4.6 Article

Critical Components of Uncertainty Communication in Life Cycle Assessments of Emerging Technologies: Nanotechnology as a Case Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 468-479

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12183

关键词

emerging technology; communication of science; nanotechnology; uncertainty; uncertainty communication; industrial ecology

资金

  1. NSF [0938099]
  2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [DBI-0830117]
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0938099] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [0938099] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Because of their recognition as a comprehensive tool of environmental assessments and their increasing use by governments and industries, life cycle assessments (LCAs) are positioned to be prominent sources of mass media information on new products and technologies. The LCA studies underlying media reports are often viewed by nonexperts after the initial reporting. However, uncertainty is rife in early assessments of emerging technologies, and LCA's ability to inform environmental opinions and decisions is limited without the accompanying communication on uncertainty. Though approaches to the technical aspects of uncertainty analysis in LCA are available in the literature, those on communicating that uncertainty, in ways that are cognitively accessible to the nonexperts, are still lacking despite their highlighted importance across various disciplines. With the focus on communication, this article uses the existing literature to derive five criteria for making uncertainty communication accessible to a nonexpert audience. Then, LCAs on engineered nanomaterial (ENM) and ENM-enabled products, as a case study of emerging technologies where uncertainties abound, are reviewed for whether they meet these five criteria. The study concludes with recommendations for communicating uncertainty in LCAs in order to enhance their role as decision- and public opinion-informing assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据