Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing land use impacts using ecosystem quality, biogenic carbon emissions, and restoration costs in a case study of hydropower plants in Norway

  • LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Habitat destruction is today the most severe threat to global biodiversity. Despite decades of efforts, there is still no proper methodology on how to assess all aspects of impacts on biodiversity from land use and land use changes (LULUC) in life cycle analysis (LCA). A majority of LCA studies on land extensive activities still do not include LULUC. In this study, we test different approaches for assessing the impact of land use and land use change related to hydropower for use in LCA and introduce restoration cost as a new approach.

Methods

We assessed four hydropower plant projects in planning phase (two upgrading plants with reservoir and two new run-of-river plants) in Southern Norway with comparable geography, biodiversity, and annual energy production capacity. LULUC was calculated for each habitat type, based on mapping of present and future land use, and was further allocated to energy production for each power plant. Three different approaches to assess land use impact were included: ecosystem scarcity/vulnerability, biogenic greenhouse gas (bGHG) emissions, and the cost of restoring affected habitats. Restoration cost represents a novel approach to LCA for measuring impact of LULUC.

Results and discussion

Overall, the three approaches give similar rankings of impacts: larger impact for small and new power plants and less for larger and expanding existing plants. Reservoirs caused a larger total area affected. Permanent infrastructure has a more similar absolute impact for run-of-river and reservoir-based hydropower, and consequently give relatively larger impact for smaller run-of-river hydropower. All approaches reveal impacts on wetland ecosystems as most important relative to other ecosystems. The methods used for all three approaches would benefit from higher resolution data on land use, habitats, and soil types. Total restoration cost is not accurate, due to uncertainty of offset ratios, but relative restoration costs may still be used to rank restoration alternatives and compare them to the costs of biodiversity offsets.

Conclusions

The different approaches assess different aspects of land use impacts, but they all show large variation of impact between the studied hydropower plants, which shows the importance of including LULUC in LCA for hydropower projects. Improved data of total restoration cost (and cost accounting) are needed to implement this approach in future LCA.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aapala K, Similä M, Penttinen J (eds) (2014) Ecological restoration in drained peatlands – best practices from Finland. Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus

  • Anon (2015) Boreal Peatland LIFE. LIFE08NAT/FIN/000596. Final Report. Covering the project activities from 01/01/2010 to 31/12/2014. Metsähallitus, Finland

  • Aradottir AL, Hagen D (2013) Ecological restoration: approaches and impacts on vegetation, soils and society. Adv Agr 120:173–222

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson J et al (2010) Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-analysis of recent papers (2000-2008) in restoration ecology and 12 other Scientific Journals. Rest Ecol 18:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakken TH, Aase AG, Hagen D, Sundt H, Barton BN, Lujala P (2014) Demonstrating a new framework for the comparison of environmental impacts from small- and large-scale hydropower and wind power projects. J Environ Manag 140:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26:541–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business and Biodiversity Program (2013) To No Net Loss and Beyond: An Overview of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), 2nd ed, Washington, DC

  • Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 102:437–451

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coelho CR, 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 

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Aichi Biodiversity Targets. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/. Accessed 6 July 2014

  • Curran M et al (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Science & Techn 45:70–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, Souza DM, Anton A, Teixeria RFM, Michelsen O, Vidal-Legaz B, Sala S, Mila i Canals L (2016) How well does LCA model land use impacts on biodiversity? – a comparison with approaches from ecology and conservation. Environ Sci Technol 50:2782–2795

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, Hellweg S, Beck J (2014) Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecol Appl 24(4):617–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot RS et al (2013) Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv Biol 27:1286–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drescher M, Perera AH, Buse LJ, Arnup R, Bowling C, Etheridge D, Niznowski G, Ride K, Vasiliauskas S (2008) Boreal forest succession in Ontario: an analysis of the knowledge space, Ontario. Forest Research Report - Ontario Forest Research Institute 2008 No.171 pp.iv + 57 pp

  • EPD (2007) Envoronmental Product Information Centre PCR 2007:08. http://environdec.com/. Assessed 6 July 2014

  • EU (2010) The EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/index_en.htm Assessed 15 Feb 2016

  • 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 Manag 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grønlund A, Bjørkelo K, Hylen G, Tomter S (2010) CO2-opptak i jord og vegetasjon i Norge. Lagring, opptak og utslipp av CO2 og andre klimagasser. Bioforsk report Vol. 5 Nr. 162. Ås, Norway

  • Guo L, Gifford R (2002) Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob Chang Biol 8:345–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen D, Erikstad L (2013) Arealbrukens betydning for miljøprofil i småkraftbransjen, med vekt på vei og rørgate. Kart og Plan 73:297–308

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen D, Evju M (2013) Using short-term monitoring data to achieve goals in a large-scale restoration. Ecol Soc 18:29. doi:10.5751/ES-05769-180329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen D, Hansen TI, Graae BJ, Rydgren K (2014) To seed or not to seed in alpine restoration: introduced grass species outcompete rather than facilitate native species. Ecol Eng. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.030

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG (2013) Addressing biogenic greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 47:9604–9611

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hilderbrand RH, Watts AC, Randle AM (2005) The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol Soc 10:19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art19/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton RA, House JI, Pongratz J, van der Werf GR, DeFries RS, Hansen MC, Le Quéré C Ramankutty N (2012) Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences 9:5125–5142. doi:10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012

  • ICFGHK (2013) Exploring potential demand for and supply of habitat banking in the EU and appropriate design elements for a habitat banking scheme. Final Report submitted to DG Environment. London

  • IEA (International Energy Agency) (2015) Key World Energy Statistics 2015. IEA Report

  • IPCC (2003) Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry – appendix section 3a.3.3 Flooded Land remaining Flooded Land, Japan

  • IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland

  • IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition, UK

  • Koellner T et al (2013) 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 

  • Lande R, Engen S, Sæther BE (2003) Stochastic population dynamics in ecology and conservation 1st ed. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur R, Wilson O (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Maron M, Hobbs RJ, Moilanen A, Matthews JW, Christie K, Gardner TA, Keith DA, Lindenmayer DB, McAlpine CA (2012) Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Biol Conserv 155:141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGill BJ et al (2007) Species abundance distributions: moving beyond single prediction theories to integration within an ecological framework. Ecol Lett 10:995–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manag 45:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O (2007) 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. doi:10.1065/lca2007.04.316

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O, Lindner J (2015) Why include impacts on biodiversity from land use in LCIA and how to select useful indicators? Sustainability 7:6278–6302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen O, McDevitt JE, Coelho CRV (2014) 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L et al (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis, Washington, DC

  • Moen A (ed) (1999) National Atlas of Norway: Vegetation. Norwegian Mapping Authority, Hønefoss

  • Moilanen A, van Teeffelen AJA, Ben-Haim Y, Ferrier S (2009) How much compensation is enough? A framework for incorporating uncertainty and time discounting when calculating offset ratios for impacted habitat. Rest Ecol 17:470–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreau V et al (2012) Statistical estimation of missing data in life cycle inventory: an application to hydroelectric power plants. J Clean Prod 37:335–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Mateos D, Power ME, Comín FA, Yockteng R (2012) Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLOS Biology 10(1):e1001247. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001247

  • Norwegian Environmental Agency (2013) Påvirkning av vann og vassdrag. http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/no/Tema/Vannforvaltning/Vann-og-vassdrag/Pavirkning-av-vann-og-vassdrag/ Accessed 6 July 6 2014

  • Penariol LV, Madi-Ravazzi L (2013) Edge-interior differences in the species richness and abundance of drosophilids in a semideciduous forest fragment. SpringerPlus 2:114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter D et al (1998) LCA graphic paper and print products (part 1, long version). Infras AG (Zürich), Axel Springer Verlag AG (Hamburg), Stora (Falun, Viersen) and Canfor (Vancouver)Report

  • REN21 (2013) Renewables 2013 global status report. REN21 Secretariat, Paris. ISBN 978-952-446-963-0

  • Simil M, Junninen K (eds) (2012) Ecological restoration and management in boreal forests - best practices from Finland, Helsinki: Metsähallitus

  • Skarpaas O, Certain G, Nybø S (2012) The Norwegian nature index – conceptual framework and methodology. Nor J Geogr 66:250–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souza DM, Teixeira RFM, Ostermann OP (2015) Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with life cycle assessment: are we there yet? Glob Change Biol 21:32–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suding KN (2011) Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:465–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira RFM, de Souza DM, Curranc MP, Antónd A, Michelsen O, Milà i Canals L (2016) Towards consensus on land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative preliminary recommendations based on expert contributions. J Clean Prod 112:4283–4287

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne JH, Girvetz EH, McCoy MC (2009) Evaluating aggregate terrestrial impacts of road construction projects for advanced regional mitigation. Environ Man 43:936–948

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay A et al (2005) GHG emissions from boreal reservoirs and natural aquatic ecosystems. In: Tremblay A et al (eds) Greenhouse gas emissions - fluxes and processes. Environmental science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 209–232

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn A, Barton DN, Lindhjem H, Movik S, Santos IRR (2011) Can markets protect biodiversity? An evaluation of different financial mechanisms. Noragric Report No. 60. Ås, Norway

  • Weidema B, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Final report of the EURENVIRON-LCAGAPS sub-project on land use. Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management Technical University of Denmark IPL-033-01, Lyngby

  • Wolters V, Bengtsson J, Zaitsev AS (2006) Relationship among the species richness of different taxa. Ecology 87:1886–1895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zummo LM, Friedland AJ (2011) Soil carbon release along a gradient of physical disturbance in a harvested northern hardwood forest. For Ecol Manag 261:1016–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study has received financial support from the Research Council of Norway (contract no: 215934/E20, project EcoManage). EcoManage is organized under the research centre CEDREN (Centre for Environmental Design of Renewable Energy www.cedren.no). The paper is based on the Mc. thesis of Vilde Fluge Lillesund at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Department of Energy and Process Engineering.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Industrial Ecology Program, Norwegian University for Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Vilde Fluge Lillesund

  2. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O. Box 5685, Sluppen, 7485, Trondheim, Norway

    Dagmar Hagen, Anders Foldvik & David N. Barton

  3. Norwegian University for Science and Technology, NTNU Sustainability, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Ottar Michelsen

Authors
  1. Vilde Fluge Lillesund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dagmar Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ottar Michelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anders Foldvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David N. Barton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dagmar Hagen.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Koellner

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 33 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lillesund, V.F., Hagen, D., Michelsen, O. et al. Comparing land use impacts using ecosystem quality, biogenic carbon emissions, and restoration costs in a case study of hydropower plants in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22, 1384–1396 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1263-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1263-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation