Abstract
Background, aim, and scope
Cross-category weighting is one possible way to facilitate internal decision making when dealing with ambiguous impact assessment results, with simple additive weighting being a commonly used method. Yet, the question as to whether the methods applied today can, in fact, identify the most “environmentally friendly” alternative from a group perspective remains unanswered. The aim of this paper is to propose a new method for group decision making that ensures the effective identification of the most preferable alternative.
Materials and methods
Common approaches to deduce a single set of weighting factors for application in a group decision situation (e.g., arithmetic mean, consensus) are discussed based on simple mathematics, empirical data, and thought experiments. After proposing an extended definition for “effectiveness” in group decision making, the paper recommends the use of social choice theory whose main focus is to identify the most preferable alternative based on individuals’ rankings of alternatives. The procedure is further supplemented by a Monte Carlo analysis to facilitate the assessment of the result’s robustness.
Results
The general feasibility of the method is demonstrated. It generates a complete ranking of alternatives, which does not contain cardinal single scores. In terms of effectiveness, the mathematical structure of the procedure ensures the eligibility for compromise of the group decision proposal. The sensitivity analysis supports the decision makers in understanding the robustness of the proposed group ranking.
Discussion
The method is based upon an extended definition of effectiveness which acknowledges the eligibility for compromise as the core requirement in group decision contexts. It is shown that multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) methods in use in life cycle assessment (LCA) today do not necessarily meet this requirement because of their mathematical structure. Further research should focus on empirical proof that the generated group results are indeed more eligible for compromise than results generated by current methods that utilize an averaged group weighting set. This is closely related to the question considering under which mathematical constraints it is even possible to generate an essentially different result.
Conclusions
The paper describes a new multi-attribute group decision support system (MGDSS) for the identification of the most preferable alternative(s) for use in panel-based LCA studies. The main novelty is that it refrains from deducing a single set of weighting factors which is supposed to represent the panel as a whole. Instead, it applies voting rules that stem from social choice theory. Because of its mathematical structure, the procedure is deemed superior to common approaches in terms of its effectiveness.
Recommendations and perspectives
The described method may be recommended for use in internal, panel-based LCA studies. In addition, the basic approach of the method—the combination of MADM methods with social choice theory—can be recommended for use in all those situations where multi-attribute decisions are to be made in a group context.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benoit V, Rousseaux P (2003) Aid for aggregating the impacts in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:74–82
Bovea M-D, Cabello R, Querol D (2007a) Comparative life cycle assessment of commonly used refrigerants in commercial refrigeration systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:299–307
Bovea M-D, Saura Ú, Ferrero JL, Giner J (2007b) Cradle-to-gate study of red clay for use in the ceramic industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:439–447
Braunschweig A, Förster R, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R (1996) Developments on LCA valuation. Institut für Wirtschaft und Ökologie, Universität St. Gallen (IWÖ-HSG), St. Gallen
Condorcet Nd (1785) Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Reprint: Chelsea Publisher Co, New York, 1980
de Beaufort-Langeveld A, van den Berg NW, Haydock R, ten Houten M, Kotaji S, Oerlemans E, Schmidt W-P, Stranddorf HK, Weidenhaupt A (1997) Simplifying LCA—just a cut? Final report of the SETAC Europe LCA screening and streamlining working group. In: Christiansen K (ed) SETAC, Brussels
Elkington J (2002) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford XIV, 410 S pp
Finnveden G, Hofstetter P, Bare JC, Basson L, Ciroth A, Mettier T, Seppälä J, Johansson J, Norris GA, Volkwein S (2002) Normalisation, grouping, and weighting in life-cycle assessment. In: UdodeHaes HA et al (ed) Life cycle impact assessment—striving towards best practice. SETAC, Pensacola
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 11:81–88
Fishburn PC (1967) Additive utilities with incomplete product set: applications to priorities and assignments. ORSA Publication, Baltimore
Garrido N, Alvarez del Castillo MD (2007) Environmental evaluation of single-use and reusable cups. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:252–256
Gehrlein WV (1998) The sensitivity of weight selection on the condorcet efficiency of weighted scoring rules. Soc Choice Welfare 15:351–358
Geldermann J (2006) Mehrzielentscheidungen in der industriellen Produktion. Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2000) Communicating LCA results—pragmatic tools and methods. Int Conf and exhibition on life cycle assessment—tools for sustainability. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA), Arlington
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology report. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Den Haag
Green-Armytage J (2004) Cardinal-weighted pairwise comparison. Voting Matt 19:10–17
Güereca LP, Agell N, Gassó S, Baldasano JM (2007) Fuzzy approach to life cycle assessment—an application for biowaste management systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:488–496
Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment, part I—LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:5–12
Hofstetter P (1996) Towards a structured aggregation procedure. In: Braunschweig A, Förster R, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R (eds) Development in LCA valuation. Institut für Wirtschaft und Ökologie, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH), Zurich
Hwang C-L, Lin M-J (1987) Group decision making under multiple criteria: methods and applications. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems 281. Springer-Verlag
Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications—a state-of-the-art-survey. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems 186. Springer-Verlag, X, 259 pp
International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 14040: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, Geneva
Johnson PE, Stahl S (2006) Understanding modern mathematics. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury
Kicherer A, Schaltegger S, Tschochohei H, Ferreira Pozo B (2007) Eco-efficiency—combining life cycle assessment and life cycle costs via normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:537–543
Koffler C (2007) Automobile Produkt-Ökobilanzierung. Institut WAR—Institut für Wasserversorgung und Grundwasserschutz, Abwassertechnik, Abfalltechnik, Industrielle Stoffkreisläufe, Umwelt- und Raumplanung. Technische Universität Darmstadt
Kurrild-Klitgaard P (2001) An empirical example of the condorcet paradox of voting in a large electorate. Public Choice 107:135–145
Lassaux S, Renzoni R, Germain A (2007) Life cycle assessment of water from the pumping station to the wastewater treatment plant. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:118–126
Lundie S (1999) Ökobilanzierung und Entscheidungstheorie—praxisorientierte Produktbewertung auf der Basis gesellschaftlicher Werthaltungen. Springer-Verlag
Lundie S, Huppes G (1999) Product Assessment based on a range of societal preferences, global competitiveness through cleaner production. Australian Cleaner Production Association (ACPA), Brisbane, pp 441–451
Meskanen T, Nurmi H (2005) Measuring distance from consensus under various formulations of the social choice problem. Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN), Vienna
Meskanen T, Nurmi H (2006) Distance from consensus: a theme and variations, mathematics and democracy. Springer-Verlag
Mettier T, Scholz RW, Tietje O (2006) Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:394–402
Miller GA (1967) The magic number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. In: Alexis M, Wilson CZ (eds) Organizational decision making. Prentice-Hall
Perzon M, Johansson K, Fröling M (2007) Life cycle assessment of district heat distribution in suburban areas using PEX pipes insulated with expanded polystyrene. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:317–327
Rex ELC, Baumann H (2007) Individual adaptation of industry LCA practice—results from two case studies in the Swedish forestry products industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:266–271
Schmidt W-P, Sullivan JL (2002) Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:5–10
Schuh H (2001) Entscheidungsverfahren zur Umsetzung einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung. In: Betriebswirtschaftslehre F (ed) Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Technische Universität Dresden
Schulze M (2003) A new monotonic and clone-independent single-winner election method. Voting Matt 17:9–19
Schulze M (2008) A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method (draft)
Seppälä J, Basson L, Norris GA (2002) Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 5:45–68
Soares RS, Toffoletto L, Deschenes L (2005) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Cleaner Prod 14:649–660
Stahl B (1999) Methodenvergleich und Methodenentwicklung zur Lösung der Bewertungsproblematik in produktbezogenen Ökobilanzen. DVS, Digitaler Vervielfältigungs- und Verl.-Service, Frankfurt am Main
Steen BA (2006) Describing values in relation to choices in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:277–283
Tangian AS (2000) Unlikelihood of Condorcet’s paradox in a large society. Soc Choice Welf 17:337–365
Tideman TN (1985) Investigating the probability of a voting cycle when the electorate is large. Econ Lett 17:23–25
Tideman TN (1987) Independence of clones as a criterion for voting rules. Soc Choice Welf 4:185–206
Vandercruyssen D (1999) Analysis of voting procedures in one-seat elections—Condorcet efficiency and Borda efficiency. In: Studies CfE (ed) Department of Economics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Vetschera R (1991) Entscheidungsunterstützende Systeme für Gruppen—ein rückkopplungsorientierter Ansatz. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg
Yusoff S, Hansen SB (2007) Feasibility study of performing a life cycle assessment on crude palm oil production in Malaysia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:50–58
Zavist TM, Tideman TN (1989) Complete independence of clones in the ranked pairs rule. Soc Choice Welf 6:167–173
Zhang K (2004) Entwicklung eines integrierten multikriteriellen Gruppenentscheidungsunterstützungssystems (MGDSS). Shaker Verlag, Aachen
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: David Hunkeler
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koffler, C., Schebek, L. & Krinke, S. Applying voting rules to panel-based decision making in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13, 456–467 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0019-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0019-7