基于生命周期评价的农地管理生物多样性影响评价研究

IF 11.3 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Huayang Zhen, Pietro Goglio, Fatemeh Hashemi, Christel Cederberg, Maxime Fossey, Marie Trydeman Knudsen
{"title":"基于生命周期评价的农地管理生物多样性影响评价研究","authors":"Huayang Zhen, Pietro Goglio, Fatemeh Hashemi, Christel Cederberg, Maxime Fossey, Marie Trydeman Knudsen","doi":"10.1021/acs.est.5c02000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Agricultural intensification has driven global biodiversity loss through land management change. However, there is no consensus on assessing the biodiversity impacts of changes in land management practices and intensity levels using life cycle assessment (LCA). This study reviews 7 expert scoring-based (ESB) and 19 biodiversity indicator-based (BIB) LCA methods used to assess biodiversity impacts, aiming to evaluate their quality and identify research needs for incorporating land management change in LCA. Overall, BIB methods outperformed ESB methods across general criteria, especially in robustness (95% higher). BIB methods assess biodiversity impacts based on land management intensity levels, whereas ESB methods emphasize specific land management practices. Neither approach fully captures biodiversity impacts across supply chains. For future studies, it is advisable to (1) model the direct (on-farm) impacts of land management change at the midpoint level; (2) establish cause-effect relationships between key land management practices and biodiversity indicators, while distinguishing between direct (on-site) and indirect (off-site) biodiversity impacts resulting from land management change; (3) characterize land-use intensity levels with specific land management practices and include the positive impacts from agroecological practices. This Review examines LCA methods for biodiversity concerning land management practices and discusses improvements to better account for the biodiversity impacts of agricultural land management.","PeriodicalId":36,"journal":{"name":"环境科学与技术","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward Better Biodiversity Impact Assessment of Agricultural Land Management through Life Cycle Assessment: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Huayang Zhen, Pietro Goglio, Fatemeh Hashemi, Christel Cederberg, Maxime Fossey, Marie Trydeman Knudsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acs.est.5c02000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Agricultural intensification has driven global biodiversity loss through land management change. However, there is no consensus on assessing the biodiversity impacts of changes in land management practices and intensity levels using life cycle assessment (LCA). This study reviews 7 expert scoring-based (ESB) and 19 biodiversity indicator-based (BIB) LCA methods used to assess biodiversity impacts, aiming to evaluate their quality and identify research needs for incorporating land management change in LCA. Overall, BIB methods outperformed ESB methods across general criteria, especially in robustness (95% higher). BIB methods assess biodiversity impacts based on land management intensity levels, whereas ESB methods emphasize specific land management practices. Neither approach fully captures biodiversity impacts across supply chains. For future studies, it is advisable to (1) model the direct (on-farm) impacts of land management change at the midpoint level; (2) establish cause-effect relationships between key land management practices and biodiversity indicators, while distinguishing between direct (on-site) and indirect (off-site) biodiversity impacts resulting from land management change; (3) characterize land-use intensity levels with specific land management practices and include the positive impacts from agroecological practices. This Review examines LCA methods for biodiversity concerning land management practices and discusses improvements to better account for the biodiversity impacts of agricultural land management.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"环境科学与技术\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"环境科学与技术\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c02000\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"环境科学与技术","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c02000","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

农业集约化通过土地管理变化推动了全球生物多样性的丧失。然而,利用生命周期评价(LCA)评价土地管理方式和强度水平变化对生物多样性的影响尚无共识。本研究综述了7种基于专家评分(ESB)和19种基于生物多样性指标(BIB)的土地多样性影响评估方法,旨在评价其质量,并确定土地管理变化纳入土地多样性影响评估的研究需求。总体而言,BIB方法在一般标准上优于ESB方法,特别是在健壮性方面(高出95%)。BIB方法基于土地管理强度水平评估生物多样性影响,而ESB方法强调具体的土地管理实践。这两种方法都没有完全捕捉到整个供应链对生物多样性的影响。对于未来的研究,建议:(1)在中点水平上模拟土地管理变化的直接(对农场)影响;(2)建立关键土地管理措施与生物多样性指标之间的因果关系,区分土地管理变化对生物多样性的直接(现场)和间接(场外)影响;(3)用具体的土地管理实践来描述土地利用强度水平,并包括农业生态实践的积极影响。本文综述了土地管理实践中生物多样性的LCA方法,并讨论了改进措施,以更好地解释农业土地管理对生物多样性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Toward Better Biodiversity Impact Assessment of Agricultural Land Management through Life Cycle Assessment: A Systematic Review

Toward Better Biodiversity Impact Assessment of Agricultural Land Management through Life Cycle Assessment: A Systematic Review
Agricultural intensification has driven global biodiversity loss through land management change. However, there is no consensus on assessing the biodiversity impacts of changes in land management practices and intensity levels using life cycle assessment (LCA). This study reviews 7 expert scoring-based (ESB) and 19 biodiversity indicator-based (BIB) LCA methods used to assess biodiversity impacts, aiming to evaluate their quality and identify research needs for incorporating land management change in LCA. Overall, BIB methods outperformed ESB methods across general criteria, especially in robustness (95% higher). BIB methods assess biodiversity impacts based on land management intensity levels, whereas ESB methods emphasize specific land management practices. Neither approach fully captures biodiversity impacts across supply chains. For future studies, it is advisable to (1) model the direct (on-farm) impacts of land management change at the midpoint level; (2) establish cause-effect relationships between key land management practices and biodiversity indicators, while distinguishing between direct (on-site) and indirect (off-site) biodiversity impacts resulting from land management change; (3) characterize land-use intensity levels with specific land management practices and include the positive impacts from agroecological practices. This Review examines LCA methods for biodiversity concerning land management practices and discusses improvements to better account for the biodiversity impacts of agricultural land management.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
环境科学与技术
环境科学与技术 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
17.50
自引率
9.60%
发文量
12359
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) is a co-sponsored academic and technical magazine by the Hubei Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau and the Hubei Provincial Academy of Environmental Sciences. Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) holds the status of Chinese core journals, scientific papers source journals of China, Chinese Science Citation Database source journals, and Chinese Academic Journal Comprehensive Evaluation Database source journals. This publication focuses on the academic field of environmental protection, featuring articles related to environmental protection and technical advancements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信