The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating Uncertainty in Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. A Case Study Comparing Two Insulation Options for a Dutch One-Family Dwelling
Abstract
The evaluation of uncertainty is relatively new in environmental life-cycle assessment (LCA). It provides useful information to assess the reliability of LCA-based decisions and to guide future research toward reducing uncertainty. Most uncertainty studies in LCA quantify only one type of uncertainty, i.e., uncertainty due to input data (parameter uncertainty). However, LCA outcomes can also be uncertain due to normative choices (scenario uncertainty) and the mathematical models involved (model uncertainty). The present paper outlines a new methodology that quantifies parameter, scenario, and model uncertainty simultaneously in environmental life-cycle assessment. The procedure is illustrated in a case study that compares two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Parameter uncertainty was quantified by means of Monte Carlo simulation. Scenario and model uncertainty were quantified by resampling different decision scenarios and model formulations, respectively. Although scenario and model uncertainty were not quantified comprehensively, the results indicate that both types of uncertainty influence the case study outcomes. This stresses the importance of quantifying parameter, scenario, and model uncertainty simultaneously. The two insulation options studied were found to have significantly different impact scores for global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, and eutrophication. The thickest insulation option has the lowest impact on global warming and eutrophication, and the highest impact on stratospheric ozone depletion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical data analysis in the computer age
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1991) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.253.5018.390 · Cited by 1,192
Cited by
Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037 · Cited by 1,455
Quantitative uncertainty analysis of life cycle assessment for algal biofuel production
Sills, D. L., Paramita, V., Franke, M. J., Johnson, M. C., Akabas, T. M., Greene, C. H., & Tester, J. W. (2013) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es3029236 · Cited by 241
Owsianiak, M., Ryberg, M. W., Renz, M., Hitzl, M., & Hauschild, M. Z. (2016) · ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b01732 · Cited by 111
Owsianiak, M., Lindhjem, H., Cornelissen, G., Hale, S. E., Sørmo, E., & Sparrevik, M. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142455 · Cited by 82
Steinmann, Z. J. N., Hauck, M., Karuppiah, R., Laurenzi, I. J., & Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2014) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0717-2 · Cited by 61
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Huijbregts, M. A. J., Gilijamse, W., Ragas, A. M. J., & Reijnders, L.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-05-29
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2600-2608
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2084510084
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.