Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Tools for environmental impact and damage assessment
- 3 Exposure–response functions for health impacts
- 4 Impacts of air pollution on building materials
- 5 Agriculture, forests and ecosystems
- 6 Other impacts
- 7 Atmospheric dispersion of pollutants
- 8 Multimedia pathways
- 9 Monetary valuation
- 10 The costs of climate change
- 11 Uncertainty of damage costs
- 12 Key assumptions and results for cost per kg of pollutant
- 13 Results for power plants
- 14 Results for waste treatment
- 15 Results for transport
- 16 Lessons for policy makers
- Appendix A Nomenclature, symbols, units and conversion factors
- Appendix B Description of the RiskPoll software
- Appendix C Equations for multimedia model of Chapter 8
- Index
- References
2 - Tools for environmental impact and damage assessment
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Tools for environmental impact and damage assessment
- 3 Exposure–response functions for health impacts
- 4 Impacts of air pollution on building materials
- 5 Agriculture, forests and ecosystems
- 6 Other impacts
- 7 Atmospheric dispersion of pollutants
- 8 Multimedia pathways
- 9 Monetary valuation
- 10 The costs of climate change
- 11 Uncertainty of damage costs
- 12 Key assumptions and results for cost per kg of pollutant
- 13 Results for power plants
- 14 Results for waste treatment
- 15 Results for transport
- 16 Lessons for policy makers
- Appendix A Nomenclature, symbols, units and conversion factors
- Appendix B Description of the RiskPoll software
- Appendix C Equations for multimedia model of Chapter 8
- Index
- References
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 - 62Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014
References
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
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. and , eds. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2001.Google Scholar
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 , and 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
, and 2012. Health impact and damage cost assessment of pesticides in Europe. Environment International 49, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. 2007. Overview and Methodology. Final report ecoinvent data v2.0, No. 1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, CH.
, and 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
2013. Environmental Economics: An Integrated Approach. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL 33487.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2002). A decision support system for urban waste management. European Journal of Operational Research 109, 330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 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. ().
and 1997. Choosing a solid waste management system using multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 98, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization. Available at
, , , et al. (2003). IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. International Journal of LCA, 8(6), 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.
, , and 1995. EcoSense – an Integrated Tool for Environmental Impact Analysis. in: and (Ed.): Space and Time in Environmental Information Systems. Umwelt-Informatik aktuell, Band 7. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg.Google Scholar
and 2007. Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54 (2007) 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , 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
1999. Air Pollution and Buildings: an Estimation of Damage Costs in France. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 19(4), pp. 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2005. Uncertainty of Pollution Damage Cost Estimates: to What Extent does it Matter?Environmental Science & Technology 39(2), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
, , 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
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.
and 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
2009. On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar