Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Methodological Approach
- Q1: how does natural capital interact with product life cycle models, and, therefore, what is the dependency of goods and services life cycles from the natural capital?
- Q2: what is the current level of compatibility between LCA and NCA frameworks or, in other words, what is the current practice of NCA in LCA (and vice versa) and what are the existing knowledge gaps in terms of data, models and tools?
2.2. Steps for the Systematic Review
- studies older than 10 years;
- papers not specifically focusing on NCA;
- papers focusing on methodologies not specific to NCA or decision-making oriented to the management of natural capital;
- papers only focusing on a specific sector, or technology, or ecosystem or group of sectors, technologies, or ecosystems that had no explicit links with NC and NCA;
- papers reviewing only specific biodiversity elements, threats, impacts, or benefits on NC associated with farming practices, or ecosystem service-based indicators that had necessarily some links with the NC concept, but that did not imply the development or application of a specific NCA methodology.
2.3. Parameters, Criteria, and Assumptions for the Systematic Review Analysis
- objectives and scope of the study (definition of system boundaries, objectives, stakeholders involved, and target users; sources of information and links to interconnected resource pages such as partnerships, networks, or databases; information on policies to protect natural capital that is taken as reference by the methodology in its objective and scope; etc.);
- typology and data sources for the different stocks and flows of resources and ecosystem services considered;
- characterization of the spatial and temporal scales used for NCA and their assets and outputs;
- case studies/pilots analyzed, if available, categorized by major economic productivity sector (primary, secondary, tertiary);
- typology of models and tools used to collect data and/or develop and calculate impact indicators, with a note (based on feedback from the literature) on their robustness, sensitivity, and general applicability;
- type of impact indicators and evaluation methods (biophysical, monetary, …);
- observable methodological and conceptual gaps, biases, or limitations.
2.4. Steps for the Non-Systematic Review
3. Results
3.1. Critical Review of Natural Capital Accounting Methodologies
3.2. Lessons Learnt from the Systematic Review
3.3. Natural Capital Accounting in the Context of LCA
3.3.1. Progress on ESA-LCA
- a first and widespread effort in merging ES into LCA is performed in the literature starting from the evaluation scope of LCA, which typically focuses on identifying and characterizing detrimental impacts generated by human processes (driven by, e.g., land use) on the provision of ES (e.g., [71,72,73]);
3.3.2. Alignment between ES Flows and LCA Tools
4. Discussion
4.1. A Definition of Natural Capital Accounting in LCA
- «the Natural Capital (NC), on which the life cycle of goods and services depend upon, is the heritage of ecological assets that encompasses all renewable and non-renewable, abiotic, and biotic resources existing on Earth, as well as the processes and functions that take place within and across ecosystems at different spatial and temporal scales. Those assets can be inventoried as environmental intervention flows, used by the activities in the life cycle of the production system in the form of intermediate or final ecosystem services, after their extraction from depletable or not depletable ecosystem stocks (above- or below-ground) has taken place.»
- «Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) is a tool with the double function of allowing to (i) inventory ecological assets for which product, organization or territorial life cycles depend upon, and then (ii) assess both detrimental and beneficial impacts associated with the consumption of those assets, typically delivered in the form of outputs from ecosystems (i.e., intermediate, or final ecosystem services), by the human activities. NCA concerns an input-output relationship system between the technosphere and the biosphere, whereby the flows (either at the inventory or impact assessment level) are accounted for using quantitative metrics, which might be of monetary and/or biophysical nature.»
4.2. Limitations and Identification of Natural Capital Dependencies
4.3. Towards a Mitigation Hierarchy Framework for Net Zero Impact
4.4. Practical Implications for Practitioners: Answering the Research Questions
5. Conclusions
- the dependency on natural capital of the supply-chains and product life cycles is determined by the combination of detrimental effects on ecosystems on the one side, and direct and/or indirect beneficial impacts on human well-being on the other side. In NCA, life cycle-based approaches can be applied to quantify detrimental impacts using specific characterization models and environmental impact category indicators. Analogous (but opposite in sign) indicators of ES provisioning can be accounted for to assess the value of ES generated from the natural capital, either independently from, or with, the contribution of human activities.
- applying a stepwise ESA-LCA based “mitigation hierarchy” to production systems allows to perform an extended, market-scale NCA. On one hand, the application of LCA and related approaches creates opportunities to avoid and/or minimize environmental impacts on natural systems; on the other hand, by applying an ES assessment it is possible to take a step further, promoting actions to restore the damaged system(s), offset residual and unavoidable impacts, and eventually bring to a net gain of benefits from increased services supplied by the NC subjected to sustainable management. Achieving this condition would also allow organizations in Europe to comply with the net-zero emissions strategy promoted by the European Green Deal in 2020.
- in NCA, environmental accounting methodologies other than LCA (and similar approaches such as the environmentally extended input-output analysis) are also applied which allows to estimate the biophysical dependency of product life cycles and economic systems from the natural capital. It is worth mentioning that two well-established methodologies, EFA (ecological footprint accounting) and EMA (emergy analysis), can be used to estimate (with physical and quantitative metrics) the value of ES and NC assets provided by nature. Both methodologies are unique in offering a quantitative dimension of the environmental supply of resources, land, and ES in general, which can be related to the demand for those items from the system analyzed (the “demand” being considered a synonym of “detrimental impact”, or “footprint”). As none of these methods can cover the assessment of the whole set of ES supply and demand flows, their combination seems the preferred solution for addressing the multiple methodological challenges of an NCA study.
- a novel definition of “NCA in LCA” proposed here, which originates from merging concepts and approaches from numerous other definitions available in the extensive literature on natural capital, can be taken as a reference by future ESA-LCA practitioners. The meaning of the NC concept in the LCA community has never been clearly interpreted so far. This likely prevented a consensus from growing on how to account for natural capital and its properties in the LCA framework. A priority task of the present work was to retrieve key information from the literature on ES, learn from different disciplines, and build on former definitions of natural capital to propose a first structured, explicit, and exhaustive understanding of what can be considered and assessed as “natural capital” in the context of LCA.
- because a multidisciplinary approach is crucial to perform NCA, there is a clear need to engage with experts outside the LCA community to build consensus on the development of a shared approach for NCA in LCA. While LCA practitioners may have appropriate competencies and tools to perform very detailed NCA applications that consider one or more target ES, it is worth calling for contributions and cross-fertilization from other scientific communities (e.g., ecology, economics, biology, …). This will be most useful as NCA is typically broader in scope than LCA and focuses on the creation of a global methodological consensus about the collection and elaboration of data and indicators to account for ES and other natural capital assets (such as biodiversity).
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- NCC. Natural Capital Protocol. Natural Capital Coalition (NCC). 2016. Available online: http://www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol (accessed on 30 March 2023).
- Kumar, P. (Ed.) TEEB—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010; p. 456. [Google Scholar]
- MEA. Environmental Degradation and Human Well-Being: Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; 1728-4457; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 389–398. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, N.; Moretti, M.; Bugalho, M.N.; Davies, Z.G.; Haase, D.; Hack, J.; Hof, A.; Melero, Y.; Pett, T.J.; Knapp, S. Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: A comprehensive literature review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evers, C.R.; Wardropper, C.B.; Branoff, B.; Granek, E.F.; Hirsch, S.L.; Link, T.E.; Olivero-Lora, S.; Wilson, C. The ecosystem services and biodiversity of novel ecosystems: A literature review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 13, e00362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, P.A.; Berry, P.M.; Simpson, G.; Haslett, J.R.; Blicharska, M.; Bucur, M.; Dunford, R.; Egoh, B.; Garcia-Llorente, M.; Geamănă, N.; et al. Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 9, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martnez-Harms, M.J.; Balvanera, P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2012, 8, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balvanera, P.; Siddique, I.; Dee, L.; Paquette, A.; Isbell, F.; Gonzalez, A.; Byrnes, J.; O’Connor, M.I.; Hungate, B.A.; Griffin, J.N. Linking biodiversity and ecosystem services: Current uncertainties and the necessary next steps. BioScience 2014, 64, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mace, G.M.; Norris, K.; Fitter, A.H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012, 27, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagendra, H.; Reyers, B.; Lavorel, S. Impacts of land change on biodiversity: Making the link to ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrings, C.; Duraiappah, A.; Larigauderie, A.; Mooney, H. The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 2011, 331, 1139–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandifer, P.A.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, W.R.; Brandon, K.; Brooks, T.M.; Costanza, R.; Da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Portela, R. Global conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience 2007, 57, 868–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Small, A.N.; Paavola, J.; Owen, A. Multi-level natural capital implementation within planetary boundaries. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022. early view. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingram, J.C.; Bagstad, K.J.; Vardon, M.; Rhodes, C.R.; Posner, S.; Casey, C.F.; Glynn, P.D.; Shapiro, C.D. Opportunities for businesses to use and support development of SEEA-aligned natural capital accounts. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 55, 101434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comte, A.; Sylvie Campagne, C.; Lange, S.; Bruzón, A.G.; Hein, L.; Santos-Martín, F.; Levrel, H. Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 58, 101486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerry, A.D.; Polasky, S.; Lubchenco, J.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Daily, G.C.; Griffin, R.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Bateman, I.J.; Duraiappah, A.; Elmqvist, T.; et al. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7348–7355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacE, G.M. The ecology of natural capital accounting. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2019, 35, 54–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.C.; Harrison, P.A.; Pérez Soba, M.; Archaux, F.; Blicharska, M.; Egoh, B.N.; Erős, T.; Fabrega Domenech, N.; György, Á.I.; Haines-Young, R.; et al. How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, C.; Coleman, L.; Kelly-Quinn, M.; Obst, C.; Eigenraam, M.; Norton, D.; O’Donoghue, C.; Kinsella, S.; Delargy, O.; Stout, J. Applying the System of Environmental Economic Accounting-Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA) framework at catchment scale to develop ecosystem extent and condition accounts. One Ecosys. 2021, 6, e65582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hein, L.; Bagstad, K.J.; Obst, C.; Edens, B.; Schenau, S.; Castillo, G.; Soulard, F.; Brown, C.; Driver, A.; Bordt, M.; et al. Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems—Global statistical standards are being developed. Science 2020, 367, 514–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edens, B.; Maes, J.; Hein, L.; Obst, C.; Siikamaki, J.; Schenau, S.; Javorsek, M.; Chow, J.; Chan, J.Y.; Steurer, A.; et al. Establishing the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting as a global standard. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 54, 101413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallecillo, S.; La Notte, A.; Zulian, G.; Ferrini, S.; Maes, J. Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people. Ecol. Modell. 2019, 392, 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordella, M.; Gonzalez-Redin, J.; Lodeiro, R.U.; Garcia, D.A. Assessing impacts to biodiversity and ecosystems: Understanding and exploiting synergies between Life Cycle Assessment and Natural Capital Accounting. Proc. CIRP 2022, 105, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, C.; Sun, M.; Du, A. Measuring ecological capital: State of the art, trends, and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 833–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauschild, M.Z.; Rosenbaum, R.K.; Olsen, S.I. (Eds.) Life Cycle Assessment—Theory and Practice; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; p. 1216. [Google Scholar]
- Frischknecht, R.; Jolliet, O. (Eds.) Global Guidance on Environmental Life Cycle Impact Assessment Indicators—Volume 2; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Life Cycle Initiative: Paris, France, 2019; p. 197. [Google Scholar]
- Rugani, B.; Maia de Souza, D.; Weidema, B.P.; Bare, J.; Bakshi, B.; Grann, B.; Johnston, J.M.; Pavan, A.L.R.; Liu, X.; Laurent, A.; et al. Towards integrating the ecosystem services cascade framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) cause-effect methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 1284–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanderWilde, C.P.; Newell, J.P. Ecosystem services and life cycle assessment: A bibliometric review. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2021, 169, 105461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardaker, A.; Styles, D.; Williams, P.; Chadwick, D.; Dandy, N. A framework for integrating ecosystem services as endpoint impacts in life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pavan, A.L.R.; Ometto, A.R. Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment: A novel conceptual framework for soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 643, 1337–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Ziv, G.; Bakshi, B.R. Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment—Part 2: Adaptations to regional and serviceshed information. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Ziv, G.; Bakshi, B.R. Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment—Part 1: A computational framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othoniel, B.; Rugani, B.; Heijungs, R.; Benetto, E.; Withagen, C. Assessment of Life Cycle Impacts on Ecosystem Services: Promise, Problems, and Prospects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1077–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crenna, E.; Sala, S.; Polce, C.; Collina, E. Pollinators in life cycle assessment: Towards a framework for impact assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alejandre, E.M.; Potts, S.G.; Guinée, J.B.; van Bodegom, P.M. Characterisation model approach for LCA to estimate land use impacts on pollinator abundance and illustrative characterisation factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 346, 131043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingram, D.L.; Hall, C.R.; Knight, J. Carbon footprint and ecosystem services during the life cycle of woody landscape plants. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1191, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, M.A.M.; Bravo, R.D.M.; Baril, C.F.; Hernández, M.F.; Delgadillo, S.A.M. An integrated approach to determining the capacity of ecosystems to supply ecosystem services into life cycle assessment for a carbon capture system. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oginah, S.A.; Posthuma, L.; Maltby, L.; Hauschild, M.; Fantke, P. Linking freshwater ecotoxicity to damage on ecosystem services in life cycle assessment. Environ. Int. 2023, 171, 107705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Styles, D.; Börjesson, P.; D’Hertefeldt, T.; Birkhofer, K.; Dauber, J.; Adams, P.; Patil, S.; Pagella, T.; Pettersson, L.B.; Peck, P.; et al. Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment. Ambio 2016, 45, 872–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, D.; Bach, V.; Finkbeiner, M.; Honkomp, T.; Ahn, H.; Sprenger, M.; Froese, L.; Gratzel, D. Offsetting environmental impacts beyond climate change: The Circular Ecosystem Compensation approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 329, 117068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babí Almenar, J.; Petucco, C.; Sonnemann, G.; Geneletti, D.; Elliot, T.; Rugani, B. Modelling the net environmental and economic impacts of urban nature-based solutions by combining ecosystem services, system dynamics and life cycle thinking: An application to urban forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 2023, 60, 101506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Bakshi, B.R. Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment while Encouraging Techno-Ecological Synergies. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 347–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, Y.; Bakshi, B.R. Metrics for a nature-positive world: A multiscale approach for absolute environmental sustainability assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 846, 157373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bagstad, K.J.; Ingram, J.C.; Shapiro, C.D.; La Notte, A.; Maes, J.; Vallecillo, S.; Casey, C.F.; Glynn, P.D.; Heris, M.P.; Johnson, J.A.; et al. Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 52, 101359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, O.; Crossman, N.; Vargas, R.; Brander, L.; Verburg, P.; Cicowiez, M.; Hauck, J.; McKenzie, E. Global socio-economic impacts of changes in natural capital and ecosystem services: State of play and new modeling approaches. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 46, 101202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruijs, A.; Vardon, M.; Bass, S.; Ahlroth, S. Natural capital accounting for better policy. Ambio 2019, 48, 714–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alejandre, E.M.; van Bodegom, P.M.; Guinée, J.B. Towards an optimal coverage of ecosystem services in LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 714–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crenna, E.; Marques, A.; La Notte, A.; Sala, S. Biodiversity Assessment of Value Chains: State of the Art and Emerging Challenges. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 9715–9728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Amato, D.; Gaio, M.; Semenzin, E. A review of LCA assessments of forest-based bioeconomy products and processes under an ecosystem services perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 135859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bateman, I.J.; Mace, G.M. The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision making. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 776–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitaker, S. The Natural Capital Protocol. In Debating Nature’s Value; Palgrave Pivot: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 25–38. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, J.P. Making Information Measurement Meaningful: The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the Social and Human Capital Protocol. Information 2021, 12, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, M.S.; Galli, A.; Coscieme, L.; Niccolucci, V.; Lin, D.; Pulselli, F.M.; Bastianoni, S.; Marchettini, N. Exploring Ecosystem Services evaluation through Ecological Footprint Accounting. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, M.S.; Galli, A.; Niccolucci, V.; Lin, D.; Hanscom, L.; Wackernagel, M.; Bastianoni, S.; Marchettini, N. Stocks and flows of natural capital: Implications for Ecological Footprint. Ecol. Ind. 2017, 77, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaral, L.P.; Martins, N.; Gouveia, J.B. A review of emergy theory, its application and latest developments. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2016, 54, 882–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santagata, R.; Zucaro, A.; Viglia, S.; Ripa, M.; Tian, X.; Ulgiati, S. Assessing the sustainability of urban eco-systems through Emergy-based circular economy indicators. Ecol. Ind. 2020, 109, 105859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Xiao, H.; Ma, Q.; Yuan, X.; Zuo, J.; Zhang, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, M. Review of emergy analysis and life cycle assessment: Coupling development perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciacci, L.; Fishman, T.; Elshkaki, A.; Graedel, T.; Vassura, I.; Passarini, F. Exploring future copper demand, recycling and associated greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-28. Glob. Environ. Change 2020, 63, 102093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neupane, B.; Halog, A.; Lilieholm, R.J. Environmental sustainability of wood-derived ethanol: A life cycle evaluation of resource intensity and emissions in Maine, USA. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 44, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Bakshi, B.R.; Rugani, B.; de Souza, D.M.; Bare, J.; Johnston, J.M.; Laurent, A.; Verones, F. Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: Application of the cascade framework to rice farming systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshehri, K.; Harbottle, M.; Sapsford, D.; Beames, A.; Cleall, P. Integration of ecosystem services and life cycle assessment allows improved accounting of sustainability benefits of nature-based solutions for brownfield redevelopment. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 413, 137352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollok, L.; Spierling, S.; Endres, H.-J.; Grote, U. Social Life Cycle Assessments: A Review on Past Development, Advances and Methodological Challenges. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- do Carmo, B.B.T.; de Oliveira Castro, G.; Gonçalo, T.E.E.; Ugaya, C.M.L. Participatory approach for pertinent impact subcategory identification: Local community. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 950–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrin, A.; Czyrnek-Delêtre, M.; Ben Jaballah, M.; Rouault, A.; van der Werf, H.M.; Ghali, M.; Sigwalt, A.; Renaud-Gentié, C. A participatory ecodesign framework to address both environmental and economic dimensions in viticulture at farm scale. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.I.; Anil, B.; Bakshi, B.R. Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment part II: Toward an ecologically based LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2624–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.I.; Singh, S.; Bakshi, B.R. Accounting for ecosystem services in life cycle assessment part I: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2232–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maia de Souza, D.; Lopes, G.R.; Hansson, J.; Hansen, K. Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, J.S.; Verones, F.; Jolliet, O.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Boulay, A.M. A framework for the assessment of marine litter impacts in life cycle impact assessment. Ecol. Ind. 2021, 129, 107918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Greyerz, K.; Tidåker, P.; Karlsson, J.O.; Röös, E. A large share of climate impacts of beef and dairy can be attributed to ecosystem services other than food production. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 325, 116400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordaan, S.M.; Lee, J.; McClung, M.R.; Moran, M.D. Quantifying the ecosystem services values of electricity generation in the US Chihuahuan Desert: A life cycle perspective. J. Ind. Ecol. 2021, 25, 1089–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, M.; Santagata, R.; Kaiser, S.; Liu, Y.; Vassillo, C.; Ghisellini, P.; Liu, G.; Ulgiati, S. Socioeconomic and Environmental Benefits of Expanding Urban Green Areas: A Joint Application of i-Tree and LCA Approaches. Land 2022, 11, 2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.H.; Granger, J.; Pandya, D.; Paustian, K. High-resolution multi-objective optimization of feedstock landscape design for hybrid first and second generation biorefineries. Appl. Energy 2019, 238, 1484–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peponi, A.; Morgado, P.; Kumble, P. Life cycle thinking and machine learning for urban metabolism assessment and prediction. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 80, 103754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliot, T.; Goldstein, B.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Proença, V.; Rugani, B. Ecosystem service deficits of European cities. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 837, 155875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure; Fabis Consulting Ltd.: Nottingham, UK, 2018; p. 53. Available online: https://cices.eu/resources/ (accessed on 30 March 2023).
- van der Meulen, E.; Braat, L.; Brils, J. Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 19, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, M. The confused position of the geosciences within the “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” approaches. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 34, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brilha, J.; Gray, M.; Pereira, D.I.; Pereira, P. Geodiversity: An integrative review as a contribution to the sustainable management of the whole of nature. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2018, 86, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callesen, I. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in life cycle impact assessment—Inventory objects or impact categories? Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Sim, S.; Hamel, P.; Bryant, B.; Noe, R.; Mueller, C.; Rigarlsford, G.; Kulak, M.; Kowal, V.; Sharp, R.; et al. Life cycle assessment needs predictive spatial modelling for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakshi, B.R.; Ziv, G.; Lepech, M.D. Techno-ecological synergy: A framework for sustainable engineering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1752–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Braat, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Fioramonti, L.; Sutton, P.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bordt, M. Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 144, 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, D.; Lu, N.; Fu, B. Establishment of a comprehensive indicator system for the assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol 2017, 32, 1563–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grima, N.; Jutras-Perreault, M.-C.; Gobakken, T.; Ole Ørka, H.; Vacik, H. Systematic review for a set of indicators supporting the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. Ecol. Ind. 2023, 147, 109978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco, C.F.; Marques, A.; van Bodegom, P.M. An integrated framework to assess impacts on ecosystem services in LCA demonstrated by a case study of mining in Chile. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 30, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruel, A.; Troussier, N.; Guillaume, B.; Sirina, N. Considering Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate Environmental Externalities. Proc. CIRP 2016, 48, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive—Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 Amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, As Regards Corporate Sustainability Reporting (Text with EEA Relevance). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2464 (accessed on 30 March 2023).
- Babí Almenar, J.; Petucco, C.; Navarrete Gutiérrez, T.; Chion, L.; Rugani, B. Assessing net environmental and economic impacts of urban forests: An online decision support tool. Land 2023, 12, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucker, G.M.; Quétier, F.; Wende, W. Guidance on Achieving No Net Loss or Net Gain of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), European Commission, DG Environment: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; p. 101. [Google Scholar]
- Ekstrom, J.; Bennun, L.; Mitchell, R. A Cross-Sector Guide for Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy; Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI), The Biodiversity Consultancy: Cambridge, UK, 2015; p. 87. Available online: http://www.csbi.org.uk/our-work/mitigation-hierarchy-guide/ (accessed on 30 March 2023).
- de Bortoli, A.; Bjørn, A.; Saunier, F.; Margni, M. Planning sustainable carbon neutrality pathways: Accounting challenges experienced by organizations and solutions from industrial ecology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briones-Hidrovo, A.; Uche, J.; Martínez-Gracia, A. Determining the net environmental performance of hydropower: A new methodological approach by combining life cycle and ecosystem services assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, S.; Zhang, X.; Jiang, Z.; Gong, Q.; Wang, Y. Full lifecycle-based sustainability evaluation for remanufacturing ecosystem services: A novel perspective of technology-ecology synergy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 381, 135187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Zheng, X.; Wu, L.; Deng, S.; Pan, H.; Zou, J.; Zhang, X.; Luo, Y. Techno-ecological synergies of hydropower plants: Insights from GHG mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 853, 158602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tams, L.; Nehls, T.; Calheiros, C.S.C. Rethinking green roofs- natural and recycled materials improve their carbon footprint. Build. Environ. 2022, 219, 109122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicese, F.P.; Colangelo, G.; Comolli, R.; Azzini, L.; Lucchetti, S.; Marziliano, P.A.; Sanesi, G. Estimating CO2 balance through the Life Cycle Assessment prism: A case—Study in an urban park. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 57, 126869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, D.; Al-Tabbaa, A.; O’Connor, D.; Hu, Q.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Wang, L.; Kirkwood, N.; Ok, Y.S.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Bolan, N.S.; et al. Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larrey-Lassalle, P.; Armand Decker, S.; Perfido, D.; Naneci, S.; Rugani, B. Life Cycle Assessment Applied to Nature-Based Solutions: Learnings, Methodological Challenges, and Perspectives from a Critical Analysis of the Literature. Land 2022, 11, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rugani, B.; Babí Almenar, J.; Elliot, T.; Othoniel, B. Intertwining Ecosystem Services with Life Cycle Assessment: Recommendation for Paradigm Shift. In Life Cycle Assessment—New Developments and Multi-Disciplinary Applications; Khoo, H.H., Tan, R.B.H., Eds.; World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2022; pp. 211–231. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, C.; Bartkowski, B.; Donmez, C.; Don, A.; Mayer, S.; Steffens, M.; Weigl, S.; Wiesmeier, M.; Wolf, A.; Helming, K. Carbon farming: Are soil carbon certificates a suitable tool for climate change mitigation? J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 330, 117142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sonter, L.J.; Barrett, D.J.; Moran, C.J.; Soares-Filho, B.S. Carbon emissions due to deforestation for the production of charcoal used in Brazil’s steel industry. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 359–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acampora, A.; Ruini, L.; Mattia, G.; Pratesi, C.A.; Lucchetti, M.C. Towards carbon neutrality in the agri-food sector: Drivers and barriers. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2023, 189, 106755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cárdenas-Mamani, Ú.; Perrotti, D. Understanding the contribution of ecosystem services to urban metabolism assessments: An integrated framework. Ecol. Ind. 2022, 136, 108593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loiseau, E.; Aissani, L.; Le Féon, S.; Laurent, F.; Cerceau, J.; Sala, S.; Roux, P. Territorial Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): What exactly is it about? A proposal towards using a common terminology and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 474–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nitschelm, L.; Aubin, J.; Corson, M.S.; Viaud, V.; Walter, C. Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle Assessment LCA applied to an agricultural territory: Current practices and method development. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2472–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borghino, N.; Corson, M.; Nitschelm, L.; Wilfart, A.; Fleuet, J.; Moraine, M.; Breland, T.A.; Lescoat, P.; Godinot, O. Contribution of LCA to decision making: A scenario analysis in territorial agricultural production systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, T.; Bourrelly, S.; Achten, W.M.J. Application of territorial emission factors with open-access data—A territorial LCA case study of land use for livestock production in Wallonia. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 2021, 26, 1556–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogy, N.; Roux, P.; Salou, T.; Pradinaud, C.; Sferratore, A.; Géhéniau, N.; Hélias, A.; Loiseau, E. Water supply scenarios of agricultural areas: Environmental performance through Territorial Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366, 132862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Toro, P.; Iodice, S. Urban Metabolism Evaluation Methods: Life Cycle Assessment and Territorial Regeneration. In Regenerative Territories; Amenta, L., Russo, M., Van Timmeren, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 128, pp. 213–230. [Google Scholar]
- Sohn, J.; Vega, G.C.; Birkved, M. A Methodology Concept for Territorial Metabolism—Life Cycle Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities in Scaling from Urban to Territorial Assessment. Proc. CIRP 2018, 69, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, T.; Steubing, B.; Achten, W.M.J. Coupling optimization with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 328, 116946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ding, T.; Achten, W.M.J. Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 134914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DG-Environment. The Development of the PEF and OEF Methods. DG Environment, Europen Commission. 2021. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/dev_methods.htm (accessed on 30 March 2023).
- EC. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, COM(2020) 380 Final; European Commission (EC): Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380&from=EN (accessed on 30 March 2023).
- Stadler, K.; Wood, R.; Bulavskaya, T.; Södersten, C.-J.; Simas, M.; Schmidt, S.; Usubiaga, A.; Acosta-Fernández, J.; Kuenen, J.; Bruckner, M.; et al. EXIOBASE 3: Developing a Time Series of Detailed Environmentally Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output Tables. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 22, 502–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Questions for the #21 Functional Reviews and #22 Grey Literature Documents, and Options of Answer | |
---|---|
Which NCA methods have been taken into account among those listed in Table S2.2? ∂ | |
Is the dependency of the technosphere system from the NC considered? | Qualitative statement(s) |
Quantitative statement(s) | |
Is there a link between NCA and LCA? | Yes, direct link |
Yes, indirect link | |
No link | |
Questions for the analysis of the #77 Articles, and options of answer | |
What is the aim of the study? | |
What is the main reference NCA system? ∂ | |
What are the characteristics of the NCA system and how is the NC dependency framework structured? | |
How is the NCA framework conceived? | NCA in support of “strong” sustainability |
NCA in support of “weak” sustainability | |
What is the NCA framework made of? | Single methodology |
More than one methodology | |
How is the NCA framework applied? | Application to one business/economic sector or technology |
Application to more than one business/economic sector or technology | |
Application to territorial scale (urban, regional, national, international) | |
Alignment with ISIC (International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities) Rev. 4 | |
Additional information (primary, secondary, or tertiary sector; FU, etc.) | |
Does the NCA framework account for/assess what? | Ecosystem services |
Abiotic resources | |
Biodiversity | |
Other ecological assets or unspecified environmental capital or asset | |
What is the nature of the NCA framework’s indicators? | Qualitative: survey-based valuation or other approaches (e.g., statistical) |
Quantitative: biophysical valuation | |
Quantitative: economic valuation | |
What are the most relevant limitations/biases of the NCA framework? | |
Value judgment: what is the relative state of advancement of the NCA framework? | Likert-type scale: from 1 (far from being operational NCA) to 3 (close to being, or already operational NCA) |
Examined Criteria | Description of the Analysed Topic (What Has Been Qualitatively Evaluated) | Valuation Criteria (Likert-Type Scale) [Score 2 Is Selected by Default When the Preferred Option Is Unknown] | NCP | SEEA | LCA | EMA | EFA | EQA | BVES | MVES | WEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Objectives and scope | Definition of system boundaries and objectives | 1 = possible without previous state-of-the-art 2 = state-of-the-art required 3 = state-of-the-art and users engagement required | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Stakeholders and target users | 1 = involvement not required 2 = low involvement required 3 = high involvement required | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Information sources and links to interconnected resource pages such as partnerships, networks or databases | 1 = several sources and links available 2 = some sources and links available 3 = no or only few sources and links available | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
Information on policies to protect natural capital that are taken as reference by the methodology in its objective and scope | 1 = guiding policy typically available 2 = policy under design 3 = no policy available or under design by default | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
Typology and data sources | Taxonomy about stocks and flows of resources and ecosystem services | 1 = full consensus on classification systems exists 2 = one or more classification systems exist 3 = no supporting taxonomy exists or is adopted | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
Data sources for the different stocks and flows of resources and ecosystem services | 1 = several databases available 2 = limited number of databases available 3 = no databases available | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
Spatial scale | Characterization of the spatial scales used to account for natural capital assets and outputs | 1 = low resolution (regional / national) 2 = medium resolution (urban / watershed) 3 = high resolution (up to a few m^2) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Temporal scale | Characterization of the temporal scales used to account for natural capital assets and outputs | 1 = low resolution (yearly) 2 = medium resolution (daily / seasonal) 3 = high resolution (hourly) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Case studies/pilots | Case studies/pilots analyzed, if available, categorized by major economic productivity sector, among which primary, secondary, tertiary | 1 = numerous in both scientific and grey literature 2 = numerous in scientific lit. and scarce in grey lit., or viceversa 3 = scarce in both scientific and grey literature | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Models and tools | Capacity of the modelling framework to coupling with other methods for improvement purposes | 1 = high flexibility to host new data and models 2 = low flexibility to integrate with other tools; or data intensive framework 3 = coupling with other tools not generally performed | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Typology of models and tools used to develop and calculate impact indicators | 1 = robust and easily applicable modelling framework 2 = easily applicable framework but possibly not robust 3 = time-consuming / complex modelling framework | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
