Impact of normalisation,elicitation technique and background information on panel weighting results in life cycle assessment

Purpose

Weighting in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a much-debated topic. Various tools have been used for weighting in LCA, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) being one of the most common. However, it has not been thoroughly assessed how weight elicitation techniques of MCDA with different scales (interval and ratio) along with external and internal normalisation affect weighting and subsequent results. The aim of this survey is to compare different techniques in an illustrative example in the building sector.

Methods

A panel of Nordic LCA experts accomplished six weighting exercises. The different weight elicitation techniques are SWING which is based on the interval scale; Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is based on the ratio scale. Information on the case study was provided for the panellists, along with characterised or normalised impact assessment scores. However, in the first weighting exercise, the panellists were not provided with any scores or background information, but they had to complete the weighting at a more general level. With the weights provided by the panel, the environmental impacts of three alternative house types were aggregated. The calculations were based on three well-grounded aggregation rules, which are commonly used in the field of LCA or decision analysis.

Results and discussion

In the illustrative construction example, the different aggregation rules had the biggest impact on the results. The results were different in the six calculation methods: when externally normalised scores were applied, house type A was superior in most of the calculations, but when internal normalisation was accomplished, house type C was superior. By using equal weights, similar results were obtained. None of the panellists intuitively considered A as the superior house type, but in some of the calculations, this was indeed the case. Furthermore, the results refer to the fact that the panellists completed the weighting on the basis of their general knowledge, without taking the features of different weight elicitation techniques into account.

Conclusions

External normalisation provides information on a magnitude of impacts, and in some cases, external normalisation may be a more influential factor than weighting. Based on the results, it cannot be stated which different weight elicitation technique is the most suitable for LCA. However, the method should be selected based on the aims and purpose of the study. Moreover, the elicitation questions should be explained with care to experts so that they interpret the questions as intended.