Abstract
In response to our article on the blue and green water footprint (WF) of bioenergy (1), others propose to multiply each blue WF component by a water-stress index and neglect green WFs, because impacts would be nil (2). They propose to redefine the WF from a volumetric measure to an index resulting from multiplying volumes by impact factors. Framing their argument within the logic of life-cycle assessment (LCA), they ignore the primary and established role of the WF in water-resources management (WRM). Redefining the WF does not make sense from a WRM perspective, which requires spatially and temporally explicit information on WFs in real volumes and impacts in real terms.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | E114-E114 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |
| Volume | 106 |
| Issue number | 40 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2009 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 9 Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
-
SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production
Keywords
- IR-77185
- METIS-259609
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Reply to Pfister and Hellweg: Water footprint accounting, impact assessment, and life-cycle assessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver