Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale

Purpose

To assess the diverse environmental impacts of land use, a standardization of quantifying land use elementary flows is needed in life cycle assessment (LCA). The purpose of this paper is to propose how to standardize the land use classification and how to regionalize land use elementary flows.

Materials and methods

In life cycle inventories, land occupation and transformation are elementary flows providing relevant information on the type and location of land use for land use impact assessment. To find a suitable land use classification system for LCA, existing global land cover classification systems and global approaches to define biogeographical regions are reviewed.

Results and discussion

A new multi-level classification of land use is presented. It consists of four levels of detail ranging from very general global land cover classes to more refined categories and very specific categories indicating land use intensities. Regionalization is built on five levels, first distinguishing between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine biomes and further specifying climatic regions, specific biomes, ecoregions and finally indicating the exact geo-referenced information of land use. Current land use inventories and impact assessment methods do not always match and hinder a comprehensive assessment of land use impact. A standardized definition of land use types and geographic location helps to overcome this gap and provides the opportunity to test the optimal resolution of land cover types and regionalization for each impact pathway.

Conclusions and recommendation

The presented approach provides the necessary flexibility to providers of inventories and developers of impact assessment methods. To simplify inventories and impact assessment methods of land use, we need to find archetypical situations across impact pathways, land use types and regions, and aggregate inventory entries and methods accordingly.

     

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Purpose

As a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

Results

Recommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for.

Discussion

The presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected.

Conclusions and recommendations

In this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional ecological models running in the foreground system, relative weighting of the ecosystem services midpoints and indirect land use.     

Environmental impacts of European trade: interpreting results of process-based LCA and environmentally extended input–output analysis towards hotspot identification

Purpose

Trade is increasingly considered a significant contributor to environmental impacts. The assessment of the impacts of trade is usually performed via environmentally extended input–output analysis (EEIOA). However, process-based life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to traded goods allows increasing the granularity of the analysis and may be essential to unveil specific impacts due to traded products.

Methods

This study assesses the environmental impacts of the European trade, considering two modelling approaches: respectively EEIOA, using EXIOBASE 3 as supporting database, and process-based LCA. The interpretation of the results is pivotal to improve the robustness of the assessment and the identification of hotspots. The hotspot identification focuses on temporal trends and on the contribution of products and substances to the overall impacts. The inventories of elementary flows associated with EU trade, for the period 2000–2010, have been characterized considering 14 impact categories according to the Environmental Footprint (EF2017) Life Cycle Impact Assessment method.

Results and discussion

The two modelling approaches converge in highlighting that in the period 2000–2010: (i) EU was a net importer of environmental impacts; (ii) impacts of EU trade and EU trade balance (impacts of imports minus impacts of exports) were increasing over time, regarding most impact categories under study; and (iii) similar manufactured products were the main contributors to the impacts of exports from EU, regarding most impact categories. However, some results are discrepant: (i) larger impacts are obtained from IO analysis than from process-based LCA, regarding most impact categories, (ii) a different set of most contributing products is identified by the two approaches in the case of imports, and (iii) large differences in the contributions of substances are observed regarding resource use, toxicity, and ecotoxicity indicators.

Conclusions

The interpretation step is crucial to unveil the main hotspots, encompassing a comparison of the differences between the two methodologies, the assumptions, the data coverage and sources, the completeness of inventory as basis for impact assessment. The main driver for the observed divergences is identified to be the differences in the impact intensities of goods, both induced by inherent properties of the IO and life cycle inventory databases and by some of this study’s modelling choices. The combination of IO analysis and process-based LCA in a hybrid framework, as performed in other studies but generally not at the macro-scale of the full trade of a country or region, appears a potential important perspective to refine such an assessment in the future.

     

Reviewing the potential for including habitat fragmentation to improve life cycle impact assessments for land use impacts on biodiversity

Purpose

The biosphere is progressively subjected to a variety of pressures resulting from anthropogenic activities. Habitat conversion, resulting from anthropogenic land use, is considered the dominant factor driving terrestrial biodiversity loss. Hence, adequate modelling of land use impacts on biodiversity in decision-support tools, like life cycle assessment (LCA), is a priority. State-of-the-art life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) characterisation models for land use impacts on biodiversity translate natural habitat transformation and occupation into biodiversity impacts. However, the currently available models predominantly focus on total habitat loss and ignore the spatial configuration of the landscape. That is, habitat fragmentation effects are ignored in current LCIAs with the exception of one recently developed method.

