Water scarcity (related to both, quantity and quality) is a severe problem at global level (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016, van Vliet et al., 2021). Hence, a sustainable water allocation for the different purposes is essential. Especially for industrial water use, treatment technologies to allow for water re-use are discussed as options to reduce water consumption (Meese et al., 2022, Salgot and Folch, 2018). Besides the discourse on reducing consumptive water use, there is a line of thought that not every water use requires the best water quality (O'Connor et al., 2008). Ideas cover a cascading water use (Guo et al., 2022) or concepts such as using sweet water when required and salt water whenever possible (Lassiter, 2021). Each of these strategies has its own implications on the resulting water footprint of an industry. Moreover, these strategies might have other environmental footprints (besides water), (practical) requirements and trade-offs . Only by understanding these, industries can make informed decisions about their water management practices to become more (environmentally) sustainable (Berger and Thiede, 2023). However, currently we lack insight on how these strategies compare in terms of sustainability performance. Two common methods to assess water-related sustainability are the water footprint (WF) (Hoekstra et al., 2011) and life cycle assessment (LCA) (Kounina et al., 2013). Both methodologies have their strengths and limitations, but these have not been systematically assessed in the context of different industrial water management strategies and it is unclear if results would lead to identical recommendations.
Research objective
This project contains a two-fold objective: 1) assess the water-related environmental sustainability of different industrial water management strategies; 2) compare two methods (WF and LCA) to assess water-related sustainability.
Method
Therefore the following steps should be considered:
- Scope definition (selection of industrial water management strategies [at least two], geographical context, spatial resolution, potential case study)
- Developing a comprehensive understanding of WF and LCA method
- Selection of relevant water indicators (groundwater level, drinking water, industrial flow etc), including quantity and quality to assess water-related environmental sustainability
- Conduct a WF assessment and an LCA for selected water management strategies
- Compare and interpret results of the two assessments
- Reflect and evaluate regarding: i) What are recommendations for industry based on each of the methods; ii) what are strength and weaknesses of each method (quantitatively and qualitatively); iii) first steps to work towards an industrial-waterfootprint-model.
Expected result
Results cover a WF and an LCA study for chosen industrial water management strategies. Based on results from this study, recommendations to increase the water-related environmental sustainability can be provided to industries. Moreover, results will quantitatively and qualitatively show differences of the two methods WF and LCA. Ideally, justified recommendations for methodological choices towards an industrial-waterfootprint-model can be provided by this project. Such model could be used to evaluate the water allocation within a region and to visualize the effects of certain interventions from industry.
For ambitious students it is well-possible that the thesis report will later on result in a journal publication.
References
- Guo, L., Zhu, W., Wei, J. & Wang, L. 2022. Water demand forecasting and countermeasures across the Yellow River basin: Analysis from the perspective of water resources carrying capacity. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 42, 101148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101148.
- Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M. & Mekonnen, M. M. 2011. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting global standards, London, Earthscan.
- Kounina, A., Margni, M., Bayart, J.-B., Boulay, A.-M., Berger, M., Bulle, C., Frischknecht, R., Koehler, A., Milà I Canals, L., Motoshita, M., et al. 2013. Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 707-721, 10.1007/s11367-012-0519-3.
- Lassiter, A. 2021. Rising seas, changing salt lines, and drinking water salinization. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 50, 208-214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.009.
- Meese, A. F., Kim, D. J., Wu, X., Le, L., Napier, C., Hernandez, M. T., Laroco, N., Linden, K. G., Cox, J., Kurup, P., et al. 2022. Opportunities and Challenges for Industrial Water Treatment and Reuse. ACS ES&T Engineering, 2, 465-488, 10.1021/acsestengg.1c00282.
- Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances, 2, e1500323, 10.1126/sciadv.1500323.
- O'connor, G. A., Elliott, H. A. & Bastian, R. K. 2008. Degraded Water Reuse: An Overview. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37, S-157-S-168, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0459.
- Salgot, M. & Folch, M. 2018. Wastewater treatment and water reuse. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 2, 64-74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.03.005.
- Van Vliet, M. T. H., Jones, E. R., Flörke, M., Franssen, W. H. P., Hanasaki, N., Wada, Y. & Yearsley, J. R. 2021. Global water scarcity including surface water quality and expansions of clean water technologies. Environmental Research Letters, 16, 024020, 10.1088/1748-9326/abbfc3.
- Berger, M. & Thiede, S. 2023. Circularity of water - good for conscience or the environment? A deeper look into the water footprint of factories. Procedia CIRP, 116, 125-130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.022.
- Guo, L., Zhu, W., Wei, J. & Wang, L. 2022. Water demand forecasting and countermeasures across the Yellow River basin: Analysis from the perspective of water resources carrying capacity. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 42, 101148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101148.
- Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M. & Mekonnen, M. M. 2011. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting global standards, London, Earthscan.
- Kounina, A., Margni, M., Bayart, J.-B., Boulay, A.-M., Berger, M., Bulle, C., Frischknecht, R., Koehler, A., Milà I Canals, L., Motoshita, M., et al. 2013. Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 707-721, 10.1007/s11367-012-0519-3.
- Lassiter, A. 2021. Rising seas, changing salt lines, and drinking water salinization. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 50, 208-214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.009.
- Meese, A. F., Kim, D. J., Wu, X., Le, L., Napier, C., Hernandez, M. T., Laroco, N., Linden, K. G., Cox, J., Kurup, P., et al. 2022. Opportunities and Challenges for Industrial Water Treatment and Reuse. ACS ES&T Engineering, 2, 465-488, 10.1021/acsestengg.1c00282.
- Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances, 2, e1500323, 10.1126/sciadv.1500323.
- O'connor, G. A., Elliott, H. A. & Bastian, R. K. 2008. Degraded Water Reuse: An Overview. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37, S-157-S-168, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2007.0459.
- Salgot, M. & Folch, M. 2018. Wastewater treatment and water reuse. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 2, 64-74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.03.005.
- Van Vliet, M. T. H., Jones, E. R., Flörke, M., Franssen, W. H. P., Hanasaki, N., Wada, Y. & Yearsley, J. R. 2021. Global water scarcity including surface water quality and expansions of clean water technologies. Environmental Research Letters, 16, 024020, 10.1088/1748-9326/abbfc3.
Supervision
Are you interested in this assignment? Contact the Master thesis coordinator.
