I want to know the advantages of applying the Water Footprint Network (WFN) methodology compared to the life cycle analysis methodology (LCA)
Dear Oscar I Vargas-Pineda , I assume you are referencing this Water Footprint Network: https://waterfootprint.org/en/. This biggest advantage is that the WFN deals specifically with water, whereas LCA involves relating 13 impact categories to a 'product' system(s). Many believe that LCA's primary use as a tool is for quantifying environmental impacts. The WFN characterizes three types of water; green (agriculture related), blue (surface/groundwater related), and grey (pollution related) water flows/uses. The WFN is lacking generally in a fourth category: virtual water, i.e. water the is used for product purposes. Therefore, it seems that a very specific LCA-like analysis for water is needed.
Differences in the two philosophies is a current topic, see a response to a very similar question; Article Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to...
Dear Cory
Thanks for the answer, I will read that article. However, in your experience on area, why do you to use WFN for the calculation of water footprint?
Regards
I agree with @ Cory Jensen.
LCA involves quantification of 18 mid point environmental indicator including water use and 3 endpoint indicators. Whereas WFN is restricted only to water footprint.
Thanks Cory Jensen
however, the analysis of study that i am making is about the water dynamic in a basin. For the reason, i can to say that la WFN methodology is more appropriate..¿?
Regards
From my point of view, the WFA according to the Water Footprint Network is focused on the water managers. This methodology is focused on the amount of water, but do say if the use of water is a problem or not. The LCA water footprint is focused on the impact of water use, the units are hypothetical. The LCA Water Footprint is a great tool for environmental managers for comparative analysis, but say nothing about real units of water us.
I understand the Water Footprint as a robust methodology that quantifies a natural resource, in this case water, in an activity or product. This is a big difference when compared to the other indicators, the Water Footprint has a variety of equations for different scenarios such as a process, a product, a company, a group of consumers, a watershed, a geographically delimited area, among others . I believe that this is a big difference of the Water Footprint with other indicators, unifying in a methodology several equations to quantify the water used be in several scenarios. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual itself lists more differences between the Water Footprint and other indicators such as discarding the volume of water when returned to where it came from, differentiating the type of water (blue, green, gray) and includes the direct and indirect use of water.
Thank you very much Galileu Ribeiro Santos, I currently work with the WFN methodology, it seems to me a practical tool to study the complexities of water use, also, as you mention, it specifies for different processes of production and consumption of human activities. Finally, the analysis allows us to consider the subdivision of water that implies the contamination of water in terms of quantity through the gray water footprint.
Regards
Oscar, I attach this file that will help to solve your question.
Since WFN deals with water specific observations. In that case I would like to know what's the difference between EIA and LCA. Are they the same? Or is LCA a subset of EIA?
@Brandon Lee EIA and LCA are completely different methodologies. See for example https://ecochain.com/knowledge/environmental-impact-assessment-eia-how-is-it-different-from-lca/
First, a distinction must be made between virtual water and the water footprint, both of which express food commodities with their equivalent of water. The difference is that virtual water as a concept or as an idea was originally developed by Alan to express the transfer of water from areas of scarcity to areas of abundance in the form of commodities (here conditions are not taken into account of quantization: Environmental and agricultural practices ), and then the concept of water footprint was introduced in 2002 to indicate what we need from water to produce food commodities in a specific geographical area ... To answer your question, we can say that the water footprint is useful in quantifying the national needs of water to produce food commodities It can also help us in determining the most suitable crop or food map response to our environmental conditions or, in particular, the volume of water available to us ... As previously indicated in the answers above, you must distinguish between green, blue and gray water. Oscar I Vargas-Pineda Libor Ansorge
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology