A multi-criteria decision-making model for classifying wood products with respect to their impact on environment

  • Igor Lipušček
  • Marko Bohanec
  • Leon Oblak
  • Lidija Zadnik Stirn


Background, aim and scope

Although life cycle assessment is frequently used in scientific studies of product comparison, many practitioners are looking for improvements in the normalisation, grouping and weighting of life cycle inventory results. Local conditions, which are well known to local experts, are very important to these steps. The goal of this work was to develop a computer-based decision support system for classifying wood products according to their influence on the environment in their whole life cycle. The model specifically addresses local conditions in the Republic of Slovenia and was developed by Slovenian experts.

Materials and methods

We used the approach of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). We developed a multi-attribute model that includes key parameters that influence the burdening of environment. The parameters are organised into a hierarchical structure with several levels in such a way that they form a hierarchy with unidirectional hierarchical relationships between levels. The aggregation of parameter values is carried out by utility functions which were defined according to the analytic hierarchy process method on the basis of 52 experts’ findings, which were gathered with the Delphi method in three rounds.


The main result is a multi-criteria model for the assessment of wooden products. The model consists of 104 criteria, grouped into 28 subtrees, addressing various processes of production. Each criterion in the model has an associated weight, and each entry criterion has an entry function. The model has been used to assess different product concepts with the purpose of supporting decision making for the environmentally most suitable product concept and for analysing products with the intention of finding out more environmentally friendly products.


The weights in the model indicate that a preliminary production of auxiliary materials and energy consumption represents the biggest impact of wooden products on the environment. In preliminary production, the most problematic are preservatives, coating systems and glues. In energy production, the most influential are gasoline and petroleum. Emissions are most affected through water and air, whereas solid wastes and energy emissions are less important. With wastewaters, the most critical is the presence of organic criteria. With waste air, more important is waste air appearing directly in the production and less the smoke gases from devices for acquiring heat and electricity.


The presented multi-attribute model is aimed at classifying and comparing products according to their environmental burden in the entire wood product life cycle. The comparison can be carried out not only at the level of entire products but is also decomposed into hierarchically structured criteria. The decomposition reveals distinctive advantages and disadvantages of a product compared to others. The MCDM approach enables a relatively easy adaptation of the model where the changes have only a local effect. Entry data can be provided either directly in a numerical form or indirectly through pairwise comparison of alternatives. The model is restricted in the sense that it specifically addresses local conditions and legislation of the Republic of Slovenia.

Recommendations and perspectives

The parts of the model that address emissions depend on Slovenian legislation and would require an adaptation to other countries. Other parts are fairly general. In order to compare wood products with other alternative or substitutive products, the set of criteria had to be expanded. We also suggest expanding the model with the aspects of working conditions and socioeconomic consequences of production.


Analytic hierarchy process Classification of products Delphi method Entry functions Life cycle assessment (LCA) Modelling Multi-criteria decision making Wood 


  1. Ardente F, Beccali G, Cellura M (2003) Eco-sustainable energy and environmental strategies in design for recycling: the software “ENDLESS”. Ecol Model 163:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohanec M, Zupan B (2002) A function-decomposition method for development of hierarchical multi-attribute decision models. Decis Support Syst 36(3):215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper JS, Godwin C, Hall E (2008) Modelling process and material alternatives in life cycle assessments. Int J LCA 13(2):115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Guinee JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A, Oers L, Wegener SA, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment—operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Handfield R, Walton SV, Sroufe R, Melnyk SA (2002) Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: a study in the application of the analitycal hierarchy process. EJOR 141:70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Khorramshahgol R (1999) Augmenting Shewhart quality control and Delphi method for multi-person, multi-objective decision-making. Telematics Inform 16:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Komuro R, Ford ED, Reynolds JH (2006) The use of multi-criteria assessment in developing a process model. Ecol Model 197:320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Košmelj K (2001) Applied statistics. Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana (in Slovene, translated by the authors)Google Scholar
  9. Lavallee S, Plouffe S (2004) The ecolabel and sustainable development. Int J LCA 9(6):349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lenzen M (2006) Uncertainty in impact and externality assessments—implications for decision-making. Int J LCA 11(3):189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leskinen P, Kangas J, Pasanen AM (2003) Assessing ecological values with dependent explanatory variables in multi-criteria forest ecosystem management. Ecol Model 170:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lipušček I (2005) Evaluating life cycles of wood industry products from the point of view of environmental burdening. Dissertation thesis, Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana, SIGoogle Scholar
  13. Lipušček I, Oblak L, Stirn LZ (2003) Model for classifying wood products according to environment burdening during the process of manufacturing. Drevarsky výskum 48(4):43–54Google Scholar
  14. Oblak L (1999) Ecological Information System to Support the Decision-making Process in Manufacturing Firms. Proceedings of Slovenian Informatics Conference, DSI 1999, 794–800Google Scholar
  15. Pečjak V (2001) Ways to new ideas: techniques of creative thinking. New moment, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  16. Ronde P (2003) Delphi analysis of national specificities in selected innovative areas in Germany and France. Technol Forecast Soc Change 70:419–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. OGRS No. 2605-73/1994. Regulation on emission of substances into air from motionless sources of pollution (in Slovene, translated by the authors)Google Scholar
  18. OGRS, No. 2252-46/2002. Regulation on emission of volatile organic compounds from devices that are using organic solvents (in Slovene, translated by the authors)Google Scholar
  19. OGRS No. 2291-35/1996. Regulation on emission of substance and heat at taking of sewages from sources of pollution (in Slovene, translated by the authors)Google Scholar
  20. OGRS No. 2615-73/1994. Regulation on emission of substance to air from devices for production and processing of wood (in Slovene, translated by the authors)Google Scholar
  21. Rosselot K, Allen DT (1999): Life-cycle concepts, product stewardship and green engineering.
  22. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  23. Saaty TL (2003) Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. EJOR 145:85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Seppälä J (2007) On the meaning of fuzzy approach and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 12(7):464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winston WL (1994) Operations research: applications and algorithms. Duxbury Press, BellmontGoogle Scholar
  26. Zadnik SL (2006) Integrating the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with dynamic programming approach for determining the optimal forest management decisions. Ecol Model 194:296–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering and ManagementUniversity of Nova GoricaNova GoricaSlovenia
  2. 2.Department of Knowledge TechnologiesJožef Stefan InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Department of Wood Science and Technology, Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  4. 4.Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations