This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
The FAO Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) Partnership organised a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to develop reference guidelines on water footprinting for livestock production systems and supply chains. The mandate of the TAG was to i) provide recommendations to monitor the environmental performance of feed and livestock supply chains over time so that progress towards improvement targets can be measured, ii) be applicable for feed and water demand of small ruminants, poultry, large ruminants and pig supply chains, iii) build on, and go beyond, the existing FAO LEAP guidelines and iv) pursue alignment with relevant international standards, specifically ISO 14040 (2006)/ISO 14044 (2006), and ISO 14046 (2014). The recommended guidelines on livestock water use address both impact assessment (water scarcity footprint as defined by ISO 14046, 2014) and water productivity (water use efficiency). While most aspects of livestock water use assessment have been proposed or discussed independently elsewhere, the TAG reviewed and connected these concepts and information in relation with each other and made recommendations towards comprehensive assessment of water use in livestock production systems and supply chains. The approaches to assess the quantity of water used for livestock systems are addressed and the specific assessment methods for water productivity and water scarcity are recommended. Water productivity assessment is further advanced by its quantification and reporting with fractions of green and blue water consumed. This allows the assessment of the environmental performance related to water use of a livestock-related system by assessing potential environmental impacts of anthropogenic water consumption (only “blue water”); as well as the assessment of overall water productivity of the system (including “green” and “blue water” consumption). A consistent combination of water productivity and water scarcity footprint metrics provides a complete picture both in terms of potential productivity improvements of the water consumption as well as minimizing potential environmental impacts related to water scarcity. This process resulted for the first time in an international consensus on water use assessment, including both the life-cycle assessment community with the water scarcity footprint and the water management community with water productivity metrics. Despite the main focus on feed and livestock production systems, the outcomes of this LEAP TAG are also applicable to many other agriculture sectors.
Anne-Marie Boulay; Katrin Drastig; Amanullah; Ashok Chapagain; Veronica Charlon; Bárbara Civit; Camillo DeCamillis; Marlos De Souza; Tim Hess; Arjen Y. Hoekstra; Ridha Ibidhi; Michael J. Lathuillière; Alessandro Manzardo; Tim McAllister; Ricardo A. Morales; Masaharu Motoshita; Julio Cesar Pascale Palhares; Giacomo Pirlo; Brad Ridoutt; Valentina Russo; Gloria Salmoral; Ranvir Singh; Davy Vanham; Stephen Wiedemann; Weichao Zheng; Stephan Pfister. Building consensus on water use assessment of livestock production systems and supply chains: Outcome and recommendations from the FAO LEAP Partnership. Ecological Indicators 2021, 124, 107391 .
AMA StyleAnne-Marie Boulay, Katrin Drastig, Amanullah, Ashok Chapagain, Veronica Charlon, Bárbara Civit, Camillo DeCamillis, Marlos De Souza, Tim Hess, Arjen Y. Hoekstra, Ridha Ibidhi, Michael J. Lathuillière, Alessandro Manzardo, Tim McAllister, Ricardo A. Morales, Masaharu Motoshita, Julio Cesar Pascale Palhares, Giacomo Pirlo, Brad Ridoutt, Valentina Russo, Gloria Salmoral, Ranvir Singh, Davy Vanham, Stephen Wiedemann, Weichao Zheng, Stephan Pfister. Building consensus on water use assessment of livestock production systems and supply chains: Outcome and recommendations from the FAO LEAP Partnership. Ecological Indicators. 2021; 124 ():107391.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAnne-Marie Boulay; Katrin Drastig; Amanullah; Ashok Chapagain; Veronica Charlon; Bárbara Civit; Camillo DeCamillis; Marlos De Souza; Tim Hess; Arjen Y. Hoekstra; Ridha Ibidhi; Michael J. Lathuillière; Alessandro Manzardo; Tim McAllister; Ricardo A. Morales; Masaharu Motoshita; Julio Cesar Pascale Palhares; Giacomo Pirlo; Brad Ridoutt; Valentina Russo; Gloria Salmoral; Ranvir Singh; Davy Vanham; Stephen Wiedemann; Weichao Zheng; Stephan Pfister. 2021. "Building consensus on water use assessment of livestock production systems and supply chains: Outcome and recommendations from the FAO LEAP Partnership." Ecological Indicators 124, no. : 107391.
Summary Metal-consuming countries depend on mining activity in other countries, which may impose potential pressure on sustainable metal supply. This study proposes an approach to analyze the responsibility of consuming countries for mining activities based on the decomposition analysis of scarcity-weighted metal footprints (S-MFs) of Japan. The application results to the Japanese final demand (iron, copper, and nickel) demonstrate the significance of country- and metal-specific conditions in terms of metal footprints and mining capacity in assessing the responsibility of consuming countries. Consuming countries can identify influential factors to reduce their S-MFs based on the decomposition analysis by discriminating the directly controllable and uncontrollable factors for consuming countries, which can help to plan different countermeasures depending on the types of the identified influential factors. The proposed approach supports metal-consuming countries to determine the effective options for reducing the responsibility for the sustainability of metal supply.
Ryosuke Yokoi; Keisuke Nansai; Kenichi Nakajima; Takuma Watari; Masaharu Motoshita. Responsibility of consumers for mining capacity: decomposition analysis of scarcity-weighted metal footprints in the case of Japan. iScience 2020, 24, 102025 .
AMA StyleRyosuke Yokoi, Keisuke Nansai, Kenichi Nakajima, Takuma Watari, Masaharu Motoshita. Responsibility of consumers for mining capacity: decomposition analysis of scarcity-weighted metal footprints in the case of Japan. iScience. 2020; 24 (1):102025.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRyosuke Yokoi; Keisuke Nansai; Kenichi Nakajima; Takuma Watari; Masaharu Motoshita. 2020. "Responsibility of consumers for mining capacity: decomposition analysis of scarcity-weighted metal footprints in the case of Japan." iScience 24, no. 1: 102025.
Different LCA methods based on monetization of environmental impacts are available. Therefore, relevant monetization methods, namely Ecovalue12, Stepwise2006, LIME3, Ecotax, EVR, EPS, the Environmental Prices Handbook, Trucost and the MMG-Method were compared quantitatively and qualitatively, yielding results for 18 impact categories. Monetary factors for the same impact category range mostly between two orders of magnitude for the assessed methods, with some exceptions (e.g., mineral resources with five orders of magnitude). Among the qualitative criteria, per capita income, and thus the geographical reference, has the biggest influence on the obtained monetary factors. When the monetization methods were applied to the domestic yearly environmental damages of an average EU citizen, their monetary values ranged between 7941.13 €/capita (Ecotax) and 224.06 €/capita (LIME3). The prioritization of impact categories varies: Stepwise and Ecovalue assign over 50% of the per capita damages to climate change, while EPS and LIME3 assign around 50% to mineral and fossil resource use. Choices regarding the geographical reference, the Areas of Protection included, cost perspectives and the approach to discounting strongly affect the magnitude of the monetary factors. Therefore, practitioners should choose monetization methods with care and potentially apply varying methods to assess the robustness of their results.
Rosalie Arendt; Till Bachmann; Masaharu Motoshita; Vanessa Bach; Matthias Finkbeiner. Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10493 .
AMA StyleRosalie Arendt, Till Bachmann, Masaharu Motoshita, Vanessa Bach, Matthias Finkbeiner. Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (24):10493.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRosalie Arendt; Till Bachmann; Masaharu Motoshita; Vanessa Bach; Matthias Finkbeiner. 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review." Sustainability 12, no. 24: 10493.
The sustainability of metal use is threatened by increasing global demand. The concept of scarcity in mining capacity is of particular relevance to the sustainability of metals; it represents an imbalance between availability and mine production and is determined by socio-economic conditions. Although socio-economic conditions vary by region or country, few studies have assessed the scarcity in mining capacity of metals on such regional scales, which fails to assess potential risks for local sustainability. Here, we propose a country-specific indicator for the assessment of scarcity in mining capacity of metals that reflects differences in national conditions. We apply our methodology to 16 representative metals for 2000, 2010 and 2017. The results demonstrate our indicator of country-specific scarcity varies by 1-3 orders of magnitude for the metals considered, depending on reserves and mine production in producing countries. Furthermore, an indicator that represents the degree of concentrated production in high-scarcity countries is introduced, which reveals the dependency on high-scarcity countries for Al, REE, Li, and Sn. For the assessment of the effects of specific demand on the potential risks of threatening local sustainability, we define the severity of mine production that represents the magnitude of the potential risks determined by both country-specific mine production and scarcity. Analysis of metal scarcity considering country-specific conditions can reveal the potential risks for local sustainability associated with metal production and support metal users to seek effective solutions to reduce the potential risks, which is not considered in existing criticality assessments.
Ryosuke Yokoi; Keisuke Nansai; Hiroki Hatayama; Masaharu Motoshita. Significance of country-specific context in metal scarcity assessment from a perspective of short-term mining capacity. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2020, 166, 105305 .
AMA StyleRyosuke Yokoi, Keisuke Nansai, Hiroki Hatayama, Masaharu Motoshita. Significance of country-specific context in metal scarcity assessment from a perspective of short-term mining capacity. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2020; 166 ():105305.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRyosuke Yokoi; Keisuke Nansai; Hiroki Hatayama; Masaharu Motoshita. 2020. "Significance of country-specific context in metal scarcity assessment from a perspective of short-term mining capacity." Resources, Conservation and Recycling 166, no. : 105305.
Masaharu Motoshita; Stephan Pfister; Matthias Finkbeiner. Regional Carrying Capacities of Freshwater Consumption—Current Pressure and Its Sources. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54, 9083 -9094.
AMA StyleMasaharu Motoshita, Stephan Pfister, Matthias Finkbeiner. Regional Carrying Capacities of Freshwater Consumption—Current Pressure and Its Sources. Environmental Science & Technology. 2020; 54 (14):9083-9094.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMasaharu Motoshita; Stephan Pfister; Matthias Finkbeiner. 2020. "Regional Carrying Capacities of Freshwater Consumption—Current Pressure and Its Sources." Environmental Science & Technology 54, no. 14: 9083-9094.
Purpose Assessing impacts of abiotic resource use has been a topic of persistent debate among life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) method developers and a source of confusion for life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners considering the different interpretations of the safeguard subject for mineral resources and the resulting variety of LCIA methods to choose from. Based on the review and assessment of 27 existing LCIA methods, accomplished in the first part of this paper series (Sonderegger et al. 2020), this paper provides recommendations regarding the application-dependent use of existing methods and areas for future method development. Method Within the “global guidance for LCIA indicators and methods” project of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by UN Environment, 62 members of the “task force mineral resources” representing different stakeholders discussed the strengths and limitations of existing LCIA methods and developed initial conclusions. These were used by a subgroup of eight members at the Pellston Workshop® held in Valencia, Spain, to derive recommendations on the application-dependent use and future development of impact assessment methods. Results and discussion First, the safeguard subject for mineral resources within the area of protection (AoP) natural resources was defined. Subsequently, seven key questions regarding the consequences of mineral resource use were formulated, grouped into “inside-out” related questions (i.e., current resource use leading to changes in opportunities for future users to use resources) and “outside-in” related questions (i.e., potential restrictions of resource availability for current resource users). Existing LCIA methods were assigned to these questions, and seven methods (ADPultimate reserves, SOPURR, LIME2endpoint, CEENE, ADPeconomic reserves, ESSENZ, and GeoPolRisk) are recommended for use in current LCA studies at different levels of recommendation. All 27 identified LCIA methods were tested on an LCA case study of an electric vehicle, and yielded divergent results due to their modeling of impact mechanisms that address different questions related to mineral resource use. Besides method-specific recommendations, we recommend that all methods increase the number of minerals covered, regularly update their characterization factors, and consider the inclusion of secondary resources and anthropogenic stocks. Furthermore, the concept of dissipative resource use should be defined and integrated in future method developments. Conclusion In an international consensus-finding process, the current challenges of assessing impacts of resource use in LCA have been addressed by defining the safeguard subject for mineral resources, formulating key questions related to this safeguard subject, recommending existing LCIA methods in relation to these questions, and highlighting areas for future method development.
Markus Berger; Thomas Sonderegger; Rodrigo Alvarenga; Vanessa Bach; Alexander Cimprich; Jo Dewulf; Rolf Frischknecht; Jeroen Guinée; Christoph Helbig; Tom Huppertz; Olivier Jolliet; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephen Northey; Claudia A. Peña; Benedetto Rugani; Abdelhadi Sahnoune; Dieuwertje Schrijvers; Rita Schulze; Guido Sonnemann; Alicia Valero; Bo P. Weidema; Steven B. Young. Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2020, 25, 798 -813.
AMA StyleMarkus Berger, Thomas Sonderegger, Rodrigo Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Jeroen Guinée, Christoph Helbig, Tom Huppertz, Olivier Jolliet, Masaharu Motoshita, Stephen Northey, Claudia A. Peña, Benedetto Rugani, Abdelhadi Sahnoune, Dieuwertje Schrijvers, Rita Schulze, Guido Sonnemann, Alicia Valero, Bo P. Weidema, Steven B. Young. Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2020; 25 (4):798-813.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarkus Berger; Thomas Sonderegger; Rodrigo Alvarenga; Vanessa Bach; Alexander Cimprich; Jo Dewulf; Rolf Frischknecht; Jeroen Guinée; Christoph Helbig; Tom Huppertz; Olivier Jolliet; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephen Northey; Claudia A. Peña; Benedetto Rugani; Abdelhadi Sahnoune; Dieuwertje Schrijvers; Rita Schulze; Guido Sonnemann; Alicia Valero; Bo P. Weidema; Steven B. Young. 2020. "Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 25, no. 4: 798-813.
Thomas Sonderegger; Markus Berger; Rodrigo Alvarenga; Vanessa Bach; Alexander Cimprich; Jo Dewulf; Rolf Frischknecht; Jeroen Guinée; Christoph Helbig; Tom Huppertz; Olivier Jolliet; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephen Northey; Benedetto Rugani; Dieuwertje Schrijvers; Rita Schulze; Guido Sonnemann; Alicia Valero; Bo P. Weidema; Steven B. Young. Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2020, 25, 784 -797.
AMA StyleThomas Sonderegger, Markus Berger, Rodrigo Alvarenga, Vanessa Bach, Alexander Cimprich, Jo Dewulf, Rolf Frischknecht, Jeroen Guinée, Christoph Helbig, Tom Huppertz, Olivier Jolliet, Masaharu Motoshita, Stephen Northey, Benedetto Rugani, Dieuwertje Schrijvers, Rita Schulze, Guido Sonnemann, Alicia Valero, Bo P. Weidema, Steven B. Young. Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2020; 25 (4):784-797.
Chicago/Turabian StyleThomas Sonderegger; Markus Berger; Rodrigo Alvarenga; Vanessa Bach; Alexander Cimprich; Jo Dewulf; Rolf Frischknecht; Jeroen Guinée; Christoph Helbig; Tom Huppertz; Olivier Jolliet; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephen Northey; Benedetto Rugani; Dieuwertje Schrijvers; Rita Schulze; Guido Sonnemann; Alicia Valero; Bo P. Weidema; Steven B. Young. 2020. "Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 25, no. 4: 784-797.
Inaba Atsushi; Daigo Ichiro; Motoshita Masaharu. Conference and Discussion “the Contribution of Products to Avoided Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 2020, 16, 148 -150.
AMA StyleInaba Atsushi, Daigo Ichiro, Motoshita Masaharu. Conference and Discussion “the Contribution of Products to Avoided Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. 2020; 16 (2):148-150.
Chicago/Turabian StyleInaba Atsushi; Daigo Ichiro; Motoshita Masaharu. 2020. "Conference and Discussion “the Contribution of Products to Avoided Greenhouse Gas Emissions”." Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 16, no. 2: 148-150.
Shinsuke Murakami; Jun Nakatani; Kenichi Nakajima; Eri Amasawa; Ryota Ii; Kiyotada Hayashi; Naoki Yoshikawa; Ichiro Daigo; Yusuke Kishita; Tomohiko Ihara; Koichi Shobatake; Yuki Kudoh; Masaharu Motoshita; Keiichiro Kanemoto; Minako Hara; Aiichiro Kashiwagi; Seiji Hashimoto; Yosuke Shigetomi; Masayuki Kanzaki; Yasunori Kikuchi; Hajime Ohno; Yasuhiro Fukushima. EcoBalance 2018—Nexus of ideas: innovation by linking through life cycle thinking (9–12 October 2018, Tokyo, Japan). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2019, 24, 1544 -1552.
AMA StyleShinsuke Murakami, Jun Nakatani, Kenichi Nakajima, Eri Amasawa, Ryota Ii, Kiyotada Hayashi, Naoki Yoshikawa, Ichiro Daigo, Yusuke Kishita, Tomohiko Ihara, Koichi Shobatake, Yuki Kudoh, Masaharu Motoshita, Keiichiro Kanemoto, Minako Hara, Aiichiro Kashiwagi, Seiji Hashimoto, Yosuke Shigetomi, Masayuki Kanzaki, Yasunori Kikuchi, Hajime Ohno, Yasuhiro Fukushima. EcoBalance 2018—Nexus of ideas: innovation by linking through life cycle thinking (9–12 October 2018, Tokyo, Japan). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2019; 24 (8):1544-1552.
Chicago/Turabian StyleShinsuke Murakami; Jun Nakatani; Kenichi Nakajima; Eri Amasawa; Ryota Ii; Kiyotada Hayashi; Naoki Yoshikawa; Ichiro Daigo; Yusuke Kishita; Tomohiko Ihara; Koichi Shobatake; Yuki Kudoh; Masaharu Motoshita; Keiichiro Kanemoto; Minako Hara; Aiichiro Kashiwagi; Seiji Hashimoto; Yosuke Shigetomi; Masayuki Kanzaki; Yasunori Kikuchi; Hajime Ohno; Yasuhiro Fukushima. 2019. "EcoBalance 2018—Nexus of ideas: innovation by linking through life cycle thinking (9–12 October 2018, Tokyo, Japan)." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24, no. 8: 1544-1552.
So far, land occupation impact assessment models in life-cycle assessment have predominantly considered biodiversity, ecosystem quality and ecosystem services. However, in a manner similar to water consumption, land occupation has the potential to impact food production and thereby human health. In this study, the impact pathway linking land occupation and protein-energy malnutrition was modelled, establishing a new set of regionalised characterisation factors which were applied in a case study of cotton cultivation. The impact assessment model has three main components: a food production model, a food trade model and an effect factor that relates potential food deficits to malnutrition expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The food production model uses an NPP-based index to account for variation in the productive capability of land, as well as data on irrigation water supply and national agricultural yields to account for variation in prevailing agricultural technologies. Food production losses have the potential to impact national and global food supplies according to trade status and economic adaptation capacity assessed using the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index. Health damage data from the Global Burden of Disease report and depth of national food deficit data from the FAO are the basis of the effect factor. The model reports potential human health impacts related to land occupation (DALY/m2 year) at 5-arc-minute spatial resolution. The model is relevant to all kinds of land occupation, including food production, as no assumptions are made about the ways food products are utilised, which can be many. The model delivers results sensibly in proportion to potential human health impacts of freshwater consumption, i.e. greater in tropical areas and lesser in arid areas. The case study showed that land occupation impacts on human health might cause one DALY/t seed cotton in extreme cases and less than one DALY per thousand tonnes in others. In the case of India, ~ 9% of national malnutrition-related DALYs were attributable to cotton cultivation which occupies ~ 8% of arable land. This new model will enable more complete assessment of land occupation impacts in LCA and is especially relevant to the assessment of food, fibre, and bioenergy products. In addition, the model enhances the ability to assess trade-offs which frequently occur, such as between land and water use and GHG emissions. The cotton case study showed that human health impacts can be grossly underestimated in LCA studies when land occupation impacts are not included.
Bradley Ridoutt; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephan Pfister. An LCA impact assessment model linking land occupation and malnutrition-related DALYs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2019, 24, 1620 -1630.
AMA StyleBradley Ridoutt, Masaharu Motoshita, Stephan Pfister. An LCA impact assessment model linking land occupation and malnutrition-related DALYs. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2019; 24 (9):1620-1630.
Chicago/Turabian StyleBradley Ridoutt; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephan Pfister. 2019. "An LCA impact assessment model linking land occupation and malnutrition-related DALYs." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24, no. 9: 1620-1630.
While many examples have shown unsustainable use of freshwater resources, existing LCIA methods for water use do not comprehensively address impacts to natural resources for future generations. This framework aims to (1) define freshwater resource as an item to protect within the Area of Protection (AoP) natural resources, (2) identify relevant impact pathways affecting freshwater resources, and (3) outline methodological choices for impact characterization model development. Considering the current scope of the AoP natural resources, the complex nature of freshwater resources and its important dimensions to safeguard safe future supply, a definition of freshwater resource is proposed, including water quality aspects. In order to clearly define what is to be protected, the freshwater resource is put in perspective through the lens of the three main safeguard subjects defined by Dewulf et al. (2015). In addition, an extensive literature review identifies a wide range of possible impact pathways to freshwater resources, establishing the link between different inventory elementary flows (water consumption, emissions, and land use) and their potential to cause long-term freshwater depletion or degradation. Freshwater as a resource has a particular status in LCA resource assessment. First, it exists in the form of three types of resources: flow, fund, or stock. Then, in addition to being a resource for human economic activities (e.g., hydropower), it is above all a non-substitutable support for life that can be affected by both consumption (source function) and pollution (sink function). Therefore, both types of elementary flows (water consumption and emissions) should be linked to a damage indicator for freshwater as a resource. Land use is also identified as a potential stressor to freshwater resources by altering runoff, infiltration, and erosion processes as well as evapotranspiration. It is suggested to use the concept of recovery period to operationalize this framework: when the recovery period lasts longer than a given period of time, impacts are considered to be irreversible and fall into the concern of freshwater resources protection (i.e., affecting future generations), while short-term impacts effect the AoP ecosystem quality and human health directly. It is shown that it is relevant to include this concept in the impact assessment stage in order to discriminate the long-term from the short-term impacts, as some dynamic fate models already do. This framework provides a solid basis for the consistent development of future LCIA methods for freshwater resources, thereby capturing the potential long-term impacts that could warn decision makers about potential safe water supply issues in the future.
Charlotte Pradinaud; Stephen Northey; Ben Amor; Jane Bare; Lorenzo Benini; Markus Berger; Anne-Marie Boulay; Guillaume Junqua; Michael J. Lathuillière; Manuele Margni; Masaharu Motoshita; Briana Niblick; Sandra Payen; Stephan Pfister; Paula Quinteiro; Thomas Sonderegger; Ralph K. Rosenbaum. Defining freshwater as a natural resource: a framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2019, 24, 960 -974.
AMA StyleCharlotte Pradinaud, Stephen Northey, Ben Amor, Jane Bare, Lorenzo Benini, Markus Berger, Anne-Marie Boulay, Guillaume Junqua, Michael J. Lathuillière, Manuele Margni, Masaharu Motoshita, Briana Niblick, Sandra Payen, Stephan Pfister, Paula Quinteiro, Thomas Sonderegger, Ralph K. Rosenbaum. Defining freshwater as a natural resource: a framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2019; 24 (5):960-974.
Chicago/Turabian StyleCharlotte Pradinaud; Stephen Northey; Ben Amor; Jane Bare; Lorenzo Benini; Markus Berger; Anne-Marie Boulay; Guillaume Junqua; Michael J. Lathuillière; Manuele Margni; Masaharu Motoshita; Briana Niblick; Sandra Payen; Stephan Pfister; Paula Quinteiro; Thomas Sonderegger; Ralph K. Rosenbaum. 2019. "Defining freshwater as a natural resource: a framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 24, no. 5: 960-974.
Guidance is needed on best-suited indicators to quantify and monitor the man-made impacts on human health, biodiversity and resources. Therefore, the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative initiated a global consensus process to agree on an updated overall life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework and to recommend a non-comprehensive list of environmental indicators and LCIA characterization factors for (1) climate change, (2) fine particulate matter impacts on human health, (3) water consumption impacts (both scarcity and human health) and 4) land use impacts on biodiversity. The consensus building process involved more than 100 world-leading scientists in task forces via multiple workshops. Results were consolidated during a 1-week Pellston Workshop™ in January 2016 leading to the following recommendations. LCIA framework: The updated LCIA framework now distinguishes between intrinsic, instrumental and cultural values, with disability-adjusted life years (DALY) to characterize damages on human health and with measures of vulnerability included to assess biodiversity loss. Climate change impacts: Two complementary climate change impact categories are recommended: (a) The global warming potential 100 years (GWP 100) represents shorter term impacts associated with rate of change and adaptation capacity, and (b) the global temperature change potential 100 years (GTP 100) characterizes the century-scale long term impacts, both including climate-carbon cycle feedbacks for all climate forcers. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) health impacts: Recommended characterization factors (CFs) for primary and secondary (interim) PM2.5 are established, distinguishing between indoor, urban and rural archetypes. Water consumption impacts: CFs are recommended, preferably on monthly and watershed levels, for two categories: (a) The water scarcity indicator “AWARE” characterizes the potential to deprive human and ecosystems users and quantifies the relative Available WAter REmaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, and (b) the impact of water consumption on human health assesses the DALYs from malnutrition caused by lack of water for irrigated food production. Land use impacts: CFs representing global potential species loss from land use are proposed as interim recommendation suitable to assess biodiversity loss due to land use and land use change in LCA hotspot analyses. The recommended environmental indicators may be used to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals in order to quantify and monitor progress towards sustainable production and consumption. These indicators will be periodically updated, establishing a process for their stewardship.
Olivier Jolliet; Assumpció Antón; Anne-Marie Boulay; Francesco Cherubini; Peter Fantke; Annie Levasseur; Thomas E. McKone; Ottar Michelsen; Llorenç Milà I Canals; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephan Pfister; Francesca Verones; Bruce Vigon; Rolf Frischknecht. Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2018, 23, 2189 -2207.
AMA StyleOlivier Jolliet, Assumpció Antón, Anne-Marie Boulay, Francesco Cherubini, Peter Fantke, Annie Levasseur, Thomas E. McKone, Ottar Michelsen, Llorenç Milà I Canals, Masaharu Motoshita, Stephan Pfister, Francesca Verones, Bruce Vigon, Rolf Frischknecht. Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2018; 23 (11):2189-2207.
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlivier Jolliet; Assumpció Antón; Anne-Marie Boulay; Francesco Cherubini; Peter Fantke; Annie Levasseur; Thomas E. McKone; Ottar Michelsen; Llorenç Milà I Canals; Masaharu Motoshita; Stephan Pfister; Francesca Verones; Bruce Vigon; Rolf Frischknecht. 2018. "Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change, fine particulate matter formation, water consumption and land use." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 23, no. 11: 2189-2207.
Ichiro Daigo; Masaharu Motoshita; Koichi Shobatake. Lunch Time Seminar “How to Write Research Papers”. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 2018, 14, 178 -179.
AMA StyleIchiro Daigo, Masaharu Motoshita, Koichi Shobatake. Lunch Time Seminar “How to Write Research Papers”. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. 2018; 14 (2):178-179.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIchiro Daigo; Masaharu Motoshita; Koichi Shobatake. 2018. "Lunch Time Seminar “How to Write Research Papers”." Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 14, no. 2: 178-179.
Tomoko Konishi-Nagano; Jun Nakatani; Kenji Ohashi; Koichi Shobatake; Shigesada Takagi; Masaharu Motoshita. A Report on the 24th Workshop Co-hosted by ILCAJ, JLCA and SEC (Society for Serviceology): Service Value and Sustainability. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 2018, 14, 332 -339.
AMA StyleTomoko Konishi-Nagano, Jun Nakatani, Kenji Ohashi, Koichi Shobatake, Shigesada Takagi, Masaharu Motoshita. A Report on the 24th Workshop Co-hosted by ILCAJ, JLCA and SEC (Society for Serviceology): Service Value and Sustainability. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. 2018; 14 (4):332-339.
Chicago/Turabian StyleTomoko Konishi-Nagano; Jun Nakatani; Kenji Ohashi; Koichi Shobatake; Shigesada Takagi; Masaharu Motoshita. 2018. "A Report on the 24th Workshop Co-hosted by ILCAJ, JLCA and SEC (Society for Serviceology): Service Value and Sustainability." Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 14, no. 4: 332-339.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to assess freshwater-related impacts according to a new water footprint framework formalized in the ISO 14046 standard. To date, no consensus-based approach exists for applying this standard and results are not always comparable when different scarcity or stress indicators are used for characterization of impacts. This paper presents the outcome of a 2-year consensus building process by the Water Use in Life Cycle Assessment (WULCA), a working group of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, on a water scarcity midpoint method for use in LCA and for water scarcity footprint assessments. In the previous work, the question to be answered was identified and different expert workshops around the world led to three different proposals. After eliminating one proposal showing low relevance for the question to be answered, the remaining two were evaluated against four criteria: stakeholder acceptance, robustness with closed basins, main normative choice, and physical meaning. The recommended method, AWARE, is based on the quantification of the relative available water remaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, answering the question “What is the potential to deprive another user (human or ecosystem) when consuming water in this area?” The resulting characterization factor (CF) ranges between 0.1 and 100 and can be used to calculate water scarcity footprints as defined in the ISO standard. After 8 years of development on water use impact assessment methods, and 2 years of consensus building, this method represents the state of the art of the current knowledge on how to assess potential impacts from water use in LCA, assessing both human and ecosystem users’ potential deprivation, at the midpoint level, and provides a consensus-based methodology for the calculation of a water scarcity footprint as per ISO 14046.
Anne-Marie Boulay; Jane Bare; Lorenzo Benini; Markus Berger; Michael J. Lathuillière; Alessandro Manzardo; Manuele Margni; Masaharu Motoshita; Montserrat Nunez; Amandine Valerie Pastor; Bradley Ridoutt; Taikan Oki; Sebastien Worbe; Stephan Pfister. The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2017, 23, 368 -378.
AMA StyleAnne-Marie Boulay, Jane Bare, Lorenzo Benini, Markus Berger, Michael J. Lathuillière, Alessandro Manzardo, Manuele Margni, Masaharu Motoshita, Montserrat Nunez, Amandine Valerie Pastor, Bradley Ridoutt, Taikan Oki, Sebastien Worbe, Stephan Pfister. The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2017; 23 (2):368-378.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAnne-Marie Boulay; Jane Bare; Lorenzo Benini; Markus Berger; Michael J. Lathuillière; Alessandro Manzardo; Manuele Margni; Masaharu Motoshita; Montserrat Nunez; Amandine Valerie Pastor; Bradley Ridoutt; Taikan Oki; Sebastien Worbe; Stephan Pfister. 2017. "The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 23, no. 2: 368-378.
Keisuke Nansai; Masaharu Motoshita; Ichiro Daigo; Seiji Hashimoto; Kiyotada Hayashi; Keiichiro Kanemoto; Aiichiro Kashiwagi; Yoshinori Kobayashi; Shinsuke Kondoh; Yuki Kudoh; Yasunari Matsuno; Hiroki Tanikawa; Eiji Yamasue; Naoki Yoshikawa. EcoBalance 2016-responsible value chains for sustainability (October 3-6, 2016, Kyoto, Japan). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2017, 22, 1165 -1174.
AMA StyleKeisuke Nansai, Masaharu Motoshita, Ichiro Daigo, Seiji Hashimoto, Kiyotada Hayashi, Keiichiro Kanemoto, Aiichiro Kashiwagi, Yoshinori Kobayashi, Shinsuke Kondoh, Yuki Kudoh, Yasunari Matsuno, Hiroki Tanikawa, Eiji Yamasue, Naoki Yoshikawa. EcoBalance 2016-responsible value chains for sustainability (October 3-6, 2016, Kyoto, Japan). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2017; 22 (7):1165-1174.
Chicago/Turabian StyleKeisuke Nansai; Masaharu Motoshita; Ichiro Daigo; Seiji Hashimoto; Kiyotada Hayashi; Keiichiro Kanemoto; Aiichiro Kashiwagi; Yoshinori Kobayashi; Shinsuke Kondoh; Yuki Kudoh; Yasunari Matsuno; Hiroki Tanikawa; Eiji Yamasue; Naoki Yoshikawa. 2017. "EcoBalance 2016-responsible value chains for sustainability (October 3-6, 2016, Kyoto, Japan)." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22, no. 7: 1165-1174.
Keisuke Nansai; Masaharu Motoshita; Ichiro Daigo; Seiji Hashimoto; Kiyotada Hayashi; Keiichiro Kanemoto; Aiichiro Kashiwagi; Yoshinori Kobayashi; Shinsuke Kondo; Yuki Kudoh; Yasunari Matsuno; Hiroki Tanikawa; Eiji Yamasue; Naoki Yoshikawa. EcoBalance 2016 - Responsible value chains for sustainability. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 2017, 13, 180 -189.
AMA StyleKeisuke Nansai, Masaharu Motoshita, Ichiro Daigo, Seiji Hashimoto, Kiyotada Hayashi, Keiichiro Kanemoto, Aiichiro Kashiwagi, Yoshinori Kobayashi, Shinsuke Kondo, Yuki Kudoh, Yasunari Matsuno, Hiroki Tanikawa, Eiji Yamasue, Naoki Yoshikawa. EcoBalance 2016 - Responsible value chains for sustainability. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan. 2017; 13 (2):180-189.
Chicago/Turabian StyleKeisuke Nansai; Masaharu Motoshita; Ichiro Daigo; Seiji Hashimoto; Kiyotada Hayashi; Keiichiro Kanemoto; Aiichiro Kashiwagi; Yoshinori Kobayashi; Shinsuke Kondo; Yuki Kudoh; Yasunari Matsuno; Hiroki Tanikawa; Eiji Yamasue; Naoki Yoshikawa. 2017. "EcoBalance 2016 - Responsible value chains for sustainability." Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan 13, no. 2: 180-189.
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 “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”. 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.
Stephan Pfister; Anne-Marie Boulay; Markus Berger; Michalis Hadjikakou; Masaharu Motoshita; Tim Hess; Brad Ridoutt; Jan Weinzettel; Laura Scherer; Petra Döll; Alessandro Manzardo; Montserrat Núñez; Francesca Verones; Sebastien Humbert; Kurt Buxmann; Kevin Harding; Lorenzo Benini; Taikan Oki; Matthias Finkbeiner; Andrew Henderson. Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”. Ecological Indicators 2016, 72, 352 -359.
AMA StyleStephan Pfister, Anne-Marie Boulay, Markus Berger, Michalis Hadjikakou, Masaharu Motoshita, Tim Hess, Brad Ridoutt, Jan Weinzettel, Laura Scherer, Petra Döll, Alessandro Manzardo, Montserrat Núñez, Francesca Verones, Sebastien Humbert, Kurt Buxmann, Kevin Harding, Lorenzo Benini, Taikan Oki, Matthias Finkbeiner, Andrew Henderson. Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”. Ecological Indicators. 2016; 72 ():352-359.
Chicago/Turabian StyleStephan Pfister; Anne-Marie Boulay; Markus Berger; Michalis Hadjikakou; Masaharu Motoshita; Tim Hess; Brad Ridoutt; Jan Weinzettel; Laura Scherer; Petra Döll; Alessandro Manzardo; Montserrat Núñez; Francesca Verones; Sebastien Humbert; Kurt Buxmann; Kevin Harding; Lorenzo Benini; Taikan Oki; Matthias Finkbeiner; Andrew Henderson. 2016. "Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”." Ecological Indicators 72, no. : 352-359.
Freshwater scarcity is a relevant problem for more than one billion people around the globe. Therefore, the analysis of water consumption along the supply chain of products is of increasing relevance in current sustainability discussions. This chapter aims at providing insight into the scientific development and practical application of water footprinting. In a comprehensive literature review, more than 30 water footprint methods, tools, databases, and standards have been identified and discussed. The scopes of different water footprint approaches vary regarding the types of water use accounted for, the distinction of water courses, and the consideration of temporal and regional aspects such as water scarcity and sensitivity of population or ecosystems for impact assessment. In order to illustrate the application of water footprinting, several case studies representing different levels of complexity (crops to cars) and scientific standards (liter to disability-adjusted life year, DALY) are presented. Subsequently, key methodological challenges are identified ranging from the adequate resolution of inventory flows to the consideration of water quality aspects. As the most advanced methods require the highest resolution inventory data, the trade-off between precision and applicability is a key challenge, which needs to be addressed in future database and method developments. Such future developments are the subject of the closing section, which, e.g., provides an outlook on the consensus impact assessment model being currently developed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Moreover, the increasing relevance of water footprinting in decision-making and communication strategies is discussed along with opportunities and limitations of water footprinting.
Markus Berger; Stephan Pfister; Masaharu Motoshita. Water Footprinting in Life Cycle Assessment: How to Count the Drops and Assess the Impacts? LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment 2016, 73 -114.
AMA StyleMarkus Berger, Stephan Pfister, Masaharu Motoshita. Water Footprinting in Life Cycle Assessment: How to Count the Drops and Assess the Impacts? LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. 2016; ():73-114.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarkus Berger; Stephan Pfister; Masaharu Motoshita. 2016. "Water Footprinting in Life Cycle Assessment: How to Count the Drops and Assess the Impacts?" LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment , no. : 73-114.
All relevant effects on water must be assessed in water footprinting for identifying hotspots and managing the impacts of products, processes, and services throughout the life cycle. Although several studies have focused on physical water scarcity and degradation of water quality, the relevance of land use in water footprinting has not been widely addressed. Here, we aimed to verify the extent of land-use effect in the context of water footprinting. Intensity factors of land use regarding the loss of freshwater availability are modeled by calculating water balance at grid scale in Japan. A water footprint inventory and impacts related to land use are assessed by applying the developed intensity factors and comparing them with those related to water consumption and degradation. Artificial land use such as urban area results in the loss of many parts of available freshwater input by precipitation. When considering water footprint inventory, the dominance of land use is less than that of water consumption. However, the effect of land use is relevant to the assessment of water footprint impact by differentiating stress on water resources. The exclusion of land use effect underestimates the water footprint of goods produced in Japan by an average of around 37%.
Masaharu Motoshita; Yuya Ono; Matthias Finkbeiner; Atsushi Inaba. The Effect of Land Use on Availability of Japanese Freshwater Resources and Its Significance for Water Footprinting. Sustainability 2016, 8, 86 .
AMA StyleMasaharu Motoshita, Yuya Ono, Matthias Finkbeiner, Atsushi Inaba. The Effect of Land Use on Availability of Japanese Freshwater Resources and Its Significance for Water Footprinting. Sustainability. 2016; 8 (1):86.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMasaharu Motoshita; Yuya Ono; Matthias Finkbeiner; Atsushi Inaba. 2016. "The Effect of Land Use on Availability of Japanese Freshwater Resources and Its Significance for Water Footprinting." Sustainability 8, no. 1: 86.