在生命周期评估中对产品置换进行更切合实际的估算。

IF 10.8 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
环境科学与技术 Pub Date : 2024-09-17 Epub Date: 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1021/acs.est.4c04006
Jingcheng Yang, Linlin Duan, Shitong Peng, Reinout Heijungs, Xinyi Geng, Peng Wang, Wei-Qiang Chen, Yi Yang
{"title":"在生命周期评估中对产品置换进行更切合实际的估算。","authors":"Jingcheng Yang, Linlin Duan, Shitong Peng, Reinout Heijungs, Xinyi Geng, Peng Wang, Wei-Qiang Chen, Yi Yang","doi":"10.1021/acs.est.4c04006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most widely applied methods for sustainability assessment. A main application of LCA is to compare alternative products to identify and promote those that are more environmentally friendly. Such comparative LCA studies often rest on, explicitly or implicitly, an idealized assumption, namely, 1:1 displacement between functionally equivalent products. However, product displacement in the real world is much more complicated, affected by various factors such as the rebound effect and policy schemes. Here, we quantitatively review studies that have considered these aspects to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of realistic displacement estimates across several major product categories (biofuels, electricity, electric vehicles, and recycled products). Results show that displacement ratios concentrate around 40-60%, suggesting considerable overestimation of the benefits of alternative products if the 1:1 displacement assumption was used. Overall, there have been a small number of modeling studies on realistic product displacement and their scopes were limited. Additional research is needed to cover more product categories and geographies and improve the modeling of market and policy complexities. As such research accumulates, their displacement estimates can form a database that can be drawn upon by comparative LCA studies to more accurately determine the environmental impacts of alternative products.</p>","PeriodicalId":36,"journal":{"name":"环境科学与技术","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward More Realistic Estimates of Product Displacement in Life Cycle Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Jingcheng Yang, Linlin Duan, Shitong Peng, Reinout Heijungs, Xinyi Geng, Peng Wang, Wei-Qiang Chen, Yi Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.est.4c04006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most widely applied methods for sustainability assessment. A main application of LCA is to compare alternative products to identify and promote those that are more environmentally friendly. Such comparative LCA studies often rest on, explicitly or implicitly, an idealized assumption, namely, 1:1 displacement between functionally equivalent products. However, product displacement in the real world is much more complicated, affected by various factors such as the rebound effect and policy schemes. Here, we quantitatively review studies that have considered these aspects to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of realistic displacement estimates across several major product categories (biofuels, electricity, electric vehicles, and recycled products). Results show that displacement ratios concentrate around 40-60%, suggesting considerable overestimation of the benefits of alternative products if the 1:1 displacement assumption was used. Overall, there have been a small number of modeling studies on realistic product displacement and their scopes were limited. Additional research is needed to cover more product categories and geographies and improve the modeling of market and policy complexities. As such research accumulates, their displacement estimates can form a database that can be drawn upon by comparative LCA studies to more accurately determine the environmental impacts of alternative products.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"环境科学与技术\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"环境科学与技术\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c04006\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"环境科学与技术","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c04006","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生命周期评估(LCA)是应用最广泛的可持续性评估方法之一。生命周期评估的一个主要应用是对替代产品进行比较,以确定和推广更环保的产品。此类生命周期评估比较研究通常或明或暗地基于一个理想化的假设,即功能等同的产品之间存在 1:1 的置换。然而,现实世界中的产品置换要复杂得多,受到反弹效应和政策方案等各种因素的影响。在此,我们定量回顾了考虑这些方面的研究,以评估几个主要产品类别(生物燃料、电力、电动汽车和再生产品)的现实位移估计值的大小和分布情况。结果表明,替代率集中在 40-60% 左右,这表明如果使用 1:1 的替代率假设,替代产品的效益被高估了很多。总体而言,有关现实产品替代的建模研究为数不多,而且范围有限。需要开展更多的研究,以涵盖更多的产品类别和地域,并改进市场和政策复杂性的建模。随着这些研究的不断积累,它们的置换估算可以形成一个数据库,供生命周期评估比较研究使用,从而更准确地确定替代产品对环境的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Toward More Realistic Estimates of Product Displacement in Life Cycle Assessment.

Toward More Realistic Estimates of Product Displacement in Life Cycle Assessment.

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most widely applied methods for sustainability assessment. A main application of LCA is to compare alternative products to identify and promote those that are more environmentally friendly. Such comparative LCA studies often rest on, explicitly or implicitly, an idealized assumption, namely, 1:1 displacement between functionally equivalent products. However, product displacement in the real world is much more complicated, affected by various factors such as the rebound effect and policy schemes. Here, we quantitatively review studies that have considered these aspects to evaluate the magnitude and distribution of realistic displacement estimates across several major product categories (biofuels, electricity, electric vehicles, and recycled products). Results show that displacement ratios concentrate around 40-60%, suggesting considerable overestimation of the benefits of alternative products if the 1:1 displacement assumption was used. Overall, there have been a small number of modeling studies on realistic product displacement and their scopes were limited. Additional research is needed to cover more product categories and geographies and improve the modeling of market and policy complexities. As such research accumulates, their displacement estimates can form a database that can be drawn upon by comparative LCA studies to more accurately determine the environmental impacts of alternative products.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
环境科学与技术
环境科学与技术 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
17.50
自引率
9.60%
发文量
12359
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) is a co-sponsored academic and technical magazine by the Hubei Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau and the Hubei Provincial Academy of Environmental Sciences. Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) holds the status of Chinese core journals, scientific papers source journals of China, Chinese Science Citation Database source journals, and Chinese Academic Journal Comprehensive Evaluation Database source journals. This publication focuses on the academic field of environmental protection, featuring articles related to environmental protection and technical advancements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信