Guillaume Junqua

Environmental assessment of a territory: An overview of existing tools and methods

In order to reduce our environmental impact, methods for environmental assessment of human activities are urgently needed. In particular in the case of assessment of land planning scenarios, there is presently no consensual and widely adopted method although it is strongly required by the European Directive (2001/42/EC) on Strategic Environmental Assessment. However, different kinds of tools and methods are available such as human and environmental risk assessment, the ecological footprint, material flow analysis, substance flow analysis, physical input-output table, ecological network analysis, exergy, emergy or life cycle assessment. This review proposes a discussion on these tools and methods specifically applied to territories. After the meaning of territory is clarified, these approaches are presented and analyzed based on key features such as formalization, system modeling, inventoried flows, indicators provided and usability. This comparison highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each tool. It also emphasizes that the approach of life cycle assessment could provide a relevant framework for the environmental assessment of territories as it is the only method which can avoid burden shifting between life cycle stages, environmental impacts and territories.

Adapting the LCA framework to environmental assessment in land planning

PurposeSince the implementation of the European directive (EC/2001/42) on strategic environmental assessment, an ex ante evaluation has become mandatory for plans and programs. This requirement could have significant consequences for the environment. Local authorities, who are in charge of land planning issues, must therefore conduct such assessments. However, they are faced with lack of uniform methodology. The aim of this paper is thus to propose a methodological framework for the required environmental assessment stages in land planning.MethodsLife cycle assessment (LCA) has been identified as a promising tool to perform environmental assessment at a meso-level (i.e., territories). Yet, the standardized LCA framework has never been used for assessing the environmental impacts of a territory as such, which can be explained by the complexity that its application would involve. Four major methodological bottlenecks have been identified in this paper, i.e., (1) functional unit definition, (2) boundary selection, (3) data collecting, and (4) the refinement of the life cycle impact assessment phase in order to provide useful indicators for land planning. For each of these challenges, recommendations have been made to adapt the analytical framework of LCA.Results and discussionA revised framework is proposed to perform LCA of a territory. One of the major adaptations needed concerns the goal and scope definition phase. Henceforth, the association of a territory and the studied land planning scenario, defined by its geographical boundaries and its interactions with other territories, will be designated as the reference flow in LCA. Consequently, two kinds of indicators will be determined using this approach, i.e., (1) a vector of environmental impacts generated (conventional LCA) and (2) a vector of land use functions provided by the territory for different stakeholders (e.g., provision of work, recreation, culture, etc.). This revised framework has been applied to a theoretical case study in order to highlight its utility in land planning.ConclusionsThis work is a first step in the adaptation of the LCA framework to environmental assessment in land planning. We believe that this revised framework has the potential to provide relevant information in decision-making processes. Nonetheless, further work is still needed to broaden and deepen this approach (i.e., normalization of impacts and functions, coupled application with GIS, uncertainties, etc.).

The issue of considering water quality in life cycle assessment of water use

PurposeAvailable water-use impact assessment methods provide insight into the potential impacts of water use. As water-use impact assessment models develop, the amount of inventory information required increases. Among the parameters needed, water quality is identified as essential since water quality can also influence availability to meet specific water users’ needs. It was argued that these users could be deprived and suffer consequences. However, data on water quality may be difficult to gather and the related impact pathways may entail risks of double counting with emission characterization models. This paper answers to which extent water quality must be considered in water-use impact assessment.MethodsThe role and the necessity of water quality information are discussed along the cause-effect chain of three water-use interventions: water consumption (WU1), water degradation (WU2), and water quality improvement (WU3). Each intervention is individually explored and put in perspective with the human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources areas of protection (AoPs).Results and discussionOur findings suggest that, for WU1, the quality of input water elementary flow might be useful to know the pressure on the resource and the affected users, but alternative methods that avoid the need for this scarce information can be built. WU1 (including quality information) and WU2 are currently assessed by linking water users to water functionality via water quality, which may be misleading in areas unable to compensate for lacking water of a certain quality. In these areas, low-quality water may still be consumed even if it does not fulfill a quality standard. Thus, WU2 would rather lead to toxic impacts instead of to water deprivation impacts since this latter pathway assumes that polluted water below the quality standard will no longer be used. Hence, water deprivation impacts should only focus on WU1 to avoid double counting with emission characterization models. For WU3, no LCA approach exists to meaningfully quantify its environmental benefits, but an indicator for water as a natural resource may be a solution.ConclusionsThis study improves the understanding of the role of water quality information in water-use impact assessment and brings more consistency between existing (and future) models. Further research is required to better understand the positive effects induced by water quality improvement and the effects on freshwater resources themselves. More generally, a framework is required to identify how freshwater resources can be defined as an entity to protect within the AoP natural resource.

Life cycle assessment case study: Tertiary treatment process options for wastewater reuse

Tertiary treatment process (including filtration and/or disinfection) is necessary to obtain a water quality suited for high-quality reuse from wastewater treatment. Industrial pilots representing small real-size treatment units were set up downstream of a conventional secondary treatment of a wastewater treatment plant in the South of France and their performance followed for 2 y. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is used to compare the environmental impacts of different treatment processes. Five tertiary treatment trains were studied: 1) sand filtration (SF)u2009+u2009storage followed by ultraviolet (UV) dynamic reactor disinfection (SF-UVD), 2) sand filtrationu2009+u2009UV batch reactor disinfection (SF-UVB), 3) ultrafiltration (UF), 4) ultrafiltration and UV batch reactor disinfection (UF-UVB), and 5) microfiltration (MF) and storage followed by dynamic UV disinfection (MF-UVD). The chosen functional unit is To supply 1u2009m3 of water with a quality in compliance with the highest standard of the French reuse regulations. The combination of SF with UV disinfection or the use of UF alone was found to be equivalent in terms of environmental impact for most of the midpoint indicators chosen. Combination of UF with UV disinfection was significantly more impacting because the electricity consumption was nearly doubled. This study was conducted on an industrial pilot; it may thus be representative of industrial facilities implemented to treat higher water flows. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:1113-1121.

LCA case study: Tertiary treatment process options for wastewater reuse†

Tertiary treatment process (including filtration and/or disinfection) is necessary to obtain a water quality suited for high-quality reuse from wastewater treatment. Industrial pilots representing small real-size treatment units were set up downstream of a conventional secondary treatment of a wastewater treatment plant in the South of France and their performance followed for 2 y. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology is used to compare the environmental impacts of different treatment processes. Five tertiary treatment trains were studied: 1) sand filtration (SF)u2009+u2009storage followed by ultraviolet (UV) dynamic reactor disinfection (SF-UVD), 2) sand filtrationu2009+u2009UV batch reactor disinfection (SF-UVB), 3) ultrafiltration (UF), 4) ultrafiltration and UV batch reactor disinfection (UF-UVB), and 5) microfiltration (MF) and storage followed by dynamic UV disinfection (MF-UVD). The chosen functional unit is To supply 1u2009m3 of water with a quality in compliance with the highest standard of the French reuse regulations. The combination of SF with UV disinfection or the use of UF alone was found to be equivalent in terms of environmental impact for most of the midpoint indicators chosen. Combination of UF with UV disinfection was significantly more impacting because the electricity consumption was nearly doubled. This study was conducted on an industrial pilot; it may thus be representative of industrial facilities implemented to treat higher water flows. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:1113-1121.