DSpace Repository

Defining Temporally Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment: A Review

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author SOHN, J
dc.contributor.author KALBAR, P
dc.contributor.author GOLDSTEIN, B
dc.contributor.author BIRKVED, M
dc.date.accessioned 2021-03-10T08:20:09Z
dc.date.available 2021-03-10T08:20:09Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.identifier.citation INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT 16, 314-323 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1551-3777
dc.identifier.issn 1551-3793
dc.identifier.uri http://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/100/29717
dc.description.abstract Durable goods last for years, decades, or even centuries. The environmental implications of the changing social, economic, and material conditions in which these goods are embedded can be overlooked by conventional life cycle assessment (LCA) that assumes a static world. To avoid this oversight, methods such as dynamic LCA (DLCA) are increasingly being used. Despite the growing use of DLCA, numerous questions remain, including how this dynamism is incorporated and what aspects of any given DLCA are dynamic. To answer these questions, we performed a review of 56 DLCAs, of which 44 propose a framework for DLCA covering all International Organization for Standardization phases of an LCA or that carry out a DLCA. Three types of LCA dynamism are identified and assessed for the reviewed literature: dynamic process inventory, dynamic systems, and dynamic characterization, while a further 2 types of LCA dynamism, dynamic scope and dynamic weighting, are proposed but not applied in the assessed literature. We found that the implementation of DLCA varies widely, and inventories accounting for dynamic characteristics are by far the most prevalent expression of DLCA. To reduce confusion surrounding the discussion of DLCA, we propose a definition of DLCA and its subtypes: full DLCA, partial DLCA, and prospective LCA. It is concluded that, among the current array of DLCA definitions, the implementation of partially dynamic LCA (PDLCA), which applies dynamism in only some parts of the LCA, is common and likely to continue. This is because PDLCA offers quantifiable marginal utility in terms of increased validity of the assessment, in relation to conventional LCA methods, but caution is needed in applying PDLCA because of potential for introducing bias into the LCA. To avoid this problem, we propose incorporating system dynamism as part of a sensitivity analysis, particularly in PDLCA that are limited by missing data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;00:1-10. (c) 2019 SETAC en_US
dc.language.iso English en_US
dc.publisher WILEY en_US
dc.subject DYNAMIC LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT en_US
dc.subject PROSPECTIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT en_US
dc.subject TEMPORAL DIFFERENTIATION en_US
dc.subject TIME HORIZON en_US
dc.subject SYSTEMIC CHANGE en_US
dc.subject IMPACT ASSESSMENT en_US
dc.subject LCA en_US
dc.subject INSULATION en_US
dc.subject RESOLUTION en_US
dc.subject FRAMEWORK en_US
dc.subject SYSTEM en_US
dc.subject SCOPE en_US
dc.subject HEAT en_US
dc.subject TIME en_US
dc.title Defining Temporally Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment: A Review en_US
dc.type Review en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account