

    (Ecoinnovazione srl spin-off ENEA, Via Ferrarese 3, 40128 Bologna, Italy)

  • Miguel Brandão

    (Division of Sustainability Assessment and Management, Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH-Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Enrico Benetto

    (Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, 5 Avenue des Hauts-Fourneaux, Esch-sur-Alzette, 4362 Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Abstract

To assess the potential environmental impact of human/industrial systems, life cycle assessment (LCA) is a very common method. There are two prominent types of LCA, namely attributional (ALCA) and consequential (CLCA). A lot of literature covers these approaches, but a general consensus on what they represent and an overview of all their differences seems lacking, nor has every prominent feature been fully explored. The two main objectives of this article are: (1) to argue for and select definitions for each concept and (2) specify all conceptual characteristics (including translation into modelling restrictions), re-evaluating and going beyond findings in the state of the art. For the first objective, mainly because the validity of interpretation of a term is also a matter of consensus, we argue the selection of definitions present in the 2011 UNEP-SETAC report. ALCA attributes a share of the potential environmental impact of the world to a product life cycle, while CLCA assesses the environmental consequences of a decision (e.g., increase of product demand). Regarding the second objective, the product system in ALCA constitutes all processes that are linked by physical, energy flows or services. Because of the requirement of additivity for ALCA, a double-counting check needs to be executed, modelling is restricted (e.g., guaranteed through linearity) and partitioning of multifunctional processes is systematically needed (for evaluation per single product). The latter matters also hold in a similar manner for the impact assessment, which is commonly overlooked. CLCA, is completely consequential and there is no limitation regarding what a modelling framework should entail, with the coverage of co-products through substitution being just one approach and not the only one (e.g., additional consumption is possible). Both ALCA and CLCA can be considered over any time span (past, present & future) and either using a reference environment or different scenarios. Furthermore, both ALCA and CLCA could be specific for average or marginal (small) products or decisions, and further datasets. These findings also hold for life cycle sustainability assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Schaubroeck & Simon Schaubroeck & Reinout Heijungs & Alessandra Zamagni & Miguel Brandão & Enrico Benetto, 2021. "Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-47, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7386-:d:586878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7386/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7386/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Monia Niero & Charlotte L. Jensen & Chiara Farné Fratini & Jens Dorland & Michael S. Jørgensen & Susse Georg, 2021. "Is life cycle assessment enough to address unintended side effects from Circular Economy initiatives?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1111-1120, October.
    2. Dieuwertje Schrijvers & Philippe Loubet & Guido Sonnemann, 2020. "Archetypes of Goal and Scope Definitions for Consistent Allocation in LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Robert Edwards & Martin Junginger & Alberto Moro & Matteo Rocco & Li Shen, 2020. "Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    4. Marvuglia, Antonino & Benetto, Enrico & Rege, Sameer & Jury, Colin, 2013. "Modelling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: Critical review and proposed framework for biogas production," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 768-781.
    5. Sangwon Suh & Bo Weidema & Jannick Hoejrup Schmidt & Reinout Heijungs, 2010. "Generalized Make and Use Framework for Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 14(2), pages 335-353, March.
    6. Thomas Schaubroeck & Benedetto Rugani, 2017. "A Revision of What Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Should Entail: Towards Modeling the Net Impact on Human Well†Being," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(6), pages 1464-1477, December.
    7. Bo P. Weidema & Jannick H. Schmidt, 2010. "Avoiding Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment Revisited," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 14(2), pages 192-195, March.
    8. Hans-Georg Müller & Yichao Wu & Fang Yao, 2013. "Continuously additive models for nonlinear functional regression," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 100(3), pages 607-622.
    9. Joseph Palazzo & Roland Geyer & Sangwon Suh, 2020. "A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 815-829, August.
    10. Stefano Merciai & Jannick Schmidt, 2018. "Methodology for the Construction of Global Multi†Regional Hybrid Supply and Use Tables for the EXIOBASE v3 Database," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(3), pages 516-531, June.
    11. Ma, Haiqiang & Zhu, Zhongyi, 2016. "Continuously dynamic additive models for functional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 1-13.
    12. S. Biedermann & H. Dette & D. C. Woods, 2011. "Optimal design for additive partially nonlinear models," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 98(2), pages 449-458.
    13. Tomas Ekvall, 2020. "Attributional and Consequential Life Cycle Assessment," Chapters, in: Maria Jose Bastante-Ceca & Jose Luis Fuentes-Bargues & Levente Hufnagel & Florin-Constantin Mihai & (ed.), Sustainability Assessment at the 21st century, IntechOpen.
    14. Miguel Brandão & Roland Clift & Annette Cowie & Suzie Greenhalgh, 2014. "The Use of Life Cycle Assessment in the Support of Robust (Climate) Policy Making: Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation …”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 461-463, May.
    15. Deepak Rajagopal, 2017. "A Step Towards a General Framework for Consequential Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(2), pages 261-271, April.
    16. Bo P. Weidema, 2018. "In Search of a Consistent Solution to Allocation of Joint Production," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(2), pages 252-262, April.
    17. Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez & Thomas Dandres & Stefan Pauliuk & Richard Wood & Edgar Hertwich & Réjean Samson & Anders Hammer Strømman, 2018. "Choice of Allocations and Constructs for Attributional or Consequential Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(4), pages 656-670, August.
    18. Edgar Hertwich, 2014. "Understanding the Climate Mitigation Benefits of Product Systems: Comment on “Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate-Change Mitigation…”," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 18(3), pages 464-465, May.
    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. Bernard Twaróg, 2024. "Assessing Polarisation of Climate Phenomena Based on Long-Term Precipitation and Temperature Sequences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-31, September.
    2. Alper Bayram & Antonino Marvuglia & Maria Myridinas & Marta Porcel, 2022. "Increasing Biowaste and Manure in Biogas Feedstock Composition in Luxembourg: Insights from an Agent-Based Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-26, December.
    3. Marina Stramarkou & Christos Boukouvalas & Sokratis E. Koskinakis & Olga Serifi & Vasilis Bekiris & Christos Tsamis & Magdalini Krokida, 2022. "Life Cycle Assessment and Preliminary Cost Evaluation of a Smart Packaging System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Gustafsson, Marcus & Cordova, Stephanie S. & Svensson, Niclas & Eklund, Mats, 2024. "Climate performance of liquefied biomethane with carbon dioxide utilization or storage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Gustavo Ezequiel Martinez & Roel Degens & Gabriela Espadas-Aldana & Daniele Costa & Giuseppe Cardellini, 2024. "Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen: A Systematic Review of Methodological Choices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-15, August.
    6. Sara González-García & Fernando Almeida & Miguel Brandão, 2023. "Do Carbon Footprint Estimates Depend on the LCA Modelling Approach Adopted? A Case Study of Bread Wheat Grown in a Crop-Rotation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    7. Arianne Provost‐Savard & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2024. "Substitution modeling can coherently be used in attributional life cycle assessments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(3), pages 410-425, June.
    8. Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza & Alexandre Souza & Mateus Ferreira Chagas & Thayse Aparecida Dourado Hernandes & Otávio Cavalett, 2022. "Addressing the contributions of electricity from biomass in Brazil in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals using life cycle assessment methods," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 980-995, June.

    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. Arianne Provost‐Savard & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2024. "Substitution modeling can coherently be used in attributional life cycle assessments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(3), pages 410-425, June.
    2. Junming Zhu, 2020. "Suggested use? On evidence‐based decision‐making in industrial ecology and beyond," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(5), pages 943-950, October.
    3. Joseph Palazzo & Roland Geyer & Sangwon Suh, 2020. "A review of methods for characterizing the environmental consequences of actions in life cycle assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(4), pages 815-829, August.
    4. Saade, Marcella Ruschi Mendes & Silva, Maristela Gomes da & Gomes, Vanessa, 2015. "Appropriateness of environmental impact distribution methods to model blast furnace slag recycling in cement making," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 40-47.
    5. Francesco Bandarin & Enrico Ciciotti & Marco Cremaschi & Giovanna Madera & Paolo Perulli & Diana Shendrikova, 2020. "Which Future for Cities after COVID-19 An international Survey," Reports, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, October.
    6. Xavier Tanguay & Gatien Geraud Essoua Essoua & Ben Amor, 2021. "Attributional and consequential life cycle assessments in a circular economy with integration of a quality indicator: A case study of cascading wood products," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(6), pages 1462-1473, December.
    7. Golinucci, Nicolò & Tonini, Francesco & Rocco, Matteo Vincenzo & Colombo, Emanuela, 2023. "Towards BitCO2, an individual consumption-based carbon emission reduction mechanism," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    8. Porcelli, Roberto & Gibon, Thomas & Marazza, Diego & Righi, Serena & Rugani, Benedetto, 2023. "Prospective environmental impact assessment and simulation applied to an emerging biowaste-based energy technology in Europe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    9. Bernhard Steubing & Arjan de Koning & Stefano Merciai & Arnold Tukker, 2022. "How do carbon footprints from LCA and EEIOA databases compare? A comparison of ecoinvent and EXIOBASE," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1406-1422, August.
    10. Willem Haanstra & Willem-Jan Rensink & Alberto Martinetti & Jan Braaksma & Leo van Dongen, 2020. "Design for Sustainable Public Transportation: LCA-Based Tooling for Guiding Early Design Priorities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Julia Wenger & Stefan Pichler & Annukka Näyhä & Tobias Stern, 2022. "Practitioners’ Perceptions of Co-Product Allocation Methods in Biorefinery Development—A Case Study of the Austrian Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Albers, Ariane & Collet, Pierre & Lorne, Daphné & Benoist, Anthony & Hélias, Arnaud, 2019. "Coupling partial-equilibrium and dynamic biogenic carbon models to assess future transport scenarios in France," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 316-330.
    13. Christian Dierks & Tabea Hagedorn & Alessio Campitelli & Winfried Bulach & Vanessa Zeller, 2021. "Are LCA Studies on Bulk Mineral Waste Management Suitable for Decision Support? A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-27, April.
    14. Nicolò Golinucci & Nicolò Stevanato & Federica Inzoli & Mohammad Amin Tahavori & Negar Namazifard & Lamya Hussain & Benedetta Camilli & Matteo Vincenzo Rocco & Emanuela Colombo, 2020. "Comprehensive and Integrated Impact Assessment Framework for Development Policies Evaluation: Definition and Application To Kenya," Reports, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, November.
    15. Reinout Heijungs & Arjan Koning, 2019. "Analyzing the effects of the choice of model in the context of marginal changes in final demand," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Deepak Rajagopal, 2018. "A Heuristic Screening Aid for Consequential Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 22(6), pages 1295-1306, December.
    17. Braud, L. & McDonnell, K. & Murphy, F., 2023. "Environmental life cycle assessment of algae systems: Critical review of modelling approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    18. Henrikke Baumann & Mathias Lindkvist, 2022. "A sociomaterial conceptualization of flows in industrial ecology," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 655-666, April.
    19. Doluweera, G.H. & Jordaan, S.M. & Moore, M.C. & Keith, D.W. & Bergerson, J.A., 2011. "Evaluating the role of cogeneration for carbon management in Alberta," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7963-7974.
    20. Buchspies, Benedikt & Kaltschmitt, Martin, 2018. "A consequential assessment of changes in greenhouse gas emissions due to the introduction of wheat straw ethanol in the context of European legislation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 368-381.

    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:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7386-:d:586878. 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.