Marginal and non-marginal approaches in characterization: how context and scale affect the selection of an adequate characterization model. The AWARE model example

  • Anne-Marie BoulayEmail author
  • Lorenzo Benini
  • Serenella Sala



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.


Interpretation 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.

Funding information

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.

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1680_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 27.7 kb)
11367_2019_1680_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (61 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 60.9 kb)


  1. Azevedo LB, Henderson AD, van Zelm R, Jolliet O, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Assessing the importance of spatial variability versus model choices in life cycle impact assessment: the case of freshwater eutrophication in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 47:13565–13570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benini L, Sala S (2016) Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of normalization factors to methodological assumptions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(2):224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger M, van der Ent R, Eisner S, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2014) Water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE): considering atmospheric evaporation recycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 48:4521–4452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boulay A-M, Bulle C, Bayart J-B, Deschênes L, Margni M (2011) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–8957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boulay A-M, Motoshita M, Pfister S, Bulle C, Muñoz I, Franceschini H, Margni M (2015) Water use impact assessment methods (part a): methodological and quantitative comparison of scarcity and human health impacts models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Chaudhary A, Verones F, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2015) Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:9987–9995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. Ekvall T, Tillman A-M, Molander S (2005) Normative ethics and methodology for life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 13:1225–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission – Joint Research Centre (2010) ILCD Handbook – General guide for Life Cycle Assessment – detailed guidanceGoogle Scholar
  12. Florke M, Kynast E, Bärlund I et al (2013) Domestic and industrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development: a global simulation study. Glob Environ Chang 23:146–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Guinee J (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:311–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, et al (1992) Environmental life cycle assessment of products: guide and backgroundsGoogle Scholar
  16. Hellweg S, Milà i, Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science (80- ) 344:1109–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoekstra AY (2016) A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA. Ecol Indic 66:564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Hertwich EG (2011) Do we need a paradigm shift in life cycle impact assessment? Environ Sci Technol 45:3833–3834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO 14044 (2006) Management environnemental - Analyse de cycle de vie - Exigences et lignes directrices. 12Google Scholar
  20. ISO 14046 (2014) Water footprint – principles, requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Loiseau E, Junqua G, Roux P, Bellon-Maurel V (2012) Environmental assessment of a territory: an overview of existing tools and methods. J Environ Manag 112:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loiseau E, Roux P, Junqua G, Maurel P, Bellon-Maurel V (2013) The LCA framework to environmental assessment in land planning. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1533–1548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loiseau E, Aissani L, Le Féon S et al (2018) Territory-oriented life cycle assessment (LCA): what exactly is it about? A proposal towards a common terminology and a research agenda. J Clean Prod 176:474–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McManus MC, Taylor CM (2015) The changing nature of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 82:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mirabella N, Allacker K, Sala S (2019) Current trends and limitations of life cycle assessment applied to the urban scale: critical analysis and review of selected literature. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1174–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfister S, Bayer P (2014) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Roy P-O, Azevedo LB, Margni M et al (2014) Characterization factors for terrestrial acidification at the global scale: a systematic analysis of spatial variability and uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 500–501:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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:
  33. Suh S, Yang Y (2014) On the uncanny capabilities of consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1179–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verones F, Hellweg S, Azevedo LB et al (2016) LC-Impact Version 0.5Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Weidema B, Frees N, Nielsen A-M (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P, Raggi A (2012) Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:904–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIRIDE, Sherbrooke UniversitySherbrookeCanada
  2. 2.CIRAIG, Polytechnique MontrealMontreal,Canada
  3. 3.European CommissionJoint Research CentreIspraItaly
  4. 4.European Environment AgencyCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations