Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?

  • CRITICAL REVIEW
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 264–274

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 40:5108–5115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:1005–1018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 4:213–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:850–860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:215–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 3:352–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:683–697

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:737–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:876–891

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:488–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:196–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:129–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:728–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 409:33–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:468–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:394–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:405–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 49:2601–2603

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 20:1568–1585

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 390:227–240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:162–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 68:1591–1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 50:260–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Valentina Prado, Jane Bare, Tommie Ponsioen and Anne-Marie Boulay for their contributions to the working group activities. Thanks are also due to Anders Bjørn and Viêt Cao who kindly contributed with comments and additions to the assessment matrices.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark

    Massimo Pizzol & Bo Weidema

  2. Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstorvet 424, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

    Alexis Laurent

  3. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Sustainability Assessment Unit, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027, Ispra, VA, Italy

    Serenella Sala

  4. Industrial Ecology Programme, Department for Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Sælands vei 7, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Francesca Verones

  5. thinkstep Inc., 170 Milk St, Boston, MA, 02109, USA

    Christoph Koffler

Authors
  1. Massimo Pizzol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexis Laurent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Serenella Sala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bo Weidema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesca Verones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christoph Koffler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Massimo Pizzol.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Jeroen Guinée

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 225 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 40 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pizzol, M., Laurent, A., Sala, S. et al. Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis?. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 853–866 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation