Search

Based on an extensive model intercomparison, we assessed trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services from historical reconstructions and future scenarios of land-use and climate change. During the 20th century, biodiversity declined globally by 2 to 11%, as estimated by a range of indicators. Provisioning ecosystem services increased several fold, and regulating services decreased moderately. Going forward, policies toward sustainability have the potential to slow biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change and the demand for provisioning services while reducing or reversing declines in regulating services. However, negative impacts on biodiversity due to climate change appear poised to increase, particularly in the higher-emissions scenarios. Our assessment identifies remaining modeling uncertainties but also robustly shows that renewed policy efforts are needed to meet the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Here are stored two datasets belonging to the model build for the following research article: Can Forest Management Practices Counteract Species Loss Arising from Increasing European Demand for Forest Biomass under Climate Mitigation Scenarios? Francesca Rosa, Fulvio Di Fulvio, Pekka Lauri, Adam Felton, Nicklas Forsell, Stephan Pfister, Stefanie Hellweg Environmental Science and Technology, 2023 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c07867 The rest of the data, the code and further documentation are provided in this github repository: https://github.com/francesca-git/EU28-ForestMng-Climate

29 januari 2021, Contains fulltext : 230099.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 228888.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 228862.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Despite the scientific consensus on the extinction crisis and its anthropogenic origin, the quantification of historical trends and of future scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been limited, due to the lack of inter-model comparisons and harmonized scenarios. Here, we present a multi-model analysis to assess the impacts of land-use and climate change from 1900 to 2050. During the 20th century provisioning services increased, but biodiversity and regulating services decreased. Similar trade-offs are projected for the coming decades, but they may be attenuated in a sustainability scenario. Future biodiversity loss from land-use change is projected to keep up with historical rates or reduce slightly, whereas losses due to climate change are projected to increase greatly. Renewed efforts are needed by governments to meet the 2050 vision of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The archive provides supporting material for the article entitled “Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy”, published in the Nature journal (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y). It contains: i) the final version of the methodological report (updating the initial version [DOI:10.22022/ESM/04-2018.15241] for this article), ii) geospatial land-use projections generated by land-use models for the various scenarios described in the article, iii) aggregated land-use model projections for other variables used in the article, iv) the code, input data and output data of the various biodiversity models applied to the land use projections, v) the code and side data to produce numbers and figures presented in the article.”

In this study, the potential global loss of species directly associated with land use in the EU and due to trade with other regions is computed over time, in order to reveal differences in impacts between the considered alternatives of plausible bioenergy policies development in the EU. The spatially explicit study combines a life cycle analysis (LCA) for biodiversity impact assessment with a global high resolution economic land use model. Both impacts of domestic land use and impacts through imports were included for estimating the biodiversity footprint of the member states of the (EU28). The analyzed scenarios assumed similar biomass demand until 2020 but differed thereafter, from keeping the growth of demand for bioenergy constant (CONST), to a strong increase of bioenergy in line with the EU target of decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 (EMIRED) and with the baseline (BASE) scenario falling between the other two. As a general trend, the increasing demand for biomass was found to have substantial impact on biodiversity in all scenarios, while the differences between the scenarios were found to be modest. The share caused by imports was 15% of the overall biodiversity impacts detected in this study in the year 2000, and progressively increased to 24% to 26% in 2050, depending on the scenario. The most prominent future change in domestic land use in all scenarios was the expansion of perennial cultivations for energy. In the EMIRED scenario, there is a larger expansion of perennial cultivations and a smaller expansion of cropland in the EU than in the other two scenarios. As the biodiversity damage is smaller for land used for perennial cultivations than for cropland, this development decreases the internal biodiversity damage per unit of land. At the same time, however, the EMIRED scenario also features the largest outsourcing of damage, due to increased import of cropland products from outside the EU for satisfying the EU food demand. These

[EN] Purpose The food processing industry is a major consumer of energy and water, the consumption of which has environmental impacts. This work develops a method to determine process-specific water use and utilizes an existing energy use toolbox to calculate the energy and water required for each step of food processing. A life cycle assessment (LCA) is conducted to determine how much processing contributes to a particular product¿s cradle to gate impacts for two impact categories. Methods A method to determine water use at each unit process was developed, and in conjunction with an already developed energy use unit process toolbox, the methods were tested using two case studies. Processing data such as flow rates, operation temperatures, and food losses were used from two Swiss food production facilities. Calculation results were compared to measured facility data such as yearly energy and water use. Results were then used to develop LCAs for a total of seven food products, including five types of juice and two types of potato products. Results and discussion The toolboxes were able to calculate the water use of both facilities within 25%, the thermal energy use within 9%, and electricity use within 24%. Impacts from processing were particularly important for the potato products, particularly potato flakes, due to impacts stemming from thermal energy use. For juices, impacts due to raw material growth dominate the LCA, and impacts due to processing are much less significant. A unit process analysis may not be necessary when there is little variation in the unit processes between the different products. In this case, a simple allocation of measured facility energy and water data may be sufficient for calculating the impacts associated with processing. However, products with largely varying unit processes may have very different impacts. Impacts are sensitive to the type of energy required (thermal or electrical) and the sources of electricity and water. Conclusions

To support the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the IPBES Expert Group on Scenarios and Models is carrying out an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized scenarios (BES-SIM). The goals of BES-SIM are (1) to project the global impacts of land use and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e. nature's contributions to people) over the coming decades, compared to the 20th century, using a set of common metrics at multiple scales, and (2) to identify model uncertainties and research gaps through the comparisons of projected biodiversity and ecosystem services across models. BES-SIM uses three scenarios combining specific Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenarios selection, the process of harmonizing input data for land use, based on the second phase of the Land Use Harmonization Project (LUH2), and climate, the biodiversity and ecosystem service models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modelling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modelling processes, advise the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on its development of a post-2020 strategic plans and conservation goals, and inform the development of a new generation of nature-centred scenarios.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods for land use take both occupation and transformation impacts into account. However, for wetlands and impacts from water consumption, it is so far not possible to account for transformation impacts. It is our goal to close this research gap, by determining wetland recovery times and developing characterization factors for transformation. To do this, we conducted ameta-analysis of 59 studies analyzing biodiversity recovery in wetlands subject 20 to passive and active restoration. Generalized linear models were fitted to the biodiversity data and age, along with other wetland characteristics (such as elevation, latitude or climate class), were used as predictor variables. The results indicate that elevation, latitude, type of wetland and restoration method have the strongest effect on recovery speed. Recovery times vary from less than one year to a maximum of 107 years with passive restoration and 105 years with active restoration. Corresponding transformation characterization factors vary between 10-14 and 10-2 species-eq·year2/m3. Finally, recognizing the relevance of this work to real-world policy issues beyond LCA, we discuss the implications of our estimated restoration times on the feasibility of “biodiversity offsetting”. Offsetting utilizes restoration to replace biodiversity value lost due to development impacts. Our work can help stakeholders make informed decisions on whether offsetting represent a legitimate policy options in a particular context.

To support the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the IPBES Expert Group on Scenarios and Models is carrying out an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized scenarios (BES-SIM). The goals of BES-SIM are (1) to project the global impacts of land-use and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e., nature's contributions to people) over the coming decades, compared to the 20th century, using a set of common metrics at multiple scales, and (2) to identify model uncertainties and research gaps through the comparisons of projected biodiversity and ecosystem services across models. BES-SIM uses three scenarios combining specific Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) – SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP3xRCP6.0, SSP5xRCP8.6 – to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenario selection, the process of harmonizing input data for land use, based on the second phase of the Land Use Harmonization Project (LUH2), and climate, the biodiversity and ecosystem services models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modeling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modeling processes, advise the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on its development of a post-2020 strategic plans and conservation goals, and inform the development of a new generation of nature-centred scenarios.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 142453pos.pdf (postprint version ) (Open Access)

In recent years, footprint indicators have emerged as a popular mode of reporting environmental performance. The prospect is that these simplified metrics will guide investors, businesses, public sector policymakers and even consumers of everyday goods and services in making decisions which lead to better environmental outcomes. However, without a common "DNA", the ever expanding lexicon of footprints lacks coherence and may even report contradictory results for the same subject matter.(1) The danger is that this will ultimately lead to policy confusion and general mistrust of all environmental disclosures. Footprints are especially interesting metrics because they seek to express the environmental performance of products and organizations from a life cycle perspective. The life cycle perspective is important to avoid misleading claims based only on a selected life cycle stage. For example, the water used to manufacture beverages may be important, but if a beverage includes sugar, irrigation water used to cultivate sugar cane could be a greater concern. The focus on environmental performance distinguishes footprints from technical efficiency measures, such as energy use efficiency or water use efficiency, which typically only make sense when applied to a single life cycle stage as they lack local environmental context. However, unlike technical efficiency, which can usually be accurately measured and verified, footprint indicators, with their wider view of environmental performance, are usually calculated using models which can differ in scope, complexity and model parameter settings. Despite the noble intention of using footprints to evaluate and report environmental performance, the potential inconsistency between different approaches acts as a deterrent to use in many public policymaking and business contexts and can lead to confusing and contradictory messages in the marketplace.

Human exposure to indoor pollutant concentrations is receiving increasing interest in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). We address this issue by incorporating an indoor compartment into the USEtox model, as well as by providing recommended parameter values for households in four different regions of the world differing geographically, economically, and socially. With these parameter values, intake fractions and comparative toxicity potentials for indoor emissions of dwellings for different air tightness levels were calculated. The resulting intake fractions for indoor exposure vary by 2 orders of magnitude, due to the variability of ventilation rate, building occupation, and volume. To compare health impacts as a result of indoor exposure with those from outdoor exposure, the indoor exposure characterization factors determined with the modified USEtox model were applied in a case study on cooking in non-OECD countries. This study demonstrates the appropriateness and significance of integrating indoor environments into LCA, which ensures a more holistic account of all exposure environments and allows for a better accountability of health impacts. The model, intake fractions, and characterization factors are made available for use in standard LCA studies via www.usetox.org and in standard LCA software., OTB, Architecture and The Built Environment

Contains fulltext : 133149pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 128084.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

India is a major emitter of mercury, a pollutant of global importance. However, quantitative information on mercury flows in the country is lacking. Here, we quantify major transfer pathways for anthropogenic mercury, its emissions to the environment (air, water, soil), and storage in consumer products and anthropogenic sinks (e.g., landfills) in India in the period 2001–2020, and evaluate the potential influence of six pollution control measures. Total mercury emissions in India were approximately 415 tonnes in 2001, 310 tonnes in 2010, and are projected to rise to 540 tonnes in 2020. In 2010, 76% of these emissions went to the atmosphere. The most important emission sources to atmosphere are coal power plants and zinc production. Pesticides were the most important source for emissions to soil in 2005 and dental amalgam in later years. Mercury stocks in products rose from 700 tonnes in 2001 to 1125 tonnes in 2010, and in landfills and ash-made structures (e.g., embankments) from 920 tonnes in 2001 to 1450 tonnes in 2010. These stocks are expected to rise further and may be regarded as stored toxicity, which may become a concern in the future. Total mercury emissions can be reduced by about 50% by combining pollution control measures that target different mercury emission sources.

Contains fulltext : 94169.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 91733.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 91584.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 92347.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 83785.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)