Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment

Valentina Prado, Kristin Rogers, Thomas Seager

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This chapter reveals how ISO normalization guidelines can have misleading recommendations, explains existing objections to descriptive approaches to normalization, and suggests a method that draws upon advances in stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) to resolve some of the most difficult challenges associated with LCA, such as eliciting criteria weights and understanding the uncertainty of those weights relative to other data. External normalization is unsuitable for comparative LCA, because it derives from normative theories that use an absolute scale and assume transitivity. Impact assessment in comparative LCAs would benefit from the application of descriptive approaches extant in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to help structure normalization and weighting stages. Specifically, outranking MCDA methods allow for the comparison of multiple competing alternatives by only allowing partial compensation. It is essential to provide robust methods for comparative LCAs that are sensitive to inherent uncertainties and capable of representing multiple viewpoints.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationLife Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products
PublisherJohn Wiley and Sons
Pages413-431
Number of pages19
ISBN (Print)9781118099728
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 6 2012

Fingerprint

Decision theory
Life cycle
Uncertainty
Compensation and Redress

Keywords

  • Decision analysis
  • Normalization
  • Outranking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Chemical Engineering(all)

Cite this

Prado, V., Rogers, K., & Seager, T. (2012). Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. In Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products (pp. 413-431). John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118528372.ch19

Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. / Prado, Valentina; Rogers, Kristin; Seager, Thomas.

Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. John Wiley and Sons, 2012. p. 413-431.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Prado, V, Rogers, K & Seager, T 2012, Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. in Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. John Wiley and Sons, pp. 413-431. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118528372.ch19
Prado V, Rogers K, Seager T. Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. In Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. John Wiley and Sons. 2012. p. 413-431 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118528372.ch19
Prado, Valentina ; Rogers, Kristin ; Seager, Thomas. / Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. John Wiley and Sons, 2012. pp. 413-431
@inbook{cdd6b0a7dbde4bdb93f9bddfea14b260,
title = "Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment",
abstract = "This chapter reveals how ISO normalization guidelines can have misleading recommendations, explains existing objections to descriptive approaches to normalization, and suggests a method that draws upon advances in stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) to resolve some of the most difficult challenges associated with LCA, such as eliciting criteria weights and understanding the uncertainty of those weights relative to other data. External normalization is unsuitable for comparative LCA, because it derives from normative theories that use an absolute scale and assume transitivity. Impact assessment in comparative LCAs would benefit from the application of descriptive approaches extant in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to help structure normalization and weighting stages. Specifically, outranking MCDA methods allow for the comparison of multiple competing alternatives by only allowing partial compensation. It is essential to provide robust methods for comparative LCAs that are sensitive to inherent uncertainties and capable of representing multiple viewpoints.",
keywords = "Decision analysis, Normalization, Outranking",
author = "Valentina Prado and Kristin Rogers and Thomas Seager",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1002/9781118528372.ch19",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781118099728",
pages = "413--431",
booktitle = "Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment

AU - Prado, Valentina

AU - Rogers, Kristin

AU - Seager, Thomas

PY - 2012/11/6

Y1 - 2012/11/6

N2 - This chapter reveals how ISO normalization guidelines can have misleading recommendations, explains existing objections to descriptive approaches to normalization, and suggests a method that draws upon advances in stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) to resolve some of the most difficult challenges associated with LCA, such as eliciting criteria weights and understanding the uncertainty of those weights relative to other data. External normalization is unsuitable for comparative LCA, because it derives from normative theories that use an absolute scale and assume transitivity. Impact assessment in comparative LCAs would benefit from the application of descriptive approaches extant in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to help structure normalization and weighting stages. Specifically, outranking MCDA methods allow for the comparison of multiple competing alternatives by only allowing partial compensation. It is essential to provide robust methods for comparative LCAs that are sensitive to inherent uncertainties and capable of representing multiple viewpoints.

AB - This chapter reveals how ISO normalization guidelines can have misleading recommendations, explains existing objections to descriptive approaches to normalization, and suggests a method that draws upon advances in stochastic multi-attribute analysis (SMAA) to resolve some of the most difficult challenges associated with LCA, such as eliciting criteria weights and understanding the uncertainty of those weights relative to other data. External normalization is unsuitable for comparative LCA, because it derives from normative theories that use an absolute scale and assume transitivity. Impact assessment in comparative LCAs would benefit from the application of descriptive approaches extant in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to help structure normalization and weighting stages. Specifically, outranking MCDA methods allow for the comparison of multiple competing alternatives by only allowing partial compensation. It is essential to provide robust methods for comparative LCAs that are sensitive to inherent uncertainties and capable of representing multiple viewpoints.

KW - Decision analysis

KW - Normalization

KW - Outranking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886650219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886650219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/9781118528372.ch19

DO - 10.1002/9781118528372.ch19

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781118099728

SP - 413

EP - 431

BT - Life Cycle Assessment Handbook: A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products

PB - John Wiley and Sons

ER -