Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: are we there yet?

Abstract

Ecosystems are under increasing pressure from human activities, with land use and land-use change at the forefront of the drivers that provoke global and regional biodiversity loss. The first step in addressing the challenge of how to reverse the negative outlook for the coming years starts with measuring environmental loss rates and assigning responsibilities. Pinpointing the global pressures on biodiversity is a task best addressed using holistic models such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA is the leading method for calculating cradle-to-grave environmental impacts of products and services; it is actively promoted by many public policies, and integrated as part of environmental information systems within private companies. LCA already deals with the potential biodiversity impacts of land use, but there are significant obstacles to overcome before its models grasp the full reach of the phenomena involved. In this review, we discuss some pressing issues that need to be addressed. LCA mainly introduces biodiversity as an endpoint category modeled as a loss in species richness due to the conversion and use of land over time and space. The functional and population effects on biodiversity are mostly absent due to the emphasis on species accumulation with limited geographic and taxonomical reach. Current land-use modeling activities that use biodiversity indicators tend to oversimplify the real dynamics and complexity of the interactions of species among each other and with their habitats. To identify the main areas for improvement, we systematically reviewed LCA studies on land use that had findings related to global change and conservation ecology. We provide suggestion as to how to address some of the issues raised. Our overall objective was to encourage companies to monitor and take concrete steps to address the impacts of land use on biodiversity on a broader geographical scale and along increasingly globalized supply chains.

Why Include Impacts on Biodiversity from Land Use in LCIA and How to Select Useful Indicators?

“…[77]). This is supported in some studies (see [24]), while most studies show very weak or no correlations at all [7,26,50,[98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]. Grenyer et al [106] show that correlations between taxonomic groups are even weaker if only rare and endangered species are the focus.…”

“…It should also be mentioned that Chiarucci et al [139] characterize potential natural vegetation (PNV) as a concept that is hard to define and with limited predictive power; still, PNV is often recommended as a reference situation. See also Souza [26] for a thorough discussion of the reference state.…”

“…Curran et al [6] provide the state-of-the art of the present status for impacts on biodiversity in LCIA, and Koellner et al [17] and Souza et al [26] provide the latest overview of different approaches. Koellner et al [18] propose a guideline for building a land use impact assessment method.…”

“…Since the focus is on the value choices, this is not a full review of the methods, as such; this can be found in, e.g., Koellner et al [17] and Souza et al [26]. The main focus here is on the assumptions and choices behind the methods.…”

Biodiversity Modelling as Part of an Observation System

“…These classes are expected to have varying levels of impact on local biodiversity. Prediction of these impacts should ideally be based on explanatory modelling of biological data gathered from the different classes, either across space alone (Souza et al 2015) or, preferably, across both space and time (Casner et al 2014). A particularly noteworthy example of this application of explanatory modelling is the PREDICTS initiative, which has undertaken an extensive meta-analysis of land-use impacts on local biodiversity (change in species richness) based on data for 27,000 species at over 11,000 sites globally (Newbold et al 2015).…”