Quantification of social equity in life cycle assessment for increased sustainable production of sanitary products in Uganda

Musaazi, Moses; Mechtenberg, Abigail R.; Nakibuule, Juliet; Sensenig, Rachel; Miyingo, Emmanuel; Makanda, John Vianney; Hakimian, Ali; Eckelman, Matthew J.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.026

Cited by 46 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Arvidsson et al (2014) also note that indicators are actively treated differently across case studies depending on the context: for example, working hours are seen both as monotonically positive or likely negative in different case studies, suggesting that more consistent treatment of issues with U-shaped benefit curves might be beneficial for SLCA (2014). Additionally, there remain questions about what and whom SLCA is designed to do and help: for example, a company trying to design or improve its processes (Dreyer et al 2010;Luthe et al 2013;Musaazi et al 2015), a consumer trying to choose a preferred product , or a government trying to design policy Manik et al 2013;Ekener-Petersen et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA

Grubert

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA

Grubert

2016

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The recent work by Musaazi et al (2013) contributes significantly to the latter point by developing a pathway that takes into account consumers' equality of access to a vital sanitary product.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles

Bocoum

Macombe

Revéret

2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper presents a general impact assessment relationship, intended to contribute to the development of social life cycle analysis. This relationship and the conditions of its use are called the "Wilkinson pathway". When used for comparisons, the pathway assesses the anticipated change in the infant mortality rate caused by a change in income distribution in the population of a country, itself generated by an important change in a life cycle. Methods Since the 1980s, numerous authors have examined the relationship between income inequality and human health. Without formally proving so, these studies suggest that increases in inequality have negative consequences for health. First, this effect is re-examined using the most up-to-date time series data. Econometric modelling allowed calculating the coefficients of variation of infant mortality in relation to variations in income inequality for member and non-member Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, taking into account the lag time. Then, a method to translate the effect of an important economic change in a life cycle on income distribution is proposed. Results and discussion The econometric estimations show that a 1 % variation in income inequality leads to an approximately equivalent variation, with a lag time of about 15 years, in infant mortality in OECD member countries. The effect is two times larger than in non-OECD member countries. Together with input-output data, labour productivity and average wages in different economic sectors, this information makes it possible to quantify the probable effects of an important change in the life cycle production stage on income inequality and then infant mortality. Due to data constraints and the many assumptions made, the tools and results presented here should be used and interpreted cautiously. Above all, what is involved is a comparative method. An isolated result must not be interpreted in absolute terms. Conclusions This work is in line with efforts to formalize general pathways allowing a comparison of socioeconomic impacts linked to various important changes in the production stage of life cycles. There are diverse prospects for improvement. A challenge for further research will be to propose methods enabling assessments of the socioeconomic impacts generated in life cycle stages other than production.

show abstract

“…Versions of LCA based on user-side destinations for energies and recycled content for materials (e.g., [78]) stress intra-generation equity, as does the integrated environmental and economic form of LCA (e.g., [79]), whereas versions of LCA based on donor-side sources for energies (e.g., [80]) and end-of-life recycling for materials focus on inter-generation equity. Table 6 summarizes the suitability of CBA, MCA, and LCA for tackling these various issues.…”

Section: Projects For Environmental Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Four Sustainability Paradigms for Environmental Management: A Methodological Analysis and an Empirical Study Based on 30 Italian Industries

Zagonari

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops an empirical methodology to consistently compare alternative sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability (WS), strong sustainability (SS), a-growth (AG), and de-growth (DG)) and different assessment approaches (LCA, CBA, and MCA) within alternative relationship frameworks (economic general equilibrium (EGE) and ecosystem services (ESS)). The goal is to suggest different environmental interventions (e.g., projects vs. policies) for environmental management at national, regional, or local levels. The top-down methodology is then applied to 30 interdependent industries in Italy for three pollutants and four resources during two periods. The industries were prioritized in terms of interventions to be taken to diminish pollution damage and resource depletion, whereas sustainability paradigms were compared in terms of their likelihood (i.e., WS > AG = DG > SS), robustness (i.e., AG > SS > DG > WS), effectiveness (i.e., SS > AG > DG > WS), and feasibility (i.e., SS > DG > WS > AG). Proper assessment approaches for projects are finally identified for situations when policies are infeasible (e.g., LCA in WS and SS, MCA in DG and SS within ESS, CBA in WS, and AG within EGE), by suggesting MCA in WS within ESS once ecological services are linked to sustainability criteria.

show abstract

Quantification of social equity in life cycle assessment for increased sustainable production of sanitary products in Uganda

Cited by 46 publications

References 20 publications

Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA

Rigor in social life cycle assessment: improving the scientific grounding of SLCA

Anticipating impacts on health based on changes in income inequality caused by life cycles

Four Sustainability Paradigms for Environmental Management: A Methodological Analysis and an Empirical Study Based on 30 Italian Industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About