Valuing Biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Erratum published on 13 March 2020, see Sustainability 2020, 12(6), 2270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205628In this article, the authors propose an impact assessment method for life cycle assessment (LCA) that adheres to established LCA principles for land use-related impact assessment, bridges current research gaps and addresses the requirements of different stakeholders for a methodological framework. The conservation of biodiversity is a priority for humanity, as expressed in the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Addressing biodiversity across value chains is a key challenge for enabling sustainable production pathways. Life cycle assessment is a standardised approach to assess and compare environmental impacts of products along their value chains. The impact assessment method presented in this article allows the quantification of the impact of land-using production processes on biodiversity for several broad land use classes. It provides a calculation framework with degrees of customisation (e.g., to take into account regional conservation priorities), but also offers a default valuation of biodiversity based on naturalness. The applicability of the method is demonstrated through an example of a consumer product. The main strength of the approach is that it yields highly aggregated information on the biodiversity impacts of products, enabling biodiversity-conscious decisions about raw materials, production routes and end user products

Valuing Biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

In this article, the authors propose an impact assessment method for life cycle assessment (LCA) that adheres to established LCA principles for land use-related impact assessment, bridges current research gaps and addresses the requirements of different stakeholders for a methodological framework. The conservation of biodiversity is a priority for humanity, as expressed in the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Addressing biodiversity across value chains is a key challenge for enabling sustainable production pathways. Life cycle assessment is a standardised approach to assess and compare environmental impacts of products along their value chains. The impact assessment method presented in this article allows the quantification of the impact of land-using production processes on biodiversity for several broad land use classes. It provides a calculation framework with degrees of customisation (e.g., to take into account regional conservation priorities), but also offers a default valuation of biodiversity based on naturalness. The applicability of the method is demonstrated through an example of a consumer product. The main strength of the approach is that it yields highly aggregated information on the biodiversity impacts of products, enabling biodiversity-conscious decisions about raw materials, production routes and end user products

Correction: Lindner, J.P., et. al. Valuing Biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5628

The authors would like to make the following corrections about the published paper [...

Moving beyond land use intensity types: assessing biodiversity impacts using fuzzy thinking

Purpose: The\ua0impact\ua0of\ua0land\ua0use on\ua0biodiversity\ua0is a topic that has received considerable attention in life cycle assessment (LCA). The methodology to assess\ua0biodiversity\ua0in LCA has been improved in the past decades. This paper contributes to this progress by building on the concept of conditions for maintained\ua0biodiversity. It describes the theory for the development of mathematical functions representing the\ua0impact\ua0of\ua0land\ua0uses and management practices on\ua0biodiversity. Methods: The method proposed here describes the\ua0impact\ua0of\ua0land\ua0use on\ua0biodiversity\ua0as a decrease in\ua0biodiversity\ua0potential, capturing the\ua0impact\ua0of management practices. The method can be applied with weighting between regions, such as ecoregions. The\ua0biodiversity\ua0potential is calculated through functions that describe not only parameters which are relevant to\ua0biodiversity, for example, deadwood in a forest, but also the relationships between those parameters. For example, maximum\ua0biodiversity\ua0would hypothetically occur when the nutrient balance is ideal and no pesticide is applied. As these relationships may not be readily quantified, we propose the use of\ua0fuzzy\ua0thinking\ua0for\ua0biodiversity\ua0assessment, using AND/OR operators. The method allows the inclusion of context parameters that represent neither the management nor the\ua0land\ua0use practice being investigated, but are nevertheless relevant to\ua0biodiversity. The parameters and relationships can be defined by either literature or expert interviews. We give recommendations on how to create the\ua0biodiversity\ua0potential functions by providing the reader with a set of questions that can help build the functions and find the relationship between parameters. Results and discussion: We present a simplified case study of paper production in the Scandinavian and Russian Taiga to demonstrate the applicability of the method. We apply the method to two scenarios, one representing an intensive forestry practice, and another representing lower\ua0intensity\ua0forestry management. The results communicate the differences between the two scenarios quantitatively, but more importantly, are able to provide guidance on improved management. We discuss the advantages of this condition-based approach compared to pre-defined\ua0intensity\ua0classes. The potential drawbacks of defining potential functions from industry-derived studies are pointed out. This method also provides a less strict approach to a reference situation, consequently allowing the adequate assessment of cases in which the most beneficial\ua0biodiversity\ua0state is achieved through management practices. Conclusions: The originality of using\ua0fuzzy\ua0thinking\ua0is that it enables\ua0land\ua0use management practices to be accounted for in LCA without requiring sub-categories for different intensities to be explicitly established, thus\ua0moving\ua0beyond\ua0the classification of\ua0land\ua0use practices. The proposed method is another LCIA step toward closing the gap between\ua0land\ua0use management practices and\ua0biodiversity\ua0conservation goals