Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying the Direct and Indirect Demand for Ecosystem Services

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Engineering and Ecosystems

  • 216 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes various methods to account for the direct and indirect interactions between human activities and the environment. These methods include life cycle assessment (LCA) and footprint analysis. The demand for many ecosystem services can be defined as emissions and resource use for human activities. These environmental interventions can be quantified by various existing sustainability assessment methods. The mathematical formulation and characteristics of various LCA models are described. Also, data sources and software programs to conduct LCA studies are introduced.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Roy Haines-Young and Marion B Potschin. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) v5. 1 and guidance on the application of the revised structure. European Environment Agency (EEA), 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bhavik R Bakshi, Guy Ziv, and Michael D Lepech. Techno-ecological synergy: A framework for sustainable engineering. Environmental science & technology, 49(3):1752–1760, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  3. International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment; Principles and Framework. Number 2006. ISO, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jane Bare. Traci 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 13(5):687–696, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yi Yang, Wesley W Ingwersen, Troy R Hawkins, Michael Srocka, and David E Meyer. USEEIO: A new and transparent United States environmentally-extended input-output model. Journal of cleaner production, 158:308–318, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  6. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Us life cycle inventory database. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yi Yang and Reinout Heijungs. A generalized computational structure for regional life-cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(2):213–221, 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anne-Marie Boulay, Jane Bare, Lorenzo Benini, Markus Berger, Michael J Lathuillière, Alessandro Manzardo, Manuele Margni, Masaharu Motoshita, Montserrat Núñez, Amandine Valerie Pastor, et al. The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (aware). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(2):368–378, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sangwon Suh. Functions, commodities and environmental impacts in an ecological–economic model. Ecological Economics, 48(4):451–467, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rebecca J Hanes and Bhavik R Bakshi. Process to planet: A multiscale modeling framework toward sustainable engineering. AIChE Journal, 61(10):3332–3352, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Michael Wang. The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation (greet) model: Version 1.5. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R Frischknecht, N Jungbluth, HJ Althaus, R Hischier, G Doka, R Dones, T Heck, S Hellweg, G Wernet, T Nemecek, et al. Overview and methodology. data v2. 0 (2007). Ecoinvent report no. 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yi Yang, Wesley W Ingwersen, and David E Meyer. Exploring the relevance of spatial scale to life cycle inventory results using environmentally-extended input-output models of the united states. Environmental modelling & software, 99:52–57, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  14. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Interactive access to industry economic accounts data: Input-output. Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/itable.cfm?reqid=52&step=1 Accessed September 2019.

  15. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Regional input-output modeling system (rims ii). Available at: https://apps.bea.gov/regional/rims/ Accessed September 2019.

  16. Scott A Lindall, Douglas C Olson, and Gregory S Alward. Deriving multi-regional models using the IMPLAN national trade flows model. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 36(1100-2016-89756), 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: Ȧvailable at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks Accessed September 2019.

  18. World Resources Institute (WRI). Cait climate data explorer, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Air emissions inventories. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories Accessed September 2019.

  20. Brian R Pickard, Jessica Daniel, Megan Mehaffey, Laura E Jackson, and Anne Neale. EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management. Ecosystem Services, 14:45–55, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Andreas Ciroth. ICT for environment in life cycle applications openLCA—a new open source software for life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(4):209, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mark Goedkoop, Anne De Schryver, Michiel Oele, Sipke Durksz, and Douwe de Roest. Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. PRé Consultants, The Netherlands, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sabrina Spatari, Michael Betz, Harald Florin, Martin Baitz, and Michael Faltenbacher. Using gabi 3 to perform life cycle assessment and life cycle engineering. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 6(2):81, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Christopher Weber, Deanna Matthews, Aranya Venkatesh, Christine Costello, and H Matthews. The 2002 us benchmark version of the economic input-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) model. Green Design Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shweta Singh and Bhavik R Bakshi. Eco-lca: A tool for quantifying the role of ecological resources in lca. In 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology, pages 1–6. IEEE, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Kyuha Lee

  2. School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy, School of Sustainability, School of Complex Adaptive Systems, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Bhavik R. Bakshi

  3. Lowrie Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Bhavik R. Bakshi

Authors
  1. Kyuha Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bhavik R. Bakshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhavik R. Bakshi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy, School of Sustainability, School of Complex Adaptive Systems, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Bhavik R. Bakshi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lee, K., Bakshi, B.R. (2023). Quantifying the Direct and Indirect Demand for Ecosystem Services. In: Bakshi, B.R. (eds) Engineering and Ecosystems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35692-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation