Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption

Part 2: Example of wheat consumption in Brazil, China, Denmark and the USA
  • Jesper Hedal KløverprisEmail author
  • Kenneth Baltzer
  • Per H. Nielsen


Background, aims and scope

Most life cycle inventory data for crops do not include the ultimate (marginal) land use induced by crop consumption. The aims of this study were to present, document and discuss a method which can solve this problem and, furthermore, to present concrete examples for wheat consumption in Brazil, China, Denmark and the USA. A global scope is applied and the simulated adaptation to increased wheat demand corresponds to a long-term temporal scope under present market conditions with present technology.

Materials and methods

The economic general equilibrium model, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) is modified and applied. Agricultural statistics and a number of global land use and land cover datasets are used in the modification and the processing of the model output. Some of the land use datasets are processed by use of a geographic information system tool.


The net expansion of the global agricultural area per tonne of wheat consumed in Brazil, China, Denmark and the USA is estimated at 2,000, 260, 1,700, and 3,200 m2, respectively. For Brazil, the expansion mainly affects tropical evergreen forest. For China and the USA, the expansion mainly affects boreal deciduous forest, savanna, open shrubland and tropical evergreen forest, and for Denmark, it mainly affects savanna, tropical evergreen forest and dense shrubland. The areas affected are quantified in the land use life cycle inventory (LCI) produced for the four countries.


The method applied allows for an even more detailed land use LCI than the one presented in this study. Results are influenced by existing global trade patterns and their inertia. Such aspects should be acknowledged in life cycle assessment (LCA). The method takes its starting point in consumption rather than production.


The method presented makes it possible to simulate the main mechanisms of the global agricultural system and thereby construct an LCI containing the land use induced by crop consumption in a given region and the nature types (biomes) affected. The results are sensitive to changes in the so-called Armington elasticities representing the inertia of global trade patterns. It is considered reasonable to double the standard elasticities in the GTAP model for the construction of LCI data. Wheat consumption in different countries result in different land use consequences due to differences in trade patterns, which are governed by transport and trade costs, among other factors.

Recommendations and perspectives

The modelling could be improved by incorporating a mechanism simulating legal fertiliser and pesticide restrictions, by better assessment of the amount of land suitable for livestock but not crop production (grazable land), by including irrigation and by a further differentiation of land fertility. Moreover, the method could be expanded to include intensification aspects in the LCI. The method could inspire a new approach to general LCI modelling in LCA and may also be of interest in the debate on the environmental impacts of biofuels.


Agriculture Consequential LCA GTAP (Global Trade Analysis Project) Indirect land use change LCI Marginal production 



The authors are grateful to Navin Ramankutty, McGill University, Montreal, Canada for valuable assistance with the overlay of the maps described in Section 2.1.

Supplementary material

11367_2009_132_MOESM1_ESM.doc (18 kb)
ESM (DOC 17 kb)


  1. Baltzer K, Kløverpris J (2008): Improving the land use specification in the GTAP model. Institute of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Working Paper no. 2/2008. Available from
  2. Dimaranan BV (ed) (2006): Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 6 data base. Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. FAOSTAT (2007) United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation.
  4. FAPRI (2006) U.S. and world agricultural outlook. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, IowaGoogle Scholar
  5. Hertel TW (1997) Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Kløverpris J (2009a) Identification of biomes affected by marginal expansion of agricultural land use induced by increased crop consumption. J Clean Prod 14:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kløverpris J (2009b) Consequential life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption. PhD dissertation, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  8. Kløverpris J, Wenzel H, Nielsen PH (2008) Life cycle inventory modelling of land use induced by crop consumption. Part 1: conceptual analysis and methodological proposal. Int J LCA 13:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002) Impact assessment of resources and land use, chapter 2. In: Udo de Haes HA, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington DW, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  10. McDaniel A, Balistreri EJ (2002) A review of Armington trade substitution elasticities. US International Trade Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Mila i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubrscseuil A, Knuchel RF, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J LCA 12:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2003) LCA food data base.
  13. Ramankutty N, Foley JA (1999) Estimating historical changes in global land cover: croplands from 1700 to 1992. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 13:997–1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ramankutty N, Foley JA, Norman J, McSweeney K (2002) The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramankutty N, Evan AT, Monfreda C, Foley JA (2008) Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 22:GB1003.1–GB1003.19. doi: 10.1029/2007GB002952 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmidt J (2008) System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA—outline of methodology and illustrative case study of wheat in Denmark. Int J LCA 13:350–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Meijl H, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agric, Ecosyst Environ 114:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weidema BP (2003) Market information in life cycle assessment. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Danish Ministry of Environment. Environmental Project no. 863Google Scholar
  19. Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen AM (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J LCA 4:48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesper Hedal Kløverpris
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Kenneth Baltzer
    • 2
  • Per H. Nielsen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkLyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.Faculty of Life Sciences, Institute of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  3. 3.Novozymes A/S, Krogshøjvej 36BagsværdDenmark

Personalised recommendations