Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment part I: LCA and decision analysis

  • 550 Accesses

  • 61 Citations


Life-cycle assessments (LCAs) are conducted to satisfy the aspiration of decision makers to consider the environment in their decision making. This paper reviews decision analysis and discusses how it can be used to structure the assessment and to integrate characterization and valuation. The decision analytic concepts of objectives (goals) and attributes (indicators of the degree to which an objective is achieved) are used to describe steps of the assessment of the entire impact chain. Decision analysis distinguishes among different types of objectives and attributes; it describes how these relate to each other. Impact indicators such as the Human Toxicity Potential are constructed attributes. A means-ends objectives network can show how the different constructed attributes relate to the objective of protecting the environment. As LCA takes disparate environmental impacts into account, it needs to assess their relative importance. Trade-off methods in decision analysis are grouped into utility theory and multicriteria decision aids; they have different advantages and disadvantages, but are all more sophisticated than simple weighting. The performance of the different trade-off methods has not yet been tested in an LCA context. In the second part of the paper, we present criteria for the development of characterization methods.

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


  1. Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.

  2. Bana e Costa, C. A. 1990. Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  3. Basson, L. and J. G. Petrie. 1999. Decision Making during Early Stages of a Project Life Cycle: Roles for Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessments SETAC 20th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

  4. Bras-Klapwijk, R. M. 1999. Adjusting Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Use in Public Policy Discourse. Delft: Delft University of Technology: 280.

  5. Ekvall, T. 1999. System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment with Implications for Wastepaper Management. Technical Environmental Planning. Goteborg: Chalmers.

  6. Fava, J., F. Consoli, R. Denison, K. Dickson, T. Mohin and B. Vigon, Eds. 1993. A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Pensacola, Fl, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

  7. Finnveden, G. 1997. Valuation Methods Within LCA — Where are the Values? Int.J. LCA 2(3): 163–169.

  8. Frischknecht, R. 2000. Allocation in life cycle inventory analysis for joint production. Int. J. LCA 5(2) 85–95.

  9. Giegrich, J. and S. Schmitz. 1997. Valuation as a Step in Impact Assessment: Methods and Case Study. In Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment, edited by M. A. Curran. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  10. Goedkoop, M. 1995. The Eco-indicator 95, 9523. Utrecht, NL: Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment, National Reuse of Waste Research Programme (NOH).

  11. Guitouni, A. and J. M. Martel. 1998. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109(2): 501–21.

  12. Heijungs, R. 1998. Towards eco-efficiency with LCA’s prevention principle: an epistemological foundation of LCA using axioms. In Product Innovation and Eco-efficiency, edited by J. E. M. Klostermann and A. Tukker. Dortrecht: Kluwer: 175–186.

  13. Hertwich, E. G. 1999. Toxic Equivalency: Accounting for Human Health in Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Energy and Resources Group. Berkeley: University of California: 237.

  14. Hertwich, E. G., J. K. Hammitt and W. S. Pease. 2000. A Theoretical Foundation for Life-Cycle Assessment: Recognizing the Role of Values in Environmental Decisionmaking. J. Ind. Ecol. 4(1): 13–28.

  15. Hertwich, E. G., W. S. Pease and T. E. McKone. 1998. Evaluating toxic impact assessment methods: What works best? Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(5): A138-A144.

  16. Hofstetter, P. 1998. Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment: A Structured Approach to Combine Models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere. Boston: Kluwer.

  17. Holdren, J. P. 1980. Integrated Assessment for Energy-Related Environmental Standards: A Summary of Issues and Findings. LBL Report 12799. Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

  18. Kahneman, D. and J. L. Knetsch. 1992. Valuing Public Goods: The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manage: 57–70.

  19. Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch and R. H. Thaler. 1991. Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 5(1): 193–206.

  20. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic and A. Tversky. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  21. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291.

  22. Keeney, R. L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  23. Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

  24. Kleindorfer, P. R., H. C. Kunreuther and P. G. H. Schoemaker. 1993. Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  25. Lundie, S. and G. Huppes. 1999. Environmental Assessment of Products — The Ranges of Societal Preferences Method. Int. J. LCA 4(1): 7–15.

  26. Marsmann, M., S. O. Ryding, H. Udo de Haes, J. Fava, W. Owens, K. Brady, K. Saur and R. Schenck. 1999. In reply to Hertwich & Pease Int. J. LCA 3(4), S. 180–181 ‘ISO 14042 Restricts Use and Development of Impact Assessment’. Int. J. LCA 4(2): 65.

  27. Miettinen, P. and R. P. Hamalainen. 1997. How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 102(2): 279–294.

  28. Owens, J. W, L. Barnthouse, J. Fava, K. Humphreys, B. Hunt, S. Noesen, J. A. Todd, B. Vigon, K. Weitz, et al. 1997. Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the Art. Pensacola, Fl: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

  29. Paruccini, M. M. 1994. Applying multiple criteria aid for decision to environmental management. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  30. Popper, K. R. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.

  31. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

  32. Scheringer, M. 1999. Persistenze und Reichweite von Umweltchemikalien. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-vch.

  33. Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1991. Choices Involving Uncertain Probabilities: Tests of Generalized Utility Models. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 16: 295–317.

  34. Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1991. Risk and rationality: philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  35. Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of Man. New York: Wiley.

  36. Tukker, A. 1998. Uncertainty in Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Toxic Releases. Int. J. LCA 3(5): 246–258.

  37. von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  38. Wuebbles, D. J. 1995. Weighing Functions For Ozone Depletion and Greenhouse Gas Effects On Climate. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 20: 45–70.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Edgar G. Hertwich or James K. Hammitt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hertwich, E.G., Hammitt, J.K. A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int. J. LCA 6, 5 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02977588

Download citation


  • Acidification
  • decision analysis
  • evaluation criteria
  • global warming
  • human toxicity potential
  • impact assessment
  • LCA
  • life-cycle assessment (LCA)
  • weighting