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.     

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.     

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.     

Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA (11 pp)

Background, Aim and Scope Land use by agriculture, forestry, mining, house-building or industry leads to substantial impacts, particularly on biodiversity and on soil quality as a supplier of life support functions. Unfortunately there is no widely accepted assessment method so far for land use impacts. This paper presents an attempt, within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, to provide a framework for the Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) of land use. Materials and Methods: This framework builds from previous documents, particularly the SETAC book on LCIA (Lindeijer et al. 2002), developing essential issues such as the reference for occupation impacts; the impact pathways to be included in the analysis; the units of measure in the impact mechanism (land use interventions to impacts); the ways to deal with impacts in the future; and bio-geographical differentiation. Results: The paper describes the selected impact pathways, linking the land use elementary flows (occupation; transformation) and parameters (intensity) registered in the inventory (LCI) to the midpoint impact indicators and to the relevant damage categories (natural environment and natural resources). An impact occurs when the land properties are modified (transformation) and also when the current man-made properties are maintained (occupation). Discussion: The size of impact is the difference between the effect on land quality from the studied case of land use and a suitable reference land use on the same area (dynamic reference situation). The impact depends not only on the type of land use (including coverage and intensity) but is also heavily influenced by the bio-geographical conditions of the area. The time lag between the land use intervention and the impact may be large; thus land use impacts should be calculated over a reasonable time period after the actual land use finishes, at least until a new steady state in land quality is reached. Conclusions: Guidance is provided on the definition of the dynamic reference situation and on methods and time frame to assess the impacts occurring after the actual land use. Including the occupation impacts acknowledges that humans are not the sole users of land. Recommendations and Perspectives: The main damages affected by land use that should be considered by any method to assess land use impacts in LCIA are: biodiversity (existence value); biotic production potential (including soil fertility and use value of biodiversity); ecological soil quality (including life support functions of soil other than biotic production potential). Bio-geographical differentiation is required for land use impacts, because the same intervention may have different consequences depending on the sensitivity and inherent land quality of the environment where it occurs. For the moment, an indication of how such task could be done and likely bio-geographical parameters to be considered are suggested. The recommendation of indicators for the suggested impact categories is a matter of future research.     

Exploring the Use of Ecological Footprint in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Ecological footprint (EF) is a metric that estimates human consumption of biological resources and products, along with generation of waste greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in terms of appropriated productive land. There is an opportunity to better characterize land occupation and effects on the carbon cycle in life cycle assessment (LCA) models using EF concepts. Both LCA and EF may benefit from the merging of approaches commonly used separately by practitioners of these two methods. However, few studies have compared or integrated EF with LCA. The focus of this research was to explore methods for improving the characterization of land occupation within LCA by considering the EF method, either as a complementary tool or impact assessment method. Biofuels provide an interesting subject for application of EF in the LCA context because two of the most important issues surrounding biofuels are land occupation (changes, availability, and so on) and GHG balances, two of the impacts that EF is able to capture. We apply EF to existing fuel LCA land occupation and emissions data and project EF for future scenarios for U.S. transportation fuels. We find that LCA studies can benefit from lessons learned in EF about appropriately modeling productive land occupation and facilitating clear communication of meaningful results, but find limitations to the EF in the LCA context that demand refinement and recommend that EF always be used along with other indicators and metrics in product‐level assessments.     

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.     

National inventories of land occupation and transformation flows in the world for land use impact assessment

Purpose

Land use can cause significant impacts on ecosystems and natural resources. To assess these impacts using life cycle assessment (LCA) and ensure adequate decision-making, comprehensive national inventories of land occupation and transformation flows are required. Here, we aim at developing globally differentiated inventories of land use flows that can be used for primary use in life cycle impact assessment or national land planning.

Methods

Using publicly available data and inventory techniques, national inventories for several land use classes were developed. All land use classes were covered with the highest retrievable level of disaggregation within urban, forestry, agriculture and other land use classes, thus differentiating 21 land use classes. For illustrating the application of this newly developed inventory, two different application settings relevant to life cycle impact assessment were considered: the calculation of global normalisation references for 11 land use impact indicators related to soil quality assessment (adopting the methods recommended by the EU Commission) and the determination of generic globally applicable characterisation factors (CFs) resulting from aggregation of country-level CFs for situations for use when land use location is unknown.

Results and discussion

We built national inventories of 21 land occupation and 17 land transformation flows for 225 countries in the world for the reference year 2010. Cross-comparisons with existing inventories of narrower scopes attested its consistency. Detailed analyses of the calculated global normalisation references for the 11 land use impact categories showed different patterns across the land use impact indicators for each country, thus raising attention on key land use impacts specific to each country. Furthermore, the upscaling of country-level CFs to global generic CFs using the land use inventory revealed discrepancies with other alternative approaches using land use data at different resolutions.

Conclusions

In this study, we made a first attempt at developing national inventories of land use flows with sufficient disaggregation level to enable the calculation of normalisation references and differentiated impacts. However, the findings also demonstrated the need to refine the consistency of the inventory, particularly in the combination of land cover and land use data, which should be harmonised in future studies, and to expand it with differentiated coverage of more land use flows relevant to impact assessment.

     

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.     

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.     

Impact Assessment of Biodiversity and Carbon Pools from Land Use and Land Use Changes in Life Cycle Assessment,Exemplified with Forestry Operations in Norway

There is a strong need for methods within life cycle assessment (LCA) that enable the inclusion of all complex aspects related to land use and land use change (LULUC). This article presents a case study of the use of one hectare (ha) of forest managed for the production of wood for bioenergy production. Both permanent and temporary changes in above‐ground biomass are assessed together with the impact on biodiversity caused by LULUC as a result of forestry activities. The impact is measured as a product of time and area requirements, as well as by changes in carbon pools and impacts on biodiversity as a consequence of different management options. To elaborate the usefulness of the method as well as its dependency on assumptions, a range of scenarios are introduced in the study. The results show that the impact on climate change from LULUC dominates the results, compared to the impact from forestry operations. This clearly demonstrates the need to include LULUC in an LCA of forestry products. For impacts both on climate change and biodiversity, the results show large variability based on what assumptions are made; and impacts can be either positive or negative. Consequently, a mere measure of land used does not provide any meaning in LCA, as it is not possible to know whether this contributes a positive or negative impact.     

Exergy-based accounting for land as a natural resource in life cycle assessment

Purpose

In life cycle assessment (LCA), literature suggests accounting for land as a resource either by what it delivers (e.g., biomass content) or the time and space needed to produce biomass (land occupation), in order to avoid double-counting. This paper proposes and implements a new framework to calculate exergy-based spatial explicit characterization factors (CF) for land as a resource, which deals with both biomass and area occupied on the global scale.

Methods

We created a schematic overview of the Earth, dividing it into two systems (human-made and natural), making it possible to account for what is actually extracted from nature, i.e., the biomass content was set as the elementary flow to be accounted at natural systems and the land occupation (through the potential natural net primary production) was set as the elementary flow at human-made systems. Through exergy, we were able to create CF for land resources for these two different systems. The relevancy of the new CF was tested for a number of biobased products.

Results and discussion

Site-generic CF were created for land as a resource for natural systems providing goods to humans, and site-generic and site-dependent CF (at grid, region, country, and continent level) were created for land as a resource within human-made systems. This framework differed from other methods in the sense of accounting for both land occupation and biomass content but without double-counting. It is set operationally for LCA and able to account for land resources with more completeness, allowing spatial differentiation. When site-dependent CF were considered for land resources, the overall resource consumption of certain products increased up to 77 % in comparison with site-generic CF-based data.

Conclusions

This paper clearly distinguished the origin of the resource (natural or human-made systems), allowing consistent accounting for land as a resource. Site-dependent CF for human-made systems allowed spatial differentiation, which was not considered in other resource accounting life cycle impact assessment methods.     

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.     

Inclusion of soil erosion impacts in life cycle assessment on a global scale: application to energy crops in Spain

Purpose

Despite the fundamental role of ecosystem goods and services in sustaining human activities, there is no harmonized and internationally agreed method for including them in life cycle assessment (LCA). The main goal of this study was to develop a globally applicable and spatially resolved method for assessing land use impacts on the erosion regulation ecosystem service.

Methods

Soil erosion depends much on location. Thus, unlike conventional LCA, the endpoint method was regionalized at the grid cell level (5 arcmin, approximately 10?×?10 km²) to reflect the spatial conditions of the site. Spatially explicit characterization factors were not further aggregated at broader spatial scales.

Results and discussion

Life cycle inventory data of topsoil and topsoil organic carbon (SOC) losses were interpreted at the endpoint level in terms of the ultimate damage to soil resources and ecosystem quality. Human health damages were excluded from the assessment. The method was tested on a case study of five 3-year agricultural rotations, two of them with energy crops, grown in several locations in Spain. A large variation in soil and SOC losses was recorded in the inventory step, depending on climatic and edaphic conditions. The importance of using a spatially explicit model and characterization factors is shown in the case study.

Conclusions

The regionalized assessment takes into account the differences in soil erosion-related environmental impacts caused by the great variability of soils. Taking this regionalized framework as the starting point, further research should focus on testing the applicability of the method through the complete life cycle of a product and on determining an appropriate spatial scale at which to aggregate characterization factors in order to deal with data gaps on the location of processes, especially in the background system. Additional research should also focus on improving the reliability of the method by quantifying and, insofar as it is possible, reducing uncertainty.     

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.     

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.

     

User needs analysis and development of priorities for life cycle impact assessment

The development of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative started with a global survey of LCA practitioners. There were 91 LCIA-specific responses from all global regions. Respondents gave an indication of how they use LCA with respect to both the stage of LCA that they base decisions on (LCI, LCIA or a combination of both) as well as the types of decisions which they support with LCA information. The issues requiring immediate attention within the UNEP SETAC Life Cycle Initiative identified from this User Needs analysis are the need for transparency in the methodology, for scientific confidence and for scientific co-operation as well as the development of a recommended set of factors and methodologies. Of interest is the fact that results from the different regions highlighted the need for different impact categories. Based on this information proposals were made for new impact categories to be included in LCA (and thus LCIA). The LCIA programme aims to enhance the availability of sound LCA data and methods and to deliver guidance on their use. More specifically, it aims to 1) make results and recommendations widely available for users through the creation of a worldwide accessible information system and 2) establish recommended characterisation factors and related methodologies for the different impact categories, possibly consisting of sets at both midpoint and damage level. The work of the LCIA programme of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative has been started within four task forces on 1) LCIA information system and framework, 2) natural resources and land use, 3) toxic impacts, and 4) transboundary impacts. All participants willing to contribute to these efforts are invited to contact the LCIA programme manager or to join the next LCIA workgroup meeting that will take place in at the world SETAC congress in Portland on Thursday 18 November 2004.     

Life Cycle Impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept

The impact category ‘land use’ describes in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology the environmental impacts of occupying, reshaping and managing land for human purposes. Land use can either be the long-term use of land (e.g. for arable farming) or changing the type of land use (e.g. from natural to urban area). The impact category ‘land use’ comprises those environmental consequences, which impact the environment due to the land use itself, for instance through the reduction of landscape elements, the planting of monocultures or artificial vegetation, or the sealing of surfaces. Important environmental consequences of land use are the decreasing availability of habitats and the decreasing diversity of wildlife species. The assessment of the environmental impacts of land use within LCA studies is the objective of this paper. Land use leads to a degradation of the naturalness of the area utilised. In this respect the naturalness of any area can be defined as the sum of land actually not influenced by humans and the remaining naturalness of land under use. To determine the remaining naturalness of land under use, this study suggests applying the Hemeroby concept. “Hemeroby is a measure for the human influence on ecosystems” (Kowarik 1999). The Hemeroby level of an area describes the intensity of land use and can therefore be used to characterise different types of land use. Characterization factors are proposed, which allow calculating the degradation of the naturalness of an area due to a specific type of land use. Since the resource ‘nature/naturalness’ is on a larger geographical scale by far not homogeneous, the assessment of land use needs to be regionalised. Therefore, the impact category ‘land use’ has been subdivided into the impact sub-categories ‘land use in European biogeographic regions’. Following the general LCA framework, normalization values for the impact sub-categories are calculated in order to facilitate the evaluation of the characterization results with regard to their share in a reference value. Weighting factors, which enable an aggregation of the results of the different land use sub-categories and make them comparable to other impact categories (e.g. climate change or acidification) are suggested based on the assumption that the current land use pattern in the European biogeographic regions is acceptable.     

Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions: development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a Canadian context

Purpose  

Among other regional impact categories in LCA, land use still lacks a suitable assessment method regarding the least developed “soil ecological quality” impact pathway. The goals of this study are to scope the framework addressing soil ecological functions and to improve the development of regionalized characterization factors (CFs). A spatially explicit approach was developed and illustrated for the Canadian context using three different regional scales and for which the extent of spatial variability was assessed.     

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.