A framework for assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA

  • Jean-Baptiste BayartEmail author
  • Cécile Bulle
  • Louise Deschênes
  • Manuele Margni
  • Stephan Pfister
  • Francois Vince
  • Annette Koehler



Freshwater scarcity is a problem in many areas of the world and will become one of the most sensitive environmental issues in coming decades. Existing life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies generally do not provide assessment schemes or characterization factors of the potential environmental impacts of freshwater use or freshwater resource depletion. These assessments therefore do not account for the significant environmental consequences of the loss in quality and availability of freshwater. This paper aims to develop a framework to address this methodological limitation and to support further quantitative modeling of the cause–effect chain relationships of water use. The framework includes recommendations for life cycle inventory (LCI) modeling and provides a description of possible impact pathways for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), including indicators on midpoint and endpoint levels that reflect different areas of protection (AoP).


LCI of freshwater use aims to quantify changes in freshwater availability. The key elements affected by changes in availability are sufficient freshwater supplies for contemporary human users, ecosystems, and future generations, the latter referring to the renewability of the resource. Three midpoint categories are therefore proposed and linked to common AoP as applied in LCIA.

Results and discussion

We defined a set of water types, each representing an elementary flow. Water balances for each type allows the quantification of changes in freshwater availability. These values are recommended as results for the LCI of water use. Insufficient freshwater supplies for contemporary human users can mean freshwater deficits for human uses, which is the first midpoint impact category ultimately affecting the AoP of human life; freshwater deficits in ecosystems is the second proposed midpoint impact category and is linked to the AoP biotic environment. Finally, the last midpoint category is freshwater depletion caused by intensive overuse that exceeds the regeneration rate, which itself is ultimately linked to the AoP abiotic environment. Depending on the regional context, the development of scenarios aimed to compensate for the lack of water for specific uses by using backup technologies (e.g., saltwater treatment, the import of agricultural goods) can avoid generating direct impacts on the midpoint impact category freshwater deficits for human uses. Indirect impacts must be assessed through an extension of system boundaries including these backup technologies. Because freshwater is a resource with high spatial and temporal variability, the proposed framework discusses aspects of regionalization in relationship to data availability, appropriate spatial and temporal resolution, and software capacities to support calculations.


The framework provides recommendations for the development of operational LCA methods for water use. It establishes the link between LCI and LCIA, water-use mechanism models, and impact pathways to environmental damages in a consistent way.


Based on this framework, next steps consist of the development of operational methods for both inventory modeling and impact assessment.


Freshwater resources Freshwater use Life cycle impact assessment Life cycle inventory 



This research was carried out under the auspices of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, which also provided logistical support and facilitated consultations with stakeholders.

Many people contributed to the discussions and framework development process. The authors are grateful for the contributions of further members of the WULCA Working Group (A.P. Arena, E. Aoustin, and R. Juraske) and for the individual contributions of C. Bauer, M. Berger, R. Frischknecht, M. Huijbregts, S. Humbert, A. de Schryver, R. Van Zelm, B. Weidema, and A.M. Boulay.

Finally, CIRAIG thanks its industrial partners for their financial contributions: Arcelor-Mittal, Bell Canada, Cascades, Eco Entreprises Québec/Recyc-Québec, Groupe EDF/GDF-SUEZ, Hydro-Québec, Johnson and Johnson, Le Mouvement des caisses Desjardins, Rio Tinto Alcan, RONA, SAQ, Total and Veolia Environnement.


  1. Ayers RS, Wescot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. available at
  2. Bauer C, Zapp P (2005) Towards generic factors for land use and water consumption. In: Dubreuil A (ed) Life cycle assessment of metals: issues and research directions. SETAC—USA, Pensacola, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer C, Flint W, Kirk B, Mila I Canals L, Weidema B, Anton A (2006) Impact category natural resource use: freshwater, unpublished, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brent A (2004) A life cycle impact assessment procedure with resource groups as areas of protection. Int J LCA 9(3):172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY (2004) Water Footprints of Nations. UNESCO-IHE, Research Report Series No. 16, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO (2003) Review of world water resources by country. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO (2008) Crop prospect and food situation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Ecoinvent Centre (2009) Ecoinvent Data v2.1. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
  9. Finnveden G (1996) Resources and related impact categories. In: Udo de Haes HA (ed) Towards a methodology for life cycle assessment. SETAC—Europe, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Finnveden G (2005) The resource debate needs to continue. Int J LCA 10(5):372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedrich E (2001) Environmental life cycle assessment of potable water production. University of Natal, DurbanGoogle Scholar
  12. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2008) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006. ESU Services. available at
  13. Groombridge B, Jenkins M (1998) Freshwater biodiversity: a preliminary global assessment. World Conservation Monitoring Center, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G (1997) Impact categories for natural resources and land use. Center of Environmental Science (CML), LeidenGoogle Scholar
  15. Maendly R, Humbert S (2009) “Empirical characterization model and factors assessing aquatic biodiversity damages of hydropower water use”. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment SubmittedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J LCA 9(6):394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koehler A (2008) Water use in LCA: managing the planet’s freshwater resources. Int J LCA 13:451–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koehler A, Aoustin E (2008) Assessment of use and depletion of water resources within LCA. SETAC Europe, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  19. Kooistra K, Termorshuizen A, Pyburn R, University W (2006) The sustainability of cotton. Science Shop Wageningen University & Research Centre, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  20. Landu L, Brent AC (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of water supply in South Africa: the Rosslyn industrial area as a case study. Water SA 32(2):249–256Google Scholar
  21. Lasserre F (2005) Eaux et territoires: tensions, coopérations et géopolitique de l'eau. Presses de l'Université du Québec, Sainte-FoyGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002) Impact assessment on resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M et al (eds) Life cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  23. Lundqvist J, Gleick P (2000) Sustaining our water into the 21st Century. Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  24. Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J, Seppälä J, Steen B, Struijs J, Toffoletto L, Jolliet O (2008) Guidance on how to move from current practice to recommended practice in Life Cycle Impact Assessment, unpublished, UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeGoogle Scholar
  25. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Millenium Ecosystem AssessmentGoogle Scholar
  26. Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Anton A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I-inventory modelling and characterization factors for the main impact pathways. Int J LCA 14:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2009) Development of damage assessment model for infectious diseases arising from domestic water consumption. SETAC Europe, GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  28. Mousavi SM, Shamsai A, El Naggar MH, Khamehchian M (2001) A GPS-based monitoring program of land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal in Iran. Can J Civ Eng 28(3):452–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Müller-Wenk R (1999) Depletion of abiotic resources weighted on the base of 'virtual' impacts of lower grade deposits used in future, Institut fur Wirtschaft und OkologieGoogle Scholar
  30. Murray CJL (1996) Rethinking DALYs. In: Murray CJL, Lopez AD (eds) The global burden of disease. Harvard School of Public Health on behalf of the World Health Organization and the World Bank, Cambridge, pp 1–98Google Scholar
  31. Nixon SC, Lack TJ, Hunt DTE, Lallana C, Boschet AF (2000) Une utilisation durable de l'eau européenne? État, perspectives et résultats. Environmental European Agency, CopenhagueGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD (2004) OECD key environmental indicators. OECD Environmental Directorate, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Owens JW (2001) Water resources in life-cycle impact assessment: considerations in choosing category indicators. J Ind Ecol 5(2):37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impact of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104. doi: 10.1021/es802423e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Raluy RG, Serra L, Uche J, Valero A (2005) Life cycle assessment of water production technologies—Part 2: reverse osmosis desalination versus the Ebro River water transfer. Int J LCA 10(5):346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rijsberman FR (2006) Water scarcity: fact or fiction? Agric Wat Manage 80:5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanjuan N, Ubeda L, Clemente GG, Mulet AA, Girona FF (2005) LCA of integrated orange production in the Comunidad Valenciana (Spain). Int J Agric Resour Gov Eco 4(2):163–177Google Scholar
  38. Smakhtin V, Revenga C, Döll P (2004) Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments. Comprehensive Assessment Report
  39. Stewart M, Weidema BP (2005) A consistent framework for assessing the impacts from resource use—a focus on resource functionality. Int J LCA 10(4):240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sullivan C (2002) Calculating a water poverty index. World Dev 30(7):1195–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Svobodová Z, Lloyd R, Máchová J, Vykusová B (1993) Water quality and fish health. EIFAC Technical Paper. No. 54. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  42. Udo de Haes H, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich E, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (2002) Life-cycle impact assesment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  43. UNCSD (1997) Inventaire exhaustif des ressources mondiales en eau douce, Economic and Social CouncilGoogle Scholar
  44. UNESCO (2006) The 2nd UN World Water Development Report: 'Water, a shared responsibility'Google Scholar
  45. USGS (2003) Ground-Water Depletion Across the Nation, US Geological Survey, Reston, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Zelm R, Rombouts M, Snepvangers J, Huijbregts MAJ (2008) Desiccation due to groundwater extraction in The Netherlands in LCIA. SETAC Europe, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  47. Vince F, Aoustin E, Breant P, Marechal F (2008) LCA tool for the environmental evaluation of potable water production. Desalination 220(1–3):37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weidema B (2009) A Canadian LCA database: challenges and opportunities. Americana 2009, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  49. Weidema B, Finnveden G, Stewart M (2005) Impacts from resource use. A common position paper. Int J LCA 10(6):382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. World Resource Institute (2004). EarthtrendGoogle Scholar
  51. WWF (2007) Making water. Desalination: option or distraction for a thirsty world? Wild World FoundationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Baptiste Bayart
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cécile Bulle
    • 2
  • Louise Deschênes
    • 2
  • Manuele Margni
    • 2
  • Stephan Pfister
    • 3
  • Francois Vince
    • 1
  • Annette Koehler
    • 3
  1. 1.Veolia Environment Recherche et InnovationRueil-MalmaisonFrance
  2. 2.CIRAIG, Chemical Engineering DepartmentÉcole Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations