The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1985–2007 | Cite as

Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems—the BioImpact metric

  • Perpetua A. M. TurnerEmail author
  • Fabiano A. Ximenes
  • Trent D. Penman
  • Bradley S. Law
  • Cathleen M. Waters
  • Timothy Grant
  • Matthew Mo
  • Philippa M. Brock



Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a useful method for assessing environmental impacts at large scales. Biodiversity and ecosystem diversity are site-specific, often complex, and difficult to generalise within an LCA framework. There is currently no globally acceptable means of assessing biodiversity within the LCA framework. We introduce, test and revise BioImpact, a method for incorporating biodiversity into an LCA framework, on four production systems (native forestry, plantation softwood timber production, cropping and rangeland grazing) in Australia.


Our proposed method, a metric we call BioImpact, incorporates biodiversity and ecological impacts through a series of semi-quantitative questions, published data and expert opinion which aim to encapsulate the main issues relating to biodiversity within a disturbance impact framework appropriate to LCA. Results are scaled to a single biodiversity measure that can be incorporated into LCA. We test and revise BioImpact scores on four production systems (native forestry, plantation softwood timber production, cropping and rangeland grazing) in comparison to species richness and net primary productivity (NPP) for these production systems. We demonstrate how the scores can be incorporated into LCA using SimaPro as a platform.

Results and discussion

For pine plantation, cropping/pastures and rangeland grazing, BioImpact demonstrated greater impact, which represents biodiversity loss for multiple species groups. Native forestry scored significantly lower impact than that of other land uses. As a comparison, all production processes scored highly for species richness of main multiple species groups (vascular plants, invertebrates, birds) and were not different in terms of NPP. Integration of BioImpact into LCA found that the softwood system, despite having a higher biodiversity impact per ha year, had a marginally lower BioImpact score per cubic metre compared to native forestry. This was possibly due to cumulative effects and consideration of the reference benchmark, e.g., low levels of pre-harvest biodiversity when not established on native forests; fewer threatened species (and lesser impact) compared to native forestry; questions not weighted sufficiently; and the difference between establishment on either agricultural cleared land or native forest area. Improvement in scaling and/or weighting within the BioImpact scores within each question is discussed.


BioImpact encapsulates different components of biodiversity, is transparent, easily applied (subject to literature/ecological experts) and can be incorporated into LCA. Application of BioImpact for LCA requires co-ordination to identify key regions and production systems; develop the relevant scores with the assistance of ecologists; and make the results available in public LCA databases.


Biodiversity BioImpact Cropping and rangeland grazing Ecosystem diversity Native forestry Plantation softwood timber production 



This work was supported by funding provided from the Forest and Wood Products Australia. We acknowledge the guidance provided by the Project Steering Committee (Stephen Mitchell, Tim Grant and Sarah Bekessy) in project development; the input provided by the many respondents to the surveys and the participants to a questionnaire validation workshop; and the contributions by Gabrielle Caccamo, Darren Turner, Rebecca Coburn and Stephen Roxburgh. Constructive comments by three anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11367_2019_1627_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2173 kb)


  1. ABARES (2015) Agriculture and forestry in the central west region of New South Wales, 2015, about my region 15.3, Canberra, April. CC BY 3.0. ( sourced 22/1/2016)
  2. Ahmed DA, van Bodegom PM, Tukker A (2019) Evaluation and selection of functional diversity metrics with recommendations for their use in life cycle assessments. Int J Life Assess 24:485–500Google Scholar
  3. Andersen AN, Penman TD, Debas N, Houadria M (2009) Ant community responses to experimental fire and logging in a eucalypt forest of south-eastern Australia. For Ecol Manag 258:188–197Google Scholar
  4. Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council (2004) Australian paper industry production statistics. CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballesteros-Mejia L, Kitching IJ, Jetz W, Beck J (2017) Putting insects on the map: near-global variation in sphingid moth richness along spatial and environmental gradients. Ecography 40:698–708Google Scholar
  6. Benoît-Norris C, Aulisio D, Norris GA (2013) The social hotspot database supporting documentation, update 2013. New Earth, York BeachGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridle K, Fitzgerald M, Green D, Smith J, McQuillan P, Lefroy T (2009) Relationships between site characteristics, farming system and biodiversity on Australian mixed farms. Anim Prod Sci 49:869–882Google Scholar
  8. Brock PM, Graham P, Herridge, DF, Madden P, Schwenke GD (2012) Determining emissions profiles for Australian agricultural products at a regional scale: methodological opportunities and obstacles. Proceedings of the 2nd LCANZ and NZLCM Centre Conference on LCA, 28–29 March 2012, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunemann EK, Schwenke GD, Van Zwieten L (2006) Impact of agricultural inputs on soil organisms—a review. Aust J Soil Res 44:379–406Google Scholar
  10. Burgman MA, Breininger DR, Duncan BW, Ferson S (2001) Setting reliability bounds on habitat suitability indices. Ecol Appl 11:70–78Google Scholar
  11. Burgman MA, McBride M, Ashton R, Speirs-Bridge A, Flander L, Wintle B, Fidler F, Rumpff L, Twardy C (2011) Expert status and performance. PLoS One 6:e22998Google Scholar
  12. Burley HM, Mokany K, Ferrier S, Laffan SW, Williams KJ, Harwood TJ (2016) Primary productivity is weakly related to floristic alpha and beta diversity across Australia. Global Ecol Biogeogr 25:1294–1307Google Scholar
  13. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, Garcia A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated modern humaninduced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253Google Scholar
  14. Chambers JM, Cleveland WS, Kleiner B, Tukey PA (1983) Graphical methods for data analysis. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaudhary A, Brooks TM (2018) Land use intensity-specific global characterisation factors to assess product biodiversity footprints. Environ Sci Technol 52:5094–5104Google Scholar
  16. 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 49:9987–9995Google Scholar
  17. Chave J (2013) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: what have we learned in 20 years? Ecol Lett 16:4–16Google Scholar
  18. Coelho CRV, Michelsen O (2014) Land use impacts on biodiversity from kiwifruit production in New Zealand assessed with global and national datasets. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:285–296Google Scholar
  19. Comino E, Bottero M, Pomarico S, Rosso M (2014) Exploring the environmental value of ecosystem services for a river basin through a spatial multicriteria analysis. Land Use Policy 36:381–395Google Scholar
  20. Curran M, de Baan L, De Schryver A, van Zelm R, Hellweg S, Koellner T, Sonnemann G, Huijbregts MAJ (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45(1):70–79Google Scholar
  21. Curran M, de Souza DM, Antón A, Teixeira RFM, Michelsen O, Vidal-Legaz B, Sala A, Milà i Canals L (2016) How well does LCA model land use impacts on biodiversity? A comparison with approaches from ecology and conservation. Environ Sci Technol 50:2782–2795Google Scholar
  22. de Baan L, Alkemade R, Koellner T (2013a) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(6):1216–1230Google Scholar
  23. de Baan L, Mutel L, Curran M, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2013b) Land use in life cycle assessment: global characterisation factors based on regional and global potential species extinction. Environ Sci Technol 47(16):9281–9290Google Scholar
  24. de Baan L, Curran M, Rondinini C, Visconti P, Hellweg S, Koellner T (2015) High-resolution assessment of land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment using species habitat suitability models. Environ Sci Technol 49(4):2237–2244Google Scholar
  25. De Schryver AM, Goedkoop MJ, Leuven RSE, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):682–691Google Scholar
  26. de Souza DM, Flynn DFB, DeClerck F, Rosenbaum RK, Lisboa HM, Koellner T (2014) Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: proposal of characterization factors based on functional diversity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1231–1242Google Scholar
  27. de Souza DM, Teixeira RFM, Ostermann OP (2015) Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with life cycle assessment: are we there yet? Glob Chang Biol 21(1):32–47Google Scholar
  28. Drakare S, Lennon JJ, Hillebrand H (2006) The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species–area relationships. Ecol Lett 9:215–227Google Scholar
  29. Eggers J, Holmgren S, Nordström E, Lämås T, Lind R (2017) Balancing different forest values: evaluation of forest management scenarios in a multi-criteria decision analysis framework. For Pol Econ. Google Scholar
  30. England JR, May B, Raison RJ, Paul KI (2012) Cradle-to-gate inventory of wood production from Australian softwood plantations and native hardwood forests: embodied energy, water use and other inputs. For Ecol Manag 264:37–50Google Scholar
  31. England JR, May B, Raison RJ, Paul KI (2013) Cradle-to-gate inventory of wood production from Australian softwood plantations and native hardwood forests: carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. For Ecol Manag 302:295–307Google Scholar
  32. Fensham RJ (1998) The grassy vegetation of the Darling Downs, south-eastern Queensland, Australia. Floristic and grazing effects. Biol Conserv 84:301–310Google Scholar
  33. Filyushkina A, Strange N, Löf M, Ezebiol EE, Boman M (2018) Applying the Delphi method to assess impacts of forest management on biodiversity and habitat preservation. For Ecol Manag 409:179–189Google Scholar
  34. Forests NSW (2005) Ecologically sustainable forest management. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Eden regionGoogle Scholar
  35. Forests NSW (2008) Ecologically sustainable forest management. New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, TumutGoogle Scholar
  36. Gabel VM, Meier MS, Kopke U, Stolze M (2016) The challenges of including impacts on biodiversity in agricultural life cycle assessments. J Environ Manag 181:249–260Google Scholar
  37. Geyer R, Lindner JP, Stoms DM, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010a) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Part 2: impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:692–703Google Scholar
  38. Geyer R, Stoms DM, Lindner JP, Davis FW, Wittstock B (2010b) Coupling GIS and LCA for biodiversity assessments of land use. Part 1: inventory modeling. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:454–467Google Scholar
  39. Giam X, Sodhi NS, Brook BW, Tan HTW, Bradshaw CJA (2011) Relative need for conservation assessments of vascular plant species among ecoregions. J Biogeogr 38(1):55–68Google Scholar
  40. Gilfedder L, Kirkpatrick J (1994) Climate, grazing and disturbance, and the population dynamics of Leucochrysum albicans at Ross, Tasmania. Aust J Bot 42:417–430Google Scholar
  41. Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huigbregts MA, de Schryver A, Strujs J, Van Zelm R (2008) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition report I: characterisation; 6 January 2009,
  42. Grant T (2009) The Australian environment: impact assessment in a sunburnt country. In: Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (eds) Life cycle assessment: principles, practice and prospects. CSIRO PublishingGoogle Scholar
  43. Hampicke U (1991) Naturschultz-okonomie. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  44. Harden GJ (1993) Flora of New South Wales, Vols 1–4. New South Wales University Press, KensingtonGoogle Scholar
  45. Haverd V, Raupach MR, Briggs PR, Canadell JG, Isaac P, Pickett-Heaps C, Roxburgh SH, van Gorsel E, Viscarra Rossel RA, Wang Z (2013) Multiple observation types reduce uncertainty in Australia’s terrestrial carbon and water cycles. Biogeosciences 10:2011–2040Google Scholar
  46. Hiloidhari M, Barua DC, Singh A, Kataki S, Medhi K, Kumari S, Ramachandra TV, Jenkins BM, Thakur IS (2017) Emerging role of geographical information system (GIS), life cycle assessment (LCA) and spatial LCA (GIS-LCA) in sustainable bioenergy planning. Biosour Technol 242:218–226Google Scholar
  47. Hischier R (2007) Ecoinvent data version 2.0, life cycle inventories of packaging and graphical paper, v2.0—ecoinvent report no. 11. Ecoinvent Centre, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  48. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–3594Google Scholar
  49. Huston M (1993) Biological diversity. Soils Econ Sci 262:1676–1680Google Scholar
  50. Irwin S, Pedley SM, Coote L, Dietzsch AC, Wilson MW, Oxbrough A, Sweeney O, Moore KM, Kelly T, O’Halloran J (2014) The value of plantation forests for plant, invertebrate and bird diversity and the potential for cross-taxon surrogacy. Biodivers Conserv 23:697–714Google Scholar
  51. Ives CD, Lentine PE, Threlfall CG, Ikin K, Shanahan DF, Garrad GE, Bekessy SA, Ruller RA, Mumaw L, Rayner L, Rowe R, Valentine LE, Kendal D (2016) Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25(1):117–126Google Scholar
  52. Jeanneret P, Baumgartner DU, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Koch B, Gaillard G (2014) An expert system for integrating biodiversity into agricultural life-cycle assessment. Ecol Indic 46:224–231Google Scholar
  53. Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, Redding DW, Hartmann K, Mooers AO (2014) Global distribution and conservation of evolutionary distinctness in birds. Curr Biol 24:919–930Google Scholar
  54. Kasel S, Bennett LT, Tibbits J (2008) Land use influences soil fungal community composition across central Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1724–1732Google Scholar
  55. Kier G, Mutke J, Dinerstein E, Ricketts TH, Kueper W, Kreft H, Barthlott W (2005) Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. J Biogeogr 32(7):1107–1116Google Scholar
  56. Kier G, Kreft H, Lee TM, Jetz W, Ibisch PL, Nowicki C, Mutke J, Barthlott W (2009) A global assessment of endemism and species richness across island and mainland regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(23):9322–9327Google Scholar
  57. Kirkpatrick JB (1983) An iterative method for establishing priorities for the establishment of nature reserves: an example from Tasmania. Biol Conserv 25:127–134Google Scholar
  58. 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 580:358–366Google Scholar
  59. Koellner T (2000) Species-pool effect potentials (SPEP) as a yardstick to evaluate land-use impacts on biodiversity. J Clean Prod 8:293–311Google Scholar
  60. Koellner T, Scholz RW (2008) Assessment of land use impacts on the natural environment. Part 2: generic characterization factors for local species diversity in Central Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):32–48Google Scholar
  61. Koellner T, de Baan L, Beck T, Brandao M, Civit B, Margni M, Milà i Canals L, Saad R, Souza DM, Muller-Wenk R (2013) UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202Google Scholar
  62. Koh LP, Lee TM, Sodhi NS, Ghazoul J (2010) An overhaul of the species–area approach for predicting biodiversity loss: incorporating matrix and edge effects. J Appl Ecol 47(5):1063–1070Google Scholar
  63. Kreft H, Jetz W (2007) Global patterns and determinants of vascular plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(14):5925–5930Google Scholar
  64. Leibold MA, Chase JM (2018) Metacommunity ecology. Monographs in population biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  65. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613Google Scholar
  66. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur award lecture. Ecology 73(6):1943–1967Google Scholar
  67. Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd (2013) Australasian LCI database version 2013.1, data released in SimaPro LCA Software. Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd., MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  68. Lindeijer E (2000) Review of land use impact methodologies. J Clean Prod 8(4):273–281Google Scholar
  69. Lindenmayer DB, Cunningham RB, MacGregor C, Crane M, Michael D, Fischer J, Montague-Drake R, Felton A, Manning A (2008) Temporal changes in vertebrates during landscape transformation: a large-scale “natural experiment”. Ecol Monogr 78:567–590Google Scholar
  70. Machado A (2004) An index of naturalness. J Nat Conserv 12(2):95–110Google Scholar
