Environmental impact assessment taxonomy providing comprehensive coverage of midpoints, endpoints, damages, and areas of protection

作者: Jane C. Bare , Thomas P. Gloria

DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2007.06.001

关键词: Risk analysis (engineering)MidpointVocabularyDamagesImpact assessmentLife cycle impact assessmentEngineeringReliability engineeringMetamodelingEnvironmental impact assessment

摘要: Abstract Before conducting a comprehensive impact assessment, such as life cycle assessment (LCIA), there is need to discuss the range of impacts which could and should be included. Up this point time, has not been list for potential inclusion available. This research builds upon previous work surveyed large component field cataloging analysis in greater detail then expanded it include those midpoints, endpoints, damages covered more assessment. In paper, seminal effort form meta-model presented facilitate an discussion taxonomy field. Upon using existing models was apparent needed structured represent midpoint, endpoint, damage, weighted levels they relate areas protection phase. Contrary recent use LCIA field, distinction will made between endpoint measure (which “count” impacts) damage value-weighted aggregation two or endpoints). The authors present representation all four assessment: weighted. developed found literature, larger set than are normally included within LCIA. recognize first many steps necessary capture that considered when environmental intent propose would greatly accumulation communication empirical theoretical knowledge gained by offering standard vocabulary structure.

参考文章(22)
Jane C. Bare, David W. Pennington, Helias A. Udo de Haes, Life cycle impact assessment sophistication International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 4, pp. 299- 306 ,(1999) , 10.1007/BF02979184
Jane C. Bare, Udo de Haes, Patrick Hofstetter, David W. Pennington, Life Cycle Impact Assessment Workshop Summary Midpoints versus Endpoints: The Sacrifices and Benefits ,(2000)
R. Heijungs, J.B. Guinée, Environmental life cycle assessment of products Centre of Environmental Science. ,(1992)
Leo Alting, Henrik Wenzel, Michael Hauschild, Environmental assessment of products ,(1997)
R Muller-Wenk, O Jolliet, W Krewitt, G Finnveden, E.G Hertwich, M Goedkoop, S.I Olsen, B Steen, E Lindeijer, J Potting, D.W Pennington, M Hauschild, H.A Udo de Haes, W Klopffer, P Hofstetter, Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards Best Practice ,(2002)
M. J. Goedkoop, The Eco-Indicator 98 Explained International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 3, pp. 141- 155 ,(1998) , 10.1007/978-94-011-4445-2_11
Manfred Marsmann, Sven Olaf Ryding, Helias Udo de Haes, James Fava, Willie Owens, Kevin Brady, Konrad Saur, Rita Schenck, In reply to hertwich & pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180 — 181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 4, pp. 65- 65 ,(1999) , 10.1007/BF02979402
Olivier Jolliet, Manuele Margni, Raphaël Charles, Sébastien Humbert, Jérôme Payet, Gerald Rebitzer, Ralph Rosenbaum, IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 8, pp. 324- 330 ,(2003) , 10.1007/BF02978505