Methods

Here, we review how habitat fragmentation may affect biodiversity. In addition, we investigate how land use impacts on biodiversity are currently modelled in LCIA and how missing fragmentation impacts can influence the LCIA model results. Finally, we discuss fragmentation literature to evaluate possible methods to include habitat fragmentation into advanced characterisation models.

Results and discussion

We found support in available ecological literature for the notion that habitat fragmentation is a relevant factor when assessing biodiversity loss. Moreover, there are models that capture fragmentation effects on biodiversity that have the potential to be incorporated into current LCIA characterisation models.

Conclusions and recommendations

To enhance the credibility of LCA biodiversity assessments, we suggest that available fragmentation models are adapted, expanded and subsequently incorporated into advanced LCIA characterisation models and promote further efforts to capture the remaining fragmentation effects in LCIA characterisation models.

     

Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox? characterization factors

Purpose

In life cycle impact assessment, normalization can be a very effective tool for the life cycle assessment practitioner to interpret results and put them into perspective. The paper presents normalization references for the recently developed USEtox? model, which aims at calculating globally applicable characterization factors. Normalization references for Europe and North America are determined, and guidance for expansions to other geographical regions is provided.

Materials and methods

The base years of the European and North American inventories are 2004 and 2002/2008, respectively. Emission data were extracted from two literature sources referring to each of the considered regions. The inventory for North America was adapted to avoid extrapolation of data from other regions and thus bring consistency with the emission inventory for Europe. In spite of different inventory assumptions, a similar coverage of substances was obtained for both regions with relatively high representation of metals and a number of organic compounds, mainly consisting of non-methane volatile organic compounds and pesticides. The two inventory sets were eventually characterized with the characterization factors (CFs) calculated with the version 1.0 of the USEtox? model and substance database; both interim and recommended CFs were used.

Results and discussion

Normalization references are provided for Europe and North America for the three USEtox? toxic impact categories; ratios between the normalization references for the two regions in all cases lie below a factor of 3. Causes for the observed discrepancies are found to be different inventory assumptions as well as variations in the type and intensity of actual emissions between the two regions. Additional causes are inventories that only cover a limited number of substances, and the characterization model, which can only provide interim factors for certain substances like metal compounds. Based on these causes and on a review of recent studies on normalization references, a list of substances to be prioritized when collecting emission data was built, demonstrating the importance of metals.

Conclusions

In the perspective of further refining the presented normalization references and of calculating new references for other regions, guidance is provided including a list of priority substances that should be considered when building emission inventories for normalization references.     

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.     

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.

     

Identification of methodological challenges remaining in the assessment of a water scarcity footprint: a review

Purpose

This work presents a systematic review, updating the information on the currently available methods to calculate the water footprint (WF), and addressing the following methodological challenges, as they have not been deeply studied to date: (1) accounting and assessing the environmental impacts related to changes in evapotranspiration (ET); (2) inventory of actual blue freshwater consumption in agriculture; (3) temporal and spatial variation to establish explicit characterisation factors (CFs) and (4) adequate connection between inventory flows and spatio-temporal explicit CFs.

Methods

A systematic review relying on the guidelines of Pullin and Stewart (Conserv Biol 20(6):1647–1656, 2006) was conducted. Taking into account five specific formulated research questions in the WF field, WF studies were selected based on two ‘types’ of screening criteria: keyword searches and the WF study filter.

Results and discussion

From the 128 papers in peer-reviewed journals on product WF from a life cycle perspective, this literature review shows that major methodological challenges remain partially unsolved, which could degrade the accuracy of product WF assessments. To understand how land use affects ET, and depending on the land cover and size of the land use production system, actual ET can be estimated based on meteorological data on water balance equations embedded in crop and forest growth models, from field measurements at meteorological stations and more recently from remote sensing. For accounting for blue water consumption in agriculture, there are two types of approaches that lead to quite different results: inventory from actual farming records of applied irrigation and inventory from modelled ET associated with irrigation. Depending on the question being addressed, the practitioner can apply either approach. Furthermore, when a single freshwater scarcity CF is determined for large sub-watersheds, especially when the sub-watersheds have non-uniform freshwater availability and demand, uncertainty in the freshwater use-related impacts is introduced. Regarding the connection between inventory flows and spatio-temporal explicit CFs, the difficulty in identifying the exact location of background processes and characterising the local environmental characteristics (e.g. edaphoclimatic conditions, land cover) can hinder the elaboration of an accurate spatially differentiated impact assessment, as more generic CFs can be applied.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows that there are clearly future research needs with respect to the interrelations between freshwater use and potential damages in the areas of protection of resources, human health and ecosystem quality. It is also of paramount importance to understand the effects of land use and land cover change and water irrigation on WF damage.

     

Environmental impacts of wooden,plastic, and wood-polymer composite pallet: a life cycle assessment approach

Purpose

Waste recycling is one of the essential tools for the European Union’s transition towards a circular economy. One of the possibilities for recycling wood and plastic waste is to utilise it to produce composite product. This study analyses the environmental impacts of producing composite pallets made of wood and plastic waste from construction and demolition activities in Finland. It also compares these impacts with conventional wooden and plastic pallets made of virgin materials.

Methods

Two different life cycle assessment methods were used: attributional life cycle assessment and consequential life cycle assessment. In both of the life cycle assessment studies, 1000 trips were considered as the functional unit. Furthermore, end-of-life allocation formula such as 0:100 with a credit system had been used in this study. This study also used sensitivity analysis and normalisation calculation to determine the best performing pallet.

Result and discussion

In the attributional cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment, wood-polymer composite pallets had the lowest environmental impact in abiotic depletion potential (fossil), acidification potential, eutrophication potential, global warming potential (including biogenic carbon), global warming potential (including biogenic carbon) with indirect land-use change, and ozone depletion potential. In contrast, wooden pallets showed the lowest impact on global warming potential (excluding biogenic carbon). In the consequential life cycle assessment, wood-polymer composite pallets showed the best environmental impact in all impact categories. In both attributional and consequential life cycle assessments, plastic pallet had the maximum impact. The sensitivity analysis and normalisation calculation showed that wood-polymer composite pallets can be a better choice over plastic and wooden pallet.

Conclusions

The overall results of the pallets depends on the methodological approach of the LCA. However, it can be concluded that the wood-polymer composite pallet can be a better choice over the plastic pallet and, in most cases, over the wooden pallet. This study will be of use to the pallet industry and relevant stakeholders.

     

Effect of methodological choice on the estimated impacts of wool production and the significance for LCA-based rating systems

Purpose

One aim of LCA-based rating tools developed by the apparel industry is to promote a change in demand for textiles by influencing consumer preferences based on the environmental footprint of textiles. Despite a growing consensus that footprints developed using attributional LCA (aLCA) are not suitable to inform decisions that will impact supply and demand, these tools continue to use aLCA. This paper analyses the application of the LCA methods to wool production, specifically the application of aLCA methods that provide a retrospective assessment of impacts and consequential (cLCA) methods that estimate the impacts of a change.

Methods

Attributional and consequential life cycle inventories (LCIs) were developed and analysed to examine how the different methodological approaches affect the estimated environmental impacts of wool.

Results and discussion

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of aLCI and cLCI for wool indicates that estimated global warming and water stress impacts may be considerably lower for additional production of wool, as estimated by cLCIA, than for current production as estimated by aLCIA. However, fossil resource impacts for additional production may be greater than for current production when increased wool production was assumed to displace dedicated sheep meat production.

Conclusions

This work supports the notion that the use of a retrospective assessment method (i.e. aLCA) to produce information that will guide consumer preferences may not adequately represent the impacts of a consumer’s choice because the difference between aLCIA and cLCIA results may be relatively large. As such, rating tools based on attributional LCA are unlikely to be an adequate indicator of the sustainability of textiles used in the apparel industry.

     

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.     

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.

     

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.

     

National Forest Inventories in North America for monitoring forest tree species diversity

Abstract

A successful forest tree diversity-monitoring programme delivers reliable estimates of rates of occurrence, the spatial extent and the abundance of all forest-dwelling tree species. Sample-based estimators of these characteristics are provided for North American national forest inventories and discussed in the context of monitoring for forest tree diversity. The expected performance of the Canadian, the United States, and Mexican national forest inventory is quantified for three regions in each country. As expected, estimates for many less common and rare species are imprecise and sometimes these species are missed completely. We suggest augmenting existing national forest inventories by purposive sampling for these species.     

Conceptualising attributional LCA is necessary for resolving methodological issues such as the appropriate form of land use baseline

Purpose

The purposes of this commentary are to further an on-going debate concerning the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and to respond to a number of arguments advanced by Soimakallio (Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1364–1375, 2016). The commentary also seeks to clarify the conceptual nature of attributional LCA.

Methods

The overarching approach for resolving the question of the appropriate form of land use baseline for attributional LCA is to clarify what attributional LCA is seeking to represent, i.e. methodological questions can only be resolved if it is clear what the method is seeking to do. An illustrative example is used to explore the different results produced by ‘natural regeneration’ and ‘natural’ baselines.

Results and discussion

It is proposed that attributional LCA should be conceptualised as an inventory of anthropogenic impacts, conceptually akin to other forms of environmental inventory, such as national GHG inventories. The use of natural regeneration baselines is not consistent with this conceptualisation of attributional LCA, and such baselines necessitate further ad hoc or arbitrary adjustments, such as arbitrary temporal windows or the inconsistent treatment of natural emissions.

Conclusions

The use of natural regeneration baselines may be motivated by the impulse to make attributional LCA both an inventory-type method and an assessment of system-wide change. Pulling attributional LCA in two different directions at once results in a conceptually and methodologically incoherent method. The solution is to recognise attributional LCA as an inventory-type method, which therefore has distinct but complementary uses to consequential LCA, which is an assessment of system-wide change.

     

Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment

Purpose  

Uncertainties in land use damage modeling are recognized, but hardly quantified in life cycle assessment (LCA). The objective of this study is to analyze the influence of various key assumptions and uncertainties within the development of characterisation factors (CFs) for land use in LCA. We assessed the influence on land use CFs of (1) parameter uncertainty and (2) the choice for a constant or land use-specific species accumulation factor z and including or excluding regional effects.     

Regional normalisation figures for Australia 2005/2006—inventory and characterisation data from a production perspective

Background, aim, and scope  Under ISO 14040, normalisation is an optional step in life-cycle impact assessment designed to provide environmental context by indicating the relative contribution that the product system under investigation makes in the various impact categories, in comparison to a suitable reference scenario. The challenge for many studies, however, is to provide the appropriate context by adopting a normalisation reference scenario that is well matched to the product system’s parent environment. Australia has a highly urbanised population, mainly contained in just eight capital cities. In the context of normalising environmental impacts against the profile of an ‘average’ Australian, this poses a unique problem, compared to other industrialised regions of the world. This study aims to use publicly available data on environmentally relevant emissions and non-renewable resource consumption in 2005/2006 to develop regional normalisation data for Australia, at both inventory and characterisation levels. Methods  The regionalised inventory of emissions and resources production is constructed using a framework of 60 regional Statistical Divisions from the Australian Standard Geographical Classification system. Data from the National Pollutant Inventory, Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (energy and mineral statistics) are used as the basis for the inventories. These data could subsequently be used by any LCA practitioner to construct characterisation or normalisation data by impact category, according to any preferred life-cycle impact assessment methodology, for any of 60 regions in the country. In this study, the regionalised inventory data were assessed using the CML 2001 baseline and IMPACT 2002+ life-cycle impact assessment methods in SimaPro v.7.1.5. Results  Characterisation results from the two LCIA methods for Australia’s eight state and territory capital cities are presented, together with an overall national profile. These data are also shown on a per capita basis to highlight the relative environmental profiles of citizens in the different cities. Interestingly, many significant impacts occur outside of the capital cities but are linked to facilities providing the majority of their services and products to these urban centres (e.g. power stations, minerals processing). Comparison of the average Australian data with the Netherlands, Western Europe and the World shows the results to be broadly similar. Discussion  Analysis of the CML 2001 baseline characterisation results, on a per capita basis, shows substantial differences between the major cities of the country. In each impact category, these differences can be successfully traced to specific emissions in the raw data sources, the influence of prevailing climate conditions, or factors such as the mix of non-renewable energy resources in each state. Some weaknesses are also evident in the collection and estimation techniques of the raw data sources and in the application of European-based impact assessment models. Australia is a net exporter of many products, particularly natural resources. Therefore, a significant part of the characterisation data presented here for Australia represents products that will be consumed in other parts of the world. Similarly, at a regional level, there will be many inventory items produced in one area yet consumed in another. In this way, the impacts associated with consumption (particularly in densely populated but largely industry-free cities) are dissipated into other production centres. Conclusions  This study provides the first set of comprehensive inventory and characterisation data for Australia from a production perspective, disaggregated at a regional level. Despite Australia’s unique spatial demography, it is now possible to properly characterise the relative significance of environmental impacts occurring in any of 60 specific regions across the country. Recommendations and perspectives  Australia’s unique concentration of urban populations demonstrates the importance of regionally specific environmental assessments. Whilst the data presented in this study will be of most use to Australian LCA practitioners, it is also demonstrative of the broader global distribution of environmental impacts between urban and non-urban areas. The disconnection of environmental impacts between the place of production and the place of consumption is highlighted by this study and should be considered in any studies using these normalisation data for environmental profiling. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.