Biodiversity impact assessment of Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology, Finland

Abstract

Biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate due to human activities, making it essential for organisations to measure their biodiversity impacts from both operational activities and supply chains. This is especially important for higher educational institutions, whose contribution to biodiversity loss is often overlooked. The biodiversity footprint of LUT University was assessed using a combination of LCA based on Ecoinvent data, Environmentally Extended Input–Output analysis using EXIOBASE, and food-related coefficients from Järviö et al. (2024), enabling the evaluation of biodiversity loss drivers in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems across climate change, land use, and water use.

The LUT University’s 2024 biodiversity footprint was estimated at 13.5 nPDF.year in the terrestrial ecosystems and 3.7 nPDF.year in the freshwater ecosystems. Although climate change was the substantial driver, when land use change was included, land-related impacts increased the footprint by 4 nPDF.year. The main hotspots were food consumption, commuting, marketing & advertising, business air travel, printed & electronic materials, and district heating. Food-related impacts particularly from coffee, meat, and dairy, were the largest, with coffee showing disproportionately high effects relative to its low consumption volume. As coffee is fully imported, Brazil emerged as the most affected region outside Finland, indicating a geographical mismatch between consumption and biodiversity damage. Using the three-scope biodiversity footprint protocol adapted from the GHG Protocol, the study found that the university’s impacts were dominated by Scope 3 supply-chain activities. Based on the results, the university can target its action towards periodical biodiversity accounting and analyse the co-benefits and risks imposed from climate mitigation actions on the biodiversity footprint. To effectively reduce the university’s biodiversity footprint, actions should follow a hierarchy: first, avoid hotspots identified, then reduce impacts through alternatives and behavioural changes, and finally restore affected ecosystems through biodiversity compensation.