System Boundaries 

Before conducting impact assessments, it is important to define the system boundaries. This is the thematic and spatio-temporal frame within in which the assessment is conducted and requires a definition of: 


  •  the purpose of the assessment
  •  the spatial and temporal frame
  • the selected impact areas 


Impacts that occur outside of this frame are not considered. Generally speaking, assessments should be designed to be relevant for the intended target group, e.g., by focussing on the impacts of different options available to a group of decision makers. More information can be found at „Purpose & Decision –Making Level”.


The Purpose of the assessment also influences the setting of the spatial and temporal frame. Assessments should seek to set this frame wide enough to include all relevant impacts but narrow enough to avoid bloating the data requirements and obscuring important results. More information can be found at „Spation-temporal scales“.


Finally, the impact areas for which effects are to be assessed, need to be chosen. This platform provides information on more than on hundred impact areas from the perspectives of Ecosystem Services, Resource Use Efficiency and Sustainable Development Goals. However, in any given assessment only a small selection of these impact areas can and should be used. More information on how to select impact areas can be found at at „Impact Area selection“.


Brock P M, Muir S, Herridge D F, Simmons A (2016) Cradle-to-farmgate greenhouse gas emissions for 2-year wheat monoculture and break crop–wheat sequences in south-eastern Australia. Crop and Pasture Science, 67(8), 812-822. doi:10.1071/CP15260


Fremier A K, DeClerck F A J, Bosque-Pérez N A, Carmona N E, Hill R, Joyal T, Keesecker L, Klos P Z, Martínez-Salinas A, Niemeyer R, Sanfiorenzo A, Welsh K, Wulfhorst J D (2013) Understanding spatiotemporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentives. BioScience, 63, 472-482. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.6.9


Godinot O, Leterme P, Vertès F, Carof M (2016) Indicators to evaluate agricultural nitrogen efficiency of the27 member states of the European Union. Ecological Indicators, 66, 612–622. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.007


Hijazi O, Munro S, Zerhusen B, EffenbergerM (2016) Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 1291-1300. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.013


Lambin E F, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. PNAS, 108 (9), 3465–3472. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108


Preissel S, Reckling M, Schläfke N, Zander P (2015) Magnitude and farm-economic value of grain legume pre-crop benefits in Europe: A review. Field Crops Research 175, 64–79. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2015.01.012

Roer AG, Johansen A, Bakken A K, Daugstad K, Fystro G, Strømman A H (2013) Environmental impacts of combined milk and meat production inNorway according to a lifecycle assessment with expanded system boundaries. Livestock Science, 155, 384–396. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.05.004


Zhang Y, Wang R, Wang S, Wang H, Xu Z, Jia G, Wang X, Li J (2017) Effects of different sub-soiling frequencies incorporated into no-tillage systems on soil properties and crop yield in dryland wheat-maize rotation. Field Crops Research, 209, 151-158. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2017.05.002