Comparison of Different Life Cycle Impact Assessment Software Tools

Ren, Zhong Ming; Su, D

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.572.44

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have been conducted for solid waste management systems [16,17], for the packaging industry [18], for the process of desalination [19], for wine production [30], for consumer electronics [9,31], for animal production [11], for biofuel production [32] and as general comparisons [15,[33][34][35]. In the building sector, several studies have compared the results on the environmental impacts of construction materials from different perspectives [14,20,21,36,37].…”

Section: Previous Lca Comparison Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, the emissions embodied in construction materials have not been considered important; however, they are becoming crucial due to the short time-frame in which the emissions should be reduced. Moreover, evaluating the environmental burden of construction materials has proven problematic and the reliability of the reported impact estimates is questionable. More reliable information from the construction sector is thus urgently needed to back and guide decision-making. Currently, the building sector environmental impact assessments predominantly employ commercial software with environmental impact databases and report results without knowledge about the impact of the software/database choice on the results. In this study, estimates for the embodied environmental impacts of residential construction from the two most widely used life cycle assessment (LCA) database-software combinations, ecoinvent with SimaPro software and GaBi, are compared to recognize the uniformities and inconsistencies. The impacts caused by two residential buildings of different types, a concrete-element multi-story residential building and a detached wooden house, both located in Finland, were assessed, including all building systems with a high level of detail. Based on the ReCiPe Midpoint method, fifteen impact categories were estimated and compared. The results confirm that the tool choice significantly affects the outcome. For the whole building, the difference is significant, around 15%, even in the most widely assessed category of Climate Change, and yields results that lean in different directions for the two cases. In the others, the estimates are entirely different, 40% or more in the majority of the categories and up to several thousand percentages of difference. The main conclusion is that extensive work is still urgently needed to improve the reliability of LCA tools in the building sector in order to provide reliable and trustworthy information for policy-making.

show abstract

Section: Previous Lca Comparison Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their purpose was not to find out the best one but to provide some quantitative information. Zhong Ming Ren et al [11] conducted a comparison among five popular life cycle impact assessment software tools. They used six comparison criteria regarding the function to define a product and its life cycle.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

CTHP: Selection for adoption of open‐source bioinformatics software based on a customised ISO 25010 quality model, three‐way decision and Delphi hierarchy process

Bian

Zhang

et al. 2023

IET Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ever-growing open-source software tools in different domains increase the difficulty of software selection from the end-users perspective. The process of evaluating, comparing, and selecting open-source solutions is far from trivial. Especially, when additional requirements need to be considered, the existing methodologies will fail to adapt to the new tasks. The objective of this study is to present a solution for dealing with this issue. A novel approach, CTHP, is presented for the evaluation and selection of open-source software in the Bioinformatics domain. First, the ISO 25010 quality model is chosen as the basis. This model is customised according to the special characteristics of the Bioinformatics applications. The customisation is done by extracting the quality factors from the Bioinformatics applications, weighting these factors from the viewpoints of both developers and end-users, and adding them to the model. After that, Three-way Decision and Delphi Hierarchy Process are integrated to assist in the selection for adoption. Finally, as a case study, the proposed approach is applied to assist the decisionmaking process of two popular natural language processing frameworks in the Bioinformatics area. Our study is a valuable contribution since it provides a systematic way to document the decision-making process and help the researchers and practitioners of Bioinformatics to make better decisions among the alternatives.

show abstract

Genetic Algorithm for Sustainable Product Design Optimisation

Ren

2020

Sustainable Product Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Different Life Cycle Impact Assessment Software Tools

Cited by 11 publications

References 2 publications

A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies

A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies

CTHP: Selection for adoption of open‐source bioinformatics software based on a customised ISO 25010 quality model, three‐way decision and Delphi hierarchy process

Genetic Algorithm for Sustainable Product Design Optimisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About