Ändra sökning
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Ecovalue08-A new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools
KTH, Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad (ABE), Samhällsplanering och miljö, Miljöstrategisk analys.
KTH, Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad (ABE), Samhällsplanering och miljö, Miljöstrategisk analys. Skolan för datavetenskap och kommunikation (CSC), Centra, KTH, Skolan för arkitektur och samhällsbyggnad (ABE), Centra, Centre for Sustainable Communications, CESC.
2011 (Engelska)Ingår i: Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526, E-ISSN 1879-1786, Vol. 19, nr 17-18, s. 1994-2003Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat) Published
Abstract [en]

In environmental systems analysis tools such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), life-cycle assessment (LCA) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS), weighting is often used to aggregate results and compare different alternatives. There are several weighting sets available, but so far there is no set that consistently use monetary values based on actual or hypothetical market valuation of environmental degradation and depletion. In this paper, we develop a weighting set where the values are based on willingness-to-pay estimates for environmental quality, and market values for resource depletion. The weighting set is applied to three case studies and the outcome is compared with the outcomes from three other weighting sets. Ecotax02, Ecoindicator99 and EPS2000. We find that the different sets give different results in many cases. The reason for this is partly that they are based on different values and thus should give different results. However, the differences can also be explained by data gaps and different methodological choices. If weighting sets are used, it is also important to use several to reduce the risk of overlooking important impacts due to data gaps. It is also interesting to note that though Ecovalue08 and Ecotax02 give different absolute values, the results are very similar in relative terms. Thus the political and the individual willingness-to-pay estimates yield a similar ranking of the impacts.

Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
2011. Vol. 19, nr 17-18, s. 1994-2003
Nyckelord [en]
Cost-benefit analysis, Impact assessment, LCA, Strategic environmental assessment, Valuation, Weighting
Nationell ämneskategori
Teknik och teknologier
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-45582DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.005ISI: 000295552200010Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-80052439772OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-45582DiVA, id: diva2:454340
Anmärkning
QC 20111107Tillgänglig från: 2011-11-07 Skapad: 2011-10-31 Senast uppdaterad: 2017-12-08Bibliografiskt granskad

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltext saknas i DiVA

Övriga länkar

Förlagets fulltextScopus

Sök vidare i DiVA

Av författaren/redaktören
Ahlroth, SofiaFinnveden, Göran
Av organisationen
Miljöstrategisk analysCentre for Sustainable Communications, CESC
I samma tidskrift
Journal of Cleaner Production
Teknik och teknologier

Sök vidare utanför DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetricpoäng

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 1208 träffar
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf