Navigating uncertainty in life cycle assessment‐based approaches to biodiversity footprinting

Abstract The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) methods is rapidly expanding as a means of estimating the biodiversity impacts of organisations across complex value chains. However, these methods have limitations and substantial uncertainties, which are rarely communicated in the results of LCAs. Drawing upon the ecological and LCA literature on uncertainty and two worked examples of biodiversity footprinting, we outline where different types of uncertainty occur across multiple stages in LCA, from input data to the choice of biodiversity metric. Some uncertainties are epistemic, incorporating structural (e.g. the types of pressures included in models), parametric (e.g. uncertainty around characterisation factors and information gaps) and measurement uncertainty, as well as natural variability, and stochasticity. Other uncertainties are linguistic (e.g. ambiguity around definitions of biodiversity) and decision‐based (e.g. choices made when matching company data to inventory categories). Based on this review, we provide suggestions for (i) understanding, reducing and navigating uncertainties in biodiversity footprinting and (ii) ensuring the robust and appropriate use of LCA techniques as part of broader organisational biodiversity strategies. Understanding the risks posed by these uncertainties, weighing them against the costs of inappropriate action or inaction and ensuring decisions are robust to these uncertainties is vital for designing effective biodiversity strategies. By appreciating and navigating uncertainties, opportunities exist to utilise LCAs for high‐level risk screening to prioritise action and highlight areas where focused effort and more granular data are needed to track progress towards abating impacts year‐on‐year and identify low‐risk actions. However, we recommend biodiversity strategies should not be based solely on absolute LCA impact results. Instead, LCAs should be used alongside other approaches to guide location‐specific and robust action to deliver a nature‐positive future.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Published
2025-03-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.70001
Citations
10
Primary Topic
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.99

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Navigating uncertainty in life cycle assessment‐based approaches to biodiversity footprinting

Hollie Booth, Laura Jane Sonter, Sophus zu Ermgassen, Sami El Geneidy et al.
10 citations
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
7.99
article

Navigating uncertainty in life cycle assessment‐based approaches to biodiversity footprinting

Hollie Booth, Laura Jane Sonter, Sophus zu Ermgassen, Sami El Geneidy, Leon Bennun, Thomas White, Graham W. Prescott, Isobel Hawkins, Elizabeth Biggs, Joseph W. Bull, Michael Clark, E.J. Milner‐Gulland, Harriet Bartlett, Talitha Bromwich, Alice Bouchez, Malcolm Starkey
article en
10 citations

Abstract

Abstract The use of life cycle assessment (LCA) methods is rapidly expanding as a means of estimating the biodiversity impacts of organisations across complex value chains. However, these methods have limitations and substantial uncertainties, which are rarely communicated in the results of LCAs. Drawing upon the ecological and LCA literature on uncertainty and two worked examples of biodiversity footprinting, we outline where different types of uncertainty occur across multiple stages in LCA, from input data to the choice of biodiversity metric. Some uncertainties are epistemic, incorporating structural (e.g. the types of pressures included in models), parametric (e.g. uncertainty around characterisation factors and information gaps) and measurement uncertainty, as well as natural variability, and stochasticity. Other uncertainties are linguistic (e.g. ambiguity around definitions of biodiversity) and decision‐based (e.g. choices made when matching company data to inventory categories). Based on this review, we provide suggestions for (i) understanding, reducing and navigating uncertainties in biodiversity footprinting and (ii) ensuring the robust and appropriate use of LCA techniques as part of broader organisational biodiversity strategies. Understanding the risks posed by these uncertainties, weighing them against the costs of inappropriate action or inaction and ensuring decisions are robust to these uncertainties is vital for designing effective biodiversity strategies. By appreciating and navigating uncertainties, opportunities exist to utilise LCAs for high‐level risk screening to prioritise action and highlight areas where focused effort and more granular data are needed to track progress towards abating impacts year‐on‐year and identify low‐risk actions. However, we recommend biodiversity strategies should not be based solely on absolute LCA impact results. Instead, LCAs should be used alongside other approaches to guide location‐specific and robust action to deliver a nature‐positive future.

Methods in Ecology and Evolution
The University of Queensland (AU), University of Cambridge (GB), Leverhulme Trust (GB), University of Oxford (GB), University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, Academy of Finland, Strategic Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Environmental Impact and Sustainability
7.99
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.