Alternatives assessment (AA) is an overarching term for the process of identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals that might pose a risk to humans or the environment. At a minimum, AA should take... [ view full abstract ]
Alternatives assessment (AA) is an overarching term for the process of identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals that might pose a risk to humans or the environment. At a minimum, AA should take into account hazard and exposure. Depending on the nature of the comparison, life-cycle impacts, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility may also be taken into consideration as objectives.
To date, there is no standard (AA) method. Instead, many methods have been produced, each with foci that largely align with the discipline producing the method. This is problematic because it introduces an inherent priority to AA components, such as hazard, that receives the most focus. Ideally, AA should be flexible: (i) account for all possible objectives, (ii) allow stakeholders to prioritize them, and (iii) highlight potential trade-offs in meeting some objectives over others.
As other researchers have highlighted, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) meets all of these goals. In this study we focus on a specific sub-set of MCDA that utilizes multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT). MAUT allows stakeholders to specify their preferences in two steps: (i) between objectives (e.g., cost is more important than life-cycle impacts) and (ii) between single objective outcomes (e.g., cost decrease from $100 to $90 is valued more/less than a decrease from $90 to $80). In contrast to other methods, it allows for simultaneous consideration of objectives as opposed to step-wise elimination of alternatives frequently used in screening tools.
We demonstrate the efficacy of this approach in an AA of 14 paint stripper chemicals and show how alternatives can vary depending on stakeholder preferences. We also test stakeholder responses to our model and other types of decision-making models, such as elimination-by-aspects. Since our model includes hazard, exposure, performance, regulatory burden, cost, and environmental life-cycle objectives, the results highlight the importance of flexible frameworks for alternatives assessment.
• Business and industry practices / case studies , • Advances in methods (e.g., life cycle assessment, social impact assessment, resilience a , • Decision support methods and tools
