Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Weighting

  • Chapter
Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Abstract

In the ISO 14044 standard 2006, weighting is an optional step in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). It enables the user to integrate various environmental impacts in order to facilitate the interpretation of the life cycle assessment (LCA) results. Many different weighting methodologies have been proposed and several are currently being used regularly. Most existing studies apply the average of the responses obtained from the people (i.e. the decision makers) that were sampled. Others believe that weighting factors should be based on the preferences of society as a whole so that LCA practitioners can successfully apply them to products and services everywhere. This chapter classifies methods of weighting into three categories: proxy, midpoint, and endpoint methods. Results using proxy methods, such as MIPS (Material Input Per Service), CED (Cumulative Energy Demand), TMR (Total Material Requirement), Ecological Footprint, and CExD (Cumulative Exergy Demand), are fairly easy to understand because physical quantities such as weight and energy are used. The advantages of midpoint methods include compliance with the ISO framework and how it permits weighting that uses characterisation results. Endpoint methods allocate weights to Areas of Protection (AoP) rather than at midpoints, reducing the number of subject items and simplifying interpretation. Recently, weighting with endpoint methods has attracted attention due to the advancement of characterisation methodologies of this type. This chapter presents the different features of weighting and integration approaches applied in LCIA. The important differences and future problems concerning five key endpoint weighting methods are described. It concludes with a brief summary of the key features of the weighting methods introduced herein.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahbe S, Braunschweig A, Müller-Wenk R (1990) Method for ecobalancing based on ecological optimization. Bundesamtfür Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft, Bern, p 39

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney PR, Learner EE, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed Regist 58(10):4602–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • Bösch M, Hellweg S, Huijbregts M, Frischknecht R (2007) Applying cumulative exergy demand (CExD) indicators to the ecoinvent database. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(3):181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunschweig A, Müller-Wenk R (1993) Ökobilanzen für Unternehmungen. Eine Wegleitung für die Praxis. Bern/Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Bringezu S, Behrensmeier R, Schutz H (1998) Material flow accounts indicating environmental pressure from economic sectors. In: Uno K, Bartelmus P (eds) Environmental accounting in theory and practice. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp 213–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, de Oude N, Fava J, Franklin W, Quay B, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Seguin J, Vigon B (eds) (1993) Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a ‘Code of Practice’, 1st edn. SETAC-Europe, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005) In: Bickel P, Friedrich R (ed) ExternE, externalities of energy, methodology 2005 update. ISBN 92-79-00423-9

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013) 2013/179/EU: Commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. Off J Eur Union 56

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G (1997) Valuation methods within LCA – where are the values? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(3):163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Östlund P (1997) Exergies of natural resources in life-cycle assessment and other applications. Energy 22:923–931

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2006) The ecological scarcity method – Eco-factors: a method for impact assessment in LCA. 2009, Federal Office for the Environment FOEN: Zürich und Bern. Retrieved from www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01031/index.html?lang=en. Accessed 29 Mar 2014

  • Goedkoop M (1995) The Eco-indicator 95. Final report and manual for designers. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1998) Environmental assessment of products, vol 2, Scientific background. Chapman & Hall/Kluwer Academic Publishers, London/Hingham, p 565

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée J, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Sleeswijk AW, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, Van Duin R, De Goede HP (1992) Environmental life-cycle assessment of products-guide. Center of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden Univ, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment. A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Ph.D. Thesis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Huppes G, Sas H, Haan E, Kuyper J (1997) Efficiënte milieu investeringen. Milieu 3:126–133

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006 – environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Standards Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Itsubo N (2000) Screening life cycle impact assessment with weighting methodology based on simplified damage functions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(5):273–280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Itsubo N, Inaba A (2005) Life cycle impact assessment method, LIME—a methodology and database for LCA, environmental accounting and ecoefficiency. Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Itsubo N, Inaba A (eds) (2012) LIME2 life-cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling. Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry. http://lca-forum.org/english/. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Inaba A (2012) Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolliet O, Crettaz P (1997) Critical surface-time 95. A life cycle impact assessment methodology including fate and exposure. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Institute of Soil and Water Management, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitzes J, Peller A, Goldfinger S, Wackernagel M (2007) Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts. Sci Environ Sustain Soc 4(1):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Krewitt W, Trukenmüller A, Friedrich R (1999) Site dependent LCIA impact indicators for human health from integrated air quality and exposure modeling. Poster presented at the 9th annual meeting of SETAC-Europe, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee KM (1999) A weighting method for the Korean Eco-Indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(3):161–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeijer EW (1996) Normalisation and valuation, Part VI. In: Guinée JB (ed) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindeijer EW (2000) Impact assessment of resources and land use. Report of the SETAC WIA-2 taskforce on resources and land. 6th draft

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Rönning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995) Nordic guidelines on life-cycle assessment, vol 1995:20, Nord. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno Y, Inaba T, Mizuno T (1999) Development of site-and source-specific life cycle impact assessment methodology for local impact categories. 9th annual meeting of SETAC-Europe, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki N, Siegenthaler C, Kumagai S, Shinozuka E, Nagayama A (2003) JEPIX – Japan Environmental Policy Priorities Index, Japan Science and Technology Inc/Sustainable Management Forum Japan, Tokyo, in Japanese

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Wenk R (1997) Safeguard subjects and damage functions as core elements of life-cycle impact assessment, vol 42, IWÖ-Diskussionsbeitrag, Institut für Wirtschaft und Ökologie, Universität St. Gallen (IWÖ-HSG)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagata K, Fujii Y, Ishikawa M (1995) Proposing a valuation method based on panel data, preliminary report, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • PUMA (2010) PUMA’s environmental profit and loss account for the year ended 31 December 2010. http://about.puma.com/wp-content/themes/aboutPUMA_theme/financial-report/pdf/EPL080212final.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2014

  • PwC World Watch Issue (2011) Puma’s reporting highlights global business challenges. http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/corporate-reporting/sustainability-reporting/pumas-reporting-highlights-global-business-challenges.jhtml. Accessed 10 Feb 2010

  • Saling P, Kicherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002) Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4):203–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Bleek F (1994) Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch – MIPS, das Maß für ökologisches Wirtschaften. Birkhäuser, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product development (EPS) version 2000—models and data of the default method. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Steen B, Ryding SO (1992) The EPS enviro-accounting method. An application of environmental accounting principles for evaluation and valuation of environmental impact in product design. IVL Report B 1080. IVL, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Toshiba (2009) Advancing together with factor T 2009. http://www.toshiba.eu/eu/Environmental-Management/Factor-T/. Accessed 14 Dec 2011

  • van de Meent D (1999) Potentieel aangetaste tractie als maatlat voor toxische druk op ecosystemen. RIVM rapport nr. 60750400, RIVM, Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  • VDI-Richtlinie (1997) Cumulative energy demand, terms, definitions, methods of calculation. Band 4600 VDI-Richtlinien, Beuth

    Google Scholar 

  • Wackernagel M, Rees WE (1996) Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. Press New Society Publishing, Gabriola

    Google Scholar 

  • Walz R, Herrchen M, Keller D, Stahl B (1996) Impact category ecotoxicity and the valuation procedure. Ecotoxicological impact assessment and the valuation step within LCA Pragmatic approaches. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:193–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Hou P, Zhang H, Weng D (2011) A novel weighting method in LCIA and its application in Chinese policy context. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Towards life cycle sustainability management. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 65–72

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel H, Hauschild MZ, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products, vol 1, Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall/Kluwer Academic Publishers, London/Hingham, p 544

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yasui I (1998) A new scheme of life cycle impact assessment method based on the consumption of time. 3rd Int. Conf. on Ecobalance, Tsukuba

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshimura Y, Komatsu I, Itsubo N (2011) Life cycle impact assessment and approaches for reducing the environmental impact of each type of container, Technical Report. J Life Cycle Assess, Japan 7(3):264–273

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, Tokyo City University, Yokohama, 3-3-1, Ushikubo-Nishi, Tsuzuki-ku, Yokohama, Japan

    Norihiro Itsubo

Authors
  1. Norihiro Itsubo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norihiro Itsubo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Lyngby, Denmark

    Michael Z. Hauschild

  2. Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Mark A.J. Huijbregts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Itsubo, N. (2015). Weighting. In: Hauschild, M., Huijbregts, M. (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment. LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9744-3_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation