Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (6) : 1    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0851-0
FEATURE ARTICLE
Life cycle assessment of low impact development technologies combined with conventional centralized water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia
Hyunju Jeong1,Osvaldo A. Broesicke2,Bob Drew3,Duo Li4,John C. Crittenden2,*()
1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA
2. Brook Byers Institute for Sustainable Systems, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 828 West Peachtree Street, Suite 320, Atlanta, GA 30332-0595, USA
3. ECOVIE, Rainwater Collection Systems, 4287 Club Drive N.E. Atlanta, GA 30319, USA
4. Crittenden and Associates, C-305, Building E, Wangjing High-tech Park, LizezhongEr Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100102, China
 Download: PDF(924 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Hybrid system of LID technologies and conventional system was examined.

Bioretention areas, rainwater harvesting, and xeriscaping were considered.

Technology feasibility was simulated for land use and population density.

Synergistic effects of technologies were quantified in defined zones.

Uncertainty test was conducted with pedigree matrix and Monte Carlo analysis.

Low-impact development (LID) technologies, such as bioretention areas, rooftop rainwater harvesting, and xeriscaping can control stormwater runoff, supply non-potable water, and landscape open space. This study examines a hybrid system (HS) that combines LID technologies with a centralized water system to lessen the burden on a conventional system (CS). CS is defined as the stormwater collection and water supply infrastructure, and the conventional landscaping choices in the City of Atlanta. The study scope is limited to five single-family residential zones (SFZs), classified R-1 through R-5, and four multi-family residential zones (MFZs), classified RG-2 through RG-5. Population density increases from 0.4 (R-1) to 62.2 (RG-5) persons per 1,000 m2. We performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) comparison of CS and HS using TRACI 2.1 to simulate impacts on the ecosystem, human health, and natural resources. We quantified the impact of freshwater consumption using the freshwater ecosystem impact (FEI) indicator. Test results indicate that HS has a higher LCA single score than CS in zones with a low population density; however, the difference becomes negligible as population density increases. Incorporating LID in SFZs and MFZs can reduce potable water use by an average of 50% and 25%, respectively; however, water savings are negligible in zones with high population density (i.e., RG-5) due to the diminished surface area per capita available for LID technologies. The results demonstrate that LID technologies effectively reduce outdoor water demand and therefore would be a good choice to decrease the water consumption impact in the City of Atlanta.
Keywords Life cycle assessment (LCA)      Low impact development (LID)      Bioretention area      Rainwater harvesting      Xeriscaping     
PACS:     
Fund: 
Corresponding Author(s): John C. Crittenden   
Issue Date: 14 June 2016
 Cite this article:   
Hyunju Jeong,Osvaldo A. Broesicke,Bob Drew, et al. Life cycle assessment of low impact development technologies combined with conventional centralized water systems for the City of Atlanta, Georgia[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(6): 1.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-016-0851-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2016/V10/I6/1
Fig.1  Bioretention area design parameters, not to scale
bioretention areas
design life [22,24] 30 years
design criteria 1-year return period rainfall intensity
pollutant removal efficiency [38]
total suspended solids 80%
total phosphorus 60%
total nitrogen 60%
heavy metals [39] 80%
rainwater harvesting
design life [25] 50 years
design criteria 80% of annual precipitation
rainwater use outdoor irrigation and toilet flushing
xeriscaping
design life [26] 10 years
design criteria landscaped open space
maintenance reduction [40,41](compared to lawns)
water consumption 50%
fertilizer use 61%
herbicide use 22%
pesticide use 22%
Tab.1  Design criteria and effects of LID technologies
impact conventional system LID technology
stormwater collection, 1 m3 water supply, 1 m3 lawn, 1 m2 bioretention areas, 1 m3 rainwater harvesting, 1 m3 xeriscaping, 1 m2
ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq (%) 0(0) 1.55E-8(0) 2.89E-8 (0) 3.14E-9(0) 2.09E-8(0) 2.02E-8(0)
global warming kg CO2 eq (%) 0(0) 5.73E-1 (0.0024) 3.41E-1 (0.0014) 3.78E-1 (0.0016) 4.03E-1 (0.0017) 5.67E-1 (0.0023)
smog formation kg O3 eq (%) 0(0) 3.75E-2 (0.0027) 1.52E-2 (0.0011) 4.84E-2 (0.0035) 2.09E-2 (0.0015) 9.18E-2 (0.0066)
acidification kg SO2 eq (%) 0(0) 5.15E-3 (0.0057) 3.19E-3 (0.0035) 2.36E-3 (0.0026) 2.31E-3 (0.0025) 4.94E-3 (0.0054)
eutrophication kg N eq (%) 3.42E-3 (0.0160) 3.27E-4 (0.0015) 2.04E-4 (0.0009) 1.41E-3 (0.0065) 1.75E-4 (0.0008) 2.45E-4 (0.0011)
carcinogenic effects CTUh (%) 2.93E-12 (0) 1.53E-8 (0.0301) 6.20E-9 (0.0122) 1.54E-8) (0.0302) 8.31E-9 (0.0163) 6.11E-9 (0.0120)
non-carcinogenic effects CTUh (%) 5.34E-8 (0.0051) 2.68E-8 (0.0026) 1.69E-7 (0.0160) 5.16E-8 (0.0048) 2.97E-8 (0.0028) 5.62E-8 (0.0054)
respiratory effects kg PM2.5 eq (%) 0(0) 2.89E-4 (0.0012) 2.09E-4 (0.0009) 1.22E-4 (0.0005) 1.38E-4 (0.0006) 1.74E-4 (0.0007)
ecotoxicity CTUe (%) 3.71 (0.0336) 2.78E-1 (0.0025) 5.85E-1 (0.0053) 1.70(0.0153) 5.20E-1 (0.0047) 1.09(0.0099)
fossil fuel depletion MJ surplus (%) 0(0) 5.53E-4 (0) 3.14E-4 (0) 1.20E-2 (0.0001) 4.86E-2 (0.0003) 8.67E-5(0)
single score % 0.0039 0.0039 0.0029 0.0050 0.0026 0.0033
Tab.2  Life cycle environmental impacts of conventional system components and LID technologies compared to the average impacts of US residents per year (2008) *
Fig.2  Distribution of LCA score values for stormwater (SW), bioretention (BR), lawns (L), xeriscaping (XS), water supply (WS), and rainwater harvesting (RH) systems in Single Family Zones (SFZ) and Multi-family Zones (MFZ)
Fig.3  Community level performance of rainwater harvesting tanks and bioretention areas: (a) rainwater harvested by zone (people/1000 m2); (b) average stormwater runoff volume generation as a percentage of rainfall in single family zones (SFZ) and multifamily zones (MFZ) for a conventional system (CS) and a hybrid system (HS), and; (c) average stormwater runoff generated in SFZs and MFZs for CS and HS
zone land occupancy of bioretention areas land occupancy of xeriscaping rainwater utilization ratea)
bioretention areas only bioretention areas+ rainwater harvesting ( + xeriscaping)b) xeriscaping only xeriscaping+ bioretention areas+ rainwater harvesting rainwater harvesting only rainwater harvesting+ xeriscaping ( + bioretention areas)b)
single-family house zone (SFZ)
R-1 8% 7% 82% 74% 24% 41%
R-2 8% 8% 74% 66% 30% 46%
R-3 7% 7% 86% 79% 19% 26%
R-4 8% 7% 77% 70% 25% 29%
R-5 8% 7% 75% 67% 26% 29%
multi-family apartment building zone (MFZ)
RG-2 12% 9% 58% 49% 21% 23%
RG-3 19% 16% 17% 1% 33% 34%
RG-4 20% 15% 15% 1% 32% 33%
RG-5 17% 16% 26% 10% 1% 1%
Tab.3  Synergistic effects between bioretention areas, rainwater harvesting, and xeriscaping
Fig.4  LCA single score and potential water savings for CS and HS in nine residential zones within the CoA
Fig.5  Impact comparison of conventional system (CS) to hybrid system (HS) for single-family house zones (SFZs) and multi-family apartment building zones (MAZs)
1 Goldstein R, Smith W. Water and Sustainability (Volume 4): U.S. Electricity Consumption for Water Supply & Treatment—The Next Half Century. No 1006787 Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) I, 2002
2 Lundie S, Peters G M, Beavis P C. Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environmental Science & Technology, 2004, 38(13): 3465–3473
https://doi.org/10.1021/es034206m pmid: 15296294
3 Racoviceanu A I, Karney B W. Life-cycle perspective on residential water conservation strategies. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2010, 16(1): 40–49
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2010)16:1(40)
4 Environmental Protection Agency. Combined sewer overflows demographics. 2009. Available online at . (<Date>March 23</Date>, 2012)
5 Roseen R M, Ballestero T P, Houle J J, Briggs J F, Houle K M. Water quality and hydrologic performance of a porous asphalt pavement as a stormwater treatment strategy in a cold climate. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2012, 138(1): 81–89
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000459
6 LeFevre G H, Novak P J, Hozalski R M. Quantification of petroleum hydrocabon residual and biodegradation functional genes in rain garden field sites. In: Proceedings of International Low Impact Development San Francisco. American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE), 2010, 1379–1386
7 Ahiablame L M, Engel B A, Chaubey I. Effectiveness of low impact development practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2012, 223(7): 4253–4273
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-012-1189-2
8 Davis A P. Green engineering principles promote low-impact development. Environmental Science & Technology, 2005, 39(16): 338A–344A
https://doi.org/10.1021/es053327e pmid: 16173544
9 Ahn J H, Grant S B, Surbeck C Q, DiGiacomo P M, Nezlin N P, Jiang S. Coastal water quality impact of stormwater runoff from an urban watershed in southern California. Environmental Science & Technology, 2005, 39(16): 5940–5953
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0501464 pmid: 16173550
10 Hatt B E, Fletcher T D, Deletic A. Hydraulic and pollutant removal performance of fine media stormwater filtration systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 2008, 42(7): 2535–2541
https://doi.org/10.1021/es071264p pmid: 18504993
11 Ahammed F, Hewa G A, Argue J R. Applying multi-criteria decision analysis to select WSUD and LID technologies. Water Science & Technology: Water Supply, 2012, 12(6): 844–853
12 Okeil A. A holistic approach to energy efficient building forms. Energy and Building, 2010, 42(9): 1437–1444
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.03.013
13 Hatt B E, Deletic A, Fletcher T D. Integrated treatment and recycling of stormwater: a review of Australian practice. Journal of Environmental Management, 2006, 79(1): 102–113
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.06.003 pmid: 16256264
14 Stephens D B, Miller M, Moore S J, Umstot T, Salvato D J. Decentralized groundwater recharge systems using roofwater and stormwater runoff. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2012, 48(1): 134–135
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00600.x
15 Che-Ani A I, Shaari N, Sairi A, Zain M F M, Tahir M M. Rainwater harvesting as an alternative water supply in the future. European Journal of Scientific Research, 2009, 34(1): 132–140
16 Taylor S, Apt D, Candaele R. Potential maximum use of harvested stormwater volume at a site level. In: Proceedings of World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2011: Bearing knowlege for sustainabily Palm Springs. American Society of Civil and Engineers (ASCE), 2011, 457–466
17 Eroksuz E, Rahman A. Rainwater tanks in multi-unit buildings: a case study for three Australian cities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2010, 54(12): 1449–1452
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.010
18 Farreny R, Gabarrell X, Rieradevall J. Cost-efficiency of rainwater harvesting strategies in dense Mediterranean neighbourhoods. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2011, 55(7): 686–694
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.01.008
19 Angrill S, Farreny R, Gasol C M, Gabarrell X, Viñolas B, Josa A, Rieradevall J. Environmental analysis of rainwater harvesting infrastructures in diffuse and compact urban models of Mediterranean climate. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012, 17(1): 25–42
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0330-6
20 Spatari S, Yu Z, Montalto F A. Life cycle implications of urban green infrastructure. Environmental Pollution, 2011, 159(8–9): 2174–2179
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.015 pmid: 21330022
21 De Sousa M R C, Montalto F A, Spatari S. Using life cycle assessment to evaluate green and grey combined sewer overflow control strategies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012, 16(6): 901–913
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00534.x
22 Wang R, Eckelman M J, Zimmerman J B. Consequential environmental and economic life cycle assessment of green and gray stormwater infrastructures for combined sewer systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 47(19): 11189–11198
https://doi.org/10.1021/es4026547 pmid: 23957532
23 Jeong H, Minne E, Crittenden J. Life cycle assessment of the City of Atlanta, Georgia’s centralized water system. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015, 20(6): 880–891
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0874-y
24 Flynn K M, Traver R G. Green infrastructure life cycle assessment: a bio-infiltration case study. Ecological Engineering, 2013, 55: 9–22
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.01.004
25 Angrill S, Farreny R, Gasol C, Gabarrell X, Viñolas B, Josa A, Rieradevall J. Environmental analysis of rainwater harvesting infrastructures in diffuse and compact urban models of Mediterranean climate. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2012, 17(1): 25–42
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0330-6
26 Smetana S M, Crittenden J C. Sustainable plants in urban parks: A life cycle analysis of traditional and alternative lawns in Georgia, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014, 122: 140–151
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.011
27 City of Atlanta. Zoning Maps. Geographical Information Systems, 2013, Available at:
28 Department of Planning and Community Development. 2011 Comprehensive Development Plan. Atlanta: City of Atlanta, 2011
29 National Oceanic Atmostpheric Administration (NOAA). Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS). National Weather Service. 2010. Available online at: (<Date>December 5</Date> 2013)
30 ARC. Georgia Stormwater Management Manual—Volume 2 Technical Handbook. Commission A R, 2001
31 Mockus V. Part 6300 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook—Chapter 10 Estimation of direct runoff storm rainfall. 210-VI-NEH. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2004
32 Linsley R K, Paulhus J L, Kohler M A. Hydrology for Engineers. Colorado: McGraw-Hill,1982
33 AECOM. Water supply and water conservation management plan. Atlanta: Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District, 2009
34 Hanemann W M. Determinants of urban water use, In: Baumann D D, Boland J J,Hanemann W M, eds. Urban water demand management and planning. Colorado: Mc Graw-Hill, 1998, 31–75
35 Schelich J, Hillenbrand T. Determinants of residential water demand in Germany. Ecological Economics, 2009, 68(6): 1756–1769
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.012
36 Gleick P H, Haaz D, Henges-Jeck C, Srinivasan V, Wollf G, Cushing K K, Mann A. Waste Not, Want Not: The potential for urban water conservation in California. ISBN No. 1–893790–09–6. Oakland: Pacific Institute, 2003
37 Amon D, Crigler A, Eng W, Green B, Green M, Heying M. Guidelines for estimating unmetered landscaping water use. PNNL-19498. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010
38 Center for Watershed Protection. Coastal stormwater Supplement to the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual. Ellicot City, MD: Georgia Environmental Protection Divison, 2009
39 Herngren L, Goonetilleke A, Ayoko G A. Understanding heavy metal and suspended solids relationships in urban stormwater using simulated rainfall. Journal of Environmental Management, 2005, 76(2): 149–158
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.013 pmid: 15939127
40 Sovocool K A, Morgan M, Bennett D. An in-depth investigation of Xeriscape as a water conservation measure. Journal- American Water Works Association, 2006, 98(2): 82–93
41 Hilaire R S, Arnold M A, Wilkerson D C, Devitt D A, Hurd B H, Lesikar B J, Lohr V I, Martin C A, McDonald G V, Morris R L, Pittenger D R, Shaw D A, Zoldoske D F. Efficient water use in residential urban landscapes. HortScience, 2008, 43(7): 2081–2092
42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Stormwater—Technology Fact Sheet, Bioretention. EPA 832-F-99–012. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999
43 Fewtrell L, Kay D. Microbial quality of rainwater supplies in developed countries: a review. Urban Water Journal, 2007, 4(4): 253–260
44 Doyle K C, Peter S. Effect of first flush on storage-reliability-yield of rainwater harvesting. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 2013, 2(1): 1–9
45 Inter N A C H I. InterNACHI's estimated life expectancy chart. Available online at. (<Date>April 10</Date>, 2015)
46 Curran M A. Studying the effect on system preference by varying coproduct allocation in creating life-cycle inventory. Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, 41(20): 7145–7151
https://doi.org/10.1021/es070033f pmid: 17993161
47 Bare J. Tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts (TRACI)-User's Manual. S-106637-CP-2–0. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012
48 Gloria T P, Lippiatt B C, Cooper J. Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, 41(21): 7551–7557
https://doi.org/10.1021/es070750+ pmid: 18044540
49 Muñoz I, Milà-i-Canals L, Fernández-Alba A R. Life cycle assessment of water supply plans in Mediterranean Spain. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2010, 14(6): 902–918
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2010.00271.x
50 Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain A, Orr S, Antón A, Clift R. Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA: Part I—Inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2009, 14(1): 28–42
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0030-z
51 Sun G, McNulty S G, Moore Myers J A, Cohen E C. Impacts of multiple stresses on water demand and supply across the Southeastern United States1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2008, 44(6): 1441–1457
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00250.x
52 Alcamo J, Döll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B, Rösch T, Siebert S. Global estimates of water withdrawals and availability under current and future “business-as-usual” conditions. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2003, 48(3): 339–348
https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.48.3.339.45278
53 Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H J, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M. The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2004, 10(1): 3–9
https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.10.181.1
54 Weidema B P, Wesnæs M S. Data quality management for life cycle inventories-an example of using data quality indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1996, 4(3–4): 167–174
[1] FSE-16008-OF-HJ_suppl_1 Download
[1] Haifeng Jia, Zheng Wang, Xiaoyue Zhen, Mike Clar, Shaw L. Yu. China’s Sponge City construction: A discussion on technical approaches[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 18-.
[2] Shuhan Zhang, Yingying Meng, Jiao Pan, Jiangang Chen. Pollutant reduction effectiveness of low-impact development drainage system in a campus[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 14-.
[3] Robert G. Traver, Ali Ebrahimian. Dynamic design of green stormwater infrastructure[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 15-.
[4] Jinsong Tao, Zijian Li, Xinlai Peng, Gaoxiang Ying. Quantitative analysis of impact of green stormwater infrastructures on combined sewer overflow control and urban flooding control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 11-.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed