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

  • Rosie SaadEmail author
  • Manuele Margni
  • Thomas Koellner
  • Bastian Wittstock
  • Louise Deschênes



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.


Characterization 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.

Supplementary material

11367_2011_258_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (306 kb)
Online Resource 1 (PDF 305 kb)
11367_2011_258_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Online Resource 2 (PDF 1.07 MB)
11367_2011_258_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (138 kb)
Online Resource 3 (PDF 138 kb)


  1. Arshad MA, Martin S (2002) Identifying critical limits for soil quality indicators in agro-ecosystems. Agri Ecosyst Environ 88(2):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Bossard M, Feranec J, Otahel J (2000) CORINE land cover technical guide—Addendum 2000. Commission of the European Communities Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowell SJ, Clift R (2000) A methodology for assessing soil quantity and quality in life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 8:321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. ESRI (2010) Desktop GIS. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO, IIASA, ISRIC, ISSCAS and JRC (2008) Harmonized world soil database (version 1.1). FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  11. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734):570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Frischknecht R, Steiner R, Braunschweig A, Egli N, Hildesheimer G (2008) Swiss ecological scarcity method: the new version 2006. ESU Services: 4Google Scholar
  14. Haxeltine A, Prentice CE (1996) BIOME3: an equilibrium biosphere model based on ecophysiological constraints, resource vailability and competition among plant functional types. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 10(4):693–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Holdridge LR (1947) Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science 105(2727):367–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Humbert S, Manneh R, Shaked S, Wannaz C, Horvath A, Deschênes L, Jolliet O, Margni M (2009) Assessing regional intake fractions in North America. Sci Total Environ 407(17):4812–4820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Koellner T, Scholz R (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in Central Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2007) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part 1: an analytical framework for pure land occupation and land use change. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Lerner D (2002) Identifying and quantifying urban recharge: a review. Hydrogeol J 10(1):143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindeijer E (2000) Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. J Clean Prod 8:313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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).
  26. Marshall IB, Schut P, Ballard M (1999) A national ecological framework for Canada: attribute data. Environment Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  27. Mattsson B, Cederberg C, Blix L (2000) Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): case studies of three vegetable oil crops. J Clean Prod 8:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer WB, Turner BL II (1992) Human population growth and global land-use/cover change. Ann Rev Ecolog Syst 23:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Müller-Wenk W, Rydgren B (2007a) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(1):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milà i Canals L, Romanya J, Cowell JS (2007b) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of “fertile land” in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15(15):1426–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(2):172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Nortcliff S (2002) Standardisation of soil quality attributes. Agri Ecosyst Environ 88(2):161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Pimentel D, Allen J, Beers A, Guinand L, Linder L, McLaughlin P, Meer B, Musonda D, Perdue D, Poisson S, Siebert S, Stoner K, Salazar R, Hawkins A (1987) World agriculture and soil erosion. Bioscience 37(4):277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Potting J, Hauschild MZ (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt JH (2008) Development of LCIA characterisation factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 16(18):1929–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Canada S (2006) Human activity and the environment: annual statistics. Minister of Industry, Ottawa, p 153Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Toffoletto L, Bulle C, Godin J, Reid C, Deschênes L (2007) LUCAS—a new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(2):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. US Geological Survey and Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) (2009) HYDRO1k Elevation Derivative Database: GTOPO30. USGS, Sioux FallsGoogle Scholar
  48. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo J (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325):494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosie Saad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuele Margni
    • 1
  • Thomas Koellner
    • 2
  • Bastian Wittstock
    • 3
  • Louise Deschênes
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRAIG, Chemical Engineering DepartmentÉcole Polytechnique de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Professorship of Ecological Services PES, Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and GeosciencesUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  3. 3.Abteilung Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung, Lehrstuhl für BauphysikUniversität StuttgartLeinfelden-EchterdingenGermany

Personalised recommendations