An LCA impact assessment model linking land occupation and malnutrition-related DALYs
So far, land occupation impact assessment models in life-cycle assessment have predominantly considered biodiversity, ecosystem quality and ecosystem services. However, in a manner similar to water consumption, land occupation has the potential to impact food production and thereby human health. In this study, the impact pathway linking land occupation and protein-energy malnutrition was modelled, establishing a new set of regionalised characterisation factors which were applied in a case study of cotton cultivation.
The impact assessment model has three main components: a food production model, a food trade model and an effect factor that relates potential food deficits to malnutrition expressed in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The food production model uses an NPP-based index to account for variation in the productive capability of land, as well as data on irrigation water supply and national agricultural yields to account for variation in prevailing agricultural technologies. Food production losses have the potential to impact national and global food supplies according to trade status and economic adaptation capacity assessed using the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index. Health damage data from the Global Burden of Disease report and depth of national food deficit data from the FAO are the basis of the effect factor.
Results and discussion
The model reports potential human health impacts related to land occupation (DALY/m2 year) at 5-arc-minute spatial resolution. The model is relevant to all kinds of land occupation, including food production, as no assumptions are made about the ways food products are utilised, which can be many. The model delivers results sensibly in proportion to potential human health impacts of freshwater consumption, i.e. greater in tropical areas and lesser in arid areas. The case study showed that land occupation impacts on human health might cause one DALY/t seed cotton in extreme cases and less than one DALY per thousand tonnes in others. In the case of India, ~ 9% of national malnutrition-related DALYs were attributable to cotton cultivation which occupies ~ 8% of arable land.
This new model will enable more complete assessment of land occupation impacts in LCA and is especially relevant to the assessment of food, fibre, and bioenergy products. In addition, the model enhances the ability to assess trade-offs which frequently occur, such as between land and water use and GHG emissions. The cotton case study showed that human health impacts can be grossly underestimated in LCA studies when land occupation impacts are not included.
KeywordsCotton Human health Land occupation Land use footprint Life-cycle impact assessment Virtual flow of land Virtual land use
This study was jointly funded by ETH Zurich, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Japan and CSIRO, Australia.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- Alcantara C, Kuemmerle T, Baumann M, Bragina EV, Griffiths P, Hostert P, Knorn J, Müller D, Prishchepov AV, Schierhorn F, Sieber A, Radeloff VC (2013) Mapping the extent of abandoned farmland in Central and Eastern Europe using MODIS time series satellite data. Environ Res Lett 8:035035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beck T, Bos U, Wittstock B, Baitz M, Fischer M, Sedlbauer K (2010) LANCA®—land use indicator value calculation in life cycle assessment. Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, Stuttgart ISBN: 978-3-8396-0170-9Google Scholar
- Boulay AM, Motoshita M, Pfister S, Bulle C, Muñoz I, Franceschini H, Margni M (2015) Analysis of water use impact assessment methods (part a): evaluation of modelling choices based on a quantitative comparison of scarcity and human health indicators. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ecoinvent Centre (2008) ecoinvent data (i.e.2.01) http://www.ecoinvent.org
- FAO (2014) FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations web. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed 6 Apr 2014
- FAO (2015) Food security indicators. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations web. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/en/#.V5XMG47M2Q8. Accessed 27 Jan 2016
- FAO (2017) FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations web. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed 6 Sep 2017
- Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478(7369):337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht R, Fantke P, Tschümperlin L, Niero M, Antón A, Bare J, Boulay AM, Cherubini F, Hauschild MZ, Henderson A, Levasseur A, McKone TE, Michelsen O, Milà i Canals M, Pfister S, Ridoutt B, Rosenbaum RK, Verones F, Vigon B, Jolliet O (2016) Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: progress and case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(3):429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Garnett T, Appleby MC, Balmford A, Bateman IJ, Benton TG, Bloomer P, Burlingane B, Dawkins M, Do-lan L, Fraser D, Herrero M, Hoffmann I, Smith P, Thornton PK, Toulmin C, Vermeulen SJ, Godfray HCJ (2013) Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341:33–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- GBD 2013 (2015) Global Burden of Disease Study 2013, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, http://ghdx.healthdata.org/global-burden-disease-study-2013-gbd-2013-data-downloads. Accessed 23 July 2016Google Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment: methodology report. Ministerie van Volkshiusvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Jolliet O, Frischknecht R, Bare J, Boulay AM, Bulle C, Fantke P, Gheewala S, Hauschild M, Itsubo N, Margni M, McKone TE, Mila i Canals L, Postuma L, Prado-Lopez V, Ridoutt B, Sonnemann G, Rosen-baum RK, Seager T, Struijs J, van Zelm R, Vigon B, Weisbrod A (2014) Global guidance on environ-mental life cycle impact assessment indicators: findings of the scoping phase. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:962–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kauffman NS, Hayes DJ (2011) The trade-off between bioenergy and emissions when land is scarce. Working paper 11-WP 519, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
- Knudsen MT, Hermansen JE, Cederberg C, Herzog F, Vale J, Jeanneret P, Sarthou JP, Friedel JK, Balazs K, Fjellstad W, Kainz M, Wolfrum S, Dennis P (2017) Characterization factors for land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment based on direct measures of plant species richness in European farmland in the ‘temperate broadleaf and mixed Forest’ biome. Sci Total Environ 580:358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kooistra K, Termorshuizen A (2006) The sustainability of cotton: consequences for man and environment. Report 223, Wageningen University, Wageningen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Milà i Canals L, Antón A, Bauer C, de Camillis C, Freiermuth R, Grant T, Michelsen O, Stevenson M (2016) Land use related impacts on biodiversity. In: Frischknecht R, Jolliet O (eds) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators. Volume 1. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, pp 126–143Google Scholar
- Motoshita M, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2010) Damage assessment of water scarcity for agricultural use. Proc 9th Int Conf Ecobalance, Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
- Motoshita M, Ono Y, Pfister S, Boulay AM, Berger M, Nansai K, Tahara K, Itsubo N, Inaba A (2014) Consistent characterization factors at midpoint and endpoint relevant to agricultural water scarcity arising from freshwater consumption. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:2276–2287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0811-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Motoshita M, Boulay AM, Pfister S, Benini L, de Figueiredo MCB, Gheewala SH, Harding K, Schenker U (2016a) Water use related impacts: water scarcity and human health effects. Part 2: human health effects. In: Frischknecht R, Jolliet O (eds) Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment indicators. Volume 1. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, pp 116–124Google Scholar
- Nordborg M, Sasu-Boakye Y, Cederberg C, Berndes G (2017) Challenges in developing regionalized characterization factors in land use impact assessment: impacts on ecosystem services in case studies of animal protein production in Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:328–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1158-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Núñez Pineda M (2011) Modelling Location-dependent Environmental Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment: Water Use, Desertification and Soil Erosion. PhD thesis. Institut de Ciència I Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
- Pfister S, Motoshita M, Ridoutt BG (2014) Progress toward an LCA impact assessment model linking land use and malnutrition-related DALYs. In: Schenck R, Huizenga D (eds) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014). ACLCA, Vashon, pp 1007–1015Google Scholar
- Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Cruzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rockstrom J, Williams J, Daily G, Noble A, Matthews N, Gordon L, Wetterstrand H, DeClerck F, Shah M, Steduto P, de Fraiture C, Hatibu N, Unver O, Bird J, Sibanda L, Smith J (2017) Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46(1):4–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar