hig.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Multi-criteria-based evaluation of digital carbon footprint tools from a household user perspective
University of Gävle, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, Environmental Science.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5661-2917
2024 (English)In: Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526, E-ISSN 1879-1786, Vol. 481, article id 144151Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions significantly impact the environment and human health, but many people are unaware of how their daily choices affect climate change. Carbon calculators estimate emissions in sectors like construction, digital health, transportation, and food production. However, they are still developing and face challenges that require attention from both industry and academia. Researchers highlight the absence of a unified framework for assessing these tools, leading to simplistic binary evaluations, which result in inaccuracies in household tool evaluations. In the current study, an assessment framework has been created by integrating existing binary frameworks and incorporating the MCDA method for weighted multi-criteria evaluation, offering a quantitative scoring system for qualitative criteria. This dual-criteria framework addresses both practical and academic aspects of the evaluated tools. The framework was used to evaluate 15 tools chosen for their prominence in search engine results and their impact on scientific publications. Findings revealed that tools such as Svalna, WWF calculator, and Carbon Savvy produce comparable results, while others, like the UN CF calculator, show deviations up to 136 tons. The study highlights challenges related to feasibility, availability of resources, and user engagement, noting that the criterion for accessibility for special groups received a score of zero across all CF tools. The work is expected to yield enhanced understanding that will aid in the selection of appropriate CF tools, foster sustainable practices, and offer developers direction to ensure their designs conform to established standards.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier , 2024. Vol. 481, article id 144151
Keywords [en]
Digital CF tools, CF tool evaluation framework, Multi-criteria analysis
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-46037DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144151ISI: 001355499700001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85208289612OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-46037DiVA, id: diva2:1914035
Available from: 2024-11-18 Created: 2024-11-18 Last updated: 2024-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(3581 kB)52 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 3581 kBChecksum SHA-512
4fe9235f4ae684d9894659ab2a33eced288387f448ffbf74437026abcfafce0da1688c70133d46bd9d68b7c50f8116d6687238cebe1d04e339f2ca97bd8bbd7c
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Eriksson, Ola

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Spandonidis, ChristosBelioka, Maria-ParaskeviEriksson, Ola
By organisation
Environmental Science
In the same journal
Journal of Cleaner Production
Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 52 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 152 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf