Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Water scarcity in Brazil: part 2—uncertainty assessment in regionalized characterization factors

  • IMPLICATIONS OF LCA CHOICES ON INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS AND ON DECISION SUPPORT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Despite recommendations, uncertainty results are rarely incorporated in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies, especially regarding characterization factors (CF). Part 1 of this study conducted AWARE CF regionalization for Brazil, concluding that the Semiarid region had maximum scarcity values. The goal of this study is to evaluate the uncertainties of regionalized AWARE CF in the Semiarid region.

Methods

Data used to obtain the AWARE BR CF for Brazil were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. An adapted Pedigree Matrix was adopted to assess qualitative uncertainties. Classical statistical analysis was used for quantitative uncertainty assessment, and 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations were computed for uncertainty propagation.

Results and discussion

Qualitative results indicated that the natural flow’s parameter was very uncertain due to poor spatial correlation and low reliability, as it is based on empirical models. Quantitative results showed that water availability data, which had large temporal variability, typical of the Brazilian Semiarid region, was the main responsible for uncertainties in input data. Area uncertainty had a good performance in both qualitative and quantitative assessments. Regarding output data, moderate CF were found to be more uncertain, while more extreme CF exhibited lower variation, corroborating with previous analyses. Moreover, the adoption of shorter datasets led to a reduction in average and standard deviation values for CF.

Conclusion

Findings from this study showed two important reasons why the quantitative and qualitative assessments should be conducted simultaneously. The first one was to avoid bias, as availability data and natural flow performed differently in each evaluation. The second one was to confirm results, as the area proved to be very little uncertain in both assessments. An adaptation of Pedigree Matrix and a penalty factor for missing data could be used as a base for quantitative uncertainty parameters for LCIA. Generating SD and k-factor was very positive in terms of results for AWARE method and comparison with other methods. Both indicators had similar results and led to a common conclusion: uncertainties are mainly low and very low for AWARE BR CF in the Semiarid region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agência Nacional de Águas (2016). Nota Técnica n° 16/2016/SPR. Brasília, DF

  • Alves KF, Ugaya CML. (2018) Incertezas em AICV: estado da arte [Uncertainties in LCIA: state of the art]. In: VI Congresso Brasileiro sobre Gestão de Ciclo de Vida

  • Andrade EP, Nunes ABA, Alves KF, Ugaya CML, Costa MA, Santos TL, Barros VS, de Figueiredo MCB (2019) Water scarcity in Brazil: part 1—regionalization of the AWARE model characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess:1–17

  • Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(2):64–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boots BN (1986) Voronoi (Thiessen) polygons. Geo Books

  • Boulay AM, Bare J, Benini L et al (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(2):368–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1333-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schryver AM, Goedkoop MJ, Leuven RSEW et al (2010) Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):682–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0205-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dean RB, Dixon WJ (1951) Simplified statistics for small numbers of observations. Anal Chem 23(4)

  • Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedbrant J, Sörme L (2001) Data vagueness and uncertainties in urban heavy-metal data collection. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 1(3):43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MA (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):274–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igos E, Benetto E, Meyer R, Bausters P, Othoniel B (2019) How to Treat Uncertainties in Life Cycle Assessment Studies? Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:794–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1477-1

  • ISO 14040 (2006) International standard. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles And Framework

  • ISO 14044 (2006) International standard. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines

  • Meier MA (1997) Eco-efficiency evaluation of waste gas purification systems in the chemical industry. Eco-Informa Press, Bayreuth

    Google Scholar 

  • Núñez M, Pfister S, Vargas M, Antón A (2015) Spatial and temporal specific characterization factors for water use impact assessment in Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(1):128–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0803-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor AV, Ludwig F, Biemans H, Hoff H, Kabat P (2013) Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 10(12):14987–15032. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-5041-2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Hellweg S. (2011) Uncertainty in characterization factors of water consumption impacts on water scarcity (midpoint) & human health (endpoint) including variability-induced uncertainty of spatially aggregated characterization factors. In: LC-Impact project report

  • Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 43(11):4098–4104. https://doi.org/10.1021/es802423e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ross S, Evans D, Webber M (2002) How LCA studies deal with uncertainty. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy PO, Azevedo LB, Margni M, van Zelm R, Huijbregts MA (2014) Characterization factors for terrestrial acidification at the global scale: a systematic analysis of spatial variability and uncertainty. Sci Total Environ 500–501:270–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.099

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • SETAC (1997) Life-cycle impact assessment: the state-of-the-art

  • Slob W (1994) Uncertainty analysis in multiplicative models. Risk Anal 14(4):571–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00271.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnemann GW, Schuhmacher M, Castells F (2003) Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator. J Clean Prod 11(3):279–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00028-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Vries W, Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

  • UNEP SETAC (2016) Global guidance for life cycle assessment indicator

  • Weidema BP, Wesnaes MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4(3–4):167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(96)00043-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wender BA, Prado V, Fantke P, Ravikumar D, Seager TP (2018) Sensitivity-based research prioritization through stochastic characterization modeling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(2):324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1322-y

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The results of this study were part of the research activities developed in the Center for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (Gyro) at the Federal University of Technology Paraná, and it was linked to the Brazilian Life Cycle Impact Assessment Research Network (RAICV) that includes specialists from educational and private institutions. We would like to acknowledge the National Water Agency (Agência Nacional de Águas—ANA) for providing the information needed for this study.

Funding

The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—CNPq) provided financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Technology – Paraná (UTFPR), 5000 Deputado Heitor Alencar Furtado St, Curitiba, PR, 81280-340, Brazil

    Kilvia de Freitas Alves, José Paulo Savioli & Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya

  2. University of Rovira and Virgili – URV, Carrer de l’Escorxador, s/n, 43003, Tarragona, Spain

    Edilene Pereira Andrade

  3. Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (CE3C), Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Modelling (CCIAM), Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016, Lisbon, Portugal

    Amandine Valerie Pastor

  4. Embrapa Agroindústria Tropical, Dra. Sara Mesquita Street, 2270 - Pici, Brazilian 181, Fortaleza, 60020, Brazil

    Maria Cléa Brito de Figueirêdo

Authors
  1. Kilvia de Freitas Alves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edilene Pereira Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Paulo Savioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amandine Valerie Pastor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Cléa Brito de Figueirêdo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cássia Maria Lie Ugaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kilvia de Freitas Alves.

Additional information

Communicated by Marisa Vieira

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alves, K., Andrade, E.P., Savioli, J.P. et al. Water scarcity in Brazil: part 2—uncertainty assessment in regionalized characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 2359–2379 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01739-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01739-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation