A method for decision making using sustainability indicators

Abstract

Calculations aimed at representing the thought process of decision makers are common within multiobjective decision support tools. These calculations that mathematically describe preferences most often use weighting factors for each desire or objective to combine various utility scores onto a single scale to allow a ranking of alternatives. However, seldom are the tradeoffs implied in creating a single scale for multiple objectives described explicitly. This paper illustrates how choices for combining utility scores are in fact a statement of equivalence between the weighted utility scores of these objectives, even if the choice of weighting factors was intended to be value free or “equal weighting.” In addition, relationships between objectives, perhaps developed by stakeholders, can be rewritten as a series of equations (i.e., relationships) for the weighting factors, where it should be noted that seldom will stakeholders provide a set of relationships that exactly match the number of unknowns. Depending on the number of relationships specified, the weighting factors can be underdetermined, unique, or overdetermined. Calculations using the singular value decomposition method can be used as a general method to determine the weighting factors for each of these situations, allowing for explicit representations of the implied tradeoffs for decision makers. Finally, a simple but powerful method for calculating total utility using marginal rates of substitution between utility scores rather than weighting factors is presented. In addition to using marginal rates of substitution, the calculation of utility can be done with (process) attribute values or using EPA’s GREENSCOPE tool sustainability indicator scores. Utility calculations based on these more intuitive factors (marginal rates of substitution, attribute values, and/or GREENSCOPE indicator scores) can then be used to evaluate various alternatives. The decision maker can see the effects of changing the marginal rates of substitution (i.e., utility tradeoffs) and attribute (i.e., design or operating parameter) values or GREENSCOPE indicator scores for alternatives. While an example from chemical production for terephthalic acid is presented, the methods shown are generally applicable.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Beinat E (1997) Value functions for environmental management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Clemen RT (1996) Making hard decisions: an introduction to decision analysis, 2nd edn. Duxbury Press, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  3. Diwekar U (2008) Introduction to applied optimization, 2nd edn. Springer Science + Business Media, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Douglas JM (1988) Conceptual design of chemical processes. McGraw Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eastman Chemical Company (1996), www.eastman.com/Company/Sustainability/GoalsMeasures/Pages/EnvironmentalData.aspx#GHG. Accessed May 2011

  6. Gonzalez MA, Smith RL (2003) A methodology to evaluate process sustainability. Environ Prog 22(4):269–276

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–3594

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, a state-of-the-art survey. In: Beckmann M, Kunzi HP (eds) Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, vol 186. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kim KJ, Smith RL (2005) Systematic procedure for designing processes with multiple environmental objectives. Environ Sci Technol 39:2394–2405

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1989) Numerical recipes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ruiz-Mercado GJ, Smith RL, Gonzalez MA (2012) Sustainability indicators for chemical processes: I taxonomy. Ind Eng Chem Res 51:2309–2328

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwarz J, Beloff B, Beaver E (2002) Use sustainability metrics to guide decision-making. Chem Eng Prog 98(7):58–63

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith RL, Gonzalez MA (2004) Methods for evaluating the sustainability of green processes. In: Barbosa-Póvoa A, Matos H (eds) Computer aided chemical engineering, vol 18. Elsevier, Lisbon, pp 1135–1140

    Google Scholar 

  15. USEPA (1995) Terephthalic acid. Section 6.11 of AP-42, Compilation of air pollutant emission factors, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael A. Gonzalez of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory of the U.S. EPA for useful discussions on the subject of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond L. Smith.

Additional information

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, R.L., Ruiz-Mercado, G.J. A method for decision making using sustainability indicators. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16, 749–755 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-013-0684-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Decision making
  • Weights
  • Multiobjective
  • Marginal rates of substitution
  • Singular value decomposition
  • Sustainability indicators
  • GREENSCOPE