JLCA NEWS ENGLISH EDITION MAR.2012

No.12

JLCA
NEWS LETTER

Life-Cycle Assessment Society of Japan

LIME2

Life-cycle Impact assessment Method based on Endpoint modeling

SummaryLIME2_Summary_2012

LIME2
Life-cycle Impact assessment Method
based on Endpoint modeling

Summary
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_Summary_2012

Summary

Contents
S1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

S2

Social backgrounds ................................................................................................. 1

S3

Structure of LIME2 and policy for development of the method ............................. 2S4

Main fruits and their characteristics ........................................................................ 3(i)Characterization and the list of characterization factors .................................... 4(ii)

Damage assessment and the list of damage factors ............................................ 8(iii) Integration and the list of integration factors ....................................................11
S5

Comparison with overseas research cases ............................................................. 12(i)

Types of area of protection and damage indexes.............................................. 13(ii)

Impact categories .............................................................................................. 15(iii) Method to indicate the integration result and methodology of weighting ....... 15
S6

Research challenges to be handled in the future ................................................... 15

LIME2_Summary_2012

Summary
S1 Introduction
The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology’s ResearchCenter for Life Cycle Assessment repeatedly examined the development of methods
for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) in cooperation with the research group on
the impact assessment of the LCA Project (first term: 1998-2003*1; second term:
2003-2006*2) and developed a Japanese life-cycle impact assessment method basedon endpoint modeling (LIME). This book is the updated version of LIME1, one of
the fruits of the first-term LCA Project, and explains the methodology for LIME2,
which was developed for the second-term LCA Project.

S2 Social backgrounds
When the LCA Project began in 1998, research on LCIA was divided according tocharacterization, whereby potential impact levels on specific impact categories, suchas global warming and human toxicity, are assessed and integration of various
environmental impacts for gaining a single index. The main traditional integration
method theme oriented method is a method based on midpoint modeling whereby
impact categories are weighted directly from the result of characterization to gain asingle index. However, a problem was pointed out concerning the theme oriented
method: transparency and reliability were considerably insufficient because themethod compared ten or more impact categories simultaneously almost without
showing information on how much environmental impact actually arose.
Moreover, the usefulness of the assessment method based on endpoint modeling,which minimizes the number of items for weighting and carries out integration bycomparison of the items through assessment of damage to human health andbiodiversity at the endpoint level, has been recognized internationally. Althoughmany of the latest methods for LCIA (Eco-indicator 99, EPS, ExternE) are based on
endpoint modeling, Japan was required to develop its own LCIA method based on
endpoint modeling, because even if inventory is the same, the amount of damage
differs depending on environmental conditions (such as weather and population
density).
LIME1, which was developed in the first-term LCA Project, was published in 2005
as a method that was developed in Japan and reflected the environmental conditionsin Japan and the most advanced methods in the field of environmental science(Itsubo et al., 2005). After that, LIME was used in various ways, mainly bydomestic companies (see Chapter I. Summary of LIME2). The National Institute ofAdvanced Industrial Science and Technology’s Research Center for Life Cycle*1

Official title: Development of Assessment Technology of Life Cycle Environment Impacts of Products and so forth; New Energy andIndustrial Technology Development Organization, commissioned to the Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry*2
Official title: Development of Technology to Assess and Verify Life. Cycle CO2 Emissions/Development of Methods for Assessmentof Impact and Other Environmental Influences; New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, commissioned to
the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology

1

LIME2_Summary_2012

Assessment established the LCIA Special Research Unit jointly with Nikkei BP.
The LCIA special research group has so far given technical guidance to 20
companies concerning LCA by the use of LIME and the assessment of environmental
performance. Nagano Prefecture has been using LIME to support environmental
management by small and midsize companies. The use of LIME1 has alreadyspread widely both in the industrial world and the academic world. LIME1 has
been used in more than 200 case studies.
Through the accumulation of such case studies, some points to be improved wereclarified concerning the assessment method. Of them, priority will be given to thesolution of socially important research issues, and the results will be arranged andpublished as LIME2.

S3 Structure of LIME2 and policy for development of the method
Figure S.1 below shows the concept map of LIME2. The assessment ofenvironmental impact under this method consists of the following steps.
1) Analyze changes in the density of the air, water, and other environmental media
due to emergence of an environmentally damaging substance (fate analysis).

Figure S.1: Concept map of LIME2 and the range of objects of assessment
The result of assessment of environmental impact can be gained concerning characterization,
damage assessment, and integration.

2) Analyze changes in the extent of exposure of human beings and other receptors
2

LIME2_Summary_2012

due to changes in the density of an environmentally damaging substance inenvironmental media (exposure analysis).
3) Assess changes in the potential impact level of the receptor due to changes in theextent of exposure by type of damage (impact analysis).
4) Total the amount of damage for each common endpoint (for example, humanhealth) (damage analysis).
5) Last, derive an index for integration of environmental impact by applying
importance among the endpoints (integration).
To assess the amount of damage arising by environmental burden, and to integrate
environmental impact by knowledge of natural science, such as epidemiology,
ecology, mathematical biology, toxicology, meteorology, and landscape architecture,among the endpoints, assess environmental impact by the use of social science
analysis, such as economics, sociology, and psychology.
Although so far impact assessment methods have been developed mainly by LCA
researchers, it was hard to say that the latest research results in the above-mentioned
fields were reflected fully and comprehensively.
Therefore, when LIME was developed, several committees were established withconsideration for differences in specialized fields, and the most reliable theory was
adopted in each category, which made it possible to develop a cross-field andsystematic assessment method. Under (1) the Impact Assessment Committee(parent committee) consisting of LCIA researchers, two subcommittees were
established: (2) the Damage Function Subcommittee consisting of experts in naturalsciences, such as atmospheric environment, soil science, and ecology, and (3) the
Economic Assessment Subcommittee consisting of environmental economists. The
three research groups proceeded with discussions to develop methods. The parent
committee took charge of the development of the framework of LIME andcharacterization factors, the Damage Function Subcommittee the development ofdamage assessment methods, and the Economic Assessment Subcommittee thedevelopment of weighting factors. Under this organizational system, researches
were promoted, which made it possible to effectively introduce into the LCIA field
the most advanced theories in each field.

S4 Main fruits and their characteristics
From the viewpoint of the social dissemination of LIME, it is natural to improve themethodology of LCIA. However, at the same time, it is necessary to take into
consideration the ease of use of LCA. Under the LCIA method, assessment has
been so far made through sum of products of inventory data and corresponding
assessment factors for LCIA. If software for LCIA calculation is developed, and
LCIA can be carried out by simulation, it might be possible to improve the reliabilityof LCA. At this time, however, priority was placed on the prevention of damage tothe convenience of implementation of LCIA, and the final goal was to provide a listof LCIA assessment factors for each environmentally damaging substance based on
3

LIME2_Summary_2012

the results of the simulation that the developers carried out beforehand by the use of
the model they developed for environmental impact assessment. This enables thepractitioner to carry out LCIA by linear computation of assessment factors from thelist of LCIA factors and inventory. Figure S.2 summarizes the relation between themethod developer’s tasks and the method practitioner’s tasks.

Figure S.2: The method developer’s tasks and the method practitioner’s tasks

The method developer’s final products shown in this figure can be expressed by thefollowing three lists of factors:
1) List of characterization factors
2) List of damage factors
3) List of integration factors *3
These three lists enable the LCA practitioner to achieve various purposes. Of thethree lists, the practitioner can choose a list most suitable for the purposes and use it
for impact assessment. Table S.1 shows the characteristics of each list.
In this way, in order to develop impact assessment factors that have different
characteristics, this research has adopted the approach described below.
(i) Characterization and the list of characterization factors
Characterization is a step where potential environmental impact is assessed for each
impact category. It is possible to compare or integrate two or more environmentally
damaging substances’ impact on specific environmental problems. Because
judgment is unlikely to be subjective, the reliability of the factors is high, and theInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO) regards characterization as a*3

4

In LIME2, integration factors are differentiated from weighting factors, which weight the Safeguard subject.

LIME2_Summary_2012

mandatory element for LCIA. Because characterization often does not aim to seek
the amount of damage, assessment is usually carried out at an intermediate point oftime between the occurrence of environmental burden, such as emission, and theactual occurrence of environmental impact. The point of time of assessment differs
according to impact category. As an example, Figure S.3 shows the flow of
calculation of characterization factors for toxic chemicals.
Table S.1: Characteristics of the three lists disclosed in LIME2
List of characterization
List of damage factors
List of integration factors
factors
Basic academic
Environmental science
Epidemiology, insurance
Environmental
fieldsin general (natural
statistics, landscapeeconomics, inferential
science)architecture,statistics, computational
mathematical biology,
psychology (social
toxicology, etc. (naturalscience)science)Object ofEach impact category
Each endpoint
Whole environment
assessment
Number of result
15 items
4 items
Single index
items
Meaning andEquivalent quantum of
Amount of damage
External cost (example:
dimension ofreference substance(example: in the case of
the equivalent social costassessment result(example: in the case of human health, how many of the burden of 1 kg of a
global warming, CO2
years of life are lost by
substance)
eq. kg, which indicatesthe burden of 1 kg of athe equivalent amount
substance)(kg) of CO2 of thegreenhouse effect of 1
kg of a substance)
Relation with ISO
Mandatory element
Optional element (theOptional element
14040, 14044
step of damage
assessment has still notbeen defined in ISO)
Reliability
Relatively high. BasedModeration between
Based on social
on knowledge of natural characterization andpreference
science
integration. Largely
based on knowledge ofnatural science
Comprehensiveness About 1,000
About 1,000
About 1,000
of target substance
Main purpose of use LCA
LCA
LCA, corporate
evaluation,
environmental efficiency,
full-cost evaluation,
cost-benefit analysis
Advantages•Highly reliable•Possible to be put•Possible to derive a•Essential for ISO-LCA together into four items
single index
based on knowledge of•No trade-off occurs
natural science•Wide range ofapplication
Disadvantages
There are many items
International discussions
Introduction of valueof assessment results.
are immature.
judgment is unavoidable.
Uncertainty is said to berelatively high.

5

LIME2_Summary_2012

Figure S.3: Concept of calculation of characterization factors (toxic chemicals)

Generally, when the harmfulness of a chemical substance is assessed, consideration
is often given to two aspects – exposure efficiency and the degree of toxicity. The
ratio of exposure efficiency and threshold level is used herein. That is, as theamount of exposure becomes higher and as the threshold level becomes lower, thetoxicity of a substance is stronger. The methods used for assessment of exposure
efficiency are fate analysis and exposure analysis. After a pollutant is emitted into
the environment, human beings and the ecosystem are exposed to the pollutant after
it moves through or between media, such as the air and water. The efficiency fromemission to exposure is calculated by fate analysis and exposure analysis.
Meanwhile, enormous information on threshold levels can be used from existing
databases on chemical substances. After such calculation and data collection are
performed for each substance, the characterization factors of various substances canbe gained by calculating how many times the ratio of the substance subject toassessment is higher than the ratio of the reference substance.
The research to develop characterization factors began in the first half of the 1990s.
This research is the most advanced among the LCIA researches, and results of theresearch have been used frequently. Because of this, when characterization factors
were developed, after the arrangement of previous case studies, characterization
factors most recommendable to LCA users in Japan were selected. Table S.2summarizes the recommendable characterization factors and their characteristics.
As shown in the table, a referential substance exists for assessment result, whichindicates how many times the environmental burden of the unit quantity of anothersubstance is larger than that of the referential substance. CO2 and CFC-11 have6

LIME2_Summary_2012

been adopted as the referential substances for global warming and ozone layer
destruction, respectively.
Table S.2: Characterization factors recommended in LIME2 and their characteristics
Impact category Recommended
Unit for assessment Content assessed by characterization
characterization factor
resultmethodOzone layer
ODP
CFC-11eq. kg
Ozone layer destruction capacity
destruction
Global warming GWP
CO2 eq. kg
Infrared radiation power
Acidification
DAP
SO2 eq. kg
Quantity of protons withconsideration for deposition
Urban area air
UAF
SO2 eq. kg
Reflection of weather conditions inpollution
each region in Japan
Photochemical
OECF
C2H4 eq. kg
Reflection of weather conditions inoxidant
each region in Japan
Toxic chemicals HTP cancer
C6H6 air eq. kg
Hazard ratio of carcinogenic
substance
HTP chronic disease
C6H6 air eq. kg
Hazard ratio of chronic illness
Biological
AETP
C6H6 water eq. kg
Toxicity to aquatic creatures
toxicity
TETP
C6H6 soil eq. kg
Toxicity to terrestrial creatures
EPMC
TVOC

PO43-eq. kg
TVOCkgLOF

m3.yr

Consumption of dissolved oxygen
Predicted intake and daily human
limit value
Area and period of land possession

LTF

m2

Area of rearranged land

Consumption of
resources(mineralresources, fossil
fuels, biologicalresources)
Waste

Consumption energy

MJ

Heat value

1/R

Sbeq.kg

Reciprocal of recoverable reserves

WPF

m3

Noise

NPF

J/no. of vehicles. km

Ratio of volume to area of disposal
site
Energy of sound source

Eutrophication
Indoor air
contamination
Land use

One characterization factor was recommended for each impact category. The
following are main ways of thinking about the recommendation of characterization
factors.
With regard to global environmental categories, such as global warming, ozone layer
destruction, and resource consumption, because international organizations havealready published general-purpose characterization factors, recommendable factors
were selected from among such factors after the clarification of differences among
factors.
With regard to regional environmental categories, such as acidification,
eutrophication, urban area air pollution, photochemical oxidant, toxic chemicals,
biological toxicity, and land use, it is necessary to use characterization factors thatreflect the environmental conditions in Japan.
In this research, original
characterization factors were gained from the results of simulation based on thegeographical conditions in Japan, and a recommendable list was selected bycomparison of the results with previous case studies.
7

LIME2_Summary_2012

With regard to waste, although only a few international organizations haveestablished waste as an impact category, waste is of high concern as anenvironmental problem in Japan. Therefore, for the purpose of LIME, waste wasadopted as an impact category, and the factor that converts the volume of waste into
landfill volume was newly added as a characterization factor.
For the purpose of LIME2, indoor air contamination and noise were newly added as
impact categories. With regard to noise, the characterization factor that uses energy
quantity was adopted. Meanwhile, indoor air contamination was calculated basedon the ratio of exposure efficiency and the daily human limited value, referring to thecharacterization factors of toxic chemicals. The Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare’s guideline value was adopted as the daily human limited value.
(ii) Damage assessment and the list of damage factors
Damage assessment is the step of assessing the amount of damage that can occur foreach object of protection. Although it is one of the LCIA research areas that havebeen drawing most attention, it is a category that has few agreement items. In thedevelopment of LIME, examination was first made to define endpoints forcalculation of the amount of damage, referring to discussions from the viewpoint ofenvironmental ethics, and four items were defined as objects of protection; “humanhealth,” “social assets,” “biodiversity,” and “primary production.” Next, damage
indexes were defined to indicate the amount of damage to them from environmental
changes. The Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY), which is internationally used
for health statistics, was defined as the damage index for human health. What was
defined as the damage index for social assets was an economic index (in Japanese)that can comprehensively measure the impact on various components (agricultural
products, forests, marine products, and resources). What was defined as that forbiodiversity was the EINES that was originally defined based on the methodology ofextinction risk assessment in the field of conservation ecology. Net primary
production (NPP), which is widely used as an index for the richness of the ecosystemin the fields of biology and landscape architecture, was defined as the damage index
for primary production.
Figure S.4 shows the flow of calculation of damage factor. The assessment of toxic
chemicals is taken as an example. This figure uses the result of fate and exposure
analysis gain from the calculation of characterization factors. This constructs amore consistent assessment system. In the damage assessment procedure, first an
increase in the risk of illness according to an increase in the amount of exposure isanalyzed. The increase in the risk is multiplied by the target population to calculate
the expected number of sick persons. After that, the number is converted into
Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY). In the same way, when damage assessment
is conducted for another impact category, expression of environmental impacts in thesame dimension enables comparison of environmental impacts in different categories
and rational integration of them.
That is, when damage factors are developed, it is necessary to quantitatively connect
the occurrence of environmental burden with the amount of damage to the object ofprotection. When inventory was connected with the amount of damage, damage
factors were established through quantitative connection of the steps up to the8LIME2_Summary_2012

damage based on knowledge of natural science and integration of them (see Figure
S.5).

Figure S.4: Concept of calculation of damage factors (toxic chemicals; example: human health)
The figures in the table show amounts of health damage and damage factors when 1 kg of a substance is emitted.

ODS of ODS
Emission

Relation between emission and tropospheric chlorine level (TCL)

Emission -–TCL
Emission
TCL

TCL

Relation of TCL and equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC)

EESC

Relation of EESC and the total amount of ozone

TCL–- EESC
EESC
TCL
EESC –- Ozone
EESC
Ozone

Total amountof ozone
オゾン全量

Relation of the total amount of ozone and absorption of UVB

Ozone –absorption of UVB
UVB
Absorptionof UVB

Exposure efficiency

Exposure efficiency
Exposureefficiency

AmountUVB
of UVB exposure

Damage factor

1.3×10-3
DALY /kg-CFC-11

Dosage-response slope

D-R
slope
D
-R slope
Risk of occurrence of skin cancer or cataract

皮膚癌、白内障発生リスク
Loss oflife expectancy
損失余命Risk of occurrence of skin cancer or cataract
DALY/1 case

DALY// 1case
1 caseDALY

Figure S.5: Flow of calculation of damage factor
Draw a process from the inventory (in this case, ODS: Ozone Depletion Substance), which ranges
from the occurrence of ODS to the quantitative connection of health damage and the aggregation ofdamage amounts, to the Disability Adjusted Life Year and connect the steps quantitatively based on
results of environmental science research (e.g. Dose-Response relationship). The integration of themmakes it possible to gain the damage factor.

9

LIME2_Summary_2012

In LIME, such examination was carried out in relation to all the environmentally
damaging substances we dealt with. Table S.3 summarizes the category endpoints
for the items for which the amount of damage was calculated in LIME. The plain
parts in the figure indicate the category end points included in LIME. For example,
health impacts that occur through global warming include malaria, dengue fever, anddisaster. The lightly shaded parts indicate categories where impact is small or thenecessity for consideration is low. On the other hand, the heavily shaded parts
indicate categories where impact may be large, but assessment was not carried out
during this research because calculation was difficult from the viewpoint of the latest
knowledge in the respective fields. Therefore, it can be said that the developmentof assessment methods for such categories is a problem to be solved in the future.
In this way, although it is impossible to assess all environmental impacts at present,
we endeavored to secure the transparency of the scope of assessment by
distinguishing the categories where the amount of damage can be measured by thecurrent knowledge in natural science from the categories where it is difficult to do so.
Table S.3: List of category end points where the amount of damage was assessed in LIME
Column: area ofprotection anddamage index
Row: impact
category
Ozone layer
destruction

Global warming

Acidification
Urban are air
pollution
Photochemical
oxidant
Toxic chemicals(Human toxieity)
Biological toxicity

Eutrophication
Indoor air pollution
Land use
Resources
consumption (mineral
resources, fossil
fuels, living
resources)
Waste
Noise

Human healthSocial assets

Biodiversity

Primary
production

DALY

Yen

EINES

NPP

Skin cancer
Cataract

Agri. production
Wood production

Heat stress / cold stress,
malaria, dengue,
disaster damage,malnutrition, hunger(Assessment in urban area
air pollution)
Respiratory illness (12types)
Respiratory illness (6types)
Cancer generation(8parts), Chronic Illness(Assessment in toxic
substances)Agri. production
Energy consumption
Land disappearance

Terrestrial
ecosystem
Aquarium
ecosystem

Wood production
Fishery production

Terrestrial
ecosystem

Agri. production
Wood production

Terrestrial
ecosystem(Assessment inbiological toxicity)
Terrestrial
ecosystem
Aquarium
ecosystem

Fishery production* Sick House Syndrome

User cost(Assessment of toxic
waste in toxic substances,
biological toxicity)* Sleep disorder,*Conversation disorder* User cost

Terrestrial
ecosystem
Terrestrial
ecosystem

Terrestrial
ecosystem
Terrestrial
ecosystem

Terrestrial
ecosystem

Terrestrial
ecosystem

The plain parts are categories where the amount of damage was assessed. The lightly shaded parts are
categories where the amount of damage is inferred to be small. The heavily shaded parts are categories
where the assessment of the amount of damage is inferred to be important but assessment is difficult at
present. The items with * are items newly added for LIME2. The items in bold face are items modified
during LIME2. The italicized items are items cited from LIME1.

10

LIME2_Summary_2012

Because the development of damage factors uses more models and parameters thanthe development of characterization factors, there is fear that uncertainty might
increase. During development of LIME2, with regard to especially important
impact categories, we analyzed the uncertainty of damage factors and considered
improving the uncertainty. The damage factors derived from the results of thisresearch were reviewed by outsiders, and we considered improving the reliability asmuch as possible by making many improvements.
(iii) Integration and the list of integration factors
As a result of damage assessment, results of assessment of the four items to beprotected can be obtained. The procedure for deriving a single index throughweighing of these items is called integration. Although the integration ofenvironmental impacts (amounts of damage) has been mainly used for LCIA so far, it
has begun to be used frequently for environmental accounting, environmental
efficiency, and environmental performance assessment.
Figure S.6 shows the procedure for calculating integration factors in the case of toxic
chemicals. The result of damage assessment is used for the relations from theoccurrence of environmental burden to the occurrence of damage to the receptor. If
the environmental burden of a substance has effect on two or more endpoints, it ispossible to make a single index by weighting the area of protection.

Figure S.6: Concept of calculation of integration factors (toxic chemicals, Biological toxicity)
The figures in the table indicate the amount of damage when 1 kg of each substance is emitted,
and the integration factor derived through monetary conversion.

In LIME1 and LIME2, we adopted conjoint analysis for weighting the area ofprotection. Conjoint analysis makes it possible to calculate the weight of theattributes (such as emissions and the highest speed) of the objects of assessment(such as an automobile) from results of a questionnaire survey of inhabitants and
11

LIME2_Summary_2012

others. In the field of environmental economics, conjoint analysis has been drawing
attention as the most advanced method for measuring the effectiveness of theelements of the environment (such as the biodiversity and recreation effect of atideland). However, there has been no case of using conjoint analysis for LCIA.
We conducted a questionnaire survey of Japanese people’s opinions about
environmental policy, gained weighting factors for the objects of protection throughstatistical analysis of the survey result, and calculated integration factors bymultiplying the damage factors by the result.
To derive a weighting factor that can be used for general purposes, it is necessary tocheck that the analysis result is statistically significant. For this purpose,
respondents are required to fully understand the contents of questionnaires.
Because survey contents are comparatively difficult, it is important to sendquestionnaires that respondents can answer without misunderstanding. This survey
was conducted after several pretests were carried out to check that the respondents
could fully understand the contents. Placing importance on the establishment of aweighting factor that represents the Japanese people’s views about the environment,
we randomly selected respondents from throughout Japan and visited 1,000
respondents to interview them. This enabled sampling that is not slanted in terms offamily structure, sex, age, or annual income. Although there are other survey
methods, such as the use of telephone or the Internet, the interview survey method
facilitates the understanding of questionnaires and is least likely to contain survey
bias.
The results were good in both statistical significance and the explanation power ofthe logit model used for analysis, were high in social consensus, and made it possible
to develop an integration factor that can be used for general purposes. In addition,
LIME2 used the random parameter logit model and succeeded in quantitatively
measuring changes in the weighing factor, with the result that the integration factor
could be calculated with consideration for difference in subjective value. Table S.4
shows differences between LIME1 and LIME2 in the procedure for calculating the
integration factor.
Table S.4: Main differences between LIME1 and LIME2 in the integration method
LIME1
LIME2
Number of samples collected
400
1,000 (collection rate: 48%)
Survey method
Central location interviews
Visiting interviews
Survey area
Kanto
Nationwide
Weighting factor
Representative value
Representative
value
and
amount of statistics
Statistical significanceAlready verified
Already verified

S5 Comparison with overseas research cases
Various organizations have already developed or proposed LCIA methods. Thesemethods can be divided into those covering the steps up to characterization anddamage assessment and those covering the steps up to integration. The latter are
divided into theme oriented methods and damage oriented methods. Table S.5
shows main LCIA methods proposed so far.
Table S.5: Main LCIA methods and their characteristics

12

LIME2_Summary_2012

MethodCountry ofdevelopment

CML
EDIP
TRACI
Eco-scarcity
JEPIX
Ecoindicator’95
Ecoindicator’99
EPS
Impact2002
ExternE
LIME2

HollandDenmark
US
Switzerland
Japan
Holland
HollandSwedenSwitzerland
EuropeJapan

Year ofdevelopment/
renewal2002 renewal
2003 renewal
2003
2007 renewal
2003
1995
2000
2000 renewal
2002
2005 renewal
2008 renewal

Object of assessment
Characteri
DamageIntegration-zationassessment
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○

Remarks

Midpoint modeling
Midpoint modeling
Midpoint modelingEndpoint modelingEndpoint modelingEndpoint modelingEndpoint modeling

LCIA methods can be classified by steps, such as characterization and integration,and their characteristics differ from each other. To achieve users’ various needs, it
is desirable for an LCIA method to contain all the steps specified in ISO14044. In
addition, because the developer’s arbitrariness is high in methods based on midpoint
modeling (see 1.2.1 “theme oriented method and damage oriented method”), themethods can be used for damage assessment based on knowledge of natural scienceand are expected to reduce bias as much as possible by minimizing the number of
items to be weighted. However, methods based on endpoint modeling are
considered higher-level methods.
Table S.6 shows comparison of the characteristics of LIME2 with other methods
based on endpoint modeling (EPS, ExternE, Eco-indicator 99). Although all ofthem are the same in the framework of assessment, they differ in various points, suchas substances to be assessed and impact categories.
Especially importantdifferences are described below.
(i) Types of area of protection and damage indexes
What is common is that impact on human health is included in assessment, and lossof life expectancy is used as a damage index. However, although the ecosystem iscommonly included in the objects of assessment, the methods greatly differ in whatpart of the ecosystem should receive attention and how to express damage to theecosystem. As a damage index, EPS uses the contribution (ratio) to the extinctionof species within one year, Eco-indicator 99 uses the ratio of disappeared species(vascular plant species), and LIME uses the expected number of extinct species.
That is, while LIME counts the number of species, the other methods use
non-dimensional indexes, such as ratio.
The methods also differ in how to consider the impact on human society, such as
resources, materials, and agricultural products. LIME has established “social
assets” for the objects of protection as a concept comprehensively covering what aretreated as valuable things in human society (nonliving resources, agricultural
products, marine resources, forest resources). In addition to this, EPS includes
cation, which is used as a buffer for soil acidification, and divides the objects ofprotection into “resources” and “production capacity.” Eco-indicator 99 does not

13

LIME2_Summary_2012

Table S.6: Comparison of characteristics of environmental impact integration methods
MethodEPSCountry of development, year
Sweden (2000 revision)of publication
Endpoint modeling or midpoint
Endpoint modelingmodeling
Environmentally damaging
250 substances, 5 land use styles
substances considered

ExternE

Eco indicator 99

LIME2

EC (2005 revision)

Holland (2000 revision)

Japan (2008)

Endpoint modelingEndpoint modelingEndpoint modeling

13

Assessable steps

Integration

Integration

Impact assessment region

SwedenEuropeHuman healthObject of protection anddamage index

Resources
Production
capacity
Sensuousness

NEX (ratio of
species extinct
within a year)
Amount of moneykg

No definition(Consideration fordamage to humanhealth, ecosystem,
materials)

Quality of
ecosystem

PDF (Ratio of
extinct species)

Resources

Excess energy

Not measured
Resources, global warming,ozone layer destruction,
carcinogenic substances,
respiratory disease, biological
toxicity,
acidification/eutrophication,
land use, radiation

1,000 substances, 80 land use styles
Characterization, damage assessment,
integration
Japan
Human health

DALY

Biodiversity

EINES (expected
increase in the number ofextinct species)

Social assets

Yen

Primary production
ton
Global warming, ozone layer destruction,
urban area air pollution, toxic chemicals,
biological toxicity, acidification,
eutrophication, photochemical oxidant, indoor
air contamination, land use, mineral resources
consumption, fossil fuels consumption,
biological resources consumption, waste,noise

Impact categories

The above five items have been
defined as impact categories.

Assessment process

Inventory → category endpoint →single index

Integration method

With market value: market value
Without market value: citationfrom CVM

CVM (document)

Panel method

Conjoint analysis

Unit of single index

Damage cost

Damage cost

Nondimensional index (3 types:
hierarchist, egalitarian,individualist)

Damage cost

Only citation, no field survey

Unknown

80 persons (collection rate:20%), mail survey

1,000 households (collection rate: 48%),
visiting interview survey

Unknown

Unknown

No verification

Already verified

Number of samples for
integration survey and survey
methodStatistical significance of
weighting factor

14

Biodiversity

YOLL, etc.

550 substances, 10 land use
stylesDamage assessment,
normalization, integration
EuropeHuman
DALY
healthNo definition

Inventory → category
Inventory → area of protection
Inventory → characterization → category
endpoint → single → normalization → single index endpoint → area of protection → single index
index

00LIME2_Introduction2010.qxd 10.11.16 4:40 PM

include agricultural products or marine resources in the objects of protection, but
includes “resources,” limited to mineral resources and fossil fuels. ExternE includes
construction and other “materials” in the objects of calculation, but has no clear
definition of the area of protection.
LIME and EPS include the impact on primary production (plant production) in theobjects of calculation, whereas Eco-indicator 99 and ExternE do not include it. In
addition, although LIME defines “primary production” as an area of protection, EPS
considers it a part of the “production capacity of the ecosystem.” Therefore, the two
methods differ in the range of areas of protection.
(ii) Impact categories
Because EPS and ExternE have not defined impact categories such as global warming
and ozone layer destruction, direct comparison of the range of impact categories is
impossible. However, they are almost the same between the methods. What isdifferent among them is that Eco-indicator 99 includes radiation, whereas LIME2
includes waste, indoor air pollution, and noise.
(iii) Method to indicate the integration result and methodology of weighting
Approaches to integration can be roughly divided into economic assessment methods(ExternE, EPS, LIME2) and a panel method (Eco-indicator 99). The integration resultis expressed in amount of money (euro or yen) under the former methods, whereas it isexpressed in a non-dimensional index under the latter method. The conjoint analysis
adopted for LIME is characterized by the capability to estimate the weighting factor
through statistical analysis and verify the significance through examination. LIME2
has devices to minimize bias, such as 1,000 nationwide interviews, and has beenverified as statistically significant. In addition, it has a great advantage – disclosure of
integration factors that reflect society’s environmental philosophy and can be used forgeneral purposes.

S6 Research challenges to be handled in the future
The following challenges were clarified through the research activities for LIME
development. A, B, and C indicate priority of consideration. As shown below, there
are still many challenges for LCIA methods, which require continuous examination for
the improvement of research level.
•

Assessment of environmental impact overseas – especially in Asian countries anddeveloping countries (priority A)•

Establishment of a list of assessment factors for each region concerning regional
impact categories (priority B)•

Environmental impact assessment with consideration for the future, analytic
assessment with consideration for time series (priority C)•

Application to other environment assessment methods (such as factor and15

00LIME2_Introduction2010.qxd 10.11.16 4:40 PM

environmental efficiency and the cost-benefit analysis method) and sustainability
assessment methods (such as integration assessment model) (priority B)•

Environmental impact assessment concerning consumption of water resources –especially, quantification of environmental impact of water consumption indeveloping countries (priority A)•

Clarification of the relation with environmental impact methods for social welfare(priority B)•

Accumulation of case studies and discussions for improvement of methods basedon the results (priority A)•

Continuous renewal of assessment methods based on the latest knowledge in eachfield – especially, updating of assessment models of global warming (priority A)•

Quantification of uncertainty based on data and application models in all impact
categories (priority C)[References for summary]Bare J, Norris G, Pennington D, McKone T (2003): TRACI, The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment ofChemical and Other Environmental Impacts, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(3): 49-78
Bickel P, Friedrich R (2005): European Commission, ExternE Externalities of Energy, Methodology 2005
Update Guinée JB, Guinée M, Heijung R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo
de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002): Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to
the ISO Standards, Kluwer Academic Publishers
ISO 14042 (2000): Environmental management. Life cycle assessment ― Life cycle impact assessment
ISO 14044 (2006): Environmental management ― Life cycle assessment ― Requirements and guidelines
Jolliet O, Margani M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003): IMPACT 2002 + A
New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology, Int J LCA, 8(6): 324-330
Potting J, Hauschild M (2003): Background for spatial differentiation in LCA impact assessment ― The EDIP
2003 methodology, Danish Ministry of the Environment
Steen B (1999): A Systematic Approach to Environmental Priority Strategies in Product Development (EPS)
Version 2000 ― Models and Data of the Default Method
Goedkoop M (1995): The Eco ― indicator 95, Final Report. Netherlands agency for energy and environment
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000): The Eco ― indicator 99, A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact
Assessment
Itsubo N, Inaba A (eds.) (2005): Life Cycle Environmental impact Assessment Methods, LIME-LCA,
Environmental Accounting, Assessment Methods and Databases for Environmental Efficiency, Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry
Miyazaki N, Siegenthaler C, Kumagai S, Shinozuka E, Nagayama A (2003): Japan Science and Technology
Corporation Report, Japan Environmental Policy Index (JEPIX), Development of Japan’s Ecofactors Based on
Environmental Policy Laws and Regulations

16

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