Download Biodiversity - Infra Eco Network Europe

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS OF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURAL
PROJECTS’ VEGETATION IN LIFE CYCLE
ASSESSMENT
State-of-the-art and perspective approaches
Anne de Bortoli
Laboratoire Ville Mobilité Transport
Ecole des Ponts ParisTech
Context : urban projects with vegetation ever more popular
An important urban planning trend from the
XIXth Century…
•Garden city concept, Ebenezer Howard (1898)
•Le Corbusier & post World War II => dwelling blocks
and abundant greenspaces (Athen’s Charter 1933)
•Aalborg charter (1994)
•Paris’ vegetalizing program for 2014-2020
=> 2 to 46% of urban spaces are green spaces in
Answering to an urban dweller demand
Europe (Fuller and Gaston 2009)
•Strong correlation between urban environmental
satifsaction and green spaces proximity (French project
EvalPDU’s finding, 2012)
•green spaces proximity : a dwelling priority for 70%
of French people (IPSOS survey, 2013)
•Needs of vegetal proximity : 90% of surveyed
people (IPSOS survey, 2013)
 Barbecue effect (Orfeuil and Soleyret 2002, Nessi
2012) or not (Mufano 2015)
2
What is Life Cycle Assessment ?
Standards
ISO 14040
& 14044
(indicators)
QUANTIFIED
environmental
IMPACTS
on a
functional unit
ROAD LIFE CYCLE
3
3
Example of the life cycle Assessment of a bus line
de Bortoli et al. 2016
4
Life cycle phases of vegetation systems
Construction
Consumptions :
*Engine fuel for
excavation
*Materials (concrete,
granulate, plastics…)
*Transport
*Water
*Etc
Use
Maintenance
(Vegetation growth)
End-of-life
Green waste
Other waste
5
Contribution of each BRT construction batch to the
different impact categories
de Bortoli et al. 2016
6
Quantifying vegetation benefits in LCA of
transportation systems : state-of-the-art
Methodology
1. Defining infrastructure project vegetation systems
2. Listing potential qualitative benefits of vegetation
3. Investigating if these effects can be quantified today in LCA
4. Pointing out what LCA indicators must be affected by these effects
5. Giving order of magnitude of the benefits
7
Defining vegetation systems of urban infrastructure project
Three main strata of vegetals
•
Grass (<1,5m)
•
Bush (0,3m < x < 7m)
•
Trees (>8m)
Project vegetation systems types
•
On-ground greenery
•
“Soilless” systems :
(tree allay, street tree, hedges, verges, banks, pocket parks, )
•
Green roofs (intensive or extensive depending on substrate thickness)
•
Green walls (ground based or façade-bound)
8
Potential qualitative benefits of vegetation
Landscape &
visual aspect
Purification of
water & air
Climate change
(carbon storage,
Vegetal
production : food,
albedo, ..)
Microclimate &
urban heat
island
energy, biomass, …
Operation
Maintenance
Vegetation growth
Land use
End-of-life
Green waste/production
Other waste
Biodiversity
(depending on the scale
=> network effects)
Building
thermics
Image & city
perception
…
Water retention
SUSTRATE
(flash flooding, runoff)
Urban behavioral
patterns (sport,
transport)
Public health and
well-being (social
cohesion, stress reduction,
…)
Environnemental
pedagogy
Sources :Tratalos et al. 2007, Bolund and Hunhammar 1999 for global overview , Berardi et al 2014 for green roofs
9
Groups of effects towards LCA quantification
Carbon
sequestration
and albedo
CLIMATE CHANGE
Purification of
water & air
(ECO-)TOXICITIES
EUTROPHICATION
Biodiversity
Direct LCA indicators
BIODIVERSITY
1
(+eutrophication, acidification, climate
change, , land use, ecotoxicities…)
3
2
Not ready/suitable for LCA
quantification
Potential complex LCA inclusion
10
Life Cycle Assessment and impact assessment
11
Groups of effects towards LCA quantification
Carbon
sequestration
Phytoremediation of water &
air
Biodiversity
Direct LCA indicators
Microclimate &
urban heat
island
Building
thermics
CLIMATE CHANGE
Landscape &
visual aspect
(ECO-)TOXICITIES
EUTROPHICATION
Image & city
perception
…
Environnemental
pedagogy
Public health and
well-being (social
BIODIVERSITY
1
(+eutrophication, acidification, climate
change, , land use, ecotoxicities…)
Water retention
Urban behavioral
patterns (transport)
(flash flooding, runoff)
Vegetal
production : food,
energy, biomass, …
3
2
cohesion, stress
reduction, …)
Not ready/suitable for LCA
quantification
Potential complex LCA inclusion
• MORE OR LESS EASY TO
QUANTIFY
• QUESTION OF « AVOIDED
IMPACTS »
• CONSEQUENTIAL LCA?
12
Conclusion
LCA catches ecological and environmental impacts not taken into account in
other existing assessment methodologies
From a road ecology perspective :
•
It does not catch local project-scale impacts on biodiversity (fragmentation effects)
•
But for global environmental pressures than have indirect effects on ecosystems, it
is more complete as it includes :
•
The whole life cycle
•
The supply chain
=> LCA IS COMPLEMENTARY TO « CLASSICAL ROAD ECOLOGY
APPROACH » AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES
On a holistic point of view :
LCA could reinforce environmental externalities considered in cost-benefit
analyses performed on public-funded infrastructures in France
13
Thank you for your attention
Thanks to the Vinci-ParisTech chair « ecodesign of buildings and infrastructures »
and especially to :
•
Charlotte Roux (Mines ParisTech, Consequential LCA and carbon storage)
•
Patrick Stella (AgroParisTech, Building thermics)
Any questions?
[email protected]
14
Effects with direct LCA indicators :
Carbon sequestration
Environmental balance depends on : vegetation type (trees, bushes, etc.) ;
growth rate ; Management type (Thinning, Clear cutting) ; Wood use (fuel, objects,
etc.) ; Potential avoided impacts : wood as fuel avoiding gas or coal?
15
Source: DOE, 1998
Effects with direct LCA indicators :
Carbon sequestration
Environmental balance depends on : vegetation type (trees, bushes, etc.) ; growth
rate ; Management type (Thinning, Clear cutting) ; Wood use (fuel, objects, etc.) ;
Potential avoided impacts : wood as fuel avoiding gas or coal?
Figure extracted from
Matthews et al. 2014
See also : Levasseur et
al. 2013, Cherubini et al.
2012
16
Effects with direct LCA indicators :
Phytoremediation of water…
Water epuration
Studies on forest :
Krieger 2001 : case of american forests, 77M acres => 8600m3 of quality water
Fiquepron, Picard et Toppan 2012 : denitrification
European national project LIFE water and forests : launched in 2015, no results yet
Studies on grasslands and forests :
Puydarrieux et Devaux 2013 : 110m3/ha/year of quality water production
Biased : the scale is not the same for infrastructure project vegetation
Green roof studies :
Versini et al 2014 : water on green roofs would be more polluted than water on standard
roofs (=> fertilizing and roof metal residues)
Preservation programs for a forest and a drainage basin in the USA => ecosystem services
are estimated to be higher than the cost of artificial system to preserve quality water :
•
in New Jersey (Sterling Forest) : $55M for the forest instead of $160M of filtration system
•
and Portland (Bull Run drainage basin) : $920k/year (instead of $200M invesment for a
treatment plant)
17
Effects with direct LCA indicators :
Biodiversity
Biodiversity affected by (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)
1. Modification of terrestrial and aquatic habitats
2. Climate change
3. Pollution
4. Invasive species
5. Overexploitation
LCA midpoint indicators related to biodiversity :
•
Climate change
•
Eutrophication
•
Acidification (aquatic and terrestrial)
•
Eco-toxicities (aquatic (freshwater and marine) and terrestrial)
•
Land use
End point indicator : biodiversity (no distinction between common and rare species)
18
Greenery factor affecting biodiversity and example of
systems
•
Effect of greenery systems depends on :
•
Size of the system
•
Diversity of habitats
•
Diversity of vegetal strata
•
Connectivity
•
Soil permeability
Trees
Noélie Maurel thesis : street trees as a
corridor
19
Effects requiring complex inclusion in LCA
Building thermics
Green walls and roofs provide building insulation and therefore help to decrease buidling
energy consumption (e.g., Spala et al., 2008; Castelton et al., 2010; Jaffal et al., 2012; Jim,
2014)
This effect sharply depends on initial building insulation
Castelton et al., 2010
Other parameters need to be taken into account: local climate, vegetation type and
management, etc…
Trees : shade trees reduce building energy use (Akbari 2002, Grimmond and Hubble 1996)
20
Effects requiring complex inclusion in LCA
Urban water retention
Water systems :
•
are costy,
•
Are designed for special raining events (« ten-year rain »)
=> Savings can be done if part of rain water is absorbed and/or released after a time interval
Green roofs
Versini et al 2014 : modelling of green roofs impact on potential Seine flood (Paris)
Graceson et al (and 2 dozens of other references) : water retention depending on
substrate (=« growing media »)
21
Effects requiring complex inclusion in LCA
Trade production
Direct effects
FOOD : Whittihghill, Rowe and Cregg 2103 : vegetable production on extensive green roofs
BIOMASS : studies in forestry principally (Rantien et al, Madguni et Singh 2013)
ENERGY : dry matter for energy (Vidal et al 2010)
Indirect effets
Fret reduction because of short supply chains (farmers’ markets)
Increase in renewable energy production
22
Bibliography 1/3
Akbari, H. 2002. “Shade Trees Reduce Building Energy Use and CO2 Emissions from Power Plants.” Environmental Pollution
116 (March): S119–26. doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00264-0.
Berardi, Umberto, AmirHosein GhaffarianHoseini, and Ali GhaffarianHoseini. 2014. “State-of-the-Art Analysis of the
Environmental Benefits of Green Roofs.” Applied Energy 115 (February): 411–28. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.047.
Bolund, Per, and Sven Hunhammar. 1999. “Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas.” Ecological Economics, 29 edition.
Castleton, H.F., V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, and J.B. Davison. 2010. “Green Roofs; Building Energy Savings and the Potential for
Retrofit.” Energy and Buildings 42 (10): 1582–91. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.004.
Cherubini, Francesco, Ryan M Bright, and Anders H Strømman. 2012. “Site-Specific Global Warming Potentials of Biogenic CO 2
for Bioenergy: Contributions from Carbon Fluxes and Albedo Dynamics.” Environmental Research Letters 7 (4): 045902.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045902.
De Bortoli, Anne, Adélaïde Féraille, and Fabien Leurent. 2016. “Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Performance of
Urban Transportation Modes: Integrated Methodology with Application to Bus Rapid Transit.” In . Hamburg, Germany.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000051699.
Desjardins, Xavier. 2011. “Pour L’atténuation Du Changement Climatique, Quelle Est La Contribution Possible de
L’aménagement Du Territoire ?” Cybergeo, March. doi:10.4000/cybergeo.23531.
“European Commission - Environment - LIFE Programme.” 2016. Accessed August 30. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/.
Fiquepron, Julien, and François Charnet. 2013. “Expertise et Synthèse Bibliographique - Effets Des Pratiques Forestières Sur La
Qualité Des Eaux.” http://www.life-semeau.eu/sites/www.lifesemeau.eu/files/documents/7.1.3.%20Rapport%20sur%20la%20contribution%20forestiere%20-%20Action%202.2.pdf.
Graceson, Abigail, Martin Hare, Jim Monaghan, and Nigel Hall. 2013. “The Water Retention Capabilities of Growing Media for
Green Roofs.” Ecological Engineering 61 (December): 328–34. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.09.030.
Grimmond, Csb, C Souch, and Md Hubble. 1996. “Influence of Tree Cover on Summertime Surface Energy Balance Fluxes, San
Gabriel Valley, Los Angeles.” Climate Research 6: 45–57. doi:10.3354/cr006045.
Groth, Philip, Rawlings Miller, Nikhil Nadkarni, Marybeth Riley, and Lilly Shoup. 2008. “Quantifying the Greenhouse Gas Benefits
of Urban Parks.” The Trust for Public Land. http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/benefits_greenhouse_gases_and_parks_whitepaper.pdf.
Howard, Ebenezer. 1902. Garden Cities of To-Morrow. Second edition of “To-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform.”
“ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental Management -- Life Cycle Assessment -- Principles and Framework.” 2006. International
Organization for Standardization.
Krieger, Douglas. 2001. “Economic Value of Forest Ecosystem Services : A Review.” The Wilderness Society.
http://www.cfr.washington.edu/classes.esrm.465/2007/readings/ws_valuation.pdf.
23
Bibliography 2/3
“Le Budget Primitif 2015 - Rapport Budgétaire.” 2015. Mairie de Paris, Direction des finances et des achats.
http://budgetprimitif2015.paris.fr/pdf/2015/chiffres_cles.pdf.
Levasseur, Annie, Pascal Lesage, Manuele Margni, and Réjean Samson. 2013. “Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage
Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment: Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage in LCA.” Journal of Industrial Ecology
17 (1): 117–28. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00503.x.
Madguni, Omprakash, and Deep Narayan Singh. 2013. “Potential of Forest Biomass for Energy Conversion.” International
Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences 1 (1): 53–58.
Matthews, Robert, and et al. 2014. “Review of Literature on Biogenic Carbon and Life Cycle Assessment of Forest Bioenergy Final Task 1 Report, DG ENER Project, ‘Carbon Impacts of Biomass Consumed in the EU.’” The Research Agency of the
Forestry Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/2014_biomass_forest_research_report_.pdf.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), ed. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Munafo, Sebastien. 2015. Questioning the Barbecue Effect - Sebastien Munafo. Forum Vies Mobiles.
https://vimeo.com/113263403.
Nelson, Arthur, and David Allen. 1997. “If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and
Bicycle Commuting.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1578 (January): 79–83.
doi:10.3141/1578-10.
Nessi, Hélène. 2012. “Incidences Du Contexte Urbain et Du Rapport Au Cadre de Vie Sur La Mobilité de Loisir.”
http://www.theses.fr/2012PEST1182.
Newman, Peter, and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1999. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington,
D.C: Island Press.
Noland, Robert, and Lem Lewinson. 2000. “Induced Travel: A Review of Recent Literature and the Implications for Transportation
and Environmental Policy.”
Orfeuil, J, and D Soleyret. 2002. “Quelles interactions entre les marchés de la mobilité à courte et à longue distance ?What are
the interactions between the short and long-distance travel markets?” Recherche - Transports - Sécurité 76 (October): 208–21.
doi:10.1016/S0761-8980(02)00013-4.
Puydarrieux, Philippe, and Jérémy Devaux. 2013. “Quelle Évaluation Économique Pour Les Services Écosystémiques Rendus
Par Les Prairies En France Métropolitaine ?” NESE n° 37. CENTRE D’ÉTUDES ET DE PROSPECTIVE - SERVICE DE LA
STATISTIQUE ET DE LA PROSPECTIVE. http://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/nese130737A3.pdf.
24
Bibliography 3/3
Rantien, Caroline, and et al. 2009. “Biomasse Forestière, Populicole et Bocagère Disponible Pour L’énergie À L’horizon 2020.”
Agence de l’environnment et de la maitrise de l’énergie.
Strohbach, Michael W., Eric Arnold, and Dagmar Haase. 2012. “The Carbon Footprint of Urban Green space—A Life Cycle
Approach.” Landscape and Urban Planning 104 (2): 220–29. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.013.
Tratalos, Jamie, Richard A. Fuller, Philip H. Warren, Richard G. Davies, and Kevin J. Gaston. 2007. “Urban Form, Biodiversity
Potential and Ecosystem Services.” Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (4): 308–17. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.003.
Versini, Pierre-Antoine, Pascal Jouve, David Ramier, Emmanuel Berthier, and Bernard de Gouvello. 2016. “Use of Green Roofs
to Solve Storm Water Issues at the Basin Scale – Study in the Hauts-de-Seine County (France).” Urban Water Journal 13 (4):
372–81. doi:10.1080/1573062X.2014.993993.
Vidal, C, S Colin, and S Lucas. 2010. “Bois Énergie, Les Forêts Ont de La Ressource... À Mobiliser ! !” 24. L’Inventaire Forestier.
Wang, Ting, In-Sung Lee, Alissa Kendall, John Harvey, Eul-Bum Lee, and Changmo Kim. 2012. “Life Cycle Energy Consumption
and GHG Emission from Pavement Rehabilitation with Different Rolling Resistance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 33
(September): 86–96. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.001.
Whittinghill, Leigh J., D. Bradley Rowe, and Bert M. Cregg. 2013. “Evaluation of Vegetable Production on Extensive Green
Roofs.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (4): 465–84. doi:10.1080/21683565.2012.756847.
25