Impact categories and methods | Type of impact indicators and evaluation methods: biophysical, monetary, mixed, etc. | 1 = both monetary and biophysical metric(s) can be used 2 = either monetary or biophysical metric(s) should be used 3 = no metrics are available by default | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
Number of impact indicators and evaluation methods available | 1 = libraries to cover both resource and ES assessments available 2 = libraries to cover either resource or ES assessments available 3 = no libraries available to cover resource and ES assessments | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
Sources of uncertainty | Observable methodological and conceptual gaps, biases or limitations | 1 = no additional uncertainty characterisation needed 2 = additional uncertainty can be qualitatively characterised 3 = additional uncertainty needs quantitative characterisation | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Total degree of sophistication in the NCA application (the bigger the score, the higher the application sophistication) | 25 | 21 | 24 | 24 | 22 | 31 | 25 | 25 | 23 |
LCA Element | Rationale | Example | Result of Alignment with Respect to the #90 Available ES Classes in CICES v5.1* | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Activity system | The benefit provided by the ES class has a taxonomic structure analogous to the one of a product-system with functional unit typically modelled in LCA | The functional unit of an activity system in LCA (e.g., 1 kg of cultivated crop X, of harvested fresh fruit Y, of collected mushrooms, of cutted wood, etc.) may belong to the CICES class Fibres and other materials from cultivated plants, fungi, algae and bacteria for direct use or processing (excluding genetic materials), whose example of benefit is Processed timber (Volume of harvested wood) | 13% | Potential correspondence observed only for ES classes in the ES section “Provisioning (Biotic)” (= 1 category out of 6, for a total of #12 ES belonging to the “Biomass” division) |
LCI system | The service provided by the ES class is compatible with the classification system for natural resource elementary flows typically used in LCI | The ecoinvent flows Wood, hard, standing and Wood, soft, standing may belong to the CICES class Fibres and other materials from cultivated plants, fungi, algae and bacteria for direct use or processing (excluding genetic materials), whose example of service is Harvestable surplus of annual tree growth | 69% | Potential correspondence observed for the majority of ES classes (#62 in total) in four ES sections out of six, namely “Provisioning (Abiotic & Biotic)” and “Regulation & Maintenance (Abiotic & Biotic)” |
LCIA system, Part I | A specific LCIA category indicator and/or model can be used and/or adapted to account for changes, or assess impacts on, the ES supply | The CICES class Filtration /sequestration /storage /accumulation by micro-organisms, algae, plants, and animals, whose example of service is Dust filtration by urban trees and of benefit is Reduction in respiratory disease may be considered an impact assessment indicator for LCIA useful to assess the decrease of PM formation or other air/water/soil pollution events (positive/beneficial impact assessment) | 19% | Potential correspondence observed only for ES classes in the ES section “Regulation & Maintenance (Biotic)” (#17 ES in the divisions “Transformation of biochemical or physical inputs to ecosystems” and “Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions”) |
LCIA system, Part II | The ES class belongs to an “area of protection” relevant for LCIA, and its value can be used to give qualitative judgements or quantitative weights of protection priority | The CICES class Characteristics or features of living systems that have an existence value, whose example of service is Areas designated as wilderness and of benefit is Mental/Moral well-being may be considered an area of protection called, e.g., “ecosystems for recreational purposes and aesthetic services” | 28% | Potential correspondence observed for #15 ES classes in the ES sections “Cultural (Abiotic & Biotic)”, and for #10 ES classes in the ES sections “Regulation & Maintenance (Abiotic & Biotic)” |
* Structure of CICES v5.1: | ||||
Total | Categories | Features | ||
#6 | Section | Provisioning (17# Abiotic & 25# Biotic ES classes); Regulation & Maintenance (9# Abiotic & 22# Biotic ES classes); Cultural (5# Abiotic & 12# Biotic ES classes) | ||
#15 | Division | e.g., Biomass; Water; Direct, in-situ and outdoor interactions with natural physical systems...; Regulation of physical, chemical, biological conditions; etc. | ||
#34 | Group | e.g., Cultivated terrestrial plants for nutrition, materials or energy; Atmospheric composition and conditions; Physical and experiential interactions …; etc. | ||
#90 | Class | e.g, Animals reared for nutritional purposes; Mineral substances used for material purposes; Control of erosion rates; Dilution by atmosphere; Disease control; etc. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rugani, B.; Osset, P.; Blanc, O.; Benetto, E. Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment. Land 2023, 12, 1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061171
Rugani B, Osset P, Blanc O, Benetto E. Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment. Land. 2023; 12(6):1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061171
Chicago/Turabian StyleRugani, Benedetto, Philippe Osset, Olivier Blanc, and Enrico Benetto. 2023. "Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment" Land 12, no. 6: 1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061171
APA StyleRugani, B., Osset, P., Blanc, O., & Benetto, E. (2023). Environmental Footprint Neutrality Using Methods and Tools for Natural Capital Accounting in Life Cycle Assessment. Land, 12(6), 1171. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12061171