Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Ecovalue08-A new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Urban Planning and Environment, Environmental Strategies.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Urban Planning and Environment, Environmental Strategies. School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Centres, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Centres, Centre for Sustainable Communications, CESC.
2011 (English)In: Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526, E-ISSN 1879-1786, Vol. 19, no 17-18, 1994-2003 p.Article in journal (Refereed) 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 19, no 17-18, 1994-2003 p.
Keyword [en]
Cost-benefit analysis, Impact assessment, LCA, Strategic environmental assessment, Valuation, Weighting
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
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: diva2:454340
Note
QC 20111107Available from: 2011-11-07 Created: 2011-10-31 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ahlroth, SofiaFinnveden, Göran
By organisation
Environmental StrategiesCentre for Sustainable Communications, CESC
In the same journal
Journal of Cleaner Production
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 317 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf