文章基本信息

标题：Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review
本地全文：下载
作者：Rosalie Arendt ; Till M. Bachmann ; Masaharu Motoshita 等
期刊名称：Sustainability
印刷版ISSN：2071-1050
出版年度：2020
卷号：12
期号：24
页码：10493
DOI：10.3390/su122410493
语种：English
出版社：MDPI, Open Access Journal
摘要：Different LCA methods based on monetization of environmental impacts are available. Therefore, relevant monetization methods, namely Ecovalue12, Stepwise2006, LIME3, Ecotax, EVR, EPS, the Environmental Prices Handbook, Trucost and the MMG-Method were compared quantitatively and qualitatively, yielding results for 18 impact categories. Monetary factors for the same impact category range mostly between two orders of magnitude for the assessed methods, with some exceptions (e.g., mineral resources with five orders of magnitude). Among the qualitative criteria, per capita income, and thus the geographical reference, has the biggest influence on the obtained monetary factors. When the monetization methods were applied to the domestic yearly environmental damages of an average EU citizen, their monetary values ranged between 7941.13 €/capita (Ecotax) and 224.06 €/capita (LIME3). The prioritization of impact categories varies: Stepwise and Ecovalue assign over 50% of the per capita damages to climate change, while EPS and LIME3 assign around 50% to mineral and fossil resource use. Choices regarding the geographical reference, the Areas of Protection included, cost perspectives and the approach to discounting strongly affect the magnitude of the monetary factors. Therefore, practitioners should choose monetization methods with care and potentially apply varying methods to assess the robustness of their results.