ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
GLOBAL LAND USE IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN LCA
UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in
LCA
Thomas Koellner • Laura de Baan • Tabea Beck • Miguel Brandão • Barbara Civit • Manuele Margni •
Llorenç Milà i Canals • Rosie Saad • Danielle Maia de Souza • Ruedi Müller-Wenk
T. Koellner () • D. M. Souza
Professorship of Ecological Services, University of Bayreuth, Faculty of Biology, Chemistry and Geosciences,
GEO II, Room 1.17, Universitaetsstr. 30, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany
e-mail: thomas.koellner@uni-bayreuth.de
L. de Baan
Natural and Social Science Interface, Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, Universitaetstr. 22,
8092 Zurich, Switzerland
T. Beck
Department Life Cycle Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Hauptstrasse 113, 70771 Leinfelden-Echterdingen,
Germany
M. Brandão • D. M. Souza
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Sustainability
Assessment Unit, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
B. Civit
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional – Facultad Regional Mendoza/CONICET - Rodríguez 273 (5500) Mendoza,
Argentina
M. Margni • R. Saad
CIRAIG, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Département de génie chimique, 6079 Montréal, Canada
L. Milà i Canals
Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Unilever R&D Colworth Park, Sharnbrook, Bedford, MK44 1LQ,
UK
R. Müller-Wenk
Institute for Economy and the Environment, University St. Gallen, Tigerbergstrasse 2, 9000 St.Gallen,
Switzerland
Received: 14 June 2011 / Accepted: 9 February 2012
Springer-Verlag 2012
Responsible editor: Roland Geyer
() Corresonding author:
Thomas Koellner
e-mail: thomas.koellner@uni-bayreuth.de
1
Supporting Information A: Separating transformation into two separate flows “transformation from” and
“transformation to”. This idea was implemented in Ecoinvent 2.0, to reduce the number of flows and allow
better data management. The same approach was used in ReCiPe (De Schryver and Goedkoop 2008). Instead of
storing information for each combination of land use change, all land use changes are calculated in relation to a
baseline. The land use flow “transformation from A to B” is split into two vectors “transformation from A to
baseline” and “transformation from baseline to B” (Fig. S1). That means, we would have to define a useful
baseline. We suggest using the reference (“Potential natural vegetation”) as a baseline for this distinction.
Because the reference land use type has per definition no impact, the baseline is 0. For the overall impact
calculation of transformation, it is irrelevant which baseline is chosen, as we first add and then subtract the
baseline (see ecoinvent report, Frischknecht and Jungbluth 2007).
Fig. S1 Options for calculating transformation land use flows
If we add the temporal dimension to Fig. S1 we can calculate the transformation impacts of both options (for
simplicity, we assume for the spatial dimension that the area of each land use changes remains constant). This is
illustrated in Fig. S2. The overall transformation impact for (a) combined impact and (b) separated impacts is the
same. (a) Is calculated in the same way as in Fig. 1 the transformation from LU2 to LU3. In (b), the land is
immediately transformed from A to the baseline. Without this (active) transformation, the ecosystem quality
would gradually improve passively along the regeneration trajectory (diagonal of the triangle). Therefore, with
this (hypothetical) immediate transformation, we create a benefit (negative value) to the ecosystem quality
marked in the green triangle. In a second step the land is immediately transformed from the baseline to B,
causing a damage (positive value) to ecosystem quality. The overall impact to ecosystem quality of the two
transformations equals the transformation impact of the combined transformation displayed in (a).
Fig. S2 Transformation from A to B, calculated as (a) a combined impact or (b) two separated impacts
2
Fig. S3 Transformation and occupation impacts of two land use types 1 and 2. For simplicity the area A of occupation is not shown
in the graph
The same calculation of transformation and occupation impact can theoretically be applied for all land use types
and possible transformation. In Fig. S3 we illustrate a case of transforming land from a more intense land use
activity LU1 (e.g. arable land) into less an intense land use activity LU2 (e.g. forest plantation). For illustration,
we changed the order by first displaying the occupation and then the transformation impacts, but the calculation
of areas remains the same as in Figs. 1-2 and Fig. S2. At time t1, the land is transformed from an unused
reference situation to land use LU1 and occupied until t2. Then land is transformed to LU2 (e.g. forest plantation).
At time t3 the land is abandoned and potentially regenerates after a regeneration time tLU1,reg. Occupation impacts
of LU1 and LU2 are calculated as before: OI = ΔQ* Δt* A. Transformation impact of LU1 is given by TIref→LU1=
0.5*(Qref - QLU1)* tLU1, reg* A. The transformation impact from LU1 to LU2 is calculated as TILU1→LU2 = 0.5* (Qref QLU2)* tLU2, reg* A - TIref→LU1 = TIref→LU2 - TIref→LU1. As TIref→LU2 < TIref→LU1 we get a negative impact, or a benefit
for land use quality. In Fig. S3, this benefit is illustrated as the dotted area (4). The instant decrease and increase
of ecosystem quality at t1 and t2 is a strong simplification of reality. In many cases, such changes, especially
increases in ecosystem quality (land transformation from LU1 to LU2), are occurring gradually over a certain
time period.
3
Supporting Information B: Land use impacts assessment methodology
Table S1 Overview of land use impact assessment methods and the case study presented in this special issue. (*) In 1b) the numbers in brackets refer
to the land use codes as presented in Koellner et al. (2013)
Impact assessment methods
Authors, Reference
1) Creation of spatial
model
1a) - modelled impact
pathways and unit
- unit of impact
assessment
de Baan et al. (this issue)
- Biodiversity Damage
Potential (BDP_SD),
species diversity
% reduced relative species
richness, or potentially
disappeared fraction of
species (PDF)
Souzaet al. (this issue)
- Biodiversity Damage
Potential (BDP_FD),
functional diversity
Relative reduction in
species functional
diversity
Brandão and Milà i Canals
(2013)
- Biotic Production
Potential (BPP)
tC-yr / (ha-yr)
Case study
Müller-Wenk and
Brandão (2010)
- Climate Regulation
Potential (CRP)
Fossil-combustionequivalent ton, C per
hectare transferred to air
(Ceq)
Saad et al. (2013)
Mila i Canals et al. (2013)
- Freshwater Regulation
Potential (FWRP)
- Erosion Regulation
Potential (ERP)
- Water Purification
Potential (WPP)
- Biodiversity Damage Potential
(BDP)
- Biotic Production Potential
(BPP)
- Climate Regulation Potential
(CRP)
- Freshwater Regulation
Potential (FWRP)
- Erosion Regulation Potential
(ERP)
- Water Purification Potential
(WPP)
- FWRP: mm/year
- ERP: ton/(ha.yr)
- WPP: two indicators
(Mechanical Filtration
[cm/d], Physiochemical
Filtration [cmol/kgsoil] )
see impact assessment methods
4
Impact assessment methods
Authors, Reference
de Baan et al. (this issue)
b) land use/cover
typology covered (*)
- Unused (1.1.1 / 4.1.1)
- Secondary vegetation
(1.1.2)
- Used forest (1.2)
- Pasture/meadow (4.2)
- Annual crops (5.1)
- Permanent crops (5.2)
- Agroforestry (6)
- Artificial area (7)
Souzaet al. (this issue)
Case study
Brandão and Milà i Canals
(2013)
Müller-Wenk and
Brandão (2010)
Saad et al. (2013)
Mila i Canals et al. (2013)
- Long-term cultivated (5)
- Full tillage, medium C
input cultivation (5.1.2 /
5.1.3)
- Permanent grassland (4)
- Nominally managed
grassland (4.2)
- Paddy rice (5.1.4)
- Perennial/Tree Crop (5.2)
- Set-aside (< 20 yrs) (5.1.1 /
5.1.6)
- Sealed Land (7.1.2 / 7.2 /
7.6.1 / 7.6.2)
- Plus additional more
detailed land use types
- Unused forest (1.1.1)
- Unused grassland
(4.1.1)
- Cropland (5)
- Pasture (4.2)
- Artificial land (7)
- Forest (1)
- Grassland (4.1)
- Pastures (4.2)
- Permanent and annual
crops (5)
- Shrubland (3)
- Urban (7.1)
- Artificial, green urban
(7.1.4)
Foreground:
- Agriculture, arable (5.1)
- Agriculture, permanent crops
(5.2)
- Grassland, pasture / meadow
(4.2)
- Forest, used (1.2)
- Artificial areas (7)
- Artificial areas, industrial (7)
- Artificial areas, urban green
(7.1.4)
Background (as above plus):
- Secondary vegetation (1.1.2)
1c) bio-geographical
differentiation used for the
CFs
- World average
- WWF Biome
- WWF Ecoregions
- World average
- IPCC Climate Region
- IPCC Climate Region
- World average
- WWF biomes
- Holdridge Life Regions
- Holdridge Life Zones
- WWF Biomes
- World average
1d) reference land use
situation
Region specific (semi)natural ecosystems
Region specific (semi)natural ecosystems
(Quasi-)natural land cover
Potential natural
vegetation
Potential natural
vegetation
See impact assessment methods
1e) relative or absolute
quality changes
Relative
Relative
Absolute
Absolute
Absolute
See impact assessment methods
2) Data collection
2a) the data input required
from the land use inventory
2b) regeneration times,
assumption about permanent
impacts
- Occupation: m2*years of
each land use type
- Transformation impacts
not considered
- No permanent impacts
assumed
- Occupation: m2*years
of each land use type
- Transformation
impacts not considered
- No permanent impacts
assumed
- Occupation: ha*years of
each land use type
- Transformation: ha
- Source: IPCC 1996 /
Dobben et al. 1998
- Temporal range: 20 years
- No permanent impacts
assumed
- Occupation:
m2*years of each
land use type
- Transformation: m2
- Temporal range:
62-238
- No permanent
impacts assumed
- Occupation: m2*years of
each land use type
- Transformation: m2
- Source: Dobben et al.
