55
both unevenly and inconsistently incorporated into LCA-based studies’. The results
of this reviews show that, while incorporating the rebound effect into LCA studies
is recognised as a very important topic and has received some attention, there is still
no generally applicable and/or comprehensive method for dealing with rebound in
a life cycle perspective. A similar conclusion is valid with respect to the challenge
of incorporating comprehensive though practical uncertainty assessments into LCA
(see, e.g. Gregory et al. 2013 ; Harst and Potting, 2013 ; Henriksson et al. 2014 ,
2015 ; Mendoza et al. 2014 ).
Finally, the bibliographic analysis showed that there are an increasing number of
LCSA studies (e.g. Giesen et al. 2013 ; Hu et al. 2013 ; Manzardo et al. 2012 ;
Stefanova et al. 2014 ; Heijungs et al. 2014 ) dealing with scenarios.
4 The studies
explore possible confi gurations of emerging new technologies, product systems or
consumption baskets, comparing their potential impacts to alternative technologies,
product systems and consumption baskets. Such studies are very relevant, particularly if performed ex ante or parallel to the technology development trajectory, as in
that way LCSA is able to advise the technology developer whether developments
are on the ‘right’ track while identifying hot spots for improvement. Considering
this increase and the relevance of scenarios for evaluating possible more sustainable
futures, we might even consider changing the meaning of the abbreviation LCSA
from life cycle sustainability assessment to life cycle-based scenario assessment.
The results from our brief questionnaire among the ISIE-LCSA membership
largely support the challenges discussed above while particularly adding challenges
as communication with and involvement of stakeholders in the LCSA process, education and standardisation of LCSA methods.
6 Conclusions
Adopting the Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) defi nition of LCSA while not underestimating
other challenges, we see the following challenges as crucial to address fi rst (one
challenge for each dimension of LCSA):
1. Broadening of impacts : proper, preferably quantitative and practical indicators
for SLCA.
2. Broadening the level of analysis : develop, implement and apply life cycle-based
approaches to evaluate scenarios for sustainable futures.
3. Deepening : develop and implement ways to deal with uncertainties and rebound
effects as comprehensively and practically as possible.
The challenge to develop proper, preferably quantitative and practical, indicators
for SLCA has been present ever since SLCA was proposed as a possible approach.
4 See also Spielmann et al. ( 2005 ), Hertwich et al. ( 2014 ) and Koning et al. ( 2015 ) that report on
scenario-based life cycle modelling but not as part of an LCSA framework. See also Chap. 2 of this
book.
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?
both unevenly and inconsistently incorporated into LCA-based studies’. The results
of this reviews show that, while incorporating the rebound effect into LCA studies
is recognised as a very important topic and has received some attention, there is still
no generally applicable and/or comprehensive method for dealing with rebound in
a life cycle perspective. A similar conclusion is valid with respect to the challenge
of incorporating comprehensive though practical uncertainty assessments into LCA
(see, e.g. Gregory et al. 2013 ; Harst and Potting, 2013 ; Henriksson et al. 2014 ,
2015 ; Mendoza et al. 2014 ).
Finally, the bibliographic analysis showed that there are an increasing number of
LCSA studies (e.g. Giesen et al. 2013 ; Hu et al. 2013 ; Manzardo et al. 2012 ;
Stefanova et al. 2014 ; Heijungs et al. 2014 ) dealing with scenarios.
4 The studies
explore possible confi gurations of emerging new technologies, product systems or
consumption baskets, comparing their potential impacts to alternative technologies,
product systems and consumption baskets. Such studies are very relevant, particularly if performed ex ante or parallel to the technology development trajectory, as in
that way LCSA is able to advise the technology developer whether developments
are on the ‘right’ track while identifying hot spots for improvement. Considering
this increase and the relevance of scenarios for evaluating possible more sustainable
futures, we might even consider changing the meaning of the abbreviation LCSA
from life cycle sustainability assessment to life cycle-based scenario assessment.
The results from our brief questionnaire among the ISIE-LCSA membership
largely support the challenges discussed above while particularly adding challenges
as communication with and involvement of stakeholders in the LCSA process, education and standardisation of LCSA methods.
6 Conclusions
Adopting the Guinée et al. ( 2011 ) defi nition of LCSA while not underestimating
other challenges, we see the following challenges as crucial to address fi rst (one
challenge for each dimension of LCSA):
1. Broadening of impacts : proper, preferably quantitative and practical indicators
for SLCA.
2. Broadening the level of analysis : develop, implement and apply life cycle-based
approaches to evaluate scenarios for sustainable futures.
3. Deepening : develop and implement ways to deal with uncertainties and rebound
effects as comprehensively and practically as possible.
The challenge to develop proper, preferably quantitative and practical, indicators
for SLCA has been present ever since SLCA was proposed as a possible approach.
4 See also Spielmann et al. ( 2005 ), Hertwich et al. ( 2014 ) and Koning et al. ( 2015 ) that report on
scenario-based life cycle modelling but not as part of an LCSA framework. See also Chap. 2 of this
book.
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?