1-s2.0-S0959652623039641-main

Journal of Cleaner Production 434 (2024) 139806
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Carbon reduction potential of a rain garden: A cradle-to-grave life cycle

carbon footprint assessment
Yijun Peng a, Yafei Wang a, *, Hanxi Chen a, Lu Wang a, Biao Luo b, Hongxiang Tong b, Yi Zou b,
Zongxiong Lei b, Shaoqing Chen a, **
a
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control and Remediation Technology, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen
University, 135 Xingang Xi Road, 510275, Guangzhou, China
b
Alibaba Cloud, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling editor: Xin Tong With emphasis on constructing low-carbon cities, the renovation of old communities highlights the importance of
renewing rainwater management facilities. Rain garden is an exceptional Nature-based Solution for rainwater
Keywords: management. When applying them to renovate old communities, the carbon footprint should be considered. This
Rain garden study focused on renovating facilities in the Greater Bay Area and utilized the Energy Expert platform to
Life cycle assessment
calculate rain garden carbon footprint with the Life Cycle Assessment. The carbon reduction benefits during the
Carbon footprint
operation were estimated. This study accounting the life cycle carbon footprint of the 5455 m2 rain garden was
Carbon reduction
Old community renovation 1117.42 tCO2e. The carbon footprint contribution, from highest to lowest was the end-of-life phase, materials
production phase, construction phase, use and maintenance phase. Regarding carbon emission inventory, waste
soil landfill, fertilizer acquisition, and waste soil recycling ranked high. Transportation also accounted for a
remarkable carbon emission. The rain garden showed great potential for climate change mitigation, with a total
and net carbon reduction of 1927.41 and 809.99 tCO2e, respectively. To reduce the carbon footprint of the rain
garden, we should focus on waste soil treatment and transportation. Recommendations included increasing
waste soil recycling, in situ recycling and green transportation.
1. Introduction Beddewela, 2020). In 2008, the World Bank and the World Conservation
Union (IUCN) introduced Nature-based Solutions (NbS) as a concept
With the ongoing growth of cities, communities have become that utilizes ecosystem services and their functions to tackle climate
increasingly concerned about their environment and the well-being they change challenges and fulfill sustainable development goals (Sowiń
offered, as the areas are intimately connected to human activity. How ska-Świerkosz and García, 2022). Among the various forms of urban
ever, numerous old communities in urban areas are struggling to keep NbS, green infrastructure (GI) plays a vital role in balancing nature
up with the demands of urbanization and the impacts of global climate conservation and human construction (Apostolopoulou and Adams,
change, necessitating urgent renovation (Wang et al., 2020). This poses 2015; Cortinovis and Geneletti, 2018; De Valck et al., 2019). GI provided
a key challenge to urban development and the creation of resilient cities multiple services, such as adapting to climate change (Geneletti and
(Tang, 2022; Yu, 2017). Historically, towns were predominantly con Zardo, 2016; Takacs et al., 2016), improving stormwater management
structed using grey infrastructures (Zhang and Lian, 2014), which now (Pappalardo et al., 2017; Raei et al., 2019), mitigating the heat island
require upgrading to low-carbon and environmentally friendly alterna effect (Saaroni et al., 2018; Wang and Banzhaf, 2018), reducing envi
tives (Wang et al., 2017). ronmental pollution (Livesley et al., 2016), enhancing social well-being
Given the inherent contradictions and conflicts between socioeco and human health (Carrier et al., 2016; Ko and Son, 2018; Sun et al.,
nomic development and natural ecosystems (Lu et al., 2020; Xu and Liu, 2018), and also generating economic benefits while promoting regional
2020), achieving sustainable development has become central to sustainable development (Graca et al., 2017; Wolf et al., 2020).
addressing current environmental issues (Barbesgaard, 2017; Tran and The conventional approach to urban stormwater management relies
* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wangyf97@mail.sysu.edu.cn (Y. Wang), chenshaoqing@mail.sysu.edu.cn (S. Chen).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139806
Received 28 July 2023; Received in revised form 28 September 2023; Accepted 16 November 2023
Available online 19 November 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Peng et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 434 (2024) 139806
heavily on underground drainage pipes. However, this system is prone more comprehensive, including the final disposal stage, which was a
to flooding when the rainfall exceeds the capacity of the pipe network. critical phase in the life cycle carbon footprint of rain gardens. Addi
As a result, the grey infrastructure-based rainwater and sewage drainage tionally, the inputs and outputs of materials at various stages of rain
system can no longer meet the demands of modern urban construction garden construction in this study aligned with the current practical
and development (Schulz et al., 2012). In response, there is a growing applications of rain gardens. Lastly, this study utilized a new analytical
utilization of NbS as an alternative approach to stormwater manage platform that leverages big data analysis, computational calculations,
ment. NbS offers improved efficiency in surface stormwater treatment and artificial intelligence technology, focusing on carbon footprint ac
while introducing green elements and generating additional economic, counting and optimizing the upstream and downstream performances to
ecological, and social benefits (Andrew and Vesely, 2008; Kong et al., better serve the purpose of low-carbon application research in this study.
2017; Lucas and Sample, 2015; Wang et al., 2013). This shift towards This study was conducted against the backdrop of the renovation
NbS provides a novel perspective for the renovation of urban stormwater requirements in old communities. To assess the carbon footprint of rain
management facilities. gardens, this study gathered data on the carbon emission process in
Rain gardens, an emerging form of NbS for stormwater management ventory and employed the carbon emission factor database and the
(Wei et al., 2021), are built on the concept of sponge city construction Energy Expert platform for LCA. Furthermore, the carbon reduction
and serve as excellent solutions. Rain gardens not only effectively alle benefits of the rain gardens were analyzed and compared to their life-
viate urban rainwater issues, but also hold promising prospects for the cycle carbon emissions. Through sensitivity analysis, this study evalu
recycling of urban water resources (Feng and Yamamoto, 2020; Huang ated the factors that exert a great influence on the LCA carbon footprint
et al., 2020). Therefore, rain gardens are recognized as an effective of rain gardens, providing recommendations for optimizing their
strategy for renovating older communities and possess great potential in applicability and promoting their low-carbon implementation.
the development of resilient and green cities. Numerous studies have
demonstrated the effectiveness of rain gardens for urban stormwater 2. Material and methods
management, highlighting their high social and ecological benefits.
Siwiec et al. (2018) and Sharma and Malaviya (2021) emphasized the 2.1. Overview of the study area
cost-effectiveness of rain gardens in improving water quality and man
aging stormwater flooding. Jeong et al. (2016) revealed the substantial This study focused on the renovation of old communities in the
cost reduction of GI compared to traditional grey infrastructure. Kavehei Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area, aiming to replace traditional
et al. (2018) evaluated the carbon sequestration potential of various rainwater treatment facilities with NbS. The research project centered
stormwater management NbS, finding that rain gardens exhibited the around the renovation of Guanggang park, a community facility located
highest carbon capacity. Rashid et al. (2022) and Andrew and Vesely in Guanggang new town, which was previously an abandoned industrial
(2008) underscored the ecological benefits of rain gardens. Currently, area for steel-making. Spanning a total area of 298,000 m2, the project
low-carbon city construction has emerged as a crucial topic (Yin et al., adopted a design approach that honors the original site characteristics
2022), and integrating low-carbon principles into urban renewal pro and preserves existing facilities. To enhance the infiltration and purifi
cesses is essential for sustainable urban development and achieving cation of rainwater and sewage, the project incorporates rain gardens
China’s “double carbon” goal (Yu, 2022). Therefore, it is imperative to arranged in a linear pattern. This layout facilitates improved the effi
consider the carbon footprint of urban NbS throughout its life cycle. ciency of rainwater and sewage drainage within each block by inter
Furthermore, the direct carbon storage benefits of rain gardens and the connecting them. Additionally, the project implemented a network of
indirect carbon reduction benefits from water purification for secondary rainwater collection pipes to enable the secondary utilization of rain
use have not been fully examined in current studies (Peri et al., 2012; water and sewage.
Saiz et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2016). Failure to elucidate the contribution
of rain gardens to urban climate change adaptation and mitigation could 2.2. Research scope and boundary
hinder their widespread adoption and application.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has found widespread use in various The total area of rain gardens in this study area was 5455 m2. Based
applications related to GI and is now being increasingly employed in on the common lifespan of rain gardens (Emerson and Traver, 2008;
urban stormwater management (Saygin, 2015). Xu and Gao (2022) Flynn and Traver, 2013), this study set a 30-year lifecycle. The scope of
conducted a cost-benefit analysis utilizing LCA to evaluate nature-based this study was the life-cycle carbon footprint of a rain garden from cradle
rainwater treatment facilities, including rain gardens. This analysis to grave, including the production of materials, construction, operation
encompassed the facilities’ life cycle, ranging from material acquisition and maintenance, disposal, and transportation at each phase. The
to operation and maintenance. De Sousa et al. (2012) and Moore and functional unit defined for this study was “5455 m2 of rain garden, 30
Hunt (2013) examined the carbon footprint of urban stormwater infra years full-life-cycle”. As shown in Fig. 1, the carbon footprint of the
structure, evaluating carbon storage and emissions across its life cycle, production process of water treatment residual (WTR), the carbon
from material acquisition to operation and maintenance. The integra footprint of machinery and equipment transportation during the con
tion of LCA into stormwater infrastructure assessment has allowed for struction and dismantling process, the self-emissions of fertilizer during
investigating the carbon emission contributions of these systems the operation of the rain garden, and the carbon footprint of waste
throughout their life cycle, serving as an important indicator for facility recycling and reuse processes were not included within the defined
construction (Flynn and Traver, 2013). However, despite the significant study boundary. Firstly, as an auxiliary additive material for the filler,
influence of the end-of-life phase on the carbon footprint of rain gardens WTR accounted for a very small proportion, with its production process
(Vineyard et al., 2015), it is noteworthy that the final disposal phase is primarily involving the environmentally safe treatment of sludge. Sec
often excluded from many LCA studies of GI. Consequently, it is crucial ondly, the carbon emissions associated with WTR are not well-defined,
to conduct comprehensive assessments of the full life-cycle carbon and their inclusion could potentially affect the accuracy of the carbon
footprint of rain gardens with the utmost integrity. Comparison with emissions assessment in the LCA of rain gardens. Additionally, the
previous related study has shown in Table S1. “transport process” of machinery is not an essential process in the life
The novelties of this study are listed as follows. First of all, this study cycle carbon footprint of rain gardens. It pertains to unloading and oc
analyzed the carbon reduction benefits of rain gardens and explored the curs infrequently, and we can assume that this equipment is already
potential for low-carbon applications of rain gardens, providing on-site. Since these processes are not critical steps in the carbon foot
constructive references to the application for their implementation. print of rain gardens, their contributions had not been included in this
Furthermore, compared to previous studies, the LCA of this study was study. Finally, a study by Walling and Vaneeckhaute (2020) indicated
2
Fig. 1. LCA boundary diagram of rain gardens. The diagram includes the entire life cycle phases of the rain garden from “cradle-o-grave,” where T represents
transportation. The figure illustrates the study boundary, processes excluded from the study boundary, and the direct or indirect carbon reduction benefits generated
during operation.
that fertilizers generate environmental greenhouse gas emissions during was set at a thickness of 250 mm, given the predominance of herbaceous
the operation of rain gardens. However, due to great variations among plants (B. Zhang et al., 2020). The packing layer, on the other hand, was
different fertilizer types and their susceptibility to comprehensive established with a thickness of 800 mm. The drainage layer incorporated
environmental factors, the lack of real-world data precludes including perforated pipes (Shi et al., 2017), which connected to a regional cistern
their carbon footprint contribution within the study boundary. for storing clean water for secondary use. To enhance rain garden
catchment efficiency (Chen, 2014), a recessed structure was imple
mented (Liu et al., 2014; Zong, 2023).
2.3. Structure of rain garden
The implementation and construction of rain gardens involved 2.4. Selection of vegetation
crucial decisions regarding vegetation, location, layer thickness, and
materials. Considering the average annual precipitation in the study Plants are essential components of rain gardens, hence the selection
area (1623.6–1899.8 mm), appropriate thicknesses were determined for of optimal plant configurations in rain garden research applications
each layer of the rain gardens (Gao, 2017). Fig. 2 illustrates the should consider various factors. Native plants that exhibit resilience and
arrangement of layers in the rain garden, including the plant layer, tolerance to periodic flooding are preferred (Peng et al., 2016). Native
collecting water layer, planting soil layer, packing layer, transition plant species from Guangdong Province were selected based on the “List
layer, and drainage layer, from top to bottom. To ensure effective of Major Native Species of Guangdong Province” and relevant studies on
rainwater collection and water purification benefits, the planting layer vegetation selection for rain gardens were referenced (Chen et al., 2017;
Fig. 2. Structure of rain garden. (Self-drawn by the author).
3
Zeng et al., 2021). The comprehensive selection included perennial WTR aligns with the concept of waste recycling and contributes to
herbs, iris, perilla, plantain, and flowering leafy ginger. The planting low-carbon practices. To prevent the mixing of materials from the
design of the rain garden followed the guidelines provided in “Con packing layers into the gravel layer and to avoid soil particles clogging
struction and Acceptance Specification for Landscape Engineering (CJJ the perforated pipe, a transitional sand layer was placed between the
82–2012)", “Project Specification for Landscape Engineering (GB drainage layer and the packing layer. At the bottom, a gravel layer or
55014-2021)", and the specific planting design for rain gardens (Liang, perforated drainage pipe was constructed to enhance infiltration. The
2022). The vegetation planting density was approximately 20 main filling material consists of gravel with a diameter of approximately
plants/m3, using seeding as the planting method. Due to the lack of 1~2 cm, with perforated pipes embedded and connected to the rain
detailed life cycle data for rain garden plant species in the database, water collection pipes for secondary water. Due to the community park
grass species were used as substitutes. development plan, the rain garden being constructed was strip-shaped,
with an average width of approximately 5 m based on the total length of
2.5. Life-cycle carbon emission inventory analysis the community. Following the spacing regulations for HDPE pipes, the
drainage pipes were set at a spacing of 1.5 m.
2.5.1. Life-cycle methods and reference standard
The “cradle-to-grave” life cycle can be broadly categorized into 2.5.3. Construction phase
several phases, including material acquisition, construction, operation Due to the unavailability of site-specific data on construction energy
and maintenance, and end-of-life. The LCA approach used in this study consumption, the energy consumption during the construction process
followed the Life Cycle Assessment framework developed by the Inter was estimated based on the energy consumption per unit area. The
national Organization for Standardization (ISO), in accordance with the construction of the rain garden involved activities such as material
ISO 14000 environmental management standard. ISO 14040 establishes stockpiling, earth excavation and filling, temporary power supply, as
the standard principles and framework for conducting an LCA, while ISO well as greening and vegetation-related energy consumption (Li et al.,
14044 defines the requirements and guidelines for an ISO-compliant 2018; Zhang, 2014) (Table S3). The energy consumption of these pro
LCA (Finkbeiner et al., 2006; Schaubroeck, 2022). These standards cesses was quantified and accounted for. Based on the latest energy
outline an LCA framework that comprises four phases: the goal and production ratio from the “Guangdong Provincial Statistical Yearbook in
scope definition phase, the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis phase, the 2022”, the total energy consumption was then converted, resulting in a
life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, and the life cycle interpre carbon emission list for the construction phase represented in terms of
tation phase. different forms of energy (Table S4).
2.5.2. Construction materials 2.5.4. Operation and maintenance phase

The selection of construction materials affected both the function Previous study highlights the importance of operation and mainte
ality of the rain gardens and their overall life cycle carbon footprint. In nance of rain gardens (Ishimatsu et al., 2016). These activities generally
this study, the selection of materials for each layer of the rain garden was include weeding, mowing, fertilizing, and etc. Maintenance in rain
based on previous studies (Gao, 2017; Pan, 2021; Sharma and Malaviya, gardens is independent and less frequent (Flynn and Traver, 2013;
2021; Wang and Li, 2013; Xiang et al., 2008) (Table 1; Table S2). Nat O’Sullivan et al., 2015; Vineyard et al., 2015), such as manual inspection
ural hardwood bark was chosen as the mulch material. Considering the of rain garden functionality, weed removal, and disposal of green waste.
characteristics of the southern red soil (Li, 2017), the planting soil layer Rain gardens are mostly self-sufficient, requiring no additional watering
incorporated 65% sand to ensure proper plant growth and good or fertilization, and they possess a high degree of self-regulating (Hos
permeability. Additionally, 10% fertilizer was mixed in to provide the tetler, 2012). The sediment on the surface of rain gardens does not
necessary nutrients for the plants (with a permeability coefficient >2 × require treatment. Weed control is necessary before the herbaceous
10− 5 m/s). The selection of the packing layer aimed to achieve a plants become established (in the first few months). However, in this
permeability coefficient greater than 10− 5 m/s. A sandy soil with a study, the green waste resulting from weed control was not included in
composition similar to the planting soil layer was chosen, along with a the inventory as it represented a very small percentage over 30-year
5% addition of WTR. Previous studies have shown that adding 4%–5% timeframe. Only the annual green waste generated by rain gardens
WTR to the packing layer can enhance the removal of nutrients from the over 30 years was considered. Regarding the disposal of green waste, the
rainwater, increasing the adsorption capacity for phosphorus by main methods include landfill, incineration, and resource composting
approximately 4 times (Shen et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2014, 2022). (Mihai and Ingrao, 2018). Landfilling wastes resources, while inciner
Phosphorus is an important indicator of eutrophication in aquatic eco ation produces more greenhouse gases (La Rosa et al., 2018). Com
systems, and its treatment efficiency in surface runoff is crucial for posting and resource utilization are preferred options for the final
assessing the functionality of rain gardens. Moreover, the utilization of disposal of green waste (Kharola et al., 2022; Li, 2021; Oviedo-Ocaña
et al., 2019), as they are widely adopted (Zhang et al., 2021; Zhou and
Wang, 2017), and mature practices (Chen, 2015; Chen et al., 2021; Han
Table 1
et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2010; S. Y. S. Y. Wang et al., 2017; Yang et al.,
Rain garden construction materials.
2018; Zhou, 2009). Therefore, composting was selected as the final
Layer Material Total weight disposal method for green waste in this study. According to research
(kg)
data on landscaping waste in China, the average production of urban
Plant layer Seeds 1.00 landscaping waste is approximately 1.0–1.5 kg/m2 per year, with a large
Collecting water layer / /
portion being returned to green spaces (Chun et al., 2009). In this study,
Mulch layer Bark filler 354,575.00
Planting soil layer Sand (65%) 1,320,791.88 the annual amount of green waste generated by green spaces was esti
(improved soil) Red soil (25%) 903,484.38 mated to be 1.5 kg/m2 (Table S5).
Compost (10%) 95,462.50
Packing layer Sand (70%) 4,551,652.00 2.5.5. End-of-life phase
Red soil (25%) 2,891,150.00
Water treatment residue WTR (5%) 266,204.00
The final phase of the LCA life cycle is the end-of-life phase, which
Transition layer Sand 1,219,192.50 occurs when the LID measure reaches its design life and experiences a
Drainage layer Gravel (Φ = 1–2 cm) 3,627,575.00 great decrease in stormwater management performance (Emerson and
Perforated pipe (HDPE, DN = 100 1044.58 Traver, 2008). At this point, decommissioning or refurbishment is
mm, THK = 0.005)
required. In this study, it was assumed that the decommissioning of
4
bioretention rain gardens involves the removal and final disposal of the and carbon reduction solutions while optimizing their path to carbon
rain garden media, which fell outside the system boundaries defined in neutrality. Although the current application of the Energy Expert carbon
this LCA. Each layer of material was transported to the corresponding footprint accounting platform is primarily centered around assessing the
disposal site for final disposal, including recycling, incineration, landfill, carbon footprints of enterprise products, this study expanded its utili
and etc. It should be noted that in this study, only the transportation of zation to the realms of scientific research and urban construction plan
waste to the recycling site was considered within the scope of analysis, ning. Specifically, we analyzed the carbon footprint of rain gardens and
as it represented the endpoint of recycling utilization. provide guidance on carbon reduction. To achieve this, this study con
Regarding the plant layer, it should be noted that the mulch layer structed a comprehensive life-cycle carbon footprint model for rain
decomposes completely within 30 years, as indicated by Nowak et al. gardens (Fig. S1), carefully selected appropriate carbon emission factors
(2002). This decay occurs naturally in the soil environment during use, (Table S8 and Table S9), and used the CML (v4.8 2016) method
eliminating the need for additional green waste disposal in this phase. (Hafliger et al., 2017; Mistry et al., 2016) to conduct LCA carbon foot
For HDPE pipes, the recycling of waste plastics can dramatically reduce print calculations.
environmental impact (Wen et al., 2021), including mechanical,
chemical, and energy recovery methods (Di et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021; 2.7. Carbon reduction benefits
Li et al., 2022). In this study, HDPE drainage pipes were subjected to
plastic mechanical recycling and disposal. It can be found that energy 2.7.1. Carbon sequestration benefits
consumption during the end-of-life phase is estimated to be 90% of the This study comprehensively accounted for the life-cycle carbon
construction phase, and the solid waste generation is estimated to be footprint, which includes carbon emissions from materials and energy
80% of the material input during construction (Yan, 2020). across all phases of the rain garden’s life-cycle, from material acquisition
The disposal of waste sand from rain gardens was referred to the to disposal scenarios. It is worth noting that the ecosystem services
publications on construction waste management (Araújo et al., 2017; provided by the carbon storage and sequestration in both above- and
Wang et al., 2019). Typically, in China, construction waste is trans below-ground biomass are highly valuable (Bento et al., 2015; Davies
ported to landfills (Lu, 2022), which adversely impacts urban develop et al., 2011; Grimm et al., 2008; Petit-Boix et al., 2017), as they play an
ment, land use and energy conservation, while also leading to high important role in reducing the rain garden’s overall carbon footprint.
carbon emissions (Ram et al., 2020). To promote low-carbon city con Previous studies have indicated that rain gardens exhibit a remarkable
struction, studies have proposed the use of recycling residues to produce carbon sequestration rate (Kavehei et al., 2018). By synthesizing esti
non-sintered lightweight aggregates (Gao et al., 2023; B. X. Liu et al., mates from previous research on the 30-year carbon sequestration in
2022; Zhong et al., 2022). In response to this issue, Guangdong Province rain gardens (Cameron et al., 2012; Flynn and Traver, 2013), the
planned to implement policies for the recycling of residual soil and average result was found to be − 75.50 ± 68.40 kgCO2/m2. In this study,
sludge, including its use as landfill mulch, production of environmen we assumed a carbon storage value of 75.50 kgCO2/m2 over 30 years for
tally friendly bricks, wall panels, recycled aggregates, and etc. (Feng each unit area of the rain garden, which corresponds to a total of 411.85
et al., 2018; Huang, 2013; Xu et al., 2016). Taking inspiration from tCO2e for a rain garden area of 5455 m2.
developed countries’ practices in recycling residual sludge (Li et al.,
2020), this study comprehensively disposed of the residues, assuming 2.7.2. Carbon reduction benefits of water purification to generate
70% recycling and 30% sanitary landfill disposal. The carbon emission secondary water
factor for construction landfill was used as a reference for the waste Stormwater reuse for generating secondary water is an important
residue (Ouyang, 2016; Wang, 2012). Since gravel serves as the drainage advantage of modern stormwater management facilities (Li et al., 2015).
layer, the water purification process in the rain garden was mostly Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge the stormwater purification
completed before reaching this layer, making it less susceptible to function of rain gardens, which not only contributes to carbon footprint
pollution. Therefore, direct in-situ reuse of the gravel was chosen offset but also enables the generation of secondary water for various
(Table S6). uses. While numerous studies have evaluated the environmental impacts
associated with stormwater volume reduction and the treatment of
2.5.6. Transportation phase runoff pollutants (Mishra et al., 2020; Saraswat et al., 2016; Sharma and
In this study, diesel trucks were chosen as the mode of trans Malaviya, 2021; Zhang et al., 2019), very few have taken into account
portation, and the carbon emissions associated with each transportation the water purification and storage benefits when calculating carbon
phase were included in the inventory of that phase (Table S7). As a footprint of rain gardens.
result, each inventory encompassed both the life-cycle carbon emissions The carbon reduction benefits of rain gardens, including water pu
and the carbon emissions from the transportation process itself. rification and storage for secondary water, are manifested in various
ways (Liang et al., 2010). These benefits encompass the reduction of
2.6. LCA carbon footprint accounting and Energy Expert platform energy consumption and carbon emissions in wastewater treatment and
generation of secondary water to conserve water resources. Due to the
The carbon footprint is an environmental indicator based on LCA and limited availability of real-world data, this study provided a rough
serves as an indicator of global warming potential (GWP) or climate estimation of these benefits by assuming an annual rainfall of 1800 mm
change (CC) impacts (Brandão et al., 2013). Introducing the concept of a and a catchment area ration of 10:1 (Emerson and Traver, 2008; Gao,
carbon footprint provides a better understanding of a system’s contri 2020; Kaykhosravi et al., 2022; Wang, 2022). Considering the effects of
bution to global warming, expressed as the total amount of greenhouse evaporation and seepage losses, the percentage of these losses is usually
gases (GHG) emitted during the accounting process (Pertsova and influenced by various factors such as rainfall intensity, temperature and
Cochrane, 2007; Sambito and Freni, 2017). humidity. Referring to reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Energy Expert, a platform developed by Alibaba Cloud, focuses on Agency (EPA) and relevant literature (Jenkins et al., 1978), we assumed
carbon control and product optimization by harnessing the power of big evaporation and leakage losses of approximately 30%.
data analysis, computational calculations, and artificial intelligence Referring to the “Guangzhou Sponge City Planning and Design
technology. The platform offers a range of functionalities, including Guidelines” and considering the rich pavement structure of the study
product carbon footprint accounting, data quality assessment, uncer site, this study assumed a runoff coefficient of 0.7. Based on this
tainty analysis, and sensitivity analysis. By integrating databases such as assumption, the actual quantity of available secondary water was
IPCC, CPCD, ELCD, ecoinvent and others, it enables the calculation of calculated to be 48,113.10 t/yr.
product carbon footprint, empowering users to develop energy-saving Based on the statistics provided in “Realizing the ‘Double Carbon’
5
Target Sponge City in Action” (China Construction News), the energy 3. Results and discussion
consumption conversion coefficient was derived from the total energy
consumption of water and converted to CO2 emissions (Z. P. Wang et al., 3.1. Uncertainty analysis of LCA results
2020). It has been determined that saving one ton of tap water can
reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 1.05 kg (Liang et al., 2010). Based on the model calculation, the uncertainty of the final carbon
Therefore, the rain gardens covering an area of 5455 m2 contribute to footprint was 6.46%. The main sources of uncertainty in this carbon
the purification and storage of water, effectively offsetting the carbon footprint accounting are as follows: (1) The process inventory data used
footprint associated with the secondary use of water over 30-years life in this study primarily relied on literature data, which resulted in de
cycle, amounting to 1515.56 tCO2e. viations from actual values due to the lack of real-world data. (2) Due to
the lack of data, some carbon emission factors and carbon emission in
2.8. Inventory and result uncertainty analysis ventories had weak temporal representation. The calculation of carbon
emission factors spans the period from 1997 to 2022. As production
The Energy Expert platform was used to access the uncertainty of the processes and technologies had experienced rapid growth, there were
carbon footprint accounting results. Firstly, the Data Quality Indicator certain differences in carbon emission factors across different genera
(DQI) method (Kennedy and Quay, 1996) was employed to evaluate the tions (Fig. S2).
quality of the data. By conducting Monte Carlo simulations (Griffin
et al., 1999; Sonnemann et al., 2003), the uncertainty of each input data 3.2. Carbon footprint accounting results
was determined (Baek et al., 2018). The uncertainty of an individual
emission inventory was calculated as follows: According to the carbon footprint accounting results (Table S10),
[( ) ( ) ]/ LCA carbon footprint of rain garden in this study was 1117.42 tCO2e.
Ui2 = Uai2 + Ufi2 × EMi1 + Uai2 + Uti2 + Ufti
2
× EMi2 (EMi1 + EMi2 ) According to the results presented in Fig. 3a and b, the waste recycling
(1) phase had the highest carbon footprint contribution among the different
life cycle phases, amounting to 696.19 tCO2e, which accounts for 62.3%
Formula for calculating carbon footprint results per emission
of the total carbon emissions. The second-highest carbon footprint
inventory:
contribution came from the material production phase, totaling 388.16
Ui,contribution = Ui × (EMi1 + EMi2 ) (2) tCO2e, representing 34.7% of the total. The construction process had a
relatively lower carbon footprint contribution of only 25.97 tCO2e, ac
The results of the product carbon footprint evaluation were obtained counting for 2.3% of the total. The use and maintenance phase exhibited
by aggregating the emissions from each emission inventory. Following the lowest carbon footprint contribution, with a total of 7.10 tCO2e,
the principle of error transfer (Y. Zhang et al., 2020), the uncertainty of accounting for 0.6% of the total carbon emission.
the carbon footprint results was calculated using the following formula: Based on the inventory results of the carbon footprint contribution
(∑ )2 (as shown in Fig. 3a and c), the landfill disposal of residue in the waste
Ui ∗ EMi
U= ∑ (3) recycling phase had a remarkable carbon footprint contribution of
EM 2i 490.03 tCO2e, representing 43.9% of the total carbon emissions. The
second-highest carbon footprint contribution came from the fertilizer
Ui is the uncertainty of the emission result of the item i emission in used in the material production process, amounting to 236.17 tCO2e,
ventory; Uai is the uncertainty in the activity level of the item i emission accounting for 21.2% of the total carbon emissions. The recycling pro
inventory; Ufi is the uncertainty of the item i emission inventory emis cess of residue ranked third, with a carbon footprint contribution of
sion factor, Uti is the uncertainty of the transport distance of the item i 182.75 tCO2e, accounting for 16.4% of the total carbon emissions. It’s
emission inventory; Ufti is the uncertainty of the item i emission in worth noting that the carbon footprint contribution of the recycling
ventory transport emission factor, EMi1 is the carbon emissions of the process itself was not included in these conclusions.
item i emission inventory itself; EMi2 is the carbon emissions of the item i Analyzing the distribution of different types of carbon emissions in
due to transportation for emission inventory. the rain garden LCA inventory (as depicted in Fig. 3a and d), the highest
share was attributed to waste emissions, accounting for 60.8% of the
2.9. Sensitivity analysis total. This was followed by emissions from materials, which accounted
for 34.7% of the total, while energy-related emissions represented the
The sensitivity of each carbon emission inventory in the LCA carbon smallest portion at 4.4%. Transportation-related emissions were rela
footprint was evaluated in the Energy Expert platform. The Sobol global tively higher, totaling 349.38 tCO₂e and constituting 31.2% of the total
sensitivity analysis (Nossent et al., 2011) was applied to assess the carbon footprint. Within transportation, two main categories can be
sensitivity of each emission inventory with respect to the following identified: transportation of solid waste and transportation of materials.
factors: “activity level”, “emission factor”, “recycling rate”, “transport The carbon emission from material transportation amounted to 60.86
distance”, “transport weight”, and “transport emission factor”. The tCO₂e, accounting for 17.4% of transportation-related emission and
first-order and second-order sensitivities of the six inputs were calcu 5.4% of the total carbon footprint. On the other hand, carbon emission
lated, each emission inventory were ranked based on their sensitivity. from solid waste transportation reached 288.52 tCO₂e, constituting
82.6% and 25.8% of the total emissions, respectively.
Y = f (X) = f (x1 , x2 , …, xk ) (4)
Previous studies have provided reference for our research. Rashid
Y is the model output; X = {x1,x2,…, xk} is the input parameter; k is the et al. (2022) and Hengen et al. (2016) indicated that the high climate
number of model input parameters. The Sobol method decomposes the change impacts due to the massive materials of rain gardens. O’Sullivan
f(X) into a single parameter or a sum of subterms combining several et al. (2015) pointed out that rain gardens have low impact on climate
parameters with each other. change. De Sousa et al. (2012) indicated that the addition of rain garden
showed great carbon reduction benefit. Comparing our results with
related studies, Vineyard et al. (2015) and Flynn and Traver (2013)
calculated the carbon footprint of rain gardens, considering the material
acquisition, operation, and disposal phase, but excluding the carbon
sequestration. Their findings showed that the 30-year carbon footprint
of rain gardens ranged from 13.9 kgCO2e/m2 to 138.9 kgCO2e/m2.
6
Fig. 3. Inventory contribution of carbon emissions from rain gardens LCA. (a) Carbon emissions from different inventory processes of rain gardens LCA
(including the contribution of each inventory in each process, different colors represent different inventory items); (b) Proportion of carbon emissions from different
processes of rain gardens LCA (including material acquisition, construction, use and maintenance and end-of-life process); (c) Proportion of carbon footprint
contribution from inventory of rain gardens LCA (only inventory items with ≥5% are shown in the figure); (d) Proportion of carbon emissions from different types of
inventory of rain gardens LCA (outer ring is waste, material, energy; inner ring, material includes transportation and disposal process); (e) Proportion of carbon
emissions from different inventory of rain gardens LCA. (d) the carbon footprint of different types of rain garden LCAs (the outer ring is waste, materials and energy;
in the inner ring, materials include transportation and production of materials, and waste includes transportation and final disposal of waste).
Additionally, Flynn and Traver (2013) indicated that the carbon foot maintenance. They found that the carbon footprint contribution of the
print contribution of landfill waste disposal in the end-of-life phase was substantial materials and their transportation was relatively high at
126.64 kgCO2e/m2, which was 126.31 kgCO2e/m2 higher than that of 57.0%. In our study, considering partial recycling, the carbon footprint
recycling. By preventing rain garden media from entering landfills, the was determined to be 204.84 kgCO2e/m2, with the highest percentage
carbon footprint is greatly reduced. In our study, excluding the final attributed to the waste recycling phase (62.3%) and the second highest
disposal phase, 80% of the carbon footprint contribution comes from percentage to the material production phase (34.7%). The variations in
material production, 20% from the construction process, and minimal results between our study and previous ones may be attributed to dif
impact from other life cycle phases. Another study by O’Sullivan et al. ferences in scope and boundaries, localized data, and material selection.
(2015) focused on the LCA carbon footprint of rain gardens with the
system boundary covering material acquisition to operation and
Fig. 4. Carbon reduction benefits of rain garden operation.
7
3.3. Carbon reduction benefits primarily focus on optimizing the final disposal of waste soil and
streamlining the transportation process.
Considering the carbon storage during the operation of rain gardens
and the secondary use of water from water storage and purification 3.4.2. Carbon reduction scenario analysis based on sensitivity analysis
(Fig. 4), the total carbon reduction achieved by rain gardens in this study Based on the sensitivity analysis, this study considered alternative
was 1927.41 tCO2e. As a result, the entire life cycle of 5455 m2 rain optimization scenarios for the inventory items with higher sensitivity,
gardens contributed to a net carbon reduction of approximately 809.99 aiming to reduce the carbon footprint of rain gardens while maintaining
tCO2e. Previous studies have yielded numerous similar findings to our their basic functions. These scenarios encompassed three different
research. O’Sullivan et al. (2015) pointed out that compared to grey improvement approaches and two comprehensive improvement
drainage infrastructures, rain gardens have less impact on climate scenarios.
change. De Sousa et al. (2012) indicated that the incorporation of rain For the landfill process with high carbon emissions, we considered
garden demonstrated great carbon reduction benefit. Studies by Kavehei the option of upgrading the recycling of residue. Based on the original
et al. (2018) and Flynn and Traver (2013) had shown that the LCA definition of 70% recycling and 30% sanitary landfill, we adjusted the
carbon footprint of rain gardens can yield a net carbon footprint benefit percentage of residue recycling. Assuming 80% recycling and 20%
ranging from − 143.77 kgCO2e/m2 to − 17.46 kgCO2e/m2 when sanitary landfill, the life-cycle carbon footprint of the rain garden was
considering environmental carbon reduction benefits, which varied calculated to be 980.19 tCO2e (Fig. 6a), resulting in a reduction of
based on waste’s source and final disposal method. In this study, the net 137.23 tCO2e (12.3%). Similarly, assuming 90% recycling and 10%
carbon footprint benefit of rain gardens was calculated to be − 148.49 sanitary landfill, the life-cycle carbon footprint decreased further to
kgCO2e/m2. These findings demonstrated the great potential of rain 842.95 tCO2e (Fig. 6a), achieving a reduction of 274.47 tCO2e (24.6%).
gardens in addressing global climate change and contributing to the Additionally, this study explored a scenario where 100% of the residue
construction of low-carbon cities. was recycled, leading to a total life-cycle carbon footprint of 705.72
tCO2e (Fig. 6a), representing the largest reduction of 411.70 tCO2e
3.4. Sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis of the LCA carbon footprint (36.8%). Notably, the transportation of residue from the contribution
inventory site to the recycling plant contributed greatly to the carbon footprint.
Moreover, for every 10% increase in soil recycling rate, the total carbon
3.4.1. Sensitivity analysis footprint was reduced by approximately 12%. In adjusting the propor
In the sensitivity analysis (Fig. 5), the highest sensitivity was tion of soil recycling, we evaluated the changes in carbon emission
observed for waste soil landfill in the end-of-life phase (72.8%), fol contribution at each phase (Fig. 6b). As the recycling proportion
lowed by the waste soil recycling in the end of life phase (15.9%), and increased, the carbon emission contribution at the disposal phase
fertilizers in the materials production phase (11.2%). The results imply decreased from 62.3% to 40.3%, while the carbon emission contribution
that the “activity level”, “emission factor”, “recycling rate”, “transport at the material acquisition phase remained the highest at 55.0%.
distance”, “transport weight”, and “transport emission factor” were For the final disposal and transportation of residue with high carbon
identified as the six inventory items with relatively high sensitivity. For emissions, this study considered the option of on-situ reuse of the res
waste soil landfills, its substantial quantity resulted in a high “transport idue. (Zhang, 2017) recommended nearby treatment and backfilling for
weight” and was compounded by the elevated “emission factor” asso the disposal of construction waste. Numerous studies have highlighted
ciated with waste soil landfills, resulting in high sensitivity. Therefore, it the use of soil amendments for on-situ remediation of residue, facili
was advisable to explore alternatives to direct landfill disposal and to tating pollutant removal, and enabling its reuse (Coban et al., 2022; Gao
minimize transportation volume. Reducing transportation volume could et al., 2019; Jones and Healey, 2010; Y. P. Liu et al., 2022; Xu et al.,
involve on-site reclamation of waste soil. Regarding waste soil recycling, 2016). However, due to the lack of real-world data to determine the
as carbon emissions from residue recycling were not considered within carbon footprint of soil amendment, their specific contribution cannot
the scope of our analysis, their sensitivity primarily stemmed from the be estimated. Nevertheless, adopting the strategy of on-situ remediation
high carbon emissions associated with the transportation due to the and backfilling for excavated residue presented a viable low-carbon
substantial volume of residue. Hence, it was necessary to explore more approach within the scope of our considerations, dramatically
eco-friendly transportation options to reduce the “transport emission reducing carbon emissions associated with transportation. Through
factor” or decrease the “transport weight” by considering on-site recla calculations based on the on-site reuse scenario (Fig. 6a), the life-cycle
mation of waste soil. As for fertilizers, the primary approach was to carbon footprint of the rain garden was found to be 444.64 tCO2e,
replace them with greener alternatives to reduce the “emission factor”. representing a substantial reduction of 672.78 tCO2e (60.2%) compared
However, their contribution to the carbon footprint remained relatively to the original calculation. We evaluated the changes in carbon emission
stable due to the materials chosen for rain gardens, making it chal contributions at each phase under the on-situ reuse scenario (Fig. 6c).
lenging to implement targeted improvement strategies. The results Notably, the carbon emission contribution during the disposal phase
underscored that, to reduce the carbon footprint of rain gardens and experienced a large decrease from 62.4% to 5.3%, with the primary
achieve low-carbon construction, the proposed improvements should carbon emission contribution shifting to the material acquisition phase
(87.8%).
To address transportation processes that contribute to high carbon
emissions, this study explored the adoption of green freight trans
portation alternatives. World Resources Institute (WRI) has released a
publication titled “Towards Carbon Neutrality: China’s Medium- and
Long-term Emission Reduction Strategy for Road Transport”, which
proposed the promotion of new energy vehicles. The utilization of new
energy medium and heavy trucks was already being extensively pro
moted in developed regions such as the UK and Germany. However, it
will need some time for these new energy trucks to enter the market in
China. In this study, considering the high sensitivity of transport-related
carbon emissions to the overall carbon footprint of the residue recycling
process, we evaluated the use of a specific type of new energy freight
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis of rain gardens. vehicle: the new electric gas truck. By employing this alternative, the
8
Fig. 6. Carbon footprint results of carbon reduction options of rain gardens. (a) Carbon footprint accounting of the rain garden carbon reduction program; (b)-
(e) Changes in the carbon contribution of different carbon reduction scenarios for each phase (material acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance, and
disposal phases) based on sensitivity analysis. (b) Proportion of carbon contribution of each phase under the scenario of increasing the proportion of residue
recycling; (c) Proportion of carbon emissions contribution of each phase under the residue in-situ reuse scenario; (d) Proportion of carbon emissions contribution at
each phase under the scenario of replacing diesel transport with electric freight; (e) Proportion of carbon emissions contribution of each phase under the combined
scenario of green transportation and residue recycling mode.
life-cycle carbon footprint of the rain garden was reduced to 910.36 each phase for these measures (Fig. 6a and e). In the scenario of “100%
tCO2e (Fig. 6a), achieving a reduction of 207.06 tCO2e (18.5%). soil recycling + green transportation”, the calculated life-cycle carbon
Assessing the changes in carbon emission contributions at each phase footprint of the rain garden was 510.69 tCO2e, representing a reduction
(Fig. 6d), the waste disposal phase accounted for 58.2%–62.3% of car of 606.73 tCO2e (54.3%) compared to the original result. In this sce
bon emissions, while the material acquisition phase contributed 34.7%– nario, the contribution of the disposal phase to carbon emissions
38.7%. These findings indicated that the transportation process during decreased from the initial 62.3%–25.4%. Under the “on-situ reuse of
the waste disposal phase had a greater impact on carbon emissions. residue + green transport” scenario, the LCA carbon footprint of the rain
Based on the above scenario analysis, two comprehensive measures, gardens was 404.34 tCO2e, which was a reduction of 713.08 tCO2e
namely “100% soil recycling + green transportation” and “soil on-situ (63.8%) compared to the original results. In this scenario, the contri
reuse + green transportation” were identified. This study evaluated bution of the disposal phase to carbon emissions decreased from 62.3%
carbon footprint and the changes in carbon emission contributions at to 5.8%. In both of these integrated carbon reduction scenarios, the
9
carbon footprint of the rain gardens experienced a dramatic decrease transportation processes. It was recommended to increase the propor
(over 50%). tion of waste recycling, promote on-situ reuse, and implement green
In our study, we considered three strategies to reduce the carbon transportation measures in order to effectively reduce the carbon foot
footprint of rain gardens, including green transportation substitution, print of rain gardens.
increasing waste soil recycling rate, and considering on-site waste soil This study has its share of limitations. Firstly, the data were sourced
reuse. The results showed that under these strategies, the life cycle from various literature and databases rather than first-hand data. This
carbon footprint of rain gardens was substantially reduced. Due to the introduces inherent limitations and reduces the representativeness of
substantial carbon emissions of material acquisition and waste disposal, the data in terms of temporal relevance. Additionally, as the construc
the replacement of green transportation can markedly reduce the carbon tion materials for rain gardens are continuously evolving, with the
emissions during these phases. Moreover, increasing the recycling rate emergence of eco-friendly alternatives, this study still incorporated the
of waste soil and exploring on-site reuse had the potential to greatly traditional materials due to a lack of available carbon emissions data.
reduce the carbon emissions throughout the waste recycling stage. These Future study should include more extensive on-site investigations, data
new carbon reduction strategies hold broad and achievable application collection, and measurements conducted following the construction of
prospects in the future. If the carbon reduction strategies outlined in the rain gardens in the study area. Secondly, the carbon reduction benefits
study were adopted, the inventory items in rain gardens with a higher considered in this study were primarily focused on water reuse and
share of the carbon footprint would be the acquisition of raw materials, carbon sequestration. Other potential indirect carbon reduction bene
notably materials like fertilizers. The future carbon reduction efforts in fits, such as ecology and societal impacts have not been fully explored.
rain gardens would increasingly rely on the replacement of new mate Therefore, subsequent study can expand on this research to further
rials and the integration of new technologies. Regarding fertilizers, prior enhance our understanding of carbon emissions and reduction benefits
studies have already delved into lower-carbon alternatives. In the throughout the entire lifecycle of rain gardens. Lastly, to further validate
future, greater consideration will be given to more natural alternatives, the applicability of rain gardens in stormwater treatment and urban low-
such as microbial fertilizers (Nosheen et al., 2021), or the utilization of carbon construction, future studies can compare the carbon footprints
waste materials for microbial fertilizers composting (Roulia, 2022). models of different stormwater treatment facilities, including traditional
grey infrastructures. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, this study
3.4.3. Carbon reduction planning recommendations offered a comprehensive analysis of the lifecycle carbon footprint of rain
Considering the sensitivity analysis of rain gardens and carbon gardens, revealing their substantial carbon reduction benefits and
reduction scenarios, the LCA process of rain gardens was planned to providing valuable guidance for the widespread adoption of rain gar
achieve carbon reduction through the following aspects: (1) for the solid dens in urban low-carbon development.
waste residue in the waste phase, it was recommended to improve its
resource utilization rate, reduce waste emissions, and choose low- CRediT authorship contribution statement
carbon and environmentally friendly waste treatment methods to ach
ieve carbon reduction. (2) Regarding the transportation of large amount Yijun Peng: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation,
of residue, carbon reduction can be achieved by selecting suitable waste Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Yafei
treatment providers, utilizing green energy for transportation, and Wang: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
considering on-site reuse of waste to minimize the carbon footprint editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration. Hanxi Chen:
associated with transportation. (3) In the production of materials, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Lu Wang: Writing –
particularly fertilizers, efforts can be made to explore lower- original draft. Biao Luo: Software, Investigation. Hongxiang Tong:
consumption alternatives while ensuring the basic functionality of the Software, Investigation. Yi Zou: Software, Investigation. Zongxiong
product remains unchanged. Lei: Software, Investigation. Shaoqing Chen: Supervision, Project
administration.
4. Conclusion
Declaration of competing interest
This study employed the LCA model to examine the carbon emissions
throughout the entire lifecycle of rain gardens and evaluated the po
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
tential carbon reduction benefits within the process. The sensitivity
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
analysis was conducted to refine the scenarios and optimize rain gar
the work reported in this paper.
dens. The study results revealed that: (1) The LCA carbon footprint of a
5455 m2 rain garden was calculated to be 1117.42 kgCO2e. Among the
Data availability
phases, the carbon footprint contribution was as follows, from highest to
lowest: end-of-life phase (62.3%), material production phase (34.7%),
Data will be made available on request.
construction phase (2.3%), and use and maintenance phase (0.6%). The
major contributors to carbon emissions within each phase were landfills
Acknowledgements
(43.9%), fertilizer acquisition (21.2%), and soil recycling (16.4%). The
transportation process accounted for a great proportion (31.2%) of the
This research was supported by the National Key R&D Program of
LCA carbon footprint of rain gardens, with waste transportation being
China (2022YFF1303104) (2022YFF1301203).
the primary contributor (82.6% of the total transportation carbon
emissions). (2) Considering the LCA carbon footprint of rain gardens and
their carbon reduction benefits, it was evident that rain gardens have Appendix A. Supplementary data
substantial potential for climate change mitigation and adaptation. A
5455 m2 rain garden achieved a net carbon reduction of 809.99 tCO2e. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
(3) The sensitivity analysis results revealed that the major factors org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139806.
influencing the LCA carbon footprint of rain gardens were waste soil
landfill, waste soil recycling, and fertilizer acquisition, with sensitivities References
of 72.8%, 15.9%, and 11.2%, respectively. Based on a comprehensive
Andrew, R.M., Vesely, E.T., 2008. Life-cycle energy and CO(2) analysis of stormwater
analysis of the carbon reduction in rain gardens through LCA, the pro treatment devices. Water Sci. Technol. 58 (5), 985–993. https://doi.org/10.2166/
posed improvement scenarios should prioritize waste treatment and wst.2008.455.
10
Apostolopoulou, E., Adams, W.M., 2015. Neoliberal capitalism and conservation in the physical properties, microstructure, reaction mechanism, and life cycle assessment.
post-crisis era: the dialectics of "Green" and "Un-green" grabbing in Greece and the J. Clean. Prod. 385, 135650 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135650.
UK. Antipode 47 (1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12102. Geneletti, D., Zardo, L., 2016. Ecosystem-based adaptation in cities: an analysis of
Araújo, Y.R.V., De Góis, M.L., Coelho, L.M., Junior, Carvalho, M., 2017. Carbon footprint European urban climate adaptation plans. Land Use Pol. 50, 38–47. https://doi.org/
associated with four disposal scenarios for urban pruning waste. Environ. Sci. Pollut. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.003.
Control Ser. 25 (2), 1863–1868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0613-y. Graca, M.S., Goncalves, J.F., Alves, P.J.M., Nowak, D.J., Hoehn, R., Ellis, A., Farinha-
Baek, C.Y., Tahara, K., Park, K.H., 2018. Parameter uncertainty analysis of the life cycle Marques, P., Cunha, M., 2017. Assessing mismatches in ecosystem services
inventory database: application to greenhouse gas emissions from Brown rice proficiency across the urban fabric of Porto (Portugal): the influence of structural
production in IDEA. Sustainability 10 (4), 922. https://doi.org/10.3390/ and socioeconomic variables. Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
su10040922. ecoser.2016.11.015.
Barbesgaard, M., 2017. Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing? J. Peasant Stud. 45 (1), Griffin, D., Shaw, P., Stacey, R., 1999. Knowing and acting in conditions of uncertainty: a
130–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1377186. complexity perspective. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 12 (3), 295–309.
Bento, A.M., Kanbur, R., Leard, B., 2015. Designing efficient markets for carbon offsets Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M.,
with distributional constraints. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 70, 51–71. https://doi.org/ 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319 (5864), 756–760. https://
10.1016/j.jeem.2014.10.003. doi.org/10.1126/science.1150195.
Brandão, M., Levasseur, A., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., Weidema, B.P., Cowie, A.L., Hafliger, I.F., John, V., Passer, A., Lasvaux, S., Hoxha, E., Saade, M.R.M., Habert, G.,
Jørgensen, S.V., Hauschild, M.Z., Pennington, D.W., Chomkhamsri, K., 2013. Key 2017. Buildings environmental impacts’ sensitivity related to LCA modelling choices
issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in of construction materials [Article]. J. Clean. Prod. 156, 805–816. https://doi.org/
life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.052.
230–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0451-6. Han, H., Du, K., Ding, J., Cai, L., 2018. Research progress on compost application and
Cameron, R.W.F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J.E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A.J., Henricot, B., technologies of garden waste. Shanxi Agricultural Science 46 (12), 2111–2114.
Thompson, K., 2012. The domestic garden – its contribution to urban green Hostetler, M.E., 2012. Urban Decision Makers. Green Leap, 1 ed. University of California
infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 11 (2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Press, pp. 19–30 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pp4wg.7.
ufug.2012.01.002. Huang, Z.B., 2013. Treatment facilities status and strategies of construction and
Carrier, M., Apparicio, P., Kestens, Y., Séguin, A., Pham, H.N., Crouse, D., Siemiatycki, J., demolition waste in shenzhen. Environmental Sanitation Engineering 21 (1), 50–52.
2016. Application of a global environmental equity index in montreal: diagnostic Huang, Y.J., Tian, Z., Ke, Q., Liu, J.G., Irannezhad, M., Fan, D.L., Hou, M.F., Sun, L.X.,
and further implications. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2020. Nature-based solutions for urban pluvial flood risk management. Wiley
24694452.2016.1197766. Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1421.
Chen, S., 2014. Rain Garden Design and its Technology Application Research. Master, Ishimatsu, K., Ito, K., Mitani, Y., Tanaka, Y., Sugahara, T., Naka, Y., 2016. Use of rain
Beijing Forestry University. gardens for stormwater management in urban design and planning. Landsc. Ecol.
Chen, M., 2015. The current situation of landscaping waste treatment and Eng. 13 (1), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-016-0309-3.
countermeasures. Agriculture and Technology 35 (18), 165+235. https://kns.cnki. Jenkins, D., Pearson, F., Moore, E., Kim, S.J., Valentine, R., 1978. Feasibility of
net/kcms/detail/22.1159.s.20160110.1057.878.html. Rainwater Collection Systems in California.
Chen, Y.T., Chen, Y.W., Lin, S.S., Gao, Y.R., Luo, L., Yu, F.Q., 2017. Screening and Jeong, H., Broesicke, O.A., Drew, B., Li, D., Crittenden, J.C., 2016. Life cycle assessment
application analysis of indigenous plants suitable for rain garden in guangdong of low impact development technologies combined with conventional centralized
province. Subtrop. Plant. Sci. 46 (3), 274–280. water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 10 (6), 1.
Chen, Y., Wang, X., Cai, W., Fu, K., Zhang, L., Shu, T., 2021. Research progress on the https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0851-0.
resource treatment technology of garden waste:based on the knowledge map Jones, D.L., Healey, J.R., 2010. Organic amendments for remediation: putting waste to
analysis of citespace and vos viewer. Environmental Sanitation Engineering 29 (2), good use. Elements 6 (6), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.6.6.369.
22–34. https://doi.org/10.19841/j.cnki.hjwsgc.2021.02.004. Kavehei, E., Jenkins, G.A., Adame, M.F., Lemckert, C., 2018. Carbon sequestration
Chun, J.W., Liu, H.Y., Liang, S.W., Zeng, J., Wu, X.L., 2009. Output, collection and potential for mitigating the carbon footprint of green stormwater infrastructure.
disposal of landscape and greening waste in Shenzhen city. Environmental Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Sanitation Engineering 17 (1), 47–49. rser.2018.07.002.
Coban, O., De Deyn, G.B., van der Ploeg, M., 2022. Soil microbiota as game-changers in Kaykhosravi, S., Khan, U.T., Jadidi, M.A., 2022. A simplified geospatial model to rank
restoration of degraded lands. Science 375 (6584). https://doi.org/10.1126/science. LID solutions for urban runoff management. Sci. Total Environ. 831, 154937 https://
abe0725. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154937.
Cortinovis, C., Geneletti, D., 2018. Ecosystem services in urban plans: what is there, and Kennedy, D.J., Quay, M.B.H., 1996. Data quality. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Pol. 70, 298–312. https://doi.org/ Kharola, S., Ram, M., Goyal, N., Mangla, S.K., Nautiyal, O.P., Rawat, A., Kazancoglu, Y.,
10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017. Pant, D., 2022. Barriers to organic waste management in a circular economy.
Davies, Z.G., Edmondson, J.L., Heinemeyer, A., Leake, J.R., Gaston, K.J., 2011. Mapping J. Clean. Prod. 362, 132282 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132282.
an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide Ko, H., Son, Y., 2018. Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services in urban green spaces: a
scale. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 (5), 1125–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- case study in Gwacheon, Republic of Korea. Ecol. Indicat. 91, 299–306. https://doi.
2664.2011.02021.x. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.04.006.
De Sousa, M.R.C., Montalto, F.A., Spatari, S., 2012. Using life cycle assessment to Kong, F.H., Ban, Y.L., Yin, H.W., James, P., Dronova, I., 2017. Modeling stormwater
evaluate green and grey combined sewer overflow control strategies. J. Ind. Ecol. 16 management at the city district level in response to changes in land use and low
(6), 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00534.x. impact development. Environ. Model. Software 95, 132–142. https://doi.org/
De Valck, J., Beames, A., Liekens, I., Bettens, M., Seuntjens, P., Broekx, S., 2019. Valuing 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.021.
urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment. Ecosyst. Serv. La Rosa, N.S., González-Cardoso, G., De Jesús Figueroa-Lara, J., Gutiérrez-Arzaluz, M.,
35, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.006. Octaviano-Villasana, C., Ramírez-Hernández, I., Mugica-Álvarez, V., 2018. Emission
Di, J.H., Reck, B.K., Miatto, A., Graedel, T.E., 2021. United States plastics: large flows, factors of atmospheric and climatic pollutants from crop residues burning. J. Air
short lifetimes, and negligible recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 167, 105440 Waste Manag. Assoc. 68 (8), 849–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105440. 10962247.2018.1459326.
Emerson, C.H., Traver, R.G., 2008. Multiyear and seasonal variation of infiltration from Lee, J., Kwon, E.E., Lam, S.S., Chen, W.H., Rinklebe, J., Park, Y.K., 2021. Chemical
storm-water best management practices. J. Irrigat. Drain. Eng. 134 (5), 598–605. recycling of plastic waste via thermocatalytic routes. J. Clean. Prod. 321, 128989
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(2008)134:5(598). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128989.
Feng, S., Yamamoto, T., 2020. Preliminary research on sponge city concept for urban Li, Y.E., 2017. Study on Design Optimum and Application of Rain Garden in Red Soil
flood reduction: a case study on ten sponge city pilot projects in Shanghai, China. Region of South China. Master, Nanchang University.
Disaster Prev. Manag. 29 (6), 961–985. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm-01-2020- Li, Z.J., 2021. Resource utilization of agricultural solid waste. J. Integr. Agric. 20 (5),
0019. 1119–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63648-1.
Feng, Z.Y., Luo, X., Huang, Q.L., 2018. Study on the comprehensive utilization of residual Li, X., Chen, M.J., Wang, Z.B., Zhao, Z.L., Qin, S.Y., 2015. Design and practice of
sludge and soil resources. Guangdong Building Materials 34 (2), 69–71. rainwater reuse system for ninth garden expo. China Water & Wastewater 31 (2),
Finkbeiner, M., Inaba, A., Tan, R.B.H., Christiansen, K., Klüppel, H.J., 2006. The new 59–61.
international standards for life cycle assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. Int. J. Li, H.X., Gao, J.X., Peng, Y.F., 2018. Analysis of Initial Energy Consumption and
Life Cycle Assess. 11 (2), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.02.002. Application of Energy-Saving Construction Technology. Fly Ash Comprehensive
Flynn, K.M., Traver, R.G., 2013. Green infrastructure life cycle assessment: a bio- Utilization, pp. 98–101+105, 06.
infiltration case study. Ecol. Eng. 55, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Li, S.W., Wang, Y., Li, S., 2020. The disposal method of foreign residual soil and its role of
ecoleng.2013.01.004. reference. China Land (12), 44–46. https://doi.org/10.13816/j.cnki.ISSN1002-
Gao, J.M., 2017. The Rain Garden Design Research in Guangdong Area. Master, South 9729.2020.12.15.
China Agricultural University. Li, L.X., Ren, J.Z., Sun, R.X., Li, X.K., 2022. Thermal degradation kinetics of waste pp,pe,
Gao, T.Y., 2020. Reconstruction Strategy Research Based on Rainwater Recycling in ps and pvc plastili lixia;ren jinzhong;sun ruixiang;li xiaokec products. Shandong
Chaoshan Dwellings ——A Case Study of Fuanli,Chaoyang District,Shantou. Master, Chemical Industry 51 (4), 28–30+33. https://doi.org/10.19319/j.cnki.issn.1008-
Shantou University. 021x.2022.04.028.
Gao, Y.H., Zhou, W.J., Wang, Y.C., 2019. Regeneration of mud resource into planting soil Liang, Q., 2022. Application and design of new naturalistic herbaceous plant landscape
and its application prospect. Guangdong Landscape Architecture 41 (3), 57–60. in urban rain gardens. Village Technology 13 (13), 119–122. https://doi.org/
Gao, W.B., Zhang, H.E., Ren, Q., Zhong, Y.J., Jiang, Z.W., 2023. A low-carbon approach 10.19345/j.cnki.1674-7909.2022.13.019.
to recycling engineering muck to produce non-sintering lightweight aggregates:
11
Liang, L., Lv, W.Y., Wang, X.L., Hu, H.X., 2010. Water conservation and low carbon assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120258 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
emission linkage study. In: 2010 China Sustainable Development Forum and Annual jclepro.2020.120258.
Academic Conference of China Sustainable Development Research Society, Jinan, Rashid, A.M., Bhuiyan, M.A., Pramanik, B., Jayasuriya, N., 2022. A comparison of
Shandong, China. environmental impacts between rainwater harvesting and rain garden scenarios.
Liu, H., Zhang, D., Li, J., Jie, H.N., 2014. The Merging of Landscape Hydrology with Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 159, 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Historical Site——reconstruction design of Shengyinyuan, vol. 30. Tsinghua psep.2021.12.047.
University. Chinese Landscape Architecture, pp. 7–12, 01. Roulia, M., 2022. Humic substances: a novel eco-friendly fertilizer. Agronomy 12 (4),
Liu, B.X., Ge, W., Liu, X.C., Zhang, X.M., Chen, Q.H., Wu, J., Li, Z.Y., Chai, C., 2022. 754. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040754.
Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from an aged contaminated Saaroni, H., Amorim, J.H., Hiemstra, J.A., Pearlmutter, D., 2018. Urban Green
agricultural soil using degrading bacteria and soil amendments. Ann. Finance 26 (4), Infrastructure as a tool for urban heat mitigation: survey of research methodologies
305–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10889868.2021.1973953. and findings across different climatic regions. Urban Clim. 24, 94–110. https://doi.
Liu, Y.P., Wan, W.H., Yang, F.H., Hu, C.L., Liu, Z.C., Wang, F.Z., 2022. Performance of org/10.1016/j.uclim.2018.02.001.
glass-ceramic-based lightweight aggregates manufactured from waste glass and Saiz, S., Kennedy, C., Bass, B., Pressnail, K., 2006. Comparative life cycle assessment of
muck. Ceram. Int. 48 (16), 23468–23480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. standard and green roofs. ES T (Environ. Sci. Technol.) 40 (13), 4312–4316. https://
ceramint.2022.04.342. doi.org/10.1021/es0517522.
Livesley, S.J., McPherson, G.M., Calfapietra, C., 2016. The urban forest and ecosystem Sambito, M., Freni, G., 2017. LCA methodology for the quantification of the carbon
services: impacts on urban water, heat, and pollution cycles at the tree, street, and footprint of the integrated urban water system. Water 9 (6), 395. https://doi.org/
city scale. J. Environ. Qual. 45 (1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.2134/ 10.3390/w9060395.
jeq2015.11.0567. Saraswat, C., Kumar, P., Mishra, B.K., 2016. Assessment of stormwater runoff
Lu, X.L., 2022. Analysis on problems and solutions of urban construction waste management practices and governance under climate change and urbanization: an
treatment. Engineering and Technological Research 7 (23), 98–100. https://doi.org/ analysis of Bangkok, Hanoi and Tokyo. Environ. Sci. Pol. 64, 101–117.
10.19537/j.cnki.2096-2789.2022.23.031. Saygin, N., 2015. A Water-Centric Urbanization through Sustainable Stormwater
Lu, J.T., Ren, L.C., Zhang, C., Liang, M.S., Stasiulis, N., Streimikis, J., 2020. Impacts of Management and Green Infrastructure Techniques. 3rd International Water
feminist ethics and gender on the implementation of CSR initiatives. Filosofija- Congress: Sustainable Water Management, Izmir, Turkey.
sociologija 31 (1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.6001/fil-soc.v31i1.4175. Schaubroeck, T., 2022. Sustainability assessment of product systems in dire straits due to
Lucas, W.C., Sample, D.J., 2015. Reducing combined sewer overflows by using outlet ISO 14040-14044 standards: five key issues and solutions. J. Ind. Ecol. 26 (5),
controls for Green Stormwater Infrastructure: case study in Richmond, Virginia. 1600–1604. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13330.
J. Hydrol. 520, 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.029. Schulz, M., Short, M., Peters, G.M., 2012. A streamlined sustainability assessment tool for
Mihai, F.C., Ingrao, C., 2018. Assessment of biowaste losses through unsound waste improved decision making in the urban water industry. Integrated Environ. Assess.
management practices in rural areas and the role of home composting. J. Clean. Manag. 8 (1), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.247.
Prod. 172, 1631–1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.163. Sharma, R., Malaviya, P., 2021. Management of stormwater pollution using green
Mishra, B.K., Chakraborty, S., Kumar, P., Saraswat, C., 2020. Urban Stormwater infrastructure: the role of rain gardens. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Water 8 (2),
Management: Practices and Governance. Sustainable Solutions for Urban Water 21. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1507 e1507.
Security : Innovative Studies. Springer International Publishing, pp. 115–146. Shen, C., Zhao, Y.Q., Liu, R.B., Morgan, D., Wei, T., 2019. Enhancing wastewater
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53110-2_6. remediation by drinking water treatment residual-augmented floating treatment
Mistry, M., Gediga, J., Boonzaier, S., 2016. Life cycle assessment of nickel product. Int. J. wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 673, 230–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Life Cycle Assess. 21 (11), 1559–1572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1085- scitotenv.2019.04.035.
x. Shi, J.Y., Yan, X.Q., Han, Y.H., Liu, B., Feng, L., 2017. Rainwater-collecting and Rainwater
Moore, T.L.C., Hunt, W.F., 2013. Predicting the carbon footprint of urban stormwater the Greening Cyclic Utilization System in Sponge City (CN207608950U). Ningbo Haiyi
infrastructure. Ecol. Eng. 58, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Landscape Engineering Co.
ecoleng.2013.06.021. Siwiec, E., Erlandsen, A.M., Vennemo, H., 2018. City greening by rain gardens - costs and
Nosheen, S., Ajmal, I., Song, Y., 2021. Microbes as biofertilizers, a potential approach for benefits. Environ. Prot. Nat. Resour. 29 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2478/oszn-
sustainable crop production. Sustainability 13 (4), 1868. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 2018-0001.
su13041868. Sonnemann, G.W., Schuhmacher, M., Castells, F., 2003. Uncertainty assessment by a
Nossent, J., Elsen, P., Bauwens, W., 2011. Sobol’ sensitivity analysis of a complex Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste
environmental model. Environ. Model. Software 26 (12), 1515–1525. https://doi. incinerator. J. Clean. Prod. 11 (3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526
org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.08.010. (02)00028-8.
Nowak, D.J., Stevens, J.C., Sisinni, S.M., Luley, C.J., 2002. Effects of urban tree Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., García, J., 2022. What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)?
management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Arboric. Urban Setting core ideas for concept clarification. Nature-Based Solutions 2, 100009.
For. 28 (3), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2002.017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009.
O’Sullivan, A.D., Wicke, D., Hengen, T.J., Sieverding, H.L., Stone, J.J., 2015. Life Cycle Sun, X.Y., Xu, J., Du, J.J., 2010. Current Situation and Reflections on Resourceful Reuse
Assessment modelling of stormwater treatment systems. J. Environ. Manag. 149, of Gardening Waste in beijing. "Beijing Landscaping". Symposium, Beijing, China.
236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.025. Sun, F., Xiang, J., Tao, Y., Tong, C., Che, Y., 2018. Mapping the social values for
Ouyang, L., 2016. Research on the Process of Demolition Waste Management from the ecosystem services in urban green spaces: integrating a visitor-employed
Perspective of Carbon Emission. Master, Shenzhen University. photography method into SolVES. Urban For. Urban Green. 38, 105–113. https://
Oviedo-Ocaña, E.R., Dominguez, I., Komilis, D., Sánchez, A., 2019. Co-composting of doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.012.
green waste mixed with unprocessed and processed food waste: influence on the Takacs, A., Kiss, M., Hof, A., Tanacs, E., Gulyas, A., Kantor, N., 2016. Microclimate
composting process and product quality. Waste and Biomass Valorization 10 (1), modification by urban shade trees - an integrated approach to aid ecosystem service
63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0047-2. based decision-making. Ecosmart - Environment At Crossroads: Smart Approaches
Pan, Y., 2021. Sponge garden landscaping design for residence. Green Building 13 (4), For A Sustainable Development 32, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
29–34. proenv.2016.03.015.
Pappalardo, V., La Rosa, D., Campisano, A., La Greca, P., 2017. The potential of green Tang, G.L., 2022. Thoughts on the renovation and governance of old communities based
infrastructure application in urban runoff control for land use planning: a on the concept of resilience. Urban. Archit. 19 (23), 85–89. https://doi.org/
preliminary evaluation from a southern Italy case study. Ecosyst. Serv. 26, 345–354. 10.19892/j.cnki.csjz.2022.23.18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.015. Tran, M., Beddewela, E., 2020. Does context matter for sustainability disclosure?
Peng, J., Cao, Y., Rippy, M.A., Afrooz, A.R.M.N., Grant, S.B., 2016. Indicator and Institutional factors in Southeast Asia. Business Ethics-A European Review 29 (2),
pathogen removal by low impact development best management practices. Water 8 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12265.
(12), 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8120600. Vineyard, D., Ingwersen, W.W., Hawkins, T.R., Xue, X.B., Demeke, B., Shuster, W., 2015.
Peri, G., Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., Rizzo, G., 2012. Embedding "substrate" in Comparing green and grey infrastructure using life cycle cost and environmental
environmental assessment of green roofs life cycle: evidences from an application to impact: a rain garden case study in Cincinnati, OH. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 51
the whole chain in a Mediterranean site. J. Clean. Prod. 35, 274–287. https://doi. (5), 1342–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12320.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.038. Walling, E., Vaneeckhaute, C., 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions from inorganic and
Pertsova, C.C., Cochrane, P., 2007. Ecological Economics Research Trends. Nova Science organic fertilizer production and use: a review of emission factors and their
Publishers eBooks. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA85408647. variability. J. Environ. Manag. 276, 111211 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Petit-Boix, A., Sevigne-Itoiz, E., Rojas-Gutierrez, L.A., Barbassa, A.P., Josa, A., jenvman.2020.111211.
Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X., 2017. Floods and consequential life cycle assessment: Wang, B., 2012. Research of Shenzhen Construction Wastes Management Base on Life
integrating flood damage into the environmental assessment of stormwater Best Cycle Assessment. Master, Huazhong University of Science and Technology.
Management Practices. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 601–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Wang, L., 2022. Research on the construction of Rain Garden in Hefei from the
jclepro.2017.06.047. perspective of comprehensive benefits. Engineering and Construction 36 (6),
Raei, E., Alizadeh, M.R., Nikoo, M.R., Adamowski, J., 2019. Multi-objective decision- 1629–1632.
making for green infrastructure planning (LID-BMPs) in urban storm water Wang, J.X., Banzhaf, E., 2018. Towards a better understanding of Green Infrastructure: a
management under uncertainty. J. Hydrol. 579, 124091 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. critical review. Ecol. Indicat. 85, 758–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2019.124091. ecolind.2017.09.018.
Ram, V.G., Kishore, K.C., Kalidindi, S.N., 2020. Environmental benefits of construction Wang, J.J., Li, T., 2013. Discussion on design essentials of rain gardens and its
and demolition debris recycling: evidence from an Indian case study using life cycle application in shanghai. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36 (7), 164–167.
12
Wang, R., Eckelman, M.J., Zimmerman, J.B., 2013. Consequential environmental and Xu, S., Liu, D.C., 2020. Political connections and corporate social responsibility: political
economic life cycle assessment of green and gray stormwater infrastructures for incentives in China. Business Ethics-A European Review 29 (4), 664–693. https://
combined sewer systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (19), 11189–11198. https://doi. doi.org/10.1111/beer.12308.
org/10.1021/es4026547. Xu, S., Chen, Y., Ding, L., 2016. Study on the current situation of residual soil disposal
Wang, J.J., Li, T., Zhang, Y., 2014. Water treatment residual as a bioretention media and response strategies in Shenzhen. In: 2016 China Urban Planning Annual
amendment for phosphorus removal. Environ. Sci. J. Integr. Environ. Res. 35 (12), Conference, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
4642–4647. https://doi.org/10.13227/j.hjkx.2014.12.030. Yan, X., 2020. Life Cycle Assessment of Green Infrastructure Facilities of Sponge City
Wang, M., Zhang, D.Q., Adhityan, A., Ng, W.J., Dong, J.W., Tan, S.K., 2016. Assessing ——A Case Study in Guangming District. Master, Harbin Institute of Technology.
cost-effectiveness of bioretention on stormwater in response to climate change and Yang, B., Wang, K., Zhang, Y., Luo, J., 2018. Resourceful reuse of landscaping waste
urbanization for future scenarios. J. Hydrol. 543, 423–432. https://doi.org/ based on the concept of circular economy. Xiandai Horticulture (22), 164. https://
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.019. doi.org/10.14051/j.cnki.xdyy.2018.22.125.
Wang, J.L., Tu, N.N., Xi, G.P., Che, W., Li, J.Q., 2017. Discussion of residential district Yin, L., Sharifi, A., Liqiao, H., Jinyu, C., 2022. Urban carbon accounting: an overview.
renovation combined with sponge city development. China Water & Wastewater 33 Urban Clim. 44, 101195 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101195.
(18), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.19853/j.zgjsps.1000-4602.2017.18.001. Yu, M., 2017. Urban renewal in context of rapid urbanization. Modern Property
Wang, S.Y., Wu, H., Zhang, T.Y., 2017. Exploring the progress of landscaping waste Management 5 (5), 44–51.
resource utilization technology. Modern Gardening (10), 158. https://doi.org/ Yu, M.N., 2022. How to Take the Road of Urban Renewal under the "double Carbon"
10.14051/j.cnki.xdyy.2017.10.138. Target. Shanghai Real Estate, pp. 57–59. https://doi.org/10.13997/j.cnki.cn31-
Wang, J.Y., Wu, H.Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Zuo, J., 2019. Considering life-cycle environmental 1188/f.2022.03.003, 03.
impacts and society’s willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste Zeng, F., Xing, J.J., Tan, G.W., 2021. Comprehensive evaluation of plants suitable for
management fee: an empirical study of Chin. J. Clean. Prod. 206, 1004–1014. growth in rain gardens in guangzhou. Chinese Journal of Tropical Agriculture 41 (1),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.170. 52–58.
Wang, X.C., Klemeš, J.J., Wang, Y.T., Dong, X.B., Wei, H.J., Xu, Z.H., Varbanov, P.S., Zhang, X.C., 2014. Carbon Emissions Measurement Methods and Comparative Studies on
2020. Water-Energy-Carbon Emissions nexus analysis of China: an environmental Green Building Structural System. Master, Harbin Institute of Technology.
input-output model-based approach. Appl. Energy 261, 114431. https://doi.org/ Zhang, L.J., 2017. Research on reuse of construction waste residue in Xi’An. Environ.
10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114431. Eng. 35 (5), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.13205/j.hjgc.201705026.
Wang, Z.P., Liu, L., Yan, J., 2020. Research on the path and countermeasures of Zhang, M., Lian, X.L., 2014. The old residential community of external environment and
upgrading and transforming old urban districts in China. Urban Development facilities suitable for the old transformation——analysis principle and key points.
Research 27 (7), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.14051/j.cnki.xdyy.2017.10.138. Architecture & Culture (11), 127–128.
Wang, C.H., Hao, Z., Huang, C.H., Wang, Q.H., Yan, Z.S., Bai, L.L., Jiang, H.L., Li, D.D., Zhang, L.Y., Oyake, Y., Morimoto, Y., Niwa, H., Shibata, S., 2019. Rainwater storage/
2022. Drinking water treatment residue recycled to synchronously control the infiltration function of rain gardens for management of urban storm runoff in Japan.
pollution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phosphorus in sediment from Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 15 (4), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-019-00391-w.
aquatic ecosystem. J. Hazard Mater. 431 (10), 128533 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Zhang, B., Li, J.K., Li, Y.J., 2020. Simulation and optimization of rain gardens via
jhazmat.2022.128533. DRAINMOD model and response surface methodology. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 20 (3),
Wei, G.L., Qin, C.Y., Zeng, Y.L., 2021. Study on the application of rainwater garden in 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2020.03.002.
modern urban drainage. Art Des. 2 (5), 70–72. https://doi.org/10.16824/j.cnki. Zhang, Y., Wu, J.W., Xing, K.P., Wen, Z.P., Tan, J.B., 2020. Evaluation of measurement
issn10082832.2021.05.017. uncertainty of the high-speed variable-slit system based on the Monte Carlo method.
Wen, Z.G., Xie, Y.L., Chen, M.H., Dinga, C.D., 2021. China’s plastic import ban increases Front. Mech. Eng. 15 (4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-020-0589-z.
prospects of environmental impact mitigation of plastic waste trade flow worldwide. Zhang, L., Zhang, S.M., Fu, K., Cai, W.T., Chen, Y., 2021. Research on recycling and
Nat. Commun. 12 (1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20741-9. Article 425. disposal mode of urban garden waste. Environmental Sanitation Engineering 29 (5),
Wolf, K.L., Lam, S.T., Mckeen, J.K., Richardson, G., Bardekjian, A.C., 2020. Urban trees 10–16. https://doi.org/10.19841/j.cnki.hjwsgc.2021.05.002.
and human health: a scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 17 (12), 4371. Zhong, Y.J., Wang, Y.J., Song, B.Q., Jiang, Z.W., 2022. Experimental study on
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124371. preparation and performance of composite non-sintered lightweight aggregate from
Xiang, L.L., Li, J.Q., Kuang, N., Che, W., Li, Y., Liu, X.D., 2008. Discussion on the design construction waste mud. New Building Materials 49 (5), 37–41.
methods of rainwater garden. Water and Wastewater Engineering (6), 47–51. Zhou, X.H., 2009. Discussion on the composting of garden wastes and the technical
https://doi.org/10.13789/j.cnki.wwe1964.2008.06.015. process. Chinese Landscape Architecture 25 (4), 7–11.
Xu, H.S., Gao, J., 2022. Simulation of stormwater management cost-benefit of sponge Zhou, T.S., Wang, J.A., 2017. Discussion on the status of urban landscaping waste
city construction based on life cycle cost. Journal of Water Resources and Water treatment and resource utilization countermeasures. Econ. Res. Guide (15),
Engineering 33 (3), 12–19. 147–148.
Zong, M.D., 2023. Research on the artistic construction of rain garden. Architecture &
Culture (2), 228–230. https://doi.org/10.19875/j.cnki.jzywh.2023.02.073.
13

1-s2.0-S0959652623039641-main

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

1-s2.0-S0959652623039641-main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1-s2.0-S0959652623039641-main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 434 (2024) 139806

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Carbon reduction potential of a rain garden: A cradle-to-grave life cycle

Fig. 2. Structure of rain garden. (Self-drawn by the author).

2.5.2. Construction materials 2.5.4. Operation and maintenance phase

Fig. 4. Carbon reduction benefits of rain garden operation.

You might also like