Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems—the BioImpact metric

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

Abstract

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful method for assessing environmental impacts at large scales. Biodiversity and ecosystem diversity are site-specific, often complex, and difficult to generalise within an LCA framework. There is currently no globally acceptable means of assessing biodiversity within the LCA framework. We introduce, test and revise BioImpact, a method for incorporating biodiversity into an LCA framework, on four production systems (native forestry, plantation softwood timber production, cropping and rangeland grazing) in Australia.

Methods

Our proposed method, a metric we call BioImpact, incorporates biodiversity and ecological impacts through a series of semi-quantitative questions, published data and expert opinion which aim to encapsulate the main issues relating to biodiversity within a disturbance impact framework appropriate to LCA. Results are scaled to a single biodiversity measure that can be incorporated into LCA. We test and revise BioImpact scores on four production systems (native forestry, plantation softwood timber production, cropping and rangeland grazing) in comparison to species richness and net primary productivity (NPP) for these production systems. We demonstrate how the scores can be incorporated into LCA using SimaPro as a platform.

Results and discussion

For pine plantation, cropping/pastures and rangeland grazing, BioImpact demonstrated greater impact, which represents biodiversity loss for multiple species groups. Native forestry scored significantly lower impact than that of other land uses. As a comparison, all production processes scored highly for species richness of main multiple species groups (vascular plants, invertebrates, birds) and were not different in terms of NPP. Integration of BioImpact into LCA found that the softwood system, despite having a higher biodiversity impact per ha year, had a marginally lower BioImpact score per cubic metre compared to native forestry. This was possibly due to cumulative effects and consideration of the reference benchmark, e.g., low levels of pre-harvest biodiversity when not established on native forests; fewer threatened species (and lesser impact) compared to native forestry; questions not weighted sufficiently; and the difference between establishment on either agricultural cleared land or native forest area. Improvement in scaling and/or weighting within the BioImpact scores within each question is discussed.

Conclusions

BioImpact encapsulates different components of biodiversity, is transparent, easily applied (subject to literature/ecological experts) and can be incorporated into LCA. Application of BioImpact for LCA requires co-ordination to identify key regions and production systems; develop the relevant scores with the assistance of ecologists; and make the results available in public LCA databases.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABARES (2015) Agriculture and forestry in the central west region of New South Wales, 2015, about my region 15.3, Canberra, April. CC BY 3.0. (http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications/aboutmyregion sourced 22/1/2016)

  • Ahmed DA, van Bodegom PM, Tukker A (2019) Evaluation and selection of functional diversity metrics with recommendations for their use in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Assess 24:485–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen AN, Penman TD, Debas N, Houadria M (2009) Ant community responses to experimental fire and logging in a eucalypt forest of south-eastern Australia. For Ecol Manag 258:188–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council (2004) Australian paper industry production statistics. Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballesteros-Mejia L, Kitching IJ, Jetz W, Beck J (2017) Putting insects on the map: near-global variation in sphingid moth richness along spatial and environmental gradients. Ecography 40:698–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoît-Norris C, Aulisio D, Norris GA (2013) The social hotspot database supporting documentation, update 2013. New Earth, York Beach

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridle K, Fitzgerald M, Green D, Smith J, McQuillan P, Lefroy T (2009) Relationships between site characteristics, farming system and biodiversity on Australian mixed farms. Anim Prod Sci 49:869–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brock PM, Graham P, Herridge, DF, Madden P, Schwenke GD (2012) Determining emissions profiles for Australian agricultural products at a regional scale: methodological opportunities and obstacles. Proceedings of the 2nd LCANZ and NZLCM Centre Conference on LCA, 28–29 March 2012, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Bunemann EK, Schwenke GD, Van Zwieten L (2006) Impact of agricultural inputs on soil organisms—a review. Aust J Soil Res 44:379–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgman MA, Breininger DR, Duncan BW, Ferson S (2001) Setting reliability bounds on habitat suitability indices. Ecol Appl 11:70–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgman MA, McBride M, Ashton R, Speirs-Bridge A, Flander L, Wintle B, Fidler F, Rumpff L, Twardy C (2011) Expert status and performance. PLoS One 6:e22998

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burley HM, Mokany K, Ferrier S, Laffan SW, Williams KJ, Harwood TJ (2016) Primary productivity is weakly related to floristic alpha and beta diversity across Australia. Global Ecol Biogeogr 25:1294–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, Garcia A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated modern humaninduced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253

  • Chambers JM, Cleveland WS, Kleiner B, Tukey PA (1983) Graphical methods for data analysis. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhary A, Brooks TM (2018) Land use intensity-specific global characterisation factors to assess product biodiversity footprints. Environ Sci Technol 52:5094–5104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhary A, Verones F, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2015) Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species-area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:9987–9995

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chave J (2013) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years? Ecol Lett 16:4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coelho CRV, 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 

  • Comino E, Bottero M, Pomarico S, Rosso M (2014) Exploring the environmental value of ecosystem services for a river basin through a spatial multicriteria analysis. Land Use Policy 36:381–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, de Baan L, De Schryver A, van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Koellner T, Sonnemann G, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45(1):70–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Curran M, de Souza DM, Antón A, Teixeira RFM, Michelsen O, Vidal-Legaz B, Sala A, Milà 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 

  • de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013a) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1216–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Mutel L, Curran M, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2013b) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterisation factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47(16):9281–9290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Baan L, Curran M, Rondinini C, Visconti P, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2015) High-resolution assessment of land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment using species habitat suitability models. Environ Sci Technol 49(4):2237–2244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Schryver AM, Goedkoop MJ, Leuven RSE, 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(7):682–691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza DM, Flynn DFB, DeClerck F, Rosenbaum RK, Lisboa HM, Koellner T (2014) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1231–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza DM, Teixeira RFM, Ostermann OP (2015) Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with life cycle assessment: are we there yet? Glob Chang Biol 21(1):32–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drakare S, Lennon JJ, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggers J, Holmgren S, Nordström E, Lämås T, Lind R (2017) Balancing different forest values: evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework. For Pol Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.002

  • England JR, May B, Raison RJ, Paul KI (2012) Cradle-to-gate inventory of wood production from Australian softwood plantations and native hardwood forests: embodied energy, water use and other inputs. For Ecol Manag 264:37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • England JR, May B, Raison RJ, Paul KI (2013) Cradle-to-gate inventory of wood production from Australian softwood plantations and native hardwood forests: carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. For Ecol Manag 302:295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham RJ (1998) The grassy vegetation of the Darling Downs, south-eastern Queensland, Australia. Floristic and grazing effects. Biol Conserv 84:301–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filyushkina A, Strange N, Löf M, Ezebiol EE, Boman M (2018) Applying the Delphi method to assess impacts of forest management on biodiversity and habitat preservation. For Ecol Manag 409:179–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forests NSW (2005) Ecologically sustainable forest management. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Eden region

    Google Scholar 

  • Forests NSW (2008) Ecologically sustainable forest management. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Tumut

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabel VM, Meier MS, Kopke U, Stolze M (2016) The challenges of including impacts on biodiversity in agricultural life cycle assessments. J Environ Manag 181:249–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer R, Lindner JP, Stoms DM, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010a) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Part 2: impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:692–703

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer R, Stoms DM, Lindner JP, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010b) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Part 1: inventory modeling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:454–467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Giam X, Sodhi NS, Brook BW, Tan HTW, Bradshaw CJA (2011) Relative need for conservation assessments of vascular plant species among ecoregions. J Biogeogr 38(1):55–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilfedder L, Kirkpatrick J (1994) Climate, grazing and disturbance, and the population dynamics of Leucochrysum albicans at Ross, Tasmania. Aust J Bot 42:417–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huigbregts MA, de Schryver A, Strujs J, Van Zelm R (2008) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition report I: characterisation; 6 January 2009, http://www.lcia-recipe.net

  • Grant T (2009) The Australian environment: impact assessment in a sunburnt country. In: Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (eds) Life cycle assessment: principles, practice and prospects. CSIRO Publishing

  • Hampicke U (1991) Naturschultz-okonomie. Ulmer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden GJ (1993) Flora of New South Wales, Vols 1–4. New South Wales University Press, Kensington

    Google Scholar 

  • Haverd V, Raupach MR, Briggs PR, Canadell JG, Isaac P, Pickett-Heaps C, Roxburgh SH, van Gorsel E, Viscarra Rossel RA, Wang Z (2013) Multiple observation types reduce uncertainty in Australia’s terrestrial carbon and water cycles. Biogeosciences 10:2011–2040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiloidhari M, Barua DC, Singh A, Kataki S, Medhi K, Kumari S, Ramachandra TV, Jenkins BM, Thakur IS (2017) Emerging role of geographical information system (GIS), life cycle assessment (LCA) and spatial LCA (GIS-LCA) in sustainable bioenergy planning. Biosour Technol 242:218–226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hischier R (2007) Ecoinvent data version 2.0, life cycle inventories of packaging and graphical paper, v2.0—ecoinvent report no. 11. Ecoinvent Centre, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–3594

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huston M (1993) Biological diversity. Soils Econ Sci 262:1676–1680

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin S, Pedley SM, Coote L, Dietzsch AC, Wilson MW, Oxbrough A, Sweeney O, Moore KM, Kelly T, O’Halloran J (2014) The value of plantation forests for plant, invertebrate and bird diversity and the potential for cross-taxon surrogacy. Biodivers Conserv 23:697–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ives CD, Lentine PE, Threlfall CG, Ikin K, Shanahan DF, Garrad GE, Bekessy SA, Ruller RA, Mumaw L, Rayner L, Rowe R, Valentine LE, Kendal D (2016) Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25(1):117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeanneret P, Baumgartner DU, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Koch B, Gaillard G (2014) An expert system for integrating biodiversity into agricultural life-cycle assessment. Ecol Indic 46:224–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Redding DW, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2014) Global distribution and conservation of evolutionary distinctness in birds. Curr Biol 24:919–930

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kasel S, Bennett LT, Tibbits J (2008) Land use influences soil fungal community composition across central Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1724–1732

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kier G, Mutke J, Dinerstein E, Ricketts TH, Kueper W, Kreft H, Barthlott W (2005) Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. J Biogeogr 32(7):1107–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kier G, Kreft H, Lee TM, Jetz W, Ibisch PL, Nowicki C, Mutke J, Barthlott W (2009) A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(23):9322–9327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick JB (1983) An iterative method for establishing priorities for the establishment of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania. Biol Conserv 25:127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen MT, Hermansen JE, Cederberg C, Herzog F, Vale J, Jeanneret P, Sarthou JP, Friedel JK, Balazs K, Fjellstad W, Kainz M, Wolfrum S, Dennis P (2017) Characterization factors for land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment based on direct measures of plant species richness in European farmland in the ‘Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest’ biome. Sci Total Environ 580:358–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koellner T (2000) Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 8:293–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koellner T, Scholz RW (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in Central Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):32–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandao M, Civit B, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Saad R, Souza DM, Muller-Wenk R (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 

  • Koh LP, Lee TM, Sodhi NS, Ghazoul J (2010) An overhaul of the species–area approach for predicting biodiversity loss: incorporating matrix and edge effects. J Appl Ecol 47(5):1063–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreft H, Jetz W (2007) Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(14):5925–5930

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA, Chase JM (2018) Metacommunity ecology. Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd (2013) Australasian LCI database version 2013.1, data released in SimaPro LCA Software. Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd., Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindeijer E (2000) Review of land use impact methodologies. J Clean Prod 8(4):273–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, MacGregor C, Crane M, Michael D, Fischer J, Montague-Drake R, Felton A, Manning A (2008) Temporal changes in vertebrates during landscape transformation: a large-scale “natural experiment”. Ecol Monogr 78:567–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machado A (2004) An index of naturalness. J Nat Conserv 12(2):95–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews B, Narwani A, Hausch S, Nonaka E, Peter H, Yamaichi M, Sullam K, Bird KC, Thomas MK, Hanley TC, Turner CB (2011) Toward an integration of evolutionary biology and ecosystem science. Ecol Lett 14:690–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews TJ, Triantis KA, Rigal F, Borregaard MK, Guilhaumon F, Whittaker RJ (2016) Island species–area relationships and species accumulation curves are not equivalent: an analysis of habitat island datasets. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25(5):607–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy MA, Parris KM, van der Ree R, McDonnell MJ, Burgman MA, Williams NSG, McLean N, Harper MJ, Meyer R, Hahs A, Coates T (2004) The habitat hectares approach to vegetation assessment: an evaluation and suggestions for improvement. Ecol Manag Restor 5(1):24–27

    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 10:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Molau U, Alatalo JM (1998) Responses of subarctic-alpine plant communities to simulated environmental change: biodiversity of bryophytes, lichens, and vascular plants. Ambio 27:322–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpso AGB, Worm B (2011) How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol 9(8):e1001127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller C, de Baan L, Koellner T (2014) Comparing direct land use impacts on biodiversity of conventional and organic milk—based on a Swedish case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:52–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Cons Biol 4:355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor TG (1991) Patch colonisation in a savanna grassland. Jo Veg Sci 2:245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver I, Smith PL, Lunt I, Parkes D (2002) Pre-1750 vegetation, naturalness and vegetation condition: what are the implications for biodiversity conservation? Ecol Manag Restor 3:176–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GV, Underwood EC, D’Amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettengel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51(11):933–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patouillard L, Bulle C, Querleu C, Maxime D, Osset P, Margni M (2018) Critical review and practical recommendations to integrate the spatial dimension into life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 177:398–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penman TD, Law BS, Ximenes F (2010) A proposal for accounting for biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Biodivers Conserv 19:3245–3254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8(4):124–128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prober SM, Williams KJ, Broadhurst LM, Doerr VAJ (2017) Nature conservation and ecological restoration in a changing climate: what are we aiming for? Range J 39:477–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberge JM, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the Umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Con Biol 18:76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi V, Lehesvirta T, Schenker U, Lundquist L, Koski O, Gueye S, Taylor R, Humbert S (2018) Capturing the potential biodiversity effects of forestry practices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1192–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpitta AB, Bardat J, Lalanne A, Vellend M (2017) Long-term community change: bryophytes are more responsive than vascular plants to nitrogen deposition and warming. J Veg Sci 28:1220–1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider DC (2001) The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. BioScience 51(7):545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenke GD, Brock PM, Haigh BM, Herridge DF (2018) Greenhouse gas emission reductions in subtropical cereal-based cropping sequences using legumes, DMPP-coated urea and split timings of urea application. Soil Res 56:724–736

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Singh H, Garg RD, Karnatak HC, Roy A (2018) Spatial landscape model to characterize biological diversity using R statistical computing environment. J Env Manag 206:1211–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade C, Law B (2017) The other half of the coastal State Forest estate in New South Wales; the value of informal forest reserves for conservation. Aust Zool. https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2016.011

  • Sørensen T (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. Biol Skr–K Dan Vidensk Selsk 5(1−34):4–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Standards Reference Group SERA (2017) National Standards for the practice of ecological restoration, Second edn. Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia, Australia Available from URL: www.seraustralasia.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan G, Petterson B (1991) Land use evaluation in forestry. In: Evaluation of land use in life cycle assessment. Eds: Swan G, Center for Environmental Assessment of Product and Material Systems, CPM Report 1998:2. Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden

  • Teillard F, de Souza DM, Thoma G, Gerber PJ, Finn JA (2016) What does life-cycle assessment of agricultural products need for more meaningful inclusion of biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 53:1422–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira RFM, de Souza DM, Curran MP, Anton 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 

  • Turner PAM, Ximenes, F, Penman TD, Law BS, Waters CM, Mo M, Brock P (2014) Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems—the BioImpact metric. Technical report. September 2014. Report number: PNC301-1213, Affiliation: NSW Department of Primary Industries. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4608.2089. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9jvp3jw1sxe4uon/Research_Report_Template_Final_Report%20-%20Biodiversity%20in%20LCA_September.pdf?dl=0

  • van Dobben HF, Schouwenberg EPAG, Nabuurs GJ, Prins AH (1998) Biodiversity and productivity parameters as a basis for evaluating land use changes in LCA. Biodiversity and life support indicators for land use impacts, Publication Series Raw Materials Nr 1998/07. In: IVAM Environmental Research, editors. Delft: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management; 1998. p. Annex 1.1–1.50

  • Vanneste T, Michelsen O, Graae BJ, Kyrkjeeide MO, Hassel K, Lindmo S, de Frenne P (2017) Impact of climate change on alpine vegetation of mountain summits in Norway. Ecol Res 32:579–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer D, Pribadi DO, Remondi F, Rustiadi E, Grêt-Regamey A (2016) Prioritizing ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing river basins: a spatial multi-criteria analytic approach. Sustain Cities Soc 20:237–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrasdonk E, Palme U, Lennartsson T (2019) Reference situations for biodiversity in life cycle assessments: conceptual bridging between LCA and conservation biology. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01594-x

  • Walshe T, Wintle B, Fidler F, Burgman M (2007) Use of confidence intervals to demonstrate performance against forest management standards. For Ecol Manag 247:237–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardell-Johnson GW, Wiliams MR, Mellican A, Annells A (2004) Floristic patterns and disturbance history in karri forest, south-western Australia 1. Environment and species richness. For Ecol Manag 199:449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby https://lca-net.com/files/gaps9.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3(4):385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter L, Lehmann A, Finogenova N, Finkbeiner M (2017) Including biodiversity in life cycle assessment –State of the art, gaps and research needs. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 67:88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.08.006

  • Winter L, Pflugmacher S, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2018) Biodiversity impact assessment (BIA+)—methodological framework for screening biodiversity. Int Environ Assess Manag 14:282–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woinarski JCZ, Green J, Fisher A, Ensbey M, Mackey B (2013) The effectiveness of conservation reserves: land tenure impacts upon biodiversity across extensive natural landscapes in the tropical savannahs of the Northern Territory, Australia. Land 2(1):20–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funding provided from the Forest and Wood Products Australia. We acknowledge the guidance provided by the Project Steering Committee (Stephen Mitchell, Tim Grant and Sarah Bekessy) in project development; the input provided by the many respondents to the surveys and the participants to a questionnaire validation workshop; and the contributions by Gabrielle Caccamo, Darren Turner, Rebecca Coburn and Stephen Roxburgh. Constructive comments by three anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Perpetua A. M. Turner

    Present address: Forest Practices Authority, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

    Perpetua A. M. Turner

  2. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia

    Fabiano A. Ximenes & Bradley S. Law

  3. The University of Melbourne, Creswick, Victoria, Australia

    Trent D. Penman

  4. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Orange, New South Wales, Australia

    Cathleen M. Waters

  5. Life Cycle Strategies, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Timothy Grant

  6. Office of Environment and Heritage, Haymarket, New South Wales, Australia

    Matthew Mo

  7. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Taylors Beach, New South Wales, Australia

    Philippa M. Brock

Authors
  1. Perpetua A. M. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabiano A. Ximenes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Trent D. Penman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bradley S. Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cathleen M. Waters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Timothy Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matthew Mo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Philippa M. Brock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Perpetua A. M. Turner.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Koellner

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 2173 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turner, P.A.M., Ximenes, F.A., Penman, T.D. et al. Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems—the BioImpact metric. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 1985–2007 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01627-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01627-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation