Abstract
Purpose
Many decisions are made during the life cycle of a product, e.g., whether to replace a product or to keep using it. To pinpoint the “greener” choice, the consequential environmental effects of each choice should be estimated. Hereto, only activities occurring after the decision should be considered and, thus, not necessarily the complete product life cycle. Decisions are taken at different levels in the economy, ranging from small scale (e.g., few individual purchases) to large scale (e.g., policies). In this article, we introduce a framework that mainly focuses on the small-scale decision of replacement of a product in usage, illustrated in case of a petrol versus an electric car.
Methods
For a fixed time span of usage (functional unit), the product system composition varies based on the selected time of replacement. Many market mechanisms occur within the cause-effect chain, for which argued presumptions are necessary. For example, the purchase of the alternative product is reasoned to possibly induce an additional product supply. Moreover, if the product is not obsolete after initial usage, it is sold in the secondhand market and will thus displace the average market mix. The developed framework for this small-scale replacement decision is different from the alternative consequential approach of ecoinvent that covers a different decision, namely, a marginal increase in demand, e.g., of car usage, at market level. In our framework, a ratio for the amount of newly car produced per purchase is introduced. For the case study, the global warming potential over 100 years is estimated, this using general data from databases and time-varying market mix (in composition), car technology, and electricity mix.
Results and discussion
A set of equations is introduced that serves as a first simplified framework. Bearing in mind limitations, if the petrol car is disposed of as waste after initial usage whereas the electric car resold, it is estimated that a replacement of the petrol car by the electric car at any time lowers the impact on climate change. A better characterization of impact over time and market and agent-based modeling should be at the core of further efforts, especially when upscaling to large-scale decisions.
Conclusions
Framework and insights are provided on the modeling of the environmental effects of a replacement decision. Finally, this article may serve as a stepping-stone towards an integrated consequential modeling of sustainability impact of product-related decisions, looking beyond a normative consideration of a fixed product life cycle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ardente F, Mathieux F (2014) Environmental assessment of the durability of energy-using products: method and application. J Clean Prod 74:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.049
Bakker C, Wang F, Huisman J, den Hollander M (2014) Products that go round: exploring product life extension through design. J Clean Prod 69:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.028
Baustert P, Benetto E (2017) Uncertainty analysis in agent-based modelling and consequential life cycle assessment coupled models: a critical review. J Clean Prod 156:378–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.193
Baustert P, Gutiérrez TN, Gibon T, Chion L, Ma T-Y, Mariante GL, Klein S, Gerber P, Benetto E (2019) Coupling activity-based modeling and life cycle assessment—a proof-of-concept study on cross-border commuting in Luxembourg. Sustainability 11:4067. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154067
Beaussier T, Caurla S, Bellon-Maurel V, Loiseau E (2019) Coupling economic models and environmental assessment methods to support regional policies: a critical review. J Clean Prod 216:408–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.020
Beloin-Saint-Pierre D, Heijungs R, Blanc I (2014) The ESPA (Enhanced Structural Path Analysis) method: a solution to an implementation challenge for dynamic life cycle assessment studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:861–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0710-9
Benedetto, G., Rugani, B., Vázquez-Rowe, I., 2014. Rebound effects due to economic choices when assessing the environmental sustainability of wine. Food Policy 49, Part 1, 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.007
Bole R (2006) Life-cycle optimization of residential clothes washer replacement (no. CSS06-03). Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Brandão M, Martin M, Cowie A, Hamelin L, Zamagni A (2017) Consequential life cycle assessment: what, how, and why? In: Encyclopedia of sustainable technologies. Elsevier, pp 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10068-5
Cardellini G, Mutel CL, Vial E, Muys B (2018) Temporalis, a generic method and tool for dynamic life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ 645:585–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.044
Chalmers NG, Brander M, Revoredo-Giha C (2015) The implications of empirical and 1:1 substitution ratios for consequential LCA: using a 1% tax on whole milk as an illustrative example. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1268–1276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0939-y
Collinge WO, Landis AE, Jones AK, Schaefer LA, Bilec MM (2013) Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:538–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0528-2
Cooper DR, Gutowski TG (2017) The environmental impacts of reuse: a review. J Ind Ecol 21:38–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12388
De Kleine RD, Keoleian GA, Kelly JC (2011) Optimal replacement of residential air conditioning equipment to minimize energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and consumer cost in the US. Energy Policy 39:3144–3153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.065
Earles JM, Halog A (2011) Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:445–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0275-9
Earles JM, Halog A, Ince P, Skog K (2013) Integrated economic equilibrium and life cycle assessment modeling for policy-based consequential LCA. J Ind Ecol 17:375–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00540.x
Ekvall T (2000) Moral philosophy, economics, and life cycle inventory analysis (SAE technical paper no. 2000-01-1479). SAE International, Warrendale. https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-1479
Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02994190
Ekvall T, Azapagic A, Finnveden G, Rydberg T, Weidema BP, Zamagni A (2016) Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:293–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-1026-0
European Commission (2016) Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance document, − guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase, version 5.2, February 2016
Eurostat (2017) Average CO2 emissions per km from new passenger cars, EU-27 and EU-28, 2007–2017 [WWW Document]. URL https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/b/ba/Average_CO2_emissions_per_km_from_new_passenger_cars%2C_EU-27_and_EU-28%2C_2007-2017_%28g_CO%E2%82%82_per_km%29.png (accessed 1.4.20)
Fauzi RT, Lavoie P, Sorelli L, Heidari MD, Amor B (2019) Exploring the current challenges and opportunities of life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 11:636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030636
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
Gloria T, Guinée J, Kau HW, Singh B, Lifset R (2017) Charting the future of life cycle sustainability assessment: a special Issue: Charting the Future of LCSA. J. Ind. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12711
Guinée J (2016) Life cycle sustainability assessment: what is it and what are its challenges? In: Clift R, Druckman A (eds) taking stock of industrial ecology. Springer International Publishing, pp 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20571-7_3
Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (eds) (2018) Life cycle assessment. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3
Hellweg S, Canals LMI (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:1109–1113. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361
Hertwich EG, Gibon T, Bouman EA, Arvesen A, Suh S, Heath GA, Bergesen JD, Ramirez A, Vega MI, Shi L (2014) Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 201312753:6277–6282. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312753111
Holland PW (1986) Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc 81:945–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354
Horie YA (2004) Life cycle optimization of household refrigerator-freezer replacement (no. CSS04-13). Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Igos E, Rugani B, Rege S, Benetto E, Drouet L, Zachary DS (2015) Combination of equilibrium models and hybrid life cycle-input–output analysis to predict the environmental impacts of energy policy scenarios. Appl Energy 145:234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.007
Igos E, Benetto E, Meyer R, Baustert P, Othoniel B (2018) How to treat uncertainties in life cycle assessment studies? Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1477-1
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: Environmental management-life cycle assessment-requirements and guidelines
JRC-IES (2010) ILCD handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment-detailed guidance. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Kagawa S, Hubacek K, Nansai K, Kataoka M, Managi S, Suh S, Kudoh Y (2013) Better cars or older cars?: assessing CO2 emission reduction potential of passenger vehicle replacement programs. Glob Environ Chang 23:1807–1818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.023
Kätelhön A, Bardow A, Suh S (2016) Stochastic technology choice model for consequential life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 50:12575–12583. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04270
Kiatkittipong W, Wongsuchoto P, Meevasana K, Pavasant P (2008) When to buy new electrical/electronic products? J Clean Prod 16:1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.019
Kim HC, Keoleian GA, Grande DE, Bean JC (2003) Life cycle optimization of automobile replacement: model and application. Environ Sci Technol 37:5407–5413. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0345221
Kim HC, Keoleian GA, Horie YA (2006) Optimal household refrigerator replacement policy for life cycle energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost. Energy Policy 34:2310–2323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.04.004
Kuczenski B (2019) False confidence: are we ignoring significant sources of uncertainty? Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1760–1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01623-9
Lenski SM, Keoleian GA, Bolon KM (2010) The impact of ‘Cash for Clunkers’ on greenhouse gas emissions: a life cycle perspective. Environ Res Lett 5:044003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044003
Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschênes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44:3169–3174. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9030003
Levasseur A, Brandão M, Lesage P, Margni M, Pennington D, Clift R, Samson R (2011) Valuing temporary carbon storage. Nat Clim Chang 2:6–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1335
Liu L, Keoleian GA, Saitou K (2017) Replacement policy of residential lighting optimized for cost, energy, and greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Res Lett 12:114034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9447
Marvuglia A, Benetto E, Rege S, Jury C (2013) Modelling approaches for consequential life-cycle assessment (C-LCA) of bioenergy: critical review and proposed framework for biogas production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:768–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.031
Marvuglia A, Rege S, Navarrete Gutiérrez T, Vanni L, Stilmant D, Benetto E (2017) A return on experience from the application of agent-based simulations coupled with life cycle assessment to model agricultural processes. J Clean Prod 142(Part 4):1539–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.150
Messagie M, Boureima F, Sergeant N, Timmermans J-M, Macharis C, Van Mierlo J (2012) Environmental breakeven point: an introduction into environmental optimization for passenger car replacement schemes. Presented at the Urban Transport 2012, A Coruna, Spain, pp. 39–49. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT120041
Micolier A, Loubet P, Taillandier F, Sonnemann G (2019) To what extent can agent-based modelling enhance a life cycle assessment? Answers based on a literature review. J Clean Prod 118123:118123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118123
Mill, J.S., 1843. A system of logic
Nakamoto Y (2017) CO2 reduction potentials through the market expansion and lifetime extension of used cars. J Econ Struct 6:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-017-0080-0
Nakamoto Y, Kagawa S (2018) Role of vehicle inspection policy in climate mitigation: the case of Japan. J Environ Manag 224:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.028
Navarrete-Gutiérrez T, Rege S, Marvuglia A, Benetto E (2015) Introducing LCA results to ABM for assessing the influence of sustainable behaviours. In: Bajo J, Hernández JZ, Mathieu P, Campbell A, Fernández-Caballero A, Moreno MN, Julián V, Alonso-Betanzos A, Jiménez-López MD, Botti V (eds) Trends in practical applications of agents, multi-agent systems and sustainability, advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer International Publishing, pp 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19629-9_21
Nishijima D (2016) Product lifetime, energy efficiency and climate change: a case study of air conditioners in Japan. J Environ Manag 181:582–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.010
Pérez-Belis V, Bakker C, Juan P, Bovea MD (2017) Environmental performance of alternative end-of-life scenarios for electrical and electronic equipment: a case study for vacuum cleaners. J Clean Prod 159:158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.032
Pigné Y, Gutiérrez TN, Gibon T, Schaubroeck T, Popovici E, Shimako AH, Benetto E, Tiruta-Barna L (2019) A tool to operationalize dynamic LCA, including time differentiation on the complete background database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:267–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01696-6
Pizzol M, Scotti M (2016) Identifying marginal supplying countries of wood products via trade network analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1222-6
Plevin RJ, Delucchi MA, Creutzig F (2014) Using Attributional life cycle assessment to estimate climate-change mitigation benefits misleads policy makers. J Ind Ecol 18:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12074
Presutto M, Stamminger R, Scialdoni R, Mebane W, Esposito R (2007) Preparatory studies for eco-design requirements of EuPs (Tender TREN/D1/40-2005) LOT 13: Domestic Refrigerators & Freezers
Querini F, Benetto E (2015) Combining agent-based modeling and life cycle assessment for the evaluation of mobility policies. Environ Sci Technol 49:1744–1751. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5060868
Querini F, Benetto E (2017) Combining agent-based modeling and life cycle assessment for the evaluation of mobility policies. Environ Sci Technol 51:1939–1939. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00079
Sacchi R (2018) A trade-based method for modelling supply markets in consequential LCA exemplified with Portland cement and bananas. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1966–1980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1423-7
Schaubroeck T, Benetto E (2018) A need for a better characterisation of product benefit in life cycle sustainability assessment. Presented at the SETAC Europe 28th Annual Meeting, Rome, Italy
Schaubroeck T, Rugani B (2017) A revision of what life cycle sustainability assessment should entail: towards modeling the net impact on human well-being. J Ind Ecol 21:1464–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12653
Schrijvers D (2017) Evaluation environnementale des options de recyclage selon la méthodologie d’analyse de cycle de vie: établissement d’une approche cohérente appliquée aux études de cas de l’industrie chimique (PhD Thesis). Université de Bordeaux
Schrijvers DL, Loubet P, Sonnemann G (2016) Developing a systematic framework for consistent allocation in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1063-3
Skelton ACH, Allwood JM (2013) Product Life Trade-Offs: What If Products Fail Early? Environ Sci Technol 47:1719–1728. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3034022
Sloan TW (2011) Green renewal: incorporating environmental factors in equipment replacement decisions under technological change. J Clean Prod 19:173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.017
Spielmann M, Althaus H-J (2007) Can a prolonged use of a passenger car reduce environmental burdens? Life cycle analysis of Swiss passenger cars. J Clean Prod 15:1122–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.022
Tasaki T, Motoshita M, Uchida H, Suzuki Y (2013) Assessing the replacement of electrical home appliances for the environment. J Ind Ecol 17:290–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00551.x
Tietge U, Mock P, Dornoff J (2019) CO2 emissions from new passenger cars in the European Union: Car manufacturers’ performance in 2018. The International Council on Clean Transportation
UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2011) Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases; a basis for greener processes and products. “Shonan guidance principles”.
Vandepaer L, Treyer K, Mutel C, Bauer C, Amor B (2019) The integration of long-term marginal electricity supply mixes in the ecoinvent consequential database version 3.4 and examination of modeling choices. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 24:1409–1428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1571-4
Vázquez-Rowe I, Marvuglia A, Rege S, Benetto E (2014) Applying consequential LCA to support energy policy: land use change effects of bioenergy production. Sci Total Environ 472:78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.097
Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. (Environmental Project no.863)
Weidema BP, Wesnæs M, Hermansen J, Kristensen T, Halberg N (2008) Environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2008
Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo C, Wernet G (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guidelines for the ecoinvent database version 3, Ecoinvent report 1 (v3). The ecoinvent Centre
Weidema BP, Pizzol M, Schmidt J, Thoma G (2018) Attributional or consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility. J Clean Prod 174:305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.340
Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Weidema B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
Yang Y (2016) Two sides of the same coin: consequential life cycle assessment based on the attributional framework. J Clean Prod 127:274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.089
Yang Y (2019) A unified framework of life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:620–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01595-w
Yang Y, Heijungs R (2017) On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1337-4
Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0423-x
Zink T, Geyer R, Startz R (2015) A market-based framework for quantifying displaced production from recycling or reuse. J Ind Ecol 20:719–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12317
Acknowledgments
We thank Bo Weidema and Tomas Navarrete-Gutiérrez for some reflections on our work. We thank the reviewers and editor for the insightful comments.
Funding
Thomas Schaubroeck was supported by the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) through a fellowship (https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/florec/).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Responsible editor: Wulf-Peter Schmidt
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schaubroeck, S., Schaubroeck, T., Baustert, P. et al. When to replace a product to decrease environmental impact?—a consequential LCA framework and case study on car replacement. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 1500–1521 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01758-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01758-0