The creation, management, and use of data quality information for life cycle assessment.

PURPOSE

Despite growing access to data, questions of "best fit" data and the appropriate use of results in supporting decision making still plague the life cycle assessment (LCA) community. This discussion paper addresses revisions to assessing data quality captured in a new US Environmental Protection Agency guidance document as well as additional recommendations on data quality creation, management, and use in LCA databases and studies.

APPROACH

Existing data quality systems and approaches in LCA were reviewed and tested. The evaluations resulted in a revision to a commonly used pedigree matrix, for which flow and process level data quality indicators are described, more clarity for scoring criteria, and further guidance on interpretation are given.

DISCUSSION

Increased training for practitioners on data quality application and its limits are recommended. A multi-faceted approach to data quality assessment utilizing the pedigree method alongside uncertainty analysis in result interpretation is recommended. A method of data quality score aggregation is proposed and recommendations for usage of data quality scores in existing data are made to enable improved use of data quality scores in LCA results interpretation. Roles for data generators, data repositories, and data users are described in LCA data quality management. Guidance is provided on using data with data quality scores from other systems alongside data with scores from the new system. The new pedigree matrix and recommended data quality aggregation procedure can now be implemented in openLCA software.

FUTURE WORK

Additional ways in which data quality assessment might be improved and expanded are described. Interoperability efforts in LCA data should focus on descriptors to enable user scoring of data quality rather than translation of existing scores. Developing and using data quality indicators for additional dimensions of LCA data, and automation of data quality scoring through metadata extraction and comparison to goal and scope are needed.