Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation, and water purification: a spatial approach for a global scale level

Purpose

Rarely considered in environmental assessment methods, potential land use impacts on a series of ecosystem services must be accounted for in widely used decision-making tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA). The main goal of this study is to provide an operational life cycle impact assessment characterization method that addresses land use impacts at a global scale by developing spatially differentiated characterization factors (CFs) and assessing the extent of their spatial variability using different regionalization levels.

Methods

The proposed method follows the recommendations of previous work and falls within the framework and principles for land use impact assessment established by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Life Cycle Initiative. Based on the spatial approach suggested by Saad et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 16: 198–211, 2011), the intended impact pathways that are modeled pertain to impacts on ecosystem services damage potential and focus on three major ecosystem services: (1) erosion regulation potential, (2) freshwater regulation potential, and (3) water purification potential. Spatially-differentiated CFs were calculated for each biogeographic region of all three regionalization scale (Holdridge life regions, Holdridge life zones, and terrestrial biomes) along with a nonspatial world average level. In addition, seven land use types were assessed considering both land occupation and land transformation interventions.

Results and discussion

A comprehensive analysis of the results indicates that, when compared to all resolution schemes, the world generic averaged CF can deviate for various ecosystem types. In the case of groundwater recharge potential impacts, this range varied up to factors of 7, 4.7, and 3 when using the Holdridge life zones, the Holdridge regions, and the terrestrial biomes regionalization levels, respectively. This validates the importance of introducing a regionalized assessment and highlights how a finer scale increases the level of detail and consequently the discriminating power across several biogeographic regions, which could not have been captured using a coarser scale. In practice, the implementation of such regionalized CFs suggests that an LCA practitioner must identify the ecosystem in which land occupation or transformation activities occur in addition to the traditional inventory data required—namely, the land use activity and the inventory flow.

Conclusions

The variability of CFs across all three regionalization levels provides an indication of the uncertainty linked to nonspatial CFs. Among other assumptions and value choices made throughout the study, the use of ecological borders over political boundaries was deemed more relevant to the interpretation of environmental issues related to specific functional ecosystem behaviors.     

Is land use impact assessment in LCA applicable for forest biomass value chains? Findings from comparison of use of Scandinavian wood,agro-biomass and peat for energy

Purpose

A framework for the inclusion of land use impact assessment and a set of land use impact indicators has been recently proposed for life cycle assessment (LCA) and no case studies are available for forest biomass. The proposed methodology is tested for Scandinavian managed forestry; a comparative case study is made for energy from wood, agro-biomass and peat; and sensitivity to forest management options is analysed.

Methods

The functional unit of this comparative case study is 1 GJ of energy in solid fuels. The land use impact assessment framework of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC) is followed and its application for wood biomass is critically analysed. Applied midpoint indicators include ecological footprint and human appropriation of net primary production, global warming potential indicator for biomass (GWP_bio-100) and impact indicators proposed by UNEP-SETAC on ecosystem services and biodiversity. Options for forest biomass land inventory modelling are discussed. The system boundary covers only the biomass acquisition phase. Management scenarios are formulated for forest and barley biomass, and a sensitivity analysis focuses on impacts of land transformations for agro-biomass.

Results and discussion

Meaningful differences were found in between solid biofuels from distinct land use classes. The impact indicator results were sensitive to land occupation and transformation and differed significantly from inventory results. Current impact assessment method is not sensitive to land management scenarios because the published characterisation factors are still too coarse and indicate differences only between land use types. All indicators on ecosystem services and biodiversity were sensitive to the assumptions related with land transformation. The land occupation (m²a) approach in inventory was found challenging for Scandinavian wood, due to long rotation periods and variable intensities of harvests. Some suggestions of UNEP-SETAC were challenged for the sake of practicality and relevance for decision support.

Conclusions

Land use impact assessment framework for LCA and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators could be applied in a comparison of solid bioenergy sources. Although forest bioenergy has higher land occupation than agro-bioenergy, LCIA indicator results are of similar magnitude or even lower for forest bioenergy. Previous literature indicates that environmental impacts of land use are significant, but it remains questionable if these are captured with satisfactory reliability with the applied LCA methodology, especially for forest biomass. Short and long time perspectives of land use impacts should be studied in LCA with characterisation factors for all relevant timeframes, not only 500 years, with a forward-looking perspective. Characterisation factors need to be modelled further for different (forest) land management intensities and for peat excavation.     

A spatially explicit life cycle assessment midpoint indicator for soil quality in the European Union using soil organic carbon

Purpose

Improving land use assessment in life cycle assessment (LCA) is a priority. Recently, soil organic carbon (SOC) depletion has been proposed as a transformation and occupation midpoint indicator to estimate impacts on biotic production potential (BPP). SOC depletion is recommended by the European Union in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook as a land use indicator. There is a consensus method to calculate SOC depletion in LCA, and ILCD proposes a set of characterization factors (CFs), but these lack geographical discrimination.

Methods

Our method of calculation for midpoint CFs follows Brandão and Milà i Canals (Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1243–1252, 2013). We operationalize the method using SOC stocks from the LUCASOIL database of field measurements in Europe. We use potential natural vegetation (PNV) as the reference situation. CFs were calculated on a cell basis for 23 countries in Europe and grouped in three spatial scales (an administrative classification, NUTS II, and two biophysical classifications, ecoregion and climate region) according to soil type and land cover following a consensus map of cover classes. To evaluate the method’s results, CFs were applied in a case study.

Results and discussion

SOC stocks of European soils were obtained according to land use and soil type classes (excluding non-European Union countries) for the three spatial scales. A database of European transformation and occupation CFs is also presented and analyzed. The aggregation of CFs at biophysical scales (ecoregion and climate region) is similar, but NUTS II aggregation of CFs is problematic. The application of the CFs in the case study revealed significant differences compared to the outcome of using CFs collected from other land use models.

Conclusions

This paper is the first operationalization using field measurements of an updated version of the ILCD-recommended model for land use impacts in LCA. We obtained CFs for SOC depletion in Europe that can be nested within CFs suggested by ILCD since our results possess better spatial resolution but are only for European Union countries. The case study application highlighted the need for inventories to improve the spatial resolution of the life cycle processes to match the detail of LCIA models.

     

Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach

Purpose

Land use is a main driver of global biodiversity loss and its environmental relevance is widely recognized in research on life cycle assessment (LCA). The inherent spatial heterogeneity of biodiversity and its non-uniform response to land use requires a regionalized assessment, whereas many LCA applications with globally distributed value chains require a global scale. This paper presents a first approach to quantify land use impacts on biodiversity across different world regions and highlights uncertainties and research needs.

Methods

The study is based on the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) land use assessment framework and focuses on occupation impacts, quantified as a biodiversity damage potential (BDP). Species richness of different land use types was compared to a (semi-)natural regional reference situation to calculate relative changes in species richness. Data on multiple species groups were derived from a global quantitative literature review and national biodiversity monitoring data from Switzerland. Differences across land use types, biogeographic regions (i.e., biomes), species groups and data source were statistically analyzed. For a data subset from the biome (sub-)tropical moist broadleaf forest, different species-based biodiversity indicators were calculated and the results compared.

Results and discussion

An overall negative land use impact was found for all analyzed land use types, but results varied considerably. Different land use impacts across biogeographic regions and taxonomic groups explained some of the variability. The choice of indicator also strongly influenced the results. Relative species richness was less sensitive to land use than indicators that considered similarity of species of the reference and the land use situation. Possible sources of uncertainty, such as choice of indicators and taxonomic groups, land use classification and regionalization are critically discussed and further improvements are suggested. Data on land use impacts were very unevenly distributed across the globe and considerable knowledge gaps on cause–effect chains remain.

Conclusions

The presented approach allows for a first rough quantification of land use impact on biodiversity in LCA on a global scale. As biodiversity is inherently heterogeneous and data availability is limited, uncertainty of the results is considerable. The presented characterization factors for BDP can approximate land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA studies that are not intended to directly support decision-making on land management practices. For such studies, more detailed and site-dependent assessments are required. To assess overall land use impacts, transformation impacts should additionally be quantified. Therefore, more accurate and regionalized data on regeneration times of ecosystems are needed.     

Land use impacts on biodiversity from kiwifruit production in New Zealand assessed with global and national datasets

Purpose

Habitat loss is a significant cause of biodiversity loss, but while its importance is widely recognized, there is no generally accepted method on how to include impacts on biodiversity from land use and land use changes in cycle assessment (LCA), and existing methods are suffering from data gaps. This paper proposes a methodology for assessing the impact of land use on biodiversity using ecological structures as opposed to information on number of species.

Methods

Two forms of the model (global and local scales) were used to assess environmental quality, combining ecosystem scarcity, vulnerability, and conditions for maintaining biodiversity. A case study for New Zealand kiwifruit production is presented. As part of the sensitivity analysis, model parameters (area and vulnerability) were altered and New Zealand datasets were also used.

Results and discussion

When the biodiversity assessment was implemented using a global dataset, the importance of productivity values was shown to depend on the area the results were normalized against. While the area parameter played an important role in the results, the proposed alternative vulnerability scale had little influence on the final outcome.

Conclusions

Overall, the paper successfully implements a model to assess biodiversity impacts in LCA using easily accessible, free-of-charge data and software. Comparing the model using global vs. national datasets showed that there is a potential loss of regional significance when using the generalized model with the global dataset. However, as a guide to assessing biodiversity impact, the model allows for consistent comparison of product systems on an international basis.     

Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air

Background, aim, and scope  

Human use of land areas leads to impacts on nature in several ways. Within the framework of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, it was stated that life cycle assessment (LCA) of land use should assess at least the impact on biodiversity, the impact on biotic production, and the impact on the regulating functions of the natural environment. This study focuses on the climatic impact of land use as determined by the CO₂ transfers between vegetation/soil and the atmosphere in the course of terrestrial release and re-storage of carbon.     

Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity

Purpose

The focus of land use modeling in life cycle impact assessment has been mainly on taxonomic measures of biodiversity, namely species richness (SR). However, increasing availability of trait data for species has led to the use of functional diversity (FD) as a promising metric to reflect the distinctiveness of species; this paper proposes the use of an FD index to calculate characterization factors (CFs) for land use impacts. Furthermore, we compare the results of the CFs to current practice and assess the increase in complexity introduced by the use of the new indicator.

Methods

The model proposed is based on data compiled by previous regional meta-analysis on SR and FD, in different land use types in the Americas. The taxonomic groups included were mammals, birds, and plants. Within each study, calculated values for FD for different land use types were compared with the natural or close-to-natural state, taken as the reference situation. FD values among different land uses were standardized, and CFs were calculated. The final results were then analyzed and compared by analysis of variance and post hoc tests. A sensitivity analysis was also applied to verify the influence on the choice of the reference state.

Results and discussion

The results show that significant differences exist between CFs for SR and FD metrics. Across all taxa, CFs differ significantly between land use types. The results support the use of CF for FD, as a complement to current practice. Distinct CFs should be applied for at least six groups of land use categories. The choice of reference land use type did not significantly alter the results but can be a source of variability. A sensitivity analysis evaluating the impact of alternate land use types as reference types found only few significant changes on the results.

Conclusions and recommendations

Given the results, we believe the use of CFs based on FD can help on the establishment of possible links between species loss and key ecosystem functions, i.e., on the association between the midpoint indicator (e.g., biodiversity loss) and the damage caused to ecosystem quality, in terms of functions lost. Basing CFs on FD is not without challenges. Such indices are data hungry (requiring species composition and traits) require more complex calculations than current common practice, including decisions on the choice of a method to calculate FD and the selection of traits.     

Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity

Goal, Scope and Background  

Land use and changes in land use have a significant impact on biodiversity. Still, there is no agreed upon methodology for how this impact should be assessed and included in LCA. This paper presents a methodology for including land use impact on biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment and provides a case example from forestry operations in Norway.     

Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: impacts of climate change,fine particulate matter formation,water consumption and land use

Purpose

Guidance is needed on best-suited indicators to quantify and monitor the man-made impacts on human health, biodiversity and resources. Therefore, the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative initiated a global consensus process to agree on an updated overall life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) framework and to recommend a non-comprehensive list of environmental indicators and LCIA characterization factors for (1) climate change, (2) fine particulate matter impacts on human health, (3) water consumption impacts (both scarcity and human health) and 4) land use impacts on biodiversity.

Methods

The consensus building process involved more than 100 world-leading scientists in task forces via multiple workshops. Results were consolidated during a 1-week Pellston Workshop? in January 2016 leading to the following recommendations.

Results and discussion

LCIA framework: The updated LCIA framework now distinguishes between intrinsic, instrumental and cultural values, with disability-adjusted life years (DALY) to characterize damages on human health and with measures of vulnerability included to assess biodiversity loss. Climate change impacts: Two complementary climate change impact categories are recommended: (a) The global warming potential 100 years (GWP 100) represents shorter term impacts associated with rate of change and adaptation capacity, and (b) the global temperature change potential 100 years (GTP 100) characterizes the century-scale long term impacts, both including climate-carbon cycle feedbacks for all climate forcers. Fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) health impacts: Recommended characterization factors (CFs) for primary and secondary (interim) PM_2.5 are established, distinguishing between indoor, urban and rural archetypes. Water consumption impacts: CFs are recommended, preferably on monthly and watershed levels, for two categories: (a) The water scarcity indicator “AWARE” characterizes the potential to deprive human and ecosystems users and quantifies the relative Available WAter REmaining per area once the demand of humans and aquatic ecosystems has been met, and (b) the impact of water consumption on human health assesses the DALYs from malnutrition caused by lack of water for irrigated food production. Land use impacts: CFs representing global potential species loss from land use are proposed as interim recommendation suitable to assess biodiversity loss due to land use and land use change in LCA hotspot analyses.

Conclusions

The recommended environmental indicators may be used to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals in order to quantify and monitor progress towards sustainable production and consumption. These indicators will be periodically updated, establishing a process for their stewardship.

     

A framework for modelling the transport and deposition of eroded particles towards water systems in a life cycle inventory

Purpose

Topsoil erosion due to land use has been characterised as one of the most damaging problems from the perspective of soil-resource depletion, changes in soil fertility and net soil productivity and damage to aquatic ecosystems. On-site environmental damage to topsoil by water erosion has begun to be considered in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) within the context of ecosystem services. However, a framework for modelling soil erosion by water, addressing off-site deposition in surface water systems, to support life cycle inventory (LCI) modelling is still lacking. The objectives of this paper are to conduct an overview of existing methods addressing topsoil erosion issues in LCA and to develop a framework to support LCI modelling of topsoil erosion, transport and deposition in surface water systems, to establish a procedure for assessing the environmental damage from topsoil erosion on water ecosystems.

Methods

The main features of existing methods addressing topsoil erosion issues in LCA are analysed, particularly with respect to LCI and Life Cycle Impact Assessment methodologies. An overview of nine topsoil erosion models is performed to estimate topsoil erosion by water, soil particle transport through the landscape and its in-stream deposition. The type of erosion evaluated by each of the models, as well as their applicable spatial scale, level of input data requirements and operational complexity issues are considered. The WATEM-SEDEM model is proposed as the most adequate to perform LCI erosion analysis.

Results and discussion

The definition of land use type, the area of assessment, spatial location and system boundaries are the main elements discussed. Depending on the defined system boundaries and the inherent routing network of the detached soil particles to the water systems, the solving of the multifunctionality of the system assumes particular relevance. Simplifications related to the spatial variability of the input data parameters are recommended. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is recommended to evaluate the effects of the transport capacity coefficient in the LCI results.

Conclusions

The published LCA methods focus only on the changes of soil properties due to topsoil erosion by water. This study provides a simplified framework to perform an LCI of topsoil erosion by considering off-site deposition of eroded particles in surface water systems. The widespread use of the proposed framework would require the development of LCI erosion databases. The issues of topsoil erosion impact on aquatic biodiversity, including the development of characterisation factors, are now the subject of on-going research.     

An LCA impact assessment model linking land occupation and malnutrition-related DALYs

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - So far, land occupation impact assessment models in life-cycle assessment have predominantly considered biodiversity, ecosystem quality and...     

Reference situations for biodiversity in life cycle assessments: conceptual bridging between LCA and conservation biology

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - In life cycle assessment (LCA) literature addressing land use impacts on biodiversity, several potential reference situations are proposed....     

Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production

Purpose

The inclusion of land-use activities in life cycle assessment (LCA) has been subject to much debate in the LCA community. Despite the recent methodological developments in this area, the impacts of land occupation and transformation on its long-term ability to produce biomass (referred to here as biotic production potential [BPP]) — an important endpoint for the Area of Protection (AoP) Natural Resources — have been largely excluded from LCAs partly due to the lack of life cycle impact assessment methods.

Materials and methods

Several possible methods/indicators for BPP associated with biomass, carbon balance, soil erosion, salinisation, energy, soil biota and soil organic matter (SOM) were evaluated. The latter indicator was considered the most appropriate for LCA, and characterisation factors for eight land use types at the climate region level were developed.

Results and discussion

Most of the indicators assessed address land-use impacts satisfactorily for land uses that include biotic production of some kind (agriculture or silviculture). However, some fail to address potentially important land use impacts from other life cycle stages, such as those arising from transport. It is shown that the change in soil organic carbon (SOC) can be used as an indicator for impacts on BPP, because SOC relates to a range of soil properties responsible for soil resilience and fertility.

Conclusions

The characterisation factors developed suggest that the proposed approach to characterize land use impacts on BBP, despite its limitations, is both possible and robust. The availability of land-use-specific and biogeographically differentiated data on SOC makes BPP impact assessments operational. The characterisation factors provided allow for the assessment of land-use impacts on BPP, regardless of where they occur thus enabling more complete LCAs of products and services. Existing databases on every country’s terrestrial carbon stocks and land use enable the operability of this method. Furthermore, BPP impacts will be better assessed by this approach as increasingly spatially specific data are available for all geographical regions of the world at a large scale. The characterisation factors developed are applied to the case studies (Part D of this special issue), which show the practical issues related to their implementation.     

Choice of land reference situation in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

Land use life cycle impact assessment is calculated as a distance to target value—the target being a desirable situation defined as a reference situation in Milà i Canals et al.’s (Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):2–4, 2007) widely accepted framework. There are several reference situations. This work aims to demonstrate the effect of the choice of reference situation on land impact indicators.

Methods

Various reference situations are reported from the perspective of the object of assessment in land in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies and the modeling choices used in life cycle land impact indicators. They are analyzed and classified according to additional LCA modeling requirements: the type of LCA approach (attributional or consequential), cultural perspectives (egalitarian, hierarchist or individualist), and temporal preference. Sets of characterization factors (CF) by impact pathway, land cover, and region are calculated for different reference situations. These sets of CFs by reference situation are all compared with a baseline set. A case study on different crop types is used to calculate impact scores from different sets of CFs and compare them.

Results and discussion

Comparing the rankings of the CFs from two different sets present inversions from 5% to 35% worldwide. Impact scores of the case study present inversions of 10% worldwide. These inversions demonstrate that the choice of a reference situation may reverse the LCA conclusions for the land use impact category. Moreover, these reference situations must be consistent with the different modeling requirements of an LCA study (approach, cultural perspective, and time preference), as defined in the goal and scope.

Conclusions

A decision tree is proposed to guide the selection of a consistent and suitable choice of reference situation when setting other LCA modeling requirements.

     

Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment

Goal, Scope and Background  

Land use is an economic activity that generates large benefits for human society. One side effect, however, is that it has caused many environmental problems throughout history and still does today. Biodiversity, in particular, has been negatively influenced by intensive agriculture, forestry and the increase in urban areas and infrastructure. Integrated assessment such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), thus, incorporate impacts on biodiversity. The main objective of this paper is to develop generic characterization factors for land use types using empirical information on species diversity from Central Europe, which can be used in the assessment method developed in the first part of this series of paper.     

Tracking current and forecasting future land-use impacts of agricultural value chains. 67th Discussion Forum on Life Cycle Assessment, 3rd of November 2017, Zurich,Switzerland

The 67th Discussion Forum on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), organised by partners of the European project RELIEF (RELIability of product Environmental Footprints), focused on methods for better understanding the impacts of land use linked to agricultural value chains. The first session of the forum was dedicated to methods that help in retrospective tracking of land use within complex supply chains. Novel approaches were presented for the integration of increasingly available spatially located land use data into LCA. The second session focused on forward-looking projections of land use change and included emerging, predictive methods for the modelling of land change. The third session considered impact assessment methods related to the use of land and their application together with land change modelling approaches. Discussions throughout the day centred on opportunities and challenges arising from integrating spatially located land use information into Life Cycle Assessment. Increasing amounts of spatially located land use data are becoming available and this could potentially increase the robustness and specificity of Life Cycle Assessment. However, the use of such data can be computationally expensive and requires the development of skills (i.e. use of geographical information systems (GIS) and model coding) within the LCA community. Land change modelling and ecosystem service modelling are associated with considerable uncertainty which must be communicated appropriately to stakeholders and decision-makers when interpreting results from an LCA. The new approaches were found to challenge aspects of the traditional LCA approach—particularly the division between the life cycle inventory and impact assessment and the assumption of linearity between scale and impacts when deriving characterisation factors. The presentations from the DF-67 are available for download (www.lcaforum.ch), and video recordings can be accessed online (http://www.video.ethz.ch/events/lca/2017/autumn/67th.html).     

Development of a dynamic LCA approach for the freshwater ecotoxicity impact of metals and application to a case study regarding zinc fertilization

Purpose

Temporal variability is a major source of uncertainty in current life cycle assessment (LCA) practice. In this paper, the recently developed dynamic LCA approach is adapted to assess freshwater ecotoxicity impacts of metals. The objective is to provide relevant information regarding the distribution and magnitude of metal impacts over time and to show whether the dynamic approach significantly influences the conclusions of an LCA. An LCA of zinc fertilization in agriculture was therefore carried out.

Methods

Dynamic LCA is based on the temporal disaggregation of the inventory, which is then assessed using time-horizon-dependent characterization factors. The USEtox multimedia fate model is used to develop time-horizon-dependent characterization factors for the freshwater ecotoxicity impact of 18 metals. Mass balance equations are solved dynamically to obtain fate factors as a function of time, providing both instantaneous (impact at time t following a pulse emission) and cumulative (total time-integrated impact following a pulse emission) characterization factors (CFs).

Results and discussion

Time-horizon-dependent CFs for freshwater ecotoxicity depend on the emission compartment and the metal itself. The two variables clearly influence metal fate aspects such as the maximum mass loading reaching freshwater and the persistence time of metals into this compartment. The time needed to reach the total impact for each metal may exceed thousands of years, so the time horizon used in the analysis constitutes a determining factor. The case study reveals that the results of a classical LCA are always higher than those obtained from a dynamic LCA, especially for short time horizons. For instance, at the end of a 100-year fertilization treatment, only 25 % of the impacts obtained through traditional LCA occurred.

Conclusions

Results show that dynamic LCA enables assessing freshwater ecotoxicity impacts of metals over time, allowing decision makers to test the sensitivity of their results to the choice of a time horizon. For the particular case study of zinc fertilization over a period of 20 years, the use of time-horizon-dependent CFs is more important in determining the dynamics of impacts than the timing of emission.