Subscriber access provided by ORTA DOGU TEKNIK UNIVERSITESI KUTUPHANESI
Article
How many environmental impact indicators are needed in the evaluation of product life cycles? Zoran J.N. Steinmann, Aafke M. Schipper, Mara Hauck, and Mark A.J. Huijbregts Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05179 • Publication Date (Web): 10 Mar 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on March 21, 2016
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
1
How many environmental impact indicators are needed in the
2
evaluation of product life cycles?
3 4
Zoran Joeri Nikolaj Steinmann, MSc a,*, Dr. Aafke Margaretha Schippera, Dr. Mara Hauckb, Prof. Dr.
5
Mark Antonius Jan Huijbregtsa
6
a) Department of Environmental Science, IWWR, Radboud University, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The
7
Netherlands
8
b) Climate, Air and Sustainability, TNO, Princetonlaan 6, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
9
* Corresponding author: P.O. Box 9010 (box 89) NL-6500 GL Nijmegen, Visiting address:
10
Heyendaalseweg 135 (room HG02.632), NL-6525 ED Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Tel: +31-(0)24-
11
3652393, e-mail:
[email protected] 12
Keywords: PCA, life cycle impact assessment, methods, indicators, selection
13
Abstract
14
Numerous indicators are currently available for environmental impact assessments, especially in the
15
field of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). Because decision-making on the basis of hundreds of
16
indicators simultaneously is unfeasible, a non-redundant key set of indicators representative of the
17
overall environmental impact is needed. We aimed to find such a non-redundant set of indicators
18
based on their mutual correlations. We have used Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in
19
combination with an optimization algorithm to find an optimal set of indicators out of 135 impact
20
indicators calculated for 976 products from the ecoinvent database. The first four principal
21
components covered 92% of the variance in product rankings, showing the potential for indicator
22
reduction. The same amount of variance (92%) could be covered by a minimal set of six indicators,
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
23
related to climate change, ozone depletion, the combined effects of acidification & eutrophication,
24
terrestrial ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity and land use. In comparison, four commonly used resource
25
footprints (energy, water, land, materials) together accounted for 82% of the variance in product
26
rankings. We conclude that the plethora of environmental indicators can be reduced to a small key
27
set, representing the major part of the variation in environmental impacts between product life
28
cycles.
29 30
Introduction
31
Over the course of the last two decades a wide variety of methods for quantifying environmental
32
impacts have been introduced into the area of Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).1 There are clear
33
differences in coverage and complexity of the various LCIA methods available. Damage-based
34
indicators, also called endpoint indicators, provide insight in the impact of emissions and resource
35
use through the full cause-and-effect chain, which ultimately leads to ecosystem and/or human
36
health damage.2 Midpoint indicators provide a proxy for environmental damage by modeling only
37
part of the cause-impact pathway. An example is the well-known global warming potential to
38
quantify the contribution of various greenhouse gas emissions to climate change in terms of
39
integrated radiative forcing.3 Finally, resource footprints estimate the resources required in a life
40
cycle without further impact or damage modeling. Cumulative energy demand is an example of such
41
an indicator.4-7 Additional variation in indicators results from the fact that there are several
42
competing methods available that quantify the same type of effect, but with different models and
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 23
Page 3 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
43
data. For example, the TRACI method8 and the EDIP method9 both provide midpoint indicators for
44
the impacts due to acidification.
45
A key question that this wide variety of available methods raises is whether the outcome of a
46
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) will change among different indicators and methods.10-12 Furthermore, it
47
is unpractical to base decisions for environmental product optimization or environmental policy on
48
dozens of indicators simultaneously. Endpoint damage models solve the problem of having too many
49
indicators, but this goes at the expense of increased uncertainty, as uncertainties involved in damage
50
modelling can be very large.13-15
51
Therefore, as an alternative to the endpoint damage models, there is a clear need to provide
52
a limited set of indicators that is sufficiently small for efficient communication and decision-making,
53
but at the same time representative of the overall environmental impact. Several attempts have
54
been made to find a representative subset of relevant indicators. In a study commissioned by the
55
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC), various midpoint and endpoint indicators
56
and methods were qualitatively compared in terms of scientific and stakeholder acceptance.1
57
However, with 14 different recommended midpoint indicators, the set is still quite large and some of
58
the methods have since then undergone quite significant changes. Moreover, the JRC study did not
59
consider any redundancy among the recommended indicators caused by similarity in the underlying
60
processes that cause the emissions and environmental impacts. Others have suggested using a
61
“resource-based indicator family”, consisting of a set of resource footprints covering the cumulative
62
demand of land, water, carbon (or fossil energy) and, potentially, materials.16 However, while these
63
resource footprints are easy to use and communicate17, they may not account for the full range of
64
impacts employed in the damage-based methodologies. Finding a set of indicators that is optimal in
65
both its size and coverage requires a more systematic and quantitative way of reducing the number
66
of indicators. A few studies have attempted to achieve this via Principal Component Analysis (PCA).18-
67
22
68
by PCA. For example, only two out of eleven indicators were needed to cover more than 95% of the
If correlations between indicators are high, substantial dimensionality reduction can be achieved
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
69
total variance of the environmental impacts within a set of nine household electronic products.23 A
70
more recent study, covering 17 impact indicators for two product categories (electricity and oil),
71
employed a slightly different and novel technique to demonstrate that the number of impact
72
indicators can be greatly reduced.24 However, while these studies provided valuable insights for one
73
or a few method(s) and/or product group(s), their coverage has been too small to answer questions
74
about which set of indicators is optimal in a more general sense. The search for an optimal set of
75
indicators using PCA has, to the best of our knowledge, not yet been applied over a large range of
76
products and impact assessment methods.
77
Here, we aim to find an optimal set of environmental indicators to cover the variance in the
78
rankings of a large number of products. We selected 976 products and 135 environmental indicators
79
from the ecoinvent 3.1 database25 as input for our analysis. We combined PCA with multiple
80
regression to arrive at the minimum set of indicators explaining the major part of the variance in the
81
product rankings. Apart from this minimum set, we also evaluated the extent to which four
82
commonly used resource footprints (fossil energy, water, land and materials) were representative of
83
the variation in product rankings.
84
85
Methods & Materials
86
Products
87
All products and corresponding environmental impacts were taken from the ecoinvent database
88
(version 3.1). Environmental impacts of all products are expressed per kilogram of product. To avoid
89
overlap among the products, we applied the following selection criteria:
90
•
Aggregated product categories (e.g., ‘inorganic chemicals’) were removed from the dataset.
91
•
In case of identical products, we preferred the global or ‘rest-of-the-world’ market mix over
92
specific sub-types based on particular production methods or regions. For example, we
93
selected global market rye grain and excluded organic rye grain and Swiss rye grain.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 23
Page 5 of 23
94
Environmental Science & Technology
•
In case of products with almost identical production chains (e.g., butanol and iso-butanol),
95
we selected the products with the largest overall amount of emissions or resource
96
extractions.
97
After applying the first two criteria, there were 1002 products remaining. To apply the third criterion,
98
we then searched for products with (nearly) identical product chains. This was done by dividing
99
every emission/resource extraction of a product by the same emissions/resource extractions of all
100
other products. This yielded 1001 sets of 1869 ratios for each product. If these ratios were (almost)
101
equal for all emissions and resources considered (coefficient of variation 1) was retained. Our final selection contained
105
976 products (Table S1), which we grouped into seven categories: Chemicals (435), Plastics (64),
106
Ores, minerals & fuels (91), Building materials (72), Processed bio-based products (80), Agricultural &
107
forestry products (106), Metal products & electronics (128).
108 109
Indicators
110
Ecoinvent25 reports a total of 692 impact indicators. Our method and the algorithm that we
111
employed to find the optimal set of indicators is not suitable for use on sets of data with (almost)
112
perfectly correlated data (i.e. a correlation coefficient of approximately 1) because two perfectly
113
correlated indicators are indistinguishable.26 Therefore we excluded impact indicators that met at
114
least one of the following criteria:
115
•
Newer versions of the same impact indicator were assumed to fully replace the older ones.
116
Therefore we only used the most recent version of each indicator. For example, the endpoint
117
indicator calculated with the Ecoscarcity 201327 method was retained, while the same
118
endpoint indicators from Ecoscarcity 2006 and 1997 were excluded.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
119
•
For most environmental impact indicators multiple versions are provided, either including or
120
excluding long-term emissions. These long-term emissions can stem from landfill sites, long
121
after the product is disposed. For most indicators there is no difference between the versions
122
including and excluding the long-term emissions. For toxicity indicators however, excluding
123
the emissions on a long-term leads to an underestimation of the damage. Therefore only the
124
indicator versions including the long-term emissions were retained for our analysis.
125
•
After these first two steps, the remaining set of 161 indicators included several indicators
126
that are identical for different impact assessment methods. For example, the Ozone
127
Depletion Potential (ODP) for an infinite time horizon is calculated in the same way in the
128
CML200128, EDIP20039 and Impact200229 methods. Similarly, there are several indicators for
129
global warming that are identical for different methods. In order to check whether there was
130
complete correlation between the indicators we used the “trim.matrix” function on the rank
131
correlation matrix of the 976 products in the R package “subselect”. 26 If two or more
132
indicators were found to be indistinguishable, only the indicator in the first method (based
133
on alphabetical order) was retained. This resulted in the removal of 26 indicators that all
134
showed a correlation of 1 to one or more of the other indicators.
135
After this procedure we retained a set of 135 environmental indicators for 976 products. The 135
136
environmental indicators belong to 13 different methods (Table 1).
137
Table 1. Impact assessment methods, numbers of indicators and corresponding main categories as included in
138
the analysis.
Impact assessment method CML2001 28 EDIP 2003 9 Impact 2002 29 ReCiPe 2 TRACI 8 EcoIndicator99 30 Ecological scarcity2013 27 EPS2000 31, 32 Impact 2002 29
Number of indicators 49 21 14 31 9 3 1 1 3
Category
Midpoint indicators
Endpoint indicators
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 23
Page 7 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
139
ReCiPe 2 3 Fossil energy footprint * 1 Water footprint * 1 Resource footprints Material footprint * 1 Land footprint * 1 * Calculated from the inventory outcomes of the ecoinvent database
140
Data analysis
141
We employed PCA combined with regression analysis to find the minimum set of indicators
142
necessary to adequately describe the variance in product rankings among the full set of impact
143
indicators. In PCA the total variation in a dataset is rewritten as a set of non-correlated linear
144
combinations of the original variables (in our case, the indicators), which are called principal
145
components. The first principal component describes the maximum amount of variance and
146
subsequent principal components explain decreasing amounts of variance. If there is a large
147
correlation between variables, the first couple of principal components will cover the majority of the
148
variance in the dataset and these components can be used as a highly parsimonious summary of the
149
total dataset.33
150
First, we performed a PCA on the rank correlation matrix, i.e. the correlation matrix of the
151
dataset after ranking the products on each of the 135 indicators from 1 to 976 (see Table S2). This
152
transformation to rank scores was done to give equal weight to each product in the dataset and to
153
each impact indicator (i.e. each indicator now has the same mean and standard deviation). It is
154
desirable to give equal weight to each product because the analysis of impact per kilogram of
155
product is an arbitrary choice that does not reflect differences in production volumes or value to
156
society. Without this transformation the correlation structure would be dominated by a few products
157
that have very high impacts per kilogram (for example the precious metals gold and platina).
158
Second, we determined the number of non-trivial components with the Avg-Pa (Average
159
parallel analysis) stopping rule as described by Peres-Neto et al..34 This stopping rule is a criterion
160
which tells whether a component describes more or less variance than one would expect if it was
161
based on purely randomized data. Because we work with product rankings rather than impact scores,
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
162
we adjusted the procedure to work with randomized product rankings rather than normally
163
distributed random data. All integers from 1 to 976 were randomly sampled to create a dataset with
164
the same number of rows (976) and columns (135) as the original data. This was repeated 1000
165
times. A PCA was then performed on each of the 1,000 randomized datasets and the average
166
variance explained by each component was calculated. If a component explained more variance in
167
the original data than in the randomized data, the component was considered non-trivial.
168
Third, to interpret the non-trivial components, the loading of each indicator as well as the
169
principal component scores per product (and product group) were plotted. Biplots of the loadings
170
show the association between the indicators and the principal components: the more extreme (high
171
or low) the loading, the more representative the indicator is of that component. The principal
172
component scores show the associations between the observations and the principal components,
173
thus revealing the similarity of the indicators and products.
174
Fourth, to find a subset of the original indicators most closely associated with the non-trivial
175
principal components, we calculated the amount of variance in principal components scores that
176
could be explained by subsets of the original indicators. Subsets of any number of indicators can be
177
tested, whereby a set comprising all indicators would cover 100% of the variance and smaller subsets
178
would cover less. The best set, in terms of explained variance, for each number of indicators was
179
found by using the “improve” algorithm from the package “subselect” 26 in the statistical program R.35
180
The improve algorithm uses multiple linear correlation to determine the amount of explained
181
variance.
182
Fifth, we defined the optimal size of the indicator set by using the explained variance of the
183
so called non-trivial principal components as a benchmark. The indicator set with the lowest number
184
of indicators and an explained variance equal to or higher than the explained variance of the non-
185
trivial components was considered to be the preferred set of indicators.
186 187
Finally, we tested the extent to which a set of four resource footprints (fossil energy, land, water and material use) covered variance in our dataset by using the multiple linear correlation
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 8 of 23
Page 9 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
188
analysis on all principal component scores, as mentioned above. Note that these four resource
189
footprints were not part of the set of 135 indicators.
190
191
Results
192
Principal components and indicators
193
The number of non-trivial components was four, which together covered 92.0% of the total variance
194
in the dataset. The majority of the variance (83.3%) was covered by the first component, with 3.9%,
195
3.1% and 1.9% covered by the three consecutive components (Figure 1). Since all correlations in the
196
database were positive, the first component can be seen as an overall indicator of environmental
197
impact. Indicators that are most similar to other indicators (i.e. have the highest mutual correlations)
198
have the highest absolute loadings on this component. For the first component these were the
199
indicators related to freshwater and marine ecotoxicity. However, most other indicators showed very
200
similar loadings (Figure S1, see SI1 for a more extensive analysis of the principal components).
201
Indicators with the lowest absolute loadings on the first component were related to land use, which
202
means that indicators related to land use are least correlated to all other indicators. On the second
203
principal component, high loadings were found for indicators related to land use and terrestrial
204
ecotoxicity while indicators related to fossil energy use and global warming had low loadings. This
205
means that after taking into account the fact that impact-intensive products are generally impact-
206
intensive according to all impact indicators; products that use relatively large amounts of land are
207
likely to use a relatively limited amount of fossil energy and vice versa. Indicators related to ionizing
208
radiation (i.e. from the use of nuclear energy) and indicators of ozone depletion were further
209
distinguished from the rest by components 3 and 4. See Figures S1 and S2 for the loadings of all
210
indicators on the first four components.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
211 212
Figure 1. Variance explained per principal component based on our dataset (blue), per principal component
213
based on random data (purple), and by the best set of indicators (orange). Solid lines with dots indicate the
214
cumulative variance explained.
215
Products
216
The scores per principal component (Figure 2) indicate how the products are related to each of the
217
components. Products with the highest and lowest overall ranks showed the most extreme scores on
218
the first principal component. On a per kg basis, we found the highest impacts (lowest scores on the
219
first principal component) for metal products and electronics (which include very high-priced and
220
energy-intensive products such as gold), and the lowest impacts for ores, minerals & fuels and
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 10 of 23
Page 11 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
221
building materials. On the second component a clear distinction could be seen between the products
222
on a biological base (agricultural & forestry products and processed bio-based products) and the rest
223
of the products. This coincided with the high loadings for (agricultural) land use on the second
224
principal component. A number of plastics showed the lowest scores on the third component. These
225
plastics have relatively small emissions of ozone depleting substances as a result of their production
226
process compared to the other emissions. The highest scores are found among the inorganic
227
chemicals.
228 229
Figure 2. Boxplots of principal component scores per product and product group: colored boxes cover the
230
interquartile distance, black bars inside the boxes denote the medians, whiskers extend to the 5 and 95
231
quantiles.
th
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
th
Environmental Science & Technology
Page 12 of 23
232
Best set of indicators
233
A set of six indicators was needed to cover slightly more variance than the first four principal
234
components (i.e. 92.3% and 92.0% respectively; Figure 1). The best set of six indicators contained
235
indicators of climate change, ozone depletion, terrestrial ecotoxicity, the combined ecosystem
236
effects of acidification & eutrophication, marine ecotoxicity and land use (Table 2).
237
The four resource footprints together accounted for an explained variance of 82.0% (Table
238
2). The results suggest that the fossil energy indicator, with an explained variance of 72.9%, is a
239
reasonable indicator of overall impact. The explained variance can be raised to 76.8% by adding
240
material use and then to 80.1% by adding land use. The water footprint explained only 1.9% of
241
additional variance; this is due to the fact that water consumption is related to both the energy-
242
intensive process of electricity generation and the land-intensive process of crop production.
243
Table 2. Best sets of impact indicators and the variance explained by sets up to six indicators, and the variance
244
explained by the resource footprints.
