Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?
Building on the rhetoric question “quo vadis?” (literally “Where are you going?”), this article critically investigates the state of the art of normalisation and weighting approaches within life cycle assessment. It aims at identifying purposes, current practises, pros and cons, as well as research gaps in normalisation and weighting. Based on this information, the article wants to provide guidance to developers and practitioners. The underlying work was conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Cross-Cutting issues in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).
The empirical work consisted in (i) an online survey to investigate the perception of the LCA community regarding the scientific quality and current practice concerning normalisation and weighting; (ii) a classification followed by systematic expert-based assessment of existing methods for normalisation and weighting according to a set of five criteria: scientific robustness, documentation, coverage, uncertainty and complexity.
Results and discussion
The survey results showed that normalised results and weighting scores are perceived as relevant for decision-making, but further development is needed to improve uncertainty and robustness. The classification and systematic assessment of methods allowed for the identification of specific advantages and limitations.
Based on the results, recommendations are provided to practitioners that desire to apply normalisation and weighting as well as to developers of the underlying methods.
KeywordsLife cycle impact assessment Indicators Multicriteria decision analysis Survey Review
We would like to thank Valentina Prado, Jane Bare, Tommie Ponsioen and Anne-Marie Boulay for their contributions to the working group activities. Thanks are also due to Anders Bjørn and Viêt Cao who kindly contributed with comments and additions to the assessment matrices.
- Alarcon B, Aguado A, Manga R, Josa A (2011) A value function for assessing sustainability: application to industrial buildings. Sustainability 3Google Scholar
- Boardman, AE, Greenberg, DH, Vining, AR, Weimer, DL (2006) Cost-benefit analysis, concepts and practice. PearsonGoogle Scholar
- EC (2008) Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.Google Scholar
- Fishburn PC (1967) Additive utilities with incomplete product set: applications to priorities and assignments. Operations Research Society of America (ORSA), Baltimore, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2009) The ecological scarcity method—eco-factors 2006. A method for impact assessment in LCA. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), BernGoogle Scholar
- Goedkoop, M, Spriensma, R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Pré Consultants B.V.Google Scholar
- Goedkoop, M, Heijungs, R, Huijbregts, M, et al. (2013) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, first edition (version 1.08), Report I: Characterisation. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, CML University of Leiden, RUN Radboud University Nijmegen, RIVM Bilthoven - Netherlands, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Hauschild, M, Potting, J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental news No. 80. Danish Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
- Huppes, G, Van Oers, L (2011) Background review of existing weighting approaches in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and SustainabilityGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006a) ISO 14040—environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006b) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2014) ISO 14046—environmental management—water footprint—principles, requirements and guidelines. 33Google Scholar
- Laurent A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Normalisation. In: Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MA (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment Springer Science + Business Media BV, pp 271–300Google Scholar
- Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M, Blomqvist L (2012) The planetary boundaries hypothesis. A review of the evidence. The Breakthrough Institute, OaklandGoogle Scholar
- Norris GA (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:85–88Google Scholar
- Norris GA, Marshall HE (1995) Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluating buildings and building systems. Building and fire research laboratory. National Institute of Standards and Technology, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
- Pré Consultants (2016) LCA discussion list website. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/lca-discussion-list
- R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/
- Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J Serv Sci 1:83Google Scholar
- Steen B (1999a) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000—general system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental PlanningGoogle Scholar
- Steen B (1999b) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000—models and data of the default methods. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental PlanningGoogle Scholar
- Stranddorf HK, Hoffmann L, Schmidt A (2005) LCA guideline. Update on impact categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA—selected EDIP97 data. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Udo de Haes, HA, Finnveden, G, Goedkoop, M, Hauschild, M, Hertwich, EG, Hofstetter, P, Jolliet, O, Klöpffer, W, Krewitt, W, Lindeijer, EW, Müller-Wenk, R, Olsen, SI, Pennington, DW, Potting, J, Steen, B (eds) (2002) Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards best practise. SETAC- Press, Pensacola, FloridaGoogle Scholar
- Weidema B, Hauschild MZ, Jolliet O (2008) Preparing characterisation methods for endpoint impact assessment—Annex II of Eder P & Delgado L (eds) environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, SevillaGoogle Scholar
- Wenzel H, Hauschild MZ, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Volume 1—methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, Thomson Science, London, UKGoogle Scholar