Including CO2 implications of land occupation in LCAs—method and example for livestock products



Until recently, life cycle assessments (LCAs) have only addressed the direct greenhouse gas emissions along a process chain, but ignored the CO2 emissions of land-use. However, for agricultural products, these emissions can be substantial. Here, we present a new methodology for including the implications of land occupation for CO2 emissions to realistically reflect the consequences of consumers’ decisions.


In principle, one can distinguish five different approaches of addressing the CO2 consequences of land occupation: (1) assuming constant land cover, (2) land-use change related to additional production of the product under consideration, (3) historic land-use change, assuming historical relations between existing area and area expansion (4) land-use change related to less production of the product under consideration (“missed potential carbon sink” of land occupation), and (5) an approach of integrating land conversion emissions and delayed uptake due to land occupation. Approach (4) is presented in this paper, using LCA data on land occupation, and carbon dynamics from the IMAGE model. Typically, if less production occurs, agricultural land will be abandoned, leading to a carbon sink when vegetation is regrowing. This carbon sink, which does not occur if the product would still be consumed, is thus attributed to the product as “missed potential carbon sink”, to reflect the CO2 implications of land occupations.


We analyze the missed potential carbon sink by relating land occupation data from LCA studies to the potential carbon sink as calculated by an Integrated Global Assessment Model and its process-based, spatially explicit carbon cycle model. Thereby, we account for regional differences, heterogeneity in land-use, and different time horizons. Example calculations for several livestock products show that the CO2 consequences of land occupation can be in the same order of magnitude as the other process related greenhouse gas emissions of the LCA, and depend largely on the production system. The highest CO2 implications of land occupation are calculated for beef and lamb, with beef production in Brazil having a missed potential carbon sink more than twice as high as the other GHG emissions.


Given the significant contribution of land occupation to the total GHG balance of agricultural products, they need to be included in life cycle assessments in a realistic way. The new methodology presented here reflects the consequences of producing or not producing a certain commodity, and thereby it is suited to inform consumers fully about the consequences of their choices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    One kilogram of CO2 corresponds roughly to the emissions from a car driven for 5 km, assuming an average European car emitting 160 g CO2,/km from fuel combustion (VCD—Verkehrsclub Deutschland 2008; BFE Bundesamt für Energie 2009) plus 40 g CO2 emissions for vehicle and fuel production (Lane 2006). Applying these calculations to the LCA results here, 1 kg of Brazilian beef would translate to driving an average European car over 1,600 km, 1 kg of Dutch chicken to 31 km (using the results using the 30-year time horizon), and so on.


  1. Blonk H, Kool A, Luske B (2008) Environmental effects of protein-rich food products in the Netherlands. “<>”. English summary of “Milieueffecten Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten”. Blonk Milieu Advies BV, Gouda

  2. Casey JW, Holden NM (2005) Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the average Irish milk production system. Agric Sys 86:97–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Casey JW, Holden NM (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional, agri-environmental scheme and organic Irish suckler-beef-units. J Environ Qual 35:231–239

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cederberg C, Flysjö A (2004) Life cycle inventory of 23 dairy farms in south-western Sweden. SIK Rapport No. 728. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology

  5. Curran MA (1993) Broad-based environmental life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 27(3):430–436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Doka G, Hillier W, Kaila S, Köllner T, Kreißig J, Muys B, Quijano JG, Salpakivi-Salomaa P, Schweinle J, Swan G, Wessman H (2002) The Assessment of Environmental Impacts caused by land-use in the Life Cycle Assessment of Forestry and Forest Products. Final Report of Working Group 2 “land-use” of COST Action E9

  7. BFE Bundesamt für Energie (2009) Schweizer Autos sind immer noch zu durstig.

  8. Ewing B, Reed A, Rizk SM, Galli A, Wackernagel M, Kitzes J (2008) Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts, 2008 Edition Oakland

  9. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235–1238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Forster C, Green K, Bleda M, Dewick P, Evans B, Flynn A, Mylan J (2006) Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School, Defra

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gerber P, Vellinga T, Opio C, Henderson B, Steinfeld H (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector—a life cycle assessment

  12. Guinee JB, Goree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn HA, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment operational guide to the ISO standards. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(5):311–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haas G, Wetterich F, Köpke U (2001) Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83:43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Haberl H, Erb KH, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(31):12942–12947

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L (1998) Economic input–output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 32(7):184A–191A

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hirschfeld J, Weiß J, Preidl M, Korbun T (2008) Klimawirkungen der Landwirtschaft in Deutschland. Schriftenreihe des IÖW vol 186/08

  17. IPCC (1996) Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Lim B, Treanton K, Mamaty I, Bonduki Y, Griggs DJ, Callender BA (eds) IPCC/OECD/IEA. UK Meteorological Office, Bracknell

    Google Scholar 

  18. IPCC (2007) Mitigation of climate change. In: Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L (eds) Contribution of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. ISO (2006) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kendall A, Chang B, Sharpe B (2009) Accounting for time-dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environ Sci Technol 43(18):7142–7147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kitzes J, Galli A, Rizk SM, Reed A, Wackernagel M (2008) Guidebook to the national footprint accounts: 2008 edition. Global Footprint Network, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  22. Klein Goldewijk K, Van Minnen JG, Kreileman GJJ, Vloedbeld M, Leemans R (1994) Simulation of the carbon flux between the terrestrial environment and the atmosphere. Water Air Soil Pollut 76:199–230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kløverpris J, Wenzel H, Banse M, Milà i Canals L, Reenberg A (2008) Conference and workshop on modelling global land-use implications in the environmental assessment of biofuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):178–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kløverpris J, Baltzer K, Nielsen PH (2010) Life cycle inventory modelling of land-use induced by crop consumption: part 2: example of wheat consumption in Brazil, China, Denmark and the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):90–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lane B (2006) Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies. Report by Ecolane Transport Consultancy on behalf of London Borough of Camden.

  26. Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschěnes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3169–3174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Melillo JM, Reilly JM, Kicklighter DW, Gurgel AC, Cronin TW, Paltsev S, Felzer BS, Wang X, Sokolov AP, Schlosser CA (2009) Indirect emissions from biofuels: how important? Science 326(5958):1397–1399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Milà 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 Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. MNP (2006) Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  30. 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 15:172–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nguyen TLT, Hermansen JE, Mogensen L (2010) Environmental consequences of different beef production systems in the EU. J Cleaner Prod 18:756–766

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. O’Hare M, Plevin RJ, Martin JI, Jones AD, Kendall A, Hopson E (2009) Proper accounting for time increases crop-based biofuels’ greenhouse gas deficit versus petroleum. Environ Res Let 4 (2) (024001)

  33. Ogino A, Orito H, Shimada K, Hirooka H (2007) Evaluating environmental impacts of the Japanese beef cow–calf system by the life cycle assessment method. Anim Sci J 78(4):424–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Overmars KP, Stehfest E, Ros JPM, Prins AG (2011) Indirect land-use change emissions related to EU biofuel consumption: an analysis based on historical data. Environ Sci Policy 14(3):248–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Plevin RJ, O’Hare M, Jones AD, Torn MS, Gibbs HK (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels’ indirect land-use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ Sci Technol 44(21):8015–8021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ponsioen TC, Blonk TJ (2011) Calculating land-use change in carbon footprints of agricultural products as an impact of current land-use. J Cleaner Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.014

  37. Rogner H-H, Zhou D, Bradley R, Crabbé P, Edenhofer O, Hare B, Kuijpers L, Yamaguchi M (2007) Introduction. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate Change 2007: mitigation. contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  38. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu TH (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238–1240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Stehfest E, Bouwman L, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Eickhout B, Kabat P (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim Change 95(1–2):83–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome

    Google Scholar 

  41. Taheripour F, Hertel TW, Tyner WE, Beckman JF, Birur DK (2010) Biofuels and their by-products: global economic and environmental implications. Biomass Bioenergy 34(3):278–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Thomassen MA, van Calker KJ, Smits MCJ, Iepema GL, de Boer IJM (2007) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agric Sys 96(1–3):95–107

    Google Scholar 

  43. USEPA (2010) Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis

  44. Van Minnen JG, Leemans R, Ihle F (2000) Assessing consequences of dynamic changes in global vegetation patterns, using the IMAGE 2.1 model. Glob Chang Biol 6:595–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. VCD—Verkehrsclub Deutschland (2008) CO2-Grenzwerte für Pkw.

  46. 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, Lyngby

  47. Williams et al (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main report. Defra Research Project ISO205. Bedford, Cranfield University and Defra

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elke Stehfest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Ivan Muñoz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidinger, K., Stehfest, E. Including CO2 implications of land occupation in LCAs—method and example for livestock products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 962–972 (2012).

Download citation


  • Agriculture
  • Carbon sink
  • Land occupation
  • land-use
  • LCA
  • Livestock