Ana gezinime geç Aramaya geç Ana içeriğe geç

Weighting factors for LCA—a new set from a global survey

  • Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı
  • , Cecilia Askham
  • , Erlend Dancke Sandorf
  • , Luis Cândido Dias
  • , Danny Campbell
  • , Elçin Filiz Taş
  • , Norihiro Itsubo
  • , Christine Betty Nagawa
  • , Christine Mugumya Kyarimpa
  • , Mamadou Djerma
  • , Bazoin Sylvain Raoul Bazie
  • , Marco Cinelli*
  • *Bu çalışma için yazışmadan sorumlu yazar
  • Istanbul Technical University
  • NORSUS Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences
  • University of Coimbra
  • University of Stirling
  • Waseda University
  • Makerere University
  • Kyambogo University
  • Sustainable Water and Environment Expertise and Technologies (SWEET)
  • Centre Universitaire Polytechnique de Manga/Université Norbert Zongo
  • Leiden University

Araştırma sonucu: Dergiye katkıMakalebilirkişi

9 Atıf (Scopus)

Özet

Purpose: This paper provides global weights (weighting factors) for the three endpoint impact categories (areas of protection (AoPs)) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Life Cycle Initiative’s “Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Methods” (GLAM) project, namely human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services. Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit the preferences of respondents on the GLAM AoPs, and they were then used to calculate the respective weights. Responses were obtained from a subset of countries pertaining to each income level defined by the World Bank (i.e. low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high). The adimensional (between 0 and 1) weights were derived using two different approaches: econometric and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The econometric approach obtained weights by transforming the estimated preference parameters from a multinomial logit model. The MCDA approach obtained weights representing the vectors that best reconstitute the choices of each individual, using linear programming to fit an additive value function. Results: When considering responses from all income groups, the weights from the econometric approach are 0.42, 0.31, and 0.26 for human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services, respectively. Following the same order for the AoPs, the weights from the MCDA approach are 0.41, 0.32, and 0.27. For high-income countries, ecosystem quality has the highest weight; for upper-middle-income countries, ecosystem quality and human health have the same weights using the econometric approach, while in the MCDA approach, human health is weighted higher than ecosystem quality. For the two lower income country groups, the priority is given to human health with both approaches. Recommendations for the use of these weights are also provided, as well as a comparison with other existing weights. Conclusion: The two methods obtained similar weights overall, although with some differences when disaggregated by income groups. The weights proposed in this paper are suitable for decision-makers or users who want to use survey-derived weights for endpoint-based LCA when using the AoPs of GLAM. These weights can be used in projects where the decision-makers do not want to or have no resources to identify a set of weights themselves, or when decision-makers are not involved.

Orijinal dilİngilizce
Sayfa (başlangıç-bitiş)2107-2136
Sayfa sayısı30
DergiInternational Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Hacim29
Basın numarası11
DOI'lar
Yayın durumuYayınlandı - Kas 2024

Bibliyografik not

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.

BM SKH

Bu sonuç, aşağıdaki Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefine/Hedeflerine katkıda bulunur

  1. SKH 9 - Sanayi, Yenilikçilik ve Altyapı
    SKH 9 Sanayi, Yenilikçilik ve Altyapı
  2. SKH 12 - Sorumlu Üretim ve Tüketim
    SKH 12 Sorumlu Üretim ve Tüketim

Parmak izi

Weighting factors for LCA—a new set from a global survey' araştırma başlıklarına git. Birlikte benzersiz bir parmak izi oluştururlar.

Alıntı Yap