Technical University of Denmark, DTU Management Engineering, Lyngby, Denmark.
Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Centre for Urban Science and Engineering (CUSE), Mumbai, India.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2020 May;16(3):314-323. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4235. Epub 2020 Jan 30.
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;16:314-323. © 2019 SETAC.
耐用商品可以使用数年、数十年甚至数百年。在传统的生命周期评估 (LCA) 中,这些商品所处的社会、经济和物质条件不断变化,其环境影响可能被忽视,因为传统的 LCA 假设世界是静态的。为了避免这种疏忽,越来越多的人开始使用动态 LCA (DLCA)。尽管 DLCA 的使用越来越多,但仍存在许多问题,包括如何融入这种动态性以及任何给定的 DLCA 的哪些方面是动态的。为了回答这些问题,我们对 56 项 DLCA 进行了回顾,其中 44 项提出了涵盖 LCA 所有国际标准化组织阶段的 DLCA 框架,或进行了 DLCA。对所审查的文献,确定并评估了三种类型的 LCA 动态性:动态过程清单、动态系统和动态特征化,同时还提出了但未在评估文献中应用的另外两种 LCA 动态性:动态范围和动态加权。我们发现,DLCA 的实施差异很大,迄今为止,考虑动态特征的清单是 DLCA 最普遍的表达方式。为了减少围绕 DLCA 讨论的混淆,我们提出了 DLCA 及其亚型的定义:完整的 DLCA、部分的 DLCA 和前瞻性 LCA。结论是,在当前的一系列 DLCA 定义中,部分动态 LCA (PDLCA) 的实施很常见,并且可能会继续下去,因为它只在 LCA 的某些部分应用动态性。这是因为与传统的 LCA 方法相比,PDLCA 在评估的有效性方面具有可量化的边际效用,但在应用 PDLCA 时需要谨慎,因为它可能会给 LCA 引入偏差。为了避免这个问题,我们建议将系统动态性纳入敏感性分析的一部分,特别是在 PDLCA 中,因为 PDLCA 受到数据缺失的限制。综合环境评估与管理 2020;16:314-323。版权所有© 2019 SETAC。