Aid for aggregating the impacts in Life Cycle assessment

LCA Methodology


Background and Objectives

Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) methods may be employed in a great number of fields. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a specific method among the MCDA Methods. A stage of MCDA methods to be respected in LCA is the comparative evaluation of the environmental impacts. This stage is the most difficult to implement because it is a question of estimating the global environmental impact of the life cycles studied. To achieve this purpose, it is necessary to model the environmental impacts and to apply a Multicriteria Analysis (MCA) method. The problem is to choose the most suitable among the available MCA methods. The objective of this paper is to help the LCA practitioner to make this choice.


The MCA methods are compared according to their non-compensatory degree, their sensitivity to thresholds, their practicability and their workability.

Results and Conclusion

The protocol presented in this paper allows to choose the most appropriate MCA method for a given LCA according to the four previous criteria. This choice will depend on the priorities of the decision maker with concern to the comparison criteria.

Key words

Aggregation impact valuation multicriteria analysis (MCA) method multiple criteria decision aid (MCDA) 


  1. [1]
    Lundie S, Huppes G (1999): Environmental assessment of products. Int J LCA 4 (1) 7–15Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Finnveden G (2000): On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general. Int J LCA 5 (4) 229–238Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Sangle S, Ram Babu P, Khanna P (1999): Evaluation of life cycle impacts: Identification of societal weights of environmental issues. Int J LCA 4 (4) 221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001): A decision analytic framework for impact assessment. Part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J LCA 6 (1) 5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Miettinen P, Hämäläinen RP (1997): How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment. European J Oper Res 102 (2) 279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Pictet J (1996): Dépasser l’évaluation environnementale, procédure d’étude et insertion dans la décision globale. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne, 187 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    ISO Management international — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and Framework. Norme ISO 14040, 1997, 11 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Roy B (1996): Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 423 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Itsubo N (2000): Screening life cycle impact assessment with weighting methodology based on simplified damage functions. Int J LCA 5 (5) 273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Mousseau V, Roy B, Sommerlatt I (2001): Development of a decision aiding tool for the evolution of public transport ticket pricing in the Paris region. 213–230. In: Aide Multicritère à la Décision — Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (A-MDC-A), Edited by Corlini A, Paruccini M, Roy B, Joint Research Center, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Maystre L, Pictet J, Simos J (1994): Méthodes multicritères ELECTRE. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne, 323 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Vincke Ph (1992): Multicriteria decision aid. John Wiley & Sons, 174 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Guitouni A, Martel JM (1998): Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European J Oper Res 109 501–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Keeney R, Raifa H (1976): Decision with multiple objectives, preferences and values trade-offs. Wiley, New York, 569 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Heijungs R, Guinee J.B, Huppes G, Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Wegener A (1992): Environmental life cycle assessment of products, backgrounds. CML, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands, 129 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Hofstetter P (1993): Weighting of different environmental problems. Paper presented at ‘Environmental Life Cycle Assessment and its Applications’. Invitational Expert Seminar, Amsterdam 9-10 June 1993, Organized by CML, Leiden University, Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Roy B (1968): Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode Electre). Revue française d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle 8, 57–75Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Diakoulaki D, Koumoutsos N (1991): Cardinal ranking of alternatives actions: extension of the PROMETHEE method, European J Oper Res 53, 337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Munda G, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (1995): Qualitative multicriteria methods for fuzzy evaluation problems: An illustration of economic-ecological evaluation. European J Oper Res 82 (1) 79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Moscarola J, Roy B (1977): Procedure automatique d’examen de dossiers fondée sur un classement trichotomique en présences de critères multiples. Cahiers du LAMSADE, Université Dauphine, no 11–1977, 32 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Colson G, De Bruyn C (1989): Models and methods in multiple criteria decision making. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 234 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Rousseaux P (1993): Evaluation comparative de l’impact environnemental global (ECIEG) du cycle de vie des produits. These de doctorat: Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon, 276 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Simos J (1990): Evaluer l’impact sur l’environnement. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne, 261 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut National des Sciences Appliquées (INSA), Laboratoire d’Analyse Environnementale des Precédés et Systèmes Industriels (LAEPSI), Bâtiment Sadi CarnotVilleurbanne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations