National inventories of land occupation and transformation flows in the world for land use impact assessment

  • Maria Faragò
  • Lorenzo Benini
  • Serenella Sala
  • Michela Secchi
  • Alexis LaurentEmail author



Land use can cause significant impacts on ecosystems and natural resources. To assess these impacts using life cycle assessment (LCA) and ensure adequate decision-making, comprehensive national inventories of land occupation and transformation flows are required. Here, we aim at developing globally differentiated inventories of land use flows that can be used for primary use in life cycle impact assessment or national land planning.


Using publicly available data and inventory techniques, national inventories for several land use classes were developed. All land use classes were covered with the highest retrievable level of disaggregation within urban, forestry, agriculture and other land use classes, thus differentiating 21 land use classes. For illustrating the application of this newly developed inventory, two different application settings relevant to life cycle impact assessment were considered: the calculation of global normalisation references for 11 land use impact indicators related to soil quality assessment (adopting the methods recommended by the EU Commission) and the determination of generic globally applicable characterisation factors (CFs) resulting from aggregation of country-level CFs for situations for use when land use location is unknown.

Results and discussion

We built national inventories of 21 land occupation and 17 land transformation flows for 225 countries in the world for the reference year 2010. Cross-comparisons with existing inventories of narrower scopes attested its consistency. Detailed analyses of the calculated global normalisation references for the 11 land use impact categories showed different patterns across the land use impact indicators for each country, thus raising attention on key land use impacts specific to each country. Furthermore, the upscaling of country-level CFs to global generic CFs using the land use inventory revealed discrepancies with other alternative approaches using land use data at different resolutions.


In this study, we made a first attempt at developing national inventories of land use flows with sufficient disaggregation level to enable the calculation of normalisation references and differentiated impacts. However, the findings also demonstrated the need to refine the consistency of the inventory, particularly in the combination of land cover and land use data, which should be harmonised in future studies, and to expand it with differentiated coverage of more land use flows relevant to impact assessment.


LCA Life cycle analysis Life cycle impact assessment LANCA Normalisation reference Soil quality indicator Spatial differentiation Urban area 



The authors would like to thank Cecile Bulle and Rosalie van Zelm for their useful comments in the process of the work.

Funding information

The study was partly financed by the European Commission—Joint Research Centre, Directorate D—Sustainable Resources, Bioeconomy Unit, through the expert contract no. CT-EX2006C170698-101 and CT-EX2006C170698-102, in the context of its work on Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Environmental Footprint.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1581_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (144 kb)
ESM 1 (1) National inventories of land occupation and transformation flows (40 flows, incl. totals) for 225 countries in the world in 2010; (2) recalculated generic CF using the upscaling techniques based on the land use flows mapped in the developed inventory, (3) list of countries and territories with differences of more than 50% in the total occupation area. (XLSX 143 kb)


  1. Baitz M (2002) Die Bedeutung der funktionsbasierten Charakterisierung von Flächen-Inanspruchnahmen in industriellen Prozesskettenanalysen: Ein Beitrag zur ganzheitlichen Bilanzierung. (PhD dissertation; EN translated title: "The importance of function-based characterization of land use in industrial process chain analyzes: A contribution to holistic assessment") Institut für Kunststoffprüfung und Kunststoffkunde, Universität Stuttgart. Shaker Verlag, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Bos U, Wittstock B (2007) Land use methodology. Report to summarize the current situation of the methodology to quantify the environmental effects of Land Use. Lehrstuhl für Bauphysics, University of Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bos U, Horn R, Beck T, Lindner JP, Fischer M (2016) LANCA® characterization factors for life cycle impact assessment. Version 2. Franhofer Verlag, Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2013) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1243–1252Google Scholar
  5. Chaudhary A, Brooks TM (2018) Land use intensity-specific global characterization factors to assess product biodiversity footprints. Environ Sci Technol 52:5094–5104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaudhary A, Verones F, De Baan L, Hellweg S (2015) Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species-area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:9987–9995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaudhary A, Pfister S, Hellweg S (2016) Spatially explicit analysis of biodiversity loss due to global agriculture, pasture and forest land use from a producer and consumer perspective. Environ Sci Technol 50:3928–3936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CIESIN (2016) Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): population density adjusted to match 2015 revision UN WPP country totals. Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, CA, US. Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016 in its version at the time)
  9. Crenna E, Secchi M, Benini L, Sala S (2018) Global environmental impacts: data sources and methodological choices for calculating normalisation factors for LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
  10. De Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2013) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47:9281–9290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Baan L, Curran M, Rondinini C, Visconti P, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2015) High-resolution assessment of land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment using species habitat suitability models. Environ Sci Technol 49:2237–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Laurentiis V, Secchi M, Bos U, Horn R, Laurent A, Sala S (2018) Soil quality index for land use impact assessment in LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production.
  13. EC (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook—recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. First edition November 2011; Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. EUR 24571 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, LU, 2011Google Scholar
  14. EEA (2014) Urban morphological zones 2006—CORINE land cover. Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016)
  15. EUROSTAT (2016) Urban-rural typology—statistics explained. Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016)
  16. FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Main report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalzGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO (2014) Global land cover SHARE—share of year 2014 (GLC-SHARE). Beta release v1.0. Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016)
  18. FAOSTAT (2016, 2018) Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—Statistics Division. Available at: (specific land classes: accessed 14/08/2016; total country land areas: accessed 15/02/2018)
  19. Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, de Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008—a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: characterization. First edition, 6 January 2009, (Accessed 20/12/2016)
  20. Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman SV, Goetz SJ, Loveland TR, Kommareddy A, Egorov A, Chini L, Justice CO, Townshend JRG (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hauschild MZ (2005) Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle perspective. Environ Sci Technol 39(4):81A–88ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):683–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoskins AJ, Bush A, Gilmore J, Harwood T, Hudson LN, Ware C, Williams KJ, Ferrier S (2016) Downscaling land-use data to provide global 30″ estimates of five land-use classes. Ecol Evol 6(9):3040–3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurtt GC, Chini LP, Frolking S, Betts RA, Feddema J, Fischer G, Fisk JP, Hibbard K, Houghton RA, Janetos A, Jones CD, Kindermann G, Kinoshita T, Klein Goldewijk K, Riahi K, Shevliakova E, Smith S, Stehfest E, Thomson A, Thornton P, van Vuuren DP, Wang YP (2011) Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim Chang 109:117–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standards Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  26. Latham J, Cumani R, Rosati I, Bloise M (2014) Global land cover SHARE (GLC-SHARE) database. Beta-release version 1.0—2014. FAO, Rome,Google Scholar
  27. Laurent A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Normalisation in LCA (Chapter 14). In: Hauschild M, Huijbregts M (eds) LCA Compendium—the complete world of life cycle assessment (Series Eds. Klöpffer W, Curran MA), Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. Laurent A, Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011) Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:728–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2016) Atlas of Urban Expansion (AUE): urban, national and regional data. Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016)
  30. Liu W, Yan Y, Wang D, Ma W (2018) Integrate carbon dynamics models for assessing the impact of land use intervention on carbon sequestration ecosystem service. Ecol Indic 91:268–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milà ì Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007) 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. Milà ì Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morais TG, Domingos T, Teixeira RF (2016) A spatially explicit life cycle assessment midpoint indicator for soil quality in the European Union using soil organic carbon. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1076–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morais TG, Silva C, Jebari A, Álvaro-Fuentes J, Domingos T, Teixeira RF (2018) A proposal for using process-based soil models for land use life cycle impact assessment: application to Alentejo, Portugal. J Clean Prod 192:864–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mutel C, Liao X, Patouillard L, Bare J, Fantke P, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Jolliet O, Maia de Souza D, Laurent A, Pfister S, Verones F, 2018. Overview and recommendations for regionalized life cycle impact assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
  36. NASA (2016) UN-Adjusted Population Density, v4: Gridded Population of the World (GPW), v.4. Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016)
  37. Natural Earth (2016) Urban areas. Available at: (Accessed 25/07/2016)
  38. Prestele R, Arneth A, Bondeau A, De Noblet-Ducoudré N, Pugh TAM, Sitch S, Stehfest E, Verburg PH (2017) Current challenges of implementing anthropogenic land-use and land-cover change in models contributing to climate change assessments. Earth Syst Dynam 8:369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sala S, Benini L, Mancini L, Ponsioen T, Laurent A, van Zelm R, Stam G (2014) Methodology for building LCA-compliant national inventories of emissions and resource extraction. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. ISBN 978-92-79-43263-7. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp. 96Google Scholar
  40. Sala S, Benini L, Mancini L, Pant R (2015) Integrated assessment of environmental impact of Europe in 2010: data sources and extrapolation strategies for calculating normalisation factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(11):1568–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sala S, Benini L, Castellani V, Vidal Legaz B, Pant R (2016) Environmental footprint—update of life cycle impact assessment methods (resources, water, land). Available at (Accessed October 2016)
  42. Schneider A, Friedl MA, McIver DK, Woodcock CE (2003) Mapping urban areas by fusing multiple sources of coarse resolution remotely sensed data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 69(12):1377–1386 Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taelman SE, Schaubroeck T, De Meester S, Boone L, Dewulf J (2016) Accounting for land use in life cycle assessment: the value of NPP as a proxy indicator to assess land use impacts on ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 550:143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teixeira RFM, De Souza DM, Curran MP, Antón A, Michelsen O, Milá I, Canals L (2016) Towards consensus on land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative preliminary recommendations based on expert contributions. J Clean Prod 112:4283–4287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. UN (2014) World urbanization prospects: the 2014 revision, highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, NY, USGoogle Scholar
  46. UNFCC (2013) National inventory reports. Available at: (Accessed 14/08/2016)
  47. Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C, Frischknecht R, Hauschild M, Hellweg S, Henderson A, Jolliet O, Laurent A, Liao X, Lindner JP, de Souza DM, Michelsen O, Patouillard L, Pfister S, Posthuma L, Prado V, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Sala S, Ugaya C, Vieira M, Fantke P (2017) LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. J Clean Prod 161:957–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wegener Sleeswijk A, van Oers LFCM, Guinée JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MAJ (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: an LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390(1):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment (QSA), Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of Denmark (DTU)LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.European CommissionJoint Research Centre (JRC)IspraItaly

Personalised recommendations