Modeling socioeconomic pathways to assess sustainability: a tailored development for housing retrofit

Touceda, M.; Neila, F. J.; Debouverie, Marc

doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1194-6

Cited by 23 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the approach (3.1), practitioners apply already known and already quantified impact pathways (meaning that a characterization factor has already been calculated) and calculate impact indicators. Arvidsson et al, (2016), Baumann et al (2013),and Touceda et al, (2016) use the inventory made in the framework of an Environmental LCA (i.e. E-LCI, physical inputs and outputs linked to a product life cycle) to calculate health impacts.…”

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Baumann et al 2013) or to other E-LCA impact categories as well (Arvidsson et al, 2016). While (Touceda et al, 2016) include impacts from near-field environment for the product use phase (as opposed to impacts from far-field environment, see (Huang et al, 2017)), it is not clear whether these impacts are taken into account in other studies of 3.1 group. (Iofrida et al, 2019) use existing researches in medical sciences mainly to assess health impacts on workers exposed to specific working conditions.…”

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Next to the publication of the above-mentioned literature reviews, other studies were published proposing, applying or discussing different approaches within the Type II impact pathway methodology (Arvidsson et al, 2016;Di Cesare, 2016;Iofrida et al, 2019;Neugebauer et al, 2016;Silveri, 2016;Sureau and Achten, 2018;Touceda et al, 2016;Weidema, 2018aWeidema, , 2018bWu et al, 2015). These studies and the previous ones are very different from each other, in their purposes, scopes and methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches

Sureau

Neugebauer

Achten

2019

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), we can distinguish two main types of impact assessment (LCIA): Type I can be seen as a reporting approach with the use of performance reference points; and Type II aims at including cause-effect chains or impact pathways in the analysis. Given the heterogeneity of those Type II approaches, this review provides a classification of existing Type II approaches. Methods: We reviewed a total of 28 articles against the background of their main purpose, the method used, the issues covered and the origin of data (observation/characterization/ measurement). We checked the articles against: i) the reflection of an impact pathway, ii) the availability of so-called inventory and impact indicators, iii) the presence of characterization models or factors translating correlations or causality. Results and discussion: The analysis reveals three main paths to include impact pathways in S-LCA, which differ in authors' intentions: 1) Some studies identify and propose variables composing impact pathways, or frameworks gathering several pathways; 2) other studies investigate or test known pathways empirically, and until now seek mainly to link income data with health impacts at a macro scale, and 3) a last batch applies known and already quantified characterization models or factors from other research works in case studies. Until now these case studies focus mainly on income-related social effects, or on health impacts. Further, each path is further characterized and classified under nine approaches. Our findings highlight the heterogeneous nature of approaches, but also their common denominator which is to not consider phenomena or impacts in isolation but to consider them in relation to their sources or further impacts. It should be noted that Type II studies are not limited to quantitative approaches and variables, but can also use more qualitative variables and methods. Conclusion & Outlook: The here presented classification may be used as a guidance tool for authors to make their methodological choices. Also, our findings indicate the opportunity of extending future Type II S-LCA research to variables tackled in Type I studies (e.g. safe and fair employment and working conditions), beyond pathways including incomes and health impacts. This can be done by using theories from social sciences for the identification of impact pathways. Those could then further be investigated through statistical approaches or in the framework of S-LCA case studies, with specific data and potentially more qualitative methods to analyze causality or social mechanisms.

show abstract

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches

Sureau

Neugebauer

Achten

2019

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They are authored by Arvidsson et al (2017), Weidema (2017), and Touceda et al (2017). The pathways are dealing respectively with the following impacts: human health; income inequality and loss of productivity by missing governance; and health of workers, health of households, and prosperity.…”

Section: New Impact Assessment For Type II S-lcamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These impacts are quantifiable from national statistics without a need to access detailed technology-or enterprise-specific data. Touceda et al (2017) (Modeling socioeconomic pathways to assess sustainability: a tailored development for housing retrofit) are searching for characterization models in S-LCA, resulting from the identification, combination, and adaptation of available methods, developed within various research fields. These methods analyze damages to the health of workers involved in the life cycle and to the health of the household living in the retrofitted dwelling.…”

Section: New Impact Assessment For Type II S-lcamentioning

confidence: 99%

Preface

Macombe

Zamagni

Traverso

2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing the incomparable? A review of methodical aspects in the sustainability assessment of wood in vehicles

Mair-Bauernfeind

Zimek

Lettner

et al. 2020

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The choice of materials used for a vehicle can contribute to reduce negative environmental and social impacts. Bio-based materials are considered a promising solution; however, the sustainability effects still need to be assessed. Depending on the material assessed, it is questionable which environmental and social impact categories or subcategories should be included since recommendations in guidelines are vague and case studies in this regard are limited. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on the choice of impact categories, methods, and indicators for E-LCA and S-LCA when assessing wood as substitute for conventional materials in automotive applications. Method The research is based on a literature review covering 115 case studies of S-LCAs and E-LCAs focusing either on wood-based products or on components in automotive applications. The selected case studies were analyzed according to the following criteria: considered stakeholder groups and chosen subcategories (S-LCA sample), sector or product system (S-LCA sample), year of publication and geographical scope (S-LCA and E-LCA sample), chosen LCIA method(s) and impact categories, objective(s) of the studies, analyzed materials and used software support (E-LCA samples). Results and discussion For S-LCA some relevant social topics for bio-based product systems, like food security or land- and worker-related concerns, could be identified. The E-LCA literature suggests that the objective and material type determine calculation approaches and impact category choices. Some material-related environmental issues like biodiversity loss in the case of bio-based product systems or ecotoxicity for steel and toxicity in the case of aluminum could be identified. For S-LCA the geographical and sectorial context and the affected stakeholders are the determining factors for methodical choices, however, the results show almost no difference in subcategory choice and geographical context. Influencing factors for methodical choices in E-LCA might be the objective of the study, data availability, the up-to-dateness of the LCIA approach, the geographical scope of the study, the materials analyzed, and the availability of software support. Conclusion Some relevant environmental and social impact categories as well as influencing factors on methodical choices could be identified from existing literature. However, a clear picture on these issues could not be drawn. Further research is needed on the motivation of researches on certain methodical choices as well as on environmental issues connected with materials or geographical-related social topics.

show abstract

Modeling socioeconomic pathways to assess sustainability: a tailored development for housing retrofit

Cited by 23 publications

References 19 publications

Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches

Different paths in social life cycle impact assessment (S-LCIA)—a classification of type II impact pathway approaches

Preface

Comparing the incomparable? A review of methodical aspects in the sustainability assessment of wood in vehicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About