IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v85y2014icp34-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Ahlroth, Sofia

Abstract

In environmental impact assessment of policies and product design results need to be presented in a comprehensible way to make alternatives easily comparable. One way of doing this is to aggregate results to a manageable set by using weighting methods. Valuing the environmental impacts can be a challenging task that can also be quite time-consuming. To the aid of practitioners, several weighting sets with readily available weights have been developed over the last decade. The scope and coverage of these sets vary, and it is important to be aware of the implications of using different valuation methods and weighting sets.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahlroth, Sofia, 2014. "The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 34-41.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:85:y:2014:i:c:p:34-41
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344913002577
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.012?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Weidema, Bo Pedersen, 2009. "Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1591-1598, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Walter J. V. Vermeulen & Pim R. Croes & Larissa van der Feen, 2023. "Piloting Oiconomy Pricing: First experiences of producers applying full cost sustainability assessment of products," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4924-4937, November.
    2. Dongli Tan & Yao Wu & Zhiqing Zhang & Yue Jiao & Lingchao Zeng & Yujun Meng, 2023. "Assessing the Life Cycle Sustainability of Solar Energy Production Systems: A Toolkit Review in the Context of Ensuring Environmental Performance Improvements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-37, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anni Orola & Anna Härri & Jarkko Levänen & Ville Uusitalo & Stig Irving Olsen, 2022. "Assessing WELBY Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach through Cobalt Mining Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    2. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Durand-Morat, Alvaro & Meredith, Kylie & Parajuli, Ranjan & Thoma, Greg & Henry, Christopher G., 2021. "Holistically valuing public investments in agricultural water conservation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    3. Bell, David R. & Silalertruksa, Thapat & Gheewala, Shabbir H. & Kamens, Richard, 2011. "The net cost of biofuels in Thailand--An economic analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 834-843, February.
    4. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    5. Säll, Sarah & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "Effects of an environmental tax on meat and dairy consumption in Sweden," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-53.
    6. Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı & Elçin Filiz Taş, 2023. "Single Score Environmental Performances of Roof Coverings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Jørgen Dejgård Jensen & Henrik Saxe & Sigrid Denver, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness of a New Nordic Diet as a Strategy for Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, June.
    8. Cátia da Silva & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa & Ana Carvalho, 2022. "Towards sustainable development: Green supply chain design and planning using monetization methods," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1369-1394, May.
    9. Ewelina Olba-Zięty & Jakub Jan Zięty & Mariusz Jerzy Stolarski, 2023. "External Environmental Costs of Solid Biomass Production against the Legal and Political Background in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-27, May.
    10. S. Ferreira & M. Cabral & N.F. da Cruz & P. Simões & R.C. Marques, 2017. "The costs and benefits of packaging waste management systems in Europe: the perspective of local authorities," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(5), pages 773-791, May.
    11. Reinout Heijungs, 2023. "Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Theoretical Basis of the Ecological Scarcity Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Marcell Mariano Corrêa Maceno & Samuel João & Danielle Raphaela Voltolini & Izabel Cristina Zattar, 2023. "Life cycle assessment and circularity evaluation of the non-medical masks in the Covid-19 pandemic: a Brazilian case," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8055-8082, August.
    13. Nguyen, Thu Lan Thi & Laratte, Bertrand & Guillaume, Bertrand & Hua, Anthony, 2016. "Quantifying environmental externalities with a view to internalizing them in the price of products, using different monetization models," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 13-23.
    14. Sara Rajabi Hamedani & Mauro Villarini & Andrea Colantoni & Maurizio Carlini & Massimo Cecchini & Francesco Santoro & Antonio Pantaleo, 2020. "Environmental and Economic Analysis of an Anaerobic Co-Digestion Power Plant Integrated with a Compost Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    15. Gilbert Ahamer, 2022. "Why Biomass Fuels Are Principally Not Carbon Neutral," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-39, December.
    16. Henrik Saxe & Signe Loftager Okkels & Jørgen Dejgård Jensen, 2017. "How to Obtain Forty Percent Less Environmental Impact by Healthy, Protein-Optimized Snacks for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, December.
    17. Marisa D.M. Vieira & Thomas C. Ponsioen & Mark J. Goedkoop & Mark A.J. Huijbregts, 2016. "Surplus Cost Potential as a Life Cycle Impact Indicator for Metal Extraction," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, January.
    18. Nguyen, Thu Lan T. & Hermansen, John E. & Mogensen, Lisbeth, 2013. "Environmental performance of crop residues as an energy source for electricity production: The case of wheat straw in Denmark," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 633-641.
    19. Algunaibet, Ibrahim M. & Pozo, Carlos & Galán-Martín, Ángel & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2019. "Quantifying the cost of leaving the Paris Agreement via the integration of life cycle assessment, energy systems modeling and monetization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 588-601.
    20. Marianne Thomsen & Daina Romeo & Dario Caro & Michele Seghetta & Rong-Gang Cong, 2018. "Environmental-Economic Analysis of Integrated Organic Waste and Wastewater Management Systems: A Case Study from Aarhus City (Denmark)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Valuation; Weighting; LCA; CBA;
    All these keywords.

    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:eee:recore:v:85:y:2014:i:c:p:34-41. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.