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

Abstract

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...

Land use impact assessment in the construction sector: an analysis of LCIA models and case study application

“…Although the endpoint indicators are easier to interpret, their associated level of uncertainty may be higher due to an increase in modelling, scenario and parameter complexity (Bare et al 2000). Beside the models reviewed and recommended in the ILCD (Milà i Canals et al 2007), some other models also contributed to the current status of land use modelling (Bluemer and Kylaekorpi 1998;Köllner 2003;Köllner et al 2013b;Köllner and Geyer 2013;Michelsen 2008;Müller-Wenk 1998;Saad et al 2013;Souza 2010;Souza et al 2013;Weidema and Lindeijer 2001). This paper focuses on the quantification of land use impacts in LCA of buildings.…”

The environmental footprint of interior wood doors in non-residential buildings – part 1: life cycle assessment

“…It is hard to believe that this is representative of the situation of the production of wood from current Canadian forest management. This issue deserves further investigation and researchers have been already working on the problem in order to take into account a broader set of ecosystems and ecosystem services Koellner et al, 2013). The manufacturing and usage stages have few impacts on those categories compared to the others.…”

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

“…Still, the question of how LULUC should be included is debated; a range of proposals have been put forward [6,17,18], but no consensus has been reached. Most proposals are based on the premise that land use impacts should be assessed in three dimensions-area, quality and time-where the basic idea is that a stretch of land (area) is altered from its current state (quality) to adapt it to the intended use for a period of time [18,19]. While the area affected by a certain impact is relatively easily determined, quality changes and the time scale of the alteration are much harder to assess.…”

“…The inequalities in different approaches give rise to different results and recommendations [20,21], and inevitably, the results are questionable for decision support [22]. United Nations Environmental Programme and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry have a joint effort to enable a global use of credible life cycle knowledge and in the latest guidelines from UNEP-SETAC, a call for "more consistency" is put forward [18], and this work is taken further by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative "Environmental Life Cycle Impact Indicators", which aim to build consensus within the field.…”

“…Koellner et al [18] propose a guideline for building a land use impact assessment method. The guideline is full of choices need to be made, and what is still lacking in this picture is a debate on the value choices, whether deliberately made or not, made when the complexity of biodiversity is transformed to, in most cases, a single indicator.…”