Developing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment methodology by applying values-based sustainability weighting - Tested on biomass based and fossil transportation fuels

被引:84
作者
Ekener, Elisabeth [1 ]
Hansson, Julia [2 ,3 ]
Larsson, Aron [4 ]
Peck, Philip [5 ]
机构
[1] KTH Royal Inst Technol, Dept Sustainable Dev Environm Sci & Engn, Div Environm Strategies Res, S-10044 Stockholm, Sweden
[2] IVL Swedish Environm Res Inst, Climate & Sustainable Cities, POB 530 21, S-40014 Gothenburg, Sweden
[3] Chalmers Univ Technol, Dept Space Earth & Environm, Div Phys Resource Theory, S-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
[4] Stockholm Univ, Dept Comp & Syst Sci, POB 7003, S-16407 Kista, Sweden
[5] Lund Univ, IIIEE, Tegnersplatsen 4, Lund, Sweden
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
LCSA; Weighting; Values; Stakeholders; Transport; Biofuels; DECISION-MAKING; KEY ISSUES; LAND-USE; ENERGY; BIOETHANOL; FRAMEWORK; SUGARCANE; BIOENERGY; CHALLENGES; BIOFUELS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.211
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The production and use of transportation fuels can lead to sustainability impacts. Assessing them simultaneously in a holistic way is a challenge. This paper examines methodology for assessing the sustainability performance of products in a more integrated way, including a broad range of social impacts. Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) methodology is applied for this assessment. LSCA often constitutes of the integration of results from social LCA (S-LCA), environmental life cycle assessment (E-LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC). In this study, an S-LCA from an earlier project is extended with a positive social aspect, as well as refined and detailed. E-LCA and LCC results are built from LCA database and literature. Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology is applied to integrate the results from the three different assessments into an LCSA. The weighting of key sustainability dimensions in the MCDA is performed in different ways, where the sustainability dimensions are prioritized differently priority based on the assumed values of different stakeholder profiles (Egalitarian, Hierarchist, and Individualist). The developed methodology is tested on selected biomass based and fossil transportation fuels - ethanol produced from Brazilian sugarcane and US corn/maize, and petrol produced from Russian and Nigerian crude oils, where it delineates differences in sustainability performance between products assessed. The outcome in terms of relative ranking of the transportation fuel chains based on sustain ability performance differs when applying different decision-maker profiles. This result highlights and supports views that there is no one single answer regarding which of the alternatives that is most sustainable. Rather, it depends strongly upon the worldview and values held by the decision maker. A key conclusion is that sustainability assessments should pay more attention to potential differences in underlying values held by key stakeholders in relevant societal contexts. The LCSA methodology still faces challenges regarding results integration but MCDA in combination with stakeholder profiles appears to be a useful approach to build on further. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:337 / 351
页数:15
相关论文
共 111 条
[1]   Remote Sensing Time Series to Evaluate Direct Land Use Change of Recent Expanded Sugarcane Crop in Brazil [J].
Adami, Marcos ;
Theodor Rudorff, Bernardo Friedrich ;
Freitas, Ramon Morais ;
Aguiar, Daniel Alves ;
Sugawara, Luciana Miura ;
Mello, Marcio Pupin .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2012, 4 (04) :574-585
[2]  
ADEME, 2010, LIF CYCL ASS APPL 1
[3]  
Ahlroth S., 2009, DEV WEIGHTING SET BA
[4]   Ecovalue08-A new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools [J].
Ahlroth, Sofia ;
Finnveden, Goran .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2011, 19 (17-18) :1994-2003
[5]   Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools - suggestions for further developments [J].
Ahlroth, Sofia ;
Nilsson, Mans ;
Finnveden, Goran ;
Hjelm, Olof ;
Hochschorner, Elisabeth .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2011, 19 (2-3) :145-156
[6]  
[Anonymous], FUEL HIGH OCT FUT
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2010, 70 LUND U
[8]   Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: drawing on the NEEDS project's total cost and multi-criteria decision analysis ranking methods [J].
Bachmann, Till M. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2013, 18 (09) :1698-1709
[9]   An integrated approach for the consideration of uncertainty in decision making supported by Life Cycle Assessment [J].
Basson, L. ;
Petrie, J. G. .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2007, 22 (02) :167-176
[10]   The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: just in time! [J].
Benoit, Catherine ;
Norris, Gregory A. ;
Valdivia, Sonia ;
Ciroth, Andreas ;
Moberg, Asa ;
Bos, Ulrike ;
Prakash, Siddharth ;
Ugaya, Cassia ;
Beck, Tabea .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2010, 15 (02) :156-163