53
ing, while research in these dimensions is often developed as specifi c approaches
rather than topics under the umbrella of LCSA.
5 Main Challenges Identifi ed in LCSA Studies So Far
The references in Table 3.1 were then analysed on the challenges faced. In Annex 1 ,
these challenges are summarised for the different (groups of) references. Scanning
through these references and generalising the challenges identifi ed results in the
following interpretation of the main challenges:
• The need for data and methods, particularly the lack of (proper and quantitative)
SLCA indicators (Klöpffer 2008 ; Finkbeiner et al. 2010 ; Traverso et al. 2012a ;
Hu et al. 2013 ; Ostermeyer et al. 2013 ; Kucukvar and Tatari 2013 ; Vinyes et al.
2013 ; Zamagni et al. 2013 ).
• The need for practical (case study) examples (how to put LCSA in practice?)
(Cinelli et al. 2013 ; Giesen et al.. 2013 ; Hu et al. 2013 ; Zamagni et al. 2013 ).
• How to communicate LCSA results (Finkbeiner et al. 2010 ; Traverso et al.
2012a , b ; Bachmann 2013 ; Pesonen and Horn 2013 )?
• The need for comprehensive methods dealing with all relevant uncertainties
related to life cycle-based approaches (Zamagni 2012 ; Pesonen and Horn 2013 ;
Kucukvar and Tatari 2013 and Kucukvar et al. 2014a , b ).
• How to deal with technological, economic and political mechanisms at different
levels of analysis (Cinelli et al. 2013 ; Sala et al. 2013a , b ; Zamagni 2012 ;
Zamagni et al. 2013 )?
• The need for more dynamic models (Ostermeyer et al. 2013 ; Onat et al. 2014 ).
• How to deal with value choices and subjectivity in, particularly, the weighting
step (Stamford and Azapagic 2012 ; Traverso et al. 2012b ; Bachmann 2013 ;
Manzardo et al. 2012 ; Sala et al. 2013a , b ; Vinyes et al. 2013 )?
• The need for further development of life cycle-based scenario evaluations
(Zamagni 2012 ; Heijungs et al. 2014 ).
• How to deal with benefi ts (benefi cial impacts), particularly in SLCA (Bachmann
2013 )?
• How to avoid double counting (inconsistent application) between LCA, LCC and
SLCA (Zamagni 2012 ; Bachmann 2013 )?
• How to deal with different perspectives (producer, customer, societal) on costs in
LCC (Finkbeiner et al. 2010 )?
• How to (practically) relate (disciplinary) models to different types of life cycle
sustainability questions (Guinée et al. 2011 ; Zamagni et al. 2013 ; Stefanova et al.
2014 )?
From this list of challenges, those most frequently cited concern the ‘broadening
of impacts’ dimension in general, the need for more practical examples of LCSA,
effi cient ways of communicating LCSA results and the need for more data and
methods particularly for SLCA indicators and comprehensive uncertainty assess3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?
ing, while research in these dimensions is often developed as specifi c approaches
rather than topics under the umbrella of LCSA.
5 Main Challenges Identifi ed in LCSA Studies So Far
The references in Table 3.1 were then analysed on the challenges faced. In Annex 1 ,
these challenges are summarised for the different (groups of) references. Scanning
through these references and generalising the challenges identifi ed results in the
following interpretation of the main challenges:
• The need for data and methods, particularly the lack of (proper and quantitative)
SLCA indicators (Klöpffer 2008 ; Finkbeiner et al. 2010 ; Traverso et al. 2012a ;
Hu et al. 2013 ; Ostermeyer et al. 2013 ; Kucukvar and Tatari 2013 ; Vinyes et al.
2013 ; Zamagni et al. 2013 ).
• The need for practical (case study) examples (how to put LCSA in practice?)
(Cinelli et al. 2013 ; Giesen et al.. 2013 ; Hu et al. 2013 ; Zamagni et al. 2013 ).
• How to communicate LCSA results (Finkbeiner et al. 2010 ; Traverso et al.
2012a , b ; Bachmann 2013 ; Pesonen and Horn 2013 )?
• The need for comprehensive methods dealing with all relevant uncertainties
related to life cycle-based approaches (Zamagni 2012 ; Pesonen and Horn 2013 ;
Kucukvar and Tatari 2013 and Kucukvar et al. 2014a , b ).
• How to deal with technological, economic and political mechanisms at different
levels of analysis (Cinelli et al. 2013 ; Sala et al. 2013a , b ; Zamagni 2012 ;
Zamagni et al. 2013 )?
• The need for more dynamic models (Ostermeyer et al. 2013 ; Onat et al. 2014 ).
• How to deal with value choices and subjectivity in, particularly, the weighting
step (Stamford and Azapagic 2012 ; Traverso et al. 2012b ; Bachmann 2013 ;
Manzardo et al. 2012 ; Sala et al. 2013a , b ; Vinyes et al. 2013 )?
• The need for further development of life cycle-based scenario evaluations
(Zamagni 2012 ; Heijungs et al. 2014 ).
• How to deal with benefi ts (benefi cial impacts), particularly in SLCA (Bachmann
2013 )?
• How to avoid double counting (inconsistent application) between LCA, LCC and
SLCA (Zamagni 2012 ; Bachmann 2013 )?
• How to deal with different perspectives (producer, customer, societal) on costs in
LCC (Finkbeiner et al. 2010 )?
• How to (practically) relate (disciplinary) models to different types of life cycle
sustainability questions (Guinée et al. 2011 ; Zamagni et al. 2013 ; Stefanova et al.
2014 )?
From this list of challenges, those most frequently cited concern the ‘broadening
of impacts’ dimension in general, the need for more practical examples of LCSA,
effi cient ways of communicating LCSA results and the need for more data and
methods particularly for SLCA indicators and comprehensive uncertainty assess3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?