The Need for a Preference‐Based Multicriteria Prioritization Framework in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

Grubert, Emily

doi:10.1111/jiec.12631

Cited by 35 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This communication may imply weighting and aggregating indicator results by, for example, applying (multicriteria) decision analysis methods (Guinée ). In this special issue, Wulf and colleagues (), Kalbar and colleagues (), and Grubert () investigate preferred practices to obtain single scores.…”

Section: Communicating Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grubert () examines the challenges of incorporating subjective information necessary for defining the major elements of a decision based on an LCSA study: prospects to decide among, uncertainty, risk attitudes, and preferences in this decision framework. The author argues that given LCSA's “broad scope, explicit and standardized inter‐category preferences are important for improving its value for decision makers.” From the author's perspective, LCA practitioners should not be solely responsible for the value judgments necessary to integrate impact categories within and across any of the three evaluations of LCSA (E‐LCA, S‐LCA, and LCC).…”

Section: Communicating Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method was found to be more suitable in the process of estimating single scores. Grubert (2017) examines the challenges of incorporating subjective information necessary for defining the major elements of a decision based on an LCSA study: prospects to decide among, uncertainty, risk attitudes, and preferences in this decision framework. The author argues that given LCSA's "broad scope, explicit and standardized inter-category preferences are important for improving its value for decision makers."…”

Section: Communicating Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Kalbar et al. ; Grubert ); incorporating technological, economic, and political mechanisms at various levels of analysis through linking or integration of LCA with other types of models (Wu et al. ; Plevin ; Kua ); developing appropriate, preferably quantitative and practical, approaches for S‐LCA (Kühnen and Hahn ; Hardadi and Pizzol ; Corona et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This special issue seeks answers to these questions as part of our concerted effort as a community of LCA researchers and users to reinforce the pertinence of the life cycle concept and IE to the latest thinking in sustainable development. The articles in this special issue advance the discussion of these questions along four lines: 1) addressing conceptual challenges of broadening of impacts while maintaining a cohesive, yet comprehensive approach (Schaubroeck and Rugani 2017); 2) communicating LCSA results to decision makers applying weighting schemes and dealing with value choices and subjectivity (Wulf et al 2017;Kalbar et al 2016;Grubert 2017); 3) incorporating technological, economic, and political mechanisms at various levels of analysis through linking or integration of LCA with other types of models (Wu et al 2017;Plevin 2016;Kua 2017); 4) developing appropriate, preferably quantitative and practical, approaches for S-LCA (Kühnen and Hahn 2017;Hardadi and Pizzol 2017;Corona et al 2017;Suckling and Lee 2017). We discuss each of the lines and the contributions to further development published in this special issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Charting the Future of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Special Issue

Thomas

Guinée

Kau

et al. 2017

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Communicating Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communicating Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communicating Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Charting the Future of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Special Issue

Thomas

Guinée

Kau

et al. 2017

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water for energy: Characterizing co‐evolving energy and water systems under twin climate and energy system nonstationarities

Grubert

Marshall

2022

WIREs Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The energy system is a major water user, but understanding how much water is consumed and withdrawn for energy is a challenging empirical task: nonevaporative volumetric water use is not easily calculated from first principles. Water use also has impacts that differ in important ways depending on where water is abstracted and used, timing of use, and socioenvironmental context. Moreover, different decarbonization pathways and policy environments have very different water use implications. We currently face a crisis of twin nonstationarities in hydrology and energy systems that make understanding water use for energy critical for decision support as hydroclimate and energy systems change. Currently, water‐for‐energy data are highly uncertain and not centrally collected, which means researchers spend substantial effort collecting inventory data. Recent advances in impact assessment methods for water volumes focus largely on spatially resolved water scarcity evaluations, but robust conclusions can be elusive due to uncertain and low‐metadata inventory information. As water‐for‐energy quantification efforts progress, research should emphasize decision support for energy system design, incorporating crucial hydrologic dynamics. Beyond the location of water use, relative scarcity, and potential competing uses, these include sub‐daily to interannual temporal dynamics, the impacts of climate change on these dimensions, potential feedbacks between energy and water systems, and the impacts of hydrologic variability or change on policy‐based incentive structures. This article reviews prior US‐focused efforts to quantify water use for energy, highlights why these nonstationarities are analytically relevant with a brief policy case study, and highlights research needs for decision support under twin nonstationarities. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of Water Engineering Water > Planning Water Engineering Water > Methods

show abstract

Designing the mid‐transition: A review of medium‐term challenges for coordinated decarbonization in the United States

Grubert

Hastings‐Simon

2022

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decarbonizing the energy system is critical for addressing climate change. Given the dominance of fossil fuels in the energy system, decarbonization requires rapid and significant industrial transition of the energy supply at scale. This includes explicit and coordinated plans not only for zero carbon phase-in, but for fossil carbon phase-out. Even very rapid decarbonization will likely take decades, leading to a medium-term future where the conventional, fossil-based energy system coexists with a new, zero-carbon energy system. Each imposes operational constraints on the other: what we call the mid-transition. Notably, this coexistence means that the new, zero-carbon system will develop under fossil carbon system constraints. The mid-transition will therefore likely require specific analytical metrics designed to support decision making under dynamic and uncertain conditions. Many aspects of transition will be felt, and shaped, directly by individuals because of our direct interactions with energy systems.Even rare missteps are likely to have significant and potentially system designrelevant impacts on perception, political support, and implementation. Comparisons of the new system to the old system are likely to rest on experience of a world less affected by climate change, such that concerns about lower reliability, higher costs, and other challenges might be perceived as inherent to zero-carbon systems, versus energy systems facing consequences of climate change and longterm underinvestment. This review assesses and evaluates medium-term challenges associated with the mid-transition in the United States, emphasizing the need for explicit planning for joint and coordinated phase-in and phase-out.

show abstract

The Need for a Preference‐Based Multicriteria Prioritization Framework in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment

Cited by 35 publications

References 106 publications

Charting the Future of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Special Issue

Charting the Future of Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Special Issue

Water for energy: Characterizing co‐evolving energy and water systems under twin climate and energy system nonstationarities

Designing the mid‐transition: A review of medium‐term challenges for coordinated decarbonization in the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About