Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review

Rosalie Arendt, Till M. Bachmann, Masaharu Motoshita, Vanessa Bach and Matthias Finkbeiner
Additional contact information
Rosalie Arendt: Department of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany
Till M. Bachmann: EIFER—European Institute for Energy Research, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
Masaharu Motoshita: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba 305-8569, Japan
Vanessa Bach: Department of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany
Matthias Finkbeiner: Department of Sustainable Engineering, Institute of Environmental Technology, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 24, 1-39

Abstract: Different LCA methods based on monetization of environmental impacts are available. Therefore, relevant monetization methods, namely Ecovalue12, Stepwise2006, LIME3, Ecotax, EVR, EPS, the Environmental Prices Handbook, Trucost and the MMG-Method were compared quantitatively and qualitatively, yielding results for 18 impact categories. Monetary factors for the same impact category range mostly between two orders of magnitude for the assessed methods, with some exceptions (e.g., mineral resources with five orders of magnitude). Among the qualitative criteria, per capita income, and thus the geographical reference, has the biggest influence on the obtained monetary factors. When the monetization methods were applied to the domestic yearly environmental damages of an average EU citizen, their monetary values ranged between 7941.13 €/capita (Ecotax) and 224.06 €/capita (LIME3). The prioritization of impact categories varies: Stepwise and Ecovalue assign over 50% of the per capita damages to climate change, while EPS and LIME3 assign around 50% to mineral and fossil resource use. Choices regarding the geographical reference, the Areas of Protection included, cost perspectives and the approach to discounting strongly affect the magnitude of the monetary factors. Therefore, practitioners should choose monetization methods with care and potentially apply varying methods to assess the robustness of their results.

Keywords: monetization; monetary valuation; LCA; weighting; environmental valuation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10493/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10493/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10493-:d:462685

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().