Marginal and non-marginal approaches in characterization: how context and scale affect the selection of an adequate characterization model. The AWARE model example
- 120 Downloads
LCA traditionally has been founded on the ceteris paribus principle, by which the assessed contribution is assumed not to affect the background state, i.e., being marginal. As LCA is increasingly used to assess interventions at larger scales (e.g., territory, sectors), it becomes necessary to provide adequate characterization factors. Applying this concept to the water scarcity footprint AWARE model, this paper has for main objective to provide guidance on the use of different characterization approaches; the resulting interpretation, including in relation to normalization; and the implication for decision making.
The specific case of AWARE is taken, and average factors are calculated by integrating the characterization factor’s equation of the AWARE model with respect to local water consumption, and dividing the total impacts obtained per each cubic meter consumed. The resulting average factors are applied (at the country scale) to European Union countries for the total water consumption, and the results are compared with the same assessment performed using the traditional marginal factors.
Results and discussion
Average CF at the watershed level for AWARE are provided for the country scale. Differences, sometimes significant, are observed between the two sets, with the average factors always being lower than (or equal to) the marginal ones. The rank correlation coefficient (correlation between the watershed values’ rank with both approaches) is of 0.965, and the mean difference coefficient is 0.16 (the larger the value, the more different the datasets, out of a maximum value of 2). For countries presenting areas with potentially more extreme water scarcity, the difference between the two normalization sets is higher, reflecting that there can be significant differences in applying the marginal or average CFs. A set of points for attention for methodological choices are presented and specific recommendations discussed from the perspective of the practitioner. In particular, by building on the shortcomings shown of marginal and average characterization factors, a broader application of LCIA is proposed to large-scale, non-marginal, and prospective assessments.
In conclusion, as goals and scopes of life-cycle-based studies are expanding, it is important to ensure that methodologies used reflect the new applications and the specific context for which LCA is needed. This paper provides the average CF for the AWARE model, which will now allow practitioners to assess water scarcity footprint of large interventions coherently, providing guidance on the implication of the selection of marginal or average CFs and the interpretation thereof. It also provides important guidance for practitioner to apply when using characterization factors of any methods in order to ensure coherence of their interpretation and consistency within their study.
KeywordsInterpretation LCIA Large-scale LCA Marginal Normalization Non-marginal Water footprint
Moreover, we acknowledge the contribution of the co-authors’ institutions as well as Prof. Ben Amor for his support.
Financial support of the industrial sponsors supporting WULCA during this work: Hydro-Québec, L’Oreal, Veolia Environnement, Danone, Solvay, Cottons Inc., Engie (Anne-Marie Boulay). European Commission, Joint Research Centre contribution to the work (Lorenzo Benini and Serenella Sala) was financially supported by the Directorate General for the Environment (DG ENV) in the context of the Administrative Arrangement “Indicators and assessment of the environmental impact of EU consumption” (No 070201/2015/SI2.705230/SER/ENV.A1).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Boulay A-M, Pfister S, Motoshita M et al (2016) Water use related impacts: water scarcity and human health effects. In: Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicatorsGoogle Scholar
- Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Lathuillière MJ, Manzardo A, Margni M, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Pastor AV, Ridoutt B, Oki T, Worbe S, Pfister S (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Crenna E, Secchi M, Benini L, Sala S (2019) Global environmental impacts: data sources and methodological choices for calculating normalization factors for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01604-y
- European Commission – Joint Research Centre (2010) ILCD Handbook – General guide for Life Cycle Assessment – detailed guidanceGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Fantke P, Tschümperlin L, Niero M, Antón A, Bare J, Boulay AM, Cherubini F, Hauschild MZ, Henderson A, Levasseur A, McKone TE, Michelsen O, i Canals LM, Pfister S, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Verones F, Vigon B, Jolliet O (2016) Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: progress and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, et al (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgroundsGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14044 (2006) Management environnemental - Analyse de cycle de vie - Exigences et lignes directrices. 12Google Scholar
- ISO 14046 (2014) Water footprint – principles, requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
- Jolliet O, Antón A, Boulay A-M, Cherubini F, Fantke P, Levasseur A, McKone TE, Michelsen O, Milà i Canals L, Motoshita M, Pfister S, Verones F, Vigon B, Frischknecht R (2018) Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:2189–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B, Boulay AM, Berger M, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Koehler A, Milà i Canals L, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Peters G, Pfister S, Ridoutt B, van Zelm R, Verones F, Humbert S (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:707–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pfister S, Boulay A-M, Berger M, Hadjikakou M, Motoshita M, Hess T, Ridoutt B, Weinzettel J, Scherer L, Döll P, Manzardo A, Núñez M, Verones F, Humbert S, Buxmann K, Harding K, Benini L, Oki T, Finkbeiner M, Henderson A (2017) Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: a response to Hoekstra (2016) a critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA. Ecol Indic 72:352–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sala S, Benini L, Castellani V et al (2019) Suggestion for the update of the environmental footprint life cycle impact assessment. Impacts due to resource use, water use, land use and particulate matter. Publications Office of the European Union. doi: https://doi.org/10.2760/78072
- Verones F, Hellweg S, Azevedo LB et al (2016) LC-Impact Version 0.5Google Scholar
- Verones F, Henderson A, Laurent A et al (2017) LCIA framework and modelling guidance chapter 2. In: Frischknecht R, Jolliet O (eds) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-ArendalGoogle Scholar