How to quantify biodiversity footprints of consumption?
A review of multi-regional input–output analysis and life cycle assessment
Alexandra Marques
1,2, Francesca Verones
3, Marcel TJ Kok
4, Mark AJ Huijbregts
4,5and Henrique M Pereira
1,2,6Reducingdirectpressuresonbiodiversitywillonlybepossible oncetheconsumptiondriversbehindthemareidentified.
Target4oftheConventiononBiologicalDiversityhighlightsthe importanceofmovingtowardssustainablepatternsof productionandconsumption.However,linkingconsumption patternstoimpactsonbiodiversityisacomplextask, especiallyintoday’sglobalizedworld.Here,wereviewhow environmentallyextendedmulti-regionalinput–outputanalysis andlifecycleassessmenthavebeenusedtoanalyzethe impactsofconsumptiononbiodiversity,aswellasthemain challengesindoingso.Finallywediscusshowthesemethods canprovidenewindicatorstomeasuretheprogresstowards policygoals.
Addresses
1GermanCentreforIntegrativeBiodiversityResearch(iDiv),Halle-Jena- Leipzig,DeutscherPlatz5e,04103Leipzig,Germany
2InstituteofBiology,MartinLutherUniversityHalle-Wittenberg,Am Kirchtor1,06108Halle(Saale),Germany
3IndustrialEcologyProgramme,NorwegianUniversityofScienceand Technology(NTNU),SemSælandsvei7,7491Trondheim,Norway
4PBLNetherlandsEnvironmentalAssessmentAgency,Antonievan Leeuwenhoeklaan9,3721MABilthoven,TheNetherlands
5InstituteforWaterandWetlandResearch,Departmentof
EnvironmentalScience,Heyendaalse135,Nijmegen,TheNetherlands
6InfraestruturasdePortugalBiodiversityChair,CIBIO/InBio,Centrode Investigac¸a˜oemBiodiversidadeeRecursosGene´ticos,Universidadedo Porto,CampusAgra´riodeVaira˜o,4485-661Vaira˜o,Portugal
Correspondingauthor:Marques,Alexandra(alexandra.penedo@gmail.
com)
CurrentOpinioninEnvironmentalSustainability2018,26-27:75–81 ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonOpenIssuePartIII EditedbyEduardoBrondizio,RikLeemansandWilliamSolecki
Received30March2017;Revised07December2017;Accepted17 January2018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.005
1877-3435/ã2018TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.Thisisan openaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creative- commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
Inthelatestassessmentoftheprogresstowardstheglobal biodiversitytargets(Aichitargets) itwasshownthatthe use of natural resources is still increasing [1,2]. This appropriation of natural resources occurs to satisfy the needsofhumans.Whenitleadstothelossordegradation of habitats, pollution, climate change, biotic change or overexploitation, the consequences for biodiversity are mostly negative. Identifying activities that pose direct threatstobiodiversityisessentialtopreventbiodiversity loss,butultimately,reducingthesepressureswillonlybe possibleonceconsumptiondriversbehindthemareiden- tified.IntheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011–2020of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Aichi target 41 highlights the importance of moving towards sustainablepatternsofproductionandconsumption.The importance of this target in the achievement of the Strategic Planas awhole hasbeen demonstratedby its highlevelofupstreamanddownstreaminteractionswith othertargets[3].Thismeansthatactionstakentoachieve Aichi target4are likelytocontributeto theprogressof severalothertargets(downstreaminteractions),andthat actions taken to achieve other targets are also likely to contribute to the progress of Aichi target 4 (upstream interactions).
From the indicators suggested to measure progress towardsAichi target4 [4],thetrendsin ecologicalfoot- printandrelated concepts(for example,waterfootprint andhumanappropriationofnetprimaryproductivity)are theonesthatarerelatedtotheimpactsofconsumptionon biodiversity.However,theydosoonlyindirectly,asthere is no direct causal relationship between the ecological footprint,orrelatedindicators,andimpactsonbiodiver- sity[5–7].Moreover,themetricsbehindtheseindicators (global ha, km2, m3 or Pg Carbon) fail to reflect the consequences derived from the spatial differences in biodiversity(for example,theappropriation of1km2of forestlandintheBrazilianAmazonwillhaveadifferent impactonbiodiversitythananappropriationof1km2of semi-natural grassland in the highlands of the United Kingdom). So there is a need for considering specific
1“By2020,atthelatest,Governments,businessandstakeholdersatalllevelshavetakenstepstoachieveorhaveimplementedplansforsustainableproductionand consumptionandhavekepttheimpactsofuseofnaturalresourceswellwithinsafeecologicallimits.”
indicatorsthatcanidentifywhichconsumptionactivities havelargerimpactsonbiodiversity.
Directly linking consumption patterns to impacts on biodiversity is a complex task, especially in today’s globalized world. Supply chains are increasingly glo- bal, thus spatially disconnecting production processes andconsumption, aswell as associated impacts. Envi- ronmentally extended multi-regional input–output (EMRIO) analysis and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), methods from the Industrial Ecology field, have been widelyusedtotracetheenvironmentalpressuresarising from consumption activities. Historically, the term
‘footprint’ has been more closely related to EMRIO
than to LCA, probably due to the earlier maturity of the LCA terminology and community [8]. There are several definitions for the term ‘footprint’ [9]. In this paperweusetheterm‘footprint’torefertometricsthat capture the direct effects of an activity as well as the indirecteffectsthataretransferredalongasupplychain;
and that can be quantified both throughEMRIO and LCAmethods[8]. Here,we compare andreview both methodsandhowtheyhavebeenusedsofartoanalyze the impacts ofconsumption on biodiversity. Next, we present thechallenges ahead. Finally, we discusshow developments in these fields can improve progress towards the achievement ofthe Strategic Plan and its Aichitargets.
Table1
Overview of the global multi-regional input–output databases available for environmental analysis (A) and life cycle assessment methodologiesforquantificationofenvironmentalimpacts(B).Alifecycleassessmentmethodologyconcernsanensembleofdifferent modelsusedtocomputedifferentcharacterizationfactors.LCAmethodologies1and2arestillunderdevelopment;inthiscasethe informationwasretrievedfrom theprojectswebsites(www.lc-impact.eu andwww.impactworldplus.org,respectively).Thenumbers betweenbracketsrepresentthetotalnumberofsub-categorieswithineachimpactcategoryforeachmethodology.
A)Globalmulti-regionalinput–outputdatabases Environmentalextensions Database Regional
detail
Sectordetail Period covered
Land use-related
Carbon emissions-related
Water use-related
Pollution emissions-related
Availability EORA[42] 187countries Variable
(26to511 sectors)
1990-2012 Yes Yes Yes Yes Freeforuse
atdegree-granting academicinstitutions EXIOBASE3
[43]
44countries 163sectors 1995-2011 Yes Yes Yes Yes Freeunderlicense
5regions 200products GRAM[44] 54countries 48sectors 1995,
2000 and2005
Yes Notavailable
1region
GTAP9[45] 122countries 57sectors 2004, 2007 and2011
Yes Yes Proprietary
18regions
WIOD[46] 40countries 35sectors 1995-2011 Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
1region
B)Lifecycleassessmentmethodologies
Ecosystem-relatedimpactcategories Method Spatialdifferentiation
ofimpacts
Numberof impactcategories
Climate change
Acidification Eutrophication Toxicity Land use
Water use
Availability
CML2002[47] Europe,global 8(11) Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
Eco-Indicator99[48] Europe,global 3(12) Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
EDIP2003[49] Europe,global 7(13) Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
EPS2000[50,51] Europe,global 4(13) Yes Yes Yes Free
ILCD[52] Europe,global 11(29) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
Impact2002+[53] Europe,global 4(14) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
LIME2[54] Japan,global 15(15) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
LUCAS[55] Global 8(10) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
ReCiPe[56] Europe,global 11(16) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
SwissEcoscarcity [57]
Global 1(8) Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
TRACI[58] US,Global 8(10) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
LC-Impact1 Country,continent, global
3(15) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
ImpactWorld+2 Country,continent, global
3(17) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Free
Measuring thebiodiversityimpactsof consumption
Environmentallyextendedmulti-regionalinput–output analysis(EMRIO)
Input–output (IO) models consist of a system of linear equations describing the economic flows between all sectors of a country in a certain year. Several multi- regional input–output databases with environmental extensionsareavailable(Table1)[10].Anenvironmental extension measures the direct environmental impact/
pressure arisingfromtheactivityof aproductionsector in a certain country [11]. The main feature of these databases is the description of international trade rela- tions. This allows calculating indirect environmental impactsbytracingthedistantconsumptiondrivers.Len- zenetal.[12]publishedthefirstEMRIOwithabiodi- versityextension,consistingofadescriptionofthethreats that each sector from each country exerts on different species. Other biodiversity metrics applied so far in EMRIO include mean species abundance[13],poten- tially disappeared fraction of species (PDF)[14], occu- pied birdrangesandmissingindividualbirds [15].
Lifecycleassessment(LCA)
ContrarytoIOmodels,thefocusofLCAisproductor process specific (Figure 1). The aim is to collect all emissions andresource usesthroughoutthe wholelife cycle;fromextractionofrawmaterialstoproduction,use anddisposal[16,17].Aftercollecting theamountscon- sumed or emitted (e.g. kg of CO2, m3 of water) their impacts are determined. In LCA, the indicators of impact are calledcharacterization factors; theyprovide information on the amount of impact per amount of resourcesconsumedorpollutantsemittedinoneyear(e.
g.numberofspecieslostperyearperkm2oflandused).
Traditionally, in LCAimpacts to biodiversityare cov- eredinseveralimpact categories:climatechange,pho- tochemical ozone formation, terrestrial acidification, freshwater and marine eutrophication, ecotoxicity, as well aslandand waterstress.Some ofthosecategories targetonetypeofecosystem(e.g.aquaticecosystemsfor freshwatereutrophication),ortheytakemultipletypes into account(e.g.terrestrialand aquaticecosystemsfor climatechange).Mostcategorieshaverecentlybecome spatially refined [18,19], meaning that the determina- tion of the impact to biodiversity is not homogenous across all areas, and new and more complex impact pathways have been added [20,21]. In most impact categories ‘biodiversity’ impacts refer to ‘potentially disappeared fractions of species’ (PDF), comparing the originalspeciesrichnesstothe fraction left aftera human intervention. More recently, there have been firstattemptstoalsoincludetheaspectofvulnerability ofspeciesintothe assessments[22,23],acknowledging thatnotallspeciesshowthesamelevelofresilience.In thiscontext,theUNEP/SETACLifeCycleinitiativeis workingtoreachconsensusontheindicatorsandmodels to be used for the assessment of land use impacts on biodiversity, as well as in developing guidelines for a standardization of the methods applied [23–25]. An extensive review ofthebiodiversity indicatorsused in LCAcan befoundin[26].
Challenges ahead
EMRIO and LCA are suitable methods to study the impactsofconsumptionof goodsandservicesandprog- ress has been made in how to integrate biodiversity in them.In depth discussions onhow to integrate bio- diversity in LCA have been addressed elsewhere [26,27,28,29], and to a minor extent the suitability of
Figure1
(b) (a)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Differencebetweeninput–outputanalysisapproach(a)andlifecycleassessmentapproach(b).Input–outputanalysisenablestheanalysisofthe impactsfromproductiontoconsumptionofdifferentsectors,andsupplychains.Lifecycleanalysisenablestheanalysisoftheimpactsfrom productiontoconsumptionanddisposal(cradletograve)ofspecificproductsorprocesses.
EMRIO to study biodiversity impacts [30]. Here, we highlightwhatweconsiderarethemostimportantaspects tobeaddressedinfutureresearch.
First,bothEMRIOandLCA havemainly usedspecies diversityasaproxyforbiodiversity[12,27,29].Despite itsimportance,speciesdiversityisonlyoneofthedimen- sionsof biodiversity[31],coveringotherdimensions for exampleitsfunctionalandstructuralaspectsshouldalso beconsidered[26],foramoreintegratedunderstanding oftheimpactsonbiodiversity.Second,animportantissue toconsiderwhenapplyingEMRIOandLCAisthechoice of areference situationto whichthe impacts arebeing determinedagainst(e.g.naturalorcurrent)[27]andthe scaleoftheimpacts(localimpactsonbiodiversityversus regional/globalimpactsonbiodiversity)[26,27].Consis- tentlytreatingthereferencesituationandscaleofimpact acrossdriversisconsideredparticularlyrelevantto keep consistencyintheanalysis.Third,themajorityofstudies arebasedonthedeterminationofametricofimpact to biodiversityper unit of resource used; thus assuminga linearrelationshipbetweentheamountofresourcesused andtheeffects onbiodiversity[28,29].However,biodi- versity responses are known to bedependent onscale,
they can be non-linear and unforeseen (for example, when critical thresholds are reached) [32]. Fourth, the lackof spatial detailis identified as achallengefor the application to biodiversity for both LCA and EMRIO [30]. Particularly in LCA, the implementation of spa- tiallyexplicit lifecycle inventorydata wouldprovide a majorstepforwardinthebiodiversityimpactassessment oftheconsumptionof specificgoodsand services.With increasing analytical capabilities, there is interest in exploring methodological synergies between EMRIO and LCA and developing hybrid approaches [8]. This has the potential to increase the detail in the level of analysis,whichwouldbebeneficialforbiodiversityfoot- printing [30]. Finally, two drivers of biodiversity loss, overexploitationand thepresence of invasiveand alien species,havenotyetbeenincludedinEMRIOandhave beenseldomaddressedinLCA[26,33,34].Fromamodel- ling perspective these are the least understood drivers of change,were majorgaps and uncertainties still exist [35–37].
Policyrelevance
Inthepolicyarena,EMRIOandLCAhavealreadybeen used to derive indicators to measure progress towards
Figure2
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
LevelsofapplicationofLCA(darkgreyareasofthepyramid)andEMRIO(lightgreyareasofthepyramid)andmaininterestofactors.Thearrow representsthelevelofinterestspanningfromgovernments(green)tobusinessesandotherstakeholders(blue).Thepositioninthepyramidofthe differentlevelsofapplicationrepresentsthenumberofactorsassociatedwitheach.
sustainable development [38–41], which may facilitate the acceptance of these type indicators for biodiversity policies. For example, the EIPRO (Environmental Impacts of Products) study used both EMRIO and LCA to analyze the impacts of products consumed in Europe and has been important in shaping European Unionproductpolicy [38].Another studyusedEMRIO and LCA to analyze theenvironmental impacts of pro- ductionandconsumptionandassesspriorityproductsand materials[39].TheincreaseinnumberofglobalMRIO databases and the vast number of LCA methodologies providingdifferentcharacterizationfactors(Table1)can also facilitate the uptake and acceptance of indicators based onthesemethodsbyallowingcomparisonsacross thedifferentresultsprovidedandenablingsensitivityand uncertainty analysis[41].
Additionally, biodiversity indicators developed through EMRIO and LCA can greatly contribute in achieving progress towardsAichi target4 atlevelsthat matchthe actors identified (governments, businessand stakeholders at alllevels)(Figure2).Thelinkagesofthistargetwiththe other targets of the Strategic Plan (Figure 3) [3] can potentially enhance the reach of EMRIO and LCA in
conservation related policies. Input–output analysis is consistent with theSystem of National Accounts,2and thereforebiodiversityandecosystemservicesextensions developedunderthisframeworkwillgreatlycontributeto the integration of biodiversity into national accounting (Aichi target 2). The development of a biodiversity extensionforaninput–outputframeworkrequiresknowl- edge on the impacts associated with economic sectors, whichcancontributetointegratebiodiversityprioritiesin sectoralpolicyframeworksandmanagementplans(Aichi target5,6and7).LCArequiresdetailedinformationon theimpactsassociatedwithproductionprocess;therefore it can contribute to Aichi target 5, 6 and 7, especially focusing on particular products or production processes knownto haveagreatimpactonbiodiversity.
Conclusions
EMRIOandLCAaretwoestablishedmethodsfromthe fieldofIndustrialEcologythatcanbeusedtounderstand the impacts from consumption on biodiversity. In a
Figure3
T16
Downstream interactions:
Actions in T4 contributing to the progress of other targets Upstream interactions:
Actions in other targets contributing to the progress of T4
T1 T1
T4 T2
T3
T7 T6
T8 T11 T12 T13 T14
T17
T19
T2
T5 T6 T7
T8 T11 T12
T13 T14 T17
T19
T3
T18 T20 T15
T18
T20
T15 T16
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
DownstreamandupstreaminteractionsofAichitarget4.Countriesdesignnationalbiodiversitytargets,whicharethenassociatedtotheAichi targetsbytheCBD(www.cbd.int/nbsap/targets).Here,weselectednationaltargetsrelatedtoAichitarget4.Onlynationaltargetsthatrelateto morethanoneAichitargetwereselected.WethenidentifiedthemainAichitargetrelatedtoeachofthosenationaltargets,andtheremaining Aichitargetswereconsideredasinfluencedbyit.Thesizeofthecirclesisproportionaltothenumberofnationaltargetswheresuchinteractions werefound.ThecolorsofthecirclesrepresenteachStrategicGoal:A‘Mainstreamingbiodiversity’—blue,B‘Reducedirectpressure’—orange, C‘Improvestatus’—green,D‘Enhancebenefits’—purple,E‘Enhanceimplementation’—yellow.
2The System of National Accounts is the internationally agreed standard set of recommendations on how to compile measures of economicactivity(http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna.asp).
deeplyteleconnectedworldconsumptionandproduction areoftenspatiallydisconnectedandconsumersmaynot beawareof theimpact theydriveelsewhere.
Althoughfurtherdevelopmentsinhowtobestintegrate biodiversityinEMRIOandLCAarestillrequired;these methodologies can already provide different types of biodiversity footprint indicators to measure progress towards sustainable patterns of production and consumption.
Acknowledgements
WethankPetervanBodegomforinsightfulcommentsonanearlierversion ofthemanuscript.WethankLaetitiaNavarroforherhelpinpreparing Figure3.A.M.,M.A.J.H.andH.M.Pwouldliketothankthefinancial supportprovidedbyEU-FP7projectDESIRE(FP7-ENV-2012-308552).
References andrecommendedreading
Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:
ofspecialinterest ofoutstandinginterest 1.
TittensorDP,WalpoleM,HillSLL,BoyceDG,BrittenGL, BurgessND,ButchartSHM,LeadleyPW,ReganEC,AlkemadeR etal.:Amid-termanalysisofprogresstowardsinternational biodiversitytargets.Science2014,346:241-244.
Presentsamid-termassessmentofprogresstowardtheglobalbiodi- versitytargetsusing55indicatordatasetsandshowingtheirprojected trajectoriesuntil2020.
2. LeadleyP,KrugC,AlkemadeR,PereiraHM,SumailaUR, WalpoleM,MarquesA,NewboldT,TehLSL,vanKolckJetal.:
ProgresstowardstheAichibiodiversitytargets:an assessmentofbiodiversitytrends,policyscenariosandkey actions.SecretConventBiolDivers2014.
3. MarquesA,PereiraHM,KrugC,LeadleyPW,ViscontiP, Januchowski-HartleySR,KrugRM,AlkemadeR,BellardC, CheungWWLetal.:Aframeworktoidentifyenablingand urgentactionsforthe2020AichiTargets.BasicApplEcol2014, 15:633-638.
4. SCBD:ReportoftheAdHocTechnicalExpertGrouponIndicators fortheStrategicPlanforBiodiversity2011–2020.2015.
5. AlessandroGalliMW:Ecologicalfootprint:implicationsfor biodiversity.BiolConserv2014,173.
6. HaberlH,ErbK-H,KrausmannF:Humanappropriationofnet primaryproduction:patterns,trends,andplanetary boundaries.AnnuRevEnvironResour2014,39:363-391.
7. LazarusE,LinD,MartindillJ,HardimanJ,PitneyL,GalliA:
Biodiversitylossandtheecologicalfootprintoftrade.Diversity 2015,7:170-191.
8. LenzenM:Anoutlookintoapossiblefutureoffootprint research.JIndEcol2014,18:4-6.
9. FangK,SongS,HeijungsR,deGrootS,DongL,SongJ,WilosoEI:
Thefootprint’sfingerprint:ontheclassificationofthefootprint family.CurrOpinEnvironSustain2016,23:54-62.
10. TukkerA,DietzenbacherE:Globalmultiregionalinput–output frameworks:anintroductionandoutlook.EconSystRes2013, 25:1-19.
11.
KitzesJ:Anintroductiontoenvironmentally-extendedinput–
outputanalysis.Resources2013,2:489-503.
Averyclearandconciseintroductiontoenvironmentally-extendedinput–
outputanalysisandthemathematicsbehindit.
12. LenzenM,MoranD,KanemotoK,ForanB,LobefaroL,GeschkeA:
Internationaltradedrivesbiodiversitythreatsindeveloping nations.Nature2012,486:109-112.
Thefirstapproachtocalculateabiodiversityfootprint,linkingtradeflows tobiodiversitythreats.
13. WiltingHC,SchipperAM,BakkenesM,MeijerJR,HuijbregtsMAJ:
Quantifyingbiodiversitylossesduetohumanconsumption:a global-scalefootprintanalysis.EnvironSciTechnol2017, 51:3298-3306.
Applies mean species abundance in a multiregional input–output framework.
14. VeronesF,MoranD,StadlerK,KanemotoK,WoodR:Resource footprintsandtheirecosystemconsequences.SciRep2017, 7:40743.
15. KitzesJ,BerlowE,ConliskE,ErbK,IhaK,MartinezN, NewmanEA,PlutzarC,SmithAB,HarteJ:Consumption-based conservationtargeting:linkingbiodiversitylosstoupstream demandthroughaglobalwildlifefootprint.ConservLett2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/con4.12321.
16. ISO:ISO14040:2006—EnvironmentalManagement—LifeCycle Assessment—PrinciplesandFramework.International OrganisationforStandardisation;2006.
17. ISO:ISO14040:2006—EnvironmentalManagement—LifeCycle Assessment—RequirementsandGuidelines.International OrganisationforStandardisation;2006.
18. SchererL,PfisterS:Modellingspatiallyexplicitimpactsfrom phosphorusemissionsinagriculture.IntJLifeCycleAssess 2015,20:785-795.
19. AzevedoLB,vanZelmR,ElshoutPMF,HendriksAJ, LeuvenRSEW,StruijsJ,deZwartD,HuijbregtsMAJ:Species richness–phosphorusrelationshipsforlakesandstreams worldwide.GlobEcolBiogeogr2013,22:1304-1314.
20. ChaudharyA,VeronesF,deBaanL,HellwegS:Quantifyingland useimpactsonbiodiversity:combiningspecies—area modelsandvulnerabilityindicators.EnvironSciTechnol2015, 49:9987-9995.
AnewapproachforlandoccupationandtransformationimpactsinLCA.
It includesthevulnerability ofspecies and isspatially refinedfor all terrestrialecoregionsand6landusetypes.
21. CosmeN,KoskiM,HauschildMZ:Exposurefactorsformarine eutrophicationimpactsassessmentbasedonamechanistic biologicalmodel.EcolModel2015,317:50-63.
22. VeronesF,SanerD,PfisterS,BaiseroD,RondininiC,HellwegS:
Effectsofconsumptivewateruseonbiodiversityinwetlands ofinternationalimportance.EnvironSciTechnol2013, 47:12248-12257.
23. JollietO,FrischknechtR,BareJ,BoulayA-M,BulleC,FantkeP, GheewalaS,HauschildM,ItsuboN,MargniMetal.:Global guidanceonenvironmentallifecycleimpactassessment indicators:findingsofthescopingphase.IntJLifeCycleAssess 2014,19:962-967.
24. TeixeiraRFM,MaiadeSouzaD,CurranMP,Anto´nA,MichelsenO, Mila` iCanalsL:Towardsconsensusonlanduseimpactson biodiversityinLCA:UNEP/SETACLifeCycleInitiative preliminaryrecommendationsbasedonexpertcontributions.
JCleanProd2016,112:4283-4287.
25. KoellnerT,BaanLde,BeckT,Branda˜oM,CivitB,MargniM, CanalsLMi,SaadR,SouzaDMde,Mu¨ller-WenkR:UNEP-SETAC guidelineongloballanduseimpactassessmenton biodiversityandecosystemservicesinLCA.IntJLifeCycle Assess2013,18:1188-1202.
26. CurranM,MaiadeSouzaD,Anto´nA,TeixeiraRFM,MichelsenO, Vidal-LegazB,SalaS,Mila` iCanalsL:HowwelldoesLCAmodel landuseimpactsonbiodiversity?—Acomparisonwith approachesfromecologyandconservation.EnvironSci Technol2016,50:2782-2795.
27. SouzaDM,TeixeiraRFM,OstermannOP:Assessingbiodiversity lossduetolandusewithLifeCycleAssessment:arewethere yet? GlobChangeBiol2015,21:32-47.
Reviewofthemainchallengesinaddressingbiodiversitylossduetoland useinaLifeCycleAssessmentframework.
28. CurranM,deBaanL,DeSchryverAM,vanZelmR,HellwegS, KoellnerT,SonnemannG,HuijbregtsMAJ:Towardmeaningful
endpointsofbiodiversityinlifecycleassessment.EnvironSci Technol2011,45:70-79.
29. MichelsenO,LindnerJP:Whyincludeimpactsonbiodiversity fromlanduseinLCIAandhowtoselectusefulindicators?
Sustainability2015,7:6278-6302.
30.
MoranD,PetersoneM,VeronesF:Onthesuitabilityofinput–
outputanalysisforcalculatingproduct-specificbiodiversity footprints.EcolIndic2016,60:192-201.
Presentssomeofthechallengesinaddressingbiodiversityimpactsinan input–ouputframework.
31. PereiraHM,FerrierS,WaltersM,GellerGN,JongmanRHG, ScholesRJ,BrufordMW,BrummittN,ButchartSHM,CardosoAC etal.:Essentialbiodiversityvariables.Science2013,339:277- 278.
32. LeadleyP,Proenc¸aV,Ferna´ndez-Manjarre´sJ,PereiraHM, AlkemadeR,BiggsR,BruleyE,CheungW,CooperD,FigueiredoJ etal.:Interactingregional-scaleregimeshiftsforbiodiversity andecosystemservices.BioScience2014.
33. HanafiahMM,LeuvenRSEW,SommerwerkN,TocknerK, HuijbregtsMAJ:Includingtheintroductionofexoticspeciesin lifecycleimpactassessment:thecaseofinlandshipping.
EnvironSciTechnol2013,47:13934-13940.
34. HornborgS,SvenssonM,NilssonP,ZieglerF:By-catchimpacts infisheries:utilizingtheIUCNredlistcategoriesforenhanced productlevelassessmentinseafoodLCAs.EnvironManage 2013,52:1239-1248.
35. MouquetN,LagadeucY,DevictorV,DoyenL,Duputie´ A, EveillardD,FaureD,GarnierE,GimenezO,HunemanPetal.:
REVIEW:Predictiveecologyinachangingworld.JApplEcol 2015,52:1293-1310.
36. PereiraHM,LeadleyPW,Proenc¸aV,AlkemadeR, ScharlemannJPW,Fernandez-Manjarre´sJF,Arau´joMB, BalvaneraP,BiggsR,CheungWWLetal.:Scenariosforglobal biodiversityinthe21stcentury.Science2010,330:1496-1501.
37. PereiraHM,NavarroLM,MartinsIS:Globalbiodiversitychange:
thebad,thegood,andtheunknown.AnnuRevEnvironResour 2012,37:25-50.
38. TukkerA,HuppesG,Guine´eJ,HeijungsR,KoningAde,van OersL,SuhS,GeerkenT,VanHolderbekeM,JansenBetal.:
EnvironmentalImpactofProducts(EIPRO).AnalysisoftheLife CycleEnvironmentalImpactsRelatedtotheFinalConsumptionof theEU-25.2006.
39. UNEP:AssessingtheEnvironmentalImpactsofConsumptionand Production:PriorityProductsandMaterials:AReportofthe WorkingGroupontheEnvironmentalImpactsofProductsand MaterialstotheInternationalPanelforSustainableResource Management.UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme;2010.
40. OECD:TowardsGreengrowth:MonitoringProgress.OECD Indicators.OrganizationforEconomicCo-Operationand Development;2011.
41. WiedmannT,BarrettJ:Policy-relevantapplicationsof environmentallyextendedMriodatabases—experiences fromtheUK.EconSystRes2013,25:143-156.
42. LenzenM,KanemotoK,MoranD,GeschkeA:Mappingthe structureoftheworldeconomy.EnvironSciTechnol2012, 46:8374-8381.
43. StadlerK,WoodR,BulavskayaT,So¨derstenC,SimasM, SchmidtS,UsubiagaA,Acosta-Ferna´ndezJ,KuenenJ,
BrucknerMetal.:EXIOBASE3:developingatimeseriesof detailedenvironmentallyextendedmulti-regionalinput–
outputtable.JIndEcol2018http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
jiec.12715.
44. BrucknerM,GiljumS,LutzC,WiebeKS:Materialsembodiedin internationaltrade—globalmaterialextractionand consumptionbetween1995and2005.GlobEnvironChange 2012,22:568-576.
45. AguiarA,NarayananB,McDougallR:AnoverviewoftheGTAP 9database.JGlobEconAnal2016,1:181-208.
46. DietzenbacherE,LosB,StehrerR,TimmerM,VriesGde:The constructionofworldinput–outputtablesintheWiodproject.
EconSystRes2013,25:71-98.
47. deBruijnH,vanDuinR,HuijbregtsMAJ:HandbookonLifeCycle Assessment. Netherlands:Springer;2002.
48. GoedkoopM,SpriensmaR:TheEco-Indicator99:ADamage OrientedMethodforLifeCycleImpactAssessment.Pre´
Consultants;2000.
49. HauschildM,PottingJ:SpatialDifferentiationinLifeCycleImpact Assessment—TheEDIP2003Methodology.DanishMinistryof theEnvironment—EnvironmentalProtectionAgency;2005.
50. SteenB:ASystematicApproachtoEnvironmentalPriority StrategiesinProductDevelopment(EPS).Version2000-general SystemCharacteristics.ChalmersUniversityofTechnology;1999.
51. SteenB:ASystematicApproachtoEnvironmentalPriority StrategiesinProductDevelopment(EPS).Version2000-models andDataoftheDefaultMethod.ChalmersUniversityof Technology;1999.
52. HauschildM,GoedkoopM,GuineeJ,HeijungsR,HuijbregtsM, JollietO,MargniM,DeSchryverA:RecommendationsforLife CycleImpactAssessmentintheEuropeanContext-basedon ExistingEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentModelsandFactors (InternationalReferenceLifeCycleDataSystem—ILCD Handbook).PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion;2011.
53. JollietO,MargniM,CharlesR,HumbertS,PayetJ,RebitzerG, RosenbaumR:IMPACT2002+:anewlifecycleimpact assessmentmethodology.IntJLifeCycleAssess2003,8:324- 330.
54. ItsuboN,InabaA:LIME2,Life-cycleImpactAssessmentMethod BasedonEndpointModelling:Summary.Life-CycleAssessment SocietyofJapan;2012.
55. ToffolettoL,BulleC,GodinJ,ReidC,DescheˆnesL:LUCAS—a newLCIAmethodusedforaCanadian-specificcontext.IntJ LifeCycleAssess2006,12:93-102.
56. GoedkoopM,HeijungsR,HuijbregtsMAJ,DeSchryverA, StrujisJ,vanZelmR:ReCiPE2008:ALifeCycleImpact AssessmentMethodWhichComprisesHarmonisedCategory IndicatorsattheMidpointandtheEndpointLevel. Ruimteen Milieu:MinisterievanVolkshuisvesting,RuimtelijkeOrdeningen Milieubeheer;2009.
57. FrischknechtR,Bu¨sserK:SwissEco-Factors2013Accordingto theEcologicalScarcityMethod.MethodologicalFundamentals andtheirApplicationinSwitzerland.FederalOfficeforthe Environment;2013.
58. BareJ:TRACI2.0:thetoolforthereductionandassessmentof chemicalandotherenvironmentalimpacts2.0.CleanTechnol EnvironPolicy2011,13:687-696.
