Towards a methodology for taking physical degradation of ecosystems into account in LCA

  • Hans Blonk
  • Erwin Lindeijer
  • Joris Broers
6th SETAC-Europe Meeting: LCA - Selected Papers

Abstract

An analytic procedure has been followed to select adequate methods to express ecosystem degradation in LCA. This procedure consisted of problem definition, identification of relevant issues, of a quantitative expression for ecosystem degradation and of possible nature value indicators and building a framework of criteria for selecting adequate methods. With the selection framework a first screening of methods was performed. For full quantification the following formula is proposed: ED = L (Nr- Na), with land use I. = A t and nature value change (Nr- Na) Degradation due to an activity appears difficult to operationalise, but ecosystem suppression by activities can well be assessed. Nr is then the natural background or would-be natural situation. Na can best be described by the actual state during the activity, unless hard data on restoration is available. Na and Nr can be expressed in the biomass production indicator NPP - NCR Biodiversity and/or erosion may be added to include irreversible effects.

Keywords

Biomass production, indicator degradation, ecosystems ecosystems, degradation environmental effects, landuse erosion, land use evaluation, degradation of ecosystems evaluation, land use impact assessment, LCA indicator, biomass production land use, environmental effects LCA, impact assessment LCA, methodology LC1A nature value indicators, ecosystem degradation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

5|References

  1. De Groot, R.S.: Functions of nature, evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making, ISBN 9001 35594 3, Wolters Noordhoff (NL) 1992Google Scholar
  2. De Groot, W.T.: Environmental Science Theory, Concepts and methods in a one-world, problem-oriented paradigm, ISBN 0-444-88993-0, Elsevier Amsterdam (NL), 1992Google Scholar
  3. Frischknecht, R., P. Hofstetter, I. Knoepfel, R. Dones, E. Zollinger: Ökoinventare für Energiesysteme, ETH & PSI (CH), März 1994Google Scholar
  4. Heijungs, R., J. Guinee, G. Huppes, R. M. Lankreijer, H.A. Udo De Haesi.,A. Wegener-Sieeswijk, A.M.M. Ansems, P.G. Eggles, R. Van Duin, H.P. De Goede: Life Cycle Analysis of products, Manual and Backgrounds, CML, TNO, B&G (NL), October 1992Google Scholar
  5. Hester, R.E.,R.E. Harrison (ed): Mining and its Environmental Impact, Royal Society of Chemistry, 1994Google Scholar
  6. ISO: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and framework, ISO/TC 207/SC 5 Committee draft 14014.3, November 1995Google Scholar
  7. IUCN, UNEP, WWF: Caring for the earth, ISBN 2 8317 0074 4, Gland (CH), October 1991Google Scholar
  8. Klöpfeer, W.,I. Renner: Methodology of Impact Assessment within the framework of Life Cycle Assessment taking into account environmental categories which can not (or only with difficulty) be quantified, February 1994Google Scholar
  9. Knoepeel, I.: Indikatorensystem für die ökologische Bewertung des Transports von Energie, ETH Thesis nr. 11146 (CH), 1995Google Scholar
  10. Krattiger, A.F. (ed.): Widening perspectives on biodiversity, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland & International Academy of the environment, Geneva, 1994Google Scholar
  11. Lieth, H.,R.H. Whittaker (ed.): Primary Productivity of the Biosphere, Ecological studies 14, ISBN 3-540-07083-4, 1975Google Scholar
  12. Mak, J.P.,D.A.F. Anink,J.G.M. Kortman,E.W. Lindeijer,H. Van Ewijk: Eco-Quantum, design of a calculation method for the quantitative assessment of the environmental burden of a building, appendix 5.1 (in Dutch), W/E & IVAM ER, Gouda/Amsterdam, March 1996Google Scholar
  13. Odum, K.P.: Ecology and our endangered life-support systems (2nd ed.), ISBN 0 87893 634 3, Sinaur Associates, 1993Google Scholar
  14. Reid, W.V.,K.R. Miller: Keeping options alive, the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. WRI, ISBN 0-91 5825-41-41, October 1989Google Scholar
  15. Remmerswaai. H.,D. Stajcer,M. Oele,E.W. Lindeijier,P. Mulder,C. Warmer,J. Krozor: Proposal for substance nomenclature in LCA, to be submitted 1997Google Scholar
  16. Udo De Haes, H. (ed.): Towards a methodology for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Report of the SETAC - Europe Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment (WIA), final draft, February 1996Google Scholar
  17. Vitousek, P.M.,P.A. Ehrlich,A.H. Ehrlich,P.A. Marson: Human appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis, Bioscience, Vol. 36, no 6, June 1986Google Scholar
  18. Wegener Sleeswijk, A., R. Klein, M.J.G. Meeusen-Van Onna, H. Leneman, H. Sengers, H. Van Zeijts, J.A.W.A. Reus: Application of LCA to agriculture (in Dutch), CML, LEI-DLO & CLM (NL), 1996Google Scholar
  19. Weidema, B.: Presentation at the annual SETAC - Europe congress in Taormina, Sicily (I), May 20–22, 1996Google Scholar
  20. Zonneveld, J.I.S.: The fake-discussion over real nature (in Dutch), in Natuur en Milieu, Utrecht (NL), June 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Blonk
    • 1
  • Erwin Lindeijer
    • 1
  • Joris Broers
    • 2
  1. 1.IVAM Environmental Research UvAAmsterdam
  2. 2.Ministry Directorate Road- and Hydrolics ServicePublic Works and Water Management (RWS) DWWDelft

Personalised recommendations