Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment

Abstract

Purpose In recent years, several methods have been developed which propose different freshwater use inventory schemes and impact assessment characterization models considering various cause-effect chain relationships. This work reviewed a multitude of methods and indicators for freshwater use potentially applicable in life cycle assessment (LCA). This review is used as a basis to identify the key elements to build a scientific consensus for operational characterization methods for LCA. Methods This evaluation builds on the criteria and procedure developed within the International Reference Life -012-0519-3 Cycle Data System Handbook and has been adapted for the purpose of this project. It therefore includes (1) description of relevant cause-effect chains, (2) definition of criteria to evaluate the existing methods, (3) development of subcriteria specific to freshwater use, and (4) description and review of existing methods addressing freshwater in LCA. Results and discussion No single method is available which comprehensively describes all potential impacts derived from freshwater use. However, this review highlights several key findings to design a characterization method encompassing all the impact pathways of the assessment of freshwater use and consumption in life cycle assessment framework as the following: (1) in most of databases and methods, consistent freshwater balances are not reported either because output is not considered or because polluted freshwater is recalculated based on a critical dilution approach; (2) at the midpoint level, most methods are related to water scarcity index and correspond to the methodological choice of an indicator simplified in terms of the number of parameters (scarcity) and freshwater uses (freshwater consumption or freshwater withdrawal) considered. More comprehensive scarcity indices distinguish different freshwater types and functionalities. (3) At the endpoint level, several methods already exist which report results in units compatible with traditional human health and ecosystem quality damage and cover various cause-effect chains, e.g., the decrease of terrestrial biodiversity due to freshwater consumption. (4) Midpoint and endpoint indicators have various levels of spatial differentiation, i.e., generic factors with no differentiation at all, or country, watershed, and grid cell differentiation. Conclusions Existing databases should be (1) completed with input and output freshwater flow differentiated according to water types based on its origin (surface water, groundwater, and precipitation water stored as soil moisture), (2) regionalized, and (3) if possible, characterized with a set of quality parameters. The assessment of impacts related to freshwater use is possible by assembling methods in a comprehensive methodology to characterize each use adequately.Int J Life Cycle Assess (2013) 18:707-721 DOI 10.1007/s11367

Impacts Embodied in Global Trade Flows

“…Most footprint indicators (and consumption-based accounting studies) are designed to portray indirect pressures (Hoekstra and Wiedmann 2014 ), but there are recent attempts to introduce (environmental) impact assessment in footprint analysis. This is perhaps most prominently the case for water footprinting where it has been argued that the scarcity of water needs to be incorporated into the metric (Chenoweth et al 2014 ;ISO 2014 ;Kounina et al 2013 ;Ridoutt and Pfi ster 2010 ). Some recent studies related to trade weight water use with data on water scarcity (e.g.…”

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)

“…In January 2014, building on the water use in LCA framework (Bayart et al 2010;Kounina et al 2013), WULCA commenced a 2-year activity aiming at developing consensus-based indicator(s) for water use impact assessment focusing first on a generic scarcity-based Bproxy^midpoint indicator (labeled proxy as it does not lead directly to endpoint impacts on human health nor ecosystem quality specifically) applicable to water consumption (surface and groundwater). Unless specified, the terminology used in this paper is compliant with the ISO (14046 2014) standard, which can be consulted for detailed definitions.…”

Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: findings of the scoping phase

“…Activities in Phase 2 (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012) similarly addressed carbon footprint, water use and land use impact assessment throughout the life cycle (Bayart et al 2010;Koellner et al 2013;Kounina et al 2013). In parallel, and also building on these activities, a number of other initiatives have been advancing proposals and dissemination of impact assessment indicators in various continents (Hauschild et al 2013;Murakami et al 2012).…”