A macro-level life cycle environmental-economic impact and benefit assessment of sponge cities in China

被引:2
|
作者
Xu, Changqing [1 ,2 ]
Lin, Wei [1 ]
Zhu, Yifei [3 ]
Zhang, Bin [4 ]
Wang, Zhaohua [1 ,2 ]
Jia, Haifeng [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Beijing Inst Technol, Sch Econ, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China
[2] Minist Ind & Informat Technol, Digital Econ & Policy Intelligentizat Key Lab, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China
[3] Tsinghua Univ, Inst Environm & Ecol, Tsinghua Shenzhen Int Grad Sch, Shenzhen 518055, Peoples R China
[4] Beijing Inst Technol, Sch Management, Beijing 100081, Peoples R China
[5] Tsinghua Univ, Sch Environm, Beijing 100084, Peoples R China
[6] Suzhou Univ Sci & Technol, Jiangsu Collaborat Innovat Ctr Technol & Mat Water, Suzhou 215009, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Sponge City; Urban runoff source control facilities; Rainfall volume control rate; Life cycle assessment; Life cycle cost; GREEN ROOFS;
D O I
10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107859
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Urban runoff source control facilities (URSCFs) are integral components of Sponge City (SC), playing a pivotal role in providing ecosystem services and managing water quality and quantity. To accurately assess the performance of URSCFs, it is crucial to quantify their environmental and economic impacts. However, previous studies have predominantly focused on location-specific case studies, lacking a macro-level perspective necessary for informing public policy development pertaining to SC initiatives. This study aims to bridge this gap by conducting a macro-level life cycle assessment across China's 16 initial pilot SCs, categorized into three zones based on their annual rainfall volume control rate alpha (i.e., Zone II (80 % to 85% for alpha), Zone III (75% to 85% for alpha), and Zone IV (70 % to 85 % for alpha)). By simulating five rainfall drainage scenarios, we delve into the environmental benefits of SC construction. The results indicate that Zone III incurs the highest environmental and economic costs during the construction phase, followed by Zones II and IV. In Zone III, bioretention contribute significantly to the environmental impact and economic cost, while constructed wetland and detention cells are the key contributors for Zone II. During the operation phase, Zone III demonstrates the largest environmental and economic benefits, with Zone IV and II trailing behind. The investment payback period for SCs in all zones is less than eight years, with Zone IV recovering costs the fastest (3.9 years) and Zone II the slowest (7.5 years). Facilities like detention cells, green roofs, and permeable pavements tend to have longer payback periods. Based on our findings, we recommend that Zone II exercise caution in constructing detention cells, permeable pavements, and wetlands, while Zone III should carefully consider green roofs and bioretention to optimize SC investments. Due to the fewer URSCFs constructed in Zone IV, it exhibits the lowest environmental impact compared to Zones II and III. Our research provides valuable insights to support policymaking with regards to future SC planning and development.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Urban macro-level impact factors on Direct CO2 Emissions of urban residents in China
    Jie, Zhang
    Yang, Xie
    Bo, Luan
    Xiao, Chen
    ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2015, 107 : 131 - 143
  • [42] Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of alumina recovery from secondary aluminum dross in China
    Zhu, Xueyuan
    Jin, Qiang
    Ye, Zhen
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2020, 277
  • [43] Environmental benefit of utilizing bamboo material based on life cycle assessment
    Chang, Fang-Chih
    Chen, Kun-Sheng
    Yang, Ping-Yuan
    Ko, Chun-Han
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 204 : 60 - 69
  • [44] Environmental Benefit of Alternative Binders in Construction Industry: Life Cycle Assessment
    Bumanis, Girts
    Korjakins, Aleksandrs
    Bajare, Diana
    ENVIRONMENTS, 2022, 9 (01)
  • [45] Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a solar heater
    Koroneos, C.
    Drosos, G.
    Roumbas, G.
    Moussiopoulos, N.
    Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Vol A, Oral Presentations, 2003, : 508 - 514
  • [46] Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental Impact of Steelmaking Process
    Liu, Huimin
    Li, Qiqiang
    Li, Guanguan
    Ding, Ran
    COMPLEXITY, 2020, 2020
  • [47] Analysing the impact of retrofitting and new construction through probabilistic life cycle assessment. A method applied to the environmental-economic payoff value of an intervention case in the Albanian building sector
    Jorgji, O.
    Di Bari, R.
    Lenz, K.
    Gantner, J.
    Horn, R.
    SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT D-A-CH CONFERENCE 2019 (SBE19 GRAZ), 2019, 323
  • [48] Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Advanced Vehicles
    Gao, Lin
    Winfield, Zach C.
    ENERGIES, 2012, 5 (03) : 605 - 620
  • [49] Environmental economic impact assessment in China: Problems and prospects
    Lindhjem, Henrik
    Hu, Tao
    Ma, Zhong
    Skjelvik, John Magne
    Song, Guojun
    Vennemo, Haakon
    Wu, Jian
    Zhang, Shiqiu
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2007, 27 (01) : 1 - 25
  • [50] Macro-level economic and environmental sustainability of negative emission technologies; Case study of crushed silicate production for enhanced weathering
    Oppon, Eunice
    Richter, Justin S.
    Koh, S. C. Lenny
    Nabayiga, Hellen
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2023, 204