nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

13.09.2016 | CRITICAL REVIEW

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?

verfasst von: Massimo Pizzol, Alexis Laurent, Serenella Sala, Bo Weidema, Francesca Verones, Christoph Koffler

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 6/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Building on the rhetoric question “quo vadis?” (literally “Where are you going?”), this article critically investigates the state of the art of normalisation and weighting approaches within life cycle assessment. It aims at identifying purposes, current practises, pros and cons, as well as research gaps in normalisation and weighting. Based on this information, the article wants to provide guidance to developers and practitioners. The underlying work was conducted under the umbrella of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Task Force on Cross-Cutting issues in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).

Methods

The empirical work consisted in (i) an online survey to investigate the perception of the LCA community regarding the scientific quality and current practice concerning normalisation and weighting; (ii) a classification followed by systematic expert-based assessment of existing methods for normalisation and weighting according to a set of five criteria: scientific robustness, documentation, coverage, uncertainty and complexity.

Results and discussion

The survey results showed that normalised results and weighting scores are perceived as relevant for decision-making, but further development is needed to improve uncertainty and robustness. The classification and systematic assessment of methods allowed for the identification of specific advantages and limitations.

Conclusions

Based on the results, recommendations are provided to practitioners that desire to apply normalisation and weighting as well as to developers of the underlying methods.

Vorheriger Artikel Assessing the merits of bioenergy by estimating marginal climate-change impacts

Nächster Artikel Effect of geographical location and stochastic weather variation on life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from camelina in the northwestern USA

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ahlroth S (2014) The use of valuation and weighting sets in environmental impact assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 85:34–41CrossRef

Ahlroth S, Finnveden G (2011) Ecovalue08—a new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools. J Clean Prod 19:1994–2003CrossRef

Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, et al. (2011) Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 19:145–156CrossRef

Alarcon B, Aguado A, Manga R, Josa A (2011) A value function for assessing sustainability: application to industrial buildings. Sustainability 3

Bachmann TM (2011) Optimal pollution: the welfare economic approach to correct market failures. In: Nriagu J (ed) Encyclopedia on environmental health. Elsevier, Burlington, pp. 264–274CrossRef

Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G (2006) Development of the method and US normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 40:5108–5115CrossRef

Benini L, Sala S (2016) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of normalization factors to methodological assumptions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:224–236CrossRef

Benoit V, Rousseaux P (2003) Aid for aggregating the impacts in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:74–82CrossRef

Bjørn A, Hauschild M (2015) Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1005–1018CrossRef

Boardman, AE, Greenberg, DH, Vining, AR, Weimer, DL (2006) Cost-benefit analysis, concepts and practice. Pearson

Breedveld L, Lafleur M, Blonk H (1999) A framework for actualising normalisation data in LCA: experiences in the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:213–220CrossRef

Castellani V, Benini L, Sala S, Pant R (2016) A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1159–1169CrossRef

Cucurachi S, Sala S, Laurent A, Heijungs R (2014) Building and characterizing regional and global emission inventories of toxic pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 48:5674–5682CrossRef

Dahlbo H, Koskela S, Pihkola H, et al. (2013) Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and their feasibility in communication. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:850–860CrossRef

EC (2008) Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.

Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes: development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88CrossRef

Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, et al. (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21CrossRef

Fishburn PC (1967) Additive utilities with incomplete product set: applications to priorities and assignments. Operations Research Society of America (ORSA), Baltimore, MD, USA

Foley J, Lant P (2009) Regional normalisation figures for Australia 2005/2006-inventory and characterisation data from a production perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:215–224CrossRef

Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2009) The ecological scarcity method—eco-factors 2006. A method for impact assessment in LCA. Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Bern

Goedkoop, M, Spriensma, R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Pré Consultants B.V.

Goedkoop, M, Heijungs, R, Huijbregts, M, et al. (2013) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, first edition (version 1.08), Report I: Characterisation. PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, CML University of Leiden, RUN Radboud University Nijmegen, RIVM Bilthoven - Netherlands, The Netherlands

Goedkoop M, Hofstetter P, Müller-Wenk R, Spriemsma R (1998) The ECO-indicator 98 explained. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:352–360CrossRef

Hanssen OJ (1999) Status of life cycle assessment (LCA) activities in the Nordic region. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:315–320CrossRef

Hauschild, M, Potting, J (2005) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment—the EDIP2003 methodology. Environmental news No. 80. Danish Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Agency

Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinee J, et al. (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:683–697CrossRef

Heijungs R, Guinee J, Kleijn R, Rovers V (2007) Bias in normalization: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:211–216CrossRef

Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK (2001) A decision-analytic framework for impact assessment part I: LCA and decision analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:5–12CrossRef

Hertwich EG, Hammitt JK, Pease WS (2000) A theoretical foundation for life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 4:13–28CrossRef

Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:161–175CrossRef

Huijbregts MAJ, Breedveld L, Huppes G, et al. (2003) Normalisation figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: the Netherlands (1997/1998), western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995. J Clean Prod 11:737–748CrossRef

Huppes, G, Van Oers, L (2011) Background review of existing weighting approaches in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Huppes G, 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 17:876–891CrossRef

ISO (2006a) ISO 14040—environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standard Organization

ISO (2006b) ISO 14044—environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standard Organization

ISO (2014) ISO 14046—environmental management—water footprint—principles, requirements and guidelines. 33

Itsubo N, Murakami K, Kuriyama K, et al. (2015) Development of weighting factors for G20 countries—explore the difference in environmental awareness between developed and emerging countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0881-z

Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Kuriyama K, Inaba A (2012) Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors-visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:488–498CrossRef

Itsubo N, Sakagami M, Washida T, et al. (2004) Weighting across safeguard subjects for LCIA through the application of conjoint analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:196–205CrossRef

Kägi T, Dinkel F, Frischknecht R, et al. (2015) Session “midpoint, endpoint or single score for decision-making?”—SETAC Europe 25th annual meeting, may 5th, 2015. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:129–132CrossRef

Kim J, Yang Y, Bae J, Suh S (2013) The importance of normalization references in interpreting life cycle assessment results. J Ind Ecol 17:385–395CrossRef

Koffler C, Schebek L, Krinke S (2008) Applying voting rules to panel-based decision making in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:456–467CrossRef

Laurent A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Normalisation. In: Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MA (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment Springer Science + Business Media BV, pp 271–300

Laurent A, Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, et al. (2011a) Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox{\texttrademark} characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:728–738CrossRef

Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011b) Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:401–409CrossRef

Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2012) Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 46:4100–4108CrossRef

Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, et al. (2010) Development of normalization factors for Canada and the United States and comparison with European factors. Sci Total Environ 409:33–42CrossRef

Ludwig D (2000) Limitations of economic valuation of ecosystems. Ecosystems 3:31–35CrossRef

Lundie S, Huijbregts MAJ, Rowley HV, et al. (2007) Australian characterisation factors and normalisation figures for human toxicity and ecotoxicity. J Clean Prod 15:819–832CrossRef

Mace GM, Reyers B, Alkemade R, et al. (2014) Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Glob Environ Chang 28:289–297CrossRef

Mettier T, Scholz RW (2008) Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Part 2: choice and allocation questions in panel methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:468–476CrossRef

Mettier T, Scholz R, Tietje O (2006) Measuring preferences on environmental damages in LCIA. Part 1: cognitive limits in panel surveys (9 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:394–402CrossRef

Nordhaus T, Shellenberger M, Blomqvist L (2012) The planetary boundaries hypothesis. A review of the evidence. The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland

Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv heal Sci Educ 15:625–632CrossRef

Norris GA (2001) The requirement for congruence in normalization. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:85–88

Norris GA, Marshall HE (1995) Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluating buildings and building systems. Building and fire research laboratory. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg

Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, et al. (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30:721–739CrossRef

Pizzol M, Weidema BP, Brandão M, Osset P (2015) Monetary valuation in life cycle assessment: a review. J Clean Prod 86:170–179CrossRef

Prado-Lopez V, Seager TP, Chester M, et al. (2014) Stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) as an interpretation method for comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:405–416CrossRef

Pré Consultants (2016) LCA discussion list website. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/lca-discussion-list

R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/

Ridoutt B, Fantke P, Pfister S, et al. (2015) Making sense of the minefield of footprint indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:2601–2603CrossRef

Rüdenauer I, Gensch C-OC-O, Grießhammer R, Bunke D (2005) Integrated environmental and economic assessment of products and processes. J Ind Ecol 9:105–116CrossRef

Ryberg M, Vieira MDM, Zgola M, et al. (2014) Updated US and Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16:329–339CrossRef

Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J Serv Sci 1:83

Sala S, Benini L, Mancini L, Pant R (2015) Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1568–1585CrossRef

Seager TP, Linkov I (2008) Coupling multicriteria decision analysis and life cycle assessment for nanomaterials. J Ind Ecol 12:282–285CrossRef

Seppälä J, Basson L, Norris GA (2001) Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle impact assessment. J Ind Ecol 5:45–68CrossRef

Sleeswijk AW, van Oers LFCM, Guinée JB, et al. (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390:227–240CrossRef

Steen B (1999a) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000—general system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning

Steen B (1999b) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000—models and data of the default methods. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning

Stranddorf HK, Hoffmann L, Schmidt A (2005) LCA guideline. Update on impact categories, normalisation and weighting in LCA—selected EDIP97 data. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen

Strauss K, Brent AC, Hietkamp S (2006) Characterisation and normalisation factors for life cycle impact assessment mined abiotic resources categories in South Africa: the manufacturing of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:162–171CrossRef

Sullivan GM, Artino AR (2013) Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ 5:541–542CrossRef

Udo de Haes, HA, Finnveden, G, Goedkoop, M, Hauschild, M, Hertwich, EG, Hofstetter, P, Jolliet, O, Klöpffer, W, Krewitt, W, Lindeijer, EW, Müller-Wenk, R, Olsen, SI, Pennington, DW, Potting, J, Steen, B (eds) (2002) Life-Cycle Impact Assessment: Striving towards best practise. SETAC- Press, Pensacola, Florida

Weidema BP (2009) Using the budget constraint to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecol Econ 68:1591–1598CrossRef

Weidema B, Hauschild MZ, Jolliet O (2008) Preparing characterisation methods for endpoint impact assessment—Annex II of Eder P & Delgado L (eds) environmental improvement potentials of meat and dairy products. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla

Weiss M, Patel M, Heilmeier H, Bringezu S (2007) Applying distance-to-target weighing methodology to evaluate the environmental performance of bio-based energy, fuels, and materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 50:260–281CrossRef

Wenzel H, Hauschild MZ, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Volume 1—methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, Thomson Science, London, UK

Titel: Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?
verfasst von: Massimo Pizzol
Alexis Laurent
Serenella Sala
Bo Weidema
Francesca Verones
Christoph Koffler
Publikationsdatum: 13.09.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2017

Lifting the fog on characteristics and limitations of hybrid LCA—a reply to “Does hybrid LCA with a complete system boundary yield adequate results for product promotion?” by Yi Yang (Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(3):456–406, doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1256-9

Impacts of flexible pavement design and management decisions on life cycle energy consumption and carbon footprint

Assessing the merits of bioenergy by estimating marginal climate-change impacts

Life cycle assessment of the environmental performance of conventional and organic methods of open field pepper cultivation system

Effect of geographical location and stochastic weather variation on life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from camelina in the northwestern USA

A new method of biophysical allocation in LCA of livestock co-products: modeling metabolic energy requirements of body-tissue growth