Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: Integrating the decision makers' perspectives into LCA

被引:2
作者
Hofstetter P. [1 ,2 ]
Baumgartner T. [2 ]
Scholz R.W. [2 ]
机构
[1] ORISE Research Fellow, Natl. Risk Mgmt. Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, 26W., Cincinnati, OH 45268, Martin Luther King Dr.
[2] Department of Environmental Sciences, Natural and Social Science Interface, ETH-Zentrum HAD
关键词
Assessment framework; Cultural bias; Cultural Theory; Decision support system; Ecosphere; Known damage; Life Cycle Assessment; Life Cycle Impact Assessment; Manageability; Perspectives; Precautionary principle; Uncertainty assessment; Unknown damage; Value frames; Valuesphere;
D O I
10.1007/BF02978618
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment have to cope with two critical aspects, the uncertainty in values and the (unknown) system behaviour. LCA methodology should cope explicitly with these subjective elements. A structured aggregation procedure is proposed that differentiates between the technosphere and the ecosphere and embeds them in the valuesphere. LCA thus becomes a decision support system that models and combines these three spheres. We introduce three structurally identical types of LCA, each based on one coherent but different set of values. These sets of values can be derived from the Cultural Theory and are labeled as 'egalitarian', 'individualistic', and 'hierarchic'. Within Life Cycle Impact Assessment, a damage oriented assessment model is complemented with both a newly developed precautionary indicator designed to address unknown damage and an indicator for the manageability of environmental damages. The indicators for unknown damage and for manageability complete the set of indicators judged to be relevant by decision makers. The weights given to these indicators are also value-dependent. The framework proposed here answers the criticisms that present LCA methodology does not strictly enough separate subjective from objective elements and that it fails to accurately model environmental impacts.
引用
收藏
页码:161 / 175
页数:14
相关论文
共 75 条
[61]  
Schwarz M., Thompson M., Divided We Stand
[62]  
Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice, (1990)
[63]  
Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A 'Code of Practice', pp. 313-341993, (1993)
[64]  
Steen B., Ryding S.-O., Swedish Environmental Research Institute, (1992)
[65]  
Thompson M., Ellis R., Wildavsky A., Cultural Theory, (1990)
[66]  
Thompson M., Rayner S.T., Cultural Discourses, Human Choice and Climate Change, 1, (1998)
[67]  
Timmermann P., Mythology and Surprise in the Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, (1986)
[68]  
De Udo Haes H.A., Wrisberg N., Life Cycle Assessment: State-of-the-Art and Research Priorities, Results of LCANET, a Concerted Action in the Environment and Climate Programme (DG XII), 1, (1997)
[69]  
Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Background document for the second working group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2), Int.J.LCA, 4, 2, pp. 66-74, (1999)
[70]  
Int.J.LCA, 4, 3, pp. 167-174