Evaluation of Long-Term Impacts in LCA

When looking at a product’s life cycle, emissions and resource uses, as well as the resulting impacts, usually occur at different points in time. For instance, construction materials are often ‘stored’ in buildings for many decades before they are recycled or disposed of. The goal of the LCA Discussion Forum 22 was to present and discuss arguments pro and contra a temporally differentiated weighting of impacts. The discussion forum started with three talks that illustrated the importance of temporal aspects in LCI and LCIA. The following two presentations discussed the economical principles of discounting, the adequacy of this concept within LCA, and the ethical questions involved. After one further short presentation, three groups were formed that discussed questions about temporally-differentiated weighting, and consequences for LCI as well as LCIA (damage assessment and final weighting). The discussion forum ended with the following conclusions: (a) long-term impacts should be considered in LCA, and (b) long-term emissions should be inventoried separately from short-term emissions. There was no consensus on whether short-term and long-term impacts should be weighted equally. Some prefer to weigh short-term emissions higher, because they are considered to be closer. Consistent and approved forecasts should be used when considering future changes in environmental conditions in LCI and LCIA.     

Decision Analysis Utilizing Data from Multiple Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methods Part I: A Theoretical Basis

Numerous methodologies for the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) step of life-cycle assessment (LCA) are currently in popular use. These methods, which are based on a single method or level of analysis, are limited to the environmental fates, impact categories, damage functions, and stressors included in the method or model. Because of this, it has been suggested within the LCA community that LCIA data from multiple methods and/or levels of analysis, that is, end-point and midpoint indicators, be used in LCA-based decision analysis to facilitate better or, at least more informed, decision making. In this (two-part) series of articles, we develop and present a series of LCA-based decision analysis models, based on multiattribute value theory (MAVT), which utilize data from multiple LCIA methods and/or levels of analysis. The key to accomplishing this is the recognition of what LCIA damage indicators represent with respect to decision analysis, namely, decision attributes and, in most cases, proxy attributes. The use of proxy attributes in a decision model, however, poses certain challenges, such as the assessment of decision-maker preferences for actual consequences that are only known imprecisely because of inherent limits of both LCA and scientific knowledge. In this article (part I), we provide a brief overview of MAVT and examine some of the decision-theoretic issues and implications of current LCIA methods. We illustrate the application of MAVT to develop a decision model utilizing damage indicators from a single LCIA methodology; and, we identify the decision-theoretic issues that arise when attempting to combine LCIA indicators from multiple methods and/or levels of analysis in a single decision model. Finally, we introduce the use in our methodology of constructed attributes to combine related end-point damage indicators into single decision attributes and the concept and evaluation of proxy attributes.     

Weighting in Life Cycle assessments in a global context

The option of weighting impact categories according to ISO 14042 on Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is particularly difficult for global organizations, as they have to consider a wide range of values. The motivation for employing weighting is usually based on the desire to simplify LCIA output, especially in circumstances where product system tradeoffs occur. Looking globally at regional variations in legislation, consumer values, monetary valuation, existing weighting sets and expert opinions, no globally agreed upon weighting set is likely to be derived. This is due to both the inherent subjectivity of weighting and local variations in environmental imperatives. Hence, the authors recommend that LCIA quantitative weighting, especially those provided in pre-packaged software instruments, should not be employed. Admittedly, to use a spectrum of LCIA results for internal design decisions, some kind of tradeoff analysis has to be performed, especially if comparing competing design alternatives. However, this trade-off analysis should be done separately from the technical LCA study and should reflect values and visions of the global organization, as well as the circumstances of the targeted market, in a qualitative way. For any external communication, none of the quantitative weighting sets can be used.     

The formulation of life cycle impact assessment framework for Malaysia using Eco-indicator

Background, aim, and scope  

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an emerging supporting tool designed to help practitioner in systematically assessing the environmental performance of selected product’s life cycle. A product’s life cycle includes the extraction of raw materials, production, and usage, and ends with waste treatment or disposal. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) as a part of LCA is a method used to derive the environmental burdens from selected product’s stages. LCIA is structured in classification, characterization, normalization and weighting. Presently most of the LCIA practices use European database to establish the characterization, normalization and weighting value. However, using these values for local LCA practice might not be able to reflect the actual Malaysian’s environmental scenario. The aim of this study is to create a Malaysian version of normalization and weighting value using the pollution database within Malaysia.     

