IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v50y2007i3p260-281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials

Author

Listed:
  • Weiss, Martin
  • Patel, Martin
  • Heilmeier, Hermann
  • Bringezu, Stefan

Abstract

The enhanced use of biomass for the production of energy, fuels, and materials is one of the key strategies towards sustainable production and consumption. Various life cycle assessment (LCA) studies demonstrate the great potential of bio-based products to reduce both the consumption of non-renewable energy resources and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the production of biomass requires agricultural land and is often associated with adverse environmental effects such as eutrophication of surface and ground water. Decision making in favor of or against bio-based and conventional fossil product alternatives therefore often requires weighing of environmental impacts. In this article, we apply distance-to-target weighing methodology to aggregate LCA results obtained in four different environmental impact categories (i.e., non-renewable energy consumption, global warming potential, eutrophication potential, and acidification potential) to one environmental index. We include 45 bio- and fossil-based product pairs in our analysis, which we conduct for Germany. The resulting environmental indices for all product pairs analyzed range from −19.7 to +0.2 with negative values indicating overall environmental benefits of bio-based products. Except for three options of packaging materials made from wheat and cornstarch, all bio-based products (including energy, fuels, and materials) score better than their fossil counterparts. Comparing the median values for the three options of biomass utilization reveals that bio-energy (−1.2) and bio-materials (−1.0) offer significantly higher environmental benefits than bio-fuels (−0.3). The results of this study reflect, however, subjective value judgments due to the weighing methodology applied. Given the uncertainties and controversies associated not only with distance-to-target methodologies in particular but also with weighing approaches in general, the authors strongly recommend using weighing for decision finding only as a supplementary tool separately from standardized LCA methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiss, Martin & Patel, Martin & Heilmeier, Hermann & Bringezu, Stefan, 2007. "Applying distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 260-281.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:50:y:2007:i:3:p:260-281
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344906001467
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.06.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Eduardo Trigo & Hugo Chavarria & Carl Pray & Stuart J. Smyth & Agustin Torroba & Justus Wesseler & David Zilberman & Juan Martinez, 2023. "The Bioeconomy and Food Systems Transformation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, March.
    2. Gilbert Ahamer, 2022. "Why Biomass Fuels Are Principally Not Carbon Neutral," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-39, December.
    3. Reinout Heijungs, 2023. "Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Theoretical Basis of the Ecological Scarcity Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Iriarte, Alfredo & Villalobos, Pablo, 2013. "Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance of sunflower biodiesel: Identification of its key factors in the supply chain," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 46-52.
    5. Ahlroth, Sofia, 2014. "The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 34-41.

    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:eee:recore:v:50:y:2007:i:3:p:260-281. 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: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    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.