Use of multi‐criteria decision analysis in regulatory alternatives analysis: A case study of lead free solder

Regulators are implementing new programs that require manufacturers of products containing certain chemicals of concern to identify, evaluate, and adopt viable, safer alternatives. Such programs raise the difficult question for policymakers and regulated businesses of which alternatives are "viable" and "safer." To address that question, these programs use "alternatives analysis," an emerging methodology that integrates issues of human health and environmental effects with technical feasibility and economic impact. Despite the central role that alternatives analysis plays in these programs, the methodology itself is neither well-developed nor tailored to application in regulatory settings. This study uses the case of Pb-based bar solder and its non-Pb-based alternatives to examine the application of 2 multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods to alternatives analysis: multi-attribute utility analysis and outranking. The article develops and evaluates an alternatives analysis methodology and supporting decision-analysis software for use in a regulatory context, using weighting of the relevant decision criteria generated from a stakeholder elicitation process. The analysis produced complete rankings of the alternatives, including identification of the relative contribution to the ranking of each of the highest level decision criteria such as human health impacts, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility. It also examined the effect of variation in data conventions, weighting, and decision frameworks on the outcome. The results indicate that MCDA can play a critical role in emerging prevention-based regulatory programs. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods offer a means for transparent, objective, and rigorous analysis of products and processes, providing regulators and stakeholders with a common baseline understanding of the relative performance of alternatives and the trade-offs they present.

[1]  E. Løken.  Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems , 2007 .

[2]  T. Seager,et al.  Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Framework for Structuring Remedial Decisions at Contaminated Sites , 2004 .

[3]  J.M. Schoenung,et al.  An integrated impact assessment and weighting methodology: Evaluation of the environmental consequences of lead-free solder alternatives , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.

[4]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making , 2005 .

[5]  G. Norris.  The requirement for congruence in normalization , 2001 .

[6]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

[7]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[8]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[9]  M. Ramachandran,et al.  Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review , 2004 .

[10]  Abid Latif,et al.  The Viability of Professional Wet Cleaning as a Pollution Prevention Alternative to Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning , 2007, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[11]  Jyri Seppälä,et al.  Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life‐Cycle Impact Assessment , 2001 .

[12]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[13]  Jennifer Cooper,et al.  Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  Thomas P. Seager,et al.  Integration of MCDA Tools in Valuation of Comparative Life Cycle Assessment , 2012 .

[15]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. , 2011, The Science of the total environment.

[16]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  Jane C. Bare,et al.  Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs , 2010 .

[18]  Julie M Schoenung,et al.  An integrated impact assessment and weighting methodology: evaluation of the environmental consequences of computer display technology substitution. , 2007, Journal of environmental management.

[19]  Jonathan I Levy,et al.  Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  Patrick Rousseaux,et al.  Aid for aggregating the impacts in Life Cycle assessment , 2003 .

[21]  Louise Deschênes,et al.  Development of weighting factors in the context of LCIA , 2006 .

[22]  Adel Guitouni,et al.  Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  John R. Doyle,et al.  A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best , 2001 .

[24]  T. Seager,et al.  Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[25]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Towards reconciling outranking and value measurement practice , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  Timothy L. Nyerges,et al.  Transparency of environmental decision making: a case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area , 2004 .

[27]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications and Case Studies , 2011 .

[28]  John H. Lau,et al.  Electronics Manufacturing: with Lead-Free, Halogen-Free, and Conductive-Adhesive Materials , 2002 .

[29]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Decision Support Systems and Environment: Role of MCDA , 2009 .

[30]  Saul I. Gass,et al.  Model World: The Great Debate - MAUT Versus AHP , 2005, Interfaces.

[31]  Nicholas A. Ashford,et al.  Rethinking the Role of Information in Chemicals Policy: Implications for TSCA and REACH , 2006 .