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

Global Change Biology Global Change Biology (2015) 21, 32–47, doi: 10.1111/gcb.12709

RESEARCH REVIEW

Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: are we there yet? D A N I E L L E M . S O U Z A 1 , 2 , R I C A R D O F . M . T E I X E I R A 3 and O L E P . O S T E R M A N N 1 1 Institute for Environment and Sustainability, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP270, Ispra I-21027, Italy, 2Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lennart Hjelms v€ag, 9, Uppsala, Sweden, 3Department of Biology, Research Group of Plant and Vegetation Ecology, University of Antwerp, Campus Drie Eiken, Universiteitsplein 1, Wilrijk B-2610, Belgium

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. Keywords: biodiversity indicators, ecological models, global change, land use, life cycle analysis, life cycle impact assessment Received 7 March 2014; revised version received 23 July 2014 and accepted 8 August 2014

Introduction A large body of science compiled over the past decades shows that biodiversity is directly affected by human activities, very often negatively. This worrisome fact led the recent Rio+20 Summit to shift the focus of the sustainability agenda to biodiversity, which is now the cornerstone of sustainable development (UN, 2012). According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), habitat change brought about by land use and land-use change (LULUC) is one of the five main drivers of terrestrial biodiversity loss, together with climate change, invasive alien species, overexploitation of resources, and pollution. For most ecosystems, habitat Correspondence: Danielle M. Souza, tel. +46 76 400 8767, fax +46 18 67 3156, e-mail: [email protected]; Ricardo F.M. Teixeira, tel. +32(0)471 283 234, fax +32(0)3/265 2271, e-mail: [email protected]

32

change due to LULUC has had the highest impact of all drivers of biodiversity loss over the past century, with most plausible future scenarios predicting that such losses are likely to increase (MEA, 2005). The MEA laid the groundwork for identifying the key drivers – which are mainly anthropogenic – that damage biodiversity and decrease the services it provides. While ecosystem services such as food production are currently well monitored, most other ecosystem services are not (Pereira & Cooper, 2006). The identification of key drivers and monitoring of such services are challenging tasks, but are of paramount importance. The MEA recognized that biodiversity is a multidimensional concept that ‘poses formidable challenges to its measurement’, and that the most common measuring techniques (direct measurement of species richness or genetic diversity) do not capture the whole picture (MEA, 2005). Issues such as

© 2014 The Authors. Global Change Biology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 33 ‘variability, function, quantity, and distribution’ of species are usually not taken into consideration. The concept of biodiversity is, in itself, elusive. Better metrics for biodiversity loss assessment must be interdisciplinary, inclusive (respecting the specificity of biodiversity while maintaining methodological accuracy), comprehensive (including direct and indirect effects), and replicable. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) meets these four criteria for good biodiversity metrics. LCA methodology can be used to quantitatively model the potential environmental impacts of a product, process or service over all stages of its life cycle, from raw material acquisition, production and use, to its final disposal (Curran et al., 2011). Data on a product’s life cycle, such as its raw material consumption and emissions, are compiled and used to assess its potential environmental impacts, referred to as its ‘impact categories’. The latter may range from global (e.g. stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming) to regional (e.g. acidification) and local (e.g. aquatic ecotoxicity). In particular, impacts on biodiversity can be assessed within the LCA framework using different impact pathways, for instance habitat conversion and change in species composition. Figure 1 shows an example of various impact pathways that may lead to loss of species diversity and ecosystem services, thereby impacting the overall quality of the ecosystem.

The manufacturing of any product or group of products may have global effects, as increasingly globalized markets allow companies to obtain materials and services from complex networks of suppliers distributed over many regions of the world. LCA covers whole supply chains, comprehensively accounting for all impacts that occur at different steps and in different locations along the life cycle, regardless of the physical location of the particular process. Using LCA, pressures on biodiversity caused by local land use can be traced back to global causes (e.g. shifts in consumption patterns, technological improvements during production). LCA assigns ultimate responsibility for downstream and upstream impacts within production chains to a single unit (usually the final product – a consumer good). Given the importance of LCA today and its integration in policy instruments and in private company’s environmental information systems, an impact category included in the framework will necessarily become a priority issue for the main actors in the supply chain. Decisions taken by final producers can then trickle down the supply chain and be implemented in the field. It is therefore of the utmost importance that accurate measurements of the state of biodiversity be defined in LCA. Models that aim to assess land-use impacts using LCA have been continuously improved during the past two decades. While many methodologies have been

Fig. 1 Impact pathway representing some of the midpoint and endpoint impacts, caused by environmental interventions (land use and land-use change) on biodiversity and related ecosystem services (adapted from Koellner et al., 2013b). © 2014 The Authors. Global Change Biology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 21, 32–47

34 D . M . S O U Z A et al. proposed (M€ uller-Wenk, 1998; Koellner, 2003; Schmidt, 2008a; de Baan et al., 2013b; Souza et al., 2013), the assessment of the impacts of production systems using biodiversity indicator approaches remains a challenge (Geyer et al., 2010a; de Baan et al., 2013a; Koellner et al., 2013b). There is a clear need to devise consensual approaches. This is the objective of a flagship project being carried out by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, entitled ‘Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators’, which aims to provide global guidance and build consensus on life cycle impact indicators, such as biodiversity loss. Among the challenges to be addressed are the spatial variability and availability of LULUC and related biological diversity data, such as species richness, abundance, distribution, and functions (Geyer et al., 2010a). A better understanding of the dynamics of ecosystem complexity is also needed to quantify the spatial and temporal variability in changes in biodiversity (Reap et al., 2008; Geyer et al., 2010a). This review synthesizes how current impact assessment methodologies in LCA take into account the impacts of LULUC on biodiversity, and makes some suggestions to help improve modeling activities and reduce some of the uncertainties involved. For the benefit of readers that are less familiar with LCA, we start with a brief description of the basic methods and keyrelated concepts, including a review of the current methods and the framework used to assess land-use impacts. We then describe relevant aspects on which we consider further research should be carried out, and propose some insights on issues to be considered. We conclude with indications collected from recent reviews of the topic (Curran et al., 2011; Koellner et al., 2013a), to which we add further insights, and make suggestions as to how to address some of the main areas that require further research.

Impact assessment in LCA LCA can be used to assess the environmental impacts of systems through part of or all the stages of its life cycle. It is an important methodological tool that can help to ensure environmentally sound choices in the context of decision-making based on scientific evidence (EEA, 1997). Its application may range from single products, with a short life cycle, to large-scale policy decision issues. LCA comprises four main phases: the definition of goal and scope of the study, including the description of the product system, process or service; the collection of input and output data; impact assessment; and the interpretation of the results in terms of damages to the

environment. The first phase – goal and scope definition – consists of the description of the aim of the study and all related activities and processes in the life cycle of the product that impact the environment. This is followed by the life cycle inventory (LCI) phase, which involves data collection of all input (raw-materials, energy) and output (waste, emissions) flows during the product’s lifecycle. LCI results are then translated, i.e. classified and characterized, into specific environmental impact categories (e.g. global warming, human toxicity, land use) at the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase (ISO, 2006b). The last phase consists of the interpretation of results, whereby the information obtained is checked and evaluated, and the results are reported clearly (ISO, 2006a). The potential environmental impact of the product’s inventory flows are assessed during the LCIA phase. These potential impacts may be expressed at the midpoint or endpoint level, within a cause–effect chain or environmental mechanism (Fig. 2). Midpoints (the impact categories) lie between the life cycle inventory phase and the endpoints (the damage categories). Due to the use of more accurate environmental data and relevant indicators, and less subjective evaluations of the relative importance of each indicator (Finnveden et al., 2009), midpoint results are well-characterized in terms of physical units, as shown in Fig 2. Endpoints are located beyond midpoints and represent quality changes aggregated in three main areas of protection: human health, ecosystem quality, and natural resources. Endpoints are more concise and easy to understand for decision-making purposes. However, the uncertainty of endpoint models is higher, due to their complexity and the need for reliable data to carry out robust modeling (Bare et al., 2000). Characterization factors, at mid- or endpoint levels (e.g. loss of species richness in a defined area), are the values that translate life cycle inventory data into their damage impacts. They allow the magnitude of potential impacts of each of the substances related to each category to be evaluated (Curran, 1996). LCA does not assess the changing state of biodiversity or ecosystems, but rather the relative environmental impact of anthropogenic production systems. It links units produced to their marginal/average impacts on the environment. These impacts are assumed to grow linearly with the quantity produced, assuming that the total system is not otherwise affected by the change in production. The total system, or state of biodiversity, is mainly assessed within a static framework when evaluating the marginal/average unit impacts. Ecological interventions and resources were introduced into this static framework on an ad hoc basis. There is no normative or scientific definition of the scale of

© 2014 The Authors. Global Change Biology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 21, 32–47

B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 35

Fig. 2 Representation of a simplified environmental mechanism from inventory data (example of elementary flows) to final results (given in a single score), including midpoints and endpoints. Impact categories are represented in the second and third boxes. In general, during the classification and characterization phase – calculation of the results of each impact category indicator (quantified representation of an impact associated with an impact category) – uncertainty is considered to be relatively low and models are of high scientific acceptance. In the damage assessment phase, uncertainties are considered to be higher. CTU, Comparative Toxic Unit; NMVOC, Nonmethane Volatile Organic Compound; GWP100, Global Warming Potential (time horizon of 100 years) DALY, Disability Adjusted Life Years; PDF, Potentially Disappeared Fraction of Species. The unit of the final score represents the potential impact per person per year.

impacts to the health or resilience of the ecosystem (unlike concepts such as the ecological footprint).

Conceptual framework for land-use impact assessment in LCA Although research on the development of biodiversity indicators to assess land-use impacts in LCA has been ongoing for more than 15 years, such indicators are not yet widely applied (Koellner et al., 2013b). Table 1 lists ecological models applied in the literature, specifying their geographic reach, and the biodiversity indicators they use. Most models use ‘species richness’ as the indicator of the state of biodiversity, and use the

Species–Area Relationship (SAR) (Sarkar & Margules, 2002) ecological model to calculate species loss due to land use. Other studies use different models and metaanalysis (Michelsen, 2008; de Souza et al., 2013; Coelho & Michelsen, 2014), or apply Species Distribution Models (SDM) (de Baan et al., 2013a) to assess local environmental impacts based on empirical patterns observed between land-use classes. Geyer et al. (2010a,b) calculated regional biodiversity impact indicators based on wildlife species and their habitats. Indicators based on ecosystem characteristics (Brentrup et al., 2002) have also been used in LCA, as have those based on the concept of exergy (Wagendorp et al., 2006). In the following paragraphs, we explain the current general


36 D . M . S O U Z A et al. Table 1 Review of studies that calculated characterization factors for the impact of land use in biodiversity in terms of the indicator used, geographic reach, and underlying ecological model Biodiversity indicator

Ecological model

Geographic reach

Publication

Alpha diversity Alpha diversity

Expert judgement Weidema & Lindeijer (2001) Koellner (2000) Weidema & Lindeijer (2001)

Switzerland Spain

Jeanneret et al. (2006) Ant on et al. (2007)

Norway

Michelsen (2008)

SAR-based

Schmidt (2008a)

Ecosystem Scarcity and Vulnerability Alpha diversity Alpha diversity Alpha diversity

SAR-based SAR-based

Denmark, Malaysia, Indonesia Central Europe Switzerland, UK

Valuable land for biodiversity Alpha and Beta diversity Alpha diversity Alpha diversity & Functional diversity Ecosystem Scarcity

N/A Depends on type of indicator SAR-based N/A

Germany Global Global Global

Koellner & Scholz (2008) De Schryver & Goedkoop (2013) Urban et al. (2012) de Baan et al. (2013a) de Baan et al. (2013b) Souza et al. (2013)

Weidema & Lindeijer (2001)

New Zealand

Coelho & Michelsen (2014)

SAR, Species–Area Relationship; N/A, Not Applicable.

framework for land-use impact assessment in LCA, before moving on to the limitations of the choices made in modeling. The current land-use framework consists of an area– time model, which combines spatial and temporal dimensions. Biodiversity levels are measured according to a chosen indicator – species richness being the most commonly used unit – and assigned to different

land-use classes, assuming a defined land area is used for a specific time period. To consider the temporal dimension of land use/ cover in LCA (Fig. 3), land-use impacts are associated with two interventions: land occupation (land use, LU), and land transformation (land-use change, LUC), also referred to as land conversion (Lindeijer, 2000; Koellner, 2003; Liu et al., 2003; Schmidt, 2008a). For

(a) (b)

Fig. 3 Scheme of current framework for land-use impact assessment, displaying land quality change according to each land intervention: land-use change/transformation (a) and land-use/occupation (b) impacts (adapted from Schmidt, 2008a). The figure shows the initial drop in quality (due to land-use change) from Qo (land quality just before land conversion) to Qi (land quality right after land conversion), the point at which land use may start, tocc (duration of land use), up to Qf (land quality right after land use). At this point, land is set aside and regenerates, during trec (duration of land recovery) to a potential quality state, QPNV (potential quality after land recovery, i.e. after reaching the state of Potential Natural Vegetation, PNV). From these interventions, two types of impacts may result: temporary (conversion Itrans, and land use Iocc) and permanent (Iperm) impacts. © 2014 The Authors. Global Change Biology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 21, 32–47

B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 37 simplification, in LCA, land occupation and transformation impacts are not separated when representing land quality changes (Mil a i Canals et al., 2007). It is assumed that land transformation causes a sudden change in the land quality indicator (e.g. a drop in quality from Qo (land quality just before LUC) to Qi (land quality right after LUC) at the point in time to in Fig. 3), while land occupation is simply defined (in the context of LCA) as the postponement of the recovery of land to its potential natural vegetation state (Schmidt, 2008a). Land quality is considered to be constant during its use, as seen in Fig. 3, in which Qi = Qf., where Qf represents the land quality right after LU. The impacts of land occupation and transformation are calculated by integrating the overall impacts on land quality over time (Mil a i Canals et al., 2007), on a per unit of area basis. According to the calculation procedure set by Mila i Canals et al. (2007), impacts resulting from land occupation (Iocc), represented by the area B in Fig. 3, are determined as the product of the area occupied (Aocc), the period of use, or land occupation (tocc), and the quality difference between the actual and potential quality (QPNV) after land recovery. PNV refers to the Potential Natural Vegetation assumed to be reached after ecosystem recovery. The impact of land occupation (with land quality level starting in Qi and ending in Qf, considering Qi = Qf) is determined as: Iocc ¼ Aocc tocc DQ ¼ Aocc tocc ðQPNV Qi Þ

ð1Þ

The change in land quality over a defined area (DQ) is considered to be reversible. In Fig. 3, the transformation impacts (Itrans) correspond to the area of a trapezium (base trec and height ΔQ) and can be derived from the following equation: 1 1 Itrans ¼ Aocc trec DQ ¼ Aocc trec ðQPNV Qi Þ 2 2 ð2Þ The recovery time of land is represented by trec. Permanent impacts (Iperm), for example, the irreversible damage caused to land use in terms of species loss (ΔQperm), are calculated as

realism as its framework is a linearization of transient and dynamic ecosystem processes. Furthermore, it is based on assumptions that are at odds with observations and can compromise the accuracy of results. We identified and summarized some of the existing gaps in modeling in Table 2 and divided them into four classes: conceptual issues, inventory, definition of indicators, and refinement of impact assessment methods. In the following sections, we highlight the most important issues, providing a thorough explanation of the major limitations identified and suggestions of how to address the identified shortcomings. Our discussion of the limitations posed by the methodological framework of LCA (Curran et al., 2011) and related ecological models begins by addressing some of the limitations of using the SAR to predict species extinctions resulting from land use. We further assess the potential of other ecological methods such as species distribution models (de Baan et al., 2013b), including habitat suitability models (Geyer et al., 2010a,b) that are also applied in LCA to model damages to biodiversity. We then explore the use of surrogate species and their limitations as predictors of changes in ecosystems, and introduce the concepts of immigration credit and extinction debt to discuss the frailness of considering land interventions as being static. This brings the discussion back to the overall conceptual framework and we draw considerations on the choice of baseline scenario and assumptions to calculate occupation and transformation impacts (e.g. instantaneous drop in quality during land conversion). The issue of data demand at the global scale is also touched upon in these sections.

The limitations of using species–area relationships (SARs) and species distribution models (SDMs) The starting point of our discussion is the Species–Area Relationship (SAR) model, which is much used in LCA for land-use impact assessments. According to SAR, the larger an area of land is, the greater variety of species it will contain. This model was first described by Arrhenius (1921) as

Iperm ¼ Aocc tocc DQperm ¼ Aocc tocc ðQN QPNV Þ

SðAÞ ¼ ðA=Ao Þz So

ð3Þ We turn next to a discussion of the substantial gaps in the impact assessment methods and framework.

Gaps in modeling The biodiversity metrics currently integrated into LCA are not yet sufficiently inclusive and comprehensive, and leave ample room for improvement. Albeit a useful abstraction, the land quality model is of doubtful

ð4Þ

where S (A) is the number of species in a changed patch of area A, So is the number of species found in an entire biome of area Ao prior to the change, and z – the gradient of the increasing number of species with increasing area (Rybicki & Hanski, 2013) – is a constant typically in the range of 0.10–0.35, depending on the taxon, and the land-use class and scale. The SAR model is frequently used in conservation biology to estimate species extinctions due to changes


Consider the (1) existence value and/or the (2) natural resource aspects of biodiversity Discuss the quantification of biodiversity using data or expert judgment Improve land use and cover classifications in inventory flows Allow a finer flow specification in inventory, according to spatial scale Discuss the inclusion of biodiversity as a midpoint or endpoint indicator (position in the cause–effect chain) Include other levels of biodiversity (genes, communities, ecosystems, and landscapes) besides species Include other attributes of biodiversity (diversity, function, structure) Include differentiation of species by threat status Discussion on the surrogate species to be included for modeling and consequences of this choice Include landscape aspects (habitat fragmentation, connectivity of ecosystems, etc.) Include bio-geographical differentiation (regionalization), increasing taxonomic and geographic coverage

Conceptual issues

Inventory

Definition of indicators







Inventory

Conceptual issues

Suggestion/limitation:

Aspect

X

X

X

Mila i Canals et al. (2007)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Curran et al. (2011)

X

X

X

Koellner et al. (2013a)

Suggestion/limitation identified in:

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Koellner et al. (2013b)

X

X

X

X

Penman et al. (2010)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

This study

Partially – global factors are available today for most taxa, but the differentiation may not be sufficient

No

Partially (Schmidt, 2008a)

Partially (M€ uller-Wenk, 1998)

Partially (for functional diversity – Souza et al., 2013)

Partially (de Baan et al., 2013a)

No, but the LCA community is increasingly turning to dataintensive methods A proposal has been made (Koellner et al., 2013a), but it is yet to be implemented in LCA inventories A proposal has been made (Koellner et al., 2013a), but it is yet to be implemented in LCA inventories No – no consensus exists on the inclusion of biodiversity as midpoint or endpoint indicator

(1) yes, (2) no

Addressed in LCA land-use models?

Table 2 Main suggestions and limitations identified in previous review studies on land use/biodiversity and LCA, and the status of incorporation in current LCA land-use models. The ‘X’ means that the issues identified have been addressed by the review study

38 D . M . S O U Z A et al.



Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – quality recovery Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – quality recovery

Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – land interventions Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – land interventions Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – cartography Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – scale Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – baseline scenario

Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – link to inventory Refinement of impact assessment model – conceptual framework – land interventions


Replace land cover maps with continuous environmental information Develop characterization factors for different scales (local, regional, global) Consider alternatives to natural land cover and potential natural vegetation as reference (baseline) land use/cover and consider active restoration as an alternative to natural ecosystem recovery Regeneration must not be linear and independent of the landuse history Recovery times based on field data and not expert judgment

Propose multi-indicators, each representing distinct aspects of diversity Discuss the suitability of SAR ecological models Include dynamic modeling of biodiversity and discuss the consequences of changes in land quality Replace linear damage relation between biodiversity loss and land-use area Review drop in quality during land conversion, which should not always be considered to be instantaneous Ecosystem quality does not necessarily remain constant over land-use duration Time and area of land use must not be interchangeable



Suggestion/limitation:

Aspect

Table 2 (continued)

Mila i Canals et al. (2007)

X

X

X

X

Curran et al. (2011)

Koellner et al. (2013a)

Suggestion/limitation identified in:

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

This study

X

X

X

X

Penman et al. (2010)

X

X

X

Koellner et al. (2013b)

Yes (de Baan et al., 2013b)

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Partially (for species richness and functional diversity – Souza et al., 2013) No

Addressed in LCA land-use models?

B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 39

40 D . M . S O U Z A et al. in the landscape. However, the SAR model is often used without the consideration of key factors that influence its application, and it has been criticized for its simplicity and its tendency to make extrapolation mistakes (Smith, 2010). For example, the model is not time and scale-invariant (Sizling et al., 2009), and its variance for small-scale observations is very high, probably due to sampling effects (Dengler, 2008). The number of parameters is low [only one parameter, z, controls relative extinction dynamics, as shown in Eqn (4)] and while it has been shown to work particularly well in islands, other functional models for SARs are better suited in continental situations (Dengler, 2009; Rybicki & Hanski, 2013). Some shortcomings of the SAR model have been discussed in recent studies, such as its dependence on scale, which seems poorly understood (Dolnik & Breuer, 2008), and which may determine the degree of differences among the species–area curves (Scheiner, 2003). Moreover, other factors should be taken into account (Turner & Tjørve, 2005), such as habitat heterogeneity (Triantis et al., 2003). Specific spatial scales associated with relevant environmental factors should be defined. Fattorini & Borges (2012) discuss the inappropriateness of using the SAR model when the species loss does not take place as a consequence of habitat reduction, or when the shape, fragmentation level or contiguous character of the area is not identified (Dengler, 2008). Despite these considerations, the SAR model as described in Eqn (4) has proved to be robust. Over time, many changes have been tested and proposed to the generic SAR framework (Triantis et al., 2003, 2012; Adler et al., 2005; Dengler, 2008; Koh & Ghazoul, 2010), but so far no model has consistently replaced the Arrhenius (1921) SAR. As an alternative, Species Distribution Models (SDMs) can describe patterns and predict the natural geographical distribution of species, based on observations of species occurrence and/or abundance (Austin, 2007; Elith & Leathwick, 2009). Abundance and species distribution data reduce the problems associated with the spatial accuracy of data and changes in scale (He & Legendre, 2002) but, as with the SAR model, the application of SDMs may still represent a challenge for timeand scale-dependent assessments. Guisan & Thuiller (2004) summarized some of the potential problems to be considered, following aspects such as target species, scale, selection of predictors, data model, and model uncertainties. A spatial scale, for example, has several components, such as the grain, i.e. the smallest spatial unit used in the analysis, and the extent of the geographic area (domain), which are relevant to species distributions and their environment (Scheiner, 2003; Elith & Leathwick, 2009). The spatial accuracy and

characteristics of the data applied will have implications on the model’s performance (Ferrier & Watson, 1997), and the use of mixed models may be required (Dormann et al., 2007). Guidance on the application of relevant methods still needs to be clearly provided (Elith & Graham, 2009). The discussion as to which macro-ecological model should be used to estimate species loss transcends LCA and invites scientists with different backgrounds to explore a more broad cooperation and exchange of knowledge. The topic is still heavily debated. For LCA impact assessments, the question is whether the chosen model assumptions fit the goals of the studies.

The challenges in using species metadata In addition to the use of SARs and SDMs, a common practice in land-use impact assessment in LCA is to use the metadata of species richness for different species, to grasp the change from one land use to another. Some problems exist in applying this procedure to LCA. Firstly, some studies do not define the state of succession of certain land cover types (e.g. secondary forest), and it is difficult to define the correct classification of that land cover type with specific flow categories defined for LCA (Koellner et al., 2013a), as suggested by Souza et al. (2013). Secondly, the maximum number of different species – e.g. bird populations or small mammals (Ostfeld, 1997) – will appear at different moments in the succession time (Odum & Barret, 2005), i.e. populations change according to the successional stage. Identifying the successional stage at the time of data collection is important, as population size per species in a region is not necessarily directly proportional to species diversity in the same region. In general, increases in populations may occur initially and stabilize or even decrease in later stages (McKinney, 2002). Ecological succession also often reduces the diversity of nonnative (alien) species in an area (Gibson et al., 2011), many of which rely on disturbance to sustain their populations (Luken, 1997). Further, different taxonomic and trophic groups may exhibit different patterns of diversity change in response to similar pressures (Proencßa & Pereira, 2013). In the current framework, urban areas are usually considered to be areas of poor species diversity; however, this might not always be true. Pysek et al. (2004) emphasize that urban areas have a particular spatial pattern of species distribution, behavior, and population dynamics. While some authors argue that land cover types such as urban areas may contain a particularly high species richness, including both native and alien species (Kuhn et al., 2004), it is recognized that urbanization is one of the main threats to biodiversity


B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 41 (McKinney, 2002; Liu et al., 2003), especially due to the destruction of habitats. Habitat heterogeneity and the intense productivity of such habitats, due to the higher availability of nutrients, could be possible explanations for peaks of species richness in suburban areas (McKinney, 2002). This also raises the issues of SAR dependence on scale, with consequences for LCA as characterization factors cannot be easily aggregated or disaggregated and applied to different scales. Other negative biodiversity impacts may also be observed, depending on the location of a disturbance or a forcing event. Bell (1986), suggested that tropical rain forest birds tend to have more difficulty adapting to urban areas than do birds from other natural areas, such as temperate forests. de Baan et al. (2013b) devised an LCIA method using regionalized predictions of species recovery times from Curran et al. (2013). This method broadly considers differentiated species responses. However, it should be noted that birds are a peculiar taxon due to their particularly large range of activity, and so it is unclear if the small marginal changes studied in LCA have a significant individual effect on bird species. The issue of how to reconcile scale in a method that addresses the marginal impacts of single-product production is thus far unresolved.

Surrogate species: is there a unique choice for global assessments? This discussion brings us to the species chosen as proxy or surrogate for the impact assessments, i.e. individual species used to represent the species richness of an area, or to predict the behavior of the entire environment when facing specific pressures. Such surrogate species are especially needed when detailed data, such as species distribution, are not sufficiently available (Lambeck, 1997; Hortal et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2011). In conservation biology and environmental planning, biodiversity measures are essential to predict the status and changes of ecosystems. One of the biodiversity measurement options available is to use beta (b) diversity of surrogate species (Mazaris et al., 2008). According to Whittaker (1960), alpha diversity is the species diversity of a community or habitat, beta diversity is the diversity between (neighboring) communities, and gamma diversity is the one diversity of a region (at a larger scale). Surrogacy can be of three types: crosstaxon, for which the species richness of one taxon is used to infer conclusions in other taxa; within-taxon, where a higher hierarchy ranking, i.e. genera, is used as surrogate; and environmental, for which parameters such as temperature are applied (Magurran, 2011). In LCIA, cross-taxon surrogacy is commonly used. Surrogacy is also used to indicate the anthropogenic

influence on biodiversity, focusing on conservation, monitoring, and management actions, and in a political context, to direct attention to specific environmental aspects (Caro & O’Doherty, 1999). Surrogate species are generally used due to the impossibility of measuring the overall biodiversity in a certain area, given the difficulty of collecting sufficient relevant data (Groves et al., 2002; Margules et al., 2002). Despite the apparent usefulness of surrogate species in impact assessment, no consensus exists on the use and consequences of the specific species chosen (Favreau et al., 2006). Some authors contend that the use of a surrogate, without verifying effective environmental responses, might compromise the effectiveness of the conservation aims (Andelman & Fagan, 2000; Cushman et al., 2010; Santi et al., 2010; Murphy et al., 2011), mainly because the cross-taxon surrogacy (i.e. of different taxa and species) may be poor (Kremen, 1992; Negi & Gadgil, 2002; Santi et al., 2010). Favreau et al. (2006) argue that the use of surrogate species should be based on good knowledge of the affected species and how they interact with their environment. They might be a single or a group of species, chosen for various criteria such as body size, which is correlated with sensitivity to disturbances and lifetime (Caro & O’Doherty, 1999). Most ecological processes are dependent on the scale and time (Wiens et al., 2008), and these two factors will also influence the ability of one species to reflect the behavior of others (Cushman et al., 2010). A meta-analysis of 138 different studies has shown that the use of different taxonomic groups for the assessment of land-use impacts might lead to different results, due to differences in sensitivity to land-use change (Gibson et al., 2011). It was found that mammals were less sensitive to disturbances in the landscape, while birds were shown to be particularly sensitive, especially to the land-use change from forest into agriculture. Within some groups, different taxonomic orders were found to be impacted differently. Santi et al. (2010) investigated the degree of concordance among species richness and compositional patterns of different taxonomic groups, and found little cross-taxon congruence among most taxa. The choice of surrogate species is still debated and is barely discussed in current applications of land-use impact assessment in LCA, although it is recognized that different taxonomic groups should be used (de Baan et al., 2013a; Souza et al., 2013). Vascular plants have been used in the assessment of the magnitude of land-use impacts (M€ uller-Wenk, 1998; Koellner, 2000; Weidema & Lindeijer, 2001; Vogtlaender et al., 2004; Michelsen, 2008; Schmidt, 2008a), without further verification of the cross-taxon congruence/surrogacy of species diversity. Vascular plants have historically been


42 D . M . S O U Z A et al. used in land-use impact assessment in LCA mainly due to data availability (Schmidt, 2008a) and the belief that they might correlate well with other species (Koellner, 2000; Weidema & Lindeijer, 2001; Vogtlaender et al., 2004), even though some authors argue that vascular plant species are an inappropriate surrogate indicator for biodiversity (Michelsen, 2008; Schmidt, 2008a). Besides these issues, current discussions barely touch the importance of the choice of surrogate species. One complicating factor is that LCA requires models that can better represent a more globalized characterization of impacts, due to the global or cross-regional coverage of different production systems.

Biodiversity dynamics: does it matter? In this section, we discuss the influence of ecological phenomena such as extinction debt and immigration credit on the assumptions of the impact assessment framework. We assess how compromising the disregard of related phenomena such as landscape interactions and species assemblage is to land-use impact assessment in LCA. The treatment of land interventions as being static, as in the current framework, is inadequate for reflecting changes in species diversity. In reality, these changes are not simply a result of the postponement of the recovery of land (occupation, LU), or a unique change in unit time (transformation, LUC), but the consequence of continuous anthropogenic activities and other environmental conditions, such as climate change. The land impacts that are considered do not reflect the cumulative effect of practices actually taking place. A fundamental issue with this model is that, for some land-use changes, extreme drops in the quality after land transformation are unrealistic if the metrics implemented refer to biodiversity (Kuussaari et al., 2009). With regard to species richness, and to use an extreme example, the conversion of land from natural vegetation to intensive agriculture will not instantaneously extinguish all local species and reduce the level of biodiversity as soon as the new land use takes effect. This concept of a delayed drop in quality (expressed in species diversity), and related temporary diversity surplus, is relevant to the issue because if losses are progressive and occupation is short enough, land-use impacts may be lower than expected. Conversely, if a patch of land is occupied over a relatively long period of time, the total impacts over time may lead to a threshold limit of biodiversity quality (Gibson et al., 2011) being met, leading to the collapse of the ecosystem. In this case, the difference between the initial and final steady-states should be higher. Documented

examples show that extinction debts may persist for more than a century (Vellend et al., 2006; Cousins & Vanhoenacker, 2011), and this may lead to an underestimation of the potential impacts of land-use change on biodiversity. The ecological concepts of ‘extinction debt’ (Tilman et al., 1994) and ‘immigration credit’ (Jackson & Sax, 2010) were established to address the reasons why it is empirically observed that species levels decay at a slower rate than predicted by models. An immigration credit is the number of new species that immigrate to a certain area, following a disturbance, during a time elapsed (immigration lag) between the disturbing event and the establishment of the species (Jackson & Sax, 2010). The extinction debt is the time-delayed loss of species as a result of habitat destruction and fragmentation which may occur generations later in the undisturbed fragments that remained after destruction. A surplus in the number of species is observed, during a definite time (extinction lag), after a forcing event takes place, in comparison to the final equilibrium level. It should be considered that, as the model applies to each unit of land area, what happens to the vicinity of that area is also crucial – highly fragmented areas may experience accelerated decay, while land areas surrounded by natural areas may see no change at all for some taxa. The need to accommodate landscape effects has been suggested in recent reviews (Curran et al., 2011; Koellner & Geyer, 2013), but has rarely been fully implemented in assessments. Some impact assessment methods, such as ReCiPe (De Schryver & Goedkoop, 2013), include regional effects in calculations of local impacts in an attempt to include the contextual circumstances of the area of land (De Schryver et al., 2010). However, the quantification of regional effects is not bio-geographically discrete. Extinction debt and immigration credit also depend on the characteristics of species and habitats. Individual species respond differently to events, depending on characteristics such as their sensitivity to change (Hylander & Ehrlen, 2013). For example, species whose populations are near their extinction threshold are most likely to experience an extinction debt (Hanski & Ovaskainen, 2002; Kuussaari et al., 2009), and the same is true for species with resistant life stages. Changes in habitat, including biotic interactions, habitat size, and related traits and specializations are also determinant factors.

Reference state: are the natural and potential natural vegetation the correct alternatives? Another strong limitation of the current formulation is the difficulty in comparing the quality of natural (QN)


B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 43 and potential (QPNV) vegetation (Fig. 3). The concept of Potential Natural Vegetation (PNV) has been recently introduced in LCA and extensively mentioned in current developments (de Baan et al., 2013a; Koellner et al., ~ ez et al., 2013; Souza et al., 2013). According 2013b; N un to Chytr y (1998), PNV, as introduced by T€ uxen (1956), is the vegetation that would develop in the absence of any human influence. It is assumed that the vegetation should be in equilibrium with climatic conditions (Chiarucci et al., 2010), i.e. that the state is reached without any effect of climatic changes and succession, and the influence of time (Zerbe, 1998). However, during the expected period of recovery of species diversity (10– 100 years) or endemism rates (1000–10 000 years), climate conditions are bound to have an influence on the revegetation process, and should therefore be taken into account. Therefore, the baseline may not represent a unique static level. In LCA, QPNV is taken to be the level of quality reached after ecosystem recovery (Michelsen, 2008; de Baan et al., 2013a; Souza et al., 2013), while the difference between QN and QPNV is used to calculate the permanent impacts of land use and land-use change, as shown in Eqns (1), (2), and (3). But there may be multiple potential equilibria for the final state. It is not clear how to measure land quality, if it is defined as the capacity to sustain biodiversity (Dale & Beyeler, 2001). Firstly, the two states (PNV and natural) can hardly be compared on the basis of species richness, as the species that are supported at the end of the process may be different from the original species (Curran et al., 2013). The recovery process is dynamic and may have multiple equilibrium states, depending on the climatic and geomorphic characteristics of the region (Chen et al., 2011; Bellard et al., 2012; Mokany et al., 2012), the existence of species and genetic resources available in the vicinity to recolonize the area, and the previous landuse history of the land area. Secondly, the final state is not necessarily equal to the original, even if the two states are similar in terms of ecosystem functioning (McKinney, 2002). For example, keystone, endangered or endemic species may have been replaced by other species that fulfill the same ecological role. Land quality can rarely be defined by a single criterion. We will return to the issue of using aggregate biodiversity metrics to define land quality in the conclusion. Building on this point, it might appear to be useful to consider the natural vegetation as the starting point of the discussion (Weidema & Lindeijer, 2001). However, in practice, as recovery times are calculated as a function of the present and recent past land uses and the natural vegetation of the region, the indicators are calculated as there were a leap between QPNV and QN. However, given the history of the land area, the land

quality just before land conversion (Qo) may be very different from that calculated for a situation where natural vegetation had just been converted. It is the case of a crop recently sown in a recently converted rainforest area vs. a crop planted over decades or centuries in an area that used to be a rainforest. The dotted regions in Fig. 3 are important if some type of natural vegetation is the reference. How far back in time one goes to find ‘natural vegetation’ is also often ill-defined. It remains unclear as to how far back in time one needs to go to discover PNV characteristics, as for most areas this is empirically impossible to observe, and to assess what it really represents for species recovery, especially when taxonomic groups other than plants are used as indicators. Figure 3 also suggests that the indicator takes PNV as the maximum possible level of land quality that can be achieved within the recovery time of the ecosystem. This is not necessarily the case, as it fails to address active land restoration (which can reintroduce some lost species and help the ecosystem to recover in a shorter period of time), and the cessation of anthropogenic land management activities (which would lead to a decrease in the richness of species and habitats that are dependent on such activities) – as is the case, for example, of Mediterranean cork oak savannahs (Bugalho et al., 2011). However, even in the cases of active restoration and critical dependence on land management, hardly any nonnaturalized area can compete with biodiversity levels in the abstract, idealized baseline. This strongly suggests that calculations based on indicators built using this model will always show a loss of quality. No matter how much the state of biodiversity is improved by any intervention or management type, human activity always results in an effective loss of land quality, as it converts land areas to uses that are not natural. For policy-makers, the comparison of an action with a conceptual seminatural baseline may be of little interest (Koellner et al., 2013b). Other alternatives for a baseline, such as land use in the year 2000 (Koellner & Geyer, 2013), have not yet been tested. The Potential Replacement Vegetation (PRV) concept could be a more suitable alternative (Chytr y, 1998), as it takes into account climate, soil, and anthropogenic influences (such as management practices) on the habitat. However, it cannot help predict future changes.

Issues identified and contribution toward their resolution Future developments in making informed choices of indicators should be linked to the valuation of biodiversity by its existence or by its value to society (or the


44 D . M . S O U Z A et al. value society attributes to the species/ecosystem services it provides). This topic is properly addressed by Duelli & Obrist (2003), who discuss the difference between indicators that define biodiversity itself and the ones that use biodiversity to define other environmental and social attributes. Given the complexity of biodiversity assessment, all the different aspects cannot be understood by applying one single indicator. Several aspects of biodiversity will probably need to be addressed to do so – at midpoint and endpoint levels. This implies, for instance, a more in-depth assessment of the different issues in the cause–effect chain (Fig. 1), which may lead to a better clarification of ecological mechanisms and biodiversity dynamics. It also requires a better definition or clear statement of ‘what is to be sustained’, to appropriately orient the decision-making process. For example, the choice of indicators will depend on whether the goal is to preserve specific ecosystem services or a group of targeted species. The LCA community is already moving beyond the use of species richness as an indicator of biodiversity, toward the inclusion of other types of diversity, such as functional diversity (Souza et al., 2013). Other levels of analysis, such as populations and landscapes, should also be included. However, if multiple indicators are to be used to determine impacts at each level of the cause–effect chain, further research should be carried out to determine how each indicator should be evaluated, and how results should be interpreted and communicated to avoid double counting. If indicators are used, for example, in eco-labeling, it must be decided as to which and how much information regarding biodiversity loss should be passed along to consumers and the public to help them make informed decisions. The conventional approach of using species richness as a biodiversity indicator can be enhanced by applying different macro-ecological models, while taking their limitations into account. Several factors need to be considered when using surrogates in species models, such as knowledge of the biota, number and geographic range (spatial scale) of the species in the area, and temporal changes. The correlation of temporal and spatial dynamics with the surrogate species and the area of assessment also need to be taken into account. Extinction debt and immigration credit can be included using a mix of multivariate spatial models. Gibson et al. (2011) use a meta-analytic approach that integrates variables that determine biodiversity dynamics to infer immigration credit and time since conversion as an estimate of extinction debt. These biodiversity dynamics variables are indirect measures of both effects, and they can also be modeled directly. Unfortunately, this topic is still poorly

understood in the ecological literature and the way to address it transcends LCA (Jackson & Sax, 2010). The issue of temporal dynamics encompasses more than these two effects. Failing & Gregory (2003) mention the importance of specifying the time scale of assessment of a given indicator, to consider cross-temporal trade-offs. One alternative to be explored would be to define indicators at different scales (local, regional, national, global) or at ecosystem-specific levels, which are able to grasp the particularities of several species groups and their dynamic interactions with their habitats. To an extent, there has been an effort in this sense (de Baan et al., 2013b), but it is likely that different levels of biodiversity (genes, species, ecosystems) will be impacted differently depending on their scale, and they should thus be modeled separately. Therefore, future proposals of characterization factors should be scale-dependent, and not simply an extrapolation from local to global or vice-versa. Characterization factors must be carefully validated against field data and local/national case studies. The issues regarding the impact assessment model will require revamping the ideas of impacts of LULUC, as well as their dynamic representation. In some cases, no sudden loss in biodiversity occurs due to land conversion, as the response of ecosystems is often gradual. Improved SAR models should also take the spatial and temporal dimensions of biodiversity loss into consideration. Similarly, the use of PNV concept needs to be re-re-evaluated. After anthropogenic changes, natural systems go back to a near-equilibrium state (O’Neill, 1999), but the condition reached after recovery may not reflect the original natural or close-to-natural conditions – as currently assumed in LCIA. Moreover, built-up areas such as urban or industrial areas can hardly be set aside for land recovery. The choice of the baseline is not an arbitrary topic of discussion in LCA land-use impact assessment. Weidema & Lindeijer (2001) led part of this discussion, presenting the different choices of the baseline land quality level: original state before any human intervention (Blonk et al., 1997), state immediately before land use (Baitz et al., 1998), and state immediately after the landuse activity (Koellner, 2000). The topic has also been discussed by Mila i Canals et al. (2007), de Baan et al. (2013a), and Souza et al. (2013). Rather than using PNV, the baseline may also be a reference year with globally identified land cover types (e.g. Global Land Cover 2000). However, this approach also has some drawbacks. First, future assessments would need to conform to the (often poor) level of accuracy and differentiation of land cover information as presented in the reference dataset, ignoring improvements in land cover data. This is also the case with regard to the use of PNV as a


B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 45 baseline reference, as land cover is measured and PNV is estimated. Second, if at the moment of the assessment, the land use/cover in a specific area was the same as the land use/cover of the reference year, no impact would be assigned to the activity taking place in that area, even though the area may have undergone changes. Alternatives exist, such as taking local or regional conservation values into account. The choice of baseline reference involves value choices that are beyond the scope of the scientific method, and must be carefully assessed before any specific assessment method is adopted. This is a matter that should be comprehensively investigated and further discussed.

Conclusions The current modeling of land use using biodiversity indicators significantly simplifies the real transient dynamics and complexity of natural processes and interactions among and between species and their habitats. In this paper, we explained the main limitations of LCA in grasping the scale and extent of the impacts of land use on biodiversity. We compiled some of the limitations reported in the specialized literature and proposed several issues that have yet to be addressed. Assigning responsibilities for biodiversity loss in supply chains is an important first step toward reaching conservation goals. LCA is a suitable top-down method that can contribute toward this goal. However, such an effort is multidisciplinary and LCA would greatly benefit from a stronger engagement of experts in related fields, such as biologists and ecologists, who could help organize and integrate knowledge based on their extended experience in understanding and modeling complex ecological systems (e.g. modeling population dynamics). LCA calculates potential impacts rather than making accurate depictions of field-level dynamics, but it must provide practitioners with accurate and consensual measures of biodiversity. This target, though within reach, has not yet been met.

Acknowledgements This work has been supported by the European Commission’s 7th Framework Programme through Grant Agreement no. 244118 ‘SoilTrEC’ (Soil Transformations in European Catchments) to D.M. Souza and the Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship for Career Development no. 331896 ‘BioLCA’ (Introducing biodiversity in Life Cycle Assessment) to R.F.M. Teixeira. The authors thank Reinhart Ceulemans for his useful comments and logistical support in the production of the article. The authors also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions that helped improve the manuscript, and Grainne Mulhern for her valuable contribution in proofreading this manuscript.

Author contributions D.M.S conceived and designed the research review. D.M.S and R.F.M.T. carried out the review and wrote the manuscript, contributing equally to this work. O.P.O. proofread the final version of the manuscript.

References Adler PB, White EP, Lauenroth WK, Kaufman DM, Rassweiler A, Rusak JA (2005) Evidence for a general species-time-area relationship. Ecology, 86, 2032–2039. Andelman SJ, Fagan WF (2000) Umbrellas and flagships: efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 5954–5959. Ant on A, Castells F, Montero JI (2007) Land use indicators in Life Cycle Assessment. Case study: the environmental impact of Mediterranean greenhouses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 432–438. Arrhenius O (1921) Species and area. Journal of Ecology, 9, 95–99. Austin M (2007) Species distribution models and ecological theory: a critical assessment and some possible new approaches. Ecological Modelling, 200, 1–19. de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013a) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1216–1230. de Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2013b) Land use in Life Cycle Assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environmental Science & Technology, 47, 9281–9290. Baitz M, Kreissig J, Sch€ och C (1998) Methode zur Integration der Naturraum-Inan€ pruchnahme in Okobilanzen. IKP, Universit€at Stuttgart, Stuttgart. Bare JC, Hofstetter P, Pennington DW, Udo de Haes HA (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5, 319–326. Bell HL (1986) Occupation of Urban Habitats by Birds in Papua New Guinea. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology, Los Angeles. Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Leadley P, Thuiller W, Courchamp F (2012) Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15, 365–377. Blonk H, Lindeijer E, Broers J (1997) Towards a methodology for taking physical degradation of ecosystems into account in LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2, 91–98. Brentrup F, Kusters J, Lammel J, Kuhlmann H (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of land use based on the Hemeroby concept. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7, 339–348. Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Caldeira MC, Aronson J, Pausas JG (2011) Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9, 278–286. Caro TM, O’Doherty G (1999) On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 13, 805–814. Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlem€ uller R, Roy DB, Thomas CD (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science, 333, 1024–1026. Chiarucci A, Ara ujo MB, Decocq G, Beierkuhnlein C, Fernandez-Palacios JM (2010) The concept of potential natural vegetation: an epitaph? Journal of Vegetation Science, 21, 1172–1178. Chytr y M (1998) Potential replacement vegetation: an approach to vegetation mapping of cultural landscapes. Applied Vegetation Science, 1, 177–188. Coelho CRV, Michelsen O (2014) Land use impacts on biodiversity from kiwifruit production in New Zealand assessed with global and national datasets. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 285–296. Cousins SAO, Vanhoenacker D (2011) Detection of extinction debt depends on scale and specialisation. Biological Conservation, 144, 782–787. Curran M (1996) Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. McGraw-Hill, New York. pp. 432. Curran M, de Baan L, De Schryver AM et al. (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 45, 70–79. Curran M, Hellweg S, Beck J (2013) Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecological Applications, 24, 617–632. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Noon BR, McGarigal K (2010) Use of abundance of one species as a surrogate for abundance of others. Conservation Biology, 24, 830–840. Dale VH, Beyeler SC (2001) Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1, 3–10. De Schryver A, Goedkoop M (2013) Impacts of land use. In: ReCiPe 2008: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment method which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the


46 D . M . S O U Z A et al. Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Report I: Characterisation (eds Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R), pp. 89–107. Pre-Con-

Koellner T (2000) Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate landuse impacts on biodiversity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 293–311.

sultants, Amersfoort. De Schryver AM, Goedkoop MJ, Leuven RSEW, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterization factors of land occupation in Life Cycle Assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 682–691. Dengler J (2008) Pitfalls in small-scale species-area sampling and analysis. Folia Geobotanica, 43, 269–287.

Koellner T (2003) Land Use in Product Life Cycles and Ecosystem Quality. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. 271 pp. Koellner T, Geyer R (2013) Global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1185–1187. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in Central

Dengler J (2009) Which function describes the species-area relationship best? A review and empirical evaluation. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 728–744. Dolnik C, Breuer M (2008) Scale dependency in the species-area relationship of plant communities. Folia Geobotanica, 43, 305–318. Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araujo MB et al. (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography,

Europe. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 32–48. Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T et al. (2013a) Principles for life cycle inventories of land use on a global scale. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1203– 1215. Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T et al. (2013b) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. The Interna-

30, 609–628. Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003) Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98, 87–98. EEA (1997) European Environmental Agency. Life Cycle Assessment: A Guide to Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources. Environmental Issues Series. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. Elith J, Graham CH (2009) Do they? How they? Why do they differ? On finding reasons

tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1188–1202. Koh LP, Ghazoul J (2010) A matrix-calibrated species-area model for predicting biodiversity losses due to land-use change. Conservation Biology, 24, 994–1001. Kremen C (1992) Assessing the indicator properties of species assemblages for natural areas monitoring. Ecological Applications, 2, 203–217. Kuhn I, Brandl R, Klotz S (2004) The flora of German cities is naturally species rich. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 6, 749–764.

for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography, 32, 66–77. Elith J, Leathwick JR (2009) Species distribution models: ecological explanation and preditions across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 40, 677–697. Failing L, Gregory R (2003) Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 121–132.

Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK et al. (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 564–571. Lambeck RJ (1997) Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology, 11, 849–856. Lindeijer E (2000) Biodiversity and life support impacts of land use in LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 313–319.

Fattorini S, Borges PAV (2012) Species-area relationships underestimate extinction rates. Acta Oecologica, 40, 27–30. Favreau J, Drew CA, Hess GR, Rubino MJ, Koch FH, Eschelbach KA (2006) Recommendations for assessing the effectiveness of surrogate species approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15, 3949–3969. Ferrier S, Watson G (1997) An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Environmental Surrogates and Modelling Techniques in Predicting the Distribution of Biological Diversity. NSW

Liu J, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Luck GW (2003) Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature, 421, 530–533. Luken JO (1997) Management of plant invasions: implicating ecological succession. In: Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions (eds Luken JO, Thieret JW), pp. 133–144. Springer-Verlag, New York. Magurran AE (2011) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United Kingdom.

National Parks and Wild Life Services, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Environment Australia, Canberra. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T et al. (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1–21. Geyer R, Lindner J, Stoms D, Davis F, Wittstock B (2010a) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Part 2: impact assessment. The International

Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. Journal of Biosciences, 27, 309–326. Mazaris AD, Kallimanis AS, Sgardelis SP, Pantis JD (2008) Does higher taxon diversity reflect richness of conservation interest species?: the case for birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles in Greek protected areas. Ecological Indicators, 8, 664–671.

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 692–703. Geyer R, Stoms D, Lindner J, Davis F, Wittstock B (2010b) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Part 1: inventory modeling. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 454–467. Gibson L, Lee TM, Koh LP et al. (2011) Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature, 478, 378–381. Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL et al. (2002) Planning for biodiversity conservation:

McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. BioScience, 52, 883–890. MEA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Michelsen O (2008) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity: proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. The International

putting conservation science into practice. BioScience, 52, 499–512. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2004) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters, 8, 993–1009. Hanski I, Ovaskainen O (2002) Extinction debt at extinction threshold. Conservation Biology, 16, 666–673. He F, Legendre P (2002) Species diversity patterns derived from species-area models.

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 22–31. Mila i Canals, L, Bauer C, Depestele J et al. (2007) Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12, 5–15. Mokany K, Harwood TD, Williams KJ, Ferrier S (2012) Dynamic macroecology and the future for biodiversity. Global Change Biology, 18, 3149–3159.

Ecology, 83, 1185–1198. Hortal J, Ara ujo MB, Lobo JM (2009) Testing the effectiveness of discrete and continuous environmental diversity as a surrogate for species diversity. Ecological Indicators, 9, 138–149. Hylander K, Ehrlen J (2013) The mechanisms causing extinction debts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28, 341–346. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040 – Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Goal and

M€ uller-Wenk R (1998) Land use the Main Threat to Species: How to Include Land use in € Diskussionsbeitrag. Universit€at St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. LCA. 64. IWO pp 45. Murphy DD, Weiland PS, Cummins KW (2011) A Critical Assessment of the use of surrogate species in conservation planning in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California (U.S.A.): Una Evaluaci on Crıtica del Uso de Especies Sucedaneas en la Planificaci on de la Conservaci on en el Delta Sacramento-San Joaquın, California

Scope – Definition and Inventory Analysis. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 20 pp. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044 – Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 46 pp. Jackson ST, Sax DF (2010) Balancing biodiversity in a changing environment: extinction debt, immigration credit and species turnover. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,

(E.U.A.). Conservation Biology, 25, 873–878. Negi HR, Gadgil M (2002) Cross-taxon surrogacy of biodiversity in the Indian Garhwal Himalaya. Biological Conservation, 105, 143–155. ~ ez M, Pfister S, Roux P, Ant N un on A (2013) Estimating water consumption of potential natural vegetation on global dry lands: building an LCA framework for green water flows. Environmental Science & Technology, 47, 12258–12265.

25, 153–160. Jeanneret P, Baumgartner D, Freiermuth R, Gaillard G (2006) Methode D’evaluation de L’impact des Activites Agricoles sur la Biodiversite Dans les Bilans Ecologiques – SALCA-BD. Agroscope FAL Reckenholz, Zurich.

Odum EP, Barret GW (2005) Fundamentals of Ecology. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, USA. O’Neill RV (1999) Recovery in complex ecosystems. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery, 6, 181–187.


B I O D I V E R S I T Y L O S S I N L I F E C Y C L E A S S E S S M E N T 47 Ostfeld RS (1997) The ecology of lyme-disease risk: complex interactions between seemingly unconnected phenomena determine risk of exposure to this expanding

Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature, 371, 65–66.

disease. American Scientist, 85, 338–346. Penman T, Law B, Ximenes F (2010) A proposal for accounting for biodiversity in Life Cycle Assessment. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 3245–3254. Pereira HM, Cooper HD (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 123–129. Proencßa V, Pereira HM (2013) Species – area models to assess biodiversity change in multi-habitat landscapes: the importance of species habitat affinity. Basic and

Triantis KA, Mylonas M, Lika K, Vardinoyannis K (2003) A model for the species– area–habitat relationship. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 19–27. Triantis KA, Guilhaumon F, Whittaker RJ (2012) The island species–area relationship: biology and statistics. Journal of Biogeography, 39, 215–231. Turner WR, Tjørve E (2005) Scale-dependence in species-area relationships. Ecography, 28, 721–730. T€ uxen R (1956) Die heutige potentielle nat€ urliche Vegetation als Gegenstand der Veg-

Applied Ecology, 14, 102–114. Pysek P, Chocholouskova Z, Pysek A et al. (2004) Trends in species diversity and composition of urban vegetation over three decades. Journal of Vegetation Science, 15, 781–788. Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in Life Cycle Assessment - Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. The International

etationskartierung. Angewandte Pflanzensoziologie, 13, 4–42. UN (2012) United Nations. The Future we Want. Resolution A/RES/66/288 adopted by the General Assembly. United Nations, New York. Urban B, Haaren CV, Kanning H, Krahl J, Munack A (2012) Spatially differentiated examination of biodiversity in LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) on national scale exemplified by biofuels. Landbauforschung V€olkenrode, 62, 65–76.

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 374–388. Rybicki J, Hanski I (2013) Species-area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecology Letters, 16, 27–38. Santi E, Maccherini S, Rocchini D et al. (2010) Simple to sample: vascular plants as surrogate group in a nature reserve. Journal for Nature Conservation, 18, 2–11. Sarkar S, Margules C (2002) Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. Journal of Biosciences, 27, 299–308.

Vellend M, Verheyen K, Jacquemyn H, Kolb A, Calster HV, Peterken G, Hermy M (2006) Extinction debt of forest plants persists for more than a century following habitat fragmentation. Ecology, 87, 542–548. Vogtlaender JG, Lindeijer E, Witte J-PM et al. (2004) Characterizing the change of land-use based on flora: application for EIA and LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 47–57. Wagendorp T, Gulinck H, Coppin P, Muys B (2006) land use impact evaluation in

Scheiner SM (2003) Six types of species-area curves. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12, 441–447. Schmidt JH (2008a) Development of LCIA characterization factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1929–1942. Sizling A, Storch D, Reif J, Gaston K (2009) Invariance in species-abundance distributions. Theoretical Ecology, 2, 89–103.

Life Cycle Assessment based on ecosystem thermodynamics. Energy, 31, 112– 125. Weidema BP, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product Life Cycle Assessment: final report of the EURENVIRONLCAGAPS sub-project on land use. IPL-033-01. EUREKA Project EU-1296, Lyngby. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou mountains, Oregon and California.

Smith AB (2010) Caution with curves: caveats for using the species–area relationship in conservation. Biological Conservation, 143, 555–564. Souza DM, Flynn DFB, DeClerck F, Rosenbaum RK, Lisboa HM, Koellner T (2013) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1231–1242.

Ecological Monographs, 30, 279–338. Wiens JA, Hayward GD, Holthausen RS, Wisdom MJ (2008) Using surrogate species and groups for conservation planning and management. BioScience, 58, 241–252. Zerbe S (1998) Potential natural vegetation: validity and applicability in landscape planning and nature conservation. Applied Vegetation Science, 1, 165–172.


This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.

Are we there yet?

Are we nearly there yet?

Keratoprostheses: are we there yet?

Participation: are we there yet

Artificial lungs: are we there yet?

CMV and glioma--are we there yet?

CPAP holiday: are we there yet?

Fetal cardiac therapy: are we there yet?

Predicting seizures: are we there yet?

Chagas disease: are we there yet?

Personalized medicine: are we there yet?

HLA-DP1 matching: are we there yet?

The artificial pancreas: are we there yet?

Are we there yet? Hmmnot quite.

Quality-by-design: are we there yet?

CPAP holiday: are we there yet?

Improving CPR measurement: are we there yet?

Myocardial Inflammation-Are We There Yet?

Are we there yet? Assessing achievement of vaccine-preventable disease goals in WHO's Western Pacific Region.

Stem Cells in Skin Wound Healing: Are We There Yet?

Therapeutic modulation of Notch signalling--are we there yet?

Three-dimensional printing surgical instruments: are we there yet?

Clinical whole-exome sequencing: are we there yet?

FLT3 inhibitors in AML: are we there yet?