Generalized Make and Use Framework for Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

Allocation in life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis is one of the long-standing methodological issues in life cycle assessment (LCA). Discussion on allocation among LCA researchers has taken place almost in complete isolation from the series of closely related discussions from the 1960s in the field of input−output economics, regarding the supply and use framework. This article aims at developing a coherent mathematical framework for allocation in LCA by connecting the parallel developments of the LCA and the input−output communities. In doing so, the article shows that the partitioning method in LCA is equivalent to the industry-technology model in input−output economics, and system expansion in LCA is equivalent to the by-product-technology model in input−output output economics. Furthermore, we argue that the commodity-technology model and the by-producttechnology model, which have been considered as two different models in input−output economics for more than 40 years, are essentially equivalent when it comes to practical applications. It is shown that the matrix-based approach used for system expansion successfully solves the endless regression problem that has been raised in LCA literature. A numerical example is introduced to demonstrate the use of allocation models. The relationship of these approaches with consequential and attributional LCA models is also discussed.

The need for co-product allocation in the life cycle assessment of agricultural systems—is “biophysical” allocation progress?

“…Originating from practices in economics and other management sciences, co-product allocation is a key concept within life cycle assessment (LCA) (Frischknecht 2000;Suh et al 2010) and is one of the most discussed methodological issues in the field (Heijungs and Frischknecht 1998;Finnveden et al 2009;Guinée et al 2011;Hanes et al 2015). Recently, there has been (International Dairy Federation 2010;FAO 2014a;FAO 2014b;FAO 2014c).…”

On the decomposition of total impact multipliers in a supply and use framework

“…1 Whilst impact analyses have been performed in SUT frameworks many times (e.g. Fry et al 2015;Kagawa and Suh 2009;Lenzen et al 2004;Malik et al 2014Malik et al , 2016Suh et al 2010;Wachsmann et al 2009;Wiedmann et al 2006Wiedmann et al , 2011 and whilst the decomposition of TIMs has been described in general terms before (Nakamura and Nansai 2016, section 3.7.1), a decomposition that explicitly distinguishes industries and products in a generalised SUT framework has-to the knowledge of the author-not been described yet.…”

On the financial balance of input–output constructs: revisiting an axiomatic evaluation

“…The recent harmonization of IO constructs and LCA allocations (ten Raa and Rueda-Cantuche, 2007;Suh et al, 2010;Kagawa and Suh, 2009;Majeau-Bettez et al, 2014), along with the recent development of multi-layered SUT inventories in both fields (e.g., Schmidt et al, 2010;? ), has revived the question of the respect of balances in coproduction models Merciai and Heijungs, 2014).…”

“…Recently, Suh et al (2010) proved that lifecycle environmental impacts calculated with an environmentally extended input-output analysis (EEIO) are independent of whether it is based on BTC or CTC. This finding would indicate that the imbalances of BTC do not affect all scientific findings equally.…”