Defining freshwater as a natural resource: a framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources
While many examples have shown unsustainable use of freshwater resources, existing LCIA methods for water use do not comprehensively address impacts to natural resources for future generations. This framework aims to (1) define freshwater resource as an item to protect within the Area of Protection (AoP) natural resources, (2) identify relevant impact pathways affecting freshwater resources, and (3) outline methodological choices for impact characterization model development.
Considering the current scope of the AoP natural resources, the complex nature of freshwater resources and its important dimensions to safeguard safe future supply, a definition of freshwater resource is proposed, including water quality aspects. In order to clearly define what is to be protected, the freshwater resource is put in perspective through the lens of the three main safeguard subjects defined by Dewulf et al. (2015). In addition, an extensive literature review identifies a wide range of possible impact pathways to freshwater resources, establishing the link between different inventory elementary flows (water consumption, emissions, and land use) and their potential to cause long-term freshwater depletion or degradation.
Results and discussion
Freshwater as a resource has a particular status in LCA resource assessment. First, it exists in the form of three types of resources: flow, fund, or stock. Then, in addition to being a resource for human economic activities (e.g., hydropower), it is above all a non-substitutable support for life that can be affected by both consumption (source function) and pollution (sink function). Therefore, both types of elementary flows (water consumption and emissions) should be linked to a damage indicator for freshwater as a resource. Land use is also identified as a potential stressor to freshwater resources by altering runoff, infiltration, and erosion processes as well as evapotranspiration. It is suggested to use the concept of recovery period to operationalize this framework: when the recovery period lasts longer than a given period of time, impacts are considered to be irreversible and fall into the concern of freshwater resources protection (i.e., affecting future generations), while short-term impacts effect the AoP ecosystem quality and human health directly. It is shown that it is relevant to include this concept in the impact assessment stage in order to discriminate the long-term from the short-term impacts, as some dynamic fate models already do.
This framework provides a solid basis for the consistent development of future LCIA methods for freshwater resources, thereby capturing the potential long-term impacts that could warn decision makers about potential safe water supply issues in the future.
KeywordsFreshwater resources Life cycle impact assessment Long-term depletion Long-term pollution Water use
The valuable feedback provided by Andrew Henderson and Cristina Madrid López during the article’s preparation is gratefully appreciated.
This study was conducted through the International Working Group for Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), which receives contributions from the UN Environment Life Cycle Initiative. Financial support of the Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment “ELSA-PACT” (grant no. 13-CHIN-0005-01) was also received from ANR, the Occitanie Region, ONEMA, its industrial partners (BRL, SCP, SUEZ Groupe, VINADEIS, Compagnie Fruitière), and IMT Mines Ales.
Compliance with ethical standards
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the organizations to which they belong. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UN Environment Life Cycle Initiative concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the state policy of the UN Environment Life Cycle Initiative, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
- Amores MJ, Verones F, Raptis C, Juraske R, Pfister S, Stoessel F, Antón A, Castells F, Hellweg S (2013) Biodiversity impacts from salinity increase in a coastal Wetland. Environ Sci Technol 47(12):1–7Google Scholar
- Aylward B, Bandyopadhyay J, Belausteguigotia J-C, Börkey P, Cassar A, Meadors L, Saade L, Siebentritt M, Stein R, Tognetti S, Tortajada C, Allan T, Bauer C, Bruch C, Guimaraes-Pereira A, Kendall M, Kiersch B, Landry C, Rodriguez EM, Meinzen-Dick R, Moellendorf S, Pagiola S, Porras I, Ratner B, Shea A, Swallow B, Thomich T, Voutchkov N, Bruce A, Bo P, Moellendorf S (2005) Freshwater ecosystem services. In: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses 3:213–255Google Scholar
- Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds) (2008) Climate change and water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, pp 210Google Scholar
- Boulay A, 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
- Cabidoche Y, Lesueur Jannoyer M (2011) Pollution durable des sols par la chlordécone aux Antilles : comment la gérer? Innov Agron 16:1–11Google Scholar
- Chapman D (1992) Water quality assessments. Taylor & Francis, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
- van der Ent RJ, Savenije HHG, Schaefli B, Steele-Dunne SC (2010) Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water Resour Res 46:1–12Google Scholar
- Fantke P, Jolliet O, Wannaz C (2015) Dynamic toxicity modelling based on the USEtox matrix framework SETAC Europe 25th Annual MeetingGoogle Scholar
- Hischier R, Weidema B, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, Dones R, Frischknecht R, Hellweg S, Humbert S, Jungbluth N, Köllner T, Loerincik Y, Margni M, Nemecek T (2010) Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods. Ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
- HLPE (2015) Water for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK, Aldaya MM, Mekonnen MM (2011) The water footprint assessment manual, setting the global standard. Earthscan, London, p 228Google Scholar
- Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees (2013) PCB contamination of the Hudson river ecosystem, compilation of contamination data through 2008: Hudson river natural resource damage assessment. Hudson river natural resource trustees, state of New York, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Interior, United States, January 2013, p 38Google Scholar
- ISO (2006) ISO 14044, environmental management - life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14046 (2014) ISO 14046, environmental management - water footprint: principles, requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Jiménez Cisneros BE, Oki T, Arnell NW, Benito G, Cogley JG, Döll P, Jiang T, Mwakalila SS (2014) Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Press CU (ed) . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 229–269Google Scholar
- Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B, Boulay A-M, Berger M, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Koehler A, Milà i, Canals L, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Peters G, Pfister S, Ridoutt B, 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
- Núñez M, Rosenbaum RK, Karimpour S, Boulay A-M, Lathuillière MJ, Margni M, Scherer L, Verones F, Pfister S (2018) A multimedia hydrological fate modeling framework to assess water consumption impacts in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 52:4658–4667Google Scholar
- Van Oers L, Guinée J (2016) The abiotic depletion potential: background, updates, and future. Resources 5:16Google Scholar
- Van Oers L, De Koning A, Guinée JB, Huppes G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute, Ministry of Transport and Water, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Pfister S, Boulay AM, 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
- Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MJ, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sala S, Benini L, Castellani V (2016) Environmental footprint - update of life cycle impact assessment methods; DRAFT for TAB (status: May 2, 2016); Resources, water, land. Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Sampat P (2001) Uncovering groundwater pollution. In: State of the World 2001. (W. W. Norton & Company, Ed.). World Institute, New York, pp 21–42Google Scholar
- UNEP (2008) Vitalwater graphics: an overview of the state of the world’s fresh and marine waters, 2nd Edition. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Water Policy and StrategyGoogle Scholar
- UNEP (2009) Water security and ecosystem services: The critical connection. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Naurobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
- UNEP (2016) A snapshot of the world’s water quality: towards a global assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, pp 162Google Scholar
- UNESCO (2006) Non-renewable groundwater resources - a guidebook on socially-sustainable management for water-policy makers. In: Foster S, Loucks DP (eds) UNESCO, IHP-VI, Series on Groundwater No. 10Google Scholar
- Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C, Frischknecht R Hauschild M, Hellweg S, Henderson AD, Jolliet O, Laurent A, Liao X, Lindner JP, de SDM, Michelsen O, Patouillard L, Pfister S, Posthuma L, Prado V, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Sala S, Ugaya C, Vieira M, Fantke P (2017) LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative. J Clean Prod 161:957–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wada Y, van Beek LPH, van Kempen CM, Reckman JWTM, Vasak S, Bierkens MFP (2010) Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys Res Lett 37(20):L20402Google Scholar
- Wildman RA Jr, Forde NA (2012) Management of water shortage in the Colorado River basin: evaluating current policy and viablility of interstate water trading. J Am Water Resour Assoc 8:1–12Google Scholar