Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) "A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA"

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11690%2F17%3A10361752" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11690/17:10361752 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/68407700:21230/17:00312780

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X16304599?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X16304599?via%3Dihub</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.051" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.051</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) "A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA"

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Water footprinting has emerged as an important approach to assess water use related effects from consumption of goods and services. Assessment methods are proposed by two different communities, the Water Footprint Network (WFN) and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) community. The proposed methods are broadly similar and encompass both the computation of water use and its impacts, but differ in communication of a water footprint result. In this paper, we explain the role and goal of LCA and ISO-compatible water footprinting and resolve the six issues raised by Hoekstra (2016) in &quot;A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA&quot;. By clarifying the concerns, we identify both the overlapping goals in the WFN and LCA water footprint assessments and discrepancies between them. The main differing perspective between the WFN and LCA-based approach seems to relate to the fact that LCA aims to account for environmental impacts, while the WFN aims to account for water productivity of global fresh water as a limited resource. We conclude that there is potential to use synergies in research for the two approaches and highlight the need for proper declaration of the methods applied. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) "A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA"

Popis výsledku anglicky

Water footprinting has emerged as an important approach to assess water use related effects from consumption of goods and services. Assessment methods are proposed by two different communities, the Water Footprint Network (WFN) and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) community. The proposed methods are broadly similar and encompass both the computation of water use and its impacts, but differ in communication of a water footprint result. In this paper, we explain the role and goal of LCA and ISO-compatible water footprinting and resolve the six issues raised by Hoekstra (2016) in &quot;A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA&quot;. By clarifying the concerns, we identify both the overlapping goals in the WFN and LCA water footprint assessments and discrepancies between them. The main differing perspective between the WFN and LCA-based approach seems to relate to the fact that LCA aims to account for environmental impacts, while the WFN aims to account for water productivity of global fresh water as a limited resource. We conclude that there is potential to use synergies in research for the two approaches and highlight the need for proper declaration of the methods applied. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10511 - Environmental sciences (social aspects to be 5.7)

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Ecological Indicators

ISSN

1470-160X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

72

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

January

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

352-359

Kód UT WoS článku

000398426200036

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-84983535407