Page 112 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

94 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT HANDBOOK

If it was found that a 'best' existing characterization model could be
identified, but this model was still not judged as being mature enough for
recommendation at this time, it was then classified as "Interim." In cases where
a 'best' could not be identified, either no model was recommended or it was
classified as "interim." This did not mean the impact category was deemed
irrelevant, but simply that more methodological development was needed
before a recommendation or classification as interim could be made.
The ILCD Handbook provides, therefore, an extensive analysis of the exist-
ing characterization methods and recommendations for LCIA in the European
context using reference year 2008. Since then methodological developments
have continued, resulting in further advances of LCIA and others yet to come.

4.7 Future Development

As shown in the previous section, LCA methodology has significantly devel-
oped and matured over the last two decades. While gaining increasing
acceptance, LCA still faces some major criticisms due to its holistic and inter-
disciplinary character. Among these, current impact assessment methodolo-
gies are not capable of (or are only partially capable of) consistently addressing
the consequences of regional emissions (Udo de Haes, Finnveden et al. 2002;
Potting and Hauschild 2006; von Klaus, Braune et at. 2007). Furthermore, they
are still in their infancy in the development of some important resource-related
impact categories such as water use, land use and in addressing issues such as
spatial and temporal differentiation.

4.7.1 Spatially-Differentiated Assessment in LCIA
In addition to global impact categories, such as global warming and ozone
depletion, LCIA method developers recognize the need to have spatially-
differentiated models for regional impact categories, due to the fact that
differences in fate and exposure mechanisms and differences in sensitiv-
ity and background levels for effect vary significantly depending on dif-
ferent geographical contexts (Udo de Haes, Jolliet et al. 1999; Udo de Haes,
Finnveden et al 2002). All LCIA approaches, IMPACT 2002+, ReCiPe, TRACI,
LUCAS, LIME, etc., assume that the life cycle emissions are released in the
geographical area where the methodology was been developed, i.e. in Europe,
the US, Canada and Japan. This is an obvious and important limitation in LCIA
methodology.
Several research efforts have been attempting to develop spatially-differ-
entiated characterization models and factors for current regional impact cat-
egories (Potting and Hauschild 2006; Finnveden, Hauschild et al. 2009). Some
LCIA methodologies such as EDIP (Hauschild and Potting 2005) and TRACI
(Bare, Norris et al. 2003) also include a comprehensive set of regional impact
categories allowing the practitioner to increase the discriminating power of