Abstract
One of the major problems with the future development of lifecycle assessment is the difficulty in converting lifecycle inventory results into environmental impacts, owing to problems associated with the interpretation and weighting of the data. The four main valuation approaches: distance-to-target, environmental control costs, environmental damage costs and scoring approaches are assessed and the individual methodologies evaluated. In conclusion it is considered that in a country which has clear, up-to-date, politically acceptable emission standards, a distance-to-target valuation system maybe acceptable. However, these circumstances are likely to be rare, and the choice of standards arbitrary and not scientifically based. Therefore a better choice is probably environmental damage costs, provided suitable economic damage figures are available.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Braunschweig, A., R. Forster, P. Hoestetter andR. Müller-Wenk (1994): Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmetho- den für Ökobilanzcn — Erste Ergebnisse. IWO-Diskussionsbeitrag No. 19, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Craighili, A.I.. &Powell, J.C. (1996): Lifecycle assessment and economic valuation or recycling: a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17 (2) 75–96
Environmental Data Services (1994): The Elusive Consensus on Life-Cycle Assessment. ENDS Report No. 231, pp 20–22
Fankhauser, S. (1994): Evaluating the social costs of greenhouse gas emissions. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 94-01. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich and University College London
Finnveden, G. (1996): Valuation methods within the framework of life cycle assessment. Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL) Report, Stockholm, Sweden
Grisel, L.,A.A. Jensen andW. Klöpffer (1994): Impact Assessment within LCA. Society for the Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD)
Guinée, J.B. (1993): Data for the Normalisation Step within Life cycle Assessments of Products. CML Paper 14, Leiden, The Netherlands
Hird, J.A. (1994): Superfund: The Political Economy of Environmental Risk. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. U.S.A.
Johnson, C.J. (1993): A Life Cycle Assessment of Incinerating or Recycling Waste Paper. M.SC Thesis, ICCET, Imperial College London
Lindeijer, E. (1996): Normalization and Valuation. Part VI of the SETAC Working Group Report on LCA Impact Assessment. IVAM Environmental Research, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Lindfors, L.-G., Christiansen, K., Hoffman, L. Virtankn, Y., Jun-Tilla, V., Hanssfn, O-J., Ronning, A., Ekvall, T. &Finnveden, G. (1995): Impact Assessment. LCA-NORDIC Technical Report No 10, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark
Pearce, D.W. (1994): The Great Environmental Values Debate. Environment and Planning 26, 1329–1338
Pearce, D.W., Markandya, A. &Barbier, E.B. (1989): Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London, UK
Powell, J.C., A. Craighli, J. Parfitt andR.K. Turner (1996): A Life-cycle Assessment and Economic Valuation of Recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39 (1) 97–112
Powell, J.C.,Pearce, D.W. &Brisson, I. (1995): Valuation for lifecy- cle assessment of waste management options, CSERGE Working Paper WM 95-07. Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia, Norwich and University College London
Sagoff, M. (1988): The Economy of the Earth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Tellus Institute (1992): CSG/Tellus Packaging Study: Assessing the Impacts of Production and Disposal of Packaging and Public Policy Measures to Alter Its Mix. Vols 1 and 2, Tellus Institute, Boston
Vitanen, Y. andS. Nilsson (1993): Environmental Impacts of Waste Paper Recycling. Earthscan, London, UK
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Powell, J.C., Pearce, D.W. & Craighill, A.L. Approaches to valuation in LCA impact assessment. Int. J. LCA 2, 11–15 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978709
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978709