IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p4214-d785476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Conceptual Landscape-Level Approach to Assess the Impacts of Forestry on Biodiversity

Author

Listed:
  • Eskil Mattsson

    (IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Aschebergsgatan 44, 411 33 Gothenburg, Sweden
    Gothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, Box 461, 413 19 Gothenburg, Sweden)

  • Martin Erlandsson

    (IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Aschebergsgatan 44, 411 33 Gothenburg, Sweden
    KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Per Erik Karlsson

    (IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Aschebergsgatan 44, 411 33 Gothenburg, Sweden)

  • Hampus Holmström

    (Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden)

Abstract

In this study, we propose a conceptual approach to assessing biodiversity impacts in the life-cycle assessments (LCAs) of forest wood production with a focus on Nordic managed forests at the landscape level. As a basis for our methodology, we suggest assessing the proportion of the total land area of productive forest under the control of a forest owner that fulfils certain criteria that can be regarded as having a positive impact on the development of forest biodiversity. A similar assessment of the forest management performed on the surrounding land is used to define a site-specific reference situation. In the context of an attributional LCA, the suggested method for the specification of business-as-usual (BAU) or environmental quality objectives (EQO) baselines encourages forest owners to choose forest management options that increase the proportion of productive forest land with properties that are more favorable to biodiversity over time. We illustrate the BAU baseline approach with two examples in Sweden to calculate the biodiversity impact from wood production for individual forest owners using four biodiversity indicators from the Swedish national Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOS)—‘Living Forests’. The approach defined in this study is at this stage only applicable to forestry assessments. Using a BAU baseline approach similar to that used for international climate reporting is a simple but novel approach that makes use of consensuses that have already been drawn and approaches that have already been established.

Suggested Citation

  • Eskil Mattsson & Martin Erlandsson & Per Erik Karlsson & Hampus Holmström, 2022. "A Conceptual Landscape-Level Approach to Assess the Impacts of Forestry on Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4214-:d:785476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4214/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/4214/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Paul Lindner & Horst Fehrenbach & Lisa Winter & Judith Bloemer & Eva Knuepffer, 2019. "Valuing Biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Eyvindson, Kyle & Repo, Anna & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2018. "Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 119-127.
    3. Caroline Gaudreault & T. Bently Wigley & Manuele Margni & Jake Verschuyl & Kirsten Vice & Brian Titus, 2016. "Addressing biodiversity impacts of land use in life cycle assessment of forest biomass harvesting," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(6), pages 670-683, November.
    4. Kamalakanta Sahoo & Richard Bergman & Sevda Alanya-Rosenbaum & Hongmei Gu & Shaobo Liang, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Forest-Based Products: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Sylvie Côté & Robert Beauregard & Manuele Margni & Louis Bélanger, 2021. "Using Naturalness for Assessing the Impact of Forestry and Protection on the Quality of Ecosystems in Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-29, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blattert, Clemens & Eyvindson, Kyle & Hartikainen, Markus & Burgas, Daniel & Potterf, Maria & Lukkarinen, Jani & Snäll, Tord & Toraño-Caicoya, Astor & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2022. "Sectoral policies cause incoherence in forest management and ecosystem service provisioning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Xuyao Zhang & Weimin Zhang & Dayu Xu, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Complex Forestry Enterprise: A Case Study of a Forest–Fiberboard Integrated Enterprise," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Vujcic, Maja & Tomicevic-Dubljevic, Jelena, 2018. "Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-62.
    4. Andrea Lulovicova & Stephane Bouissou, 2023. "Environmental Assessment of Local Food Policies through a Territorial Life Cycle Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Eszter Tanács & Ágnes Vári & Ákos Bede-Fazekas & András Báldi & Edina Csákvári & Anett Endrédi & Veronika Fabók & Lívia Kisné Fodor & Márton Kiss & Péter Koncz & Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki & János Mészá, 2023. "Finding the Green Grass in the Haystack? Integrated National Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Condition in Hungary, in Support of Conservation and Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-28, May.
    6. Per Angelstam & Terrence Bush & Michael Manton, 2023. "Challenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequences," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-58, May.
    7. Angelstam, Per & Elbakidze, Marine & Axelsson, Robert & Khoroshev, Alexander & Pedroli, Bas & Tysiachniouk, Maria & Zabubenin, Evgeny, 2019. "Model forests in Russia as landscape approach: Demonstration projects or initiatives for learning towards sustainable forest management?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 96-110.
    8. Jeannette Eggers & Ylva Melin & Johanna Lundström & Dan Bergström & Karin Öhman, 2020. "Management Strategies for Wood Fuel Harvesting—Trade-Offs with Biodiversity and Forest Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.
    9. D'Amato, Dalia & Veijonaho, Simo & Toppinen, Anne, 2020. "Towards sustainability? Forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    10. Vito Imbrenda & Rosa Coluzzi & Francesca Mariani & Bogdana Nosova & Eva Cudlinova & Rosanna Salvia & Giovanni Quaranta & Luca Salvati & Maria Lanfredi, 2023. "Working in (Slow) Progress: Socio-Environmental and Economic Dynamics in the Forestry Sector and the Contribution to Sustainable Development in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    12. Hörl, Jakob & Keller, Klaus & Yousefpour, Rasoul, 2020. "Reviewing the performance of adaptive forest management strategies with robustness analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    13. Maria Lanfredi & Rosa Coluzzi & Vito Imbrenda & Bogdana Nosova & Massimiliano Giacalone & Rosario Turco & Marcela Prokopovà & Luca Salvati, 2023. "In-between Environmental Sustainability and Economic Viability: An Analysis of the State, Regulations, and Future of Italian Forestry Sector," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, May.
    14. Alessio Ilari & Sara Fabrizi & Ester Foppa Pedretti, 2022. "European Hophornbeam Biomass for Energy Application: Influence of Different Production Processes and Heating Devices on Environmental Sustainability," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
    15. Per Angelstam & Michael Manton, 2021. "Effects of Forestry Intensification and Conservation on Green Infrastructures: A Spatio-Temporal Evaluation in Sweden," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    16. D'Amato, D. & Korhonen-Kurki, K. & Lyytikainen, V. & Matthies, B.D. & Horcea-Milcu, A-I., 2022. "Circular bioeconomy: Actors and dynamics of knowledge co-production in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    17. Mousavi-Avval, Seyed Hashem & Sahoo, Kamalakanta & Nepal, Prakash & Runge, Troy & Bergman, Richard, 2023. "Environmental impacts and techno-economic assessments of biobased products: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Katsuyuki Nakano & Masahiko Karube & Nobuaki Hattori, 2020. "Environmental Impacts of Building Construction Using Cross-laminated Timber Panel Construction Method: A Case of the Research Building in Kyushu, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    20. Zhongjia Chen & Hongmei Gu & Richard D. Bergman & Shaobo Liang, 2020. "Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with an Equivalent Reinforced Concrete Alternative Using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:4214-:d:785476. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.