# Life Cycle Assessment of Land Use Trade-Offs in Indoor Vertical Farming +
## 3 Results and Discussion
### LANCA Results  
Table 2 shows the results of the LANCA model application to GM and PV scenarios. Potential impacts are shown across the six indicators within two impact categories grouped by land occupation (upper section 'Occupation') and land transformation (lower section 'Reversible transformation'); for each pair, the highest impact between the two scenarios is highlighted in bold. As can be seen, the GM scenario exhibited higher Occupation impacts in four out of the six LANCA indicators and three out of the six for Reversible transformation. Consequently, the PV scenario showed greater impacts in two Occupation impact indicators and three for Reversible transformation. These insights align with the EF results, where the PV scenario showed a reduction in LU impacts compared to GM (Table 1). The GM scenario exhibits the highest environmental impacts in Biodiversity Loss Potential (BLP), Infiltration Reduction Potential (IRP) and Physicochemical Filtration Reduction Potential (PFRP). Significant contributions across these indicators come from the processes of power, heat and co-generation and open-ground photovoltaic systems for energy consumption, seed production and transportation, and carton box production for packaging. Power, heat and co-generation stands out as a dominant source of impact, contributing significantly to land occupation, accounting for 49% of BLP, 25% of IRP, and 20% of PFRP impacts. Open-ground photovoltaic installations also emerge as critical contributors, particularly to land transformation, where they represent around 60% of impacts in both IRP and PFRP, and around 20-25% for land occupation in the same indicators. Carton box production contributes consistently across indicators, especially for land occupation (18% for IRP, 14% for PFRP, and 35% for BLP), with further contributions to land transformation (23%). Seed production and transportation, while specific to BLP, is the primary driver of land transformation in that category, accounting for 59% of the impact. While the PV scenario substantially reduces land use impacts through the rooftop installation of photovoltaic systems and emission-free electricity during operation, it is important to acknowledge the upstream impacts as revealed by the LANCA results. In \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**LANCA v2023.1** & **Indicators** & **Unit** & **GM** & **PV** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Occupation**} & Biodiversity Loss Potential & PBR & \(\mathbf{5.90\times 10^{1}}\) & \(3.54\times 10^{1}\) \\  & Erosion Potential & kg & \(2.21\times 10^{-1}\) & \(\mathbf{5.01\times 10^{-1}}\) \\  & Groundwater Regeneration Reduction Potential & m\({}^{3}\) & \(-7.03\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\mathbf{-3.24\times 10^{-3}}\) \\  & Infiltration Reduction Potential & m\({}^{3}\) & \(\mathbf{1.10\times 10^{1}}\) & \(6.70\times 10^{0}\) \\  & Physicochemical Filtration Reduction Potential & mol-a & \(\mathbf{2.48\times 10^{1}}\) & \(1.51\times 10^{1}\) \\  & Soil Organic Carbon Reduction Potential & kg & \(\mathbf{1.55\times 10^{-1}}\) & \(-1.02\times 10^{-1}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Reversible transformation**} & Biodiversity Loss Potential & PBR & \(\mathbf{6.51\times 10^{0}}\) & \(5.88\times 10^{0}\) \\  & Erosion Potential & kg & \(1.22\times 10^{0}\) & \(\mathbf{1.52\times 10^{0}}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Groundwater Regeneration Reduction Potential & m\({}^{3}\) & \(-4.11\times 10^{-3}\) & \(\mathbf{-1.86\times 10^{-3}}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Infiltration Reduction Potential & m\({}^{3}\) & \(5.20\times 10^{0}\) & \(2.47\times 10^{0}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Physicochemical Filtration Reduction Potential & mol-a & \(\mathbf{1.42\times 10^{1}}\) & \(6.79\times 10^{0}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Soil Organic Carbon Reduction Potential & kg & \(1.97\times 10^{-1}\) & \(\mathbf{3.27\times 10^{-1}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: LANCA impact assessment results.