Opportunities to integrate Ecosystem Services into Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): a case study of milk production in Brazil

IF 6.1 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecosystem Services Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101646
Daiane Vitória da Silva , Ana Laura Raymundo Pavan , Luiz Carlos de Faria , Cassiano Moro Piekarski , Yovana María Barrera Saavedra , Diogo A. Lopes Silva
{"title":"Opportunities to integrate Ecosystem Services into Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): a case study of milk production in Brazil","authors":"Daiane Vitória da Silva ,&nbsp;Ana Laura Raymundo Pavan ,&nbsp;Luiz Carlos de Faria ,&nbsp;Cassiano Moro Piekarski ,&nbsp;Yovana María Barrera Saavedra ,&nbsp;Diogo A. Lopes Silva","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>World dairy production is growing rapidly having increased by 339 million tons over the last twenty years. However, it remains unclear how anthropic activities in the milk sector can impact the Ecosystem Services (ES) supply to society. The aim of this study was to propose and determine the Net Environmental Performance (NEP) of different milk production systems. For this purpose, a case study on a confined compost barn farm, located in southeastern Brazil was selected as reference scenario and compared with three other systems. The mapping of ES benefits was carried out using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, while environmental impacts were calculated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The LCA results and ecosystem benefits were combined and converted into monetary units to calculate the NEP per 1 kg of milk. The results indicated that semi-confined systems had the worst environmental performance (90 % more impacts) compared to the compost barn milk system. On the other hand, confined systems generate few ES benefits, but their environmental impacts were lower for most LCA impact categories (up to 87 % minimized impacts) compared to semi-confined systems. Finally, we concluded the confined systems in SP and PR showed the best NEP (1.07 and 1.48) aiming for both environmental impacts and ES benefits to fit the win–win situation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":"69 ","pages":"Article 101646"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000536","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

World dairy production is growing rapidly having increased by 339 million tons over the last twenty years. However, it remains unclear how anthropic activities in the milk sector can impact the Ecosystem Services (ES) supply to society. The aim of this study was to propose and determine the Net Environmental Performance (NEP) of different milk production systems. For this purpose, a case study on a confined compost barn farm, located in southeastern Brazil was selected as reference scenario and compared with three other systems. The mapping of ES benefits was carried out using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, while environmental impacts were calculated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The LCA results and ecosystem benefits were combined and converted into monetary units to calculate the NEP per 1 kg of milk. The results indicated that semi-confined systems had the worst environmental performance (90 % more impacts) compared to the compost barn milk system. On the other hand, confined systems generate few ES benefits, but their environmental impacts were lower for most LCA impact categories (up to 87 % minimized impacts) compared to semi-confined systems. Finally, we concluded the confined systems in SP and PR showed the best NEP (1.07 and 1.48) aiming for both environmental impacts and ES benefits to fit the win–win situation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将生态系统服务纳入生命周期评估(LCA)的机会:巴西牛奶生产案例研究
世界乳制品产量增长迅速,在过去二十年中增加了 3.39 亿吨。然而,人类在牛奶行业的活动如何影响为社会提供的生态系统服务(ES),目前仍不清楚。本研究旨在提出并确定不同牛奶生产系统的净环境绩效 (NEP)。为此,我们选择了位于巴西东南部的一个封闭堆肥牛舍农场作为参考方案,并与其他三个系统进行了比较。利用国际通用生态系统服务分类法绘制了生态系统效益图,并利用生命周期评估(LCA)计算了环境影响。生命周期评估结果与生态系统效益相结合,并转换成货币单位,计算出每 1 千克牛奶的 NEP。结果表明,与堆肥牛舍牛奶系统相比,半封闭系统的环境绩效最差(影响增加 90%)。另一方面,密闭系统产生的环境效益很少,但与半密闭系统相比,其对大多数生命周期评估影响类别的环境影响较小(影响最小化达 87%)。最后,我们得出结论,在 SP 和 PR 的封闭系统中,NEP 值(1.07 和 1.48)最佳,既能满足环境影响,又能满足环境效益,实现双赢。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services ECOLOGYENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES&-ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
CiteScore
14.90
自引率
7.90%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly. Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.
期刊最新文献
Ecosystem service supply and (in)equality archetypes Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews Ecosystem services and cost-effective benefits from the reclamation of saline sodic land under different paddy field systems Cultural ecosystem services and disservices in protected areas: Hotspots and influencing factors based on tourists’ digital footprints Valuation of ecosystem services in marine protected areas: A comprehensive review of methods and needed developments
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1