MCDA and LCSA—A Note on the Aggregation of Preferences

  • João Carlos Namorado Clímaco
  • Rogerio Valle
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 416)


Cost and social dimensions are now being added to the existing environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), leading to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA). LCSA is very complex with deep uncertainties and, generally, involves several stakeholders. Therefore, the analysis and interpretation of the outputs of LCSA is a difficult and complex task, requiring aggregation of preferences. The work in progress here presented deals with a study regarding the use of open exchange interactive software packages dedicated to Multi-criteria decision aiding in the context of LCSA output analysis and interpretation.


Life cycle sustainability assessment Complexity Multi-criteria analysis Aggregation of preferences procedures 


  1. 1.
    Sen, A: Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Our Common Future–Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: United Nations (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zamagni, A., Pesonen, H.L., Swarr, T.: From LCA to life cycle sustainability assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int. Life cycle Assess. 18, 1637–1641 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., Bras, B.: A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment–part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 13, 374–388 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mazri, C., Ventura, A., Jullien, A., Bouyssou, D.: Life cycle analysis and decision aiding: an example of roads evaluation.
  6. 6.
    Mietinen, P., Hamailainen, R.P.: How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA). EJOR 102, 279–294 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benoit, V., Pousseaux, P.: Aid for aggregating the impacts in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 74–82 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huppes, G., von Oers, L., Pretato, U., Pennington, D.: Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17, 876–891 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cinelli, M., Coles, S., Kirwan, K.: Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support life cycle sustainability assessment: an analysis of the appropriateness of the available methods. In: 6th International Conference on Life Cycle, Gothenburg (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halog, A., Manik, Y.: Advancing integrated systems modeling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 3, 469–499 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benetto, E., Dujet, C.: Uncertainty analysis and MCDA; A case study in life cycle assessment (LCA) practice. In: Proceedings of the 57th Meeting of the European Working Group on Multicriteria Decision Aiding. Viterbo (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dias, L., Clímaco, J.: Additive aggregation with interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. JORS 51, 1070–1082 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clímaco, J., Fernandes, S., Captivo, M.E.: Classificação MultiAtributo Suportada por uma Versão Interactiva do Método Conjuntivo (An Interactive version of the Conjunctive Method dedicated to Multiattribute Classification Problems). CIO—Working Paper 9 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clímaco, J., Craveirinha, J.: Multi-actor multidimensional quality of life and sustainable impact assessment—discussion based on a new interactive tool. In: Proceedings of GDN 2013, Sweden (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valle, R., Clímaco, J.: Green economy in the state of rio de janeiro—a non-compensatory multidimensional interactive evaluation. In: XXII MCDM Conference, Malaga (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Figueira, J., Mousseau, V.,Roy, B.: ELECTRE Methods, Multiple Criteria decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. In: Figueira, J., Erghot, M., Greco, S., Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duarte, S.: Social impacts identification and characterization tool (SIICT): proposal and application for social LCA. SAGE/COPPE/UFRJ Internal Report (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. Paris (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Carlos Namorado Clímaco
    • 1
  • Rogerio Valle
    • 2
  1. 1.INESCCUniversidade de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.SAGE/COPPEUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations