57
erably also with proper ways of handling rebound effects. This is particularly
important since the results of our tools are increasingly supporting public policies
and performance-based regulations. However, most of our studies still present their
results as point values, suggesting that life cycle tools produce black and white
results with no uncertainties while all experienced practitioners of these tools know
better than this. Thus, in order to maintain and increase the credibility of our life
cycle decision-support tools, we need to develop, as a matter of priority, approaches
to properly and transparently deal with uncertainties associated with data, models,
choices and assumptions of all life cycle-based methods (LCA, LCC, SLCA, IOA,
hybrid LCA, etc.). Several methods have been proposed for this (see above), but the
main remaining challenge is to harmonise them to be comprehensive (e.g. covering
all types of uncertainty for all phases of LCA in a common approach, covering all
types of rebound effects for complete life cycles in a common approach) and implement them (through, e.g. data and software tools) in the daily practice of practitioners. Similar reasoning is valid for rebound effects.
Finally, as mentioned above, one of the sub-challenges is to make sensible and
proper use of the different modes of LCA and LCSA available. For LCA and LCSA,
we currently have at least the following modes of analysis at our disposal: attributional (ALCA/ALCSA), backcasting (BLCA/BLCSA), consequential (CLCA/
CLCSA), decision or dynamic (DLCA/DLCSA), exergy (ELCA/ELCSA) and
potentially resulting in A–Z LCA/LCSA. We should thus pay due attention to relating sustainability questions to the most appropriate tools of our industrial ecology
toolbox. The alternative is to throw the dic
e.
Acknowledgements We thank Göran Finnveden, Sheetal Gavankar, Wenjie Liao, Aleksandar
Lozanovski, Sergio Pacca, Stefania Pizzirani, Richard Plevin, Anne Ventura and Bo Weidema for
providing their views on their preferred defi nition of life cycle sustainability assessment and their
top three of scientifi c and/or practical challenges for LCSA. Furthermore, we are grateful for the
inputs that Roland Clift provided on previous versions of this manuscript.
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?
erably also with proper ways of handling rebound effects. This is particularly
important since the results of our tools are increasingly supporting public policies
and performance-based regulations. However, most of our studies still present their
results as point values, suggesting that life cycle tools produce black and white
results with no uncertainties while all experienced practitioners of these tools know
better than this. Thus, in order to maintain and increase the credibility of our life
cycle decision-support tools, we need to develop, as a matter of priority, approaches
to properly and transparently deal with uncertainties associated with data, models,
choices and assumptions of all life cycle-based methods (LCA, LCC, SLCA, IOA,
hybrid LCA, etc.). Several methods have been proposed for this (see above), but the
main remaining challenge is to harmonise them to be comprehensive (e.g. covering
all types of uncertainty for all phases of LCA in a common approach, covering all
types of rebound effects for complete life cycles in a common approach) and implement them (through, e.g. data and software tools) in the daily practice of practitioners. Similar reasoning is valid for rebound effects.
Finally, as mentioned above, one of the sub-challenges is to make sensible and
proper use of the different modes of LCA and LCSA available. For LCA and LCSA,
we currently have at least the following modes of analysis at our disposal: attributional (ALCA/ALCSA), backcasting (BLCA/BLCSA), consequential (CLCA/
CLCSA), decision or dynamic (DLCA/DLCSA), exergy (ELCA/ELCSA) and
potentially resulting in A–Z LCA/LCSA. We should thus pay due attention to relating sustainability questions to the most appropriate tools of our industrial ecology
toolbox. The alternative is to throw the dic
e.
Acknowledgements We thank Göran Finnveden, Sheetal Gavankar, Wenjie Liao, Aleksandar
Lozanovski, Sergio Pacca, Stefania Pizzirani, Richard Plevin, Anne Ventura and Bo Weidema for
providing their views on their preferred defi nition of life cycle sustainability assessment and their
top three of scientifi c and/or practical challenges for LCSA. Furthermore, we are grateful for the
inputs that Roland Clift provided on previous versions of this manuscript.
3 Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: What Is It and What Are Its Challenges?