Toward Meaningful End Points of Biodiversity in Life Cycle Assessment

Curran, Michael; Baan, Laura de; Schryver, An M. De; Zelm, Rosalie van; Hellweg, Stefanie; Koellner, Thomas; Sonnemann, Guido; Huijbregts, Mark A. J.

doi:10.1021/es101444k

Cited by 170 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 90 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some work based on LCA has already been initiated for analyzing the multi-criteria optimization of feeding practices, for example, in beef and dairy systems, while considering several types of products in the same system (Nguyen et al, 2012 and. General principles and specific methods are currently being developed to include a biodiversity impact through land-use changes in LCAs (Curran et al, 2011). Accounting for the subsidies rewarding environmental-friendly practices is another recent development of LCA (Nguyen et al, 2012;Ripoll-Bosch et al, 2013).…”

Section: Managing For Resilience: Adapting Aps To Risk and Uncertaintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century

Dumont

García

Thomas

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agroecology offers a scientific and operational framework for redesigning animal production systems (APS) so that they better cope with the coming challenges. Grounded in the stimulation and valorization of natural processes to reduce inputs and pollutions in agroecosystems, it opens a challenging research agenda for the animal science community. In this paper, we identify key research issues that define this agenda. We first stress the need to assess animal robustness by measurable traits, to analyze trade-offs between production and adaptation traits at within-breed and between-breed level, and to better understand how group selection, epigenetics and animal learning shape performance. Second, we propose research on the nutritive value of alternative feed resources, including the environmental impacts of producing these resources and their associated non-provisioning services. Third, we look at how the design of APS based on agroecological principles valorizes interactions between system components and promotes biological diversity at multiple scales to increase system resilience. Addressing such challenges requires a collection of theories and models (concept-knowledge theory, viability theory, companion modeling, etc.). Acknowledging the ecology of contexts and analyzing the rationales behind traditional small-scale systems will increase our understanding of mechanisms contributing to the success or failure of agroecological practices and systems. Fourth, the large-scale development of agroecological products will require analysis of resistance to change among farmers and other actors in the food chain. Certifications and market-based incentives could be an important lever for the expansion of agroecological alternatives in APS. Finally, we question the suitability of current agriculture extension services and public funding mechanisms for scaling-up agroecological practices and systems.

show abstract

Section: Managing For Resilience: Adapting Aps To Risk and Uncertaintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century

Dumont

García

Thomas

et al. 2014

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although functional species diversity is an important factor in the cause-effect chain from land use to ecosystem functioning and services (Balvanera et al 2006;Flynn et al 2009), functional aspects of biodiversity are not yet considered (see the review from Curran et al 2011). Moreover, only preliminary studies explicitly discuss ecosystem services in LCA (Maes et al 2009;Zhang et al 2010a, b;Bare 2011) and this concept generally refers to life support functions (de Groot 1992;de Groot et al 2002) introduced early into LCA (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Koellner

Baan

Beck

et al. 2013

Int J Life Cycle Assess

Self Cite

281

288

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose As a consequence of the multi-functionality of land, the impact assessment of land use in Life Cycle Impact Assessment requires the modelling of several impact pathways covering biodiversity and ecosystem services. To provide consistency amongst these separate impact pathways, general principles for their modelling are provided in this paper. These are refinements to the principles that have already been proposed in publications by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. In particular, this paper addresses the calculation of land use interventions and land use impacts, the issue of impact reversibility, the spatial and temporal distribution of such impacts and the assessment of absolute or relative ecosystem quality changes. Based on this, we propose a guideline to build methods for land use impact assessment in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Results Recommendations are given for the development of new characterization models and for which a series of key elements should explicitly be stated, such as the modelled land use impact pathways, the land use/cover typology covered, the level of biogeographical differentiation used for the characterization factors, the reference land use situation used and if relative or absolute quality changes are used to calculate land use impacts. Moreover, for an application of the characterisation factors (CFs) in an LCA study, data collection should be transparent with respect to the data input required from the land use inventory and the regeneration times. Indications on how generic CFs can be used for the background system as well as how spatial-based CFs can be calculated for the foreground system in a specific LCA study and how land use change is to be allocated should be detailed. Finally, it becomes necessary to justify the modelling period for which land use impacts of land transformation and occupation are calculated and how uncertainty is accounted for. Discussion The presented guideline is based on a number of assumptions: Discrete land use types are sufficient for an assessment of land use impacts; ecosystem quality remains constant over time of occupation; time and area of occupation are substitutable; transformation time is negligible; regeneration is linear and independent from land use history and landscape configuration; biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services are independent; the ecological impact is linearly increasing with the intervention; and there is no interaction between land use and other drivers such as climate change. These assumptions might influence the results of land use Life Cycle Impact Assessment and need to be critically reflected. Conclusions and recommendations In this and the other papers of the special issue, we presented the principles and recommendations for the calculation of land use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a global scale. In the framework of LCA, they are mainly used for the assessment of land use impacts in the background system. The main areas for further development are the link to regional...

show abstract

“…Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is used to quantify the potential environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of a product or a service [5], but impacts on biodiversity are only partly included [6]. Changes in land use are often the most important driver for loss of biodiversity [7][8][9][10][11], but climate change, pollution, invasive species and overexploitation are also of importance [3,9,[12][13][14].…”

Section: Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Include Impacts on Biodiversity from Land Use in LCIA and How to Select Useful Indicators?

Michelsen

Lindner

2015

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Loss of biodiversity is one of the most severe threats to sustainability, and land use and land use changes are still the single most important factor. Still, there is no sign of any consensus on how to include impacts on biodiversity from land use and land use changes in LCIA. In this paper, different characteristics of biodiversity are discussed and related to proposals on how to include land use and land use changes in LCIA. We identify the question of why we should care about biodiversity as a key question, since different motivations will result in different choices for the indicators, and we call for more openness in the motivation for indicator selection. We find a promising trend in combining pressure indicators with geographic weighting and regard this as a promising way ahead. More knowledge on the consequences of different choices, such as the selection of a reference state, is still needed.

show abstract

Toward Meaningful End Points of Biodiversity in Life Cycle Assessment

Cited by 170 publications

References 90 publications

Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century

Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century

UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA

Why Include Impacts on Biodiversity from Land Use in LCIA and How to Select Useful Indicators?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About