Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Sensitivity to weighting in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)



Weighting in life cycle assessment (LCA) incorporates stakeholder preferences in the decision-making process of comparative LCAs. Research efforts on this topic are concerned with deriving weights according to different principles, but few studies have evaluated the relationship between normalization and weights and their effect on single scores. We evaluate the sensitivity of aggregation methods to weights in different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to provide insight on the receptiveness of single score results to value systems.


Sensitivity to weights in two LCIA methods is assessed by exploring weight spaces stochastically and evaluating the rank of alternatives via the Rank Acceptability Index (RAI). We assess two aggregation methods: a weighted sum based on externally normalized scores and a method of internal normalization based on outranking across CML-IA and ReCipE midpoint impact assessment. The RAI represents the likelihood that an alternative occupies a certain rank given all possible weight spaces, and it can be used to compare the sensitivity of final ranks to weight values in each aggregation method and LCIA. Evaluation is based on a case study of a comparative LCA of five PV technologies whose inventory is readily available in Ecoinvent.

Results and discussion

Influence of weights in single scores depend on the scaling/normalization step more than the value of the weight itself. In each LCIA, aggregated results from a weighted sum with external normalization references show a higher weight insensitivity in RAI than outranking-based aggregation because in the former, results are driven by a few dominant impact categories due to the normalization procedure. Differences in sensitivity are caused by the notable variety (up two orders of magnitude) in the scales of normalized values for the weighted sum with external normalization and intrinsic properties of the methods including compensation and a lack of accounting for mutual differences.


Contrary to the belief that the choice of weights is decisive in aggregation of LCIA results, in this case study, it is shown that the normalization step has the greatest influence in the results. This point holds for EU and World references in ReCiPe and CML-IA alike. Aggregation consisting of outranking generates rank orderings with a more balanced contribution of impact categories and sensitivity to weights’ values as opposed to weighted sum approaches that rely on external normalization references.


Practitioners aiming to include stakeholder values in single scores for LCIA should be aware of how the weights are treated in the aggregation method as to ensure proper representation of values.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. 1.

    Due to constraints related to modeling metals on longer time horizons in multi-media models, MAET is often excluded from baseline categories (Heijungs et al. 2004)


  1. 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 19:145–156.

  2. Behzadian M, Kazemzadeh RB, Albadvi A, Aghdasi M (2010) PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur J Oper Res 200:198–215.

  3. Bengtsson M, Steen B (2000) Weighting in LCA – approaches and applications. Environ Prog 19:101–109.

  4. Bertola NJ, Cinelli M, Casset S et al (2019) A multi-criteria decision framework to support measurement-system design for bridge load testing. Adv Eng Inform 39:186–202.

  5. Cao XH, Stojkovic I, Obradovic Z (2016) A robust data scaling algorithm to improve classification accuracies in biomedical data. BMC Bioinforma 17:1–10.

  6. Castellani V, Benini L, Sala S, Pant R (2016a) A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1159–11669.

  7. Castellani V, Sala S, Benini L (2016b) Hotspots analysis and critical interpretation of food life cycle assessment studies for selecting eco-innovation options and for policy support. J Clean Prod.

  8. Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148.

  9. Corrente S, Figueira JR, Greco S (2014) The SMAA-PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 239:514–522.

  10. Cucurachi S, Seager TP, Prado V (2017) Normalization in comparative life cycle assessment to support environmental decision making. J Ind Ecol 21:242–243.

  11. Dias LC, Passeira C, Malça J, Freire F (2016) Integrating life-cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis to compare alternative biodiesel chains. Ann Oper Res:1–16.

  12. Domingues AR, Marques P, Garcia R et al (2015) Applying multi-criteria decision analysis to the life-cycle assessment of vehicles. J Clean Prod 107:749–759.

  13. Du C, Dias LC, Freire F (2019) Robust multi-criteria weighting in comparative LCA and S-LCA: a case study of sugarcane production in Brazil. J Clean Prod 218:708–717.

  14. Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) Smarts and smarter: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–325

  15. Figueira JR, Roy B (2009) A note on the paper, “ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods”, by Wang and Triantaphyllou, Omega (2008). Omega 37:731–733.

  16. Fischer G (1995) Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62:252–266

  17. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbergts M et al (2009) ReCiPe 2008. Report 1: Characterisation

  18. Greco S, Ehrgott M, Rui Figueira J (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, 2nd edn. Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London

  19. Greco S, Ishizaka A, Matarazzo B, Torrisi G (2018a) Stochastic multi-attribute acceptability analysis (SMAA): an application to the ranking of Italian regions. Reg Stud 52:585–600.

  20. Greco S, Ishizaka A, Tasiou M, Torrisi G (2018b) On the methodological framework of composite indices: a review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Soc Indic Res 141:1–34.

  21. Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment - operational guide to the ISO standards. In: Guinée JB (ed) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards Series: Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science. Springer, Dordrecht

  22. Heijungs R, de Koning A, Ligthart T, Korenromp R (2004) Improvement of LCA characterization factors and LCA practice for metals. Apeldoorn

  23. Heijungs R, Guinée J, Kleijn R, Rovers V (2007) Bias in normalization: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:211–216

  24. Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000) A theoretical foundation for life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:13–28.

  25. Huppes G, van Oers L, Pretato U, Pennington D (2012) Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–16.

  26. ISO (2006) ISO 14044: environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines. Environ Manag 3:54

  27. 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:1–16.

  28. Ji C, Hong T (2016) New internet search volume-based weighting method for integrating various environmental impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 56:128–138.

  29. Jungbluth N, Stucki M, Flury K, Frischknecht R (2012) Life Cycle Inventories of Photovoltaics, ESU-services Ltd.: Uster, CH, 2012.

