A framework for integrating ecosystem services as endpoint impacts in life cycle assessment

被引:26
作者
Hardaker, Ashley [1 ]
Styles, David [2 ]
Williams, Prysor [1 ]
Chadwick, Dave [1 ]
Dandy, Norman [1 ]
机构
[1] Bangor Univ, Sir William Roberts Ctr Sustainable Land Use, Bangor LL57 2UW, Wales
[2] Natl Univ Ireland, Galway 9133, Ireland
关键词
Sustainability; Production systems; Impact assessment; Area of protection; Characterisation factor; ECONOMIC VALUATION; BIODIVERSITY; CONSERVATION; VALUES; ENVIRONMENT; RADIATION; SCIENCE; NEED;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133450
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Life cycle assessment is an analysis technique used to assess the environmental burdens of products or production processes. Ecosystem services is a concept used to understand the ways functioning ecosystems support human wellbeing. Both are used to understand how anthropogenic pressures impact the environment. The integration of ecosystem services as indicators in life cycle assessment is increasingly being explored, however there are several limitations with current frameworks. A brief review of existing approaches found they incorporate ecosystem services as midpoint indicators within traditional life cycle assessment structures and aggregate these impacts under the conventional 'areas of protection' (i.e., groupings of impacts). These approaches typically only focus on how product systems negatively affect ecosystem service supply (predominantly through land use) and overlook how product systems use up ecosystem services to mitigate their emissions or how interventions in product systems could improve ecosystem service supply. It is argued by several authors that ecosystem services are better placed as endpoint indicators representing damage to the instrumental value of ecosystems in a manner distinct to existing life cycle assessment impact categories, so that any changes in their delivery should be assessed within a new area of protection. In this paper, the potential for an ecosystem services area of protection within life cycle assessment is explored and a novel framework for modelling endpoint characterisation factors related to ecosystem service impacts that addresses the limitations of existing approaches is presented. The proposed novel framework respects existing life cycle assessment protocols by quantifying the endpoint damage to ecosystem services from product systems alongside existing methodologies for modelling endpoint impacts to ecosystem quality (biodiversity), human health and natural resources. This approach, based on small number of pertinent end-point indicators, has potential to broaden out LCA assessments of product systems and quantify the multiple ways they impact ecosystem services.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 91 条
[1]   Towards an optimal coverage of ecosystem services in LCA [J].
Alejandre, Elizabeth M. ;
van Bodegom, Peter M. ;
Guinee, Jeroen B. .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 231 :714-722
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2014, LANDSCAPE ONLINE, DOI [10.3097/LO.201434, DOI 10.3097/LO.201434]
[3]   Integrated earth system dynamic modeling for life cycle impact assessment of ecosystem services [J].
Arbault, Damien ;
Riviere, Mylene ;
Rugani, Benedetto ;
Benetto, Enrico ;
Tiruta-Barna, Ligia .
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 2014, 472 :262-272
[4]   Widening the Evaluative Space for Ecosystem Services: A Taxonomy of Plural Values and Valuation Methods [J].
Arias-Arevalo, Paola ;
Gomez-Baggethun, Erik ;
Martin-Lopez, Berta ;
Perez-Rincon, Mario .
ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, 2018, 27 (01) :29-53
[5]   Life Cycle Impact Assessment Workshop Summary Midpoints versus Endpoints: The Sacrifices and Benefits [J].
Bare, Jane C. ;
Hofstetter, Patrick ;
Pennington, David W. ;
de Haes, Helias A. Udo .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 2000, 5 (06) :319-326
[6]   Ozone depletion, ultraviolet radiation, climate change and prospects for a sustainable future [J].
Barnes, Paul W. ;
Williamson, Craig E. ;
Lucas, Robyn M. ;
Robinson, Sharon A. ;
Madronich, Sasha ;
Paul, Nigel D. ;
Bornman, Janet F. ;
Bais, Alkiviadis F. ;
Sulzberger, Barbara ;
Wilson, Stephen R. ;
Andrady, Anthony L. ;
McKenzie, Richard L. ;
Neale, Patrick J. ;
Austin, Amy T. ;
Bernhard, Germar H. ;
Solomon, Keith R. ;
Neale, Rachel E. ;
Young, Paul J. ;
Norval, Mary ;
Rhodes, Lesley E. ;
Hylander, Samuel ;
Rose, Kevin C. ;
Longstreth, Janice ;
Aucamp, Pieter J. ;
Ballare, Carlos L. ;
Cory, Rose M. ;
Flint, Stephan D. ;
de Gruijl, Frank R. ;
Haeder, Donat-P ;
Heikkila, Anu M. ;
Jansen, Marcel A. K. ;
Pandey, Krishna K. ;
Robson, T. Matthew ;
Sinclair, Craig A. ;
Wangberg, Sten-Ake ;
Worrest, Robert C. ;
Yazar, Seyhan ;
Young, Antony R. ;
Zepp, Richard G. .
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY, 2019, 2 (07) :569-579
[7]  
Baumann H., 2004, HITCH HIKERS GUIDE L
[8]   An integrated framework to assess impacts on ecosystem services in LCA demonstrated by a case study of mining in Chile [J].
Blanco, Carlos Felipe ;
Marques, Alexandra ;
van Bodegom, Peter M. .
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2018, 30 :211-219
[9]   What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units [J].
Boyd, James ;
Banzhaf, Spencer .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 63 (2-3) :616-626
[10]   The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy [J].
Braat, Leon C. ;
de Groot, Rudolf .
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2012, 1 (01) :4-15