Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo,harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward |
| |
| Authors: | John S Woods Mattia Damiani Peter Fantke Andrew D Henderson John M Johnston Jane Bare Serenella Sala Danielle Maia de Souza Stephan Pfister Leo Posthuma Ralph K Rosenbaum Francesca Verones |
| |
| Institution: | 1.Industrial Ecology Programme,Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU),Trondheim,Norway;2.ITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier,ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair,Montpellier,France;3.Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering,Technical University of Denmark,Kgs. Lyngby,Denmark;4.University of Texas School of Public Health,Austin,USA;5.Noblis, Inc.,San Antonio,USA;6.US EPA, Office of Research and Development,National Exposure Research Laboratory,Athens,USA;7.US EPA, Office of Research and Development,National Risk Management Research Laboratory,Cincinnati,USA;8.European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D: Sustainable Resource, Bioeconomy unit,Ispra,Italy;9.Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science,University of Alberta,Edmonton,Canada;10.ETH Zurich,Institute of Environmental Engineering,Zürich,Switzerland;11.RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment),Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health,Bilthoven,the Netherlands;12.Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research,Radboud University Nijmegen,Nijmegen,The Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | PurposeLife cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results.MethodsWe analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality.Results and discussionWe recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richness-related metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators—which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss—should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results.ConclusionsWe call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
