| 引用本文: | 王豪,谢婉丽,刘琦琦,苑康泽,张春平.2026.黄土边坡防护工程低碳综合评价体系与方法[J].地球环境学报,17(3):858-867 |
| WANG Hao,XIE Wanli,LIU Qiqi,YUAN Kangze,ZHANG Chunping.2026.Low carbon comprehensive evaluation system and method for loess slope protection engineering[J].Journal of Earth Environment,17(3):858-867 |
|
| |
|
|
| 本文已被：浏览 74次 下载 3次 |
码上扫一扫！ |
| 黄土边坡防护工程低碳综合评价体系与方法 |
|
王豪1，2，3，谢婉丽1，2，3，刘琦琦1，2，3，苑康泽1，2，3，张春平4
|
|
1.西北大学 地质学系,西安 710069 ；2.西北大学 大陆演化与早期生命全国重点实验室,西安 710069 ；3.西安市黄土动力灾害防控与低碳修复重点实验室,西安 710069 ；4.中国建筑材料工业建设西安工程有限公司,西安 710065
|
|
| 摘要: |
| 随着全球气候变化和环境问题日益突出,工程领域的碳排放已成为关注焦点,黄土边坡防护工程作为基础设施建设的重要组成部分,其低碳性综合评价对推动工程领域绿色转型、践行低碳发展理念具有重要的理论与实践意义。文章基于低碳性、安全性、经济性和美观性4个一级指标及下设的11个二级指标,构建黄土边坡防护工程低碳综合评价体系,采用改进的层次分析法(AHP)计算各评价指标的权重,通过模糊综合评价法对9种典型黄土边坡防护工程进行评价,从而科学评估不同边坡防护措施的综合性能。评价结果表明:生态防护措施的低碳性明显优于传统防护措施,其中植生返包式加筋挡土墙在各方面表现优异(得分92.35),评价等级为一级工程。研究结果为黄土边坡防护工程提供了全面、科学的评价方法,为基础设施绿色发展建设提供了科学依据。 |
| 关键词: 黄土边坡防护工程 低碳综合评价体系 权重 评价模型 综合评价分析 |
| DOI：10.7515/JEE2024122 |
| CSTR：32259.14.JEE2024122 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目 （42372320，41972292）；陕西省重点研发计划项目 （2022ZDLSF06-03）；西安市科技计划项目（24LLRHZDZX0019） |
| 英文基金项目: |
|
| Low carbon comprehensive evaluation system and method for loess slope protection engineering |
|
WANG Hao1，2，3，XIE Wanli1，2，3，LIU Qiqi1，2，3，YUAN Kangze1，2，3，ZHANG Chunping4
|
|
1. Department of Geology, Northwest University, Xi'an 710069 , China ；2. State Key Laboratory of Continental Evolution and Early Life, Northwest University, Xi'an 710069 , China ；3. Xi'an Key Lab of Prevention of Loess Dynamic Disaster and Restoration of Environment, Xi'an 710069 , China ；4. China Building Materials Industrial Construction Xi'an Engineering Co., Ltd., Xi'an 710065 , China
|
| Abstract: |
| Background, aim, and scope Engineering construction contributes to nearly one-third of China's total carbon emissions, making carbon reduction and emission control in this sector a critical challenge. In this context, green infrastructure development has become an important goal for the construction industry. As a key component of infrastructure construction, slope protection engineering also has environmental impacts that cannot be ignored. This study aims to establish a comprehensive evaluation system for loess slope protection engineering by integrating four dimensions: low-carbon performance, safety, economy, and aesthetics. By comprehensively evaluating and comparing different slope protection schemes, this study provides a decision-making basis for engineering selection, promotes the application of low-carbon technologies in loess slope protection, and supports the sustainable development of this field. Materials and methods The comprehensive evaluation system developed in this study combines an improved Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method to determine indicator weights and comprehensive scores. The system consists of four primary indicators: low-carbon performance, safety, economy, and aesthetics. Each primary indicator is further divided into secondary indicators based on the principles of measurability, representativeness, independence, and completeness. The low-carbon indicator includes carbon emissions, carbon sequestration, and carbon-neutralization period. The safety indicator includes structural characteristics, single-stage slope height, and anti-scour capacity. The economy indicator includes project cost, service life, and construction duration. The aesthetics indicator includes plant diversity and vegetation coverage. Nine commonly used slope protection schemes were selected for evaluation: concrete retaining wall, facing wall, anti-slide pile, stone slope protection, geocell-assisted grass slope protection, vegetated wrapped reinforced retaining wall, honeycomb grid grass slope protection, mortar-stone skeleton grass slope protection, and planting bag slope protection. Expert scoring and membership matrix construction were used to determine the comprehensive scores and evaluation grades of each scheme. Results The results show that the weights of low-carbon performance, safety, economy, and aesthetics are 0.180, 0.585, 0.180, and 0.055, respectively. The vegetated wrapped reinforced retaining wall achieved the highest comprehensive score of 92.35 and was classified as a Grade Ⅰ scheme, indicating its superior performance in low-carbon performance, safety, economy, and aesthetics. Geocell-assisted grass slope protection and mortar-stone skeleton grass slope protection obtained scores of 84.45 and 80.84, respectively, and were classified as Grade Ⅱ schemes. Other schemes, including planting bag slope protection, honeycomb grid grass slope protection, anti-slide pile, concrete retaining wall, stone slope protection, and facing wall, obtained scores ranging from 67.73 to 77.74, with evaluation grades ranging from Grade Ⅲ to Grade Ⅳ. Discussion Ecological slope protection schemes replace high-carbon concrete and stone materials with low-carbon geosynthetics and vegetation, thereby significantly reducing carbon emissions during material production, transportation, and construction. At the same time, vegetation and soil provide continuous carbon sequestration, effectively shortening the carbon-neutralization period and contributing to excellent low-carbon performance. The vegetated wrapped reinforced retaining wall combines the structural stability of reinforced retaining walls with the ecological benefits of vegetation, resulting in good performance in terms of safety, economy, and landscape compatibility. In contrast, traditional protection schemes mainly rely on high-strength rigid structures. Although these schemes can provide high safety, they usually involve high carbon emissions, high costs, and poor landscape compatibility, leading to lower comprehensive performance. Existing studies have mostly focused on single-dimensional evaluations, such as safety, economy, or carbon emission accounting, and few have integrated low-carbon performance into a multi-objective evaluation framework. Some studies have analyzed carbon emissions in slope protection projects, but they rarely combine carbon emissions, carbon sequestration, and the carbon-neutralization period. Methodologically, conventional AHP is often limited by consistency testing and strong subjectivity, whereas the improved AHP adopted in this study enhances objectivity and credibility. In terms of engineering applicability, most previous studies are not specifically oriented toward loess areas, while the evaluation system proposed in this study is closely linked to the geological characteristics of loess slopes and is therefore more applicable to loess slope protection engineering. The innovations of this study are as follows. First, a four-dimensional comprehensive evaluation system of "low carbon-safety-economy-aesthetics" is constructed for loess slope protection engineering, overcoming the limitations of single-index evaluation. Second, the improved AHP is combined with fuzzy comprehensive evaluation to achieve quantitative and standardized comprehensive assessment. Third, the carbon-neutralization period is introduced to reflect the dynamic balance between carbon emissions and carbon sequestration, which is more consistent with the goals of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality. Conclusions A low-carbon comprehensive evaluation system including four primary indicators and eleven secondary indicators was developed for loess slope protection engineering. The improved AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method were used to achieve scientific weighting and quantitative assessment. The evaluation of nine slope protection schemes shows that ecological protection schemes perform significantly better than traditional rigid protection schemes. Among them, the vegetated wrapped reinforced retaining wall is identified as the optimal scheme, with a score of 92.35 and a Grade Ⅰ classification. The proposed evaluation system and method can support the scientific selection of loess slope protection schemes and promote the low-carbon and sustainable development of infrastructure construction. Recommendations and perspectives To further enhance the practical applicability of the comprehensive evaluation system, future research should expand the scope of evaluation indicators and refine the evaluation methods. Additional environmental and social factors, such as biodiversity conservation and community impacts, could be incorporated to provide a more holistic assessment of slope protection measures. Moreover, the integration of advanced technologies, such as big data and machine learning, may improve the accuracy and efficiency of the evaluation process. |
| Key words: loess slope protection engineering low carbon comprehensive evaluation system weight evaluation model comprehensive evaluation analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
