Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited
Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/su6074200
复制
发表时间：
2014-07
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Ruqun Wu;Daniel Yang;Jiquan Chen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ruqun Wu;Daniel Yang;Jiquan Chen
为了促进社会生命周期评估(SLCA)的发展，我们对最近开发的影响评估框架、方法和表征模型进行了全面的回顾，以供未来的方法开发者和SLCA实践者使用。之前的两次审查是我们这次审查的基础。我们更新了审查，包括最近开发的SLCA框架、方法和表征模型的全面清单。虽然第2至4节从目标、数据和指标的角度对不同的框架/方法进行了简要讨论，但本审查的重点是第5节，其中讨论了不同方法的影响评估的表征模型。按照环境署/SETAC准则，将表征模型分为两类：没有影响路径的第一类模型和有影响路径的第二类模型。与包含类型I/II特征模型的方法不同，本文还讨论了另一种生命周期建模方法--生命周期属性评估(LCAA)。我们得出的结论是，结合I型或II型模型的方法都有局限性。对于第一类模型，挑战在于系统地确定相关利益攸关方和重要性问题；而对于第二类模型，关键是确定最接近和准确地代表现实世界因果关系的影响路径。LCAA可能会避免这些问题，但最终的问题不同于使用I型和II型模型的方法提出的问题。
To promote the development of Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA), we conducted a comprehensive review of recently developed frameworks, methods, and characterization models for impact assessment for future method developers and SLCA practitioners. Two previous reviews served as our foundations for this review. We updated the review by including a comprehensive list of recently-developed SLCA frameworks, methods and characterization models. While a brief discussion from goal, data, and indicator perspectives is provided in Sections 2 to 4 for different frameworks/methods, the focus of this review is Section 5 where discussion on characterization models for impact assessment of different methods is provided. The characterization models are categorized into two types following the UNEP/SETAC guidelines: type I models without impact pathways and type II models with impact pathways. Different from methods incorporating type I/II characterization models, another LCA modeling approach, Life Cycle Attribute Assessment (LCAA), is also discussed in this review. We concluded that methods incorporating either type I or type II models have limitations. For type I models, the challenge lies in the systematic identification of relevant stakeholders and materiality issues; while for type II models, identification of impact pathways that most closely and accurately represent the real-world causal relationships is the key. LCAA may avoid these problems, but the ultimate questions differ from those asked by the methods using type I and II models.