Advancements and Applications of Life Cycle Assessment in Slope Treatment: A Comprehensive Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Status of Life Cycle Assessment
2.1. Framework of Life Cycle Assessment
2.2. Application of Life Cycle Assessment in Slope Engineering
3. Development of Slope Treatment Technologies
3.1. Engineering Slope Treatment Technology
- 1.
- Slope surface protection
- (a)
- Plastering protection: this method involves applying a layer of plastering, typically 3 cm to 7 cm thick, on the slope surface. It effectively reduces the impact of external natural factors on the slope’s structural integrity, thereby extending its safe service life. Plastering protection is suitable for high-grade highways where the slopes consist of easily weathered soft rock [42].
- (b)
- Hammer protection: similar to plastering protection, this method also includes the application of a layer of plastering on the slope surface. However, prior to the additional plastering, the slope surface is hammered and compacted, and the additional plastering layer is thicker, ranging from 10 cm to 15 cm. The beating process enhances the density of the slope, making it more resistant to erosion caused by rain. This method is suitable for soil slopes and rock slopes that are susceptible to rain erosion and have experienced surface weathering.
- (c)
- Shotcrete protection: shotcrete involves spraying mortar and concrete onto the slope surface, to strengthen the overall structure and protect it from the erosive effects of wind and rain. However, this method may disrupt the natural landscape surrounding the highway, and it can be costly. Shotcrete protection is suitable for slopes with fractured surfaces, dense cracks, gaps, and unstable structures [42].
- 2.
- Stone masonry protection
- (a)
- Mortar rubble protection: this method is commonly used in slope treatment for high-grade highways. It involves filling the gaps among the rubble with cement mortar, creating a compact and complete engineering protection structure that effectively safeguards the slope structure.
- (b)
- Dry rubble protection: in this method, rubble with regular shapes is stacked on the slope surface to stabilize the slope structure. It is suitable for situations involving large-scale filling and excavation, significant slope deformation, and slopes composed of soft rock or soil.
- (c)
- Facing wall protection: a facing wall refers to a wall constructed on an excavated slope or a soft rock slope with a high degree of fragmentation, using mortar rubble. This method applies to slopes with severe weathering, soft rock slopes, and slopes with significant fragmentation.
- 3.
- Anchor rod protection
- 4.
- Anti-slide pile protection
- 5.
- Retaining-wall protection
3.2. Ecological Slope Treatment Technology
- 1.
- Artificial plant protection
- (a)
- Artificial-sowing and -grass planting: this technique involves evenly spreading seeds on the slope and covering them with soil. When the slope soil conditions are favorable in terms of temperature and humidity, the seeds germinate, take root, and eventually establish a plant community on the slope, achieving the objective of vegetation restoration. This method is suitable for low-height soil slopes with a gentle incline [58].
- (b)
- Paving-turf slope treatment: in this approach, a well-cultivated lawn is directly transplanted onto the slope surface, rapidly greening the slope. This method is commonly employed for greening urban-road slopes.
- (c)
- Plant-fiber-blanket slope treatment: agricultural waste materials such as rice husk, wheat husk, straw scale, and hemp fiber are combined with plant seeds, nutrients, special paper, and shaping net to produce an ecological slope treatment material that can be applied to cover the slope surface. This technique is suitable for soil slopes with a gentle incline and a flat slope surface [59].
- (d)
- Vegetation-bag slope treatment: non-woven fabric bags are filled with a specific proportion of plant seeds, fertilizer, water-retaining agents, sand, stones, and other fillers, to create vegetation bags. These bags are then stacked on the slope, allowing the seeds inside to germinate and facilitate slope greening [60].
- (e)
- Three-dimensional-net slope treatment: this method involves excavating a shallow ditch in the slope and casting grass seeds into the ditch, followed by covering the seeds with a three-dimensional net. As the grass grows and takes root beneath the net, stabilizing the slope, soil is applied to cover the three-dimensional net. Finally, a new soil layer is sprayed with grass. Once the grass roots on both sides of the three-dimensional net intertwine to form a network, the slope achieves both greening and stabilization objectives, simultaneously [61]. This technique is suitable for soil slopes and rock slopes with significant weathering.
- 2.
- Protection of spray-seeding plants
- (a)
- Hydraulic-spray-planting slope treatment: this technique utilizes a hydraulic spray machine to apply a mixture of plant seeds, fertilizer, water-retaining agent, adhesive, soil, and water, onto the slope surface. The sprayed slope is then covered with non-woven fabric, for maintenance. Although this technology offers high efficiency through mechanical construction, controlling the mixing ratio of the liquid mixture can be challenging, and construction is susceptible to weather conditions. It is suitable for slopes with gentle terrain and good soil quality [63,64].
- (b)
- Soil-spray-planting slope treatment: similar to hydraulic-spray-planting slope treatment, this technique also employs hydraulic-spray-seeding technology. The slope treatment process involves two steps [65]. Firstly, soils, binders, and water-retaining agents are mixed in a certain proportion to create a guest soil, which is then sprayed onto the slope surface, using a hydraulic press. This improves the slope surface, making it suitable for plant growth. Subsequently, a new mixture of plant seeds, fertilizer, soil, water-retaining agent, and binder, is sprayed onto soils. Compared to hydraulic-spray planting and slope-treatment technology, this method enhances the growing environment for slope plants, and has a wider application range. However, due to its high water consumption, complex construction technology, and high cost, this method is not suitable for areas with cold climates and arid conditions [66].
- (c)
- TBS-vegetation slope treatment: this technique involves the preparation of a thick-layer-base material mixture using plant seeds, soil, coarse and fine fibers, organic matter, biological bacterial fertilizer, full-price slow-release fertilizer, water, water-retaining agent, disinfectant, and pH regulator. The mixture is uniformly sprayed onto the slope surface using concrete sprayers, which can provide a solid foundation for vegetation growth on slopes. This method is suitable for weathered rock slopes with gentle inclines and slopes with poor soil conditions [67].
- (d)
- Spray-mixed-planting slope treatment: this technique, namely planting-concrete slope treatment, involves the mixture of soil, plant seeds, fertilizer, organic matter, water-retention materials, bonding materials, and water, in specific proportions. This meticulously prepared blend is then skillfully applied onto the slope surface using a concrete jet, resulting in the formation of a consolidated layer with a uniform thickness of approximately 10 cm and strategically placed continuous gaps [68]. The primary objective of this technique is to foster the growth of vegetation within these gaps, thereby facilitating the greening of slopes. However, it is imperative to acknowledge that the widespread implementation of this technology has encountered various technical challenges, encompassing the optimization of the mixture composition, enhancement of adhesion and bonding properties, promotion of seed germination and growth, and establishment of long-term maintenance strategies.
- 3.
- Skeleton slope treatment
3.3. Evaluation of Ecological Benefits
4. Current Research Status of Life Cycle Carbon Emission at Slope
4.1. Determination of Objectives and Scope
4.1.1. Evaluation Purpose
4.1.2. Functional Units
4.1.3. System Boundaries
4.2. Life Cycle List Analysis of Slope Treatment
4.2.1. Source of Carbon Emission during the Life Cycle of Slope Treatment
4.2.2. Determination of Carbon Emission Factors
- 1.
- Carbon emission factor of fossil energy
- 2.
- Carbon emission factor of building materials
- 3.
- Transportation carbon emission factor
- 4.
- Carbon emission factor of construction machinery
4.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Interpretation of Slope Treatment
4.4. Accounting Method
4.4.1. Calculation Method of Carbon Emissions
- 1.
- Actual measurement method
- 2.
- Material balance algorithm
- 3.
- Emission coefficient method
- 4.
- Input–output method
4.4.2. Carbon-Emission-Calculation Model for Different Stages
- 1.
- Carbon-emission-calculation model at the production stage
- 2.
- Calculation model of carbon emission in building-material-transportation stage
- 3.
- Carbon-emission-calculation model at the construction stage
- 4.
- Carbon-emission-calculation model at operation stage
4.5. Key Points of Emission Reduction
4.5.1. Emission-Reduction Strategies at the Construction Stage
- 1.
- Selection of slope treatment type
- 2.
- Vegetation selection
- 3.
- Strengthen new production technology and select new materials
4.5.2. Emission Reduction Strategy at the Transportation Stage
- 1.
- Optimize the delivery distance
- 2.
- Improve the energy-saving capacity of transportation means
- 3.
- Adopt green construction
5. Limitations and Prospects
6. Conclusions
- (a)
- Ecological slope treatment ensures slope stability, reduces the risk of natural disasters, and provides ecological benefits, such as erosion reduction, promotion of the ecological environment, and conservation of biodiversity. It is essential for infrastructure development and the harmonious coexistence with the environment.
- (b)
- LCA plays a crucial role in evaluating the environmental impact of ecological slope treatment, encompassing the entire project life cycle, from raw materials to the endpoint. It helps identify environmental hotspots, and guides sustainable material and technology choices.
- (c)
- LCA assesses the environmental impact of slope-treatment schemes, considering factors such as energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It assists in formulating sustainable strategies to minimize environmental harm and optimize resource utilization.
- (d)
- The application of LCA has enhanced the methodological rigor in assessing the environmental impacts of slope treatment, revealing innovative slope-management techniques and emission-reduction strategies, and emphasizing the role of ecological considerations in infrastructure projects. Employing LCA in slope treatment is vital for aligning industry practices with global sustainability goals, highlighting the need to integrate uncertainty analysis and long-term impact assessment, to bolster the credibility of LCA results.
- (e)
- Future research should enhance LCA practices by improving data collection methods, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, establishing comprehensive databases, and integrating uncertainty analysis and long-term monitoring, to enhance the reliability and effectiveness of LCA.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ryding, S.-O. ISO 14042 Environmental management• Life cycle assessment• life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1999, 4, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; Wang, C.; Li, S. Analysis on the susceptibility of environmental geological disasters considering regional sustainable development. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 9749–9762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, X.; Miao, L.; Chen, R.; Wang, H.; Xia, J. Surface rainfall erosion resistance and freeze-thaw durability of bio-cemented and polymer-modified loess slopes. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, Z.; Li, W.; Qiao, O.; Han, Y.; Shi, J.; Li, C. The corrosiveness of artificial soil may lead to the collapse of eco-engineering projects on rock slopes in mining areas. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 181, 106673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Yu, L.; Chen, X.; Wu, H.; Lin, H.; Li, C.; Hou, J. Environmental laws and ecological restoration projects enhancing ecosystem services in China: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 327, 116810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendrickson, C.; Horvath, A.; Joshi, S.; Lave, L. Peer reviewed: Economic input–output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1998, 32, 184A–191A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnay, A.; Nuss, G. Environmental Impacts of Coca-Cola Beverage Containers; Midwest Research Institute: Kansas City, MO, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Erlandsson, M.; Borg, M. Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings, constructions and operation services—Today practice and development needs. Build. Environ. 2003, 38, 919–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Fan, Y.; Basang, C.M.; Lu, J.; Zheng, C.; Wen, Z. Different biomass production and soil water patterns between natural and artificial vegetation along an environmental gradient on the Loess Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 814, 152839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nwodo, M.N.; Anumba, C.J. A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Build. Environ. 2019, 162, 106290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faiz, H.; Ng, S.; Rahman, M. A state-of-the-art review on the advancement of sustainable vegetation concrete in slope stability. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 326, 126502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, Y.; Kim, S.-M. Estimation of materials-induced CO2 emission from road construction in Korea. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 625–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celauro, C.; Corriere, F.; Guerrieri, M.; Casto, B.L. Environmentally appraising different pavement and construction scenarios: A comparative analysis for a typical local road. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 34, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulotta, T.; Mistretta, M.; Praticò, F. A life cycle scenario analysis of different pavement technologies for urban roads. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 673, 585–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Noland, R.B.; Hanson, C.S. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with a highway reconstruction: A New Jersey case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 731–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Li, Q.; Pei, X.; Wei, R.; Yang, B.; Lei, N.; Zhang, X.; Yin, D.; Wang, S.; Tao, Q. Ecological Restoration of Engineering Slopes in China—A Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leal, D.; Winter, M.G.; Seddon, R.; Nettleton, I.M. A comparative life cycle assessment of innovative highway slope repair techniques. Transp. Geotech. 2020, 22, 100322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Y.; Long, W.; Su, P.; Yang, F. Causes and treatment measures for deformation of retaining soil and slope. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciambrone, D.F. Environmental Life Cycle Analysis; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Tam, V.W.; Zhou, Y.; Illankoon, C.; Le, K.N. A critical review on BIM and LCA integration using the ISO 14040 framework. Build. Environ. 2022, 213, 108865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelaal, F.; Guo, B.H. Stakeholders’ perspectives on BIM and LCA for green buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 48, 103931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Teng, Y.; Pan, W.; Zhang, Y. BIM-integrated LCA to automate embodied carbon assessment of prefabricated buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 374, 133894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Roijen, E.C.; Miller, S.A. A review of bioplastics at end-of-life: Linking experimental biodegradation studies and life cycle impact assessments. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 181, 106236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14043; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Life Cycle, Interpretation. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2000.
- Mulya, K.S.; Zhou, J.; Phuang, Z.X.; Laner, D.; Woon, K.S. A systematic review of life cycle assessment of solid waste management: Methodological trends and prospects. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 831, 154903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winter, M.G.; Nettleton, I.M.; Seddon, R.; Codd, J. The assessment of innovative geotechnical slope repair techniques. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Geotech. Eng. 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordi, A.M.; Gallagher, P.M.; Spatari, S. Environmental life cycle performance of recycled materials for sustainable slope engineering. In Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2013: Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments III, San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 March 2013; pp. 1490–1501. [Google Scholar]
- Frischknecht, R.; Stucki, M.; Büsser, S.; Itten, R.; Wallbaum, H. Comparative life cycle assessment of geosynthetics versus conventional construction materials. Ground Eng. 2012, 45, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
- Storesund, R.; Massey, J.; Kim, Y. Life cycle impacts for concrete retaining walls vs. bioengineered slopes. In Proceedings of the GeoCongress 2008: Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation, New Orleans, LA, USA, 9–12 March 2008; pp. 875–882. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, R.; Long, M.; Zheng, J. Comparison of environmental impacts of two alternative stabilization techniques on expansive soil slopes. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 9454929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samuelsson, I.; Larsson, S.; Spross, J. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis for geotechnical engineering: Review and research gaps. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Surakarta, Indonesia, 24–25 August 2021; p. 012031. [Google Scholar]
- VandenBerge, D.R.; Esser, A.J.; Bumpas, K. An overview of sustainability applied to earth structures. In Proceedings of the IFCEE 2015, San Antonio, TX, USA, 17–21 March 2015; pp. 2707–2716. [Google Scholar]
- Hoerbinger, S.; Obriejetan, M. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Model for Soil Bioengineering Measures on Infrastructure Slopes. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, Vienna, Austria, 12–17 April 2015; p. 7924. [Google Scholar]
- Xiong, D.; Chen, F.; Lv, K.; Tan, X.; Huang, Y. The performance and temporal dynamics of vegetation concretes comprising three herbaceous species in soil stabilization and slope protection. Ecol. Eng. 2023, 188, 106873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, G.-Q.; Li, Z.-B.; Pei, L.; Li, P.; Zhang, X. Study on mechanism of regulation measures on water erosion process in the slope system. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Electric Technology and Civil Engineering (ICETCE), Lushan, China, 22–24 April 2011; pp. 2636–2639. [Google Scholar]
- Fu, H.; Zha, H.; Zeng, L.; Chen, C.; Jia, C.; Bian, H. Research progress on ecological protection technology of highway slope: Status and challenges. Transp. Saf. Environ. 2020, 2, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Hu, D.; Fan, J. Study on the application of vegetation protection and ecological restoration technology in stone slope. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Changchun, China, 21–23 August 2020; p. 042024. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, M.; Hoque, M.; Mallick, S.; Parshi, F.; Islam, T. Performance evaluation of bioengineering in slope protection for different soils. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Disaster Risk Mitigation, Cancun, Mexico, 22–23 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, W.; Xiling, Z.; Jinglin, Y.; Wenxuan, W.; Tian, T. A comprehensive performance evaluation of the cement-based expanded perlite plastering mortar. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 159705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Z.; Wang, T.; Wang, J.; Xiao, K.; Yang, T. Uniaxial compression mechanical properties and damage constitutive model of limestone under osmotic pressure. Int. J. Damage Mech. 2022, 31, 557–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, R.F.; Cardoso, R. Study of biocementation treatment to prevent erosion by concentrated water flow in a small-scale sand slope. Transp. Geotech. 2022, 37, 100873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Chen, H.; Li, X.; Zhang, F. Design and construction application of concrete canvas for slope protection. Powder Technol. 2019, 344, 937–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faiz, A.; Shah, B. Climate resilient slope stabilization for transport infrastructures. In Transport Infrastructure and Systems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 55–62. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Hu, D.; Li, L.; Li, C. Research on Application of Lattice Anchor System Design and Construction Monitoring in Slope Protection. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Surakarta, Indonesia, 24–25 August 2021; p. 022049. [Google Scholar]
- Su, H.; Wu, D.; Lu, Y.; Peng, X.; Wang, X.; Chen, W.; Wang, S. Experimental and numerical study on stability performance of new ecological slope protection using bolt-hinge anchored block. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 172, 106409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, P.; Li, J.; Zuo, S.; Cui, X.Z. Ecological retaining wall for high-steep slopes: A case study in the ji-lai expressway, eastern China. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 5106397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokes, A.; Spanos, I.; Norris, J.E.; Cammeraat, E. Eco-and Ground Bio-engineering: The Use of Vegetation to Improve Slope Stability. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Eco-Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, 13–17 September 2004; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2007; Volume 103. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, P.; Li, P.; Li, Z.; Sun, J.; Wang, D.; Min, Z. Effects of grass vegetation coverage and position on runoff and sediment yields on the slope of Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 259, 107231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, L.; Zhang, B.; Yin, Z.; Guo, H.; Siddique, K.H.; Wu, S.; Yang, J. Assessing the performance of conservation measures for controlling slope runoff and erosion using field scouring experiments. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 259, 107212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Li, H.; Cheng, Z.; Dong, J.; Wang, Y. Experimental and Numerical Simulation Study on Mechanical Properties of Shallow Slope Root-soil Composite in Qinghai Area. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2023, 27, 2834–2852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, C.W.W.; Guo, H.; Ni, J.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, Z. Effects of soil–plant-biochar interactions on water retention and slope stability under various rainfall patterns. Landslides 2022, 19, 1379–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, X.; Jia, H.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Shi, C.; Zhang, F. Effect of herbaceous plant root density on slope stability in a shallow landslide-prone area. Nat. Hazards 2022, 112, 2337–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, G.; Wang, L.; Liu, X. Methods for Studying the Effect of Plant Roots on Soil Mechanical Reinforcement: A Review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2023, 23, 2893–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nomleni, I.A.; Hung, W.-Y.; Soegianto, D.P. Dynamic performance of root-reinforced slopes by centrifuge modeling tests. Landslides 2023, 20, 1187–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Zhang, K.; Liu, J.; Wang, M.; Cen, Y. Quantifying the effects of grass distribution patterns on the relative hydrodynamic parameters of overland flow. Hydrol. Process. 2022, 36, e14707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz, S.; Islam, M.S. Erosion and runoff reduction potential of vetiver grass for hill slopes: A physical model study. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2023, 38, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Liu, X.; Yu, Y.; Ma, X. Biochar, grass, and cross-ridge reshaped the surface runoff nitrogen under consecutive rainstorms in loessial sloping lands. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 261, 107354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, D.; Han, J.; Wu, J.; Wang, K.; Wu, W.; Teng, W.; Sardo, V. Grass hedges for the protection of sloping lands from runoff and soil loss: An example from Northern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2010, 110, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhao, T.; Huang, X.; Zhao, P. Ecological restoration of highway slope by covering with straw-mat and seeding with grass–legume mixture. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Zhang, H.-R. Design of soilbag-protected slopes in expansive soils. Geotext. Geomembr. 2021, 49, 1036–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z. Ecological Protection Design Strategy for Mountain Tourism Highway Slopes. J. World Archit. 2021, 5, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, H.; Du, J.; Zhou, C.; Liu, Z. Experimental study on ecological performance improvement of sprayed planting concrete based on the addition of polymer composite material. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngo, T.P.; Takahashi, A.; Likitlersuang, S. Centrifuge modelling of a soil slope reinforced by geosynthetic cementitious composite mats. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2023, 41, 881–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasemi, P.; Montoya, B.M. Field implementation of microbially induced calcium carbonate precipitation for surface erosion reduction of a coastal plain sandy slope. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2022, 148, 04022071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Qin, Z.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, H.; Shen, J.; Shao, W.; Jiang, G.; Guo, X.; Zhang, J. Study on stability and ecological restoration of soil-covered rocky slope of an abandoned mine on an island in rainy regions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Li, Y.; Shi, J.; Zhao, T.; Yang, J. Optimizing the formulation of external-soil spray seeding with sludge using the orthogonal test method for slope ecological protection. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 102, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, S.; Lee, M.; Im, J.; Kwon, Y.-M.; Chung, M.-K.; Cho, G.-C.; Chang, I. Site application of biopolymer-based soil treatment (BPST) for slope surface protection: In-situ wet-spraying method and strengthening effect verification. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 307, 124983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Yang, H.; Yu, W.; Li, X.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, C. Vegetative substrate configuration technology for tower foundation slope of transmission line in arid area considering species suitability. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2023, 42, e14184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Su, C.; Huang, Z.; Yang, C.; Yang, Y. Research on the protection of expansive soil slopes under heavy rainfall by anchor-reinforced vegetation systems. Geotext. Geomembr. 2022, 50, 1147–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medl, A.; Mayr, S.; Rauch, H.P.; Weihs, P.; Florineth, F. Microclimatic conditions of ‘Green Walls’, a new restoration technique for steep slopes based on a steel grid construction. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 101, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, S.; Muhunthan, B.; Badger, T.C.; Grandorff, R. Load testing of anchors for wire mesh and cable net rockfall slope protection systems. Eng. Geol. 2005, 79, 162–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, C.-C.; Su, C.-F. Role of roots in the shear strength of root-reinforced soils with high moisture content. Ecol. Eng. 2008, 33, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Liu, J.; Lin, C.; Ma, X.-F.; Song, Z.-Z.; Chen, Z.-H.; Jiang, C.-H.; Qi, C.-Q. Polyvinyl acetate-based soil stabilization for rock slope ecological restoration. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 324, 116209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, H. Application of vetiver grass in slope retaining and consolidation project in suide test area. J. Discret. Math. Sci. Cryptogr. 2017, 20, 1321–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Liu, D.; Xiao, H.; Chen, J.; Ding, Y.; Xia, D.; Xia, Z.; Xu, W. Evaluating the effect of the ecological restoration of quarry slopes in Caidian District, Wuhan City. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.-Y.; Zun, Q.-J.; Wang, J.; Huang, W.-Y. Three-dimensional geonet ecological slope protection technology and its engineering application. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Chennai, India, 16–17 September 2020; p. 012055. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, J.; Bhattarai, S.; Gyasi-Agyei, Y. Evaluation of different seed mixtures for grass establishment to mitigate soil erosion on steep slopes of railway batters. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2011, 137, 624–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebitzer, G.; Ekvall, T.; Frischknecht, R.; Hunkeler, D.; Norris, G.; Rydberg, T.; Schmidt, W.-P.; Suh, S.; Weidema, B.P.; Pennington, D.W. Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 701–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stokes, A.; Douglas, G.B.; Fourcaud, T.; Giadrossich, F.; Gillies, C.; Hubble, T.; Kim, J.H.; Loades, K.W.; Mao, Z.; McIvor, I.R. Ecological mitigation of hillslope instability: Ten key issues facing researchers and practitioners. Plant Soil 2014, 377, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.-C.; Klemeš, J.J.; Wang, Y.; Dong, X.; Wei, H.; Xu, Z.; Varbanov, P.S. Water-Energy-Carbon Emissions nexus analysis of China: An environmental input-output model-based approach. Appl. Energy 2020, 261, 114431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Li, J.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, H. Estimation method of carbon emissions in the embodied phase of low carbon building. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2020, 2020, 8853536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, S.; Zhou, X.; Zhou, H. Study on Carbon Emission Measurement in Building Materialization Stage. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.; Deng, Z.; Guo, S.; Chen, Y. Development of bottom-up model to estimate dynamic carbon emission for city-scale buildings. Appl. Energy 2023, 331, 120410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GB/T 51366-2019; Standard for Building Carbon Emission Calculation. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese)
- Noussan, M.; Campisi, E.; Jarre, M. Carbon Intensity of Passenger Transport Modes: A Review of Emission Factors, Their Variability and the Main Drivers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, M.; Liu, X.; Hu, S.; Wen, Q.; Yan, D. Building a greener future—Progress of the green building technology in the “13th Five-Year Plan” of China. In Building Simulation; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2022; pp. 1705–1707. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, H. A critical review and analysis of construction equipment emission factors. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, B.; Li, J.; Tam, V.W.; Yang, M.; Chen, D. A BIM-LCA approach for estimating the greenhouse gas emissions of large-scale public buildings: A case study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houghton, J.T.; Jenkins, G.J.; Ephraums, J.J. Climate change: The IPCC scientific assessment. Am. Sci. 1990, 80, 263. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Yan, D.; Hu, S.; Guo, S. Modelling of energy consumption and carbon emission from the building construction sector in China, a process-based LCA approach. Energy Policy 2019, 134, 110949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Gu, K. Present condition of estimate method of carbon emission in China. Environ. Sci. Manag 2006, 31, 78–80. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.; Hu, Q.-Q.; Deng, Y.-W.; Li, Q.; Li, Y. Emission Factors of CO and NOx of Urban Tunnel with Concave Structure Based on Measurement Method. China J. Highw. Transp. 2017, 30, 116. [Google Scholar]
- Reference manual. In Revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996; Volume 3.
- Heimburger, A.M.; Harvey, R.M.; Shepson, P.B.; Stirm, B.H.; Gore, C.; Turnbull, J.; Cambaliza, M.O.; Salmon, O.E.; Kerlo, A.-E.M.; Lavoie, T.N. Assessing the optimized precision of the aircraft mass balance method for measurement of urban greenhouse gas emission rates through averaging. Elem. Sci. Anthropocene 2017, 5, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ipcc, I. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., Eds.; Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme; IGES: Tokyo, Japan, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z.; Guan, D.; Wei, W.; Davis, S.J.; Ciais, P.; Bai, J.; Peng, S.; Zhang, Q.; Hubacek, K.; Marland, G. Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China. Nature 2015, 524, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarzböck, T.; Rechberger, H.; Cencic, O.; Fellner, J. Determining national greenhouse gas emissions from waste-to-energy using the Balance Method. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P.; Kansal, A.; Carliell-Marquet, C. Energy and carbon footprints of sewage treatment methods. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 165, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Zeng, Y.-E.; Wu, B.-W. Exploring the relationship between urbanization, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions in different provinces of China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1563–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eggleston, H.; Buendia, L.; Miwa, K.; Ngara, T.; Tanabe, K. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Du, L.; Wei, C.; Cai, S. Economic development and carbon dioxide emissions in China: Provincial panel data analysis. China Econ. Rev. 2012, 23, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul-Wahab, S.A.; Charabi, Y.; Al-Maamari, R.; Al-Rawas, G.A.; Gastli, A.; Chan, K. CO2 greenhouse emissions in Oman over the last forty-two years. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1702–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munksgaard, J.; Wier, M.; Lenzen, M.; Dey, C. Using input-output analysis to measure the environmental pressure of consumption at different spatial levels. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, T.; Papathanasopoulou, E.; Bradley, P.; Druckman, A. Attributing Carbon Emissions to Functional Household Needs: A pilot framework for the UK. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Regional and Urban Modelling, Brussels, Belgium, 1–2 June 2006; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Y.; Li, S.; Sun, H.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. Energy carbon emission reduction of China’s transportation sector: An input–output approach. Econ. Anal. Policy 2021, 69, 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tunç, G.İ.; Türüt-Aşık, S.; Akbostancı, E. CO2 emissions vs. CO2 responsibility: An input–output approach for the Turkish economy. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 855–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, G.; Liu, M.; Gao, X. Dynamic characteristic analysis of indirect carbon emissions caused by Chinese urban and rural residential consumption based on time series input-output tables from 2002 to 2011. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 2014, 297637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Yu, Y.; Jiang, T.; Nie, J. Analysis on carbon emissions efficiency differences and optimization evolution of China’s industrial system: An input-output analysis. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0258147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, J.-S.; Yeh, K.-C. Life cycle carbon dioxide emissions simulation and environmental cost analysis for building construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 101, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, C. Calculation of a building’s life cycle carbon emissions based on Ecotect and building information modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 453–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Peng, T.; Yuan, C.; Ping, Y. Assessment of Carbon Emissions at the Logistics and Transportation Stage of Prefabricated Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2022, 13, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mo, Z.; Gao, T.; Qu, J.; Cai, G.; Cao, Z.; Jiang, W. An Empirical Study of Carbon Emission Calculation in the Production and Construction Phase of A Prefabricated Office Building from Zhejiang, China. Buildings 2022, 13, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Fan, W.; Li, D.; Liu, X.; Song, M. Driving factors of global carbon footprint pressure: Based on vegetation carbon sequestration. Appl. Energy 2020, 267, 114914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, P.; Weipeng, L. Research on intelligent transportation logistics technology based on energy saving and emission reduction. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Surakarta, Indonesia, 24–25 August 2021; p. 032020. [Google Scholar]
- Bakker, S.; Zuidgeest, M.; De Coninck, H.; Huizenga, C. Transport, development and climate change mitigation: Towards an integrated approach. Transp. Rev. 2014, 34, 335–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Ye, M.; Yuan, L.; Bi, W.; Lu, W. Analyzing the freight characteristics and carbon emission of construction waste hauling trucks: Big data analytics of Hong Kong. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, D.; Zhang, H. The life cycle analysis of energy consumption and emission of pure electric van and diesel van. Acta Sci. Circumstantiae 2019, 39, 2043–2052. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Z.; Chen, H.; Mi, L.; Li, P.; Qi, K. Green building technologies adoption process in China: How environmental policies are reshaping the decision-making among alliance-based construction enterprises? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 73, 103122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energy Name | Unit | Carbon Emission Coefficient (kgCO2/GJ) | Average Low Calorific Value (KJ/Unit) | Carbon Oxidation Rate | Carbon Emission Factor (kgCO2/Unit) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anthracite | kg | 98.3 | 26,700 | 0.94 | 2.47 |
Coking coal | kg | 94.6 | 28,200 | 0.98 | 2.61 |
Lignite | kg | 101 | 11,900 | 0.96 | 1.15 |
Coke | kg | 107 | 28,435 | 0.93 | 2.83 |
Crude oil | kg | 73.7 | 41,816 | 0.98 | 3.02 |
Kerosene | kg | 71.5 | 43,070 | 0.98 | 3.02 |
Gasoline | kg | 69.3 | 43,070 | 0.98 | 2.93 |
Diesel oil | kg | 74.1 | 42,652 | 0.98 | 3.1 |
Fuel oil | kg | 77.4 | 41,816 | 0.98 | 3.17 |
Natural gas | m3 | 56.1 | 38,931 | 0.99 | 2.16 |
Building Material Categories | Carbon Emission Factors (*: from the Simapro 9.1 Database; #: from the Literature) |
---|---|
C30 | 0.295 kgCO2/kg |
C50 | 0.385 kgCO2/kg |
Grit (f = 1.6–3.0) | 0.00251 kgCO2/kg |
Lime production (market average) | 1.19 kgCO2/kg |
Macadam (d = 10–30 mm) | 0.00218 kgCO2/kg |
Clay | 0.00218 kgCO2/kg |
Ordinary steel | 2.05 kgCO2/kg |
Flat glass | 1.13 kgCO2/kg |
Aluminum-plastic co-extrusion window | 129.5 kgCO2/m2 |
Plastic steel window | 62.4 kgCO2/m2 * |
Graphite polystyrene board | 4.62 kgCO2/kg * |
XPS | 11.1107 kgCO2/kg * |
Rock wool board | 1.98 kgCO2/kg |
Polystyrene foam board | 5.02 kgCO2/kg |
Rebar | 2.31 kgCO2/kg * |
1:1 cement mortar | 0.013 kgCO2/kg |
Gridding cloth | 3.28 kgCO2/m2 * |
Rubber powder polystyrene particles | 2.31 kgCO2/m2 * |
Coating | 0.89 kgCO2/kg # |
Gypsum powder | 3.8 kgCO2/kg # |
Transport Types | Carbon Emission Factors |
---|---|
Light gasoline truck transport (load 2 t) | 0.334 |
Medium gasoline truck transport (load 8 t) | 0.115 |
Heavy-duty gasoline truck transport (load 10 t) | 0.104 |
Heavy-duty gasoline truck transport (load 18 t) | 0.104 |
Light diesel truck transport (load capacity 2 t) | 0.286 |
Medium diesel truck transport (load 8 t) | 0.179 |
Heavy diesel truck transport (load capacity 10 t) | 0.162 |
Heavy diesel truck transport (load 18 t) | 0.129 |
Heavy diesel truck transport (load capacity 30 t) | 0.078 |
Heavy diesel truck transport (load 46 t) | 0.057 |
Railway transport | 0.010 |
Liquid cargo ship transport (deadweight 2000 t) | 0.019 |
Dry bulk carrier transport (deadweight 2500 t) | 0.015 |
Machine Name | Number of Shifts | Quantity | Gasoline Consumption (kg) | Electrical Consumption (kw·h) | Gasoline Carbon Emission Coefficient (kgCO2/Unit) | Electric Carbon Emission Coefficient |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
saloon car | 100 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 0.55 | 0.7769 |
10 t crane | 80 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 0.55 | 0.7769 |
20 t crane | 40 | 1 | 0 | 25 | 0.55 | 0.7769 |
small forklift truck | 160 | 1 | 29.26 | 0 | 0.55 | 0.7769 |
coagulation mixer truck | 8 | 4 | 0 | 198.97 | 0.55 | 0.7769 |
Method | Advantage | Disadvantage | Range of Application |
---|---|---|---|
Field measurement method | Accurate, real-time, can be used in complex scenes | High cost, limitations, inconsistent data | It is applicable to the measurement of the carbon footprint of specific industries or enterprises, monitoring of large carbon emission sources, research, and evaluation of carbon emission data of specific regions or specific sources |
Material balance method | Relatively simple, wide range of application | Data reliability is low, there are estimation errors, lack of real-time | It is suitable for simple carbon emission estimation, where data are sufficient, where carbon emissions are quickly assessed, and for educational and communication purposes |
Emission coefficient method | Relatively simple, quick assessment of carbon emissions | Lack of real-time, limited accuracy, limited scope of application | It is suitable for situations where more accurate data are not available and where rapid assessment, education, and advocacy purposes are required |
Input–output method | Comprehensive, high precision, indirect effects considered | Data requirements are high, complex, and uncertain | It is suitable for decision-making, carbon-reduction target setting, and high-precision carbon emission measurement |
Literature Categories | Sources | Application Scopes |
---|---|---|
National Center for Climate Strategy | National Climate Center website | Applicable to China |
IPCC reporting guidelines | IPCC website | It is universal |
International Energy Agency, U.S. Energy Information Administration | IEA, EIA official website | Contrast test |
EMEP and CORINAIR Checklist Guide | European Environment Agency Website (EEA) | Cross check |
Domestic and foreign literature data | Library, database | Targeted emission factor |
Survey or monitoring data, etc. | Research institution | Representative emission factor |
Serial Number | Classify | Countermeasure | Rules and Explanations |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Optimized transportation mode | Reasonable control of vehicle speed | Reducing the amount of time vehicles spend idling reduces carbon emissions |
2 | Increase the loading rate | A full load can reduce carbon emissions by 70% per kilometer, compared to 20% of cargo | |
3 | Increase freight turnover | Increasing freight turnover reduces carbon emissions | |
4 | Adopt new-energy delivery vehicles | The use of electric trucks instead of fuel vehicles can reduce carbon emissions by up to 7.2% | |
5 | Optimized transport distance | Reduce the empty round-trip rate | Round-trip transport vehicle to reduce one-way empty load |
6 | Reduce unreasonable transportation | Avoid peak traffic when not necessary, to improve transportation efficiency | |
7 | Shorten transport route | Improve the supply-chain management level and nearby transportation; at the same time, strengthen the recycling of materials and reduce the volume of traffic |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yao, Y.; Xu, P.; Li, J.; Hu, H.; Qi, Q. Advancements and Applications of Life Cycle Assessment in Slope Treatment: A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010398
Yao Y, Xu P, Li J, Hu H, Qi Q. Advancements and Applications of Life Cycle Assessment in Slope Treatment: A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010398
Chicago/Turabian StyleYao, Yongsheng, Peiyi Xu, Jue Li, Hengwu Hu, and Qun Qi. 2024. "Advancements and Applications of Life Cycle Assessment in Slope Treatment: A Comprehensive Review" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 398. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010398