Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Digital Economy Development on Industrial Restructuring: Evidence from China
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Insecure Land Tenure on Sustainable Housing Development: A Case Study of Urban Housing Lands in the Republic of Benin, West Africa
Previous Article in Journal
A Random Parameters Multinomial Logit Model Analysis of Median Barrier Crash Injury Severity on Wyoming Interstates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/su151410857
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Comprehensive Performance of Green Infrastructure through a Life-Cycle Perspective: A Review

by
Mo Wang
1,2,3,
Xu Zhong
1,
Chuanhao Sun
1,
Tong Chen
1,
Jin Su
4,* and
Jianjun Li
1,2,*
1
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
2
Architectural Design & Research Institute, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510499, China
3
Guangdong Provincial Ecological Restoration Engineering Technology Research Center, Guangzhou 510006, China
4
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat 86400, Johor, Malaysia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 10857; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410857
Submission received: 17 May 2023 / Revised: 25 June 2023 / Accepted: 4 July 2023 / Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Balanced Communities and Their Living Space as Guarantors of Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Climate change represents a paramount challenge for humanity in the 21st century. Green infrastructure (GI), due to its myriad environmental and societal benefits, has emerged as an essential natural life support system and a pivotal strategy to combat climate change-induced risks. Consequently, GI has garnered considerable global interest. As of now, comprehensive and systematic environmental impact assessments of GI are underway worldwide. Nonetheless, there remains a conspicuous scarcity of life-cycle approaches to delineate the evolutionary trajectory of this domain. Employing three bibliometric software tools—the R language “Bibliometrix” package (version 4.0.1), CiteSpace (version 6.2.R2 Basic), and “VOSviewer” (version 1.6.18)—this study scrutinizes the progression of the GI paradigm until 2022. An exhaustive review of 1124 documents published on the Web of Science between 1995 and 2022 facilitates an overarching evaluation of GI, encompassing environmental, economic, and social facets from a life-cycle standpoint. The analysis results reveal that (1) the majority of current studies accentuate the economic and environmental efficacy of GI throughout its life cycle, with the social performance receiving comparatively less focus, potentially due to the difficulties in formulating a social life-cycle-assessment database; (2) contemporary research predominantly concentrates on the life-cycle carbon footprint of GI, warranting further exploration into its water and carbon footprints; and (3) multi-objective optimization emerges as a promising avenue for future GI investigations. This review thus furnishes a comprehensive understanding of the performance of GI from a life-cycle perspective.

1. Introduction

Urbanization has spurred substantial economic growth, but concurrently imposed considerable strain on urban infrastructure. The challenges faced by urban areas are exacerbated by climate change [1,2], with extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts [3], heatwaves [4], and other risks to human health and environmental justice becoming increasingly prevalent [5,6,7,8]. Green infrastructure (GI) has emerged as a potent strategy to mitigate climate change’s impacts. GI constitutes a network of green spaces encompassing public and private areas, managed as an integrated system to deliver multifarious benefits [6,9,10]. This hybrid infrastructure amalgamates green spaces and conventional systems, including forests, wetlands, parks, green roofs, and walls, to bolster ecosystem resilience and furnish ecosystem services, benefiting both the environment and humans [5,11,12].
GI, envisioned and managed as an interlinked tapestry of natural and semi-natural spaces, serves as a delivery conduit for an extensive array of ecosystem services. This repertoire encompasses a gamut of offerings, from water purification and air quality enhancement to carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and the provision of recreational enclaves [7,13]. One of the many facets of GI is its ability to incorporate a variety of practices, ranging from the commonly recognized low-impact development (LID) practices, such as green roofs (GRs) and bioretention (BR) systems [9,14], to rainwater harvesting systems [15] and those less extensively studied within the life-cycle context, such as riparian buffer systems [16,17]. Rainwater harvesting systems, as part of the GI network, contribute significantly to water conservation, reducing the strain on traditional water sources and aiding in stormwater management [18]. Similarly, riparian buffer systems, natural or recreated, aid in maintaining the health and diversity of the water ecosystem, offering filtration for surface run-off and creating habitats for local biodiversity [19,20].
GI holds several benefits over traditional grey infrastructure [10,11,12,21]. For instance, green roofs (GRs) constructed for flood mitigation can concurrently reduce a building’s energy consumption and constructed wetlands (CWs) can foster local biodiversity by incorporating planting, while diminishing flood risk and enhancing water quality [11,13]. Bioretention (BR) systems are a crucial component of contemporary stormwater management [14] and can mitigate urban flooding risk by augmenting infiltration and evapotranspiration through surface runoff storage [21]. However, implementing GI can generate environmental and social burdens, inclusive of raw materials’ production and transport, installation, operation, maintenance, labor, and eventual decommissioning [22,23,24].
Life-cycle thinking (LCT) is an approach to address the challenges associated with GI implementation [25,26,27]. Three LCT methodologies are predominantly employed, life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC), and social life cycle assessment (S-LCA), to assess the sustainability of products, processes, or practices in the current landscape [25,28,29]. LCA is a systematic instrument employed to analyze the environmental impact of products or processes throughout their entire life cycle, spanning from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal and recycling. S-LCA evaluates the social performance of products over their life cycles, while LCC calculates the aggregate cost linked to the entire life cycle of a product, process, or practice. LCT methods are relevant to GI research, as they offer a comprehensive means of evaluating the environmental, economic, and social impacts of GI initiatives throughout their entire life cycle. By examining these aspects, stakeholders can make informed decisions regarding the implementation and maintenance of GI projects, ensuring their long-term sustainability.
Existing studies on the life cycle of GI have not fully examined its comprehensive impact. Antunes et al. [23] conducted a literature review on life cycle studies into permeable pavements, emphasizing the environmental and economic benefits of their life cycle. Vijayaraghavan et al. [24] limited their exploration of LCA to BR for stormwater management, neglecting the broader spectrum of GI elements. Manso et al. [27] focused on the LCC of GRs and green walls. Conversely, Xu et al. [9] investigated the environmental and economic evaluation of LID practices, neglecting the social perspective. This suggests that, while various individual aspects of GI life cycles have been examined, a comprehensive review encompassing environmental, economic, and social impacts is currently lacking.
While GI research on LCT has garnered widespread acceptance, previous studies have not probed the dynamic process of GI outcomes on LCT over time. Moreover, existing reviews predominantly concentrate on textual descriptions or meta-analyses, lacking visual graphics and insightful forms of analysis. To better comprehend the comprehensive environmental, economic, and social benefits or impacts of GI, a detailed review of GI life cycle research is warranted. Enhanced understanding of the relationship between the life cycle and GI holds substantial implications for policy decisions, urban planning, and sustainable development, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions that ensure the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of GI initiatives.
Bibliometrics, a quantitative method, has gained increasing prominence in academia [29] and is particularly suited to address research disparities and advance disciplinary growth in GI life cycle research. Beyond the objectivity benefits of quantitative analysis, a more intuitive theoretical framework and knowledge map can shed light on the field’s dynamics and frontiers. Accordingly, this paper seeks to establish a crucial causal relationship between the life cycle and GI through a bibliometric analysis.
A bibliometric analysis of papers relevant to the life cycle of GI was conducted using Citespace, VOS Viewer, and the Bibliometrix package for R language by searching the Web of Science database. The papers spanned the period of 1995–2022, totaling 1124 articles. Through bibliometric analysis, this paper aims to address three questions concerning GI research within the life cycle context: Firstly, what is the comprehensive research overview from the inception of relevant research to the present? Secondly, what are the research hotspots discernible from the knowledge graph? Lastly, what are the future trends and potential research values? To answer these questions, citation and co-citation analyses, keyword occurrence frequencies, and thematic clustering techniques were employed to identify patterns and trends in the existing literature.
The structure of this review unfolds as follows: Section 2 delineates the study’s methodology, with a detailed exposition of the deployed research methods and data processing strategies. Section 3 proffers the results and the ensuing discussion. It commences with a broad overview of the prominent countries, authors, highly cited papers, and hot topics within the ambit of the field. Subsequent to this, an incisive analysis of green roofs, constructed wetlands, and bioretention systems is presented, probing their life cycle environmental, economic, and social performances. Finally, this section delves into the limitations endemic to the current body of research and suggests avenues for future research perspectives considering multifaceted elements, such as the water and carbon footprints, steep initial construction costs, social life cycle assessment, and the intriguing field of multi-objective optimization. Section 4 encapsulates the conclusion, distilling the main points gleaned from the analysis and pondering the wider implications of the findings. The deliberate structuring of this review aims to bestow a comprehensive understanding of the life cycle of GI, thereby fostering further scholarly research and pragmatic applications in this burgeoning field.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Methods

The comprehensive and authoritative citation database of the Web of Science (WoS) served as the foundational resource for conducting a global survey [28]. Leveraging its core database, scientific and technical knowledge of relevance was meticulously extracted for this study.
The deployment of the “Bibliometrix” R package, CiteSpace, and “VOSviewer” empowered a robust quantitative analysis and topic mining of the bibliographic collection. These tools fostered an array of bibliometric analyses, encompassing co-citation, coupling, collaborative analysis, and co-word analysis, while offering visual encapsulations of trends and patterns in the literature.
The literature co-citation network underwent analysis via CiteSpace and VOSviewer, with each node symbolizing a cited reference. Nodes of larger dimensions were indicative of higher citation frequency, while lines drawn between two articles represented simultaneous citation by a single article. This co-citation analysis lent an effective representation of the research topics, research fields, and their temporal development.

2.2. Data Processing

A comprehensive search within the WoS database surfaced relevant literature spanning the years 1995 to 2022. The selection of articles was predicated on English language titles, abstracts, and keywords, with a particular emphasis on terms such as “green roof”, “bioretention”, “green infrastructure”, “permeable pavement”, “green wall”, “constructed wetland”, and “life cycle”.
The relevancy of the selected studies was ensured through rigorous criteria: papers must be (1) in English; (2) possess a clear focus on GI and its life cycle; and (3) present a primary research study, review, or case study within the domain. A manual perusal of all titles and abstracts effectively filtered out irrelevant or tangentially related articles, resulting in a final tally of 1124 articles.
CiteSpace was harnessed for slicing the accumulated literature, with the slice length calibrated to two years. The Text Processing field was populated with the Title, Abstract, Author Keywords, and Keyword Plus, while the Reference was earmarked as the node type. The execution of CiteSpace produced a visual network map comprising countries, authors, co-cited authors, journals, and hotspots. A comparative analysis of these knowledge network diagrams yielded a succinct overview of general trends in LCT in recent years alongside prospective trends. Finally, a more granular examination and classification of the present hotspots of LCT were conducted, culminating in the discernment of the field’s limitations and future directions.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Overview

A total of 1124 studies on GI life cycle research were retrieved from the WoS database, spanning 361 journals and covering the years 1995 to 2022. The average number of citations per paper was 30.57, with an average of 4.27 co-authors per document (Table 1). Initially, a limited number of studies were published between 1995 and 2006, following which there was a progressive uptick in the number of articles (Figure 1). The earliest study on GI from a life cycle perspective was published in 1995, with few studies published between 1995 and 2007 (Figure 1). From 2008 to 2022, 1073 studies were published on GI from a life cycle perspective, with the average annual rate of publication increasing gradually, peaking at 17.66%. These studies (between 1995 and 2022) were published by 3417 authors across 349 journals.
(1)
Countries and authors
China, the United States, Spain, and Italy were the countries with the most publications on GI from a life cycle perspective, with 664, 575, 203, 195, and 155 sources, respectively (Figure 2). The most influential authors in this field were Jia HF, Wang M, Zhang DQ, and Xu CQ, with H indices up to 11 (Figure 3).
(2)
Highly cited papers
The analysis of citations from 1124 papers published between 1995 and 2022 yielded 25 highly cited papers, as shown in Table 2. Among these, six discussed GRs, one discussed biological retention, and six examined GI from a life-cycle perspective. Berardi et al. [30] discussed economic considerations and policies for promoting GRs worldwide. Kosareo and Ries [31] examined the life-cycle environmental cost characteristics of intensive and extensive GRs in comparison with conventional roofs, finding that GRs have a significant environmental impact over the life cycle of a building. Saiz et al. [32] evaluated the life-cycle environmental impacts of a multi-story residential building with GRs. Susca et al. [33] assessed the positive effects of vegetation on micro- and urban scales, finding that GRs decrease energy usage for cooling and heating, with a positive impact on both scales. Davis et al. [14] reviewed the progress of BR systems, finding that maintenance is a crucial factor affecting long-term performance and life-cycle costs. Wang et al. [34] employed the LCA method to evaluate grey and GI, discovering that BR basins can achieve water quality improvement goals with minimal climatic and economic costs.
(3)
Hot topics
To further explore the “hot topics” in GI from a life cycle research perspective, the Word Cloud feature of the Bibliometrix package was used to analyze the Keyword Plus in papers and sort them. Key research areas were found to be life cycle assessment, performance and management (26.2%, n = 700), and specific GI (10.5%, n = 304). An annual increase was observed in the publication rate concerning these topics (Figure 4). To execute a more intricate assessment through comprehensive reading and evaluation, VOS Viewer was deployed to generate a density visualization of this field (Figure 5). The results showed that the most popular areas of interest were life cycle assessment, performance, and management. Current practices related to life cycle assessment, performance, and management were then summarized, providing an overview of current research on the life-cycle performance of specific GI. The analysis of life-cycle studies related to GI revealed that CWs, GRs, and BR received the most attention (Figure 4). Consequently, these components will be discussed in terms of life-cycle environmental, economic, and social performance.

