Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment

Part 2: Midpoints, endpoints, and criteria for method development

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

Abstract

In the first part of this paper, we showed how life-cycle impact assessment can be described as an exercise in decision analysis. We developed a structure for how to decide on the relative importance of different environmental stressors. In this second part, we offer criteria for the grouping of stressors into impact categories and for the development of impact indicators. Facts to be included in a characterization method should be selected according to their relevance and combined following established scientific models. Facts should be included only if they are informative, that is, if sufficient and sufficiently certain information is available for all stressors that should be evaluated by this method. Abstract, constructed indicators at the ‘midpoint level’ are better suited to compare similar impacts than indicators reflecting ‘observable environmental endpoints’ if there is a large uncertainty about the effects on observable endpoints. We argue that midpoint modeling should be retained. The additional evidence introduced by endpoint methods should be used to support ‘judgments about facts’ needed to evaluate the importance of different impact categories (or means objectives) in the means-ends objectives network.

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

  • Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW and Udo de Haes HA (2000a): Life cycle impact assessment workshop summary; midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. Int J LCA 5 (6): 319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Pennington DW, Hofstetter P and Udo de Haes HA (2000b): Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits, Pre-Work-shop summary for the UNEP-U.S. EPA Workshop on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment in Brighton, UK, 25–26 May. Cincinnati, Oh: U.S. EPA and UNEP

  • European Commission (1999): Externalities of energy – methodology 1998 update. ExternE Report No. 7. Brussels: EC DG XII. http:// ExternE.irc.es/

  • Eyre N, Downing T, Hoekstra R, Rennings K and Tol RSJ (1999): Externalities of energy, Vol 8, global warming, JOS3-CT95-0002. Brussels: The European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  • Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T and Vigon B, Eds (1993): A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. Pensacola, Fl: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hofstetter P, Bare J, Basson L, Ciroth A, Mettier T, Seppälä J, Johansson J, Norris G, et al. (forthcoming): Normalization, grouping and weighting in life cycle impact assessment. In: Towards best available practice in life cycle impact assessment, edited by H. A. Udo de Haes. Pensacola: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

  • Goedkoop M and Spriensma R (1999): The Eco-indicator 99. Amersfoort: PRe Consultants, www.pre.nl

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK (1999): Evaluation endpoints and climate policy: Atmospheric stabilization, benefit-cost analysis, and near-term greenhouse-gas emissions. Clim Change 41 (3–4): 447–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK, Jain AK, Adams JL and Wuebbles DJ (1996): A welfare-based index for assessing environmental effects of greenhouse-gas emissions. Nature 381 (May 23): 301–303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK and Shlyakhter AI (1999): The expected value of information and the probability of surprise. Risk Anal 19 (1): 135–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, et al. (1992): Environmental life-cycle assessment of products. Guide, NOH report 9266. Leiden: Center of Environmental Science

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG (1999): Toxic equivalency: addressing human health effects in life-cycle impact assessment. Energy and Resources Group. Berkeley: University of California: 237

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG and Hammitt JK (2001): A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment, Pan I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J LCA 6 (1): 5–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK and Pease WS (2000): A theoretical foundation for life-cycle assessment: recognizing the role of values in environmental decision making. J Ind Ecol 4 (1): 13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P (1998): Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Boston: Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Holdren JP, Morris G and Mintzer I (1980): Environmental aspects of renewable energy sources. Ann Rev Energy 5: 241–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ (2000): Life-cycle impact assessment of acidifying and eutrophying air pollutants: Calculation of equivalency factors with RAINS-LCA. Leiden: CML. http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ Ica2/index.html

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2000): ISO 14042: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Life cycle impact assessment. Geneva: International Standards Organization

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992): Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Klee R (1997): Introduction to the philosophy of science. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer PR, Kunreuther HC and Schoemaker PGH (1993): Decision sciences: an integrative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Krewitt W, Heck T, Trukenmuller A and Friedrich R (1999): Environmental damage costs from fossil electricity generation in Germany and Europe. Energy Pol 27 (3): 173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy JI, Hammitt JK, Yanagisawa Y and Spengler JD (1999): Development of a new damage function model for power plants: Methodology and applications. Environ Sci Technol 33 (24): 4364–4372

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Montazemi AR, Wang F, Nainar SMK and Bart CK (1996): On the effectiveness of decisional guidance. Decis Support Syst 18: 181–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG and Henrion M (1990): Uncertainty – a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG and Keith DW (1995): Climate change-subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ Sci Technol 29 (10): A468-A476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (1994): Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington: National Academy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington DW, Norris G, Hoagland T and Bare JC (2000): Environmental comparison metrics for life cycle impact assessment and process design. Environmental Progress 19 (2): 83–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Potting J, Schopp W, Blick K and Hauschild M (1998): Site-dependent life-cycle impact assessment of acidification. J Ind Ecol 2 (2): 63–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seppälä J (1999): Decision analysis as a tool for life cycle impact assessment. Bayreuth: Eco-Informa Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlyakhter AI, Kammen DM, Broido CL and Wilson R (1994): Quantifying the credibility of energy projections from trends in past data – The United States energy sector. Energy Pol 22 (2): 119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K (1996): Methodological rules for four classes of scientific uncertainty. In Scientific uncertainty and environmental problem solving, edited by J. Lemons. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science: 12–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Spadaro JV and Rabl A (1999): Estimates of real damage from air pollution: site dependence and simple impact indices in LCA. Int J LCA 4 (4): 229–243

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (1997): On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority setting. J Cleaner Prod 5 (4): 255–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (1999): A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000 – General system characteristics, CPM 1999:4. Gothenburg: Chalmers University. www.cpm.chalmers.se

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen B and Ryding S-O (1991): The EPS Environmental Accounting Method: An application of environmental accounting principles for evaluation and valuation of environmental impact in product design. Göteborg: Swedish Environmental Research Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC and Fineberg HV (1996): Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes HA, Ed. (1996): Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. Brussels, Belgium: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

    Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes HA and Lindeijer E (forthcoming): The conceptual structure of LCIA. In: Towards best available practice in life cycle impact assessment, edited by H. A. Udo de Haes. Pensacola: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

  • Wuebbles DJ (1995): Weighing functions for ozone depletion and greenhouse gas effects on climate. Ann Rev Energy Environ 20: 45–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuebbles DJ, Jain AK, Patten KO and Grant KE (1995): Sensitivity of direct global warming potentials to key uncertainties. Clim Change 29 (3): 265–297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial Ecology Program and Institute for Product Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Edgar G. Hertwich

  2. Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    James K. Hammitt

Authors
  1. Edgar G. Hertwich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James K. Hammitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edgar G. Hertwich.

Additional information

Part 1: LCA and Decision Analysis, in: Int J LCA 6 (1) 5–12 (2001)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hertwich, E.G., Hammitt, J.K. A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment. Int J LCA 6, 265–272 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978787

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978787

Keywords

Search

Navigation