JLCA NEWS ENGLISH EDITION MAR.2012

No.14

JLCA
NEWS LETTER

Life-Cycle Assessment Society of Japan

LIME2

Life-cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling

Chapter 1 – Outline of LIME2

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

LIME2
Life-cycle Impact assessment Method
based on Endpoint modeling

Outline of LIME2
written and edited by

Dr.Norihiro ITSUBO(Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental and Information Studies,Tokyo City University)

Dr. Atsushi INABA(Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Kogakuin University)

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Chapter I

Outline of LIME2

Contents
1.1

Characteristics of LIME2 ................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1 Issues in LIME1 .................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Development objectives of LIME2 ....................................................................... 2(1)
Analysis of the uncertainty and sensibility of damage factors and integration
factors .................................................................................................................... 2(2)
Development of weighting factors that reflect the people’s views on theenvironment .......................................................................................................... 5(3)
Development of methods for environmental impact assessment of indoor air
pollution and noise ................................................................................................ 7
1.1.3 Common points and different points between LIME1 and LIME2 ...................... 9
1.2 Framework of LIME ...................................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 Theme oriented method and damage oriented method ........................................... 11
1.2.2 History of LIME development ............................................................................ 15
1.2.3 Definition of areas of protection ......................................................................... 18
1.2.4 Definition of damage indexes ............................................................................. 26(1)
Human health ...................................................................................................... 26(2)
Social assets ........................................................................................................ 32(3)
Biodiversity ......................................................................................................... 36(4)
Primary production ............................................................................................. 44
1.2.5 Impact categories and category endpoints .......................................................... 48
1.3 List of factors including statistic values ............................................................................. 52
1.3.1 Significance of calculation of statistics ............................................................... 52
1.3.2 Types of uncertainty ............................................................................................ 56
1.3.3 Method to conduct uncertainty analysis .............................................................. 57
1.3.4 Development of a list of factors including statistics ........................................... 59(1)
Flow of calculation of the damage factor and setting of uncertainty of parameters............................................................................................................................. 59(2)
Setting of the range of variables ......................................................................... 60(3)
Implementation of uncertainty analysis .............................................................. 60(4)Implementation of sensitivity analysis ................................................................ 61(5)
Reexamination and recalculation of important parameters................................. 62(6)
Calculation of representative values and statistics .............................................. 62
1.3.5 Reflection of geographical variability ................................................................. 64

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Chapter I

Outline of LIME2
1.1 Characteristics of LIME2
1.1.1 Issues in LIME1
LIME was developed as an LCIA method that reflects environmental and social
conditions in Japan. Since the publication of this method, many domestic companies
have used LIME for the environmental assessment of their products and businesses.
LIME has been used not only for LCA but also for environmental accounting,environmental efficiency, assessment of corporate environmental performance, andother fields.
Although the use of LIME has been spreading in this way, problems to be correctedfrom various viewpoints have been clarified. Among them, the issues to be solved
especially urgently are as follows:
1) It is difficult to use LIME1 directly for internal decision-making.
Although LCIA has so far been able to show assessment results by representative values,
LCIA provides no information about the reliability of assessment results. Althoughassessment results expressed by representative values can be used for external
disclosure of the environmental performance of products, it cannot be said that they are
sufficient information for in-house important decision-making on plans and processchanges.
2) weightomg factors of LIME1 does not reflect the Japanese people’s views on theenvironment.
In LIME1, the base data for the calculation of weighting factors were obtained from theresults of interview surveys conducted with about 400 people. However, because thesampling was limited to the Kanto Region, such as Tokyo, the obtained factors could
not be said to reflect all of Japan’s representative views on the environment. Therefore,
it was necessary to obtain weighting factors that could be used for general purposes inJapan.
3) Measures against sick house syndrome and noise could not be assessed appropriately.
The number of people who suffer sick house syndrome is estimated to be more than one
million. The environmental standards for noise are not fulfilled at about 30% of thetarget points, and more than 10,000 complaints have been filed every year. To solve
such serious environmental problems, products have been vigorously developed formeasures against sick house syndrome and noise. However, if their impact is notassessed during LIME, it is impossible to clarify the products’ effect of reducing theenvironmental impact.

1

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

1.1.2 Development objectives of LIME2
LIME2 was developed to solve the above-described issues.
Research anddevelopment was carried out in the second-term LCA National project (the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry and the New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NETO), 2003 to March 2007). Four committees were
established for this project (see Figure 1.1-1), LIME2 was developed by the Impact
Assessment Study Group, which concretely discussed the following matters:
1) Analysis of the uncertainty and sensibility of damage factors and integration factors2) Development of weighting factors that reflect the Japanese people’s views on theenvironment3) Development of environmental impact assessment methods for indoor air
contamination and noise
Below, the outline of each issue is explained.

Figure 1.1-1: Structure of organizations for the second-term LCA Project(1) Analysis of the uncertainty and sensibility of damage factors and integration
factors
The list of factors for impact assessment obtained through the development of LIME
only contains representative values. It contains no information about the degree of
reliability of those factors. If the LCIA method can be used, including information
about uncertainty, it is possible to know the reliability of the conclusion based on the
LCA result. Therefore, the factors will become important referential information when
the practitioner makes a decision.
In addition, ISO14044 demands the reflection of the result of uncertainty analysis whensensibility and integrity for life cycle interpretation are inspected. There have so far
been an extremely small number of cases where analysis was made with consideration
for the uncertainty of the LCIA method in the LCA case studies.
With regard to LCA research, since the 1990s discussions have been held about2

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

uncertainty analysis, including life cycle inventory (LCI). After attention was paid todamage factors, which introduced many parameters and models, and integration factors,
discussions about uncertainty in particular have become vigorous. On the other hand,even if the number of parameters or models is large, because only a few of them haveespecially important influence on the reliability of calculation results, it can be expectedthat adequately reliable factors will be provided if the accuracy of such parameters andmodels can be improved.
Therefore, in LIME2, analysis and assessment will be conducted about the uncertainty
about main damage factors and integration factors. Figure 1.1-2 shows the procedurein this research. First, probability distribution is set for the models and parameters
used for the calculation of damage factors, and then uncertainty analysis of the damage
factors is conducted through simulation by the use of the models and parameters.
Moreover, sensibility analysis is conducted to pick out the parameter that has especiallystrong impact on the uncertainty of the damage factors. Reexamination is carried out,
centering on the parameter. With the reflection of the result, the probability
distribution is redefined and uncertainty analysis is conducted again. Such analysis
and examination are repeated several times to improve the reliability of the factors
effectively. The final purpose is to create a list of damage factors and integration
factors, including not only representative values but also such statistical values asstandard deviation and variation coefficients.

Figure 1.1-2: Procedure for analyzing the uncertainty of damage factors

Figure 1.1-3 shows differences between LIME1 and LIME2 in the method of use of thelist of factors and the content of assessment result. In the past, interpretation had to be
3

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

made only from the LCIA results gained from linear calculation. In the case of LIME
1, no information can be obtained about whether the uncertainty of the result is (a) lowor (b) high. In the case of (a), the difference in environmental impact between
products is significant and therefore it is possible to obtain a result consistent for the
purpose of deciding “which product has lower environmental impact.” However, inthe case of (b), the uncertainty of the assessment result of both is high, and it is difficult
to obtain a result consistent with the purpose from the result of calculation by the use ofrepresentative values only. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out reexamination to
improve reliability. Information on the reliability of the assessment result can beobtained by the use of LIME2’s list of factors, which includes both representativevalues and statistical values. This leads to the opportunity of reviewing the result of
linear calculation, and it can be expected that the “iterative” calculation demanded byinternational standards can be carried out smoothly.

Figure 1.1-3: Differences between LIME1 and LIME2
in the use method and the image of results

When the objects of uncertainty analysis were selected, reference was made to the valueof standard – that is, the amount of environmental impact caused by annual economic
activities. Figure 1.1-4 shows the value of standard for each impact category in
LIME2. The objects of the analysis were the following impact categories where theamount of potential damage was larger compared with each object of protection:
1) Human health: urban area air pollution, global warming, indoor air pollution
2) Social assets: global warming, resources consumption, waste
3) Primary production: resources consumption, land use4) Biodiversity: resources consumption, land use
In this document, the significance of uncertainty analysis and the details of the analysis
method are explained in Section 1.3, the uncertainty analysis of damage factors and the4

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

results are explained in each section of Chapter II, and the uncertainty analysis ofintegration factors and the results are explained in Chapter III.
Noise

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Waste
Living resources consumption
Mineral resources consumption, fossil fuelconsumption
Land use

Biological toxicity
Indoor air contamination
Toxic chemicals
Urban area air pollution
Photochemical ozone
Eutrophication
Acidification
Ozone layer destruction
Global warming

Figure 1.1-4: Breakdown of standard values for each impact category
Uncertainty analysis was conducted for the impact categories whose contribution is large:
urban area air pollution, global warming, resource consumption, and land use.

(2) Development of weighting factors that reflect the people’s views on theenvironment
In LIME1, research on conjoint analysis, this has been drawing attention in the fields ofmarket research and environmental economics, was conducted integration of LCIA.
As a result, it became possible to obtain statistically significant analysis results and tofind the possibility to widely use the LCIA integration factors obtained by the method.
To obtain integration factors that can withstand the wide use of various products, it isessential to secure social consensus and representativeness. At present, however,
because, due to the limitations of research cost and others, the results of interview
surveys in specific areas, such as Tokyo, are used as basic information for the
calculation of integration factors, it cannot be said that the integration factors
necessarily fulfill the above-described requirements.
Therefore, in LIME2, discussions were carried out to develop weighting factors,
increasing social consensus based on nationwide random sampling. Figure 1.1-5
shows an outline of the procedure. First, households are selected randomly on anationwide scale. At the same time, a questionnaire is prepared for a questionnaire
survey. After the contents of the questionnaire and the survey method are revised
through several pretests, the survey is carried out. The answers to the questionnaire
are statistically analyzed to find estimate values and statistical values. These results
are used for calculating integration factors.
Figure 1.1-6 shows a comparison between the characteristics of the weighting factors in
LIME2 and those in LIME1. Because an interview survey was carried out on anationwide scale in LIME2, it can be said that the weighting factors analyzed based on
the results reflect the views on the environment all over Japan. Therefore, if adomestic product is analyzed, LIME2’s integration factors can be used for general
5

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

purposes. Moreover, the use of random parameter logit model enabled quantitative
expression of difference among individuals in environmental ideas. This made it
possible also to analyze the sensibility of assessment results caused by differencesamong people in environmental ideas.
The survey method, the calculation method, and the results will be explained in Chapter
III.

Figure 1.1-5: Procedure for calculating weighting factors andintegration factors based on conjoint analysis

Figure 1.1-6: Difference between LIME1 and LIME2
in the characteristics of the weighting factor

6

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012(3) Development of methods for environmental impact assessment of indoor air
pollution and noise
LIME1 covered 11 impact categories, such as global warming. When impact
categories were selected, consideration was given to the potentiality of environmental
impact on four types of area of protection. However, of the environmental issues notassessed during LIME1, priority was given to noise and indoor air pollution concerning
the development of new assessment methods, because of the following reasons:1) Indoor air contamination: Because people spend most of their life indoors, theyreceive high impact if a toxic substance is emitted indoors. If the amount of emissionis the same, the amount of exposure is incomparably larger in the case of indoor
emission than in the case of outdoor emission. In Japan, the number of people
suffering sick house syndrome has already exceeded one million. According to theWorld Health Organization (WHO), indoor air pollution contributes much greater to theworld’s health loss than does air pollution. This situation is seen also in developed
countries. Under this situation, manufacturers of construction materials and adhesives
are actively developing products that contribute to the reduction of emission of volatileorganic compounds (VOC). This demanded the provision of methods that can assess
the effect of such products.
2) Noise: Because Japan’s rate of achievement of environmental standards is about 70%,
about 30% of the people are exposed to noise pollution. According to research inEurope, health impact by traffic noise is considered equivalent to health impact by the
exposure to the emission of a particle matter (PM). Although environmental measuresagainst automobiles are often discussed in terms of air pollution, global warming, andresource consumption, measures against sensory nuisance also have been traditionallycarried out. In this context, tires and other products with low noise were developed,
and the reduction of noise impact was required to be discussed rationally in relation toother impact categories.
Figures 1.1-7 and 1.1-8 show the procedures for calculating damage factors concerningindoor air pollution and noise, respectively. The procedure concerning indoor air
pollution covered not only formaldehyde, to which the greatest importance is placed as
substances causing sick house syndrome, but also NOx, SO2, and PM, all of which are
generated through heating, cooking, etc. The procedure concerning noise covered
passenger cars and large vehicles for business use, and assessment was conducted with
distinction between day and night. During both procedures, the emission of substancesor the occurrence of noise was related with changes in the contaminant or noise level,
the amount of exposure, the risk of disease, and loss of life expectancy through fateanalysis, exposure analysis, impact analysis and damage analysis. In the case ofindoor air pollution, impact on nerves and mind was assessed. In the case of noise,
health impact causing sleep disorder and conversation disorder was assessed. The
results were expressed in DALY (for details, see 1.3.4 (1)). This makes it possible tocompare the impact of noise and urban areas air pollution in the LCIA of the trafficsystem and to integrate indoor air pollution with other impact categories and assessthem in the LCIA of products that prevent sick house syndrome. In addition, thedamage factors were applied to the weighting factors for the calculation of integration
factors.

7

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

In this document, Sections 2.9 and 2.13 show the details of the characterization factors
for each impact category, the policy for developing damage factors, the assessment
procedure, and the results.

Figure 1.1-7: Procedure for developing a method for assessment of indoor air contamination
Density change and exposure assessment are carried out under indoor conditions.
In this example, health impact is assessed, and the result is expressed in loss of life expectancy.

Figure 1.1.8: Procedure for developing the method for assessment of car noise
After noise is divided according to whether day or night and car size, fate analysis, exposure
analysis, damage analysis, and impact analysis are conducted.
In this figure, health impact is assessed, and the result is expressed as loss of life expectancy.

8

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

1.1.3 Common points and different points between LIME1 and LIME2
After the above-described development and revision, the development of LIME2 was completed.
Figure 1.1-9 shows the concept of LIME2. While LIME 2 has inherited the structure of
LIME1 and adopted three steps – characterization, damage assessment, and integration – thenumber of items of impact categories and category endpoints was increased. Like LIME1, thefinal purpose of the development of LIME2 was to create a list of factors for impact assessment.
Table 1.1-1 shows the image of LIME2, compared with the list of factors in LIME1.
In LIME2, data necessary for simulation were disclosed, such as median values, average values,
standard deviation, variation coefficients, and distribution forms. The use of them makes it
possible for practitioners to obtain information on the reliability of LCIA results. Although it
is possible to use this method for linear calculation as before, in this case, it is advisable to use
median values.*1
The list of factors in LIME2 was improved as follows:

1) Reliability: Uncertainty was improved by the full use of uncertainty analysis andsensitivity analysis.
2) Representativeness: Integration factors representative of the people’s environmental
ideas were gained.
3) Comprehensiveness: It became possible to assess environmental impact more widely.

Figure 1.1-9: Concept map of LIME2
It is possible to obtain results of assessment of environmental impact concerning
characterization, damage assessment, and weighting.
*1

In addition to median values, average values may be used for LCIA. According to the results of uncertainty analysis, the distribution ofassessment results often widens at the right corner (similar to lognormal distribution). Therefore, in the case of the factors of LIME2,
median values are often larger than average values. Because no simulation was carried out and representative values (supposed mode
values) were used as the parameters for all assessment in LIME1, the results in LIME2 are thought to be close to median values.

9

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012(a) LIME1

Table 1.1-1: List of factors for LIME2 (urban area air pollution: average in Japan)(b) LIME2

In LIME1, representative values for regional averages and national averages are calculated. In LIME2,
representative values and statistics for prefectures, regional averages, and national averages are calculated.

