Premium
Value Choices in Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Stressors Causing Human Health Damage
Author(s) -
De Schryver An M.,
van Zelm Rosalie,
Humbert Sebastien,
Pfister Stephan,
McKone Thomas E.,
Huijbregts Mark A. J.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00371.x
Subject(s) - individualism , value (mathematics) , climate change , scarcity , economics , natural resource economics , psychology , ecology , biology , mathematics , statistics , microeconomics , market economy
Summary This article investigates how value choices in life cycle impact assessment can influence characterization factors (CFs) for human health (expressed as disability‐adjusted life years [DALYs]). The Cultural Theory is used to define sets of value choices in the calculation of CFs, reflecting the individualist, hierarchist, and egalitarian perspectives. CFs were calculated for interventions related to the following impact categories: water scarcity, tropospheric ozone formation, particulate matter formation, human toxicity, ionizing radiation, stratospheric ozone depletion, and climate change. With the Cultural Theory as a framework, we show that individualist, hierarchist, and egalitarian perspectives can lead to CFs that vary up to six orders of magnitude. For persistent substances, the choice in time horizon explains the differences among perspectives, whereas for nonpersistent substances, the choice in age weighting and discount rate of DALY and the type of effects or exposure routes account for differences in CFs. The calculated global impact varies by two orders of magnitude, depending on the perspective selected, and derives mainly from particulate matter formation and water scarcity for the individualist perspective and from climate change for the egalitarian perspective. Our results stress the importance of dealing with value choices in life cycle impact assessment and suggest further research for analyzing the practical consequences for life cycle assessment results.