Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T20:11:57.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Tools for environmental impact and damage assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Ari Rabl ,
Joseph V. Spadaro  and
Mike Holland
Ari Rabl
Affiliation:
Ecole des Mines, Paris
Joseph V. Spadaro
Affiliation:
Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain
Mike Holland
Affiliation:
Ecometrics Research and Consulting (EMRC)
Get access

Summary

Summary

Countless tools, models and software packages have been developed for the analysis of environmental problems. This chapter focuses on tools that allow the assessment of environmental impacts and the comparison of technologies and policy choices. Impact Pathway Analysis (IPA) is presented in some detail because it is the correct approach for quantifying impacts and damage costs of pollution. Section 2.2 is an introduction to IPA; detailed discussions of the various elements follow in Chapters 3 to 9. We also discuss Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the relation between LCA and IPA. Difficulties and problems with the use of the various tools are addressed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. Section 2.6 proposes an integrated framework for the analysis of environmental questions.

Overview of tools

Starting point: the DPSIR framework

There are a great number of tools, methods and models for the analysis of environmental problems. They differ in approach and objectives, but there is also much overlap and they are difficult to classify in a systematic scheme. We will not attempt a systematic survey but will focus instead on a few key features that are crucial for decision making, namely the ability to:

  • define the appropriate scope for the analysis,

  • model the dispersion of the pollutant(s) in the environment,

  • calculate the exposure of the receptors,

  • calculate the impacts,

  • assign monetary values to the impacts,

  • rank the options and identify the best choice(s).

Type
Chapter
Information
How Much Is Clean Air Worth?
Calculating the Benefits of Pollution Control
 , pp. 21 - 62
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Curran, M. A. 2006. Report on Activity of Task Force 1 in the Life Cycle Inventory Programme: Data Registry – Global Life Cycle Inventory Data Resources. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(4), 284–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ExternE 2000. External Costs of Energy Conversion – Improvement of the ExternE Methodology and Assessment of Energy-related Transport Externalities. Final Report for Contract JOS3-CT97-0015, published as Environmental External Costs of Transport. Friedrich, R. and Bickel, P., eds. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2001.Google Scholar
ExternE 2008. With this reference we cite the methodology and results of the NEEDS (2004–2008) and CASES (2006–2008) phases of ExternE. For the damage costs per kg of pollutant and per kWh of electricity we cite the numbers of the data CD that is included in the book edited by Markandya, A., Bigano, A. and Porchia, R. in 2010: The Social Cost of Electricity: Scenarios and Policy Implications. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK. They can also be downloaded from (although in the latter some numbers have changed since the data CD in the book).Google Scholar
Fantke, P., Friedrich, R. and Jolliet, O. 2012. Health impact and damage cost assessment of pesticides in Europe. Environment International 49, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.-J. et al. 2007. Overview and Methodology. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0, No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH.
Frith, C. H., Littlefield, N. A. and Umholtz, R. 1981. Incidence of pulmonary metastases for various neoplasms in BALB/cStCrlfC3H/Nctr female mice fed N-2-fluorenylacetamide. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 66, 703–712.Google ScholarPubMed
Graves, P. 2013. Environmental Economics: An Integrated Approach. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL 33487.Google Scholar
Haastrup, P., Maniezzo, V., Mattarelli, M. et al. (2002). A decision support system for urban waste management. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, T., Bauer, C. and Dones, R. 2009. Development of parameterisation methods to derive transferable life cycle inventories – Technical guideline on parameterisation of life cycle inventory data. Report RS1a D4.1, NEEDS (New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability). European Commission. ().
Hokkanen, J. and Salminen, P. 1997. Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 98, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO 2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization. Available at
Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., et al. (2003). IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal of LCA, 8(6), 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JRC 2010. ILCD Handbook: Analysing of existing Environmental Impact Assessment methodologies for use in Life Cycle Assessment. First edition. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Krewitt, W., Trukenmueller, A., Mayerhofer, P. and Friedrich, R. 1995. EcoSense – an Integrated Tool for Environmental Impact Analysis. in: Kremers, H. and Pillmann, W. (Ed.): Space and Time in Environmental Information Systems. Umwelt-Informatik aktuell, Band 7. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg.Google Scholar
Muller, N. Z. and Mendelsohn, R. 2007. Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54 (2007) 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottinger, R. L. et al. 1991. Environmental Costs of Electricity. Oceana Publications, New York.Google Scholar
Pennington, D., Crettaz, P., Tauxe, A. et al. 2002. Assessing human health response in life cycle assessment using ED10s and DALYs: part 2 – noncancer effects. Risk Analysis 22 (5), 947–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabl, A. 1999. Air Pollution and Buildings: an Estimation of Damage Costs in France. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19(4), pp. 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabl, A., Spadaro, J. V. and van der Zwaan, B. 2005. Uncertainty of Pollution Damage Cost Estimates: to What Extent does it Matter?Environmental Science & Technology 39(2), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stritt, M. A. 1993. Coût des salissures causées aux bâtiments par le trafic routier: aspects méthodologiques et résultats empiriques pour la ville de Neuchâtel (Suisse) (Cost of soiling of buildings caused by road traffic: methodological aspects and empirical results for the town of Neuchâtel (Switzerland)). Science of the Total Environment 134, issue 1–3 (June 25, 1993), p. 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thun, M. J., Peto, R., Lopez, A. D. et al. 1997. Alcohol consumption and mortality among middle-aged and elderly U.S. adults. New England J Medicine 337 (24), 1705–1714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vad, K. A. 2008. Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Impact Pathway Analysis: an analysis of their differences and insights to be gained from their integration. Graduation Project September 2008. Master of Science Industrial Ecology, Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Vaillancourt, K. and Waaub, J-P. 2002. Environmental site evaluation of waste management facilities embedded into EUG_EENE model: A multicriteria approach. European Journal of Operational Research 139, 436–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. 2009. On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. and Crouch, E. A. C. 2001. Risk-Benefit Analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×