Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: Integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA

  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment have to cope with two critical aspects, the uncertainty in values and the (unknown) system behaviour. LCA methodology should cope explicitly with these subjective elements. A structured aggregation procedure is proposed that differentiates between the technosphere and the ecosphere and embeds them in the valuesphere. LCA thus becomes a decision support system that models and combines these three spheres. We introduce three structurally identical types of LCA, each based on one coherent but different set of values. These sets of values can be derived from the Cultural Theory and are labeled as ‘egalitarian’, ‘individualistic’, and ‘hierarchic’. Within Life Cycle Impact Assessment, a damage oriented assessment model is complemented with both a newly developed precautionary indicator designed to address unknown damage and an indicator for the manageability of environmental damages. The indicators for unknown damage and for manageability complete the set of indicators judged to be relevant by decision makers. The weights given to these indicators are also value-dependent. The framework proposed here answers the criticisms that present LCA methodology does not strictly enough separate subjective from objective elements and that it fails to accurately model environmental impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. (1995): Risk. UCL Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahbe, St.;Braunschweig, A.;Muller-Wenk, R. (1990): Methodik für ökobilanzen auf der Basis ökologischer Optimierung. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 133, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Asselt van, M.;Rotmans J.;den Elzen, M.;Hilderink, H. (1995): Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modelling; a Cultural Perspective-based Approach. GLOBO Report Series No.9, RIVM Report No. 461502009, Bilthoven

  • Asselt van, M.B.A.;Beusen, A.H.W.;Hilderink, H.B.M. (1996a): Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment: A Social Scientific Perspective. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 1: 71–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asselt van, M.B.A.;Rotmans, J. (1996b): Uncertainty in Perspective. Global Environmental Change 6 (2): 121–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, R.U.;Somonis, U.E. (Eds.) (1994): Industrial metabolism: restructuring for sustainable development. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnthouse, L.;Fava, J.;Humphreys, K.;Hunt, R. et al. (1997): Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art. Report of the SETAC North American Workgroup on Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Pensacola

    Google Scholar 

  • Beentjes, C.;Wrisberg, N.;Ywema, P.E. (1995): The Social Value of Life Cycle Assessment, financed by SPOLD Brussels, Draft

  • Berg, M.;Scheringer, M. (1994): Problems in Environmental Risk Assessment and the Need for Proxy Measures. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 3 (8): 487–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenot, J.;Bonnefous, S.;Marris, C. (1998): Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France. Risk Analysis, Vol. 18, No.6, 729–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BUWAL (1998): Methode der ökologischen Knappheit - ökofaktoren 1997. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr.297, öBU/BUWAL, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1982): Cultural Bias, in Douglas M. (ed.), In the Active Voice. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M.;Wildavsky, A. (1982): Risk and Culture; An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkley

  • ExternE (1995): Externalities of Energy. European Commission EUR 16520 EN, Volume 1–6, Luxembourg

  • Fischhoff, B.;Slovic, P.;Lichtenstein, S.;Read, S.;Combs, B. (1978): How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences 9:127–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht, R.;Braunschweig, A.;Hofstetter, P.;Suter, P. (2000): Human Health Damages due to Ionising Radiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment, to be published in Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2

  • Goedkoop, M. (1995): The Eco-indicator 95. Final Report and Manual for Designers, Amersfoort

  • Goedkoop, M.;Hofstetter P.;Müller-Wenk, R.;Spriensma, R. (1998): The Eco-Indicator’98 Explained. The International Journal on Life Cycle Assessment 6 (3) 352–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop, M.;Spriensma, R. (1999): The Eco-indicator’99, Adamage-oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. VROM, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée, J. (Ed.) (1999): Life Cycle Assessment in environmental policy. Update of LCA methodology Guide & Background documents of 1992 by Heijungs, R. et al., Draft version, http:// www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/lca2

  • Hauschild, M.;Wenzel, M. (1998): Environmental assessment of products. Part 2, scientific background, Chapman & Hall, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs, R.;Guinée, J.B.;Huppes, G.;Lankreijer, R.M.;Udo de Haes, H.A.;Wegener Sleeswijk, A.;Ansems, A.M.M.;Eggels, P.G.;van Diun, R.;de Goede, H.P. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products; Backgrounds & Guide. Leiden

  • Hofstetter, P. (1999): Top — Down; Arguments for a Goal-Oriented Assessment Structure. Global LCA Village, http://www. ecomed.de/journals, ETH Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter, P.;Braunschweig, A.;Mettier, Th.;Mueller-Wenk, R.;Tietje, O. (2000): Dominance Analysis in the Mixing Triangle: Graphical Decision Support for Comparisons with LCA. Journal of Industrial Ecology (in press)

  • Hofstetter, P. (1998): Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment; A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere, and valuesphere. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S. (1977): Myths of Ecology and Energy, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Future Strategies for Energy Development. Oak Ridge pp.36–49

  • Holling, C.S. (1986): The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change, in Clark, W.C.; Munn, R.E. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IFIAS (1974): Energy Analysis Workshop on Methodology and Conventions. International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study. Guldsmedshyttan, Sweden

  • ISO (1997): Environmenral Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and Guidelines. EN ISO 14040, Brussels

  • Jager, W.;van Asselt, M.B.A.;Rotmans, J.;Vlek, C.A.J.;Costerman Boodt, P. (1997): Consumer Behaviour; A Modelling Perspective in the Context of Integrated Assessment of Global Change. Globo Report Series No.17, RIVM Report No.461502017, Bilthoven

  • Jungermann, H.;Slovic, P. (1993): Charakteristiken individueller Risikowahrnehmung. in Bayerische Rück (Hrsg.), Risiko ist ein Konstrukt. Knesebeck Verlag, 89–107

  • Keeney, R.L.;Raiffa, H. (1976): Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York

  • Kortman, J.G.M.;Lindeijer, E.W.;Sas, H.;Sprengers, M. (1994): Towards a Single Indicator for Emissions — an Exercise in Aggregating Environmental Effects. IDES Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Krewitt, W.;Mayerhofer, P.;Trukenmüller, A.;Friedrich, R. (1998): Application of the impact pathway analysis in the context of LCA; The long way from burden to impact. Int. J. LCA 3 (2) 86–94

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeijer, E. (1994): The Valuation within LCA: Aim, Criteria and Procedure, inUdo de Haes, H.A.;Schaltegger, S.;Hofstetter, P. (Eds.), First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop held at ETH Zurich from July 8–9, 1994 pp.l63–170

  • Marris, C.;Langford, I.H.;O’riordan, T. (1998): A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm. Risk Analysis, Vol. 18, No.5, 635–647

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mengel Jørgensen, A.-M. (1996): LCA Stakeholders and Weighing of Environmental Problems; a Theoretical Approach to Differing Valuation Criteria. Amsterdam

  • Mettier, Th. (1999): Der Vergleich von Schutzgütern — Ausgewählte Resultate einer Panelbefragung. inHofstetter, P.;Mettier, Th.;Tietje, O. (Eds.), Ansätze zum Vergleich von Umweltschäden. 9. Diskussionsforum ökobilanzen, UNS-ETH Zürich, ISBN 3-906734-06–4

  • Müller-Wenk, R. (1997): Safeguard Subjects and Damage Functions as Core Elements of Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. IWö-Diskussionsbeitrag Nr.42, St. Gallen

  • Murray, Ch.J.L.;Lopez, A.D. (Eds.) (1996): The Global Burden of Disease, Volume I of Global Burden of Disease and Injury Series. WHO / Harvard School of Public Health/ World Bank, Harvard University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, T.;Rayner, S. (1991): Risk Management for Global Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change 1 (2): 91–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1995): The Life Cycle Approach: An Overview of Product/Process Analysis. Technology and Environment, OECD/GD(95)118, Paris

  • Owens, W. (1998): Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The Use of Subjective Judgements in Classification and Characterisation. Int J LCA 3(1): 43–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potting, J.;Hauschild, M. (1997): Predicted Environmental Impact and Expected Occurrence of Actual Environmental Impact. Part I: The Linear Nature of Environmental Impact from Emissions in Life Cycle Assessmenr. Int J LCA 2(3): 171–7; Part II: Spatial Differentiation in Life-Cycle Assessment via the Site-Dependent Characterisation of Environmental Impact from Emissions. Int J LCA 2 (4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pottinc, J.;Schöpp, W.;Blok, K.;Hauschild, M. (1998): Site-dependent life-cycle impact assessment in acidification. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2 (2):63–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, S. (1991): A Cultural Perspective on the Structure and Implementation of Global Environmental Agreements. Evaluation Review 15(1): l75–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, St. (1987): Risk and Relativism in Science for Policy. In Johnson B.B., Covello V.T. (Eds.), The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk, pp.5–23

  • Rayner, St.;Cantor, R. (1987): How Fair is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice. Risk Analysis 7 (1): 3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheringer, M. (1999): Persistenz und Reichweite von Umweltchemikalien. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheringer, M.;Berg, M. (1994): Spatial and Temporal Range as Measures of Environmental Threat. Fresenius Envir Bull 3: 493–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1993): MIPS Re-Visited. Fresenius Envir Bull 2: 407–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, M.;Thompson, M. (1990): Divided we Stand; Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice. University of Pennsylvania Press

  • SETAC (1993): Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. Workshop Sesimbra, 31.3.-3.4.1993, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen, B.;Ryding, S.-O. (1992): Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Federation of Swedish Industries, The EPS Enviro-accounting Method. Goteborg

  • Thompson, M.;Ellis, R.;Wildavsky, A. (1990): Cultural Theory. Westview Print, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M.;Rayner, St.; Cultural Discourses, in Rayner, St.; Malone, L. (Eds.) (1998): Human Choice and Climate Change. Vol.1, Batelle Press, Columbus Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, P. (1986): Mythology and Surprise in the Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, in Clark, W.C.; Munn, R.E. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes, H.A.;Wrisberg, N. (Eds.) (1997): Life Cycle Assessment: State-of-the-Art and Research Priorities. Results of LCANET, a Concerted Action in the Environment and Climate Programme (DG XII), LCA Documents, Volume 1, Eco-Informa Press, Bayreuth

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes, H.A.;Jolliet, O.;Finnveden, G.;Hauschild, M.;Krewttt, W.;Müller-Wenk, R. (Eds.) (1999): Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Background document for the second working group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2). Int.J.LCA 4 (2) 66-74/ 4 (3) 167–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein, St.;Klöpffer, W. (1996): The Valuation Step in LCA: Part I: General Principles. Int J LCA 1(1): 36–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • VROM (ed.) (1994): Policy document on products and the environment. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, O.;Scholz, R.W.;Bühlmann, R.;Grasmück, D. (1999): Risk Perception of heavy metal soil contamination and attitudes to decontamination strategies. UNS Working Paper 19, Natural and Social Science Interface, ETH Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (1947): The Constitution of the World Health Organization. WHO Chronical 1: 29, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrisberg, N.;Gameson, T. (Eds.) (1998): CHAINET Definition Document, European Network on Chain Analysis for Environmental Decision Support. CML Leiden

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ORISE Research Fellow, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, USA

    Patrick Hofstetter

  2. Department of Environmental Sciences, Natural and Social Science Interface (UNS), ETH Zurich, ETH-Zentrum HAD, CH-8092, Zurich

    Patrick Hofstetter, Thomas Baumgartner & Roland W. Scholz

Authors
  1. Patrick Hofstetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Baumgartner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roland W. Scholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Patrick Hofstetter, Thomas Baumgartner or Roland W. Scholz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hofstetter, P., Baumgartner, T. & Scholz, R.W. Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: Integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int. J. LCA 5, 161–175 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978618

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978618

Keywords

Search

Navigation