Premium
Survey Insights into Weighting Environmental Damages: Influence of Context and Group
Author(s) -
Mettier Thomas M.,
Hofstetter Patrick
Publication year - 2004
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 - 10.1162/1088198043630469
Subject(s) - damages , weighting , valuation (finance) , framing (construction) , marine strategy framework directive , environmental resource management , life cycle assessment , environmental economics , actuarial science , business , economics , geography , ecosystem , ecology , medicine , macroeconomics , archaeology , finance , political science , law , radiology , production (economics) , biology
When one models impact pathways due to stressors that are caused by the provision of product systems, it results in indicators for environmental damages. These indicators are incommensurable and cannot be compared per se. For example, the statistical life years lost for a human population cannot necessarily be compared with the potentially affected fraction of species within an ecosystem. However, some decision makers who use life‐cycle assessment (LCA) prefer a single index, because it facilitates interpretation better than a multi‐indicator system. This requires a method for aggregating environmental damages of differing types, thereby confronting LCA with a valuation problem. The article describes a nonmonetary approach to valuation in LCA that incorporates the findings of a survey among LCA practitioners and users. The survey focuses on the weighting of three safeguard subjects for Eco‐indicator 99, a damage‐oriented impact‐assessment method: human health, ecosystem quality, and resources. Of particular interest here is what influence the context provided in the survey (framing) and an individual's characteristics have on his or her weighting of environmental damages. The results indicate that damages on the European level are easier to compare than damages on a micro level. Additionally, although only half of the survey participants could be classified unequivocally into one of three cultural perspectives, each perspective rated the damage categories presented to them significantly differently from the others. Our conclusions were that framing effects need to be more carefully considered in weighting procedures and that weighting preferences vary significantly according to a group's archetypical attitudes.