Critical analysis of life cycle impact assessment methods addressing consequences of freshwater use on ecosystems and recommendations for future method development
- 851 Downloads
Anthropic water uses can affect aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through various pathways. To address these impacts in life cycle assessment, an array of impact assessment methods can be applied. The currently well-known review of methods carried out by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s WULCA working group (Kounina et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):707–721, 2013) recommends that practitioners “simultaneously apply all indicators to evaluate damage on ecosystem quality and to cautiously sum up the score into a single metric”. This call for caution is attributed to the fact that methods reviewed cover different ecosystem targets. Their characterisation factors and units also vary. However, the review lacks a detailed analysis of compatibilities and coherence between methods that identifies inconsistencies to be overcome to further method harmonisation. This is precisely the aim of this study.
Existing methods were analysed against a scheme. It consists of four issues (1) covered impact pathway, (2) structure of characterisation model and factor, (3) fate factor modelling, and (4) effect factor modelling, further specified based on ten criteria. Among these, one criterion evaluates the legitimacy of using steady-state fate factors to model pulse-type water uses based on the theorem presented by Heijungs (Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2:217–224, 1995). New terminology is proposed for a proper description of the criteria. All of the criteria evaluate scientific and technical aspects. The analysis approach involves a qualitative description of each model.
Results and discussion
Important findings of the analysis include the following: (1) for several methods, the environmental intervention proposed and its connection to the impact assessment phase are debatable; (2) the location of the midpoint stressor (i.e. the indicator of change in the environment due to the environmental intervention) along the causality chain causes problems of compatibility among fate factors of different models; (3) it is appropriate to use the steady-state solution to find the new system condition after pulse-type water use. None of the models have justified this fundamental choice before. Recommendations for future method development respectively, involve the following: (1) avoid the use of inventory information in characterisation models and jointly develop inventory data and characterisation factors to ensure the applicability of impact assessment methods; (2) use the more environmentally relevant midpoint stressor (the one along the causality chain closer to ecosystem damage; and (3) justify the use of the steady-state solution for fate factor modelling.
This study identifies sources of inconsistency in the indicator structures analysed and provides recommendations that will foster harmonisation. The current mismatch between methods leads us to not recommend aggregating indicators into one single metric until a common framework underpins existing and future water use impact assessment methods for ecosystem quality.
KeywordsCharacterisation models Ecosystems Freshwater use Life cycle assessment Life cycle impact assessment
We thank Jean-Daniel Savard for his work, which inspired the schematic representation of the characterisation model. His work constituted a first attempt at analysing several models that were re-analysed in the present study. We gratefully acknowledge the authors of the analysed methods for their valuable input. M. Núñez acknowledges ANR, the Languedoc-Roussillon Region, ONEMA and its industrial partners (BRL, SCP, SUEZ, VINADEIS) for the financial support of the Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment “ELSA-PACT” (grant no. 13-CHIN-0005-01).
- Amores MJ, Verones F, Raptis C et al (2013) Biodiversity impacts from salinity increase in a coastal wetland. Environ Sci Technol 47:6384–6392Google Scholar
- Delbaere B, Serradilla AN, Snethlage M (2009) BioScore: a tool to assess the impacts of European Community policies on Europe’s biodiversityGoogle Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodol RepGoogle Scholar
- Guinée JB, Marieke G, Heijungs R et al (2001) Life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards. Part 2AGoogle Scholar
- Humbert S (2015) Chapter 6: particulate matter formation. In Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (ed) LCA Compendium—The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Impact Assessment. SpringerGoogle Scholar
- Humbert S, Maendly R (2008) Characterization factors for damage to aquatic biodiversity caused by water use especially for dams used for hydropowerGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007. The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. United Kingdom and New YorkGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006a) ISO 14040. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2006b) ISO 14044. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
- JRC (2010) ILCD Handbook: framework and requirements for LCIA models and indicators First editionGoogle Scholar
- Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J et al (2008) Guidance on how to move from current practice to recommended practice in Life Cycle Impact AssessmentGoogle Scholar
- MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. SynthesisGoogle Scholar
- Milà i Canals L, de Baan L (2015) Chapter 11: land use. In Hauschild M Z and Huijbregts MAJ (ed.) LCA Compendium—The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Impact Assessment. SpringerGoogle Scholar
- Rosenbaum RK (2015) Chapter 8: ecotoxicity. In Hauschild M Z and Huijbregts MAJ (ed.) LCA Compendium—The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Impact Assessment. SpringerGoogle Scholar
- Udo de Haes H, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M et al (2002) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)Google Scholar
- Weidema B (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRONLCAGAPS sub-project on land useGoogle Scholar
- Weidema B, Bauer C, Hischier R et al (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent report 1 (v3). St. GallenGoogle Scholar