4.7 Article

Floods and consequential life cycle assessment: Integrating flood damage into the environmental assessment of stormwater Best Management Practices

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 601-608

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.047

关键词

Flood; BMP; CLCA; Urban infrastructure; Water; City

资金

  1. Spanish (MECD) [HBP-2012-0216]
  2. Brazilian Governments (CAPES) [5206]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Education [FPU13/01273]
  4. Catalan Government [2014 SGR 1412]
  5. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, through the Maria de Maeztu program for Units of Excellence in RD [MDM-2015-0552]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stormwater management is essential to reducing the occurrence of flooding events in urban areas and to adapting to climate change. The construction of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) entails a series of life cycle environmental impacts but also implies avoided burdens, such as replacing urban infrastructure after flooding. The aim of this paper is to integrate flood damage prevention into the life cycle assessment (LCA) of BMPs for quantifying their net environmental impact (NEI) and environmental payback (EP) from a consequential LCA standpoint. As a case study, the application of a filter, swale and infiltration trench (FST) in a Brazilian neighborhood was assessed considering a high-intensity rainfall event. The potential avoided impacts were related to cars and sidewalks that were not destroyed due to flooding. In terms of CO(2)eq. emissions, the environmental investment related to the FST was recovered when the destruction of one car or 84 m(2) of sidewalk was prevented. The NEI of the FSTs resulted in significant impact reductions (up to 700%) with respect to not accounting for the avoided products. This approach can be implemented to any type of BMP, and more accurate estimations can be made with data for different events and different types of material damage. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据