Skip to main content

Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using LCA


When life cycle assessment (LCA) results do not show a clear and certain environmental preference of one choice over one or several alternatives, current methods are limited in their ability to inform decision-makers. To address this and related cross-cutting issues, a group of LCA practitioners has been working on a roadmap for capacity development in LCA. The roadmap is identifying common needs for development in LCA, which can then be addressed by the broader LCA community. The roadmap document on decision-making support, having undergone a public comment period, outlines the current state as well as needs and milestones to ensure progress continues apace. The roadmap document, available for download, covers five main areas of development: (1) performance measures of confidence, which identify the acceptable uncertainty for study results, while minimizing expenditures; (2) selection of impact categories, an area with multiple existing methods. The roadmap suggests codifying these methods and identifying their suitability to various applications; (3) normalization; while several methods of normalization are in use, the method with the greatest acceptance in the LCA community (i.e., relying on total or per capita regional emissions/extractions) has a number of methodological drawbacks; (4) weighting, which is a form of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The broader MCDA field can enrich LCA by providing studied methods of assessing trade-offs; and (5) visualization of results. Many other LCA capacity needs would benefit from documentation. These include but are not limited to the following: addressing ill-characterized uncertainty, life cycle inventory data needs, data format needs, and tool capabilities. Other roadmapping groups are forming and are looking for practitioners to support the effort.

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


  1. See link:

  2. See link:


  • Bare J, Gloria T (2006) Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environ Sci Technol 40(4):1104–1113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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(16):5108–5115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91(9):1–21

    Article  Google 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):211–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts M (1998) Part II: dealing with parameter uncertainty and uncertainty due to choices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(6):343–351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1):33–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Owsianiak M, Laurent A, Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2014) How does the choice of ILCD recommended practice for characterization modelling change the assessment of environmental impacts in LCA of products. In Proceedings of SETAC Europe: 24th Annual Meeting – Science across bridges, borders and boundaries. SETAC Europe

  • Weidema BP (2014) Comparing three life cycle impact assessment methods from an endpoint perspective. J Ind Ecol 19(1):20–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions from the participants of the workshop in the 2015 SETAC-North America Meeting in Salt Lake City and the support of SETAC, in particular, Bruce Vigon at SETAC North America who has supported this effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lise Laurin or Bruce Vigon.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Mary Ann Curran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laurin, L., Amor, B., Bachmann, T.M. et al. Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21, 443–447 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: