Weighting factors for LCA—a new set from a global survey

Abstract Purpose This paper provides global weights (weighting factors) for the three endpoint impact categories (areas of protection (AoPs)) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Life Cycle Initiative’s “Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Methods” (GLAM) project, namely human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit the preferences of respondents on the GLAM AoPs, and they were then used to calculate the respective weights. Responses were obtained from a subset of countries pertaining to each income level defined by the World Bank (i.e. low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high). The adimensional (between 0 and 1) weights were derived using two different approaches: econometric and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The econometric approach obtained weights by transforming the estimated preference parameters from a multinomial logit model. The MCDA approach obtained weights representing the vectors that best reconstitute the choices of each individual, using linear programming to fit an additive value function. Results When considering responses from all income groups, the weights from the econometric approach are 0.42, 0.31, and 0.26 for human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services, respectively. Following the same order for the AoPs, the weights from the MCDA approach are 0.41, 0.32, and 0.27. For high-income countries, ecosystem quality has the highest weight; for upper-middle-income countries, ecosystem quality and human health have the same weights using the econometric approach, while in the MCDA approach, human health is weighted higher than ecosystem quality. For the two lower income country groups, the priority is given to human health with both approaches. Recommendations for the use of these weights are also provided, as well as a comparison with other existing weights. Conclusion The two methods obtained similar weights overall, although with some differences when disaggregated by income groups. The weights proposed in this paper are suitable for decision-makers or users who want to use survey-derived weights for endpoint-based LCA when using the AoPs of GLAM. These weights can be used in projects where the decision-makers do not want to or have no resources to identify a set of weights themselves, or when decision-makers are not involved.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Published
2024-08-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02330-w
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Weighting factors for LCA—a new set from a global survey

Norihiro Itsubo, Danny Campbell, Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı, Christine Betty Nagawa et al.
8 citations
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
1.65
article

Weighting factors for LCA—a new set from a global survey

Norihiro Itsubo, Danny Campbell, Ayşe Bayazıt Subaşı, Christine Betty Nagawa, Elçin Taş, Luís C. Dias, Cecilia Askham, Marco Cinelli, Erlend Dancke Sandorf, Christine Kyarimpa, Mamadou Djerma, Bazoin Sylvain Raoul Bazie
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Abstract Purpose This paper provides global weights (weighting factors) for the three endpoint impact categories (areas of protection (AoPs)) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Life Cycle Initiative’s “Global Guidance for Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators and Methods” (GLAM) project, namely human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services. Methods A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit the preferences of respondents on the GLAM AoPs, and they were then used to calculate the respective weights. Responses were obtained from a subset of countries pertaining to each income level defined by the World Bank (i.e. low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high). The adimensional (between 0 and 1) weights were derived using two different approaches: econometric and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The econometric approach obtained weights by transforming the estimated preference parameters from a multinomial logit model. The MCDA approach obtained weights representing the vectors that best reconstitute the choices of each individual, using linear programming to fit an additive value function. Results When considering responses from all income groups, the weights from the econometric approach are 0.42, 0.31, and 0.26 for human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources and ecosystem services, respectively. Following the same order for the AoPs, the weights from the MCDA approach are 0.41, 0.32, and 0.27. For high-income countries, ecosystem quality has the highest weight; for upper-middle-income countries, ecosystem quality and human health have the same weights using the econometric approach, while in the MCDA approach, human health is weighted higher than ecosystem quality. For the two lower income country groups, the priority is given to human health with both approaches. Recommendations for the use of these weights are also provided, as well as a comparison with other existing weights. Conclusion The two methods obtained similar weights overall, although with some differences when disaggregated by income groups. The weights proposed in this paper are suitable for decision-makers or users who want to use survey-derived weights for endpoint-based LCA when using the AoPs of GLAM. These weights can be used in projects where the decision-makers do not want to or have no resources to identify a set of weights themselves, or when decision-makers are not involved.

The International Journal of Life Cycle AssessmentVol. 29(11)
University of Stirling (GB), Leiden University (NL), Waseda University (JP), Hague Institute for Global Justice (NL), Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research (NO), University of Koudougou (BF), Kyambogo University (UG), Istanbul Technical University (TR), Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO), Makerere University (UG), University of Coimbra (PT)
Responsible consumption and production
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
1.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.