Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31097881›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of life cycle assessment2018

Ecosystem quality in LCIA: status quo, harmonization, and suggestions for the way forward.

John S Woods, Mattia Damiani, Peter Fantke, Andrew D Henderson, John M Johnston, Jane Bare, Serenella Sala, Danielle Maia de Souza, Stephan Pfister, Leo Posthuma and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of life cycle assessment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe.Journal of cleaner production · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

John S WoodsIndustrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Sælands vei 7, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Mattia DamianiITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, F-34196 Montpellier, France.
Peter FantkeDivision for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 116, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Andrew D HendersonUniversity of Texas School of Public Health, Austin, TX 78701, USA.
John M JohnstonUS EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 960 College Station Rd, Athens, GA 30605, USA.
Jane BareUS EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 26 West MLK Dr, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
Serenella SalaEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate D: Sustainable Resource, Bioeconomy unit, Via E. Fermi, 2749 Ispra, VA, Italy.
Danielle Maia de SouzaDepartment of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, T6G 2P5, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Stephan PfisterETH Zurich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland.
Leo PosthumaRIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, P.O. Box 1, 3720, BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Ralph K RosenbaumITAP, Irstea, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, ELSA Research Group and ELSA-PACT Industrial Chair, 361 rue Jean-François Breton, BP 5095, F-34196 Montpellier, France.
Francesca VeronesIndustrial Ecology Programme, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Sælands vei 7, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLife cycle impact assessment (LCIA) results are used to assess potential environmental impacts of different products and services. As part of the UNEP-SETAC life cycle initiative flagship project that aims to harmonize indicators of potential environmental impacts, we provide a consensus viewpoint and recommendations for future developments in LCIA related to the ecosystem quality area of protection (AoP). Through our recommendations, we aim to encourage LCIA developments that improve the usefulness and global acceptability of LCIA results.

methodsWe analyze current ecosystem quality metrics and provide recommendations to the LCIA research community for achieving further developments towards comparable and more ecologically relevant metrics addressing ecosystem quality. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We recommend that LCIA development for ecosystem quality should tend towards species-richnessrelated metrics, with efforts made towards improved inclusion of ecosystem complexity. Impact indicators-which result from a range of modeling approaches that differ, for example, according to spatial and temporal scale, taxonomic coverage, and whether the indicator produces a relative or absolute measure of loss-should be framed to facilitate their final expression in a single, aggregated metric. This would also improve comparability with other LCIA damage-level indicators. Furthermore, to allow for a broader inclusion of ecosystem quality perspectives, the development of an additional indicator related to ecosystem function is recommended. Having two complementary metrics would give a broader coverage of ecosystem attributes while remaining simple enough to enable an intuitive interpretation of the results.

conclusionsWe call for the LCIA research community to make progress towards enabling harmonization of damage-level indicators within the ecosystem quality AoP and, further, to improve the ecological relevance of impact indicators.

Indexed as

BiodiversityDamage-levelEndpointFunctionsHarmonizationLCIASpeciesUNEP-SETAC

Identifiers

PMID31097881
PMCPMC6516497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.