Advertisement

Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment

Applications Under High Uncertainty
  • K. Rogers
  • T. Seager
  • I. Linkov
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

Assessment of environmental impact is one of the crucial steps in life-cycle assessment (LCA). Current LCA tools typically compute an overall environmental score using a linear-weighted aggregation of normalized inventory data relating to relative performance in impact categories such as global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, or eutrophication. However, uncertainty associated with quantification of weights is, in general, very high. Moreover, where multiple stakeholder groups are engaged in a particular problem, there may be several different sets of weights that result in disparate scores or ranking. In some cases, the final results may seem entirely dependent upon the relative importance of weights and/or level of data uncertainty. Therefore, we propose to couple life-cycle impact assessment tools with stochastic multiattribute acceptability analysis (SMAA), which is a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique for exploring uncertain weight spaces. This paper briefly reviews the current state of the art for impact assessment in LCA and compares results using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s TRACI model with the SMAA approach for transportation energy alternatives with uncertain preference information. In both cases, life-cycle inventories are compiled from Argonne National Labs’ GREET model. In the typical life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA), case results are based on the total environmental score, allowing dissimilar impacts to be added together, which correlates rank to the highest normalized impact. However, the SMAA approach balances the criteria more evenly, resulting in a different preference ordering. The difference between the two methods is partly due to stochastic versus point representation of weights. Data normalization, which converts incommensurate impact units to dimensionless quantities for the purpose of aggregation, greatly influences the results.

Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment Analytic Hierarchy Process Impact Category Life Cycle Impact Assessment Industrial Ecology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Guinee, J. B. (Ed.), 2002. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Boston, MA/London.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lo, S.-C., Ma, H.-W., and Lo, S.-L., 2005. Quantifying and Reducing Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Using Bayesian Monte Carlo Method. Science of the Total Environment 340:23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lloyd, S. M., and Ries, R., 2007. Characterizing, Propagating, and Analyzing Uncertainty in Life-Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 11:161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goedkoop, M., De Schryver, A., and Oele, M., 2007. Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. PRé Consultants, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steen, B. A., 2006. Describing Values in Relation to Choices in LCA. International journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11:277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miettinen, P., and Hamalainen, R. P., 1997. How to Benefit from Decision Analysis in Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). European Journal of Operational Research 102:279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simpson, L., 1996. Do Decision Makers Know What They Prefer? MAVT and ELECTRE II. Journal of the Operational Research Society 47:919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seppala, J., Basson, L., and Norris, G., 2002. Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 5:45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seppala, J., and Hamalainen, R. P., 2001. On the Meaning of Distance-to-Target Weighting Method and Normalization in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 6:211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noh, J., and Lee, K. M., 2003. Application of Multiattribute Decision-Making Methods for the Determination of Relative Significance Factor of Impact Categories. Environmental Management 31:633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniel, S. E., Tsoulfas, G. T., Pappis, C. P., and Rachaniotis, N. P., 2004. Aggregating and Evaluating the Results of Different Environmental Impact Assessment Methods. Ecological Indicators 4:125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pineda-Henson, R., Culaba, A. B., and Mendoza, G. A., Evaluating Environmental Performance of Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6:15–28.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Figueira, J., Mousseau, V., and Roy, B., 2005. ELECTRE Methods. In Figueira, J., Greco, S., and Ehrogott, M. (Eds.). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, vol. 78, pp. 133–153. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bare, J. C., Norris, G. A., Pennington, D. W., and McKone, T., 2003. TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6:49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tervonen, T., and Lahdelma, R., 2007. Implementing Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 178:500–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lahdelma, R., Hokkanen, J., and Salminen, P., 1998. SMAA: Stochastic Multiobjective Acceptability Analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 106:137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lahdelma, R., and Salminen, P., 2001. SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making. Operations Research 49:444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang, M., 2007. GREET: Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation, 1.7 ed. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norris, G. A., 2003. Impact Characterization in the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6:79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crystal Ball 5.5, 2005. Decisioneering Inc., Littleton, CO.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bare, J. C., Gloria, T., and Norris, G. A., 2006. Development of the Method and U.S. Normalization Database for Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Sustainability Metrics. Environmental Science and Technology 40:5108–5115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tervonen, T., 2007. CSMAA 1.0.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Rogers
    • 1
  • T. Seager
    • 2
  • I. Linkov
    • 3
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Rochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA
  3. 3.U S. Army Engineer Research and Development CenterBrooklineUSA

Personalised recommendations