A comparison of two different biodiversity assessment methods in LCA—a case study of Swedish spruce forest
A comparison of two different biodiversity assessment methods in LCA—a case study of Swedish spruce forest
复制标题
LCA中两种不同生物多样性评估方法的比较——以瑞典云杉林为例
DOI：
10.1007/s11367-015-1012-6
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Lindner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Maria Lindqvist;U. Palme;J. Lindner
目的最近，人们对如何将生物多样性纳入生命周期评估（LCA）越来越感兴趣。本研究的目的是通过将两种影响评估方法应用于案例研究，比较它们在区域层面的适用性以及数据可用性方面的可行性。方法测试的方法是 de Baan 等人开发的方法。 (2013a)，基于物种丰富度，Lindner 等人。 （2014），基于生态系统指标。这些被应用于瑞典南部商业管理的云杉林。对于基于物种的方法，特征因子（CF）基于该地区维管植物的物种丰富度，针对生产周期的两个不同阶段（砍伐前后）进行计算，并使用两种不同类型的半自然参考情况。生态系统方法的关键特征是一套基于专家知识的生物多样性先决条件指标，所应用的参考情况是假设的该区域最大生物多样性质量。结果与讨论结果表明，两种方法都适用于区域层面的生物多样性评估。所有方法学要求，例如物种数据和专家意见，均可用。为了获得物种丰富度方法的足够数据，需要两个行政区域的维管植物数据。当在砍伐前并使用云杉参考情况评估生物多样性时，研究的传统云杉林业被证明对生物多样性具有积极影响。所有其他结果均显示出对生物多样性的负面影响。物种丰富度方法所显示的积极影响可能是由于评估的成熟云杉林与现有云杉林参考情况之间的物种丰富度差异较小。结论研究表明，尽管数据可用性是 de Baan 等人物种丰富度方法的限制，但研究表明这两种方法在区域层面上适用。 （2013a）。参考情况的选择以及在生产周期中进行评估的时间，导致所生成的表征因素存在相当大的差异。
PurposeLately, there has been a growing interest in how to include biodiversity in life cycle assessment (LCA). The aim of this study was to compare two impact assessment methods, with regard to their applicability on a regional level and their feasibility in terms of data availability, through applying them to a case study.MethodsThe methods tested were those developed by de Baan et al. (2013a), based on species richness, and Lindner et al. (2014), based on ecosystem indicators. These were applied to commercially managed spruce forest in the south of Sweden. For the species-based method, characterization factors (CFs) were based on species richness of vascular plants in the region, calculated for two different stages in the production cycle, before and after felling, and using two different types of semi-natural reference situations. The key feature in the ecosystem approach was a set of indicators of prerequisites for biodiversity, based on expert knowledge, and the reference situation applied was the hypothetic maximum biodiversity quality in the region.Results and discussionThe results showed that both methods were applicable for biodiversity assessment at regional level. All methodological requirements, such as species data and expert opinion, were available. To obtain enough data for the species richness method, data on vascular plants from two administrative regions was needed. When biodiversity was assessed before felling and using the spruce reference situation, the conventional spruce forestry studied was shown to have positive impact on biodiversity. All other results showed negative impacts on biodiversity. The positive impact indicated by the species richness method was probably due to the small difference in species richness between the mature spruce forest assessed and the available spruce forest reference situation.ConclusionsThe study shows that the two methods are applicable on a regional level, although data availability was a constraint in the species richness method by de Baan et al. (2013a). The choice of reference situation, and when in the production cycle assessment was made, led to considerable differences in the characterization factors generated.