Como os stakeholders brasileiros julgam a significância das categorias de impacto?

Autores

  • Guilherme Marcelo Zanghelini Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Ambiental, Campus Universitário, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5488-6279
  • Edivan Cherubini Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Ambiental, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7363-6075
  • Henrique Rogerio Antunes de Souza Junior Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Ambiental, Campus Reitor João David Ferreira Lima, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC
  • Sebastião Roberto Soares Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária, Centro Tecnológico, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0883-5312

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18225/lalca.v2iEspec.4465

Resumo

A ponderação é um tópico controverso na comunidade de Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida (ACV) por conta da subjetividade que acompanha todo o processo de atribuição de significância para as categorias de impacto. Por outro lado, simplifica a interpretação e comunicação de resultados, frequentemente multidimensionais e com trade-off entre indicadores. Quando baseada no painel de especialistas, a ponderação é influenciada pelo julgamento de valor de cada indivíduo, de forma que cada grupo de stakeholders pode influenciar nos resultados. Neste contexto, a utilização da Análise de Decisão Multicritério (MCDA) no campo da ACV permite estruturar problemas complexos, incluir de forma ordenada o julgamento dos multistakeholders e preencher a lacuna da ponderação para o contexto brasileiro. O objetivo deste artigo foi quantificar a significância das categorias de impacto ambiental segundo os stakeholders nacionais. A metodologia embasou-se na aplicação de dois painéis de especialistas estruturados no modelo híbrido de MCDA AHP/PROMETHEE II, com valores calculados segundo algoritmo de agregação do PROMETHEE II. O primeiro painel ponderou 8 critérios relacionados às categorias de impacto segundo especialistas da ACV. O segundo painel elicitou os pesos para 8 categorias de impacto em nível midpoint de acordo com os critérios estabelecidos no primeiro painel segundo a Academia, Governo e Indústria. O julgamento médio dos 76 participantes atribuiu maior significância para Mudanças Climáticas (18,5%), seguido pela Depleção da Camada de Ozônio (15,5%) enquanto que outras 6 categorias completam os 100% do conjunto de pesos.

 

Palavras-chave: Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida. Categoria de Impacto. Ponderação. Análise de Decisão Multicritério. Stakeholders.

Resumen

La ponderación es un tema controvertido en la comunidad de Análisis del Ciclo de Vida (ACV) por la subjetividad que acompaña todo el proceso de atribución de significancia para las categorías de impacto. Por otro lado, simplifica la interpretación y comunicación de resultados, a menudo multidimensionales y con compensación entre indicadores. Cuando se basa en el panel de expertos, la ponderación es influenciada por el juicio de valor de cada individuo, de forma que cada grupo de stakeholders puede influir en los resultados. En este contexto, la utilización del Análisis de Decisión Multicriterio (MCDA) en el campo de la ACV permite estructurar problemas complejos, incluir de forma ordenada el juicio de los multistakeholders y llenar la brecha de la ponderación para el contexto brasileño. El objetivo de este trabajo fue cuantificar la significancia de las categorías de impacto ambiental según los stakeholders nacionales. La metodología se basó en la aplicación de dos paneles de especialistas estructurados en el modelo híbrido de MCDA AHP/PROMETHEE II, con valores calculados según algoritmo de agregación del PROMETHEE II. El primer panel ponderó 8 criterios relacionados con las categorías de impacto según expertos de la ACV. De acuerdo con los criterios establecidos en el primer panel el segundo panel elicitó los pesos para 8 categorías de impacto a nivel midpoint según la Academia, Gobierno e Industria. El juicio promedio de los 76 participantes atribuyó mayor significancia para el Cambio Climático (18,5%), seguido por la Depleción de la Capa de Ozono (15,5%) mientras que otras 6 categorías completan el 100% del conjunto de pesos.

 

Palabras clave: Análisis del Ciclo de Vida. Categoría de Impacto. Ponderación. Análisis de Decisión Multicriterio. Stakeholders.

Abstract

The weighting step is a controversial topic in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) community due to the subjectivity of the entire process of assigning significance to impact categories. On the other hand, it simplifies the interpretation and communication of results. The results in LCA are often multidimensional and with trade-off between indicators. When based on the panel of experts, the weighting is influenced by the judgment of each individual value, therefore each group of stakeholders can influence the results. In this context, the use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in the LCA allows to structure complex problems, to set an orderly way the judgment from multistakeholders and fill the gap of the weighting for the Brazilian context. The objective of this paper was to quantify the significance of environmental impact categories according to national stakeholders. The methodology was based on the application of two expert panels structured in the hybrid model of MCDA AHP/PROMETHEE II, with values calculated according to the aggregation algorithm of PROMETHEE II. The first panel considered 8 criteria related to impact categories according to LCA experts. Based on the criteria established in the first panel the second panel elicited the weights for 8 impact categories at the midpoint level according to Academy, Government and Industry representatives. The average judgment of the 76 participants attributed greater significance to Climate Change (18.5%), followed by Ozone Layer Depletion (15.5%) while other 6 categories complete 100% of the set of weights.

 

Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment. Impact Category. Weighting. Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Stakeholders.

Referências

BARE, Jane C. and GLORIA, Thomas P., 2006. Critical analysis of the mathematical relationships and comprehensiveness of life cycle impact assessment approaches. Environmental Science & Technology, December 2006, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1104-1113.

BAUMANN, Henrikke and TILLMAN, Anne-Marie, 2004. The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2004.

BENGTSSON, Jonas, HOWARD, Nigel and KNEPPERS, Ben, 2010. Weighting environmental impacts in Australia. Engadine, NSW : Building Products Innovation Council (BPIC), 2010.

BRANS, J. P., VINCKE P. H. and MARESCHAL, B., 1986. How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, February 1986, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 228-238.

CASTELLANI, Valentina, BENINI, Lorenzo, SALA, Serenella and PANT, Rana, 2016. A distance-to-target weighting method for Europe 2020. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, March 2016, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 1159-1169.

CHERUBINI, Edivan and RIBEIRO, Paulo. Trigo, 2015. Diálogos setoriais Brasil e União Europeia: desafios e soluções para o fortalecimento da ACV no Brasil. Brasília: Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia (IBICT), 2015.

FINNVEDEN, Göran, 1997. Valuation methods within LCA: where are the values?.The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, September 1997, vol. 2, pp. 163–169.

FINNVEDEN, Göran, 1999. A critical review of operational valuation/weighting methods for life cycle assessment. AFR-Report, June 1999, issue 253.

GELDERMANN, Jutta and RENTZ, Otto, 2005. Multi-criteria analysis for technique assessment: case study from industrial coating. Journal of Industrial Ecology, July 2005, vol. 9, issue 3, pp. 127-142.

GOEDKOOP, Mark and SPRIENSMA, Renilde, 1999. The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Ministry VROM Report, 1999.

HELLWEG, Stefanie and MILÀ I CANALS, Llorenç, 2014. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science, June 2014, vol. 344, issue 6188, pp. 1109-1113.

HERMANN, B, KROEZE, C. and JAWJIT, W., 2007. Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, December 2007, vol. 15, no. 18, pp. 1787-1796.

HUIJBREGTS, Mark A. J., 1998. Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, September 1998, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 273-280.

HUPPES, G., et al., 2007. Eco-efficient environmental policy in oil and gas production in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics, February 2007, vol. 61, issue 1, pp. 43-51.

HUPPES, Gjalt and VAN OERS, Lauran, 2011. Background review of existing weighting approaches in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Luxembourg: JCR European Commission, 2011.

ISO (INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION), 2006. 14044: environmental management: life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines. Genebra: ISO, 2006.

JOHNSEN, Fredrik Moltu and LØKKE, Søren, 2013. Review of criteria for evaluating lca weighting methods. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, May 2013, vol. 18, issue. 4, pp. 840-849.

KALBAR, Pradip. P., BIRKVED, Morten, NYGAARD, Simon E. and HAUSCHILD, Michael, 2017. Weighting and aggregation in life cycle assessment do present aggregated single scores provide correct decision support? Journal of Industrial Ecology, December 2017, vol. 21, issue 6, pp. 1591-1600.

KÄGI, Thomas, et al., 2016. Session “Midpoint, endpoint or single score for decision-making?”: SETAC Europe 25th annual meeting, May 5th, 2015. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, January 2016, vol. 21, issue 1, pp. 129-132.

LIPPIATT, Barbara. C., 2007. BEES 4.0: building for environmental and economic sustainability technical manual and user guide. USA: NIST, 2007.

PIZZOL, Massimo, et al., 2017. Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, June 217, vol. 22, issue 6, pp. 853-866.

POWELL, Jane. C, PEARCE, David W. and CRAIGHILL, Amelia L., 1997. Approaches to valuation in LCA impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, March 1997, vol. 2, issue 1, pp. 11-15.

ROGERS, Kristen and SEAGER, Thomas P., 2009. Environmental decision-making using life cycle impact assessment and stochastic multiattribute decision analysis: a case study on alternative transportation fuels. Environmental Science & Technology, 2009, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1718-1723.

SAATY, R. W., 1987. The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 1987, vol. 9, issues 3-5, pp. 161-176.

SCHMIDT, Wulf-Peter and SULLIVAN, John, 2002. Weighting in life cycle assessments in a global context. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, January 2002, vol. 7, issue 1, pp. 5-10.

SOARES, Sebastião Roberto, TOFFOLETTO, Laurence and DESCHÊNES, Louise, 2006. Development of weighting factors in the context of lcia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2006, vol. 14, issues 6-7, pp. 649-660.

UDO DE HAES, H. A., et al., 2002. Life cycle impact assessment: Striving towards best practice. Pensacola, Florida: SETAC Press, 2002.

ZANGHELINI, Guilherme Marcelo, et al., 2016. A bibliometric overview of brazilian lca research. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, December 2016, vol. 21, issue 12, pp. 1759-1775.

ZANGHELINI, Guilherme Marcelo, CHERUBINI, Edivan and SOARES, Sebastião Roberto, 2018. How multi-criteria decision analysis (mcda) is aiding life cycle assessment (lca) in results interpretation. Journal of Cleaner Production, January 2018, vol.172, pp. 609-622.

Downloads

Publicado

19/11/2018

Edição

Seção

Artigos Originais

Como Citar

Como os stakeholders brasileiros julgam a significância das categorias de impacto?. (2018). LALCA: Revista Latino-Americana Em Avaliação Do Ciclo De Vida, 2(2 esp.), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.18225/lalca.v2iEspec.4465

Artigos mais lidos pelo mesmo(s) autor(es)