This study compares the ecological footprints with the biodiversity footprints of products that result from land use and carbon dioxide emissions. The biodiversity footprints were quantified using mean species abundance statistics, whereas the ecological footprint refers to the impacts on bioproductivity. We used a data set of 1340 product systems subdivided into 13 product groups, which included various types of energy generation and material production. We found that the importance of direct land use vs. carbon dioxide emissions is different for biodiversity footprints compared to ecological footprints. This difference is particularly relevant if the environmental impact of bio-based products (dominated by direct land use) is compared with the environmental impact of fossil-based products (dominated by CO₂ emissions). Our results also show that the relative importance of different drivers can change over time within the biodiversity footprint and that the relative importance of climate change significantly increased for longer time horizons. As the interpretation of the biodiversity footprint can differ from the ecological footprint, the inclusion of impacts on biodiversity should be considered in the footprint calculation of products.

The ongoing worldwide biodiversity crisis comes along with a growing demand for feasible environmental indicators to measure, evaluate and communicate anthropogenic influence on biodiversity. Those indicators can be useful tools for national and regional management and support decision making processes. We propose degree of naturalness (Nd), distance to natural habitat (Dₙ) and the composite index distance to nature (D₂N) as a highly comprehensible environmental indicator set that can be used as surrogate for land use related anthropogenic influence on biodiversity. A high resolution naturalness map for Austria based on the best nationwide available land use data was produced and used to test and demonstrate the applicability of the indicator set. Spatially inclusive and comprehensive indicator maps were calculated for the entire country (83,872km²). Exemplary indicator values for all 2359 municipalities and six altitudinal zones were calculated and evaluated. Indicator maps of Austria clearly delimitate regions with elevated anthropogenic pressure on biodiversity due to land use characteristics. A sensitivity analysis conducted to evaluate the effect of land use data with different spatial and thematic resolution on the indicators showed that Dₙ reacts sensitive to spatially more detailed information about natural and near natural habitats. By contrast Nd and D₂N were robust regarding the spatial and thematic resolution of input data. The proposed indicators do not measure biodiversity or a part of it directly, but the degree of habitat changes caused by anthropogenic land use, therefore they can be used for analysis over wide geographic ranges including different bio-geographic or climatic zones, and different spatial scales.

An area of convergence appears to be emerging between the approaches of conservation planning and the concepts of multifunctional landscapes, which if exploited correctly may assist in overcoming the resource and other constraints faced by biodiversity conservation, while at the same time furthering the aims of multifunctional landscapes to improve production abilities and overall sustainability. Using a multi-zone conservation planning approach, we explore the conservation costs, benefits to biodiversity conservation and possible ecosystem service payments associated with various land-use configurations, in the Little Karoo of South Africa, in order to develop and showcase a multifunctional landscape planning approach and its data requirements, as well as the possible cost savings to conservation agencies. The study uses four conservation planning scenarios, five land-use types, their conservation costs and biodiversity benefits, as well as possible payments from carbon sequestration and tourism. We find that the costs and biodiversity benefits associated with different land-uses varies substantially between land-uses, and also spatially within a land-use type. By incorporating this variation into a multi-zone conservation planning approach land-uses can be allocated in a way that achieves biodiversity targets while at the same time reducing costs by up to 50 % when compared with traditional binary approaches to conservation. Despite some challenges presented by cost and ecosystem service value data and the determination of land-use impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, the ability of conservation planning approaches to reflect differential contributions of particular land-uses to biodiversity targets and ecosystem services holds much potential for conservation planning, for multifunctional landscape objectives and for growing the resources and partnerships available to the establishment of sustainable and resilient landscapes.

Presence of plant species in the agricultural landscape depends not only on environmental factors but also on the spatial and temporal patterns of land use. Knowledge of land use in the past can be explained by the current state of biodiversity and suggest measures for its use in the future in order to preserve the current state. This study was aimed to show how changes in land use affect the current state of biodiversity in the municipalities of Banja Luka and Derventa. For the assessment of biodiversity at farm level were used Shannon diversity index. Higher values of Shannon diversity index (richness and evenness of plant species) in the municipality of Derventa indicate a more favorable distribution of plant species in the plots analyzed as a result of more extensive land use. Richer floristic composition of the analyzed plots on farms in the municipality of Banja Luka indicate their intensive use (mowing and grazing) that is evidenced by an increased presence of annual weeds. Contrary to them at the analyzed plots in the municipality Derventa is noted the presence of the following species Ornitogalum umbellatum L., Rubus ideus and Rumex crispus L. which favors extensive tillage.

The concept of ecosystem services introduced a new view on the relationship between biodiversity and human well being. But are both concepts, biodiversity and ecosystem services, mutually beneficial? We will try to unravel part of this much debated question in three steps. Firstly, a general hypothesis describing the present link between biodiversity, ecosystem services and land use intensity is tested for the region of Flanders (13.682km²). The spatial exercise illustrates that even in a densely populated area as Flanders (539inhabitants/km²), scores for biodiversity and ecosystem services show a clear decline with an increase in land use intensity. Despite the overall congruence of the rough indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services used in this exercise, the need for new indicators integrating key structural and functional aspects of the ecosystem is highlighted. In a second step a target scheme is proposed describing the relation between biodiversity and land use intensity, for the long-term future. In this conceptual framework the need for the conservation and restoration of biodiversity hot spots is emphasized. At the same time the importance of the search for an environmental ‘bottom line’ is stressed. What is the minimum amount of biodiversity needed to reach sustainable use? And what is the critical point for human impact beyond which society will largely depend on the import of ecosystem services to sustain or increase its well-being? In a third step, ecosystem management is used as a concept to bridge the gap between the present and the target scheme. Ecosystem management is divided into three focal zones. (1) For the remaining zones with a high biodiversity and a low intensity of land use, a biodiversity conservation based approach is needed. (2) For most rural areas with multifunctional uses and a good state as a future perspective, a focus on ecosystem services is a good point of departure. (3) In the built-up areas and intensively used agricultural sites, beyond the minimum standards for land use intensity, a technological service based approach will be necessary. A division of ecosystem management into these three zones confirms the complementarity of biodiversity and ecosystem services for policy and management strategies. The concept of this triple division can help to facilitate the discussion of a joint achievement of the goals for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the field.

Land use change is a major driver of biodiversity patterns, therefore conservation management in cultivated landscapes should seek to optimize land use diversity. Especially under changing environmental conditions there is an increasing need of identifying management options for preserving biodiversity. However, the design of historical data sets is often inappropriate for detecting biodiversity responses to ongoing rapid changes. Here, we present an approach to quantify plant species diversity and relate it to land use diversity. Data mining took place at the landscape scale in two mountainous regions of Central Europe, differing in natural and cultural history. Within these landscapes a representative systematic rectangular grid (7×7 plots of 1ha) was sampled. At each plot polygons of uniform land use were mapped and presence–absence data of plant species were recorded. Plant species diversity differed significantly between landscapes: species richness and within landscape beta diversity in the calcareous mosaic landscape was higher than in the siliceous mosaic landscape. Land use diversity explained the significant variation in species richness. The relationship between plant species diversity and land use diversity is consistent in different cultivated landscapes and on multiple scales. The chosen sampling approach integrates the advantage of random but grid-based sampling with land use polygon specific information. This enables not only to investigate also similarity pattern (in land use and species composition) but also an integration of further information on the patch scale, if needed.

PURPOSE: Inclusion of land use-related environmental aspects into LCA methodology has been under active development in recent years. Although many indicators have been developed and proposed for different aspects of land use (climate change, biodiversity, resource depletion and soil quality), many of indicators have, as yet, not been tested and compared in LCA applications. The aim of this study is to test the different LCIA indicators in practice in a case study of beer production. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine different indicators were selected to represent three different impact endpoints of land use: resource depletion, soil quality and biodiversity. The beer production system included all life cycle stages from barley cultivation and the production of energy and raw materials to the serving of beer at restaurant. Several optional system expansions were studied to estimate the possible impacts of substituting feed protein (soybean, rapeseed and silage) with mash coproduct from brewing. A comparison with wine production was also made for illustrative purposes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The majority of the land use impacts occurred in the cultivation phase, but significant impacts were also found far down the supply chain. The system expansions influenced the overall results markedly, especially for land transformation, soil organic carbon (SOC) and several of the biodiversity indicators. Most of the land use indicators led to results that were consistent with each other. In the inventory and impact assessment phase, challenges were faced in obtaining reliable data. Additionally, the lack of reliable, regional characterization factors limits the usability of the land use indicators and the reliability of the LCIA results, especially of the SOC indicator. None of the studied indicators fulfills all the criteria for an effective ecological indicator, but most have many positive features. CONCLUSIONS: All tested land use indicators were applicable in LCIA. Some indicators were found to be highly sensitive to assumptions on land transformation, which sets high requirements for LCI data quality. Scarcity of land use LCI data sources limits validation and cross-comparison. Interpretation of indicator results is complicated due to the limited understanding of the environmental impact pathways of land use. RECOMMENDATIONS: None of the tested indicators describes the full range of environmental impacts caused by land use. We recommend presenting land occupation and transformation LCI results, the ecological footprint and at least one of the biodiversity indicators. Regarding soil quality, the lack of reliable regional data currently limits application of the proposed methods. The criteria of effective ecological indicators should be reflected in further work in indicator development. Development of regionalized characterization factors is of key importance to include land use in LCA.