Title: A framework for assessing the impacts on ecosystem services of energy provision in the UK:
An example relating to the production and combustion life cycle of UK produced biomass crops
(Short Rotation Coppice and Miscanthus)
Author names and affiliations:
Andrew Lovett, Trudie Dockerty: University of East Anglia
Eleni Papathanasopoulou, Nicola Beaumont: Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Pete Smith: University of Aberdeen
Corresponding Author: Prof. Andrew Lovett, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ. Tel: 01603 593126. Email: a.lovett@uea.ac.uk
Abstract
To fully assess the sustainability of energy from home-grown biomass, the whole productioncombustion life cycle of the crops needs to be considered across a broad range of ecosystem service
indicators. A sustainability framework needs It needs to consider impacts within the UK and beyond
arising across the life cycle. This paper presents a framework for making such an assessment using
data collected by two different literature summary techniques but processed using the same
qualitative scoring system, recording matrices and graphical presentation of results. It illustrates
what is known about the impacts on ecosystem services of UK produced biomass crops (Short
Rotation Coppice and Miscanthus), suggesting a lack of research relating to upstream, operational
and downstream elements of the energy life cycle, and a focus on the growth-cycle of the crops.
The specific results obtained are sensitive to choices made in the literature review process, but the
approach is useful in its ability to summarise a large amount of data and applicability to other energy
feed-stocks, enabling a comparison of ecosystem impacts between energy systems.
Keywords: ecosystem services, biomass crops, energy life cycle, impact analysis, sustainability
appraisal
Article Type: SI: 2014 RCUK IBC Manchester
Highlights

Presents a framework to assess ecosystem service impacts across life cycle stages

The technique is applied to UK and global impacts of UK produced biomass crops

Results suggest a research focus on the growth-cycle of crops

Less research has been conducted on upstream, operational and downstream impacts

The approach enables a comparison of ecosystem impacts between energy systems
A framework for assessing the impacts on ecosystem services of energy provision in the UK: An
example relating to the production and combustion life cycle of UK produced biomass crops (Short
Rotation Coppice and Miscanthus)
1. Introduction
Proposals to achieve decarbonisation of the future UK energy supply are set out in the government’s
carbon plan [1]. The government has not set explicit targets for particular energy sectors, but aims
to develop a low carbon technology combination with a focus on three main sources - renewable
power (primarily wind and biomass), nuclear power, and coal and gas-fired power stations fitted
with carbon capture and storage (CCS)[1]. In relation to future electricity generation, the focus is on
three main low-carbon sources - renewable power (primarily wind and biomass), nuclear power, and
coal and gas-fired power stations fitted with carbon capture and storage (CCS)[1].
The power sector gave rise to 27% (156 MtCO2-e) of UK total greenhouse gas emissions by source in
2010 and the expectation of the plan is that by 2050 emissions from this sector need to be close to
zero, despite a rising demand for electricity of between 30% and 60%[1]. The government has not
set explicit targets for particular energy sectors, but aims to develop a low carbon technology
combination involving CCS, renewables and nuclear sources[1]. Potential future power generation
mixes recently reviewed by the government’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) are shown in
Figure 1; these indicate that energy from biomass is set to play an increasing role in future energy
pathways for the UK.
Figure 1 goes here.
Studies have demonstrated that greenhouse gas (GHG) savings can be achieved through the addition
of biomass crops to the energy mix by their replacement of fossil fuels -e.g. [2] [3] - and this has
influenced government policy and financial support aimed at increasing biomass production [4] [5].
Various appraisals have been undertaken to both assess the impacts of increased biomass crop
planting – e.g. [6] [7] - and develop means of assessing sustainability e.g. [8] [9].
To fully assess the sustainability of energy from home-grown biomass, the whole life cycle of the
crops needs to be considered across a broad range of ecosystem service (ES) indicators. Such an
evaluation also needs to consider both impacts within the UK and those elsewhere in the world
arising across the lifecycle.
Previous attempts to quantify the ecosystem service impacts of energy infrastructure include studies
where a) single ecosystem service impacts (e.g. climate regulation) are examined for a particular life
cycle stage (e.g. feedstock growth; [3]), b) multiple ecosystem service impacts are examined for a
particular life cycle stage [11] single ecosystem service impacts are examined across multiple life
cycle stages [12]. In this study, we outline a framework to assess multiple ecosystem service impacts
across multiple life cycle stages.
1.1. Objective
The research described in this paper was undertaken as part of the Energy and Environment Theme
of the UK Energy Research Centres (UIKERC) Phase 2 programme [10]. It sought to evaluate the
environmental impacts associated with a range of energy technologies (namely, gas, nuclear, wind
and biomass) relevant to potential future pathways for the UK. A key requirement was to develop
an approach that would be replicable across any energy system to enable eventual comparison and
evaluation of ecosystem impacts between them.
This paper describes the processes undertaken in the development and application of the
methodological framework for the assessment, using home-grown biomass as an illustrative
example, and provides a critique and evaluation of the approach with suggestions for further
refinement.
2. Materials and methods
A matrix framework (spreadsheet) was developed to represent elements of the life cycle of biomass
used in the production of electricity, and encompassing a broad range of ecosystem services. Each
cell in this matrix represent the potential areas of environmental impact. The approach developed
was based on a review of available information and published research. Two different techniques
for capturing evidence of impacts the evidence were employed, but a single process was used for
recording and analysing the data. A flow chart illustrating the processes undertaken is shown in
Figure 2. The text that follows describes the development of each of the key constituents in turn.
Figure 2 goes here
2.1. Construction of broad life cycle table for biomass
In order to consider which points in the energy production-combustion life-cycle might impact on
ecosystem services it was necessary to scope out and construct a generalised life cycle table that
would encompass key steps in not only the growth and processing of the crops but also in the
provision and operation of power production plant. A table was devised (Box 1 in Figure 2) from a
broad literature search and the processes identified were divided into four key stages following the
format of IPCC [13] (Figure 9.7, p.730). That is – upstream (infrastructure provision), fuel cycle
(extraction/ production and processing of feedstock), operation (power production) and
downstream (decommissioning). In relation to the infrastructure element, the study focussed on
the impacts associated with the key materials used in construction, namely – steel and concrete and
their constituents.
Table 1 shows the energy life cycle stages and processes for which quantification of local and global
impacts was attempted. The end two columns make a distinction between local impacts (i.e.
occurring within the UK) and global impacts (i.e. occurring outside of the UK but related to the UK
use of this form of energy). The table features 31 lifecycle stages, 30 of which were relevant at the
local scale and 6 at the global scale.
Table 1 goes here
2.2. Ecosystem impacts
Ecosystem services (ES) are commonly defined as the outputs of ecosystems from which people
derive benefits [14]. There are several classifications of ES - e.g. [15] [16]. This study drew on the
CICES classification [17] with the addition of a further category of supporting services, producing the
second table referred to in Figure 2 (box 2). Table 2 gives a full list of the twenty seven categories of
ES used in this study, which are divided into four broad groupings - supporting (processes and
functions), provisioning (nutrition, water, materials, energy), regulation and maintenance (wastes,
flow; physical, chemical and biotic environment) and cultural (use and intrinsic value).
Table 2 goes here
2.3. Impact matrices and scores
Tables 1 and 2 were combined to produce an impact grid or matrix in which each cell represented a
possible area of impact. Table 3 shows the general format of this matrix. The actual matrix
(spreadsheet) included the 31 lifecycle stages (rows) shown in Table 1 and the 27 ecosystem
indicators (columns) shown in Table 2 giving a total of 837 potential impact data points.
Table 3 goes here
The next process (Box 3, Figure 2) was to develop a scheme to score the impacts which were to be
recorded within each matrix. These were assigned according to a simple qualitative classification
indicating whether the impact was negative (-- significant or - moderate), positive (++ significant or +
moderate), none or negligible (0), conflicting (-/+); whether an impact was not applicable (n/a), or
where there were no data (n/d). The process for determining the impact classification is described
below.
2.4. Process for evaluating impact classification
The techniques for evaluating within UK (local) impacts and global impacts were different.
Assessment of global impacts derived from a ‘broad-brush’ approach based on researcher
knowledge and an appraisal of internet-based searches of published and generally available
information. The local assessment was based on a detailed, structured systematic literature review.
The following Section (2.4.1) describes the process undertaken for the systematic review. The
procedure for determining and allocating scores to both the local (UK) and global matrices, is
discussed in Section 2.4.2.
2.4.1. Local (within UK) impact evaluation
Systematic reviews are widely used in health research and are becoming more common in
environmental studies -e.g. [18]. Implementing such a review typically involves five main stages. The
first step requires the research question to be stated and search terms relevant to each of its
elements (e.g. relating to the energy technology, ecosystem service etc.) to be determined. These
terms are then inputted to the selected search engines in order to perform the database searches.
Articles sourced from these searches are then examined against a list of inclusion criteria to
determine whether they are relevant. All articles deemed suitable are then reviewed in full, impact
type and classification extracted, and results summarised.
Important advantages of the systematic review process concern replication and comparability, but
the experience of conducting such reviews in this study highlighted a number of important issues
that need to be recognised. These include:

Which databases should be included?
Citation databases enable searches for references to previously published works cited by
authors in their bibliographies. However, not all publications are included in these databases. It
may take several years before new journals are considered suitable for inclusion in a reputable
database and, in addition, books and other types of publication are generally not included. As an
example, the IPCC reports, which provide an important synthesis of research relating to climate
change and energy use, are not present in Web of Science or the other databases examined in
this study. Such contrasts can give rise to differences in coverage within and between disciplines.
For example, databases such as Web of Science and Scopus tend to be more comprehensive in
their coverage of medical and science research than social sciences or humanities [19]. The
choice of databases is inevitably governed by practicality: the greater the number of search
engines included, the larger the number of articles to be sourced and appraised. In this study,
searches were based on ISI Web of Science (core data source), Scopus and GREENfile articles
from 1993 onwards (i.e. last 30 years), in English. In addition, the grey literature database ‘Open
Grey’ was consulted but on examination was deemed unsuitable as test searches did not reveal
many useable references, and none of these were readily accessible. Due to the time it would
have taken to obtain copies of documents, it was decided that this was not a viable source to
include.

What types of research articles should be considered (e.g. observational, experimental,
modelling, meta-analyses or reviews)?
To enable comparison with other energy systems examined in the wider UKERC study, a decision
was taken to include only empirical studies conducted in the field or in the laboratory , i.e.
observational or experimental research. Decisions on scope reflected researcher judgement,
library advice and the time available to complete the reviews. To assess the effect of expanding
these boundaries the analysis for biomass was extended to include ecosystem service impacts
identified in modelling studies, and meta-analyses (of which there are many in relation to
evaluating environmental impacts) along with review articles.
Table 4 shows the contribution of each database and each study type category to the research
results. Although Web of Science returned the majority of articles, the analysis indicates that
including other databases does extend coverage, particularly with GreenFILE in the case of
biomass.
The inclusion of modelling studies, meta-analyses and review articles has the benefit of allowing
more search results to be included in an analysis, but because the same basic research may be
cited in more than one modelling study or review article it can give rise to some double counting.
Just over 61% of all articles found for biomass were modelling or review articles. The potential
for double counting has not been addressed in Table 4 as this broader analysis was simply for
comparative purposes. All subsequent results presented in this paper are based only on
experimental/ observational studies unless otherwise mentioned.
Table 4 goes here

How should search terms be defined?
Additional issues arise over the construction of search terms used to query a database. The
descriptions of the ecosystem services under examination (Table 2) provided the basis for the
terms included. Refinement of search terms was iterative. Finding the ‘goldilocks zone’ of
search terms (not too wide as to include unwanted references; not too tight as to exclude
wanted references) is an art-form in itself.
2.4.2. Determining scores and allocating scores to the matrices
Evaluating the evidence on impacts (whether for the local impacts through systematic review or
global impacts from the general literature) inevitably involves some judgement on the part of the
researcher undertaking the review. Benefits (e.g. regarding greenhouse gas amelioration) may be
relative (e.g. gas is ‘better’ relative to coal; biomass is ‘better’ relative to gas or peat). In addition, an
article may indicate a general direction of impact, but it is difficult to decide whether the impact is
‘significant’ (i.e. + + or - -) or ‘moderate’ (i.e. + or -). For example, according to a paper by Christian
and Riche [20, p.131] “The results show that Miscanthus, once established, can lead to low levels of
nitrate leaching and improved groundwater quality compared to arable crops.” In this case the score
allocated was a ‘+’ for moderate water quality regulation during the growth cycle. As a rule, unless a
publication mentioned ‘significant’ either in words or statistically, the impact was scored as
‘moderate’.
Throughout the review of articles care was taken to score only the impacts reported in a study and
not inferred consequences. However, where an article mentioned some impact that fell within the
scope of the study the result was added to the matrix even if this information was not the focus of
the paper.
For some research it was quite straightforward to identify to which cell in the matrix a score should
be assigned (e.g. the Christian and Riche example given previously). However, for the local matrix,
the vast majority of the research relating to biomass was concerned with the growth cycle of the
crop (i.e. within the ‘fuel-cycle’ part of the energy life cycle table). This concentrated focus of
research into the same specific areas of the matrix gave rise to a further complication as different
pieces of work could reach contrasting conclusions regarding impacts, and hence scores, so a further
process was needed to allocate a final score in the matrix. Wherever possible the score was based
on the modal value (i.e. the most frequently occurring value) - as indicative of a consensus view, but
if there was a wide range of scores the final assignment represented the range of views (e.g. - / +).
3. Results
Impact classifications from the systematic review or general literature search were recorded in the
relevant (local or global) impact matrix spread sheet. The numbers of individual cell scores were
then summed for each of the four broader life cycle and ES categories, reformatted as percentages
and used to generate graphs. A full description of the process for summarising the data and creating
the graphs is given in Appendix A (Supplementary Materials). Dockerty et al. [19].
Figure 3 shows the results of (a) the local assessment of impacts on ecosystem services occurring
within the UK as indicated by the systematic literature review and (b) global impacts on ecosystem
services as indicated by the ‘broad-brush’ approach.
Figure 3 goes here
An obvious difference between Figure 3a and Figure 3b is with respect to the proportions of the
matrices receiving scores other than ‘inconclusive’. Table 5 illustrates the narrow focus of research
reported by the local systematic review in that although the local matrix had 810 potential data
points (cells), impact scores from observational or experimental research were only found for 12 of
these. (Table 5 shows that data for 59 cells would have been populated had the analysis included
modelling studies and reviews). This means that the vast majority of cells in the local
matrices/graphs are recorded as ‘inconclusive’. The global impacts summary (Figure 3b) has fewer
‘inconclusive’ scores than the local summary due to the ability of the compiler to assess impacts
from a wider and more general knowledge base than permitted by the systematic review.
Table 5 goes here
3.1. Local impacts
Figure 3a illustrates that no upstream local impacts were identified from the literature review but
there will inevitably be impacts associated with the construction of power stations that were not
identified by this method. The vast majority of studies related to the growth cycle of the crop (i.e.
only one or two stages within the fuel cycle category), though spanning a reasonably broad number
of ES impacts. The main beneficial impacts relate to supporting ecosystem function/atmospheric
regulation, with the addition of biodiversity, soil, water quality and pest and disease control benefits
over conventional agricultural land uses. Negative impacts were reported on water availability and
there were mixed views on the contribution of Miscanthus and SRC to bio-remediation. Interestingly,
it notable that the negative scores for cultural ecosystem indicators are associated with the built
infrastructure, which corresponds with the findings of a recent UK study of public attitudes to energy
crops [21].
Figure 4 provides a comparison (based on the additional studies shown in Table 5) to illustrate how
the results would be influenced by the inclusion of modelling studies and reviews. These add scores
relating to greenhouse gas emission savings compared to other energy systems and others regarding
issues of land-take, the food vs fuel debate and cultural concerns such as visual impacts.
Figure 4 goes here
3.2. Global impacts
The global matrix includes information relating to upstream impacts concerning construction
materials and activities (concrete and steel production), and further details relating to fuel cycle
impacts (e.g. greenhouse gas emission benefits and provisioning ecosystem service benefits). There
are no global operational impacts as greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of the crops in UK
power stations are treated as local impacts offset by growth of the crops. Downstream positive
impacts relate to improved water availability when converting land back to conventional agriculture
compared to biomass crops. (This factor was not recorded from the literature review, hence is
missing from figure 3a but would equally apply to the UK).
3.3. Research consensus
Scores allocated to a particular cell in the local impact matrix could be based on a single study, or
might be the consensus view (modal score) from several references. The degree of agreement on
the magnitude and direction of impact between studies (i.e. % of studies contributing to the modal
score) can provide some insight into how certain the body of research is regarding that particular
impact but using such an indicator can also mask some impacts. One example was in terms of
atmospheric regulation services where the overall greenhouse gas benefits of biomass crops
resulted in predominantly positive scores. However, the subsequent modal assignment masked
research on volatile organic compound emissions from Miscanthus and short rotation coppice
willow [22] which indicates negative impacts.
Table 6 provides consensus data for the experimental/observational studies that contribute to the
results shown in Figure 3a. In the case of the cell that represents regulating/bioremediation
ecosystem service indicators there were a relatively large number of studies (11) investigating the
bioremediation potential of short rotation coppice. These studies varied in scale, duration, method
and detail, with contrasting findings. Consequently there were a wide range of scores with relatively
few (18%) sharing the modal value. In other cases where an assessment could be made the degree
of agreement was rather higher, typically 50-80%.
Table 6 goes here
4. Discussion
The discussion that follows firstly provides further commentary on issues relating to the approach
and then on its utility in evaluating ecosystem service impacts for energy systems.
4.1 Evaluation of method: ‘broad-brush’ approach or systematic review?
As previously indicated the global matrices are more likely to include a score for some impacts
because they are based on a broader literature search plus researcher interpretation. However, as
there was no standard for what could or could not be included there is potentially more subjectivity
in the scoring than in the local matrix, so although the approach provides a greater amount of
information this could be at the expense of confidence in its accuracy. It is also important to note
that the method as implemented here does not allow the degree of consensus on impacts to be
evaluated (except potentially through confirmation of scores by expert reviewers).
The main benefit of using a systematic review approach is in providing a framework that is
transparent and replicable. As the large gaps in Figure 3a illustrate however, the methodology for a
systematic literature review does not necessarily produce a comprehensive assessment. The articles
identified by this form of investigation are influenced by what is included in the search terms and
also by what literature is actually present in a particular database. Overall the approach is wellsuited to discrete areas of research asking quite specific research questions, but it is harder to
ensure comprehensive data capture when considering a broad topic such as examined here,
comparing the impacts of multiple life cycle elements across 27 ecosystem services.
Systematic literature review based solely on observational or experimental data makes obvious
sense for health related studies, where this approach is widely used, in order to gather 'evidencebased' results. For environmental science and the evaluation of environmental impacts the
experience of this study is that such a focus can be too narrow, particularly in terms of the types of
impacts identified. In much environmental research the 'precautionary principle' is an important
concept and it is common for relatively small numbers of experimental/ observational studies to be
scaled up through modelling techniques to assess potential overall impacts. Without the inclusion of
modelling studies it is quite possible for local matrices to be under-represented with respect to '+' or
‘-‘ scores as illustrated by the differences between Figure 3a and Figure 4. For example, greenhouse
gas savings are generally assessed in the literature through statistical/modelling work rather than
observation or experimental research.
A final point about both matrices is that whichever technique was used to assess and score the
literature, the results depend on how the framing categories, in this case the life cycle elements and
ecosystem service indicators, have been defined. This is particularly relevant when translating the
scores into the types of graphical representations shown in Figures 3 and 4. The underlying
assumption in the percentage calculations is that each individual impact cell is of equal importance.
However, this is unlikely to be the case.
4.2. Usefulness of the approach
The definition, population with assessment scores, and summary in graphical form, of a matrix
covering a comprehensive suite of ecosystem service indicators, against a broadly structured energy
life cycle, provides a straightforward means of presenting a very large amount of data. Despite the
limitations described, the approach taken enables the direction and types of ecosystem impact to be
identified in particular areas of an energy life cycle.
The example of biomass presented here using the systematic literature review approach highlights
large areas of the life cycle that have not been examined in relation to environmental impacts,
particularly with respect to potential impacts associated with infrastructure. However, expecting
studies specific to the infrastructure of energy from biomass may be unrealistic, and the insights
provided by the ‘broad brush’ approach may be the best available means of plugging the gaps. A
benefit of the systematic review over the ‘broad brush’ approach is in highlighting where research
effort has been focussed and what is the degree of consensus within specific research areas.
Repeating the local and global reviews swapping the approaches may be a useful next step.
In addition, a major benefit of the approach is the ability to compare multiple energy systems.
Figure 5 shows results of applying the technique to natural gas. This generation system shows a
much stronger signal with respect to negative impacts compared to biomass although again large
areas of the local graph illustrate no evidence of ecosystem impact evaluation in much of the life
cycle. Further comparative assessments are given in Dockerty et al. [19].
4.3 Ecosystem impact findings
As previously mentioned, the 34 research papers that contributed to the systematic review were
confined to the fuel-cycle element of the biomass energy life cycle, and largely focussed on impacts
arising from the growth cycle of the crop. The 11 papers on bioremediation included papers on the
use of SRC to mitigate groundwater quality of landfill leachate [A], municipal wastewater [B], metals
and arsenic on brownfield sites e.g. [C], [D]. Many of these were small-scale or of short duration,
and findings ranged from positive to negative, that is, overall a mixed view, reflected in Figure 3.
There were 10 papers concerning biodiversity impacts. A paper suggesting benefits to farmland
birds during the establishment phase of a Miscanthus crop that would tail off as the plants became
more established (Bellemy et al 2009) was given a +/- score. Other papers reported benefits of both
SRC and Miscanthus to birds (e.g. Fry and Slater 2011, Sage et al 2010) and invertebrates (e.g.
Semere and Slater 2007, Reddersen 2001), with low-intensity management and untreated headlands
benefiting other wildlife (Semere and Slater 2007b). Hence the ‘lifecycle maintenance / habitat and
gene pool protection’ indicator was allocated a positive score. Three papers reported the potential
of biomass crops regarding carbon storage (atmospheric regulation indicator) but as previously
mentioned, this category also included papers reporting volatile organic compound emissions from
Miscanthus crops (Copeland et al 2012 , Crespo et al 2013). The carbon storage potential of the
crops also equates to increased organic matter in soils and hence a positive score for the
pedogenesis and soil quality regulation indicator.
5. Conclusions
Both the ‘broad brush’ approach and systematic review have benefits and limitations, consequently
it is probably better to regard them as complementary rather than stating that one produces the
most correct/accurate results. As previously mentioned, a clearer understanding might be gained by
having the local and global results on equal terms. That is, from also applying the broad-brush
method at the local scale and the systematic review at the global scale.
Important insights from this exercise concern the influence of how the parameters of systematic
reviews are defined and the concentration of literature on particular elements of the overall life
cycle. Either approach is relatively quick compared to an in-depth literature review but it is difficult
to be certain all salient facts have been captured. The importance for some environmental impacts
of considering modelling studies and review papers as well as observational or experimental
research is also apparent. Additionally, there is the outstanding issue of the equal weighting of
impacts across processes and the need to develop more effective weighting systems based on
intensity and exposure of impacts.
There are alternative approaches that could be employed for this kind of analysis. For example a
Rapid Evidence Review [23] using a ‘review of reviews’ process could be investigated to ensure a
more inclusive set of studies from which to draw conclusions. This could be particularly relevant
given the importance of reviews by national and international organisations in the energy and
climate change arena.
Multi-criteria analysis or multi-criteria mapping approaches could be used to weight the ecosystem
service impacts in trade-off analysis [24] [25] [26]. Bayesian Belief Networks could be used to value
the effects of the ecosystem impacts for trade-off analysis based on monetary valuation. It is
possible that benefit transfers could be used too, and potentially, it might be possible to utilise the
valuation of impacts from other studies to help support decisions on alternative energy scenarios.
Overall, in relation to biomass, most is known about the ecosystem impacts associated with the
growth cycle of the crop (i.e. the fuel-cycle part of the energy life cycle). Less is known about the
local upstream, downstream and operational impacts specific to this energy type. Although this
study has focussed on home-grown biomass, in future, fuel cycle impacts will depend on whether
there is a shift towards imported biomass materials and where such feed-stocks originate. If this is
the case, the global component of this analysis will be of greater interest in assessing the ecosystem
service impacts of UK use of this energy type, and its overall sustainability. Hence the overall
approach presented in this work provides a useful addition to methods for sustainability appraisal.
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper drew upon work undertaken in the UKERC project ‘Assessing
the global and local impacts on ecosystem services of energy provision in the UK’ (N/GOO7748/1).
References
[1] HM Government, The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future. London: Department of
Energy & Climate Change. 2011.
[2] Styles D. Jones MB. Miscanthus and willow heat production - An effective land-use strategy for
greenhouse gas emission avoidance in Ireland? Energy Policy 2008; 36(1): 97-107.
[3] Don A., Osborne B., Hastings A., Smiba U., Carter MS., Drewer J et al. Land-use change to
bioenergy production in Europe: implications for the greenhouse gas balance and soil carbon. Global
Change Biology Bioenergy. 2012; 4: 372-391. Available from: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01116.x
[4] Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Department for Trade & Industry,
Department for Transport (2007) UK Biomass Strategy. Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, London. 2007.
[5] Department of Energy & Climate Change, Department for Environment, Food &
Rural Affairs, Department for Transport. UK Bioenergy Strategy. Department of Energy & Climate
Change, London. 2012.
[6] Karp A, Haughton AJ, Bonham DA, Lovett AA, Bond AJ, Dockerty TL, Sunnenberg G, Finch JW,
Sage RB, Appleton KA, Riches AB, Mallott MD, Mallot VE, Cunningham MD, Clark S, Turner MM.
Perennial Energy Crops: Implications and Potential. In: Winter M, Lobley M, editors. What is Land
for? The Food, Fuel and Climate Change Debate. London: Earthscan. 2009.
[7] Smith P, Taylor S, Lovett A, Taylor G, Firth SK, Finch J, Morison J, Moran D. Spatial mapping of
Great Britain's bioenergy to 2050. Global Change Biology Bioenergy. 2014; 6(2): 97-98.
[8] Bond A, Dockerty T, Lovett A, Riche AB, Haughton A J, Bohan DA, Sage RB, Shield I F, Finch JW,
Turner MM and Karp A. Learning how to deal with values, frames and governance in Sustainability
Appraisal. Regional Studies 2011; 45(8):1157-1170. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2010.485181.
[9] Haughton AJ, Bond AJ, Lovett AA, Dockerty TL, Sünnenberg G, Clark SJ, Bohan DA, Sage RB,
Mallott MD,Mallott VE, Cunningham MD, Riche AB, Shield IF, Finch JW, Turner MM, Karp A. A novel,
integrated approach to assessing social, economic and environmental implications of changing rural
land-use: a case study of perennial biomass crops. Special Issue: Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009;
6(2): 315-322. Link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01623.x
[10] Hinton L, Holland R, Ashley M, Carter Silk E, Thomas A, Tickner R, Hooper T, Wegg T, Beaumonth
N, Cazenave P, Papthanasopoulou E, Scott S, Torres R, Austen M, Barrett J, Hiscock K, Eigenbrod F,
Lovett A, Smith P, Taylor G. Bridging the Gap between Energy and the Environment. Highlights from
a sysnthesis of research conducted within the UKERC Energy & Environment Theme. The UK Energy
Research Centre; January 2014.
[11] Rowe, R.L., Street, N.R., Taylor, G. Identifying potential impacts of large-scale deployment of
dedicated bioenergy crops in the UK. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2009; 13: 271-290.
[12] Wiedmann, T.O., Suh, S., Feng, K., Lenzen, M., Acquaye, A., Scott, K., Barrett, J.R. Application of
hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies – the case of wind power in the UK.
Environmental Science and Technology 2011; 45: 5900-5907.
[13] IPCC. Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 2012.
[14] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington
D.C: Island Press. 2005.
[15] de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. A typology for the classification, description and
valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 2002; 41: 393-408.
[16] Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making.
Ecological Economics. 2009; 68: 643-653.
[17] Haines-Young R, and Potschin M. (CICES Version 4: Response to consultation. Available at
http://cices.eu, Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham. 2012.
[18] Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence
Synthesis in Environmental Management, Version 4.2. 2013. Available at
http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf.
[19] University of Washington Libraries. Scopus and Web of Science comparison chart. 2014.
Available at http://libguides.hsl.washington.edu/scopus.
[20] Christian DG, Riche AB. (1998) Nitrate leaching losses under Miscanthus grass planted on a silty
clay loam soil. Soil Use and Management 1998; 14(3); 131-135.
[21]Dockerty, T., Dockerty, Tim., Lovett, A., Papathanasopoulou, E., Beaumont, N.,Wang, S. & Smith,
P. Interactions between the Energy System, Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. UKERC Working
Paper. London, UK. UK Energy Research Council (UKERC). 2014.
[21] Dockerty T, Appleton KJ, Lovett AA. Public opinion on energy crops in the landscape:
Considerations for the expansion of renewable energy from biomass. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 2012; 55(9): 1134-1158.
[22] Copeland N, Cape JN & Heal MR. Volatile organic compound emissions from Miscanthus and
short rotation coppice willow bioenergy crops. Atmospheric Environment 2012; ( 60): 327-335.
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.065
[23] What is a Rapid Evidence Assessment? Accessed from
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance/rapid-evidenceassessment/what-is (28/07/14)
[24] Davies G, Prpich G, Strachan N, and Pollard S. UKERC Energy Strategy under Uncertainties:
Identifying techniques for managing uncertainty in the energy sector. London: UK Energy Research
Council; 2014. UKERC Report UKERC/WP/FG/2014/001. UKERC
[25] Stirling A. Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk – Converging implications in
evolutionary and social scientific perspectives. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2008: 1128: 95 – 110.
[26] Stirling A. Keep it complex. Nature. 2010; 468(23/30 December 2010): 1029 – 1031.
FIGURES
Figure 1: Scenarios of current and potential future power generation mixes
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Onshore wind
Offshore wind
Biomass /other renewables
Renewables (all)
Nuclear
CCS
CCC (2012) CCC (2013) CCC (2030) CCC (2030) CCC (2030) CCC (2030)
Current Updated Ambitous Ambitous Ambitous Higher
abatement nuclear renewables
CCS
energy
scenario
efficiency
Gas CCGT
Coal
Derived from: Column 1 CCC (2013b); Column 2 CCC (2010); Columns 3 – 6 CCC (2013a).
Committee on Climate Change. The Fourth Carbon Budget. Reducing emissions through the 2020s.
(2010). London: Committee on Climate Change. (December 2010).
Committee on Climate Change Fourth Carbon Budget Review – technical report. Sectoral analysis of
the cost-effective path to the 2050 target. (2013a). London: Committee on Climate Change.
Committee on Climate Change. Next steps on Electricity Market Reform – securing the benefits of
low-carbon investment. (2013b) London: Committee on Climate Change. (May 2013).
Figure 2: Overview of methodology
Figure 3: Impacts on ecosystem services of biomass (Miscanthus/short rotation coppice willow) production
and use in the UK
a) Local impacts (within the UK)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Inconclusive (uncertain, not known, no data)
50%
Conflicting impacts
40%
Significant negative (detrimental) impact
Moderate negative impact
30%
No (or negligible) impact
20%
Moderate positive impact
10%
Significant positive (beneficial) impact
UPSTREAM
FUEL-CYCLE
OPERATION
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Supporting
Provisioning
0%
DOWNSTREAM
Method for local chart: systematic literature review - 30 lifecycle stages (observational/experimental studies only)
(b) Global impacts (occuring outside of the UK but relating to UK use of this energy type)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Inconclusive (uncertain, not known, no data)
Conflicting impacts
50%
Significant negative (detrimental) impact
40%
Moderate negative impact
No (or negligible) impact
30%
Moderate positive impact
20%
Significant positive (beneficial) impact
10%
UPSTREAM
FUEL-CYCLE
OPERATION
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Supporting
Provisioning
0%
DOWNSTREAM
Method for global chart: researcher knowledge / broad internet infomation search - 6 lifecycle stages.
Local
Global
Upstream
Fuel Cycle
Operation
Downstream
Total
Matrix
Matrix
Local
Local/Global *
7
3
5
1
8
0
5
1
25
5
25
5
Global
1
0
0
0
1
11
6
8
6
31
c) Life cycle stages
Total
31
30
5
1
6
* these appear on both matrices
Figure 4: Biomass systematic review including modelling and review papers
Local impacts (within the UK)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Inconclusive (uncertain, not known, no data)
50%
Conflicting impacts
Significant negative (detrimental) impact
40%
Moderate negative impact
30%
No (or negligible) impact
Moderate positive impact
20%
Significant positive (beneficial) impact
10%
UPSTREAM
FUEL-CYCLE
OPERATION
Cultural
Regulating
Supporting
Provisioning
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Cultural
Supporting
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
0%
DOWNSTREAM
Method for local chart: systematic literature review - 30 lifecycle stages (all studies i.e. including modelling and reviews)
Figure 5: Impacts on ecosystem services of natural gas production and use in the UK
a) Local impacts (within the UK)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Inconclusive (uncertain, not known, no data)
Conflicting impacts
50%
Significant negative (detrimental) impact
40%
Moderate negative impact
30%
No (or negligible) impact
20%
Moderate positive impact
Significant positive (beneficial) impact
10%
UPSTREAM
FUEL-CYCLE
OPERATION
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
0%
DOWNSTREAM
Method for local chart: systematic literature review - 42 lifecycle stages (observational/experimental studies only)
b) Global impacts (occuring outside of the UK but relating to UK use of this energy type)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Inconclusive (uncertain, not known, no data)
Conflicting impacts
50%
Significant negative (detrimental) impact
40%
Moderate negative impact
No (or negligible) impact
30%
Moderate positive impact
20%
Significant positive (beneficial) impact
10%
UPSTREAM
FUEL-CYCLE
OPERATION
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
Cultural
Regulating
Provisioning
Supporting
0%
DOWNSTREAM
Method for global chart: literature review / broad internet information search - 27 lifecycle stages.
TABLES
Table 1: Lifecycle table for energy production from UK Biomass
Table 1: Life Cycle Process Table for Biomass
Level 2 Process
Matrix
Rows
Level 1 Lifecycle
stage
Level 3 Process – detail
Local and/or
Global Impact?
Local
(UK)
Upstream
(i.e. (1) construction
of CHP power
stations in the UK
(2) construction of
biomass processing
facilities in the UK)
Resource extraction
1
2
3
Material
manufacturing
4
5
6
Component
manufacturing
7
8
Fuel Cycle (i.e. fuel
production and
processing in the
UK)
Construction – (1)
CHP power stations
(2) biomass
processing facilities
Resource production
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Processing
16
Delivery to site
Operation (i.e.
CHP generation in
the UK)
17
Combustion
(generation of
heat/power)
18
19
Concrete – quarrying sand and
gravel [sea-bed] + transport [by sea]
Concrete – quarrying limestone +
transport
Steel – mining of iron ore, coal, flux
materials (e.g. limestone) and alloys
(e.g. manganese) + transport [by
land / sea]
Concrete – cement production +
transport
Concrete – concrete production +
transport
Steel – steel production (70% new
steel/blast furnace + 30% recycled
steel/electric arc furnace) +
transport [by land / sea]
Concrete – component production +
transport
Steel – component production (e.g.
girders, reinforcing rods, cables,
nuts & bolts etc) + transport [by land
/ sea]
Concrete + transport
Steel + transport [by land / sea]
Construction processes
Source of Misc./SRC planting
material
Ground prep & planting
Growth cycle treatments/
management
Harvesting + transport
Processing Misc./SRC to
chips/pellets for direct combustion +
transport
Road haulage to power station
Combustion of Misc./SRC
chips/pellets to generate heat &
power [via moving grates and
fluidised bed direct combustion
technologies and steam turbine or
Organic Rankie Cycle (ORC)
turbines for thermal energy. Heat
accumulators accommodate
variance in heat demand b]
Combustion of Misc./SRC derived
secondary fuels e.g. syngas
[integrated within CHP process]
Global
YES e
NO i
YES d
NO i
NO c
YES a, c
YES d
NO i
YES
NO
YES c, j
YES c
YES
YES
YES j
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES f
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
Maintenance
20
Operations
21
22
23
24
25
Downstream (i.e.
decommissioning of
CHP power stations
in the UK and
reversion of land to
previous use).
Dismantling
Decommissioning
26
27
28
29
Disposal and recycling
30
31
Maintenance of plant & machinery +
performance monitoring (efficiency
and environmental standards)
On-site storage
Noise (ambient/exhaust)
Liquid effluent management [boiler
blow-down/turbine washing/pipe
flushing and drain effluent containing
suspended solids and chemicals.
Requiring consent for discharge to
public sewage system or
containment and removal from site b]
Management of other pollutants (e.g.
oils/lubricants and other chemicals
used to service machinery)
Ash disposal from solid biomass
fuels
Steel / concrete - CHP power plant &
biomass processing facilities
Steel / concrete - CHP power plant &
biomass processing facilities
Reversion of infrastructure land to
previous/new use
Reversion of crop production land to
agriculture
Concrete (approx. 30% of UK
aggregates come from recycled
sources – transported/crushed –
uses water) k
Steel (highly recyclable – approx.
30% of UK steel comes from
recycled sources) l
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
Based on Figure 9.7 Generalised lifecycle stages for an energy technology (p 730 IPCC, 2012 Renewable
energy sources and climate change mitigation).
References
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
IPCC, 2012 Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation, p 730
http://chp.decc.gov.uk/cms/
Iron and Steel Industry Activities Map (this project) source of data www.mrdata.ugs.gov
http://www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/706-the-british-cement-industry-in-2011-and-2012
http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00434_Sand_and_Gravel_Summary_Assessment.pdf
Nicola Yates & William MacAlpine, IACR, Rothampsted (pers com by email 07/08/13)
Verhoest & Ryckmans (2012) Industrial Wood Pellet Report, LABORELEC / PellCert IEE/10/463/S12.592427
Sjoding & Panzarella (2013) Biomass CHP – How To - An Introduction, IDEA’s 26th Annual Campus Energy
Conference, San Diego, California, February 21, 2013
http://www.northwestcleanenergy.org/NwChpDocs/Biomass%20CHP%20How%20to%20IDEA%20campus%2002
%202013.pdf
Highley, D E (2005) The role of imports to UK aggregate supply, British Geological Survey
http://www.celsauk.com/ (Cardiff based recycled-steel manufacturer)
http://www.greenspec.co.uk/greening-of-concrete.php (recycling of concrete)
http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-steel/
Table 2: Categories of ecosystem services
Supporting
Level 1
Regulation of
Physico-Chemical
Environment
Flow
Regulation
Energy
Non-food
Biotic
Materials
Water
Supply
Nutrition
Level 2 Description
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Processes and functions (e.g. nutrient cycling, photosynthesis)
Terrestrial plants and animals for food
Freshwater plants and animals for food
Marine plants, algae and animals for food
Water for human consumption
Water for agricultural use
Water for industrial and energy uses
Plant and animal fibres and structures
Chemicals from plants and animals
Genetic materials
Biomass based energy
Renewable abiotic energy
Bioremediation
Dilution, filtration and sequestration
Air flow regulation
Water flow regulation
Mass flow regulation
Atmospheric regulation
Water quality regulation
Pedogenesis and soil quality regulation
Noise regulation
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection
Pest and disease control (incl. invasive alien species)
Non-extractive recreation
Information and knowledge
Spiritual & symbolic
Non-use
Level 3 Description
1
Matrix
Columns
Source: based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, Version 4.1; HainesYoung and Potschin, 2012), with the addition of a ‘Supporting’ category.
Intellectual
Representations of
Ecosystem
s (of
environmen
tal settings)
Physical/
Experiential
Use of
Ecosystems
(environmental
setting)
Regulation
of Biotic
Environment
Regulati
on of
Biophysical
Environment
Cultural
Regulation and Maintenance
Provisioning
Table 3: General example of framework used to assess energy supply options
Ecosystem Services
Life Cycle Stages
Regulation and
Maintenance
Supporting
(processes and
functions)
Provisioning
(nutrition, water,
materials, energy)
Cultural
(wastes, flow, physical,
chemical & biotic
environment)
(use and intrinsic
value)
Upstream
(infrastructure
provision)
Fuel Cycle
(extraction/
production and
processing of
feedstock)
Operation (power
production)
Downstream (decommissioning)
Table 4: Summary of number of articles found by database and study type for biomass
Study Type
Databases queried
Web of
Science
Scopus
GreenFILE
Total
Articles
Lab experiment
-
-
3
3
Field experiment
20
2
7
29
Observational study
2
-
-
2
Meta-analysis
-
-
-
0
Modelling study
23
1
10
34
Review
8
1
11
20
All Articles
53
4
31
88
Percentage of Total
61
4
35
100
Table 5: Matrix dimensions and papers contributing to Biomass systematic review
Matrix characteristics
Number
Total life cycle stages identified (global and local)
31
Overall matrix size (no. of cells)
837
Local life cycle stages subject to systematic review
30
Number of cells relevant to systematic literature review
810
Experiment/observation studies
Number of articles found
34
Number of scores from articles
43
Number of cells populated
12
All studies (i.e. including modelling studies and reviews)
Number of articles found
88
Number of scores from articles
202
Number of cells populated
59
Table 6: Biomass systematic review: multi-reference score consistency
Percentage
Life Cycle Stage/ ES
Group
Consensus
Impact Score
Total No.
of Scores
Process-function
-
1
Process-function
-/+
4
Water
-
1
Energy
0
1
Bioremediation
-/+
11
Dilution wastes
0
1
Atmospheric Reg.
+
5
60%
Soil quality
+
5
80%
Water quality
+
1
Reg. Biotic Env
+
10
80%
Pest/disease
+
2
100%
Process-function
-
1
ES Type
Agreement
Fuel Cycle
Supporting
Provisioning
Regulating
Downstream
Supporting
Total no. of scores
43
50%
18%