Literature DB >> 18044540

Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States.

Thomas P Gloria1, Barbara C Lippiatt, Jennifer Cooper.   

Abstract

LCA is a quantitative method for understanding the environmental impacts of a product, yet all product purchasing decisions are ultimately subjective. Weights are the nexus between the quantitative results of LCA and the values-based, subjective choices of decision makers. In May 2007, NIST introduced a new optional weight set in Version 4.0 of the BEES software. Three key points about this new optional weight set are the basis for discussion in this paper: The new weight set was created specifically in the context of BEES. It is intended to support a practical method to assist environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States based on LCIA results. This is in contrast to the weight sets currently in BEES, which are based on generalist perspectives. The new weight set was created by a multi-stakeholder panel via the AHP method, and is a synthesis of panelists' perspectives on the relative importance of each environmental impact category in BEES. The weight set draws on each panelist's personal and professional understanding of, and value attributed to, each impact category. While the synthesized weight set may not equally satisfy each panelist's view of impact importance, it does reflect contemporary values in applying LCAto real world decisions, and represents one approach others can learn from in producing weight sets. The new weight set offers BEES users an additional option for synthesizing and comparing the environmental performance of building products and making purchasing decisions. In so doing, it strengthens the decision-making process, which is important when making product comparisons in the public domain. The Weight Set: Across all panelists and with explicit consideration of all time horizons, anthropogenic contributions to global warming, weighted at 29%, was judged most important, yet not so important that decisions can be made solely on the basis of this impact. A strong tail of other concerns include fossil fuel depletion (10%), criteria air pollutants (9%), water intake/use (8%), human health cancerous effects (8%), ecological toxicity (7%), eutrophication of water bodies (6%), land use (6%), and human health noncancerous effects (5%). Also of interest are the identified impact areas of concern assigned the lowest weights: smog formation (4%), indoor air quality (3%), acidification (3%), and ozone depletion (2%). Their low weights may indicate that there is not as much immediate concern or that the remedial actions associated with the impact for the most part are underway.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18044540     DOI: 10.1021/es070750+

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  7 in total

1.  Life cycle assessment of a wastewater treatment plant focused on material and energy flows.

Authors:  Jian-Guang Wu; Xiang-Yu Meng; Xiao-Meng Liu; Xian-Wei Liu; Zhi-Xia Zheng; De-Qian Xu; Guo-Ping Sheng; Han-Qing Yu
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2010-06-05       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 2.  A Review of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Liquid Transportation Biofuels in the Pan American Region.

Authors:  David R Shonnard; Bethany Klemetsrud; Julio Sacramento-Rivero; Freddy Navarro-Pineda; Jorge Hilbert; Robert Handler; Nydia Suppen; Richard P Donovan
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Proposal of Major Environmental Impact Categories of Construction Materials Based on Life Cycle Impact Assessments.

Authors:  Hyeong-Jae Jang; Yong-Han Ahn; Sung-Ho Tae
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 3.748

Review 4.  Advancing Alternative Analysis: Integration of Decision Science.

Authors:  Timothy F Malloy; Virginia M Zaunbrecher; Christina M Batteate; Ann Blake; William F Carroll; Charles J Corbett; Steffen Foss Hansen; Robert J Lempert; Igor Linkov; Roger McFadden; Kelly D Moran; Elsa Olivetti; Nancy K Ostrom; Michelle Romero; Julie M Schoenung; Thomas P Seager; Peter Sinsheimer; Kristina A Thayer
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  A modified eco-efficiency framework and methodology for advancing the state of practice of sustainability analysis as applied to green infrastructure.

Authors:  Santosh R Ghimire; John M Johnston
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.992

6.  Microbial nanocellulose biotextiles for a circular materials economy.

Authors:  Theanne N Schiros; Romare Antrobus; Delfina Farías; Yueh-Ting Chiu; Christian Tay Joseph; Shanece Esdaille; Gwen Karen Sanchirico; Grace Miquelon; Dong An; Sebastian T Russell; Adrian M Chitu; Susanne Goetz; Anne Marika Verploegh Chassé; Colin Nuckolls; Sanat K Kumar; Helen H Lu
Journal:  Env Sci Adv       Date:  2022-05-27

Review 7.  Environmental sustainability in anaesthesia and critical care.

Authors:  Forbes McGain; Jane Muret; Cathy Lawson; Jodi D Sherman
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 9.166

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.