3.2. Green Roofs

3.2.1. Life-Cycle Environmental Performance

The life cycle research paper retrieval analysis of GRs is depicted in Figure 6, with the node paper analyzed subsequently. GRs typically comprise several components, including the vegetation, substrate, filter layer, drainage material, insulation, root barrier, and waterproofing membranes [35]. There exist two categories of GRs: intensive and extensive [9]. GRs proffer a multitude of benefits, such as effective stormwater management [13], mitigation of the urban heat island effect, enhancement of air and water quality along with improved quality of life [36], reduction in energy consumption costs for buildings [13], diminution of noise pollution [36], and carbon sequestration [37].
GRs have gained global attention due to their multiple social and environmental benefits and potential to mitigate climate change impacts [38]. Further research on the life cycle of GRs can enhance their role in addressing climate change and urban flooding. Chenani et al. [39] performed an analysis of GR layers employing the LCA methodology, culminating in the conclusion that the layers responsible for water retention, drainage, and substrate-encapsulated components with the most pronounced negative environmental impacts. El Bachawati et al. [40] meticulously examined the Lebanon case utilizing the LCA instrument and discerned that the concrete, rebar, waterproof membrane, and thermal insulation were the primary contributors to potential environmental ramifications. Shafique et al. [13] and Vacek et al. [41] conducted comprehensive studies on GRs’ impacts, revealing that construction and disposal stages had higher negative environmental impacts during GR analysis. However, utilizing recycled materials could significantly reduce negative environmental impacts during the material extraction and disposal phases [13]. Vacek et al. [41] conducted an in-depth life cycle study on semi-intensive GRs, scrutinizing the effect of incorporating man-made materials on the cumulative environmental impacts of the assemblies. Their findings underscored the necessity for judicious consideration when employing man-made thermal insulation in GRs, given its potential overuse. Nevertheless, man-made substrate replacements, such as hydrophilic mineral wool, can have environmental impacts comparable to those of “natural” substrate mixtures, suggesting that hydrophilic mineral wool could potentially be a more suitable choice than “natural” substrates [39]. Peng and Jim [42] embarked on an evaluative study of two types of GRs in Hong Kong—extensive and intensive GRs. They assessed their annual benefits and life-cycle cost-effectiveness under a district-scale installation. The findings indicated that large-scale GR installations can significantly reduce energy consumption, upstream emissions, and atmospheric concentrations. Koroxenidis and Theodosiou [43], in their analysis of the life cycle of GRs and flat roofs in a Mediterranean climate, concluded that GRs facilitated minor enhancements in energy consumption for heating and cooling (up to 8.30% and 3.50%, respectively). However, they observed substantial reductions in total life cycle energy consumption (8–31%), emissions (24–32%), and waste production (15–60%). This established GRs as a more environmentally amicable alternative to flat roofs, notwithstanding a significant escalation in total life cycle water consumption (279–835%).
The life-cycle environmental performance of GRs demonstrates their potential to contribute positively to urban environments. They can provide significant reductions in energy consumption, emissions, and waste production compared with conventional roofs. However, it is crucial to carefully consider the materials used in GR construction to minimize negative environmental impacts during the material extraction, construction, and disposal stages. The incorporation of recycled materials and alternatives to “natural” substrates, such as hydrophilic mineral wool, can help to further improve the environmental performance of GRs. Additionally, the increased water consumption associated with GRs should be acknowledged and managed to ensure the optimal balance between environmental benefits and resource use. By thoroughly examining the life cycle of GRs, researchers and practitioners can optimize their design and implementation, ultimately enhancing their role in mitigating climate change and addressing urban flooding challenges.

3.2.2. Life Cycle Economic Performance

The LCC remains a significant factor in determining the widespread implementation of GRs. A variety of elements, including plant species, waterproofing layers, and lifespan, contribute to the overall cost of GRs. Peri et al. [44] embarked on data collection from an experimental GR plot to construct a benefit–cost analysis for the life cycle of extensive GR systems within an urban watershed. This comprehensive analysis provided valuable insights into the economic feasibility of GRs across various urban contexts. Yao et al. [45] analyzed an actual extensive GR situated in Sicily and expanded the examination to include the disposal phase. The study employed eQUEST software (version 3.65) to compare the impact of GRs on building energy consumption. The results revealed that GRs reduced space heating and cooling electricity consumption by 9500 kilowatt-hours annually, or 2.2 kilowatt-hours per square meter, underscoring the long-term economic benefits of GRs implementation. Illankoon et al. [46] conducted an extensive analysis, calculating the life-cycle costs of over 2000 roofing solution options using the net present value (NPV). The researchers identified optimum solutions for each climate zone in Australia, emphasizing the importance of tailoring GR designs to suit specific regional conditions. The study’s findings indicated that initial and replacement costs played a considerable role in determining the total LCC, highlighting the need for cost-effective strategies in the design and implementation of GRs [46].
These studies demonstrate the potential for GRs to yield significant economic benefits over their life cycle, particularly when considering energy savings and other long-term advantages. However, further research is needed to explore innovative approaches to reducing initial and replacement costs, thereby making GRs more economically viable for a broader range of applications. By examining the economic performance of GRs through a life-cycle lens, it becomes increasingly evident that these innovative solutions can play a crucial role in promoting sustainable urban development while providing tangible financial benefits for building owners and communities alike.

3.2.3. Life Cycle Social Performance

GRs have been recognized for their capacity to deliver various social benefits, including improved livability, increased urban green spaces, public education opportunities, and enhanced public health [47]. Despite these advantages, there is a dearth of research examining social benefits from a life cycle perspective.
Bianchini and Hewage [48] pioneered this area by assessing the NPV per unit of area for both extensive and intensive GRs, incorporating the social–cost benefits accrued over their life cycle. Their analysis revealed that GRs contributed to both personal and societal gains, with a low financial risk associated with installing any GR type. The probabilistic NPV analysis further confirmed the potential for economic advantages for both personal and social sectors [48]. Expanding upon this, Liu Li-ping et al. [49] employed an LCA to investigate the private and social costs and benefits of GRs across three region models: metropolises, middle and small cities (MSCs), and new countryside construction farmer model communities (FMCs). The study’s findings illustrated the diverse focus of green roof benefits across these region models. Metropolises prioritized ecological environment benefits, MSCs emphasized social and private economic benefits, and FMCs placed a greater emphasis on private economic benefits [49]. Further research by Toboso-Chavero et al. [50] evaluated various growing media (perlite, peat, and coir) for urban rooftop farming using the social LCA method. The research concluded that peat emerged as the most socially amenable growing medium, showcasing superior indicators in impact categories such as community infrastructure, human rights, and labor rights and decent work when juxtaposed with other alternatives [50].
Collectively, these studies underscore the importance of considering GRs’ life cycle social performances to better understand their comprehensive impacts on communities. By examining the myriad social benefits GRs offer over their life cycle, researchers, policymakers, and urban planners can make more informed decisions regarding the implementation and promotion of these sustainable urban solutions, ultimately contributing to more resilient and equitable communities.

3.3. Constructed Wetlands

3.3.1. Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Performance

CWs are recognized as nature-based wastewater treatment techniques, deriving their methodology from processes observed in natural environments [51]. Current LCA studies predominantly focus on the environmental performance at each stage of CWs (Figure 7). For instance, Dixon et al. [52] delved into the life cycle impacts of small-scale wastewater treatment options, specifically targeting a horizontal flow reedbed system and a package bio-filtration plant. Limiting their analysis to the construction and operational phases, their findings revealed that both systems had comparable life-cycle energy use, although the reedbed system exhibited substantially lower overall emissions. The environmental impact of the reedbed system was further diminished when the excavated soil on site was repurposed as fill. The LCA indicated that significant proportions of embodied energy and emissions resulted from material transportation and maintenance-related travel [52].
In a comparative study, Garfí et al. [53] analyzed the environmental performance of conventional wastewater treatment systems and nature-based technologies, such as hybrid CWs and high-rate algal pond systems. The results demonstrated that nature-based solutions were the most environmentally friendly alternatives, with the potential environmental impact of conventional wastewater treatment plants being between two and five times higher, depending on the impact category. Furthermore, CW systems were deemed more appropriate than high-rate algal pond systems in terms of land occupation (3.5 m2 vs. 6 m2, respectively) [53]. Resende et al. [51] assessed the environmental and economic performance (eco-efficiency) of two decentralized, small-scale wastewater treatment systems integrated with CWs. Their objective was to identify the most significant potential impact triggers across life-cycle stages (construction, operation, or end-of-life). Their results delineated that the operational stage exhibited the highest environmental impact potential across all analyzed impact categories, ranging between 64% for human toxicity and 100% for freshwater eutrophication [51].

3.3.2. Life Cycle Social Performance

While existing studies primarily concentrate on the environmental and economic performance of CWs, there is limited research focusing on social benefits from a life cycle perspective. Shakya and Ahiablame [54] examined the socio-economic benefits associated with GI adoption and documented the analytical procedures employed to quantify these benefits. However, their investigation was not conducted from a life cycle perspective. The study collated socio-economic benefits affiliated with GI adoption across 16 cities and delineated the methods employed to estimate these benefits. The direct repercussions of a permanent workforce for GI projects include the creation of green jobs, thereby catalyzing income generation.
Further research is warranted to comprehensively understand the life cycle social performance of CWs, as well as to elucidate the full range of social benefits associated with these nature-based wastewater treatment techniques. By examining the social dimensions of CWs, policymakers and urban planners can make informed decisions that support more sustainable and equitable wastewater management solutions.

3.4. Bioretention

3.4.1. Life Cycle Environmental Performance

BR systems have emerged as a promising solution for sustainable stormwater management, offering several environmental advantages over traditional stormwater infrastructure. The life cycle research on BR systems, as illustrated in Figure 8, highlights the importance of understanding the various stages of these systems in order to maximize their environmental performance and minimize detrimental impacts.
Liu et al. [55] described the essential components of BR systems, emphasizing the role of filter media, vegetation, and internal water storage zones in promoting effective nutrient removal from stormwater runoff. These findings underscore the potential of BR systems to contribute to improved water quality in urban environments, supporting ecosystem health and providing additional benefits, such as habitat creation and enhanced aesthetic appeal. The study by Bhatt et al. [56] on the LID parking lot test site revealed the importance of considering the entire life cycle of BR systems in order to optimize their environmental performance. By identifying the most significant sources of environmental impacts, such as raw material manufacturing, researchers and practitioners can develop strategies to reduce these impacts through more sustainable sourcing, manufacturing processes, and innovative design approaches. Vineyard et al. [57] provided a compelling case for the adoption of residential rain gardens as an alternative to conventional stormwater management systems. Their research not only demonstrated the financial and environmental benefits of rain gardens, but also highlighted the potential for these systems to support more sustainable urban development by mitigating negative impacts associated with stormwater runoff [57]. Furthermore, Xu and Zhang [58] expanded the scope of BR system research by exploring the environmental impacts of different system configurations. By evaluating the relationship between design parameters and LCC, their study revealed valuable insights for optimizing BR system performance in terms of flood control and nutrient management.
The life cycle research on BR systems emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to their evaluation, incorporating factors such as raw material sourcing, manufacturing, and design configurations. By considering these elements, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers can support the development and implementation of more effective and sustainable BR systems, ultimately contributing to improved stormwater management and enhanced urban environments.

3.4.2. Life Cycle Economic Performance

The economic performance of BR systems throughout their life cycle plays a crucial role in determining their feasibility and adoption in urban landscapes. Wang et al. [59] demonstrated the sensitivity of BR performance to urbanization, emphasizing the need for effective stormwater management strategies in rapidly growing urban environments. As cities continue to expand and impervious surfaces increase, the optimization of BR systems will become even more critical to minimize adverse hydrological impacts and maintain cost-effectiveness.
Li et al. [60] underscored the importance of selecting suitable LID designs that balance hydrological performance and economic considerations. By combining grass swales, BR, and permeable pavement in a holistic approach, urban planners can achieve superior stormwater management while minimizing LCC. This finding highlights the value of adopting integrated LID strategies, which can lead to more sustainable urban development. Vineyard et al. [57] noted the significance of labor requirements in influencing rain garden costs, drawing attention to the need for efficient design and construction methods to reduce overall expenses. Additionally, their research emphasized the role of wastewater treatment efficiency in determining the impacts of traditional stormwater management systems. Consequently, urban planners should consider not only the capital costs, but also the long-term operating expenses and environmental implications of their stormwater management choices. Wang et al. [61] showcased the potential of graph-theory algorithms to optimize the LCC of BR systems under various decentralization levels while maintaining hydrological reliability and resilience. This innovative approach can guide urban planners and decision-makers in the design and implementation of cost-effective stormwater management solutions, ultimately contributing to more sustainable and resilient urban landscapes.
The economic performance of BR systems throughout their life cycle is a critical factor influencing their adoption and effectiveness in urban stormwater management. Future research should continue to explore novel techniques for optimizing BR system designs, incorporating hydrological performance, and evaluating long-term costs and benefits. These efforts can help to facilitate the widespread implementation of BR systems and support the broader goals of sustainable urban development and climate change adaptation.

3.4.3. Life Cycle Social Performance

Current research on the social performance assessment of BR primarily focuses on aspects other than life cycle perspectives. Koc et al. [62] conducted an evaluation of the performance of seven distinct LID scenarios, encompassing stand-alone and combinations of GRs, BR, permeable pavements, and infiltration trenches in the Ayamama watershed. Their observations underscored that community resistance, operational feasibility, and quantitative benefits emerged as the most crucial criteria for LID scenario selection from social, economic, and environmental aspects, respectively. Li et al. [63] leveraged social impact theory to scrutinize the influencing mechanism for the social impact assessment conceptual model presented in their preceding studies. Their discoveries underscored the implications for augmenting the comprehensive performance of sponge city public–private partnerships. Liu et al. [64] integrated the socioecological influences of runoff control infrastructure into a unified evaluation framework, considering control functions and capital investments.
BR systems offer numerous environmental, economic, and social benefits throughout their life cycle. These systems contribute to reducing environmental impacts and financial costs while demonstrating resilience under varying urbanization and climate change scenarios. Furthermore, BR systems have been found to be effective in addressing hydrological performance and cost-effectiveness across diverse LID scenarios. However, future research should focus on expanding the understanding of the social performance assessment of BR systems, incorporating life-cycle perspectives, and identifying additional key criteria for the selection and optimization of these systems. By doing so, the potential for BR systems to support sustainable urban development and contribute to climate change adaptation strategies can be further enhanced.

3.5. Limitation and Future Research Perspectives

3.5.1. Considering the Water Footprint and the Carbon Footprint

Recent studies have begun to explore the carbon sequestration capacity of GI, shedding light on the potential of these systems to mitigate climate change. Moore and Hunt [65] developed a framework for predicting carbon emissions attributable to stormwater control measures and conveyances, revealing that greenhouse gas emissions from BR systems, ponds, wetlands, horizontal bedding filter belts, and concrete-lined depressions primarily arise during the material transport and construction stages. Bledsoe et al. [66] embarked on an investigation of the nitrogen removal potential, greenhouse gas production, and microbial community structure within permanently flooded and shallow land or temporarily flooded areas of a stormwater CW to identify zones for CW design optimization. Their findings revealed that, compared with shallow land zones, permanently flooded zones were more significant contributors to emissions and released more carbon into the atmosphere.
Despite these advancements, current research has yet to comprehensively consider the life-cycle performance of GI in terms of both water footprint and carbon footprint assessments. Integrating these two critical aspects would provide a more holistic understanding of the environmental impacts associated with GI, thereby enabling more effective decision-making for their implementation and management.
Future studies should aim to address this gap by developing methodologies that incorporate water and carbon footprint assessments throughout the life cycle of GI projects. Such analyses would facilitate the identification of potential synergies and trade-offs between water and carbon management, ultimately contributing to the optimization of these systems in terms of environmental sustainability. Moreover, understanding the combined water and carbon footprints of GI will provide valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners, guiding the development of innovative design approaches, material sourcing strategies, and operational practices that minimize both water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

3.5.2. High Initial Construction Costs

A key constraint in the implementation of GI is the high initial construction costs, which often represent the most significant expense across the life cycle of these projects. While GI can yield substantial environmental benefits during the operational phase, the considerable upfront investment required can deter stakeholders from embracing these innovative solutions [67]. Perceptions of GRs, for instance, often center on the notion of long-term investments (costs) with short-term returns (benefits).
The costs associated with GI are influenced by numerous factors, including location, labor expenses, GR types, and materials. As a result, devising strategies to minimize construction costs is crucial for encouraging the widespread adoption of GI solutions.
To address this challenge, future research could explore innovative design approaches, materials, and technologies that have the potential to reduce the financial burden of GI construction. Collaboration between academia, industry, and policymakers can facilitate the development of cost-effective solutions while maintaining the environmental benefits associated with these systems. Moreover, investigating incentives, subsidies, and financial mechanisms that can mitigate the high initial costs of GI projects would support their broader implementation, driving a transition toward more sustainable urban landscapes. Ultimately, overcoming the barrier of high initial construction costs will be essential in advancing the application of GI as an integral component of urban planning and development.
Moreover, contemplating the fusion of GI with prevailing business models constitutes a fertile ground for scholarly exploration. Consensus exists regarding the extensive gains that such investigations could yield. Probing the incorporation of GI into business strategies promises to illuminate the environmental and economic boons of GI, concurrently initiating a novel dialogue on GI’s potential role within the corporate milieu. This focus garners particular significance within the sphere of corporate social responsibility, thereby amplifying the discourse on sustainable urban development.

3.5.3. Social Life Cycle Assessment

A comprehensive evaluation of GI performance necessitates the inclusion of social life cycle assessments alongside environmental and economic assessments. LCA has evolved significantly over the past three decades, with substantial improvements in inventory and impact assessment modeling. The focus has shifted from solely energy and environmental analyses to more comprehensive assessments that encompass economic and social dimensions [68]. Although conventional LCA research predominantly addresses the environmental and economic performance of GI, S-LCA has been comparatively underexplored. Existing social impact databases for S-LCA, such as the Social Hotspots Database and Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment database, primarily concentrate on product- and production-chain aspects, with data resolution at the national or sectoral scale.
Literature analysis revealed that of the 260 studies on GRs, only 3 [48,50,69] have addressed the social performance of GRs, with just 1 [50] examining social benefits from a life cycle perspective. This highlights the need for the further exploration of S-LCA in GI. Social benefits and impacts arise not only from production and maintenance activities influenced by participating actors, but also from ecosystem services provided by the living systems themselves. Moreover, the social effects of GI occur at various scales, including cities, communities, streets, and buildings, which are not considered in current social impact databases. Consequently, there is a pressing need to develop comprehensive GI assessment methods that account for social impacts and benefits [25].

3.5.4. Multi-Objective Optimization

The analysis of the existing literature reveals that the majority of studies focus on single life-cycle optimization, with only a limited number addressing multi-objective optimization [70,71,72,73,74]. For instance, some investigations concentrate solely on LCC targets [70,75]. However, considering the economic, environmental, and social impacts of GI throughout its life cycle, it is imperative to conduct multi-objective optimization assessments.
Future research should prioritize the development of multi-objective optimization approaches that account for the interconnected and multifaceted nature of GI life cycles [74,76]. By incorporating economic, environmental, and social factors into a cohesive optimization framework, decision-makers can more effectively evaluate trade-offs and identify solutions that strike a balance between these diverse considerations. This holistic approach is vital for promoting the broader implementation of sustainable urban planning practices and fostering resilient, healthy urban environments.
Expanding the focus of GI research to encompass multi-objective optimization will facilitate more comprehensive and accurate assessments of the complex, interdependent factors at play in these systems. As a result, stakeholders can make better-informed decisions that consider the full spectrum of benefits and impacts, ultimately contributing to the adoption and advancement of sustainable urban development practices.

4. Conclusions

This review of the literature from 1995 to 2022 endeavors to delineate the current research landscape concerning the life-cycle evaluation of green infrastructure (GI)—an emergent and dynamically evolving academic domain. This review unveiled that GI imparts manifold benefits to urban ecosystems: environmentally, through the mitigation of air and water pollution; economically, via reductions in costs for water treatment and energy consumption; and socially, through the value of the services rendered to the community.
Life cycle environmental assessments unearthed the dichotomy of impacts across different stages of GI: while the operational stage bestows environmental boons, the construction and maintenance phases primarily induce environmental burdens. Enhancing raw material efficiency during these phases emerges as a key strategy to mitigate their environmental impact. Furthermore, this review underscored an apparent lacuna in the investigation into the social benefits of GI—an issue that can be attributed to the inherent complexities in establishing social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) databases. Nevertheless, given the profound implications for urban planning and community development, the assessment of social performance holds immense promise in the GI research landscape.
Moreover, this review unveiled the prevalent focus on the life-cycle carbon footprint within GI research. However, future research endeavors should not be tethered to this aspect alone. The simultaneous assessment of the water and carbon footprints of GI signals a promising path for further exploration. Additionally, research strides towards multi-objective optimization could enrich the existing knowledge corpus, providing a more holistic picture of the impacts and merits of GI. In essence, the potential of GI as a potent strategy for urban sustainability is profound. An integrative research approach that cohesively addresses the environmental, economic, and social dimensions could not only galvanize this academic field but also inform efficacious policy-making for sustainable urban development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.W. and J.S.; methodology, M.W. and J.L.; software, X.Z.; validation, X.Z., M.W. and C.S.; formal analysis, X.Z.; investigation, X.Z.; resources, M.W.; data curation, M.W.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, X.Z., C.S. and T.C.; visualization, X.Z.; supervision, M.W. and T.C.; project administration, M.W.; funding acquisition, M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (grant number 2023A1515030158), and the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China (grant number 202201010431).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