  71. Matthews B, Narwani A, Hausch S, Nonaka E, Peter H, Yamaichi M, Sullam K, Bird KC, Thomas MK, Hanley TC, Turner CB (2011) Toward an integration of evolutionary biology and ecosystem science. Ecol Lett 14:690–701Google Scholar
  72. Matthews TJ, Triantis KA, Rigal F, Borregaard MK, Guilhaumon F, Whittaker RJ (2016) Island species–area relationships and species accumulation curves are not equivalent: an analysis of habitat island datasets. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25(5):607–618Google Scholar
  73. McCarthy MA, Parris KM, van der Ree R, McDonnell MJ, Burgman MA, Williams NSG, McLean N, Harper MJ, Meyer R, Hahs A, Coates T (2004) The habitat hectares approach to vegetation assessment: an evaluation and suggestions for improvement. Ecol Manag Restor 5(1):24–27Google Scholar
  74. Michelsen O (2007) Assessment of land use impact on biodiversity: proposal of a new methodology exemplified with forestry operations in Norway. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:1–10Google Scholar
  75. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC Google Scholar
  76. Molau U, Alatalo JM (1998) Responses of subarctic-alpine plant communities to simulated environmental change: biodiversity of bryophytes, lichens, and vascular plants. Ambio 27:322–359Google Scholar
  77. Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpso AGB, Worm B (2011) How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol 9(8):e1001127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mueller C, de Baan L, Koellner T (2014) Comparing direct land use impacts on biodiversity of conventional and organic milk—based on a Swedish case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:52–68Google Scholar
  79. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Cons Biol 4:355–364Google Scholar
  80. O’Connor TG (1991) Patch colonisation in a savanna grassland. Jo Veg Sci 2:245–254Google Scholar
  81. Oliver I, Smith PL, Lunt I, Parkes D (2002) Pre-1750 vegetation, naturalness and vegetation condition: what are the implications for biodiversity conservation? Ecol Manag Restor 3:176–178Google Scholar
  82. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GV, Underwood EC, D’Amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC, Loucks CJ, Allnutt TF, Ricketts TH, Kura Y, Lamoreux JF, Wettengel WW, Hedao P, Kassem KR (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the worlds: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51(11):933–938Google Scholar
  83. Patouillard L, Bulle C, Querleu C, Maxime D, Osset P, Margni M (2018) Critical review and practical recommendations to integrate the spatial dimension into life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 177:398–412Google Scholar
  84. Penman TD, Law BS, Ximenes F (2010) A proposal for accounting for biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Biodivers Conserv 19:3245–3254Google Scholar
  85. Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8(4):124–128Google Scholar
  86. Prober SM, Williams KJ, Broadhurst LM, Doerr VAJ (2017) Nature conservation and ecological restoration in a changing climate: what are we aiming for? Range J 39:477–486Google Scholar
  87. Roberge JM, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the Umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Con Biol 18:76–85Google Scholar
  88. Rossi V, Lehesvirta T, Schenker U, Lundquist L, Koski O, Gueye S, Taylor R, Humbert S (2018) Capturing the potential biodiversity effects of forestry practices in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:1192–1200Google Scholar
  89. Scarpitta AB, Bardat J, Lalanne A, Vellend M (2017) Long-term community change: bryophytes are more responsive than vascular plants to nitrogen deposition and warming. J Veg Sci 28:1220–1229Google Scholar
  90. Schneider DC (2001) The rise of the concept of scale in ecology. BioScience 51(7):545Google Scholar
  91. Schwenke GD, Brock PM, Haigh BM, Herridge DF (2018) Greenhouse gas emission reductions in subtropical cereal-based cropping sequences using legumes, DMPP-coated urea and split timings of urea application. Soil Res 56:724–736Google Scholar
  92. Singh H, Garg RD, Karnatak HC, Roy A (2018) Spatial landscape model to characterize biological diversity using R statistical computing environment. J Env Manag 206:1211–1223Google Scholar
  93. Slade C, Law B (2017) The other half of the coastal State Forest estate in New South Wales; the value of informal forest reserves for conservation. Aust Zool. Google Scholar
  94. Sørensen T (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. Biol Skr–K Dan Vidensk Selsk 5(1−34):4–7Google Scholar
  95. Standards Reference Group SERA (2017) National Standards for the practice of ecological restoration, Second edn. Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia, Australia Available from URL: Google Scholar
  96. Swan G, Petterson B (1991) Land use evaluation in forestry. In: Evaluation of land use in life cycle assessment. Eds: Swan G, Center for Environmental Assessment of Product and Material Systems, CPM Report 1998:2. Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  97. Teillard F, de Souza DM, Thoma G, Gerber PJ, Finn JA (2016) What does life-cycle assessment of agricultural products need for more meaningful inclusion of biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 53:1422–1429Google Scholar
  98. Teixeira RFM, de Souza DM, Curran MP, Anton A, Michelsen O, Milà i Canals L (2016) Towards consensus on land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative preliminary recommendations based on expert contributions. J Clean Prod 112:4283–4287Google Scholar
  99. Turner PAM, Ximenes, F, Penman TD, Law BS, Waters CM, Mo M, Brock P (2014) Accounting for biodiversity in life cycle impact assessments of forestry and agricultural systems—the BioImpact metric. Technical report. September 2014. Report number: PNC301-1213, Affiliation: NSW Department of Primary Industries.
  100. van Dobben HF, Schouwenberg EPAG, Nabuurs GJ, Prins AH (1998) Biodiversity and productivity parameters as a basis for evaluating land use changes in LCA. Biodiversity and life support indicators for land use impacts, Publication Series Raw Materials Nr 1998/07. In: IVAM Environmental Research, editors. Delft: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management; 1998. p. Annex 1.1–1.50Google Scholar
  101. Vanneste T, Michelsen O, Graae BJ, Kyrkjeeide MO, Hassel K, Lindmo S, de Frenne P (2017) Impact of climate change on alpine vegetation of mountain summits in Norway. Ecol Res 32:579–593Google Scholar
  102. Vollmer D, Pribadi DO, Remondi F, Rustiadi E, Grêt-Regamey A (2016) Prioritizing ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing river basins: a spatial multi-criteria analytic approach. Sustain Cities Soc 20:237–252Google Scholar
  103. Vrasdonk E, Palme U, Lennartsson T (2019) Reference situations for biodiversity in life cycle assessments: conceptual bridging between LCA and conservation biology. Int J Life Cycle Assess. Google Scholar
  104. Walshe T, Wintle B, Fidler F, Burgman M (2007) Use of confidence intervals to demonstrate performance against forest management standards. For Ecol Manag 247:237–245Google Scholar
  105. Wardell-Johnson GW, Wiliams MR, Mellican A, Annells A (2004) Floristic patterns and disturbance history in karri forest, south-western Australia 1. Environment and species richness. For Ecol Manag 199:449–460Google Scholar
  106. Weidema B, Lindeijer E (2001) Physical impacts of land use in product life cycle assessment. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby Google Scholar
  107. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3(4):385Google Scholar
  108. Winter L, Lehmann A, Finogenova N, Finkbeiner M (2017) Including biodiversity in life cycle assessment –State of the art, gaps and research needs. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 67:88–100. Google Scholar
  109. Winter L, Pflugmacher S, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2018) Biodiversity impact assessment (BIA+)—methodological framework for screening biodiversity. Int Environ Assess Manag 14:282–297Google Scholar
  110. Woinarski JCZ, Green J, Fisher A, Ensbey M, Mackey B (2013) The effectiveness of conservation reserves: land tenure impacts upon biodiversity across extensive natural landscapes in the tropical savannahs of the Northern Territory, Australia. Land 2(1):20–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Forest Practices AuthorityHobartAustralia
  3. 3.New South Wales Department of Primary IndustriesParramattaAustralia
  4. 4.The University of MelbourneCreswickAustralia
  5. 5.New South Wales Department of Primary IndustriesOrangeAustralia
  6. 6.Life Cycle StrategiesMelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.Office of Environment and HeritageHaymarketAustralia
  8. 8.New South Wales Department of Primary IndustriesTaylors BeachAustralia

Personalised recommendations