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
  • [21] Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of electric bicycles with different batteries in China
    Liu, Min
    Zhang, Kexin
    Liang, Yiping
    Yang, Yuzhe
    Chen, Zhihui
    Liu, Wei
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2023, 385
  • [22] Life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of sewage sludge treatment in China
    Xu, Changqing
    Chen, Wei
    Hong, Jinglan
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014, 67 : 79 - 87
  • [23] Towards sustainability: An integrated life cycle environmental-economic insight into cow manure management
    Zhang, Tianzuo
    Bai, Yueyang
    Zhou, Xinying
    Li, Ziheng
    Cheng, Ziyue
    Hong, Jinglan
    WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2023, 172 : 256 - 266
  • [24] Environmental impact assessment of China's primary aluminum based on life cycle assessment
    Yang, Yi
    Guo, Yao-qi
    Zhu, Wen-song
    Huang, Jian-bai
    TRANSACTIONS OF NONFERROUS METALS SOCIETY OF CHINA, 2019, 29 (08) : 1784 - 1792
  • [25] Life cycle environmental impact and economic assessment of British Wool face masks
    Angelis-Dimakis, Athanasios
    Whitehouse, Abigail
    Vyrkou, Antonia
    Hebden, Andrew
    Rana, Sohel
    Goswami, Parikshit
    CLEANER ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, 2022, 6
  • [26] Assessing the economic and environmental impact of jasmine rice production: Life cycle assessment and Life Cycle Costs analysis
    Jirapornvaree, Ittisak
    Suppadit, Tawadchai
    Kumar, Vikas
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 303
  • [27] Life cycle assessment of food consumption in different cities: Analysis of socioeconomic level and environmental hotspots
    Riveros, Francisca
    Lopez-Eccher, Camila
    Munoz, Edmundo
    CLEANER ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, 2024, 13
  • [28] An integrated environmental-economic assessment of orange production in China during 2010-2020
    Hu, Jiayu
    Ma, Xiaohan
    Lyu, Yanfeng
    Zhang, Xiaohong
    ECOLOGICAL MODELLING, 2024, 498
  • [29] Life cycle assessment as a tool in environmental impact assessment
    Tukker, A
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2000, 20 (04) : 435 - 456
  • [30] Life cycle environmental impact assessment of borax and boric acid production in China
    An, Jing
    Xue, Xiangxin
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2014, 66 : 121 - 127