Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4/2012

01.05.2012 | LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)

Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts

verfasst von: Norihiro Itsubo, Masaji Sakagami, Koichi Kuriyama, Atsushi Inaba

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 4/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

Weighting is one of the steps involved in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. However, a number of problems still remain. Weighting factors should be based on the preferences of society as a whole so that the life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioner can successfully apply them to every product and service. However, most existing studies do not really measure national averages but only the average of the responses obtained from the people actually sampled. Measuring the degree of uncertainty in LCIA factors is, therefore, one of the most important issues in current LCIA research, and some advanced LCIA methods have tried to deal with the problem of uncertainty. However, few weighting methods take into account the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. LIME2, the updated version of life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME), has been developed as part of the second LCA national project of Japan. One of the aims of LIME2 is to develop new weighting factors which fulfill the following requirements: (1) to accurately represent the environmental attitudes of the Japanese public, (2) to measure the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts and reflect them in the choice of suitable weighting factors.

Methods

This study adopted the technique of conjoint analysis, which is currently the most advanced methodology available in the field of environmental economics. Using a random sampling process, 1,000 individual responses were collected. Every response was based on an interview survey designed to minimize bias. We used a random parameter logit model to estimate the preferences of society. Statistical values based on this model can be considered to reflect the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. The calculated results can then be used to develop integration factors in LIME2, enabling us to express LCIA results as a single index, such as external cost.

Results and discussion

The calculated values were significant statistically at the 1% level (all p values for the safeguard subject coefficients were less than 0.0001), with the exception of “social assets.” Based on the calculated results, two types of weighting factor, an economic valuation and a dimensionless index, were obtained. A relative comparison of importance among these four categories indicates that “biodiversity” receives the highest level of recognition, followed by “human health” and “primary production,” while the weight of “social assets” rate lower than the other safeguard subjects, in comparison. Using the calculated results produced by the RPL model, the probability density of the variables for individual preferences could then be derived and displayed. The coefficients of variance for the estimated weighting factors were relatively small (in the range from 0.1 to 0.3).

Conclusions

Accurate weighting factors representing the environmental attitudes of the Japanese public are needed in order to conduct general-purpose LCA for Japanese products. Random, unbiased sampling throughout Japan and an interview survey carried out on 1,000 respondents enabled us to address and solve the problems found with past weighting methodologies. We confirmed that the results of comparisons carried out among safeguard subjects were statistically significant, and showed that the contents of the questionnaires were well understood by the respondents. This study succeeded in visualizing the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts in order to improve the transparency of the weighting factors—expressing the difference in individual preferences within a certain range. This data can be used to develop integration factors with statistical values which can then be applied to uncertainty analysis in future LCA case studies.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 19:145–156CrossRef Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 19:145–156CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat European Commission (1998) ExternE externalities of energy vol.7 methodology 1998 update European Commission (1998) ExternE externalities of energy vol.7 methodology 1998 update
Zurück zum Zitat European Commission (2005) ExternE, externalities of energy, methodology 2005 update, edited by Peter Bickel and Rainer Friedrich European Commission (2005) ExternE, externalities of energy, methodology 2005 update, edited by Peter Bickel and Rainer Friedrich
Zurück zum Zitat European Commission (2008) The economics of economics and biodiversity, an interim report European Commission (2008) The economics of economics and biodiversity, an interim report
Zurück zum Zitat Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on Ecotaxes development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88CrossRef Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on Ecotaxes development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Goedkoop (1995) The eco-indicator 95. NOH report 9523. Pré consultants, Amersfoort Goedkoop (1995) The eco-indicator 95. NOH report 9523. Pré consultants, Amersfoort
Zurück zum Zitat Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99, a damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology Report Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99, a damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Methodology Report
Zurück zum Zitat Green PE, Krieger AM, Agarwal MK (1991) Adaptive conjoint analysis, some caveats and suggestions. J Marketing Res 28:215–222CrossRef Green PE, Krieger AM, Agarwal MK (1991) Adaptive conjoint analysis, some caveats and suggestions. J Marketing Res 28:215–222CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Volume 2: scientific background. Chapman & Hall, London Hauschild M, Wenzel H (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Volume 2: scientific background. Chapman & Hall, London
Zurück zum Zitat ISO 14040 (2006) International standard, Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework ISO 14040 (2006) International standard, Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework
Zurück zum Zitat ISO 14044 (2006) International standard, environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines ISO 14044 (2006) International standard, environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines
Zurück zum Zitat Itsubo N (2000) Screening life cycle impact assessment with weighting methodology based on simplified damage functions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(5):273–280CrossRef Itsubo N (2000) Screening life cycle impact assessment with weighting methodology based on simplified damage functions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(5):273–280CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2003) Development of weighting factor for LCIA based on conjoint analysis. J Environ Sci 15(5):357–368 (in Japanese) Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2003) Development of weighting factor for LCIA based on conjoint analysis. J Environ Sci 15(5):357–368 (in Japanese)
Zurück zum Zitat Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:196–205CrossRef Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, Kokubu K, Inaba A (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:196–205CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Itsubo N, Inaba A (2005) Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method, LIME—a methodology and database for LCA, environmental accounting and ecoefficiency. Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (in Japanese) Itsubo N, Inaba A (2005) Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method, LIME—a methodology and database for LCA, environmental accounting and ecoefficiency. Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (in Japanese)
Zurück zum Zitat Itsubo N, Inaba A, Ii R, Ikaga T, Kubo T, Sakagami M, Nagata Y, Hama Y, Hayashi K, Hirosaki J, Motoshita M (2010) LIME2—an environmental impact assessment method supporting decision making (in Japanese) Itsubo N, Inaba A, Ii R, Ikaga T, Kubo T, Sakagami M, Nagata Y, Hama Y, Hayashi K, Hirosaki J, Motoshita M (2010) LIME2—an environmental impact assessment method supporting decision making (in Japanese)
Zurück zum Zitat McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, pp 105–142 McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, pp 105–142
Zurück zum Zitat Mettier TM, Hofstetter P (2005) Survey insights into weighting environmental damages. Influence of context and group. J Ind Ecol 8(4):189–209CrossRef Mettier TM, Hofstetter P (2005) Survey insights into weighting environmental damages. Influence of context and group. J Ind Ecol 8(4):189–209CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Müller-Wenk (1994) The Ecoscarcity method as a valuation instrument within the SETAC-Framework, in Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA, SETAC-Europe, Bruxelles, pp 115–120 Müller-Wenk (1994) The Ecoscarcity method as a valuation instrument within the SETAC-Framework, in Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA, SETAC-Europe, Bruxelles, pp 115–120
Zurück zum Zitat NOAA Panel (1993) Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, January 11 NOAA Panel (1993) Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, January 11
Zurück zum Zitat Soares SR, Toffoletto L, Dechênes L (2006) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Clean Prod 14:649–660CrossRef Soares SR, Toffoletto L, Dechênes L (2006) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Clean Prod 14:649–660CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS) version 2000—models and data of the default method Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS) version 2000—models and data of the default method
Zurück zum Zitat Stern (2006) Stern review, the economics of climate change, HM Treasury, 2006 October Stern (2006) Stern review, the economics of climate change, HM Treasury, 2006 October
Zurück zum Zitat Train K (2003) Discrete choice model with simulation, 2003 Train K (2003) Discrete choice model with simulation, 2003
Zurück zum Zitat Yasui I (1998) A new scheme of life cycle impact assessment method based on the consumption of time. 3rd Int. Conf. on Ecobalance, Tsukuba, p 89 Yasui I (1998) A new scheme of life cycle impact assessment method based on the consumption of time. 3rd Int. Conf. on Ecobalance, Tsukuba, p 89
Zurück zum Zitat Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598CrossRef Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts
verfasst von
Norihiro Itsubo
Masaji Sakagami
Koichi Kuriyama
Atsushi Inaba
Publikationsdatum
01.05.2012
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0379-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2012

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4/2012 Zur Ausgabe

DATA AVAILABILITY, DATA QUALITY IN LCA * COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE

Commentary on issues in data quality analysis in life cycle assessment

NON-TOXIC IMPACT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH EMISSIONS TO AIR, WATER, SOIL

Towards a general framework for including noise impacts in LCA