(1998)
- Temporal range: 50 - 220
- No permanent impacts
assumed
2c) generic CFs for the
background system or case
specific CFs for the
foreground system
- Generic characterization
factors for background
system
- Generic
characterization factors
for background system
- Generic characterization
factors for background
system
- Generic
characterization
factors for
background system
- Generic characterization
factors for background
system
2d) allocation of land
transformation to functional
units
defined by LCA user / case study
- Occupation: m2*years of each
land use type
- Transformation: m2
- No permanent impacts
assumed
- Only generic characterization
factors for background system
applied
Average land transformation in
the whole country rather than a
specific plantation was assessed,
and thus there was no need for
5
Impact assessment methods
Authors, Reference
de Baan et al. (this issue)
Souzaet al. (this issue)
Brandão and Milà i Canals
(2013)
Case study
Müller-Wenk and
Brandão (2010)
Saad et al. (2013)
Mila i Canals et al. (2013)
allocating it to the first 20 years
of land use
3) Land use impact
calculation
3a) temporal modelling
period of impacts of land
transformation
Not applicable, only
occupation impacts (no
temporal dimension)
Not applicable, only
occupation impacts (no
temporal dimension)
3b) uncertainty evaluation Median, 1st and 3rd quartiles No uncertainty indicated
of the impact assessment
20 years for biotic land uses 62 to 238 years as per
and up to 140 for sealed land relaxation times
as per regeneration times
A modelling time period of
500 years was set, assuming
full recovery of land
transformation within the
range of relaxation times.
Different (see impact assessment
methods)
No uncertainty indicated
Median, 1st and 3rd
quartiles
Average absolute deviation
No uncertainty considered
No uncertainty
indicated
6
Supporting Information C: Description of Excel Files holding characterization factors for land occupation and land
transformation for all impact pathways.
A list of characterization factors (CFs) is provided in the embedded spreadsheets below (double click on icons in table S2
to open file). For consistency and easier applicability, we converted the CFs of all impact pathways into the same spatial
units (WWF biomes and world average) and assigned them to the same land use classification (as presented in Koellner et
al. this issue). This conversion was only done for BPP and CSP, the other impact pathways were already available in this
classification system. A description of how the reclassification was done is given in the respective spreadsheets in the sheet
“Remarks_of_Author”. In the original publications and their supporting information, some authors provide more detailed
results. For a detailed explanation of the methods, please refer to the original publications. Please note, that a different
reclassification approach was chosen for the case study on margarine (see Milà i Canals et al. 2013).
To calculate land use impacts in LCA, land occupation [in ha*year] and transformation [in ha] inventory flows need to be
multiplied with the CFs for each impact pathway.
Table S2. Summary of characterization factors for land use impact assessment methods presented in this special issue
Impact pathway
Authors and
Conversion of CFs
Characterization factors
reference
Biodiversity depletion potential
(BDP)
Species diversity (SD)
de Baan et al. (2013) No conversion
needed
Functional diversity (FD)
Ecosystem Service Damage
Potential (ESDP)
Biotic Production Potential (BPP)
Souza et al. (2013)
No conversion
needed
Brandão and Milà i
Canals (2013)
-Regions converted
from IPCC biomes to
WWF biomes
-Land use classes
simplified and
reclassified into the
classification
suggested by
Koellner et al. (this
issue)
-Regions converted
from IPCC biomes to
WWF biomes
-Land use classes
simplified and
reclassified into the
classification
suggested by
Koellner et al. (this
issue)
No conversion
needed
Carbon Sequestration Potential
(CSP)
Müller-Wenk and
Brandão (2010)
Erosion Regulation Potential
(ERP)
Saad et al. (2013)
Freshwater Regulation Potential
(FWRP)
Saad et al. (2013)
No conversion
needed
Water Purification Potential
(WWP)
Saad et al. (2013)
No conversion
needed
7
Mechanical Filtration (MF)
Saad et al. (2013)
No conversion
needed
Physicochemical Filtration
(PCF)
Saad et al. (2013)
No conversion
needed
References
Brandão M, Milà i Canals L (2013) Global characterisation factors to assess land use impacts on biotic production. Int J
Life Cycle Assess (this issue)
de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle
Assess (this issue)
De Schryver A, Goedkoop M (2008) Impact of land use. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A,
Struijs J, van Zelm R (eds) ReCiPe. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category
indicatorsat
the
midpoint
and
the
endpoint
level,
Online
at
http://www.lcia-
recipe.net/@api/deki/files/11/=ReCiPe_main_report_final_27-02-2009_web.pdf
Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N (eds) (2007) Ecoinvent: Overview and Methodology. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories,
Dübendorf
Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandão M, Civit B, Goedkoop M, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Müller-Wenk R, Weidema
B, Wittstock B (2013) Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess
(this issue)
Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)
Müller-Wenk R, Brandão M (2010) Climatic impact of land use in LCA—carbon transfers between vegetation/soil and air.
Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:172-182
Saad R, Koellner T, Margni M (2013) Land use impacts on freshwater regulation, erosion regulation and water
purification: a spatial approach for a global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)
Souza DM, Flynn D, Rosenbaum RK, DeClerck F, de Melo Lisboa H, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity:
proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity Int J Life Cycle Assess (this issue)
8