Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?

  • Massimo Pizzol
  • Alexis Laurent
  • Serenella Sala
  • Bo Weidema
  • Francesca Verones
  • Christoph Koffler
CRITICAL REVIEW

Abstract

Purpose

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).

Methods

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Life cycle impact assessment Indicators Multicriteria decision analysis Survey Review 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1199_MOESM1_ESM.docx (225 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 225 kb)
11367_2016_1199_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (41 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 40 kb)

References

  1. Ahlroth S (2014) The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 85:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlroth S, Finnveden G (2011) Ecovalue08—a new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools. J Clean Prod 19:1994–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, et al. (2011) Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 19:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alarcon B, Aguado A, Manga R, Josa A (2011) A value function for assessing sustainability: application to industrial buildings. Sustainability 3Google Scholar
  5. Bachmann TM (2011) Optimal pollution: the welfare economic approach to correct market failures. In: Nriagu J (ed) Encyclopedia on environmental health. Elsevier, Burlington, pp. 264–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G (2006) Development of the method and US normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 40:5108–5115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benini L, Sala S (2016) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of normalization factors to methodological assumptions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoit V, Rousseaux P (2003) Aid for aggregating the impacts in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjørn A, Hauschild M (2015) Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1005–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boardman, AE, Greenberg, DH, Vining, AR, Weimer, DL (2006) Cost-benefit analysis, concepts and practice. PearsonGoogle Scholar
  11. Breedveld L, Lafleur M, Blonk H (1999) A framework for actualising normalisation data in LCA: experiences in the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castellani V, Benini L, Sala S, Pant R (2016) A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1159–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cucurachi S, Sala S, Laurent A, Heijungs R (2014) Building and characterizing regional and global emission inventories of toxic pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 48:5674–5682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlbo H, Koskela S, Pihkola H, et al. (2013) Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:850–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EC (2008) Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.Google Scholar
  16. Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes: development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, et al. (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fishburn PC (1967) Additive utilities with incomplete product set: applications to priorities and assignments. Operations Research Society of America (ORSA), Baltimore, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Foley J, Lant P (2009) Regional normalisation figures for Australia 2005/2006-inventory and characterisation data from a production perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Goedkoop, M, Spriensma, R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Pré Consultants B.V.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Goedkoop M, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R, Spriemsma R (1998) The ECO-indicator 98 explained. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:352–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanssen OJ (1999) Status of life cycle assessment (LCA) activities in the Nordic region. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinee J, et al. (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:683–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heijungs R, Guinee J, Kleijn R, Rovers V (2007) Bias in normalization: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000) A theoretical foundation for life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huijbregts MAJ, Breedveld L, Huppes G, et al. (2003) Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: the Netherlands (1997/1998), western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995. J Clean Prod 11:737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Huppes G, Oers L, Pretato U, Pennington DW (2012) Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:876–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040—environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  35. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  36. ISO (2014) ISO 14046—environmental management—water footprint—principles, requirements and guidelines. 33Google Scholar
  37. Itsubo N, Murakami K, Kuriyama K, et al. (2015) Development of weighting factors for G20 countries—explore the difference in environmental awareness between developed and emerging countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0881-z Google Scholar
  38. 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 17:488–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, et al. (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kägi T, Dinkel F, Frischknecht R, et al. (2015) Session “midpoint, endpoint or single score for decision-making?”—SETAC Europe 25th annual meeting, may 5th, 2015. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim J, Yang Y, Bae J, Suh S (2013) The importance of normalization references in interpreting life cycle assessment results. J Ind Ecol 17:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Koffler C, Schebek L, Krinke S (2008) Applying voting rules to panel-based decision making in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:456–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Laurent A, Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, et al. (2011a) Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox{\texttrademark} characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:728–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011b) Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2012) Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 46:4100–4108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, et al. (2010) Development of normalization factors for Canada and the United States and comparison with European factors. Sci Total Environ 409:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ludwig D (2000) Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystems. Ecosystems 3:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lundie S, Huijbregts MAJ, Rowley HV, et al. (2007) Australian characterisation factors and normalisation figures for human toxicity and ecotoxicity. J Clean Prod 15:819–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mace GM, Reyers B, Alkemade R, et al. (2014) Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Glob Environ Chang 28:289–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mettier T, Scholz RW (2008) Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Part 2: choice and allocation questions in panel methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mettier T, Scholz R, Tietje O (2006) Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Part 1: cognitive limits in panel surveys (9 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M, Blomqvist L (2012) The planetary boundaries hypothesis. A review of the evidence. The Breakthrough Institute, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  54. Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv heal Sci Educ 15:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Norris GA (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:85–88Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, et al. (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30:721–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pizzol M, Weidema BP, Brandão M, Osset P (2015) Monetary valuation in life cycle assessment: a review. J Clean Prod 86:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prado-Lopez V, Seager TP, Chester M, et al. (2014) Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pré Consultants (2016) LCA discussion list website. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/lca-discussion-list
  61. R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/
  62. Ridoutt B, Fantke P, Pfister S, et al. (2015) Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:2601–2603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rüdenauer I, Gensch C-OC-O, Grießhammer R, Bunke D (2005) Integrated environmental and economic assessment of products and processes. J Ind Ecol 9:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ryberg M, Vieira MDM, Zgola M, et al. (2014) Updated US and Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J Serv Sci 1:83Google Scholar
  66. Sala S, Benini L, Mancini L, Pant R (2015) Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1568–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Seager TP, Linkov I (2008) Coupling multicriteria decision analysis and life cycle assessment for nanomaterials. J Ind Ecol 12:282–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Seppälä J, Basson L, Norris GA (2001) Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 5:45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sleeswijk AW, van Oers LFCM, Guinée JB, et al. (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390:227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. Strauss K, Brent AC, Hietkamp S (2006) Characterisation and normalisation factors for life cycle impact assessment mined abiotic resources categories in South Africa: the manufacturing of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sullivan GM, Artino AR (2013) Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ 5:541–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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
  76. Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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
  78. Weiss M, Patel M, Heilmeier H, Bringezu S (2007) Applying distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 50:260–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Development and PlanningAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKgs. LyngbyDenmark
  3. 3.European Commission, Joint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and SustainabilityIspraItaly
  4. 4.Industrial Ecology Programme, Department for Energy and Process EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  5. 5.thinkstep Inc.BostonUSA

Personalised recommendations