Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits

By J. Bare, Patrick Hofstetter, D. Pennington, H. Haes. 2000

514 citations recorded by the source corpus.

On May 25–26, 2000 in Brighton (England), the third in a series of international workshops was held under the umbrella of UNEP addressing issues in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). The workshop provided a forum for experts to discuss midpoint vs. endpoint modeling. Midpoints are considered to be links in the cause-effect chain (environmental mechanism) of an impact category, prior to the endpoints, at which characterization factors or indicators can be derived to reflect the relative importance of emissions or extractions. Common examples of midpoint characterization factors include ozone depletion potentials, global warming potentials, and photochemical ozone (smog) creation potentials. Recently, however, some methodologies have adopted characterization factors at an endpoint level in the cause-effect chain for all categories of impact (e.g., human health impacts in terms of disability adjusted life years for carcinogenicity, climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone creation; or impacts in terms of changes in biodiversity, etc.). The topics addressed at this workshop included the implications of midpoint versus endpoint indicators with respect to uncertainty (parameter, model and scenario), transparency and the ability to subsequently resolve trade-offs across impact categories using weighting techniques. The workshop closed with a consensus that both midpoint and endpoint methodologies provide useful information to the decision maker, prompting the call for tools that include both in a consistent framework.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Environmental Engineering, Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48e533392465c881ffc6f341dbd84b87c20f902d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Environmental Engineering

In Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Citations in the corpus

Weighting in LCA Based on Ecotaxes - Development of a Mid-point Method and Experiences from Case Studies (2006, methodology): “Bare et al. 1999 and 2000, Jolliet et al 2004, Udo de Haes 1996, Udo de Haes and Wrisberg 1997, Udo de Haes et al. 1999a,b and 2002a,b). Recent reviews of LCIA methods include Udo de Haes et al (2002a) and Pennington et al.”
Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. (2009, background): “In fact, workshops focused on this topic concluded that a single framework with both should be used (Bare et al., 2000).”
Impact of normalisation, elicitation technique and background information on panel weighting results in life cycle assessment (2014, background): “LCIA results can be actualised from midpoint or endpoint approaches (Bare et al. 2000).”
Techno-economic and Life Cycle Assessment of methane production via biogas upgrading and power to gas technology (2017, unknown): “On the other hand, it should be noticed that their level of uncertainty is higher than midpoints indicators (Bare et al. 2000).”
TRACI the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (2002, methodology): “…discussion of the sophistication, accuracy, and complexity in life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA), including the consideration of temporal and spatial dimensions of potential impacts (ISO 14042) (Udo de Haes et al. 2002; Bare et al. 1999, 2000; Udo de Haes et al. 1999a, 1999b; Owens 1997).”