#
Impact indicator
Method: Full name of indicator
1 2
Marine ecotoxicity Climate change Marine ecotoxicity Land use Human toxicity Climate change Climate change Ozone depletion Land use Marine ecotoxicity Climate change Ozone depletion Terrestrial ecotoxicity Acidification & eutrophication Marine ecotoxicity Climate change Land use Ozone depletion Acidification & eutrophication Marine ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity
ReCiPe: METP100a (I) CML2001: upper limit of net GWP100a* ReCiPe: METPinf (H) Impact2002: land occupation ReCiPe: HTPinf (E) ReCiPe: GWP100a (H) CML2001: upper limit of net GWP100a CML2001: ODP40a Impact2002: land occupation ReCiPe: METPinf (E)
3
4
5
6
Explained variance 78.4% 84.0%
87.8%
90.1%
CML2001: GWP20a CML2001: ODP40a CML2001: TAETP20a Impact2002: terrestrial acidification & eutrofication ReCiPe: METPinf (E)
91.3%
CML2001: GWP20a CML2001: Land use: competition** CML2001: ODP40a Impact2002 ReCiPe Midpoint E: METPinf ReCiPe Midpoint I: TETP100a
92.3%
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
Resource-based sets 1 Fossil energy Land Water Material 2 Fossil Energy, Material 3 Fossil Energy, Land, Material 4 Fossil Energy, Land, Material and Water
72.9% 37.9% 58.1% 54.3% 76.8% 80.1% 82.0%
245
Abbreviations:
246
METP: Marine EcoToxicity Potential
247
GWP: Global Warming Potential
248
HTP: Human Toxicity Potential
249
ODP: Ozone Depletion Potential
250
T(A)ETP: TerrestriAl EcoToxicity Potential
251
inf/100a/40a/20a: Time Horizons of infinite duration and 100, 200 and 40 years respectively
252
(I): Individualist perspective, (E): Egalitarian perspective, (H): Hierarchist perspective
253
* Upper limit of GWP100a: a method where the upper values of several uncertain GHGs are used rather than
254
the most likely value
255
** Like the land footprint this consists of an unweighted summation of different land uses, however not all
256
types are included
257
Discussion
258
Our analysis revealed a large amount of redundancy in a set of 135 impact indicators, since a
259
single indicator already covered 78.4% of the variance in the ranking of 976 products. This result is in
260
line with earlier research in which large correlations between a single indicator (energy demand) and
261
different impact indicators were found.36, 37 However, even though one indicator might be able to
262
cover a large proportion of the damage over a wide range of products, within certain product groups
263
it may be less useful to distinguish products from each other.38 As the scores of the individual
264
products demonstrate, several indicators are needed to distinguish products within specific groups.
265
For example, bio-based products are mostly separated by the amount of land use, while some
266
plastics have relatively high emissions of ozone depleting substances; therefore an indicator that
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
267
takes this into account is necessary to distinguish products within this group. The requirement of a
268
limited set of indicators is in line with the findings from Gutierrez et al. 23 who used a PCA-based
269
approach for data reduction. These authors found that three indicators (respiratory inorganics, ozone
270
depleting substances and minerals) were needed to cover the majority of the variance in
271
environmental impacts of a small set of household electronics. Pascual-Gonzalez et al. 24 applied a
272
combination of multiple regression and an approach called MILP (Mixed-Integer-Linear-
273
Programming) to reduce the number of impact indicators for a large number of oil and electricity
274
products. Fossil energy demand, respiratory inorganics and ozone depletion constituted the best set
275
for oil, while for electricity the different types of primary energy carriers (water, wind, nuclear and
276
fossil) and an indicator of climate change were needed. Our study, adds to these insights, by
277
providing an application of a data reduction technique on a dataset that is both larger and more
278
diverse than used up to now.
279
According to our results, the best indicator set includes indicators of global warming (which is
280
strongly correlated to all other indicators), land use and ozone depletion, supplemented by indicators
281
for the combined effect of acidification and eutrophication (these two impacts are combined into
282
one indicator in the IMPACT 2002 methodology), and terrestrial and marine ecotoxicity. While this
283
set maximizes the amount of explained variance, these six indicators are not necessarily the most
284
preferable according to additional criteria, such as the RACER (Relevant, Accepted, Credible, Easy and
285
Robust) criteria.39 For example, the problem of ozone depletion is becoming less relevant due to
286
successful emission reduction policies40 and the indicators of toxicity (including the statistically best
287
indicator for marine ecotoxicity) are not always robust, due to the large uncertainties involved in
288
their calculations.13-15 As the loadings of the indicators (figure S1) on the first component (which
289
covers 83.3% of the total variance) show, there are several indicators with approximately the same
290
explanatory power. This means that alternative sets of indicators can be defined which are only
291
marginally worse in terms of explained variance compared to the set of six indicators derived from
292
our analysis. The resource footprints are relatively easy and robust to calculate. Being indicators of
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 14 of 23
Page 15 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
293
resource use rather than indicators of environmental impact, it was not known whether they can be
294
used as a proxy for environmental impacts. Our results indicate that they cover the variance in
295
impact indicators quite well (82% explained variance with four indicators), which suggests that these
296
indicators are relevant for use in the area of LCIA. Using simple resource footprints would reduce the
297
need for the complicated mid- and endpoint damage models.
298
In this study we have used product rankings calculated on a 1 kg basis, to give insight in the
299
variation between very diverse products. It can be argued that other bases of comparison, for
300
instance, based on products with the same functional unit, are more in line with one of the main
301
applications of LCA: product optimization. Comparing products with the same functional unit was
302
done by Sabio et al.21, who found four relevant environmental indicators for hydrogen supply chains,
303
thereby also demonstrating that a small set of indicators was a sufficient base for the comparison of
304
similar product alternatives. The products used in our study are mostly quite simple commodities,
305
with only the electronics category covering more complex consumer products, such as LCD screens.
