Search

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmentally extended input–output analyses (EEIOA) are two techniques commonly used to assess environmental impacts of an activity/product. Their strengths and weaknesses are complementary, and they are thus regularly combined to obtain hybrid LCAs. A number of approaches in hybrid LCA exist, which leads to different results. One of the differences is the method used to ensure that mixed LCA and EEIOA data do not overlap, which is referred to as correction for double counting. This aspect of hybrid LCA is often ignored in reports of hybrid assessments and no comprehensive study has been carried out on it. This article strives to list, compare, and analyze the different existing methods for the correction of double counting. We first harmonize the definitions of the existing correction methods and express them in a common notation, before introducing a streamlined variant. We then compare their respective assumptions and limitations. We discuss the loss of specific information regarding the studied activity/product and the loss of coherent financial representation caused by some of the correction methods. This analysis clarifies which techniques are most applicable to different tasks, from hybridizing individual LCA processes to integrating complete databases. We finally conclude by giving recommendations for future hybrid analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates opportunities for increased profit and reduced emissions and cost by service differentiation within container shipping. Traditionally the strategy among the container lines has been profit maximization by utilizing economies of scale through the building of larger and faster vessels. In 2008, the financial crisis in combination with higher fuel prices put an end to this progress and in today’s market operators are basically trying to survive by providing standardized services at the lowest possible cost. This study investigates alternative strategies and the results indicate that container lines should provide two different services instead of one standardized service. A fast service to be more competitive versus air freight for fast-moving goods and a slow service to be more competitive versus traditional shipping types for transport of minor bulk, break bulk, liquid bulk and project cargo. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Forest Research is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)