Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Quantified Uncertainties in Comparative Life Cycle Assessment: What Can Be Concluded?
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre. WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Malaysia.
Show others and affiliations
Number of Authors: 62018 (English)In: Environmental Science and Technology, ISSN 0013-936X, E-ISSN 1520-5851, Vol. 52, no 4, p. 2152-2161Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Interpretation of comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results can be challenging in the presence of uncertainty. To aid in interpreting such results under the goal of any comparative LCA, we aim to provide guidance to practitioners by gaining insights into uncertainty-statistics methods (USMs). We review five USMs-discernibility analysis, impact category relevance, overlap area of probability distributions, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), and modified NHST- and provide a common notation, terminology, and calculation platform. We further cross-compare all USMs by applying them to a case study on electric cars. USMs belong to a confirmatory or an exploratory statistics' branch, each serving different purposes to practitioners. Results highlight that common uncertainties and the magnitude of differences per impact are key in offering reliable insights. Common uncertainties are particularly important as disregarding them can lead to incorrect recommendations. On the basis of these considerations, we recommend the modified NHST as a confirmatory USM. We also recommend discernibility analysis as an exploratory USM along with recommendations for its improvement, as it disregards the magnitude of the differences. While further research is necessary to support our conclusions, the results and supporting material provided can help LCA practitioners in delivering a more robust basis for decision-making.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 52, no 4, p. 2152-2161
National Category
Environmental Engineering Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-154582DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06365ISI: 000426143300052PubMedID: 29406730OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-154582DiVA, id: diva2:1195714
Available from: 2018-04-06 Created: 2018-04-06 Last updated: 2018-04-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Vivanco, David FontHenriksson, Patrik J. G.Heijungs, Reinout
By organisation
Stockholm Resilience Centre
In the same journal
Environmental Science and Technology
Environmental EngineeringEarth and Related Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 19 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf