Is there any differences or different requirements between ISO 14046 Water Footprint and Water Footprint Assessment Manual - Setting the Global Standard (http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual_2.pdf) respectively concept of blue, green and gray water footprint?
The main difference is that the ISO 14046 standard takes more of a life cycle assessment type approach to water footprinting in that it is focused on estimating impact (the standard is heavily based on the LCA standard - ISO14044), whereas the Water Footprint Assessment Manual is more focused on accounting. ISO14046 doesn't specifically require assessments to consider water use in terms of blue/green/gray water, but rather allows more flexibility in the methods used to meet the particular goals of a study or assessment. However as a consequence of this it also requires qualifiers to be placed around the terminology used in an assessment. Depending upon the type of impact assessment used, qualifiers have to be placed upon the use of "water footprint" (e.g. water scarcity footprint, water toxicity footprint, etc.).
Dear Carlo, thank you very much, this article is very helpful for me. To your suggestion about using WFA because it is easier to understand and apply I must say, that my project is focused on implementation of ISO 14046.
Carlo I agree. I had a lot of documents listed in references in article from you downloaded before, and now I must read them :) Thanks again.
As per the views of the experts of the subject area, ISO talks about LCA(Life Cycle Approach) and there is no any categories like Blue, Green, and Grey. All are considered as whole life cycle approach of water from the extraction point to discharge point.
Carlo Ingrao
, (Sorry to get your attention after 4 years), I understand that WFN method is easy to understand, however,"LCA aims to account for environmental damage and the deprivation caused by water use, It seems that the WFN aims to account for water productivity as global fresh water is a limited resource, and opts for a subsequent, optional sustainability assessment of the water consumed." (Pfister et al). However, water is not always the limited source in the system. in that case, can say, we need to consider LCA as the better option or with the use of gray-water footprint, the other resources can be taken in to account?. (however, in that case WFN method will also be complicated).
Amila Abeynayaka After more than 4 years I see the main difference between these two tools in the target audience. There is a lot of similarities in both methodologies, but the WFN is primarily focused on water managers and is close to theirs need. LCA water footprinting is focused on the impact linked to the water use and this is more important for environmental managers.
The approach is different, LCA takes the water as a life cycle and deepens the impacts associated with the particular issue being studied. On the other hand, the WFN focuses its analysis on the dynamics of water itself, because this methodology includes the distinction of three colors or components (blue, green, gray), and this approach also makes it necessary to measure the need and importance of a dynamic real anthropic, and its sustainability analysis allows us to associate conflicts over water competition between socio-economic activities
- Badges
- Science topic