IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2170-d331343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Sohn

    (DTU Management, Sustainability Division, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Pierre Bisquert

    (INRAE, IATE, INRIA GraphIK, University of Montpellier, F-34060 Montpellier, France)

  • Patrice Buche

    (INRAE, IATE, INRIA GraphIK, University of Montpellier, F-34060 Montpellier, France)

  • Abdelraouf Hecham

    (INRAE, IATE, INRIA GraphIK, University of Montpellier, F-34060 Montpellier, France)

  • Pradip P. Kalbar

    (Centre for Urban Science and Engineering (CUSE) and Associate Faculty, Interdisciplinary Programme in Climate Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India)

  • Ben Goldstein

    (School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041, USA)

  • Morten Birkved

    (SDU Life Cycle Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Technology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark)

  • Stig Irving Olsen

    (DTU Management, Sustainability Division, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Sohn & Pierre Bisquert & Patrice Buche & Abdelraouf Hecham & Pradip P. Kalbar & Ben Goldstein & Morten Birkved & Stig Irving Olsen, 2020. "Argumentation Corrected Context Weighting-Life Cycle Assessment: A Practical Method of Including Stakeholder Perspectives in Multi-Criteria Decision Support for LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2170-:d:331343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2170/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2170/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stenfors, Sari & Tanner, Leena & Syrjanen, Mikko & Seppala, Tomi & Haapalinna, Ilkka, 2007. "Executive views concerning decision support tools," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 929-938, September.
    2. Laure Patouillard & Pierre Collet & Pascal Lesage & Pablo Tirado Seco & Cécile Bulle & Manuele Margni, 2019. "Prioritizing regionalization efforts in life cycle assessment through global sensitivity analysis: a sector meta-analysis based on ecoinvent v3," Post-Print hal-02408818, HAL.
    3. Srivastava, Joydeep & Connolly, Terry & Beach, Lee Roy, 1995. "Do Ranks Suffice? A Comparison of Alternative Weighting Approaches in Value Elicitation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 112-116, July.
    4. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Stefan Rahmstorf & Ricarda Winkelmann, 2016. "Why the right climate target was agreed in Paris," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 649-653, July.
    5. Kalbar, Pradip P. & Karmakar, Subhankar & Asolekar, Shyam R., 2012. "Technology assessment for wastewater treatment using multiple-attribute decision-making," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 295-302.
    6. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giovanna Croxatto Vega & Juliën Voogt & Joshua Sohn & Morten Birkved & Stig Irving Olsen, 2020. "Assessing New Biotechnologies by Combining TEA and TM-LCA for an Efficient Use of Biomass Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-35, May.
    2. Denis Jelačić & Andreja Pirc Barčić & Leon Oblak & Darko Motik & Petra Grošelj & Matej Jošt, 2021. "Sustainable Production Management Model for Small and Medium Enterprises in Some South-Central EU Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    2. John R. Doyle, 1999. "Elicitation and Context Effects in Judgments: Fixed Sum Versus Fixed Scale Frames," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 972-979, July.
    3. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    4. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    5. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
    6. Che khairil Izam Che Ibrahim & Seosamh B. Costello & Suzanne Wilkinson, 2013. "Development of a conceptual team integration performance index for alliance projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(11), pages 1128-1143, November.
    7. Mateos, A. & Jimenez, A. & Rios-Insua, S., 2006. "Monte Carlo simulation techniques for group decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1842-1864, November.
    8. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    9. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    10. Paul L. Goethals & Natalie M. Scala, 2018. "Eliminating the Weakest Link Approach to Army Unit Readiness," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 110-130, June.
    11. Beynon, Malcolm J., 2005. "A novel technique of object ranking and classification under ignorance: An application to the corporate failure risk problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(2), pages 493-517, December.
    12. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Wells, Peter, 2008. "The lean improvement of the chemical emissions of motor vehicles based on preference ranking: A PROMETHEE uncertainty analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 384-394, June.
    13. Mario A. Fernandez & Adam J. Daigneault, 2018. "Money Does Grow On Trees: Impacts Of The Paris Agreement On The New Zealand Economy," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-23, August.
    14. Stephen P. Chambal & Jeffery D. Weir & Yucel R. Kahraman & Alex J. Gutman, 2011. "A Practical Procedure for Customizable One-Way Sensitivity Analysis in Additive Value Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 303-321, December.
    15. Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Joeri Rogelj & Michiel Schaeffer & Tabea Lissner & Rachel Licker & Erich M. Fischer & Reto Knutti & Anders Levermann & Katja Frieler & William Hare, 2016. "Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 827-835, September.
    16. Sheng Tun Li & Thuong Thi Pham & Hui Chi Chuang & Zhi-Wei Wang, 2016. "Does reliable information matter? Towards a trustworthy co-created recommendation model by mining unboxing reviews," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 71-99, February.
    17. Samira Shayanmehr & Jana Ivanič Porhajašová & Mária Babošová & Mahmood Sabouhi Sabouni & Hosein Mohammadi & Shida Rastegari Henneberry & Naser Shahnoushi Foroushani, 2022. "The Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources and Crop Production in an Arid Region," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, July.
    18. Chad M. Baum & Christian Gross, 2017. "Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 53-95, April.
    19. Durbach, Ian N., 2014. "Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 98-108.
    20. Lianmeng Jiao & Quan Pan & Yan Liang & Xiaoxue Feng & Feng Yang, 2016. "Combining sources of evidence with reliability and importance for decision making," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 87-106, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2170-:d:331343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.