4.7 Article

Ecovalue08-A new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 19, Issue 17-18, Pages 1994-2003

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.005

Keywords

Cost-benefit analysis; Impact assessment; LCA; Strategic environmental assessment; Valuation; Weighting

Funding

  1. Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In environmental systems analysis tools such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), life-cycle assessment (LCA) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS), weighting is often used to aggregate results and compare different alternatives. There are several weighting sets available, but so far there is no set that consistently use monetary values based on actual or hypothetical market valuation of environmental degradation and depletion. In this paper, we develop a weighting set where the values are based on willingness-to-pay estimates for environmental quality, and market values for resource depletion. The weighting set is applied to three case studies and the outcome is compared with the outcomes from three other weighting sets. Ecotax02, Ecoindicator99 and EPS2000. We find that the different sets give different results in many cases. The reason for this is partly that they are based on different values and thus should give different results. However, the differences can also be explained by data gaps and different methodological choices. If weighting sets are used, it is also important to use several to reduce the risk of overlooking important impacts due to data gaps. It is also interesting to note that though Ecovalue08 and Ecotax02 give different absolute values, the results are very similar in relative terms. Thus the political and the individual willingness-to-pay estimates yield a similar ranking of the impacts. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available