Comparability of lcas — review and discussion of the application purpose
Publikation: Beiträge in Sammelwerken › Aufsätze in Sammelwerken › Forschung › begutachtet
Standard
Progress in Life Cycle Assessment 2019. Hrsg. / Stefan Albrecht; Matthias Fischer; Philip Leistner; Liselotte Schebek. Cham: Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland, 2021. S. 213-225 (Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management).
Publikation: Beiträge in Sammelwerken › Aufsätze in Sammelwerken › Forschung › begutachtet
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Comparability of lcas — review and discussion of the application purpose
AU - Roßmann, Maximilian
AU - Stratmann, Matthias
AU - Rötzer, Nadine
AU - Schäfer, Philipp
AU - Schmidt, Mario
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - This article discusses the comparability of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) and the central role of the application purpose in a study review. According to ISO 14040, an LCA study design emerges in continuous reference to the “intended application”. Goal and scope, case-specific assumptions, as well as methodological freedoms, should be justified by their significance for the specific application purpose, e.g. for process optimization or for advice on a political issue. In contrast, our systematic review of 58 LCA studies shows that LCAs hardly name applications, and more generally, applications are difficult to reconstruct. This lack of transparency makes the LCA methodology attackable through meta-studies that ignore the problem-oriented and case-specific approach. Since these studies are valuated for different purposes by a diverse set of actors, quantification in any study that does not represent the context and purpose of its generation can disguise as much as it can enlighten. Therefore, we propose what a study should look like that is problem-solving, concrete and yet provides transferable results for other studies.
AB - This article discusses the comparability of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) and the central role of the application purpose in a study review. According to ISO 14040, an LCA study design emerges in continuous reference to the “intended application”. Goal and scope, case-specific assumptions, as well as methodological freedoms, should be justified by their significance for the specific application purpose, e.g. for process optimization or for advice on a political issue. In contrast, our systematic review of 58 LCA studies shows that LCAs hardly name applications, and more generally, applications are difficult to reconstruct. This lack of transparency makes the LCA methodology attackable through meta-studies that ignore the problem-oriented and case-specific approach. Since these studies are valuated for different purposes by a diverse set of actors, quantification in any study that does not represent the context and purpose of its generation can disguise as much as it can enlighten. Therefore, we propose what a study should look like that is problem-solving, concrete and yet provides transferable results for other studies.
KW - Application
KW - Biofuels
KW - Comparability
KW - Life cycle assessment
KW - Systems theory
KW - Technology assessment
KW - Management studies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091588486&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/8c88bfdb-040a-31ff-bce9-3fb0c282dfec/
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-50519-6_15
DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-50519-6_15
M3 - Contributions to collected editions/anthologies
AN - SCOPUS:85091588486
SN - 978-3-030-50518-9
SN - 978-3-030-50521-9
T3 - Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management
SP - 213
EP - 225
BT - Progress in Life Cycle Assessment 2019
A2 - Albrecht, Stefan
A2 - Fischer, Matthias
A2 - Leistner, Philip
A2 - Schebek, Liselotte
PB - Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland
CY - Cham
ER -