The Experts below are selected from a list of 47829 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mark A J Huijbregts - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A spatially explicit data-driven approach to assess the effect of agricultural Land Occupation on species groups
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2014Co-Authors: Pieter M F Elshout, Ramkumar Karuppiah, Ian J. Laurenzi, Rosalie Van Zelm, Mark A J HuijbregtsAbstract:Purpose Change of vegetation cover and increased Land use intensity, particularly for agricultural use, can affect species richness. Within life cycle impact assessment, methods to assess impacts of Land use on a global scale are still in need of development. In this work, we present a spatially explicit data-driven approach to characterize the effect of agricultural Land Occupation on different species groups. Methods We derived characterization factors for the direct impact of agricultural Land Occupation on relative species richness. Our method identifies potential differences in impacts for cultivation of different crop types, on different species groups, and in different world regions. Using empirical species richness data gathered via an extensive literature search, characterization factors were calculated for four crop groups (oil palm, low crops, Pooideae, and Panicoideae), four species groups (arthropods, birds, mammals, and vascular plants), and six biomes. Results and discussion Analysis of the collected data showed that vascular plant richness is more sensitive than the species richness of arthropods to agricultural Land Occupation. Regarding the differences between world regions, the impact of agricultural Land use was lower in boreal forests/taiga than in temperate and tropical regions. The impact of oil palm plantations was found to be larger than that of Pooideae cropLands, although we cannot rule out that this difference is influenced by the spatial difference between the oil palm- and Pooideae-growing regions as well. Analysis of a subset of data showed that the impact of conventional farming was larger than the impact of low-input farming. Conclusions The impact of Land Occupation on relative species richness depends on the taxonomic groups considered, the climatic region, and farm management. The influence of crop type, however, was found to be of less importance.
-
Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of Land Occupation in life cycle assessment
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2010Co-Authors: An M. Schryver, Mark J. Goedkoop, Rob S. E. W. Leuven, Mark A J HuijbregtsAbstract:Purpose Uncertainties in Land use damage modeling are recognized, but hardly quantified in life cycle assessment (LCA). The objective of this study is to analyze the influence of various key assumptions and uncertainties within the development of characterisation factors (CFs) for Land use in LCA. We assessed the influence on Land use CFs of (1) parameter uncertainty and (2) the choice for a constant or Land use-specific species accumulation factor z and including or excluding regional effects. Methods A model framework was developed to analyze the uncertainties of CFs for six Land use types and three agricultural practices. The CFs are expressed as potential disappeared fraction (PDF) of vascular plant species based on the species area relationship ( S =c.A^z). The species area relationship describes the relation between the species number and area size, with help of the species accumulation factor z and the species richness factor c. A dataset representative for Great Britain was used to quantify both modeling choices and parameter uncertainty. Modeling choices were analyzed by defining three coherent scenarios, based on cultural theory perspectives. The parameter uncertainties of average species number and species accumulation factor z were quantified using Monte Carlo simulation. Results and discussion Pair-wise comparison of the CFs shows that 68–85% of the CFs significantly differ from each other within each perspective. It is found that the ranking of organic, less intensive, and intensive Land practices of each Land use type is unaltered by the chosen model scenario. However, the absolute values of the CFs can change from negative to positive scores with an average difference of 0.8 PDF between the two extreme perspectives, i.e., individualistic and egalitarian. The difference between these scenarios is for 40% explained by the choice in z and for 60% by the choice in including regional effects. Within the egalitarian and hierarchist perspective the species accumulation factor z is for more than 80% responsible for the parameter uncertainty. Conclusions Modeling choices and uncertainties within the species area relationship hardly change the ranking of the different Land practices but largely influence the absolute value of the CFs for Land use. The absolute change in the Land use CFs can change the interpretation of Land use impacts compared with other stressors such as climate change.
-
uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of Land Occupation in life cycle assessment
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2010Co-Authors: An M. Schryver, Mark J. Goedkoop, Rob S. E. W. Leuven, Mark A J HuijbregtsAbstract:Purpose Uncertainties in Land use damage modeling are recognized, but hardly quantified in life cycle assessment (LCA). The objective of this study is to analyze the influence of various key assumptions and uncertainties within the development of characterisation factors (CFs) for Land use in LCA. We assessed the influence on Land use CFs of (1) parameter uncertainty and (2) the choice for a constant or Land use-specific species accumulation factor z and including or excluding regional effects.
-
ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products
Ecological Economics, 2008Co-Authors: Mark A J Huijbregts, Stefanie Hellweg, Rolf Frischknecht, Konrad Hungerbuhler, Jan A HendriksAbstract:Abstract We present and discuss ecological footprint (EF) calculations for a large number of products and services consumed in the western economy. Product-specific EFs were calculated from consistent and quality-controlled life cycle information of 2630 products and services, including energy, materials, transport, waste treatment and infrastructural processes. We formed 19 homogeneous product/process subgroups for further analysis, containing in total 1549 processes. Per group, the average contribution of two types of Land Occupation (direct and energy related) to the total EF was derived. It was found that the ecological footprint of the majority of products is dominated by the consumption of non-renewable energy. Notable exceptions are the EFs of biomass energy, hydro energy, paper and cardboard, and agricultural products with a relatively high contribution of direct Land Occupation. We also compared the ecological footprint results with the results of a commonly used life cycle impact assessment method, the Ecoindicator 99 (EI). It was found that the majority of the products have an EF/EI ratio of around 30 m 2 -eq. yr/ecopoint ± a factor of 5. The typical ratio reduces to 25 m 2 yr/ecopoints by excluding the arbitrary EF for nuclear energy demand. The relatively small variation of this ratio implies that the use of Land and use of fossil fuels are important drivers of overall environmental impact. Ecological footprints may therefore serve as a screening indicator for environmental performance. However, our results also show that the usefulness of EF as a stand-alone indicator for environmental impact is limited for product life cycles with relative high mineral consumption and process-specific metal and dust emissions. For these products the EF/EI ratio can substantially deviate from the average value. Finally, we suggest that the ecological footprint product data provided in this paper can be used to improve the footprint estimates of production, import and export of products on a national scale and footprint estimates of various lifestyles.
Xun Liao - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Large-scale regionalised LCA shows that plant-based fat spreads have a lower climate, Land Occupation and water scarcity impact than dairy butter
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Xun Liao, Giles Rigarlsford, Monique J. W. Gerichhausen, Xavier Bengoa, Ralph H. Beverloo, Yvonne Bruggeman, Vincent RossiAbstract:Purpose In light of the sustainable diet debate, we conducted a large-scale regionalised LCA to answer the following questions: (i) does the climate advantage hypothesis of plant-based fat spreads and creams over dairy butter and cream hold regardless of the variabilities of product recipes, geographies and the influence of Land use change (LUC)? (ii) Considering the climate-water-Land nexus, is there a risk of shifting impacts from climate to water scarcity and Land Occupation, and what are the key opportunities for impact mitigation? Methods A framework for conducting a large-scale regionalised LCA was developed and applied to compare the environmental impacts of 212 plant-based fat spreads, 16 plant-based creams and 40 dairy alternatives sold in 21 countries per 1 kg of product. Data was compiled for different product recipes, key ingredient sourcing countries, production factory locations, energy mixes, packaging designs, transportation and end-of-life scenarios. Spatially (archetype) differentiated agricultural life cycle inventory data were generated, as well as LUC emissions for agricultural ingredients. A total of 18 environmental indicators were assessed. Results and discussion All plant-based spreads had a significantly lower climate impact than butter, with and without LUC inclusion. The regionalised analysis highlighted large variabilities across products, ranging from 0.98 to 6.93 (mean 3.3) kg CO_2-eq for 212 plant-based spreads and 8.08 to 16.93 (mean 12.1) kg CO_2-eq for 21 dairy butter with 95th confidence interval. The main drivers of GHG emissions for plant-based products are oilseed farming and the associated LUC emissions, which can vary significantly depending on type of oilseeds, quantity and sourcing country; in the worst-case scenario, the climate advantage is no longer valid due to LUC. Thus, the inclusion of LUC is essential for a robust assessment and hotspot identification. Overall, the risk of shifting impact was small, as most of the plant-based spreads also had lower impacts for water scarcity footprints and Land Occupation; 8 of the 212 products were not lower, due to oilseed ingredients with high embodied impacts. Conclusions This study confirmed that plant-based spreads had lower climate, water and Land impacts than butter, despite variability of product recipes, geographies and influence of LUC. This research offers a framework for performing regionalised agricultural LCA for a large portfolio of products thereby enabling identification of inter-product variabilities and hotspots for the development of mitigation strategies. Key mitigation opportunities include reducing oilseed ingredients’ embodied impacts by optimising product recipe design and adapting supply chain sourcing and agricultural practice.