306
Furthermore, the analysis was based on cradle-to-gate data, whereby the product’s use and disposal
307
are not taken into account. The use phase of products can be energy-intensive, meaning that, if
308
included, products with long use times would generally rank higher on indicators related to energy
309
use, such as indicators of climate change. It is difficult to predict how the correlation structure, and
310
therefore the indicator selection, would change when more complex products or use phase data are
311
taken into account. The correlation between indicators could either increase or decrease, resulting in
312
more or less explained variance for indicator sets of each size. However, in the case of taking into
313
account the use phase, it is likely that there will be more explained variance with the same number
314
of indicators, since all indicators related to energy use will increase simultaneously for products with
315
long use times.
316
Additionally, the coverage of the ecoinvent database may not be complete in terms of the
317
inventory flows included (i.e. the extent to which relevant emissions and resource extractions are
318
included for all products) and in terms of (novel) impact pathways covered. Limiting the inventory
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
319
flows to a limited number of well-studied pollutants may result in an overestimation of the
320
correlations between the impact indicators that are eventually calculated from these flows, for
321
example not all of the toxic chemicals covered by the USEtox model13 are available in the ecoinvent
322
database. Similarly, leaving out potentially relevant damage pathways (for example ecosystem
323
damage caused by tropospheric ozone formation), may also cause an overestimation of the amount
324
of variance that can be covered with a limited number of indicators. Despite these limitations, it
325
should be noted that the ecoinvent database is one of the largest databases available for life cycle
326
assessment, with clear guidelines on how to ensure completeness and consistency of the data as
327
much as possible.41
328
Finally, spatially explicit impact assessment methods, as recently developed for several
329
impact categories, including water, land, acidification and eutrophication42-45, were not included in
330
the assessment. This is due to the fact the coupling of spatially explicit inventory and impact
331
information is still not common practice in LCA databases, including ecoinvent 3.1. Spatially explicit
332
methods use a different amount of impact for the same environmental intervention, which can
333
reorder the ranking of the impact indicator, depending on the location where the intervention takes
334
place. Whether this results in more or less correlation between the different impact indicators
335
cannot be known a priori. Regionalization may increase the amount of variance to be explained by a
336
small set of indicators and therefore limit the coverage of our recommended set, however
337
regionalization can potentially also increase the correlations between indicators. This would be the
338
case if regionalization results in several impact indicators that are consistently higher than average in
339
one country. Products that rely heavily on that country as a sourcing region will then have a higher
340
rank for all these indicators of impact, resulting in a higher correlation between the indicators than
341
one would observe without regionalization of the impacts. It is recommended to redo the PCA-
342
regression procedure after the introduction of spatially explicit impact assessment methods in
343
common LCA practice.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 16 of 23
Page 17 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
344
Summarizing, we introduced a procedure for systematically selecting a set of impact
345
indicators that is optimal in covering the maximum amount of variance with a minimal number of
346
indicators. With this method we have demonstrated that reducing the number of indicators in our
347
dataset from 135 to six indicators is feasible without losing more than 8% of the total variance.
348
Although it is unlikely that any practitioner would have used 135 indicators simultaneously, there
349
was no reason to discard any of the indicators a priori other than for reasons of convenience. Our
350
results can be seen as comforting for LCA practitioners, since we showed a clear overlap between
351
and within methods. For the first time, we have demonstrated a large dimensionality reduction to be
352
feasible over a wide range of indicators and products. This suggests that the plethora of indicators
353
available for product assessments is largely superfluous and that a small set of key impact indicators
354
is sufficient for product optimization and environmental policy. Alternatively, a set of 4 resource
355
footprints covering 82% of the total variance may be used.
356
Author information
357
Corresponding author
358
*Tel: +31-(0)24-3652393, e-mail:
[email protected] 359
Notes
360
The authors declare no conflict of interest
361
Acknowledgements
362
This project was funded by the European Commission via the WP7 project Desire: number 308552.
363
Associated content
364
Supporting information
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
365
The supporting information contains additional information about the indicator loadings, including
366
figure S1 and S2 which display the loadings of all indicators. A full list of all indicators is also included
367
in table S1, and the correlation matrix (table S2) is included as a separate Excel file. This information
368
is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org/.
369
References
370
1. Hauschild, M. Z.; Goedkoop, M.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Jolliet, O.; Margni, M.;
371
De Schryver, A; Humbert, S.; Laurent, A.; Salla, S.; Pant, R. Identifying best existing practice for
372
characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 18(3), 683-
373
697.
374
2. Goedkoop, M.J.; Heijungs; R. Huijbregts M. A. J.; De Schryver A.; Struijs J.; van Zelm, R. ReCIPe
375
2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the
376
midpoint and the endpoint level. Report 1: Characterisation. 2013, http://www.lcia-recipe.net.
377
3. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
378
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-
379
K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
380
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. 2013
381
4. Hirst, E. Food-related energy requirements. Science 1974, 184(4133), 134-138.
382
5. Arvesen, A., Hertwich, E.G. More caution is needed when using life cycle assessment to determine
383
energy return on investment (EROI). Energy Policy 2015, 76(0), 1-6
384
6. Arvidsson, R., Fransson, K., Fröling M., Svanström M., Molander, S. Energy use indicators in energy
385
and life cycle assessments of biofuels: review and recommendations. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 31, 54-61
386
7. Frischknecht, R., Wyss, F., Büsser Knöpfel, S., Lützkendorf, T., Balouktsi, M. Cumulative energy
387
demand in LCA: the energy harvested approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20(7), 957-969
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 18 of 23
Page 19 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
388
8. Bare, J. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental
389
impacts 2.0. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2011, 13(5), 687-696.
390
9. Hauschild M.; Potting J. Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003
391
methodology. Environmental News no. 80, 2005, The Danish Ministry of the Environment,
392
Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen
393
10. Bueno, C.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Rossignolo, J.A.; Ometto, A.R.; Mendes, N.C. Sensitivity Analysis of the
394
use of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods: A case study on building materials. J. Clean. Prod.
395
2015, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.006.
396
11. Dreyer, L.C., Niemann, A.L., and Hauschild, M.Z. Comparison of three different LCIA methods:
397
EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. Does it matter which one you choose? Int. J. Life Cycle
398
Assess. 2003, 8(4), 191-200.
399
12. Owsianiak, M.; Laurent, A.; Bjørn, A.; Hauschild, M.Z. IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe 2008, and ILCD's
400
recommended practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment: a case study-
401
based comparison. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19(5), 1007-1021.
402
13. Rosenbaum, R.K.; Bachmann, T.M.; Gold, L.S.; Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Jolliet, O.; Juraske, R.; … ;
403
Hauschild, M.Z. (2008). USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation
404
factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle
405
Assess. 2008, 13(7), 532-546.
406
14. van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M. A.J., Harbers, J. V., Wintersen, A., Struijs, J., Posthuma, L., van de
407
Meent, D. Uncertainty in msPAF-based ecotoxicological effect factors for freshwater ecosystems in
408
life cycle impact assessment. Integr. Enviro. Assess. Manage. 2007, 3(4), e6-e37.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
409
15. van Zelm, R., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Posthuma, L., Wintersen, A., van de Meent, D. Pesticide
410
ecotoxicological effect factors and their uncertainties for freshwater ecosystems. Int. J. Life Cycle
411
Assess. 2009, 14(1), 43-51.
412
16. Galli, A.; Wiedmann, T.; Ercin, E.; Knoblauch, D.; Ewing, B.; Giljum, S. Integrating ecological,
413
carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking
414
human pressure on the planet. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 16, 100-112.
415
17. European Resource Efficiency Platform. Manifesto & policy recommendations. 2014 European
416
Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
417
18. Pozo, C.; Ruiz-Femenia, R.; Caballero, J.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Jiménez, L. On the use of Principal
418
Component Analysis for reducing the number of environmental objectives in multi-objective
419
optimization: Application to the design of chemical supply chains. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 69(1), 146-
420
158.
421
19. Brunet, R.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Jiménez, L. Cleaner design of single-product biotechnological
422
facilities through the integration of process simulation, multiobjective optimization, life cycle
423
assessment, and principal component analysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 51(1), 410-424.
424
20. de Saxcé, M.; Rabenasolo, B.; Perwuelz, A. Assessment and improvement of the appropriateness
425
of an LCI data set on a system level–application to textile manufacturing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
426
2014, 19(4), 950-961.
427
21. Sabio, N.; Kostin, A.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Jiménez, L. Holistic minimization of the life cycle
428
environmental impact of hydrogen infrastructures using multi-objective optimization and principal
429
component analysis. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 2012, 37(6), 5385-5405.
430
22. Li, T.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, C.; Liu, Z.; Fan, C. A PCA-based method for construction of composite
431
sustainability indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17(5), 593-603.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 20 of 23
Page 21 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
432
23. Gutiérrez, E.; Lozano, S.; Adenso-Díaz, B. Dimensionality reduction and visualization of the
433
environmental impacts of domestic appliances. J. Ind. Ecol. 2010, 14(6), 878-889.
434
24. Pascual-González, J.; Pozo, C.; Guillén-Gosálbez, G.; Jiménez-Esteller, L. Combined use of MILP
435
and multi-linear regression to simplify LCA studies. Comput. Chem. Eng., 2015, 82, 34-43
436
25. Moreno Ruiz E.; Weidema B. P.; Bauer C.; Nemecek T.; Vadenbo C. O.; Treyer K.; Wernet G.
437
Documentation of changes implemented in ecoinvent Data 3.0. Ecoinvent Report 5 (v4) 2013. St.
