Argumentation Corrected Context Weighting-Life Cycle Assessment: A Practical Method of Including Stakeholder Perspectives in Multi-Criteria Decision Support for LCA

Despite advances in the data, models, and methods underpinning environmental life cycle assessment (LCA), it remains challenging for practitioners to effectively communicate and interpret results. These shortcomings can bias decisions and hinder public acceptance for planning supported by LCA. This paper introduces a method for interpreting LCA results, the Argumentation Corrected Context Weighting-LCA (ArgCW-LCA), to overcome these barriers. ArgCW-LCA incorporates stakeholder preferences, corrects unjustified disagreements, and allows for the inclusion of non-environmental impacts (e.g., economic, social, etc.) using a novel weighting scheme and the application of multi-criteria decision analysis to provide transparent and context-relevant decision support. We illustrate the utility of the method through two case studies: a hypothetical decision regarding energy production and a real-world decision regarding polyphenol extraction technologies. In each case, we surveyed a relevant stakeholder group on their environmental views and fed their responses into the model to provide decision support that is relevant to their perspective. We found marked differences between results using ArgCW-LCA and results from a conventional analysis using an equal-weighting scheme, as well as differentiation between stakeholder preference groups, indicating the importance of applying the perspective of the particular stakeholder group. For instance, there was a rank reversal of alternatives when comparing between an equal weighting approach for all environmental and economic dimensions and ArgCW-LCA. ArgCW-LCA provides opportunity for both public and private sector incorporation of LCA, such as in developing enlightened stakeholder value measures. This is achieved through enabling the LCA practition to provide public and private actors’ interpreted LCA results in a manner that incorporates educated stakeholder perspectives. Furthermore, the method encourages stakeholder multiplicity through participatory design and policymaking that can enhance public backing of actions that can make society more sustainable.

[1]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  Towards Participatory Geographic Information Systems for community-based environmental decision making. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[2]  Subhankar Karmakar,et al.  Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: a scenario-based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[3]  Anders Bjørn,et al.  Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[4]  Thomas C. Beierle Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions , 2010 .

[5]  S. Rahmstorf,et al.  Why the right climate target was agreed in Paris , 2016 .

[6]  Abdelraouf Hecham,et al.  On a Flexible Representation for Defeasible Reasoning Variants , 2018, AAMAS.

[7]  Robert Ries,et al.  Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation , 2009 .

[8]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Development of a life-cycle impact assessment methodology linked to the Planetary Boundaries framework , 2018 .

[9]  Panitas Sureeyatanapas,et al.  Comparison of rank-based weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making , 2016 .

[10]  John J. Reap,et al.  A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[11]  Pradip P. Kalbar,et al.  Advancing life cycle sustainability assessment using multiple criteria decision making , 2020 .

[12]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[13]  Massimo Pizzol,et al.  Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Christopher L. Mutel,et al.  Temporalis: an open source software for dynamic LCA , 2018, J. Open Source Softw..

[15]  Anders Bjørn,et al.  Strengthening the Link between Life Cycle Assessment and Indicators for Absolute Sustainability To Support Development within Planetary Boundaries. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Pradip P. Kalbar,et al.  The absolute environmental performance of buildings , 2017 .

[17]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications - A State-of-the-Art Survey , 1981, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[18]  B. Weidema,et al.  Monetary valuation in Life Cycle Assessment: a review , 2015 .

[19]  Stig Irving Olsen,et al.  Lessons from combining techno-economic and life cycle assessment – a case study of polyphenol extraction from waste resources , 2019 .

[20]  Alexis Laurent,et al.  Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  Bruce E. Barrett,et al.  Decision quality using ranked attribute weights , 1996 .

[22]  Shyam R. Asolekar,et al.  Technology assessment for wastewater treatment using multiple-attribute decision-making , 2012 .

[23]  L. Beach,et al.  Do ranks suffice? A comparison of alternative weighting approaches in value elicitation , 1995 .

[24]  Not Indicated,et al.  International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance , 2010 .

[25]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  ReCiPe 2016. A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Report 1: Characterization. , 2016 .

[26]  Pradip P. Kalbar,et al.  Weighting and Aggregation in Life Cycle Assessment: Do Present Aggregated Single Scores Provide Correct Decision Support? , 2017 .

[27]  S. Charnley,et al.  Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA's superfund community involvement program. , 2005, Journal of environmental management.

[28]  Ofer Arieli Conflict-free and conflict-tolerant semantics for constrained argumentation frameworks , 2015, J. Appl. Log..

[29]  K. Gericke,et al.  Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies: From Science to Innovation , 2018 .

[30]  Gregor Wernet,et al.  The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[31]  Mia Mahmudur Rahim,et al.  The Rise of Enlightened Shareholder Primacy and Its Impact on the US Corporate Self-Regulation , 2014 .

[32]  Pascal Lesage,et al.  Prioritizing regionalization efforts in life cycle assessment through global sensitivity analysis: a sector meta-analysis based on ecoinvent v3 , 2019, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[33]  Ilkka Haapalinna,et al.  Executive views concerning decision support tools , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..