Abstract
Purpose
In the process of selecting where effective environmental measures should be directed, the weighting step of life cycle assessment (LCA) is an optional, controversial, but nevertheless important tool. A set of criteria for evaluating weighting methods has relevance in the process of acquiring meta-knowledge, and thus competence, in assigning relative weights to environmental impact categories. This competence is helpful when choosing between presently available weighting methods, and in creating new weighting methods.
Methods
Criteria in LCA-related literature are reviewed. The authors have focused on identifying lists of criteria rather than extracting criteria from bulks of text. An important starting point has been the actual use of the term “criterion”, while at the same time disqualifying certain definitions of the term which are too far removed from the two definitions provided in this article.
Results and discussion
Criteria for evaluating weighting methods are shown to fall into two general categories. The first being general criteria for weighting methods, demanding that weighting methods have a broad scope, are practical for users and scientists, are scientific and have ethical goals. The second being criteria proposing characteristics of concrete environmental damage which should be taken into account by a weighting method. A noteworthy example is reversibility.
Conclusions
While the comprehensive tables of criteria speak for themselves, it can be observed that the need for transparency is particularly highlighted in literature. Furthermore, ISO 14044’s statement that the weighting step is “not scientifically based” would appear to defy a significant proportion of the other criteria reviewed; this, however, depends on its interpretation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and evaluation in environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further development. J Cleaner Prod 19(2–3):145–156
Baumann H, Tillman A-M (2004) The Hitch Hiker’s guide to LCA. Studentlitteratur, Lund
Baumgartner T, Rubik F (1993) Evaluating techniques for eco-balances and life cycle assessment. Env Pol Gov 3:18–22
Berggren N, Jordahl H, Stern C (2007) A left-right divide: the political opinions of Swedish social scientists, the Ratio Institute, Stockholm. http://www.hha.dk/nat/workshop/2007/nb2611.pdf. Accessed 30 May, 2012
Braunschweig A, Förster R, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R (1994) Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungs-metoden für Ökobilanzen - Erste Ergebnisse. IWÖ Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 19, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Braunschweig A, Förster R, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R (1996) Developments in LCA valuation. IWÖ Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 32, St. Gallen, Switzerland
European Commission—Joint Research Centre (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—General guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed guidance. First edition. EUR 24708 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Finnveden G (1999) A critical review of operational valuation/weighting methods for life cycle assessment. Naturvårdsverket, Sweden
Finnveden G et al (2002) Normalization, grouping and weighting in life-cycle assessment. In: de Haes HA U et al (eds) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, USA
Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(Supplement 1):81–88
Grisel L, Jensen AA, Klöpffer W (1994) Impact assessment within LCA. Society for the Promotion of LCA Development
Hertwich E, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000) A theoretical foundation for life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4(1):13–28
Hofstetter P (1996) Towards a structured aggregation procedure. In: Braunschweig et al (eds), pp 123–211
Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment: a structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Kluwer, USA, p 77
Huppes G, van Oers L (2011) Background review of existing weighting approaches in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. EUR 24997 EN—2011. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Huppes G, van Oers L, Pretato U, Pennington DW (2012) Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(7):876–891
Hyman EL, Stiftel B, Moreau DH, Nichols RC (1988) Combining facts and values in environmental impact assessment; theories and techniques. Social Impact Assessment Series No. 16. Westview, Boulder
ISO (2006) ISO 14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation, Brussels
Kortman JGM, Lindeijer EW, Sas H, Sprengers M (1994) Towards a single indicator for emissions—an exercise in aggregating environmental effects. Interfaculty Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(6):1121–1134
Lindeijer E (1995) Valuation in LCA. Draft Chapter 7 of the SETAC-Europe Working Group on LCIA. Version November 1995, Amsterdam
Magnussen K, Rønning A, Møller H (1998) Vekting i LCA. OR 11.98. Stiftensen Østfoldforskning, Fredrikstad
Müller-Wenk R (1996) Political and scientific targets in distance-to-target valuation methods. In: Braunschweig et al., pp 84–97
Müller-Wenk R, Braunschweig A (1996) Comments and proposals to the Eco-indicator 95 impact assessment method. In: Braunschweig et al., pp 212–240
Powell JC, Pearce DW, Brisson I, Social CF, Environment EROTG (1995) Valuation for life cycle assessment of waste management options. CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Powell JC, Pearce DW, Craighill AL (1997) Approaches to valuation in LCA impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(1):11–15
Schmidt WP, Sullivan P (2002) Weighting in life cycle assessment in a global context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(1):5–10
Schmitz S, Oels H-J, Tiedemann A (1995) Ökobilanz für Getränkeverpackungen. Umweltbundesamt Publication No. 52/95. German Government Printing Office, Berlin
Soares SR, Toffoletto L, Deschênes L (2006) Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA. J Cleaner Prod 14(6–7):649–660
Udo de Haes HA (1994) First working document on life-cycle impact assessment methodology. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich
Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen S, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, USA
Volkwein S, Gihr R, Klöpffer W (1996) The valuation step in LCA—part II: a formalized method of prioritization by expert panels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1(4):182–192
Wolf M-A, Pant R, Chomkhamsri K, Sala S, Pennington DW (2012) JRC reference reports. The International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook. EUR 24982 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Acknowledgements
This article is part of a PhD study connected to the EDecIDe project, financed by the Research Council of Norway via Gassnova SF, Statoil ASA and A/S Norske Shell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Jeroen Guinée
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johnsen, F.M., Løkke, S. Review of criteria for evaluating LCA weighting methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 840–849 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0491-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0491-y