[Cost-benefit Analysis of Synergistic Pollutant and Carbon Reduction Through Watershed Interventions].

Q2 Environmental Science
Chen-Yang Wang, Qi-Meng Jia, Hai-Feng Jia, Yin Wang, Jin-Cheng Liu
{"title":"[Cost-benefit Analysis of Synergistic Pollutant and Carbon Reduction Through Watershed Interventions].","authors":"Chen-Yang Wang, Qi-Meng Jia, Hai-Feng Jia, Yin Wang, Jin-Cheng Liu","doi":"10.13227/j.hjkx.202507403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Quantitative analysis of the environmental benefits, carbon emissions, and economic costs of watershed management interventions is crucial for meeting pollution and carbon reduction targets. However, existing watershed studies mainly focus on assessing the environmental benefits and financial costs of pollution control facilities. Few evaluate their carbon emissions, and those that do typically focus on single facility types, missing a comprehensive and systematic analysis of emissions across entire watershed pollution control systems. This study creates a watershed cost-benefit assessment framework for water interventions, demonstrated in the Dianchi watershed. By comparing the characteristics of interventions and their effects on water quality and quantity, along with carbon emission and economic cost data from facility construction and operation, this analysis examines the cost-benefit performance under various scenarios. The results revealed notable synergistic effects between urban low impact development (LID) implementation and other watershed facilities. Urban LID and rural best management practices (BMP) measures showed lower marginal carbon abatement costs per unit pollutant reduction, while the inter-basin ecological water diversion involved higher costs. Conversely, water diversion and combined sewer storage capacity expansion (SCE) exhibited lower marginal economic costs, whereas urban LID implementation incurred higher costs. This framework uncovers synergistic interactions among water environment control measures, providing a methodological foundation for systematic cost-benefit assessment of watershed intervention systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":35937,"journal":{"name":"环境科学","volume":"47 9","pages":"6047-6056"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"环境科学","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13227/j.hjkx.202507403","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of the environmental benefits, carbon emissions, and economic costs of watershed management interventions is crucial for meeting pollution and carbon reduction targets. However, existing watershed studies mainly focus on assessing the environmental benefits and financial costs of pollution control facilities. Few evaluate their carbon emissions, and those that do typically focus on single facility types, missing a comprehensive and systematic analysis of emissions across entire watershed pollution control systems. This study creates a watershed cost-benefit assessment framework for water interventions, demonstrated in the Dianchi watershed. By comparing the characteristics of interventions and their effects on water quality and quantity, along with carbon emission and economic cost data from facility construction and operation, this analysis examines the cost-benefit performance under various scenarios. The results revealed notable synergistic effects between urban low impact development (LID) implementation and other watershed facilities. Urban LID and rural best management practices (BMP) measures showed lower marginal carbon abatement costs per unit pollutant reduction, while the inter-basin ecological water diversion involved higher costs. Conversely, water diversion and combined sewer storage capacity expansion (SCE) exhibited lower marginal economic costs, whereas urban LID implementation incurred higher costs. This framework uncovers synergistic interactions among water environment control measures, providing a methodological foundation for systematic cost-benefit assessment of watershed intervention systems.

[通过流域干预措施协同减少污染物和碳的成本效益分析]。
定量分析流域管理干预措施的环境效益、碳排放和经济成本对于实现污染和碳减排目标至关重要。然而,现有的流域研究主要集中在评估污染控制设施的环境效益和财务成本。很少有人评估他们的碳排放,而那些评估的人通常只关注单一设施类型,而没有对整个流域污染控制系统的排放进行全面和系统的分析。本研究以滇池流域为例,建立了水干预的流域成本效益评估框架。通过比较干预措施的特点及其对水质和水量的影响,以及设施建设和运营的碳排放和经济成本数据,本分析考察了不同情景下的成本效益表现。结果表明,城市低影响开发与其他流域设施之间存在显著的协同效应。城市LID和农村最佳管理实践(BMP)措施表明,单位污染物减排的边际碳减排成本较低,而流域间生态调水的成本较高。相反,引水和联合污水库容扩张(SCE)的边际经济成本较低,而城市LID的实施成本较高。该框架揭示了水环境控制措施之间的协同作用,为流域干预系统的系统成本效益评估提供了方法学基础。
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
环境科学
环境科学 Environmental Science-Environmental Science (all)
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15329
期刊介绍:
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书