Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsBiodiversity Global characterization factors Land use LCIA Regionalization
The authors wish to thank Biodiversity Monitoring Switzerland (BDM) and the team of GLOBIO for providing data. The research was funded by ETH Research Grant CH1-0308-3 and by the project “Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods for Improved Sustainability Characterisation of Technologies” (LC-IMPACT), Grant Agreement No. 243827, funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme. We appreciate helpful comments by M. Curran, S. Hellweg, J.P. Lindner, R. Müller-Wenk, A. Spörri, and two anonymous reviewers.
- Achten WMJ, Mathijs E, Muys B (2008) Proposing a life cycle land use impact calculation methodology. In: 6th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, Zurich, Nov 12–14, 2008Google Scholar
- Baltisberger M (2009) Systematische Botanik. Einheimische Farn- und Samenpflanzen. 3 edn. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, ETH, Zurich, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- BDM (2004) Biodiversity monitoring Switzerland. Indicator Z9: species diversity in habitats. Bundesamt für Umwelt, BAFU. http://www.biodiversitymonitoring.ch
- Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekotter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Dormann C, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann A, Schermann N, Schmidt T, Schweiger O, Smulders MJM, Speelmans M, Simova P, Verboom J, van Wingerden WKRE, Zobel M, Edwards PJ (2008) Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J Appl Ecol 45(1):141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2012) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)Google Scholar
- CBD (2010) Aichi biodiversity targets. Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/. Accessed 26 October 2011
- Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Methodology Report. PRé Consultants, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2008) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; first edition Report I. Den HaagGoogle Scholar
- Hayek L-AC, Buzas MA (2010) Surveying natural populations. Quantitative tools for assessing biodiversity, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Heywood VH, Watson RT (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Kessler M, Abrahamczyk S, Bos M, Buchori D, Putra DD, Gradstein SR, Hoehn P, Kluge J, Orend F, Pitopang R, Saleh S, Schulze CH, Sporn SG, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tjitrosoedirdjo S, Tscharntke T (2009) Alpha and beta diversity of plants and animals along a tropical land-use gradient. Ecol Appl 19(8):2142–2156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Koellner T, Scholz RW (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):32–48Google Scholar
- Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Goedkoop MJ, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Müller-Wenk R, Weidema B, Wittstock B (2012a) Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)Google Scholar
- Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Saad R, de Souza DM, Müller-Wenk R (2012b) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)Google Scholar
- Kyläkorpi K, Rydgren B, Ellegård A, Miliander S (2005) The Biotope Method 2005: a method to assess the impact of land use on biodiversity. Vattenfall, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):22–31Google Scholar
- Michelsen O (2011) Impacts on biodiversity from land use and land use changes—did we forget the first fundamental question? In: ISIE Conference, University of California, Berkeley, June 7–10Google Scholar
- Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2012) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)Google Scholar
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Millennnium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Müller-Wenk R (1998) Land use—the main threat to species, how to include land use in LCA. IWÖ—Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 64. Institut für Wirtschaft und Ökologie, Universität St. Gallen, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
- Olson D, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake E, Burgess N, Powell G, Underwood E, D’Amico J, Itoua I, Strand H, Morrison J, Loucks C, Allnutt T, Ricketts T, Kura Y, Lamoreux J, Wettengel W, Hedao P, Kassem K (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51(11):933–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pereira H, Leadley P, Proença V, Alkemade R, Scharlemann JPW, Fernandez-Manjarrés JF, Araújo MB, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Cheung WWL, Chini L, Cooper HD, Gilman EL, Guénette S, Hurtt GC, Huntington HP, Mace GM, Oberdorff T, Revenga C, Rodrigues P, Scholes RJ, Sumaila UR, Walpole M (2010) Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 330(6010):1496–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Sala O, Chapin F, Armesto J, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke L, Jackson R, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge D, Mooney H, Oesterheld M, Poff N, Sykes M, Walker B, Walker M, Wall D (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287(5459):1770–1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schenck R (2001) Land use and biodiversity indicators for life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(2):114–117Google Scholar
- Scherber C, Eisenhauer N, Weisser WW, Schmid B, Voigt W, Fischer M, Schulze E-D, Roscher C, Weigelt A, Allan E, Beßler H, Bonkowski M, Buchmann N, Buscot F, Clement LW, Ebeling A, Engels C, Halle S, Kertscher I, Klein A-M, Koller R, Konig S, Kowalski E, Kummer V, Kuu A, Lange M, Lauterbach D, Middelhoff C, Migunova VD, Milcu A, Muller R, Partsch S, Petermann JS, Renker C, Rottstock T, Sabais A, Scheu S, Schumacher J, Temperton VM, Tscharntke T (2010) Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468:553–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Tech J 27:379–423Google Scholar
- SOER Synthesis (2010) The European environment—state and outlook 2010: synthesis. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- Sørensen T (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. K Dan Vidensk Selsk Biol Skr 5:1–34Google Scholar
- Stanners D, Philippe B (1995) Europe’s environment—the Dobris assessment. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
- van der Voet E (2001) Land use in LCA. CML-SSP Working Paper 02.002, LeidenGoogle Scholar
- Vandewalle M, de Bello F, Berg MP, Bolger T, Doledec S, Dubs F, Feld CK, Harrington R, Harrison PA, Lavorel S, da Silva PM, Moretti M, Niemela J, Santos P, Sattler T, Sousa JP, Sykes MT, Vanbergen AJ, Woodcock BA (2010) Functional traits as indicators of biodiversity response to land use changes across ecosystems and organisms. Biodivers Conserv 19(10):2921–2947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Weidema B, 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