Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Responsible editor: Annette Koehler
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0814-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
In the past decade, several methods have emerged to quantify water scarcity, water availability and the human health impacts of water use. It was recommended that a quantitative comparison of methods should be performed to describe similar impact pathways, namely water scarcity and human health impacts from water deprivation. This is precisely the goal of this paper, which aims to (1) identify the key relevant modeling choices that explain the main differences between characterization models leading to the same impact indicators; (2) quantify the significance of the differences between methods, and (3) discuss the main methodological choices in order to guide method development and harmonization efforts.
The modeling choices are analysed for similarity of results (using mean relative difference) and model response consistency (through rank correlation coefficient). Uncertainty data associated with the choice of model are provided for each of the models analysed, and an average value is provided as a tool for sensitivity analyses.
The results determined the modeling choices that significantly influence the indicators and should be further analysed and harmonised, such as the regional scale at which the scarcity indicator is calculated, the sources of underlying input data and the function adopted to describe the relationship between modeled scarcity indicators and the original withdrawal-to-availability or consumption-to-availability ratios. The inclusion or exclusion of impacts from domestic user deprivation and the inclusion or exclusion of trade effects both strongly influence human health impacts. At both midpoint and endpoint, the comparison showed that considering reduced water availability due to degradation in water quality, in addition to a reduction in water quantity, greatly influences results. Other choices are less significant in most regions of the world. Maps are provided to identify the regions in which such choices are relevant.
This paper provides useful insights to better understand scarcity, availability and human health impact models for water use and identifies the key relevant modeling choices and differences, making it possible to quantify model uncertainty and the significance of these choices in a specific regional context. Maps of regions where these specific choices are of importance were generated to guide practitioners in identifying locations for sensitivity analyses in water footprint studies. Finally, deconstructing the existing models and highlighting the differences and similarities has helped to determine building blocks to support the development of a consensual method.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
ESM 1 (DOCX 1530 kb)11367_2014_814_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Aguilar-Manjarrez J (2006) WRI Major watersheds of the world delineation. FAO-Aquaculture Management and Conservation Service
Alcamo J, Henrichs T, Rosch T (2000) World water in 2025—global modeling and scenario analysis for the World Commission on Water for the 21st century. Kassel World Water series
Alcamo J, Doll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B et al (2003a) Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):317–337 CrossRef
Alcamo J, Doll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B et al (2003b) Global estimates of water withdrawals and availability under current and future “business-as-usual” conditions. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):339–348 CrossRef
Bauer C, Zapp P (2005) Towards generic factors for land Use and water consumption. In: Dubreuil A (ed) Life cycle assessment of metals: issues and research directions. SETAC - USA, Pensacola, USA
Bayart J-B et al (2010) Framework for assessment of off-stream freshwater use within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):439 CrossRef
Bayart J-B et al (2014) The Water Impact Index: a simplified single-indicator approach for water footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(6):1336–1344 CrossRef
Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2013) Methodological challenges in volumetric and impact-oriented water footprints. J Ind Ecol 17(1):79–89 CrossRef
Boulay A-M, Bouchard C et al (2011a) Categorizing water for LCA inventory. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(7):639–651 CrossRef
Boulay A-M, Bulle C et al (2011b) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45(20):8948–8957 CrossRef
Bourgault G, Lesage P, Margni M, Bulle C, Boulay A-M, Samson, R (2012) Quantification of uncertainty of characterisation factors due to spatial variability. SETAC Europe 22nd Annual Meeting / 6th SETAC World Congress, Berlin.
Brent AC (2004) A life cycle impact assessment procedure with resource groups as areas of protection. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):172–179 CrossRef
Bulle C, Humbert S, Jolliet O, Rosenbaum R, Margni M (2012) IMPACT World+: A new global regionalized life cycle impact assessment method, LCA XII, United States, Washington, Tacoma.
Fekete B, Vörösmarty C, Grabs W (2002) High-resolution fields of global runoff combining observed river discharge and simulated water balances. Global Biogeochem Cy 16(3):15.1-15-10
Fenner K et al (2005) Comparing estimates of persistence and long-range transport potential among multimedia models. Environ Sci Technol 39(7):1932–1942 CrossRef
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (nd.) AQUASTAT-FAO’s information system on water and agriculture. Available at: http://www.fao.org/NR/WATER/AQUASTAT/main/index.stm
Frischknecht R et al. (2008) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006
Hertwich EG, McKone TE, Pease WS (1999) Parameter uncertainty and variability in evaluative fate and exposure models. Risk Anal 19(6):1193–1204
Initiative, U.-S.L.C (2012) http://www.wulca-waterlca.org/
ISO 14046 (2014) Water footprint—principles, requirements and guidelines
Kounina A et al (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:707–721 CrossRef
Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2011) National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands
Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2010a) Damage assessment of water scarcity for agricultural use 1. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on EcoBalance . National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), pp 3–6
Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2010b) Development of impact factors on damage to health by infectious diseases caused by domestic water scarcity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(1):65–73 CrossRef
Owens JW (2002) Water resources in life-cycle impact assessment: considerations in choosing category indicators. J Ind Ecol 5(2):37–54 CrossRef
Perry C (2007) Efficient irrigation; inefficient communication; flawed recommendations. Irrig Drain 56:367–378 CrossRef
Pfister S, Bayer P (2013) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod. Available at: http://www.ifu.ethz.ch/ESD/downloads/reports/Monthly_WSI_LCA_FOOD.pdf
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104 CrossRef
Pfister S, Hellweg S (2011) Surface water use – human health impacts. Report of the LC-IMPACT project (EC: FP7) (p. http://www.ifu.ethz.ch/ESD/downloads/Uncertainty_w). Retrieved from http://www.ifu.ethz.ch/ESD/downloads/Uncertainty_water_LCIA.pdf
Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2010) A revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcity. Glob Environ Chang 20(1):113–120 CrossRef
Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2013) A new water footprint calculation method integrating consumptive and degradative water use into a single stand-alone weighted indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:204–207 CrossRef
Rodell M et al (2004) The global land data assimilation system. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 85(3):381–394 CrossRef
Rosenbaum R et al (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(7):532–546 CrossRef
Shiklomanov IA, Rodda JC (2003) World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
UNEP Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) Water programme (2009) GEMStat
Vorosmarty CJ et al (2000) Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289(5477):284–288 CrossRef
- Analysis of water use impact assessment methods (part A): evaluation of modeling choices based on a quantitative comparison of scarcity and human health indicators
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
Fallstudie Überschwemmungskarten/© Thaut Images | Fotolia