Linking land use inventories to biodiversity impact assessment methods

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - There is generally a mismatch in the land use classification of life cycle inventory (LCI) databases and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA)...     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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...     

陆地生态系统服务与生物多样性研究进展

在生物多样性迅速消失的压力下,人类面临生态系统服务质量严重下降的威胁。为了使生态系统的重要功能更直观的展现在人们面前,许多学者把生态系统服务对人类的惠益进行整理分类,最有影响力的是千年生态系统评估(MA,Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)把生态系统服务分为供给、调节、文化和支持服务四类,服务的核心是生态系统的产品、过程和格局。生态系统服务的识别与分类是生态系统功能的对象化过程,也是以人类需求来审视生态系统的过程。生态系统通过结构-过程-功能这一途径来实现生态系统服务,各种服务的直接动力来源于自然界生物地球化学循环,生物多样性通过生态系统属性和过程来影响生态系统服务形成和维持。生物多样性越高,生态系统功能性状的范围越广,生态系统服务质量就越高、越稳定。全球变化中的土地利用和土地覆盖变化是生物多样性快速下降的主要原因,也是目前影响生态系统服务最广泛、最剧烈的驱动力,而这正是人类活动造成的,人类需求和生态系统有限的服务能力之间在不同尺度表现出严重冲突。要提高生态系统服务质量,要在不同区域进行重点不同的布局,尽可能的扩大生态系统规模和提高生态系统功能,核心是提高生物多样性水平。     

中国超大城市土地利用状况及其生态系统服务动态演变

随着城市的快速发展,城市用地及其生态服务功能也在不断发生变化。近十几年间,中国城市发展迅速,超大规模城市的土地利用以及生态系统服务动态演变的一般特征以及差异值得关注。研究以中国1995年非农业人口超过200万的9个超大城市为研究对象(包括上海、北京、天津、重庆、南京、西安、哈尔滨、武汉和广州),对各城市不同用地类型在1995年至2008年这一阶段的利用动态度进行分析。然后以用地结构和谢高地等^[1]提出的大陆生态系统服务价值当量表为基础估算了城市土地生态系统服务价值,并且对城市土地利用结构与生态系统服务之间的关系进行了分析。最后为证明研究结果可信,对每种用地类型对单位面积生态系统服务价值系数的依赖性进行了敏感性分析。结果表明,9个超大城市用地结构变化趋势总体一致, 主要缩减地类为农田和水体,增长地类为建设用地、林地和城市绿地。单位面积生态系统服务价值量1995年总体范围为4996-8854元/hm²,排序为广州>武汉>哈尔滨>南京>西安>天津>北京>上海>重庆,2008年范围为4746-8777元/hm²,排序为广州>哈尔滨>西安>上海>重庆>北京>武汉>南京>天津,各城市均值由1995年的7189元/hm²降到2008年的6987元/hm²。人均享有生态系统服务价值量1995年总体范围为284-7983元/人,排序为哈尔滨>西安>北京>广州>武汉>南京>天津>重庆>上海,2008年范围为305-4538元/人,排序为哈尔滨>重庆>西安>广州>武汉>北京>南京>天津>上海,各城市平均值由1995年的1677元/人降到2008年的1230元/人。超大城市土地生态系统服务动态演变的一致特征是人均享有生态系统服务价值下降,主要减弱的生态系统服务为水文调节和粮食生产,增强的服务为娱乐文化和废物处理,而单位面积生态系统服务价值与生态系统服务结构9个城市之间存在差异。敏感性分析结果显示所有土地类型的敏感度指数皆小于1,证明研究结果可信。研究结果说明城市可持续发展主要面临的问题之一是建设用地无序扩张和各类生态用地的配置不均衡,可为中国迅速城市化的新兴大型城市的生态建设提供参考和指导。     

LCA impact assessment categories

A technical framework is presented to evaluate the strengths and the limitations of LCA impact assessment categories to yield accurate, useful results. The framework integrates the inherent characteristics of life-cycle inventory (LCI) data sets, characteristics of individual impact categories, how impact categories are defined, and the models used to characterize different categories. The sources for uncertainty in impact assessment are derived from the basic LCI procedures and the complexity of environmental processes and mechanisms. The noteworthy LCI procedures are: (1) the collection and aggregation of data across a comprehensive product system, (2) co-product and recycling allocation for releases and resources, and (3) the conversion of these data by functional unit calculations. These operations largely remove spatial and temporal considerations, resulting in analytical and interpretive limitations that vary in magnitude for different impact assessment categories. The framework shows two groups of categories where LCA results may be insufficient for making comparisons: (1) categories that involve local and/or transient processes and (2) categories that involve non-mass loading, biological parameters, such as biodiversity, habitat alteration, and toxicity. The framework also shows that how impact categories are defined complicates their use. Some categories are based on objective stressor-effect networks using known environmental mechanisms. In contrast, other categories are defined using various levels of subjective judgment to address either highly complex or unknown mechanisms. Finally, the framework shows that differences in the quality and detail of information provided by various models used during characterization also influence the accuracy and usefulness of the results. In summary, the framework indicates that (1) the various uncertainties in each individual category have a a number of different technical origins and that (2) the degree of uncertainty varies significantly between categories. As a result, interpretation and valuation cannot presume an equivalency of processes or merit behind numerical values for different categories. The framework can be used to initially identify and track these uncertainties to improve LCA impact assessment interpretation and application.     

IPBES框架下的生物多样性和生态系统服务区域评估及政策经验

生物多样性和生态系统服务为人类的生计和良好的生活质量奠定了重要基础。然而, 越来越多的研究表明, 生物多样性和生态系统服务在全球范围内的持续下降使自然对人类的贡献大幅降低。多尺度评估能够说明不同尺度下生物多样性的现状, 有利于制定适合区域特点、符合国情的决策建议。2013年12月, 生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES)通过第一轮工作方案, 决定开展“区域/次区域生物多样性和生态系统服务评估”(简称“区域评估”), 即评估亚洲-太平洋(简称亚太)、美洲、非洲以及欧洲-中亚四大地理区域的生物多样性和生态系统服务。区域评估报告及其决策者摘要已在IPBES第六次全体会议上(2018年3月, 哥伦比亚麦德林)审议通过。本文概述了四大地理区域的生物多样性的重要性、生物多样性保护领域取得的进展、面临的主要危机和机遇, 探讨了评估对其他国际进程的影响, 综合分析了各区域生物多样性和生态系统服务的特点以及各区域评估结果的差别, 总结了评估的政策经验, 以期为中国的生物多样性保护提供科学参考。     

基于FLUS-InVEST模型的京津冀多情景土地利用变化模拟及其对生态系统服务功能的影响

研究未来不同情景下土地利用变化对区域生态系统服务的影响,可以为城市可持续发展的规划和决策提供有效支持。以京津冀城市群为研究区域,首先利用未来土地利用模拟（FLUS）模型模拟2045年自然发展情景、耕地保护情景和生态保护情景下的土地利用空间分布格局,并结合InVEST模型模拟研究区不同情景下的生境质量、产水量、碳储量、土壤保持量和水质净化服务,在此基础上运用层次分析法构建综合生态系统服务指数（CES）,从空间上反映多种生态系统服务的供给总量,研究不同情景下土地利用变化对生态系统服务功能的影响。研究结果表明：①FLUS模型的模拟精度较高,适用于研究区的土地利用模拟。②在生态保护情景下,除产水量相比2015年下降2.47%外,其他几种生态系统服务均有最大幅度的上升,且这4种生态系统服务在西北山区都出现增加的现象;自然发展情景下,城镇用地和农村居民点的扩张引发了大量的碳储量和生境质量损失;耕地保护情景下,水质净化能力出现最大程度的下降。③自然发展情景下京津冀区域CES的损失最大。CES下降幅度最大的区域主要发生在林地被城镇用地侵占,其次是林地被农村居民点侵占的地区,导致生境质量、碳储量和水质净化能力同时下降;在生态保护情景下,林地的增加促进了多种生态系统服务功能同时提升,京津冀区域的CES大幅提高,表明生态保护情景是最有利于可持续发展的土地利用方案。但同时需注意大量造林可能带来的水资源短缺,要因地制宜保护生态环境。研究结果可以为京津冀城市群可持续发展政策的制定提供参考依据,为研究未来不同政策情景下土地利用变化对生态系统服务的影响提供新思路。     

厦门岛生态系统服务对土地利用变化的响应

土地利用变化是对生态系统服务产生胁迫的主要驱动力之一。论文以厦门岛为例,分析生态系统服务对土地利用变化的响应,基于对2007年中国陆地生态系统服务价值当量修正的两种方法,对厦门岛生态系统服务价值(ESV)变化作出评估。研究表明:1950～2007年间,两种方法得出的厦门岛ESV变化趋势一致,随岛内土地利用强度逐年增加均呈减少态势,1987年前厦门岛ESV因水域和湿地增加12.87 km²,而提高了1 076 655元;1984年厦门岛设立经济特区后快速城市化导致ESV急剧降低,1987年后年均损失达619 773元。随着厦门岛内各土地类型利用趋于饱和,及2006年厦门环东海域综合整治工程等生态措施的实施,预计未来ESV降低的趋势将得以缓解。从生态系统服务价值全面修正的方法解决了仅从供给服务方面修正造成结果偏高的问题。     

土地利用变化对寻乌县生态系统服务价值的影响

为了解寻乌县生态系统服务价值对土地利用变化的响应。首先通过监督分类Landsat TM/OLI影像,获取寻乌县1995年、2006年和2016年3期的土地利用数据;进而对研究时段寻乌县土地利用的变化特征进行分析;最后利用当量因子法对3个时期寻乌县4种土地利用类型的4类生态系统服务进行价值评估。结果表明:(1)1995—2016年,寻乌县农田减少近一半,果园增加约一倍,林地所占百分比减少近10个百分点,水体增加一倍,建设用地增加近5倍;(2)1995—2016年,寻乌县年生态系统服务价值减少4.91亿元;(3)4种土地利用类型中,3个时期均是林地生态系统服务的价值最大,但2016年比1995年减少26.04亿元;(4)4种生态系统服务类型中,3个时期均是调节服务价值最大,但2016年比1995年减少1.51亿元;(5)丹溪、龙廷、留车、南桥和晨光5个乡(镇)生态系统服务价值增加,其余乡(镇)均减少。能为寻乌县乃至东江流域今后生态补偿标准的制定提供基础数据。     

Land use and biodiversity indicators for life cycle impact assessment

Background  The primary purpose of environmental assessment is to protect biological systems. Data collected over the last several decades indicates that the greatest impacts on biological resources derive from physical changes in land use. However, to date there is no consensus on indicators of land use that could be applicable worldwide at all scales. This has hampered the assessment of land use in the context of LCA. Objectives  The Institute for Environmental Research and Education and its partner Defenders of Wildlife have begun an effort to develop the necessary consensus. Methods  In July 2000, they held a workshop attended by a diverse group of interested parties and experts to develop a preliminary list of life cycle indicators for land use impacts. Results  Their preliminary list of impact indicators includes: protection of priority habitats/species; soil characteristics: soil health; proximity to & protection of high priority vegetative communities; interface between water and terrestrial habitats/buffer zones; assimilative capacity of water and land; hydrological function; percent coverage of invasive species within protected areas; road density; percent native-dominated vegetation; restoration of native vegetation; adoption of Best Management Practices linked to biodiversity objectives; distribution (patchiness; evenness, etc.); and connectivity of native habitat. Conclusion  The list of indicators conforms well to other efforts in developing indicators. There appears to be convergence among experts in the field and in related fields on the appropriate things to measure. Future Prospects  These indicators are currently being tested in the United States. Further workshops and testing is planned towards developing internationally recognized indicators for land use.     

Forest biodiversity,ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services

Forests are critical habitats for biodiversity and they are also essential for the provision of a wide range of ecosystem services that are important to human well-being. There is increasing evidence that biodiversity contributes to forest ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Here we provide a review of forest ecosystem services including biomass production, habitat provisioning services, pollination, seed dispersal, resistance to wind storms, fire regulation and mitigation, pest regulation of native and invading insects, carbon sequestration, and cultural ecosystem services, in relation to forest type, structure and diversity. We also consider relationships between forest biodiversity and multifunctionality, and trade-offs among ecosystem services. We compare the concepts of ecosystem processes, functions and services to clarify their definitions. Our review of published studies indicates a lack of empirical studies that establish quantitative and causal relationships between forest biodiversity and many important ecosystem services. The literature is highly skewed; studies on provisioning of nutrition and energy, and on cultural services, delivered by mixed-species forests are under-represented. Planted forests offer ample opportunity for optimising their composition and diversity because replanting after harvesting is a recurring process. Planting mixed-species forests should be given more consideration as they are likely to provide a wider range of ecosystem services within the forest and for adjacent land uses. This review also serves as the introduction to this special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation on various aspects of forest biodiversity and ecosystem services.     

Indicators for biodiversity and ecosystem services: towards an improved framework for ecosystems assessment

Ecosystem assessment and monitoring requires the development and application of suitable indicators, i.e. they need to be (i) reliable and capable of simplifying complex relationships, (ii) quantifiable and transparent in order to enable an easy communication, and (iii) fit for the purpose of indication. These requirements are scarcely fulfilled in current ecosystem assessment and monitoring efforts to address the requirements of international biodiversity conventions. Here we present and test a set of seven criteria towards an improved framework for ecosystems indication with particular emphasis on the indication of biodiversity and ecosystem services: purpose of indication, indicator type according to the EEA’s Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response scheme, direct/indirect linkages to biodiversity and ecosystem services, spatial scale and scalability across scales, applicability of benchmarks/reference values, availability of data and protocols, and applicability of remote sensing. The criteria are tested using 24 indicators of ecosystem assessment and monitoring at the global, continental and regional scale. Based on the general trends revealed by our evaluation, we present recommendations to streamline and improve ecosystem indication with respect to international biodiversity conventions. The implementation of our recommendations does require concerted international effort, comparable, for instance, to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe.     

Perspectives on the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity: The assessment of the nursery function

The relationship between biodiversity and each ecosystem service or bundle of ecosystem services (e.g. win−win, win−lose or win−neutral) is an active field of research that requires structured and consistent information. The application of that research for conservation and decision-making can be hampered by the ambiguity found in the definition of the nursery function under the ecosystem service perspective. In this paper, we review how the role of nursery habitats is included in the ecosystem services literature, covering conceptual, biophysical and economic reflections. The role of ecosystems as nurseries is mostly analyzed in coastal environments. The main observation is that there is no consensus on the consideration of the nursery function as a service (e.g. which species or habitats) or on how to assess it (e.g. which indicators or valuation methods). After that review, we analyze three different interpretations given to the nursery function, namely the ecological, conservationist and economic point of view; and we distinguish between different types of assessment that may consider the nursery function.We conclude that the nursery function can be considered an ecosystem service on its own right when it is linked to a concrete human benefit and not when it is represented with indicators of general biodiversity or ecosystem condition. Thus, the analysis of the delivery of ecosystem services should be differentiated from the analysis of ecological integrity. Only with this distinction science may be able to quantify the link between biodiversity and ecosystem services and policy may be effective in halting biodiversity loss. Similar considerations could apply for other biodiversity constituents that may be treated as ecosystem services.