Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • WATER USE IN LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adriaenssens V, De Baets B, Goethals PLM, De Pauw N (2004) Fuzzy rule-based models for decision support in ecosystem management. Sci Total Environ 319:1–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alcamo J, Flörke M, Märker M (2007) Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic changes. Hydrol Sci J 52:247–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcázar J, Palau A (2010) Establishing environmental flow regimes in a Mediterranean watershed based on a regional classification. J Hydrol 388:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amores MJ, Verones F, Raptis C et al (2013) Biodiversity impacts from salinity increase in a coastal wetland. Environ Sci Technol 47:6384–6392

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Angus Webb J, Miller KA, King EL et al (2013) Squeezing the most out of existing literature: a systematic re-analysis of published evidence on ecological responses to altered flows. Freshw Biol 58:2439–2451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M et al (2013) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47:9281–9290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Curran M, Rondinini C et al (2015) High-resolution assessment of land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment using species habitat suitability models. Environ Sci Technol 49:2237–2244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berger M, Van Der Ent R, Eisner S et al (2014) Water accounting and vulnerability evaluation (WAVE): considering atmospheric evaporation recycling and the risk of freshwater depletion in water footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 48:4521–4528

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boulay A-M, Bulle C, Bayart JB et al (2011) Regional characterization of freshwater use in LCA: Modeling direct impacts on human health. Environ Sci Technol 45:8948–8957

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boulay A-M, Bare J, De Camillis C et al (2015) Consensus building on the development of a stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: outcome of the expert workshops. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:577–583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L et al (2017) 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8

  • Bovee KD (1982) A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 12. FWS/OBS-82/26. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC, 248 pp

  • Bovee KD (1986) Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for use in the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 21. No. FWS/OBS-86/7. US Fish Wild Serv Biol Rep 86(7):235

  • Bovee KD, Lamb BL, Bartholow JM et al (1998) Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Geologicial Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD-1998-0004. viii +131 pp

  • 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 49:9987–9995

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cosgrove CE, Cosgrove WJ (2012) Global Water Futures 2050—the dynamics of global water futures driving forces 2011–2050. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, 100 pp

  • Curran M, De Baan L, De Schryver AM et al (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:70–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eamus D, Zolfaghar S, Villalobos-Vega R et al (2015) Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: recent insights from satellite and field-based studies. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:4229–4256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ercin AE, Hoekstra AY (2014) Water footprint scenarios for 2050: a global analysis. Environ Int 64:71–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espegren GD (1996) Development of instream flow recommendations in Colorado using R2CROSS. Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources, Water Rights Investigations Section, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission - DG Environment (2015) Guidance Document No. 31: Ecological flows in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. European Union, 108 pp. https://doi.org/10.2779/775712

  • European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) ILCD Handbook: framework and requirements for life cycle impact assessment models and indicators—first edition. EUR 24586 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 116 pp. https://doi.org/10.2788/38719

  • Gerten D (2013) A vital link: water and vegetation in the anthropocene. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:3841–3852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginot V (1995) EVHA, Un logiciel d’evaluation de l’habitat du poisson sous Windows. Bull Fr la Pech la Piscic 337(338/33):303–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gippel CJ (2001) Australia’s environmental flow initiative: filling some knowledge gaps and exposing others. Water Sci Technol 43:73–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ (1998) Use of wetted perimeter in defining minimum environmental flows. Regul Rivers Res Manag 14:53–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracey EO, Verones F (2016) Impacts from hydropower production on biodiversity in an LCA framework—review and recommendations. Int J Life Cycle Assess:412–428

  • Hanafiah MM, Xenopoulos MA, Pfister S et al (2011) Characterization factors for water consumption and greenhouse gas emission based on freshwater fish species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 45:5272–5278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hanasaki N, Kanae S, Oki T et al (2008) An integrated model for the assessment of global water resources—part 1 : model description and input meteorological forcing. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12:1007–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah DM, Wood PJ, Sadler JP (2004) Ecohydrology and hydroecology: a “new paradigm”? Hydrol Process 18:3439–3445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM, Chapagain AK et al (2012) Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS One 7:e32688

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes DA (2001) Providing hydrological information and data analysis tools for the determination of ecological instream flow requirements for South African rivers. J Hydrol 241:140–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humbert S, Maendly R (2009) Characterization factors for damage to aquatic biodiversity caused by water use especially from dams used for hydropower. In: LCA IX. Boston, p 1

  • International Organization for Standardization, ISO/TC 207/SC 5 (2006a). ISO 14040:2006, Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Principles and framework. ICS 13.020.60-10. Geneva, 20 pp

  • ​International Organization for Standardization, ISO/TC 207/SC 5 (2006b). ISO 14044:2006, Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and guidelines. ICS 13.020.60-10. Geneva, 46 pp

  • Jorde K (1996) Ecological evaluation of instream flow regulations based on temporal and spatial variability of bottom shear stress and hydraulic habitat quality. In: INRS-Eau (ed) Ecohydraulics 2000, 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Volume B. Québec, Canada

  • Jorde K, Schneider M, Peter A, Zoellner F (2001) Fuzzy based models for the evaluation of fish habitat quality and instream flow assessment. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Symposium on Environmental Hydraulics, Tempe

  • Jowett IG (1989) River hydraulics and habitat simulation, RHYHABSIM computer manual. New Zealand Fisheries Miscellaneous Report 49. Freshwater Fisheries Centre, Christchurch, 29 pp

  • Killingtveit A, Lundteigen Fossdal M (1994) The river system simulator—an integrated model system for water resources planning and operation. Trans Ecol Environ 7:41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • King J, Louw D (1998) Instream flow assessments for regulated rivers in South Africa using the building block methodology. Aquat Ecosyst Heal Manag 1:109–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King J, Brown C, Sabet H (2003) A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Res Appl 19:619–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamouroux N, Capra H (2002) Simple predictions of instream habitat model outputs for target fish populations. Freshw Biol 47:1543–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamouroux N, Souchon Y (2002) Simple predictions of instream habitat model outputs for fish habitat guilds in large streams. Freshw Biol 47:1531–1542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold LB, Maddock T (1953) The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 64 pp

  • Li C, Kang L (2014) A new modified tennant method with spatial-temporal variability. Water Resour Manag 28:4911–4926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu C, Zhao C, Xia J et al (2011) An instream ecological flow method for data-scarce regulated rivers. J Hydrol 398:17–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loubet P, Roux P, Núñez M et al (2013) Assessing water deprivation at the sub-river basin scale in LCA integrating downstream cascade effects. Environ Sci Technol 47:14242–14249

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews RC Jr, Bao Y (1991) The Texas method of preliminary instream flow assessment. Rivers 2:295–310

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarvey DJ (2014) Moving beyond species—discharge relationships to a flow-mediated, macroecological theory of fish species richness. Freshw Sci 33:18–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A et al (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: part I—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milhous RT, Updike MA, Schneider DM (1989) Physical habitat simulation system reference manual—version II. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 26. US Fish Wild Serv Biol Rep 89(16):404

  • Monk WA, Wood PJ, Hannah DM et al (2006) Flow variability and macroinvertebrate community response within riverine systems. River Res Appl 22:595–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehring BR (1979) Evaluation of instream flow methods and determination of water quantity needs for streams in the state of Colorado, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins

  • Noack M, Schneider M, Wieprecht S (2013) The habitat modelling system CASiMiR: a multivariate fuzzy approach and its applications. In: Maddock I, Atle H, Kemp P, Wood P (eds) Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 75–91

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez M, Bouchard CR, Bulle C et al (2016a) Critical analysis of life cycle impact assessment methods addressing consequences of freshwater use on ecosystems and recommendations for future method development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1799–1815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez M, Roux P, Bare J et al (2016b) Including the hydrological cycle through a multimedia assessment of water flows in water consumption LCIA modelling. In: 22nd SETAC Europe LCA Case Study Symposium. Montpellier, France

  • Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Agriculture and Water Resources; Environment and Energy (2016) Water Act 2007, No. 137. Canberra, 622 pp

  • Olden JD, Poff NL (2003) Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res Appl 19:101–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palau A, Alcazar J (1996) The basic flow: An alternative approach to calculate minimum environmental instream flows. In: Ecohydaulics 2000. Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics. Vol. A. Québec, Canada, pp 547–558

  • Palau A, Alcazar J (2012) The basic flow method for incorporating flow variability in environmental flows. River Res Appl 28:93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasiewicz P (2001) MesoHABSIM: a concept for application of instream flow models in river restoration planning. Fisheries 26:6–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parasiewicz P (2007) Using MesoHABSIM to develop reference habitat template and ecological management scenarios. River Res Appl 23:924–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor AV, Ludwig F, Biemans H et al (2014) Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:5041–5059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne TR (1994) RHABSIM: user-friendly computer model to calculate river hydraulics and aquatic habitat. In: 1st International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics. The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, pp 254–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne TR, Jowett IG (2013) Sefa-computer software system for environmental flow analysis based on the instream flow incremental methodology. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens, Georgia, USA

  • Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43:4098–4104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB et al (1997) The natural flow regime. A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47:769–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH et al (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55:147–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porporato A, D’Odorico P, Laio F et al (2002) Ecohydrology of water-controlled ecosystems. Adv Water Resour 25:1335–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Republic of South Africa (1998) National Water Act, No. 36. Government Gazette No. 19182, 398. Cape Town, 101 pp

  • Richter BD (2010) Re-thinking environmental flows: from allocations and reserves to sustainability boundaries. River Res Appl 26:1052–1063

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP (1996) A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol 10:1163–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Wigington R, Braun DP (1997) How much water does a river need? Freshw Biol 37:231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richter BD, Davis MM, Apse C, Konrad C (2012) A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res Appl 28:1312–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolls RJ, Arthington AH (2014) How do low magnitudes of hydrologic alteration impact riverine fish populations and assemblage characteristics? Ecol Indic 39:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider M, Noack M, Gebler T, Kopecki I (2010) Handbook for the habitat simulation model CASiMiR. Module CASiMiR-Fish, Base Version. Schneider & Jorde Ecological engineering GmbH, LWW-University of Stuttgart, 52 pp

  • Smakhtin VY, Revenga C, Döll P (2004) A pilot global assessment of environmental water requirements and scarcity. Water Int 29:307–317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solans MA, García de Jalón D (2016) Basic tools for setting environmental flows at the regional scale: application of the ELOHA framework in a Mediterranean river basin. Ecohydrology 9:1517–1538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souchon Y, Lamouroux N, Capra H, Chandesris A (2003) La méthodologie Estimhab dans le paysage des méthodes de microhabitat. Note Cemagref Lyon, Unité Bely, Lab d’hydroécologie Quant, 9 pp

  • Spinoni J, Naumann G, Carrao H et al (2014) World drought frequency, duration, and severity for 1951-2010. Int J Climatol 34:2792–2804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromberg JC, Merritt DM (2016) Riparian plant guilds of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial rivers. Freshw Biol 61:1259–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tendall DM, Hellweg S, Pfister S et al (2014) Impacts of river water consumption on aquatic biodiversity in life cycle assessment—a proposed method, and a case study for Europe. Environ Sci Technol 48:3236–3244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tennant DL (1976) Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1:4:6–10

  • Tessman SA (1980) Environmental Assessment, Technical Appendix E in “Reconnaissance Elements of the Western Dakotas Region of South Dakota.” South Dakota Water Resources Institute, Brookings

  • Tharme RE (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: Emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl 19:397–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Brisbane Declaration (2007) Summary findings and global action agenda of the 10th International Riversymposium and International Environmental Flows Conference, 3–6 September 2007, Brisbane, 7 pp

  • The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends, volume 1. Island Press, 47 pp. http://www.millenniumassessment.org. Accessed 18 December 2017

  • U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (2002) Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Washington, DC, 234 pp

  • Van Dijk AIJM, Beck HE, Crosbie RS et al (2013) The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001-2009): Natural and human causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society. Water Resour Res 49:1040–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zelm R, Schipper AM, Rombouts M et al (2011) Implementing groundwater extraction in life cycle impact assessment : characterization factors based on plant species richness for the Netherlands. Environ Sci Technol 45:629–635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verones F, Bartl K, Pfister S et al (2012) Modeling the local biodiversity impacts of agricultural water use: Case study of a wetland in the coastal arid area of Peru. Environ Sci Technol 46:4966–4974

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verones F, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2013a) Quantifying area changes of internationally important wetlands due to water consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 47:9799–9807

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verones F, Saner D, Pfister S et al (2013b) Effects of consumptive water use on biodiversity in wetlands of international importance. Environ Sci Technol 47:12248–12257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall TP, Dunbar MJ, Extence CA et al (2014) The identification of hydrological indices for the characterization of macroinvertebrate community response to flow regime variability. Hydrol Sci J 59:645–658

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are members of the ELSA research group (Environmental Life Cycle and Sustainability Assessment, http://www.elsa-lca.org/) and thank all ELSA members for their advice. The authors acknowledge ANR, the Occitanie Region, ONEMA and its industrial partners (BRL, SCP, SUEZ Groupe, VINADEIS, Compagnie Fruitière) for the financial support of the Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability Assessment “ELSA-PACT” (grant no. 13-CHIN-0005-01).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, Montpellier, France

    Mattia Damiani, Montserrat Núñez, Philippe Roux, Eléonore Loiseau & Ralph K. Rosenbaum

Authors
  1. Mattia Damiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Montserrat Núñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philippe Roux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eléonore Loiseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ralph K. Rosenbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mattia Damiani.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Stephan Pfister

Appendix: Acronyms and abbreviations

Appendix: Acronyms and abbreviations

To assist the reading throughout the manuscript, in Table 5 the relevant acronyms and abbreviations used are resumed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Damiani, M., Núñez, M., Roux, P. et al. 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. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 2071–2088 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1430-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1430-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation