Abstract
Purpose
Habitat loss is a significant cause of biodiversity loss, but while its importance is widely recognized, there is no generally accepted method on how to include impacts on biodiversity from land use and land use changes in cycle assessment (LCA), and existing methods are suffering from data gaps. This paper proposes a methodology for assessing the impact of land use on biodiversity using ecological structures as opposed to information on number of species.
Methods
Two forms of the model (global and local scales) were used to assess environmental quality, combining ecosystem scarcity, vulnerability, and conditions for maintaining biodiversity. A case study for New Zealand kiwifruit production is presented. As part of the sensitivity analysis, model parameters (area and vulnerability) were altered and New Zealand datasets were also used.
Results and discussion
When the biodiversity assessment was implemented using a global dataset, the importance of productivity values was shown to depend on the area the results were normalized against. While the area parameter played an important role in the results, the proposed alternative vulnerability scale had little influence on the final outcome.
Conclusions
Overall, the paper successfully implements a model to assess biodiversity impacts in LCA using easily accessible, free-of-charge data and software. Comparing the model using global vs. national datasets showed that there is a potential loss of regional significance when using the generalized model with the global dataset. However, as a guide to assessing biodiversity impact, the model allows for consistent comparison of product systems on an international basis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bare JC (2010) Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs. Clean Technol Environ Policy 12:341–351
Barnes N (1996) Conflicts over biodiversity. In: Sloep PB, Blowers A (eds) Environmental policy in an international context. Environmental problems as conflicts of interest. Arnold, London, pp 217–254
Brentrup F, Küsters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the hemeroby concept. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:339–348
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA et al (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168
Chapin FS III, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RT, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL et al (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234–242
Curran M, de Baan L, de Schryver A, van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Koellner T, Sonnemann G, Huijbregts M (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:70–79
De Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1216–1230
De Schryver AM, Goedkoop MJ, Leuven RSEW, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:682–691
Diaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655
FAO (2012) FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.org/home. Accessed 2 August 2012
Geyer R, Stoms DM, Lindner JP, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(5):454–467
Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2009) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment methods which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition. Report I: Characterisation. Available at http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/recipe_characterisation.pdf Accessed 13 April 2012
Gottfried M, Pauli H, Futschik A, Akhalkatsi M, Barančok P, Alonso JLB et al (2012) Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate change. Nat Clim Change 2:111–115
Haines-Young R (2009) Land use and biodiversity relations. Land Use Policy 26S:178–186
Henry PY, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Julliard R, Clobert J, Celik T et al (2008) Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: Potential benefits and methods. Biodivers Conserv 17:3357–3382
Kati V, Devillers P, Dufrêne M, Legakis A, Vokou D, Lebrun P (2004) Testing the value of six taxonomic groups as biodiversity indicators at a local scale. Conserv Biol 18:667–675
Kilgour M, Saunders C, Scrimgeour F, Zellman E (2008) The key elements of success and failure in the NZ kiwifruit industry. Research Report No. 311. Agrobusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln, New Zealand
Koellner T (2002) Land use in product life cycles and its consequences for ecosystem quality. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:130
Köllner T (2000) Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Product 8:293–311
Kowarik I (1999) Natürlichkeit, Naturnähe und Hemerobie als Bewertungskriterien. In: Konold W, Böcker R, Hampicke U (eds) Handbuch Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. Ecomed, Landsberg
Landcare Research (2012) Threatened Environment Classification. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/resources/maps-satellites/threatened-environment-classification, accessed 13August 2012
Larsson TB (ed) (2001) Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Ecological Bulletins 50. Blackwell Science, Oxford
Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B, Bloemers GF, Eggleton P, Hammond PM et al (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391:72–76S
Lenzen M, Lane A, Widmer-Cooper A, Williams M (2009) Effects of land use on threatened species. Conserv Biol 23:294–306
Lindeijer E (2000) Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. J Cleaner Prod 8:313–319
Lindgaard A, Henriksen S (eds) (2011) Norsk rødliste for naturtyper 2010. Artsdatabanken, Trondheim
