Purpose Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments. Methods In the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be -017-1333-8 answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning.Results and discussion The recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question BWhat is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?^The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard.Conclusions After 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users' potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensusbased methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.

No abstract

Purpose Along with climate change-related issues, improved water management is recognized as one of the major challenges to sustainability. However, there are still no commonly accepted methods for measuring sustainability of water uses, resulting in a recent proliferation of water footprint methodologies. The Water Impact Index presented in this paper aims to integrate the issues of volume, scarcity and quality into a single indicator to assess the reduction of available water for the environment induced by freshwater uses for human activities.Methods The Water Impact Index follows life cycle thinking principles. For each unit process, a volumetric water balance is performed; water flows crossing the boundaries between the techno-sphere and environment are multiplied by a water quality index and a water scarcity index. The methodology is illustrated on the current municipal wastewater management system of Milan (Italy). The Water Impact Index is combined with carbon footprint to introduce multi-impact thinking to decision makers. The Water Impact Index is further compared to results obtained using a set of three life cycle impact indicators related to water, from the ReCiPe life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology. Results and discussion Onsite water use is the main contribution to the Water Impact Index for both wastewater management schemes. The release of better quality water is the main driver in favour of the scenario including a wastewater treatment plant, while the energy and chemicals consumed for the treatment increase the indirect water footprint and carbon footprint. Results obtained with the three midpoint indicators depict similar tendencies to the Water Impact Index. Conclusions This paper presents a simplified single-indicator approach for water footprinting, integrating volume, scarcity and quality issues, representing an initial step toward a better understanding and assessment of the environmental impacts of human activities on water resources. The wastewater treatment plant reduces the Water Impact Index of the wastewater management system. These results are consistent with the profile of the three midpoint indicators related to water from ReCiPe.

No abstract