A Theoretical Foundation for Life‐Cycle Assessment
Recognizing the Role of Values in Environmental Decision Making
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19467898 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Edgar G Hertwich (0000-0002-4934-3421, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, corresponding author), James K Hammitt (0000-0003-4797-8041, Center for Policy Analysis), William S Pease (Berkeley Public Health Division) |
| Year | 2000 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 13-28 |
| Publication date | 2000-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Industrial Ecology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1088-1980 • E-ISSN: 1530-9290 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1162/108819800569267 |
| OpenAlex | W2100620907 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 16 |
| References cited | 31 |
The presence of value judgments in life‐cycle impact assessment (LCIA) has been a constant source of controversy. According to a common interpretation, the international standard on LCIA requires that the assessment methods used in published comparisons be “value free.” Epistemologists argue that even natural science rests on “constitutive” and “contextual” value judgments. The example of the equivalency potential for climate change, the global warming potential (GWP), demonstrates that any impact assessment method inevitably contains not only constitutive and contextual values, but also preference values. Hence, neither life‐cycle assessment (LCA) as a whole nor any of its steps can be “value free.” As a result, we suggest a more comprehensive definition of objectivity in LCA that allows arguments about values and their relationship to facts. We distinguish three types of truth claims: factual claims, which are based on natural science; normative claims, which refer to preference values; and relational claims, which address the proper relation between factual knowledge and values. Every assessment method, even the GWP, requires each type of claim. Rational arguments can be made about each type of claim. Factual truth claims can be assessed using the scientific method. Normative claims can be based on ethical arguments. The values of individuals or groups can be elicited using various social science methods. Relational claims must follow the rules of logic. Relational claims are most important for the development of impact assessment methods. Because LCAs are conducted to satisfy the need of decision makers to consider environmental impacts, relational claims about impact assessment methods should refer to this goal. This article introduces conditions that affect environmental decision making and discusses how LCA—values and all—can be defended as a rational response to the challenge of moving uncertain scientific information into the policy arena
Economics · Epistemology · Microeconomics · Normative · Political science · Positive economics · Preference · Computer Science · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Law · Philosophy · Risk Perception and Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Wozu Umweltforschung? – Über das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Forschungstraditionen und umweltpolitischen Leitbildern Teil I
Health benefits, ecological threats of low-carbon electricity
Mapping the intervention of sustainable design studio using multidimensional scaling and pathfinder networks
Life Cycle Assessment and Judgement
Ethical aspects of life cycle assessments of diets
Linking Social Systems Analysis To The Industrial Ecology Framework
Value Choices in Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Stressors Causing Human Health Damage
Extending the Multiregional Input‐Output Framework to Labor‐Related Impacts
Choice of Allocations and Constructs for Attributional or Consequential Life Cycle Assessment and Input‐Output Analysis
Confronting Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Used for Decision Support
Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers
A Framework for Accurately Informing Facilitated Regional Industrial Symbioses on Environmental Consequences
Fit for Purpose? Rethinking Modeling in Industrial Ecology
Model uncertainty versus variability in the life cycle assessment of commercial fisheries
Using Life‐Cycle Assessment in Process Design
Spatial indeterminacy and the construction of environmental knowledge
Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy
Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis 1, 2
Judgment under Uncertainty
The structure of scientific revolutions
Social Choice and Individual Values
Risk and Rationality
ISO's Compromise on Comparative Assertions in Life Cycle Impact Assessment
Models of Man
Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy
Social Choice and Individual Values
Models of Man
Public Finance
| Citations per year | 0.64 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2001 - 2024 (24) |
| Highly cited | No |