Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in land use change assessment through sustainability indicator

Abstract

While agricultural and urban expansion continue to drive land use change (LUC), their long-term impacts on ecological integrity and human well-being remain inadequately addressed due to the lack of robust intergenerational sustainability frameworks. This study introduces a novel indicator-based approach to bridge this gap. It begins with a comprehensive review of biodiversity - ecosystem service (BD-ES) relationships to construct two composite indicators (CIs); CI Loss, which quantifies collective BD-ES losses resulting from the conversion of natural forest to agricultural and urban areas under three management intensities (minimum, limited and intense), and CI Capacity, which measures the existing LU capacity to support and supply BD-ES. These CIs can be incorporated into broader indicator-based environment system analyses. To evaluate intergenerational LUC sustainability across temporal and spatial scales, the CIs are integrated into the land aspect of Resources Time Footprint (RTF) indicator. RTF evaluates resource occupancy rates relative to human lifespan thresholds across multiple sustainability dimensions, including material scarcity, human intervention intensity, social and ecological carrying capacities, and intergenerational fairness. The efficacy of this approach is assessed through two case studies: (1) LU transitions from natural forests to agricultural and urban areas, and (2) a hypothetical sugarcane-bagasse-based electricity generation scenario in Bhutan. The multidimensional linkages between BD and ES reveal that no single BD metric serves as an adequate surrogate for ESs. CI Loss values vary both within and between LU types, with agricultural LUC showing increasing impact across intensities (0.15–0.53), and urban LUC consistently exhibiting higher losses (0.39–1.00). CI Capacity is highest in mixed forests (1.00) and lowest in burnt areas (0.01). The first case reveals spatial variations in RTF (1–8 years/capita) driven by social and ecological factors, while the second highlights a relatively sustainable process (3.75 years) with notable trade-offs across aspects and districts. By addressing ecological integrity and long-term human well-being, this research supports more informed and sustainable LU planning and management.