Share This Article:

Application of LCA by Using Midpoint and Endpoint Interpretations for Urban Solid Waste Management

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:2816KB) PP. 1091-1103
DOI: 10.4236/jep.2014.512107    2,952 Downloads   4,208 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most widely used methods of decision support. However, few studies have examined whether stakeholders prefer midpoint or endpoint approaches. In this regard, the present study examines the attitudes toward urban solid waste management, environmental issues, and scenario evaluations by using midpoint and endpoint interpretations of LCA results. This study introduces three types of social groups that typically respond to environmental conflicts: the individualist, hierarchist, and egalitarian groups. Although residents are likely to recognize global impacts as the most important issue, their view is likely to change depending on system and avoided emissions. Consistent with the Seoul Metropolitan Area’s new policy designed to increase the incineration ratio, almost half of all respondents preferred the scenario. Noteworthy is that the respondents’ preference for midpoint and endpoint decision-making tools is not consistent with that in previous studies. Most of the respondents indicated that the midpoint approach would be better in evaluating environmental systems.

Cite this paper

Yi, S. , Kurisu, K. and Hanaki, K. (2014) Application of LCA by Using Midpoint and Endpoint Interpretations for Urban Solid Waste Management. Journal of Environmental Protection, 5, 1091-1103. doi: 10.4236/jep.2014.512107.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Kim, K.S. (1992) A Study on Just Compensation in Case of Detestable Facilities. The Journal of Soonchunhyang University, 15, 851-870 (in Korean).
[2] Scharnhorst, W., Kohler, A., Rebitzer, G., Hischier, R. and Jolliet, O. (2004) Progress in Modern Life Cycle Assessment: Practice and Research. 14th SETAC Europe Annual Meeting, 19th-22nd April 2004, Prague.
[3] Thompson, M., Ellis, R. and Wildavsky, A. (1990) Cultural Theory. Westview Press, Boulder.
[4] Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R.T. (1999) The Eco-Indicator 99: A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. PRe Consultants, Amersfoort.
[5] Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, AM., Struijs, J. and Van Zelm, R. (2008) ReCiPe 2008. A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level; First Edition Report I. Characterisation. VROM, Den Haag.
[6] Rippl, S. (2002) Cultural Theory and Risk Perception: A Proposal for a Better Measurement. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 147-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669870110042598
[7] Oh, S.G. andChae, J.H. (2003) The Analysis of the Cultural Types of Korean Central State Apparatus Based on the Grid-Group Cultural Theory. Korean Society and Public Administration Research, 14, 45-68 (in Korean).
[8] Kim, S.Y. (2005) Saemanguem Project: Cultural Analysis of Environmental Conflicts. The International Review of Public Administration, 39, 43-66 (in Korean).
[9] Miettinen, P. and Hamalainenr, P.(1997) How to Benefit from Decision Analysis in Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research, 102, 279-294.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00109-4
[10] Heijungs, R., Goedkoop, M., Struijs, J., Effting, S., Sevenster, M. and Huppes, G. (2003) Towards a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. The Netherlands.
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/ssp/publications/recipe_phase1.pdf
[11] Lenzen, M. (2006) Uncertainty in Impact and Externality Assessments—Implications for Decision-Making. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11, 189-199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2005.04.201
[12] Yi, S., Kurisu, H.K. and Hanaki, K. (2011) Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Interpretation of Municipal Solid Waste Management Scenarios Based on the Midpoint and Endpoint Approaches. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16, 652-668.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0297-3
[13] Yi, S., Yoo, K.Y. and Hanaki, K. (2011) Characteristics of MSW and Heat Energy Recovery between Residential and Commercial Areas in Seoul. Waste Management, 31, 595-602.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.008
[14] Seoul City (2014) Seoul City Statistics 2012.
http://stat.seoul.go.kr/index.jsp
[15] Gyongki Province (2014) Gyongki Province Statistics in 2012.
http://stat.gg.go.kr/
[16] Schlossberg, H. (1993) HCBs Designed to Convert NIMBY to YIMBY-FAPs. Marketing News 27:2.
[17] Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D. (1996) The Role of Compensation in Siting Hazardous Facilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15, 601-622.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199623)15:4%3C601::AID-PAM6%3E3.0.CO;2-L
[18] Richardson, P.J. (1998) A Review of Benefits Offered to Volunteer Communities for Siting Nuclear Waste Facilities. Geosciences for Development and the Environment, United Kingdom.
[19] Park, S. and Lah, T.J. (2006) The Impact of WTE Facility on Housing Value. International Review of Public Administration, 10, 75-83 (in Korean).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2006.10805070
[20] Itsubo, N. and Inaba, A. (2003) A New LCIA Method: LIME Has Been Completed. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8, 305.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02978923

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.