The implementation of three MCDA methods through two sets of weighting
factors and uncertain LCSA performances allowed analysing the robustness of the
recommendation. From the results, we conclude that scenario with retreading is
preferred than the one without retreading. The stochastic results revealed this
scenario as a strong compromise solution.
This case study presented the importance of taking into account the following
three elements when supporting decision-making process through the MCDA
approach applied to LCSA performances: (i) implement different MCDA methods
with different aggregation characteristics; (ii) vary the MCDA mandatory parameters and (iii) take into account the uncertainty of the LCSA performances.
The first element allowed analysing the similarity among the compromise recommendations from each method. Secondly, using different sets of mandatory
parameters allowed incorporating the imprecision associated to the preference
elicitation process, improving the representativeness of the decision-maker’s value
judgment. Finally, taking into account the uncertainty of the performances
increased the robustness of the compromise ranking provided by each method.
References
1. Martín-Gamboa M, Iribarren D, García-Gusano D, Dufour J, A review of life-cycle
approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis within multi-criteria decision analysis for
sustainability assessment of energy systems, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 150, 2017,
pp 164–174.
2. Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T, From LCA to life cycle sustainability assessment:
concept, practice and future directions, The international journal of life cycle assessment,
Vol. 18, 2013, pp 1637–1641.
3. Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée J.B, Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of
products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life
cycle analysis, Polymer Degradation and Stability, Vol. 95, 2010, pp 422–428.
4. Halog A, Manik Y, Advancing integrated systems modeling framework for life cycle
sustainability assessment, Sustainability, Vol. 3, 2011, pp. 469–499.
5. Shärlig A, Décider sur plusieurs critères: panorama de l’aide à la décision multicritère, Presses
polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 1985.
6. Laurin L, Amor B, Bachmann T.M, Bare J, Koffler C, Genest S, Preiss P, Pierce J, Satterfield B,
Vigon B, Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using
LCA, The international journal of life cycle assessment, Vol. 21, 2016, pp 443–447.
7. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jorgensen A, Schneider L, Life cycle sustainability dashboard,
Journal of industrial ecology, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2012, pp 680–688.
8. Finkbeiner M, Schau E M, Lehmann A, Traverso M, Towards life cycle sustainability
assessment, Sustainability, Vol. 2, 2010, 3309–3322.
9. Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol C.M, Application of LCSA to used
cooking oil waste management. The international journal of life cycle assessment, Vol. 18,
2013, 445–455.
10. Lora E.E.S, Palacio J.C.E, Rocha M.H, Reno M.L.G, Venturini O.J, Olmo O.A, Issues to
consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sustainability assessments, Energy,
Vol. 36, 2011, pp 2097–2110.
Propagating Uncertainty in Life …
325
factors and uncertain LCSA performances allowed analysing the robustness of the
recommendation. From the results, we conclude that scenario with retreading is
preferred than the one without retreading. The stochastic results revealed this
scenario as a strong compromise solution.
This case study presented the importance of taking into account the following
three elements when supporting decision-making process through the MCDA
approach applied to LCSA performances: (i) implement different MCDA methods
with different aggregation characteristics; (ii) vary the MCDA mandatory parameters and (iii) take into account the uncertainty of the LCSA performances.
The first element allowed analysing the similarity among the compromise recommendations from each method. Secondly, using different sets of mandatory
parameters allowed incorporating the imprecision associated to the preference
elicitation process, improving the representativeness of the decision-maker’s value
judgment. Finally, taking into account the uncertainty of the performances
increased the robustness of the compromise ranking provided by each method.
References
1. Martín-Gamboa M, Iribarren D, García-Gusano D, Dufour J, A review of life-cycle
approaches coupled with data envelopment analysis within multi-criteria decision analysis for
sustainability assessment of energy systems, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 150, 2017,
pp 164–174.
2. Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T, From LCA to life cycle sustainability assessment:
concept, practice and future directions, The international journal of life cycle assessment,
Vol. 18, 2013, pp 1637–1641.
3. Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée J.B, Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of
products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life
cycle analysis, Polymer Degradation and Stability, Vol. 95, 2010, pp 422–428.
4. Halog A, Manik Y, Advancing integrated systems modeling framework for life cycle
sustainability assessment, Sustainability, Vol. 3, 2011, pp. 469–499.
5. Shärlig A, Décider sur plusieurs critères: panorama de l’aide à la décision multicritère, Presses
polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 1985.
6. Laurin L, Amor B, Bachmann T.M, Bare J, Koffler C, Genest S, Preiss P, Pierce J, Satterfield B,
Vigon B, Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using
LCA, The international journal of life cycle assessment, Vol. 21, 2016, pp 443–447.
7. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jorgensen A, Schneider L, Life cycle sustainability dashboard,
Journal of industrial ecology, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2012, pp 680–688.
8. Finkbeiner M, Schau E M, Lehmann A, Traverso M, Towards life cycle sustainability
assessment, Sustainability, Vol. 2, 2010, 3309–3322.
9. Vinyes E, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J, Gasol C.M, Application of LCSA to used
cooking oil waste management. The international journal of life cycle assessment, Vol. 18,
2013, 445–455.
10. Lora E.E.S, Palacio J.C.E, Rocha M.H, Reno M.L.G, Venturini O.J, Olmo O.A, Issues to
consider, existing tools and constraints in biofuels sustainability assessments, Energy,
Vol. 36, 2011, pp 2097–2110.
Propagating Uncertainty in Life …
325