Table 1.1-2 summarizes the characteristics of LIME1 and LIME2. Although the objectof protection and the damage indexes are the same as before, changes were made in thenumber of impact category items, the types of data disclosed in the list of factors, themethod of using the data, and the image of LCIA results. In addition, note that
because the parameters and models used for assessment were changed from time to time,changes were made in the representative values in the list of factors. For details ofthese changes, see the respective sections of Chapters II and III.
Table 1.1-2: Characteristics of LIME1 and LIME2
LIME1

LIME2

Remarks

Area of protection

4 items

4 items

No change

Damage indexes

4 types for each areaof protection

4 types for each areaof protection

No change

Integration indexes

3 types: 1 economic
index and 2
non-dimensional
indexes

Economic index

Based on conjoint analysis; no
AHP

Impact categories

11 categories

15 categories

Noise and indoor air
contamination were newly
developed; resource consumption
was divided into fossil fuels,
mineral resources, and forest
resources consumption.

Survey forcalculation ofweighting factors

Group interview
survey in the Tokyo
area

Individual interview
survey on anationwide scale

Japanese people’s environmental
ideas were reflected.

10

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

A small increase because of anincrease in the number of impact
categories

Number of target
substances

About 1,000
substances

About 1,000
substances

Data shown in thelist of factors

Representative value

Representative value+ statistic

Identification of standard
deviation and form of
distribution

Calculation method
using the list offactors

Linear calculation

Linear calculation,
simulation (Monte
Carlo method)

Suitable for uncertainty analysis
of LCA

Image of calculation
results

Bar graph

Bar graph,frequency
distribution

Measurement of risk ofconclusion; support for internal
decision-making

1.2 Framework of LIME
1.2.1 Theme oriented method and damage oriented method
During the period between the second half of the 1990s and 2000, attention began to be
paid to the development of methods for assessing the amount of potential damage atendpoints. As a result, LCA methods, including integration, were roughly divided into
theme oriented method, which were proposed traditionally, and damage oriented method,whereby endpoint-type assessment results serve as the base of weighting. This section
explains the outline and characteristics of the damage oriented LCIA methods,
compared with theme oriented methods.

Figure 1.2-1: Comparison in approach between theme oriented methodand damage oriented method
The theme oriented method (a) compares and integrates results at the midpoint level, while thedamage oriented method (b) compares and integrates calculation results at the endpoint level.

11

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.2-1 shows the frameworks of a model based on midpoint modeling and amodel based on endpoint modeling. Under the former method (Figure 1.2-1 (a)),
integration is conducted by applying importance between impact categories to the resultof LCIA characterization (such as contribution to an increase in radiation forcing andthe emission amount of protons) as a weighting factor. Many methods for thisapproach were proposed from the first half to the second half of the 1990s (for example,
Goedkoop 1995, Hauschild et al. 1998, Nagata et al. 1995, Itsubo 2000, Natsuno et al.
1999, Yasui 1998). The general LCIA procedure specified in ISO 14044 is based onthese research results.
However, a method based on theme oriented method has the following problems:

1) Too many comparison items: If the number of items to be weighted is large, it isdifficult to make appropriate judgment of value. Because a decrease in the number of
items reduces the trouble of weighting items, the decrease is an important requirement fordeveloping a weighting factor with higher social consensus. Under a method based ontheme oriented method, more than ten impact categories are directly compared.
Because simultaneous comparison of these items is a great trouble to respondents,
accurate reflection of their ideas is difficult.
2) Lack of concreteness: Many results of characterization, which serve as a precondition
for integration under a method based on midpoint modeling, indicate environmental
changes, such as the power to decompose ozone in the stratosphere and an increase inradiation forcing.
When a respondent who conducts weighting considers thesignificance of an environmental problem, it is essential to have information about what
receives damage from the environmental problem to what degree – for example, howmany people will suffer skin cancer due to ozone layer destruction and how many people
will suffer asthma due to air pollution. However, because such information cannot be
obtained from the result of characterization, the respondent has to weight environmental
issues with extremely limited information. It cannot be said that the weighting factor
obtained through such a process faithfully indicates the respondent’s sense of value about
the environment.
3) Lack of transparency: The form of impact caused through an impact category varies.
For example, ozone layer destruction gives damage not only to health, such as skincancer and cataract, but also to forests, farm products, petrochemical products, and plant
plankton. Depending on to what extent the impact of ozone layer destruction should betaken into consideration, even the same respondent may change the weighting of ozone
layer destruction. However, under many methods based on midpoint modeling,weighting factors are calculated without such consideration. Because this makes therange of the object of weighting unclear, the transparency of the assessment method may
become insufficient.
Even if the same inventory is applied, the result of integration may greatly differ
depending on the LCIA method used for the integration. If the transparency of theintegration method is insufficient, it will be difficult to discuss why the result differed.
4) Difficulty in the reflection of the result in each research field: Impact (amount ofdamage) that occurs through an environment problem is actively assessed by various
fields, such as epidemiology and toxicology. Under a method based on value judgment
is applied to all the matters ranging from environmental changes (such as the power to
12

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

resolve ozone) to serious environmental problems without reflecting importantsuggestions provided by knowledge of natural science.
5) Difficulty in the continuation of renewal: Because no perfect impact assessment
method exists at present (perhaps in the future also), method developers are required tocontinue consideration to improve the accuracy and reliability of methods. However,
because the transparency of theme oriented method is low, it is difficult to findmethodological problems and future issues and therefore the direction of development ofmethod research is difficult to establish.
A damage oriented method is an approach whereby weighting is carried out bycomparison among endpoints into which environmental impacts are put together basedon the result of assessment as to what receives damage due to an environmental
problem to what degree (for example, how many people suffer heat stroke or cataract)(see Figure 1.2-1 (b)). Many of the main LCIA methods developed recently(Eco-indicator 99, environmental priority strategies (EPS), ExternE, LIME) are basedon damage oriented method. In relation with the above-described problems in the theme
oriented methods, the damage oriented methods have the following advantages:
1) The aggregation of environmental impacts into endpoints makes it possible todecrease the number of items to be weighted to three or four. This contributes to easeburden for respondents who weight items.
2) Damage assessment at the stage preceding weighting is based on academic
knowledge. If a method based on endpoint modeling is adopted, it will be possible toclearly distinguish the stages where respondents’ value judgment can be avoided(characterization, damage assessment) with the stages where assessment is made by thesocial science analysis method (stages from damage assessment to single index).
3) It is possible to provide a medium for information that is easy for respondents tounderstand. While the result of a method based on midpoint modeling is the result of
characterization (in the case of global warming, for example, the amount equivalent to
CO2 focusing on radiation forcing), the result of a method based on endpoint modeling is
the result of damage assessment (in the case of human health, loss of life expectancy(number of years)), which expresses the object of environmental impact more directly.
If respondents’ burden of weighting is eased, it can be expected that the statisticalsignificance of the weighting factor will be improved accordingly.
4) Because the assessment range of category end points can be clarified, it can be said
that transparency is high. If the result differs among the methods used for LCIA, it ispossible to analyze the causes of the difference (for example, difference in the model forassessment of malaria due to warming, and whether the benefits from warming are taken
into account).
5) If the transparency of methodology is high, it will be possible to clarify the researchissue to be solved first during method development through accumulation of case studies(for example, improvement in the accuracy of the fate analysis model of chemical
substances). This will become an important requirement for continuous improvement of
LCIA methods.

13

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

In addition, damage oriented methods have not only methodological advantages but also
advantages from the practical aspect of LCA, as follows:
6) Damage assessment can be conducted as a step of LCIA. Damage assessment
makes it possible to logically compare and aggregate forms of damage belonging todifferent impact categories, such as thermal stress due to warming and skin cancer due toozone layer destruction, by putting together diversified forms of damage into the objectof protection and using loss of life expectancy and other indexes.
7) Presentation of damage assessment results as a new step between characterizationand integration increases practitioners’ opportunities of selecting assessment steps andfacilitates the interpretation of integration results.
8) If a practitioner has its own weighting, it is possible to estimate integration thatreflects it.
Table 1.2-1 summarizes the differences between the characteristics of methods based on
midpoint modeling and the characteristics of methods based on endpoint modeling. In
this way, methods based on endpoint modeling are expected not only to suggest thedirection of the solution of problems in theme oriented methods but also to provide
information that is easier for practitioners to use.
Against the above-described backgrounds, a method based on endpoint modeling was
adopted for the basic framework of LIME. However, the adoption of a method basedon endpoint modeling does not mean rejection of characterization (assessment at the
midpoint level). As described above, characterization is essential for LCA, relatively
reliable, and very useful for supplementing the results of damage assessment andintegration.
Table 1.2-1: Comparison between theme oriented method and damage oriented methodin the characteristics of the integration method

14

Theme oriented method

Damage oriented method

Number of comparison
items

Large (10 items or more)

Small (5 items or less)Transparency

Low (It is unclear what types ofdamage occurring throughenvironmental problems should beassessed)High (It is clear what types ofdamage should be assessed)

Scope of judgment ofvaluesWide (academic knowledge on
epidemiology, toxicology, etc. is notincluded in assessment)

Only between endpoint andsingle index

Quantitative indication
method for the object ofcomparison

Different from actual environmental
impact (ex. amount equivalent toemission of CO2)

Amount of damage at endpoint(ex. loss of life expectancy)

Existence of damage
assessment

Not included

Assessment results can be
regarded as a step of LCIA.

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

1.2.2 History of LIME development
Even if the amount of environmental burden is the same, environmental impact differs
according to the weather, topography, population, and vegetation distribution at the
point of emission. Therefore, to make LIME a method for appropriately assessing
environmental impact in Japan, it was necessary to settle the following issues:
1) Development of characterization methodology and factors that reflect theenvironmental conditions in Japan
2) Development of damage assessment methodology and factors that reflect theenvironmental conditions in Japan
3) Development of iweighting methodology and factors that reflect the Japanese people’s
environmental ideas
4) Establishment of an environment assessment method that enables systematic
implementation of characterization, damage assessment, and integration under anassessment scheme
In the LCA Project (official title: Development of Assessment Technology of Life Cycle
Environmental impacts of Products and so forth 1998 - 2003, Development ofTechnology to Assess and Verify Life Cycle CO2 Emissions 2003 – 2006: Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry, New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization (NEDO), Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry), a
technical committee consisting of LCIA experts and environmental science experts, wasestablished and developed LIME as an LCIA method for settling the issues 1) to 4)
above.

Figure 1.2-2: Relation between the procedure for creating the framework of LIME
and the structure of this chapter

15

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.2-2 shows the flow of the examination procedure for creating the framework of
LIME, together with the structure of this section. With regard to the procedure, thesteps of LCIA covered by LIME were defined and then the items to be assessed in eachstep were established. Moreover, indexes expressed as results of LCIA were definedfor each item.
As seen in the framework shown in Figure 1.1-9, this method has been designed to carry
out LCIA that reflects the environmental conditions and ideas in Japan in three steps –characterization, damage assessment, and integration. Top priority is given to dealing
with issues 1) to 4) above. However, these three steps have both advantages anddisadvantages. Table 1.2-2 summarizes the characteristics of each step.
Table 1.2-2: Characteristics of characterization, damage assessment, and integration
Advantages
Characteri-z
ation

•
•
•
•

Damageassessment

•
•

•

•

Integration

•
•

•
•

16

Disadvantages

Uncertainty is relatively small.
Subjective judgment of value is
not included.
It is often used by Traditional
LCIA.
It is specified as an essential
element of ISO.

•

Knowledge of natural science isfully used.
The number of assessment results
is minimized, excluding
subjectivity and preference asmuch as possible.
Because assessment results are
the amount of damage at theendpoint, it is relatively easy tounderstand the meaning of
calculation results.
It is used as a precondition for
integration and for verifying
integration results.

•

It is possible to obtain a single
index.
Applicability to otherenvironmental assessment tools(such as environmental
accounting and environmental
efficiency) is high.
No trade-off relationship arises.
It is excellent as an environmental
communication tool.

•

•
•

•
•

•
•

The number of evaluation result
items is large.
A trade-off relationship may arise
between impact categories.
Because it does not measure
actual environmental impact(damage) (for example, the degreeof contribution of an increase inradiation force), it is difficult tounderstand the meaning of
calculation results.
It is a domain where LCIA
research is immature.
Uncertainty is generally high,compared with characterization.
It is not defined as a step of ISO.

Because it is based on subjective
judgment of value and social
preference, the reproducibility of
results may not be realized,
depending on the method.
Many methods have not verified
the social representativeness ofweighting.
ISO considers it an optional
element.

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

As the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) regards characterization as
an essential element for LCA, characterization is conducted for LCA of almost all casestudies. Because the characterization factors used for assessment are based on
knowledge of natural science, the reliability of assessment results is thought to behigher than the reliability of the other steps. Meanwhile, because the results ofassessment by characterization can be obtained for each impact category, the items ofassessment results number more than ten. Therefore, if two or more products areassessed by comparison, a trade-off relation is highly likely to be found. In addition, acharacterization factor is generally a relative value (the amount of impact of a standard
substance, such as CO2, on a specific impact category is defined as 1). Because
assessment by the use of the characterization factor is not assessment of actual
environmental impact, it is difficult to compare it rationally with other environmental
impacts based solely on the result of the assessment.
On the other hand, because integration makes it possible to obtain an integrated single
index after comparison of various environmental impacts, no trade-off relation is found.
Because of this, integration is very useful when there is a trade-off relation between
assessment items at a preceding stage, such as damage assessment. In addition,
because a single index makes it easy to interpret assessment results, it is useful as acommunication tool. Moreover, integration step can be applied beyond the frameworkof LCA, such as environmental efficiency and environmental accounting. On the other
hand, because individuals’ and society’s judgment of value and preference enter into theweighting of environmental impacts, the introduction of assessment by integration has
been criticized so far.
Damage assessment stands at the middle between characterization and integration,
because it makes the most use of knowledge of natural science and focuses on theamount of damage to common endpoints. Since the results of assessment are put
together into endpoints, the number of result items can be reduced to about five (four inthe case of LIME). Moreover, because assessment is based on knowledge of naturalscience, it is possible to avoid individuals’ judgment of value to the greatest possible
extent. In addition, the results of damage assessment as the stage preceding integration
are extremely useful for logically explaining the results of integration. On the other
hand, the level of research on damage assessment methods is still under development,
and the number of internationally agreed items is small. Therefore, a lot of data andmodels are utilized in the connection with inventory through damage. In addition,
because data necessary for damage assessment are insufficient in some categories, theuncertainty of damage assessment may be relatively high.
Which step to emphasize among the three steps of LCIA depends on the practitioner’s
purpose. In addition, to facilitate the interpretation of LCIA results, comparing theresults of all the steps is more useful than using only one of the steps. Therefore, it
was decided that the purpose of the development of LIME should be to carry out, under
an integrated system, assessment that can deal with all the LCIA steps shown in Figure
1.1-9. The fruit of method development is the following group of lists for LCIA
assessment:
1) List of characterization factors
Global warming, ozone layer destruction, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical
oxidant, urban area air pollution, toxic chemicals (chronic toxicity, carcinogenesis),17

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

biological toxicity (terrestrial animals, aquatic organisms), land use, indoor air
contamination, noise, waste, mineral resources consumption, fossil fuel consumption,
biological resources consumption (15 impact categories in total)
2) List of damage factors
Human health, social assets, primary production, biodiversity (4 items in total)
3) List of integration factors
External cost, non-dimension (2 types in total)
Roughly, there are two ways of using these lists. One of them is linear calculation by
the use of representative values; the other is simulation by the use of statistical values.
LCIA by the use of representative values can be easily conducted by extracting
inventory data and corresponding environmental assessment factors from the lists.
Characterization:(1.2-1)

Damage assessment:(1.2-2)Integration:(1.2-3)

X, Impact, and Safe stand for inventory item, impact category, and the area of protection,
respectively.
CIImpact, DI (Safe), and SI stand for the calculation result of
characterization (impact category index), damage assessment (damage index), andintegration (single index), respectively. CFImpact (X), DIImpact (Safe, X), and IFImpact (X)stand for characterization factor, damage factor, and integration factor, respectively.
Simulation of LCIA by the use of statistical values is carried out by randomly extracting
parameters from formulas 1.2-1 and 1.2-3 under a certain probability distribution andcarrying out calculation by the use of them several times. Calculation can be carriedout easily by the use of statistical analysis software, such as Crystal Ball or Analytica, or
LCA software for statistical analysis. Although this document shows statistical valuesof the lists of LCIA factors (standard deviation, form of distribution, etc.), it isnecessary to prepare statistical values of inventory data for calculation beforehand.
Because the assessment of environmental impact by the use of LIME can be conducted
if data on environmental burden exist, LIME can be used also for purposes other than
LCA. LIME is expected to be used for various purposes, such as cost-benefit analysis,
life cycle cost-benefit analysis (LCCBA), assessment of environment conservation
effect for environmental accounting, assessment of comprehensive cost integrated withexternal cost, and assessment of environmental efficiency and factors.
1.2.3 Definition of areas of protection
There are two types of approaches to create the framework of an LCIA method and thescope of assessment: the bottom-up approach and the top-down approach (Figure 1.2-3).
The bottom-up approach first selects substances to be assessed and then picks out
impact categories closely related to these environmental burdens and endpoints. The
top-down method first defines what should be assessed among the endpoints that18

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

constitute the natural environment and then pick out impact categories andenvironmentally damaging substances that can give some damage to them.

Figure 1.2-3: Approach for creation of the framework of an LICA method
Bottom-up approach and top-down approach

If an LCIA method is developed mainly to cover all the substances that are thought tobe important for a specific product, the bottom-up approach is adopted. However, thebottom-up approach cannot clarify how the “environment” is grasped as the object ofassessment. Because many LCIA methods have already been developed and proposed,
clarifying how assessment methods grasp the “environment” and for which componentof the environment the quantification of impact is carried out is extremely important
information for the selection of an LCIA method suitable for the practitioner’s purpose.
When LIME was developed, priority was given to the clarification of the concept of theassessment method, and the top-down approach was adopted. Because the explanatory
documents for the other proposed LCIA methods based on endpoint modeling(Eco-indicator 99, EPS) also describe the objects of protection at the beginning, thetop-down approach has been adopted also for these methods.
To make the framework of LIME with top-down perspective, discussions were first held
to define areas of protection. Because many of the proposed lists of areas of protection
were prepared by LCIA method developers or panels of persons concerned, the grounds
for the final judgment often lacked sufficient clarity. To improve the objectivity ofstandards for selecting areas of protection, LIME began with research on theoreticalbackgrounds in other research fields and consideration of the results.
In the field of environmental ethics, many various ideas and assertions were alreadyproposed concerning post-anthropocentrism. Discussions have been held from various
angles as to how the human beings are required to think and act as members of theliving organism in the Earth. Therefore, when areas of protection were defined in
LIME, it was decided that main environmental ideas in the field of environmental ethics
should first be researched and analyzed and then discussions should be held based on
the results to select objects of protection.
19

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Because some proposed ideas in the field of environmental ethics (see Column 1.2-1)
conflict with each other, it is difficult to define areas of protection that satisfy all theideas. However, efforts were made to secure the objectivity of concepts of methods byseeing to it that these ideas on environmental ethics are reflected as much as possible
and by clarifying the relation between LIME’s list of areas of protection and the ideas
on environmental ethics.

Column 1.2-1
Discussions from the viewpoint of environmental ethics
Environmental ethics originated with the romanticism developed in the early 19th century.
Rousseau was a pioneer in recognizing the value of nature, and Goethe’s and Wordsworth’s
poems expressed ideas about environmental ethics. Although romantic ideas tended to beemotionally engaging, they developed into environmental ethics beyond anthropocentrism.
Today’s environmental ethics started with Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” (Leopold 1949).
Leopold collectively called water, soil, plants, and animals “land” and advocated theimportance of protection of the safety and view of the whole land. Leopold’s idea ischaracterized not by individualism, under which rights are granted to each living thing, but by
ethical consideration of the interests of biotic communities. Although Callicott has
succeeded to such holistic environmental ethics, there is criticism that no consideration is
given to individuals who are sacrificed for the interests of the whole.
From 1960 to the 1970s, responding to the emergence of environmental problems, many ideas
about environmental ethics that advocated the importance of giving the ecosystem rights
equivalent to the human rights, such as Carson’s “Silent Spring,” were proposed. The ideas
proposed during this period can be roughly divided into animal liberation theory, naturalobjects’ standing, and deep ecology.
Stone discussed “trees’ standing” in 1974 (Stone 1974) and Singer demanded the abolition of“speciesism” in his “Animal Liberation” (Singer 1975). Moreover, Naess advocated'biocentric equality” in his “Deep Ecology” (Naess 1973), asserting that all living things havethe right for “self-fulfillment.” These are regarded as assertions that rights equivalent tohuman rights should be granted to all the living things other than the human beings.
These ideas concern the relation between human beings and nature.
held also about ethics for relationships in human society.

Brisk discussions were

In Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin 1968), he logically explained that if areasonable person in a common puts sheep out to pasture, other persons will follow him, withthe result that the situation will get out of control and their environment will collapse. He
also asserted that the maintenance of the environment requires the restriction of individuals’
freedom. In addition, Hardin’s “Living on a Lifeboat” (Hardin 1974) compared countries topeople on a lifeboat to explain whether rich countries should give assistance to poor
countries. He concluded that rich countries should not give assistant to poor countries,
because the lifeboat itself will sink. While “lifeboat ethics” compares countries to people ona lifeboat, “spaceship ethics” (for example, Boulding 1996, Fuller 1966) compare the whole
Earth to a spaceship. Because the environment of the Earth functions as the system for
maintaining the spaceship, ignorance of a specific poor country affects the whole system of20

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

the spaceship. Using this “spaceship ethics,” Frechette refuted “lifeboat ethics” by assertingthat if developed countries help developing countries, this will affect developed countries andthen the whole Earth (Frechette 1981).
Moreover, in his “Intergenerational Ethics,” Frechette asserted that the current generation
should not adopt policies for promoting mass consumption of exhaustible resources orrequesting the future generation to purify polluted environments. In addition, in his“Environmental Justice,” he demanded the prevention of occurrence of an environmental gap
between North and South, because relatively inferior people also have the right to enjoy agood environment.
According to Kato (1991), the above-mentioned environmental ethics contain the following
three assertions:
Nature’s right to exist: Not only human beings but also species of living things have the rightto exist.
Intergenerational ethics: The current generation must not force worsened environments on the
future generations.
Earth totalitarianism: The Earth is a closed system whose components are interrelated witheach other.
Referring to these three assertions, Kito (1996) classified the above-mentioned ideas onenvironmental ethics into 1) humankind-nature relationship, 2) interhuman relationship, and
3) individual-whole relationship, as shown in Table 1.2-A.
Table 1.2-A: Classification of ideas on environmental ethics (according to Kito)
Humankind-nature
relationshipLand ethic
Animal liberation
Trees’ standing
Deep ecology

Interhuman relationshipIndividual-whole relationship

Intergenerational ethics
Environmental justiceTotalitarian
environmental
ethicsTragedy of common land
Lifeboat ethics
Spaceship ethics

As shown in Table 1.2-A, many environmental ideas classified as 1) human-nature
relationship (land ethic, animal liberation, deep ecology, and trees’ standing) advocate
post-anthropocentrism and biocentric equality, and 3) the environmental ideas classified
as individual-whole relationship (spaceship ethics, totalitarian environmental ethics)
assert that the global ecosystem is a system and should be treated as a component of an
essential system. These ideas on environmental ethics suggest the importance ofdiscussions about not only human beings as an area of protection but also avoidance ofenvironmental impact on the ecosystem. It can be said that the minimum requirement
for making the concept of LCIA methods consistent with these environmental ideas is tomake the environmental impact on both human beings and the ecosystem (living thingsother than human beings) reflected in the assessment.
It can be assumed that “human beings” and “the ecosystem” are defined as items to beprotected by LIME. With regard to “human beings,” however, it is necessary to clarify
21

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

whether only the life of each individual should be protected or whether quality of life
(QOL), social infrastructure for life, and products also should be included. In addition,
because the ecosystem includes not only plants and animals but also decomposers, suchas microbes, and inorganic environments, such as the air and water, the meaning may
differ depending on the range of objects. Moreover, when an LCIA method isdeveloped for Japan, it is necessary to show views as to whether environmental impact
in other countries should be taken into consideration, whether differences in the point of
occurrence of impact should be weighted, and whether the ecosystem for future
generations should be taken into consideration. The clarification of the components
and ranges of the human beings and the ecosystem is a requirement for quantifying
environmental impact during LCIA. Therefore, the components of “human beings”
and “the ecosystem” were defined based on past ideas on environmental ethics, andtheir geographical and temporal ranges were discussed.
If, as advocated by Kato, nature’s right to exist covers human beings, the lives of humanbeings should be included in the objects of respect as a component of nature. The
ideas on environmental ethics belonging to Table 1.2-A 2) interhuman relationships,
advocate equality in human society, asserting that human health and affluence should
not be damaged by environmental impact anywhere or anytime. “Intergenerational
ethics” and “environmental justice,” which are included in the category, advocate therights of future generations and the abolition of discrimination in environmental
conditions among developing countries. It is interpreted that they include not only thelife of mankind but also living affluence. In other words, it can be thought that
continuous and fair allocation of the supports of human society, such as farm products
and resources, is consistent with these assertions. Therefore, the elements to beprotected should include valuables, such as mineral resources, fossil fuels, agricultural
resources, and aquatic resources.
The ecosystem was considered as follows. According to biocentrism, which centers
on Singer’s animal liberation and Stone’s trees’ standing, it is desirable to include
animals and plants in the areas of assessment by LCIA as components of the ecosystem.
Moreover, according to the spaceship ethics, because decomposers, such as soilorganisms, and microbes, such as plankton, play an important role in circulating the
global environmental system, they should be included in the objects of assessment ascomponents to be protected. The “biocentrism” of deep ecology has adopted theprinciple of diversity and symbiosis, and biodiversity can be interpreted as an importantelement of the ecosystem. When species of living things are selected as objects ofassessment, one of the issues may be whether to treat higher animals and plants equally.
From the viewpoint of avoiding the principle of species discrimination, no consideration
will be given to the importance among species of living things.
Based on these discussions, the areas of protection under LIME were determined.
Under LIME, the items representative of the right of existence of “human beings” and“the ecosystem” are “human health” and “biodiversity,” respectively. “Human health”
includes not only life but also QOL. This is because intergenerational fairness andenvironmental justice are interpreted as advocating the granting of the right for health ina wider sense, including QOL, also to future generations and developing countries.
The item representative of the existence right of the ecosystem is biodiversity, because a
totalitarian idea that gives priority to the continuous existence of species rather than thatof individual organisms has been adopted.
22

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Moreover, “social assets” and “primary production” are regarded as items to beprotected, because they are necessary for “human beings” and “the ecosystem” to assert
the right of self-realization as living organisms. Social assets include not only mineral
resources and fossil fuels but also farm products, forest resources, and aquatic resources.
In addition to intergenerational fairness, social assets are essential elements forlessening regional and temporal environmental impact gaps under “environmental
justice.” Primary production includes microbes, such as plankton, and plants, such as
grassland and forests. All living things that cannot photosynthesize depend on plants
for the production of energy. Plants continuously supply oxygen and food essential foralmost all living things. The definition of primary production as an object ofprotection means that plant production is recognized as important.
Table 1.2-3 shows the objects of protection under LIME and the relations among them.
By the use of ideas on environmental ethics, the four items shown in the table (“humanhealth,” “social assets,” “biodiversity,” and “primary production”) were defined as theareas of protection. However, this expresses the ideas as one of the LCIA methods, but
is not concerned with whether they are true or false. The following are issues andproblems concerning the areas of protection under LIME.
Table 1.2-3: Positioning of objects of protection defined in LIME
Broader concept of areaof protection
Human society
Ecosystem
Classification standardof area of protection
Item interpreted as expression of eachbroader concept’s right to exist

Human health

Biodiversity

Item essential for maintenance of eachbroader concept

Social assets

Primary production

After human society and the ecosystem were defined as broader concepts of the objects of protection,
they were divided into those representing the objects’ right to exist and those essential for supporting
their maintenance. These four items have been defined as the objects of protection in LIME.

1) If “the ecosystem” consists of “biodiversity” and “primary production,” it can beinterpreted that importance is placed on consideration for species or plant production as awhole rather than individual organisms. In this respect, the concept of LIME may focus
on the totalitarianism of land ethic, etc. rather than trees’ standing. However, a decreasein the number of individual organisms leads to an increase in the risk of extinction and areduction in primary production. Actually, a method for assessing change in the risk ofextinction due to a decrease in the number of individual organisms has been adopted forthe impact assessment by LIME, and changes in the number of individual organisms havebeen reflected in the impact assessment.
2) Although it was planned that impact on future generations would be examined fromthe viewpoint of intergenerational fairness, there is no clear standard about to what extent
the future should be considered.
23

LIME2_C1-Outline_20123) Generally, “the ecosystem” includes not only living things but also environmental
media, such as water, air, and soil, and landscape. However, the pollution ofenvironmental media is treated as a matter to be measured intermediately in LIME, andenvironmental media are not included in the areas of protection. In this sense, LIME isa concept relatively close to biocentrism.
4) The results of damage assessment by LIME expresses that environmental impact islarger when an unspecific number of people receive a large amount of damage than whena specific number of people receive a small amount of damage. In principle, there is noregional or chronological discrimination. This indicates that there is a stronger tendency
toward totalitarianism than toward individualism. In addition, such a way ofunderstanding is adopted by many LCIA methods.
5) It can be thought that the establishment and weighting of the four items to beprotected are relatively consistent with the “spaceship ethics,” which places importanceon the balance of the components, thinking of the whole Earth as a system. This may be
inconsistent with assertions based on the lifeboat ethics.
6) To increase the objectivity of the definition of areas of protection, LIME adopted
theories of environmental ethics. However, because method developers make final
judgment about the definition of areas of protection, their ideas cannot be completely
eliminated. However, a panel of experts held discussions as described above so that
objectivity could be secured to the extent possible.
In this way, there are some problems n the definition of areas of protection. However,according to the results of analysis of weighting factors conducted after the interview
survey, all the four items included in the objects of protection specified by LIME were
statistically significant (see Chapter III). This indicates that people think of all the four
items as valuable, and it can be proven that assessment of these impacts is important.
Table 1.2-4 is a list of objects of protection proposed so far. Points of similarity andpoints of difference can be summarized as follows:[Points of similarity]• Items concerning human health are defined as independent areas of protection.
• Items concerning biodiversity are included in the objects of protection as qualitative
elements of the ecosystem.
• Mineral resources and fossil fuels are included in the objects of protection or theelements of the objects of protection.
[Points of difference]• Whether to include plant growth in the areas of protection differs among methods.
• The methods differ in whether to include farm products, aquatic resources, forest
resources, and others regarded as valuable in human society in the areas of protection.
• Some methods treat mineral resources and fossil fuels as independent areas ofprotection, while other methods define their broader concept (such as social assets) as theareas of protection and treat mineral resources, etc. as components of the concept.

24

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.2-4: Lists of objects of protection proposed so far and damage indexe

Quantitative assessment of damage assessment and integration

No indication

Eco-indicator 99 mentioned the three items in Table 1.2-4 as the items recognized as themost serious environmental problems in Europe, referring to EEA (1996).
Eco-indicator 99 deals with impacts in Europe and assumes that farm products’ impact
on artificial environments will not become serious. EPS does not show special
discussions about the selection of areas of protection. However, it regards mineral
resources and fossil fuels as components of “abiotic resources,” while it includes farm
products, fishery resources, and wood in the objects of assessment as areas of protection
called “ecological productivity,” together with cation, water, etc. In addition, although
EPS has selected “landscape” as an object of protection, there is no integration factor
that includes the impact on the item. Therefore, in reality, the impact on landscape is
not measured. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
regards forests and other plant production as a “life-support function,” but includes theresources produced through human beings’ encouragement to the natural environment,such as farm products and aquatic resources, in another object of protection called“man-made environment.”
In this way, the selection of areas of protection still differs among the previous researchcases. It can be said that the selection of areas of protection are materialization ofwhat components of the natural environment should be protected by the LCIA methods.
Therefore, the clarification of the concepts and theories that serve as backgrounds to theestablishment of areas of protection is important for securing objectivity. In addition,
because differences in the range of areas of protection among the LCIA methods greatly
influence integration results, the differences require attention.

25

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

1.2.4 Definition of damage indexes(1) Human healthIndexes of damage to human health are widely used for medical economy and insurance
statistics in order to grasp the current situation of health loss and make decisions about
medical activities. Recently, the use of such indexes has begun in the field ofenvironmental assessment.
The following are standards that express human health:1) Number of people (such as the number of victims and the number of deaths)
2) Time (such as duration of disability)3) Degree of reduction in QOL due to disability
It is desirable to include all the standards appropriately. The following indexes include
all of them:1) YOLL (Years of Life Lost)
2) QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year)
3) DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Year)
Figure 1.2-4 shows the images of these indexes. A sheet in the figure is a life balance
sheet that indicates the health condition over one’s entire life. The horizontal line of
the sheet indicates age and the vertical line indicates QOL. If an age is entirely
expressed by a light shade (QOL=1), this indicates healthy. If an age is partiallyexpressed by a dark shade, QOL decreases due to a certain disability (QOL<1). If
QOL is 0, this indicates death. In this case, asthma occurs in the 10s, an accident
occurs in the 20s, cataract occurs during the 40s and the 50s, pneumonia occurs in the
60s, and cancer occurs during the 70s and the 80s, which causes death.
1) Because YOLL basically includes the loss of life expectancy due to early death, early
death due to cancer is counted in this case.
YOLL due to cancer = 85 – 81 = 4 (years)(1.2-4)(When it is assumed that the person could live until 85 years old if he did not suffer
cancer)
YOLL does not count any disability or disease that does not lead to death. Therefore,
if the emission of CHC increases the number of persons who suffer cataract, this is notcounted by YOLL unless they die. As indexes that avoid this problem, 2) QALY and3) DALY have been drawing attention. They are characterized by being able tointegrate death and disability by measuring loss of health due to disability as loss of life
expectancy. Both measure loss of health due to disability by multiplying a reduction in
QOL due to disability by the period over which the disability continues. In the case of
Figure 1.2-4, loss of QALY due to cataract can be calculated as follows:
Loss of QALY due to cataract = 0.15 (Loss of QOL) × 10 (years) = 1.5 (years)(1.2-5)For the purpose of risk assessment and insurance statistics, an index that expresses the26

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

integrated death and disability as loss of life expectancy is called “QALY.” QOL andthe period of disability used for the calculation of QALY differ among individuals, andthe average QOL and period of disability differ among countries and regions. Becauseof this, when QALY is assessed, the assessor selects an area for the assessment,
independently carries out analytical research, and calculates QOL and other parametersconcerning each disability. Consequently, universal QALY that can be used all over
the world has not been obtained for every disease or cause of death.

Figure 1.2-4: Image of indexes that indicate damage to human health
The loss of life expectancy due to a specific disease, etc. is indicated by the parts in red(product of a decrease in QOL and the period of disability).

On the other hand, DALY was developed to assess the situation of health loss in theworld quantitatively, including health loss in developing countries. DALY is a healthindex that Murray et al. of Harvard University (1994, 1996) developed together withWHO during research on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) at the request of theWorld Bank. Figure 1.2-5 compares the annual DALY in the world (2000) with theannual DALY in Japan (1995). Although the situation of health loss varies in theworld, including infectious diseases, perinatal diseases, and acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS), diseases peculiar to developed countries, such as cancer
and cerebrovascular diseases, rank high in Japan. In this way, the situation of healthloss greatly differs among regions and countries, and each country uses such an index toselect diseases to be deal with first.
DALY is defined as follows and is used for the calculation of loss of life expectancy inthe world:(1.2-6)27

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.2-5: Current situation of health loss in the World and in JapanYLL refers to years of life loss due to early death, YLD refers to years lost due todisability, and DALY is the total of the two. a is the age of occurrence of disability ordeath, L is the difference between life expectancy and the age of death, and La is theduration of disability. C and β are fixed numbers of 0.1658 and 0.04 respectively.
This formula can be obtained by integrating the product of the following three items
over time:1) Weighting of disability (D)2) Social value of the age of disability or death (weighting by age) (Cx exp (–βx))3) Time discounting (exp {(– r) (x – a)})1) Weighting of disability was introduced to compare and integrate it with respect to thenumber of years lost due to death, by including a decrease in QOL as described above.
D = 0 in the case of health, while D = 1 in the case of death. D is set between 0 and 1,
depending on the seriousness of disability due to each disease. The Delphi method was
adopted for the setting. First, a panel of experts classified disabilities into seven classes,
referring to specific standards (Table 1.2-5). The standards for classification reflect fourbasic elements for human life (entertainment, education, reproduction, and work).
Whether one or more of them are partially or wholly damaged is the criterion forclassifying various disabilities. For example, diseases that wholly damage almost all of
the elements (paralysis of the extremities, serious dementia) are classified into Class 7,
which represents the most serious condition. After all the diseases covered by DALY
are classified into these classes, each disease is weighted.
2) Weighting by age (Figure 1.2-6) reflects difference in value between a year when
physical strength is high and a year when it becomes lower. If the function isdifferentiated with respect to x, the differential function becomes C (1 – βx) exp (–βx) andhas its maximum value when x = 1/β. Murray et al. set β at 0.04 so that the annual value
will become the maximum at the age of 25.

28

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.2-5: Criteria and basic classification of disability weighting(90 categories, 250 subcategories)
Class

Weighting

Examples of health condition

1

0.00-0.02

White spots on the face, low height (less than 2SD)

2

0.02-0.12

Watery diarrhea, serious sore throat, serious anemia

30.12-0.24

Fixing of plaster cast due to radial bone fracture, sterility, erection
failure, rheumatoid arthritis

40.24-0.36

Lower limb amputation (under knees), complete hearing loss

5

0.36-0.50

Rectovaginal tumor, slight mental retardation

6

0.50-0.70

Depressive disorder, complete sight loss, paraplegia

70.70-1.00

Active mental disorder, dementia, serious migraine, limb paralysis

Healthy: 0; death: 1
Four standards for determining weighting: amusement, education, reproduction, employment

Figure 1.2-6: Age weighting function

29

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

3) Time discounting is consideration of difference in the value that may differ
depending on the time of occurrence of the same event. For example, there is difference
between receiving one million yen now and receiving the same amount 50 years in the
future. The amount can be used during the 50 years if it is received now, while whether
the money can be actually used is unknown if it is received 50 years in the future.
Therefore, it is usually thought that the value of money is higher when the money isreceived now. In contrast, if the same damage occurs, it is better to receive it as late as
possible. In the field of economics, time discounting is a concept in common use.
Murray et al. adopted time discounting also for DALY, uniformly applying r = 0.03; that
is, an annual rate of 3%. Figure 1.2-7 shows the relation between time and value if the
discount rate is 3%. In this case, when 20 years pass, the value will become almost half.
Therefore, the value of yearly loss 20 years after is equivalent to the value of half-year
loss at present.

Figure 1.2-7: Discounting function (when the discounting rate r = 0.03)

DALY was adopted for LIME as the index of health damage, for the following reasons:1) Because the health impact in the whole world has already been qualified, DALY is
suitable for assessing global environmental impacts, such as global warming and ozone
layer destruction.
2) DALY has been authorized internationally.
Health Report.

For example, WHO uses it for its

3) DALY is often used for LCIA. DALY enables direct comparison of the results ofassessment in this research with the results of assessment by other LCIA methods andfacilitates comparison of methods.
However, when the concept of DALY was examined in light of LIME not as insurance
statistics but as an LCIA method, the necessity for inheriting all the characteristics of30

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

DALY like the weighting of age seemed low. Therefore, discussion was held about
whether to adopt the components of DALY.
The strongest characteristic of DALY as an index of health is the weighting of ages.
There is much criticism of the highest value of life being assigned to the age of 25.
Because of this, when health damage is assessed under LCIA, it seems almost
unnecessary to apply the weighting of ages. Therefore, the weighting of ages was not
adopted for LIME. Although time discounting was usually used for economic analysis,
an agreement has still not been reached in the field of health science concerning theapplication of similar discounting to life expectancy. With regard to time discounting,there are two issues: whether to adopt it and how much time should be discounted iftime discounting is applied. With regard to the latter issue in particular, it is difficult tofind reasonable grounds. For the purpose of this method, it was decided that time
discounting should not be taken into consideration at present, awaiting discussions in
the field of insurance statistics, etc. Table 1.2-6 summarizes how to consider thecomponents of DALY for the purpose of LIME, comparing it with WHO andEco-indicator 99. Although Eco-indicator 99 includes the weighting of ages in theindividualism established as one of the environmental ideas, LIME and Eco-indicator
99 have taken similar measures concerning the other matters.
Table 1.2-6: Comparison of treatment of parameters that constitute DALY
WHO, Murray(1996)

Eco-indicator ’99

LIME

Disability weighting

AdoptedAdoptedAdoptedAge weighting

AdoptedPartially adopted(Individualism only)

Not adopted

Time discounting

Adopted (yearlyrate of 3%)

Not adopted

Not adopted

In this way, because the original DALY was revised in LIME, it would be rather
appropriate to say that QALY is used as the index of health damage. However,
although other LCIA researches (for example, Hofstetter (1998), Goedkoop et al.
(1999)) have not adopted the weighting of ages and time discounting, the index ofhealth damage is called DALY. Therefore, in the field of LCA, it is becoming common
to call loss of life expectancy, including disability, DALY. Following this trend, it was
decided that the index of health damage should be called DALY for the purpose of
LIME.
Under LIME, damage factors to human health are expressed by DALY/kg concerning
all the target substances (For the method for calculating damage factors and the list, see
Chapter II and Annex 1.2, respectively). The index of damage can be derived bymultiplying inventory data Inv (X) by the corresponding damage factor DFImpact(HumanHealth, X). As a result, DI (HumanHealth) is expressed by DALY – that is,
the number of years.

(1.2-7)31

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012(2) Social assets
The number of agreements about the environmental impact on social assets is smaller
than that on agreements about the environmental impact on human health (see Column
1.2-2). In addition to methodology, the coverage and assessment indexes have notbeen discussed fully. However, because pioneer LCIA methods also assess the items
related to social assets, it is expected that methods covering the items will be developedin the future.
Under LIME, social assets are regarded as an essential element that supports the mental
and physical health of human beings and social soundness from the aspect of resources.
This is a response to the following: because the growth of plants (primary production)
supplies oxygen and is the starting point of food webs, it is considered to be one of theareas of protection as an essential element for maintaining the ecosystem. This isbecause Japan greatly depends on importation concerning not only energy resources andmineral resources but also forest resources and food and does not possess sufficient
resources for life. Because of this, under LIME, “social assets” were included in theareas of protection as a broader concept that covers fossil fuels, mineral resources,
forest resources, aquatic resources, and agricultural resources as its components.

Column 1.2-2

Components of social assets
Table 1.2-B compares main LCIA methods’ ways of understanding social assets. EPS (Steen
1999) divides social assets into “ecosystem production capacity” and “abiotic resources.”
The former is related to living elements, while the latter is related to nonliving elements.
Although ExternE (EC 1998) has no definition of areas of protection, the impacts that occur
mainly when environmentally damaging substances are emitted (output) are assessed.
Eco-indicator 99 (Goedkoop et al. 1999) defines “resources (mineral resources, fossil fuels)”
as the area of protection. Contrary to ExternE, Eco-indicator 99 takes into consideration the
consumption of exhaustible resources, but excludes the impact on the depletion of assets
caused by emission of pollutants such as fishery and forestry.
If social assets are examined at the element level (Table 1.2-B), all the methods that covernonliving resources include fossil fuels and mineral resources, but they differ in the treatmentof water resources and materials. Although developed countries are highly interested in theexhaustion of minerals and fossil fuels, a shortage of water in developing countries is severeat the global level. Eco-indicator 99 covers Europe, LIME covers Japan, and EPS deals withthe world. Difference in the range of objects of assessment among the methods may becaused by difference in the target areas.
Although all the methods that assess living resources include forest resources, aquatic
resources, and farm products, EPS also takes into consideration the impact on meat and cation(buffer capacity against acidification of soil).
It seems necessary to verify thecomprehensiveness of the components of social assets (whether the impact of environmental
pollution on meat, etc. is small enough to ignore, compared with other elements).

32

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.2-B: Concept of social assets in main LCIA methods

Area ofprotection
related to social
assetsAssessment
area

Nonliving

Living

EPS ver.2000

Eco-indicato
r’99

ExternE

LIME

Ecologicalproductivity
Nonliving
resources

ResourcesNo
definition

Social assets

GlobalEuropeEuropeJapan (in the case ofmining of resources,
impact at spots ofmining is assessed)

Fossil fuels

Fossil fuels-

Fossil fuels

Mineral resources

Mineralresources-

Mineral resources

Cation

-

-

Water

-

-

-

-

Materials

Forest resources-

Forestresources

Forest resources

Aquatic resources-

Aquatic
resources

Aquatic resources

Farm products-

Farm
products

Farm products

Meat

-

Many of the LCIA methods developed mainly by developed countries have so far
targeted nonliving resources, in order to restrict the consumption of fossil fuels andmineral resources and increase resource productivity. However, there are suggestions
that, if a valuable resource degrades due to an environmental impact, an economic
assessment method, such as ExternE or EPS, should assess the depletion of the resource
as a socioeconomic impact, regardless of whether or not its market exists (see Column
1.2-3).
The index for assessing the amount of damage to social assets differs depending on thecomponents of the social assets. Table 1.2-7 summarizes the damage indexes for items
related to social assets and how to assess the indexes. If, like Eco-indicator 99, an
LCIA method covers fossil fuels only or mineral resources and other nonliving
substances, it can express damage in physical amount, such as energy amount.
If forest resources, farm products, and other living resources are also assessed
comprehensively, the degree of damage to them is often expressed by economic indexes.
However, the assessment methods differ according to what LCIA method is used andwhat is assessed. For example, transaction prices are applied for farm products, forest
resources, and aquatic resources, for which markets exist. With regard to resources for33

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

which markets do not exist or are hard to find (water, cation), the willingness to pay(WTP) calculated by the contingent valuation method (CVM) is often used. With
regard to resources for which markets exist, but it is difficult to use market prices as
they are, because of the relation with future generations (fossil fuels, mineral resources),the manner of treating them differs among methods. Assuming that an alternative
resource will be used after the exhaustion of each resource, EPS adopts the (integration)
result of impact assessment in the case of production of alternative resources as theintegration factor. On the other hand, LIME adopts the user cost method. The user
cost method calculates the amount of money that the current generation should save inorder to make the profit that the future generation will gain through the procurement of
the resource in question equivalent to the profit received by the current generation (fordetails, see Section 2.10). Because the result is expressed in amount of money, it ispossible to examine the relation with the impact on the other elements (forest resources,
living resources, and farm products).
Table 1.2-7: Damage indexes of social assets and methods of calculating the amount ofdamage to each component in main LCIA methods

Damageindex

Component

In this way, the simultaneous use of several assessment methods, such as price,
willingness to pay, and user cost, enables comprehensive assessment, but the following
issues seem to remain:
1) Is it possible to simply add up results derived by different methods?
2) To calculate a value lost in society, it is better to add up losses in consumer surplus
and total surplus (total of consumer surplus and producer surplus). The amount ofdamage can be calculated by multiplying the amount of valuables lost due toenvironmental changes (for example, the amount of aquatic resources) by theireconomic values. This amount of damage differs from the reduction in consumer
34

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

surplus. At present, however, it is impossible to measure changes in surplus
concerning all farm products, forests, etc.
3) Although the user cost method is excellent in that it can comprehensively assess
nonliving resources, it is necessary to set a discount rate. LCIA usually does notdiscount the impact on future generations, which is often treated in the same way as theimpact on the current generation. If assessment results gained from methods that differ
in treating the impact on the future are added up, it is necessary to make someadjustment.
Under LIME, attention was paid to the following impact categories that influence social
assets: global warming, ozone layer destruction, acidification, eutrophication,
photochemical oxidant, wastes, mineral resources consumption, and fossil fuelsconsumption. Table 1.2-8 shows the relation between the impact categories and thecomponents of social assets. For reference, the table also shows relations with other
LCIA methods.
Table 1.2-8: Relation between components of social assets and impact categories
ICA method
EPS

ExternE

LIME

Farm products

Farm products

Farm products

Wood

-

Forest-Land

Land submergence--

Energy resources-

Water resources(Impact of water shortage on
farm products)(Interrelated withwarming)-

Forest (conifer forest)

Fish/meat

Fish

Aquatic resources (salmon/trout)-

ForestForest resources-

Farm products--

Material-

Impact category

Glo bal warming

Ozone layer
destruction

Acidification

Eutrophication

Cation-Fish/meat

-

Wood

-

Aquatic resources

Photochemical
oxidant

Wood

ForestForestFarm products

Farm products

Farm products

Waste

-

-

Disposal site

Fossil fuelconsumption

Fossil fuel-Fossil fuelMineral resources
consumption

Mineral resources -Mineral resources

35

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Under LIME, the impact of acidification on farm products and the impact ofeutrophication on forests, etc. were not assessed. This is because, as shown below,
these impacts do not seem serious at present in Japan.
1) Generally, farm products are highly acid-resistant. Nouchi (1996) asserts thatrainfall has almost no impact on the growth or yield of farm products unless the pH ofrainfall decreases to the 2.0 level. Because the current rainfall in Japan is at a level ofpH 4 to 5, it is thought that acid rain does not directly damage agriculture. Manyexperiments on the impact of acid deposition on farm products show that the usual levelof acid rain causes no reduction in yield (Banwart et al. 1990, NAPAP 1987, Hosono etal. 1994).
2) The impact of eutrophication on the terrestrial ecosystem is one of the items to which
great importance is attached in Europe. According to GEO-2000 (UNEP 2001), thewhole of North Europe is saturated with nitrogen at present. The number of researchcases about whether nitrogen saturation has occurred is increasing also in Japan. As
described in Yo et al. (1999), Kato et al. (1999), Baba et al. (1998), Yo et al. (2001),
Hayashi et al. (2001), and Ohrui (1997), many experts have the opinion that the forests
in Japan are sound, although the density of nitrate nitrogen is generally or seasonallyhigh in soil and soil solution. Moreover, because nitrogen burden brings about apositive effect at the beginning, it is necessary to discuss how to formulize the relation
with the negative effect of nitrogen saturation.
Although LIME includes not only mineral resources and fossil fuels but also living
resources consumption in “resources consumption,” the economic value of forest
ecosystem services greatly differs among assessors and it cannot be applied to LCIA
due to insufficient discussions. Therefore, it is not included in the objects ofassessment (however, damage to primary production and biodiversity due to the use ofliving resources is included in the objects of assessment. See Section 2.10).
Moreover, in LIME2, the loss of social assets due to landfill of waste was newly
included in the objects of assessment. This is because waste disposal sites havescarcity in Japan, whose land is narrow. As in the case of mineral resources and fossil
fuels, the user cost method was adopted as the assessment method.
Under LIME, damage factors to social assets are expressed in Yen/kg concerning all thetarget substances (for the calculation method and list of damage factors, see Chapter II
and Annex 1.2 respectively). Damage assessment can be conducted throughmultiplication by the damage factor DFImpact (SocialAssets, X), which corresponds toinventory data Inv (X). As a result, DI (Social Assets) is expressed in Yen.

(1.2-8)(3) Biodiversity
Because human activities have been giving great damage to the natural environment, theconservation of biodiversity has become essential for guaranteeing the right of living
36

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012with the blessings of nature to not only the current generation but also future
generations. Biodiversity is a word coined during the second half of the 1980s.
Biodiversity is defined as the concept that the diversity of life brought about on the
Earth between the birth of life and the evolution of living things, ranging fromhereditary diversity to landscape diversity, has compositional, structural, and functional
strata (see Figure 1.2-8) (Washitani 1996).

Figure 1.2-8: Layered structure of biodiversity (Washitani (1996))

Because it was difficult to express the impact of all these strata on the ecosystem, whena damage index is selected for LIME, it was necessary to select representative elementsof biodiversity from among the strata. The following are the processes up to theselection of a damage index for LIME:The Endangered Species Act in the US and the Washington Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora specify the living things to beprotected concerning each species. In addition, the Red Data Book (RDB) of theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) specifies the living things indanger of extinction and their degree of risk of extension. Then the Environment
Agency published RDB in accordance with IUCN’s RDB, describing the current
situation of the endangered species in Japan. Ecologists have expressed the view thatthe stratum of “species and population” is the “pivot” of biodiversity. This is because
the stratum is the base for the stratum of “community and ecosystem” at a larger-scalelevel through interrelation among living things, while it influences the properties of thestratum of “gene” at a smaller-scale level through the movement of gametes within apopulation and between populations.
Moreover, RDB and other data necessary for quantitatively assessing the impact on
biodiversity exist at the level divided by species. Usually, the assessment of theecosystem by LCIA focuses on species.
In this way, from every aspect, such as domestic and foreign trends in biodiversity,
current ecological views, and the feasibility of development of assessment methods, it
37LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

was decided that LIME should focus on changes in “species” as the element
representative of biodiversity. In addition, because RDB and other activities forprotecting species aim to prevent the extinction of species, LIME picked up the risk ofextinction of species as the index that most directly expresses the damage received bybiodiversity.
Figure 1.2-9 shows an image of secular changes in the population of a species. The
population of a species is thought to move between 0 and the maximum permissiblelevel (K in Figure 1.2-9). This is because, as the population becomes closer to acertain level (K), food and other resources become insufficient and the competition
among individuals becomes fiercer, with the result that the number of individuals will
be limited. After the population changes within a certain range, receiving influencesfrom various limitation factors, it becomes 0; that is, the extinction of the species. The
time between the present and the extinction is called the “extinction time” hereinafter.
This extinction is regarded as the life expectancy of the species. The reciprocal of theextinction time is used as the risk of extinction. That is, if the extinction time is 100
years, the risk of extinction per single year is 1/100, the reciprocal.

Figure 1.2-9: Relation of temporal changes in the number of individuals of a species
and the extinction of the species
K: environmental capacity, number of existing individuals
r: intrinsic rate of natural increase, decreasing rate
v: sensitivity to environmental changes

In the field of conservation ecology, detailed examination has been promoted
concerning methods for assessment of risks of extinction in the ecosystem andcollection of data about the risks. For this purpose, the extinction time is usuallycalculated based on the results of simulation by the Monte Carlo method, etc.
Therefore, the extinction time gained from simulation is an expected value. To derivea damage factor for biodiversity, it is effective to use regression research results basedon such calculation of the extinction time.
As the damage index for biodiversity, LIME adopted the Expected Increase in Number
of Extinct Species (EINES) gained from the expected value of the increased risk ofextinction of species due to environmental burden.

38

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

EINES is calculated as follows:(1.2-9)∆Rs refers to a change in the risk of extinction of the species s due to environmental
burden, and Tb,s and Ta,s refer to the extinction time before and after occurrence ofenvironmental burden, respectively.
After the calculation of a change in the extinction time due to occurrence ofenvironment burden concerning each species, EINES is calculated by adding up thechanges.
As shown in Formula 1.2-9, the calculation of EINES requires the assessment of theextinction time of the species before and after occurrence of environmental burden.
Lande (1993) mentions the following three parameters that influence the extinction time
(Figure 1.2-9):
1) Intrinsic natural increase rate: increase rate when a type of population displays its
maximum biotic potential under the most favorable environment2) Carrying capacity: maximum population that can be maintained stably in the habitat3) Sensibility to environmental changes: changes in the population due toenvironmental changes, such as changes in temperature and precipitation
In LIME, attention was paid to “land use,” “mineral resources consumption,” “fossil
fuel consumption,” “living resources consumption,” “waste,” and “biological toxicity”
as impact categories related to the extinction of species. Damage factors weredeveloped by relating these environmental burdens with the above-described threeparameters related to extinction time.
In the case of the assessment of the impact of land use, the plant population decreases ina site where land is physically rearranged.*2 A damage factor was calculated byrelating this change in the population to the change in carrying capacity explained in 2)
above. In addition, the mining of resources and the landfill of waste also areaccompanied by land rearrangement. Therefore, the impact of these acts on theecosystem was included in the impact categories “mineral resources consumption,”“fossil fuel consumption,” biotic resources consumption,” and “waste.”In the case of impact assessment by a toxic substance, changes in sensitivity were
calculated in relation to changes in 1) intrinsic natural increasing and 3) environmental
changes due to exposure to the toxic substance, and assessment was made on the*2

The impact of land use can be roughly divided into the impact of land rearrangement and the impact of land maintenance. For the
purpose of the impact on biodiversity, only the former was assessed. This is because it was assumed that the population of a species,
one of the parameters used for the assessment of extinction time, greatly changes when land is physically rearranged, but does notchange by land maintenance. Because (artificial) land maintenance influences plant growth more than that under natural conditions,the impact of land maintenance is assessed in relation to damage to “primary production.”

39

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

assumption that changes in sensitivity would lead to a reduction in the extinction time.
Table 1.2-9 summarizes the relation between assessment of damage to biodiversity andconservation ecology.
Because a damage factor is a change in EINES due to an environmental burden, the useof it for LCIA requires the calculation the damage index DI (Biodiversity) through sumof products of the damage factor DFImpact (Biodiversity, X) and the corresponding
inventory Inv (X). The unit of damage factor is EINES. However, because LIME
gives consideration to several impact categories as factors for changes in the risk ofextinction of species (Table 1.2-9), there are two units of the inventory Inv (X): weight(kg) (in the case of emission of chemical substance, waste landfill, and resources
consumption) and area of land transformation (m2). Note that, accordingly, there are
two units of damage factor – EINES/kg and EINES/ m2.

(1.2-10)
Details of the methodology of calculating damage factors were explained in Sections
2.7 and 2.9.
Table 1.2-9: Summary of damage assessment of biodiversity in LIME
ImpactResource
category
Biological toxicity
Land use
consumption

Waste

Elements ofecosystem
influenced byenvironmental
burdenIntrinsic rate ofnatural increase
Sensitivity toenvironmental
changesNumber ofindividuals

Number ofindividuals

Number ofindividuals

SpeciesAquatic organisms(fishes,
Crustacean, algae)

Vascular plants(weakest
against land
readjustment)

Vascular plants

Vascular plants

Toxicity data
Red Data Book

Red Data Book
Environmental
assessment
reportEnvironmental
assessment
report (sites ofresources
mining)Damage factor
for landadjustment

Environmental
assessment report(construction oflandfill sites)
Damage factor
for landadjustment

Theory/regression
equation used for
estimation ofamount of damage

Lande (1998),
Tanaka (2000)(2001), Lande &Orzack (1988)

Matsuda (2003)

Matsuda (2003)

Matsuda (2003)

Unit of damage
factorEINES/kg

EINES/m

EINES/kg

EINES/kg

Base data

40

2

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Column 1.2-3

Biodiversity damage assessment by LCIA methods
The biodiversity damage assessment methods proposed during LCIA researches can bemainly divided into the following:
1)

Assessment of the impact caused by the exposure of a toxic substance, such as achemical substance (example: biological toxicity)2) Assessment of the impact on the ecosystem caused by a change in an environmental
medium due to the emission or deposition of a acidifying substance (examples:
acidification, eutrophication)3) Assessment of the impact on the ecosystem caused by a physical change in a habitat(examples: land use, resource mining, waste landfill)
At present, the extinction of species is mostly caused by artificial factors. Among them, thedestruction of habitats, overhunting, environmental pollution, and the invasion of introduced
species are regarded as main factors (Matsuda 2000). In the above case, 1) and 2) concern
environmental pollution, and 3) concerns the destruction of habitats. Although hunting andthe invasion of introduced species is problematic from the viewpoint of the conservation of
the ecosystem, because LCIA is conducted concerning the life cycle of products, etc., thenecessity for considering them is relatively low.
Table 1.2-C summarizes the LCIA methods proposed so far concerning biodiversity. PAF
and PDF have been adopted as damage indexes by Eco-indicator 99. NEX and EINES havebeen adopted as damage indexes by EPS and LIME, respectively. According to the table,
although all of them indicate impact on biodiversity, they differ in many points, such as themeaning conveyed by each damage index, the scope of assessment, and the assessment
method.
PAF refers to the ratio of species “receiving impact,” while PDF refers to the ratio of species“disappearing” from a specific area. This is because of the difference in the characteristicsof the basic data used for the calculation of each damage factor. PAF uses a threshold of
occurrence of impact due to the exposure of a toxic substance. PAF can be calculated fromthe ratio of species that exist in an environment where the density of pollutants exceeds thethreshold.
The calculation of PDF is based on the ratio of species that can exist in a grid with a side of
250 meters (POO). After the calculation of POO, the disappearing ratio is calculated bydeducting POO from 1. PDF is excellent in that it can assess the amount of damage causedby acidification and eutrophication in addition to the impact of land use and reflect thegeographical characteristics of the target area. Eco-indicator 99 assesses damage byintegrating PAF and PDF through the conversion of the former into the latter. Goedkoop etal. (1999) pointed out that it is difficult to carry out this conversion reasonably and theuncertainty is high.

41

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.2-C: Comparison of damage indexes concerning biodiversity
Damage index

PAF (Potentially
Affected Fractionof species)

PDF (Potentially
Disappeared
Fraction)

NEX(Normalized
EXtinction of
species)

EINES(Expected
Increase in
Number ofExtinct Species)

AdoptedmethodEco-indicator ‘99

Eco-indicator ‘99

EPS ver.2000

LIME

Meaning ofindex

Ratio ofinfluenced
species

Ratio of extinct
species

Degree of annual
contribution to
extinction of
species

Expected
number of
extinct species

Unit of damage
index

Non-dimensional

PDF(non-dimensional) × area × time

Non-dimensional

Number of
extinct species(total of
extinction risks)

Related impact
category

Biological
toxicity

Land use,
acidification/
eutrophication

Warming,acidification,
eutrophication,
biological
toxicity, land use

Biological
toxicity, landuse, resources
mining, waste
landfill

Method ofcalculating
damage factor

Marginal

Marginal

Average

Marginal

Strong points

・Toxicity data
are reflected indamageassessment.
・The number ofassessed
substances islarge.

・Because
assessment
results at themesh level are
accumulated, it iseasy to reflectthecharacteristics ofthe target area.
・It is possible totake into
consideration theimpact ofacidification andeutrophication.

・The index ishighlycomprehensive.
・It is relatively
easy to calculate
the damage
factor.

・It is relatively
easy tounderstand themeaning of theindex.
・The index isbased onconservation
ecology.
・The index is
consistent withthe data of the
Red Data Book.

Problems/issues・It is difficult to
integrate it with
PDF rationally.
・It is difficult tounderstand therelation between
the ratio of
influenced
species and thediversity of
species.

・The validity of
extrapolation of
the result in
Holland to thewhole of Europe
is uncertain.
・It is difficult torecognize theresult ofmultiplying PDF
by time and area
as an impact ondiversity.

・The validity of
extrapolation of
the result in
Sweden to thewhole of Europe
is uncertain.
・Actual impact is
not included in
the ratio to thewhole impact.

・Because of
future forecast,
it is difficult toverify the
results.
・No
consideration is
given to theweighting ofspecies.

42

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.2-A: Calculation method of NEX (prepared by the author based on Steen 2000)
ELU: Integration index of EPS

Figure 1.2-A shows an image of a method for calculating NEX. The damage factor is
calculated by dividing the annual amount of potential damage received by the ecosystem byfactor and dividing the composition ratio by the annual environmental burden of thesubstance contributing the factor or the land use (average type). The integration factor canbe calculated by multiplying the damage factor by the annual cost spent for the conservationof the ecosystem. This calculation is carried out on the assumption that the total annual cost
spent for the conservation of the ecosystem is equivalent to the willingness to pay for theannual potential damage to the ecosystem. One of the advantages of this method is that it
can cover various impact categories, such as agriculture, toxic chemical substances,eutrophication, and acidification. On the other hand, because the target area of the baseinformation is Sweden, the method is carried out on the assumption that the method spreads
all over the world without the validation of this assumption.
ENIES to be adopted by LIME can be obtained by adding up the risk of extinction calculated
for each species. Its advantages are that the meaning of the result and the form of expression
are easy to understand because the number of extinct species is directly calculated and that it
is possible to compare and integrate different channels, such as the exposure of a toxic
substance and land rearrangement. In addition, impact of waste and resource mining is
included in assessment with consideration for the characteristics of the environmental
problems in Japan. On the other hand, because the calculation of the risk of extinction is aprediction for the future, problems may arise in the future about how to verify assessment
results and how to consider importance among the living species covered by the calculation of
the risk of extinction.
In this way, biodiversity damage assessment methods under LCIA differ in various aspects
and are still under development. Further research and development and international
discussions will be required in the future.

43

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012(4) Primary production
Living things’ vital activities require energy, most of which originates from sunlight.
However, sunlight is not used directly. Plants use sunlight (light energy) for
synthesizing CO2 and water into organic substances. This photosynthesis generates
oxygen and serves as the basis for a source of energy. In other words, plants are an
existence that creates accumulative chemical energy (organic substances) from transientradiant energy (sunlight). Therefore, plants are also called producers.
Plants play various roles in the ecosystem. The most important roles for the continued
existence of the ecosystem are the following two:
1) The role as the starting point of the food chain2) The role of supplying oxygen through photosynthesis
Figure 1.2-10 shows the relation among the constituents of the ecosystem – producers,
consumers, and decomposers. Because plants are living things that can create nutritionby themselves (producers), they occupy the most basic position in the food chain.
Heterotrophic organisms (consumers), which cannot create nutrition by themselves,depend on autotrophic organisms for the source of nutrition. Plants are eaten byherbivorous animals, primary consumers, which are then eaten by carnivorous animals,
secondary consumers. Decomposers carry out activities at every stage of the foodchain, decomposing organic substances in living things’ carcasses and wastes into
inorganic substances so that producers can use them again, and living by the use ofenergy that is generated during the decomposition. Plants function as the starting pointof such a cycle in the biosphere.

Figure 1.2-10: Environmental and biological cycling in the ecosystem

44

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.2-11 shows the relation between oxygen partial pressure and the track of
biological evolution so far (Wada 2002). In this way, biological evolution correlateswith oxygen partial pressure. That is, microbes completed the oxygen respiration
system when the oxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere increased to 1/100 thepressure at present, and the ozone layer appeared and the landing of living things began
when the pressure increased to 1/10 the present pressure. After oxygen was
accumulated sufficiently, various higher animals prospered and biodiversity wasbrought about, centering on interactions among living things. In this way, the historyof the development of the biosphere can be explained as the history of changes in theoxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere. Oxygen is supplied through plants’photosynthesis.

Figure 1.2-11: Relation of oxygen partial pressure and development of creatures(Wada 2002)

Plants’ creation of organic substances through photosynthesis is called primary
production. This is distinguished from heterotrophic organisms’ production, which iscalled secondary production. The total amount of organic substances’ production iscalled gross production, most of which is consumed by the respiration of plants
themselves. The remaining production becomes organic substances that constitute
plants, which is called net production. A part of net production flows into the foodchain that starts with herbivorous animals that eat plants as the source of energy(consumers) or into microbes that decompose organic substances into inorganic
substances (decomposers). Therefore, plants’ primary production is recognized as theimportant base for the energy flow of the ecosystem.
The following are prospective damage indexes for assessing the impact on primary
production:
1) Gross primary production (GPP)
2) Net primary production (NPP)
3) Volume of Plant biomass
45

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.2-12 shows the relations among them. GPP and NPP are expressed in
production per hour – that is, production rate. Both are usually expressed in dry matterproduction per unit land area per year (example: t ha-1 yr-1). On the other hand, plantbiomass is expressed in gross dry matter production per unit land area at a certain pointof time (example: t ha-1). This is equivalent to net production less predation and litter
integrated by the length of life of vegetation.

Figure 1.2-12: Relations among gross primary production, net primary production,and plant biomass concerning plant production

In LIME, a damage index for primary production was selected from the viewpoint of
the above-described roles of plants as producers (starting point of the food chain and the
supply of oxygen).
If the three indexes – GPP, NPP, and plant biomass – are compared in light of the supplyof food to consumers, plant biomass seems to be the most suitable for the supply fromthe viewpoint of securing a certain volume of plants. However, from the viewpoint ofcontinuous supply of a certain cumulative volume of plants, the requirement will not be
fulfilled only by a large cumulative volume. It is necessary to grow at a speed higher
than a certain level. NPP seems the most suitable as the index that fulfills thisrequirement.
If the three indexes are compared from the viewpoint of supply of oxygen, because
oxygen is created by production activities through photosynthesis, plant biomass cannot
deal with this. In addition, because GPP includes the respiration of plants themselves,
it includes oxygen consumption. Therefore, from this aspect also, NPP seemed to be
the most suitable because it indicates production activities excluding the respiration.
Therefore, it was decided that NPP should be used as the damage index for the primary
production in LIME. In addition, the objects of assessment are producers (which
supply oxygen and serve as the base for the food chain) – concretely, terrestrial plants
and aquatic phytoplankton.
The damage factor is the unit amount of change in NPP caused by an environmental
burden. When the factor is used for LCIA, the damage index DI (PrimaryProduction)is calculated by adding up the products of the damage factor DFImpact(PrimaryProduction, X) and corresponding inventory Inv (X). The unit for the damage
index DI (PrimaryProduction) is dry weight (dry – kg).

46

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012(1.2-11)
The impact categories that influence the primary production vary, including “ozone
layer destruction,” “acidification,” “photochemical oxidant,” “waste,” “land use(maintenance and rearrangement),” “mineral resources consumption,” “fossil fuelconsumption,” and “living resources consumption.” Table 1-2-10 summarizes therelation between the impact categories related to primary production and the impact
categories where the amount of damage is assessed in LIME. As shown in the table, it
was decided that the impact of “global warming” and “eutrophication” on primary
production should not be included under this method. The causes for the impact of
global warming on primary production include not only changes in weather conditions
and the submergence of land but also the fertilizer effect caused by an increase in thedensity of CO2 (which works as a benefit). With regard to eutrophication, the flow ofnutrition sources, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, into oligotrophic lakes improves
environmental conditions. In LIME, impact assessment is carried out concerning not
only damage but also benefits in principle (for example, a decrease in cold stress due toglobal warming, a decrease in energy consumption for cooling, and land rearrangementfrom an urban area to a forest are included as benefits). However, the fertilizer effectof CO2 and the flow of nutrition into oligotrophic lakes were excluded from the objectsof assessment, because the uncertainty of the assessment of these benefits is high andbecause their inclusion will greatly influence the final results. It was decided to wait
and see the progress in each research field in the future.
Table 1.2-10: Damage assessment of primary production in LIME
Impact category
Ozone layer
destruction

Existence of object of damage assessment andreason○Global warming

×(The result greatly differs depending on the effectof fertilization.)

Acidification○

Eutrophication×(It is difficult to assess positive and negative
impacts on plant production comprehensively.)

Photochemical
oxidant○

Element of object ofassessment
Phytoplankton

Terrestrial vegetation-

Terrestrial vegetation

Waste

○
(Land readjustment by waste landfill)

Land use○(Physical readjustment and maintenance of land)

Terrestrial vegetation○(Impact of mining of resources)

Terrestrial vegetation

Mineralresources
consumption

Terrestrial vegetation(excluding marine landfill)

47

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Fossil fuelconsumption○(Impact of mining of resources)

Terrestrial vegetation

Biofuelconsumption○(Impact of deforestation)

Terrestrial vegetation

Table 1.2-11: Defined objects of protection and adopted damage indexes for LIME
Abject ofprotection

Damage index

Dimension

Human health

DALY

Year

Death, non-fatal disability and illness

Social assets

Yen

Yen

Farm products, aquatic resources, forest
resources, mineral resources, fossil fuels

Biodiversity

EINES(Expected) numberof extinct species

Extinction of species(Vascular plants, aquatic organisms(fishes, crustacean, algae))

Primary
production

NPP

kg-DW

Terrestrial plants, marine plankton

Elements

As the conclusion of this section, Table 1.2-11 shows the elements included in each areaof protection and the damage indexes adopted for LIME. In LIME, damage factors
were developed, giving priority to the impact categories and endpoints points wherethese areas of protection were regarded as highly likely to receive serious damage withthe worsening of environmental problems.
1.2.5 Impact categories and category endpoints
Section 1.2.3 explained the definition of the areas of protection, adopting a top-down
approach to natural environments. With regard to the selection of impact categories
also, priority was given to the impact categories likely to have a strong impact on theareas of protection from a top-down viewpoint. However, because LCIA recognizes
impact categories as the objects in the step of characterization, the definition of impact
categories is restricted in relation to the development of methods for thecharacterization model. In addition, one of the points to consider when defining
impact categories is that many impact categories are generally assumed to beenvironmental problems. As a result, under this method, impact categories were
defined mainly by the use of a top-down approach and with consideration for bottom-up
requirements. Table 1.2-12 shows the results and the grounds for selection. In
LIME2, “indoor air pollution” and “noise” were added as new impact categories. This
enabled appropriate assessment of construction materials containing adhesives andpaints with lower emission of VOC and car parts that can effectively reduce noise.
The framework of LIME has been completed after a lot of discussions. Figure 1.1-9
shows the concept of LIME2. As shown in the figure, this method defines 15 impact
categories and 4 areas of protection (see Section 1.2.3 “Definition of areas ofprotection”). The assessment of environmental impact by this method consists of thefollowing steps:
48

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.2-12: Impact categories included in assessment under LIME and grounds for the inclusion

OutputImpact categories
included inassessment

Grounds for including them in assessment

Globalwarming• It has impact on human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary
production.
• It is usually an object of assessment concerning characterization.

Ozone layer
destruction• It has impact on human health, social assets, and primary production.
• It is usually an object of characterization.

Acidification• It has impact on social assets and primary production.
• It is usually an object of assessment concerning characterization.

Photochemical
oxidant• It has impact on human health, social assets, and primary production.
• It is usually an object of assessment concerning characterization.

Urban area air
pollution• It has impact on human health.
• Because it is possible to create models for characterization and damage
assessment at the regional level, it was separated from toxic chemicals.

Toxic
chemicals• It has impact on human health.
• Because it is impossible to create models for characterization anddamage assessment at the regional level at present, it was separated fromurban area air pollution.

Indoor air
contamination• It has impact on human health.
• Because of difference in exposure efficiency, it was separated from theimpact of emission in the general atmosphere, such as toxic chemicals
and air pollution.

Biological
toxicity
Eutrophication

Input• It has impact on biodiversity.
• It is usually an object of characterization.
• It has impact on social assets and biodiversity.
• It is usually an object of characterization.

Noise• It has impact on human health.
• In Japan, it is recognized as an important problem due to a low
achievement rate of environmental standards.

Waste• At the time of waste landfill, it has impact on social assets, primary
production, and biodiversity.
• In Japan, it is recognized as a serious problem.

Mineralresources
consumption• At the time of mining of resources, it has impact on primary production
and biodiversity.
• Resource consumption depletes social assets.
• In Japan and in the world, it is recognized as a serious problem.
• It is usually an object of characterization.

Fossil fuelconsumption• At the time of mining of resources, it has impact on primary production
and biodiversity.
• Resources consumption depletes social assets.
• In Japan and in the world, it is recognized as a serious problem.
• It is usually an object of characterization.

Livingresources
consumption• At the time of mining of resources, it has impact on primary production
and biodiversity.
• In Japan and in the world, it is recognized as a serious problem.

Land use• It has impact on biodiversity and primary production.
• It is generally known that land adjustment ranks high among the factors
for the extinction of species.

49

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

1) Analysis of changes in the density of air and water in the environmental medium dueto the occurrence of an environmentally damaging substance (fate analysis)2) Analysis of changes in the amount of exposure to human beings and other receptors
due to changes in the density of an environmentally damaging substance in theenvironmental medium (exposure analysis)3) Assessment of changes in the amount of potential damage to receptors due tochanges in the amount of exposure (impact analysis)4) Totaling of the amounts of damage to each common areas of protection (such as
human health) (damage analysis)5) Application of weighting among the areas of protection to obtain a single index forenvironmental impact (integration)
The inclusion of the above-mentioned impact categories means that this method hascovered many environmental problems closely related to the four areas of protection.
However, some important impact categories could not be included, because the level ofresearch in each field was not sufficiently high to be applied to LCIA methods. The
following are impact categories excluded from the assessment by this method.
• Radiation• Vibration• Offensive odor
• Nanoparticle• Water resources consumption• Heat island phenomena• Work environment• Salt pollution
When products that have especially important impact on the above-listed impact
categories are assessed, it seems difficult to obtain assessment results according to the
purpose. One of the issues to be settled in the future is how the important items
excluded from this method should be included in the scope of assessment so that themethod can become highly general-purpose (see Chapter IV).
Impact categories can be interrelated with areas of protection by endpoints. Because
the assessment of the amount of damage to category endpoints by a damage function
greatly depends on background data in emission areas and the theoretical maturity ofenvironmental science, it is extremely difficult to include all category endpoints in anenvironmental assessment method. Therefore, it was thought that preferential
inclusion of important category endpoints is an important approach for obtaining
assessment results close to reality. In LIME, before the development and research of adamage function, discussions were made to select category endpoints to be included in
the assessment from a screening survey based on the results of prior research. For
details of the results, see the respective sections of Chapter II.

50

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Column 1.2-4

Relation between LIME and ISO 14044
In LIME, characterization, damage assessment, and integration constitute the stage ofassessment, which is almost consistent with the procedure of ISO 14044. However, there
are some differences between the two, as follows:First, the two differ in the flow of impact assessment.
･LIME: characterization → damage assessment → (normalization) → integration･ ISO 14044: selection of impact categories → classification → characterization →normalization → grouping → weighting → data quality analysis (however, the steps up tocharacterization are essential elements, while normalization and thereafter are optional
elements)
In the step of selection and classification of impact categories, the practitioner using LIME
can choose from the list of impact category and that of factors characterization based on the
purpose of LCA.
With regard to characterization, although ISO does not specify a concrete list of impact
categories, it can be thought that LIME’s characterization factors fulfill ISO’s requirements.
One of the greatest differences between the two is damage assessment. LIME defines four
items, including human health, and quantifies the amount of potential damage to them at thesame step. On the other hand, although what is the closest to damage assessment in the ISO
procedure is grouping, the purpose of the grouping is not qualification or the comparison andintegration of impact categories but the classification of impact categories into several groups
under some criteria and the priority ranking of the groups. In addition, ISO has no concrete
provision about groups. Although ISO 14047, a collection of impact assessment cases,
includes cases that express the amount of damage from health impact and the amount ofdamage to the ecosystem, these are included as cases about characterization.
With regard to LIME2, which has two types of integration factors (see Annex 2), in Ver. 2,
which expresses an integration result as a non-dimensional index, normalization is carried out
to render the amount of damage to endpoints non-dimensional. However, in Ver. 1, whichcalculated social cost, normalization was not carried out. Because the economic value perunit amount of damage (economic value / amount of damage) can be obtained by conjoint
analysis, the integration factor (economic value / unit amount of environmental burden) canbe obtained by multiplying the value by the damage factor (amount of damage / unit amountof environmental burden), with the result that it becomes unnecessary to render the amount ofdamage non-dimensional through normalization.
As ISO defines normalization as“calculation of a relative ratio by reference to base information on index results of impact
categories,” normalization seems to refer to rendering the results of characterization of impact
categories non-dimensional. On the other hand, the targets of LIME’s normalization are notimpact categories but the four areas of protection. Therefore, the objects of normalizationdiffer between the two.
However, both make the results of the preceding step
non-dimensional.
Integration corresponds to weighting in ISO. ISO points out that weighting is based on
selection by the sense of values, not on natural science. In LIME2, integration brings two
51

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

types of results – economic indexes and non-dimensional indexes. With regard to theconclusion of assessment results, a recommendation has been made to carry out sensitivity
analysis about whether the use of other integration methods brings the same results.

1.3 List of factors including statistic values
1.3.1 Significance of calculation of statistics
Generally, LCA uses foreground data collected by the practitioner and background data
cited from databases and reports. To carry out LCA quickly, it is necessary to enrich
the background database. Japan, Switzerland, Italy, the US, and South Korea havealready created national databases. In addition, making these databases available tothe public has greatly contributed to the popularization of LCA.
Meanwhile, in connection with these activities, the treatment of uncertainty has been
pointed out as an important issue. Although some existing inventory databases show
upper and lower limits, many of them only describe representative values, and thedegree of their reliability is often unknown.
The result of LCA gained from the linear calculation of representative values can be
expressed as shown in Figure 1.3-1(a). If several products are compared, it will beconcluded that Product 2 is better because environmental impact is low. However, thereliability of the result cannot be judged from this information alone. Although theresult of Product 2 is small as a whole, Product 2’s environmental burden is larger inProcess C. If Product 2’s uncertainty in Processes A and B is large, and the amount ofenvironmental burden is underestimated, there is the possibility that the environmental
burden of Product 2 may be larger. Because inventory data and impact assessment
factors used for LCA have uncertainty, if uncertainty is added to the assessment result(Figure 1.3-1 (b)), the conclusion founded only upon the representative values may bedisproved, or draw a clear conclusion may be impossible. In such a case, it isnecessary to reexamine processes that greatly influence the uncertainty of the result(Figure 1.3-1 (c)).

Figure 1.3-1: Image of LCA results(a) Total of representative values(b) Frequency distribution of uncertainty of LCA (when the uncertainty of Product 2 is large)(c) Frequency distribution of uncertainty of LCA (when the uncertainty of both products is small)52

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

If the result of LCA is discussed only by representative values, incorrect
decision-making may be overlooked. Information on the reliability of the result of
LCA like that shown in Figures 1.3-1(b) and (c) is essential for making decisions
without misunderstanding. ISO 14044 demands that information on the quality of data,
including the uncertainty of the information, should be written in a report. In addition,
ISO highly recommends setting the purpose and the scope of research again in responseto the results of life cycle interpretation and iteratively carrying out LCI and LCIA toachieve the purpose. That is, information on the reliability of LCA becomes animportant material for judgment about iterative implementation of LCA.
Not only inventory databases but also LCIA methods lack information on theuncertainty of the current LCA infrastructure. Table 1.3-1 shows how to deal withuncertainty by LCIA methods.
Many methods do not include information on uncertainty. Although some methods
include it, with the exception of ExternE, they do not specify the calculation method
and the grounds. The variability of weighting in particular has not been assessed byany method. Because all calculation methods use approximate formula (see Column
1.3-2), it is impossible to obtain information on statistics and the form of distribution ofassessment results from the results of the calculation.
Data on the uncertainty of impact assessment factors are essential for verifying thereliability of LCIA results. Because it is difficult for the LCA practitioner to establish
the uncertainty of impact assessment factors, the method developer should provide
information.
Table 1.3-1: Treatment of uncertainty by LCIA methods
CML

TRACI

EDIP

Impact2002+

ExternE

Ecoindicator
’99

EPS

LIME2

Country of development

HollandUS

Denmark

Switzerland

EuropeHollandSwedenJapan

Scope of assessment

C

C

C

D

I

D, I

I

C, D, I

Calculation
method××××

Approximation
formula

Unknown

Approximation
formulaSimulation

Uncertainty
of data used
for analysis

×

×

×

×

○

Unknown○○

Disclosed
information on
uncertainty

Uncertainty
of factor

×

×

×

×

Standard
deviation

Standard
deviation

Standard
deviation of
Statistic,
amount ofform ofdamage (nodistributio
statistic ofnintegration
factor)* C: characterization; D: damage assessment; I: integration

53

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Column 1.3-1

ISO’s requirements for the quality of data
ISO 14044 demands description of the quality of the data used for LCA. Concretely, thefollowing items should be described:• Effective temporal scope: time of acquisition of data, time passed from acquisition ofdata (example: operation data within five years)• Effective geographical range: geographical range of collected data (examples: local, state,continental)• Effective technical range: specific technique or combination of techniques (example:
highest-level technique or worst operational condition)• Precision: range of used data
• Completeness: ratio of used data in the target process• Representativeness: comprehensiveness of used data from the viewpoint of technical,
temporal, and geographical conditions• Consistency: whether used condition is consistent among multiple objects of assessment• Reproducibility: whether the same result can be achieved by another practitioner• Data source• Uncertainty of information (such as data, model, supposition)
In the case of comparative assertion supposed to be open to the public, ISO 14044
demands the inclusion of the information in a report and the implementation of
uncertainty analysis.

Column 1.3-2

Uncertainty analysis under ExternE
Table 1.3-1 shows how to deal with uncertainty by the existing LCIA methods. Among themethods, ExternE explains the procedure and the result in detail. Table 1.3-A shows theprocedure for calculating the uncertainty of the integration factor. A geometric standard
deviation (σg) is calculated for each of the processes from emission to impact (such as
diffusion, transformation, and exposure), and the geometric standard deviation of theintegration factor is calculated from the square sum of these logarithms.

In this case, it is thought that processes with a large geometric standard deviation – that is,
information on the economic value of the loss of life expectancy (σg = 2) and the toxicity ofeach substance – have great impact on the uncertainty of the integration factor.
If this method is used, although the procedure for calculating the integration factor can be
explained clearly, the following problems will remain:• Although the geometric standard deviation for each process is often determined by thedevelopment, the grounds for this are insufficient.
• The calculation method uses an approximate formula, and it is difficult to verify thereliability of the result.
54

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012•

Although the standard deviation can be obtained as a result of the calculation, it is
impossible to obtain information on other statistic values and the form of distribution.
Table 1.3-A: Procedure for analysis of uncertainty of integration factor by ExternE
PM

Exposure

D-R

Economization
Total

SO2

NOx

σg

Ln(σg)2σg

Ln(σg)2σg

Ln(σg)2

Diffusion

1.5

0.164

1.5

0.164

1.5

0.164

Transformation

1

0.000

1.2

0.033

1.4

0.113

Amount of emission

1

0.000

1.05

0.002

1.15

0.020

Relative risk

1.3

0.069

1.3

0.069

1.3

0.069

Toxicity

1.5

0.164

2

0.480

2

0.480

YOLL

1.3

0.069

1.3

0.069

1.3

0.069

YOLL

2

0.480

2

0.480

2

0.480

2.65

0.95

3.13

1.30

3.26

1.40

Among the research efforts for the development of LCIA methods, the development ofdamage assessment methods has drawn special attention. At the same time, thenecessity for uncertainty analysis has been carried out further. While analysis is
generally conducted for each impact category in the case of characterization, even theamount of damage of each endpoint is calculated in the case of damage assessment.
Because the number of parameters and the number of models further increase in thecase of damage assessment, the uncertainty of damage factors also increases (Figure
1.3-2). On the other hand, these comments are only expressed qualitatively and are notverified fully.

Figure 1.3-2: Relations among environmental impact assessment methods, reliability,
and the number of items

55

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Although, as described above, data and methods used for analysis and the precision andreliability of LCA results based on them are essential for decision-making under LCA, it
cannot be said that infrastructure has been sufficiently established to fulfill thisrequirement.
The reasons why uncertainty analysis is not carried out in the current LCA can besummarized as follows:
1) The database on LCI has little data about uncertainty.
2) The impact assessment method has little data about uncertainty.
3) Even if the database has data about uncertainty, there is no tool for carrying out theanalysis of the uncertainty of LCA by the use of the data.
With regard to 1), the data about the uncertainty of inventory data, research institutes in
Europe and other regions are preparing inventory data, including the probability
distribution of LCI. In addition, because data formats in which inventory data areentered have spaces in which information on uncertainty can be entered, the movement
to share data on the reliability of LCI is expected to become brisk. With regard to 3),
the analysis of the uncertainty of LCA has already been introduced by the latest LCA
software (such as Simapro, Gabi), and this problem is expected to be solved with the
popularization of such software.
Given the above-described trends, the possibility of carrying out the analysis of theuncertainty of the whole LCA has a restriction – the period until 2) information on theuncertainty of the LCIA method is open to the public. To cope with this, in LIME 2,
examination was carried out to calculate the statistics of damage factors and integration
factors as one of the main issues.
1.3.2 Types of uncertainty
The uncertainty of LCIA varies.
following types:

Uncertainty can be roughly classified into the1) Uncertainty of the model used for impact assessment2) Uncertainty of the parameters used for impact assessment3) Variability of each person’s environmental idea
4) Geographical and temporal variability1) refers to the uncertainty of the diffusion model or the regression formula of the riskof extinction of species. In the case of the diffusion model, the uncertainty can be
expressed as the difference between the density of air pollutants in the actual
environment and the result of calculation of the model under the same conditions.
2) refers to the uncertainty of the parameters used for an impact assessment model,
including D-R functions, such as the unit risk of cancer generation, and weather data,such as wind velocity. Because D-R functions of air pollutants are estimated values
obtained from the results of epidemiological research and surveys of patients, someerrors occur. Reliability can be improved by securing a certain number of samples anda certain period of measure.

56

LIME2_C1-Outline_20123) refers to differences among individuals in weighting used for integration ofenvironmental impacts.
Weighting requires the reflection of the population’senvironmental ideas, and the degree of the unevenness can be analyzed by statisticalanalysis. The use of the recently developed analysis methods enabled quantitative
expression.
Although the above-described three categories should be taken into consideration when
the uncertainty of impact assessment methods is measured, 4) requires prior discussions
as to whether to include it in the analysis of “uncertainty.”
For example, in the case of a resource mining, there are not one but several places in theworld where the resource can be collected. Suppose that, with regard to damage
functions, the mean value at each mine is adopted for the surface transformed area when
one ton of iron ore is mined. If the mean value can be calculated after the acquisitionof information on all the mines, no error will arise in the estimation of the mean value.
However, if this is applied to the result of inventory analysis, because the iron ore
described in the inventory was mined at one or more mines in the world, the surface
transformed area rates of the mines are generally different from the world’s mean value,
and it can be thought that an error will occur in the result of the assessment of the land
use area. On the other hand, if inventory data include information on not only iron ore
consumption but also the mines where the iron ore was mined, such an error will notarise in principle. Therefore, with regard to impact assessment factors, if there is noerror in the estimation of the population’s mean value, it can be thought that there is no
uncertainty.
With regard to geographical and temporal variability, an error in the result of impact
assessment cannot be reduced without geographical and temporal details of inventorydata. However, it was decided that geographical and temporal variability should also
be included in the objects of uncertainty analysis so that the maximum uncertainty canbe calculated when assessment factors are applied to inventory data aggregatedgeographically and temporally.
1.3.3 Method to conduct uncertainty analysis
If a variable value is included in the model, or if uncertainty exists in the model itself,
the result of calculation has uncertainty. Although there are various methods toanalyze the uncertainty of the result, the Monte Carlo method was adopted this time.
The advantages of uncertainty analysis by the Monte Carlo method are not only that it
can measure the uncertainty of the assessment result but also that it can conduct
sensitivity analysis as an approach for effective improvement of the uncertainty of theobjects of assessment. Sensitivity analysis examines the interrelation between eachvariable and the calculation result. The overall sensitivity of the prediction result for acertain variable receives the impact of the following two factors:
1) Sensitivity of the dependent variable for the variable
2) Uncertainty of the variable
Even if the uncertainty of a variable is low, the variable has a great impact on the57

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

uncertainty of the final result if its impact on the overall assessment is great. In
contrast, if the uncertainty of a variable is great, but has not a great impact on the final
result, the sensitivity to the final result is small. Because sensitivity analysis canidentify the variable that has the greatest impact on the prediction result, it is possible totake measures for effectively improving the accuracy of the factors for LCIA. In
addition, it is also possible to identify the variables that have no impact on theprediction result and exclude them from the objects of examination for the improvementof accuracy. These processes make it possible to make the factors for LCIA moreclosely reflect the reality and make them more accurate.
In LIME2, uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis based on the Monte Carlo
method were conducted concerning the damage and integration factors for about 200
types of environmentally damaging substances related to urban area air pollution,
resource consumption, global warming, acidification, land use, and waste. Important
impact categories were picked out beforehand based on the result of the calculation of
the normalization value (potential amount of environmental impact that occurs throughthe yearly economic activities in Japan) (see Chapter III).
The following is the procedure for uncertainty analysis:
1) Arrangement of the procedure for calculating damage factors: clarification of theprocesses from inventory and the calculation of the amount of damage at the endpoint,
and arrangement of the characteristics of the models and parameters used until the
calculation of damage factors2) Identification of variables and establishment of probability distribution: identificationof parameters and models important for the calculation of the amount of damage
3) Uncertainty analysis: iterative calculation based on the Monte Carlo method – thenumber of times of calculation should be fixed so that the fluctuation of statisticalvalues will almost disappear.
4) Sensitivity analysis: among the set variables, picking up the variables that have agreat impact on the uncertainty of the final result5) Reexamination and recalculation of important parameters: reexamination of thevariables that have a great impact on the final result, renewal of their probability
distribution, and conduct of simulation again
6) Calculation of a representative value and statistics: implementation of the procedurefrom 1) to 5) several times to obtain the final result of damage factors
The next section shows actual cases where uncertainty analysis was carried out under
the procedure described above.

58

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Column 1.3-3Monte Carlo method
The Monte Carlo method (Monte Carlo simulation) is a method for simulating models by
repeating the allocation of randomly produced values among uncertain variables. The namecomes from Monte Carlo, a city in Monaco famous for its casinos. This is because random
movement exists in game probability.
For example, when a die is cast, the die will show a number, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. However, it
is impossible to guess the number without fail. This principle is applicable to a variable thathas a clear range but cannot be fixed at a certain value (for example, the amount of exposurefor the amount of emission of a toxic substance).
With regard to each variable, a value that can exist in the range of the variable is defined by
the use of probability distribution. What type of distribution to select depends on thecircumstances of the variable. In general, normal distribution, triangular distribution,
uniform distribution, and logarithmic normal distribution are used frequently. During
simulation, a value to be used for each variable is selected randomly according to the definedprobability distribution, and calculation is repeated by the use of the selected value. The
number of times of calculation depends on the object and purpose of analysis. Usually,
calculation is conducted between several thousand times and hundreds of thousands of times.
The results of the calculation are expressed in a graph by the use of statistics, such as meanvalues and standard deviation, and frequency distribution. As the number of times ofcalculation increases, the form of the graph becomes smoother. Monte Carlo simulation
requires the occurrence of random numbers and more than a certain number of times ofcalculation. At present, this problem has begun to be solved by the use of high-speed
computers.

1.3.4 Development of a list of factors including statistics
This section describes the procedures from uncertainty analysis to the calculation offactors, taking damage factors in urban area air pollution as an example. For details of
the calculation method and parameters of damage assessment, see Section 2.4.
(1) Flow of calculation of the damage factor and setting of uncertainty ofparameters
Figure 1.3-3 shows the flow from the occurrence of an environmental burden to thecalculation of the amount of damage concerning urban area air pollution. Emitted
PM2.5 diffuses in the air. People inhale or are exposed to a portion of it. The risk of
causing illness changes with an increase in the amount of exposure. This change
contributes to the expected number of persons who suffer illness – that is, a change inthe loss of life expectancy. After these processes are modeled and integrated, theamount of emission and the amount of change in the loss of life expectancy arecalculated by type of illness. The total of the calculated damage functions is thedamage factor.
59

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.3-3: Flow of calculation of the damage factor (human health)of urban area air pollution (PM2.5)
Calculate a change in the loss of life expectancy due to emission by type of illness and total the changes
to derive the damage factor. The uncertainty of the parameters (such as D-R, QOL, and YOLL) andmodels (such as exposure analysis) used for the assessment is determined based on existing documents.

(2) Setting of the range of variables
Next, the range of models and parameters to be used until the calculation of the damage
factor is defined. This is summarized in Table 1.3-2. Fate analysis determines thedegree of the range by comparison between actual measured values and analyzed
calculation results. A change in the death rate due to exposure to PM is calculated
from the existing results of epidemiological research. An increase in the loss of life
expectancy per case of chronic death is calculated based on statistical materials issued
by WHO. No range was defined for the parameters considered highly reliable, such as
population density.
(3) Implementation of uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty analysis is carried out by the Monte Carlo method. The result is expressedin frequency distribution as shown in Figure 1.3-4. In this case, because the variation
coefficient*3 exceeds 2, the uncertainty is thought to be relatively high.

*3

The variation coefficient is standard deviation divided by the mean value. The larger the mean value, the larger the value of standard
deviation. The variation coefficient is used for examining the relative seriousness of an error.

60

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.3-2: Types of variables used for assessment of impact of chronic death due toexposure to PM2.5 and an example of the range of variables
Statistics
Type of variable

Unit

Result of fate analysis(Tokyo)Form of distribution

Mean
value

Standard
deviation((ug/m )/(kg/yr))*m

1.5E+3

9.6E+2

Normal distribution

Death rate of persons
aged 30 and overRiskbaseline/yr

1.14E-2-

On the assumption that
there is no distribution

Increase in the death rateby an increase of 1 unitof pollutant density(Risk/Riskbaseline)/

6.43E-3

4Log-normal distribution

3

2

3

(μg/m )

Population density of
persons aged 30 and over

Person/m

3.59E-3-

On the assumption that
there is no distribution

Loss of life expectancy
per case of chronic death

DALY/person

6.6

1.7

Log-normal distribution

2

Multiplication of them enables the calculation of an estimated loss of life expectancy due to chronic deathwhen 1 kg of PM2.5 is emitted.

Mean value

MedianStandard deviation

Variation coefficient

1.22E-02

5.55E-03

2.70E-02

2.22

Figure 1.3-4: Result of uncertainty analysis of damage factor(PM2.5 (Tokyo))(before reexamination)

61

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012(4) Implementation of sensitivity analysis
Next, sensitivity analysis is carried out to calculate variables that have an important
impact on the uncertainty of the damage factor. Table 1.3-3 shows the result. If therank correlation coefficient is larger, the interrelation between the variable and thedamage factor becomes higher and receives higher priority for reexamination. In thecase of PM2.5 (Tokyo), it was found that the D-R function of chronic death is highlyinterrelated with the damage factor. Therefore, if the reliability of this data becomes
higher, the damage factor can be improved with a higher probability.
(5) Reexamination and recalculation of important parameters
As a result of reexamination of epidemiological research on chronic death due toexposure to PM, the results of the epidemiological research that Pope published in 2002
were adopted. The results were obtained from a follow-up survey of 500,000 people
and were thought to be more representative and reliable than the survey results from1995. In addition, the data also describe the reliability of the data, the result of which
was also used. Table 1.3-4 shows a comparison between the data before and after thereexamination.
(6) Calculation of representative values and statistics
The new D-R function obtained by the reexamination was inputted to carry out
uncertainty analysis by the Monte Carlo method. Figure 1.3-5 shows the results.
Because the above-described analysis results (Figure 1.3-4) found that the variation
coefficient was small and that the rank correlation coefficient of the D-R function ofchronic death decreased, the improvement of the reliability could be confirmed from achange in the variable. To improve the accuracy of the damage factor further in the
future, the fate analysis model must be improved.
After these processes were repeated, the definite value of the damage factor was
obtained. The results were disclosed as a list of factors, including representativevalues and statistics.
Table 1.3-3: Result of sensitivity analysis of damage factor (PM2.5 Tokyo)
Type of variable

Rank correlation coefficient

D-R (chronic death, adult)

0.43

Fate model

0.35

D-R coefficient (chronic bronchitis, adult)

0.24

DALY (chronic death)

0.15

D-R coefficient (chronic death)

0.28

DALY (chronic bronchitis)

0.10

・The table shows variables whose rank correlation coefficient is 0.1 or more.
・The higher the rank correlation coefficient of a variable, the higher the correlation withthe damage factor and the higher the priority of reexamination.

62

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.3-4: Result of reexamination of D-R coefficient (chronic death)3
The unit of the mean values: (Risk/Riskbaseline)/(μg/m )Before reexamination

After reexamination

Mean value(Pope1995)

Form ofdistribution(Hofstetter
1998)

Geometric
standard
deviation(Hofstetter1998)

SO4

6.43E-3Log-normal

PM2.5

6.43E-3

PM10

O3

Substance

2-

Mean value(Pope 2002)

Form ofdistribution(Pope 2002)

Standard
deviation(Pope 2002)

4

7.69E-3

Normal

1.04E-3Log-normal

4

5.93E-3

Normal

1.99E-3

3.86E-3Log-normal

4

1.00E-3

Normal

5.80E-4---

3.40E-4

Normal

9.60E-5

Figure 1.3-5: (a) Result of uncertainty analysis and (b) result of sensitivity analysis of the damage
factor (when PM2.5 is emitted from a factory in Tokyo) after additional survey
The variation coefficient decreased due to the reexamination of D-R coefficient (chronic death). In addition, theresult of sensitivity analysis indicates that the impact of the variable on the uncertainty of the damage factor decreased.

63

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

1.3.5 Reflection of geographical variability
Environmental impact differs depending on where an environmental burden occurs. If
inventory data contain geographical information, it is possible to assess environmental
impact appropriately by the use of the corresponding assessment factors. On the other
hand, if inventory data do not contain geographical information, the national averagefactor is used, in view that the factors specific to the region cannot be used. Becauseof this, it is desirable that the list of assessment factors should include factors specific toa certain region and national average factors.
For example, in the case of the assessment factors for urban area air pollution, after thedevelopment of factors at the prefectural level, factors at the regional level and at thenational level were developed. The bootstrap method was used for the calculation ofassessment factors at the regional level and the national level. Figure 1.3-6 shows theprocedure for calculating assessment factors at the national level by use of the bootstrap
method. This method uses the previously calculated statistics of damage factors ineach region and the amount of emission of the target substances in each region. First,
a region is selected randomly based on the breakdown of the amount of emission.
Because the damage factors in the selected region have a certain distribution, they are
randomly picked out from this distribution. If such a procedure is repeated 10,000
times, for example, it is possible to calculate the statistic of the damage factor at thenational level, taking into consideration the distribution of the amounts of emission in
Japan.
Figure 1.3-7 shows damage factors (point source of PM2.5) in the Kanto Region and inJapan. Compared with Figure 1.3-5 (a), it is found that the variation coefficient of thedamage factor in Tokyo is the smallest and, the greater the width of the area for which
the damage factor is calculated in the Kanto Region and in Japan, the larger thevariation coefficient. Table 1.3-5 shows the result of sensitivity analysis of damage
factors in Japan. This indicates that the existence and scope of the geographicalvariability by the bootstrap method have great impact on the reliability of damage
factors.
Figure 1.3-8 shows a comparison between the damage factors for urban area air
pollution in LIME1 and LIME2. Except for some parts, the variation coefficient of thedamage factors in LIME 2 is smaller than that in LIME1, which indicates that thereliability has generally been improved. In addition, as shown in the results of PM,
because of the inclusion of geographical variability, the variation coefficient of thedamage factors at the prefectural level is larger than that at the national level.
Therefore, it is expected that, when inventory data are applied, the identification ofpoints of emission will lead to more appropriate assessment.

64

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Figure 1.3-6: Method of calculating the average damage factor in Japan by the use of the
Bootstrap method
After areas are identified from the regional distribution of amount of environmental burden, damage factors
are randomly selected from the frequency distribution calculated beforehand for each region.
This result is repeated several times to obtain a nationwide damage factor.

Figure 1.3-7: Impact of geographical variability on the credibility of the damage factor(PM2.5 (a) Kanto, (b) Japan)
The variation coefficient of the factor at the regional or national level is larger than that at the prefecturallevel (Figure 1.3-5 (a)).

65

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Table 1.3-5: Result of sensitivity analysis of the damage factors in Kanto and in Japan (PM2.5)
Kanto Area

•
•

Japan

Variables whose rank correlation coefficient is 0.1 or more are picked out.
The table shows the great impact of random sampling of emission areas by the Bootstrap method.

Figure 1.3-8: Changes in the variation coefficients of damage factors before and after
reexamination
This figure shows relative improvement in the reliability of many damage factors.

66

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012[References for ChapterⅠ]
Baba M, Okazaki M (1998): Acidification in Nitrogen-Saturated Forested Catchment, Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, 44: 513-525
Banwart WL，Ziegler EL，Porter PM, (1990): Field corn response to acid rain-drought stress interaction, Journalof Environmental Quality, 19: 321-324
Boulding K (1966); The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, in Henry Jarrett, Environmental Quality in a
Growing Economy, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, p.3-14
EC (1995): Externalities of Fuel Cycles,“ExternE”Project:Summary Report, Report No.1
EEA (1996): Stanners D, Bourdeau Ph: Europe’s environment, The Dobris Assessment, European
Environmental Agency, Copenhagen
Frechette SKS (1981): Environmental Ethics, second edition, The Boxwood Press
Fuller RB (1966): Operating Mannual for Spaceship Earth, New York, Pocket Books
Goedkoop MJ (1995) : The Eco ─ indicator 95 NOH report 9523 Pre Consultants, Amersfoort Goedkoop MJ,
Spriensma R (1999) : The Eco ─ indicator 99, A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, Pre
Consultants, Amersfoort
Hardin G (1968): Tragedy of the Commons, Science, vol.162, Dec.
Hardin G (1974): Living on a Life coat, BioScience, 24 Oct.: 561-568
Hauschild M，Wenzel H (1998) : Environmental Assessment of products Volume 2: Scientific background,
Chapman & Hall, London
Hofstetter P (1998): Perspectivesin life cycle impact assessment, A structured approach to combine models of
the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Itsubo N (2000): Screening Life Cycle Impact Assessment with Weighting Methodology Based on Simplified
Damage Functions, Int. J. LCA, 5 (5): 273-280
Krewitt W, Trukenmuller A, Friedrich R (1999): Site Dependent LCIA Impact Indicators for Human Healthfrom Integrated Air Quality and Exposure Modeling, 9th Annual Meeting of SETAC Europe, 25-29 May 1999,
Leipzig, Germany
Lande R (1993): Risks of Population Extinction from Demographic and Environmental Stochasticity andRandom Catastrophes, American Naturalist, 142 (6): 911-927
Lande R (1998): Anthropogenic, Ecological and Genetic Factors in Extinction and Conservation, Researches on
Population Ecology, 40 (3): 259-269
Lande R, Orzack SH (1988): Extinctiondynamics of age ─ structured populations in a fluctuating environment,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84: 7418-7421
Leopold A (1949): A Sand Country Almanac: And Sketches Here and There
Matsuda H, Serizawa S, Ueda K，Kato T ,Yahara T (2003): Assessing the Impact of the Japanese 2005 World
Exposition Project on Vascular Plants’ Risk of Extinction, Chemosphere
Matsuno Y, Inaba A, Mizuno T (1999): Development of Site ― Source Specific Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Methodology for Local Impact Categories, 9th Annual Meeting of SETAC ─ Europe, 25-29 May 1999, Leipzig,
Germany

67

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Murray CJL (1994): Quantifying the Burden of Disease, the Technical Basis for Disability Adjusted Life Years,
Bulletion of the World Health Organization, 72 (3): 429-445
Murray CJL ,Lopez AD (eds.) (1996): The Global Burden of Disease, Volume I of Global Burden of Disease
and Injury Series, WHO/ Harvard School of Public Health / World Bank, Harvard University Press, Boston
Naess A (1973): The shallow and the deep, long ─ range ecology movement: A summary, Inquiry, 16: 95-100
Nagata K, Fujii Y, Ishikawa M (1995): Proposing a Valuation Method based on Panel Data, Preliminary Report,
Tokyo
NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program) (1987): Interim assessment: the cause and effects ofacidic deposition, Vol.I, Executive summary
Steen B (1999): A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS)
version 2000, Centre for Environmental assessment of products and material systems, Chalmers University ofTechnology, Technical Environmental Planning, Gothenburg
Singer P (1975): Animal Liberation: A new Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals
Stone C (1974): Should Trees Have Standing? William Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA
Tanaka Y, Nakanishi J (2000): Mean Extinction Time of populations under Toxicant Stress and Ecological Risk
Assessment, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9 (11): 2856-2862
Tanaka Y, Nakanishi J (2001): Model Selection and Parameterization of the Concentration ─ Response
Functions for Population ─ Level Effects, Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry, 20 (8): 1857-1865
UNEP (2001): Global Environment Outlook 2000
WHO (2001): World Health Organization, The World Health Report 2001
Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2003): Development of Integration Factors
for LCIA by the Application of Conjoint Analysis, Environmental Science, 16 (5): 357-368
Ohrui K (1997): Nitrogen Saturation in the Forest Ecosystem, Shinrin Ritchi, 39: 1-9
Kato H (1991): Encouragement of Environmental Ethics, Maruzen Library vi
Kato M, Ikeda S, Ito Y, Kaneko S, Yoshinaga S, Ikuzawa H, Sasaki S (1999): Forests and the Quality of
Mountain Stream Water – the Formation Mechanism and the Actual Situation – Series of Easy-to-UnderstandForestry Study No. 107, Forestry Science and Technology Institute, p. 98
Kitoh S (1996): Review of the Conservation of Nature - Environmental Ethics and Network, Chikuma Shinsho
Nouchi I (1996): Impact of Acid Rain on Farm Products, New Edition Acid Rain – Compound Effect and Impact
on the Ecosystem (supervised by Ohkita), Hakuyusha, pp. 223-251
Hayashi K, Okazaki M (2001): Relation between Atmospheric Deposition and Soil Solution – In Relation to the
Impact of the Volcanic Activities on Miyake Island – Collection of Lecture Summaries at the 2001 Conventionof the Kanto Branch of the Japan Society of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 25
Fukuda Y, Hasegawa T, Yatsuya H, Tabata K (1999): Burden of Disease and Disability Adjusted Life Years(DALY) in Japan, Journal of Health and Welfare Statistics, 46 (4): 28-33
Matsuda H (2000): Introduction to Environmental Ecology, Kyoritsu Shuppan
Matsuno Y, Inaba A, Betz M, Schuckert M (1998): Life Cycle Inventory of Net Electricity Production of 10
Electric Power Companies in Japan, Journal of the Japan Institute of Energy, 77 (12), 1162-1176

68

LIME2_C1-Outline_2012

Hosono T, Nouchi I (1994): Impact of Artificial Acid Rain on the Growth, Yield, and Photosynthesis Speed ofSeveral Kinds of Farm Products, Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 50: 121-127
Yasui I (1998): Proposal of a Time-Based Impact Analysis Method and Examples of Application – Time
Consumption Method –, 3rd International Conference on EcoBalance 89
Yo M, Konohira E (1999): Nitrogen Saturation Phenomenon in Forests in Japan: Connection with Wide Area
Distribution and Ecological Mechanism (Temperature Theory), Collection of Lecture Summaries at the 2000
Conference of the Society of Environmental Science, Japan, pp. 258-259
Yo M, Konohira E, Usui T, Takeshige Y, Nishio T, Nishioka M (2001): 2.2 Eutrophication of Mountain Stream
Water and Occurrence of N2O, Nature and Research of Tama Hills – Invitation to Field Science – (written andedited by Dokiya, Ogura, Yasutomi, Uchikawa), Keyaki Publishing, pp. 19-32
Washitani I (1996): Introduction to Conservation Ecology – from Genes to Landscape –, Bun-ichi Sogo Shuppan
Wada E (2002): Introduction to Environmentology 3 Geo-Ecology, Iwanami Shoten

69

Copyright (C) 2012 JLCA All Rights Reserved.

Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA)
http://lca-forum.org/english/
Secretariat : Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (JEMAI)
E-mail: lca-project@jemai.or.jp
2-1, Kajicho 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0044