Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use

Purpose  

Geospatial details about land use are necessary to assess its potential impacts on biodiversity. Geographic information systems (GIS) are adept at modeling land use in a spatially explicit manner, while life cycle assessment (LCA) does not conventionally utilize geospatial information. This study presents a proof-of-concept approach for coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use and applies it to a case study of ethanol production from agricultural crops in California.     

Land use indicators in life cycle assessment

Purpose  

Inclusion of land use-related environmental aspects into LCA methodology has been under active development in recent years. Although many indicators have been developed and proposed for different aspects of land use (climate change, biodiversity, resource depletion and soil quality), many of indicators have, as yet, not been tested and compared in LCA applications. The aim of this study is to test the different LCIA indicators in practice in a case study of beer production.     

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.     

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.     

Comparing land use impacts using ecosystem quality,biogenic carbon emissions,and restoration costs in a case study of hydropower plants in Norway

Purpose

Habitat destruction is today the most severe threat to global biodiversity. Despite decades of efforts, there is still no proper methodology on how to assess all aspects of impacts on biodiversity from land use and land use changes (LULUC) in life cycle analysis (LCA). A majority of LCA studies on land extensive activities still do not include LULUC. In this study, we test different approaches for assessing the impact of land use and land use change related to hydropower for use in LCA and introduce restoration cost as a new approach.

Methods

We assessed four hydropower plant projects in planning phase (two upgrading plants with reservoir and two new run-of-river plants) in Southern Norway with comparable geography, biodiversity, and annual energy production capacity. LULUC was calculated for each habitat type, based on mapping of present and future land use, and was further allocated to energy production for each power plant. Three different approaches to assess land use impact were included: ecosystem scarcity/vulnerability, biogenic greenhouse gas (bGHG) emissions, and the cost of restoring affected habitats. Restoration cost represents a novel approach to LCA for measuring impact of LULUC.

Results and discussion

Overall, the three approaches give similar rankings of impacts: larger impact for small and new power plants and less for larger and expanding existing plants. Reservoirs caused a larger total area affected. Permanent infrastructure has a more similar absolute impact for run-of-river and reservoir-based hydropower, and consequently give relatively larger impact for smaller run-of-river hydropower. All approaches reveal impacts on wetland ecosystems as most important relative to other ecosystems. The methods used for all three approaches would benefit from higher resolution data on land use, habitats, and soil types. Total restoration cost is not accurate, due to uncertainty of offset ratios, but relative restoration costs may still be used to rank restoration alternatives and compare them to the costs of biodiversity offsets.

Conclusions

The different approaches assess different aspects of land use impacts, but they all show large variation of impact between the studied hydropower plants, which shows the importance of including LULUC in LCA for hydropower projects. Improved data of total restoration cost (and cost accounting) are needed to implement this approach in future LCA.

     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Adapting the LCA framework to environmental assessment in land planning

Purpose

Since 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.

Methods

Life 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 discussion

A 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.

Conclusions

This 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.).     

Including CO<Subscript>2</Subscript>-emission equivalence of changes in land surface albedo in life cycle assessment. Methodology and case study on greenhouse agriculture

Purpose  

Climate change impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA) are usually assessed as the emissions of greenhouse gases expressed with the global warming potential (GWP). However, changes in surface albedo caused by land use change can also contribute to change the Earth’s energy budget. In this paper we present a methodology for including in LCA the climatic impacts of land surface albedo changes, measured as CO₂-eq. emissions or emission offsets.     

Land use impact assessment in the construction sector: an analysis of LCIA models and case study application

Purpose

Land use is a potentially important impact category in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of buildings. Three research questions are addressed in this paper: Is land use a decisive factor in the environmental impact of buildings?; Is it important to include the primary land use of buildings in the assessment?; and How does the environmental performance of solid structure and timber frame dwellings differ when assessed by distinct available models for quantifying land use impacts?

Methods

This paper compares several operational land use impact assessment models, which are subsequently implemented in an LCA case study comparing a building constructed using timber frame versus a solid structure. Different models were used for addressing the different research questions.

Results and discussion

The results reveal that contrasting decisions may be supported by LCA study results, depending on whether or not and how land use is included in the assessment. The analysis also highlights the need to include the building land footprint in the assessment and to better distinguish building locations in current land use impact assessment models.

Conclusions

Selecting land use assessment models that are most appropriate to the goals of the study is recommended as different models assess different environmental issues related to land use. In general, the combination of two land use assessment methods for buildings is recommended, i.e. soil organic matter (SOM) of Milà i Canals and Eco-indicator 99.     

Impacts from hydropower production on biodiversity in an LCA framework—review and recommendations

Purpose

Expanding renewable energy production is widely accepted as a promising strategy in climate change mitigation. However, even renewable energy production has some environmental impacts, some of which are not (yet) covered in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). We aim to identify the most important cause-effect pathways related to hydropower production on biodiversity, as one of the most common renewable energy sources, and to provide recommendations for future characterization factor (CF) development.

Methods

We start with a comprehensive review of cause-effect chains related to hydropower production for both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. Next, we explore contemporary coverage of impacts on biodiversity from hydropower production in LCA. Further, we select cause-effect pathways displaying some degree of consistency with existing LCA frameworks for method development recommendations. For this, we compare and contrast different hydrologic models and discuss how existing LCIA methodologies might be modified or combined to improve the assessment of biodiversity impacts from hydropower production.

Results and discussion

Hydropower impacts were categorized into three overarching impact pathways: (1) freshwater habitat alteration, (2) water quality degradation, and (3) land use change. Impacts included within these pathways are flow alteration, geomorphological alteration to habitats, changes in water quality, habitat fragmentation, and land use transformation. For the majority of these impacts, no operational methodology exists currently. Furthermore, the seasonal nature of river dynamics requires a level of temporal resolution currently beyond LCIA modeling capabilities. State-of-the-art LCIA methods covering biodiversity impacts exist for land use and impacts from consumptive water use that can potentially be adapted to cases involving hydropower production, while other impact pathways need novel development.

Conclusions

In the short term, coverage of biodiversity impacts from hydropower could be significantly improved by adding a time step representing seasonal ecological water demands to existing LCIA methods. In the long term, LCIA should focus on ecological response curves based on multiple hydrologic indices to capture the spatiotemporal aspects of river flow, by using models based on the “ecological limits to hydrologic alteration” (ELOHA) approach. This approach is based on hydrologic alteration-ecological response curves, including site-specific environmental impact data. Though data-intensive, ELOHA represents the potential to build a global impact assessment framework covering multiple ecological indicators from local impacts. Further, we recommend LCIA methods based on degree of regulation for geomorphologic alteration and a fragmentation index based on dam density for “freshwater habitat alteration,” which our review identified as significant unquantified threats to aquatic biodiversity.

     

Assessing potential desertification environmental impact in life cycle assessment

Background, aim and scope  

Life cycle assessment (LCA) enables the objective assessment of global environmental burdens associated with the life cycle of a product or a production system. One of the main weaknesses of LCA is that, as yet, there is no scientific agreement on the assessment methods for land-use related impacts, which results in either the exclusion or the lack of assessment of local environmental impacts related to land use. The inclusion of the desertification impact in LCA studies of any human activity can be important in high-desertification risk regions.     

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.