nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

17.02.2023 | LCIA OF IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS

A new impact pathway towards ecosystem quality in life cycle assessment: characterisation factors for fisheries

verfasst von: Arnaud Hélias, Chloe Stanford-Clark, Vanessa Bach

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 4/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Although life cycle impact assessment methods exist for quantifying land use and its impact on the environment in the “ecosystem quality” area of protection, the impact of sea use on ecosystems has been poorly assessed so far. This paper aims to propose operational characterisation factors for all global fisheries.

Methods

For a given intervention, the characterisation factor is defined as the product of the fate factor (inverse of the fish stock growth rate) and the effect factor (depleted fraction of the stock). Characterisation factors are provided for 5000 fish stocks identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization. Both the marginal and average approaches are used, and characterisation factors compatible with the ReCiPe method and the international guidelines of the Life Cycle Initiative hosted by the UN Environment Programme are proposed.

Results and discussion

Characterisation factors for regional and global assessments can be employed to address the endemic nature of a species. As an illustration, four contrasting fisheries are presented and compared with land animal production systems. Impacts varied between stocks and between regional and global assessment, particularly with highly endemic species exhibiting impacts comparable to or exceeding land-based animal products.

Conclusions

Although in some cases associated uncertainty is large, the proposed method allows endpoint characterisation, in line with the ReCiPe methodology and Life Cycle Initiative, contributing the assessment of fishing impacts on ecosystem quality and a more holistic representation in food impact assessment.

Vorheriger Artikel Product environmental footprint of New Zealand leather production

Nächster Artikel Life cycle impacts assessment of two gold extraction systems in Colombia: open-pit and alluvial mining

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Azevedo LB, Huijbregts MAJ, Bobbink R et al (2012) Global assessment of the effects of terrestrial acidification on plant species richness. Environ Pollut 174:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.11.001CrossRef

Bach V, Hélias A, Muhl M et al (2022) Assessing overfishing based on the distance-to-target approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02042-zCrossRef

Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, Nyström M (2004) Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 429:827–833. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02691CrossRef

Berger M, Sonderegger T, Alvarenga R et al (2020) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:798–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01737-5CrossRef

Bijster M, Guignard C, Hauschild M et al (2018) USEtox^® 2.0 documentation (version 1.1). USEtox^® International Center hosted at the Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

Cashion T, Hornborg S, Ziegler F et al (2016) Review and advancement of the marine biotic resource use metric in seafood LCAs: a case study of Norwegian salmon feed. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1106–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1092-yCrossRef

Chaudhary A, Brooks TM (2018) Land use intensity-specific global characterization factors to assess product biodiversity footprints. Environ Sci Technol 52:5094–5104. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05570CrossRef

Chaudhary A, Verones F, de Baan L, Hellweg S (2015) Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ Sci Technol 49:9987–9995. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02507CrossRef

Cosme N, Mayorga E, Hauschild MZ (2018) Spatially explicit fate factors of waterborne nitrogen emissions at the global scale. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1286–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1349-0CrossRef

Crespo-Mendes N, Laurent A, Hauschild MZ (2019) Effect factors of terrestrial acidification in Brazil for use in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1560-7CrossRef

Curran M, De Baan L, De Schryver AM et al (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45:70–79. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101444kCrossRef

Curran M, Hellweg S, Beck J (2014) Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy? Ecol Appl 24:617–632. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0243.1CrossRef

Curran MA (ed) (2017) Goal and scope definition in life cycle assessment. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht

de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013a) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1216–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0412-0CrossRef

de Baan L, Mutel CL, Curran M et al (2013b) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47:9281–9290. https://doi.org/10.1021/es400592qCrossRef

Dorber M, Kuipers K, Verones F (2020) Global characterization factors for terrestrial biodiversity impacts of future land inundation in life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ 712:134582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134582

Ellis EC, Kaplan JO, Fuller DQ et al (2013) Used planet: a global history. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:7978–7985. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217241110CrossRef

Emanuelsson A, Ziegler F, Pihl L et al (2014) Accounting for overfishing in life cycle assessment: new impact categories for biotic resource use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1156–1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0684-zCrossRef

FAO (2022) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. FAO

FAO (2017) Fishery Statistical Collections - Global Capture Production

FAO (2011) Review of the state of world marine fishery resources

Frischknecht R, Jolliet O (eds) (2016) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators:, vol 1. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris

Froese R, Demirel N, Coro G et al (2017) Estimating fisheries reference points from catch and resilience. Fish Fish 18:506–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12190CrossRef

Froese R, Pauly D (eds) (2016) FishBase. World wide web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org

Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99 a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment methodology - methodology report. Pré Consutant, Amersfoort, Netherland

Guinée JB, Heijungs R (1995) A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:917–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620140525CrossRef

Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (eds) (2015) Life cycle impact assessment. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht

Hélias A (2019) Data for fish stock assessment obtained from the CMSY algorithm for all global FAO datasets. Data 4:78. https://doi.org/10.3390/data4020078CrossRef

Hélias A, Heijungs R (2019) Resource depletion potentials from bottom-up models: population dynamics and the Hubbert peak theory. Sci Total Environ 650:1303–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.119CrossRef

Hélias A, Langlois J, Fréon P (2018) Fisheries in life cycle assessment: operational factors for biotic resources depletion. Fish Fish 19:951–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12299CrossRef

Hillebrand H, Blasius B, Borer ET et al (2018) Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: consequences for conservation and monitoring. J Appl Ecol 55:169–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12959CrossRef

Horton T, Kroh A, Ahyong S et al (2019) World register of marine species (WoRMS)

Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF et al (2016) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Report I: characterization. RIVM Report 2016–0104. Bilthoven, The Netherlands

Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF et al (2017) ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1246-yCrossRef

IPBES (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany

IUCN (2017) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017–3

IUCN red list Table 1a : number of species evaluated in relation to the overall number of described species, and number of threatened species by major groups of organisms

Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH et al (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science (80-) 293:629–637. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059199

Kuipers KJJ, Hellweg S, Verones F (2019) Potential consequences of regional species loss for global species richness: a quantitative approach for estimating global extinction probabilities. Environ Sci Technol 53:4728–4738. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06173CrossRef

Langlois J, Fréon P, Delgenes J-P et al (2014a) New methods for impact assessment of biotic-resource depletion in life cycle assessment of fisheries: theory and application. J Clean Prod 73:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.087CrossRef

Langlois J, Fréon P, Steyer J-P et al (2014b) Sea-use impact category in life cycle assessment: state of the art and perspectives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:994–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0700-yCrossRef

Langlois J, Fréon P, Steyer J-P et al (2015) Sea use impact category in life cycle assessment: characterization factors for life support functions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:970–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0886-7CrossRef

Lindner J, Fehrenbach H, Winter L et al (2019) Valuing biodiversity in life cycle impact assessment. Sustainability 11:5628. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205628CrossRef

McGill BJ, Dornelas M, Gotelli NJ, Magurran AE (2015) Fifteen forms of biodiversity trend in the anthropocene. Trends Ecol Evol 30:104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.006CrossRef

Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.005CrossRef

Müller-Wenk R (1998) Land Use – The Main Threat to Species. How to Include Land Use in LCA. IWÖ – Diskussionsbeitrag No. 64, IWÖ, Universität St. Gallen, Switzerland

Pauly D (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science (80- ) 279:860–863. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5352.860

Pereira HM, Ziv G, Mirande M (2014) Countryside species-area relationship as a valid alternative to the matrix-calibrated species-area model. Conserv Biol 28:874–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12289CrossRef

Posthuma L, de Zwart D (2012) Predicted mixture toxic pressure relates to observed fraction of benthic macrofauna species impacted by contaminant mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:2175–2188. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.1923CrossRef

Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, Jolliet O (2007) A flexible matrix algebra framework for the multimedia multipathway modeling of emission to impacts. Environ Int 33:624–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.01.004CrossRef

Schaefer M (1954) Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries. Bull Inter-American Trop Tuna Comm 1:27–56

Sonderegger T, Berger M, Alvarenga R et al (2020) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:784–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6CrossRef

Steneck RS, Graham MH, Bourque BJ et al (2002) Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environ Conserv 29:436–459. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000322CrossRef

Verones F, Bare J, Bulle C et al (2017) LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. J Clean Prod 161:957–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.206CrossRef

Verones F, Hellweg S, Antón A et al (2020) LC-IMPACT: a regionalized life cycle damage assessment method. J Ind Ecol 24:1201–1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13018CrossRef

Verones F, Huijbregts MAJ, Chaudhary A et al (2015) Harmonizing the assessment of biodiversity effects from land and water use within LCA. Environ Sci Technol 49:3584–3592. https://doi.org/10.1021/es504995rCrossRef

Verones F, Kuipers K, Núñez M et al (2022) Global extinction probabilities of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species groups for use in life cycle assessment. Ecol Indic 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109204

Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B et al (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8CrossRef

Winter L, Pflugmacher S, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2018) Biodiversity impact assessment (BIA+) - methodological framework for screening biodiversity. Integr Environ Assess Manag 14:282–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.2006CrossRef

Woods JS, Damiani M, Fantke P et al (2018) Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo, harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1995–2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1422-8CrossRef

Woods JS, Veltman K, Huijbregts MAJ et al (2016) Towards a meaningful assessment of marine ecological impacts in life cycle assessment (LCA). Environ Int 89–90:48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.033CrossRef

Woods JS, Verones F (2019) Ecosystem damage from anthropogenic seabed disturbance: a life cycle impact assessment characterisation model. Sci Total Environ 649:1481–1490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.304CrossRef

Titel: A new impact pathway towards ecosystem quality in life cycle assessment: characterisation factors for fisheries
verfasst von: Arnaud Hélias
Chloe Stanford-Clark
Vanessa Bach
Publikationsdatum: 17.02.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 4/2023
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02136-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2023

Comparative sustainability assessment of lithium-ion, lithium-sulfur, and all-solid-state traction batteries

Partitioning product footprint changes into yield and environmental improvement effects: toward life cycle assessment of agricultural system transitions

A systematic approach to assist in life-cycle assessment of ammunition demilitarization process: a case study with the 105-mm HE M1 ammunition

Integration of consumer preferences into dynamic life cycle assessment for the sharing economy: methodology and case study for shared mobility

At the intersection of life cycle assessment and indirect greenhouse gas emissions accounting

Product environmental footprint of New Zealand leather production