Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA)
Comparative life-cycle assessments (LCAs) today lack robust methods of interpretation that help decision makers understand and identify tradeoffs in the selection process. Truncating the analysis at characterization is misleading and existing practices for normalization and weighting may unwittingly oversimplify important aspects of a comparison. This paper introduces a novel approach based on a multi-criteria decision analytic method known as stochastic multi-attribute analysis for life-cycle impact assessment (SMAA-LCIA) that uses internal normalization by means of outranking and exploration of feasible weight spaces.
To contrast different valuation methods, this study performs a comparative LCA of liquid and powder laundry detergents using three approaches to normalization and weighting: (1) characterization with internal normalization and equal weighting, (2) typical valuation consisting of external normalization and weights, and (3) SMAA-LCIA using outranking normalization and stochastic weighting. Characterized results are often represented by LCA software with respect to their relative impacts normalized to 100 %. Typical valuation approaches rely on normalization references, single value weights, and utilizes discrete numbers throughout the calculation process to generate single scores. Alternatively, SMAA-LCIA is capable of exploring high uncertainty in the input parameters, normalizes internally by pair-wise comparisons (outranking) and allows for the stochastic exploration of weights. SMAA-LCIA yields probabilistic, rather than discrete comparisons that reflect uncertainty in the relative performance of alternatives.
Results and discussion
All methods favored liquid over powder detergent. However, each method results in different conclusions regarding the environmental tradeoffs. Graphical outputs at characterization of comparative assessments portray results in a way that is insensitive to magnitude and thus can be easily misinterpreted. Typical valuation generates results that are oversimplified and unintentionally biased towards a few impact categories due to the use of normalization references. Alternatively, SMAA-LCIA avoids the bias introduced by external normalization references, includes uncertainty in the performance of alternatives and weights, and focuses the analysis on identifying the mutual differences most important to the eventual rank ordering.
SMAA-LCIA is particularly appropriate for comparative LCAs because it evaluates mutual differences and weights stochastically. This allows for tradeoff identification and the ability to sample multiple perspectives simultaneously. SMAA-LCIA is a robust tool that can improve understanding of comparative LCA by decision or policy makers.
KeywordsComparative life-cycle assessment Decision analysis Normalization Outranking Valuation
- Boufateh I, Perwuelz A, Rabenasolo B (2011) Multiple criteria decision‐making for environmental impacts optimization. Int J of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modeling 3(1): 28–42Google Scholar
- Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) PROMETHEE methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 163–186Google Scholar
- Census Bureau (2012) Industry Statistics NAICS 325611, U.S Department of Commerce. http://www.census.gov
- Ecoinvent v2.2 (2011) Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. www.ecoinvent.org
- Gelderman J, Schobel A (2011) On the similarities of some multicriteria decision analysis methods. J MCDA 18(3–4):219–230Google Scholar
- Heijungs R, Guinee J, Kleijn R et al (2007) Bias in normalization: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(4):211–216Google Scholar
- International Standardization Organization 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines.Google Scholar
- Le Téno JF (1999) Visual data analysis and decision support methods for nondeterministic LCA. Int J of Life Cycle Assess 4(1):41–47Google Scholar
- Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Yatsalo B et al (2007) Comparative assessment of several multi-criteria decision analysis tools for management of contaminated sediments. Environmental Security in Harbors and Coastal Areas. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 195–215Google Scholar
- Norris GA (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(2):85–88Google Scholar
- Novozymes (2010) Liquid Enzyme Product LCI Dataset. Granulated Enzyme Product LCI Dataset. NovozymesGoogle Scholar
- Prado V, Rogers K, Seager TP (2012) Integration of MCDA tools in valuation of comparative life cycle assessment. In: Curran MA (ed) Life cycle assessment handbook: a guide for environmentally sustainable products. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. doi:10.1002/9781118528372.ch19
- Showell EMS (2006) Handbook of detergents, part D: formulation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- The Sustainability Consortium (2011) Product Category Life Cycle Assessment (PCLCA) Laundry Detergent. The Sustainability Consortium "Sustainability Measurement and Reporting System" pilot projectGoogle Scholar
- US Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States—Table and Figures for 2010Google Scholar
- Wang M (2011) GREET 1.0 Software. Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory. Copyright © 1999 U Chicago Argonne, LLCGoogle Scholar