-
large scale regionalised lca shows that plant based fat spreads have a lower climate Land Occupation and water scarcity impact than dairy butter
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Giles Rigarlsford, Xun Liao, Monique J. W. Gerichhausen, Xavier Bengoa, Ralph H. Beverloo, Yvonne Bruggeman, Vincent RossiAbstract:In light of the sustainable diet debate, we conducted a large-scale regionalised LCA to answer the following questions: (i) does the climate advantage hypothesis of plant-based fat spreads and creams over dairy butter and cream hold regardless of the variabilities of product recipes, geographies and the influence of Land use change (LUC)? (ii) Considering the climate-water-Land nexus, is there a risk of shifting impacts from climate to water scarcity and Land Occupation, and what are the key opportunities for impact mitigation? A framework for conducting a large-scale regionalised LCA was developed and applied to compare the environmental impacts of 212 plant-based fat spreads, 16 plant-based creams and 40 dairy alternatives sold in 21 countries per 1 kg of product. Data was compiled for different product recipes, key ingredient sourcing countries, production factory locations, energy mixes, packaging designs, transportation and end-of-life scenarios. Spatially (archetype) differentiated agricultural life cycle inventory data were generated, as well as LUC emissions for agricultural ingredients. A total of 18 environmental indicators were assessed. All plant-based spreads had a significantly lower climate impact than butter, with and without LUC inclusion. The regionalised analysis highlighted large variabilities across products, ranging from 0.98 to 6.93 (mean 3.3) kg CO2-eq for 212 plant-based spreads and 8.08 to 16.93 (mean 12.1) kg CO2-eq for 21 dairy butter with 95th confidence interval. The main drivers of GHG emissions for plant-based products are oilseed farming and the associated LUC emissions, which can vary significantly depending on type of oilseeds, quantity and sourcing country; in the worst-case scenario, the climate advantage is no longer valid due to LUC. Thus, the inclusion of LUC is essential for a robust assessment and hotspot identification. Overall, the risk of shifting impact was small, as most of the plant-based spreads also had lower impacts for water scarcity footprints and Land Occupation; 8 of the 212 products were not lower, due to oilseed ingredients with high embodied impacts. This study confirmed that plant-based spreads had lower climate, water and Land impacts than butter, despite variability of product recipes, geographies and influence of LUC. This research offers a framework for performing regionalised agricultural LCA for a large portfolio of products thereby enabling identification of inter-product variabilities and hotspots for the development of mitigation strategies. Key mitigation opportunities include reducing oilseed ingredients’ embodied impacts by optimising product recipe design and adapting supply chain sourcing and agricultural practice.
Vincent Rossi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Large-scale regionalised LCA shows that plant-based fat spreads have a lower climate, Land Occupation and water scarcity impact than dairy butter
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Xun Liao, Giles Rigarlsford, Monique J. W. Gerichhausen, Xavier Bengoa, Ralph H. Beverloo, Yvonne Bruggeman, Vincent RossiAbstract:Purpose In light of the sustainable diet debate, we conducted a large-scale regionalised LCA to answer the following questions: (i) does the climate advantage hypothesis of plant-based fat spreads and creams over dairy butter and cream hold regardless of the variabilities of product recipes, geographies and the influence of Land use change (LUC)? (ii) Considering the climate-water-Land nexus, is there a risk of shifting impacts from climate to water scarcity and Land Occupation, and what are the key opportunities for impact mitigation? Methods A framework for conducting a large-scale regionalised LCA was developed and applied to compare the environmental impacts of 212 plant-based fat spreads, 16 plant-based creams and 40 dairy alternatives sold in 21 countries per 1 kg of product. Data was compiled for different product recipes, key ingredient sourcing countries, production factory locations, energy mixes, packaging designs, transportation and end-of-life scenarios. Spatially (archetype) differentiated agricultural life cycle inventory data were generated, as well as LUC emissions for agricultural ingredients. A total of 18 environmental indicators were assessed. Results and discussion All plant-based spreads had a significantly lower climate impact than butter, with and without LUC inclusion. The regionalised analysis highlighted large variabilities across products, ranging from 0.98 to 6.93 (mean 3.3) kg CO_2-eq for 212 plant-based spreads and 8.08 to 16.93 (mean 12.1) kg CO_2-eq for 21 dairy butter with 95th confidence interval. The main drivers of GHG emissions for plant-based products are oilseed farming and the associated LUC emissions, which can vary significantly depending on type of oilseeds, quantity and sourcing country; in the worst-case scenario, the climate advantage is no longer valid due to LUC. Thus, the inclusion of LUC is essential for a robust assessment and hotspot identification. Overall, the risk of shifting impact was small, as most of the plant-based spreads also had lower impacts for water scarcity footprints and Land Occupation; 8 of the 212 products were not lower, due to oilseed ingredients with high embodied impacts. Conclusions This study confirmed that plant-based spreads had lower climate, water and Land impacts than butter, despite variability of product recipes, geographies and influence of LUC. This research offers a framework for performing regionalised agricultural LCA for a large portfolio of products thereby enabling identification of inter-product variabilities and hotspots for the development of mitigation strategies. Key mitigation opportunities include reducing oilseed ingredients’ embodied impacts by optimising product recipe design and adapting supply chain sourcing and agricultural practice.
-
large scale regionalised lca shows that plant based fat spreads have a lower climate Land Occupation and water scarcity impact than dairy butter
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2020Co-Authors: Giles Rigarlsford, Xun Liao, Monique J. W. Gerichhausen, Xavier Bengoa, Ralph H. Beverloo, Yvonne Bruggeman, Vincent RossiAbstract:In light of the sustainable diet debate, we conducted a large-scale regionalised LCA to answer the following questions: (i) does the climate advantage hypothesis of plant-based fat spreads and creams over dairy butter and cream hold regardless of the variabilities of product recipes, geographies and the influence of Land use change (LUC)? (ii) Considering the climate-water-Land nexus, is there a risk of shifting impacts from climate to water scarcity and Land Occupation, and what are the key opportunities for impact mitigation? A framework for conducting a large-scale regionalised LCA was developed and applied to compare the environmental impacts of 212 plant-based fat spreads, 16 plant-based creams and 40 dairy alternatives sold in 21 countries per 1 kg of product. Data was compiled for different product recipes, key ingredient sourcing countries, production factory locations, energy mixes, packaging designs, transportation and end-of-life scenarios. Spatially (archetype) differentiated agricultural life cycle inventory data were generated, as well as LUC emissions for agricultural ingredients. A total of 18 environmental indicators were assessed. All plant-based spreads had a significantly lower climate impact than butter, with and without LUC inclusion. The regionalised analysis highlighted large variabilities across products, ranging from 0.98 to 6.93 (mean 3.3) kg CO2-eq for 212 plant-based spreads and 8.08 to 16.93 (mean 12.1) kg CO2-eq for 21 dairy butter with 95th confidence interval. The main drivers of GHG emissions for plant-based products are oilseed farming and the associated LUC emissions, which can vary significantly depending on type of oilseeds, quantity and sourcing country; in the worst-case scenario, the climate advantage is no longer valid due to LUC. Thus, the inclusion of LUC is essential for a robust assessment and hotspot identification. Overall, the risk of shifting impact was small, as most of the plant-based spreads also had lower impacts for water scarcity footprints and Land Occupation; 8 of the 212 products were not lower, due to oilseed ingredients with high embodied impacts. This study confirmed that plant-based spreads had lower climate, water and Land impacts than butter, despite variability of product recipes, geographies and influence of LUC. This research offers a framework for performing regionalised agricultural LCA for a large portfolio of products thereby enabling identification of inter-product variabilities and hotspots for the development of mitigation strategies. Key mitigation opportunities include reducing oilseed ingredients’ embodied impacts by optimising product recipe design and adapting supply chain sourcing and agricultural practice.
Alexis Laurent - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
National inventories of Land Occupation and transformation flows in the world for Land use impact assessment
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019Co-Authors: Maria Faragò, Michela Secchi, Lorenzo Benini, Serenella Sala, Alexis LaurentAbstract:PurposeLand use can cause significant impacts on ecosystems and natural resources. To assess these impacts using life cycle assessment (LCA) and ensure adequate decision-making, comprehensive national inventories of Land Occupation and transformation flows are required. Here, we aim at developing globally differentiated inventories of Land use flows that can be used for primary use in life cycle impact assessment or national Land planning.MethodsUsing publicly available data and inventory techniques, national inventories for several Land use classes were developed. All Land use classes were covered with the highest retrievable level of disaggregation within urban, forestry, agriculture and other Land use classes, thus differentiating 21 Land use classes. For illustrating the application of this newly developed inventory, two different application settings relevant to life cycle impact assessment were considered: the calculation of global normalisation references for 11 Land use impact indicators related to soil quality assessment (adopting the methods recommended by the EU Commission) and the determination of generic globally applicable characterisation factors (CFs) resulting from aggregation of country-level CFs for situations for use when Land use location is unknown.Results and discussionWe built national inventories of 21 Land Occupation and 17 Land transformation flows for 225 countries in the world for the reference year 2010. Cross-comparisons with existing inventories of narrower scopes attested its consistency. Detailed analyses of the calculated global normalisation references for the 11 Land use impact categories showed different patterns across the Land use impact indicators for each country, thus raising attention on key Land use impacts specific to each country. Furthermore, the upscaling of country-level CFs to global generic CFs using the Land use inventory revealed discrepancies with other alternative approaches using Land use data at different resolutions.ConclusionsIn this study, we made a first attempt at developing national inventories of Land use flows with sufficient disaggregation level to enable the calculation of normalisation references and differentiated impacts. However, the findings also demonstrated the need to refine the consistency of the inventory, particularly in the combination of Land cover and Land use data, which should be harmonised in future studies, and to expand it with differentiated coverage of more Land use flows relevant to impact assessment.
-
national inventories of Land Occupation and transformation flows in the world for Land use impact assessment
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019Co-Authors: Maria Faragò, Michela Secchi, Lorenzo Benini, Serenella Sala, Alexis LaurentAbstract:Land use can cause significant impacts on ecosystems and natural resources. To assess these impacts using life cycle assessment (LCA) and ensure adequate decision-making, comprehensive national inventories of Land Occupation and transformation flows are required. Here, we aim at developing globally differentiated inventories of Land use flows that can be used for primary use in life cycle impact assessment or national Land planning. Using publicly available data and inventory techniques, national inventories for several Land use classes were developed. All Land use classes were covered with the highest retrievable level of disaggregation within urban, forestry, agriculture and other Land use classes, thus differentiating 21 Land use classes. For illustrating the application of this newly developed inventory, two different application settings relevant to life cycle impact assessment were considered: the calculation of global normalisation references for 11 Land use impact indicators related to soil quality assessment (adopting the methods recommended by the EU Commission) and the determination of generic globally applicable characterisation factors (CFs) resulting from aggregation of country-level CFs for situations for use when Land use location is unknown. We built national inventories of 21 Land Occupation and 17 Land transformation flows for 225 countries in the world for the reference year 2010. Cross-comparisons with existing inventories of narrower scopes attested its consistency. Detailed analyses of the calculated global normalisation references for the 11 Land use impact categories showed different patterns across the Land use impact indicators for each country, thus raising attention on key Land use impacts specific to each country. Furthermore, the upscaling of country-level CFs to global generic CFs using the Land use inventory revealed discrepancies with other alternative approaches using Land use data at different resolutions. In this study, we made a first attempt at developing national inventories of Land use flows with sufficient disaggregation level to enable the calculation of normalisation references and differentiated impacts. However, the findings also demonstrated the need to refine the consistency of the inventory, particularly in the combination of Land cover and Land use data, which should be harmonised in future studies, and to expand it with differentiated coverage of more Land use flows relevant to impact assessment.
Sampo Soimakallio - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Foregone carbon sequestration due to Land Occupation—the case of agro-bioenergy in FinLand
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015Co-Authors: Kati Koponen, Sampo SoimakallioAbstract:Purpose As proposed by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative (Milà i Canals et al., Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277, 2007 and Koellner et al., Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202, 2013 ), the impacts of Land Occupation should be studied in comparison to a baseline. Regardless of these guidelines, a Land use baseline is often ignored in agro-bioenergy life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. This paper tests the appropriateness and significance of applying natural regeneration as a Land use baseline for assessing the greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of agro-bioenergy in FinLand. Methods In the Land use baseline applied, the Land is assumed to be left to regenerate toward its natural state, which, in FinLand, would most probably be some sort of forest. The foregone carbon stock of the natural regeneration baseline was estimated based on the literature. The GHG balances were studied by comparing the cumulative warming impacts of the dynamic biomass carbon cycle of the agro-bioenergy production system and the defined baseline over a given time horizon varying from 0 to 100 years. The significance of the results is illustrated by comparing them to other GHG emissions related to bioenergy. Results and discussion The results depend significantly on the agro-bioenergy yields and the carbon sequestration rate assumed in the natural regeneration baseline scenario. The GHG balances may be of the same magnitude as GHG emissions due to indirect Land use changes resulting from market-mediated impacts, life cycle emissions of fossil fuels, and relative reduction in carbon stocks due to forest harvesting for bioenergy. Conclusions Ignoring a dynamic Land use baseline results in misleading conclusions on the GHG balances of Land Occupation, including agro-bioenergy, due to ignorance of foregone carbon sequestration. Thus, the interpretation of the results and conclusions provided in the vast number of agro-bioenergy LCA studies relying on biomass carbon neutrality should be reassessed. Besides bioenergy, the issue of Land use baseline is relevant for any provision service function of Land Occupation. The foregone carbon sequestration is, however, highly uncertain and thus speculative.
-
foregone carbon sequestration due to Land Occupation the case of agro bioenergy in finLand
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015Co-Authors: Kati Koponen, Sampo SoimakallioAbstract:Purpose As proposed by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)-Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative (Mila i Canals et al., Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277, 2007 and Koellner et al., Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1188–1202, 2013), the impacts of Land Occupation should be studied in comparison to a baseline. Regardless of these guidelines, a Land use baseline is often ignored in agro-bioenergy life cycle assessment (LCA) studies. This paper tests the appropriateness and significance of applying natural regeneration as a Land use baseline for assessing the greenhouse gas (GHG) balances of agro-bioenergy in FinLand.
-
Is Land use impact assessment in LCA applicable for forest biomass value chains? Findings from comparison of use of Scandinavian wood, agro-biomass and peat for energy
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2014Co-Authors: Tuomas Helin, Anne Holma, Sampo SoimakallioAbstract:Purpose A framework for the inclusion of Land use impact assessment and a set of Land use impact indicators has been recently proposed for life cycle assessment (LCA) and no case studies are available for forest biomass. The proposed methodology is tested for Scandinavian managed forestry; a comparative case study is made for energy from wood, agro-biomass and peat; and sensitivity to forest management options is analysed. Methods The functional unit of this comparative case study is 1 GJ of energy in solid fuels. The Land use impact assessment framework of the United Nations Environment Programme and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP-SETAC) is followed and its application for wood biomass is critically analysed. Applied midpoint indicators include ecological footprint and human appropriation of net primary production, global warming potential indicator for biomass (GWP_bio-100) and impact indicators proposed by UNEP-SETAC on ecosystem services and biodiversity. Options for forest biomass Land inventory modelling are discussed. The system boundary covers only the biomass acquisition phase. Management scenarios are formulated for forest and barley biomass, and a sensitivity analysis focuses on impacts of Land transformations for agro-biomass. Results and discussion Meaningful differences were found in between solid biofuels from distinct Land use classes. The impact indicator results were sensitive to Land Occupation and transformation and differed significantly from inventory results. Current impact assessment method is not sensitive to Land management scenarios because the published characterisation factors are still too coarse and indicate differences only between Land use types. All indicators on ecosystem services and biodiversity were sensitive to the assumptions related with Land transformation. The Land Occupation (m^2a) approach in inventory was found challenging for Scandinavian wood, due to long rotation periods and variable intensities of harvests. Some suggestions of UNEP-SETAC were challenged for the sake of practicality and relevance for decision support. Conclusions Land use impact assessment framework for LCA and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators could be applied in a comparison of solid bioenergy sources. Although forest bioenergy has higher Land Occupation than agro-bioenergy, LCIA indicator results are of similar magnitude or even lower for forest bioenergy. Previous literature indicates that environmental impacts of Land use are significant, but it remains questionable if these are captured with satisfactory reliability with the applied LCA methodology, especially for forest biomass. Short and long time perspectives of Land use impacts should be studied in LCA with characterisation factors for all relevant timeframes, not only 500 years, with a forward-looking perspective. Characterisation factors need to be modelled further for different (forest) Land management intensities and for peat excavation.