  30. Kalbar PP, Birkved M, Nygaard SE, Hauschild M (2017) Weighting and aggregation in life cycle assessment: do present aggregated single scores provide correct decision support? J Ind Ecol 21:1591–1600.

  31. Keeney RL (2002) Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper Res 50:935–945.

  32. Kim J, Yang Y, Bae J, Suh S (2013) The importance of normalization references in interpreting life cycle assessment results. J Ind Ecol 17:385–395.

  33. Laurin L, Amor B, Bachmann TM, Bare J, Koffler C, Genest S, Preiss P, Pierce J, Satterfield B, Vigon B (2016) Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:443–447.

  34. Matarazzo A, Clasadonte MT, Ingrao C, Zerbo A (2013) Criteria interaction modelling in the framework of Lca analysis. Int J Eng Res Appl 3:523–530

  35. Muller S, Lesage P, Ciroth A, et al (2014) The application of the pedigree approach to the distributions foreseen in ecoinvent v3. Int J Life Cycle Assess.

  36. Munda G (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis and sustainable development. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys, New York, pp 1235–1267

  37. Myllyviita T, Leskinen P, Seppälä J (2014) Impact of normalisation, elicitation technique and background information on panel weighting results in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:377–386.

  38. Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A et al (2008) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD, JRC European Commission

  39. Norris G a (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:85–88.

  40. Nzila C, Dewulf J, Spanjers H et al (2012) Multi criteria sustainability assessment of biogas production in Kenya. Appl Energy 93:496–506.

  41. PEF (2013) Recommendations on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations

  42. Pizzol M, Weidema B, Brandão M, Osset P (2015) Monetary valuation in life cycle assessment: a review. J Clean Prod 86:170–179.

  43. Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S et al (2016) Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int J Life Cycle Assess.

  44. Pollesch N, Dale VH (2015) Applications of aggregation theory to sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 114:117–127.

  45. Pollesch NL, Dale VH (2016) Normalization in sustainability assessment: methods and implications. Ecol Econ 130:195–208.

  46. Prado V, Heijungs R (2018) Implementation of stochastic multi attribute analysis (SMAA) in comparative environmental assessments. Environ Model Softw 109:223–231.

  47. Prado V, Rogers K, Seager TP (2012) Integration of MCDA tools in valuation of comparative life cycle assessment. In: Curran MA (ed) Life cycle assessment handbook: a guide for environmentally sustainable products. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 413–431

  48. Prado V, Wender BA, Seager TP (2017) Interpretation of comparative LCAs: external normalization and a method of mutual differences. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:2018–2029.

  49. 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 19:405–416.

  50. Ravikumar D, Seager TP, Cucurachi S et al (2018) Novel method of sensitivity analysis improves the prioritization of research in anticipatory life cycle assessment of emerging technologies. Environ Sci Technol 52:6534–6543.

  51. Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2012) State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation. Advances in Decision Sciences.

  52. Rogers M, Bruen M (1998) Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE. Eur J Oper Res 107:542–551.

  53. Rogers K, Seager TP (2009) Environmental decision-making using life cycle impact assessment and stochastic multiattribute decision analysis: a case study on alternative transportation fuels. Environ Sci Technol 43:1718–1723.

  54. Rowley HV, Peters GM, Lundie S, Moore SJ (2012) Aggregating sustainability indicators: beyond the weighted sum. J Environ Manag 111:24–33.

  55. Roy B (1985) Méthodologie multicritère d’aide à la décision. Economica, Paris

  56. Seager TP, Prado V (2017) Letter to the editor on “weighting and aggregation in life cycle assessment: do present aggregated single scores provide correct decision support?”. J Ind Ecol.

  57. Sohn JL, Kalbar PP, Birkved M (2017) Life cycle based dynamic assessment coupled with multiple criteria decision analysis: a case study of determining an optimal building insulation level. J Clean Prod 162:449–457.

  58. Steele K, Carmel Y, Cross J, Wilcox C (2009) Uses and misuses of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in environmental decision making. Risk Anal 29:26–33.

  59. Stewart TJ (2008) Robustness Analysis and MCDA. In: European Working Group Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding. Newsletter of the European Working Group “Multicriteria Aid for Decisions”

  60. Tervonen T, Lahdelma R (2007) Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 178:500–513.

  61. Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Buskens E, Hillege HL, Postmus D (2011) A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis. Stat Med 30:1419–1428.

  62. Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2012) Exploring a safe operating approach to weighting in life cycle impact assessment – a case study of organic, conventional and integrated farming systems. J Clean Prod 37:147–153.

  63. Tylock SM, Seager TP, Snell J et al (2012) Energy management under policy and technology uncertainty. Energy Policy 47:156–163.

  64. Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C et al (2017) LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. J Clean Prod 161:957–967.

  65. White P, Carty M (2010) Reducing bias through process inventory dataset normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:994–1013.

  66. Wulf C, Zapp P, Schreiber A et al (2017) Lessons learned from a life cycle sustainability assessment of rare earth permanent magnets. J Ind Ecol 00:1–13.

  67. Zanghelini GM, Cherubini E, Soares SR (2018) How multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is aiding life cycle assessment (LCA) in results interpretation. J Clean Prod 172:609–622.

Download references


Marco Cinelli declares that this project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 743553.

Author information

Correspondence to Valentina Prado.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Responsible editor: Alexis Laurent

Electronic supplementary material


(XLSX 876 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prado, V., Cinelli, M., Ter Haar, S.F. et al. Sensitivity to weighting in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019).

Download citation


  • Aggregation in LCA
  • LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assessment)
  • PV technologies
  • Weighting in LCA