IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v4y2000i1p45-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Full Mode and Attribution Mode in Environmental Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Helias Udo de Haes
  • Reinout Heijungs
  • Gjalt Huppes
  • Ester van der Voet
  • Jean‐Paul Hettelingh

Abstract

Several tools exist for the analysis of the environmental impacts of chains or networks of processes. These relatively simple tools include materials flow accounting (MFA), substance flow analysis (SFA), life‐cycle assessment (LCA), energy analysis, and environmentally extended input‐output analysis (IOA), all based on fixed input‐output relations. They are characterized by the nature of their flow objects, such as products, materials, energy, substances, or money flows, and by their spatial and temporal characteristics. These characteristics are insufficient for their methodological characterization, and sometimes lead to inappropriate use. More clarity is desirable, both for clearer guidance of applications and for a more consistent methodology development. In addition to the nature of the flow object and to spatial and temporal characteristics, another key feature concerns the way in which processes are included in a system to be analyzed. The inclusion of processes can be done in two fundamentally different ways: according to a full mode of analysis, with the inclusion of all flows and related processes to their full extent as present in a region in a specific period of time; and according to an attribution mode, taking processes into account insofar as these are required for a given social demand, function, or activity, in principle whenever and wherever these processes take place. This distinction, which cuts across families of tools that traditionally belong together, appears to have significant methodological and practical implications. Thus the distinction between the two modes of analysis, however crucial it may be, strengthens the idea of one coherent family of tools for environmental systems analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Helias Udo de Haes & Reinout Heijungs & Gjalt Huppes & Ester van der Voet & Jean‐Paul Hettelingh, 2000. "Full Mode and Attribution Mode in Environmental Analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 4(1), pages 45-56, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:4:y:2000:i:1:p:45-56
    DOI: 10.1162/108819800569285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/108819800569285
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/108819800569285?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Choi, Jun-Ki & Morrison, Drew & Hallinan, Kevin P. & Brecha, Robert J., 2014. "Economic and environmental impacts of community-based residential building energy efficiency investment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 877-886.
    2. Haberl, Helmut & Kastner, Thomas & Schaffartzik, Anke & Ludwiczek, Nikolaus & Erb, Karl-Heinz, 2012. "Global effects of national biomass production and consumption: Austria's embodied HANPP related to agricultural biomass in the year 2000," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 66-73.
    3. Joris Baars & Mohammad Ali Rajaeifar & Oliver Heidrich, 2022. "Quo vadis MFA? Integrated material flow analysis to support material efficiency," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1487-1503, August.
    4. Patrick Hofstetter & Jane C. Bare & James K. Hammitt & Patricia A. Murphy & Glenn E. Rice, 2002. "Tools for Comparative Analysis of Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 833-851, October.
    5. Choi, Jun-Ki & Friley, Paul & Alfstad, Thomas, 2012. "Implications of energy policy on a product system's dynamic life-cycle environmental impact: Survey and model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 4744-4752.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:4:y:2000:i:1:p:45-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.