Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of three methods to assess land use impacts on biodiversity in a case study of forestry plantations in New Zealand

  • LAND USE IN LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is apply available methods to assess impacts on biodiversity from the land use caused by plantation grown radiata pine in New Zealand in a life cycle assessment framework. This is done both to quantify the impact as well as compare the results obtained by different methods.

Methods

Data on location and productivity for wood supply regions in New Zealand was assessed using three methods identified as relevant for the purpose. All data were related to a functional unit of 1 m3 of timber production.

Results and discussion

The results show both a significant difference in impact on biodiversity from land use in the different wood supply regions and a significant difference in the results from the three applied methods. Although some of the results obtained from the three methods were correlated, this was not consistent through all the results. The methodological variation emanates from the treatment of the characteristics of the wood supply regions and underlying assumptions, e.g. reference vegetation. Compared to a case study in Norway, the impact on biodiversity from plantation forestry in New Zealand is found to be relatively low following the applied methods and assumptions taken.

Conclusions

The study shows a significant variation in how impacts on biodiversity are assessed following different approaches. Research to harmonize methods to quantify impact on biodiversity is recommended, as well as exploring effects of different weighting of crucial aspects of biodiversity, such as rarity, abundance and species richness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anton A, Castells F, Montero JI (2007) Land use indicators in life cycle assessment. Case study: the environmental impact of Mediterranean greenhouses. J Clean Prod 15:432–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC (2010) Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs. Clean Techn Environ Policy 12:341–351

  • Berg P (2009) Radiata pine—growing and harvesting the forest. Te Ara—the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/radiata-pine

  • Berg S, Lindholm EL (2005) Energy use and environmental impacts of forest operations in Sweden. J Clean Prod 13:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:339–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart SHM et al. (2010) Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168

  • Chapin FS III, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RT, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE, Mack MC, Diaz S (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarucci A, Araujo MB, Decocq G, Beierkuhnlein C, Fernandez-Palacios JM (2010) The concept of potential natural vegetation: an epitaph? J Veg Sci 21:1172–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelho CRV, Michelsen O (2014) Land use impacts on biodiversity from kiwifruit production in New Zealand assessed with global and national datasets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:285–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, de Baan L, De Schryver AM, van Zelm R, Koellner T, Sonnemann G, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:70–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013a) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1216–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2013b) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47:9281–9290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza DM, Flynn DFB, DeClerck F, Rosenbaum RK, de Melo LH, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1231–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinee J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer R, Lindner JP, Stoms DM, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:692–703

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Ruiz-Pérez M (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geog 35:613–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R (2009) Land use and biodiversity relations. Land Use Policy 26S:178–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry PY, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Julliard R, Clobert J, Celik T, Gruber B, Schmeller DS, Babij V, Henle K (2008) Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods. Biodivers Conserv 17:3357–3382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen SV, Cherubini F, Michelsen O (2013) Changes in carbon balance, albedo and biodiversity due to miscanthus production. Presentation held at the 7th international conference of the International Society for Industrial Ecology, Ulsan South Korea, June 25-28; 2013

  • Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandao M, Civit B, Goedkoop M, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Müller-Wenk R, Weidema B, Wittstock B (2013a) Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandao M, Civit B, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Saad R, de Souza DM, Müller-Wenk R (2013b) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlmaier G, Kohlmaier L, Fries E, Jaeschke W (2007) Application of the stock change and the production approach to Harvested Wood Products in the EU-15 countries: a comparative analysis. Eur J Forest Res 126:209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köllner T (2000) Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 8:293–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyläkorpi L, Rydgren B, Ellegård A, Miliander S, Grusell E (2005) The botope method 2005. A method to assess the impact of land use on biodiversity. Vattenfall, Stockholm

  • Landeiro VL, Bini LM, Costa FRC, Franklin E, Nogueira A, de Souza JLP, Moraes J, Magnusson WE (2012) How far can we go in simplifying biomonitoring assessments? An integrated analysis of taxonomic surrogacy, taxonomic sufficiency and numerical resolution in a megadiverse region. Ecol Ind 23:366–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson TB (ed) (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecol Bull, vol 50. Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Lane A, Widmer-Cooper A, Williams M (2009) Effects of land use on threatened species. Conserv Biol 23:294–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Foran B, Lobefaro L, Geschke A (2012) International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486:109–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeijer E (2000) Review of land use impact methodologies. J Clean Prod 8:273–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAF (2010) National Exotic Forest Description. Available at http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications, accessed 9 Oct 2013

  • MAF (2012) Forestry and the New Zealand Economy. Available at http://www.maf.govt.nz/forestry, accessed 8 March 2012

  • MfE (2013a) Land use and carbon analysis systems (LUCAS), available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/lucas/data/index.html, accessed 9 Oct 2013

  • MfE (2013b) The New Zealand Land Cover Database, available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/land/land-cover-dbase/, accessed 9 Oct 2013

  • Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity: proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O, Fet AM, Dahlsrud A (2006) Eco-efficiency in extended supply chains: a case study of furniture production. J Environ Manage 79:290–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O, Solli C, Strømman AH (2008) Environmental impact and added value in forestry operations in Norway. J Ind Ecol 12:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O, Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2012) Impact assessment of biodiversity and carbon pools from land use and land use changes in life cycle assessment, exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. J Ind Ecol 16:231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, 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 

  • Milà i Canals L, RomanyaÌ 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 15:1426–1440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nebel B, Drysdale D (2009) Methodologies for carbon footprinting for the forestry sector. A report to MAF

  • Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D'amico JD, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettemgel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51:933–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter D, Krokowski K, Bresky J, Petterson B, Bradley M, Woodtli H, Nehm F (1998) LCA graphic paper and print products (Part 1). Axel Springer Verlag, Stora and Canfor

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff LeRoy N, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shelbourne CJA, Burdon RD, Bannister MH, Thulin IJ (1979) Choosing the best provenances of radiata pine for different sites in New Zealand. New Zeal J Forest 24:288–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151:53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (1992) Convention on biological diversity. Environ Policy Law 22:251–258

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF, World Wildlife Fund (2013) WWF WildFinder. http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/. Accessed 20 August 2013

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr Michelsen was partly funded by the Norwegian Bioenergy Innovation Centre (CenBio) and Dr McDevitt was funded via a Capability Maintenance and Development fund from the New Zealand Ministry of Science and Innovation to complete this work. Carla R. V. Coelho has worked independently from her current employer the Auckland Council. The authors would like to thank Phil Lee for the valuable feedback, as well as two anonymous reviewers for their input and recommendations. Views presented in this paper are strictly on behalf of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the organizations where the authors are employed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Ottar Michelsen

  2. Scion, Te Papa Tipu Innovation Park, 49 Sala Street, Rotorua, 3010, New Zealand

    James E. McDevitt

  3. Geospatial Programme Delivery, Auckland Council, L7 8 Hereford Street, Auckland, 1011, New Zealand

    Carla R. V. Coelho

Authors
  1. Ottar Michelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James E. McDevitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carla R. V. Coelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ottar Michelsen.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Matthias Finkbeiner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michelsen, O., McDevitt, J.E. & Coelho, C.R.V. A comparison of three methods to assess land use impacts on biodiversity in a case study of forestry plantations in New Zealand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 1214–1225 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0742-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0742-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation