Linking land use inventories to biodiversity impact assessment methods

Abstract

There is generally a mismatch in the land use classification of life cycle inventory (LCI) databases and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods. This mismatch can hinder the proper assessment of land use impacts on biodiversity. To facilitate such assessments, we matched the land use classes of two global LCIA methods to five widely used LCI databases, one LCI nomenclature, and one multi-regional input-output database. In unclear cases, we assumed the worst case. Assumptions were especially necessary for unspecified land use intensity classes. We conclude with recommendations for LCI database and LCIA method developers.

Characterization Factors to Assess Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance in Life Cycle Assessment

“…Given the detailed considerations made for each level of abundance and consistency in descriptions between experts, we recommend applying the low-abundance CFs to elementary flows that specify intensive practices and the high-abundance CFs to elementary flows that describe extensive management practices. This aligns with recent efforts 38 to provide guidance on the application of CFs and avoid arbitrary selection that can lead to deviating results. The CFs for typical estimates can be applied to generic flows where locations and management practices are unspecified ( Figure 3 ).…”

“…However, current discrepancies in the operationalization of transformation impact assessment should be addressed in order to improve the compatibility of new CFs with inventory LCA flows and improve the accuracy of the assessment. From a pragmatic point of view, it would be recommendable and effective to provide CFs addressing a net transformation impact that can be directly linked to a single inventory flow (e.g., “from annual to permanent crops”) instead of adjusting to the current structure where transformation flows are separated as two separate flows (“from” and “to”) . The midpoint indicator result can be linked in future research to endpoint categories.…”

“…From a pragmatic point of view, it would be recommendable and effective to provide CFs addressing a net transformation impact that can be directly linked to a single inventory flow (e.g., “from annual to permanent crops”) instead of adjusting to the current structure where transformation flows are separated as two separate flows (“from” and “to”). 38 The midpoint indicator result can be linked in future research to endpoint categories. For example, “ecosystem quality” could reflect the relation between decreased pollinator abundance and potential decrease in plant species richness, while “human health” could reflect malnutrition damages through agricultural productivity losses.…”

“…The indicator result can be interpreted as the impact on the relative abundance of wild pollinators that is associated with the studied system. In the case of land use change (also referred to in LCA as land transformation), CFs would be derived by estimating the difference in the relative pollinator abundance between two different land use types and multiplying by a regeneration time according to UNEP-SETAC guidelines to obtain compatible units that would allow for aggregation of land use impacts in LCA. , However, due to discrepancies in the operationalization of land “transformation” impact assessment, , we focus in this study on the derivation of applicable CFs for land “occupation” impacts, referred to simply as land use.…”

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Considering Land Use Intensities and Fragmentation

“…For impact assessment, they need to be linked to life cycle inventory data, which usually use a different land use classification. Scherer et al 61 provide guidance on such linking in general and for specific life cycle inventory databases. A difference to the linking they suggested applies to plantations.…”