John S Woods1, Mattia Damiani2, Peter Fantke3, Andrew D Henderson4,5, John M Johnston6, Jane Bare7, Serenella Sala8, Danielle Maia de Souza9, Stephan Pfister10, Leo Posthuma11,12, Ralph K Rosenbaum2, Francesca Verones1. 1. Industrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Sælands vei 7, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. 2. ITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, F-34196 Montpellier, France. 3. Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. 4. University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA. 5. Noblis, Inc., San Antonio, TX 78232, USA. 6. US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 960 College Station Rd, Athens, GA 30605, USA. 7. US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West MLK Dr, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA. 8. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D: Sustainable Resource, Bioeconomy unit, Via E. Fermi, 2749 Ispra, VA, Italy. 9. Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, T6G 2P5, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 10. ETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland. 11. RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands. 12. Department of Environmental Science, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525, AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results. METHODS: We analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richnessrelated metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators-which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss-should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results. CONCLUSIONS: We call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.
PURPOSE: Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results. METHODS: We analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richnessrelated metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators-which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss-should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results. CONCLUSIONS: We call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.
Authors: Michael Curran; Laura de Baan; An M De Schryver; Rosalie Van Zelm; Stefanie Hellweg; Thomas Koellner; Guido Sonnemann; Mark A J Huijbregts Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Gerold Kier; Holger Kreft; Tien Ming Lee; Walter Jetz; Pierre L Ibisch; Christoph Nowicki; Jens Mutke; Wilhelm Barthlott Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: F S Chapin; E S Zavaleta; V T Eviner; R L Naylor; P M Vitousek; H L Reynolds; D U Hooper; S Lavorel; O E Sala; S E Hobbie; M C Mack; S Díaz Journal: Nature Date: 2000-05-11 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marlia M Hanafiah; Marguerite A Xenopoulos; Stephan Pfister; Rob S E W Leuven; Mark A J Huijbregts Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Bradley J Cardinale; J Emmett Duffy; Andrew Gonzalez; David U Hooper; Charles Perrings; Patrick Venail; Anita Narwani; Georgina M Mace; David Tilman; David A Wardle; Ann P Kinzig; Gretchen C Daily; Michel Loreau; James B Grace; Anne Larigauderie; Diane S Srivastava; Shahid Naeem Journal: Nature Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Gunnar Luderer; Michaja Pehl; Anders Arvesen; Thomas Gibon; Benjamin L Bodirsky; Harmen Sytze de Boer; Oliver Fricko; Mohamad Hejazi; Florian Humpenöder; Gokul Iyer; Silvana Mima; Ioanna Mouratiadou; Robert C Pietzcker; Alexander Popp; Maarten van den Berg; Detlef van Vuuren; Edgar G Hertwich Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 14.919