Today “ecodesign” is a necessary consideration in the product development process. With increasing general awareness of the need for environmental production and more stringent regulatory requirements, manufacturers have to try to minimize their environmental impact. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is a generally accepted quantitative approach that can be applied to support environmental impact evaluations of a product. However, despite the time-consuming and resource-consuming attributes of the LCA, it has difficulty to deal with uncertain information. Therefore, LCA is yet to be a practical approach for environmental impact evaluation, particularly, during new product development (NPD). This paper proposes an approach to evaluate the environmental performance of design alternatives during NPD. The use of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches with LCA methodology for the evaluation of design alternatives’ environmental performance during NPD processes is first discussed. The proposed approach integrates analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy set theory (FST) with evidential reasoning (ER) in the evaluation of environmental performance to prioritize different design options. A case study is described to illustrate the use of the proposed method.

References

References
1.
ISO 14040:2006
,
2006
,
Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, and Framework
.
2.
Lindahl
,
M.
,
2006
, “
Engineering Designers’ Experience of Design for Environment Methods and Tools: Requirement Definitions from an Interview Study
,”
J. Cleaner Prod.
,
14
(
5
), pp. 
487
496
.10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.02.003
3.
Ng
,
C. Y.
, and
Chuah
,
K. B.
,
2011
, “
Effect of Material Selection on the Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental Impact
,”
Adv. Mater. Res.
,
383
390
, pp. 
3387
3394
.
4.
Björklund
,
A. E.
,
2006
,
Survey of Approaches to Improve Reliability in LCA
,
The Environmental Strategies Research Group
,
Stockholm, Sweden
.
5.
Millet
D.
,
Bistagnino
L.
,
Lanzavecchia
C.
,
Camous
R.
, and
Tiiu
Poldma
,
2007
, “
Does the Potential of the Use of LCA Match the Design Team Needs?
J. Cleaner Prod.
,
15
(
4
), pp. 
335
346
.10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.016
6.
Saaty
,
T. L.
,
1980
,
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
.
7.
Kuo
,
M. S.
,
2011
, “
Optimal Location Selection for an International Distribution Center by Using a New Hybrid Method
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
38
(
6
), pp. 
7208
7221
.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.002
8.
Chin
,
K. S.
,
Xu
,
D. L.
,
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Lam
,
P. K.
,
2008
, “
Group-Based ER-AHP System for Product Project Screening
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
35
(
4
), pp. 
1909
1929
.10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.077
9.
Dağdeviren
,
M.
,
2010
, “
A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for Personnel Selection In Manufacturing Systems
,”
J. Intell. Manuf.
,
21
(
4
), pp. 
451
460
.10.1007/s10845-008-0200-7
10.
Chin
,
K. S.
,
Xu
,
D. L.
,
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Lam
,
P. K.
,
2008
, “
Group-Based ER-AHP System for Product Project Screening
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
35
(
4
), pp. 
1909
1929
.10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.077
11.
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Singh
,
M. G.
,
1994
, “
An Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Uncertainty
,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Humans
,
24
(
1
), pp. 
1
18
.
12.
Dempster
,
A. P.
,
1967
, “
Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multi-Valued Mapping
,”
Ann. Math. Stat.
,
38
(
2
), pp. 
325
339
.
13.
Shafer
,
G.
,
1976
,
A Mathematical Theory of Evidence
,
Princeton University Press
,
Princeton, NJ
.
14.
Wang
,
Y. M.
,
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Xu
,
D. L.
,
2006
, “
The Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis Using Interval Belief Degrees
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
,
175
(
1
), pp. 
35
66
.10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.034
15.
Tacnet
,
J. M.
,
Dezert
,
J.
, and
Mireille
,
B. H.
,
2011
,
AHP and Uncertainty Theories for Decision Making using the ER-MCDA Methodology
,
International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Network Process
,
Sorrento, Italy
.
16.
Wang
,
Y. M.
, and
Elhag
,
T. M. S.
,
2006
, “
Evidential Reasoning Approach For Bridge Condition Assessment
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
34
(
1
), pp. 
689
699
.
17.
Jiang
,
J.
,
Li
,
X.
, and
Zhou
,
Z. J.
,
2011
, “
Weapon System Capability Assessment Under Uncertainty Based on the Evidential Reasoning Approach
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
38
(
11
), pp. 
13,773
13,784
.
18.
Wang
,
Y. M.
,
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Xu
,
D. L.
,
2006
, “
Environmental Impact Assessment Using the Evidential Reasoning Approach
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
,
174
(
3
), pp. 
1885
1913
.10.1016/j.ejor.2004.09.059
19.
Zadeh
,
L. A.
,
1965
, “
Fuzzy Sets
,”
Inf. Control
,
8
(
3
), pp. 
338
353
.10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
20.
ISO 14040:2006
,
2006
,
Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment: Principles, and Framework
.
21.
Ertuğrul
,
İ.
, and
Karakaşoğlu
,
N.
,
2008
, “
Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods for Facility Location Selection
,”
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
,
39
(
7–8
), pp. 
783
795
.
22.
Klir
,
G. J.
, and
Yuan
,
B.
,
1995
,
Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
.
23.
Chan
,
F. T. S.
,
Kumar
,
N.
,
Tiwari
,
M. K.
,
Lau
,
H. C. W.
, and
Choy
,
K. L.
,
2008
, “
Global Supplier Selection: A Fuzzy-AHP Approach
,”
Int. J. Prod. Res.
,
46
(
14
),
3825
3857
.10.1080/00207540600787200
24.
Gumus
,
A. T.
,
2009
, “
Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Transportation Firms by Using a Two Step Fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS Methodology
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
36
(
2
), pp. 
4067
4074
.10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.013
25.
Wang
,
Y. M.
,
Greatbanks
,
R.
, and
Yang
,
J. B.
,
2005
, “
Interval Efficiency Assessment Using Data Envelopment Analysis
,”
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
,
153
(
3
), pp. 
347
370
.10.1016/j.fss.2004.12.011
26.
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Singh
,
M. G.
,
1994
, “
An Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Uncertainty
,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Humans
,
24
(
1
), pp. 
1
18
.
27.
Dempster
,
A. P.
,
1967
, “
Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multi-Valued Mapping
,”
Ann. Math. Stat.
,
38
(
2
), pp. 
325
339
.
28.
Shafer
,
G.
,
1976
,
A Mathematical Theory of Evidence
,
Princeton University Press
,
Princeton, NJ
.
29.
Wang
,
Y. M.
,
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Xu
,
D. L.
,
2006
, “
The Evidential Reasoning Approach for Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis Using Interval Belief Degrees
,”
Eur. J. Oper. Res.
,
175
(
1
), pp. 
35
66
.10.1016/j.ejor.2005.03.034
30.
Yang
,
J. B.
, and
Xu
,
D. L.
,
2002
, “
On the Evidential Reasoning Algorithm for Multiple Attribute Decision Analysis Under Uncertainty
,”
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
,
32
(
3
), pp. 
289
304
.10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746
31.
Sadiq
,
R.
,
Saint-Martin
,
E.
, and
Kleiner
,
Y.
,
2008
, “
Predicting Risk of Water Quality Failures in Distribution Networks Under Uncertainties Using Fault-Tree Analysis
,”
Urban Water J.
,
5
(
4
), pp.
287
304
.10.1080/15730620802213504
32.
Mokhtari
,
K.
,
Ren
,
J.
,
Roberts
,
C.
, and
Wang
,
J.
,
2012
, “
Decision Support Framework for Risk Management on Sea Ports and Terminals Using Fuzzy Set Theory and Evidential Reasoning Approach
,”
Expert Syst. Appl.
,
39
(
5
), pp. 
5087
5103
.10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.030
33.
Goedkoop
,
M.
, and
Spriensma
,
R.
,
1999
, “The Eco-Indicator 99. A Damage Oriented Method for Life Cycle Assessment,” Methodology Report,
PRé Consultants
,
Amersfoort, The Netherlands
.
You do not currently have access to this content.