nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

01.03.2013 | UNCERTAINTIES IN LCA

The influence of value choices in life cycle impact assessment of stressors causing human health damage

verfasst von: An M. De Schryver, Sebastien Humbert, Mark A. J. Huijbregts

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 3/2013

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

This study analyzes the influence of value choices in impact assessment models for human health, such as the choice of time horizon, on life cycle assessment outcomes.

Methods

For 756 products, the human health damage score is calculated using three sets of characterization factors (CFs). The CFs represent seven human health impact assessment categories: water scarcity, tropospheric ozone formation, particulate matter formation, human toxicity, ionizing radiation, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change. Each set of CFs embeds a combination of value choices following the Cultural Theory, and reflects the individualist, hierarchist, or egalitarian perspective.

Results

We found that the average difference in human health damage score goes from 1 order of magnitude between the individualist and hierarchist perspectives to 2.5 orders of magnitude between the individualist and egalitarian perspectives. The difference in damage score of individual materials among perspectives depends on the combination of emissions driving the impact of both perspectives and can rise up to 5 orders of magnitude.

Conclusions

The value choices mainly responsible for the differences in results among perspectives are the choice of time horizon and inclusion of highly uncertain effects. A product comparison can be affected when the human health damage score of two products differ less than a factor of 5, or the comparing products largely differ in their emitted substances. Overall, our study implies that value choices in impact assessment modeling can modify the outcomes of a life cycle assessment (LCA) and thus the practical implication of decisions based on the results of an LCA.

Vorheriger Artikel Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment

Nächster Artikel Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

ABS (2004) Water Account Australia 1996–97. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra

Ayer N, Tyedmers P, Pelletier N, Sonesson U, Scholz A (2007) Co-product allocation in life cycle assessments of seafood production systems: review of problems and strategies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(7):480–487

Bauer C, Bolliger R, Tuchschmid M, Faist-Emmeneger M (2007) Wasserkraft. In: Dones R (ed) Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Öokobilanzen für die Schweiz. Paul Scherrer Institut Villingen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, p 104

Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRef

Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8(2):135–160CrossRef

Cherubini F, Bird ND, Cowie A, Jungmeier G, Schlamadinger B, Woess-Gallasch S (2009) Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resour Conserv Recycl 53(8):434–447CrossRef

De Schryver AM, van Zelm R, Humbert S, Pfister S, McKone TE, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Value choices in life cycle impact assessment of stressors causing human health damage. J Ind Ecol 15(5):796–815CrossRef

EC (2001) Green paper on Integrated Product Policy. COM (2001) 68 final. European Commission, Brussels

EC (2005) Taking sustainable use of resources forward: a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste. COM(2005) 666 final. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

Ecoinvent Centre (2007) ecoinvent data v2.01, ecoinvent reports No. 1–25. CD-ROM. Duebendorf, Switzerland

Environment Canada (2004) Threats to water availability in Canada. National Water Research Institute, Burlington

European Aluminium Association (2002) LCA and legislation. http://www.eaa.net/en/environment-health-safety/lca/lca-legislation/. 11–2009

Euser AM, Dekker FW, le Cessie S (2008) A practical approach to Bland–Altman plots and variation coefficients for log transformed variables. J Clin Epidemiol 61(10):978–982CrossRef

Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Murray CJL (eds) (2004) Comparative quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of diseases attributable to selected major risk factors. World Health Organization, Geneva

French S, Geldermann J (2005) The varied contexts of environmental decision problems and their implications for decision support. Environ Sci Policy 8(4):378–391CrossRef

Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Villegas J, Panichelli L (2009) Life cycle assessment of biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. Bioresour Technol 100(21):4919–4930CrossRef

Goedkoop M, Spriensma RT (1999) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment methodology. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort

Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver AM, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2009. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I. Characterisation. VROM, Den Haag

Hofstetter P (ed) (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment. A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwer, Dordrecht

Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):161–175CrossRef

Lorenzoni I, Lowe T, Pidgeon N (2005) A strategic assessment of scientific and behavioural perspectives on ‘dangerous’ climate change. Technical report 28. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich

Luo L, van der Voet E, Huppes G, Udo de Haes H (2009) Allocation issues in LCA methodology: a case study of corn stover-based fuel ethanol. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(6):529–539CrossRef

Nemecek T, Kägi T, Blaser S (2007) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Ecoinvent report version 2.0, vol 15. Swiss Centre for LCI, ART, Duebendorf and Zurich

Reiss R, Anderson EL, Cross CE, Hidy G, Hoel D, McClellan R, Moolgavkar S (2007) Evidence of health impacts of sulfate-and nitrate-containing particles in ambient air. Inhal Toxicol 19(5):419–449CrossRef

Renehan AG, Jones J, O’Dwyer ST, Shalet SM (2003) Determination of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-2, and IGFBP-3 levels in serum and plasma: comparisons using the Bland–Altman method. Growth Horm IGF Res 13(6):341–346CrossRef

Schmidt J (2008) System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):350–364CrossRef

Schwarz M, Thompson M (eds) (1990) Divided we stand: re-defining politics, technology and social choice. University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania

Shiklomanov AI (1999) World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century in International Hydrological Programme. State Hydrological Institute (SHI)/UNESCO, St. Petersburg

Solley WB, Pierce RR, Perlman HA (1998) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. United States Geological Survey, Denver

Stewart BA, Howell TA (eds) (2003) Encyclopedia of water science. Dekker Encyclopedias Series. Marcel Dekker, New York

Water and Sustainability (2002) (Volume 3) U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production—The Next Half Century. EPRI, Palo Alto, US

Thompson M, Ellis R, Wildavsky A (1990) Cultural theory. Westview Press, Boulder

Unesco (2001) Securing the food supply. United Nations. World Water Assessment Programme. United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris

Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Den Hollander HA, Van Jaarsveld HA, Sauter FJ, Struijs J, Van Wijnen HJ, Van de Meent D (2008) European characterization factors for human health damage of PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ 42:441–453

Werner F (ed) (2005) Ambiguities in decision-oriented life cycle inventories. The role of mental models and values, vol 17. Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science. Springer, Amsterdam

Yang X, Dziegielewski B (2007) Water use by thermoelectric power plants in the United States. J Am Water Works Assoc 43(1):160–169CrossRef

Titel: The influence of value choices in life cycle impact assessment of stressors causing human health damage
verfasst von: An M. De Schryver
Sebastien Humbert
Mark A. J. Huijbregts
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2013
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0504-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2013

Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building

Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment

Comparative LCA of treatment options for US scrap tires: material recycling and tire-derived fuel combustion

Carbon footprint initiative in Uganda

Life cycle assessment of composite packaging waste management—a Chinese case study on aseptic packaging

Life-cycle climate impacts of peat fuel: calculation methods and methodological challenges