Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a comprehensive and important environmental management tool around the world. However, lacking temporal information has been a major challenge. In the past decade, dynamic LCA (DLCA), which incorporates temporal variations into assessment, has been an emerging research topic with increasing publications. A timely comprehensive review is needed to present current progress and discuss future directions. This article reviews 144 DLCA articles quantitatively and qualitatively. A bibliometric approach is adopted to conduct co-occurrence analysis and cluster analysis of DLCA studies. The research progress, approaches, and limitations of three temporal variation types (i.e., dynamic life cycle inventory, dynamic characterization factors, and dynamic weighting factors) in DLCA studies are systematically analyzed and discussed. It is concluded that: (1) dynamic inventory analysis is usually conducted by collecting time-differentiated data at each time step. Field monitoring, simulation, scenario analysis, and prediction based on historical data are common approaches. (2) Dynamic characterization studies primarily focus on two impact categories: global warming and toxicity. More studies are in need. (3) Various methods and indicators (i.e., dynamic pollution damage cost, temporal environmental policy targets, and discount rates) are used to solve the dynamic weighting issue, and they have specific limitations. Finally, three interesting topics are discussed: comparison between dynamic and static results, the large data amount issue, and the trend of tools development. This review offers a holistic view on temporal variations in DLCA studies and provides reference and directions for future dynamic studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlmeidaJ., DegerickxJ., AchtenW.M.J., and MuysB. (2015). Greenhouse gas emission timing in life cycle assessment and the global warming potential of perennial energy crops. Carbon Manag. 6, 185.
2.
ArbaultD., RivièreM., RuganiB., BenettoE., and Tiruta-BarnaL. (2014). Integrated earth system dynamic modeling for life cycle impact assessment of ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 472, 262.
3.
AzarijafariH., YahiaA., and AmorB. (2019). Removing shadows from consequential LCA through a time-dependent modeling approach: Policy-making in the road pavement sector. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 1087.
4.
BakasI., HauschildM.Z., AstrupT.F., and RosenbaumR.K. (2015). Preparing the ground for an operational handling of long-term emissions in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1444.
5.
Beloin-Saint-PierreD., HeijungsR., and BlancI. (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.
6.
Beloin-Saint-PierreD., LevasseurA., MargniM., and BlancI. (2017). Implementing a dynamic life cycle assessment methodology with a case study on domestic hot water production. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 1128.
7.
BoucherO. (2012). Comparison of physically-and economically-based CO2-equivalences for methane. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. 3, 1.
8.
BretonC., BlanchetP., AmorB., BeauregardR., and ChangW.S. (2018). Assessing the climate change impacts of biogenic carbon in buildings: A critical review of two main dynamic approaches. Sustainability, 10, 2020.
9.
CardelliniG., MutelC.L., VialE., and MuysB. (2018). Temporalis, a generic method and tool for dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 585.
10.
ChauC.K., LeungT.M., and NgW.Y. (2015). A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy, 143, 395.
11.
ChenX., and WangH. (2018). Life cycle assessment of asphalt pavement recycling for greenhouse gas emission with temporal aspect. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 148.
12.
CherubiniF., GuestG., and StrømmanA.H. (2012). Application of probability distributions to the modeling of biogenic CO2 fluxes in life cycle assessment. GCB Bioenergy. 4, 784.
13.
ChomkhamsriK., WolfM.-A., and PantR. (2011). International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook: Review schemes for life cycle assessment. In M. Finkbeiner, Ed., Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management. Switzerland: Springer, p. 107.
ColletP., LardonL., SteyerJ.P., and HéliasA. (2014). How to take time into account in the inventory step: A selective introduction based on sensitivity analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 320.
16.
CollingeW.O., LandisA.E., JonesA.K., SchaeferL.A., and BilecM.M. (2013a). Dynamic life cycle assessment: Framework and application to an institutional building. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 538.
17.
CollingeW.O., LandisA.E., JonesA.K., SchaeferL.A., and BilecM.M. (2013b). Indoor environmental quality in a dynamic life cycle assessment framework for whole buildings: Focus on human health chemical impacts. Build. Environ. 62, 182.
18.
CollingeW.O., LiaoL., XuH., SaundersC.L., BilecM.M., LandisA.E., and SchaeferL.A. (2011). Enabling dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings with wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology. Chicago, IL: IEEE, p. 1.
19.
CollingeW.O., RickenbackerH.J., LandisA.E., ThielC.L., and BilecM.M. (2018). Dynamic life cycle assessments of a conventional green building and a net zero energy building: exploration of static, dynamic, attributional, and consequential electricity grid models. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 11429.
20.
DemertziM., PauloJ.A., FaiasS.P., ArrojaL., and DiasA.C. (2018). Evaluating the carbon footprint of the cork sector with a dynamic approach including biogenic carbon flows. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 1448.
21.
EricssonN., Nordberg, Å., SundbergC., AhlgrenS., and HanssonP.A. (2014). Climate impact and energy efficiency from electricity generation through anaerobic digestion or direct combustion of short rotation coppice willow. Appl. Energy. 132, 86.
22.
EricssonN., PorsöC., ÅhlgrenS., Nordberg, Å., SundbergC., and HanssonP.A. (2013). Time-dependent climate impact of a bioenergy system—Methodology development and application to Swedish conditions. GCB Bioenergy, 5, 580.
23.
EricssonN., SundbergC., Nordberg, Å., AhlgrenS., and HanssonP.A. (2017). Time-dependent climate impact and energy efficiency of combined heat and power production from short-rotation coppice willow using pyrolysis or direct combustion. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 876.
24.
FantkeP., AurisanoN., BareJ., BackhausT., BulleC., ChapmanP.M., De ZwartD., DwyerR., ErnstoffA., GolsteijnL., HolmquistH., JollietO., McKoneT.E., OwsianiakM., PeijnenburgW., PosthumaL., RoosS., SaouterE., SchowanekD., van StraalenN.M., VijverM.G., and HauschildM. (2018a). Toward harmonizing ecotoxicity characterization in life cycle impact assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37, 2955.
25.
FantkeP., AylwardL., BareJ., ChiuW.A., DodsonR., DwyerR., ErnstoffA., HowardB., JantunenM., JollietO., JudsonR., KirchhübelN., LiD., MillerA., PaoliG., PriceP., RhombergL., ShenB., ShinH-M., TeeguardenJ., ValleroD., WambaughJ., WetmoreB.A., ZaleskiR., and McKoneT.E. (2018b). Advancements in life cycle human exposure and toxicity characterization. Environ. Health Perspect. 126, 125001.
26.
FearnsideP.M. (2002). Why a 100-year time horizon should be used for global warming mitigation calculations. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 7, 19.
27.
FearnsideP.M., LashofD.A., and Moura-CostaP. (2000). Accounting for time in mitigating global warming through land-use change and forestry. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 5, 239.
28.
FouquetM., LevasseurA., MargniM., LebertA., LasvauxS., SouyriB., BuhéC., and WoloszynM. (2015). Methodological challenges and developments in LCA of low energy buildings: Application to biogenic carbon and global warming assessment. Build. Environ. 90, 51.
29.
Gimeno-FronteraB., Mainar-ToledoM.D., Sáez de GuinoaA., Zambrana-VasquezD., and Zabalza-BribiánI. (2018). Sustainability of non-residential buildings and relevance of main environmental impact contributors' variability. A case study of food retail stores buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 669.
30.
GuinéeJ.B., HeijungsR., HuppesG., ZamagniA., MasoniP., BuonamiciR., EkvallT., and RydbergT. (2011). Life cycle assessment: Past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 90.
31.
HanafiahM.M., XenopoulosM.A., PfisterS., LeuvenR., and HuijbregtsM. (2011). Characterization factors for water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions based on freshwater fish species extinction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 5272.
32.
HauschildM.Z., HuijbregtsM., JollietO., MacleodM., MargniM., Van De MeentD., RosenbaumR.K., and McKoneT.E. (2008). Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: The search for harmony and parsimony. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 7032.
33.
HellwegS., HofstetterT.B., and HungerbühlerK. (2003). Discounting and the environment: Should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 8.
34.
HuM. (2018). Dynamic life cycle assessment integrating value choice and temporal factors—A case study of an elementary school. Energy Build. 158, 1087.
35.
IkagaT., MurakamiS., KatoS., and ShiraishiY. (2002). Forecast of CO2 emissions from construction and operation of buildings in Japan up to 2050. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 1, 149.
36.
ISO. (2006). ISO 14040: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework, Environmental Management System Requirements. Switzerland: ISO.
37.
KumarV.V., HoadleyA., and ShastriY. (2019). Dynamic impact assessment of resource depletion: A case study of natural gas in New Zealand. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 18, 165.
38.
LaratteB., GuillaumeB., KimJ., and BirregahB. (2014). Modeling cumulative effects in life cycle assessment: The case of fertilizer in wheat production contributing to the global warming potential. Sci. Total Environ. 481, 588.
39.
LebaillyF., LevasseurA., SamsonR., and DeschênesL. (2014). Development of a dynamic LCA approach for the freshwater ecotoxicity impact of metals and application to a case study regarding zinc fertilization. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 1745.
40.
LeeE.K., ZhangX., AdlerP.R., KleppelG.S., and RomeikoX.X. (2020). Spatially and temporally explicit life cycle global warming, eutrophication, and acidification impacts from corn production in the U.S. Midwest. J. Clean. Prod. 242.
41.
LevasseurA., CavalettO., FuglestvedtJ.S., GasserT., JohanssonD.J.A., JorgensenS.V., RaugeiM., ReisingerA., SchivleyG., StrømmanA., TanakaK., and CherubiniF. (2016). Enhancing life cycle impact assessment from climate science: Review of recent findings and recommendations for application to LCA. Ecol. Indic. 71, 163.
42.
LevasseurA., LesageP., MargniM., BrandãoM., and SamsonR. (2012). Assessing temporary carbon sequestration and storage projects through land use, land-use change and forestry: Comparison of dynamic life cycle assessment with ton-year approaches. Clim. Change, 115, 759.
43.
LevasseurA., LesageP., MargniM., DeschěnesL., and SamsonR. (2010). Considering time in LCA: Dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3169.
44.
LevasseurA., LesageP., MargniM., and SamsonR. (2013). Biogenic carbon and temporary storage addressed with dynamic life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 17, 117.
45.
LiY., HouX., ZhangW., XiongW., WangL., ZhangS., WangP., and WangC. (2018). Integration of life cycle assessment and statistical analysis to understand the influence of rainfall on WWTPs with combined sewer systems. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2521.
46.
LiQ., LongR., ChenH., ChenF., and WangJ. (2020). Visualized analysis of global green buildings: Development, barriers and future directions. J. Clean. Prod. 245, 118775.
47.
MaierM., MuellerM., and YanX. (2017). Introducing a localised spatio-temporal LCI method with wheat production as exploratory case study. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 492.
48.
MauriceE., DandresT., SamsonR., MoghaddamR.F., NguyenK.K., CherietM., and LemieuxY. (2014). Modelling of electricity mix in temporal differentiated life-cycle-assessment to minimize carbon footprint of a cloud computing service. In ICT for Sustainability 2014, ICT4S 2014. Paris: Atlantis Press, p. 290.
49.
MessagieM., MertensJ., OliveiraL., RangarajuS., SanfelixJ., CoosemansT., Van MierloJ., and MacharisC. (2014). The hourly life cycle carbon footprint of electricity generation in Belgium, bringing a temporal resolution in life cycle assessment. Appl. Energy, 134, 469.
50.
MoW., WangH., and JacobsJ.M. (2016). Understanding the influence of climate change on the embodied energy of water supply. Water Res. 95, 220.
51.
Moura CostaP., and WilsonC. (2000). An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration—Description and application in forestry. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 5, 51.
52.
NegishiK., LebertA., AlmeidaD., ChevalierJ., and Tiruta-BarnaL. (2019). Evaluating climate change pathways through a building's lifecycle based on Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. Build. Environ. 164, 106377.
53.
NegishiK., Tiruta-BarnaL., SchiopuN., LebertA., and ChevalierJ. (2018). An operational methodology for applying dynamic Life Cycle Assessment to buildings. Build. Environ. 144, 611.
54.
O'HareM., PlevinR.J., MartinJ.I., JonesA.D., KendallA., and HopsonE. (2009). Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels' greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 24001.
55.
OnatN.C., KucukvarM., and TatariO. (2016). Uncertainty-embedded dynamic life cycle sustainability assessment framework: An ex-ante perspective on the impacts of alternative vehicle options. Energy, 112, 715.
56.
PeñalozaD., ErlandssonM., and FalkA. (2016). Exploring the climate impact effects of increased use of bio-based materials in buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 125, 219.
57.
PeñalozaD., ErlandssonM., and PousetteA. (2018). Climate impacts from road bridges: Effects of introducing concrete carbonation and biogenic carbon storage in wood. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 14, 56.
58.
PinsonnaultA., LesageP., LevasseurA., and SamsonR. (2014). Temporal differentiation of background systems in LCA: Relevance of adding temporal information in LCI databases. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 1843.
59.
PittauF., LumiaG., HeerenN., IannacconeG., and HabertG. (2019). Retrofit as a carbon sink: The carbon storage potentials of the EU housing stock. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 365.
60.
PradinaudC., NortheyS., AmorB., BareJ., BeniniL., BergerM., PradinaudC., NortheyS., AmorB., BareJ., BeniniL., BergerM., BoulayA-M., JunquaG., LathuillièreM.J., MargniM., MotoshitaM., NiblickB., PayenS., PfisterS., QuinteiroP., SondereggerT., and RosenbaumR.K. (2019). Defining freshwater as a natural resource: A framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 960.
61.
RouxC., SchalbartP., and PeuportierB. (2016). Accounting for temporal variation of electricity production and consumption in the LCA of an energy-efficient house. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 532.
62.
ShahV.P., and RiesR.J. (2009). A characterization model with spatial and temporal resolution for life cycle impact assessment of photochemical precursors in the United States. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 313.
63.
ShimakoA.H., Tiruta-BarnaL., and AhmadiA. (2017). Operational integration of time dependent toxicity impact category in dynamic LCA. Sci. Total Environ. 599–600, 806.
64.
ShimakoA.H., Tiruta-BarnaL., Bisinella de FariaA.B., AhmadiA., and SpérandioM. (2018). Sensitivity analysis of temporal parameters in a dynamic LCA framework. Sci. Total Environ. 624, 1250.
65.
ShimakoA.H., Tiruta-BarnaL., PignéY., BenettoE., Navarrete GutiérrezT., GuiraudP., and AhmadiA. (2016). Environmental assessment of bioenergy production from microalgae based systems. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 51.
66.
SohnJ.L., KalbarP.P., BantaG.T., and BirkvedM. (2017). Life-cycle based dynamic assessment of mineral wool insulation in a Danish residential building application. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 3243.
67.
SongJ., ZhangH., and DongW. (2016). A review of emerging trends in global PPP research: Analysis and visualization. Entometrics, 107, 1111.
68.
StasinopoulosP., CompstonP., NewellB., and JonesH.M. (2012). A system dynamics approach in LCA to account for temporal effects-a consequential energy LCI of car body-in-whites. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 199.
69.
StruijsJ., DijkA.V., SlaperH., WiinenH.J.V., VeldersG.J.M., ChaplinG., and HuijbregtsM.A.J. (2010). Spatial- and time-explicit human damage modeling of ozone depleting substances in life cycle impact assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 204.
70.
SuS., LiX., and ZhuY. (2019a). Dynamic assessment elements and their prospective solutions in dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings. Build. Environ. 158, 248.
71.
SuS., ZhangH., ZuoJ., LiX., and YuanJ. (2021). Assessment models and dynamic variables for dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 26199.
72.
SuS., ZhuC., and LiX. (2019b). A dynamic weighting system considering temporal variations using the DTT approach in LCA of buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 398.
73.
The British Standards Institution. (2011). Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. Publicly Available Specif. 978, 1.
74.
Tiruta-BarnaL., PignéY., Navarrete GutiérrezT., and BenettoE. (2016). Framework and computational tool for the consideration of time dependency in Life Cycle Inventory: Proof of concept. J. Clean. Prod. 116, 198.
75.
ViebahnP., LechonY., and TriebF. (2011). The potential role of concentrated solar power (CSP) in Africa and Europe-A dynamic assessment of technology development, cost development and life cycle inventories until 2050. Energy Policy, 39, 4420.
76.
WalkerS.B., FowlerM., and AhmadiL. (2015). Comparative life cycle assessment of power-to-gas generation of hydrogen with a dynamic emissions factor for fuel cell vehicles. J. Energy Storage, 4, 62.
77.
WilliamsD., ElghaliL., WheelerR., and FranceC. (2012). Climate change influence on building lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions: Case study of a UK mixed-use development. Energy Build. 48, 112.
78.
WuX., ZhangZ., and ChenY. (2005). Study of the environmental impacts based on the “green tax”—Applied to several types of building materials. Build. Environ. 40, 227.
79.
YangJ., and ChenB. (2014). Global warming impact assessment of a crop residue gasification project-A dynamic LCA perspective. Appl. Energy, 122, 269.
80.
YuanC., WangE., ZhaiQ., and YangF. (2015). Temporal discounting in life cycle assessment: A critical review and theoretical framework. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 51, 23.
81.
ZelmR.V., HuijbregtsM.A.J., JaarsveldH.A.V., ReindsG.J., ZwartD.D., StruijsJ., and van de MeentD. (2007). Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 922.
82.
ZengR., and ChiniA. (2017). A review of research on embodied energy of buildings using bibliometric analysis. Energy Build. 155, 172.
83.
ZhangY. (2017). Taking the time characteristic into account of life cycle assessment: Method and application for buildings. Sustainability, 9, 922.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