Evaluation of Ecotoxicity Effect Indicators for Use in LCIA (10+4 pp)

Goal, Scope and Background The paper describes different ecotoxicity effect indicator methods/approaches. The approaches cover three main groups, viz. PNEC approaches, PAF approaches and damage approaches. Ecotoxicity effect indicators used in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) are typically modelled to the level of impact, indicating the potential impact on 'ecosystem health'. The few existing indicators, which are modelled all the way to damage, are poorly developed, and even though relevant alternatives from risk assessment exist (e.g. recovery time and mean extinction time), these are unfortunately at a very early stage of development, and only few attempts have been made to include them in LCIA. Methods The approaches are described and evaluated against a set of assessment criteria comprising compatibility with the methodological requirements of LCIA, environmental relevance, reproducibility, data demand, data availability, quantification of uncertainty, transparency and spatial differentiation. Results and Discussion The results of the evaluation of the two impact approaches (i.e. PNEC and PAF) show both pros and cons for each of them. The assessment factor-based PNEC approaches have a low data demand and use only the lowest data (e.g. lowest NOEC value). Because it is developed in tiered risk assessment, and hence makes use of conservative assessment factors, it is not optimal, in its present form, to use in the comparative framework of LCIA, where best estimates are sought. The PAF approaches have a higher data demand but use all data and can be based on effect data (PNEC is no-effect-based), thus making these approaches non-conservative and more suitable for LCIA. However, indiscriminate use of ecotoxicity data tends to make the PAF-approaches no more environmentally relevant than the assessment factor-based PNEC approaches. The PAF approaches, however, can at least in theory be linked to damage modelling. All the approaches for damage modelling which are included here have a high environmental relevance but very low data availability, apart from the 'media recovery-approach', which depends directly on the fate model. They are all at a very early stage of development. Conclusion Recommendations and Outlook. An analysis of the different PAF approaches shows that the crucial point is according to which principles and based on which data the hazardous concentration to 50% of the included species (i.e. HC50) is estimated. The ability to calculate many characterisation factors for ecotoxicity is important for this impact category to be included in LCIA in a proper way. However, the access to effect data for the relevant chemicals is typically limited. So, besides the coupling to damage modelling, the main challenge within the further development and improvement of ecotoxicity effect indicators is to find an optimal method to estimate HC50 based on little data.     

A life cycle impact assessment procedure with resource groups as areas of protection

Goal and Background  Current Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) procedures have demonstrated certain limitations in the South African manufacturing industry context. The aim of this paper is to propose a modified LCIA procedure, which is based on the protection of resource groups. Methods  A LCIA framework is introduced that applies the characterisation procedure of available midpoint categories, with the exception of land use. Characterisation factors for land occupation and transformation is suggested for South Africa. A distanceto-target approach is used for the normalisation of midpoint categories, which focuses on the ambient quality and quantity objectives for four resource groups: Air, Water, Land and Mined Abiotic Resources. The quality and quantity objectives are determined for defined South African Life Cycle Assessment (SALCA) Regions and take into account endpoint or damage targets. Following the precautionary approach, a Resource Impact Indicator (RII) is calculated for the resource groups. Subjective weighting values for the resource groups are also proposed, based on survey results from the manufacturing industry sector and the expenditure trends of the South African national government. The subjective weighting values are used to calculate overall Environmental Performance Resource Impact Indicators (EPRIIs) when comparing life cycle systems with each other. The proposed approaches are evaluated with a known wool case study. Results and Discussion  The calculation of a RJI ensures that all natural resources that are important from a South African perspective are duly considered in a LCIA. The results of a LCIA are consequently not reliant on a detailed Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and the number of midpoint categories that converge on a single resource group. The case study establishes the importance of region-specificity, for LCIs and LCIAs. Conclusions  The proposed LCIA procedure demonstrates reasonable ease of communication of LCIA results. It further allows for the inclusion of additional midpoint categories and is adaptable for specific regions. Recommendations and Outlook  The acceptance of the LCIA procedure must be evaluated for different industry and government sectors. Also, the adequate incorporation of Environmental Performance Resource Impact Indicators (EPRIIs) into decision-making for Life Cycle Management purposes must be researched further. Specifically, the application of the procedures for supply chain management will be investigated.     

Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo,harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward

Purpose

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results.

Methods

We analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality.

Results and discussion

We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richness-related metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators—which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss—should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

We call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.

     

Comparative evaluation of Life Cycle Impact assessment methods with a South African case study

Goal and Background  LCIA procedures that have been used in the South Africa manufacturing industry include the CML, Ecopoints, EPS and Eco-indicators 95 and 99 procedures. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and compare the applicability of these European LCIA procedures within the South African context, using a case study. Methods  The five European methods have been evaluated based on the applicability of the respective classification, characterisation, normalization and weighting approaches for the South African situation. Impact categories have been grouped into air, water, land and mined abiotic resources for evaluation purposes. The evaluation and comparison is further based on a cradle-to-gate Screening Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) case study of the production of dyed two-fold wool yarn in South Africa. Results and Discussion  Where land is considered as a separate category (CML, Eco-indicator 99 and EPS), the case study highlights this inventory constituent as the most important. Similarly, water usage is shown as the second most important in one LCIA procedure (EPS) where it is taken into account. However, the impact assessment modelling for these categories may not be applicable for the variance in South African ecosystems. If land and water is excluded from the interpretation, air emissions, coal usage, ash disposal, pesticides and chrome emissions to water are the important constituents in the South African wool industry. Conclusions  In most cases impact categories and procedures defined in the LCIA methods for air pollution, human health and mined abiotic resources are applicable in South Africa. However, the relevance of the methods is reduced where categories are used that impact ecosystem quality, as ecosystems differ significantly between South Africa and the European continent. The methods are especially limited with respect to water and land resources. Normalisation and weighting procedures may also be difficult to adapt to South African conditions, due to the lack of background information and social, cultural and political differences. Recommendations and Outlook  Further research is underway to develop a framework for a South African LCIA procedure, which will be adapted from the available European procedures. The wool SLCA must be revisited to evaluate and compare the proposed framework with the existing LCIA procedures.     

Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts

Purpose  

Weighting is one of the steps involved in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. However, a number of problems still remain. Weighting factors should be based on the preferences of society as a whole so that the life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioner can successfully apply them to every product and service. However, most existing studies do not really measure national averages but only the average of the responses obtained from the people actually sampled. Measuring the degree of uncertainty in LCIA factors is, therefore, one of the most important issues in current LCIA research, and some advanced LCIA methods have tried to deal with the problem of uncertainty. However, few weighting methods take into account the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. LIME2, the updated version of life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME), has been developed as part of the second LCA national project of Japan. One of the aims of LIME2 is to develop new weighting factors which fulfill the following requirements: (1) to accurately represent the environmental attitudes of the Japanese public, (2) to measure the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts and reflect them in the choice of suitable weighting factors.     

In reply to hertwich & pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180 — 181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment”

Life Cycle Impact Assessment describes indicators and does not predict actual impacts. The value of an LCA is its comprehensive review of all stages of a product’s life cycle and its synoptic view of all relevant environmental issues. The current version of the 14042 draft describes the uniqueness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment approach which is distinct from other assessment techniques. The wording was designed to help users of the standard understand how and why LCIA is distinct from other assessment methods. In closing, we would like to highlight our opinion that the present document on the level of a DIS is sound, stable and practical within the ISO 14040 series of standards. We do not agree withHertwich & Pease that the present document prevents the use of LCIA. It makes a choice regarding the exclusion of weighting across categories in order to prevent misuse in deriving inappropriate claims. And for characterisation it has achieved a well founded synthesis. In addition, we strongly believe that this standard will stimulate the international scientific discussion of LCA and will substantially contribute to enhanced and more valuable applications of LCA in the future.     

Decision Analysis Frameworks for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment

Life‐cycle impact assessments (LCIAs) are complex because they almost always involve uncertain consequences relative to multiple criteria. Several authors have noticed that this is precisely the sort of problem addressed by methods of decision analysis. Despite several experiences of using multipleattribute decision analysis (MADA) methods in LCIA, the possibilities of MADA methods in LCIA are rather poorly elaborated in the field of life‐cycle assessment. In this article we provide an overview of the commonly used MADA methods and discuss LCIA in relation to them. The article also presents how different frames and tools developed by the MADA community can be applied in conducting LCIAs. Although the exact framing of LCIA using decision analysis still merits debate, we show that the similarities between generic decision analysis steps and their LCIA counterparts are clear. Structuring of an assessment problem according to a value tree offers a basis for the definition of impact categories and classification. Value trees can thus be used to ensure that all relevant impact categories and interventions are taken into account in the appropriate manner. The similarities between multiattribute value theory (MAVT) and the current calculation rule applied in LCIA mean that techniques, knowledge, and experiences derived from MAVT can be applied to LCIA. For example, MAVT offers a general solution for the calculation of overall impact values and it can be applied to help discern sound from unsound approaches to value measurement, normalization, weighting, and aggregation in the LCIA model. In addition, the MAVT framework can assist in the methodological development of LCIA because of its well‐established theoretical foundation. The relationship between MAVT and the current LCIA methodology does not preclude application of other MADA methods in the context of LCIA. A need exists to analyze the weaknesses and the strengths of different multiple‐criteria decision analysis methods in order to identify those methods most appropriate for different LCIA applications.     

Screening life cycle impact assessment with weighting methodology based on simplified damage functions

The procedure of screening LCIA with weighting methodology and the result of a case study have been described. The weighting methodology incorporates the impacts related with input and output by the simplified damage functions. Through the dominant analysis by this methodology, we can detect the significant substances and environmental problems in life cycle of the product. With this result, LCA practitioners can concentrate on the analysis for these items to improve the reliability of investigation effectively in the following step. According to the result of case study, an imaginary copy machine, the primary consideration in the foreseeable study should put emphasis on the analysis of the consumption of natural gas and wood, and the emission of carbon dioxide.     

User needs analysis and development of priorities for life cycle impact assessment

The development of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative started with a global survey of LCA practitioners. There were 91 LCIA-specific responses from all global regions. Respondents gave an indication of how they use LCA with respect to both the stage of LCA that they base decisions on (LCI, LCIA or a combination of both) as well as the types of decisions which they support with LCA information. The issues requiring immediate attention within the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative identified from this User Needs analysis are the need for transparency in the methodology, for scientific confidence and for scientific co-operation as well as the development of a recommended set of factors and methodologies. Of interest is the fact that results from the different regions highlighted the need for different impact categories. Based on this information proposals were made for new impact categories to be included in LCA (and thus LCIA). The LCIA programme aims to enhance the availability of sound LCA data and methods and to deliver guidance on their use. More specifically, it aims to 1) make results and recommendations widely available for users through the creation of a worldwide accessible information system and 2) establish recommended characterisation factors and related methodologies for the different impact categories, possibly consisting of sets at both midpoint and damage level. The work of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been started within four task forces on 1) LCIA information system and framework, 2) natural resources and land use, 3) toxic impacts, and 4) transboundary impacts. All participants willing to contribute to these efforts are invited to contact the LCIA programme manager or to join the next LCIA workgroup meeting that will take place in at the world SETAC congress in Portland on Thursday 18 November 2004.     

Fate modelling within LCA

For an accurate assessment of the toxic effects of chemicals during their life cycle, LCA developers try more and more to include chemical fate into the life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) procedure. In this study the application of multi-media partitioning models within LCIA is discussed. With the case of textile chemicals as an example, USES-LCA and a simple river model (box approach) are compared according to their practicability and the value added to the assessment results. It is shown that emissions from the supply and use of energy still dominate the LCIA results even if ecotoxicity is assessed with a rather complex fate model such as USES-LCA. Second, the treatment of modelling results is addressed for persistent substances with low or unknown toxicity. A possible approach to include such chemicals into valuation is to define an exposure-based impact category additionally to the existing effect-oriented ones (toxicity scores) or a combination of different methods. A combined presentation of results from complementary tools is proposed, providing a more detailed background for decision making while avoiding aggregation and leaving the final weighting between the categories to the user.     

Comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches based on ReCiPe—a study of commercial buildings in Hong Kong

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly implemented in analyzing the environmental performance of buildings and construction projects. To assess the life cycle environmental performance, decision-makers may adopt the two life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approaches, namely the midpoint and endpoint models. Any imprudent usage of the two approaches may affect the assessment results and thus lead to misleading findings. ReCiPe, a well-known work, includes a package of LCIA methods to provide assessments on both midpoint and endpoint levels. This study compares different potential LCIA results using the midpoint and endpoint approaches of ReCiPe based on the assessment of a commercial building in Hong Kong.

Methods

This paper examines 23 materials accounting for over 99 % of the environmental impacts of all the materials consumed in commercial buildings in Hong Kong. The midpoint and endpoint results are compared at the normalization level. A commercial building in Hong Kong is further studied to provide insights as a real case study. The ranking of impact categories and the contributions from various construction materials are examined for the commercial building. Influence due to the weighting factors is discussed.

Results and discussion

Normalization results of individual impact categories of the midpoint and endpoint approaches are consistent for the selected construction materials. The difference in the two approaches can be detected when several impact categories are considered. The ranking of materials is slightly different under the two approaches. The ranking of impact categories demonstrates completely different features. In the case study of a commercial building in Hong Kong, the contributions from subprocesses are different at the midpoint and endpoint. The weighting factors can determine not only the contributions of the damage categories to the total environment, but also the value of a single score.

Conclusions

In this research, the midpoint and endpoint approaches are compared using ReCiPe. Information is whittled down from the inventories to a single score. Midpoint results are comprehensive while endpoint results are concise. The endpoint approach which provides additional information of damage should be used as a supplementary to the midpoint model. When endpoint results are asked for, a LCIA method like ReCiPe that provides both the midpoint and endpoint analysis is recommended. This study can assist LCA designers to interpret the midpoint and endpoint results, in particular, for the assessment of commercial buildings in Hong Kong.     

Quantifying system uncertainty of life cycle assessment based on Monte Carlo simulation

Background, aim, and scope

Many studies evaluate the results of applying different life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods to the same life cycle inventory (LCI) data and demonstrate that the assessment results would be different with different LICA methods used. Although the importance of uncertainty is recognized, most studies focus on individual stages of LCA, such as LCI and normalization and weighting stages of LCIA. However, an important question has not been answered in previous studies: Which part of the LCA processes will lead to the primary uncertainty? The understanding of the uncertainty contributions of each of the LCA components will facilitate the improvement of the credibility of LCA.

Methodology

A methodology is proposed to systematically analyze the uncertainties involved in the entire procedure of LCA. The Monte Carlo simulation is used to analyze the uncertainties associated with LCI, LCIA, and the normalization and weighting processes. Five LCIA methods are considered in this study, i.e., Eco-indicator 99, EDIP, EPS, IMPACT 2002+, and LIME. The uncertainty of the environmental performance for individual impact categories (e.g., global warming, ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical smog, human health) is also calculated and compared. The LCA of municipal solid waste management strategies in Taiwan is used as a case study to illustrate the proposed methodology.

Results

The primary uncertainty source in the case study is the LCI stage under a given LCIA method. In comparison with various LCIA methods, EDIP has the highest uncertainty and Eco-indicator 99 the lowest uncertainty. Setting aside the uncertainty caused by LCI, the weighting step has higher uncertainty than the normalization step when Eco-indicator 99 is used. Comparing the uncertainty of various impact categories, the lowest is global warming, followed by eutrophication. Ecotoxicity, human health, and photochemical smog have higher uncertainty.

Discussion

In this case study of municipal waste management, it is confirmed that different LCIA methods would generate different assessment results. In other words, selection of LCIA methods is an important source of uncertainty. In this study, the impacts of human health, ecotoxicity, and photochemical smog can vary a lot when the uncertainties of LCI and LCIA procedures are considered. For the purpose of reducing the errors of impact estimation because of geographic differences, it is important to determine whether and which modifications of assessment of impact categories based on local conditions are necessary.

Conclusions

This study develops a methodology of systematically evaluating the uncertainties involved in the entire LCA procedure to identify the contributions of different assessment stages to the overall uncertainty. Which modifications of the assessment of impact categories are needed can be determined based on the comparison of uncertainty of impact categories.

Recommendations and perspectives

Such an assessment of the system uncertainty of LCA will facilitate the improvement of LCA. If the main source of uncertainty is the LCI stage, the researchers should focus on the data quality of the LCI data. If the primary source of uncertainty is the LCIA stage, direct application of LCIA to non-LCIA software developing nations should be avoided.     

Midpoints versus endpoints: The sacrifices and benefits

On May 25–26, 2000 in Brighton (England), the third in a series of international workshops was held under the umbrella of UNEP addressing issues in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA). The workshop provided a forum for experts to discuss midpoint vs. endpoint modeling. Midpoints are considered to be links in the cause-effect chain (environmental mechanism) of an impact category, prior to the endpoints, at which characterization factors or indicators can be derived to reflect the relative importance of emissions or extractions. Common examples of midpoint characterization factors include ozone depletion potentials, global warming potentials, and photochemical ozone (smog) creation potentials. Recently, however, some methodologies have adopted characterization factors at an endpoint level in the cause-effect chain for all categories of impact (e.g., human health impacts in terms of disability adjusted life years for carcinogenicity, climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone creation; or impacts in terms of changes in biodiversity, etc.). The topics addressed at this workshop included the implications of midpoint versus endpoint indicators with respect to uncertainty (parameter, model and scenario), transparency and the ability to subsequently resolve trade-offs across impact categories using weighting techniques. The workshop closed with a consensus that both midpoint and endpoint methodologies provide useful information to the decision maker, prompting the call for tools that include both in a consistent framework.     

Addressing water needs of freshwater ecosystems in life cycle impact assessment of water consumption: state of the art and applicability of ecohydrological approaches to ecosystem quality characterization

Purpose

In recent history, human development overbalanced towards economic growth has often been accompanied by the degradation and reduction of freshwater resources at the expense of freshwater dependent ecosystems. For their subsistence and correct functioning, understanding environmental water requirements (EWR) represents an area of great interest for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and it has been only marginally explored. The aim of this paper is to investigate how this concept has evolved in ecological and hydrological literature and how it can be better integrated in LCIA, to identify potential options for improvement of LCIA indicators in the short, mid and long term.

Methods

To address the limitations of existing LCIA approaches in modelling EWR, four families of EWR methods have been reviewed, namely hydrological, hydraulic, habitat simulation and holistic methods. Based on existing scientific literature and their broad application, 24 methods have been selected and their suitability to be adopted in LCIA has been evaluated against nine criteria, with regard to data management issues, accuracy, scientific robustness, and potential for future development. A semi-quantitative performance score has been subsequently assigned for each criterion, showing the main strengths and weaknesses of selected methods.

Results and discussion

The underlying rationale of the chosen approaches is markedly different, likewise the input information needed and results applicability. Hydrological methods are well suited for the development of global models and they are the only ones currently considered in LCIA, although their applicability remains limited to water stress indicators. Habitat modelling is identified as an essential step for the development of mechanistic LCIA models and endpoint indicators. In this respect, hydraulic, habitat simulation and holistic methods are fit for the purpose. However, habitat simulation methods represent the best compromise between scientific robustness and applicability in LCIA. For this reason, a conceptual framework for the development of habitat-based characterization factors has been proposed. Among the evaluated habitat simulation methods, ESTIMHAB showed the best performance and was the method retained for the development of an LCIA model that will assess the consequences of water consumption on stream ecosystems.

Conclusions

This study identifies the advantages of specific modelling approaches for the assessment of water requirements for ecosystems. Selected methods could support the development of LCIA models at different levels. In the short-term for improving environmental relevance of water stress indicators, and in the mid/long-term to build up midpoint habitat indicators relating water needs of ecosystems with new endpoint metrics.