The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01857-y

ENVIRONMENTAL LCC

Integrating life cycle assessment and life cycle cost: a review

of environmental‑economic studies
Wagner Teixeira França1 · Murillo Vetroni Barros2   · Rodrigo Salvador2   · Antonio Carlos de Francisco2   ·
Maria Teresa Moreira3   · Cassiano Moro Piekarski2 

Received: 25 June 2020 / Accepted: 15 December 2020 / Published online: 15 January 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Purpose  The purpose of this document is to carry out a critical review of the existing literature by specifically addressing the
following: (i) the integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment from the perspective of research topics, cat-
egory and scope of study, authors, institutions, countries, and journals working on or publishing related studies, and (ii) the main
aids, challenges, opportunities, methodological difficulties, and current research efforts on the integrated approach of both tools.
Methods  A systematic review was conducted to identify studies with an integrated use of life cycle assessment and life
cycle cost in several areas. An analysis of the main aspects of the studies identified, such as bibliographic reference, year
of publication, institution where the research was conducted, country, area of application, category of study, journal of
publication, impact factor, and number of citations was conducted. After a search in the Science Direct, Scopus, and Web
of Science databases, 349 documents were identified. After a series of filters (excluding gray literature, reading titles and
keywords, reading abstracts, and reading full-texts), which helped ruling out articles that did not contribute to investigating
the integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost assessment, 90 documents were selected for a detailed analysis.
Results and discussion  The leading role of the USA and European countries in this issue should be highlighted. The integra-
tion of life cycle assessment and life cycle cost seems to be most advanced in the areas of building design and civil construc-
tion. Different strategies for the integration of the methodologies are also found, being mathematical modelling and program-
ming for optimization, and multi-criteria decision-making the most recurrent methods. Moreover, there seems to be more
challenges than opportunities in said integration. The challenges include the monetization of environmental impacts, higher
volatility of economic data compared to environmental data, and differences in environmental and economic background data.
These challenges can be turned into opportunities in the development of more comprehensive methodological approaches.
Conclusion  Challenges (e.g., time-, resource- and knowledge-intensive, different scopes) and opportunities (e.g., common
system boundaries, benefitting from LCA structure to conduct LCC) for the integration of life cycle assessment and life cycle
cost were identified. This combined approach allows projects, products, and services to reduce environmental and economic
impacts, which can be quantified and compared through improved assessment of potential trade-offs.

Keywords  Life cycle assessment · Life cycle cost · Trade-off · Environmental impact · Economic analysis · Eco-efficiency ·
Sustainability · Review

1 Introduction but also environmental aspects (Palomares-Rodríguez

et al. 2018). Among the objectives of the organizations, the
In recent years, organizations from a wide range of optimization of processes, cost reduction, and minimization
sectors have sought to differentiate themselves through a of environmental impacts are in the strategic core, so
competitive advantage that aligns not only techno-economic that competitiveness and sustainability are objectives of
equal importance. Therefore, assessing the dimensions of
Communicated by Edeltraud Guenther. sustainability can help develop policies, and they become
strategic factors in the decision-making process (de Souza
* Murillo Vetroni Barros et al. 2019). Based on that, life cycle assessment (LCA) and
[email protected]
life cycle cost (LCC) provide consistent information on the
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 245

environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability, importance of LCC in some areas of public administration,
as they can serve as a basis for the adoption of economically mainly in public procurement (Hochschorner and Finnveden
feasible and environmentally sound strategies (Rashidi 2006; Sterner 2002; von Deimling et al. 2016).
et al. 2018). Both tools (as they are referred to hereafter Given the relevance of both tools, an apparent weakness
and for the remaining of this manuscript), LCA and LCC, for companies to use LCA is the understanding of what the
emerged in the mid-1970s from the energy crisis, each with results mean for their economic indicators (Steen 2005). In
a different focus, in which LCA accounts for energy and that sense, an integration of LCA and LCC seems beneficial.
material consumption and emissions from mass and energy While LCA requires an extensive data set from mass and
balances while LCC reports on the economic aspects of all energy balances identified in the life cycle inventory (LCI)
stages of the process (Steen 2005). phase, LCC requires monetary information in terms of finan-
LCA has developed since then (at different rates over the cial resources (expenditures and revenues).
decades) until today. LCA has now evolved to report on the Based on the aforementioned, studies have been identified
global environmental impacts associated with the process that address environmental and economic aspects using LCA
under study, considering from raw material extraction to final and LCC (De Menna et al. 2018; Early et al. 2009; Ilg et al.
disposal (Guinée and Lindeijer 2002). LCA is carried out in 2017; Márquez et  al. 2008). Along with the integration
four phases according to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044: (i) goal of these tools, trade-offs between the environmental and
and scope definition, (ii) life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), economic approaches have been reported in the literature
(iii) life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and (iv) interpretation (Ameli et al. 2017; Lee and Thomas 2017; Lidicker et al.
(ISO 2006a, 2006b). Standards continue to provide an objective 2012; Norris 2001; Pretel et al. 2015; Umer et al. 2017; Van
structure to ensure reliable and comparable results (Martins Kempen et al. 2017). The simultaneous application of LCA
et al. 2018). Furthermore, according to Barros et al. (2020a) and LCC may make it easier to identify environmental and
and Araújo et al. (2019), LCA is the most comprehensive tool economic trade-offs. With a life cycle thinking underlying
for assessing the environmental profiles of goods and services. the applications of both LCA and LCC, it might make it
Therefore, the decision-maker can reduce the environmental more interesting for decision makers to take actions and
impact when proposing improvement actions in those stages make decisions based on values or normative frameworks.
of the process that account for the highest shares of impacts in Schmidt (2003) comments that among the various design
the environmental profile. This tool not only makes it possible and process characteristics, a great challenge is to combine
to determine the environmental consequences associated the environmental and the economic dimensions, obtaining
with greater efficiency in processes, services, and products a feasible solution for both.
(González-García et al. 2014), but can also guide the adoption In published research, LCA and LCC are often used in
of more sustainable processes and lifestyles (Severis et al. parallel or with little integration, and there does not seem
2019). to be a mature theoretical approach to their integration
The basis of the LCC methodology was established in (Bierer et  al. 2015). There is a gap in the related
the 1970s as a method for calculating the total life cycle literature regarding the main issues in environmental-
costs of products (Brown 1979) and as information in economic assessment by using LCA and LCC; neither
strategic business and policy decision-making (UNEP/ have the existing studies identified the main researchers
SETAC 2009). There are even previous references to the use and institutions working on this combined approach
of this tool in the purchase and use of military equipment worldwide. The joint use of these tools is justified to seek
by the US Department of Defense in the 1960s (Jolliet et al. environmental-economic efficiency in production systems,
2015). Unlike LCA, LCC does not have a general standard and to minimize the trade-offs between environmental and
that provides guidelines for its use/application. One of its economic impacts. Therefore, this paper aims to conduct
most commonly used guidelines is found in ISO 15686-5 a critical review of the existing literature by specifically
(ISO 2017), which aims at planning the life of buildings addressing: (i) the integration of life cycle assessment and
and built assets. As stated in its definition, LCC aims not life cycle cost assessment from the perspective of research
only to calculate the costs of acquiring raw materials, but topics, category and scope of study, authors, institutions,
also the costs of operation, maintenance, and final disposal countries and journals working on or publishing related
(Hunkeler et al. 2008); thus, decision makers can act to studies, and (ii) the main aids, challenges, opportunities,
improve the economic indicators of the system’s life cycle methodological difficulties, and current research efforts on
(Fallah et al. 2013). LCC studies can also include the costs the integrated approach of both tools. This analysis aims to
of externalities, i.e., the costs of environmental impacts provide a theoretical basis and insight into the main issues
caused by the system or product (Steen 2005), motivated by on the combined approach via the systematic review of the
the “polluter pays” principle. Currently, there is a growing existing literature on the topic.
246 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

2 Methodology substantial contribution to understanding the integration

of LCA and LCC were ruled out.
2.1 Selection of documents 4. Screening abstracts: as in the previous filter, all
abstracts were read and articles that did not contribute
All methodological procedures for the selection of to understanding the integration of LCA and LCC were
documents were organized in stages, and the most relevant excluded.
studies were identified using an adaptation of the Methodi 5. InOrdinatio coefficient: at this step, the Methodi
Ordinatio (Pagani et al. 2015). All related existing literature Ordinatio suggests calculating the InOrdinatio
until 27 April 2020 was retrieved from the Web of Science coefficient (Pagani et al. 2015). The method ponders
(WoS), Science Direct (SD), and Scopus databases. The the relevance of the studies taking into consideration
search was intended to gather research and review articles, their publication year, number of citations, and impact
available in English. The EndNote software tool was used factor. The number of citations of each document were
for reference management. Figure 1 shows the steps followed found using Google Scholar on September 30, 2020, and
to perform the review. the impact factor (IF) was found using Journal Citation
Reports (JCR) (2019). The InOrdinatio coefficient can
1. Database search: the searches in the Science Direct, be seen in Table 2 (Appendix).
Scopus, and Web of Science databases were conducted 6. Full-reading: after the first screening, 90 articles were
in April 2020, and 349 documents were compiled, selected and constituted the final portfolio, which was
including all types of documents, such as research compiled in a spreadsheet for analysis. The analysis
and review articles, book chapters, and conference of the articles included their characteristics, the LCA
proceedings. and LCC results reported, and the integrated use of the
2. Removing duplicates and gray literature: all duplicate methods.
papers and gray literature (papers that are not peer-
reviewed source articles) were excluded. Only research The keyword co-occurrence map (see Fig. 2) was built
and review articles (both published and in press) from using the VOSViewer software tool, using all 90 documents,
peer-reviewed journals were considered. This is due given the following settings: map based on: text data; fields:
to the superior scrutiny and rigour with which such title and abstract; counting method: full count; minimum
research is examined prior to publication, providing number of occurrences of a term: 5; number of terms
a reliable mechanism for quality control (Catuogno selected: total number of keywords; display: all keywords.
et al. 2016). In addition, perspective/position papers, The Microsoft Power BI (Business Intelligence) desktop was
book chapters, books, and conference proceedings are used to build the graphs in the paper (see Figs. 3 and 4) to
not always subject to peer review (Manca and Ranieri allow clearer interpretation.
2013; Marceau et al. 2019). Furthermore, it should
be noted that conference documents contribute little
to literature reviews, given the limited information 2.2 Characteristics of the articles
included in this type of document as well as the
additional time and complexity involved in including The articles found (90 documents) were analyzed in terms
them in the analyses (Butler and Visser 2006; Xu et al. of (i) bibliographical reference, (ii) year of publication,
2018). (iii) institution where the research was conducted, (iv)
3. Screening title and keywords: all titles and keywords in country, (v) area of application, (vi) category of study,
each paper were read and all papers that did not provide (vii) journal of publication, (viii) IF, and (ix) number of
citations. The characteristics of the articles are detailed in

Fig. 1  Steps to conduct the

literature review
 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 247

Fig. 2  Co-occurrence of terms in the studies from the final portfolio

Table 2 (Appendix). The institution and the country were 2.3 Integrated use of LCA and LCC
retrieved considering the first author of each document.
The documents were classified according to different Data was collected on the methods used to integrate LCA and
sectors: Energy, Waste Management, Health, Construction, LCC, which allowed verifying how these methods allowed
Industrial, Academic, Agriculture, Rainwater Harvesting, the integration or assessment of the trade-offs between those.
and Logistics. The categories of study were divided into Other criteria were also observed, such as the discussion of the
case study, proposal of tool/methodology/framework, trade-offs between economic and environmental approaches,
and review. The IF was retrieved from the journal citation the use of methods and concepts complementary to integration,
reports (JCR). Finally, the number of citations was for example, multi-objective linear programming, eco-
retrieved from Google Scholar on September 30, 2020. efficiency, fuzzy logic, and analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
248 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

Fig. 3  Category of study and

area of application

3 Analysis of the main topics and sectors seemed scattered (both over time and expressed with
combining the LCA‑LCC approach different terms/names), with low frequencies that prob-
ably mean non-standardized use of terms for indexing.
3.1 Characteristics of the studies in the existing An example of this is the various terminologies found
literature for life cycle cost, which may include life cycle cost (42
occurrences), life cycle cost analysis (9), LCCA (13),
From the research topics addressed in the existing litera- LCC analysis (7), and life cycle costing (20). In addi-
ture, several issues of integration and trade-offs between tion, the early approaches that sought to integrate LCA
LCA and LCC were observed. As it can be seen in Fig. 2, and LCC did not seem to follow a pattern. However, in
the most common themes addressed were LCA (122 recent years the relevance of LCA and LCC in simulat-
occurrences) and cost (97 occurrences). Some topics ing the costs and environmental impacts (mainly related

Fig. 4  Number of publications per journal and per year

 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 249

to energy consumption) of buildings at the design stage The two most recurrent journals in the list of 34 were
are highlighted. the Journal of Cleaner Production (J Clean Prod) and The
It can be noted from Fig. 2 that, although LCA and LCC International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (Int J Life
had emerged decades earlier, up until 2000 no research Cycle Ass), with 24 and 12 papers, respectively, based on the
efforts had been registered in the search to couple these final portfolio. Figure 4 shows the number of publications
two tools in environmental-economic analyses. Moreover, per journal and year. As it can be observed, the first study
this movement of integrating environmental and economic addressing the combined use of LCA and LCC, mentioning
aspects by using LCA and LCC seems to have been latent trade-offs, appears to have been published in 2001 by Norris
but shy between 2000 and 2010, and it was only boosted (2001). However, the largest number of publications has
in the last decade. On top of it receiving much more accumulated in recent years. The year 2017 was the most
attention, especially in the second half of the last decade, representative in terms of the number of publications,
the efforts to couple LCA and LCC seem to have broadened reaching 21 documents in 2017, and 16 documents in 2019.
the scope of this research theme. While early research In addition, Fig. 4 presents an infographic (following the
(2000–2010) devoted efforts to providing an assessment of color legend) of the number of studies per journal and year.
different alternatives of products, and seemed to be slightly In addition, as far as institutions are concerned, a total
skewed towards a more environment-driven approach, the of 77 institutions were found (see Table 2, Appendix). The
efforts made in the last few years seem to have focused on universities with the largest number of publications were
broadening the set of criteria included in the environmental- the University of Manchester (UK) (Santoyo-Castelazo and
economic assessment, investigated the environmental and Azapagic 2014; Kouloumpis and Azapagic 2018; Aberilla
economic implications of a range of sectors (where the civil et al. 2020), the University of Minho (Portugal) (Simões
construction stands out), and have also sought a greater et al. 2013a, 2016), Stanford University (USA) (Basbagill
balance between environmental and economic aspects in et  al. 2014; Best et  al. 2015; Grubert 2017), and Vrije
more sustainability-driven assessments. University Brussels (Belgium) (Santos et al. 2019, 2020a,
Three different categories of study were identified, 2020b), with three publications each. A large disparity in
namely, case study, proposal of tool/methodology/framework, the number of studies (considering the country of affiliation
and review. Case studies are articles that feature the use of of the first author in each study) per country was noted,
methodologies, with benefits or outcomes for the organizations with the United States (US) being the country where most
or their stakeholders. The proposal of methodology is the studies were observed. The US accounted for 17 studies,
proposal of a technique or method that may be specific to followed by Spain (10), Belgium (7), Portugal (7), China (6),
the authors or derived from previous research. Some studies Germany (6), and the United Kingdom (UK) (5).
propose a methodology and apply it to a case study. In Further information on the final portfolio, such as the IF
cases where more than one category could be observed, the of the journals, and the number of citations are reported in
predominant category was adopted for the analysis. Table 2 (Appendix). The IF starts from zero and goes up
The articles in the final portfolio showed a predominance to 10.556 (Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews)
of case studies, as shown in Fig. 3. Several of the 52 articles (Harris et al. 2018). The number of citations starts from
in the final portfolio were case studies. The category of zero (recently published articles, around 2020), and reaches
proposal of tool/methodology/framework comprised 32 424 citations (Norris 2001).
articles, and the reviews represented 6 documents in the final
portfolio. Furthermore, seven different areas of application 3.2 LCA characteristics
were identified for the final portfolio, such as construction
(23), industry (23), waste management (17), energy The study sought to identify aspects of LCA studies that can
(12), agriculture (6), generic (6), and logistics (3). This be seen through a range of different studies in different fields,
information can be seen in Fig. 3 and in Table 2 (Appendix). which can be used to point out ways to integrate LCA and LCC,
The construction sector has been the subject of the largest such as the use of standard procedures, software tools, impact
number of studies (Santos et al. 2020a, 2020b; Basbagill et al. categories, and methodologies for impact assessment. The
2014; Best et al. 2015; Islam et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2020a; first outcome relating to LCA was an analysis that considered
Lidicker et al. 2012; Petit-Boix et al. 2017a; Conci et al. 2019; whether the studies had the same structure as the international
Wang and Zimmerman 2015; Zhang 2017; Hong et al. 2019). ISO standards (2006a, 2006b). In this sense, more than 60%
The researchers with the highest number of publications on of the studies mentioned are based on ISO standards (2006a,
this topic were Simões, C. L. (Simões et al. 2013a, 2013b, 2006b), as guidelines for the description of LCA. However,
2016), Azapagic, A. (Santoyo-Castelazo and Azapagic 2014; the other 40% of the studies that did not mention having fol-
Kouloumpis and Azapagic 2018; Aberilla et al. 2020), and lowed the two ISOs are still relevant in the scientific field and
Santos, R. (Santos et al. 2019, 2020a, 2020b). consider life cycle thinking. To Heijungs (2014), correctly
250 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

communicating a life cycle assessment is essential for advances, LCC results as the sum of the costs per functional unit, as
updates, and the gathering of new researchers in the field. in a LCA, where a functional unit is chosen to be used as a
Other analyses considered the use of computer tools to parameter. The difference between the studies lies mainly in
calculate life cycle impacts, based on data inventories. In the choice of what will be accounted for in the sum of the
addition, many studies did not use software tools or did not costs, and this depends on the objective of each study.
mention their names. However, two software tools were used In that sense, an important issue is that of the purpose of LCA
more extensively in the studies, namely SimaPro and GaBi. use. As observed in the case of LCA, most manuscripts using
According to Barros et al. (2020b) most LCA studies use the LCC aim to compare products, processes or projects, using
SimaPro software tool, being the most common worldwide, economic aspects to indicate the one that stands out according
to calculate life cycle impacts. to specific environmental-economic aspects in each study.
It was noted that many studies considered the climate Differences in cost categories, such as direct and indirect costs,
change impact category in the assessment. Of the studies internal and external costs, operational and non-operational
that conducted LCA, at least 70% performed analyses on costs, differ among the different studies in the final portfolio.
climate change. Other important impact categories used External costs can also be accounted for in an LCC, such
were acidification, eutrophication, human toxicity, and ozone as the costs of prevention or damage to the environment
depletion. Environmental impacts are related to a common and society, which are usually calculated by monetizing
unit and are summarized in environmental effects (such as impacts. However, monetization is not always the only way
climate change, acidification and others) or aggregated into to integrate LCA and LCC. There have been examples of
an environmental index (Fallahpour et al. 2012). studies that use fuzzy logic based on linguistic variables
In terms of the LCIA methods used, different methods to establish a common ground between environmental and
were found. Some articles used three or more methods at the economic issues (Kouloumpis and Azapagic 2018). Another
same time (Lee and Thomas 2017; Arceo et al. 2019; Calado feature is accounting for the change in the value of money
et al. 2019). Ercan et al. (2015), in particular, used a hybrid over time, which is another economic concept, applied to
LCA method, without the use of a clear LCA methodology. future and foreseeable costs.
The most widely used methods were the IPCC and ReCiPe,
followed by the CML, and Eco-Indicator 99. Furthermore, the 4 Synthetic overview on the integration
analysis did not consider the different versions of the software of LCA and LCC
tools used, nor the period covered by the methodology, such as
20 or 100 years of impact. Islam et al. (2015) used their own 4.1 Aids for LCA‑LCC integration
method, developed in Australia, called the Australian Impact
Method. Similar to the analyses of LCA characteristics, The current research efforts to integrate LCA and LCC
LCC characteristics were also observed in the final portfolio are evidenced in the growing interest in the integration of
studies, as discussed in the following section. the two tools, as it can be seen in the final portfolio (90
documents). It could be observed that LCA and LCC
3.3 LCC characteristics were often used together along with a range of other
methodological aids, e.g., cost–benefit analysis (e.g.,
LCC does not have a general standard to guide its use. Jeswani et  al. 2010), environmental impact assessment
However, there are some guidelines that should be consulted (e.g., Fallahpour et al. 2012), and system disruption analysis
when using this method (see, for example, Hunkeler et al. (e.g., Buytaert et al. 2011). On other occasions, LCA and
2008), mainly for buildings and constructed assets— LCC were integrated in the search for the determination of
ISO 15686–5 (ISO  2017). According to Hunkeler et  al. the eco-efficiency of a system or product (Best et al. 2015;
(2008), there are three types of LCC: conventional LCC, Braulio-Gonzalo and Bovea 2017; Lorenzo-Toja et al. 2016;
environmental LCC, and social LCC. Mami et  al. 2017; Petit-Boix et  al. 2017a). In addition,
In the final portfolio of studies, different methods were iden- other tools were also used jointly with the LCA-LCC
tified. There seems to be a common agreement to use capital approaches, such as a multi-criteria approach to account
expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) as for both environmental and economic impacts, to address
a way to express the results when an LCC study is conducted. uncertainties and to standardize data. Table 1 presents the
However, there does not yet appear to be a common agreement most frequent methodological aids observed in the studies.
on how to compile the data, or how to deal with uncertainties in The use of the aids presented in Table  1 directly
the calculation of the sum of the costs for different time frames. influences the success of the integration and/or the
There is no global standard to guide the organization of evaluation of the trade-offs between LCA and LCC. Since
an LCC study. However, it can be observed that most of there is no standardization on how to integrate LCA and
the investigations in the final portfolio of this study express LCC, the use of auxiliary tools that address multiple criteria
 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 251

and the uncertainties and sensitivity of the variables is of

It is a concept based on the assumption that most effects are due to a minor- Ercan et al. (2015), Islam et al. (2015), Santos et al. (2017), Wu et al. (2017),

(2017), Lidicker et al. (2012), Santos et al. (2017), Wu et al. (2017), Zhao
great importance when dealing with such complex tools.

(2018), Akhtar et al. (2015), Dong et al. (2014), Eddy et al. (2013), Hong

toyo-Castelazo and Azapagic (2014), Van Kempen et al. (2017), Aberilla

Life cycle sustainability assessment This assessment seeks to integrate LCA, LCC, and social life cycle assess- De Luca et al. (2017), Nguyen et al. (2017), Petit-Boix et al. (2017b), San-
et al. (2019), Miah et al. (2017), Nieder-Heitmann et al. (2019), Ribeiro
A widely used technique is multi-criteria decision analysis

et al. (2016), Budzinski et al. (2019), Calado et al. (2019), Tulus et al.
Ameli et al. (2017), Best et al. (2015), Ercan et al. (2015), Huang et al.
Castelazo and Azapagic (2014), Umer et al. (2017), Zanghelini et al.
De Luca et al. (2017), Grubert (2017), Santos et al. (2017), Santoyo-
(MCDA). Zanghelini et al. (2018) present a review on MCDA
methods in LCA studies, and these include mathematical

ity of causes. However, it can be applied in several ways; as a Pareto chart, Zhao et al. (2016), Conci et al. (2019), Gonzalez et al. (2018)
modeling, analytic hierarchical process (AHP), fuzzy logic
approach, among others. These methods have been used in

(2019), Yao and Huang (2019), Zhang et al. (2020b)

various systems and different intents: the automotive industry
(Ameli et al. 2017), building design (Basbagill et al. 2014),
energy efficiency (Nguyen et al. 2017; Wu et al. 2017), and
eco-efficiency measures (Zhao et al. 2011), in order to reduce
environmental and/or economic impacts.
In addition, it is possible to observe the extensive use of
graphics and mathematical models to integrate the outcomes

et al. (2008), Schmidt (2006)

from both approaches. The use of two-dimensional graphs
made it possible to detect the relationship between economic
and environmental impacts. Some examples of these graphs can
be seen in the studies of Escobar et al. (2015) and Mami et al.

et al. (2020)
(2017). The use of the Pareto chart was also observed, as it can

References
be seen in the study of Zhao et al. (2016). The use of MCDA
was more present in studies that used mathematical models to
consider both environmental and economic impacts. Sensitivity
analysis can also be mentioned, in order to observe the behavior

Analysis with various terminologies and application modes used to concen-

when one considers, for example, that the top 20% of impacts represent
of a variable given changes in the system parameters, as it

Use of mathematical and computational models to achieve an objective

allows determining the robustness of variables within a system.
Nonetheless, traditional LCA sensitivity analysis could be
misleading for decision-making, as it generally does not consider
trate multiple values of different criteria into a single factor

the possibility of improving specific parameters (Yao and Huang

function, respecting restrictions imposed by the system

2019).
The use of these aids was essential to assess the trade-
offs between LCA and LCC results. In summary, several
tools have been used to assist environmental and economic
Table 1  Methodological aids most frequently used along with LCA and LCC

assessment; these include life cost–benefit analysis, eco-

efficiency, and LCC (Jeswani et al. 2010). Nonetheless, their
integration into a common methodological framework is still
scarce (Kouloumpis and Azapagic 2018).

4.2 The emergence of LCA‑LCC integration

frameworks
80% of inputs
Description

It seems that frameworks have emerged that seek to propose

ment

the integration of LCA and LCC, mainly in recent years.

LCC has been used as an approach to calculating costs and
making comparisons from a product perspective, rather
than from a life cycle perspective (Fauzi et al. 2019). Many
Multi-criteria decision analysis

times, the use of LCA does not seem sufficient for profit-
Mathematical programming

directed organizations to make a final decision relying only

on environmental assessment results (Deng et al. 2016),
hence, the joint use of LCA and LCC supported by tools
Pareto principle

capable of providing sound results on the environmental and

economic aspects of sustainability may be used.
Life cycle thinking needs to be taken into account in life
Aid

cycle assessments, be it in the environmental (LCA), economic

252 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

(LCC), social (social life cycle assessment (SLCA)), and also environmental-economic information for decision-making,
sustainability (life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA)) lack of clear guidance for handling conflicting perspectives,
aspects. In the studies of Selech et al. (2014) and Witczak and for managing subjective assessments.
et al. (2014), life cycle thinking was evaluated in economic Overall, it is no easy task to point out the best framework
and environmental aspects, respectively, in small and medium for the integration of LCA and LCC. Both tools are used
companies. across a range of sectors, with various underlying intentions,
A set of frameworks has been presented in a wide range of and they might be used by individuals with varying degrees
manuscripts (Abou-Hamad and Abu-Hamd 2019; Arceo et al. of understanding of LCA and/or LCC. These comprise some
2019; Fregonara et al. 2016; Santos et al. 2019; Tulus et al. of the concerning matters that need to be accounted for when
2019; Umer et al. 2017; Yao and Huang 2019) which provide designing and using a framework that integrates LCA and LCC.
detailed guidance on how to link environmental and economic Based on what could be gathered from the existing literature/
analysis. It appears that frameworks have been preferred to other practice, in order to build a framework that is both useful and
approaches (such as models), as they are more generic and have simple, one should consider that it (i) should be able to be used
greater potential for transferability. Frameworks often provide by people with limited knowledge on both LCA and LCC; (ii)
guidance and knowledge on how to carry out a given assessment is complete enough to allow informed decision-making but also
or process, rather than more specific variables and mappings simple enough to enable resource- and time-feasibility even
that require much effort if they are to be used in other contexts. when a massive amount of products (or systems) are assessed
With the help of various tools and techniques, these frame- at the same time; (iii) should account for monetization of
works have explored various means of expressing environmen- environmental impacts, since these are then likely to be more
tal and economic results. In some cases, the economic analysis easily incorporated into the decision-making process.
included costs of environmental externalities, and material/
process costs (for LCC). The environmental analysis included 4.3 Challenges to LCA‑LCC integration
the impacts of the environmental burdens of specific processes
and products, measured in the different impact categories Environmental burdens and associated resource consumption
(for LCA). Notwithstanding, monetization of environmental represent major challenges to the achievement of sustainable
impacts has been widely used in existing frameworks, trying development (Cao et al. 2019), and therefore, obstacles and
to translate environmental impacts into economic ones. This opportunities arise when LCA and LCC are combined. Modern
seems to have been the main path for LCA-LCC integration. producers can simultaneously reduce the environmental impacts
However, innovative approaches, using MCDA and fuzzy of their products and achieve economic benefits by balancing the
logic (for example) have opened up new opportunities for trade-offs between the economy and the environment to ensure
integrating environmental and economic outcomes. A business continuity (Ameli et al. 2017). In view of this, environ-
noteworthy study in this regard is the fuzzy inference mental benefits and economic consequences are often assessed
framework proposed by Kouloumpis and Azapagic (2018) through a combined LCA and LCC eco-efficiency assessment
that integrates LCA, LCC, and SLCA, in which the results (Zhang et al. 2019). On these notes, several challenges in rela-
are turned into linguistic variables and a sustainability tion to the integration of LCA and LCC can be mentioned.
assessment is performed on the same basis. This translation,
which allows all the variables to be judged on the basis of
the same unit, enables a better assessment of possible trade- 4.3.1 Both LCA and LCC are time‑ and resource‑intensive
offs. However, it can still be misleading, depending on
possible biases related to the unit of analysis. When it comes to LCA and LCC, one issue that prevents
Miah et al. (2017) reported that the integration of LCA more widespread use of both is that their implementation is
and LCC into frameworks has occurred on the basis of a time and resource-intensive, and analyses are often conducted
few approaches, including independent LCA and LCC as separately (Rodrigues et al. 2018). Resources such as economic
part of an overarching framework, independent LCA and investment and human knowledge are needed to carry out the
LCC analysis integrated by MCDA, optimization of LCA analyses of both tools. For an LCA study, for instance, if time
and LCC analysis, environmental LCC, and eco-efficiency. is of the essence, then greater investments are necessary to
These approaches seem to be able to typify the plethora of speed up the analysis and more people need to be involved,
frameworks available in the existing literature. Drawing with knowledge of both the tool and the system under study.
on that, the evolution of frameworks seem to have sought There have been existing attempts to overcome the challenge
covering limitations such as weak integration of LCA and of resource-intensiveness in literature/practice. One can mention
LCC, ill-designed (arbitrary or unintentional) focus on either the looming of simplified versions of a life cycle assessment
LCA or LCC in environmental-economic assessments, even at the early stages of LCA development, in the 1990s.
lack of standardization of LCA-LCC analysis, inadequate Screening or streamlining LCAs have been used to identify key
 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 253

issues in the environmental profile of products, rather than a and monetary valuation of environmental impacts, have been
full LCA, for reasons such as time and/or budget constraints, as made available recently, monetization is still an issue of
well as for, at times, seeming to be more cost effective (see Bretz concern due to its complexity, and it is rather soon to measure
and Frankhauser 1996; Curran and Young 1996; Fleischer and the impacts of the use and content of those standards thus far.
Schmidt 1997; Svensson and Ekvall 1995). The same can be
said to be true for life cycle cost assessments. At least since the 4.3.4 Lack of tools to integrate LCA and LCC
late 1970s it is possible to observe the concern with simplifying
LCC analyses, from procedures that allowed using simple tools The need for integration has been highlighted since as early
as handheld calculators (see Mills 1979), to integrating it into as the beginning of the 2000s (see Nakamura and Kondo
product development (see Reed 1986). Even though these 2006), and thus, the possibility of using the same software
simplified analyses can still be observed currently (see e.g. tool used in LCA studies to compile LCC results was
Rodrigues et al. 2018), no definite one has been widespread. hypothesized during the analysis of the studies in the final
portfolio. However, there seems to be no studies mentioning
4.3.2 Both LCA and LCC are knowledge intensive any integration of LCC and LCA using the same software
tool, for instance, using the LCA software tool to account for
People involved in the analyses need to have knowledge and economic indicators along with environmental aspects when
skills to act in different contexts and perspectives into adjoining building a life cycle inventory. Therefore, this accounts for
LCA and LCC. Science has developed its own vocabulary, with another challenge when integrating LCA and LCC.
specific terms and meanings (Heijungs 2014). The same is true Umer et al. (2017) corroborate that these tools require other
for LCC, thus both analyses require prior knowledge in order tools to handle uncertainties and to support decision-making
for the application to be consistent and the results to be reliable. processes with reliable results. Although the construction
Although there may be standards to guide the analyses, ade- sector represents the main area of publication when it comes
quate knowledge of both LCA and LCC is necessary to be able to the integration of LCA and LCC (see Fig. 3), advances
to detect their overlaps and differences within a system. Careers need to be made in the area, where, for example, software
in the field of LCA end up as consultants and specialists, but developers may develop a suitable BIM-LCA/LCC tool (see
also with basic research, focusing on increasing opportunities Santos et al. 2019). Moreover, due to the lack of tools to
to develop the integration of LCA and LCC. Another approach integrate LCA and LCC, it is also difficult to present a quick
to expand the knowledge on a life cycle perspective in the aca- and easy technique/tool for managers in decision making. One
demic environment are the courses that involve case studies with such technique could (e.g.) include a graphical visualization
applied LCAs, such as observed in Aurandt and Butler (2011), of the results in LCA-LCC integration.
Lockrey and Johnson (2013), and Gilmore (2016). One further It has not been explicitly reported in the existing literature
important remark is that both LCC (Gluch and Baumann 2004) the reasons why LCA software tools (GaBi and Umberto,
and LCA (Rex and Baumann 2008) are enablers of great learn- for instance), which have the built-in functionality of
ing (thus knowledge acquisition) opportunities. Learning about considering the associated costs of inputs, have not been
economic and environmental issues in general can be of inter- used to conduct LCC assessments, in spite of there being
est to understand market behavior or to identify possibilities for recurrent claims on the need for integrating LCA and LCC in
improvement based on these approaches. previous research efforts. On top of that, there is no mention
of the implications to the studies’ results for using or not
4.3.3 Monetizing environmental impacts those LCC-enabling functionalities.

An extensive practice for integrating LCA and LCC is mon- 4.3.5 Different scopes for LCA and LCC
etization. However, monetizing environmental issues is not
simple. Monetary flows represent direct costs and benefits, Using different scopes for LCA and LCC will likely not
impacting the decision maker (Miah et al. 2017), and although make the results representative of the same system, beyond
the costs are given in a specific currency, as one component of making data collection and analysis more complicated when
the life-cycle cost of a product (Afrane and Ntiamoah 2012), compared to the same scope. In fact, an integration of LCA
there are no established rules about (for example) whether and LCC seems beneficial. Something to note is that both
the value of money should be considered over time, how long tools may share the scope and system boundaries (Di Maria
environmental impacts should be accounted for when mon- et al. 2018), but disagree on the source and format of the data.
etizing, and whether all impacts can be monetized or not. Nonetheless, once again, it is highlighted the lack of
Moreover, although resources such as ISO 14007 standardization for their coupled use. If, on the one hand,
(ISO 2019a) and ISO 14008 (ISO 2019b), which provide there are two standards for LCA (ISO 14040 and 14044),
guidance on determining environmental costs and benefits, on the other hand, LCC does not present a faithful standard
254 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

to be followed. If an organization aims for an integrated 2008), while LCA aims to estimate potential environmental
LCA and LCC study for a particular asset, only when the impacts (Guinee et al. 2011). Therefore, one might want to
organization owns the asset the potential environmental account for all these differences on how far back the data goes
impacts are accounted for, thus outsourced activities when coupling environmental and economic data.
might not be part of the scope. However, costs such as for
maintenance (e.g.) of that particular asset (thus costs of 4.4 Opportunities to LCA‑LCC integration
outsourced activities) might be included in the LCC study.0
Following the range of challenges presented in the previous
4.3.6 Higher volatility of economic data compared section, a few opportunities can also be spotted on the
to environmental data integration of LCA and LCC, thus encouraging or facilitating
the integration of these tools. Albeit not as many as the existing
Economic data is more volatile than environmental data. challenges, these few opportunities are presented hereafter.
Changes in the economy are fast and can make economic
data obsolete with the same speed. Environmental data 4.4.1 Common system boundaries for LCA and LCC
can also turn obsolete with new discoveries or updates in
databases with more regional data (for instance); however, It is stated by Reich (2005) that the discrepancies in system
the rate of volatility or obsolescence of environmental data boundaries between LCA and LCC studies are not insurmount-
is not as high as that of the economic data. able, and it seems that for the greatest part of the existing studies
The implications of the volatility of environmental seeking to integrate LCA and LCC the same system boundaries
data and information have been studied from different are used for both the LCA and LCC analyses. This can easily
perspectives, such as implications to product development be observed in a range of studies (see, e.g., Lee et al. 2016;
(see Barry et  al. 2006), or to the long-term results of Petit-Boix et al. 2017a; Ramos et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2019).
entire organizations (see Hoti et  al. 2008). Dugal and Moreover, defining the same system boundaries to calculate
Gopalakrishnam (2000) argue that, ultimately, volatility environmental and economic potential impacts simplifies the
is good, as it might help assess the need to update data or integrated study (to some extent) and makes the integration of
information given the aspects that make it volatile, and LCA and LCC easier. Integrating LCA and LCC becomes easier
their study still reveals that environmental volatility affects when defining the same objective and scope for both studies,
economic decisions, on a sustainable perspective. Volatility also due to jointly collecting environmental and economic data.
of economic data, in turn, has been researched more in depth Similar to LCA, LCC can also be analyzed in each phase
and extensively (see, e.g., Edwards and Thames 2010; Tang of the life cycle of a good or service. Moreover, when LCA
2019; Yu 2014) and has been used as one more variable to and LCC have the same scope, the entire set of assumptions
guide organizational decision-making (see Chichilnisky and can be established at once, together with the definition of
Gorbachev 2004). Nonetheless, although the relationship objective and scope. In addition, the results may be pre-
between environmental and economic volatility is not clear, sented to stakeholders graphically, illustrating the system
it is noted that their volatility differs, with economic volatility boundaries, on top of showing environmental and economic
being believed to be higher than environmental volatility, impact at each stage of the life cycle and in each activity.
which brings about one more factor to be accounted for when
coupling environmental and economic data.
4.4.2 Benefitting from LCA structure to conduct LCC
4.3.7 Differences in environmental and economic
background data In the analysis of LCC methodologies, it was possible to
observe a pattern. Some studies used a structure similar to
The economic data (e.g., price of a good) already includes all that of an LCA. For instance, Fazeni et al. (2014), Simões
the background monetary flows needed to produce that good. et al. (2016), and Simões et al. (2013a), used the following
Physical flows of background processes, however, are not structure to conduct their LCC assessments: definition of
implied when analyzing the production of a certain product; objective and scope, analysis of revenues and costs, cost
thus, there might be differences in the impacts being calculated evaluation, and interpretation.
to a certain good depending on the environmental background It is not uncommon to observe studies that report having
data of its inputs. Externality costs can be estimated (e.g.) based merged specific cost assessment guidelines with LCA
on ­CO2, ­CH4, ­N2O, and other emissions (see Martinez-Sanchez standards ISO 14040 and 14044 (ISO 2006a, 2006b).
et al. 2017). Among others, LCC aims to estimate the costs Examples to be cited are Ramos et al. (2020), who used ISO
of operation, maintenance, and final disposal (Hunkeler et al. 15663-1 (ISO 2001a), ISO 15663-2 (ISO 2001b), and ISO
 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 255

15663-3 (ISO 2001c) for gas-industry-based products; and of LCC, the influence of currency fluctuation over time
Lorenzo-Toja et al. (2016), Miah et al. (2017), Petit-Boix could also be observed. Currency variation gives rise to
et al. (2017a), Santos et al. (2020a), Zhang et al. (2019), and uncertainties in the studies; in this regard, researchers
Zhang et al. (2020b), who used ISO 15686-5 (ISO 2017) have used various instruments to minimize the effects of
for civil construction elements. Moreover, a frequent uncertainty. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses are widely
strategy is to follow the orientation provided by the Society recommended for these problems.
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)’s From the point of view of the integration of LCA
“Environmental Life Cycle Costing: A Code of Practice” and LCC, there is a lack of normatization in the use of
(Swarr et al. 2011). The referred document is aligned with methods, instruments and/or techniques to carry out
the guidelines of ISO 14040 (ISO 2006a), and has been the studies with a combined approach. The use of multi-
guide of many studies integrating LCA and LCC (see, e.g., criteria analysis is crucial for integrating LCA and LCC.
Muñoz et al. 2019). By minimizing the trade-offs between environmental
As both tools consider a life cycle thinking perspective and economic approaches, organizations can make better
(Paes et al. 2020) and LCA is well-established, it only choices of products, services and processes, balancing the
makes sense to resort to the well-established LCA impacts of both dimensions by providing a higher level of
structure when no specific guidelines are available for the information for decision-making.
LCC study. Furthermore, LCA has even been recognized This study has highlighted possible future directions
as a prerequisite for cost accounting (Shapiro 2001). based on some of the identified academic and practical
Even though using a similar (or the same) structure/ gaps, mainly regarding the challenges identified for
methodological steps is no guarantee of synergy, given the integration of LCA and LCC. In addition, it is
the lack of standardization for integrating LCA and recommended that future research should investigate
LCC, such practice brings an opportunity for a closer the standardization of structures and methodologies and
alignment between those tools. the inclusion of social impact assessment on a broader
To date, a reasonable number of studies based on a life- life cycle perspective. With more efficient choices for
cycle perspective was conceived in order to give answers products and processes, companies can gauge advantage
to some of the challenges that constitute sustainable over competitors while achieving greater sustainability.
development (Lorenzo-Toja et  al. 2016). However, Moreover, it might be worth investigating in future
opportunities and advances in scientific research in the research endeavors how developments on the integration
area are yet to come. of LCA and LCC have occurred differently in different
countries and regions of the world, and the potential
5 Final considerations and future agenda motivations for disparities.

This study sought to review and analyze the progress in Acknowledgments  The authors would like to thank the Editor of the
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment and the reviewers
issues related to the integration of LCA and LCC. The for efficient handling and the valuable comments for improving this
number of research papers that seek to integrate LCA and research on earlier versions of the paper.
LCC has grown considerably in recent years. The most
relevant authors, countries, institutions, areas, journals, Funding  Authors Murillo Vetroni Barros and Rodrigo Salvador have
research topics, category of study, LCIA methods, system received research grants from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento
de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001.
boundaries, standards, and software tools helped to provide Authors Antonio Carlos de Francisco and Cassiano Moro Piekarski
a picture of where and under what contexts the studies have have received research grants from the National Council for Scientific
been conducted. and Technological Development (CNPq). (Sponsored by CNPq
The use of LCA (from a best benefit point of view) 310686/2017-2 and 312285/2019-1). Author Maria Teresa Moreira
has received research grants from an ERA-CoBIOTECH project
should be mainly given for comparing projects, products, (PCI2018-092866) – WOOBADH Project and the European project
and processes at the early stages of development; however, iFermenter (Grant Agreement 790507).
what is largely done is to use an LCA study to assess already
established systems. Although there is standardization for Compliance with ethical standards 
structuring an LCA study, it is still possible to observe a
large number of studies that do not yet adopt or follow Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of
ISO standards (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044). The use of interest.
LCC, in turn, could be even more difficult, as there is no
universally accepted (or adequate) standardization for all
areas. However, it seems that the construction sector has Appendix
devoted the most effort to this type of analysis. In the case
Table 2  Characteristics of the articles
256

Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Integrating life cycle Norris (2001) * US Academic Methodology pro- The International 4.307 449 404.004
cost analysis and posal Journal of Life
LCA Cycle Assessment
Sustainability assess- Santoyo-Castelazo The University of UK Energy Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 357 377.007
ment of energy and Azapagic (2014) Manchester posal Production
systems: integrat-
ing environmental,
economic and social
aspects
Bridging the gap Hoogmartens et al. Hasselt University Belgium Industrial Review Environmental Impact 4.135 156 176.004
between LCA, LCC (2014) Assessment Review
and CBA as sustain-
ability assessment
tools
Multiobjective opti- Wu et al. (2017) Swiss Federal Insti- Swiss Energy Methodology pro- Applied Energy 8.848 111 146.009
misation of energy tute of Technology posal
systems and build- Zurich
ing envelope retrofit
in a residential
community
Energy–environment– Dong et al. (2014) Zhejiang University China Waste management Case study Applied Energy 8.848 113 133.009
economy assessment
of waste manage-
ment systems from a
life cycle perspec-
tive: Model develop-
ment and case study
Life cycle tools De Luca et al. (2017) Mediterranean Uni- Italy Agriculture Review Science of The Total 6.551 74 109.007
combined with versity of Reggio Environment
multi-criteria and Calabria
participatory meth-
ods for agricultural
sustainability:
Insights from a sys-
tematic and critical
review
Benchmarking Lorenzo-Toja et al. University of Santiago Spain Waste management Case study Science of the Total 6.551 73 103.007
wastewater treat- (2016) de Compostela Environment
ment plants under
an eco-efficiency
perspective
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274
Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Innovative olive- De Gennaro et al. University of Bari Italy Agriculture Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 92 102.007
growing models: an (2012) Aldo Moro Production
environmental and
economic assess-
ment
Increasing product Bovea and Vidal Jaume I University Spain Academic Methodology pro- Resources, Conserva- 8.086 130 100.008
value by integrat- (2004) posal tion and Recycling
ing environmental
impact, costs and
customer valuation
Life cycle engineer- Ribeiro et al. (2008) Technical University Portugal Industrial Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 110 100.007
ing methodology of Lisbon Production
applied to material
selection, a fender
case study
An extended life cycle Albrecht et al. (2013) University of Stuttgart Germany Logistics Case study The International 4.307 82 97.004
analysis of packag- Journal of Life
ing systems for fruit Cycle Assessment
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

and vegetable trans-

port in Europe
Application of life Petit-Boix et al. The Autonomous Spain Construction Review Journal of Cleaner 7.246 57 92.007
cycle thinking (2017b) University of Bar- Production
towards sustainable celona
cities: A review
Integration of LCA Santos et al. (2019) Vrije University of Belgium Construction Framework proposal Automation in Con- 5.669 46 91.006
and LCC analysis Brussels struction
within a BIM-based
environment
Environmental costs Steen (2005) Chalmers University Sweden Academic Methodology pro- Management of Envi- 0.000 116 91.000
and benefits in life of Technology posal ronmental Quality
cycle costing
Towards integrated Buytaert et al. (2011) Flemish Institute Belgium Energy Review Renewable and 1.110 85 90.012
sustainability assess- for Technological Sustainable Energy
ment for energetic Research Reviews
use of biomass:
A state of the art
evaluation of assess-
ment tools
257
Table 2  (continued)
258

Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Integrating life cycle Bierer et al. (2015) Chemnitz University Germany Academic Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 65 90.007
costing and life of Technology posal Production
cycle assessment
using extended
material flow cost
accounting
Modeling and optimi- Best et al. (2015) Stanford University US Construction Case study Applied Energy 8.848 63 88.009
zation of building
mix and energy sup-
ply technology for
urban districts
Environmental and Braulio-Gonzalo and Jaume I University Spain Construction Methodology pro- Energy and Buildings 4.495 48 83.004
cost performance of Bovea (2017) posal
building’s envelope
insulation materials
to reduce energy
demand: Thickness
optimisation
Optimization of transit Ercan et al. (2015) University of Central US Energy Case study Energy 6.082 55 80.006
bus fleet’s life cycle Florida
assessment impacts
with alternative fuel
options
A hybridised frame- Miah et al. (2017) The University of UK Academic Framework proposal Journal of Cleaner 7.246 40 75.007
work combining Sheffield Production
integrated methods
for environmental
Life Cycle Assess-
ment and Life Cycle
Costing
How Multi-Criteria Zanghelini et al. Universidade Federal Brazil Academic Review Journal of Cleaner 7.246 37 72.007
Decision Analysis (2018) de Santa Catarina Production
(MCDA) is aiding
Life Cycle Assess-
ment (LCA) in
results interpretation
Pavement resurfacing Lidicker et al. (2012) University of Cali- US Construction Case study Journal of Infrastruc- 0.000 61 71.000
policy for minimiza- fornia ture Systems
tion of life-cycle
costs and green-
house gas emissions
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274
Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Life cycle assessment Islam et al. (2015) Royal Melbourne Australia Construction Case study Energy and Buildings 4.867 43 68.005
and life cycle cost Institute of Technol-
implications for ogy
roofing and floor
designs in residen-
tial buildings
Economic and Wang and Zimmer- Yale University US Waste management Case study Environmental Sci- 7.864 42 67.008
environmental man (2015) ence and Technol-
assessment of office ogy
building rainwater
harvesting systems
in various U.S.
Cities
Environmental and Huang et al. (2017) Northwestern Uni- US Industrial Case study Journal of Industrial 6.539 32 67.007
economic implica- versity Ecology
tions of distributed
additive manufac-
turing: The case
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

of injection mold
tooling
Life cycle sustain- Akhtar et al. (2015) The University of Canada Waste management Case study Clean Technologies 2.429 42 67.002
ability assessment British Columbia and Environmental
(LCSA) for selec- Policy
tion of sewer pipe
materials
Environmental and Gonzalez et al. (2018) The Polytechnic Uni- Spain Energy Methodology pro- Renewable Energy 6.274 26 66.006
cost optimal design versity of Catalonia posal
of a biomass–
Wind–PV electricity
generation system
Carbon footprint and Florindo et al. (2017) Federal University of Brazil Agriculture Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 28 63.007
Life Cycle Costing Mato Grosso do Sul Production
of beef cattle in the
Brazilian midwest
Economic and envi- Tulus et al. (2019) Rovira i Virgili Uni- Spain Energy Case study Applied Energy 8.848 17 62.009
ronmental potential versity
for solar assisted
central heating
plants in the EU
residential sector:
Contribution to the
2030 climate and
energy EU agenda
259
Table 2  (continued)
260

Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

A multi-objective Santos et al. (2017) The French Institute France Construction Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 25 60.007
optimization-based of Science and posal Production
pavement manage- Technology for
ment decision- Transport, Develop-
support system for ment and Networks
enhancing pavement
sustainability
Evaluating eco‐effi- Mami et al. (2017) Polytechnique Mon- Canada Industrial Case study Journal of Industrial 6.539 25 60.007
ciency of 3D print- treal Ecology
ing in the aeronautic
industry
A multi-objective Basbagill et al. (2014) Stanford University US Construction Methodology pro- Automation in Con- 5.669 39 59.006
feedback approach posal struction
for evaluating
sequential concep-
tual building design
decisions
Eco-efficiency for Zhao et al. (2011) Liaoning University China Waste management Methodology pro- Waste Management 5.448 54 59.005
greenhouse gas of Technology posal
emissions mitigation
of municipal solid
waste management:
A case study of
Tianjin, China
Comparative eco- Cao et al. (2019) The Hong Kong Poly- Hong Kong Construction Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 13 58.007
efficiency analysis technic University Production
on asphalt pave-
ment rehabilitation
alternatives: Hot in-
place recycling and
milling-and-filling
BIM-based life cycle Santos et al. (2020b) Vrije University of Belgium Construction Methodology pro- Building and Environ- 4.971 8 58.005
assessment and life Brussels posal ment
cycle costing of an
office building in
Western Europe
Life cycle tools within Schmidt (2006) Ford Werke AG Germany Logistics Case study The International 4.307 78 58.004
Ford of Europe’s Journal of Life
product sustainabil- Cycle Assessment
ity index case study
Ford S-MAX &
Ford Galaxy
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274
Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Parametric mod- Lee and Thomas Argonne National US Industrial Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 22 57.007
eling approach (2017) Laboratory Production
for economic and
environmental life
cycle assessment of
medium-duty truck
electrification
Integrating Environ- Fregonara et al. The Polytechnic Uni- Italy Construction Case study Journal of Urban 3.733 27 57.004
mental and Eco- (2016) versity of Turin Technology
nomic Sustainability
in New Building
Construction and
Retrofits
Life cycle and life Konstantinidou et al. Aristotle University Greece Construction Case study International Journal 3.714 12 57.004
cycle cost implica- (2019) of Thessaloniki of Energy Research
tions of integrated
phase change
materials in office
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

buildings
Environmental and Sanchez et al. (2020) Northeastern Uni- US Healthcare Case study Resources, Conserva- 8.086 6 56.008
economic compari- versity tion and Recycling
son of reusable and
disposable blood
pressure cuffs in
multiple clinical
settings
A multi-objective Hong et al. (2019) Yonsei University South Korea Construction Case study Energy 6.082 11 56.006
optimization model
for determining the
building design and
occupant behaviors
based on energy,
economic, and envi-
ronmental perfor-
mance
Environmental and Danthurebandara et al. Catholic University of Belgium Waste management Case study Waste Management 5.448 31 56.005
economic perfor- (2015b) Leuven
mance of plasma
gasification in
Enhanced Landfill
Mining
261
Table 2  (continued)
262

Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Using life cycle Van Kempen et al. VU University The Netherlands Logistics Case study The International 4.307 21 56.004
sustainability assess- (2017) Amsterdam Journal of Life
ment to trade off Cycle Assessment
sourcing strategies
for humanitarian
relief items
Integrating envi- Simões et al. (2013b) University of Minho Portugal Industrial Case study The International 4.307 41 56.004
ronmental and Journal of Life
economic life cycle Cycle Assessment
analysis in product
development: a
material selection
case study
Is SCENA a good Longo et al. (2017) University of Santiago Spain Waste management Case study Water Research 9.130 20 55.009
approach for side- de Compostela
stream integrated
treatment from an
environmental and
economic point of
view?
Navigating environ- Pretel et al. (2015) Polytechnic Univer- Spain Waste management Methodology pro- Water research 9.130 30 55.009
mental, economic, sity of Valencia posal
and technological
trade-offs in the
design and opera-
tion of submerged
anaerobic membrane
bioreactors (AnM-
BRs)
Municipal solid waste Paes et al. (2020) Getulio Vargas Foun- Brazil Waste management Framework proposal Journal of Cleaner 7.246 5 55.007
management: Inte- dation Production
grated analysis of
environmental and
economic indicators
based on life cycle
assessment
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274
Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Prospective environ- Muñoz et al. (2019) 2.0 LCA Consultants Denmark Energy Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 10 55.007
mental and eco- Production
nomic assessment of
solar-assisted ther-
mal energy recovery
from wastewater
through a sequenc-
ing batch biofilter
granular reactor
Valorization of Danthurebandara et al. Catholic University of Belgium Waste management Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 30 55.007
thermal treatment (2015a) Leuven Production
residues in enhanced
landfill mining:
environmental and
economic evaluation
Environmental and Wang et al. (2020) Anhui Polytechnic China Waste management Case study Science of the Total 6.551 5 55.007
economic per- University Environment
formance of an
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

integrated municipal
solid waste treat-
ment: A Chinese
case study
The Need for a Prefer- Grubert (2017) Stanford University US Academic Methodology pro- Journal of Industrial 6.539 20 55.007
ence‐Based Multic- posal Ecology
riteria Prioritization
Framework in Life
Cycle Sustainability
Assessment
A Parametric Life Yao and Huang (2019) North Caroline State US Academic Framework proposal Procedia CIRP 0.000 10 55.000
Cycle Modeling University
Framework for
Identifying Research
Development Pri-
orities of Emerging
Technologies: A
Case Study of Addi-
tive Manufacturing
263
 264

Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Synergistic generation Aberilla et al. (2020) The University of UK Energy Case study Energy Conversion 8.208 3 53.008
of energy and water Manchester and Management
in remote commu-
nities: Economic
and environmental
assessment of cur-
rent situation and
future scenarios
Eco-efficiency assess- Zhang et al. (2019) Leiden University The Netherlands Construction Case study Resources, Conserva- 8.086 8 53.008
ment of technologi- tion and Recycling
cal innovations in
high-grade concrete
recycling
Development of a Santos et al. (2020a) Vrije University of Belgium Construction Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 3 53.007
BIM-based Envi- Brussels posal Production
ronmental and Eco-
nomic Life Cycle
Assessment tool
Life cycle greenhouse Zhang et al. (2020a) Leiden University The Netherlands Construction Case study Journal of Industrial 6.539 3 53.007
gas emission and Ecology
cost analysis of pre-
fabricated concrete
building façade
elements
Trade-off between the Conci et al. (2019) Technische University Germany Construction Case study Building and Environ- 4.971 8 53.005
economic and envi- Darmstadt ment
ronmental impact of
different decarboni-
sation strategies for
residential buildings
An integrated envi- Zhang et al. (2020b) Hefei University of China Industrial Case study The International 4.307 2 52.004
ronmental and cost Technology Journal of Life
assessment method Cycle Assessment
based on LCA and
LCC for automobile
interior and exterior
trim design scheme
optimization
Assessing life cycle Harris et al. (2018) Queen’s University UK Energy Methodology pro- Renewable and 12.110 11 51.012
impacts and the Belfast posal Sustainable Energy
risk and uncertainty Reviews
of alternative bus
technologies
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274
Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Environmental and Ramos et al. (2020) University of Porto Portugal Waste management Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 1 51.007
socio-economic Production
assessment of cork
waste gasification:
Life cycle and cost
analysis
Life cycle assessment Nieder-Heitmann Stellenbosch Uni- South Africa Agriculture Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 6 51.007
and multi-criteria et al. (2019) versity Production
analysis of sugar-
cane biorefinery
scenarios: Finding a
sustainable solution
for the South Afri-
can sugar industry
Streamlined envi- Rodrigues et al. University of Coimbra Portugal Construction Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 11 51.007
ronmental and cost (2018) posal Production
life-cycle approach
for building thermal
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

retrofits: A case of
residential buildings
in South European
climates
Framework for Abou-Hamad and Cairo University Egypt Construction Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 5 50.007
construction system Abu-Hamd (2019) posal Production
selection based on
life cycle cost and
sustainability assess-
ment
Eco-efficiency Arceo et al. (2019) Curtin University Australia Energy Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 5 50.007
improvement of posal Production
Western Australian
remote area power
supply
Environmental and Simões et al. (2016) University of Minho Portugal Industrial Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 20 50.007
economic perfor- Production
mance of a car
component: assess-
ing new materi-
als, processes and
designs
265
Table 2  (continued)
266

Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Consequential LCA Budzinski et al. Helmholtz Centre Germany Industrial Case study The International 4.307 5 50.004
and LCC using lin- (2019) for Environmental Journal of Life
ear programming: an Research Cycle Assessment
illustrative example
of biorefineries
Proper selection of Dorr et al. (2017) Joint Research Unit France Agriculture Case study Agronomy for Sus- 4.531 14 49.005
substrates and crops tainable Develop-
enhances the sus- ment
tainability of Paris
rooftop garden
Integrated life cycle Kouloumpis and The University of UK Academic Framework proposal Sustainable Produc- 3.660 9 49.004
sustainability assess- Azapagic (2018) Manchester tion and Consump-
ment using fuzzy tion
inference: A novel
FELICITA model
Inclusive impact Nguyen et al. (2017) Osaka Prefecture Japan Energy Methodology pro- Journal of Cleaner 7.246 13 48.007
assessment for the University posal Production
sustainability of
vegetable oil-based
biodiesel–Part I:
Linkage between
inclusive impact
index and life cycle
sustainability assess-
ment
Whole building life Hasik et al. (2019) University of Pitts- US Construction Case study Building and Environ- 4.971 3 48.005
cycle environmental burgh ment
impacts and costs: A
sensitivity study of
design and service
decisions
Sustainable Configu- Xu and Zhang (2019) University of South US Waste management Case study Journal of Environ- 1.264 3 48.001
ration of Bioreten- Florida mental Engineering
tion Systems for
Nutrient Manage-
ment through Life-
Cycle Assessment
and Cost Analysis
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274
Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Application of the Lee et al. (2016) Korea Railway South Korea Logistics Framework proposal Journal of Cleaner 7.246 17 47.007
integrated ecodesign Research Institute Production
method using the
GHG emission as a
single indicator and
its GHG recycla-
bility
Integrating external Theregowda et al. Transtech Engineer- US Waste management Case study Journal of Cleaner 7.246 17 47.007
costs with life cycle (2016) ing Consultants Production
costs of emissions
from tertiary treat-
ment of municipal
wastewater for reuse
in cooling systems
Life cycle based Zhao et al. (2016) University of Central US Logistics Case study Sustainable Produc- 3.660 17 47.004
multi-criteria Florida tion and Consump-
optimization for tion
optimal allocation of
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

commercial delivery
truck fleet in the
United States
Are we prevent- Petit-Boix et al. Autonomous Univer- Spain Waste management Case study Science of The Total 6.551 11 46.007
ing flood damage (2017a) sity of Barcelona Environment
eco-efficiently? An
integrated method
applied to post-
disaster emergency
actions
Sustainability evalua- Umer et al. (2017) Alberta Transporta- Canada Construction Case study Transportation 4.577 11 46.005
tion framework for tion Research Part D:
pavement technolo- Transport and Envi-
gies: An integrated ronment
life cycle economic
and environmental
trade-off analysis
Integrating life cycle Calado et al. (2019) University of Lisbon Portugal Industrial Methodology pro- The International 4.307 1 46.004
assessment (LCA) posal Journal of Life
and life cycle Cycle Assessment
costing (LCC) in
the early phases of
aircraft structural
design: an elevator
case study
267
Table 2  (continued)
268

Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

A sustainable method Ameli et al. (2017) Amirkabir University Iran Industrial Methodology pro- Environment, Devel- 2.191 9 44.002
for optimizing of Technology posal opment and Sustain-
product design with ability
trade-off between
life cycle cost and
environmental
impact
A normative decision Eddy et al. (2013) University of Mas- US Industrial Case study Journal of Engineer- 1.950 28 43.002
analysis method for sachusetts ing Design
the sustainability-
based design of
products
Taking the Time Zhang (2017) Zhejiang University China Construction Methodology pro- Sustainability 2.576 7 42.003
Characteristic into of Technology posal
Account of Life
Cycle Assessment:
Method and Appli-
cation for Buildings
Environmental and Simões et al. (2013a) University of Minho Portugal Industrial Case study Journal of Environ- 5.647 26 41.006
economic assess- mental Management
ment of a road safety
product made with
virgin and recycled
HDPE: A compara-
tive study
Methodological Fazeni et al. (2014) Johannes Kepler Austria Industrial Methodology pro- Resources, Conserva- 8.086 18 38.008
advancements in University Linz posal tion and Recycling
life cycle process
design: a prelimi-
nary outlook
Hybrid LCC of appli- Nakamura and Kondo Waseda University Japan Industrial Case study The International 4.307 57 37.004
ances with different (2006) Journal of Life
energy efficiency Cycle Assessment
Life cycle costing as Schmidt (2003) Ford Werke AG Germany Academic Methodology pro- The International 4.307 68 33.004
part of design for posal Journal of Life
environment envi- Cycle Assessment
ronmental business
cases
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274
Table 2  (continued)
Title Reference Institution Country Area Type of study Journal IF Citation InOrdinatio

Two-scale evalua- Inoue and Katayama Nagoya University Japan Agriculture Case study Journal of Hazardous 9.038 26 31.009
tion of remediation (2011) Materials
technologies for a
contaminated site by
applying economic
input–output life
cycle assessment:
Risk–cost, risk–
energy consump-
tion and risk–CO2
emission
Uncertainty analysis Escobar et al. (2015) Polytechnic Univer- Spain Waste management Case study The International 4.307 6 31.004
in the financial sity of Valencia Journal of Life
assessment of an Cycle Assessment
integrated manage-
ment system for res-
taurant and catering
waste in Spain
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

Integrated assessment Yu et al. (2007) South China Univer- China Industrial Case study Chinese Journal of 2.627 42 27.003
of environmental sity of Technology Chemical Engineer-
and economic per- ing
formance of chemi-
cal products using
analytic hierarchy
process approach
Combining ecologi- Dahlbo et al. (2007) Finnish Environment Finland Waste management Case study Resources, Conserva- 8.086 39 24.008
cal and economic Institute tion and Recycling
assessment of
options for newspa-
per waste manage-
ment
An integrated assess- Muga et al. (2009) University of South US Construction Framework proposal Journal of Engineer- 0.000 25 20.000
ment of continu- Florida ing, Design and
ously reinforced Technology
and jointed plane
concrete pavements
Life cycle approach Hochschorner and KTH Royal Institute Sweden Academic Review The International 4.307 35 15.004
in the procurement Finnveden (2006) of Technology Journal of Life
process: The case of Cycle Assessment
defence materiel

*Does not say

269
270 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

References Conserv Recy 41(2):133–145. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.

resco​nrec.2003.09.004
Braulio-Gonzalo M, Bovea MD (2017) Environmental and cost per-
Aberilla JM, Gallego-Schmid A, Stamford L, Azapagic A (2020) Syn-
formance of building’s envelope insulation materials to reduce
ergistic generation of energy and water in remote communities:
energy demand: thickness optimisation. Energ Buildings
economic and environmental assessment of current situation and
150:527–545. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbui​ld.2017.06.005
future scenarios. Energ Convers Manag 207:112543. https​://doi.
Bretz R, Frankhauser P (1996) Screening LCA for large numbers
org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2020.11254​3
of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(3):139–146. https​://doi.
Abou-Hamad M, bu-Hamd M (2019) Framework for construction sys-
org/10.1007/BF029​78941​
tem selection based on life cycle cost and sustainability assess-
Brown RJ (1979) A new marketing tool: life-cycle costing. Ind
ment. J Clean Prod 241:118397. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepr​ o.
Market Manag 8(2):109–113. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0019-
2019.11839​7
8501(79)90050​-6
Afrane G, Ntiamoah A (2012) Analysis of the life-cycle costs and envi-
Budzinski M, Sisca M, Thrän D (2019) Consequential LCA and LCC
ronmental impacts of cooking fuels used in Ghana. Appl Energy
using linear programming: an illustrative example of biorefin-
98:301–306. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2012.03.041
eries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24(12):2191–2205. https​://doi.
Akhtar S, Reza B, Hewage K, Shahriar A, Zargar A, Sadiq R (2015)
org/10.1007/s1136​7-019-01650​-6
Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) for selection of
Butler L, Visser MS (2006) Extending citation analysis to non-source
sewer pipe materials. Clean Technol Envir 17(4):973–992.
items. Scientometrics 66(2):327–343. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1009​8-014-0849-x
s1119​2-006-0024-1
Albrecht S, Brandstetter P, Beck T, Fullana-i-Palmer P, Grönman K,
Buytaert V, Muys B, Devriendt N, Pelkmans L, Kretzschmar JG, Samson
Baitz M, Fischer M (2013) An extended life cycle analysis of
R (2011) Towards integrated sustainability assessment for ener-
packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe. Int
getic use of biomass: a state of the art evaluation of assessment
J Life Cycle Assess 18(8):1549–1567. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
tools. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(8):3918–3933. https​://doi.
s1136​7-013-0590-4
org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.036
Ameli M, Mansour S, Ahmadi-Javid A (2017) A sustainable method
Calado EA, Leite M, Silva A (2019) Integrating life cycle assessment
for optimizing product design with trade-off between life cycle
(LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) in the early phases of aircraft
cost and environmental impact. Environ Dev Sustain 19(6):2443–
structural design: an elevator case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2456. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​8-016-9864-x
24(12):2091–2110. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s11367​ -019-01632-​ 8
Araújo CKC, Salvador R, Piekarski CM, Sokulski CC, de Francisco
Cao R, Leng Z, Hsu SC (2019) Comparative eco-efficiency analysis
AC, Camargo SKCA (2019) Circular economy practices on
on asphalt pavement rehabilitation alternatives: hot in-place
wood panels: a bibliographic analysis. Sustainability 11(4):1057.
recycling and milling-and-filling. J Clean Prod 210:1385–1395.
https​://doi.org/10.3390/su110​41057​
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2018.11.122
Arceo A, Biswas WK, John M (2019) Eco-efficiency improvement
Catuogno S, Saggese S, Sarto F (2016) Alignment vs rent-extraction
of Western Australian remote area power supply. J Clean Prod
effects of stock options. A conceptual model Corporate Govern-
230:820–834. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2019.05.106
ance 16(4):693–708. https​://doi.org/10.1108/CG-11-2015-0155
Aurandt JL, Butler EC (2011) Sustainability education: approaches for
Chichilnisky G, Gorbachev O (2004) Volatility in the knowledge
incorporating sustainability into the undergraduate curriculum.
economy. Econ Theor 24(3):531–547. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
JProf Iss Eng Ed Pr 137(2):102–106. https​://doi.org/10.1061/
s0019​9-004-0491-7
(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.00000​49
Conci M, Konstantinou T, van den Dobbelsteen A, Schneider J (2019)
Barros MV, Puglieri FN, Tesser DP, Kuczynski O, Piekarski CM
Trade-off between the economic and environmental impact
(2020) Sustainability at a Brazilian university: developing envi-
of different decarbonisation strategies for residential build-
ronmentally sustainable practices and a life cycle assessment
ings. Build Environ 155:137–144. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
case study. Int J Sustain High Educ 21(5):841–859. https​://doi.
build​env.2019.03.051
org/10.1108/IJSHE​-10-2019-0309
Curran MA, Young S (1996) Report from the EPA conference on
Barros MV, Salvador R, Piekarski CM, de Francisco AC, Freire FMCS
streamlining LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle
(2020) Life cycle assessment of electricity generation: a review
Assessment 1(1):57–60. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF029​78640​
of the characteristics of existing literature. Int J Life Cycle Assess
Dahlbo H, Ollikainen M, Peltola S, Myllymaa T, Melanen M (2007)
25(1):36–54. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1136​7-019-01661​-3
Combining ecological and economic assessment of options for
Barry EJ, Kemerer CF, Slaughter SA (2006) Environmental volatility,
newspaper waste management. Resour Conserv Recy 51(1):42–
development decisions, and software volatility: a longitudinal
63. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2006.08.001
analysis. Manage Sci 52(3):448–464. https​://doi.org/10.1287/
Danthurebandara M, Van Passel S, Machiels L, Van Acker K (2015)
mnsc.1050.0463
Valorization of thermal treatment residues in enhanced landfill
Basbagill JP, Flager FL, Lepech M (2014) A multi-objective feedback
mining: environmental and economic evaluation. J Clean Prod
approach for evaluating sequential conceptual building design
99:275–285. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2015.03.021
decisions. Automat Constr 45:136–150. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
Danthurebandara M, Van Passel S, Vanderreydt I, Van Acker K (2015)
autco​n.2014.04.015
Environmental and economic performance of plasma gasifica-
Best RE, Flager F, Lepech MD (2015) Modeling and optimization
tion in Enhanced Landfill Mining. Waste Manage 45:458–467.
of building mix and energy supply technology for urban dis-
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2015.06.022
tricts. Appl Energy 159:161–177. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
De Gennaro B, Notarnicola B, Roselli L, Tassielli G (2012) Innova-
apene​rgy.2015.08.076
tive olive-growing models: an environmental and economic
Bierer A, Götze U, Meynerts L, Sygulla R (2015) Integrating life
assessment. J Clean Prod 28:70–80. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cycle costing and life cycle assessment using extended material
jclep​ro.2011.11.004
flow cost accounting. J Clean Prod 108:1289–1301. https​://doi.
De Luca AI, Iofrida N, Leskinen P, Stillitano T, Falcone G, Strano A,
org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2014.08.036
Ulisano G (2017) Life cycle tools combined with multi-criteria
Bovea MD, Vidal R (2004) Increasing product value by integrating
and participatory methods for agricultural sustainability: insights
environmental impact, costs and customer valuation. Resour
 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 271

from a systematic and critical review. Sci Total Environ 595:352– Resour Conserv Recy 92:66–77. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.
370. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.03.284 resco​nrec.2014.08.011
De Menna F, Dietershagen J, Loubiere M, Vittuari M (2018) Life cycle Fleischer G, Schmidt WP (1997) Iterative screening LCA in an eco-
costing of food waste: a review of methodological approaches. design tool. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(1):20–24. https​://doi.
Waste Manage 73:1–13. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n . org/10.1007/BF029​78711​
2017.12.032 Florindo TJ, de Medeiros Florindo GIB, Talamini E, da Costa JS,
De Souza JT, de Francisco AC, Piekarski CM, do Prado GF, de Ruviaro CF (2017) Carbon footprint and life cycle costing of
Oliveira LG, (2019) Data mining and machine learning in the beef cattle in the Brazilian midwest. J Clean Prod 147:119–129.
context of sustainable evaluation: a literature review. IEEE Latin https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.01.021
America Transactions 17(03):372–382. https​://doi.org/10.1109/ Fregonara E, Giordano R, Rolando D, Tulliani JM (2016) Integrat-
TLA.2019.88633​07 ing environmental and economic sustainability in new building
Deng C, Wu J, Shao X (2016) Research on eco-balance with LCA construction and retrofits. J Urban Technol 23(4):3–28. https​://
and LCC for mechanical product design. Int J Adv Manuf Tech doi.org/10.1080/10630​732.2016.11579​41
87(5–8):1217–1228. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s00170​ -013-4887-z Gilmore KR (2016) Teaching life cycle assessment in environmental
Di Maria A, Eyckmans J, Van Acker K (2018) Downcycling versus engineering: a disinfection case study for students. Int J Life
recycling of construction and demolition waste: combining LCA Cycle Assess 21(12):1706–1718. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s11367​ -
and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Manage 016-1138-1
75:3–21. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2018.01.028 Gluch P, Baumann H (2004) The life cycle costing (LCC) approach:
Dong J, Chi Y, Zou D, Fu C, Huang Q, Ni M (2014) Energy–environment a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental
–economy assessment of waste management systems from decision-making. Build Environ 39(5):571–580. https​://doi.
a life cycle perspective: model development and case study. org/10.1016/j.build​env.2003.10.008
Appl Energy 114:400–408. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy. Gonzalez A, Riba JR, Esteban B, Rius A (2018) Environmental and
2013.09.037 cost optimal design of a biomass–Wind–PV electricity generation
Dorr E, Sanyé-Mengual E, Gabrielle B, Grard BJ, Aubry C (2017) system. Renew Energy 126:420–430. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Proper selection of substrates and crops enhances the sustainabil- renen​e.2018.03.062
ity of Paris rooftop garden. Agron Sustain Dev 37(5):51. https​:// González-García S, Gomez-Fernández Z, Dias AC, Feijoo G, Moreira
doi.org/10.1007/s1359​3-017-0459-1 MT, Arroja L (2014) Life cycle assessment of broiler chicken
Dugal M, Gopalakrishnan S (2000) Environmental volatility: a reas- production: a Portuguese case study. J Clean Prod 74:125–134.
sessment of the construct. Int J Org Anal (1993–2002), 8(4). https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2014.03.067
https​://doi.org/10.1108/eb028​925 Grubert E (2017) The Need for a preference-based multicriteria pri-
Early C, Kidman T, Menvielle M, Geyer R, McMullan R (2009) oritization framework in life cycle sustainability assessment. J
Informing packaging design decisions at Toyota motor sales Ind Ecol 21(6):1522–1535. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12631​
using life cycle assessment and costing. J Ind Ecol 13(4):592– Guinee JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R,
606. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00137​.x Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future
Eddy DC, Krishnamurty S, Grosse IR, Wileden JC, Lewis KE (2013) A Guinée JB, Lindeijer E (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment:
normative decision analysis method for the sustainability-based operational guide to the ISO standards (Vol. 7). Springer Science
design of products. J Eng Design 24(5):342–362. https​://doi. & Business Media
org/10.1080/09544​828.2012.74593​1 Harris A, Soban D, Smyth BM, Best R (2018) Assessing life cycle
Edwards JA, Thames FC (2010) Growth volatility and the interac- impacts and the risk and uncertainty of alternative bus tech-
tion between economic and political development. Empir Econ nologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 97:569–579. https​://doi.
39(1):183–201. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0018​1-009-0300-z org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.045
Ercan T, Zhao Y, Tatari O, Pazour JA (2015) Optimization of transit Hasik V, Ororbia M, Warn GP, Bilec MM (2019) Whole building
bus fleet’s life cycle assessment impacts with alternative fuel life cycle environmental impacts and costs: a sensitivity study
options. Energy 93:323–334. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y. of design and service decisions. Build Environ 163:106316.
2015.09.018 https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.build​env.2019.10631​6
Escobar N, Ribal J, Clemente G, Rodrigo A, Pascual A, Sanjuán N Heijungs R (2014) Ten easy lessons for good communication of LCA.
(2015) Uncertainty analysis in the financial assessment of an Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:473–476. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
integrated management system for restaurant and catering waste s1136​7-013-0662-5
in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(11):1491–1510. https​://doi. Hochschorner E, Finnveden G (2006) Life cycle approach in the pro-
org/10.1007/s1136​7-015-0962-z curement process: the case of defence materiel (9 pp). Int J Life
Fallah S, Vahidi H, Pazoki M, Akhavan-Limudehi F, Aslemand AR, Cycle Assess 11(3):200–208. https​://doi.org/10.1065/lca20​05.
Samiee Zafarghandi R (2013) Investigation of Solid Waste Dis- 10.230
posal Alternatives in Lavan Island Using Life Cycle Assessment Hong T, Kim J, Lee M (2019) A multi-objective optimization model for
Approach. Int J Environ Res 7(1):155–164 determining the building design and occupant behaviors based
Fallahpour F, Aminghafouri A, Behbahani AG, Bannayan M (2012) on energy, economic, and environmental performance. Energy
The environmental impact assessment of wheat and barley pro- 174:823–834. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2019.02.035
duction by using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Hoogmartens R, Van Passel S, Van Acker K, Dubois M (2014) Bridg-
Environ Dev Sustain 14(6):979–992. https​://doi.org/10.1007/ ing the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability
s1066​8-012-9367-3 assessment tools. Environ Impact Asses 48:27–33. https​://doi.
Fauzi RT, Lavoie P, Sorelli L, Heidari MD, Amor B (2019) Exploring org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.05.001
the current challenges and opportunities of life cycle sustainabil- Hoti S, McAleer M, Pauwels LL (2008) Multivariate volatility in
ity assessment. Sustainability 11(3):636. https:​ //doi.org/10.3390/ environmental finance. Math Comput Simul 78(2–3):189–199.
su110​30636​ https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.matco​m.2008.01.038
Fazeni K, Lindorfer J, Prammer H (2014) Methodological advance- Huang R, Riddle ME, Graziano D, Das S, Nimbalkar S, Cresko J,
ments in life cycle process design: a preliminary outlook. Masanet E (2017) Environmental and economic implications of
distributed additive manufacturing: the case of injection mold
272 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

tooling. J Ind Ecol 21(S1):S130–S143. https​://doi.org/10.1111/ gas emissions. J Infrastruct Syst 19(2):129–137. https​://doi.
jiec.12641​ org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.00001​14
Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (2008) Environmental life cycle Lockrey S, Johnson KB (2013) Designing pedagogy with emerging
costing. SETAC-CRC Press, London-New York sustainable technologies. J Clean Prod 61:70–79. https​://doi.
Ilg P, Scope C, Muench S, Guenther E (2017) Uncertainty in life org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2013.05.005
cycle costing for long-range infrastructure. Part I: leveling the Longo S, Frison N, Renzi D, Fatone F, Hospido A (2017) Is SCENA a
playing field to address uncertainties. Int J Life Cycle Assess good approach for side-stream integrated treatment from an envi-
22(2):277–292 ronmental and economic point of view? Water Res 125:478–489.
Inoue Y, Katayama A (2011) Two-scale evaluation of remediation https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2017.09.006
technologies for a contaminated site by applying economic Lorenzo-Toja Y, Vázquez-Rowe I, Amores MJ, Termes-Rifé M,
input–output life cycle assessment: Risk–cost, risk–energy con- Marín-Navarro D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2016) Benchmarking
sumption and risk–CO2 emission. J Hazard Mater 192(3):1234– wastewater treatment plants under an eco-efficiency perspec-
1242. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2011.06.029 tive. Sci Total Environ 566:468–479. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Islam H, Jollands M, Setunge S, Haque N, Bhuiyan MA (2015) Life scito​tenv.2016.05.110
cycle assessment and life cycle cost implications for roofing and Mami F, Revéret JP, Fallaha S, Margni M (2017) Evaluating eco-
floor designs in residential buildings. Energ Buildings 104:250– efficiency of 3D printing in the aeronautic industry. J Ind Ecol
263. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbui​ld.2015.07.017 21(S1):S37–S48. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12693​
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2017) Buildings Manca S, Ranieri M (2013) Is it a tool suitable for learning? A critical
and constructed assets - Service life planning - Part 5: Life-cycle review of the literature on Facebook as a technology-enhanced
costing, 2nd ed.; ISO 15686–5:2017; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland learning environment. J Comput Assist Learn 29(6):487–504.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2019a) Environmen- https​://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12007​
tal management - Guidelines for determining environmental costs Marceau K, Hottle S, Yatcilla JK (2019) Puberty in the last 25 years: a
and benefits, 1st ed.; ISO 14007:2019; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland retrospective bibliometric analysis. J Adolescent Res 29(1):96–
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006a) Environ- 114. https​://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12396​
mental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Márquez FPG, Lewis RW, Tobias AM, Roberts C (2008) Life cycle
Framework, 2nd ed.; ISO 14040:2006; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland costs for railway condition monitoring. Transport Res E-Log
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2006b) Environ- 44(6):1175–1187. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2007.12.003
mental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Martinez-Sanchez V, Levis JW, Damgaard A, DeCarolis J, Barlaz MA,
Guidelines, 1st ed.; ISO 14044:2006; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland Astrup TF (2017) Evaluation of externality costs in life-cycle
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2019b) Monetary optimization of municipal solid waste management systems.
valuation of environmental impacts and related environmental Environ Sci Technol 51(6):3119–3127. https​://doi.org/10.1021/
aspects, 1st ed.; ISO 14008:2019; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland acs.est.6b061​25
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2001a) Petroleum Martins AA, Simaria M, Barbosa J, Barbosa R, Silva DT, Rocha CS,
and natural gas industries - Life cycle costing - Part 1: Methodol- Mata TM, Caetano NS (2018) Life cycle assessment tool of elec-
ogy, 1st ed.; ISO 15663–1:2000; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland tricity generation in Portugal. Environ Dev Sustain 20(1):129–
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2001b) Petro- 143. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​8-018-0179-y
leum and natural gas industries - Life-cycle costing - Part 2: Miah JH, Koh SCL, Stone D (2017) A hybridised framework combin-
Guidance on application of methodology and calculation meth- ing integrated methods for environmental Life Cycle Assessment
ods, 1st ed.; ISO 15663–2:2001; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland and Life Cycle Costing. J Clean Prod 168:846–866. https​://doi.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2001c) Petro- org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.08.187
leum and natural gas industries - Life-cycle costing - Part 3: Mills B (1979) Simplified procedures for performing life cycle cost
Implementation guidelines, 1st ed.; ISO 15663–3:2001; ISO: analyses. NAECON 1979:290–295
Geneva, Switzerland Muga HE, Mukherjee A, Mihelcic JR, Kueber MJ (2009) An inte-
Jeswani HK, Azapagic A, Schepelmann P, Ritthoff M (2010) Options grated assessment of continuously reinforced and jointed plane
for broadening and deepening the LCA approaches. J Clean Prod concrete pavements. J Eng Des Tech 7(1):81–98. https​://doi.
18(2):120–127. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2009.09.023 org/10.1108/17260​53091​09472​77
Jolliet O, Saadé-Sbeih M, Shaked S, Jolliet A, Crettaz P (2015) Envi- Muñoz I, Portillo F, Rosiek S, Batlles FJ, Martínez-Del-Río J, Acasuso
ronmental life cycle assessment. CRC Press I, Piergrossi V, de Sanctis M, Chimienti S, Di Iaconi C (2019)
Konstantinidou CA, Lang W, Papadopoulos AM, Santamouris M Prospective environmental and economic assessment of solar-
(2019) Life cycle and life cycle cost implications of integrated assisted thermal energy recovery from wastewater through
phase change materials in office buildings. Int J Energ Res a sequencing batch biofilter granular reactor. J Clean Prod
43(1):150–166. https​://doi.org/10.1002/er.4238 212:1300–1309. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2018.12.074
Kouloumpis V, Azapagic A (2018) Integrated life cycle sustainability Nakamura S, Kondo Y (2006) Hybrid LCC of appliances with different
assessment using fuzzy inference: a novel FELICITA model. energy efficiency (10 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(5):305–314.
Sustainable Production and Consumption 15:25–34. https​://doi. https​://doi.org/10.1065/lca20​06.05.244
org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.03.002 Nguyen TA, Kuroda K, Otsuka K (2017) Inclusive impact assessment
Lee CK, Lee JY, Choi YH, Lee KM (2016) Application of the inte- for the sustainability of vegetable oil-based biodiesel–Part I:
grated ecodesign method using the GHG emission as a single Linkage between inclusive impact index and life cycle sustain-
indicator and its GHG recyclability. J Clean Prod 112:1692– ability assessment. J Clean Prod 166:1415–1427. https​://doi.
1699. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2014.10.081 org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.08.059
Lee DY, Thomas VM (2017) Parametric modeling approach for eco- Nieder-Heitmann M, Haigh KF, Görgens JF (2019) Life cycle assess-
nomic and environmental life cycle assessment of medium-duty ment and multi-criteria analysis of sugarcane biorefinery sce-
truck electrification. J Clean Prod 142:3300–3321. https​://doi. narios: finding a sustainable solution for the South African sugar
org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2016.10.139 industry. J Clean Prod 239:118039. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Lidicker J, Sathaye N, Madanat S, Horvath A (2012) Pavement resur- jclep​ro.2019.11803​9
facing policy for minimization of life-cycle costs and greenhouse
 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274 273

Norris GA (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J Life enhancing pavement sustainability. J Clean Prod 164:1380–1393.
Cycle Assess 6(2):118–120. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/BF0297​ 7849​ https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.07.027
Paes MX, de Medeiros GA, Mancini SD, Bortoleto AP, de Oliveira Santos R, Costa AA, Silvestre JD, Pyl L (2019) Integration of LCA
JAP, Kulay LA (2020) Municipal solid waste management: Inte- and LCC analysis within a BIM-based environment. Automat
grated analysis of environmental and economic indicators based Constr 103:127–149
on life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 254:119848. https​://doi. Santos R, Costa AA, Silvestre JD, Pyl L (2020a) Development of a
org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2019.11984​8 BIM-based environmental and economic life cycle assessment
Pagani RN, Kovaleski JL, Resende LM (2015) Methodi Ordinatio: tool. J Clean Prod 121705
a proposed methodology to select and rank relevant scientific Santos R, Costa AA, Silvestre JD, Vandenbergh T, Pyl L (2020) BIM-
papers encompassing the impact factor, number of citation, and based life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of an office
year of publication. Scientometrics 105(3):2109–2135. https​:// building in Western Europe. Build Environ 169:106568. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1119​2-015-1744-x doi.org/10.1016/j.build​env.2019.10656​8
Palomares-Rodríguez C, Martínez-Guido SI, Apolinar-Cortés J, Santoyo-Castelazo E, Azapagic A (2014) Sustainability assessment of
Chávez-Parga MC, García-Castillo CC, Ponce-Ortega JM (2018) energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social
Environmental, technical, and economic evaluation of a new aspects. J Clean Prod 80:119–138. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
treatment for wastewater from slaughterhouses. Int J Environ jclep​ro.2014.05.061
Res 11(4):535–545. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4174​2-017-0047-x Schmidt WP (2003) Life cycle costing as part of design for environ-
Petit-Boix A, Arahuetes A, Josa A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X (2017) ment environmental business cases. Int J Life Cycle Assess
Are we preventing flood damage eco-efficiently? An inte- 8(3):167. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF029​78464​
grated method applied to post-disaster emergency actions. Schmidt WP (2006) Life cycle tools within Ford of Europe’s product
Sci Total Environ 580:873–881. https ​: //doi.org/10.1016/j. sustainability. Index Case study Ford S-MAX & Ford Galaxy (8
scito​tenv.2016.12.034 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(5):315–322
Petit-Boix A, Llorach-Massana P, Sanjuan-Delmás D, Sierra-Pérez J, Selech J, Joachimiak-Lechman K, Klos Z, Kulczycka J, Kurczewski
Vinyes E, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J, Sanyé-Mengual E (2017) P (2014) Life cycle thinking in small and medium enterprises:
Application of life cycle thinking towards sustainable cities: A the results of research on the implementation of life cycle tools
review. J Clean Prod 166:939–951. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. in Polish SMEs—Part 3: LCC-related aspects. Int J Life Cycle
jclep​ro.2017.08.030 Assess 19(5):1119–1128. https​: //doi.org/10.1007/s1136​7 -
Pretel R, Shoener BD, Ferrer J, Guest JS (2015) Navigating environ- 013-0695-9
mental, economic, and technological trade-offs in the design Severis RM, Simioni FJ, Moreira JMMP, Alvarenga RA (2019) Sus-
and operation of submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors tainable consumption in mobility from a life cycle assessment
(AnMBRs). Water Res 87:531–541. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. perspective. J Clean Prod 234:579–587. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
watre​s.2015.07.002 jclep​ro.2019.06.203
Ramos A, Berzosa J, Clarens F, Marin M, Rouboa A (2020) Envi- Shapiro KG (2001) Incorporating costs in LCA. Int J LCA 6(2):121–123
ronmental and socio-economic assessment of cork waste gasi- Simões CL, de Sá RF, Ribeiro CJ, Bernardo P, Pontes AJ, Bernardo CA
fication: Life cycle and cost analysis. J Clean Prod 249:119316. (2016) Environmental and economic performance of a car com-
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2019.11931​6 ponent: assessing new materials, processes and designs. J Clean
Rashidi J, Rhee G, Kim M, Nam K, Heo S, Kyoo C, Yoo Karbassi Prod 118:105–117. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepr​ o.2015.12.101
A (2018) Life cycle and economic assessments of key emerg- Simões CL, Pinto LMC, Bernardo CA (2013) Environmental and eco-
ing energy efficient wastewater treatment processes for climate nomic assessment of a road safety product made with virgin and
change adaptation. Int J Environ Res 12(6):815–827. https​://doi. recycled HDPE: a comparative study. J Environ Manag 114:209–
org/10.1007/s4174​2-018-0135-6 215. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2012.10.001
Reed EJ (1986) Life cycle cost methodology for preliminary design eval- Simões CL, Pinto LMC, Simões R, Bernardo CA (2013) Integrating
uation. In Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air (Vol. 79290, environmental and economic life cycle analysis in product devel-
p. V002T02A005). American Society of Mechanical Engineers opment: a material selection case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess
Reich MC (2005) Economic assessment of municipal waste manage- 18(9):1734–1746. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1136​7-013-0561-9
ment systems - case studies using a combination of life cycle Steen B (2005) Environmental costs and benefits in life cycle cost-
assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). J Clean Prod ing. Manag Environ Qual Int J 16(2):107–118. https​://doi.
13(3):253–263. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2004.02.015 org/10.1108/14777​83051​05831​28
Rex E, Baumann H (2008) Implications of an interpretive understand- Sterner E (2002) Green procurement of buildings: Estimation of envi-
ing of LCA practice. Business Strategy and the Environment ronmental impact and life-cycle cost (Doctoral dissertation,
17(7):420–430. https​://doi.org/10.1002/bse.633 Luleå tekniska universitet)
Ribeiro I, Peças P, Silva A, Henriques E (2008) Life cycle engineer- Svensson G, Ekvall T (1995) LCA-A Fair and Cost Effective Way to
ing methodology applied to material selection, a fender case Compare Two Products? (No. 951827). SAE Technical Paper
study. J Clean Prod 16(17):1887–1899. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W, Pesonen HL, Ciroth A, Brent
jclep​ro.2008.01.002 AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of
Rodrigues C, Kirchain R, Freire F, Gregory J (2018) Streamlined practice. Society of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology
environmental and cost life-cycle approach for building thermal (SETAC), Pensacola
retrofits: a case of residential buildings in South European cli- Tang SHK (2019) Medium-term macroeconomic volatility and eco-
mates. J Clean Prod 172:2625–2635. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. nomic development: a new technique. Empirical Economics
jclep​ro.2017.11.148 56(4):1231–1249. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0018​1-017-1385-4
Sanchez SA, Eckelman MJ, Sherman JD (2020) Environmental and Theregowda RB, Vidic R, Landis AE, Dzombak DA, Matthews HS
economic comparison of reusable and disposable blood pres- (2016) Integrating external costs with life cycle costs of emis-
sure cuffs in multiple clinical settings. Resour Conserv Recy sions from tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater for reuse
155:104643. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2019.10464​3 in cooling systems. J Clean Prod 112:4733–4740. https​://doi.
Santos J, Ferreira A, Flintsch G (2017) A multi-objective optimization- org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2015.06.020
based pavement management decision-support system for
274 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2021) 26:244–274

Tulus V, Abokersh MH, Cabeza LF, Vallès M, Jiménez L, Boer D Yao Y, Huang R (2019) A parametric life cycle modeling framework
(2019) Economic and environmental potential for solar assisted for identifying research development priorities of emerging tech-
central heating plants in the EU residential sector: contribution to nologies: a case study of additive manufacturing. Procedia CIRP
the 2030 climate and energy EU agenda. Appl Energy 236:318– 80:370–375. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci​r.2019.01.037
339. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2018.11.094 Yu Q, Zhixian HUANG, Zhiguo YAN (2007) Integrated assessment of
Umer A, Hewage K, Haider H, Sadiq R (2017) Sustainability evalu- environmental and economic performance of chemical products
ation framework for pavement technologies: an integrated life using analytic hierarchy process approach. Chinese J Chem Eng
cycle economic and environmental trade-off analysis. Transport 15(1):81–87. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S1004​-9541(07)60037​-8
Res D-Tr E 53:88–101. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.011 Yu W (2014) How business cycle volatility affect economic growth in
UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of prod- china?-An empirical study based on GARCH-M model using the
ucts. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Society 1952–2012 Data. Adv J Food Sci Technol 6(7):934–940
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Belgium Zanghelini GM, Cherubini E, Soares SR (2018) How multi-criteria
Van Kempen EA, Spiliotopoulou E, Stojanovski G, de Leeuw S (2017) decision analysis (MCDA) is aiding life cycle assessment (LCA)
Using life cycle sustainability assessment to trade off sourcing in results interpretation. J Clean Prod 172:609–622. https​://doi.
strategies for humanitarian relief items. Int J Life Cycle Assess org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.10.230
22(11):1718–1730. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1136​7-016-1245-z Zhang C, Hu M, Dong L, Gebremariam A, Mirand-Xicotencatl B,
Von Deimling C, Essig M, Schaupp M, Amann M, Vafai S (2016) Di Maio F, Tukker A (2019) Eco-efficiency assessment of
Life-cycle-cost-management as an instrument for strategic pub- technological innovations in high-grade concrete recycling.
lic procurement: state of the art and perspectives, 25th Annual Resour Conserv Recy 149:649–663. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
IPSERA Conference. Dortmund, Germany resco​nrec.2019.06.023
Wang R, Zimmerman JB (2015) Economic and environmental assess- Zhang C, Hu M, Yang X, Amati A, Tukker A (2020) Life cycle green-
ment of office building rainwater harvesting systems in various house gas emission and cost analysis of prefabricated concrete
US cities. Environ Sci Technol 49(3):1768–1778. https​://doi. building façade elements. J Ind Ecol. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
org/10.1021/es504​6887 jiec.12991​
Wang Z, Lv J, Gu F, Yang J, Guo J (2020) Environmental and eco- Zhang L, Dong W, Jin Z, Li X, Ren Y (2020) An integrated environ-
nomic performance of an integrated municipal solid waste mental and cost assessment method based on LCA and LCC
treatment: a Chinese case study. Sci Total Environ 709:136096. for automobile interior and exterior trim design scheme opti-
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2019.13609​6 mization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25(3):633–645. https​://doi.
Witczak J, Kasprzak J, Klos Z, Kurczewski P, Lewandowska A, org/10.1007/s1136​7-019-01691​-x
Lewicki R (2014) Life cycle thinking in small and medium enter- Zhang Y (2017) Taking the time characteristic into account of life cycle
prises: the results of research on the implementation of life cycle assessment: method and application for buildings. Sustainability
tools in Polish SMEs—part 2: LCA related aspects. Int J Life 9(6):922. https​://doi.org/10.3390/su906​0922
Cycle Assess 19(4):891–900. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1136​7- Zhao W, Huppes G, Van der Voet E (2011) Eco-efficiency for green-
013-0687-9 house gas emissions mitigation of municipal solid waste manage-
Wu R, Mavromatidis G, Orehounig K, Carmeliet J (2017) Multiobjec- ment: a case study of Tianjin. China Waste Manage 31(6):1407–
tive optimisation of energy systems and building envelope retrofit 1415. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2011.01.013
in a residential community. Appl Energy 190:634–649. https​:// Zhao Y, Ercan T, Tatari O (2016) Life cycle based multi-criteria opti-
doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2016.12.161 mization for optimal allocation of commercial delivery truck fleet
Xu X, Zhang Q (2019) Sustainable configuration of bioretention sys- in the United States. Sustain Prod Consum 8:18–31. https​://doi.
tems for nutrient management through life-cycle assessment org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.04.003
and cost analysis. J Environ Eng 145(5):04019016. https​://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.00015​26 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Xu Y, Zeng J, Chen W, Jin R, Li B, Pan Z (2018) A holistic review jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
of cement composites reinforced with graphene oxide. Constr
Build Mater 171:291–302. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.conbui​ ldmat​ .
2018.03.147

Affiliations

Wagner Teixeira França1 · Murillo Vetroni Barros2   · Rodrigo Salvador2   · Antonio Carlos de Francisco2   ·

Maria Teresa Moreira3   · Cassiano Moro Piekarski2 
1
Wagner Teixeira França Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR),
[email protected] Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil
2
Rodrigo Salvador Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP),
[email protected] Postgraduate Program in Industrial Engineering (PPGEP),
Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR),
Antonio Carlos de Francisco
Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil
[email protected]
3
Department of Chemical Engineering, School
Maria Teresa Moreira
of Engineering, University of Santiago de Compostela,
[email protected]
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Cassiano Moro Piekarski
[email protected]