On the meaning of the distance-to-target weighting method and normalisation in Life Cycle Impact assessment

LCA methodology

Abstract

Distance-to-target weighting methods are widely used in life cycle impact assessment. The methods rank impacts as being more important the further away society’s activities are from achieving the desired targets for the pollutants. However, we feel that the scientific bases of the distance-to-target methods still need more clarification. This article illustrates how multiattribute value theory (MAVT) can be applied to interpret the impact category weights as well as the aggregation rule and normalisation used in the distant-to-target methods. Our comparison revealed that under certain conditions two of the three commonly used impact assessment methods (Ecoindicator 95, ET-method) applying distance-to-target weighting are consistent with the impact assessment framework derived from MAVT. This consistency holds for non-zero targets with equal importance and linear damage functions passing through the origin. We show that the MAVT framework offers a foundation for the methodological development in life cycle impact assessment.

Key words

Comparisons damage functions environmental impacts LCA Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) LCIA Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) multiattribute value measurement normalisation theories tradeoffs weighting 

References

  1. Ahbe S, Braunschweig A, Müller-Wenk R (1990): Methodik für oekobilanzen auf der basis ökologischcr optimierung (A method for ecobalance and ecological optimisation), Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern, Schriftenreihe Urnwelt Nr. 133Google Scholar
  2. Barnthouse L, Fava J, Humphreys K, Hunt R, Laibsn L, Noesen S, Norris G, Owens J, Todd J, Vigon B, Weitz K, Young J, Eds (1997): Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Pensacoa, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann, H Rydberg T (1994): A comparison of three methods for impact analysis and valuation. Journal of Cleaner Production 2, 13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borcherding K, Eppel T, von Winterfeldt D (1991): Comparison of weighting judgements in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science 37, 1603–1619Google Scholar
  5. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen AA, de Oude N, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Séguin J, Vigon B, Eds (1993): Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1979): Measurable multiattribute value functions. Operations Research 27, 811–822Google Scholar
  7. Edwards W (1977): How to use multiattribute utility analysis for social decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 7, 326–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finnveden G (1996): Valuation Methods within the Framework of Life Cycle Assessment. Swedish Environmental Research Institute, IVL-Report B 1231, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  9. French S (1988): Decision theory: An introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Ellis Horwood Limited, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Goedkoop M (1995): The Eco-Indicator 95. Amersfoort, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Hird JA (1994): Superfound: The Political Economy of Environmental Risk. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  12. International Organisation for Standardisation (2000): ISO 14042: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle impact assessmentGoogle Scholar
  13. Keeney RL (1992): Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision making. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976): Decisions with multiple objectives. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Krantz DH, Luce RC, Suppes P, Tversky A (1971): Foundations of measurement. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee KM (1999): A Weighting Method for the Korean Eco-Indicator. Int. J. LCA 4, 161–165Google Scholar
  17. indeijer E (1996): Normalisation and Valuation. Part VI of the SETAC Working Group Report on LCA Impact Assessment. IVAM Environmental Research, University of Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  18. Lindfors LG, Christiansen K, Hoffman L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Ronning A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G. (1995): Nordic guidelines on life-cycle assessment. Nordic Council of Ministers, Nord 1995:20, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  19. McKinsey & Company (1991): Integrated substance chain management. Association of the Dutch Chemical Industry - VNCI, AK Leidschendam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Miettinen P, Hämäläinen RP (1997): How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research 102, 279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miettinen P, Hämäläinen RP (1999): Indexes for Fixed and Flexible Environmental Target Setting - A Decision Analytic Perspective. To appear in International Journal of Environment and Pollution 12, 2/3, 147–164Google Scholar
  22. Posch M, de Smet PAM, Hettenlingh JP, Downing RJ, Eds (1999): Calculation and mapping of critical thresholds in Europe. Status report 1999. Coordination Centre for Effects, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Powell JC, Pearce DW, Craighill AL (1997): Approaches to Valuation in LCA Impact Assessment. Int. J. LCA 2, 1, 11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roy B (1990): Decision-aid and decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 45, 324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saaty TL (1990): How to make a decision: The Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 48, 9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1997): On the Measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seppälä J (1997): Decision analysis as a tool for life cycle impact assessment. Finnish Environment Institute, The Finnish Environment 123, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Seppälä J (1999): Decision analysis as a tool for life cycle impact assessment. In: Klöpffer W, Hutzinger O (Eds) LCA Documents 4, ecomed publishers, LandsbergGoogle Scholar
  29. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Müller-Wenk R, Eds (1999): Best Available Practice Regarding Impact Categories and Category Indicators in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int. J. LCA 4 (2) 66–74, (3) 167-174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weber M, Borcherding K. (1993): Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 67, 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wentzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997): Environmental assessment of products, Vol. 1. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986): Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of TechnologyEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations