Part 3 : Scientific background Barrett K. & E. Berge (eds.), 1996. Transboundary Air Pollution in Europe. Research Report No.32, EMEP/MSC-W, Report 1/96, Oslo. Baumann, H., 1992. LCA: Utvärdering med index. Beräkning av tva uppsättningar norska index. CIT-ekologik 1992:2. Chalmers, Gothenburg. Beck, A. & St. Bosshart, 1995. Umweltanalyseinstrumente im Vergleich. Diplomarbeit am Laboratorium für Energiesysteme, ETH Zürich. Beetstra, F., 1998. Het ECOLEMMA model, ECOLogische Eenheden Milieu-Monetair gewoogen voor Aantasting van ecosystemen en landschappen; een operationalisatie in een LCA kader. PhD Thesis. Technische Universiteit, Eindhoven. Berg, N.W. van den, G. Huppes, E.W. Lindeijer, B.L. van der Ven & M.N. Wrisberg, 1999. Operational quality assessment in LCA: a semi-quantitative method. CML Report 152, Leiden (see: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/publssp frame.html) Beukering, F. van, F. Oosterhuis & F. Spaninks, 1998. Economic Valuation in Life Cycle Assessment


CML Report 152, Leiden (see: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/publssp frame.html) Beukering, F. van, F. Oosterhuis & F. Spaninks, 1998. Economic Valuation in Life Cycle Assessment. Working Paper W98/02 of the Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University, Amsterdam. Bez, J., M. Heyde & G. Goldhan, 1998. Waste treatment in product specific life cycle inventories: an approach of material-related modeling. Part II: Sanitary landfill. Int. J. LCA 3 (2): 100–105. Bierman, H., T.R. Dyckman and R.W. Hilton, 1990. Cost accounting. Concepts and managerial applications. PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston. Blau, S. & S. Seneviratne, 1995. Acidification and Eutrophication in Life Cycle Assessments. Student thesis. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Zürich. Blonk, T.J. & E.W. Lindeijer, 1995. Naar een methodiek voor het kwantificeren van aantasting in LCA

Guinée et al., Handbook on LCA: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards (2002)


Student thesis. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Zürich. Blonk, T.J. & E.W. Lindeijer, 1995. Naar een methodiek voor het kwantificeren van aantasting in LCA. Vooronderzoek in het kader van de LCA-methodiekontwikkeling met betrekking tot de operationalisatie van aantasting van ecosystemen en landschap. DWW. Delft. Blonk, T.J. & H. van Ewijk, 1996. Verkennende LCA nautische baggerspecie. IVAM-ER, Amsterdam. Blonk, T.J., M. Lafleur, R. Spriensma, S. Stevens, M. Goedkoop, A. Agterberg, B. van Engelenburg & K. Blok 1997b. Drie referentieniveaus voor normalisatie in LCA: Nederlands grondgebied 1993/1994; Nederlandse eindconsumptie 1993/1994; West-Europees grondgebied begin jaren 1990. RIZA-werkdocument 97.110x, Lelystad. Blonk, T.J., M.D. Davidson & M.C.C. Lafleur, 1997a. Working document: Feasibility of operationalisation of depletion of abiotic resources in LCA via the key resources energy and land. IVAM Environmental Research, Amsterdam. Boguski T.K., R. G. Hunt, J.M. Chokalis W.E


IVAM Environmental Research, Amsterdam. Boguski T.K., R. G. Hunt, J.M. Chokalis W.E. Franklin, 1996. LCA Methodology. In: Curran, 1996. Bouman, M., R. Heijungs, E. van der Voet, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh & G. Huppes, 2000. Material flows and economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA and partial equilibrium models. Ecol. Econ. 32 (2): 195–216. Braakhuis, F.L.M., M. Gijtenbeek & W.A. Hafkamp, 1995. Milieumanagement: van kosten naar baten. Samson H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan den Rijn. Bras-Klapwijk, R.M., 1999. Adjusting Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Use in Public Policy Discourse. Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft. Brasser, L.J., C. Huygen, P.J.H. Builtjes, A. Verbeek, J.A. Don, P.F.J. van der Most, H. Nieboer, R.M. van Aalst, K.D. van den Hout & M. Odijk, 1985. Milieu-effectrapportage 20; serie effectvoorspelling deel II Lucht. SDU, The Hague Braunschweig, A., R. Förster, P. Hofstetter, & R. Müller-Wenk, 1996. Developments in LCA Valuation


Odijk, 1985. Milieu-effectrapportage 20; serie effectvoorspelling deel II Lucht. SDU, The Hague Braunschweig, A., R. Förster, P. Hofstetter, & R. Müller-Wenk, 1996. Developments in LCA Valuation. IWÖ-Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 32. IWÖ-HSG, St. Gallen. Brezet, H., J. Cramer & T. van der Horst, 1995. Milieugerichte productontwikkeling. In: Braakhuis et al., 1995. Bruijn, J.A. de & R. van Duin, 1998. Procedurele organisatie van LCA-studies (POLCA). Technische Universiteit Delft - Technische Bestuurskunde / Bureau Brandstoffen & Grondstoffen. Delft/Emst. Bruijn, J.A. de, E.F. ten Heuvelhof & R.J. in 't Veld, 1998. Procesmanagement; Over procesontwerp en besluitvorming. Amsterdam. Burke, Th., J. Doull, T.E. McKone, D. Paustenbach, R. Scheuplein, H.A. Udo de Haes & J. Young, 1995. Human health impact assessment in life cycle assessments: analysis by an expert panel. ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington D.C. BUWAL, 1998


Udo de Haes & J. Young, 1995. Human health impact assessment in life cycle assessments: analysis by an expert panel. ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington D.C. BUWAL, 1998. Bewertung in Ökobilanzen mit der Methode der Ökologischen Knappheit. Ökofaktoren 1997. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr 297. BUWAL, Bern, Switzerland. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.


Part 3: Scientific background Carter, W.P.L., 1994. Development of ozone reactivity scales for volatile organic compounds. J. Air Waste Manage. 44 (7): 881–899. Carter, W.P.L., D. Luo & I.L. Malkina, 1997. Environmental chamber studies for development of an updated photochemical mechanism for VOC relativity assessment. Draft, final report to CARB, CRC, NREL. Los Angeles. Ceuterick, D., 1998. Proceedings of the International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Agro-Industry and Forestry (organised by VITO). December 3–4, 1998.1998/PPE/R/161, Brussels. Chemstations Inc., 1997. Chemcad User guide. Houston. Christiansen, K., A. de Beaufort-Langeveld, N. van den Berg, R. Haydock, M. ten Houten, S. Kotaji, E. Oerlemans, W.-P. Schmidt, A. Weidenhaupt & R. White, 1997. Simplifying LCA: Just a cut? Final report SETAC-Europe LCA screening and streamlining working group. SETACEurope, Brussels. Clift, R., R. Frischknecht, G. Huppes, A.-M. Tillman and B. Weidema, 1998


Simplifying LCA: Just a cut? Final report SETAC-Europe LCA screening and streamlining working group. SETACEurope, Brussels. Clift, R., R. Frischknecht, G. Huppes, A.-M. Tillman and B. Weidema, 1998. Towards a coherent approach to life cycle Inventory analysis (DRAFT). Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Surrey. Consoli, F., D. Allen, I. Boustead, N. de Oude, J. Fava, W. Franklin, B. Quay, R. Parrish, R. Perriman, D. Postlethwaite, J. Seguin & B. Vigon (eds), 1993. Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’ (Edition 1). SETAC-Europe, Brussels. Copius Peereboom, E.R., R. Kleijn, S. Lemkowitz, S. Lundie, 1998. Influence of Inventory Data Sets on Life Cycle Assessment Results: a Case Study on PVC. J. Ind. Ecol. 2 (3): 109–130. Cornelissen, R.L., 1997. Thermodynamics and sustainable development. The use of exergy analysis and the reduction of irreversibility. PhD Dissertation, Twente University, Enschede. Corten, F.G.P., B. van der Haspel, G.J


Thermodynamics and sustainable development. The use of exergy analysis and the reduction of irreversibility. PhD Dissertation, Twente University, Enschede. Corten, F.G.P., B. van der Haspel, G.J. Kreuzberg, H.J.W. Sas & G. de Wit, 1994. Weighting environmental problems for product policy. Phase 1. Delft, The Netherlands. Cowan, C.E., D. Mackay, T.C.J. Feytel, D. van de Meent, A. Di Guardo, J. Davies & N. Mackay, 1995. The multi-media fate model. A vital tool for predicting the fate of chemicals. SETAC, Pensacola. Cowell, S.J., S. Hogan & R. Clift, 1997. Positioning and applications of LCA. In: Udo de Haes H. & N. Wrisberg (eds.), 1997. Curran, M.A., 1996. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York. Dam A. van, A.G. Kloppenburg, B.L. van der Ven, S. Wiegersma, 1996. Resultaten van het VNO-DALCA project, Hoofdrapport. TNO-rapport BU3.96/002461–1/AD, TNO Apeldoorn. Derwent, R.G. & M.E. Jenkin, 1990. Hydrocarbon involvement in photochemical ozone formation in Europe


TNO-rapport BU3.96/002461–1/AD, TNO Apeldoorn. Derwent, R.G. & M.E. Jenkin, 1990. Hydrocarbon involvement in photochemical ozone formation in Europe. Report nr. AERE-R13736, AEA Environment and Energy, Harwell Laboratory, Oxfordshire. Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin & S.M. Saunders, 1996. Photochemical ozone creation potentials for a large number of reactive hydrocarbons under European conditions. Atmos. Environ. 30 (2): 181–199. Derwent, R.G., M.E. Jenkin, S.M. Saunders & M.J. Pilling, 1998. Photochemical ozone creation potentials for organic compounds in Northwest Europe calculated with a master chemical mechanism. Atmos. Environ. 32 (14–15): 2429–2441. Drunen, M.A. van, 1997. LCA’s voor beleid en management: nut, noodzaak en wensen. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) report no. Productenbeleid 1997/32. Zoetermeer. Drury, C., 1992. Management and cost accounting. Chapman and Hall, London (third edition). Duin, R. van & J.A. de Bruijn, 1998


Productenbeleid 1997/32. Zoetermeer. Drury, C., 1992. Management and cost accounting. Chapman and Hall, London (third edition). Duin, R. van & J.A. de Bruijn, 1998. POLCA; over de Procedurele Organisatie van LCA-studies – Teksten t.b.v. de nieuwe handleiding. Bureau Brandstoffen & Grondstoffen / Technische Universiteit Delft - Technische Bestuurskunde. Ernst / Delft. EC, 1995a. ExternE. Externalities of energy. Vol. 2: Methodology. European Commission, Directorate-General XII: Science, Research and Development. Brussels- Luxembourg. EC, 1995b. ExternE. Externalities of energy. Vol. 5: Nuclear. European Commission, DirectorateGeneral XII: Science, Research and Development. Brussels- Luxembourg. Eggels, P & B.L. van der Ven, 1995. Allocation model for landfill. In: Finnveden & Huppes (eds.), 1995. Ekvall, T, 1999. System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment, with Implications for Wastepaper Management. PhD dissertation. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden


Ekvall, T, 1999. System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment, with Implications for Wastepaper Management. PhD dissertation. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. Ekvall, T. & A.-M. Tillman, 1997. Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int. J. LCA 2 (3): 155–162. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.


Part 3 : Scientific background Ekvall, T., T. Rydberg, Ö. Hedenberg, B. Backlund Jacobson, T. Pajula & H. Wessman, 1997. Guidelines on life cycle Impact assessment of pulp and paper. NORDPAP DP2/55, SCAN Forskrapport 688. EPA, 1984. Estimating concern levels for concentrations of chemical substances in the environment. US-EPA, Environmental Effects Branch, Washington. Fava, J.A., F. Consoli, R. Denison, K. Dickson, T. Mohin, B. Vigon, (eds.) 1993. Conceptual framework for life-cycle impact analysis. SETAC, Pensacola. FEFCO (Groupement Ondulé, Kraft Institute), 1997. European database for corrugated board life cycle studies. Paris/Darmstadt/Stockholm. Finlayson-Pitts, B.J. & J.N. Pitts, Jr., 1993. Atmospheric chemistry of tropospheric ozone formation: Scientific and regulatory implications. J. Air Waste Manage. 43 (8): 1091–1100. Finnveden, G., 1996a. “Resources” and related impact categories. Part III. In: Udo de Haes, H.A. (ed.), 1996. Finnveden, G., 1996b


J. Air Waste Manage. 43 (8): 1091–1100. Finnveden, G., 1996a. “Resources” and related impact categories. Part III. In: Udo de Haes, H.A. (ed.), 1996. Finnveden, G., 1996b. Life Cycle assessment as an environment systems analysis tool – with a focus on system boundaries. Licentiate Thesis, AFR-Report 137, AFN (Swedish Waste Research Council), Swedish EPA, Stockholm. Finnveden, G., 1996c. Solid waste treatment within the framework of life cycle assessment. Metals in municipal solid waste landfills. Int. J. LCA, 1 (2): 74–78. Finnveden, G., 1997. Valuation methods within LCA – Where are the values? Int. J. LCA 2 (3): 163–169. Finnveden, G., 1998. On the possibilities of life-cycle assessment, development of methodology and review of case studies. PhD thesis. Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm. Finnveden, G., 1999a. A critical review of operational valuation/weighting methods for life cylce assessment


PhD thesis. Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, Stockholm. Finnveden, G., 1999a. A critical review of operational valuation/weighting methods for life cylce assessment. AFR-report 253, AFN (Swedish Waste Research Council), Swedish EPA, Stockholm. Finnveden, G., 1999b. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management systems. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 26 (3–4): 173–187. Finnveden, G., 2000. On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environment systems analysis tools in general. Int. J. LCA 5 (4): 229–238. Finnveden, G. & G. Huppes (eds.), 1995. Life cycle assessment and treatment of solid waste. Proceedings of the international workshop, September 28–29,1995, Stockholm. Fraunhofer-lnstitut für Lebensmitteltechnologie und Verpackung (FhG), Gesellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung & Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung, 1991. Umweltprofile von Packstoffen und Packmitteln, Methode (Entwurf). ILV, München. Freire, F., P


Umweltprofile von Packstoffen und Packmitteln, Methode (Entwurf). ILV, München. Freire, F., P. Ferrão, C. Reis & S. Thore, 2000. Life cylce activity analysis applied to the Portuguese used tire market. Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical Paper Series 2000– 01–1507, Warrendale (USA) (ISSN 0148–7191). Frischknecht R., R. Heijungs & P. Hofstetter, 1998. Einstein’s lessons for energy accounting in LCA. Int. J. LCA 3 (5): 266–272. Frischknecht R., A. Braunschweig, P. Hofstetter & P. Suter, 2000. Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assessment Rev. 20: 159– 189. Frischknecht, R., 2000. Allocation in life cycle Inventory analysis for joint production. Int. J. LCA 5 (2): 85–95. Frischknecht, R., 1997. Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. In: Udo de Haes H. & N. Wrisberg (eds.), 1997. Frischknecht, R., 1998. Life cycle Inventory analysis for decision-making


Frischknecht, R., 1997. Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. In: Udo de Haes H. & N. Wrisberg (eds.), 1997. Frischknecht, R., 1998. Life cycle Inventory analysis for decision-making. Scope-dependent inventory system models and context specific joint product allocation. Ph.D. dissertation 12599. ETH, Zürich. Frischknecht, R., P. Hofstetter, I. Knoepfel, E. Walder, R. Dones & E. Zollinger, 1993 (+ updates 1995 en 1996). Ökoinventare für Energiesysteme. Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen fur die Schweiz. 0. Auflage. Bundesamt für Energiewirtschaft, Bern. Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz, 1990. Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (ISBN 0–7923–0799–2). Geldermann, J., 1999. Entwicklung eines multikriteriellen Entsscheidungsunterstützungssystems zur integrierten Technikbewertung. Fortschr.-Ber. VDI Reihe 16 Nr. 105, VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf


Geldermann, J., 1999. Entwicklung eines multikriteriellen Entsscheidungsunterstützungssystems zur integrierten Technikbewertung. Fortschr.-Ber. VDI Reihe 16 Nr. 105, VDI Verlag, Düsseldorf. Gielen, D.J., T. Gerlagh & A.J.M. Bos, 1998. MATTER 1.0; A MARKAL Energy and Materials System; Model Characterisation. ECN, Petten. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101.


Part 3: Scientific background Goedkoop, M., 1995. The Eco-indicator 95. NOH report 9523. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort. Goedkoop, M., 1997. The Eco-indicator 97 explained. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort. Goedkoop, M., 1998. Vereenvoudigd Spold Format. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort. Goedkoop, M. & R. Spriensma, 1999. The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle Impact assessment. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort. Goldberg, E.D., 1965. Minor elements in sea water. In: Riley & Skirrow (eds.), 1995: 164–165. Gorree, M.& R. Kleijn, 1996. Screening-LCA voor de verwijdering van baggerspecie (Screening LCA. Leiden: Centrum voor Milieukunde, 64 pp. 1996. Bijlage Leiden: Centrum voor Milieukunde, 91 pp, 1996 Graedel, T.E., B.R. Allenby & P.R. Comrie, 1995. Matrix Approaches to Abridged Life Cycle Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29 (3): A134-A139. Guinée, J. & R. Heijungs, 1995. A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product Life-Cycle Assessment


Environ. Sci. Technol. 29 (3): A134-A139. Guinée, J. & R. Heijungs, 1995. A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product Life-Cycle Assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14 (5): 917–925. Guinée, J.B., 1993. Data for the Normalization step within Life Cycle Assessment of Products. CML paper no. 14 (first version, September 1993; revised version, December 1993). CML, Leiden University, Leiden. Guinée, J.B., 1995. Development of a methodology for the environmental life-cycle assessment of products; with a case study on margarines. Thesis, Leiden University. Guinée, J.B., R. Heijungs, L. van Oers, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, D. van de Meent, T. Vermeire & M. Rikken, 1996. USES, Uniform System for the Evaluation of Substances. Inclusion of fate in LCA characterisation of toxic releases applying USES 1.0. Generic modeling of fate, exposure and effect for ecosystems and human beings with data for about 100 chemicals. Int. J. LCA 1 (3): 133–138. Haas, M., 1997


Generic modeling of fate, exposure and effect for ecosystems and human beings with data for about 100 chemicals. Int. J. LCA 1 (3): 133–138. Haas, M., 1997. TWIN-model. Milieu classificatie-model bouw. PhD. Thesis. Technische Universiteit, Eindhoven. Hahn, J. & H. Will, 1995. Consideration of trophospheric ozone formation in Life Cycle Impact assessment (LCIA) through Maximum Incremental Reactivities (MIR). Discussion paper prepared for the SET AC WG-LCIA meeting in Brussels 28–30 november 1995. Harmsen, K., 1992. Long-term behavior of heavy metals in agricultural soils: a simple analytical model. In: Adriano (ed.), 1992: 217–247. Hauschild, M & H. Wenzel, 1998. Environmental Assessment of products. Volume 2: Scientific background. Chapman & Hall, London. Heijungs, R. & A. Wegener Sleeswijk, 1999. The Structure of Impact assessment: Mutually Independent Dimensions as a Function of Modifiers. Letters to the Editor: Comment and Reply. Comment. Int. J. LCA 4 (1): 2–3. Heijungs, R. & J.B


The Structure of Impact assessment: Mutually Independent Dimensions as a Function of Modifiers. Letters to the Editor: Comment and Reply. Comment. Int. J. LCA 4 (1): 2–3. Heijungs, R. & J.B. Guinée, 1995. On the usefulness of life cycle assessment of packaging. Environ. Manage. 19 (5): 665–668. Heijungs, R. & R. Frischknecht, 1998. A special view on the nature of the allocation problem. Int. J. LCA 3 (5): 321–332. Heijungs, R., 1994. A generic method for the identification of options for cleaner products. Ecol. Econ. 10 (1): 69–81. Heijungs, R., 1994a. Valuation: a societal approach. In: Udo de Haes et al.(eds.), 1994:107–113. Heijungs, R., 1994b. Life cycle Impact assessment, a brief survey with some ideas on radiation. Paper presented at the Technical committee meeting on Development and use of environmental impact indicators for comparative risk assessment of different energy sources, IAEA headquarters, Vienna 3–6 May, 1994. Heijungs, R., 1996


Heijungs, R., 1996. Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. J. Cleaner Prod. 4 (3–4): 159–166. Heijungs, R., 1997a. Economic drama and the environmental stage. Formal derivation of algorithmic tools for environmental decision-support from a unified epistemological principle. Ph.D.-thesis Rijksuniversiteit Leiden. Heijungs, R., 1997b. Normalization of impact scores in LCA: what, why and how? In: Anonymous, 1997a. Heijungs, R., 1998a. Towards eco-efficiency with LCA’s prevention principle. An epistemological foundation of LCA using axioms. In: Klostermann & Tukker (eds.), 1998: 175–185. Heijungs, R., 1998b. Physical production functions. In: Anonymous, 1998a. Heijungs, R. & M.A.J. Huijbregts, 1999. Threshold-based life cylce impact assessment and marginal change: incompatible? CML-SSP Working Paper 99.002, Leiden. Heijungs, R., J. Guinée & G. Huppes, 1997. Impact categories for natural resources and land use


Heijungs, R., J. Guinée & G. Huppes, 1997. Impact categories for natural resources and land use. CML-report 138. CML, Leiden University, Leiden. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129.


Part 3 : Scientific background Heijungs, R., J. Guinée, G. Huppes, R.M. Lankreijer, H.A. Udo de Haes, A. Wegener Sleeswijk, A.M.M. Ansems, P.G. Eggels, R. van Duin & HP. de Goede, 1992. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of products. Guide and Backgrounds. CML, Leiden University, Leiden. Hendrickson C., A. Horvath, S. Joshi, L.Lave, 1998. Economic Input-Output Models for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology. April 1, pp. 184– 191. Hertwich, E.G., 1999. Toxic Equivalency: Addressing Human Health effects in life cycle Impact assessment. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Hertwich, E.G. & W.S. Pease, 1998. ISO 14042 restricts use and development of Impact assessment. Letters to the editor. Int. J. LCA 3 (4): 180–181. Hertwich, E.G., McKone, T.E., Pease, W.S., 1999. Parameter uncertainty and variability in evaluative fate and exposure models. Risk Anal. 19 (6): 1193–1204. Hertwich, E.G., Pease, W.S., McKone, T.E., 1998


Parameter uncertainty and variability in evaluative fate and exposure models. Risk Anal. 19 (6): 1193–1204. Hertwich, E.G., Pease, W.S., McKone, T.E., 1998. Evaluating toxic Impact assessment methods: what works best? Environ. Sci. Technol. 32 (5): A138-A144. Hoffmann, L. & H. K. Stranddorf, 1999. Estimate for an average world citizen contribution. Paper for the joint workshop of the Dutch and Danish methodology projects, Leiden 16–17 September 1999 (http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/lca2/index.html). Hofstetter, P., 1998. Perspectives in life cycle Impact assessment. A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Ph.D. Thesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Hogan, L., R. Beal & R. Hunt, 1996. Threshold inventory Interpretation methodology: a case study of three juice container systems. Int. J. LCA 1 (3): 159–167. Holmberg, J., U. Lundqvist, K.-H. Robèrt, K.-H. & M. Wackernagel, 1999


Threshold inventory Interpretation methodology: a case study of three juice container systems. Int. J. LCA 1 (3): 159–167. Holmberg, J., U. Lundqvist, K.-H. Robèrt, K.-H. & M. Wackernagel, 1999. The ecological footprint from a systems perspective of sustainability. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 6 (1): 17–33. Horngren, C.T. and G. Foster, 1991. Cost accounting, a managerial emphasis. Prentice Hall International, New York (seventh edition). Houghton, J.T., G.J. Jenkins & J.J. Ephraums (eds.), 1991. Climate change. The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander & S.K. Varney (eds), 1992. Climate change 1992. The supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, J. Bruce, H. Lee, B.A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris & K. Maskell (eds), 1994. Climate change 1994


Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, J. Bruce, H. Lee, B.A. Callander, E. Haites, N. Harris & K. Maskell (eds), 1994. Climate change 1994. Radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg & K. Maskell, 1996. Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hout, K.D. van den, Bakker, D.J., Berdowski, J.J.M., Van Jaarsveld, J.A., Reinds, G.J., Bril, J., Breeuwsma, A., Groenenberg, J.E., De Vries, W., Van Pagee, J.A., Villars, M., Sliggers, C.J., 1999. The Impact of Atmospheric Deposition of Non-Acidifying Substances on the Quality of European Forest Soils and the North Sea. Water Air Soil Poll. 109 (1–4): 357–396. Huijbregts M.A.J., 1998a


The Impact of Atmospheric Deposition of Non-Acidifying Substances on the Quality of European Forest Soils and the North Sea. Water Air Soil Poll. 109 (1–4): 357–396. Huijbregts M.A.J., 1998a. A General Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment – Part I: A general Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. LCA. 3 (5): 273–280. Huijbregts M.A.J., 1998b. A General Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment – Part II: Dealing with Parameter Uncertainty and Uncertainty due to Choices in Life Cycle Assessment. Int. J. LCA. 3 (6): 343–351. Huijbregts, M.A.J., 1999a. Priority assessment of toxic substances in LCA. Development and application of the multi-media fate, exposure and effect model USES-LCA. IVAM environmental research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Huijbregts, M., 1999b. Life cycle Impact assessment of acidifying and eutrophying air pollutants


IVAM environmental research, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Huijbregts, M., 1999b. Life cycle Impact assessment of acidifying and eutrophying air pollutants. Calculation of equivalency factors with RAINS-LCA. Interfaculty Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Science, University of Amsterdam. Huijbregts, M.A.J. & Y. Seppälä, 2000. Towards region-specific European fate factors for airborne nitrogen compounds causing aquatic eutrophication. Int. J. LCA 5 (2): 65–67. Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2000. Priority Assessment of Toxic Substances in the frame of LCA. Time horizon dependency of toxicity potentials calculated with the multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. (http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/lca2/). 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151.


Part 3: Scientific background Huijbregts, M.A.J., U. Thissen, J.B. Guinée, T. Jager, D. Van de Meent, A.M.J. Ragas, A. Wegener Sleeswijk & L. Reijnders, 2000a. Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment, I: Calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 41 (4): 541–573. Huijbregts, M.A.J., U. Thissen, T. Jager, D. Van de Meent & A.M.J. Ragas, 2000b. Priority assessment of toxic substances in LCA. II: Assessing parameter uncertainty and human variability in the calculation of toxicity potentials. Chemosphere 41 (4): 575–588. Huijbregts, M.A.J., A. de Koning, L. van Oers, G. Huppes & S. Suh, in prep. Normalisation data for the Netherlands (1997), West-Europe, (1995) and the World (1990). CML, Leiden. Huppes, G., 1993. Macro-environmental policy: principles and design. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Huppes, G. & F. Schneider, 1994. Allocation in LCA


CML, Leiden. Huppes, G., 1993. Macro-environmental policy: principles and design. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Huppes, G. & F. Schneider, 1994. Allocation in LCA. Proceedings of the European Workshop, 24–25 February 1994, Leiden. SETAC-Europe, Brussels. Huppes, G., H. Sas, E. de Haan & J. Kuyper, 1997. Efficiënte milieuinvesteringen. Milieu 3, pp. 126–133. ICRP, 1979. Limits for intakes of radionuclides by workers. ICRP -Publication 30, Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 2, part 1–3, Pergamon Press, Oxford. ICRP, 1990. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP-Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP, Vol. 21, No 1–3, Pergamon Press, Oxford. ICRP, 1991. Annual limits on intake of radionuclides by workers based on the 1990 recommendations. ICRP-Publication 61, Pergamon Press, Oxford INTRON, 1997. Concept van een Handleiding voor het genereren van milieurelevante productinformatie door producenten, Fase 1 van de Werkgroep Data/Format. Intron rapport nr


Concept van een Handleiding voor het genereren van milieurelevante productinformatie door producenten, Fase 1 van de Werkgroep Data/Format. Intron rapport nr. 97133A, INTRON, Sittard. ISO International Standard 14040, 1997E. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. ISO International Standard 14041, 1998E. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Goal and scope definition and Inventory analysis. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. ISO International Standard 14042, 2000E. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle Impact assessment. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. ISO International Standard 14043, 2000E. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle Interpretation. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. ISO Technical Specification 14047, in prep


Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle Interpretation. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. ISO Technical Specification 14047, in prep. Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14042 - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle Impact assessment. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. ISO Technical Report 14048, in prep. LCA data documentation format (first draft). International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. ISO Technical Report 14049, 1998. Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14041 - LCA - Goal and scope definition and Inventory analysis (draft). International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneva. IUCN/WWF/UNEP, 1991. Caring for the earth. A strategy] for sustainable living. Gland, Switzerland Jäger, J. & H.L. Ferguson (red.), 1991. Climate change: science, impacts and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jenkin, M.E. & G.D. Hayman, 1999


Gland, Switzerland Jäger, J. & H.L. Ferguson (red.), 1991. Climate change: science, impacts and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Jenkin, M.E. & G.D. Hayman, 1999. Photochemical ozone creation potentials for oxygenated volatile organic compounds: sensitivity to variations in kinetic and mechanistic parameters. Atmos. Environ. 33 (8): 1275–1293. Jolliet, O. & P. Crettaz, 1997. Critical surface-time 95. A life cycle Impact assessment methodology including fate and exposure. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of Soil and Water Management, Lausanne. Jolliet, O., 1996. Impact assessment of human and eco-toxicity in life cycle assessment. Part IV. In: Udo de Haes, H.A. (ed.), 1996. Jonker, R.J., H.W. Köster & F.H. de Jong, 1988. Milieu-effectrapportage, Effectvoorspelling 27; IX Straling. SDU/DOP, The Hague. Kalisvaart, S & J. Remmerwaal, 1994. The MET-points method: A new single figure performance indicator based on effect scores. In: Udo de Haes et al


SDU/DOP, The Hague. Kalisvaart, S & J. Remmerwaal, 1994. The MET-points method: A new single figure performance indicator based on effect scores. In: Udo de Haes et al. (eds.), 1994:143–148. Kandelaars, Patricia P.A.A.H, 1998. Material-Product Chains: Economic Models and Applications. Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam. Kim, S., T. Hwang & K.M. Lee, 1997. Allocation for cascade recycling system. Int. J. LCA 2 (4): 217–222. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177.


Part 3 : Scientific background Klepper, O. & H.A. den Hollander, 1999. A comparison of spatially explicit and box models for the fate of chemicals in water, air and soil in Europe. Ecol. Model. 116 (2–3): 183–202. Klöpffer, W., 1996. Allocation rule for open-loop recycling in life cycle assessment: a review. Int. J. LCA 1 (1): 27–31. Klostermann, J.E.M. & A. Tukker (eds.), 1998. Product Innovation and Eco-efficiency. Twentythree industry efforts to reach the factor 4. P. 175–185. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Knoepfel, I., 1995. Indicatorensystem für die ökologische bewertung des transports von energie. Dissertation, nr. 11146 ETH, Zürich. Köllner, T., 2000. Species-pool Effect Potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. J. Cleaner Prod. 8 (4): 293–311. Kooijman, J.M., 1993. Environmental assessment of packaging: sense and sensibility. Environ. Manage. 17 (5): 575–586. Kortman, J.G.M., E.W. Lindeijer, H.J.W. Sas & M. Sprengers, 1994


8 (4): 293–311. Kooijman, J.M., 1993. Environmental assessment of packaging: sense and sensibility. Environ. Manage. 17 (5): 575–586. Kortman, J.G.M., E.W. Lindeijer, H.J.W. Sas & M. Sprengers, 1994. Towards a single indicator for emissions- An exercise in aggregating environmental effects. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), publicatiereeks produktenbeleid nr. 1994/12. Zoetermeer. Kortman, J.G.M., P.G. Eggels, G. Huppes, L. van Oers, E.W. Lindeijer, B.L. van der Ven, J.B. Guinée, 1996. Inschatting milieu-effecten van de afdankfase van langcyclische produkten (Estimation of the environmental effects of the end-of-life stage of long life products). RIZA report no. 96.005, RIZA, Lelystad. Krewitt, W., A. Trukenmüller & R. Friedrich, 1999. Site Dependent LCIA Impact Indicators for Human Health from Integrated Air Quality and Exposure Modeling. Poster presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of SETAC-Europe, 25–29 May 1999, Leipzig, Germany. Krewitt, W., P


Poster presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of SETAC-Europe, 25–29 May 1999, Leipzig, Germany. Krewitt, W., P. Mayerhofer, A. Trukenmüller & R. Friedrich, 1998. Application of the Impact Pathway Analysis in the Context of LCA. The Long Way from Burden to Impact. Int. J. LCA 3 (2): 86–94. Kroon, P., J.R. Ybema, J. Slanina, & B.G. Arends, 1994. Weegfactoren voor luchtemissies. ECN R 94–006, Petten. Krozer, J. 1992. Decision model for Environmental Strategies of Corporations (DESC). TME, The Hague. Lafleche, V. & F. Sacchetto, 1999. Noise assessment in LCA: a methodology attempt - an application case with various transport means on a set trip. Ecobilan, Milano. Latour, J.B., I.G. Staritsky, J.R.M. Alkemade & J. Wiertz, 1997. De Natuurplanner, Decision support system natuur en milieu, RIVM rapportnr. 711901019, RIVM, Bilthoven. Lave L. B., E. Cobas-Flores, C.T. Hendrickson, F.C. McMichael, 1995. Using Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Economy-wide Discharges. Environ. Sci. Technol


711901019, RIVM, Bilthoven. Lave L. B., E. Cobas-Flores, C.T. Hendrickson, F.C. McMichael, 1995. Using Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Economy-wide Discharges. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29 (9): A420-A426. Lehmann, H & F. Schmidt-Bleek; 1993. Material Flows from a Systematical Point of View. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 2 (8): 413 - 418. Lindeijer, E.W., 1994. Allocating recycling for integrated chain management: taking account of quality losses. IVAM, Amsterdam. Lindeijer, E.W., 1996. Normalisation and valuation. Part VI. In: Udo de Haes (ed.), 1996. Lindeijer, E.W., 1997. Results try-out Japanese/Dutch LCA valuation questionnaire 1996. IVAM ER, University of Amsterdam. Lindeijer, E.W., 1998. Kapitaalgoederen in LCA data van bedrijven. IVAM-ER, Amsterdam Lindeijer, E.W., M. van Kampen, P.J. Fraanje, H.F. van Dobben, G.J. Nabuurs, E.P.A.G. Schouwenberg, A.H. Prins, N. Dankers & M.F. Leopold., 1998. Biodiversity and life support indicators for land use impacts in LCA


van Kampen, P.J. Fraanje, H.F. van Dobben, G.J. Nabuurs, E.P.A.G. Schouwenberg, A.H. Prins, N. Dankers & M.F. Leopold., 1998. Biodiversity and life support indicators for land use impacts in LCA. Report W-DWW–98–059. Publication series raw materials 1998/07. Ministry of transport, public works and water management, Delft. Lindeijer, E.W., 2000. Impact assessment of resources and land use. Report of the SETAC WIA–2 taskforce on resources and land. draft, October 2000. Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K., L. Hoffman, Y. Virtanen, V. Juntilla, O-J Hanssen, A. Rønning, T. Ekvall G. Finnveden, 1995a. Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nord 1995:20. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K., L. Hoffman, Y. Virtanen, V. Juntilla, A. Leskinen, O-J Hanssen, A. Rønning, T. Ekvall G. Finnveden, 1995b. LCA-NORDIC Technical reports No 1–9. TemaNord 1995:502. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Lindfors, L.G, K. Christiansen, L. Hoffman, Y. Virtanen, V


Rønning, T. Ekvall G. Finnveden, 1995b. LCA-NORDIC Technical reports No 1–9. TemaNord 1995:502. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Lindfors, L.G, K. Christiansen, L. Hoffman, Y. Virtanen, V. Juntilla, O.J. Hansen, A. Rønning , T. Ekvall & G. Finnveden, 1995c. LCA-NORDIC Technical Reports No 10. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202.


Part 3: Scientific background Lindfors, L.G., 1996. A Desk study on characterisation methods applicable in EU Ecolabeling programmes. In: Udo de Haes, H.A. et al., 1996. Lundie, S., 1999. Ökobilanziering und Entscheidungstheorie. Praxisorientierte Produktbewertung auf der Basis gesellschaftlicher Werthaltungen. Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg. Mackay, D., 1991. Multimedia environmental models. The fugacity approach. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea. Marsmann, M., S. O. Ryding, H. Udo de Haes, J. Fava, W. Owens, K. Brady, K. Sauer & R. Schenck, 1999. In Reply to Hertwich & Pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180–181, “ISO 14042 Restricts Use and Development of Impact Assessment”. Letters to the editor. Int. J. LCA (4) 2: 65. Mattson, B., C. Cederberg & L. Blix, 2000. Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA: case studies of three vegetable oil crops. J. Cleaner Production 8 (4): 283–292. Matsuno, Y., A. Inaba & M. Betz, 1998


Cederberg & L. Blix, 2000. Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA: case studies of three vegetable oil crops. J. Cleaner Production 8 (4): 283–292. Matsuno, Y., A. Inaba & M. Betz, 1998. Valuation of Electricity Grid Mixes in Japan with Application of Life-Cycle Impact-Assessment Methodology. In: Anonymous, 1998b:97–100. Matsuno, Y., T. Inaba & T. Mizuno, 1999. Development of Site- and Source-Specific Life Cycle Impact assessment Methodology for Local Impact Categories. 9th Annual Meeting of SETACEurope, 25–29 May 1999, Leipzig, Germany. Quality of Life and Environment in Cultured Landscapes. Abstracts, 233. Meent D. van de, 1993. Simplebox: a generic multimedia fate evaluation model. Report no. 672720001. RIVM, Bilthoven. Meent, D. van de, 1999. Potentieel aangetaste fractie als maatlat voor toxische druk op ecosystemen. RIVM rapport nr. 60750400, RIVM, Bilthoven. Meent, D. van de, T. Aldenberg, J.H. Canton, C.A.M. van Gestel en W.SIooff, 1990. Streven naar waarden


RIVM rapport nr. 60750400, RIVM, Bilthoven. Meent, D. van de, T. Aldenberg, J.H. Canton, C.A.M. van Gestel en W.SIooff, 1990. Streven naar waarden. Achtergrondstudie ten behoeve van de nota Milieukwaliteitsnormering water en bodem. RIVM report nr. 670101 001, Bilthoven. Meier, M.A. (ed.), F. Hirsinger, A. Schmidt, U. Dethlefsen, C. Setterwall, H. Vandenberghe, G. Wouters, P.J. McKeown, A. Windsperger, N. Gessesse, L. Grisel, 1997. Evaluation and reporting guidelines for Life-cycle assessments case-studies. Final report of the SETAC-Europe Casestudies Working-group (CSWG). Menke, D.M., G.A. Davis & B.W. Vigon, 1996. Evaluation of life-cycle assessment tools. Environment Canada, Hazardous waste branch, Ottawa. Milà i Canals, L., X. Domènech, & J. Rieradevall, 2000. Soil recovery time as a characterisation factor for impacts due to land use. Tenth Annual Meeting of SETAC-Europe, 21–25 May 2000, Brighton, United Kingdom


Domènech, & J. Rieradevall, 2000. Soil recovery time as a characterisation factor for impacts due to land use. Tenth Annual Meeting of SETAC-Europe, 21–25 May 2000, Brighton, United Kingdom. Global Environmental Issues in the Century: Problems, Causes and Solutions. Abstracts, 79. Mobbs, S.F., R.A. Klos, J.S. Martin, J.M. Laurens, K.H. Winters, J.M. Bealby, & G. Dalrymple, 1991. PACOMA: Performance assessment of the confinement of medium-active and alphabearing wastes – Assessment of disposal in a clay formation in the United Kingdom, Commission of the European Communities, EUR 13143-EN, Luxembourg. Möller, F.-J., 1992. Ökobilanzen erstellen und anwenden - Entwicklung eines Untersuchungsmodels für die Umweltverträglichkeit von Verpackungen. Ecobalance Applied Research, Umweltforschung, München. Moriguchi, Y. & Y. Kondo, 1998. Inventory analysis and Impact assessment towards Comprehensive LCA of Automobiles. In: Anonymous, 1998b:101–105. Müller-Wenk, R., 1997


Moriguchi, Y. & Y. Kondo, 1998. Inventory analysis and Impact assessment towards Comprehensive LCA of Automobiles. In: Anonymous, 1998b:101–105. Müller-Wenk, R., 1997. Safeguard subjects and damage functions as core elements of life-cycle Impact assessment. IWÖ-Diskussionsbeitrag nr. 42, Universität St Gallen. Müller-Wenk, R., 1998. Depletion of abiotic resources weighted on base of “virtual” impacts of lower grade deposits used in future. IWÖ- Diskussionsbeitrag nr. 57, St Gallen. Müller-Wenk , R., 1999. Life-Cycle Impact assessment of road transport noise. IWÖdiskussionsbeitrag nr. 77. IWÖ-HSG, St. Gallen. Murray, C.L & A. Lopez, 1996 The global burden of disease, WHO, World Bank and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. Nagata, K., Y. Fuji & M. Ishikawa, 1995. Proposing a Valuation Method based on Panel Data, Preliminary Report, Tokyo. Neeleman, B.C., 1997. Milieufacetten van beton - critical review. 53864-KET/R&B 97. KEMA, Arnhem. Nichols, P, M. Hauschild, J. Potting & P


Neeleman, B.C., 1997. Milieufacetten van beton - critical review. 53864-KET/R&B 97. KEMA, Arnhem. Nichols, P, M. Hauschild, J. Potting & P. White, 1996. Impact assessment of non-toxic pollution In life cycle assessment. Part V. In: Udo de Haes (ed.), 1996. Nielsen, P.H & M. Hauschild, 1998. Product specific emissions from municipal solid waste landfills. Part I: Landfill model. Int. J. LCA 3 (3): 158–168. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226.


Part 3 : Scientific background Nigge, K.-M., 1998. A Method for the Site-Dependent Life Cycle Impact assessment of Toxic Air Pollutants from Traffic Emission. SAE Paper 982181. Proceedings of the Total Life Cycle Conference, Graz, Austria, December 1–3,1998, pp. 149–159. Norris, G.A., 1998. Background Report on Life Cycle Impact assessment Methods for Acidification, Eutrophication, and Photochemical Oxidant Formation. Pre-workshop report. US Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. Washington. OECD, 1995. The life cycle approach: an overview of product/process analysis. Report OECD/GD/(95)118, Paris. Oorschot, G.F. van, 1999. Methode voor de beoordeling van datakwaliteit van milieukengetallen. Bouwadviseur 4: 34–36. Owens, J.W., 1996. LCA Impact assessment Categories. Technical Feasibility and Accuracy. Int. J. LCA 1 (3):151–158. Owens, J.W., 1997a. Life-Cycle Assessment. Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact assessment. J. Ind. Ecol


Technical Feasibility and Accuracy. Int. J. LCA 1 (3):151–158. Owens, J.W., 1997a. Life-Cycle Assessment. Constraints on Moving from Inventory to Impact assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 1 (1): 37–49. Owens, J.W., 1997b. Life-Cycle Assessment in Relation to Risk Assessment: An Evolving Perspective. Risk Anal. 17 (3): 359–365. PAGIS , 1988. Performance assessment of Geological Isolation Systems for Radioactive Waste (5 volumes) . Commission of the European Communities, EUR 11775-EN – 11779-EN, Luxembourg. Pedersen, B. 1991. Hvad er et bæredygtigt ressourceforbrug? Tværfagligt center, Danmarks Tekniske Højskole, Lyngby. Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Posthuma, L., Eijsackers, H.J.P., Allen, H.E., 1997. A conceptual framework for implementation of bioavailibility of metals for environmental management purposes. Ecotox. Environ. Saf 37 (2): 163–172. Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Posthuma, L., Zweers, P.G.P.C., Baerselman, R., De Groot, A.C., Van Veen, R.P.M., Jager, T., 1999


Ecotox. Environ. Saf 37 (2): 163–172. Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Posthuma, L., Zweers, P.G.P.C., Baerselman, R., De Groot, A.C., Van Veen, R.P.M., Jager, T., 1999. Prediction of metal bioavailibility in Dutch field soils for the Oligochaete Enchytraeus crypticus. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 43 (2): 170–186. Pleijel, K., H. Pleijel & G.P. Karlsson, 1999. Quantification of Additional Ozone Load from Local Source Emissions of and VOC. Poster presented at the 9th Annual Meeting of SETACEurope, 25–29 May 1999, Leipzig. Posch, M., J.P. Hettelingh, P.A.M. de Smet & R.J. Downing, 1997. Calculation and mapping of critical thresholds in Europe, status report 1997. Coordination center for effects, RIVM, Bilthoven,. Potting, J.M.B., 2000. Spatial differentiation in life cycle Impact assessment. PhD Thesis. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht. Potting, J. & K. Blok, 1994. Spatial effects of life-cycle Impact assessment. In: Udo de Haes et al. (eds.), 1994: 91–98. Potting, J. & M. Hauschild, 1997


PhD Thesis. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht. Potting, J. & K. Blok, 1994. Spatial effects of life-cycle Impact assessment. In: Udo de Haes et al. (eds.), 1994: 91–98. Potting, J. & M. Hauschild, 1997. Spatial Differentiation in Life-Cycle Assessment via the SiteDependent Characterisation of Environmental Impact from Emissions. Int J. LCA 2 (4): 209–216. Potting, J., J.P. Groot-Marcus & M.P. van Golen, 1995. Levenscyclusanalyse van drie handdroogsystemen. P-UB–95–01. Wetenschapswinkel Biologie, Utrecht. Potting, J., W. Schöpp, K. Blok & M. Hauschild, 1998. Site-dependent life-cycle Impact assessment of acidification. J. Ind. Ecol. 2 (2): 63–87. Potting, J., A. Trukenmüller, M. Hauschild, K. Blok & H. Wenzel, 1999. Site-Dependent Life Cycle Impact assessment of Human Toxicity from Air Emissions. 9th Annual Meeting of SETACEurope, 25–29 May 1999, Leipzig, Germany. Quality of Life and Environment in Cultured Landscapes. Abstracts, 87. Pujol, J.-L. & M. Boidot Forget, 1994


9th Annual Meeting of SETACEurope, 25–29 May 1999, Leipzig, Germany. Quality of Life and Environment in Cultured Landscapes. Abstracts, 87. Pujol, J.-L. & M. Boidot Forget, 1994. Reasonable Use of site-specific information in life-cycle assessment. In: Udo de Haes et al. (eds.), 1994: 99–104. Puolamaa, M., M. Kaplas, & T. Reinikainen, 1996. Index of Environmental Friendliness, A Methodological Study. Statistics Finland, Environment 1996:13, Helsinki. Ragas, A.M.J., Etienne, R.S., Willemsen, F.H., Van de Meent, D., 1999. Assessing model uncertainty for environmental decision making: a case study of the coherence of independently derived environmental quality objectives for air and water. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18 (8): 1856– 1867. Raiborn, C.A., J.T. Barfield and M.R. Kinney, 1993. Managerial accounting. West Publishing Company, Minneapolis/St Paul. Rice, G., 1996. LCA software review: a review of commercial software, with specific emphasis on European industrial applications


Managerial accounting. West Publishing Company, Minneapolis/St Paul. Rice, G., 1996. LCA software review: a review of commercial software, with specific emphasis on European industrial applications. The BOC Group, Windlesham. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250.


Part 3: Scientific background Rice, G., R. Clift & R. Burns, 1997. LCA software review: comparison of currently available European LCA software. Int. J. LCA 2 (1): 53–59. Rijpkema, L.P.M., 1996. Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Flow and Cost Expert (MSWCFACE model). TNO-MEP R96/079, Apeldoorn. Riley, J.P., 1971. The major and minor elements in sea water. In: Riley & Chester (eds.), 1971:60–104. Riley, J.P. & R. Chester (eds.), 1971. Introduction to marine chemistry. Academic Press, London. Riley, J.P. & G. Skirrow (eds.), 1995. Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 1. Academic Press, London. RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment), 1992. The environment in Europe: a global perspective. RIVM report 481505001, Bilthoven. RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and The Environment), VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), WVC (Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs), 1994


RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and The Environment), VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), WVC (Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs), 1994. Uniform System for the Evaluation of Substances (USES), version 1.0. Distribution number 11144/150, VROM, The Hague. RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment), VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), VWS (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport), 1994. Uniform System for the Evaluation of Substances (USES), version 2.0. RIVM report no. 679102044, RIVM, Bilthoven. Ron E. & C. Muirhead, 1998. The Carcinogenic Effects of Ionizing Radiation; Epidemiological Evidence. In: Anonymous, 1998c:165–180 Roos, C., 1989. Vooronderzoek financiële consequenties van een geurbelevingsnorm. MT-TNO report no. 88–230, Apeldoorn. SAEFL (Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape), 1998. Life cycle inventories for packagings: Volume I and II. SAEFL, Bern


MT-TNO report no. 88–230, Apeldoorn. SAEFL (Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape), 1998. Life cycle inventories for packagings: Volume I and II. SAEFL, Bern. Sas, H., E. van der Voet, F.G.P. Corten, R. Huele & R. Kleijn, 1997. Extraction of biotic resources: development of a methodology for incorporation in LCAs, with case studies on timber and fish. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), publicatiereeks produktenbeleid nr. 1997/3. Zoetermeer. Schaltegger, S. & A. Sturm, 1991. Methodik der ökologischen Rechnungslegung in Unternehmen. WWZ-Studien Nr.33. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Zentrum der Universität Basel, Basel. Schmidt, A & P. Brunn Rasmussen, 1999. LCA and the working environment - Danish recommendations. Paper for the joint workshop of the Dutch and Danish methodology projects, Leiden 16–17 September 1999 (http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/lca2/index.html). Schmitz, S., H.-J. Oels & A. Tiedemann, 1994


Schmitz, S., H.-J. Oels & A. Tiedemann, 1994. Eco-balance for Drink Packaging. Comparative Investigation of the Environmental Effects of the various Packaging Systems for Fresh milk and Beer. German Federal Environmental Office, III 2.5. Revised Editions, June 7. Berlin. Schneider, F., 1996. Analyse des reemplois, recyclages, valorisations de dechets par l’étude de systemes cascades. L’lnstitut National des Sciences Appliques (INSA) de Lyon, Numéro d’ordre 96 ISAL0132, Lyon. Schulze, C. & M. Matthies, 1999. Introducing Spatial and Temporal Variations in the LCIA of Household Laundry. 9th Annual Meeting of SETAC-Europe, 25–29 May 1999, Leipzig, Germany. Quality of Life and Environment in Cultured Landscapes. Abstracts, p. 86. Seijdel, R.R., 1998. Waardering van recycling in LCA’s - case study voor EPS. Projectnummer: 886.002. PRC Bouwcentrum B.V., Bodegraven. Sen, A.K., 1969. Collective choice and social welfare. Holden Day, San Francisco. SET AC, 1992. Life-Cycle Assessment


Projectnummer: 886.002. PRC Bouwcentrum B.V., Bodegraven. Sen, A.K., 1969. Collective choice and social welfare. Holden Day, San Francisco. SET AC, 1992. Life-Cycle Assessment. Workshop-report. SETAC-Europe, Brussels. SET AC, 1998. Life Cycle Assessment and conceptually related programmes - Summary. Report of SETAC-Europe Working Group. SETAC-Europe, Brussels. Siegenthaler, C., S. Linder & F. Pagliari, 1997. The LCA software guide 1997. 2. Edition. SINUM, Adliswil. Singhofen A., 1996. Introduction into a Common Format for Life-Cycle InventoryData.Status report, SPOLD, Brussels. Singhofen A., C.R. Hemming, B.P. Weidema, L. Grisel, R. Bretz, B. de Smet, D. Russell, 1996. Life Cycle Inventory Data: Development of a Common Format. Int. J. of LCA 1 (3): 171–178. Slooff, W., 1992. Ecotoxicological effect assessment: deriving maximum tolerable concentrations (MTC) from single-species toxicity data. RIVM report nr. 719102018, Bilthoven. Smith, G.M., H.S. Fearn, K.R. Smith, J.P. Davis & R


RIVM report nr. 719102018, Bilthoven. Smith, G.M., H.S. Fearn, K.R. Smith, J.P. Davis & R. Klos, 1988. Assessment of the radiological impact of disposal of solid radioactive waste at Drigg. National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB-R205, Didcot. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276.


Part 3 : Scientific background Sokal, A. & J. Bricmont, 1997. Impostures Intellectuelles. Odile Jacob, Paris. Solberg-Johansen, B., 1998. Environmental life cycle assessment of the nuclear fuel cycle. Thesis, Centre for environmental strategy, school of chemical, civil and environmental engineering, University of Surrey. Solomon, S. & D.L. Albritton, 1992. Time-dependent ozone depletion potentials for short- and long-term forecast. Nature 357: 33–37. Steen, B., 1995. Valuation of environmental impacts from depletion of metal an fossil mineral reserves and from emission of AFR-Report, AFR (Swedish Waste Research Council), Stockholm. Steen, B., 1996. EPS-Default Valuation of Environmental Impacts from Emission and Use of Resources. Version 1996. AFR Report 111. AFN, Swedish EPA, Stockholm, Sweden. Steen, B. , 1999. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000


Version 1996. AFR Report 111. AFN, Swedish EPA, Stockholm, Sweden. Steen, B. , 1999. A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000. Centre for Environmental assessment of products and material systems., Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning, Gothenburg. Steen, B. & S.-O. Ryding, S.-O., 1992. The EPS enviro-accounting method. An application of environmental accounting principles for evaluation and valuation of environmental impact in product design. IVL Report B 1080. IVL, Gothenburg. Steen B., R. Carlson, G. Löfgren, 1995. SPINE A Relation Database Structure for Life Cycle Assessments. Chalmers University of Technology; Chalmers Industriteknik; Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg. Stolwijk, S., Villars, M.T., Laane, R., Baart, A., Dick, S., Svendsen, E., Tappin, A., De Vries, A., 1998. Comparison of the performance of five different water quality models of the North Sea


Stolwijk, S., Villars, M.T., Laane, R., Baart, A., Dick, S., Svendsen, E., Tappin, A., De Vries, A., 1998. Comparison of the performance of five different water quality models of the North Sea. Environmental Modeling & Software 13, 455–460. Stumm, W. & J.J. Morgan, 1981. Aquatic chemistry – Introduction emphasizing chemical equilibria in natural water. edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Suh, S. and G. Huppes, 2000a. Gearing Input-output model into LCA-Part I: General framework for hybrid approach. CML working paper 2000.007, Leiden University, Leiden. Suh, S. and G. Huppes, 2000b. Gearing Input-output model into LCA-Part II: Compilation of environmentally extended input-output table of US. CML working paper 2000.007, Leiden University, Leiden. Sundberg, J., T. Nybrandt & Å. Sivertun, 1998. Systems Engineering models for Waste Management. Proceedings from the international workshop held in Gothenburg, Sweden 25–26 February 1998, AFR-Report 229 Part 2 (ISSN 1102–6944), Stockholm


Systems Engineering models for Waste Management. Proceedings from the international workshop held in Gothenburg, Sweden 25–26 February 1998, AFR-Report 229 Part 2 (ISSN 1102–6944), Stockholm. Tellus Institute, 1992. The Tellus packaging study. Boston. Tillman, A.-M., 1999. Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Accepted for publication in Environmental Impact assessment Review. Todd, J.A., M.A. Curran, K. Weitz, A. Sharma, B. Vigon, E. Price, G. Norris, P. Eagan, W. Owens & A. Veroutis, 1999. Streamlined Life cycle assessment: a final report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA workgroup. SETAC. Pensacola. Tol, R.S.J. , 1999. New estimates of the damage costs of climate change, Part 1: Benchmark estimates (draft). Institute for Environmental Studies (IvM), Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Tolle, D., 1997. Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA. Int. J. LCA 2 (4): 197–208. Tørsløv, J., M.Z. Hauschild & D. Rasmussen, 1999


Tolle, D., 1997. Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA. Int. J. LCA 2 (4): 197–208. Tørsløv, J., M.Z. Hauschild & D. Rasmussen, 1999. The Need and Feasibility of Inclusion of Spatial Information in Characterisation of Ecotoxicity. 9th Annual Meeting of SETAC-Europe, 25– 29 May 1999, Leipzig, Germany. Quality of Life and Environment in Cultured Landscapes. Abstracts, p. 78. Tukker, A., 1999. Frames in the toxicity controversy. Risk assessment and policy analysis related to the Dutch chlorine debate and the Swedish PVC debate. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Udo de Haes, 1996. Discussion of general principles and guidelines for practical use. In: Udo de Haes (ed.), 1996: 7–30. Udo de Haes, H.A., 1996 (ed.). Towards a Methodology for Life Cycle Impact assessment. SETAC-Europe, Brussels. Udo de Haes H. & N. Wrisberg (eds.), 1997. LCANET, European Network for Strategic LifeCycle Assessment Research and Development. LCA Documents, Eco-lnforma Press, Bayreuth, Germany


Udo de Haes H. & N. Wrisberg (eds.), 1997. LCANET, European Network for Strategic LifeCycle Assessment Research and Development. LCA Documents, Eco-lnforma Press, Bayreuth, Germany. Udo de Haes, H.A. & C.J.G. van Halen (eds.), 1997. Results of the Dutch Platform “LCA & waste”. PI!MC, The Hague. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300.


Part 3: Scientific background Udo de Haes, H.A., A.A. Jensen, W. Klöpfer & L.G. Lindfors (eds.), 1994. Integrating Impact assessment into LCA. SETAC-Europe, Brussels. Udo de Haes, H.A., R. Clift, R. Griesshammer, L. Grisel & A.A. Jensen, 1996. Practical guidelines for Life Cycle assessment for the EU ecolabeling programme. Leiden. Udo de Haes, H.A. , O. Jolliet, G. Finnveden, M. Hauschild, W. Krewitt & R. Müller-Wenk, 1999; Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle Impact assessment. Background document for the second working group on life cycle Impact assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA–2). Int. J. LCA 4 (2): 66–74 & Int. J. LCA 4 (3): 167–174. UNECE, 1990. Draft technical annex on classification of volatile organic compounds based on their photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP). United Nations Economic Commision for Europe (Economic and Social Council), Geneva. UNEP, 1996. Life Cycle Assessment: What it is and how to do it


United Nations Economic Commision for Europe (Economic and Social Council), Geneva. UNEP, 1996. Life Cycle Assessment: What it is and how to do it. United Nations Environment Programme Industry and Environment, Paris. UNEP, 1998. Environmental effects of ozone depletion, 1998 assessment. Journal of Photochemistry & Photobiology B: Biology, Vol 46. UNEP, 1999. Towards the global use of life cycle assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, Production and Consumption Unit. ISBN 92–807–1740–5. Paris. United States Department of the Interior - Bureau of Mines, 1993. Mineral commodity summaries 1993. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC. UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation), 1993. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation; UNSCEAR 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, United Nations, New York Ven, B.L. van der, 1996


Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation; UNSCEAR 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes, United Nations, New York Ven, B.L. van der, 1996. Integraal ketenbeheer op bedrijfsniveau, Hunter Douglas. NOH report 9614, Utrecht. Virtanen, Y. and S. Nilsson, 1993. Environmental impacts of waste paper recycling. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Austria & Earthscan Publications Ltd, London. Volkwein, S., R. Gihr & W. Klöpffer, 1996. The Valuation Step Within LCA. Part II: A Formalized Method of Prioritization by Expert Panels. Int. J. LCA 1 (4): 182–192. Vries, W. de & D.J. Bakker, 1998. Manual for calculating critical loads of heavy metals for terrestrial ecosystems. Guidelines for critical limits, calculation methods and input data. Report 166. DLO Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), 1989. Nationaal milieubeleidsplan, kiezen of verliezen. SDU, The Hague


Report 166. DLO Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), 1989. Nationaal milieubeleidsplan, kiezen of verliezen. SDU, The Hague. Wegener Sleeswijk, A., 2000. LCA and risk assessment: their mutual relationships in the context of fate modeling, spatial differentiation, environmental thresholds, and toxic impact assessment. Submitted for publication. Wegener Sleeswijk, A. & G. Huppes, 1994. Leerpuntenverslag van het project ’LCA fosfogips’. V&W-DGR-DWW, Delft. Wegener Sleeswijk, A., R. Kleijn, M.J.G. Meeusen-van Onna, H. Leneman, H.H.W.J.M. Sengers, H. van Zeijts, J.A.W.A. Reus, 1996. Application of LCA to Agricultural Products; 1. Core methodological issues; 2. Supplement to the LCA Guide; 3. Methodological background. Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, Leiden. Weidema, B.P. & M.S. Wesnaes, 1996. Data quality management for life cycle inventories - an example of using data quality indicators. J


Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, Leiden. Weidema, B.P. & M.S. Wesnaes, 1996. Data quality management for life cycle inventories - an example of using data quality indicators. J. Cleaner Production 4 (3–4): 167–174. Weidema, B.P., 1993. Development of a method for product life cycle assessment, with special reference to food products. Ph. D. Thesis. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark Weidema, B.P., 1994. Qualitative and quantitative parameters in product impact assessment. In: Udo de Haes et al. (eds.), 1994: 29–35. Weidema, B.P., 1998a. New developments in the methodology for life cycle assessment. In: Anonymous, 1998b:47–50. Weidema, B.P., 1998b. Multi-User Test of the Data Quality Matrix for Product Life Cycle Inventory. Int. J. LCA 3 (5): 259–265. Weidema, B.P., 2001. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 4 (3): 39–61. Weidema, B.P., N. Frees & A.-M. Nielsen, 1999


Int. J. LCA 3 (5): 259–265. Weidema, B.P., 2001. Avoiding co-product allocation in life-cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 4 (3): 39–61. Weidema, B.P., N. Frees & A.-M. Nielsen, 1999. Marginal production technologies in life cycle inventories. Int. J. LCA 4 (1): 48–56. Wenzel, H, M. Hauschild & L. Alting, 1997. Environmental Assessment of products. Volume 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, London. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325.


Part 3 : Scientific background Wenzel, H., 1998. Application dependency of LCA methodology: key variables and their mode of influencing the method. Int. J. LCA 3 (5): 281–288. Werner F., 2000. Allocation in LCA for recycling of aluminium, development and evaluation of value-based approaches applied on window frames. Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA), Duebendorf. Werner, F. & K. Richter, 2000. Economic allocation in LCA: A case study about aluminium window frames. Int. J. of LCA 5 (2): 79–83. Wilson, B. & B. Jones, 1994. The Phosphate Report. Landbank Environmental Research and Consulting, London, UK. WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1989. Scientific assessment of stratospheric ozone. Volume I; report nr. 20. WMO/UNEP, Geneva. WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1992. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1991. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report no. 25. Geneva. WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1995


Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1991. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report no. 25. Geneva. WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1995. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1994. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report no. 37. Geneva. WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), 1999. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998. Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report no. 44. Geneva. Wrisberg, M.N., H.A. Udo de Haes, U. Triebswetter, P. Eder & R. Clift, in prep. Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a systems perspective. Report of the EUConcerted Action CHAINET in the Environmental Climate Programme (EU nr. ENV4-CT97– 0477). Wuebbles, D.J., 1988. Relative effects on stratospheric ozone of halogenated methanes and ethanes of social and industrial interest. UNEP, Nairobi (Conference 19–10–1988). 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335.


Annex A: Contributors Besides the authors mentioned on the headpage of this report, a large number of people have contributed to this study and its coordination. It would be impossible to mention all those who have contributed information, at whatever level of detail. We hence limit ourselves to listing and thus acknowledging the members of the steering committee, the think tank, the supervisory committee and the international observers group. Note that referencing of names below does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use on behalf of the individuals involved. 1. Steering committee P.A. Lanser - VNC H. Muilerman - Stichting Natuur & Milieu C. Dutilh - Unilever Nederland B.V. J.L. de Ridder/S. Schalk - Consumentenbond A. Reij - V&W/RWS/DIA G. van Grootveld - DTO H. Huisman - Afval Overleg Orgaan H.L.J.M. Wijnen - VROM/DGM/ICB J.A. Suurland - VROM/DGM/ICB C. Clement - VROM/DGM/NGA G.J.H. van den Bosch/J. van Egmond - EZ/DGI&D/EDI 2. Think-tank A.C.W.M


Huisman - Afval Overleg Orgaan H.L.J.M. Wijnen - VROM/DGM/ICB J.A. Suurland - VROM/DGM/ICB C. Clement - VROM/DGM/NGA G.J.H. van den Bosch/J. van Egmond - EZ/DGI&D/EDI 2. Think-tank A.C.W.M. van den Berghe - Afval Overleg Orgaan R. Boulonois/J. Smit - Corus L. Breedveld - RIZA T. Breure - RIVM-ECO J.W. Broers - V&W/RWS/DWW E. Deliege - TAUW Milieu BV C.E. Dutilh - Unilever Research, Afd. Milieuzaken P.G. Eggels - TNO-MEP, afd. Rest- en Grondstoffen B. van der Ven - TNO-MEP, afd. Rest- en Grondstoffen A. Fluitman - DHV-AIB, afdeling M&M M. Goedkoop - Pré Ingenieursbureau C.J.G. van Halen/N.W. van den Berg - PricewaterhouseCoopers N.V. M. ten Houten - TNO Industrie, divisie P.O. E.A. Koreman - KIWA N.V. R. Kramer - CREM J. Kuyper - NAM B.V. E.W. Lindeijer - IVAM-ER H.W. van Lochem - Akzo Nobel Engineering bv M. Meeusen-van Onna - LEI-DLO H.C. Moll - IVEM E. Nieuwlaar - Universiteit Utrecht, Vakgroep NWS E. Oerlemans - DSM Research, BO-MVR G. van Oorschot - AMPO J.A.M


Meeusen-van Onna - LEI-DLO H.C. Moll - IVEM E. Nieuwlaar - Universiteit Utrecht, Vakgroep NWS E. Oerlemans - DSM Research, BO-MVR G. van Oorschot - AMPO J.A.M. Remmerswaal - TU Delft, Faculty of Industrial Design A. Schuurmans - INTRON R.R. Seijdel - PRC Bouwcentrum G. Verlind - Unidek Beheer BV L. Vollebregt - Chemiewinkel UvA C.J. Warmer - ECN H. van der Wel - Philips bv, CFT Development Support H.L.J.M. Wijnen - VROM/DGM/ICB H. van Zeijts - CLM Belangenvereniging Recycling Bouw- en Sloopafval H. Blonk - Stichting Milieukeur Part 3: Scientific background


R. van Duin - Bureau Brand & Grondstoffen A. de Groot-van Dam - TNO Building & Construction Research P.A. van den Heuvel - Vereniging van Nederlandse Houtondernemingen (VVHN) M. Haas - NIBE bv D. Hortensius - Centrum voor Normalisatie M. Huijbregts - IVAM M. Langeveld - DHV-AIB B.V. J.M.B. Potting - IPU/LCC-DTU C.P.T. Ruyter - Aluminium Centrum 3. Supervisory committee G.J.H. van den Bosch/J. van Egmond - EZ/DGI&D/EDI H.L.J.M. Wijnen - VROM/DGM/ICB 4. International observers group A. Braunschweig - ÖBU, Abt. IWÖ-HSG D. Ceuterinck - VITO R. Clift - CES T. Ekvall - Chalmers Industriteknik G. Finnveden - Environmental Strategies Research Group (fms) G. Fleischer - Technische Universität Berlin R. Frischknecht - ESU-Services L. Grisel - Ecobilan S.A. E. Hansen - COWI O.J. Hanssen - Østfold Research Foundation M. Hauschild - Technical University of Denmark E. Hertwich - Norwegian University of Science and Technology P. Hofstetter - Environmental Protection Agency A. Inaba - NIRE M


Hauschild - Technical University of Denmark E. Hertwich - Norwegian University of Science and Technology P. Hofstetter - Environmental Protection Agency A. Inaba - NIRE M. Ishikawa - Tokyo University of Fisheries O. Jolliet - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Y. Moriguchi - National Institute for Environmental Studies G.A. Norris - Sylvatica K. Saur- PE Product Engineering GmbH A. Schmidt - dk Teknik B.P. Weidema - Technical University of Denmark (today: 2.–0 LCA Consultants) P.R. White - Procter & Gamble Company, Newcastle Part 3 : Scientific background


Appendix B: Areas of application of LCA1 Aksel Roorda (TNO)2 Bernhard van der Ven (TNO) 1 This appendix is a translated and somewhat abbreviated version of a document written in 1997, prior to the start of the present project. It has been included as an appendix to this volume of the Guide because of its more detailed coverage of the actual and potential areas of application of LCA. As far as possible, the terminology of this appendix has been brought in line with that employed in the main text of the Guide. 2 Currently employed at IWACO, ’s Hertogenbosch. Part 3: Scientific background


Summary There are a variety of tools available for assessing the influence of a given ‘human activity’ on the natural environment. Which is the most appropriate depends on the particular issue being addressed, and the tools are indeed generally classified in terms of their fields of application. The focus of Life Cycle Assessment is on assessment of a specific, selected system: either a product or a set of processes (a product being conceived of as a particular embodiment of a set of processes). The defining characteristic of such a system is that it addresses a particular demand in society; it fulfils a certain function. The system gains its coherence from the economic supply chain and an LCA accounts for every stage in the life cycle of the system. Actual assessment focuses on the system’s impacts on the environment


Actual assessment focuses on the system’s impacts on the environment. The chain of cause and effect underlying these environmental impacts is complex, and the assessment parameters employed in LCA are therefore merely indicators that stand for potential impacts. Many of them are so-called ‘stressors’, i.e. indicators referring to the start of the causal chain. Consequently, LCA is eminently suitable for addressing chain-oriented issues. The LCA methodology allows the impacts occurring at each link in a given supply chain to be aggregated, down to the level of relevant ‘sub-activities’. The outcome is, of necessity, an indication of the potential environmental impact of the product in question. LCA is less appropriate as a tool for assessing the environmental impacts associated with a specific locality (a specific ecological system). For addressing this kind of issue, tools like risk analysis and environmental impact assessment are far better


For addressing this kind of issue, tools like risk analysis and environmental impact assessment are far better. Neither is LCA the preferred instrument for evaluating systems in which the temporal aspect of the intervention-impact chain cannot be ignored. A case in point is the landfilling of waste. Not only do activities extend over a certain period of time; the causal chain also varies with time. A third task for which LCA is inappropriate is assessment of systems in which the ‘function’ comprises a blend of physical and ‘affective’ aspects. New applications of LCA are to be sought in the category of complex functions, such as: multifunctional systems (including cascades); collective functions (including infrastructure); clusters of functions (including lifestyles). In existing fields of application, LCA can be used across a broader range if methodological improvements are made with regard to site-specific aspects and the duration of exposure to emitted substances


Part 3 : Scientific background – – –


1. Introduction This appendix outlines the limitations and potential of LCA as a tool for environmental analysis, its relation with other environmental tools and possible new fields of application. The text is a translated and somewhat abbreviated version of a document written in 1997, prior to the start of the present project. It has been included as an appendix to this Part of the Guide because of its more detailed coverage of the actual and potential areas of application of LCA. As far as possible, the terminology of this appendix has been brought in line with that employed in the main text of the Guide. 2


As far as possible, the terminology of this appendix has been brought in line with that employed in the main text of the Guide. 2. The environmental toolbox 2.1 Introduction There are a wide range of analytical tools available for inventorying and analysing the environmental aspects of a given object, the most common of which are: Risk Assessment (RA); Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); Technology Assessment (TA); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); Substance Flow Analysis (SFA); Environmental Management Systems (EMS). Which tool or combination of tools is to be used in a particular situation depends on the aim and scope of the study. This section provides a brief review of the individual tools, with the aim of highlighting their similarities and differences. Against this background the potential applicability of LCA is more precisely delineated


Against this background the potential applicability of LCA is more precisely delineated. The list of tools distinguished here deviates in several respects from lists in other literature sources, which are frequently longer; see for example (Beck & Bosshart, 1995; Cowell et al., 1997; UNEP, 1996; Udo de Haes & Huppes, 1994; SETAC, 1998). Most of these cases involve downstream links in the chain between ‘means’ and ‘ends’. A case in point is the environmental audit. Rather than being a primary tool, it is better to consider the environmental audit as just one element of an environmental management system employing a (varying) range of different instruments. 2.2 Review of tools RISK ASSESSMENT (RA) The term risk assessment is used for a wide variety of methods concerned with assessing the adverse effects of an activity on human safety and ecosystems. Two main types of risk assessment can be distinguished: 1


Two main types of risk assessment can be distinguished: 1. accident risk analysis: analysis of the risk of calamity and the attendant human environmental impact; 2. toxicological risk assessment: analysis of the toxicological impacts of ‘routine’ industrial operations. 1. Accident risk analysis RA is used mainly in situations where events with a low probability of occurrence are associated with major consequences, such as calamities at chemical or nuclear facilities. The analysis always focuses on the risks that a particular human activity poses to the surrounding area and is therefore always sitespecific. Traditionally, risk assessment has been concerned primarily with assessing risks to personnel and local residents, but today it is usually extended to cover ecological risks to water and land


Traditionally, risk assessment has been concerned primarily with assessing risks to personnel and local residents, but today it is usually extended to cover ecological risks to water and land. RA is often undertaken by government agencies, prompted by regulations like the European ‘post-Seveso’ directive, which obliges firms to demonstrate that the risks posed by a given activity do not exceed certain statutory limits. Part 3: Scientific background – – – – – –


2. Toxicological risk assessment This type of risk assessment is concerned with the effects of ‘routine’ industrial operations. Here, the probability element is therefore lacking in the analysis, which now focuses on the human toxicological and ecotoxicological impacts of normal, non-calamitous plant operation. This form of risk assessment can be used in site-specific as well as non-specific studies. As its name indicates, site-specific risk analysis charts the local human and ecological risks of routine industrial operations at a particular facility. is therefore often used to assess whether risks (concentrations) are below statutory limits. In addition, though, RA can also be used to delineate the causal chain and assess ultimate ecosystem impacts. This more scientifically oriented form of RA focuses more on (local) species extinction and population effects


This more scientifically oriented form of RA focuses more on (local) species extinction and population effects. Although in practice most RAs today cover only toxic aspects, it is becoming increasingly common for other aspects such as noise and desiccation to be included too. Site-specific risk assessment may be used to assess both existing and projected situations. In the latter case the RA is often prompted by statutory obligations, with the firm having to demonstrate that risks remain within set bounds. In the case of current operations, risk assessment may be performed either by the firm or by other stakeholders with a view to assessing possible harmful impacts on human or environmental health. Non-site-specific risk assessment is generally concerned with the risks posed by a particular substance or group of substances


Non-site-specific risk assessment is generally concerned with the risks posed by a particular substance or group of substances. It is not then the risks associated with a particular location that are of interest, but the consequences in a given geographical region or country of use of the substance, with all its attendant emissions. This form of RA is often used by national governments to underpin decisions on approving or rejecting new (groups of) chemicals or reducing use of substances in current circulation. SFA data are often employed in these studies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) EIA is used to analyse the environmental consequences of a specific, projected economic activity at a specific geographical location and is designed to assist the decision-making authority in approving major (public or private) projects. Based on the environmental impacts identified in the EIA, the authority can then decide whether or not to approve the project


Based on the environmental impacts identified in the EIA, the authority can then decide whether or not to approve the project. Consequently, ElAs have both a procedural and an analytical side. The procedural aspects aim to ensure that the EIA dovetails with other relevant legislation, and public participation and expert counsel are therefore also important elements of any EIA. In terms of analytical substance, an EIA is concerned not only with assessing the risks posed by a given activity, for which purpose a site-specific RA is just as suitable. Many ElAs also examine such issues as land use, waste production and raw materials and energy consumption. In addition, elements of the LCA methodology can be used to run scenario calculations in order to pronounce more reliably on the ‘environmental compatibility’ of given alternatives


In addition, elements of the LCA methodology can be used to run scenario calculations in order to pronounce more reliably on the ‘environmental compatibility’ of given alternatives. Because an EIA procedure is mandatory for certain categories of scheduled projects, ElAs are initiated by the decision-making authority for a specific site or project. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) LCA aims to inventory the environmental impacts of a given system or systems fulfilling a particular function in demand in society, which may be delivered by one or more products and/or services. The system is generally made up of a chain of interlinked sub-processes, which may be implemented in different localities at different moments in time. The connecting link between these sub-processes is the economic supply chain


The connecting link between these sub-processes is the economic supply chain. In assessing the environmental consequences of the system, LCA charts the potential rather than actual impacts, yielding a set of indicators representing the potential environmental impacts at the local, regional or global level. LCA thus allows whole systems to be studied and the associated impact routes to be assessed in an integrated manner. LCA can be used to address a wide range of issues of societal concern, not only by industry, but also by governments and consumer organisations (cf. Section 3). TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (TA) TA is usually described as a tool for assessing the consequences of introducing a new technology. It is concerned not only with environmental consequences, but also with economic, legislative, employment and other effects (UNEP, 1996). In some cases, it may also extend to ethical and juridical issues. Here, though, we restrict ourselves to environmental aspects


In some cases, it may also extend to ethical and juridical issues. Here, though, we restrict ourselves to environmental aspects. TA has no formal procedure for examining the environmental performance of a technology. The goal of the particular study will determine whether or not it is site-specific, for example. Depending on the goal, a suitable analysis method is adopted. This may be a form of LCA or a type of analysis geared more to Part 3 : Scientific background


specific activities, such as RA. In short, how TA is elaborated depends very much on the question being addressed, which in turn depends on who is initiating the TA: industry, government or academia. SUBSTANCE FLOW ANALYSIS (SFA) SFA can be likened to an accounting system for a particular substance, group of substances or materials within a defined area. That area may be the entire globe, or a restricted geographical area, such as an individual country. The aim of the analysis is to gain insight into the flows, sources and sinks of particular substances within the selected area (UNEP, 1996). SFA is concerned not only with economic flows, but also with flows within the natural environment and with relationships between the two. This instrument is not aimed primarily at establishing downstream environmental impacts, for which purpose other tools like LCA and RA can be used


This instrument is not aimed primarily at establishing downstream environmental impacts, for which purpose other tools like LCA and RA can be used. Which method is ultimately employed to chart the environmental consequences of a given substance flow depends on the objective of the SFA, the defined geographical area and the object of study (substance, group of substances or material). SFA studies are initiated mainly by government agencies. ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (EMS) EMS are used mainly to inventory and improve the environmental performance of a particular economic activity or system. Environment Management Systems are now standardised in the ISO 14000 series of standards (ISO 14040, 1997E; ISO 14041, 1998E; ISO 14042, 2000E; ISO 14043, 2000E) under which firms satisfying certain criteria can become eligible for certification. Because there are prescribed rules and procedures for EMS activities, there is greater transparency and consistency


Because there are prescribed rules and procedures for EMS activities, there is greater transparency and consistency. This is indeed one of the set requirements for improving environmental performance. The standards apply not only to firms; products and services can also be ISO-certified. Firms may initiate and implement EMS for a variety of motives: to improve their environmental ‘image’ to reduce costs by improved control of the production process to improve communications with enforcement agencies. EMS is not a one-off analysis or project but an activity that forms an integral and continual part of the firm’s operations. Its similarity with EIA consists in it having both a procedural and an analytical component. One aspect of the procedure relates to establishing in-house rules and procedures for activities impinging on the environment. The resultant environmental performance is to be monitored by analytical methods


The resultant environmental performance is to be monitored by analytical methods. Both internal and external audits are carried out to oversee firms’ compliance with their own rules and procedures. The external audits also confirm that the rules and procedures are in conformity with relevant ISO standards. These audit procedures also aim to ensure that there is continual improvement of the EMS, including the firm’s actual environmental performance. Audits are clearly one element of an EMS that can help boost environmental performance. EMS also has (procedural) steps with a warning and improvement function. In itself, EMS comprises no specific analytical tools for measuring the environmental performance of a firm or product, but makes use of the available toolbox as appropriate. 2.3 Comparison of tools While the tools differ in many respects there are many overlaps, some quite sizeable. How they relate and compare can be examined by categorising them according to relevant aspects


How they relate and compare can be examined by categorising them according to relevant aspects. The SETAC Working Group on Conceptually Related Programmes has drawn up a framework for this purpose that distinguishes between concepts (such as clean technology, design for environment and industrial ecology) and tools. Tools, for their part, rely on data (SETAC, 1998). The main features of the various analytical tools are summarised in Table B1, in a less elaborate version of the SETAC scheme, highlighting their differences and similarities. Part 3: Scientific background


Table B1: Environmental tools: principal features Tool LCA RA MER SFA TA MMS primary economic object function project, firm project, firm substance project substance technology firm/function orientation to chain entire life cycle none restricted to site restricted to defined area restricted to site, but possible restricted to defined area possible possible result analysis analysis analysis analysis procedure/ analysis analysis analysis procedure/ analysis spatial differentiation global site-specific site-specific regional site defined area site/function temporal aspects no yes yes yes yes possible possible possible used in EIA,TA, EMS EIA, TA, EMS EIA, TA, EMS TA (EMS) EMS 3. LCA fields of application: a closer look 3.1 Introduction This section looks more closely at the (potential) range of application of LCA. The topic can be approached from a variety of angles


LCA fields of application: a closer look 3.1 Introduction This section looks more closely at the (potential) range of application of LCA. The topic can be approached from a variety of angles. In the literature the most common approach is to compare methods, and the table in the previous section is a similar attempt. A perspective less frequently adopted is to describe applicability with reference to the kinds of issues actually arising in society. In tandem with an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of LCA, this kind of review may shed greater light on the contours of (potential) applicability. This is a different perspective from that adopted by (Beck & Bosshart, 1995), who distinguish the following ‘activities’: services, firm, project, technology and economy. Although these categories are termed ‘possible areas of application’, they provide little depth of analytical resolution


Although these categories are termed ‘possible areas of application’, they provide little depth of analytical resolution. 3.2 Features of LCA As a concept and an instrument, Life Cycle Assessment has been described extensively in numerous publications (cf. this Guide). On the assumption that the reader is more or less conversant with the substance thereof, this section outlines the principal features of LCA with the aim of examining the limits of this particular environmental tool. This is the question that must be answered to establish when LCA can be used and when it cannot. Our point of departure is that every tool has two characteristic aspects1: in what situations can the tool be used, and what does it measure? 1. OBJECT OF STUDY: A SYSTEM CONSISTING OF A DISCRETE SET OF COHERENT ACTIVITIES2 The object of study of LCA is a selected system, either a product or a set of processes (a product being conceived of as a particular embodiment of a set of processes)


The defining characteristic of such a system is that it addresses a particular demand in society; it fulfils a certain function. The system gains its coherence from the economic supply chain and an LCA accounts for every stage in the life cycle of the system. The LCA assessment procedure may focus on either a single system or several system alternatives. In the first case, the main problems associated with the selected system are identified. In the latter type of ‘comparative’ LCA the system of interest is ranked against the selected alternatives. The selected system or systems are modeled as a set of unit processes, described in terms of both economic and environmental inputs and outputs. The object of study is thus a model of reality rather than reality itself. The essential issue is whether the model possesses sufficient discriminating power to analyse the 1 Beck & Bosshart (1995) provide a more exhaustive list


The essential issue is whether the model possesses sufficient discriminating power to analyse the 1 Beck & Bosshart (1995) provide a more exhaustive list. 2 Our perspective is ‘object-oriented’ as opposed to ‘structurally oriented’, as described by (Heijungs,1997a). In the latter approach the tool is broken down into its constituent parts, from which the range of application then follows. Part 3 : Scientific background


consequences of intentional changes in inputs. For example, if a comparison is being made between two paint systems, differing in their performance with respect to emissions and lifetime, the model must (at least) be able to sensitive to variations in these two parameters. A distinction should be made here between system variables and stochastic variables. In the given example, system variables include paint composition, method of application and maintenance requirements, while stochastic variables might include the energy model and transport model employed in the particular LCA’ In comparative LCAs it is sufficient that the system variables be adequately discriminated in the model, assuming that the stochastic variables have the same effect on all systems (or are not amenable to control, and thus irrelevant in a decision-support context). The systems being compared must deliver the same function or functions


The systems being compared must deliver the same function or functions. If this is not explicitly the case one or more systems may have to be adjusted accordingly, in the process defining the ‘functional unit’ to be used in the LCA. A basic issue, however, is whether it is indeed always feasible to redefine systems such that they provide an ‘identical’ function or functions. In LCAs this process of adjustment is generally based on technical functions, with any differences in ‘affective’ functions being ignored1. 2. MEASURED VARIABLES: POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS LCA assesses the environmental consequences of the system(s) under study. The chain of cause and effect underlying these environmental impacts is complex, and the assessment parameters employed in LCA are therefore merely indicators that provide an indication of potential impacts. Many of them are socalled ‘stressors’, i.e. indicators referring to the start of the causal chain


Many of them are socalled ‘stressors’, i.e. indicators referring to the start of the causal chain. The notion of potential impacts has both advantages and drawbacks. The principal advantage is that LCA provides a quantitative relationship between the ‘normative values’ arising in society and the overall impact of the environmental interventions attributable to the system(s) in question and does so in a manner that is transparent. The drawback is that this relationship is established at an extremely high level of aggregation and that consequently the actual environmental impacts cannot be assessed. Table B2, below, elaborates these two characteristics in the form of a summary analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of LCA, providing an initial indication of preferred and non-preferred areas of possible application


Table B2: Strengths and weaknesses of LCA Feature Function-oriented Potential environmental effect Burdens rather than concentrations Non-site-specific (in context of characterisation) Substance-oriented Strength Matches marketplace reality. See below In combination with 2 and 3, permits activities at different sites to be related. See 3 Properties are measurable and quantifiable. Weakness Leads to allocation problems with multifunctional activities. Also doubtful whethercomparedfunctionsaretruly identical; see 5. Relationship with actual impacts is unclear. Relationship with actual impacts is unclear. Interpretation problems arise with emissions causing near-background concentrations and having a non-linear relationship between concentration and toxicity (especially relevantfor nutrients like Zn). See 2. Social, economic, aesthetic and ethical aspects of the function are ignored. 1 Cf. Cowell et al


See 2. Social, economic, aesthetic and ethical aspects of the function are ignored. 1 Cf. Cowell et al. (1997) who distinguish a scientific, business and social ‘lobe’ in the decision-making process; ‘affective value’ is then part of the social lobe. Part 3: Scientific background


Features 2, 3 and 4 are interconnected and form the heart of LCA. In interpreting the table, the following should be borne in mind: The table is not exhaustive, but restricted to principal issues. A number of weaknesses are related to current methodology. In some cases methodological refinements and improvements are certainly conceivable. One example would be introduction of sitespecific aspects in the context of characterisation. The term ‘site’ in the expression ‘non-site-specific’ should be understood as referring to Impact assessment rather than to the process description(s) of the system(s) under study. Depending on the goal of the assessment, activities may certainly be very ‘site-specific’. The table makes no explicit mention of the ‘time problem’, which can be regarded as resulting from the fundamental uncertainty of the future rather than constituting an inherent inadequacy of the LCA method itself; cf. (Udo de Haes & Huppes, 1994)


(Udo de Haes & Huppes, 1994). This holds for description of the supply chain (technology) as a function of time as well as for Impact assessment. With respect to the latter a distinction must be made between the time-dependence of normative values, on which Impact assessment is based, the occurrence of environmental impacts as a function of time, and the emissions (etc.) themselves as they vary in time. The last of these is covered by feature 1 and is described in Table 2, above. The issue of how well the model must match reality to answer the questions of interest has likewise been ignored above, although this is obviously of immediate relevance for the possible range of application of LCA


Nonetheless, modeling should be regarded in the present context as a separate issue rather than as part and parcel of LCA as a tool, for the use of models is common to many environmental instruments and is therefore an issue to be addressed prior to evaluation of LCA as one of the possible options in the toolbox. 3.3 Issues of concern It will be apparent that we do not intend here to provide a comprehensive review of all the possible issues of concern in a given society. Where do we draw the line then? In Section 3.1 it was argued that LCA’s potential range of application could be staked out by considering how well its key features are suited to tackling the kinds of issues actually arising in society. In this section we attempt to characterise these to the extent that they relate to the object domain examined in the previous section. As we have seen, LCA is concerned with the economic supply chain


As we have seen, LCA is concerned with the economic supply chain. The domain of study is defined by the set of economic activities directed towards the transformation and transfer of products and the transfer of financial values; in short, by the economic network. Figure B1 provides a schematic illustration. The sum total of economic supply chains can be considered as a network of economic activities, comparable to the input-output tables of the national accounts, for example. It is generally flows of substances or money that are made visible in this kind of network. At the same time, though, such models can provide a basis for localising stakeholders and the issues of concern in their respective spheres. There are three main categories of stakeholders: producers, consumers and government. Part 3 : Scientific background – – – – –


From the same perspective of the supply chain, Figure B2 highlights the issues of concern, and thus areas of potential application. These are indicated by a solid line and fall into two categories: the classic issues, tied to a single step in the chain (in the lower part of figure) and those relating to the chain as a whole (on the right). The various analytical tools are indicated by a dashed line, which in the case of SFA is diagonal to indicate its intermediate status, for it is concerned with more than a single production chain. The ‘transverse’ issues perpendicular to the chain are familiar. Is the facility in question operating in compliance with discharge permits and standards, and are operations compatible with the local environment? Another focal area is local optimisation (process-integrated measures at a single firm or within a local cluster of firms, e.g. an industrial estate)