A Delphi Approach to Understanding Varying Expert Viewpoints in Sustainability Communication: The Case of Water Footprints of Bio‐Based Fiber Resources

Abstract

Summary In recent years, the concepts of accounting for water use and assessing its impact, also known as the water footprint (WF), have evolved. The cultivation of wood and cotton are two important bio‐based fiber resources that can use, consume, and pollute huge amounts of water. The purpose of this study is to identify the methodological options on an inventory level asociated with a WF assessment for bio‐based fiber resources. Using a three‐step Argument Delphi approach with international experts, important, but controversial, aspects of water footprinting are elaborated. During the different rounds of the Delphi procedure, the interlacement of the crucial topics became apparent, including the net green water or the total volume of green water, trade‐offs between water use and land‐use impacts, allocation of the green WF on ecosystem services, and nomination of a reference situation (e.g., potential natural vegetation). Further, this study evaluates whether the experts allowed generalizations about these methodological options. Finally, the agreement of experts on some generalized statements showed that such statements can be used legitimately as long as knowledge of the inventory methods and knowledge of production characteristics are carefully combined.

Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers

“…It may enhance some ecological aspects of the material, e.g., reduce its global warming potential or ozone depletion; however, the overall effect does not have to be so obvious. Among others, such an effect is related to significant water usage during the cultivation of various crops [23]. Similar observations were made by other researchers [20,24].…”

From SLCA to Positive Sustainability Performance Measurement: A Two‐Tier Delphi Study

“…We adhered to Okoli and Pawlowski's () guidelines for a rigorous process for selecting experts. According to the best‐practice example of conducting a Delphi study by Sutterlüty and colleagues () in this Journal , the primary criterion for identifying and selecting experts is their knowledge and experience in a particular field. Consequently, we selected experts with substantial experience in SLCA, sustainability assessment, and sustainability management (see in the supporting information available on the Journal's website, for an overview of the expert participants’ characteristics from the final round of inquiries as illustrated below).…”

“…Furthermore, the Delphi approach has been proven as a valid option to investigate methodological issues in sustainability assessment approaches that are developmental (i.e., SLCA) and unexplored (i.e. PSPM; Sutterlüty et al 2017). Nevertheless, the two-pronged Delphi approach has certain limitations.…”

From Wood to Resin—Identifying Sustainability Levers through Hotspotting Lignin Valorisation Pathways

“…The assessment treats the biogenic carbon as neutral. It is important that in-depth analysis should also include a broader sustainability assessment, for example, by additionally considering the water footprint as an important aspect of obtaining wood, pulp and wood-based products [55][56][57].…”