MfE, Ministry for the Environment (2007) Environmental reporting, land cover, Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/land/cover/. Accessed 25 November 2011
MfE, Ministry for the Environment (2009) Publications, state of the environment, Land Environments of New Zealand, Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/lenz-apr03.html. Accessed 13 August 2012
Michelsen O (2008) 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
Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G et al (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:5–15
Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagin A, Orr S, Anton A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I - inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:28–42
Milà i Canals L, Chapagin A, Orr S, Chenoweth J, Anton A, Clift R (2010) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA, part 2: case study of broccoli production in the UK and Spain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:598–607
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group / co-chairs Hassan R and Scholes R. Island, Washington, DC
Muller-Wenk R (1998) Land use—the main threat to species. How to include land use in LCA. IWÖ—Diskussionsbeitrag 64. Institute for Economy and the Environment (IWÖ). University St. Gallen, St. Gallen
Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51:933–938
Paracchini ML, Capitani C (2011) Implementation of a EU wide indicator for the rural-agrarian landscape. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports EUR25114EN-2011. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Brussels
Peltzer DA, MacLeod CJ, Gormley AM, Perry M, Burrows L, Moller H, Benge J (2011) Weed risk, plant biodiversity and carbon storage within kiwifruit orchard land titles. Landcare Research Contract Report LC626 to ZESPRI International Ltd and Bay of Plenty Regional Council, New Zealand. Landcare Research, Dunedin, New Zealand
Penman T, Law B, Ximenes F (2010) A proposal for accounting for biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Biodivers Conserv 19:3245–3254
Peter D, Krokowski K, Bresky J, Petterssn B, Bradley M, Woodtli H, Nehm F (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)
Prendergast JR, Eversham BC (1997) Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept. Ecography 20:210–216
QGIS, Quantum GIS project, version 1.7.4 Wroclaw (2012) http://www.qgis.org. Accessed 5 March 2013
Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R et al (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 287:1770–1774
Schmidt JH (2008) Development of LCIA characterisation factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. J Cleaner Product 16:1929–1942
Similä M, Kouki J, Mönkkänen M, Sippola AL, Huhta E (2006) Co-variation and indicators of species diversity: can richness of forest-dwelling species be predicted in boreal forests? Ecol Indicat 6:686–700
Toffoletto L, Bulle C, Godin J, Reid C, Deschênes L (2007) LUCAS—a new LCIA method used for a Canadian-specific context. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:93–102
UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and annexes. UNEP, Geneva
van Jaarsveld AS, Freitag S, Chown SL, Muller C, Koch S, Hull H et al (1998) Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279:2106–2108
Walker S, Price R, Rutledge Dl (2005) New Zealand's remaining indigenous cover: recent changes and biodiversity protection needs. Landcare Research, Dunedin, New Zealand. Available at http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/databases/lenz/downloads/New%20Zealand_indigenous_cover.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2011
Walter C, Stützel H (2009) A new method for assessing the sustainability of land-use systems (II): evaluating impact indicators. Ecol Econ 68:1288–1300
Weidema BP, Lindeijer L (2001) Physical impacts of land-use in product life cycle assessment: final report of the Eurenviro-LCAGAPS sub-project on land-use. Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management, Lyngby
WWF, World Wildlife Fund (2012) WWF WildFinder. http://gis.wwfus.org/wildfinder/. Accessed 18 August 2012
ZESPRI (2010) ZESPRI web pages. Zespri kiwifruit Annual Review 2009/2010, Investors Publications. www.zespri.com. Accessed 6 July 2012
ZESPRI (2012) ZESPRI web pages. www.zespri.com. Accessed 6 July 2012
Acknowledgments
The article is based on research initially conducted by the author Carla Coelho while at Landcare Research and was supported by Government capability funding to Landcare Research from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. At present, Carla works as Geospatial Analyst in the Auckland Council, and the views expressed in this article are independent from her current employer. Ottar Michelsen had financial support from the Norwegian Bioenergy Innovation Centre (CenBio). The authors acknowledge interesting discussions with colleague Pascale Michel, input from William Lee, who recommended the use of LENZ for better adaptation to the New Zealand context, and Nancy Golubiewski. Christine Bezar and Bob Frame reviewed an earlier draft. The authors also acknowledge thoughtful comments from two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Llorenc Milà i Canals
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
PDF 69 kb
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
V. Coelho, C.R., Michelsen, O. 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 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0628-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0628-7