A Macro-Level Life Cycle Environmental-Economic Impact and Benefit Assessment of Sponge Cities in China
Changqing Xu,Wei Lin,Yifei Zhu,Bin Zhang,Zhaohua Wang,Haifeng Jia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107859
IF: 13.716
2024-01-01
Resources Conservation and Recycling
Abstract:Urban runoff source control facilities (URSCFs) are integral components of Sponge City (SC), playing a pivotal role in providing ecosystem services and managing water quality and quantity. To accurately assess the performance of URSCFs, it is crucial to quantify their environmental and economic impacts. However, previous studies have predominantly focused on location-specific case studies, lacking a macro-level perspective necessary for informing public policy development pertaining to SC initiatives. This study aims to bridge this gap by conducting a macro-level life cycle assessment across China's 16 initial pilot SCs, categorized into three zones based on their annual rainfall volume control rate alpha (i.e., Zone II (80 % to 85% for alpha), Zone III (75% to 85% for alpha), and Zone IV (70 % to 85 % for alpha)). By simulating five rainfall drainage scenarios, we delve into the environmental benefits of SC construction. The results indicate that Zone III incurs the highest environmental and economic costs during the construction phase, followed by Zones II and IV. In Zone III, bioretention contribute significantly to the environmental impact and economic cost, while constructed wetland and detention cells are the key contributors for Zone II. During the operation phase, Zone III demonstrates the largest environmental and economic benefits, with Zone IV and II trailing behind. The investment payback period for SCs in all zones is less than eight years, with Zone IV recovering costs the fastest (3.9 years) and Zone II the slowest (7.5 years). Facilities like detention cells, green roofs, and permeable pavements tend to have longer payback periods. Based on our findings, we recommend that Zone II exercise caution in constructing detention cells, permeable pavements, and wetlands, while Zone III should carefully consider green roofs and bioretention to optimize SC investments. Due to the fewer URSCFs constructed in Zone IV, it exhibits the lowest environmental impact compared to Zones II and III. Our research provides valuable insights to support policymaking with regards to future SC planning and development.