This study did not report any publicly archived datasets.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BR, bioretention; CW, constructed wetland; FMC, farmer model community; GI, green infrastructure; GR, green roof; LCA, life cycle assessment; LCC, life cycle cost; LCT, life cycle thinking; LID, low impact development; MSC, middle and small city; NPV, net present value; S-LCA, social life cycle assessment.

References

  1. Woodruff, S.C.; Meerow, S.; Stults, M.; Wilkins, C. Adaptation to Resilience Planning: Alternative Pathways to Prepare for Climate Change. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2022, 42, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Reckien, D.; Salvia, M.; Heidrich, O.; Church, J.M.; Pietrapertosa, F.; de Gregorio-Hurtado, S.; D’Alonzo, V.; Foley, A.; Simoes, S.G.; Krkoška Lorencová, E.; et al. How are cities planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 191, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, L.; Uyttenhove, P.; Vaneetvelde, V. Planning green infrastructure to mitigate urban surface water flooding risk—A methodology to identify priority areas applied in the city of Ghent. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 194, 103703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chan, F.K.S.; Griffiths, J.A.; Higgitt, D.; Xu, S.; Zhu, F.; Tang, Y.-T.; Xu, Y.; Thorne, C.R. “Sponge City” in China—A breakthrough of planning and flood risk management in the urban context. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 772–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Demuzere, M.; Orru, K.; Heidrich, O.; Olazabal, E.; Geneletti, D.; Orru, H.; Bhave, A.G.; Mittal, N.; Feliu, E.; Faehnle, M. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Norton, B.A.; Coutts, A.M.; Livesley, S.J.; Harris, R.J.; Hunter, A.M.; Williams, N.S. Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kavehei, E.; Jenkins, G.A.; Adame, M.F.; Lemckert, C. Carbon sequestration potential for mitigating the carbon footprint of green stormwater infrastructure. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 1179–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhu, Z.; Ren, J.; Liu, X. Green infrastructure provision for environmental justice: Application of the equity index in Guangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xu, C.; Jia, M.; Xu, M.; Long, Y.; Jia, H. Progress on environmental and economic evaluation of low-impact development type of best management practices through a life cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 1103–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Leng, L.; Mao, X.; Jia, H.; Xu, T.; Chen, A.S.; Yin, D.; Fu, G. Performance assessment of coupled green-grey-blue systems for Sponge City construction. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Croeser, T.; Garrard, G.; Sharma, R.; Ossola, A.; Bekessy, S. Choosing the right nature-based solutions to meet diverse urban challenges. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, H.; Kong, F.; Yin, H.; Middel, A.; Zheng, X.; Huang, J.; Xu, H.; Wang, D.; Wen, Z. Impacts of green roofs on water, temperature, and air quality: A bibliometric review. Build. Environ. 2021, 196, 107794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shafique, M.; Azam, A.; Rafiq, M.; Ateeq, M.; Luo, X. An overview of life cycle assessment of green roofs. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Davis, A.P.; Hunt, W.F.; Traver, R.G.; Clar, M. Bioretention Technology: Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs. J. Environ. Eng. 2009, 135, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yao, J.; Wang, G.; Jiang, X.; Xue, B.; Wang, Y.; Duan, L. Exploring the spatiotemporal variations in regional rainwater harvesting potential resilience and actual available rainwater using a proposed method framework. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 160005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cole, L.J.; Stockan, J.; Helliwell, R. Managing riparian buffer strips to optimise ecosystem services: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 296, 106891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Venkataramanan, V.; Lopez, D.; McCuskey, D.J.; Kiefus, D.; McDonald, R.I.; Miller, W.M.; Packman, A.I.; Young, S.L. Knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behavior related to green infrastructure for flood management: A systematic literature review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Campisano, A.; Butler, D.; Ward, S.; Burns, M.J.; Friedler, E.; DeBusk, K.; Fisher-Jeffes, L.N.; Ghisi, E.; Rahman, A.; Furumai, H.; et al. Urban rainwater harvesting systems: Research, implementation and future perspectives. Water Res. 2017, 115, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Styles, D.; Borjesson, P.; D’Hertefeldt, T.; Birkhofer, K.; Dauber, J.; Adams, P.; Patil, S.; Pagella, T.; Pettersson, L.B.; Peck, P.; et al. Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment. Ambio 2016, 45, 872–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mander, U.; Tournebize, J.; Tonderski, K.; Verhoeven, J.T.A.; Mitsch, W.J. Planning and establishment principles for constructed wetlands and riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 103, 296–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, G.; Xiong, J.; Zhu, J.; Liu, Y.; Dzakpasu, M. Design influence and evaluation model of bioretention in rainwater treatment: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Santos, J.; Flintsch, G.; Ferreira, A. Environmental and economic assessment of pavement construction and management practices for enhancing pavement sustainability. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 116, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Antunes, L.; Ghisi, E.; Thives, L. Permeable Pavements Life Cycle Assessment: A Literature Review. Water 2018, 10, 1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Vijayaraghavan, K.; Biswal, B.K.; Adam, M.G.; Soh, S.H.; Tsen-Tieng, D.L.; Davis, A.P.; Chew, S.H.; Tan, P.Y.; Babovic, V.; Balasubramanian, R. Bioretention systems for stormwater management: Recent advances and future prospects. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 292, 112766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Romanovska, L. Urban green infrastructure: Perspectives on life-cycle thinking for holistic assessments. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 294, 12011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sala, S.; Anton, A.; McLaren, S.J.; Notarnicola, B.; Saouter, E.; Sonesson, U. In quest of reducing the environmental impacts of food production and consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Manso, M.; Teotónio, I.; Silva, C.M.; Cruz, C.O. Green roof and green wall benefits and costs: A review of the quantitative evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. He, K.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, L. A scientometric review of emerging trends and new developments in agricultural ecological compensation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 16522–16532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Berardi, U.; GhaffarianHoseini, A.; GhaffarianHoseini, A. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kosareo, L.; Ries, R. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green roofs. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 2606–2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Saiz, S.; Kennedy, C.; Bass, B.; Pressnail, K. Comparative life cycle assessment of standard and green roofs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4312–4316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Susca, T.; Gaffin, S.R.; Dell’osso, G.R. Positive effects of vegetation: Urban heat island and green roofs. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159, 2119–2126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, R.; Eckelman, M.J.; Zimmerman, J.B. Consequential environmental and economic life cycle assessment of green and gray stormwater infrastructures for combined sewer systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11189–11198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shafique, M.; Kim, R.; Rafiq, M. Green roof benefits, opportunities and challenges—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 757–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Green Infrastructure and Health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2021, 42, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Getter, K.L.; Rowe, D.B.; Robertson, G.P.; Cregg, B.M.; Andresen, J.A. Carbon sequestration potential of extensive green roofs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 7564–7570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shafique, M.; Kim, R. Low Impact Development Practices: A Review of Current Research and Recommendations for Future Directions. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S 2015, 22, 543–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bozorg Chenani, S.; Lehvävirta, S.; Häkkinen, T. Life cycle assessment of layers of green roofs. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. El Bachawati, M.; Manneh, R.; Belarbi, R.; Dandres, T.; Nassab, C.; El Zakhem, H. Cradle-to-gate Life Cycle Assessment of traditional gravel ballasted, white reflective, and vegetative roofs: A Lebanese case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 833–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vacek, P.; Struhala, K.; Matějka, L. Life-cycle study on semi intensive green roofs. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 154, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Peng, L.L.; Jim, C.Y. Economic evaluation of green-roof environmental benefits in the context of climate change: The case of Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 554–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Koroxenidis, E.; Theodosiou, T. Comparative environmental and economic evaluation of green roofs under Mediterranean climate conditions—Extensive green roofs a potentially preferable solution. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peri, G.; Traverso, M.; Finkbeiner, M.; Rizzo, G. The cost of green roofs disposal in a life cycle perspective: Covering the gap. Energy 2012, 48, 406–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yao, L.; Chini, A.; Zeng, R. Integrating cost-benefits analysis and life cycle assessment of green roofs: A case study in Florida. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 2020, 26, 443–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Illankoon, I.M.; Chethana, S.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Le, K.N.; Wang, X.; Wang, J. Optimal roofing solutions for Australian green buildings: A life-cycle cost perspective. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Eng. Sustain. 2020, 173, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhan, W.; Chui, T.F.M. Evaluating the life cycle net benefit of low impact development in a city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bianchini, F.; Hewage, K. Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: A lifecycle approach. Build. Environ. 2012, 58, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, L.; Huo, C.; Zhang, M. Economy Efficiency Assessment in Full Life Cycle of Green Roof Project. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Architectural, Civil and Hydraulics Engineering (ICACHE 2015), Guangzhou, China, 28–29 November 2015; Volume 44, pp. 315–319. [Google Scholar]
  50. Toboso-Chavero, S.; Madrid-López, C.; Villalba, G.; Gabarrell Durany, X.; Hückstädt, A.B.; Finkbeiner, M.; Lehmann, A. Environmental and social life cycle assessment of growing media for urban rooftop farming. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 2085–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Resende, J.D.; Nolasco, M.A.; Pacca, S.A. Life cycle assessment and costing of wastewater treatment systems coupled to constructed wetlands. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 148, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dixon, A.; Simon, M.; Burkitt, T. Assessing the environmental impact of two options for small-scale wastewater treatment: Comparing a reedbed and an aerated biological filter using a life cycle approach. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Garfí, M.; Flores, L.; Ferrer, I. Life Cycle Assessment of wastewater treatment systems for small communities: Activated sludge, constructed wetlands and high rate algal ponds. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shakya, R.; Ahiablame, L. A Synthesis of Social and Economic Benefits Linked to Green Infrastructure. Water 2021, 13, 3651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, J.; Sample, D.; Bell, C.; Guan, Y. Review and Research Needs of Bioretention Used for the Treatment of Urban Stormwater. Water 2014, 6, 1069–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Bhatt, A.; Bradford, A.; Abbassi, B.E. Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) of low-impact-development (LID) technologies in southern Ontario. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 98–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vineyard, D.; Ingwersen, W.W.; Hawkins, T.R.; Xue, X.; Demeke, B.; Shuster, W. Comparing Green and Grey Infrastructure Using Life Cycle Cost and Environmental Impact: A Rain Garden Case Study in Cincinnati, OH. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2015, 51, 1342–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xu, X.; Zhang, Q. Sustainable Configuration of Bioretention Systems for Nutrient Management through Life-Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis. J. Environ. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, M.; Zhang, D.; Adhityan, A.; Ng, W.J.; Dong, J.; Tan, S.K. Assessing cost-effectiveness of bioretention on stormwater in response to climate change and urbanization for future scenarios. J. Hydrol. 2016, 543, 423–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, Y.; Huang, J.J.; Hu, M.; Yang, H.; Tanaka, K. Design of low impact development in the urban context considering hydrological performance and life-cycle cost. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2020, 13, e12625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Zheng, Y.; Li, S.; Tan, S.K. Life-cycle cost analysis and resilience consideration for coupled grey infrastructure and low-impact development practices. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Koc, K.; Ekmekcioğlu, Ö.; Özger, M. An integrated framework for the comprehensive evaluation of low impact development strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 294, 113023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Li, W.; Guo, J.; Yuan, J.; Liu, H.J.; Edwards, D.J. Exploring the Key Indicators of Social Impact Assessment for Sponge City PPPs: A Sustainable Development Perspective. Buildings 2022, 12, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, J.; Gong, X.; Li, L.; Chen, F.; Zhang, J. Innovative design and construction of the sponge city facilities in the Chaotou Park, Talent Island, Jiangmen, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 70, 102906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Moore, T.L.; Hunt, W.F. Predicting the carbon footprint of urban stormwater infrastructure. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 58, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bledsoe, R.B.; Bean, E.Z.; Austin, S.S.; Peralta, A.L. A microbial perspective on balancing trade-offs in ecosystem functions in a constructed stormwater wetland. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 158, 106000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bianchini, F.; Hewage, K. How “green” are the green roofs? Lifecycle analysis of green roof materials. Build. Environ. 2012, 48, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sala, S.; Farioli, F.; Zamagni, A. Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1686–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jungels, J.; Rakow, D.A.; Allred, S.B.; Skelly, S.M. Attitudes and aesthetic reactions toward green roofs in the Northeastern United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 117, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Xu, C.; Tang, T.; Jia, H.; Xu, M.; Xu, T.; Liu, Z.; Long, Y.; Zhang, R. Benefits of coupled green and grey infrastructure systems: Evidence based on analytic hierarchy process and life cycle costing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Leng, L.; Jia, H.; Chen, A.S.; Zhu, D.Z.; Xu, T.; Yu, S. Multi-objective optimization for green-grey infrastructures in response to external uncertainties. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Liu, Z.; Xu, C.; Xu, T.; Jia, H.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Z.; Yin, D. Integrating socioecological indexes in multiobjective intelligent optimization of green-grey coupled infrastructures. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Xu, C.; Hong, J.; Jia, H.; Liang, S.; Xu, T. Life cycle environmental and economic assessment of a LID-BMP treatment train system: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Xu, C.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Yin, D.; Leng, L.; Jia, H.; Zhang, X.; Xia, J.; Fu, G. Environmental and economic benefit comparison between coupled grey-green infrastructure system and traditional grey one through a life cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Huang, J.J.; Xiao, M.; Li, Y.; Yan, R.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, Y.; Zhao, T. The optimization of Low Impact Development placement considering life cycle cost using Genetic Algorithm. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 309, 114700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, M.; Liu, M.; Zhang, D.; Qi, J.; Fu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Rao, Q.; Bakhshipour, A.E.; Tan, S.K. Assessing and optimizing the hydrological performance of Grey-Green infrastructure systems in response to climate change and non-stationary time series. Water Res. 2023, 232, 119720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10857 g001 550
Figure 1. Studies on green infrastructure and life-cycle perspective collected from the WoS database.
Figure 1. Studies on green infrastructure and life-cycle perspective collected from the WoS database.
Sustainability 15 10857 g001
Sustainability 15 10857 g002 550
Figure 2. Country of authorship for LCA studies in GI studies between 1995 and 2022.
Figure 2. Country of authorship for LCA studies in GI studies between 1995 and 2022.
Sustainability 15 10857 g002
Sustainability 15 10857 g003 550
Figure 3. Author impact (H index) of life cycle research on green infrastructure.
Figure 3. Author impact (H index) of life cycle research on green infrastructure.
Sustainability 15 10857 g003
Sustainability 15 10857 g004 550
Figure 4. This graphical representation exhibits word clouds derived from green infrastructure-related academic literature extracted from the Web of Science database. These clouds comprise topics discerned from the titles, abstracts, and keywords spanning diverse periods between 1995 and 2022, thereby encapsulating the evolving thematic focus in this research domain over the designated years.
Figure 4. This graphical representation exhibits word clouds derived from green infrastructure-related academic literature extracted from the Web of Science database. These clouds comprise topics discerned from the titles, abstracts, and keywords spanning diverse periods between 1995 and 2022, thereby encapsulating the evolving thematic focus in this research domain over the designated years.
Sustainability 15 10857 g004
Sustainability 15 10857 g005 550
Figure 5. Cluster view of the life cycle research on GI by VOSviewer. (Each point on the map is filled with a color based on the density of the elements around that point; the higher the density, the closer to red; conversely, the lower the density, the closer to blue).
Figure 5. Cluster view of the life cycle research on GI by VOSviewer. (Each point on the map is filled with a color based on the density of the elements around that point; the higher the density, the closer to red; conversely, the lower the density, the closer to blue).
Sustainability 15 10857 g005
Sustainability 15 10857 g006 550
Figure 6. Literature co-citation network of life cycle research on green roofs.
Figure 6. Literature co-citation network of life cycle research on green roofs.
Sustainability 15 10857 g006
Sustainability 15 10857 g007 550
Figure 7. Literature co-citation network of life cycle research on constructed wetlands.
Figure 7. Literature co-citation network of life cycle research on constructed wetlands.
Sustainability 15 10857 g007
Sustainability 15 10857 g008 550
Figure 8. Literature co-citation network of life cycle research of bioretention.
Figure 8. Literature co-citation network of life cycle research of bioretention.
Sustainability 15 10857 g008
Table
Table 1. Summary information for life cycle research in GI literature retrieved from Web of Science.
Table 1. Summary information for life cycle research in GI literature retrieved from Web of Science.
Period1995–20072008–2022Overall (1995–2022)
Number of articles5110731124
Number of journals32333349
Average citations per article65.2428.9330.57
Authors13033023417
Co-authors per doc.2.884.344.27
Authors of single-authored articles144559
Annual growth rate (%)21.1517.6619.29
Table
Table 2. Summary of the most globally cited papers.
Table 2. Summary of the most globally cited papers.
No.PaperDOITotal CitationsTC per YearNormalized TC
1DE VRIES M, 2010, LIVEST SCI10.1016/j.livsci.2009.11.00766847.716.58
2HABERT G, 2011, J CLEAN PROD10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.01262247.856.09
3DAVIS AP, 2009, J ENVIRON ENG10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:3(109)50333.534.69
4DAVIS AP, 2009, J ENVIRON ENG-a10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:3(109)50333.534.69
5MARTINS CIM, 2010, AQUACULT ENG10.1016/j.aquaeng.2010.09.00246733.364.60
6SUSCA T, 2011, ENVIRON POLLUT10.1016/j.envpol.2011.03.00740531.153.97
7BERARDI U, 2014, APPL ENERG10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.04740140.108.48
8ROWE DB, 2011, ENVIRON POLLUT10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.02935827.543.51
9NEVENS F, 2013, J CLEAN PROD10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.00135031.826.53
10ESTEVES AM, 2012, IMPACT ASSESS PROJ A10.1080/14615517.2012.66035634829.007.97
11AZAPAGIC A, 1999, CHEM ENG J10.1016/S1385-8947(99)00042-X33813.522.59
12PIRES A, 2011, J ENVIRON MANAGE10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.02429622.772.90
13CAMPISANO A, 2017, WATER RES10.1016/j.watres.2017.02.05627238.868.55
14GUDE VG, 2016, J CLEAN PROD10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.02226232.755.98
15LAURENT A, 2014, WASTE MANAGE10.1016/j.wasman.2013.12.00425525.505.40
16HOFFMANN CC, 2009, J ENVIRON QUAL10.2134/jeq2008.008723615.732.20
17SHAFIQUE M, 2018, RENEW SUST ENERG REV10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.00623539.178.65
18OULTON RL, 2010, J ENVIRON MONITOR10.1039/c0em00068j22416.002.21
19ODUM WE, 1995, ESTUARIES10.2307/13523752197.551.00
20CARTER T, 2008, J ENVIRON MANAGE10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.02421913.694.89
21KOSAREO L, 2007, BUILD ENVIRON10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.01921812.822.22
22GHOLAMPOUR A, 2020, J MATER SCI10.1007/s10853-019-03990-y21353.2512.21
23MO WW, 2013, J ENVIRON MANAGE10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.00720218.363.77
24SAIZ S, 2006, ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL10.1021/es051752219310.722.95
25LIPPKE B, 2011, CARBON MANAG10.4155/CMT.11.2418914.541.85
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, M.; Zhong, X.; Sun, C.; Chen, T.; Su, J.; Li, J. Comprehensive Performance of Green Infrastructure through a Life-Cycle Perspective: A Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410857

AMA Style

Wang M, Zhong X, Sun C, Chen T, Su J, Li J. Comprehensive Performance of Green Infrastructure through a Life-Cycle Perspective: A Review. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):10857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410857

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Mo, Xu Zhong, Chuanhao Sun, Tong Chen, Jin Su, and Jianjun Li. 2023. "Comprehensive Performance of Green Infrastructure through a Life-Cycle Perspective: A Review" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 10857. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410857

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop