Premium
Time Horizon and Dominance in Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment
Author(s) -
Dyckhoff Harald,
Kasah Tarek
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1111/jiec.12131
Subject(s) - time horizon , dominance (genetics) , life cycle assessment , context (archaeology) , computer science , operations research , industrial ecology , economics , production (economics) , microeconomics , engineering , sustainability , ecology , biochemistry , chemistry , finance , biology , gene , paleontology
Summary Temporal aspects have traditionally not been recognized adequately in life cycle assessment (LCA). The dynamic LCA model recently proposed offers a significant step forward in the dynamic assessment of global warming impacts. The results obtained with dynamic LCA are highly sensitive to the choice of a time horizon. Therefore, decision making between alternative systems can be critical because conclusions are dependent on the specific time horizon. In this article, we develop a decision‐making methodology based on the concept of time dominance. We introduce instantaneous and cumulative time dominance criteria to the dynamic LCA context and argue why the dominance of an alternative should also imply preference. Our approach allows for the rejection of certain alternatives without the determination of a specific time horizon. The number of decision‐relevant alternatives can thereby be reduced and the decision problem facilitated. We demonstrate our methodology by means of a case study of end‐of‐life alternatives for a wooden chair derived from the original authors of dynamic LCA and discuss the implications and limitations of the approach. The methodology based on time dominance criteria is supplementary to the dynamic LCA model, but does not substitute it. The overall value of this article stretches beyond LCA onto more general assessments of global warming, for example, in policy where the choice of a time horizon is equally significant.