438
Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre
439
26. Orestes Cerdeira, J.; Duarte Silva P.; Cadima J. Minhoto M. subselect: Selecting Variable Subsets.
440
R package version 0.12-5. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=subselect, 2015
441
27. Frischknecht R.; Büsser Knöpfel S. Swiss Eco-Factors 2013 according to the Ecological Scarcity
442
Method. Methodological fundamentals and their application in Switzerland. Environmental studies
443
no. 1330. 2013, Federal Office for the Environment, Bern: 254 pp.
444
28. Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; Koning, A. de; Oers, L. van; Wegener
445
Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; Udo de Haes, H.A.; Bruijn, H. de; Duin, R. van; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Handbook on
446
life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb:
447
Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9,
448
Dordrecht, 2002, 692 pp.
449
29. Jolliet O.; Margni M.; Charles R.; Humbert S.; Payet J.; Rebitzer G.; Rosenbaum R. IMPACT 2002+:
450
a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2003, 8(6),324–330
451
30. Goedkoop M.J.; Spriensma R. Eco-indicator 99, a damage oriented method for lifecycle impact
452
assessment, methodology report, (update June 2001) http://www.pre-sustainability.com/scientific-
453
publications
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
454
31. Steen B. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development
455
(EPS). Version 2000-general system characteristics; CPM report 1999:4, 1999, Chalmers University of
456
Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
457
32. Steen B .A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development
458
(EPS). Version 2000-models and data of the default method; CPM report 1999:5, 1999, Chalmers
459
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
460
33. Cadima, J. F., & Jolliffe, I. T. (2001). Variable selection and the interpretation of principal
461
subspaces. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. S. 2001, 6(1), 62-79.
462
34. Peres-Neto, P. R.; Jackson, D. A.; Somers, K. M. How many principal components? Stopping rules
463
for determining the number of non-trivial axes revisited. Comput. Stat. Data An. 2005, 49(4), 974-
464
997.
465
35. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
466
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/, 2015
467
36 Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Rombouts, L. J.; Hellweg, S.; Frischknecht, R.; Hendriks, A. J.; van de Meent, D.;
468
Ragas, A.M.J.; Reijnders, L.; Struijs, J. Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the
469
environmental performance of products?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40(3), 641-648.
470
37. Huijbregts, M.A.J.; Hellweg, S.; Frischknecht, R.; Hendriks, H.W.; Hungerbühler, K.; Hendriks, A.J.
471
Cumulative energy demand as predictor for the environmental burden of commodity production.
472
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44(6), 2189-2196.
473
38. Laurent, A.; Olsen, S.I.; Hauschild, M. Z. Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of
474
environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46(7), 4100-4108.
475
39. Lutter, S.; Giljum S. Development of a methodology for the assessment of global environmental
476
impacts of traded goods and services. Development of RACER Evaluation Framework. EIPOT
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 22 of 23
Page 23 of 23
Environmental Science & Technology
477
Workpackage 2, 2008 http://seri.at/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/EIPOT-RACER-evaluation-
478
framework-final-07Oct08.pdf
479
40. WMO Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2010, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
480
Project-report no.52., 2011, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva
481
41. Weidema, B.P., Bauer C.; Hischier, R.; Mutel, C.; Nemecek, T.; Reinhard, J.; Vadenbo, C.O.;
482
Wernet, G. Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3.
483
Ecoinvent Report 1 (v3) 2013. St. Gallen: The ecoinvent Centre
484
42. Verones, F.; Saner, D.; Pfister, S.; Baisero, D.; Rondinini, C.; Hellweg, S. Effects of consumptive
485
water use on biodiversity in wetlands of international importance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47(21),
486
12248-12257.
487
43. De Baan, L.; Mutel, C. L.; Curran, M.; Hellweg, S.; Koellner, T. Land use in life cycle assessment:
488
global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ. Sci.
489
Technol. 2013, 47(16), 9281-9290.
490
44. Roy, P. O.; Azevedo, L. B.; Margni, M.; van Zelm, R.; Deschênes, L.; Huijbregts, M. A.
491
Characterization factors for terrestrial acidification at the global scale: A systematic analysis of spatial
492
variability and uncertainty. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 500, 270-276.
493
45. Azevedo, L. B.; Henderson, A. D.; van Zelm, R.; Jolliet, O.; Huijbregts, M. A. Assessing the
494
importance of spatial variability versus model choices in life cycle impact assessment: the case of
495
freshwater eutrophication in Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47(23), 13565-13570.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment