Next Article in Journal
Ecological Functional Zoning in Urban Fringe Areas Based on the Trade-Offs Between Ecological–Social Values in Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Jiangning District, Nanjing
Previous Article in Journal
When Local Governments Plan to Give Their Past a Future: A State-Wide Analysis of Heritage Strategy Documents in New South Wales (Australia)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/land13111956
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Application of Life Cycle Assessment for Torrent Control Structures: A Review

by
Mirabela Marin
*,
Nicu Constantin Tudose
,
Cezar Ungurean
and
Alin Lucian Mihalache
National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Drăcea”, 077190 Voluntari, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(11), 1956; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111956
Submission received: 29 October 2024 / Revised: 14 November 2024 / Accepted: 14 November 2024 / Published: 19 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Land, Biodiversity, and Human Wellbeing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mountain areas are prone to the occurrence of extreme events, especially torrential floods, amplified by climatic and environmental changes. In this context, it is mandatory to increase resilience and guide decision-makers toward more effective measures. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is considered as a decision support tool that can provide the qualitative and quantitative criteria required by the Do No Significant Harm, thus contributing to a more accurate assessment of environmental impacts of the torrent control structures. This study aimed to investigate the current state of the LCA applications in the torrent control to provide practitioners perspectives for new research and a pathway for optimized LCA analysis. Our analysis reveals that in the torrent control area, these studies are still limited. Most of the papers considered Ecoinvent as the main database source and cradle to grave as the main system boundary. This study suggests that restoring the functional capacity of dams and other torrent control structures instead of demolition or decommissioning from the end-of-life stage will ensure an orientation towards more sustainable and circular strategies. Although strong partnerships and consistent efforts are needed, general findings reveal that LCA is a useful tool for moving towards more sustainable construction practices.

1. Introduction

Climate change, with increasingly evident effects in recent years, affects the sustainable use of resources and the sustainability of the environment [1,2]. Water, one of the most important natural resources, is essential for ensuring human well-being, sustainable land management, and the provision of ecosystem services [3]. Water resources are limited, and climate change is altering their availability [4,5]. Projections related to the changes of temperature and precipitation as well increased frequency and intensity of extreme events will modify the main components of the hydrological cycle [6,7,8]. Additionally, industrial and technological development, population growth, and unsustainable activities amplify environmental problems, including environmental degradation and resources depletion [9].
The environment, along with the economy and society, represents one of the main pillars of sustainability [10]. Achieving sustainability is essential for securing human wellbeing and requires an integrated approach regarding the human–environment interaction and sustainable practices to address current challenges [11]. When ecosystems can no longer adapt to different pressures, major transformations occur at their level, often irreversible and with uncertain results that can endanger the security of resources [12].
Mountainous areas are prone to the occurrence of extreme hydrological events, especially torrential floods, exacerbated by climate and environmental changes [13]. Recent studies have shown that in these areas, both liquid and solid flows will intensify in the coming years as a result of climate and land use changes [14,15,16,17]. Therefore, to protect humans and the environment in the context of current and future challenges, there is a need for efficient torrent control structures to control runoff and reduce the vulnerability and exposure risk of human communities and other socio-economic objectives [18]. These constructions, especially those from torrential watersheds, are highly vulnerable to damages and deficiencies with negative consequences of their protective functions [19]. The quality of construction materials used, type of construction, age, and events to which these structures are exposed influence their durability over time, and therefore their maintenance is fundamental to secure safety against extreme events [19,20,21]. However, these constructions with specific locations and functions can alter some environmental natural processes [22].
Taking into account the high vulnerability of our country to the occurrence of extreme events, there is a need for proactive management, which increases resilience and the ability to adapt to environmental changes and guide decision-makers in adopting measures effective for managing multiple challenges [12,23]. In addition, proactive management increases adaptive capacity and enables risk management in the short, medium, and long term [12]. These ambitions are also found in the 17 Sustainable Development Goals [24], while the Water Framework Directive [25] emphasizes the need to establish long-term measures to secure resource availability [26]. Moreover, the Recovery and Resilience Facility regulation [27] emphasizes that it is imperiously necessary to avoid the ‘significant harm’ of the environmental objectives by considering an assessment of the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) [28].
To this end, is necessary to expand our knowledge regarding the environmental impact of the various existing systems (including torrent control structures) as well as the development of technologies and products with minimal impact on the environment [18]. It is noteworthy that torrent control structures exert a continuous environmental impact not only with the occurrence of extreme events; therefore, their entire life cycle should be considered [29]. To achieve these ambitions, different analysis tools and indicators such as life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used. Grounded on the existing standards of the construction and product sector, LCA represents a decision support tool regarding environmental sustainability [29,30].
The concept of sustainability has been widely addressed in multiple studies, which have been pursued to tackle problems and the management of the environment [31]. Numerous papers have aimed to contribute to sustainability achievement and have focused on performing life cycle assessment for a variety of purposes: wastewater treatment [32,33,34], environmental impacts of building materials [35,36,37,38], or resources depletion [39,40].
However, in the torrent control field, these studies are limited. Acknowledging the importance of this topic, the purpose of this review is to present a comprehensive analysis of LCA papers related to torrent control structures to raise awareness about the increased necessity of appraising the environmental impact of torrent control structures and empower practitioners to perform LCA analysis for more sustainable decisions. Therefore, the research question of this paper is ‘How applied is the life cycle assessment in torrent control?’ To this end, Section 2 summarizes the research methodology conducted to identify and select the most appropriate studies, Section 3 provides an overview of the LCA methodology, Section 4 includes the main results of studies performed with a focus on torrent control, Section 5 and 6 draws some limitations and future works for more sustainable decisions, and Section 7 finally presents the main conclusions of this paper.

2. Research Methodology

The methodology followed for this review consisted of a literature searching starting with October 2023 (last update October 2024) using multiple databases. The online databases (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Scopus) were screened to identify articles using the following keywords as inclusion criteria: ‘Life cycle assessment of torrent control structures’, ‘Life cycle assessment in watershed management’, ‘Life cycle assessment of small dams’ ‘Life cycle assessment of torrent protection structures’, ‘Life cycle assessment of torrent check dams’, and ‘Life cycle assessment of check dams’. Although this approach is widely applied in environmental studies [41], searching on the Scopus platform to identify potentially relevant studies for the field of torrent control generated only 37 papers. This confirms that there are still few papers focused on the applicability of the LCA in examining of torrent control structures. Interrogating the aforementioned databases by screening the aforementioned criteria in a first step, we identified and retained 56 papers considering the methodological choices, as well as topics that could help us respond to this paper’s research question. From the total of 56, 12 papers were excluded for being common to all four databases. In a second step, the retained papers were screened by the title, abstract, and keywords to have a general perspective on the methodology, aim, and results and to better understand their consistency with our paper’s objective. After reading all abstracts, the other 14 papers that were not representative for the review topic were excluded in this stage. Third, the remaining 30 papers were assessed by eligibility, and the 15 articles that were not particularly focused on the LCA application for torrent control structures were not considered. In the end, a total of 15 papers that were specifically focused or connected with the research question addressed in our manuscript, or very close to and also often used for torrent control, were selected, read in full, and analyzed. The flowchart of the methodology followed for this review is provided in Figure 1. After the full texts of the considered papers were investigated, a word cloud analysis was made using MAXQDA Analytic Pro 2022.

3. Life Cycle Assessment Method

LCA represents a useful method that enables the quantification and evaluation of potential environmental impact during the entire life cycle of a product, process, or activity [42]. This method is considered as a decision support tool for environmental sustainability, and its usability has increased in all industrial sectors [29,43]. The LCA approach contributes to the achievement of environmental sustainability goals, and therefore to consolidate this procedure and foster the overall acceptance of practitioners, it was included in the International Standards 14040 and 14044 [42,44]. A detailed description of the LCA method is provided in Appendix A.

4. Results of Life Cycle Assessment Applications

Life cycle assessment is a widely applied tool for assessing potential environmental impacts of a product or a process along the entire chain and supports informed decisions towards sustainability. The most used indicators for assessing the environmental impact are energy and materials consumption, GHG emissions, water usage, waste generation, ecotoxicity, human health, and resource depletion [21]. Although this tool is widely applied in the construction sector, there are limited studies concerning the application of LCA regarding the torrent control structures. These structures, which can be longitudinal or transverse, aim to protect socio-economic objectives against flash floods and debris flows in particular and ensure the provision of goods and services; thus, proper maintenance is fundamental to fulfil their functional requirements.
LCA is recognized as a useful tool for identifying mitigation options towards sustainability. However, screening the literature revealed that only a few studies applied this methodology for torrent control structures. After a search in the main scientific databases, we selected for our review only 15 papers that applied LCA to this type of structure (Table 1). Most of the reviewed articles that aimed to perform the LCA assessment for evaluating the environmental impact of torrent control structures were located Austria (Figure 2).
Although the analysis of some papers [45,46,47,48,49] seems not to be in line with the research question defined at the beginning of the paper, we chose to include these in our review due to their relevance in the torrent control field.
Table 1. Overview of the selected studies relevant to the field of torrent control.
Table 1. Overview of the selected studies relevant to the field of torrent control.
ReferenceTitleLocationImpact Category or IndicatorResearch AimSystem BoundaryData Sources
Storesund et al., 2008 [46] Life Cycle Impacts for Concrete Retaining Walls vs. Bioengineered Slopes Carlifonia GWP, CO2Equivalent Compare the environmental impact and life-cycle costs of two different types of retaining walls N/A N/A
Liu et al., 2013 [50] Life-Cycle Assessment of Concrete Dam Construction: Comparison of Environmental Impact of Rock-Filled and Conventional Concrete China N/A Assess the environmental loads for the entire life cycle of a rock-filled concrete dam construction Cradle-to-grave Various databases (ELCD, UNSEPA, CCCJ, CLCD)
Noda et al., 2014 [47] Evaluation of CO2 emissions reductions by timber check dams and their economic effectiveness Japan Environmental and economic Assess the CO2 emissions and direct installation costs of different types of check dams Cradle-to-site MiLCA, Social Capital LCA Database
Ballesteros Cánovas et al., 2016 [18] Debris-flow risk analysis in a managed torrent based on a stochastic life-cycle performance Austria Climate change Evaluate the applicability of stochastic LCA to determine debris-flow risk N/A Local data
Mickovski and Thomson, 2017 [48] Developing a framework for the sustainability assessment of eco-engineering measures Scotland Environmental, economic, and social Evaluate the sustainability assessment methods applied in the construction industry Cradle-to-grave N/A
von der Thannen et al., 2017 [45] Development of an environmental life cycle assessment model for soil bioengineering constructions Austria CED Assess the environmental impact of soil bioengineering constructions Cradle-to-gate Ecoinvent
Bidoglio et al., 2018 [51] An environmental assessment of small hydropower in India: the real costs of dams’ construction under a life cycle perspective India Land use Assess the cost of dam construction for a small hydropower plant Cradle-to-use Local data
Song et al., 2018 [52] Cradle-to-Grave Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams in the United States of America America GWP Evaluate the emissions generated by different types of dams Cradle-to-grave N/A
Tavakol-Davani et al., 2018 [53] A Watershed Scale Life Cycle Assessment Framework for Stormwater Management Ohio GWP, ETW,
EP, and
ODP 		Provide an integrated framework for watershed scale analysis Cradle-to-grave N/A
Paratscha et al., 2018 [20] Probabilistic performance prediction model for Austrian torrent control infrastructure Austria N/A Evaluate the performance of torrent control structures N/A TAC
Paratscha et al., 2019a [30] Screening LCA of torrent control structures in Austria Austria CED GWP100 Identify the environmental impacts during the product and construction stages Cradle-to-site Ecoinvent
Eurostat
Paratscha et al., 2019b [54] Development of LCA benchmarks for Austrian torrent control structures Austria N/A Develop the methodology for LCA benchmarks Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent
Barbhuiya and Das, 2023 [21] Life Cycle Assessment of construction materials: Methodologies, applications and future directions for sustainable decision-making N/A N/A Provide a comprehensive analysis of LCA for construction materials including recent advances N/A N/A
Mostafaei et al., 2023 [55] Sustainability Evaluation of a Concrete Gravity Dam: Life Cycle Assessment, Carbon Footprint Analysis, and Life Cycle Costing California Human health,
terrestrial, freshwater, marine ecosystems, and resource scarcity 		Evaluate the environmental and economic impact of a concrete dam Cradle-to-grave, Cradle-to-gate N/A
Tang et al., 2023 [49] Catchment-scale life cycle impacts of green infrastructures and sensitivity to runoff coefficient with stormwater modelling China Climate change, human heath, resources depletion, etc. Evaluate environmental impact for green infrastructures Cradle-to-grave Ecoinvent
Notations: LCA—life cycle assessment, ELCD—European Reference Life Cycle Database, USEPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency, CCCJ—Civil Concrete Committee in Japan, CLCD—Chinese Reference Life Cycle Database, GWP—Global Warming Potential, H&H—hydrologic and hydraulic performance, uWISE—urban water infrastructure sustainability evaluation, ETW—eco-toxicity water, EP—eutrophication potential, ODP—ozone depletion potential, TAC—torrent and avalanche cadaster, CED—cumulative energy demand, N/A—not available
The study conducted by Storesund et al. in 2008 [46] focused on comparing the environmental impact and costs of two different types of retaining walls: conventional reinforced concrete walls and bioengineered slopes during the life cycle phases. For this research, the authors considered only three life cycle phases, namely, product, construction, and use, while the end-of-life stage was excluded from the analysis, and the EIO-LCA Model (Economic Input Output Life Cycle Assessment) was employed to evaluate the environmental impact and costs of each wall type. The research revealed that from the environmental point of view, the biostabilization methods (used in bioengineered slopes) had lower impact compared to reinforced concrete walls, while in terms of costs, biostabilization had higher total lifetime cost than reinforced concrete walls, primarily due to ongoing maintenance requirements. The authors conclude that bioengineered slopes offer significant environmental benefits, but their economic viability may be influenced by factors like maintenance costs.
In their paper, Liu et al. [50] employed a hybrid LCA approach to assess the environmental impact of dam construction projects. This approach combines process LCA and the EIO-LCA (Economic Input–Output Life Cycle Assessment) model to leverage existing data and address the challenges of data availability and complexity in different project stages. By combining these methods, the study aimed to provide a comprehensive and reliable assessment of the overall environmental impact of dam construction projects. The authors considered the entire life cycle of the dam construction and compared these impacts in relation to climate change. After determining energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions during all stages, they found out that the highest values were obtained under the product stage. Comparing rock-filled concrete with conventional concrete, the authors reported significantly reduced values of the total emissions during the entire chain of dam construction. Therefore, in the product stage, the CO2 emissions decreased by 72%, and in the construct stage by 51%, while for the operation and maintenance stages, the total emissions obtained indicated values lower by 15.6% when rock-filled concrete was used compared to cement. Similar results were obtained also for the transport of materials, for which the authors obtained 15% lower values. The authors conclude that for rock-filled concrete, substantial environmental benefits will compel decision-makers to adopt more eco-friendly construction methods for concrete dams.
In the study developed by Noda et al. [47], the authors aimed to compare the environmental and economic performance of different types of check dams (e.g., all-wood timber, hybrid timber, concrete, and steel). In this respect, for each type of check dam, the authors calculated the life cycle CO2 emissions for each type of check dam, considering factors such as material production, transportation, construction, and maintenance but also comparing the direct installation costs. The authors’ findings revealed that from the environmental point of view, the CO2 emissions were significantly reduced in the case of all-wood and hybrid timber dams compared to concrete and steel dams, and the values obtained decreased by 11–54% when all-wood and hybrid timber were used compared to concrete and steel dams. From the economic perspective, all-wood timber check dams were more expensive to install than concrete or steel dams, while the hybrid timber check dams proved to be a better option in terms of installation costs, especially compared to steel ones. The study conducted by Ballesteros Cánovas et al. [18] focused on investigating the LCA for debris-flow risk under three climate and two management scenarios but also to estimate the potential associated economic losses in an area where frequent and harmful debris-flow events occurred. To assess the risk of debris flows on torrent control structures, the methodology combined the quantification of expected losses considering the potential costs, incorporation of stochastic lifecycle performance, and integration of climate change scenarios. To define the climate change scenarios, the authors first conducted a regional debris-flow event assessment and integrated it into a database that comprised 251 events for the 1950−2000 period. Second, they evaluated, considering the threshold exceedance, the frequency occurrence of these events per decade and used this analysis as a basis for future projections. Third, they compounded the historical analysis with data recorded at the meteorological station and assumptions of climate change scenarios. Finally, the considered climate change scenarios were the same frequency of debris-flow as historical, minor, and large changes in their frequency due to moderate and major climate change changes. The management scenarios referred to the maximum retention capacity of check dams (m3) of 77,000 and 25,000, respectively. After performing the simulations, the authors reported that by 2050, the debris-flow frequency can decrease by 33% (from 21 to 14 events per decade) or can increase by 38% (from 21 to 29 events per decade) depending on the climate change scenario used. Related to management scenarios, the average maintenance costs of check dams can either increase between 32 and 44% or decrease by 20%, depending the management and climate change scenario considered. In the end, the authors highlight the importance of performing the maintenance works to reduce the foreseen economic challenges and suggest that more quantitative analysis needs to be conducted.
In their paper, von der Thannen et al. [45] aimed to assess the environmental impact of soil bioengineering constructions by analyzing their energy consumption and carbon footprint throughout their life cycle. In this respect, they used the OpenLCA software (version 1.4.2) to evaluate the environmental impact during the product and construction stages and the Ecoinvent database for collecting soil bioengineering materials and processes data. The study revealed that operating machinery and transportation are the primary sources of energy consumption and, consequently, a significant contributor to the carbon footprint of soil bioengineering constructions. However, the authors emphasized the necessity of expanding the database with specific data on soil bioengineering materials and highlighted the definition of functional unit as the main challenging process due to their complexity and dynamic nature.
Mickovski and Thomson [48] followed a two-stage approach to evaluate the sustainability performance of the construction and eco-engineering methods and develop a key performance indicator (KPI) sustainability framework appraised in terms of relevance and value through an expert workshop with participants from various European countries. In the first step, the authors conducted a literature review of the existing tools for their strengths and limitations in assessing eco-engineering projects and identified BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method-UK), LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-USA), and CEEQUAL (Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme) as the most used. Although these systems integrate sustainability pillars, the authors identified that these are primarily tied to environmental criteria and lack a holistic interpretation of social and economic dimensions. In the second step, the authors developed a sustainability framework to assess sustainability performance at different project stages (pre-mobilization, mobilization, construction, post-construction). The framework that incorporates a novel set of 161 KPIs (117 related to sustainability performance and 44 to eco-engineering-specific) was applied in the Bervie Braes case study and quantified the KPI sustainability effects using a 1–5 rating scale. The authors’ findings reveal that initial stages (pre-mobilization, mobilization) showed positive sustainability effects, while later stages (construction, post-construction) were neutral or had negative impacts, which might suggest that there is room for sustainability improvement during the later stages. The framework value as a communication tool for decision making was recognized during the expert workshop, although some concerns were raised about resource requirements for data collection and evaluation. Bidoglio et al. [51] aimed at appraising the potential environmental impacts of dam constructions for a small hydropower plant using the GaBi software for performing LCA. The authors also included in the analysis the land use and land use change impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and biogenic emissions. Going through all four stages of the LCA, the authors computed all potential environmental impacts associated with land use and land use change, and they found out that the preconstruction, construction, and operation stages generated the highest environmental impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services, while concrete, steel, and electricity were the main contributors. The authors also estimated the global warming potential (GWP) and concluded that the highest impacts, approximately 91% of the total impacts, were generated in the use stage, as well as mentioning the organic matter quantitates as the main factor that influences the dams’ environmental performance.
In another study, Song et al. [52] aimed to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of various types of dams in order to identify options for improving dam performance and reducing the total emissions. After an extensive literature review focused on investigating 31 types of dams, the authors reported that the largest GHG emissions are generated by dams with reservoirs. In the case of small dams, the construction and use and maintenance stage produce the largest amounts, while the organic matter decomposition from large dams’ reservoirs contributes to the recording the highest emissions. The authors state that the region where the dams are located influences also the GHG emissions, and the highest quantities were reported for tropical regions. Even if there are concerns regarding neglecting the end-of-life stage, this study reveals that the emissions recorded in this stage are not so significant and can be overlooked. However, the authors emphasize the importance of selecting with accuracy the system boundary and including the flooded biomass when accounting for the GHG emissions. Overall, the study highlights the importance of considering the full life cycle impacts of dams, including both direct and indirect emissions. It emphasizes the need for a more holistic approach to energy planning and decision making, taking into account the specific characteristics of different regions and energy sources.
Tavakol-Davani et al. [53] focused on developing an integrated framework to evaluate urban water infrastructure from an environmental point of view. The study integrated LCA and H&H (hydrologic and hydraulic performance) under the uWISE tool employed to evaluate urban water management in a watershed scale. Going through all four stages of the LCA and defining the supply–demand scenarios (different sewage volume), the authors used the extrapolation method for extrapolating the results from a building to a watershed scale. Their findings reveal that using one single tool can underestimate all potential environmental impacts associated with GWP, ETW, EP, and ODP while employing an integrated method showcasing more comprehensive results for storm water control strategies. The authors recommend considering stakeholders’ narratives and multi-criteria decision making for future research.
Paratscha et al. [20] aimed to define two criteria (TTF—time to failure, TTP—time to react) for evaluating the performance of various torrent control construction types. The authors interrogated the Torrent and Avalanche Cadaster (TAC) database to investigate the probabilistic durability for 9433 structures from a construction type and material point of view. To this end, the Markov chain stochastic model (which is considered to be a life cycle management technique [56]) was applied to determine the timespan of torrent control structures (both transverse and longitudinal) in accomplishing their protective functions. The authors observed that the analyzed torrent control structures behaved differently in terms of construction materials and structure types. They identified log crib wall, concrete, and riprap as the most used construction materials for transverse and longitudinal structures. After considering the damage class defined by the Austrian Standards ONR 24803, the authors established a 10% threshold for both TTF and TTR. Related to TTF, they observed that for some materials (wooden), the TTF was already exceeded, while for the TTR, the results showcase that it was exceeded for 10% of the analyzed structures. Considering the pressure of climate change, the authors highlight the necessity of maintaining these structures in a proper state to enhance their protective functions and emphasize the usefulness of TTR in conceiving long-term management of torrent control structures.
In the study developed by Paratscha et al. [30], the authors aimed to determine the environmental impacts associated with the product and construction stages based on existing standards and databases (ISO 14040, ISO 14044, EN 15978, EN 15804, Ecoinvent, Swiss non-road database). After data collection and analyzing the most important process from 17 construction projects for the two stages mentioned above, the authors identified concrete and steel (87% for GWP100, 72% for CED) as the most important contributors of emissions and energy for the product stage, while excavation (42% of GWP100 and 39% for CED) and transportation (29% for GWP100 and 30% for CED) in the construction stage generated the highest emissions. However, these findings are influenced by the scenarios used (different distances for transport to the construction site). When the total emissions are quantified, the authors recommend also including in the analysis the transport of workers (4% for GWP100 CED) to the site location.
In another study [54], the same authors aimed to develop a LCA model for torrent control structures to assess the environmental impacts of different structure types throughout their entire life cycle. By doing so, they hoped to fill a knowledge gap in the field of sustainability assessment for infrastructure. To create a standardized methodology, their research was based on the existing building construction standards like ISO 14040 and 14044, as well as Green Buildings Rating Systems (GBRS). The authors applied a hybrid method that consisted of calculating two types of benchmarks (internal and external, differentiated by the rating system in the building sector) for quantifying the environmental indicators of torrent control structures during the construction phase but also for the entire life cycle. In their analysis, the authors considered all types of materials used in the construction of check dams. In order to emphasize best practices, the authors calculated the global warming potential (GWP100) during the product and construction stages but also for the entire life cycle for different types of materials used in the construction of check dams, submerged sill, and bank protection structures (reinforced concrete, stone masonry, or double log crib wall). Moreover, the authors performed the uncertainty analysis and identified that for the material productions, 33% of uncertainties corresponded to the Ecoinvent datasets, while the materials quantities generated 67% of uncertainties. The authors also state that the total emissions varied according to the type of materials used or maintenances rates, for which total emissions were reported at 35% and 65%, respectively.
Barbhuiya and Das [21] conducted a comprehensive study regarding the LCA of construction materials and analyzed the most widely used materials (cement, concrete, steel, and wood) with the aim of identifying the environmental effect of materials and guiding practitioners in the adoption of more informed decisions and environmentally friendly approaches. The methodological approaches implied a detailed description of principles, phases, and key parameters used in the LCA assessments as well as an extensive literature review of LCA studies focused on constructions materials. The authors mentioned concrete as the main contributors of GHG emissions, while wood and timber are considered materials with lower environmental impact and important renewable sources to be used for more sustainable practices. Going through all four stages of the LCA framework, the authors provide a detailed presentation of each step, highlighting the importance of using quality data and involving stakeholders to reshape findings. After investigating recent advances and emerging trends, the authors emphasize the usefulness of considering the circular economy principles, low carbon alternatives, and policy framework importance in achieving sustainability in the construction sector.
Mostafaei et al. [55] focused on assessing the environmental and economic impact of a concrete dam through life cycle assessment (LCA), carbon footprint analysis (CFA), and life cycle costing (LCC) and used the ReCiPe 2016 tool to obtain and assess the environmental impact categories in four scenarios: construction; construction and decommissioning; construction and retrofitting; and construction, retrofitting, and decommissioning. The authors reported concrete as the main factor for increased GHG emissions in the initial construction and retrofitting scenarios. However, the pollution level decreased by 32% when 20% of concrete was recycled in the decommissioning scenario. Regarding CFA, the highest carbon footprint was obtained for the construction stage, followed by destruction and recycling (646 kg/m3 and 334 kg/m3, respectively). For LCC, the highest economic and environmental costs were for decommissioning and initial construction (101 and 705 million dollars).
Tang et al. [49] aimed to conduct a LCA for green infrastructure (GI) at the catchment scale and compare the environmental performance. After creating the database, the authors used the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) to simulate runoff coefficient and the ReCiPe2016 model embedded in GaBi to determine the environmental impact over a 30-year life cycle perspective under three GI scenarios (permeable pavement, green roof, and sunken green space). The authors also performed the sensitivity analysis for the runoff coefficient to ensure a deeper understanding of the LCA and GI for supporting stakeholders to make informed decisions for storm water management. In total, 17 environmental indicators attributed to climate change, ecosystem impact, human health, and natural resources consumption categories were used to assess the environmental impact. The authors state that climate change is significantly reduced when vegetation cover is embedded in GI, and the environmental impact of GI is reduced for ecosystem and human impact but increased for resource consumption. Related to surface runoff, the authors reported that large amounts of runoff can threaten the GI benefits due to an increased load of pollutants in the water. Finally, the authors concluded that integrating SWMM in LCA and GI is a valuable approach to designing integrated management of catchment.
In the end, after the full texts of the considered papers were investigated, a word cloud analysis was made using MAXQDA Analytic Pro 2022 (Figure 3).
The word cloud derived from the reviewed articles reveals that the most frequently used words were as follows: ‘lca’, ‘environmental’, ‘construction’, ‘impact’, ‘material’, ‘process’, ‘assessment’, ‘emission’, ‘dam’, and ‘life’ as the most prominent. Other specific words derived from the selected articles were as follows: ‘energy’, ‘structure’, ‘concrete’, ‘performance’, ‘stage’, ‘water’, ‘system’, ‘reservoir’, ‘uncertainty’, ‘analysis’, ‘ghg’, and so on, revealing that the word cloud is consistent with the reviewed papers’ aims.

5. General Perspectives of the Analyzed Papers

Although LCA is a valuable tool to assess the environmental impacts of a product or process during their entire life cycle, this methodology has some limitations that were signaled in the analyzed papers. The most important limitations are as follows:
-
Methodology complexity due to large amount of data or selection of the impact categories [57,58];
-
Data accessibility and data collected from various sources may no longer be representative and useful for a given time period [49,59];
-
Lack of high-quality data and inconsistencies of datasets, limited resources (time, expertise) for LCA application, subjectivity of the interpretation phase, and ineffective communication strategies for delivering the LCA results [21];
-
Uncertainty in the end-of-life stage due to the long lifetime of the torrent control structures [57];
-
In the case of check dams or other types of torrent control structures, the disposal (end of life) stage that includes demolition and recycling can provide incorrect values for recycling in the material’s acquisition and construction because those types of structures remain in place after the designed lifetime to preserve the accommodated ecosystems and environments [51,52];
-
A consistent and comprehensive system boundary is essential for accurate LCA assessment [52];
-
The FAIR principles (findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reuse) are seldom considered in data sharing, and guidance in improving this deficiency is currently missing [43];
-
Uncertainties related to emissions during the production, construction, and transport stages [30,50];
-
For the studies that go beyond the conventional LCA and include also other assessment in the analysis (e.g., biodiversity), particular attention should be paid to the data collection and indicator selection because if the most appropriate indicators or local-specific datasets are not used, the LCA can generate inaccurate outputs [51];
-
Although the LCA proved its efficiency in assessing a product or a process, sometimes choosing a single tool may not be enough for addressing all issues related to circularity, and other complementary tools like material flow analysis or cost–benefit analysis are recommended to be used for more comprehensive assessments [51,60];
-
Future studies are needed to accurately quantify reservoir GHG emissions, particularly in tropical regions [52];
-
Neglecting the dynamic feature or irregular updates of LCA assessment to be in line with the most recent information [21].

6. Future Work

The construction sector, which also includes the torrent control structures, plays a significant role in achieving the climate ambitions included in several strategies like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the European Deal, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations. Additionally, the European Union proposed a political guideline to foster sustainability achievement in numerous domains to reach climate neutrality in the coming years, but the COVID-19 pandemic has impeded its progress, and more efforts are needed to achieve the proposed targets [61,62].
There is a concern that the construction sector will not be able to reach the decarbonization ambitions by 2050 as is stated in the latest report of the United Nations Environmental Programme [63]. There is evidence that more than 73% of the carbon emissions are released by construction that uses concrete mainly during the supplier-site transport stage [64]. Therefore, a guideline for the construction and industry sector regarding CO2 reduction and net zero emissions was developed by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA). The GCCA 2050 Cement and Concrete Industry Roadmap for Net Zero Concrete provides comprehensive measures, key milestones, and an implementation map to support the achievement of net zero concrete [65]. This roadmap can guide governments, policy-makers, and practitioners to improve construction performance, decrease the carbon footprint, and contribute to the accomplishment of the environmental targets and climate neutrality commitments [65].
Torrent control structures proved their usability in alleviating the negative consequences of torrential rains and retaining large amounts of sediments brought by the torrential floods. It would be necessary to expand LCA studies in the torrent control sector due to their outstanding importance in control runoff, reducing the vulnerability and exposure risk of humans, objectives, and the environment to the negative effects of climate change. Increased frequency and intensity of extreme events generates more violent and sudden floods in many regions and reduces the protection degree of these structures. Therefore, it is necessary to secure the safety of communities as well as the provision of goods along the supply chains of environment and ecosystems with future investments for efficiency improvement [20]. Most of the LCA for torrent control structures conducted previously excluded the end-of-life stage due to the lack of data or neglected this stage considering the necessity of conserving the adapted ecosystems [52,66]. However, such an approach could generate underestimations of emissions, but the demolition or removal of major components influence the release of emissions [67]. Therefore, our recommendation in the case of dams and other torrent control structures is the consideration of restoring their functional capacity as alternative of demolition or decommissioning from the end-of-life stage (Figure 4).
Moreover, the LCA should embed the circular economy principle for advancing sustainability, particularly in the construction sector, considering their largest contribution to the GHG emissions [68]. Therefore, including reuse, recycling, and recovery enables a broader perspective that ensures the orientation towards more sustainable and circular strategies but requests strong partnerships amongst stakeholders [21,48].

7. Conclusions

LCA is a valuable tool for achieving environmental sustainability, being well described and with a well-established methodological working flow framework, but still with scarce application for torrent control structures. This study aimed to investigate the current state of the LCA applications in the field of torrent control in order to provide practitioners not only with perspectives for new research but also pathways for optimized LCA analysis, with a note to the fact that LCA studies for torrent control structures are less advanced compared to other domains. Our analysis reveals that most of the reviewed articles that aimed to perform the LCA assessment to evaluate the environmental impact of torrent control structures were located in Austria and considered the cradle to grave as the main system boundary and Ecoinvent as the main database source. Although some limitations and research agenda for improvement were identified, general findings revealed that LCA is a useful approach to provide a comprehensive assessment of various impacts as a basis for more informed decisions towards environmental sustainability. Even if this paper reviewed only 15 papers focused on LCA for torrent control structures, this research covers the research questions established at the beginning, highlights the necessity of expanding research for torrent control structures, and serves as a database for more studies that analyze LCA for these types of structures. Considering their important role for controlling runoff, reducing the vulnerability and the exposure risks, this study recommends further efforts to apply LCA and support practitioners to identify products or processes with minimal environmental impacts as well as mitigation options for environmental sustainability.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, under the project societale (PN 23090203—Contribuții științifice noi pentru un management sustenabil al bazinelor hidrografice torențiale, terenurilor degradate, perdelelor forestiere și al altor sisteme agrosilvice în contextul schimbărilor climatice) within the FORCLIMSOC program—Management forestier sustenabil adaptat schimbărilor climatice¸si provocărilor societale.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for their valuable suggestions and comments on our manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

According to International Standard 14040 [42], this life cycle encompasses several phases, which starts with raw material extraction and ends with the disposal or end-of-life products or processes, as is highlighted in Figure A1 [42].
Land 13 01956 g0a1
Figure A1. LCA phases of a product or process (inspired from [42,69]).
Figure A1. LCA phases of a product or process (inspired from [42,69]).
Land 13 01956 g0a1
Focused on comparison and improvement, LCA is based on several principles that must be considered by practitioners for relevant comparisons and informed decisions. Therefore, when such an analysis is conducted first, we must envisage the whole life cycle of a product, process, or activity. Second, we should have an environmental focus when addressing aspects and impacts. Third, we need a comprehensive delineation of system boundaries. Last but not least, we must consider iterative, transparent, and comprehensive attributes of data and methods. Finally, the focus on a scientific approach for constant improvement is also needed [42]. According to the ISO standard 14040 [42], the life cycle of a product or process encompasses four distinct stages: product stage, construction stage, use stage, and end-of-life or disposal stage (Figure A2).
Land 13 01956 g0a2
Figure A2. Life cycle stages of a product or process, including supplementary information (inspired from [52]).
Figure A2. Life cycle stages of a product or process, including supplementary information (inspired from [52]).
Land 13 01956 g0a2
Another aspect that should be considered is the iterative nature of LCA analysis [59]. Taking these into account, practitioners are empowered towards sustainable decisions due to the provision of valuable insights regarding the environmental outputs of materials used and highlighting improvement areas [21].
LCA is considered as a decision support tool for environmental sustainability and its usability has increased in all industrial sectors [29,43]. Underpinned on the 14040 ISO standard, LCA consists in four iterative steps: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation, which are illustrated in Figure A3 [42].
Land 13 01956 g0a3
Figure A3. LCA working flow (inspired from [33]).
Figure A3. LCA working flow (inspired from [33]).
Land 13 01956 g0a3
Step 1: Goal and scope definition is the first and most important phase in conducting an LCA study because it outlines the context of the intended application and provides details on result dissemination [70]. In this phase, practitioners must clearly define some key elements of the LCA method, namely, purpose, boundaries, and functional unit [42,70]. The goal definition includes intended application, study motivation, targeted audience, and results destination [59]. The scope definition encompasses the product system and its functions, the functional unit and system boundaries, allocation procedures, impact categories, data requirements, assumptions, limitations, initial data quality requirements, and type of critical review [42]. The functional unit is a key element expressed as a measure to assess the performance of the product, process, or activity performance, and its scale must be accurately defined for proper quantification [59]. The definition of system boundaries is another important criterion for establishing the process that will be analyzed [21].
Step 2: Life cycle inventory (LCI) is the most time consuming because it implies gathering all input and output data (Figure A4) of a product or process during their entire life cycle [21,42]. Additionally, the data collection process, collection period of the data, and description of each process unit should also be specified to reduce the risk of errors [44]. The data collection procedure is followed by the verification of data validity, their connection with the unit process, and by the refinement and sensitivity analysis process [44]. Data availability and accuracy is fundamental for proper assessment of the LCA procedure [71]. Several data sources for construction material [72] can be used for developing the inventory table of resources and waste, which will be computed considering the entire life cycle to achieve the proposed goal [29].
Land 13 01956 g0a4
Figure A4. Inventory analysis of relevant inputs and outputs for a product or a system (inspired from [73]).
Figure A4. Inventory analysis of relevant inputs and outputs for a product or a system (inspired from [73]).
Land 13 01956 g0a4
Step 3: Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) implies the evaluation of the inventory table developed in the previous stage for appraising the importance of potential environmental impact [21]. Certain categories or impact indicators are used to analyze and compute all inputs and outputs of the LCI phase [29,42]. The mandatory and optional items are defined during this stage, and their selection must be consistent with the goal and scope of the study. Therefore, mandatory items include choosing the impact categories, category indicators, and characterization models, and they must be internationally accepted and environmentally relevant [44], while the optional elements are normalization, grouping, weighting, and data quality analysis [44]. The most widely used impact categories are climate change, resource depletion, and land use, while the cumulative energy demand (CED) and global warning potential (GW100) are the most utilized indicators [74]. However, careful attention should be devoted by the practitioners when selecting the mandatory items because they must be environmentally relevant and internationally accepted; double counting should be avoided, and the work should be validated from a scientific, technical, and reproductible point of view [44].
Step 4: Interpretation is the final stage, where the results of the LCI and LCIA are evaluated for delivering potential impacts on the environment formulated in line with the goal and scope of the study [42]. The evaluation can be made for one stage (LCI or LCIA) or for both stages considered together (LCI and LCIA). The data are evaluated and harmonized for spotting tendencies and appraising the results [21]. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis of the input data is recommended to reduce the uncertainty of the output data to deliver more sound and reliable results [75]. The results obtained in this stage must be analyzed from the completeness, sensitivity, and consistency point of view and should be presented to the targeted audience as meaningful conclusions, limitations, and recommendations in an understandable, complete, and solid way [44].

References

  1. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kutnar, L.; Kermavnar, J.; Pintar, A.M. Climate change and disturbances will shape future temperate forests in the transition zone between Central and SE Europe. Ann. For. Res. 2021, 64, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yuan, S.; Cheng, L.L.; Xu, J.; Lu, Q. Evaluation of Land Degradation Neutrality in Inner Mongolia Combined with Ecosystem Services. Land 2022, 11, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Marx, A.; Kumar, R.; Thober, S.; Rakovec, O.; Wanders, N.; Zink, M.; Wood, E.F.; Pan, M.; Sheffield, J.; Samaniego, L. Climate change alters low flows in Europe under global warming of 1.5, 2, and 3 °C. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 1017–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Marin, M.; Clinciu, I.; Tudose, N.; Ungurean, C.; Adorjani, A.; Mihalache, A.; Davidescu, A.; Davidescu, Ș.O.; Dinca, L.; Cacovean, H. Assessing the vulnerability of water resources in the context of climate changes in a small forested watershed using SWAT: A review. Environ. Res. 2020, 184, 109330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hao, Z.; Singh, V.P.; Hao, F. Compound Extremes in Hydroclimatology: A Review. Water 2018, 10, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, D.; Yang, Y.; Xia, J. Hydrological cycle and water resources in a changing world: A review. Geogr. Sustain. 2021, 2, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lohmander, P.; Mohammadi, Z.; Kašpar, J.; Tahri, M.; Berčák, R.; Holuša, J.; Marušák, R. Future forest fires as functions of climate change and attack time for central Bohemian region, Czech Republic. Ann. For. Res. 2022, 65, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Huo, J.; Peng, C. Depletion of natural resources and environmental quality: Prospects of energy use, energy imports, and economic growth hindrances. Resour. Policy 2023, 86, 104049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Commission. Life Cycle Indicators Framework: Development of Life Cycle Based Macro-Level Monitoring Indicators for Resources, Products and Waste for the EU-27; Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lederwasch, A.; Mukheibir, P. The triple bottom line and progress toward ecological sustainable development: Australia’s coal mining industry as a case study. Resources 2013, 2, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Angeler, D.G.; Fried-Petersen, H.B.; Allen, C.R.; Garmestani, A.; Twidwell, D.; Chuang, W.C.; Donovan, V.M.; Eason, T.; Roberts, C.P.; Sundstrom, S.M.; et al. Adaptive Capacity in Ecosystems, 1st ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 60, ISBN 9780081028544. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chahrour, N.; Nasr, M.; Tacnet, J.M.; Bérenguer, C. Deterioration modeling and maintenance assessment using physics-informed stochastic Petri nets: Application to torrent protection structures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2021, 210, 107524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ding, N.; Chen, Y.; Tao, F. Effects of climate and land use changes on runoff, sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus losses in the Haihe River Basin. Front. Earth Sci. 2022, 16, 934–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Iqbal, M.; Wen, J.; Masood, M.; Masood, M.U.; Adnan, M. Impacts of Climate and Land-Use Changes on Hydrological Processes of the Source Region of Yellow River, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marin, M.; Clinciu, I.; Tudose, N.C.; Ungurean, C.; Mihalache, A.L.; Martoiu, N.E.; Tudose, O.N. Assessment of Seasonal Surface Runoff under Climate and Land Use Change Scenarios for a Small Forested Watershed: Upper Tarlung Watershed (Romania). Water 2022, 14, 2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tudose, N.C.; Cheval, S.; Ungurean, C.; Broekman, A.; Sanchez-Plaza, A.; Cremades, R.; Mitter, H.; Kropf, B.; Davidescu, S.O.; Dinca, L.; et al. Climate services for sustainable resource management: The water—Energy—Land nexus in the Tărlung river basin (Romania). Land Use Policy 2022, 119, 106221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ballesteros Cánovas, J.A.; Stoffel, M.; Corona, C.; Schraml, K.; Gobiet, A.; Tani, S.; Sinabell, F.; Fuchs, S.; Kaitna, R. Debris-flow risk analysis in a managed torrent based on a stochastic life-cycle performance. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 557–558, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mihalache, A.L.; Marin, M.; Davidescu, E.O.; Ungurean, C.; Adorjani, A.; Tudose, N.C.; Davidescu, A.A.; Clinciu, I. Physical status of torrent control structures in romania. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 19, 861–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Paratscha, R.; Strauss, A.; Smutny, R.; Lampalzer, T.; Rauch, H.P.; von der Thannen, M. Probabilistic performance prediction model for Austrian torrent control infrastructure. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 15, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Barbhuiya, S.; Das, B.B. Life Cycle Assessment of construction materials: Methodologies, applications and future directions for sustainable decision-making. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 19, e02326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sekulić, G.; Ćipranić, I. Benefits of multi—Purpose hydrotechnical systems in urban areas of developing countries, example od Montenegro. Procedia Eng. 2015, 117, 646–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Antal, A.; Dumitrescu, A.; Cheval, S.; Guerreiro, P.M.P. Enhanced precipitation prediction using DEM-based predictors and satellite imagery. Int. J. Climatol. 2023, 43, 2504–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. UNDP. Sustainable Development Goals; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. European Commission. Ecological Flows in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive: Guidance Document n°31; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2016; ISBN 978-92-79-45758-6.
  26. European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC); European Commission: Luxembourg, 2012.
  27. European Union. Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Off. J. Eur. Union 2021, 64, 17–75. [Google Scholar]
  28. European Union. Technical Guidance on the Application of ‘Do No Significant Harm’ Under the Recovery and Resilience Facility Regulation. 2023. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/111/oj (accessed on 28 October 2024).
  29. Ma, J. Robust optimal usage modeling of product systems for environmental sustainability. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2019, 6, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Paratscha, R.; von der Thannen, M.; Smutny, R.; Lampalzer, T.; Strauss, A.; Rauch, H.P. Screening LCA of torrent control structures in Austria. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ruggerio, C.A. Sustainability and sustainable development: A review of principles and definitions. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 786, 147481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bisinella de Faria, A.B.; Spérandio, M.; Ahmadi, A.; Tiruta-Barna, L. Evaluation of new alternatives in wastewater treatment plants based on dynamic modelling and life cycle assessment (DM-LCA). Water Res. 2015, 84, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rashid, S.S.; Harun, S.N.; Hanafiah, M.M.; Razman, K.K.; Liu, Y.Q.; Tholibon, D.A. Life Cycle Assessment and Its Application in Wastewater Treatment: A Brief Overview. Processes 2023, 11, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Saad, A.; Elginoz, N.; Germirli Babuna, F.; Iskender, G. Life cycle assessment of a large water treatment plant in Turkey. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 14823–14834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huang, B.; Gao, X.; Xu, X.; Song, J.; Geng, Y.; Sarkis, J.; Fishman, T.; Kua, H.; Nakatani, J. A Life Cycle Thinking Framework to Mitigate the Environmental Impact of Building Materials. One Earth 2020, 3, 564–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ding, G.K.C. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of sustainable building materials: An overview. In Eco-Efficient Construction and Building Materials. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Eco-Labelling and Case Studies; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2014; pp. 38–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vigovskaya, A.; Aleksandrova, O.; Bulgakov, B. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in building materials industry. MATEC Web Conf. 2017, 106, 08059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dsilva, J.; Zarmukhambetova, S.; Locke, J. Assessment of building materials in the construction sector: A case study using life cycle assessment approach to achieve the circular economy. Heliyon 2023, 9, e20404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Klinglmair, M.; Sala, S.; Brandão, M. Assessing resource depletion in LCA: A review of methods and methodological issues. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 580–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arvidsson, R.; Svanström, M.; Harvey, S.; Sandén, B.A. Life-cycle impact assessment methods for physical energy scarcity: Considerations and suggestions. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2021, 26, 2339–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bai, S.; Wang, X.; Huppes, G.; Zhao, X.; Ren, N. Using site-specific life cycle assessment methodology to evaluate Chinese wastewater treatment scenarios: A comparative study of site-generic and site-specific methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 144, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. ISO 14040; ISO Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  43. Ghose, A. Can LCA be FAIR? Assessing the status quo and opportunities for FAIR data sharing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 733–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. ISO 14044; ISO Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requiremenrs and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  45. von der Thannen, M.; Hoerbinger, S.; Paratscha, R.; Smutny, R.; Lampalzer, T.; Strauss, A.; Rauch, H.P. Development of an environmental life cycle assessment model for soil bioengineering constructions. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2017, 24, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Storesund, R.; Massey, J.; Kim, Y. Life Cycle Impacts for Concrete Retaining Walls vs. Bioengineered Slopes. In Proceedings of the GeoCongress 2008: Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation, New Orleans, LA, USA, 9–12 March 2008; pp. 875–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Noda, R.; Kayo, C.; Sasaki, T.; Takaoku, S. Evaluation of CO2 emissions reductions by timber check dams and their economic effectiveness. J. Wood Sci. 2014, 60, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mickovski, S.B.; Thomson, C.S. Developing a framework for the sustainability assessment of eco-engineering measures. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 109, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tang, S.; Yan, X.; Jiang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Yang, Y.; Xu, P.; Shang, F. Catchment-scale life cycle impacts of green infrastructures and sensitivity to runoff coefficient with stormwater modelling. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 904, 166736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, C.; Ahn, C.R.; An, X.; Lee, S. Life-Cycle Assessment of Concrete Dam Construction: Comparison of Environmental Impact of Rock-Filled and Conventional Concrete. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, A4013009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bidoglio, G.; Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M. An environmental assessment of small hydropower in India: The real costs of dams’ construction under a life cycle perspective. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 24, 419–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Song, C.; Gardner, K.H.; Klein, S.J.W.; Souza, S.P.; Mo, W. Cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions from dams in the United States of America. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 945–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tavakol-Davani, H.; Burian, S.; Apul, D. A Watershed Scale Life Cycle Assessment Framework for Stormwater Management. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 3–7 June 2018; pp. 294–303. [Google Scholar]
  54. Paratscha, R.; Von Der Thannen, M.; Smutny, R.; Lampalzer, T.; Strauss, A.; Rauch, H.P. Development of LCA benchmarks for Austrian torrent control structures. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 2035–2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mostafaei, H.; Keshavarz, Z.; Rostampour, M.A.; Mostofinejad, D.; Wu, C. Sustainability Evaluation of a Concrete Gravity Dam: Life Cycle Assessment, Carbon Footprint Analysis, and Life Cycle Costing. Structures 2023, 53, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yang, D.Y.; Frangopol, D.M. Life-cycle management of deteriorating civil infrastructure considering resilience to lifetime hazards: A general approach based on renewal-reward processes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2019, 183, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Goldstein, B.; Rasmussen, F. LCA of Buildings and the Built Environment. In Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; p. 28. ISBN 9783319564753. [Google Scholar]
  58. von der Thannen, M.; Hoerbinger, S.; Muellebner, C.; Biber, H.; Rauch, H.P. Case study of a water bioengineering construction site in Austria. Ecological aspects and application of an environmental life cycle assessment model. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2021, 12, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Curran, M.A. Overview of Goal and Scope Definition in Life Cycle Assessment. In Goal and Scope Definition in Life Cycle Assessment. LCA Compendium—The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment.; Curran, M., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 63–122. ISBN 978-94-024-0855-3. [Google Scholar]
  60. Upasani, S.; Walzberg, J.; Ravikumar, D.; Carpenter, A.; Heath, G.; Gracida-Alvarez, U.; Benavides, T.; Xu, H.; Hawkins, T.; Desantis, D.; et al. Mapping the Opportunity Space to Model the Circular Economy Using Tools Funded by the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  61. Martín-Blanco, C.; Zamorano, M.; Lizárraga, C.; Molina-Moreno, V. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Sustainable Development Goals: Achievements and Expectations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. von der Leyen, U. A Union That Strives for More. My Agenda for Europe. Political Guidelines for the Next European Commission 2019–2024. Publications Office. 2019. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2775/018127 (accessed on 28 October 2024).
  63. UNEP. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. 2022. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/2022-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction (accessed on 26 February 2024).
  64. Lee, J.; Tae, S.; Kim, R. A Study on the analysis of CO2 emissions of apartment housing in the construction process. Sustainability 2018, 10, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. GCCA. Concrete Future—Roadmap to Net Zero. 2021. Available online: https://gccassociation.org/concretefuture/ (accessed on 26 February 2024).
  66. Zhang, Q.; Karney, B.; MacLean, H.L.; Feng, J. Life-Cycle Inventory of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Two Hydropower Projects in China. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2007, 13, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pacca, S. Impacts from decommissioning of hydroelectric dams: A life cycle perspective. Clim. Change 2007, 84, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 703–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. One Click LCA. Life Cycle Assessment for Buildings. Ebook. 2021; 32p. Available online: https://143253260.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/143253260/Life-Cycle-Assessment-for-Buildings-2021.pdf (accessed on 22 February 2023).
  70. Cao, C. Sustainability and life assessment of high strength natural fibre composites in construction. In Advanced High Strength Natural Fibre Composites in Construction; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 529–544. ISBN 9780081004302. [Google Scholar]
  71. Song, X.; Carlsson, C.; Kiilsgaard, R.; Bendz, D.; Kennedy, H. Life cycle assessment of geotechnical works in building construction: A review and recommendations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Martínez-Rocamora, A.; Solís-Guzmán, J.; Marrero, M. LCA databases focused on construction materials: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. van Gemert, S. MPG-ENVIE: A BIM-based LCA application for embodied impact assessment during the early design stages. Constr. Manag. Eng. Eng. 2019, 1–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Frischknecht, R.; Wyss, F.; Büsser Knöpfel, S.; Lützkendorf, T.; Balouktsi, M. Cumulative energy demand in LCA: The energy harvested approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 957–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Groen, E.A.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Heijungs, R.; de Boer, I.J.M. Methods for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 1125–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 13 01956 g001
Figure 1. Methodology flowchart.
Figure 1. Methodology flowchart.
Land 13 01956 g001
Land 13 01956 g002
Figure 2. Location of the analyzed studies by country.
Figure 2. Location of the analyzed studies by country.
Land 13 01956 g002
Land 13 01956 g003
Figure 3. Word cloud analysis (different colors means different word frequencies).
Figure 3. Word cloud analysis (different colors means different word frequencies).
Land 13 01956 g003
Land 13 01956 g004
Figure 4. Suggested alternative for the end-of-life stage of torrent control structures (A1: Raw material supply, A2: Transport, A3: Manufacturing, A4: Transport, A5: Construction- installation process, B1: Use, B2: Maintenance, B3: Repair, B4: Replacement, B5: Refurbishment, B6: Operational energy use, B7: Operational water use, C1: Deconstruction /Demolition, C2: Transport, C3: Waste processing, C4: Disposal, D: Benefits and loads beyond system boundary).
Figure 4. Suggested alternative for the end-of-life stage of torrent control structures (A1: Raw material supply, A2: Transport, A3: Manufacturing, A4: Transport, A5: Construction- installation process, B1: Use, B2: Maintenance, B3: Repair, B4: Replacement, B5: Refurbishment, B6: Operational energy use, B7: Operational water use, C1: Deconstruction /Demolition, C2: Transport, C3: Waste processing, C4: Disposal, D: Benefits and loads beyond system boundary).
Land 13 01956 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marin, M.; Tudose, N.C.; Ungurean, C.; Mihalache, A.L. Application of Life Cycle Assessment for Torrent Control Structures: A Review. Land 2024, 13, 1956. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111956

AMA Style

Marin M, Tudose NC, Ungurean C, Mihalache AL. Application of Life Cycle Assessment for Torrent Control Structures: A Review. Land. 2024; 13(11):1956. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111956

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marin, Mirabela, Nicu Constantin Tudose, Cezar Ungurean, and Alin Lucian Mihalache. 2024. "Application of Life Cycle Assessment for Torrent Control Structures: A Review" Land 13, no. 11: 1956. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111956

APA Style

Marin, M., Tudose, N. C., Ungurean, C., & Mihalache, A. L. (2024). Application of Life Cycle Assessment for Torrent Control Structures: A Review. Land, 13(11), 1956. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111956

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop