Premium
Impact Assessment of Biodiversity and Carbon Pools from Land Use and Land Use Changes in Life Cycle Assessment, Exemplified with Forestry Operations in Norway
Author(s) -
Michelsen Ottar,
Cherubini Francesco,
Strømman Anders Hammer
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00409.x
Subject(s) - life cycle assessment , biodiversity , land use, land use change and forestry , land use , climate change , biomass (ecology) , hectare , impact assessment , bioenergy , environmental science , production (economics) , environmental resource management , agroforestry , greenhouse gas , climate change mitigation , forestry , natural resource economics , agriculture , geography , biofuel , ecology , economics , macroeconomics , biology , archaeology , public administration , political science
Summary There is a strong need for methods within life cycle assessment (LCA) that enable the inclusion of all complex aspects related to land use and land use change (LULUC). This article presents a case study of the use of one hectare (ha) of forest managed for the production of wood for bioenergy production. Both permanent and temporary changes in above‐ground biomass are assessed together with the impact on biodiversity caused by LULUC as a result of forestry activities. The impact is measured as a product of time and area requirements, as well as by changes in carbon pools and impacts on biodiversity as a consequence of different management options. To elaborate the usefulness of the method as well as its dependency on assumptions, a range of scenarios are introduced in the study. The results show that the impact on climate change from LULUC dominates the results, compared to the impact from forestry operations. This clearly demonstrates the need to include LULUC in an LCA of forestry products. For impacts both on climate change and biodiversity, the results show large variability based on what assumptions are made; and impacts can be either positive or negative. Consequently, a mere measure of land used does not provide any meaning in LCA, as it is not possible to know whether this contributes a positive or negative impact.