Why going beyond standard LCI databases is important: lessons from a meta-analysis of potable water supply system LCAs

  • Noa MeronEmail author
  • Vered Blass
  • Yaakov Garb
  • Yehuda Kahane
  • Greg Thoma



Our aim is to assess the comparability and generic applicability of harmonized published lifecycle assessment (LCA) studies on water supply systems. In the absence of localized life cycle inventories for water systems, generic or country specific databases may be inadequate if applied elsewhere. The objectives of this paper are to calculate the potential magnitude of errors introduced by this practice and recommend ways to better account for sources of impact variability.


In this study, harmonization has been carried out rigorously, utilizing a systematic differentiation of the subsystems, functional units, and system boundaries referenced in over 100 candidate studies, resulting in a comparable subset of 34 LCA studies. Statistical techniques (cluster analysis and Welch’s analysis of variance) were used to isolate and validate the main sources of variation in impact scores and identify the sub-systems in which these are most pronounced. The significance of technology-specific contribution to the impacts was compared to the significance of electricity as a contributing factor to the global warming potential (GWP) by applying statistical correlation analysis.

Results and discussion

Our review revealed that most of the published LCAs analyzed water systems in well-developed countries. Large variation was found in the impacts of water supply systems (e.g., GWP between 0.16 and 3.4 kg CO2-eq/m3 of supplied water), with mean value of 0.84 kg CO2-eq/m3 and median of 0.57 kg CO2-eq/m3. The main contributor to GWP is water production and desalination in particular, making water production the most important differentiating factor. Cluster analysis also showed that production technology is the most important differentiating factor with respect to terrestrial acidification, ozone depletion, eutrophication, and abiotic depletion impacts of water production systems. There is a weak correlation between impact scores of electricity mixes and entire water supply systems.


An LCA of water-intensive products drawing from a standard life cycle inventory databases could be substantially inaccurate, especially in a region with desalination. More accurate results can be achieved by taking local water production technology into account. Meta-analysis is a useful tool to explore the sources of variance in the impacts of water systems. Applying harmonized results is a cost-effective way for obtaining more accurate LCA results as compared to applying generic databases only.


Life cycle assessment Meta-analysis Water abstraction Water distribution Water supply Water treatment 



This research was supported by the Porter School of Environmental Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Supplementary material

11367_2016_1096_MOESM1_ESM.docx (781 kb)
Details of studies included in the analysis, and harmonized values of GWP-100 results, distribution of results, additional information on the statistical analyses and supporting figures. (DOCX 780 kb)


  1. Al-Karaghouli A, Kazmerski LL (2013) Energy consumption and water production cost of conventional and renewable-energy-powered desalination processes. Renew Sust Energ Rev 24:343–356Google Scholar
  2. Amores MJ, Meneses M, Pasqualino J, Antón A, Castells F (2013) Environmental assessment of urban water cycle on Mediterranean conditions by LCA approach. J Clean Prod 43:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barjoveanu G, Comandaru IM, Rodriguez-Garcia G, Hospido A, Teodosiu C (2014) Evaluation of water services system through LCA. A case study for Iasi City, Romania. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonton A, Bouchard C, Barbeau B, Jedrzejak S (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of water treatment plants. Desalination 284:42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckley C, Friedrich E, Von Blottnitz H (2011) Life-cycle assessments in the South African water sector: a review and future challenges. Water SA 37:719–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burkhardt JJ, Heath G, Cohen E (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of trough and tower concentrating solar power electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16:S93–S109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan A (2013) Characterisations and interventions of the water-energy nexus in urban water systems. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  8. Del Borghi A, Strazza C, Gallo M, Messineo S, Naso M (2013) Water supply and sustainability: life cycle assessment of water collection, treatment and distribution service. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1158–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolan SL, Heath GA (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility‐scale wind power. J Ind Ecol 16:S136–S154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Sayed Mohamed Mahgoub M, van der Steen, Peter N, Abu-Zeid K, Vairavamoorthy K (2010) Towards sustainability in urban water: a life cycle analysis of the urban water system of Alexandria City, Egypt. J Clean Prod 18:1100–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fantin V, Scalbi S, Ottaviano G, Masoni P (2014) A method for improving reliability and relevance of LCA reviews: the case of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of tap and bottled water. Sci Total Environ 476:228–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedrich E, Pillay S, Buckley C (2009) Carbon footprint analysis for increasing water supply and sanitation in South Africa: a case study. J Clean Prod 17:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H-J, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:3–9.Google Scholar
  14. Godskesen B, Hauschild M, Rygaard M, Zambrano K, Albrechtsen H (2013) Life-cycle and freshwater withdrawal impact assessment of water supply technologies. Water Res 47:2363–2374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hang Y, Qu M, Zhao F (2012) Economic and environmental life cycle analysis of solar hot water systems in the United States. Energ Build 45:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:683–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath GA, Mann MK (2012) Background and reflections on the life cycle assessment harmonization project. J Ind Ecol 16:S8–S11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Homäki K, Nielsen PH, Sathasivan A, Bohe EL (2003) Life cycle assessment and environmental improvement of residential and drinking water supply systems in Hanoi, Vietnam. Int J Sust Dev World 10:27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu DD, O’Donoughue P, Fthenakis V, Heath GA, Kim HC, Sawyer P, Choi J, Turney DE (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of crystalline silicon photovoltaic electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16:S122–S135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hybel A, Godskesen B, Rygaard M (2015) Selection of spatial scale for assessing impacts of groundwater-based water supply on freshwater resources. J Environ Manag 160:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Igos E, Dalle A, Tiruta-Barna L, Benetto E, Baudin I, Mery Y (2014) Life cycle assessment of water treatment: what is the contribution of infrastructure and operation at unit process level? J Clean Prod 65:424–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO (2006) Environmental management. The ISO 14000 family of international standards. Available at:
  23. PE International (2012) Professional database. Accessed 15 May 2015
  24. Iriarte A, Villalobos P (2013) Greenhouse gas emissions and energy balance of sunflower biodiesel: identification of its key factors in the supply chain. Resour Conserv Recycl 73:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeong H, Minne E, Crittenden JC (2015) Life cycle assessment of the City of Atlanta, Georgia’s centralized water system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:880–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim HC, Fthenakis V, Choi J, Turney DE (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of thin‐film photovoltaic electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16:S110–S121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lane JL, de Haas DW, Lant PA (2011) Life cycle assessment of the gold coast urban water system. Report for Urban Water Security Research AllianceGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemos D, Dias AC, Gabarrell X, Arroja L (2013) Environmental assessment of an urban water system. J Clean Prod 54:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lundie S, Peters GM, Beavis PC (2004) Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environ Sci Technol 38:3465–3473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyons E, Zhang P, Benn T, Sharif F, Li K, Crittenden J, Costanza M, Chen Y (2009) Life cycle assessment of three water supply systems: importation, reclamation and desalination. Water Sci Technol 9:439–448Google Scholar
  31. Marín D, Juncà S, Massagué A, Cortina J, Fonseca I, Valero F (2012) Impacts on climate change of three drinking water treatment plants supplying Barcelona Metropolitan Area, Proceedings of the IWA Water, Climate and Energy Congress, 13-18 May 2012, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  32. Meneses M, Pasqualino JC, Céspedes-Sánchez R, Castells F (2010) Alternatives for reducing the environmental impact of the main residue from a desalination plant. J Ind Ecol 14:512–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Menten F, Chèze B, Patouillard L, Bouvart F (2013) A review of LCA greenhouse gas emissions results for advanced biofuels: the use of meta-regression analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 26:108–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nessi S, Rigamonti L, Grosso M (2012) LCA of waste prevention activities: a case study for drinking water in Italy. J Environ Manag 108:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Padey P, Girard R, Le Boulch D, Blanc I (2013) From LCAs to simplified models: a generic methodology applied to wind power electricity. Environ Sci Technol 47:1231–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pillay S, Friedrich E, Buckley C (2002) Life cycle assessment of an industrial water recycling plant. Water Wastewater Manag Dev Countries 46(9):55–62Google Scholar
  37. Racoviceanu AI, Karney BW, Kennedy CA, Colombo AF (2007) Life-cycle energy use and greenhouse gas emissions inventory for water treatment systems. J Infrastruct Syst 13:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raluy R, Serra L, Uche J, Valero A (2004) Life-cycle assessment of desalination technologies integrated with energy production systems. Desalination 167:445–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ratnayaka DD, Brandt MJ, Johnson M (2009) Twort’s water supply 5th. Butterworth-Heinemann, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  40. Slagstad H, Brattebø H (2014) Life cycle assessment of the water and wastewater system in Trondheim, Norway—a case study: case study. Urban Water J 11:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stokes J, Horvath A (2006) Life cycle energy assessment of alternative water supply systems (9 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stokes JR, Horvath A (2009) Energy and air emission effects of water supply. Environ Sci Technol 43:2680–2687Google Scholar
  43. Tarantini M, Ferri F (2001) LCA of drinking and wastewater treatment systems of Bologna city: Final results. Proceedings of the 4th Inter-Regional Conference on Environment-Water, 27-30 August 2001, Fortaleza, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  44. Tarnacki K, Meneses M, Melin T, van Medevoort J, Jansen A (2012) Environmental assessment of desalination processes: reverse osmosis and memstill®. Desalination 296:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tongpool R, Phanichavalit N, Yuvaniyama C, Mungcharoen T (2012) Improvement of the environmental performance of broiler feeds: a study via life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 35:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Uche J, Martínez A, Castellano C, Subiela V (2013) Life cycle analysis of urban water cycle in two Spanish areas: inland city and island area. Desalin Water Treat 51:280–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Unger SR, Landis AE (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment of reused versus disposable dental burs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1623–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vachon M (2012) Nantes’ and Oslo’s urban water systems: assessing benefits from water-energy nexus interventions. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  49. Wan J, Gattie D, Hester N, Jambeck J, Li K, Schramski J (2011) Life cycle comparison of two RO concentrate reduction technologies. Proceedings of the 2011 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 11-13 2011, University of Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Warner ES, Heath GA (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16:S73–S92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G, 2013 (2014) The Ecoinvent database: overview and methodology, data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3.1,
  52. Whitaker M, Heath G, O'Donoughue P, Vorum M (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal-fired electricity generation: systematic review and harmonization. J Ind Ecol 16:S53–S72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zumsteg JM, Cooper JS, Noon MS (2012) Systematic review checklist. J Ind Ecol 16:S12–S21CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noa Meron
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vered Blass
    • 2
  • Yaakov Garb
    • 3
  • Yehuda Kahane
    • 2
  • Greg Thoma
    • 4
  1. 1.The Porter School of Environmental StudiesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.The Faculty of ManagementTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Blaustein Institutes for Desert Environmental ResearchBen Gurion University of the Negev, Midreshet Ben GurionSede-Boqer CampusIsrael
  4. 4.Ralph E. Martin Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations