Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Infrastructure Projects - Governing the Nexus: Water, Soil and Waste Resources Considering Global Change - page 111

practices and simpli ed for use as a common tool. This could be achieved through a

combination of methods and tools for understanding the dynamics.
Though LCCA has potential to deal with various externalities associated with
the process, it is not possible to include and assess all the externalities associated
with the process of production of any goods and services. While it is easy to scope
(consequential) the externalities, it is not easy to assess the impact of these exter-
nalities (attributional). It is therefore necessary to de ne the system boundaries in

order to reduce the complexity of assessing the impacts of all the externalities
associated with the process. The choice of system boundaries depends on the nature
and type of the product or service in question, which would have important
implications on the results (Lundin 2002 ) and needs to be carefully considered. The
life cycle (or functional) boundaries de ne the processes to be included in the

system (i.e., where upstream and downstream cut-offs are set). Functional bound-
aries limit the various aspects that are to be included for the assessment. These are
mainly related to the environmental externalities. There are three major types of
system boundaries: between the technical system and the environment, between
signi cant processes, and between the technological system under

study and other technological systems (Guine

cant and insigni

é

et al. 2002 as quoted in Finnveden

et al. 2009 ).
Here we present a generic LCCA framework that shows the possible phases of
processes of product or service. These phases could be considered as system
boundaries in a simpli ed version. At each phase, system boundaries can be a set of

complex interlinkages. In this generic framework, we look at four phases and the
system boundaries (Fig. 3 ). Pre-production phase (level 1) boundaries are de ned to

ensure resource sustainability and make judicious design and planning for sus-
tainability. The assessment at this level helps in understanding potential environ-
mental issues associated with basic source (raw material extraction). The designing
and planning for the production phase is also included and need to incorporate these
costs in conjunction with the policies.
The second phase pertains to production where the emphasis is on infrastructure,
technologies and is usually linked to the management agency/institution/organi-
zation. This provides a more complete view of the system in terms of technologies,
design ef

ciencies, planning (linking products and by-products) and packaging.
Often the agencies, though aware, are usually constrained by financial and legis-

lative obligations and tend to override options that allow a move towards envi-
ronmental sustainability in the production phase. They either may adopt partially or
may not adopt at all. Such a perspective may limit the potential of the agency to
identify major environmental impacts or improvements through the life cycle.
The third phase deals with postproduction issues that are often dealt at the
community/institutional/household level. These pertain to use/consumption
(domestic, agriculture, industry, etc.); use practices, including waste generation,
reuse, recycling, treatment and disposal. This can happen at the production phase as
well and ultimately, the retirement of the uneconomic infrastructure. Often this set
gets marginal attention, if not ignored, at the project planning level. This set reflects