Assessment of land use impacts on soil ecological functions: development of spatially differentiated characterization factors within a Canadian context
- 1.2k Downloads
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.
Materials and methods
A model framework based on the multifunctional character of soil and the ecosystem services defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is suggested. This framework includes land use impacts on soil ecological quality evaluated regarding the change in soil capacity to fulfill a range of soil ecological functions. Four impact indicators, namely erosion resistance, groundwater recharge, mechanical, and physicochemical filtration, proposed by the functional method of Baitz (2002), were used to assess three major degraded regulating services: erosion regulation, freshwater regulation, and water purification. Spatially differentiated CFs were calculated based on the principles proposed by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative for two Canadian spatial models (15 ecozones, 193 ecoregions) along with a non-spatial one (one generic). Seven representative land use types were tested.
Results and discussion
Using the ecozone-based scale, an overall result comparison between the non-spatial and spatial models indicates significant differences between ranges across land use types and results up to four times larger than what the generic scale can capture. This highlights the importance of introducing a regionalized assessment. When considering the impacts from a specific land use type, such as urban land use, generic CFs fail to adequately represent spatial CFs because they tend to be highly dependent on the biogeographical conditions of the location. When comparing all three resolution scales, CF results calculated using the ecoregions spatial scale generally show a larger spread across each land use type. Interesting variations and extreme scenarios are revealed which could not be observed using a coarser scale-based model such as the ecozone resolution scheme.
This work demonstrates the accomplishment of developing spatially differentiated CFs addressing impacts of different land use types on soil ecological functions. For a large territorial area spreading over many biomes, such as Canada, accounting for ecological unit boundaries proves to be necessary since the generic scale is not sufficiently representative. An evaluation of the extent of spatial differentiation emphasized the influence on the variability of regionalized CFs.
KeywordsCharacterization factors Ecosystem services Land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Regionalization Soil ecological functions Soil ecological quality Spatial differentiation
The International Chair in Life Cycle Assessment (a research unit of the CIRAIG) would like to acknowledge the financial support of the industrial partners: Arcelor-Mittal, Bell Canada, Cascades, Eco Entreprises Québec/Recyc-Québec, Groupe EDF/GDF-SUEZ, Hydro-Québec, Johnson and Johnson, Mouvement des caisses Desjardins, Rio Tinto Alcan, RONA, SAQ, Total, Veolia Environnement and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program. Three anonymous reviewers have provided useful comments improving the quality of the paper.
- Baitz M (2002) Bedeutung der funktionsbasierten Charakterisierung von Flächeninanspruchnahmen in ndustriellen Prozesskettenanalysen. Life Cycle Engineering. Stuttgart, Germany, University of Stuttgart. PhD thesis, pp 172Google Scholar
- Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78Google Scholar
- Beck T, Bos U, Wittstock B, Baitz M, Fischer M, Sedlbauer K (2010) LANCA—land use indicator value calculation in life cycle assessment. Fraunhofer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
- Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J (2000) CORINE land cover technical guide—Addendum 2000. Commission of the European Communities Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
- Doran JW, Parkin TB (1994) Defining and assessing soil quality. In: Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA (eds) Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. Soil Sci Soc Am J (special publication) 35:3–21Google Scholar
- Ecological Stratification Working Group (1995) A national ecological framework for Canada. Report and national map at 1:7500 000 scale. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate and Ecozone Analysis Branch. Ottawa, Hull, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, p 132Google Scholar
- ESRI (2010) Desktop GIS. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
- FAO, IIASA, ISRIC, ISSCAS and JRC (2008) Harmonized world soil database (version 1.1). FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Foster SSD, Morris BL, Lawrence AR (1993) Effects of urbanization on groundwater recharge. In: Wilkinson WB (ed) Groundwater problems in urban areas. The World Bank, London, pp 43–63Google Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2008) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006. ESU Services: 4Google Scholar
- Hertwich EG, Pennington D, Bare J (2002) Introduction. In: Udo de Haes H, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen B (eds) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, pp 1–10Google Scholar
- Kaplan JO, Bigelow NH, Prentice IC, Harrison SP, Bartlein PJ, Christensen TR, Cramer W, Matveyeva NV, McGuire AD, Murray DF, Razzhivin VY, Smith B, Walker DA, Anderson PM, Andreev AA, Brubaker LB, Edwards ME, Lozhkin AV (2003) Climate change and arctic ecosystems II: Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future projections. J Geophys Res 108(D19):8171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, George PS, Homewood K, Imbernon J, Leemans R, Li X, Moran EF, Mortimore M, Ramakrishnan PS, Richards JF, Skånes H, Steffen W, Stone GD, Svedin U, Veldkamp TA, Vogel C, Xu J (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Change 11(4):261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Steen B (2002) Impact assessment of resources and land use. In: Udo de Haes H, Finnveden G, Goedkoop M, Hauschild M, Hertwich EG, Hofstetter P, Jolliet O, Klöpffer W, Krewitt W, Lindeijer E, Müller-Wenk R, Olsen SI, Pennington D, Potting J, Steen N (eds) Life-cycle impact assessment: striving towards best practice. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, pp 11–64Google Scholar
- LULCIA (2008–2011) Koellner T (Project Leader), Partners (in alphabetical order by last name): Arena AP, Beck T, Bos U, Brandão M, Civit B, Deschenes L, Margni M, Mila I, Canals L, Müller-Wenk R, Saad R, Wittstock B: Operational Characterization Factors for Land use Impacts on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Life-Cycle Impact Assessment—Compatible with the Framework of the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (LULCIA). http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/sites/lcinit/default.asp?site=lcinitandpage_id=337831BE-0C0A-4DC9-AEE5-9DECD1F082D8
- Marshall IB, Schut P, Ballard M (1999) A national ecological framework for Canada: attribute data. Environment Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Müller-Wenk R (1998) Land use—the main threat to species. how to include land use in LCA. Universität of St.Gallen, Switzerland, p 46Google Scholar
- Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Page AL et al (eds) Methods of soil analysis, Part 2, 2nd ed. Agronomy 9:961–1010. Am Soc of Agron, Inc. Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
- Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D'amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettengel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. Bioscience 51(11):933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sedlbauer K, Braune A, Humbert S, Margni M, Schuller O, Fischer M (2007) Spatial differentiation in LCA—moving forward to more operational sustainability. Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theor Prax 3(16):24–31Google Scholar
- Seybold CA, Mausbach MJ, Karlen DJ, Rogers HH (1998) Quantification of soil quality. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF, Stewart BA (eds) Soil processes and the carbon cycle. CRC, Boca Raton, p 609Google Scholar
- Canada S (2006) Human activity and the environment: annual statistics. Minister of Industry, Ottawa, p 153Google Scholar
- Stone R, Myslik J (2007) Assessing the potential for ground water contamination on your farm. Ministry of agriculture food and rural affairs. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, OntarioGoogle Scholar
- Tolba MK, El Kholy OA, El-Hinnawi E, Holdgate MW, McMichael DF (1992) The world environment 1972–1992: two decades of challenges. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Tóth G, Stolbovoy V, Montanarella L (2007) Soil Quality and Sustainability Evaluation—an integrated approach to support soil-related policies of the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- US Geological Survey and Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) (2009) HYDRO1k Elevation Derivative Database: GTOPO30. USGS, Sioux FallsGoogle Scholar
- Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRON-LCAGAPS sub-project on land use, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management. Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
- Westhoff V, Van der Maarel E (1973) The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: Whittaker RH (ed) Ordination and classification of communities. Handbook of Vegetation Science. Junk, The Hague, pp 617–726Google Scholar