Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Production—the Relevance of User Decision and Behaviour in LCA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Progress in Life Cycle Assessment 2018

Abstract

The way in which products and services are used can have a significant impact on their environmental performance. Practice shows, however, that life cycle assessment (LCA) studies often either assume average usage parameters, or only address a limited number of life cycle phases (‘cradle to gate’), without considering the use phase. This chapter therefore aims to emphasize the relevance of user decision and behaviour in LCA and to discuss related modelling aspects with regard to the definition of system boundaries, the definition of the use phase and the collection of inventory data. Furthermore, processes of decision-making in the context of LCA are critically reflected and suggestions for improvements are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ajzen [32] introduced the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which conceptualizes decisions as actions maximising favourable outcomes for the self. However, in recent years alternative influences of decision making become increasingly prominent. Apart from rational evaluations of different options, we increasingly identify a discussion of value-based theories that consider the individual’s duty to act in a certain way. One of such examples is the Value Belief Norm-Theory proposed by Stern [33] that mostly focuses sustainable behaviour patterns and draws a decision paths moving from values, over different beliefs (e.g. worldviews) to the individual’s personal norm that all together guide her actions. In addition, the role of emotions in human decision making is increasingly noticed within this field of decision research [e.g. 34–36] and in particular within sustainable science [37]. Recently we also see a development of theories that consider behaviour as automatic processes, learnt reactions, habits or unconscious associations, which all impact the individual decision process [38,39,40]. However, decision can also be influenced by external factors such as law and context conditions [41], implying a choice architecture [42], which considers informal and physical environments as prerequisite for decision making. All of these approaches highlight the complexity of human decision making and the challenges to involve these processes in LCA studies.

References

  1. Achachlouei MA, Moberg Å (2015) Life Cycle Assessment of a Magazine, Part II: A Comparison of Print and Tablet Editions. J Ind Ecol 19:590–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jönsson A (1999) Including the use phase in LCA of floor coverings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:321–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liedtke C, Bienge K, Wiesen K, Teubler J, Greiff K, Lettenmeier M, Rohn H (2014) Resource use in the production and consumption system—the MIPS approach. Resources 3:544–574. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources3030544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shahmohammadi S, Steinmann Z, Clavreul J, Hendrickx H, King H, Huijbregts MAJ (2017) Quantifying drivers of variability in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of consumer products—a case study on laundry washing in Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1426-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Daae J, Boks C (2015) Opportunities and challenges for addressing variations in the use phase with LCA and Design for Sustainable Behaviour. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 8:148–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2015.1010630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Polizzi di Sorrentino E, Woelbert E, Sala S (2016) Consumers and their behavior: state of the art in behavioral science supporting use phase modeling in LCA and ecodesign. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21:237–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-1016-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Greiff K, Teubler J, Baedeker C, Liedtke C, Rohn H (2017) Material and carbon footprint of household activities. In: Keyson DV, Guerra-Santin O, Lockton D (eds) Living labs: design and assessment of sustainable living. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 259–275

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Lettenmeier M, Hirvilammi T, Laakso S, Lähteenoja S (2014) Resource use of low-income households - Approach for defining a decent lifestyle? Sci Total Environ 481:681–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buhl J, Acosta J (2016) Indirect effects from resource sufficiency behaviour in Germany. In: Santarius T, Walnum HJ, Aall C (eds) Rethinking climate and energy policies: new perspectives on the rebound phenomenon. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  10. Börjesson Rivera M, Håkansson C, Svenfelt Å, Finnveden G (2014) Including second order effects in environmental assessments of ICT. Environ Model Softw 56:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Font Vivanco D, Kemp R, van der Voet E (2015) The relativity of eco-innovation: environmental rebound effects from past transport innovations in Europe. J Clean Prod 101:71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller SA, Keoleian GA (2015) Framework for analyzing transformative technologies in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 49:3067–3075. https://doi.org/10.1021/es505217a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zamani B, Sandin G, Peters GM (2017) Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion? J Clean Prod 162:1368–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheah L (2013) Use Phase Parameter Variation and Uncertainty in LCA: Automobile Case Study. In: Nee AYC, Song B, Ong S-K (eds) Re-engineering manufacturing for sustainability. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 553–557

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Hellweg S, i Canals LM (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344:1109–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Geiger SM, Fischer D, Schrader U (2017) Measuring what matters in sustainable consumption: an integrative framework for the selection of relevant behaviors: measuring sustainable consumption. Sustainable Dev. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Girod B, de Haan P, Scholz RW (2011) Consumption-as-usual instead of ceteris paribus assumption for demand: Integration of potential rebound effects into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0240-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schor JB, Fitzmaurice CJ (2015) 26. Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. In: Reisch LA, Thogersen J (eds) Handbook of research on sustainable consumption. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 410–425

    Google Scholar 

  19. Belk R (2014) You are what you can access: sharing and collaborative consumption online. J Bus Res 67:1595–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leismann K, Schmitt M, Rohn H, Baedeker C (2013) Collaborative consumption: towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources 2:184–203. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goedkoop MJ, van Halen CJG, te Riele HRM, Rommens PJM (1999) Product service systems, ecological and economic basics. Rep Dutch Ministries Environ (VROM) Econ Affairs (EZ). 36(1):1–122

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mont OK (2002) Clarifying the concept of product–service system. J Clean Prod 10:237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00039-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Piontek FM, Müller M (2018) Literature reviews: life cycle assessment in the context of product-service systems and the textile industry. Procedia CIRP 69:758–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kjaer LL, Pagoropoulos A, Schmidt JH, McAloone TC (2016) Challenges when evaluating product/service-systems through life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 120:95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kjaer LL, Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC, Birkved M (2018) Guidelines for evaluating the environmental performance of product/service-systems through life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 190:666–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Amit R, Zott C (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strateg Manag J 22:493–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance. Publications Office, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  28. Firnkorn J, Müller M (2011) What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm. Ecol Econ 70:1519–1528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Serna-Mansoux L, Domingo L, Millet D, Brissaud D (2014) A tool for detailed analysis and ecological assessment of the use phase. Procedia CIRP 15:502–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sorrell S (2010) Energy, economic growth and environmental sustainability: five propositions. Sustainability 2:1784–1809. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2061784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rationa—Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 66:799–823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bamberg S, Hunecke M, Blöbaum A (2007) Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: two field studies. J Environ Psychol 27:190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Harth NS, Leach CW, Kessler T (2013) Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. J Environ Psychol 34:18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Vining J, Ebreo A (2002) Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation behaviour. In: Bechtel RB, Churchman A (eds) New handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 541–558

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hofmann W, Friese M, Strack F (2009) Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems perspective. Perspect Psychol Sci 4:162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01116.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. Smith ER, DeCoster J (2000) Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 4:108–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sunstein CR, Thaler RH (2003) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University Chicago Law Rev 70:1159–1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, London

    Google Scholar 

  43. Santarius T, Soland M (2018) How technological efficiency improvements change consumer preferences: towards a psychological theory of rebound effects. Ecol Econ 146:414–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Linder SB (1970) The harried leisure class. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rosa H (2005) Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  46. Buhl J (2016) Rebound-Effekte im Steigerungsspiel. Zeit- und Einkommenseffekte in Deutschland, Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Finkbeiner M, Ackermann R, Bach V, Berger M, Brankatschk G, Chang Y-J, Grinberg M, Lehmann A, Martínez-Blanco J, Minkov N, Neugebauer S, Scheumann R, Schneider L, Wolf K (2014) Challenges in life cycle assessment: an overview of current gaps and research needs. In: Klöpffer W (ed) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 207–258

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Font Vivanco D, van der Voet E (2014) The rebound effect through industrial ecology’s eyes: a review of LCA-based studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1933–1947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0802-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. ISO (2006) DIN EN ISO 14040:2006 environmental management: life cycle assessment: principles and framework. ISO

    Google Scholar 

  50. Madjar M, Ozawa T, Ozawa T (2006) Happiness and sustainable consumption: psychological and physical rebound effects at work in a tool for sustainable design. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:105–115. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Spielmann M, de Haan P, Scholz RW (2008) Environmental rebound effects of high-speed transport technologies: a case study of climate change rebound effects of a future underground maglev train system. J Clean Prod 16:1388–1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Thiesen J, Christensen TS, Kristensen TG, Andersen RD, Brunoe B, Gregersen TK, Thrane M, Weidema BP (2008) Rebound effects of price differences. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:104–114. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.12.297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Solli C, Reenaas M, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2009) Life cycle assessment of wood-based heating in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:517–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0086-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. O’Brien K, Olive R, Hsu Y-C, Morris L, Bell R, Kendall N (2009) Life cycle assessment: Reusable and disposable nappies in Australia. ALCAS–Australian Life Cycle Assess Soc

    Google Scholar 

  55. Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA—part I: a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:273–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Liedtke C, Baedeker C, Hasselkuß M, Rohn H, Grinewitschus V (2015) User-integrated innovation in sustainable livinglabs: an experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product service systems. J Clean Prod 97:106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wanner M, Hilger A, Westerkowski J, Rose M, Stelzer F, Schäpke N (2018) Towards a cyclical concept of real-world laboratories. disP—Planning Rev 54:94–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2018.1487651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Buhl J, von Geibler J, Echternacht L, Linder M (2017) Rebound effects in living labs: opportunities for monitoring and mitigating re-spending and time use effects in user integrated innovation design. J Clean Prod 151:592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wagner F, Grunwald A (2015) Reallabore als Forschungs- und Transformationsinstrument Die Quadratur des hermeneutischen Zirkels. GAIA—Ecological Perspect Sci Soc 24:26–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.1.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Buhl J, Liedtke C, Bienge K (2017) How much environment do humans need? Evidence from an integrated online user application linking natural resource use and subjective well-being in Germany. Resources 6:67. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6040067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lundie S (1999) Ökobilanzierung und Entscheidungstheorie: Praxisorientierte Produktbewertung auf der Basis gesellschaftlicher Werthaltungen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. National Council for Air and Stream Improvements (NCASI) (2004) An analysis of the methods used to address the carbon cycle in wood and paper product LCA studies. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Inc., Research Triangle Park, N.C., USA

    Google Scholar 

  63. Thomassen MA, Dalgaard R, Heijungs R, de Boer I (2008) Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:339–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0007-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hartmann P, Apaolaza-Ibáñez V (2012) Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J Bus Res 65:1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Haucke FV (2018) Smartphone-enabled social change: evidence from the Fairphone case? J Clean Prod 197:1719–1730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Thompson CJ (2007) A carnivalesque approach to the politics of consumption (or) grotesque realism and the analytics of the excretory economy. The Ann Am Academy Polit Soc Sci 611:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207299303

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research as part of its “Research for Sustainable Development Framework Program”/”Social-Ecological Research”. This work is also part of the project “Sustainable Consumption of Information and Communication Technology in the Digital Society—Dialogue and Transformation through Open Innovation.” The project is funded by the Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony and the Volkswagen Foundation (Volkswagen-Stiftung) through the Niedersächsisches Vorab grant program (grant number VWZN3037).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Technology and Society, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Johanna Pohl

  2. Division Sustainable Production and Consumption, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, Energy, Wuppertal, Germany

    Paul Suski

  3. Universität Osnabrück, Neuer Graben, Osnabrück, Germany

    Franziska Haucke

  4. Institute of Sustainable Corporate Management, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany

    Felix M. Piontek

  5. Department Life Cycle Engineering, Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics IBP, Stuttgart, Germany

    Michael Jäger

Authors
  1. Johanna Pohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Suski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Franziska Haucke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Felix M. Piontek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Jäger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johanna Pohl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Information Systems, University of Osnabrueck, Osnabrück, Niedersachsen, Germany

    Frank Teuteberg

  2. Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, Osnabrück, Niedersachsen, Germany

    Maximilian Hempel

  3. Department of Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Liselotte Schebek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pohl, J., Suski, P., Haucke, F., Piontek, F.M., Jäger, M. (2019). Beyond Production—the Relevance of User Decision and Behaviour in LCA . In: Teuteberg, F., Hempel, M., Schebek, L. (eds) Progress in Life Cycle Assessment 2018. Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12266-9_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12266-9_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12265-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12266-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation