Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:30:06.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A STUDY OF GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS OF UNCERTAINTY IN LCA GUIDE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Melissa Tensa ,
Jenna Wang ,
Roscoe Harris III ,
Jeremy Faludi  and
Bryony DuPont
Melissa Tensa*
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Oregon State University, Oregon, USA
Jenna Wang
Affiliation:
Stanford Engineering, 475 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA, USA
Roscoe Harris III
Affiliation:
Stanford Engineering, 475 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA, USA
Jeremy Faludi
Affiliation:
Industrial Design Engineering, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
Bryony DuPont
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Oregon State University, Oregon, USA
*
Tensa, Melissa, Oregon State University, MIME, United States of America, tensam@oregonstate.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study user-tested different data visualizations for highly uncertain life cycle assessments (LCAs) to determine what best supported decision-making. Precise LCAs can only be performed once designs are finalized, due to the information necessary to complete them, but design changes in such late stages are costly. If designers could have environmental impact data earlier in the process, sustainable design choices could instead be built into the initial designs. We compiled LCAs for various product categories, finding the best means of visualizing the data for online and printable dissemination. Because this LCA data varied widely within each product category, it was necessary to display uncertainty and require users to acknowledge the uncertainty. Here, four different data visualizations were tested with engineering, design, and STEM students and professionals; both quantitative and qualitative analysis determined what visualizations were most favored and forced users to consider uncertainty. We hope that this research helps LCA data be more accessible to designers and engineers in the early phases of design, allowing those without the resources or ability to perform LCA to benefit from it and design more sustainably.

Keywords

SustainabilityVisualisationDesign engineering
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 253 - 262
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

14:00-17:00 (no date) ISO 14025:2006, ISO. Available at: https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/03/81/38131.html (Accessed: 8 September 2020).Google Scholar
Bare, J. C. (2002) ‘TRACI: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts’, Journal of industrial ecology, 6(3-4), pp. 49–78.10.1162/108819802766269539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, K. et al. (2009) ‘Sustainability Primer: Step By Natural Step’, The Natural Step Canada. Available at: http://www.thenaturalstep.org/project/sustainability-primer-step-by-natural-step/ (Accessed: 21 July 2016).Google Scholar
Faludi, J. (2017) ‘Sustainability, Innovation, And Value In Green Design Methods’, in Greenermind Summit. Greenermind Summit, Mendocino, CA.Google Scholar
Gamage, G. B. et al. (2008) ‘Life cycle assessment of commercial furniture: a case study of Formway LIFE chair’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(5), p. 401.10.1007/s11367-008-0002-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gschwandtnei, T. et al. (2016) ‘Visual Encodings of Temporal Uncertainty: A Comparative User Study’, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1), pp. 539–548. https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallstedt, S. I. (2017) ‘Sustainability criteria and sustainability compliance index for decision support in product development’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp. 251–266. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanssen, O. J. (1998) ‘Environmental impacts of product systems in a life cycle perspective: a survey of five product types based on life cycle assessments studies’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 6(3-4), pp. 299–311. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(98)00031-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollerud, B. et al. (2017) ‘A Review of Life Cycle Assessment Tools- Dovetail Partners, Inc’.Google Scholar
Huijbregts, M. A. J. et al. (2016) ‘ReCiPe 2016: A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level Report I: Characterization’, RIVM rapport 2016–2104. Available at: https://rivm.openrepository.com/rivm/handle/10029/620793 (Accessed: 13 September 2017).Google Scholar
ISO 14040:2006 (2016) Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. 2nd edn. ISO. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. H. (2008) ‘Displaying Uncertainty With Shading’, The American Statistician, 62(4), pp. 340–347. https://dx.doi.org/10.1198/000313008X370843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, V. and Bhattacharya, S. (2002) ‘Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility’, Management Science, 48(3), pp. 313–327. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.3.313.7728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakens, D. (2017) ‘Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses’, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), pp. 355–362. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibowitz, D. and Croke, L. (2019) CFDA Guide to Sustainable Strategie. New York, NY: Council of Fashion Designers of America, Inc. (CFDA), p. 233. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/cfda.f.mrhenry.be/2019/01/CFDA-Guide-to-Sustainable-Strategies_16.pdf (Accessed: 28 August 2019).Google Scholar
Levontin, P. and Walton, J. L. (2020) Visualising Uncertainty: A Short Introduction. London, UK: AU4DM, Sad Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, H. et al. (2017) Design + Environment: A Global Guide to Designing Greener Goods. Routledge.10.4324/9781351282208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovins, A. et al. (2010) ‘Factor Ten Engineering Design Principles’, Rocky Mountain Institute. Available at: http://www.rmi.org/10xE+Principles (Accessed: 18 July 2016).Google Scholar
LUNAR (2008) The Designer's Field Guide to Sustainability. LUNAR Design. Available at: http://www.lunar.com/docs/the_designers_field_guide_to_sustainability_v1.pdf (Accessed: 30 June 2016).Google Scholar
Potter, K. et al. (2010) ‘Visualizing Summary Statistics and Uncertainty’, Computer Graphics Forum, 29(3), pp. 823–832. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2009.01677.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speck, R. et al. (2016) ‘Life Cycle Assessment Software: Selection Can Impact Results’, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(1), pp. 18–28. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar