Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
DOI 10.1007/s11367-016-1127-4
WATER USE IN LCA
Critical analysis of life cycle impact assessment methods
addressing consequences of freshwater use on ecosystems
and recommendations for future method development
Montserrat Nez 1 & Christian R. Bouchard 2 & Ccile Bulle 3 &
Anne-Marie Boulay 4 & Manuele Margni 4
Received: 7 October 2015 / Accepted: 25 April 2016 / Published online: 24 May 2016
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract
Purpose Anthropic water uses can affect aquatic and terres-
trial ecosystems through various pathways. To address these
impacts in life cycle assessment, an array of impact assess-
ment methods can be applied. The currently well-known re-
view of methods carried out by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle
Initiatives WULCA working group (Kounina et al. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 18(3):707721, 2013) recommends that practi-
tioners Bsimultaneously apply all indicators to evaluate dam-
age on ecosystem quality and to cautiously sum up the score
into a single metric^. This call for caution is attributed to the
fact that methods reviewed cover different ecosystem targets.
Their characterisation factors and units also vary. However,
the review lacks a detailed analysis of compatibilities and
coherence between methods that identifies inconsistencies to
Responsible editor: Matthias Finkbeiner
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1127-4) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
* Montserrat Nez
montse.nunez-pineda@irstea.fr
1
Irstea, UMR ITAP, ELSA Research Group & ELSA-PACT
Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability
Assessment, 361 Rue Jean Franois Breton,
34196 Montpellier, France
2 more environmentally relevant midpoint stressor (the one along
Dpartement de gnie civil et de gnie des eaux, Universit Laval,
1065 Avenue De la Mdecine, Qubec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
3 the use of the steady-state solution for fate factor modelling.
CIRAIG, UQAM, cole des sciences de la gestion, 315 St.Catherine
Street East, office R-1020, Montreal, QC H2X 3X2, Canada
4 the indicator structures analysed and provides recommenda-
Mathematical and Industrial Engineering Department, CIRAIG,
Polytechnique Montreal, C.P. 6079, succ. Centre-Ville,
Montral, QC H3C 3A7, Canada
be overcome to further method harmonisation. This is precise-
ly the aim of this study.
Methods Existing methods were analysed against a scheme. It
consists of four issues (1) covered impact pathway, (2) structure
of characterisation model and factor, (3) fate factor modelling,
and (4) effect factor modelling, further specified based on ten
criteria. Among these, one criterion evaluates the legitimacy of
using steady-state fate factors to model pulse-type water uses
based on the theorem presented by Heijungs (Environ Sci
Pollut Res Int 2:217224, 1995). New terminology is proposed
for a proper description of the criteria. All of the criteria eval-
uate scientific and technical aspects. The analysis approach
involves a qualitative description of each model.
Results and discussion Important findings of the analysis in-
clude the following: (1) for several methods, the environmen-
tal intervention proposed and its connection to the impact
assessment phase are debatable; (2) the location of the mid-
point stressor (i.e. the indicator of change in the environment
due to the environmental intervention) along the causality
chain causes problems of compatibility among fate factors of
different models; (3) it is appropriate to use the steady-state
solution to find the new system condition after pulse-type
water use. None of the models have justified this fundamental
choice before. Recommendations for future method develop-
ment respectively, involve the following: (1) avoid the use of
inventory information in characterisation models and jointly
develop inventory data and characterisation factors to ensure
the applicability of impact assessment methods; (2) use the
the causality chain closer to ecosystem damage; and (3) justify
Conclusions This study identifies sources of inconsistency in
tions that will foster harmonisation. The current mismatch
between methods leads us to not recommend aggregating
1800
indicators into one single metric until a common framework
underpins existing and future water use impact assessment
methods for ecosystem quality.
Keywords Characterisation models . Ecosystems .
Freshwater use . Life cycle assessment . Life cycle impact
assessment
1 Introduction
Human freshwater consumption and quality degradation
can have several consequences (e.g., decrease in soil
moisture, water temperature increase, soil and
freshwater salinisation, and reduced freshwater availabili-
ty in water bodies or land flooding). These changes in
environmental conditions can threaten aquatic and terres-
trial ecosystems. Furthermore, climate change will modify
the distribution and seasonal availability of water around
the world (IPCC 2007). Patterns of unsustainable human
freshwater use and consumption combined with effects of
climate change may result in widespread damage to the
provisioning of ecosystem services and biodiversity
(MEA 2005). It is therefore essential to develop model
capabilities to assess the environmental impacts of fresh-
water use on ecosystem quality.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a standardised technique
for quantifying the potential environmental impacts of a prod-
uct through its full cycle (ISO 2006a; ISO 2006b). In LCA, the
term freshwater use is a generic term that groups all types of
human freshwater resources use. Consumptive use (or water
consumption) is a specific type of water use whereby water is
removed from but not returned to the same watershed.
Degradative use (or water degradation) involves withdrawal
and release in the same watershed after water quality has been
altered (Bayart et al. 2010).
Until a few years ago, water use was considered in
LCA only as an inventory flow. Impacts of water use on
ecosystems were only covered by emission-related impact
categories (namely freshwater ecotoxicity, freshwater
acidification, ionising radiation, and freshwater eutrophi-
cation). Lately, several authors have proposed characteri-
sation models that assess impacts on ecosystem quality in
the freshwater use impact category. Most of these models
are endpoint oriented (i.e. indicators are close to areas of
protection) and assess consequences of water consump-
tion (Pfister et al. 2009; Hanafiah et al. 2011; van Zelm
et al. 2011; Verones et al. 2012, 2013a, b; Tendall et al.
2014). A few models assess impacts due to freshwater
degradation (Verones et al. 2010; Amores et al. 2013;
Pfister and Suh 2015; Quinteiro et al. 2015). Other
models account for (a) aquatic biodiversity alteration as
a result of exotic fish species introduction (Hanafiah et al.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
2013) and (b) dam operation (Humbert and Maendly
2008).1 A question that naturally arises from such a vari-
ety of models is as follows: how complementary and com-
patible are these models?
Answering this question requires a detailed analysis of these
models that goes beyond the initial generic attempt made by
Kounina et al. (2013). In this study, the authors recommended
that researchers Bsimultaneously apply all reviewed indicators
to evaluate damage on ecosystem quality^, namely those pre-
sented by Pfister et al. (2009), Hanafiah et al. (2011), van Zelm
et al. (2011) and Humbert and Maendly (2008). The authors
suggested summing the score into a single metric while
interpreting results cautiously as the methods cover different
endpoints. Despite this recommendation, these and other more
recent methods for assessing ecosystem quality damage have
had very limited applications. To improve understanding of
available methods and to foster the development of new
harmonised approaches, this study aims at providing a thor-
ough critical analysis of impact assessment methods that ad-
dress consequences of freshwater use on ecosystems. Our study
complements the comparison of water scarcity indices and hu-
man health damage indicators carried out by Boulay et al.
(2015), as such type of comparison is missing for the ecosys-
tem quality area of protection. The cientific quality, comple-
mentarity and compatibility of the models are identified and
discussed. Beyond the critical analysis of existing models, ter-
minology and guidelines are proposed for the consistent inte-
gration of characterisation models. In addition, a unified ap-
proach for the development of fate factors is proposed. To reach
our objectives, a scheme of analysis is proposed and applied to
models for water use impact assessment on ecosystem quality
published by 2014. The following factors are out of the scope
of the study: methods that address water use-related impacts on
the areas of protection human health and resource depletion,
models assessing water degradation in traditional emission-
oriented impact categories as well as consequences of the use
of nonconventional sources of water (e.g. desalinated water).
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Scheme used to analyse methods
The scheme we propose may be used in any life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA) model irrespective of the impact
category. The selection of the criteria is inspired by the eval-
uation approach of the UNEP/SETAC LC-Initiative Working
Group (Margni et al. 2008) used in the International Reference
1
Following Kounina et al. (2013), we included this method in our anal-
ysis although it is not yet published in a peer-review journal due to its
innovative nature and accessible documentation for analysing underlying
modelling choices
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook (JRC 2010;
Hauschild et al. 2013), by the requirements from ISO 14040
and ISO 14044 standard (ISO 2006a; ISO 2006b) and by
review works (Delbaere et al. 2009; Curran et al. 2011;
Kounina et al. 2013). The scheme consists only of scientific
and technical issues (i.e. there are no stakeholder acceptance
criteria as in the ILCD handbook (JRC 2010) and in Kounina
et al. (2013)). It explores four issues that are further specified
based on ten criteria, as per Table 1. Some of our criteria have
not yet been applied to this typology of study. They were
selected because they refer to core of the scientific validity
of the methods in terms of their compliance with underlying
modelled physical processes (e.g. criterion 3.1) or to the
methods adhesion to fundamental requirements of LCA
(e.g. criterion 1.1). We do not examine aspects related to the
ease of applicability, stakeholder acceptance and uncertainty
management as these issues are not indicative of the correct-
ness of the LCIA model itself. The critical analysis performed
involves a qualitative description of each model. Based on the
proposed criteria, a scoring system can be further developed to
assess a models compliance with a specific criterion. This can
be done only with a broad acceptance of such criteria. The
four issues and ten criteria are described further in the
following.
2.1.1 Issue 1covered impact pathway
Criterion 1.1 The inventory consists of environmental in-
terventions that are appropriately connected to the impact
assessment model According to ISO 14044 (ISO 2006a; ISO
2006b), the life cycle inventory (LCI) consists of elementary
flows entering and leaving the system under study and the
LCIA step evaluates the effects of the elementary flows on
the environment. In this work, the term Benvironmental
intervention^ is preferred to the term Belementary flow^ as
the former is a broader term (Guine et al. 2001). As defined
by Udo de Haes et al. (2002), an environmental intervention is
the amount of inert or living matter (including an area of land
or a water stream) or energy (including noise and radiation)
that is extracted, used or released into an environmental com-
partment. This criterion focuses on describing the appropriate-
ness of defining targeted environmental interventions for each
model analysed and whether a model effectively transmits
environmental interventions of the LCI to the characterisation
factor (CF) of the LCIA step.
Criterion 1.2 Covered impact pathway and complemen-
tarity with pre existing pathways is shown This criterion is
analysed by drawing the impact pathway described by each
method on a global cause-effect chain plot (Fig. S1 in ESM).
The plot is generated based on impact pathways covered by
methods analysed in this work and is complemented with
qualitative information from a review of specialised literature.
1801
The more impact pathways are described, the more complete
an assessment of potential damages of water use on ecosystem
quality will be, but also the more potential problems related to
inconsistencies between methods in the case where different
methods describe different pathways separately by using dif-
ferent structures of modelling and different indices.
2.1.2 Issue 2structures of the model and characterisation
factor
Criterion 2.1 The characterisation factor is expressed as a
fate factor multiplied by an effect factor. Influence of the
spatial resolution on the characterisation factor structure
This criterion evaluates whether the model under analysis al-
lows considering both fate and effect coherently and separately.
Like the modelling structure for LCIAs of other impact path-
ways (Margni et al. 2008; JRC 2010), to analyse this criterion
and to compare CFs of existing models, we adopt a character-
isation model structure that reflects the propagation of an envi-
ronmental intervention into environment (fate), followed by the
alteration of an ecosystem (effect), as this structure suits the
examination of cause-effect chains typically used in LCA.
Please note that we use the widely accepted structure of CF
(Eqs. (1) to (4)) for the sake of method comparison in this
article. If this structure should be consensus-based recommend-
ed practice is out of the scope of this study.
An endpoint-oriented CF determines the additional or mar-
ginal damage on ecosystem quality due to an incremental
environmental intervention (water use) resulting from the
product of a fate (FF) and effect (EF) factor:
Damages
C Fr;s F Fr;s  E Fs 1
Environmental interventionr
where the subscript r denotes the compartment where the envi-
ronmental intervention occurs (receiving compartment) and
where s denotes the compartment where the midpoint stressor
(term defined in criterion 2.2) is modelled. A compartment is
any water body or part of a water body (e.g. whole river or river
section). A given LCIA method may involve calculating one
single CF for the entire modelled water compartment or many
CFs for smaller scale sections of a given compartment. In the
latter case, CFs are usually aggregated as a final CF for a single
compartment. Ways in which this is addressed affect CFs struc-
ture, and this can in turn affect degrees of compatibility between
methods. We include an analysis of this aspect in this criterion.
We do not discuss optimal CF spatial resolution level (i.e. if it
should be sub-basin, basin, country or any other).
Criterion 2.2 The midpoint stressor (MPS) is selected cor-
rectly We define a midpoint stressor as a change in an envi-
ronmental condition due to an environmental intervention that
potentially places stress on ecosystems. The MPS can occur
1802 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815

Table 1 Critical analysis scheme

of impact assessment methods
addressing freshwater use impacts
on ecosystems: identified issues
and evaluation criteria
Issue
1. Covered impact pathway
2. Structure of characterisation
model and factor
3. Fate factor modelling
4. Effect factor modelling
Criteria
1.1 The inventory consists of environmental interventions that are
appropriately connected to the impact assessment model
1.2 Covered impact pathway and complementarity with
pre existing pathways is shown
2.1 The characterisation factor is expressed as a fate factor multiplied
by an effect factor. Influence of the spatial resolution on the
characterisation factor structure.
2.2 The midpoint stressor is selected correctly
3.1 The fate factor equation is in accordance with underlying
physical laws that govern the modelled environmental intervention
3.2 The fate factor considers the current state of the environment
4.1 The effect factor definition is coherent with the characterisation
factor and fate factor
4.2 The taxonomic and geographic coverage is as complete as possible
and the damage assessment is spatially resolved
4.3 Sub-steps of the effect mechanism are explicitly addressed in the effect
modelling
4.4 The effect factor considers the current state of the environment

anywhere along the cause-effect chain; it may be equal to the
FF multiplied by the environmental intervention (as per Eq.
(2))which would allow a consistency if applied coherently
to all different impact pathwaysor not (e.g. if the character-
isation factor structure is not split into a fate factor and an
effect factor). Several appropriate MPSs may be selected
along the same impact pathway, but an appropriate MPS must
be situated along the cause-effect chain. Note that a midpoint
stressor is not the same as a midpoint indicator. The term
stressor would have been used without any qualifier instead.
However, the term stressor has been applied in the LCI step
(Udo de Haes et al. 2002). Adding Bmidpoint^ as a descriptor
allows identifying the intermediary point in a causality chain
where a stressor is modelled. This criterion involves analysing
when the method under evaluation clearly identifies the mid-
point stressor and whether the MPS is located along the cause-
effect chain, proving that there is a relationship between the
environmental intervention, the MPS and the ecosystem attri-
bute to be protected. We also include in this criterion informa-
tion on the temporal resolution of the MPS.
2.1.3 Issue 3fate factor modelling
Criterion 3.1 The fate factor equation is in accordance
with underlying physical laws that govern the modelled
environmental intervention A fate model should address
the propagation of a pulse-type environmental intervention into
different environmental compartments, i.e. it should address a
transient propagation problem that lasts for some time within
the stressed compartment (Eq. (2)). For water use impact as-
sessment, the differentiation between water compartments in
the FF is necessary to reflect uneven distributions and renew-
ability levels among water sources (Yano et al. 2015).
The FF definition of Eq. 2 is based on existing fate models
for pollutant release (Heijungs 1995; Pennington et al. 2004).
Z t
MPSs dt
FFr;s 0
2
Environmental interventionr
Equation (2) recognises the time integrative nature of the
environmental change due to an intervention. t may be set
to either defined time frames, which allows calculating dy-
namic solutions (e.g. t = 100 years for GWP100 in the climate
change impact category), or a time-independent solution is
calculated (e.g. t in the toxicity impact categories) to
account for the final state of the environment when steady
state is reached.
To solve Eq. (2), Heijungs (1995) has demonstrated the
mathematical relationship that may exist between the steady-
state solution of a continuous-type pollutant release and the
transient solution of a pulse-type pollutant release (Heijungs
1995). In practice, this means that LCIA may use much sim-
pler steady-state models rather than sophisticated time-
dependent unsteady-state models. However, before using
steady-state models and data for water use FF modelling,
Heijungs theorem should be checked. To determine the ap-
plicability of Heijungs (1995) theorem for characterising wa-
ter use-related impacts, this criterion evaluates the match be-
tween FFs of methods from the literature analysed in this
study and FFs we derived following the abovementioned the-
orem. We derived FFs for simple cases of the following envi-
ronmental interventions: groundwater pumping, surface water
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
pumping, and heat release. In a first attempt, FFs were derived
for single compartment systems.
Criterion 3.2 The fate factor considers the current state of
the environment One variable that is always included in the
FF equations we derived (see criterion 3.1 above) is the back-
ground level (e.g. C0, V0). This criterion assesses whether the
method under analysis considers the initial value of the MPS
(i.e. background level) in the FF. As the background level can
vary from one geographical location to another, it must be
referred to regional conditions whenever the adequate infor-
mation on the initial state is available.
2.1.4 Issue 4effect factor modelling
Criterion 4.1 The effect factor definition is coherent with
the characterisation factor and fate factor As the CF is
considered as a product of an FF and EF, mathematical for-
mulations of these three factors should be consistent. For ex-
ample, the numerator of the FF and its units should be the
same as the denominator of the EF. Therefore, to be consistent
with the adopted CF model structure (criterion 2.1) and FF
definition (criterion 3.1), the effect factor should relate the
time-integrated MPS to the endpoint indicator measuring the
damage on the ecosystem quality area of protection. Based on
Eqs. (1) and (2), and like existing effect models for pollutant
release, this translates into the following equation for EF:
Damages
E Fs Z t 3
Midpoint stressors dt
0
This criterion focuses on how this equation applies to the
analysed methods and on how the connection of FF and EF in
terms of form and metric are carried out for those methods.
Ecosystem quality damage (the numerator in Eq. (3)) may be
modelled using different approaches (see criterion 4.4).
Criterion 4.2 The taxonomic and geographic coverage is
as complete as possible and the damage assessment is spa-
tially resolved In LCA, damages to ecosystem quality are
usually measured using biodiversity indicators. Biodiversity
can be compartmentalised into a hierarchy of levels. At each
level, indicators may be defined. Curran et al. (2011) differ-
entiated between four broad biodiversity levels (genetic, spe-
cies, community and ecosystems) and three types of indicators
(composition, structure and function). Overall, existing LCIA
methods assume that species adequately represent the quality
of ecosystems. Individual species attributes or community in-
dices are chosen as a representative proxy of total biodiversity.
The larger the number of species of different taxa included in
indices, the more faithfully they can capture the real biodiver-
sity loss as biodiversity is not evenly distributed among
1803
species and taxa. Biodiversity also varies across the planet.
Therefore, EFs for water use impact assessment shall be spa-
tially explicit to cover regional specificities of local biodiver-
sity, thus acknowledging that this spatial variability of biodi-
versity is rarely considered in current LCIA models due to a
lack of region specific effect data. At the same time, effect
factors should ideally be globally applicable to allow the as-
sessment of products with life cycles distributed over the
world. This criterion focuses on the ways in which each meth-
od accounts for species of different taxa and for regional spec-
ificities in terms of effects.
Criterion 4.3 Sub-steps of the effect mechanism are explic-
itly addressed in the effect modelling The EF can be explic-
itly divided into several sub-factors and be expressed as a
combination of exposure, incidence and damage modelling
steps as in toxic emission models (Pennington et al. 2006)
(Eq. (4)). For the purposes of this critical analysis, we adopt
this structure because it is well adapted to modelling the
cause-effect chain from the FF to the latest environmental
impacts on ecosystems. The criterion analyses whether the
studied methods explicitly adopt such mechanistic structure,
even if factors are set to a value of 1 (e.g. exposure factor =1).
Damage Exposure Incidence Damage
= (4)
Stressor Stressor Exposure Incidence
Effect Exposure Incidence Damage
factor factor factor factor
The exposure factor determines to what extent the target
considered (e.g. affected living species) is exposed to a change
in environmental conditions.
The incidence factor determines how a change in expo-
sure levels affects the quality of the ecosystem (e.g., in terms
of potentially affected fraction of species (PAF)). Different
approaches can be adapted from other impact categories
(e.g., the species-area relationship used in the land use cat-
egory or exposure level-response curves used in emission-
related categories). Exposure-response curves that relate ef-
fects from a midpoint stressor on several species may be
established based on species sensitivity distribution func-
tions (SSD) that relate a species community response to
the exposure level used to determine the proportion of spe-
cies affected of the incidence factor. The incidence factor
relies on the same type of threshold for all exposure-
response curves.
The damage factor converts the potentially affected frac-
tion of species (PAF) into a potentially disappeared fraction of
species (PDF) or into other metrics expressing biodiversity
damage in absolute terms (e.g. species year). To transform
incidence in to damage, it is important to specify whether
1804
SSD curves correspond to acute, sub-chronic or chronic ex-
posure. Different relationships between affected species and
species loss have been proposed (Snell and Serra 2000;
Goedkoop and Spriensma 2001; Jolliet et al. 2003): (1)
PDF = PAF; (2) PDF = PAF 0.1; (3) PDF = PAF 0.5. Thus
far, none of them have garnered broad scientific consensus.
Criteria 4.4 The effect factor takes considers the current
state of the environment Ecosystem quality damage (the
numerator of Eq. (3)) is sensitive to local conditions in real
life. LCIA models may apply three EF modelling approaches:
(1) marginal approach, for very small changes in the known
local background, (2) average approach, calculated based on
the distance between the known local background and a pre-
ferred state (typically set to a 0 effect state), and (3) linear
approach, for unknown background local level information
(Huijbregts et al. 2011; Hauschild and Huijbregts 2015). In
LCA, local context information needed to model actual eco-
system responses in a product life cycle basis (i.e. from cradle
to grave) is not generally available. Hence, it is consensually
accepted in current practice that damage is not a function of
time or MPS level but is linear to the environmental stressor
(Hauschild and Huijbregts 2015). This linear approach has
been applied to all impact categories with varying degrees of
sophistication. For instance, toxicity (Rosenbaum 2015) and
particulate matter (Humbert 2015) models apply linear, no-
threshold curves, whereas acidification (Roy et al. 2012) and
eutrophication (Struijs et al. 2011) consider a linearised re-
sponse based on the buffer capacity of the environment.
Irrespective of the approach applied, once the EF curve is
modelled, the impact will be proportional, i.e. linear, to the
environmental intervention set in the LCI (Hauschild and
Huijbregts 2015). This criterion evaluates whether the back-
ground level is a variable included in the EF equation and the
model approach applied.
2.2 Summary tables of existing models
We present individual tables (see Electronic Supplementary
Material (ESM)) as summaries of the characterisation models
analysed. These tables are designed to facilitate an understand-
ing of the model structures and model comparison. Each table
addresses the following topics:
1. Covered impact pathway showing the start and end points
of the impact pathway, the fate and effect factor or the
directly calculated characterisation factor, steps of the
cause-effect chain that are cited as explanations/
justifications in model documentation but are not specif-
ically modelled in equations.
2. Structure of the characterisation model, including the
identification of the native spatial scale (e.g. river section)
and the spatial scale of the aggregated CFs (e.g. river
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
basin), receiving and stressed environmental
compartments.
3. Mathematical equation and unit of the fate factor at the
native spatial scale.
4. Mathematical equation and unit of the effect factor at the
native spatial scale.
5. Mathematical equation and unit of the characterisation
factor at the native spatial scale.
6. Mathematical equation and unit of the characterisation
factor at the aggregated spatial scale.
For methods with the same native and aggregated spatial
scales, information is reported under the aggregated spatial
scale tag.
3 Results and discussion
Characterisation models are qualitatively analysed below ac-
cording to the scheme introduced in Sect. 2. At the end of each
criterion description, we provide recommendations that can
guide future developments.
3.1 Scheme used to analyse methods
3.1.1 Issue 1covered impact pathway
Criterion 1.1 The inventory consists of environmental in-
terventions that are appropriately connected to the impact
assessment model Most of the analysed methods have an LCI
that consists of an environmental intervention and where the
proposed characterisation factors can be directly applied to
assess the targeted environmental intervention. The
environmental intervention modelled by most LCIA
methods is a volume of consumed surface water or
groundwater. However, for several methods, the
environmental intervention proposed and its connection to
the impact assessment phase are debatable. Hanafiah et al.
(2013) consider the mass of goods shipped (kg transported/
year) as the environmental intervention. This is actually a
human activity that may lead to an environmental intervention
(i.e. an output to the environment) such as a biological alter-
ation involving the introduction of exotic species in a given
watershed. The latter is in fact the midpoint stressor (the nu-
merator, see Eq. (2)) of the FF reported by Hanafiah et al.
(2013). The lack of proper inventory data and of inventory
models that relate goods transportation to an actual environ-
mental intervention may explain this integration of an inven-
tory and a fate models into a single relationship in the charac-
terisation factor through what we call an adaptability factor.
We define an adaptability factor as a parameter containing
inventory information in the impact assessment phase.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815 1805

Humbert and Maendly (2008) use the amount of water pragmatic solution for managing deficient inventory data.
turbined in a dam as the environmental intervention. To be When enhanced inventory datasets become available, the
consistent with their inventory, the CF relates potential impact adaptability factor should be expressed in inventories to
on species (in PDF) per area of the dam to the m3 of turbined generate coherent methods that always require the same
water. This is determined by dividing the impact associated types of standardised elementary flows. Overall, a joint
with the dam by the quantity of water turbined in each dam. development of inventory and characterisation models
This comes with the underlying assumption that the impact of should improve the coherence between these two phases
a dam is proportional to the amount of turbined water, which is of any LCA method.
not necessarily true as other key variables, such as changes in
downstream river flow variability, may influence damage on
Criterion 1.2 Covered impact pathway and complementarity
aquatic biodiversity. To capture all potential impacts of dams
with pre existing pathways is shown Figure 1 shows that the
on ecosystems, we recommend assessing not only dam oper-
models generally complement one another in the target impact
ation impacts, as the current method does, but also dam con-
pathways, although they do not exhaustively cover all possi-
struction impacts. Appropriate environmental interventions
ble pathways.
should accordingly be reported separately in the inventory.
Models for multiple compartment systems (e.g. impacts
For dam construction, we propose using the increase (flooded
on ecosystem caused by modifications of surface water
area) or decrease (dry out area) in the surface of a water
flow due to groundwater consumption) are still to be de-
body, i.e. change in land use (m2), as the inventory flow
veloped. Interconnections between surface and ground
as this is, for instance, the case for the ecoinvent database
water bodies are only unambiguously addressed in
(Weidema et al. 2013). For dam operation, the inventory
Verones et al. (2012, 2013a) and Amores et al. (2013) in
flow may well be the m3 of water turbined over a time
the case of wetlands. Van Zelm et al. (2011) also
period (m3 year), recognising that dam operation involves
modelled the environmental intervention and the effect
a change in river flow variability, but the amount of water
of water withdrawal on different compartments, but unlike
turbined may also be insufficient information alone for esti-
the abovementioned methods, FF and EF equations do not
mating corresponding impacts on ecosystem. Other data,
explicitly show established connections between the
such as mitigation practices (e.g. fish scales and derivation),
modelled compartments (i.e. relation between aquifer wa-
stream regulation practices (e.g. maintaining the river levels
ter extraction (FF) and effect on soil-water dependent ter-
during the reproduction period or not) may be important to
restrial plants (EF) is not made explicit in the equations
report on in the inventory. Further work on Humbert and
but is included in the characterisation model applied).
Maendlys (2008) impact assessment model is needed for
So far, research efforts have mainly focused on model-
the establishment of relevant connections with the quantity
ling surface and groundwater consumption pathways.
of water turbined as reported in the LCI (which may itself
Changes in water balance and water filtration caused by
need to be specified further).
land occupation and transformation are addressed by sev-
In Verones et al. (2010), the environmental intervention is
eral methods, although with partial pathways at either the
the product of a surplus temperature released and a cooling
LCI level (Nez et al. 2013), or midpoint (Mil i Canals
flow rate (C m3 water discharge/day), which is not an ele-
et al. 2009; Saad et al. 2013) and endpoint (Cao et al.
mentary flow currently reported in life cycle inventories (on-
2015) LCIA levels.
ly the amount of cooling water used, with no information on
Connections between water consumption and water qual-
the temperature increase for this water, is reported). This
ity degradation have thus far been limited to salinity increase
elementary flow relates well to their FF. However, the envi-
(Amores et al. 2013). No methods report on the negative
ronmental intervention metric should not depend on the
effect of lowering river water availability on the dilution of
ways in which heat is released into water (e.g. it should
toxic and nontoxic emissions. Furthermore, many environ-
not depend on the water cooling flow rate to make the en-
mental stressors that affect water quality are not yet consid-
vironmental intervention more general). It should be an
ered in LCA (e.g. bacterial contamination and water colour
amount and not a flow rate, as is the case for other inventory
change).
elements. It should also be expressed as a common heat unit
(e.g. the joule). Hence, we propose using heat release into
water, expressed in joules, as the environmental intervention Recommendations The diversity of hydrological patterns
for thermal pollution. and of the interconnections between water bodies makes it
difficult to comprehensively cover all impact pathways.
Recommendations The use of the adaptability factor Therefore, it would be useful to determine the relative
adopted by some impact assessment methods bridges the importance of different pathways in overall mechanisms
current gap between the LCI and LCIA and serves as a as was done by, for example, Weidema (2001) for the land
1806
Fig. 1 Impact pathways currently covered by existing ecosystem quality
methods. Each method is shown in a different colour. The following
methods are shown in this figure but are out of the scope of the critical
use impact category. This would help prioritise modelling
efforts.
3.1.2 Issue 2structure of the characterisation model
and factor
Criterion 2.1 The characterisation factor is expressed as a
fate factor multiplied by an effect factor. Influence of the
spatial resolution on the characterisation factor structure
An analysis of this criterion reveals that all of the char-
acterisation models distinguish between fate and effect
sub-models with the exception of methods developed
by Pfister et al. (2009) and Humbert and Maendly
(2008). Mathematical equations of the models analysed
are presented in the summary tables (Sect. 3.2). As it can
be seen in these tables, CFs are calculated following very
different approaches. Some methods have a tiered CF
structure whereby the authors first modelled the CF in
a part of the target water compartment (e.g. a grid cell,
see Bnative spatial scale^ information in the summary
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
analysis carried out: Mil i Canals et al. (2009), Nez et al. (2013), Saad
et al. (2013), Pfister and Suh (2015), and Quinteiro et al. (2015)
tables) and later aggregated, based on different weighted
averages, native factors in the final CF spatial scale (e.g.
water basin, see Baggregated spatial scale^ information).
The following of the models analysed use this tiered CF
structure: Humbert and Maendly (2008), Pfister et al.
(2009), Verones et al. (2010), van Zelm et al. (2011),
Hanafiah et al. (2013), and Tendall et al. (2014). Note
that not all these above-listed methods explicitly show
during method documentation such native fates, effects
or characterisation factors. For example, Pfister et al.
(2009) first derived CFs on a 0.5 grid before aggregat-
ing these damage factors by watershed and country,
which are the final spatial resolutions provided in the
article. The rest of the methods directly calculated CFs
at the final spatial scale of regionalisation.
Recommendations The appropriate native resolution scale
should be chosen adequately, as within this scale all the com-
partment is homogeneously affected by the environmental in-
tervention. The ways in which aggregation and weighting of
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
native factors into the final factor are performed (e.g. area-
weighted, water consumption-weighted) are also an important
factor that should be unified for the sake of methods
compatibility.
Criterion 2.2 The midpoint stressor is selected correctly
All of the methods adequately describe the environmental
mechanism, identify the MPS that affects the environment
and propagate the impact of the MPS on the related endpoint
indicator. For example, an increase in river water temperature
(MPS) may affect fish biodiversity (Verones et al. 2010).
Similarly, a decrease in water discharge into the river (MPS)
can also affect fish populations (Hanafiah et al. 2011).
Humbert and Maendly (2008) and Pfister et al. (2009) do not
explicitly identify the MPS in their equations as these methods
do not divide the characterisation model into FF and
EF components. For Humbert and Maendly (2008), assumptions
on how the MPS (change in water flowing through the dam)
affects fish species cannot be validated as these authors base their
model on empirical values and on a technological model, thus
disabling the quantification of the environmental mechanism that
relates the cause to the consequence. Pfister et al. (2009) did not
model fate and thus assume that 1 m3 of water pumped from
rivers and aquifers deprives plants of 1 m3 of soil-water (MPS).
Definitions of the MPS and its position along the
causality chain may cause problems of compatibility
among the FFs of different models. For example,
Verones et al. (2012, 2013a) modelled changes in water
flowing into wetlands due to water consumption.
However, FF meanings and metrics of both models cannot
be directly compared: Verones et al. (2012) used the vol-
ume of water infiltrating into the wetland as the MPS
(m3), whereas Verones et al. (2013a) used changes in wet-
land surface area (m2). The use of wetland volume reduc-
tion (Verones et al. 2012) is comparable to the use of FFs
of other water-related impact pathways (Hanafiah et al.
2011). However, assessing wetland area loss is compara-
ble to land use-related impacts and may for instance be
made compatible with the model addressing effects of
dam construction on aquatic biodiversity. Although the
close relationship between land use and water use impacts
has been largely discussed in LCA (Mil i Canals and de
Baan 2015) and some suggestions have been made to
harmonise land and water use impacts (Pfister et al.
2011; Verones et al. 2015), so far, no agreement has been
reached to render the assessment of both types of impacts
fully compatible.
The same problem of MPS compatibility applies to the two
methods that address potential impacts of water consumption
on terrestrial vascular plant species. Van Zelm et al. (2011)
identified the change in groundwater volume as the MPS,
while Pfister et al. (2009) used the change in soil moisture as
a cause of plant damage. The latter authors assumed a linear
1807
relationship between the environmental intervention and the
midpoint stressor (i.e. environmental intervention = MPS, then
FF = 1). Both soil moisture and groundwater levels are appro-
priate MPS, as both fall along the target impact pathway.
Another issue related to MPS selection relates to the tem-
poral resolution. Environmental conditions vary throughout
the year. Arthington et al. (2006) emphasise the fact that river
flow rates significantly fluctuate over time and that these fluc-
tuations have important effects on ecosystems. The authors
conclude that a yearly average flow rate does not properly
capture this reality. Hanafiah et al. (2011), for example, only
consider the change in annual average river discharge flow,
whereas Amores et al. (2013) and Verones et al. (2010) ac-
count for seasonal variations in their fate models.
Recommendations Selecting the same MPS and units should
facilitate further harmonisation and comparison processes of
impact pathways that lead to the same MPS and of methods
that address the same pathway. When multiple MPSs can be
selected, we recommend selecting the more environmentally
relevant indicator, which is the one positioned along the
causality chain which is closer to ecosystem damage.
Regarding temporal resolutions of the MPS, future
developments should investigate the relevance of including
environmental condition variability as done by, e.g. Amores
et al. (2013) and Verones et al. (2010). As application of
methods in an LCA context may then quickly become data
intensive, the parsimony principle should not be forgotten. In
some cases, it may be worth modelling this in detail, while in
many othercases it may be sufficient to consider such variabil-
ity through uncertainty estimates, depending on the degree of
precision required for a given goal and scope.
3.1.3 Issue 3fate factor modelling
Criterion 3.1 The fate factor equation is in accordance
with underlying physical laws that govern the modelled
environmental intervention We show below the mathemat-
ical derivation of the fate factor for a model that evaluates
effects of groundwater pumping. Similar FF derivations for
surface water extraction and heat release to water are
shown in the Supporting Information (Sect. S2). To com-
pare these derivations with those of previous studies
(Heijungs 1995), an FF for the pollutant release case is also
derived (Sect. S2). For each FF, derivation involves the
following modelling steps:
1. Steady-state modelling of the initial equilibrium state
2. Transient modelling of the evolution toward a new equi-
librium state after the start of a continuous environmental
intervention
3. Transient modelling of the return to the initial equilibrium
state after a pulse environmental intervention
1808 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815

4. MPS selection and FF derivation dV

GRRGPRGDR 11
dt
In each case, the first three steps are schematically illustrat-
ed by a figure.
Where
Fate factor modelling for groundwater pumping
GDR k H  h 12
1. Steady-state modelling of the initial equilibrium state As V = V0 at t = 0, integrating Eq. (11) produces
(Fig. 2a)
A groundwater body is modelled very simply as a res- kH
hhstat h0 hstat e A t 13
ervoir with continuous and constant recharge (GRR) and
discharge (GDR). Initially, groundwater is pumped at a
constant rate (GPR0). The discharge is assumed to follow
Darcys law: kH
VV stat V 0 V stat e A t 14
GDR0 k H  h0 5
where hstat and Vstat are the new steady state, or equi-
where GDR0 is the initial volumetric discharge rate librium, height and volume toward which the system
(m3/s), h0 is the initial hydrostatic head (m), and kH will tend:
is a global hydraulic resistance (m2/s) that is supposed
GRRGPR0 GPR
to be constant. hstat 15
The initial ground water volume, V0 (m3) is kH

V 0 A  AG0 A  h0 h* 6
 
GRRGPR0 GPR
V stat A h* 16
kH
where h* is the elevation difference between the bot-
tom of the groundwater body and the free surface of 3. Transient modelling of the return to the initial equilibrium
the discharge water body (m). state after a pulse environmental intervention (Fig. 2c)
Assuming that water density variations are negligi- At t = 0, a given volume of water (Vcons) is instantaneous-
ble, a steady-state mass balance on the water body ly withdrawn from the ground water body. This tends to
becomes a volumetric balance: decrease the groundwater volume. A transient volumetric
balance gives
0 GRRGPR0 GDR0 7
dV
GRRGPR0 GDR 17
dt
Then
GRRGPR0
h0 8
kH dV kH
V 0 V 18
dt A

  As V = V0 at t = 0, integrating Eq. (18) produces

GRR GPR0
V0 A h* 9
kH kH
V V 0 V cons e A t 19
2. Transient modelling of the evolution toward a new equilib-
rium state after the start of a continuous environmental inter-
vention (Fig. 2b) 4. MPS selection and FF derivation
At t = 0, a continuous and constant additional pumping of As in van Zelm et al. (2011), the MPS is selected as the
water suddenly starts (GPR). groundwater volume deficit (V0 V).
Then Then, the time-integrated MPS for the pulse intervention,
, is
GPR GPR0 GPR 10
Z Z kH A
This tends to decrease the groundwater body volume (V). A V 0 V dt V cons e A t dt V cons 20
transient volumetric balance on the groundwater body gives: 0 0 kH
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815 1809

Groundwater
Fig. 2 Groundwater pumping recharge rate, V0
fate modelling a) Inial state GRR

Groundwater
pumping rate,
GPR0
h0
AG0
Groundwater
h*

Discharge
Groundwater water body
kH
discharge rate,
GDR0

b) Connuous water pumping c) Pulse water pumping

Groundwater Groundwater
recharge rate, recharge rate, Vcons
V
GRR GRR

Groundwater Groundwater
pumping rate, pumping rate,
GPR0 + GPR GPR0
AG0 AG

A
Discharge Discharge
Groundwater water body Groundwater water body
kH kH
discharge rate, discharge rate,
GDR GDR
Groundwater volume

Groundwater volume
V0 V0

Vcons
Vstat

t=0 Time t=0 Time

Then: in the MPS to the change in the environmental

A The FF we derived for a simplified case of groundwater
FF
V cons k H
According to Eqs. (16) and (19),
V 0 V stat
FF
GPR
The continuous-type groundwater pumping case can then
be used to calculate the pulse-oriented FF.
Our FF derivations proved that there is a linear rela-
tionship between the steady-state environmental stressor
value and the rate of MPS change. Steady-state models
and data may thus be used to find new system conditions
after a pulse-type change. When comparing Eq. (2) and
our derived FFs to existing FFs, we found that none of the
models explicitly use Eq. (2) reflecting the finite nature of
environmental intervention change and the integrative na-
ture of MPS change modelled in LCA. Furthermore, none
of the models justify the use of steady-state conditions
and data to model the fate factor of a pulse intervention.
They rather define the FF as the ratio between the change
intervention.
21
pumping rate increase (see Eqs. (5) to (22) above) is the same
as the FF proposed by van Zelm et al. (2011), who use a
comprehensive hydrogeological model to compute steady-
state groundwater levels after a given change in groundwater
pumping. It is, however, in disagreement with the FF of 1
22 implicitly considered by Pfister et al. (2009) for water
pumping from aquifers.
Hanafiah et al. (2011) and Tendall et al. (2014) assumed
that 1 m3 per year of water consumed through human activi-
ties leads to a 1 m 3 reduction of available water
downstream per year, i.e. FF = 1. The FF selected is consistent
with the FF that we derived for the change in water discharge
rate due to water use (Sect. S2 of the ESM, Eqs. (S46)(S47)).
However, this simplified approach does not account for any
links between different water compartments (e.g. surface and
ground water).
For thermal pollution, the FF derived in this study
(Sect. S2, Eq. (S61)) is different from the FF proposed in
Verones et al. (2010). These authors use the same MPS (i.e.
numerator) but a different environmental intervention (i.e. de-
nominator) than us. While for them the elementary flow is a
thermal discharge (in C m3 water discharge/day), in this
study it is an amount of heat release (in J, see Sect. 3.1.1).
1810
The latter can be computed from the cooling flow rate and
from surplus temperature release, as specified in Verones
et al. (2010), but it can also be directly determined from heat
evacuated from an industrial process. Our approach can be
applied to different heat transfer processes (e.g. convection,
radiation and conduction). We suggest following the latter
method as it involves collecting more straightforward and
precise information and it represents a more relevant environ-
mental intervention for assessing potential impacts of thermal
emissions.
Regarding dam-related impacts (Humbert and Maendly
2008), and as suggested in criterion 1.1 above, dam construc-
tion can be modelled as a land transformation process. Then,
the FF should be equal to 1, i.e. 1 m2 of area newly flooded or
dried out leads to environmental condition changes accross
this 1 m2 surface. The FF for dam operation still needs to be
developed.
Recommendations Future LCIA methods should justify
the use of the steady-state solution for modelling the fate
factor. The applicability of Heijungs (1995) theorem for
water uses affecting multiple compartments, as modelled
in Verones et al. (2012, 2013a), Amores et al. (2013) and
Tendall et al. (2014) must be proven to legitimate the use
of steady-state models and data under such conditions.
Criterion 3.2 The fate factor considers the current state of
the environment Most existing methods account for back-
ground levels when defining the initial value of the MPS,
which is the level of the stressor prior to the environmental
intervention. This is the case for methods presented in the
following: Humbert and Maendly (2008), Verones et al.
(2010, 2012, 2013a), van Zelm et al. (2011), Amores et al.
(2013), and Hanafiah et al. (2013). Only the endpoint indica-
tor developed by Pfister et al. (2009) and models where the FF
is explicitly set to 1(Hanafiah et al. 2011; Tendall et al. 2014)
do not.
Recommendations Background information on the midpoint
stressor level is needed to rigorously demonstrate that steady-
state models and data can be used for fate modelling (see the
FF equations in Table S1, ESM). Therefore, whenever the
required information is available, we recommend including
background information on the stressor level prior to the in-
tervention, as this would allow developing sophisticated ap-
proaches involving nonlinear ecosystem responses.
3.1.4 Issue 4effect factor modelling
Criterion 4.1 The effect factor definition is coherent with
the characterisation factor and fate factor All of the
analysed methods with a fate and effect factor (except for
Humbert and Maendly (2008) and Pfister et al. (2009)) have
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
an EF that effectively expresses a change in an impact on eco-
systems due to a change in a midpoint stressor (Eq. (3)).
However, three methods have used a different midpoint stressor
in fate and effect factors. Such a correction allows obtaining the
desirable metric of the resulting indicator. These methods are as
follows: (1) Verones et al.s (2010) method, where the midpoint
stressor in the FF is the change in river water temperature
accumulated over the river volume (C m3) while in the EF, it
is the temperature increase (C); (2) van Zelm et al.s (2011)
method, which uses an FF that ends in the numerator with the
lowering in groundwater volume (m3) whereas the EF links,
over two steps, the groundwater table head (m) to soil moisture
reduction (ordinal scale of Ellenberg values) and the soil mois-
ture reduction to plant species loss; and (3) Amores et al.s
(2013) method, which connects the salt mass increase (kg) in
the FF to the salt concentration (kg/m3) in the EF. In all three
cases, discontinuities in units are accounted for by using a
constant volume (Verones et al. 2010; Amores et al. 2013b)
or area (van Zelm et al. 2011). However, this is not explicitly
shown in the equations. The three discontinuities in the char-
acterisation factors are shown in the covered impact pathways
listed in the summary tables (Sect. 3.2).
Recommendations Future methods should ensure good and
transparent connections of meanings and metrics between fac-
tors that compose the characterisation factor.
Criterion 4.2 The taxonomic and geographic coverage is
as complete as possible and the damage assessment is spa-
tially resolved The taxonomic coverage varies consider-
able between methods: half rely only on one taxon (e.g.
fish for assessing damage of dams in Humbert and
Maendly (2008) and the introduction of exotic species in
Hanafiah et al. (2013)), whereas the other half use at least
two taxa (e.g. plants and birds in Verones et al. (2012) for
assessing biodiversity damage in wetlands). Datasets of
taxa other than vascular plants, fish and birds are often
unavailable, explaining why methods are typically very
limited in their biological scope. Four of the methods
use an approach based on species sensitivity distribution
functions to calculate the proportion of species that is
affected or absent (Verones et al. 2010; van Zelm et al.
2011; Amores et al. 2013; Hanafiah et al. 2013). This
approach is taken from eco-toxicity methods and requires
the inclusion of at least three phyla to reflect physiology
variability and to ensure the representation of a minimum
diversity of biological responses (Henderson et al. 2011).
Only one of these methods (Hanafiah et al. 2013) does not
fulfil this requirement. Table 2 summarises the modelling
approach and geographic coverage in existing models to
assess impacts on ecosystem quality.
Indicators for constructing EFs mostly reflect changes in
biodiversity composition at species or community level.
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815 1811

Table 2 Effect modelling approach and geographic coverage of the analysed methods covering impacts of water use on ecosystems

Model Modelling approach Indicator Taxonomic coverage Geographic coverage Indicator

of EF or CF
Component Attribute

Humbert and Empirical observation Community Composition Aquatic species (fish) Global (nonalpine dams PDF
Maendly (2008) of fraction of species vs alpine dams)
that had disappeared
before and after dam
construction
Pfister et al. (2009) Environmental modelling Ecosystem Function w-NPP used as a proxy for Global PDF
based on GIS: NPP the richness of terrestrial
limited by water vascular plants
availability (w-NPP)
Verones et al. SSD species to Species Composition 36 aquatic species of The Rhine River and its PDF
(2010) temperature temperate regions. Five Aare tributary to
phyla (Annelida, the Sea
Arthropoda, Cnidaria,
Mollusca, and Chordata)
Hanafiah et al. Species-discharge Community Composition Aquatic species (fishes) 214 watersheds located PDF
(2011) relationship at a latitude of 42
van Zelm et al. SSD based on the Species Composition 625 terrestrial vascular plants The Netherlands PNOF PDF
(2011) absence/presence of of Central Europe.
plant species as a Four phyla (Magnoliophyta,
function of Coniferophyta,
groundwater levels Pteridophyta,
and Lycopodiophyta)
Verones et al. Species-area relationship Community Composition Aquatic and terrestrial Santa Rosa wetland, PDF
(2012) species (plants and birds) Peru
Verones et al. Species-area relationship Community Composition Aquatic and terrestrial Global (10 % of SE
(2013b) and and species (waterbirds, wetlands covered.
ecosystem structure nonresidential birds, Data gaps due to a
amphibians, water- lack of data or an
dependent mammals, absence of wetlands)
and reptiles)
Amores et al. SSD species to salinity Species Composition 18 aquatic species. Five Wetland Albufera de PDF
(2013) phyla (Magnoliophyta, Adra, Spain
Tracheophyta, Arthropoda,
Spermatophyte, and
Chordata)
Hanafiah et al. SSD native species Species Composition Aquatic species (fish) in Rhine-Main-Danube PDF
(2013) variation to exotic European river basins river
species introduction One phylum: Chordata
Tendall et al. Species-discharge Community Composition Aquatic species (fish and Europe GSE
(2014) relationship and and macroinvertebrates)
ecosystem structure

GIS geographic information system, GSE global species extinction equivalents (weighted by vulnerability), NPP net primary productivity, PAF
potentially affected fraction of species, PDF potentially disappeared fraction of species, SE global species equivalents lost, SSD species sensitivity
distribution

Only two methods (Verones et al. 2013b; Tendall et al.
2014) assess changes in communitiesy and ecosystems, be-
ing more relevant to evaluations of ecosystem quality
damage.
All of the methods are spatially resolved. However, geo-
graphic coverage remains incomplete for most methods.
Recommendations Providing global coverage for methods
that are only available for specific geographic areas, water-
sheds, or countries is an evident requirement for LCA
purposes. The use of the same number and type of taxa to
assess effects on species should enhance consistency and
comparability between methods. For the sake of complete-
ness, future methods may continue investigating ways to con-
sider ecosystem and genetic levels of biodiversity.
Criterion 4.3 Sub-steps of the effect mechanism are explic-
itly addressed in the effect modelling None of the models
explicitly decompose the EF into one or several sub-factors.
Furthermore, none of the models explicitly address exposure,
1812
which is implicitly assumed to be equal to a value of 1. This
choice should have been justified. Incidence and damage
modelling approaches used differ from one study to another.
Incidence factors used in Verones et al. (2010) and
Amores et al. (2013) were derived from SSD curves for
sets of exposure-response relationships for several spe-
cies of various taxa. Verones et al. (2010) based their
PAF on one indicator: median lethal temperatures
(LT50 for aquatic species) of a population. Amores
et al. (2013) based their PAF computations on the effec-
tive concentration affecting 50 % of the population
(EC50 for aquatic species) for several different effect
indicators (death, growth, height, etc.) due to an increase
in wetland salt concentrations. SSDs should be generated
using data for the same type and level of effect.
However, as data on one type of biological endpoint
(i.e., mobility, proliferation, growth, death, etc.) affecting
multiple taxa are often limited, in LCA, it is accepted
practice to use SSD functions for multiple biological
endpoints at the same time.
The severity of damage is addressed through two ap-
proaches, and neither of these are explicitly expressed in the
CF equation:
1. The SSD-based PAF of the incidence factor is equiv-
alent to the number of species lost (i.e. 1PAF = 1PDF).
This is justified in Verones et al. (2010), as PAF is
based on mortality data, while it is a simplification in
Amores et al. (2013) to compare salinity damages with
other commonly used ecosystem quality impact catego-
ries (e.g. eutrophication, ecotoxicity).
2. The inventory or MPS (e.g. reduction in water volume,
increase in exotic species) proportionally influences the end-
point indicator PDF m3 year without previously accounting
for the exposed and affected species (Humbert and Maendly
2008; Pfister et al. 2009).
Recommendations Subdivisions of the EF in several
sub-factors will make intermediate comparisons and the
integration of methods easier to conduct. Further research on
the conversion from affected species to disappeared species is
recommended to enhance the compatibility of endpoint
methods.
Criterion 4.4 The effect factor considers the current state
of the environment Most models consider the state of the
ecosystems prior to the environmental intervention by
modelling the EF via a marginal approach. This is the
case for methods based on species-area (Verones et al.
2012; Verones et al. 2013b) and species-water flow rela-
tionships (Hanafiah et al. 2011; Tendall et al. 2014) and
for the method presented by Van Zelm et al. (2011). The
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
latter provided four linearised ecosystem responses in re-
lation to groundwater levels. Largely due to a lack of data,
species/communities or background levels considered in
other methods are site generic, and effects are modelled
following a linear approach. For example, Hanafiah et al.
(2013) derived a generic EF for Europe and Verones et al.
(2010) derived EFs applicable to temperate regions.
Amores et al. (2013) calculated a linear, background level
independent effect at a 50 % hazardous salt concentration.
These authors could have developed a more sophisticated
nonlinear approach for the specific lagoon that they ex-
amined from the high quality site-specific information that
they used.
Recommendations We recommend including site-specific
information on the state of the environment before the
midpoint stressor changes the environmental conditions
of the affected water compartment. This would allow the
development of sophisticated approaches with nonlinear
ecosystem responses.
3.2 Summary tables of existing models
Table 3 shows a summary table for one of the assessed
methods, Amores et al.s (201) method as it includes many
of the elements discussed in this study. Tables on the other
methods analysed in this work are collated in Sect. S3 of the
ESM.
4 Conclusions
We found that the models analysed have the potential to com-
plement one another. However, we also identified sources of
incompatibility and inconsistency and scientific drawbacks.
We therefore do not recommend aggregating existing indica-
tors into one single metric because thus far methods do not
apply the same guidelines that
Correctly adopt basic principles of life cycle assessment
standards (e.g. sound definitions of environmental inter-
ventions in the inventory step and their correct connec-
tions to the impact assessment phase). As discussed, a
joint development of inventory datasets and characterisa-
tion models is required to ensure coherence between these
two life cycle assessment steps
Standardise terminology, modelling and metrics of the
causality chain sections that are common to different
characterisation models to facilitate cross comparisons
between results of intermediate sub-factors and final
impact scores
Include modelling of water compartments that have been
missing up to now (e.g. atmosphere) as well as links
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815 1813

Table 3 Summary table of Amores et al.s method according to the aspects listed in Sect. 2.2
LCIA method (Amores et al. 2013)
Covered impact
pathway1

Potential
Increase in affected
groundwater wetland
consumption aquatic
species

Subfactor 2

Structure of the Native spatial scale: None

EI
characterization Aggregated spatial scale: wetland
model2 lagoon
R S Receiving compartment, R:
groundwater
Stressed compartments, S: wetland
lagoon
D

Groundwater Wetland
Fate factor at Marginal change in the salt content of the wetland due to a marginal change in groundwater
aggregated consumption by agriculture:
spatial scale msalt, wetland kgsalt, wetland
FF= [=] 3
Qconsumed mconsumed
yr

Effect factor at Marginal change in the potentially affected fraction (PAF) of species due to a marginal change in
aggregated the salinity of the wetland :
spatial scale PAFwetland PAFwetland
EF= [=]
Csalt, wetland kgsalt /m3
wetland

Characterization Marginal change in PAF of species due to a marginal change in groundwater consumption in
factor at agriculture. The conversion 1 PAF = 1 PDF is applied:
aggregated
spatial scale PAFwetland (PAFm3 yr) wetland (PDFm3 yr) wetland
CF=FFEF= [=] =
Qconsumed m3consumed m3consumed

Source: Amores et al. (2013)

a
The diagonally hatched box indicates the impact pathway starting point, and the dotted box indicates the impact pathway final point. Dashed border
boxes indicate steps of the cause-effect chain that are cited as explanations/justifications in the model documentation but are not specifically modelled in
equations
b
The symbols for the modelled system structure schemes are as follows: EI, environmental intervention; R, receiving compartment, i.e. compartment
where the environmental intervention takes place; S, stressed compartment, i.e. compartment where the midpoint stressor is modelled; D, damage on
ecosystems; , propagation of an environmental intervention from one compartment to another
1814
between them and other environmental compartments
(e.g. soilatmosphere). This will improve the relevance
of the characterisation model with respect to the global
hydrological cycle
The development and adoption of these guidelines should
help harmonise current and future water use impact assess-
ment methods for ecosystem quality.
Acknowledgments We thank Jean-Daniel Savard for his work, which
inspired the schematic representation of the characterisation model. His
work constituted a first attempt at analysing several models that were re-
analysed in the present study. We gratefully acknowledge the authors of
the analysed methods for their valuable input. M. Nez acknowledges
ANR, the Languedoc-Roussillon Region, ONEMA and its industrial part-
ners (BRL, SCP, SUEZ, VINADEIS) for the financial support of the
Industrial Chair for Environmental and Social Sustainability
Assessment BELSA-PACT^ (grant no. 13-CHIN-0005-01).
References
Amores MJ, Verones F, Raptis C et al (2013) Biodiversity impacts from
salinity increase in a coastal wetland. Environ Sci Technol 47:
63846392
Arthington AH, Bunn SE, LeRoy PN, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge
of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems.
Ecol Appl 16:13111318
Bayart J-B, Bulle C, Deschnes L et al (2010) A framework for assessing
off-stream freshwater use in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:
439453
Boulay A-M, Motoshita M, Pfister S et al (2015) Analysis of water use
impact assessment methods (part A): evaluation of modeling
choices based on a quantitative comparison of scarcity and human
health indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:139160
Cao V, Margni M, Favis BD, Deschnes L (2015) Aggregated indicator to
assess land use impacts in LCA based on the economic value of
ecosystem services. J Clean Prod 94:5666
Curran M, de Baan L, De Schryver AM et al (2011) Toward meaningful
end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci
Technol 45:7079
Delbaere B, Serradilla AN, Snethlage M (2009) BioScore: a tool to assess
the impacts of European Community policies on Europes
biodiversity
Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage
oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodol Rep
Guine JB, Marieke G, Heijungs R et al (2001) Life cycle assessment. An
operational guide to the ISO standards. Part 2A
Hanafiah MM, Xenopoulos MA, Pfister S et al (2011) Characterization
factors for water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions based
on freshwater fish species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 45:
52725278
Hanafiah MH, Leuven RSEW, Sommerwerk N et al (2013) Including the
introduction of exotic species in life cycle impact assessment: the
case of inland shipping. Environ Sci Technol 47:1393413940
Hauschild M, Huijbregts MAJ (2015) LCA CompendiumThe
Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Impact
Assess Springer. doi:10.1007/BF02978760
Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guine J et al (2013) Identifying best
existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact
assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:683697
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
Heijungs R (1995) Harmonization of methods for impact assessment.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2:217224
Henderson AD, Hauschild MZ, Van De Meent D et al (2011) USEtox fate
and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emis-
sions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 16:701709
Huijbregts MAJ, Hellweg S, Hertwich E (2011) Do we need a paradigm shift
in life cycle impact assessment? Environ Sci Technol 45:38333834
Humbert S (2015) Chapter 6: particulate matter formation. In Hauschild MZ,
Huijbregts MAJ (ed) LCA CompendiumThe Complete World of
Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Springer
Humbert S, Maendly R (2008) Characterization factors for damage to
aquatic biodiversity caused by water use especially for dams used
for hydropower
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007. The physical science basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. United
Kingdom and New York
ISO (2006a) ISO 14040. Environmental managementlife cycle assess-
mentprinciples and framework
ISO (2006b) ISO 14044. Environmental managementlife cycle assess-
mentrequirements and guidelines
Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R et al (2003) Presenting a new method
IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324330
JRC (2010) ILCD Handbook: framework and requirements for LCIA
models and indicators First edition
Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B et al (2013) Review of methods ad-
dressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assess-
ment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:707721
Margni M, Gloria T, Bare J et al (2008) Guidance on how to move from
current practice to recommended practice in Life Cycle Impact
Assessment
MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being. Synthesis
Mil i Canals L, de Baan L (2015) Chapter 11: land use. In Hauschild M Z
and Huijbregts MAJ (ed.) LCA CompendiumThe Complete World
of Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Springer
Mil i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A et al (2009) Assessing
freshwater use impacts in LCA: part Iinventory modelling and
characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 14:2842
Nez M, Pfister S, Roux P, Antn A (2013) Estimating water consump-
tion of potential natural vegetation on global dry lands: building an
LCA framework for green water flows. Environ Sci Technol 47:
1225812265
Pennington DW, Payet J, Hauschild MH (2004) Aquatic ecotoxicological
indicators in life-cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:
17961807
Pennington DW, Margni M, Payet J, Jolliet O (2006) Risk and regulatory
hazard-based toxicological effect indicators in life-cycle assessment
(LCA). Hum Ecol Risk Assess An Int J 12:450475
Pfister S, Suh S (2015) Environmental impacts of thermal emissions to
freshwater: spatially explicit fate and effect modeling for life cycle
assessment and water footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:927936
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental
impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol
43:4098104
Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Environmental impacts
of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with
land use. Environ Sci Technol 45:57615768
Quinteiro DAC, Arajo A et al (2015) Suspended solids in freshwater
systems: characterisation model describing potential impacts on
aquatic biota. Int J Life Cycle 20:12321242
Rosenbaum RK (2015) Chapter 8: ecotoxicity. In Hauschild M Z and
Huijbregts MAJ (ed.) LCA CompendiumThe Complete World
of Life Cycle Assessment. Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Springer
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2016) 21:17991815
Roy P, Desche L, Margni M (2012) Life cycle impact assessment of
terrestrial acidification: modeling spatially explicit soil sensitivity
at the global scale. Environ Sci Technol 46:82708278
Saad R, Koellner T, Margni M (2013) Land use impacts on freshwater
regulation, erosion regulation, and water purification : a spatial ap-
proach for a global scale level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:
12531264
Snell T, Serra M (2000) Using probability of extinction to evaluate the
ecological significance of toxicant effects. Environ Toxicol Chem
19:23572363
Struijs J, De Zwart D, Posthuma L et al (2011) Field sensitivity distribu-
tion of macroinvertebrates for phosphorus in inland waters. Integr
Environ Assess Manag 7:280286
Tendall DM, Hellweg S, Pfister S et al (2014) Impacts of river water
consumption on aquatic biodiversity in life cycle assessmenta
proposed method, and a case study for Europe. Environ Sci
Technol 48:32363244
Udo de Haes H, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M et al (2002) Life-cycle
impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
van Zelm R, Schipper AM, Rombouts M et al (2011) Implementing
groundwater extraction in life cycle impact assessment: characteri-
zation factors based on plant species richness for The Netherlands.
Environ Sci Technol 45:629635
1815
Verones F, Hanafiah MM, Pfister S et al (2010) Characterization factors
for thermal pollution in freshwater aquatic environments. Environ
Sci Technol 44:93649369
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 46:49664974
Verones F, Pfister, Hellweg S (2013a) Quantifying area changes of inter-
nationally important wetlands due to water consumption in LCA.
Environ Sci Technol 47:97999807
Verones F, Saner D, Pfister S et al (2013b) Effects of consumptive water
use on biodiversity in wetlands of international importance. Environ
Sci Technol 47:1224812257
Verones F, Huijbregts MAJ, Chaudhary A et al (2015) Harmonizing the
assessment of biodiversity effects from land and water use within
LCA. Environ Sci Technol 49:35843592
Weidema B (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle
assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRONLCAGAPS sub-
project on land use
Weidema B, Bauer C, Hischier R et al (2013) Overview and methodolo-
gy. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3.
Ecoinvent report 1 (v3). St. Gallen
Yano S, Hanasaki N, Itsubo N, Oki T (2015) Water scarcity footprints by
considering the differences in water sources. Sustainability 7:
97539772