No abstract

Water resources is a crucial environmental good for the function of the human societies and the ecosystems. Moreover, water is an important input for the economy and an indispensable factor for economic growth. Especially in regions that are facing water scarcity, the adoption of water management policies and approaches fostering the sustainable use of resources while promoting economic growth becomes an emerging issue. The Mediterranean region is one of the most vulnerable regions regarding the availability of water resources due to climate change and human activities. The Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus offers an integrated approach analyzing the synergies and trade-offs between the different sectors in order to maximize the efficiency of using the resources, whereas adapting optimum policies and institutional arrangements. The Mediterranean is a region where we observe a large spectrum of issues emanating from water pollution and natural resource degradation to water scarcity, large amounts of food loss and waste and increasing demand for energy and food. Agricultural practices, urban development, demand management for water, and protection of ecosystems, particularly aquatic ecosystems, are areas of particular intervention available to the decision-makers in enhancing availability of water for the various water using sectors. In this context, the current policy note paper aims to address a major issue: how can the implementation of the WEF

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to supply an open method for weighting different environmental impacts, open to basically different evaluation approaches and open to easy revisions. From the partial, diverse and conflicting weighing methods available, a most consistent and flexible meta-method is constructed, allowing for a transparent discussion on weighting. Methods The methods incorporated are as general as possible, each single one being as pure as possible. We surveyed encompassing operational methods for evaluation, applicable in LCA and in larger systems like countries. They differ in terms of modelling, as to midpoint or as to endpoint; as to evaluation set-up, in terms of collective preferences or individual preferences; and as to being either revealed or stated. The first is midpoint modelling with collectively stated preferences, with operational weighting schemes from Dutch and US government applications. Second is the LCAtype endpoint approach using individual stated preferences, with public examples from Japan and the Netherlands. The third is the integrated modelling approach by economists.Results All methods are internally inconsistent, as in terms of treatment of place and time, and they are incomplete, lacking environmental interventions and effect routes. We repaired only incompleteness, by methods transfer. Finally, we combined the three groups of methods into a metaweighting method, aligned to the ILCD Handbook requirements for impact assessment. Application to time series data on EU-27 consumption shows how the EU developed in terms of overall environmental decoupling. Conclusions The disparate methods available all can be improved substantially. For now, a user adjustable metamethod is the best option, allowing for public discussion. A flexible regularly updated spreadsheet is supplied with the article.

No abstract

No abstract