Title: Evaluation of weighting methods for measuring the EU-27 overall environmental impact
Authors: HUPPES GjaltVAN OERS Lauran
Editors: MANFREDI SIMONE
PENNINGTON David
PRETATO Ugo
GORALCZYK MALGORZATA
PANT Rana
Publisher: Publications Office of the European Union
Publication Year: 2011
JRC N°: JRC67216
ISBN: 978-92-79-21643-5
ISSN: 1831-9424
Other Identifiers: EUR 24985 EN
OPOCE LB-NA-24985-EN-N
URI: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC67216
DOI: 10.2788/88465
Type: EUR - Scientific and Technical Research Reports
Abstract: In this project, seven operational weighting sets have been selected and have been applied to the intervention profiles of the EU28, the World and the Netherlands, not on time series. Three sets are available for the weighting applied on midpoint level. Three sets are available for the weighting applied on endpoint level. One set is available for the integrated modelling and weighting, applied on intervention level. All weighting sets applied on midpoint level refer to interactive panel weighting, i.e. EPA, BEES, and NOGEPA. Two weighting sets applied on endpoint level refer to panel weighting, i.e. Ecoindicator99 and LIME. One weighting set, ReCiPe damage, refers to weighting on endpoint level using damage cost based on willingness-to-pay (WtP) valuation, which is itself based on panels but usually not interactive panels. All methods have specific advantages and disadvantages, on which diverging views exist. Midpoint approaches have a clear modelling basis with mutually inconsistent elements and they rely on extensive subjective estimates in the combined further-modelling-and weighting step. Endpoint models can have a weak modelling step after the midpoint and then are conceptually similar to the valuation step in the economics oriented integrated modelling and weighting. The integrated modelling approach has some strong points in modelling (e.g. in climate modelling), but is weak in its further modelling. The valuation step of this approach is best specified, based on thoroughly tested but not unquestionable methods. The seven selected and expanded operational weighting methods have been combined into a single meta-weighting set. This combined weighting set can be varied as to the strength of the individual methods in determining the outcome. The application to a time series of European data suggests that there is not a wide divergence between the different weighting methods, at least as developed and applied in this report. This means that the choice of specific weighting methods may not have an overarching influence on outcomes and the combined set of meta-weights may reasonably reflect different positions in weighting. Nevertheless, this may also be linked to some of the adaptations and extrapolations across methods made in this project.
JRC Institute:Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
reqno_jrc67216_lb-na-24985-en-n_pdf.pdf678.76 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
reqno_jrc67216_lb-na-24985-en-n.doc5.7 MBMicrosoft WordView/Open


Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.