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, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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)
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.016
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
Bengtsson M, Steen B (2000) Weighting in LCA – approaches and applications. Environ Prog 19:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670190208
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.01.004
Cao XH, Stojkovic I, Obradovic Z (2016) A robust data scaling algorithm to improve classification accuracies in biomedical data. BMC Bioinforma 17:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-016-1236-x
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1079-8
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.078
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011
Corrente S, Figueira JR, Greco S (2014) The SMAA-PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 239:514–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.05.026
Cucurachi S, Seager TP, Prado V (2017) Normalization in comparative life cycle assessment to support environmental decision making. J Ind Ecol 21:242–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12549
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2329-7
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.086
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.02.035
Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) Smarts and smarter: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–325
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2008.05.001
Fischer G (1995) Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62:252–266
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbergts M et al (2009) ReCiPe 2008. Report 1: Characterisation
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
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1347612
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9
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
Heijungs R, de Koning A, Ligthart T, Korenromp R (2004) Improvement of LCA characterization factors and LCA practice for metals. Apeldoorn
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
Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000) A theoretical foundation for life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:13–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819800569267
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0415-x
ISO (2006) ISO 14044: environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines. Environ Manag 3:54
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0881-z
Ji C, Hong T (2016) New internet search volume-based weighting method for integrating various environmental impacts. Environ Impact Assess Rev 56:128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.09.008
Jungbluth N, Stucki M, Flury K, Frischknecht R (2012) Life Cycle Inventories of Photovoltaics, ESU-services Ltd.: Uster, CH, 2012.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12520
Keeney RL (2002) Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper Res 50:935–945. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.50.6.935.357
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00535.x
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1031-y
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
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0759-5
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
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0645-6
Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A et al (2008) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. OECD, JRC European Commission
Norris G a (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:85–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02977843
Nzila C, Dewulf J, Spanjers H et al (2012) Multi criteria sustainability assessment of biogas production in Kenya. Appl Energy 93:496–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.020
PEF (2013) Recommendations on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations
Pizzol M, Weidema B, Brandão M, Osset P (2015) Monetary valuation in life cycle assessment: a review. J Clean Prod 86:170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.007
Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S et al (2016) Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1
Pollesch N, Dale VH (2015) Applications of aggregation theory to sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 114:117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.011
Pollesch NL, Dale VH (2016) Normalization in sustainability assessment: methods and implications. Ecol Econ 130:195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.018
Prado V, Heijungs R (2018) Implementation of stochastic multi attribute analysis (SMAA) in comparative environmental assessments. Environ Model Softw 109:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.021
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
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1281-3
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0641-x
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04517
Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2012) State-of-the-art prescriptive criteria weight elicitation. Advances in Decision Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/276584
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00175-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/es801123h
Rowley HV, Peters GM, Lundie S, Moore SJ (2012) Aggregating sustainability indicators: beyond the weighted sum. J Environ Manag 111:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.05.004
Roy B (1985) Méthodologie multicritère d’aide à la décision. Economica, Paris
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12559
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.058
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01130.x
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”
Tervonen T, Lahdelma R (2007) Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 178:500–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.12.037
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4194
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.06.025
Tylock SM, Seager TP, Snell J et al (2012) Energy management under policy and technology uncertainty. Energy Policy 47:156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.040
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.206
White P, Carty M (2010) Reducing bias through process inventory dataset normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:994–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0215-0
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12575
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.230
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.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Responsible editor: Alexis Laurent
Electronic supplementary material
About this article
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 25, 2393–2406 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01718-3
- Aggregation in LCA
- LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assessment)
- PV technologies
- Weighting in LCA