在教学生命周期评估中使用违反直觉的可持续性示例:一个案例研究

IF 5.4 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Resources, conservation & recycling advances Pub Date : 2023-06-13 DOI:10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200165
Andrea Hicks
{"title":"在教学生命周期评估中使用违反直觉的可持续性示例:一个案例研究","authors":"Andrea Hicks","doi":"10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Popular media has reinforced ideas of what products are or are not environmentally detrimental, often only considering a fraction of the overall product life cycle, such as the end of life for single use products, or a single environmental consideration. This leads to counterintuitive sustainability examples, where a product is commonly thought to be much more environmentally impactful than its counterparts, but that actually is not universally true. Single use plastic drinking straws are one such example, which were used as the course project in a project based life cycle assessment (LCA) course. Students’ perceptions of which straws were the best and worst for the environment were surveyed both before and after the course, in order to see first the effect of the popular media on the initial ranking and second how the ranking changed after completion of the course project. Reflections on the course experience were also utilized to gauge how the students’ understanding of both LCA and sustainability changed as a result of the course. In general, students’ understanding of which straw option had the greatest and least environmental impact changed as a result of the course, in particular enabling a more nuanced view of environmental impact. The guided student reflections indicated four major areas of focus regarding the relationship between sustainability and LCA: LCA as revealing truth, LCA for decision making, single use products are not always the most environmentally impactful, and using LCA to change their concept of what is sustainable.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74689,"journal":{"name":"Resources, conservation & recycling advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using counterintuitive sustainability examples in teaching life cycle assessment: A case study\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Hicks\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Popular media has reinforced ideas of what products are or are not environmentally detrimental, often only considering a fraction of the overall product life cycle, such as the end of life for single use products, or a single environmental consideration. This leads to counterintuitive sustainability examples, where a product is commonly thought to be much more environmentally impactful than its counterparts, but that actually is not universally true. Single use plastic drinking straws are one such example, which were used as the course project in a project based life cycle assessment (LCA) course. Students’ perceptions of which straws were the best and worst for the environment were surveyed both before and after the course, in order to see first the effect of the popular media on the initial ranking and second how the ranking changed after completion of the course project. Reflections on the course experience were also utilized to gauge how the students’ understanding of both LCA and sustainability changed as a result of the course. In general, students’ understanding of which straw option had the greatest and least environmental impact changed as a result of the course, in particular enabling a more nuanced view of environmental impact. The guided student reflections indicated four major areas of focus regarding the relationship between sustainability and LCA: LCA as revealing truth, LCA for decision making, single use products are not always the most environmentally impactful, and using LCA to change their concept of what is sustainable.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74689,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resources, conservation & recycling advances\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resources, conservation & recycling advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667378923000378\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resources, conservation & recycling advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667378923000378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流行媒体强化了什么产品对环境有害或不有害的想法,通常只考虑整个产品生命周期的一小部分,例如一次性产品的寿命结束,或单一的环境考虑。这导致了违反直觉的可持续性例子,一种产品通常被认为比其同类产品对环境的影响大得多,但事实并非如此。一次性塑料吸管就是这样一个例子,它被用作基于项目的生命周期评估(LCA)课程的课程项目。在课程前后,调查了学生对哪种吸管对环境最好和最差的看法,目的是首先了解大众媒体对最初排名的影响,其次了解课程项目完成后排名的变化。对课程经验的反思也被用来衡量学生对生命周期评价和可持续性的理解是如何因课程而改变的。总的来说,学生们对哪种秸秆选择对环境影响最大和最小的理解随着课程的进行而发生了变化,尤其是对环境影响的看法更加微妙。指导学生的反思指出了关于可持续性和生命周期评价之间关系的四个主要关注领域:生命周期评价揭示真相,生命周期评价用于决策,一次性产品并不总是对环境影响最大,以及使用生命周期评价改变他们对可持续性的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Using counterintuitive sustainability examples in teaching life cycle assessment: A case study

Popular media has reinforced ideas of what products are or are not environmentally detrimental, often only considering a fraction of the overall product life cycle, such as the end of life for single use products, or a single environmental consideration. This leads to counterintuitive sustainability examples, where a product is commonly thought to be much more environmentally impactful than its counterparts, but that actually is not universally true. Single use plastic drinking straws are one such example, which were used as the course project in a project based life cycle assessment (LCA) course. Students’ perceptions of which straws were the best and worst for the environment were surveyed both before and after the course, in order to see first the effect of the popular media on the initial ranking and second how the ranking changed after completion of the course project. Reflections on the course experience were also utilized to gauge how the students’ understanding of both LCA and sustainability changed as a result of the course. In general, students’ understanding of which straw option had the greatest and least environmental impact changed as a result of the course, in particular enabling a more nuanced view of environmental impact. The guided student reflections indicated four major areas of focus regarding the relationship between sustainability and LCA: LCA as revealing truth, LCA for decision making, single use products are not always the most environmentally impactful, and using LCA to change their concept of what is sustainable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Resources, conservation & recycling advances
Resources, conservation & recycling advances Environmental Science (General)
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
76 days
期刊最新文献
Attitudes and preferences of the Chinese public towards products made from recycled materials: A text mining approach Decoding sustainable consumption behavior: A systematic review of theories and models and provision of a guidance framework A two-step approach to recycling hydroponics waste nutrient solutions using fertiliser drawn forward osmosis and chemical precipitation Electrolysis and waste heat utilisation in the sustainable transition of Germany's energy system Cost factors affecting the utilisation of secondary materials in the construction sector: A systematic literature review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1