96
5.3.12 What Subjective Value Choices and Optional Elements
Beyond the Primary Inputs and Outputs Influence
the Study?
One general limitation in LCA practice comes from subjective value choices that
individual practitioners make. It may surprise some designers, who regularly make
subjective aesthetic and performative value judgments for a living and who are
looking at LCA to guide them in more objective decision-making methods, to learn
that subjectivity is a typical LCA consideration. The main difference between
design and LCA may be how subjective value choices are explicitly stated and managed in a scientific framework. Where designers are not typically required to overtly
identify and document what parts of their work is subjective and objective, best
practices dictate that LCA practitioners do this.
Personal beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and the perception of risks determine a
person’s general perspective or outlook on the world. Perspective influences the
value choices a practitioner makes about many fundamental elements in an
LCA. Decisions regarding the type, amount, and quality of data to use, what characterization factors will be used to compare them, and what environmental impact
categories are included or excluded all affect the results of the study.
An Maria De Schryver shows how the LCA community has used evolving cultural theory models to view and partially control for bias created by a range of personally held values. Individual perspectives regarding the natural world’s general
stability influencing choices can fall into five general architypes: the individualist,
the hierarchist, the egalitarian, the fatalist, and the hermit. Of these, the hermit
chooses to disengage from the world completely, and the fatalist perceives himself
to be a victim to forces over which he has no agency and so neither is engaged in
environmental decision-making. The individualist sees the world as supremely
abundant and resilient. From this perspective, future consequences are negligible
for any market-driven action that maximizes present value. The hierarchist recognizes the need to take responsibility for our collective actions in order to maintain
nature’s healthy equilibrium. Here, management decisions balance present and
future value. The egalitarian sees nature as fragile and unstable and seeks solutions
that, above all, do no harm to present and future generations.
De Schryver points out the limitations of these models and further cautions that
practitioners, decision-makers, and other stakeholders do not usually neatly identify
with a single archetype. Any of us can simultaneously straddle two or more of them
or change our perspectives depending on our role in society at that time. Depending
on the persistence of specific substances in the environment and impact categories
considered, the practical difference between an individualist and an egalitarian perspective can vary widely and can substantially increase uncertainty in an impact
assessment (De Schryver 2010).
While more research is underway in quantifying the effects of the wide range of
value judgements, there are currently no natural science-based procedures that can
be used to meaningfully aggregate them across impact categories. Fundamental
5 Life Cycle Assessment
5.3.12 What Subjective Value Choices and Optional Elements
Beyond the Primary Inputs and Outputs Influence
the Study?
One general limitation in LCA practice comes from subjective value choices that
individual practitioners make. It may surprise some designers, who regularly make
subjective aesthetic and performative value judgments for a living and who are
looking at LCA to guide them in more objective decision-making methods, to learn
that subjectivity is a typical LCA consideration. The main difference between
design and LCA may be how subjective value choices are explicitly stated and managed in a scientific framework. Where designers are not typically required to overtly
identify and document what parts of their work is subjective and objective, best
practices dictate that LCA practitioners do this.
Personal beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and the perception of risks determine a
person’s general perspective or outlook on the world. Perspective influences the
value choices a practitioner makes about many fundamental elements in an
LCA. Decisions regarding the type, amount, and quality of data to use, what characterization factors will be used to compare them, and what environmental impact
categories are included or excluded all affect the results of the study.
An Maria De Schryver shows how the LCA community has used evolving cultural theory models to view and partially control for bias created by a range of personally held values. Individual perspectives regarding the natural world’s general
stability influencing choices can fall into five general architypes: the individualist,
the hierarchist, the egalitarian, the fatalist, and the hermit. Of these, the hermit
chooses to disengage from the world completely, and the fatalist perceives himself
to be a victim to forces over which he has no agency and so neither is engaged in
environmental decision-making. The individualist sees the world as supremely
abundant and resilient. From this perspective, future consequences are negligible
for any market-driven action that maximizes present value. The hierarchist recognizes the need to take responsibility for our collective actions in order to maintain
nature’s healthy equilibrium. Here, management decisions balance present and
future value. The egalitarian sees nature as fragile and unstable and seeks solutions
that, above all, do no harm to present and future generations.
De Schryver points out the limitations of these models and further cautions that
practitioners, decision-makers, and other stakeholders do not usually neatly identify
with a single archetype. Any of us can simultaneously straddle two or more of them
or change our perspectives depending on our role in society at that time. Depending
on the persistence of specific substances in the environment and impact categories
considered, the practical difference between an individualist and an egalitarian perspective can vary widely and can substantially increase uncertainty in an impact
assessment (De Schryver 2010).
While more research is underway in quantifying the effects of the wide range of
value judgements, there are currently no natural science-based procedures that can
be used to meaningfully aggregate them across impact categories. Fundamental
5 Life Cycle Assessment