Inclusive environmental impact assessment indices with consideration of public acceptance: Application to power generation technologies in Japan

Applied Energy

Volumn 144, Issue , 2015, Pages 64-72

  Takahashi, Tomoki ^a,b   Sato, Toru ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b Mitsubishi UFJ Research and Consulting Co Ltd ^*  (Japan)

Author keywords

Emergy; Environmental impact assessment; Power generation technology; Public acceptance; Social cost; Triple I

Indexed keywords

ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY; MODEL REFERENCE ADAPTIVE CONTROL; SURVEYS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ANTHROPOGENIC SYSTEMS; ECONOMIC FEASIBILITIES; EMERGY; ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS; POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGY; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS; SOCIAL COST;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT; EMERGY; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; POWER GENERATION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT; SUSTAINABILITY; THERMAL POWER; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

JAPAN;

EID: 84922466622     PISSN: 03062619     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.053     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. United Nations: Agenda 21; 1992.
2. Elkington J. Cannibals with forks; the triple bottom line of 21st century business 1998, New Society Publishers, p. 407.
3. Willard B. The sustainability advantage seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line 2002, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, p. 203.
4. 2 ocean sequestration against ocean surface acidification. J Jpn Soc Naval Archit Ocean Eng 2008, 8:9-16. [in Japanese].
5. Otsuka K. Inclusive impact index "Triple I". Bull Jpn Soc Naval Archit Ocean Eng 2011, 38:15-18. [in Japanese].
6. Odum H.T. Environmental accounting, emergy and environmental decision making 1996, John Wiley & Sons INC, p. 370.
7. Onat N., Bayar H. The sustainability indicators of power production systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010, 14:3108-3115.
8. van Asselt M.B.A. Perspectives on uncertainty and risk: the PRIMA approach to decision support 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 434. ISBN 0-7923-656-5.
9. Rashad S.M., Hammad F.H. Nuclear power and the environment: comparative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generating systems. Appl Energy 2000, 65:211-229.
10. Wang Z., Zhang B., Zhang Y. Determinants of public acceptance of tiered electricity price reform in China: evidence from four urban cities. Appl Energy 2012, 91:235-244.
11. Hensher D.A., Shore N., Train K. Willingness to pay for residential electricity supply quality and reliability. Appl Energy 2014, 115:280-292.
12. Brown M.T., Ulgiati S. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the geobiosphere: a review and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecol Model 2010, 221:2501-2508.
13. Jorge L.H., Bhavik R.B. Promise and problems of emergy analysis. Ecol Model 2004, 178:215-225.
14. Siche R., Pereira L., Agostinho F., Ortega E. Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 2010, 15:3182-3192.
15. Kuriyama K. Conjoint analysis in Excel (Version 1.1). School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, working paper #0302; 2003 [in Japanese].
16. Afgan N.H., Carvalho M.G., Hovanov N.V. Energy system assessment with sustainability indicators. Energy Policy 2000, 28:603-612.
17. Carrera D.G., Mack A. Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: result of a survey among European energy experts. Energy Policy 2012, 38:1030-1039.
18. May J.R., Brennan D.J. Sustainability assessment of Australian electricity generation. Process Saf Environ Prot 2006, 84:131-142.
19. Stamford L., Azapagic A. Sustainability indicators for the assessment of nuclear power. Energy 2011, 36:6037-6057.
20. Ribeiro F., Ferreira P., Araujo M. The inclusion of social aspect in power planning. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011, 15:4361-4369.
21. Wang J., Jing Y., Zhang C., Zhao J. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009, 13:2263-2278.
22. WWF Japan. Ecological footprint report for Japan for 2009; 2010.
23. Global Footprint Network. Ecological footprint and biocapacity in 2008; 2008. [accessed on 05.07.12]. http://www.footprint%20network.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/.
24. Federici M., Ulgiati S., Verdesca D., Basosi R. Efficiency and sustainability indicators for passenger and commodities transportation systems. Ecol Ind 2003, 3:155-169.
25. Lei K., Zhou S. Per capita resource consumption and resource carrying capacity: a comparison of the sustainability of 17 mainstream countries. Energy Policy 2012, 42:603-612.
26. University of Florida. National environmental accounting database. [accessed on 08.07.12]. http://sahel.ees.ufl.edu/frame_database_resource%20s_test.php?search_type=basic%26country=DEU.
27. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Leamer EE, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 1993. p. 14.
28. Itaoka K. Economic evaluation of the cost of reducing health risk for determining the environmental external cost of energy use. PhD thesis, Tokyo University; 2011 [in Japanese].
29. Yamamoto S., Oka T. Statistical life estimation based on a survey of the willingness to pay for reducing risk related to drinkable water. Environ Sci 1994, 7-4:289-301. [in Japanese].
30. Takeuchi K, Kishimoto A, Tsuge T. Estimating the value of statistical life with the stated preferences approach. In: Proceedings, 2001 conference of the society for environmental economics and policy studies; 2001. p. 196-7 [in Japanese].
31. Tsuge T., Kishimoto A., Takeuchi K. A choice experiment approach to the valuation of mortality. J Risk Uncert 2005, 31-1:73-95.
32. Iwakura S., Ishida H., Hayashiyama Y., Nehashi A., Hori K. Estimating social costs of global warming based on multiple contingent valuation surveys - considering application to cost-benefit analysis in the transport sector. Transp Policy Stud 2000, 2-4:2-11. [in Japanese].
33. Itsubo N, Inaba A. Life-cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME): evaluation method and database for LCA, environmental accounting, and environmental efficiency. Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry; 2005 [in Japanese].
34. Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Economics, Trade, and Industry. The 2005 input-output tables for Japan; 2009 [in Japanese].
35. Cost Verification Committee, National Policy Unit. Cost verification committee report; 2011 [in Japanese].
36. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S, editors. Intergovemental panel on climate change. IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation; 2011.
37. Imamura E, Nagano K. Evaluation of life cycle CO2 emissions of power generation technologies: update for state-of-the-art plants. Central Research Institute of Electric Power for Industry Report Y99009; 2010 [in Japanese].
38. Hondo H. Evaluation of nuclear power generation technologies based on life cycle CO2 emissions. Central Research Institute of Electric Power for Industry Report Y01106; 2001 [in Japanese].
39. Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. History and current status of the electricity pricing system; 2011 [in Japanese].
40. Yoshimoto H., Tabeta S., Hakuta K. Inclusive environmental impact assessment for artificial upwelling technology using seabed mound. J Jpn Soc Naval Archit Ocean Eng 2010, 11:221-227. [in Japanese].
41. Sweeney S, Cohen M, King D, Brown M. Creation of a global emergy database for standardized national emergy synthesis. In: Bardi E, et al., editors. Emergy synthesis 4: proceedings of the 4th Biennial emergy research conference; 2007. p. 23.1-18.
42. 2 sequestration in the form of gas hydrate under seafloor. J Jpn Soc Naval Archit Ocean Eng 2006, 3:35-46. [in Japanese].