Carbon emission analysis of ecological slope protection based on lifecycle theory and sobol method

IF 3.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Xu Jiangbo , Wu Xiong , Qiao Wei , Wang Shaowei , Chen Xinyu , Zhao Danni , Zeng Xianglong , Shu Sheng
{"title":"Carbon emission analysis of ecological slope protection based on lifecycle theory and sobol method","authors":"Xu Jiangbo ,&nbsp;Wu Xiong ,&nbsp;Qiao Wei ,&nbsp;Wang Shaowei ,&nbsp;Chen Xinyu ,&nbsp;Zhao Danni ,&nbsp;Zeng Xianglong ,&nbsp;Shu Sheng","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2025.107584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>To analyze the main contributors to carbon emissions throughout the lifecycle of ecological slope protection, this study employed a novel lifecycle carbon emission assessment model alongside the Sobol method. The emissions across various project stages were calculated, and the sensitivity of different emission sources was analyzed, resulting in targeted reduction strategies. The findings indicate that the total carbon emissions for ecological slope protection over its lifecycle reached 4338.20 tons, with 4470.12 tons emitted during the construction phase and 131.92 tons absorbed during maintenance. The retaining wall and anchor beam slope protection projects accounted for approximately 75 % of construction emissions, while vegetation contributed to the absorption of around 3 % of the project's carbon emissions. Sensitivity analysis revealed that rebar and C30 concrete were the most significant carbon emission sources. The results demonstrate that ecological slope protection offers a substantial carbon reduction effect compared to other slope protection methods. The construction phase is critical for controlling emissions, with a focus on reducing carbon emissions during material production. Strategies should include improvements in raw materials, production processes, and product quality. Additionally, selecting native plants and implementing a reasonable maintenance plan can further enhance carbon reduction effectiveness. This study provides theoretical support and technical references for the design and construction of ecological slope protection projects.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"215 ","pages":"Article 107584"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857425000722","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To analyze the main contributors to carbon emissions throughout the lifecycle of ecological slope protection, this study employed a novel lifecycle carbon emission assessment model alongside the Sobol method. The emissions across various project stages were calculated, and the sensitivity of different emission sources was analyzed, resulting in targeted reduction strategies. The findings indicate that the total carbon emissions for ecological slope protection over its lifecycle reached 4338.20 tons, with 4470.12 tons emitted during the construction phase and 131.92 tons absorbed during maintenance. The retaining wall and anchor beam slope protection projects accounted for approximately 75 % of construction emissions, while vegetation contributed to the absorption of around 3 % of the project's carbon emissions. Sensitivity analysis revealed that rebar and C30 concrete were the most significant carbon emission sources. The results demonstrate that ecological slope protection offers a substantial carbon reduction effect compared to other slope protection methods. The construction phase is critical for controlling emissions, with a focus on reducing carbon emissions during material production. Strategies should include improvements in raw materials, production processes, and product quality. Additionally, selecting native plants and implementing a reasonable maintenance plan can further enhance carbon reduction effectiveness. This study provides theoretical support and technical references for the design and construction of ecological slope protection projects.

Abstract Image

基于生命周期理论和sobol方法的生态护坡碳排放分析
为了分析生态护坡全生命周期碳排放的主要贡献者,本研究结合Sobol方法建立了一种新的全生命周期碳排放评估模型。计算了各个项目阶段的排放量,分析了不同排放源的敏感性,从而制定了有针对性的减排策略。结果表明:生态护坡全生命周期碳排放总量为4338.20 t,其中建设阶段碳排放总量为4470.12 t,维护阶段碳吸收总量为131.92 t。挡土墙和锚杆护坡项目约占建筑排放的75%,而植被吸收了约3%的项目碳排放。敏感性分析表明,钢筋和C30混凝土是最显著的碳排放源。结果表明,与其他护坡方法相比,生态护坡具有显著的减碳效果。施工阶段是控制排放的关键,重点是减少材料生产过程中的碳排放。策略应包括对原材料、生产过程和产品质量的改进。此外,选择原生植物,实施合理的养护计划,可以进一步提高碳减排效果。本研究为生态护坡工程的设计和施工提供了理论支持和技术参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Engineering
Ecological Engineering 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
293
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers. Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信