Article PDF
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Schmidt W-P, Sullivan J (2002): Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. Int J LCA 7 (1): 5–10
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973): Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 4: 207–232
Van der Pligt J, van Schie ECM, Hoevenagel R (1998): Understanding and valuing environmental issues: The effects of availability and anchoring on judgement. Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie 45 (4):286–302
Baron J (1997): Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychological Bulletin 122 (1): 72–88
Hofstetter P: Looking at the full picture—Implications associated with valuation. In: Bare J, Hofstetter P, Pennington D, Udo de Haes HA (eds) Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits. Proceedings of the UNEP/USEPA/CML Expert Workshop, Brighton (UK), May 25&26,2000 (in press)
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000): The Eco-indicator’99: A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. VROM Zoetermeer, No. 1999/36A/B, 2nd ed April 2000 (http://www.pre.nl)
Hofstetter P (1996): Towards a structured aggregation proce- dure. In: Braunschweig A, Förster R, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R (eds) Developments in LCA valuation. IWö Diskus- sionbeitrag, St. Gallen, ppl22–211
Hofstetter P (1998): Perspectives in life cycle impact assess- ment. A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere, and valuesphere. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Hofstetter P, Braunschweig A, Mettier Th, Mueller-Wenk R, Tietje O (2000): The mixing triangle: Correlation and graphi- cal decision support for LCA-based comparisons. Journal of Industrial Ecology 3 (4): 97–115
Finnveden G (1997): Valuation methods within LCA-Where are the values? Int J LCA 2 (3): 163–169
Hofstetter P, Scheringer M (eds) (1997): Schutzgüter undihre Abwägung aus der Sicht verschiedener Disziplinen. [Safeguard subjects and their trade-offs highlighted from the view of dif- ferent disciplines, in German] Vorbereitende Unterlagen des 5. Diskussionsforums ökobilanzen vom 17. Oktober 1997 an der ETH Zürich. Umweltnatur- und Umweltsozialwissen- schaften/ Gruppe Sicherheit und Umweltschutz, ETH Zurich
Tukker A (1999): Frames in the toxicity controversy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Bras-Klapwijk RM (1999): Adjusting Life Cycle Assessment methodology for use in public policy discourse. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology
Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000): A theoretical foundation for life-cycle assessment. Recognizing the role of values in environmental decision making. Journal of Indus- trial Ecology 4 (1): 13–28
Hofstetter P, Baumgartner Th, Scholz RW (2000): Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: Integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J LCA 5 (3):161–175
Hofstetter P, Lippiatt BC, Bare JC (2002): User preferences for life cycle decision support tools: Evaluation of a survey of BEES Users. Report to be published by NIST, see http://www.bfrl. nist. gov/oae/software/bees.html
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hofstetter, P. The value debate: ecodesign in a global context are there differences in global values and do they matter?. Int J LCA 7, 62–63 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978848
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978848