SCIRP Mobile Website

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.


Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat

Article citations


Kim, S.Y. (2005) Saemanguem Project: Cultural Analysis of Environmental Conflicts. The International Review of Public Administration, 39, 43-66 (in Korean).

has been cited by the following article:

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

    AUTHORS: Sora Yi, Kiyo H. Kurisu, Keisuke Hanaki

    KEYWORDS: LCIA, Environmental Impact, Environmental Damage, Cultural Theory, LIME, Social Preference, NIMBY

    JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol.5 No.12, September 23, 2014

    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.