Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33122880›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of life cycle assessment2019

Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment.

Chris Mutel, Xun Liao, Laure Patouillard, Jane Bare, Peter Fantke, Rolf Frischknecht, Michael Hauschild, Olivier Jolliet, Danielle Maia de Souza, Alexis Laurent and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Points to consider for incorporating climate impacts into health economic evaluation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Chris MutelPaul Scherrer Institute, 5232 PSI Villigen, Switzerland.
Xun LiaoIndustrial Process and Energy Systems Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL Valais Wallis, Rue de l'Industrie 17, CH-1951 Sion, Switzerland.
Laure PatouillardCIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, P.O. Box 6079, Montréal, Québec H3C 3A7, Canada.
Jane BareUS Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Peter FantkeQuantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Rolf FrischknechtTreeze, 8610 Uster, Switzerland.
Michael HauschildQuantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Olivier JollietEnvironmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Danielle Maia de SouzaDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2P5, AB, Canada.
Alexis LaurentQuantitative Sustainability Assessment Division, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Stephan PfisterInstitute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Francesca VeronesIndustrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Technical University of Denmark · DKAgroParisTech · FREnvironmental Protection Agency · USETH Zurich · CHNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOPaul Scherrer Institute · CHQuantis (Switzerland) · CHTreeze (Switzerland) · CHUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRegionalized life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has rapidly developed in the past decade, though its widespread application, robustness, and validity still faces multiple challenges. Under the umbrella of UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, a dedicated cross-cutting working group on regionalized LCIA aims to provides an overview of the status of regionalization in LCIA methods. We give guidance and recommendations to harmonize and support regionalization in LCIA for developers of LCIA methods, LCI databases, and LCA software.

methodA survey of current practice among regionalized LCIA method developers was conducted. The survey included questions on chosen method spatial resolution and scale, the spatial resolution of input parameters, choice of native spatial resolution and limitations, operationalization and alignment with life cycle inventory data, methods for spatial aggregation, the assessment of uncertainty from input parameters and model structure, and variability due to spatial aggregation. Recommendations are formulated based on the survey results and extensive discussion by the authors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Survey results indicate that majority of regionalized LCIA models have global coverage. Native spatial resolutions are generally chosen based on the availability of global input data. Annual modelled or measured elementary flow quantities are mostly used for aggregating characterization factors (CFs) to larger spatial scales, although some use proxies, such as population counts. Aggregated CFs are mostly available at the country level. Although uncertainty due to input parameter, model structure, and spatial aggregation are available for some LCIA methods, they are rarely implemented for LCA studies. So far, there is no agreement if a finer native spatial resolution is the best way to reduce overall uncertainty. When spatially differentiated models CFs are not easily available, archetype models are sometimes developed.

conclusionsRegionalized LCIA methods should be provided as a transparent and consistent set of data and metadata using standardized data formats. Regionalized CFs should include both uncertainty and variability. In addition to the native-scale CFs, aggregated CFs should always be provided, and should be calculated as the weighted averages of constituent CFs using annual flow quantities as weights whenever available. This paper is an important step forward for increasing transparency, consistency and robustness in the development and application of regionalized LCIA methods.

Indexed as

archetypesimpact assessmentregionalizationspatial differentiationstandardizationuncertaintyvariability

Identifiers

PMID33122880
PMCPMC7592718
OpenAlexW2899294720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.