Comparison of Life Cycle Assessment Course Content in the U.S. Course project report for Life Cycle Assessment for Civil Systems (CEE 506 ▫ SOS 546) 14 May 2018 Rachael Sherman Doctoral Student School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment Arizona State University Hasini Delvinne Doctoral Student School of Sustainability Arizona State University Justin Hartless Doctoral Student School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment Arizona State University Advising Faculty: Prof. Mikhail Chester, Ph.D. Associate Professor School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment Arizona State University Metis Center for Infrastructure and Sustainable Engineering Report No. ASU-METIS-2018-001-CPR metis.asu.edu Table of Contents I. Overview ................................................................................................................ 2 II. Project Scope ......................................................................................................... 2 III. Research Methodology .......................................................................................... 3 Qualification of Syllabi Database Development Time Allocation Analysis IV. Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 4 Course Instructors Departments Graduate vs. Undergraduate Software Used Textbooks Used Time Allocation Analysis V. Database Overview ............................................................................................... 10 Content that is not commonly addressed in courses Case Studies Teaching Methods VI. Limitations and Assumptions .............................................................................. 10 VII. Conclusion and Future Work ............................................................................... 11 VIII. References............................................................................................................. 12 Overview Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an important decision support framework for estimating and assessing the environmental impacts attributable to the life cycle of products, services or systems (Rebitzer et. al, 2004). LCA is defined as “compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a product system through its life cycle” (Finkbeiner et. al, 2006). The LCA framework now appears to be taught extensively in academia possibly due to its prevalence in industry practice and policymaking. A study on teaching LCA in North America, that used 50 courses from 32 institutes from the U.S., showed its popularity at both undergraduate and graduate levels, and across a multitude of disciplines, including engineering, public policy, business, economics, human ecology, and planning (Cooper and Fava, 2000). Cooper and Fava (1999, 2000) mainly focused on student composition, course structures, teaching methods used, teaching resources used, barriers to teaching and student experiences. There are concerns that limitations in textbooks, software, and data make it difficult for an instructor to develop, standardize and teach an LCA course. Similarly, these contribute to difficulties for students to access resources to supplement their learning in LCA. However, there appears to be growing demand for formalized LCA education and for the framework to expand its focus beyond environmental impacts, to explore social and economic domains (Hellweg and Canals, 2014). Project Scope Towards taking stock of LCA education in the U.S., the goal of this project is to identify, compile, categorize, demonstrate, and share successful teaching epistemologies and tools on LCA, that have been developed by academics in the U.S. We aim to develop the foundations for a resource tool kit and database of knowledge, about lesson plans, learning modules, homework assignments, projects, and specific approaches and examples that are currently used in the teaching and learning of LCA. The geographic scope is limited to select universities in the U.S. but the approach used lends to expansion. Key outcomes of the curriculum assessment include: (i) Studying and assessing trends in course curriculum, theoretical content, specific examples, and applications; (ii) Identifying course overlaps and differences among LCA courses in terms of content; and, (iii) Developing a database framework to index and compare LCA courses. Research Methodology Qualification of Syllabi 16 syllabi were collected from different sources to develop a comparative assessment and database. The syllabi were collected through web searches (where instructors posted their syllabi publicly) and through email contacts with instructors, and represent courses in a number of disciplines. Note that the syllabi likely represent only a small fraction of the total active LCA courses across the U.S.. Courses that did not primarily focus on LCA (e.g., Industrial Ecology classes that had short LCA modules) were excluded. Figure 1 shows an overview of these universities. Note that two universities (University of California, Berkeley, and University of California, Los Angeles) each have two LCA courses. Figure 1: Institutions where LCA syllabi were collected Syllabi Indexing Due to terminology across syllabi, a classification method was used to compare commensurate information. These is further referred to as Broad Classification Components. Five Broad Classification Components were used to aggregate the course topics as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Broad Classification Components used to classify and aggregate course topics taught in LCA courses, Specific examples for each broad category and the corresponding color used for each category in the database Broad Classification Components Framework and components of LCA Types of LCA Auxiliary analysis of LCA Applications of LCA Software and Tools Specific Examples Goal and Scope Definition, Functional Unit, Reference Flows, System Boundary Selection, Inventory Analysis, Impact Assessment Process LCA, Hybrid LCA, Social LCA Weighting, Life Cycle Costing, Sensitivity and Uncertainty Case studies, Focused LCAs SimaPro, OpenLCA, GaBi Database Color coding Green Grey Yellow Pink Blue Additional categories related to assessment and teaching tools (i.e. homework, quiz, test, project, or in class activity) were also identified. Time Allocation Analysis A time allocation analysis was performed to determine the fraction of time spent in each course related to each Broad Classification Component. The unit time used for the analysis was an average class period of 75 minutes. Using the dates/weeks mentioned in the syllabi along with topics, the number of unit hours spent teaching a given topic was estimated. The counts for each Broad Classification Component were then presented as a proportion of the total time spent teaching all course topics. Subsequently, the average time and other descriptive statistics were calculated for proportions of time allocated in a course to teach each Broad Classification Component. Results and Discussion While LCA courses are taught across the U.S., publicly accessible syllabi in combination with those emailed to the authors were collected from the universities shown in Figure 1. The syllabi were predominantly collected from universities in the Northeast and Southwest, with a few in the Midwest (Figure 1). Again, syllabi were collected based on publicly available posting of content and personal relationships, and should not be assumed to be spatially representative. Description of Course Instructors A summary of course instructors is shown in Table 2. These results indicate that LCA courses are predominately taught by faculty with a background and a position title in engineering or environmental sciences. The only exception to this is one public health faculty. Table 2: Overview of Course Instructors Name Position School Background Alice M. Agogino Professor of Mechanical Engineering UC Berkeley Arpad Horvath Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Assistant Professor of Industrial & Manufacturing Systems Engineering Associate Research Scientist of Earth and Environmental Engineering Assistant Professor of the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Chemical and Biological Engineering Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and EEE Adjunct Lecturer of Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health Part Time Instructor of Civil and Environmental Engineering UC Berkeley BS, MS - Mechanical Engineering, PhD Engineering Economics BS, MS, PhD - Civil Engineering Christine Costello Christopher J. Meinrenken Deepak Rajagopal Eric Masanet Fu Zhao Gregory Norris Gwen DiPietro Jason Hill Joyce Cooper Mikhail Chester Richard A Venditti Roland Geyer Vikas Khanna University of Missouri BS, MS, PhD Environmental Engineering Columbia University PhD - Physics UC Los Angeles B.Tech, MS - Mechanical Engineering, PhD - Energy Resources Northwestern University BS, MS, PhD - Mechanical Engineering Purdue University PS, ME, MS, PhD Mechanical Engineering Harvard University Education Not Published (PhD from New Hampshire) Carnegie Mellon BS - Chemical Engineering, MS, PhD - Civil and Environmental Engineering Associate Professor of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering Adjunct Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering Associate Professor of Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering Professor of Forest Biomaterials University of Minnesota A.B - Biology, PhD Plant Biological Sciences University of Washington Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Management Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering UC Santa Barbara BS - Mechanical Engineering, MS, PhD - Civil and Environmental Engineering BS, MS, PhD - Civil & Environmental Engineering, BS - Public Policy PhD- Chemical Engineering, B.S. - Paper Science and Engineering MS - Physics, PhD Engineering Arizona State University North Carolina State University University of Pittsburgh BE, MS, PhD - Chemical Engineering, MS - Applied Statistics Analysis of LCA Course Departments LCA is taught across a wide range of disciplines. Of the 16 syllabi collected, 9 different departments were identified that teach LCA. LCA is most widely taught in Engineering departments, with 7 syllabi of the presented in the dataset. These syllabi were from Civil, Environmental and Sustainable Engineering (4), and Mechanical Engineering (3). Two syllabi came from Environmental Studies and Earth and Environmental Sciences departments, and one each from Environmental Science, Forest Biomaterials, Bio-products and Biosystems Engineering, and Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering. This indicates that predominately engineering or environmental departments are focused on LCA. Table 3: Departments where LCA courses are offered Departments Environmental Science Civil and Environmental Engineering , and Sustainable Engineering Environmental Studies Mechanical Engineering Forest Biomaterials Paper Science and Engineering Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering Earth and Environmental Sciences Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Number of Syllabi 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 Graduate vs. Undergraduate Of the 16 syllabi collected, 10 courses were offered only at the undergraduate level, 2 were offered at both the undergraduate and graduate level, and 4 were offered only at the graduate level. The courses were determined either to be undergraduate or graduate courses via the course number, and subsequent verification using academic course catalog available on each school's website. In comparison, in a total of 21 U.S. LCA courses, Cooper and Fava (2000) found 9 courses offered at the undergraduate level, 11 at the graduate level, and 8 as both graduate and undergraduate. Our sample size is low so it is possible that our representation of graduate and undergraduate courses is not representative. Use of Software Of the 16 courses examined, 8 courses had content focused on LCA software and tools. The most common software used to either conduct homework assignments or presented throughout the course was SimaPro, with 3 of the 16 having teachning centered on SimaPro. The second most common software application was Sustainable Minds. Two courses used other software and tools (GaBi and OpenLCA) through integrated assignments and homework. The course that focuses on GaBi (University of California, Santa Barbara) integrates the software into lab sessions throughout the semester which students are supposed to use for their end of semester projects. TRACI and GREET were identified as additional LCA tools, but were only covered in one class each. There were also 4 courses that did not appear to cover software tools. Teaching Material While there are a number of recommended textbooks in learning Life Cycle Assessment across the syllabi evaluated, Life Cycle Assessment: Quantitative Approaches for Decisions that Matter by Matthews, Hendrickson, and Matthews, was the most common, used in 6 of the courses. Courses that used one book used either The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment by Heijungs, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment by Jolliet, Life Cycle Assessment Handbook by Curran, Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment by Guinee, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment by White (developed by the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment), or The Hitchiker's Guide to LCA by Baumann Tillman. The open access availability of Matthews may explain why it is being aggressively adopted. Time Allocation Analysis The time spent teaching each Broad Classification Component as a proportion of the total time is shown in Figure 2. On average, the majority of time (36.8%) was spent on Frameworks and Components including Goal and Scope Definition, Functional Unit, Reference Flows, System Boundary Selection, Inventory Analysis, and Impact Assessment (Table 1). This is not surprising since this content is foundational for all courses. The second largest percentage of time was allocated to Applications of LCA (23.6%) which included case studies on previous LCAs under specific topics (e.g., construction, energy, transportation), or LCA applications at the broader scale (i.e., corporate and social). Following was Auxiliary Analysis (17.3%) including Weighting, Life Cycle Costing, Sensitivity and Uncertainty, and then Types of LCA (13.0%) including process-based, economic input-output, hybrid, and social. Software and Tools had the least time spent on average (9.2%), however, it is likely that the use of software and tools took place outside of lecture in projects and homework assignments. 13 9.2 Software and Tools 23.6 Applications Auxiliary Analysis Framework and Components Types of LCA 36.8 17.3 Figure 2: Percentage of time spent on each Broad Classification Component The data collected across the 16 universities showed significant similarities in themes. All of the course syllabi reviewed the Goal and Scope Definition, Functional Unit, Reference Flows, System Boundary Selection, Inventory Analysis, and Impact Assessment concepts. North Carolina State University spent the most amount of time on what was defined as “Framework and Components.” Figure 3: Time allocation for each Broad Classification Component For each course, the time spent teaching each Broad Classification Component as a proportion of the total time was estimated (Figure 4). Among the 16 courses, 8 courses devoted the highest proportion of the course time to teach Frameworks and Components of LCA. For three of the courses, Applications of LCA had the highest time allotment. Software and Tools was taught in 11 of the 16 courses, but had the lowest time allotment for the majority of these cases. Courses that offer the highest percent allotment for each Broad Classification Component were identified (Table 4). It is likely that these professors have particular expertise in the component. Table 4: Highest percent time allocation teaching each Broad Classification Component Broad Classification Components Framework and components of LCA Types of LCA Auxiliary analysis of LCA Applications of LCA Software and Tools Course with the Highest Time Allocation Life Cycle Assessment (UW) Joyce Cooper Tools for Environmental Sustainability Assessment (UCLA) Deepak Rajagopal Life Cycle Thinking in Engineering Design (UC Berkeley) Dr. Agogino Environmental Life Cycle Analysis (UM) Jason Hill Life Cycle Assessment (GaBi) (UC Santa Barbara) Roland Geyer The courses were different in terms of their focus. For instance, the LCA course at Purdue University and the University of California, Santa Barbara devoted a greater proportion of time to teaching software through lab sessions. Dr. Zhao from Purdue University and Dr. Horvath from University of California Berkeley spent considerable time on case studies across various sectors. There were also LCA courses taught with specific objectives, such as the one credit class from University of California, Berkeley that has a focus on Life Cycle Thinking in Engineering Design. Case Studies To teach and provide more in depth content to broad topic categories, it was found that 5 courses emphasized the use of case studies. The remaining 11 courses relied more on textbooks, supplemental reading, and lecture content. All courses at a minimum covered content relating to applications of LCA, and some used specific case studies to comprehensively review previously conducted LCAs for different fields. Teaching Methods The most common form of assessment was to have students participate in a semester long applied project followed by a final report. This structure seems to allow instructors to incrementally go deeper into content that is required on the final report as students’ understanding on the subject matter progresses throughout the semester. More than 50% of the courses used homework regularly to assess students. This ranged from a 2-3 homeworks through the semester to bi-weekly homeworks. Use of quizzes was rather uncommon, and only two courses used this means of assessment. Database Overview Each syllabi was indexed in an Excel spreadsheet with the following information: name of the professor teaching the course, contact email address, university, title of the course, department at where the course is taught, main textbook used, homework and assignments associated with the course, link to the syllabus, and main topics covered. The spreadsheet database can be augmented, and should serve as an exploration and possibly foundation for more exhaustive studies. Limitations and Assumptions We were limited to the publicly available syllabi made available through institution websites and those willing to share them. Access restrictions to many LCA syllabi across the country limited the available number for the review. Direct contact with the faculty teaching these courses could help overcome this barrier and increase the sample size of the analysis and database. The diversity in terminology used to discuss similar topics among different syllabi required interpretation. We often had to make educated guesses about content given general descriptions of lectures or assignments. This led us to use Broad Classification Components for comparisons. This aggregation leads to the loss of detailed exploration of topics. The analysis on time allotment for each Broad Classification Component, and all subsequent inferences and comparisons are based on the assumption of average class times. Assignment and homework were often listed in the format “Homework 1, 2, x” corresponding to a particular class day, along with a due date. Without additional information regarding the content covered in these assignments it was assumed that the homework covered content from recent lectures. Conclusion and Future Work We identified and categorized 16 LCA course syllabi from universities across the U.S.. An augmentation of this work to other universities in the U.S. and abroad could provide invaluable information to lecturers and students, and lead to content sharing, for both instructors and students. As the LCA framework develops, it can be expected that the number of LCA courses increases. As this happens, new instructors will be tasked with creating new courses, and having access to a robust database may reduce workload but more importantly begin to provide standards and assessments of best practices to the benefit of students. References Cooper, J. S., & Fava, J. (1999). Teaching Life-Cycle Assessment at Universities in North America. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 3(2‐3), 13-17. Cooper, J. S., & Fava, J. (2000). Teaching Life-Cycle Assessment at Universities in North America, Part II. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 4(4), 7-11. Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R., Christiansen, K., & Klüppel, H. J. (2006). The new international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 11(2), 80-85. Hellweg, S., & i Canals, L. M. (2014). Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science, 344(6188), 1109-1113. Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., ... & Pennington, D. W. (2004). Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment international, 30(5), 701-720.