IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jenpmg/v51y2008i1p81-105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental Assessment Framework for Policy Applications: Life Cycle Assessment, External Costs and Multi-criteria Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ari Rabl
  • Mike Holland

Abstract

The paper presents a framework for the analysis of external costs of environmental burdens, namely an impact pathway analysis, often coupled with the inventory stage of life cycle assessment (LCA). The ground rule is: quantify as much as possible in terms of burdens (pollutant emissions, etc.), impacts, and their monetary equivalent, then use multi-criteria analysis (MCA) for any remaining impacts that are considered to be too uncertain or defy quantification through to monetization. Although MCA could be used directly on estimates of burdens or impacts, monetary valuation provides a mechanism for consistent weighting of impacts categories based on assessment of public preference. Further advantages of extending LCA through detailed impact assessment combined with monetary valuation are that it greatly simplifies MCA by combining a large number of different environmental impact categories, thereby avoiding an unmanageably large number of criteria, and also facilitates cost benefit analysis (CBA). The risks are noted of inappropriate use of the tools or interpretation/use of the results, and recommendations are made for improved practice. These points are illustrated with examples. The key messages are: (1) that policies should be targeted correctly to give a clear signal which source of a burden should be reduced by how much; (2) that analysts should take into account the needs of policy makers and the link between the analysis and possible policy applications; and (3) that current LCA practice gives limited guidance in both areas, largely through a lack of consideration of the relative and absolute importance of different types of impact. However, this is precisely the strength of external costs analysis, particularly when used with MCA.

Suggested Citation

  • Ari Rabl & Mike Holland, 2008. "Environmental Assessment Framework for Policy Applications: Life Cycle Assessment, External Costs and Multi-criteria Analysis," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 81-105.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:51:y:2008:i:1:p:81-105
    DOI: 10.1080/09640560701712275
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560701712275
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640560701712275?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brand, Christian, 2016. "Beyond ‘Dieselgate’: Implications of unaccounted and future air pollutant emissions and energy use for cars in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-12.
    2. Dimitrijević, Zinaida & Tatić, Kasim, 2012. "The economically acceptable scenarios for investments in desulphurization and denitrification on existing coal-fired units in Bosnia and Herzegovina," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 597-607.
    3. Bachmann, Till M. & van der Kamp, Jonathan, 2014. "Environmental cost-benefit analysis and the EU (European Union) Industrial Emissions Directive: Exploring the societal efficiency of a DeNOx retrofit at a coal-fired power plant," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 125-139.
    4. Claudio Carnevale & Fabrizio Ferrari & Giorgio Guariso & Giuseppe Maffeis & Enrico Turrini & Marialuisa Volta, 2018. "Assessing the Economic and Environmental Sustainability of a Regional Air Quality Plan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:51:y:2008:i:1:p:81-105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.