This study evaluates the carbon neutrality of eco-slope protection projects to understand their role in climate change mitigation. Utilizing life cycle assessment, it defines system boundaries and compiles inventories to calculate and analyze carbon emissions and assimilations of a wet-spraying vegetation concrete eco-slope protection project in China, simplifying previous methodologies and emphasizing the critical role of vegetation. Findings indicate lifecycle carbon emissions total 608.01 tCO2e, broken down by source as follows: material (54.69%), maintenance (40.11%), energy (3.27%), transport (1.32%), and workforce (0.6%). Slope protection plants are estimated to assimilate 2,676.30 tCO2. The project is estimated to reach carbon neutrality in its 4.59th year, with an anticipated net carbon sink contribution of 2,068.29 tons over its lifespan. These results underscore eco-slope protection projects’ significant carbon neutral capacity, highlighting their importance in combating climate change and fostering the civil engineering industry's green transformation.

  • People are getting more serious about global warming. The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 sets targets to limit global temperature rise.

  • A large number of traditional slope protection projects have generated a significant amount of GHG emissions, and eco-slope protection methods have attracted widespread attention.

  • Wet-spraying vegetation concrete eco-slope protection produces 608.01 tCO2e over its lifecycle.

  • Slope protection vegetations absorb 2,676.30 tCO2 over their lifecycle.

Since 1979, China has seen unprecedented economic growth, leading to substantial development in water conservancy, urban infrastructure, and transportation networks. This rapid expansion has introduced environmental challenges, notably a surge in exposed slopes that bear significant geological hazard risks, threatening ecological stability and human safety (Koca & Kıncal 2004; Stokes et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2021).

Traditional methods of slope protection have often relied on soil erosion prevention and slope stability. However, these techniques may potentially impair vital ecological functions. For example, hard revetments can disrupt the ecological interplay between water bodies and soils (Oda et al. 1991; Nordstrom 2014; Wu et al. 2017). Moreover, the materials traditionally used in these projects, particularly cement and steel, contribute considerably to global carbon emissions, accounting for approximately 11% of the total emissions (Habert et al. 2020; Benhelal et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2022a). The extensive use of materials such as cement and steel in slope stabilization projects has been linked to soil compaction and increased salinity, adversely affecting the viability of local flora and fauna as well as the overall microbial health of the soil (Bilen et al. 2019; Ismail et al. 2023). As such, the environmental integrity of many river revetments and road protection structures has been severely compromised due to traditional slope protection methods, which not only disrupt ecological connectivity but also significantly contribute to climate change by releasing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The environmental repercussions of these practices have prompted a re-evaluation of conventional approaches, with a growing recognition that they may not align with contemporary sustainable development goals.

As global challenges such as climate change and ecological degradation intensify, there is a growing collective consciousness about environmental stewardship. The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 exemplifies this shift, setting ambitious targets to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2.0 °C above pre-industrial levels, with aspirations to keep the increase to no more than 1.5 °C (IPCC 2013, 2014; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019). In pursuit of these goals, nations worldwide are advancing research into green technologies to address the multifaceted aspects of the climate crisis (Feulner 2017; Dinerstein et al. 2019; Shim et al. 2019). In the field of civil engineering, ecological slope protection technology has emerged as an innovative solution that aligns with these global sustainability efforts. This approach marries ecological principles with engineering techniques to create interventions that are both structurally sound and environmentally integrated. Appreciated for its ability to facilitate ecological restoration while meeting engineering needs, ecological slope protection has seen widespread adoption across various countries (Mitsch & Jørgensen 2003; Liu et al. 2007).

Prevalent ecological slope stabilization methods, such as artificial plant protection, spray-seeding, and the use of structural skeletons for slopes, prioritize the use of materials and structures that are less damaging to the environment (Yao et al. 2024). By harnessing the natural strength and water management capabilities of plant roots, stems, and leaves, these natural processes enhance soil shear strength, curtail surface runoff, and mitigate soil erosion, effectively contributing to slope stabilization (Gray & Sotir 1996; Muzylo et al. 2009; Eab et al. 2015). The integration of vegetation in these projects not only provides structural benefits but also reduces reliance on materials with high-carbon footprints, such as cement and steel. This synergy fosters biodiversity and ecosystem recovery on slopes, expanding green spaces considerably (Medl et al. 2017). As a result, eco-slope protection not only minimizes environmental impact and carbon emissions in comparison to traditional methods but also capitalizes on the carbon dioxide absorption and oxygen production capabilities of plants throughout their life cycle (Zhang et al. 2014). Such attributes underscore the environmental importance of eco-slope projects and their potential contribution to achieving carbon neutrality.

However, scholarly inquiries into ecological slope protection have predominantly concentrated on the materials used for slope stability, the physical stability of the slopes themselves, and the biomechanical properties of root systems. Research into the quantification of carbon emissions specific to ecological slope protection projects remains relatively underdeveloped. Particularly, there is a scarcity of studies that quantify the carbon sequestration capabilities of the vegetative components utilized in slope protection. The current methodologies for calculating carbon emissions, which largely rely on life cycle assessment (LCA) theory, lack the granularity needed for the precise evaluation of eco-slope projects. Consequently, these methods fall short in their capacity to rigorously assess the carbon neutrality potential that these projects may offer.

Therefore, the present study aims to develop an enhanced carbon emission calculation framework for eco-slope protection projects, drawing on refined LCA methodologies while incorporating the carbon uptake capabilities of vegetation. The framework is designed to facilitate a deeper understanding of the various sources of carbon emissions and the sequestration potential inherent in the plant species used in these projects. Such insights are crucial for enabling decision-makers to strategically select and tailor engineering solutions from the outset of eco-slope projects. The ultimate goal is to reduce the carbon footprint of such initiatives and augment their capacity to function as net carbon sinks over their lifecycle, thereby advancing environmental protection and supporting the sustainable evolution of civil engineering practices. Given the prevalent existence of riverbank protection projects (Li et al. 2013), the study will analyze an actual ecological river revetment project.

Study area

The Huama Lake Connecting Channel Slope Protection Project is situated in Ezhou City, Hubei Province, China, near the southern bank of the Yangtze River's middle section. The lake covers an area of 20.07 km² and stretches over 2.2 km in length, with the channel's bottom width being 40 m. The elevation varies significantly along the slope, with a height difference ranging from 5 to 67 m from the channel's bottom to the top of the slope interception ditch. The slope inclines vary widely, from gentle slopes of 15° to steep slopes of 80°. The geographical features of the slope include predominantly rocky areas, interspersed with regions where rocky and soil slopes merge.

This study focuses on the second phase of the eco-slope protection project at Huama Lake, covering approximately 60,000 m². It utilized wet-spray vegetation concrete technology, a method detailed in Figures 1 and 2 for the eco-slope's construction and vegetation process. Following guidelines from the local ecological environmental protection department and the construction entity, the project predominantly uses herbaceous plants and shrubs. This vegetative mix is enriched with various trees and native wildflowers to support the ecological objectives.
Figure 1

Schematic diagram of wet-spraying vegetation concrete eco-slope protection.

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of wet-spraying vegetation concrete eco-slope protection.

Close modal
Figure 2

Spraying process of wet-spraying vegetation concrete eco-slope protection.

Figure 2

Spraying process of wet-spraying vegetation concrete eco-slope protection.

Close modal

Life cycle assessment

This study utilizes the LCA method to scrutinize the environmental impacts of the Huama Lake eco-slope protection's second phase. LCA, a comprehensive approach endorsed for its efficacy in environmental impact evaluation (Buyle et al. 2013), systematically quantifies the inputs and outputs throughout a product's lifecycle. This includes the procurement of raw materials, manufacturing processes, usage, and end-of-life disposal. Adhering to ISO 14040 standards, the LCA methodology consists of defining the study's goal and scope, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and results interpretation (ISO 2006; Ecoinvent 2016).

Goal and scope

The lifecycle of a slope protection project typically spans production, construction, use, and demolition stages. As eco-slope protection is designed to function indefinitely with minimal maintenance, it is reasonable within this study to anticipate a 30-year lifespan for such structures. Consequently, carbon emissions from the demolition phase are not factored into the lifecycle analysis, given the installations' semi-permanent nature and the rarity of their demolition. The system boundary and key processes of the eco-slope protection are depicted in Figure 3.
Figure 3

The system boundary and main processes of eco-slope protection.

Figure 3

The system boundary and main processes of eco-slope protection.

Close modal

Life cycle inventory

This research adopts the process-LCA methodology for the inventory analysis, focusing on the inputs and outputs across the product's life cycle to establish the basis for impact assessment. This approach enables the calculation of carbon emissions through computational models tailored to the eco-slope protection scenario. Owing to the extensive data requirements of process-LCA (Rebitzer et al. 2004), this study simplifies the analysis by grouping carbon emission sources during the construction and use phases into five categories: material, transport, workforce, energy, and maintenance. The data collection content of the life cycle inventory for eco-slope protection is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4

Data collection content of life cycle inventory for eco-slope protection. Note: ‘(–)’ represents the carbon offset item in the life cycle inventory for eco-slope protection.

Figure 4

Data collection content of life cycle inventory for eco-slope protection. Note: ‘(–)’ represents the carbon offset item in the life cycle inventory for eco-slope protection.

Close modal

Life cycle impact assessment and interpretation

The diversity of output factors identified during inventory analysis suggests diverse potential environmental impacts. To assess the severity of these impacts, a specific assessment methodology is applied during the life cycle impact assessment and interpretation stage. This crucial phase highlights areas for improvement within the product system and helps prioritize such enhancements. It involves characterizing and evaluating the environmental performance of the system or its unit processes, providing essential insights and guidance for decision-makers (Curran 2013).

Calculation methods of carbon emissions

This research calculates carbon emissions across the project's lifecycle using the emission factor approach, which involves gathering activity data (AD) and emission factors (EFs) for each carbon emission source category and then calculating emissions by multiplying these factors. The formula is guided by the IPCC's national greenhouse gas inventories (IPCC 2006, 2019), as shown in the following equation:
(1)
In Equation (1), key GHGs considered are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) as identified by Lashof & Ahuja (1990). For calculation purposes, the emissions of each gas are translated into CO2 equivalents, utilizing the global warming potential (GWP) values provided by the IPCC, thereby allowing emissions to be represented as combined GHGs in CO2 equivalent terms (CO2e) (Li & Liu 2015). AD quantifies the consumption of energy or resources that results in GHG emissions, gathered from statistical datasets or direct project monitoring. EFs indicate the amount of GHG emissions per unit of activity or resource used, primarily sourced from IPCC (2006) guidelines, scholarly literature, and established databases (Liu et al. 2014). Hence, the formula for calculating the entire life cycle total carbon emissions of the eco-slope protection is shown in the following equation:
(2)
In this formula, E stands for the aggregate carbon emissions from the eco-slope protection project throughout its lifecycle. This total encompasses several specific emission sources: EM for emissions from materials (in kg CO2e), ET for transport-related emissions (in kg CO2e), EL for emissions due to labor (in kg CO2e) and EP for energy consumption emissions (in kg CO2e). Furthermore, EY represents the annual carbon emissions from maintaining the vegetation (in kg CO2e/a) with T indicating the project's duration in years.
The calculation method of EM is detailed in the following equation:
(3)
It includes variables CMi and FMi. They represent the consumption (in kg) and carbon emission factor of the i-th material, respectively (in kg CO2e/kg).
The method for calculating ET is given by the following equation:
(4)
In the equation, Wi indicates the weight of the i-th goods (in tons); Ri represents the transport distance of the i-th goods (in km); FTi represents the carbon emission factor of the transportation mode utilized for the i-th goods (in kg CO2e/t·km).
The calculation method for EL is shown in the following equation:
(5)
In this, Pi is the number of workdays for the i-th construction process (in days), while FL is the carbon emission factor associated with the workforce (in kg CO2e/day).
The calculation method for EP is specified in the following equation:
(6)
where CPi is the energy consumption of the i-th construction machinery (in kg or kWh) and FPi is the carbon emission factor of the energy type of the i-th machinery consumed (in kg CO2e/kg or kg CO2e/kWh).
The calculation method for EY is shown in the following equation:
(7)
In this equation, Vi represents the quantity of the i-th type of vegetation (measured in units). FYi is the carbon emission factor for the i-th type of plant per unit per annum for maintenance (in kg CO2e/unit·a).

These equations provide a comprehensive framework for quantifying the total carbon emissions from the eco-slope protection project over its whole life cycle. By applying these formulas, emissions from all life cycle stages – material production, transportation, workforce involvement, energy usage, and vegetation maintenance – are systematically consolidated, enabling a precise calculation of the project's comprehensive carbon footprint.

Calculation methods of vegetation carbon assimilations

The involvement of slope protection plants provides two important benefits. Firstly, the root systems of plants enhance slope stability. Secondly, their significant capacity for carbon assimilation plays a vital role in regulating the global carbon cycle and climate (Wu et al. 2016). This study concentrates on the annual carbon assimilation rates of woody plants (including trees and shrubs) and herbaceous plants, leveraging both existing literature and inventory data for calculations. Equation (8) delineates how the total carbon assimilation of vegetation throughout the eco-slope protection's lifecycle is determined:
(8)
In this equation, the total quantity of carbon assimilated throughout the plants' lifecycle involved in eco-slope protection is denoted by A (in kg CO2). The annual carbon assimilations of woody plants are symbolized by AW (in kg CO2/a). Simultaneously, AH symbolizes the annual carbon assimilations of herbaceous plants (in kg CO2/a), and T is the number of years.
The method for calculating AW is presented in the following equation:
(9)
where VWi is the quantity of the i-th woody plant (measured in units). The carbon assimilations per unit per annum of the i-th woody plant are represented as AWi (in kg CO2/unit·a).
Finally, the method for calculating AH is shown in the following equation:
(10)
Here, the area (in m2) occupied by the i-th herbaceous plants is denoted in VHi; the biomass (in kg/m2) per unit area of the i-th herbaceous plants is represented in Bi. In addition, 0.5 serves as the carbon content conversion factor for plants as identified by Fang (2000). The carbon dioxide conversion factor is recognized as 44/12 according to IPCC (2006).

Calculation results of carbon emissions

The carbon emissions from primary materials used in eco-slope protection are quantified in this research. The results are detailed in Table 1. The consumption of these materials has been determined through engineering data, and the associated carbon EFs are derived from the Chinese Standard for Building Carbon Emission Calculation (GB/T 51366-2019), the China Products Carbon Footprint Factors Database (CPCD 2023), and relevant literature studies (Chen et al. 2016; Shi et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2022b).

Table 1

Carbon emissions from material

CategoryUnitAmountEmission factorCarbon emission (tCO2e)
Cement Ton 168.00 735.00 kgCO2e/t 123.48 
Admixtures Ton 192.00 181.00 kgCO2e/t 34.75 
Organic matter Ton 34.60 27.00 kgCO2e/t 0.93 
Compound fertilizer Ton 5.28 2,470.00 kgCO2e/t 13.04 
Galvanized steel wire mesh Ton 53.26 1,230.00 kgCO2e/t 65.51 
Anchor bar Ton 32.64 2,600.00 kgCO2e/t 84.87 
Dry mixed mortar m3 21.20 234.00 kgCO2e/m3 9.92 
Total carbon emissions (EM) 332.51 tCO2e 
CategoryUnitAmountEmission factorCarbon emission (tCO2e)
Cement Ton 168.00 735.00 kgCO2e/t 123.48 
Admixtures Ton 192.00 181.00 kgCO2e/t 34.75 
Organic matter Ton 34.60 27.00 kgCO2e/t 0.93 
Compound fertilizer Ton 5.28 2,470.00 kgCO2e/t 13.04 
Galvanized steel wire mesh Ton 53.26 1,230.00 kgCO2e/t 65.51 
Anchor bar Ton 32.64 2,600.00 kgCO2e/t 84.87 
Dry mixed mortar m3 21.20 234.00 kgCO2e/m3 9.92 
Total carbon emissions (EM) 332.51 tCO2e 

The results derived from computing carbon emissions pertinent to the transportation stage in eco-slope protection are enumerated in Table 2. The data regarding the weight and distance of transportation goods covered are gleaned from construction logs, while the respective carbon EFs are sourced from the Chinese Standard for Building Carbon Emission Calculation (GB/T 51366-2019).

Table 2

Carbon emissions from transport

CategoryWeight (ton)Distance (km)Emission factor (kgCO2e/t·km)Carbon emission (tCO2e)
Cement 168.00 50.00 0.129 1.08 
Admixtures 192.00 150.00 0.129 3.72 
Organic matter 34.60 150.00 0.129 0.67 
Compound fertilizer 5.28 150.00 0.179 0.14 
Galvanized steel wire mesh 53.26 200.00 0.129 1.37 
Anchor bar 32.64 200.00 0.129 0.84 
Dry mixed mortar 33.92 50.00 0.129 0.22 
Total carbon emissions (ET) 8.04 tCO2e 
CategoryWeight (ton)Distance (km)Emission factor (kgCO2e/t·km)Carbon emission (tCO2e)
Cement 168.00 50.00 0.129 1.08 
Admixtures 192.00 150.00 0.129 3.72 
Organic matter 34.60 150.00 0.129 0.67 
Compound fertilizer 5.28 150.00 0.179 0.14 
Galvanized steel wire mesh 53.26 200.00 0.129 1.37 
Anchor bar 32.64 200.00 0.129 0.84 
Dry mixed mortar 33.92 50.00 0.129 0.22 
Total carbon emissions (ET) 8.04 tCO2e 

The carbon emissions from workforce associated with eco-slope protection are outlined in Table 3. The necessary working days for each main process have been drawn from the construction quotas (Han & Yang 2012). According to CEIC (2020) statistics, the per capita energy consumption for China in 2020 was documented at 0.456 metric tons of standard coal. This value is subsequently transformed by utilizing the emission of 2.460 tCO2e per metric ton of standard coal (IPCC 2006). Assuming the period of one year to be 365 days with each working day entailing 8 h. Finally, the workforce carbon emission factor is determined to be 1.024 kg CO2e/days.

Table 3

Carbon emissions from workforce

Main procedureWork days (days)Emission factor (kgCO2e/day)Carbon emission (kgCO2e)
Slope surface finishing 150.00 1.024 153.67 
Drainage construction 188.00 192.59 
Anchor installation 2,250.00 2,304.99 
Fixed wire mesh 678.00 694.57 
Eco-concrete base materials production 300.00 307.33 
Eco-concrete base materials spraying 18.00 18.44 
Total carbon emissions (EL) 3.67 tCO2e 
Main procedureWork days (days)Emission factor (kgCO2e/day)Carbon emission (kgCO2e)
Slope surface finishing 150.00 1.024 153.67 
Drainage construction 188.00 192.59 
Anchor installation 2,250.00 2,304.99 
Fixed wire mesh 678.00 694.57 
Eco-concrete base materials production 300.00 307.33 
Eco-concrete base materials spraying 18.00 18.44 
Total carbon emissions (EL) 3.67 tCO2e 

The carbon emissions arising from energy consumption in the eco-slope protection project are presented in Table 4. This includes energy usage by various construction machinery, which is calculated from the number of operating days and energy consumption per operating day. The latter is calculated based on the machinery's rated power. The carbon emission factor for diesel, used in powering machinery, is calculated by multiplying the fuel's heat value carbon emission factor (72.59 tCO2e/TJ) with its average lower heating value (0.042652 TJ/t), following the guidelines of IPCC (2006) and GB/T 2589-2020 standards. The carbon emission factor for electricity is derived from existing literature (Kong et al. 2017).

Table 4

Carbon emissions from energy

CategoryTypeConsumptionEmission factorCarbon emission (tCO2e)
Forced mixer Electricity 5,192.00 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 5.26 
Vibrating sieving machine Electricity 806.40 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 0.82 
DTH drilling Electricity 832.00 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 0.84 
Pneumatic handheld drill Electricity 6,133.60 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 6.22 
Loader Diesel 910.63 kg 3.096 kgCO2e/kg 2.82 
Wet-spraying machine Diesel 437.42 kg 3.096 kgCO2e/kg 1.35 
Boat for spraying Diesel 832.00 kg 3.096 kgCO2e/kg 2.58 
Total carbon emissions (EP) 19.89 tCO2e 
CategoryTypeConsumptionEmission factorCarbon emission (tCO2e)
Forced mixer Electricity 5,192.00 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 5.26 
Vibrating sieving machine Electricity 806.40 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 0.82 
DTH drilling Electricity 832.00 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 0.84 
Pneumatic handheld drill Electricity 6,133.60 kWh 1.014 kgCO2e/kwh 6.22 
Loader Diesel 910.63 kg 3.096 kgCO2e/kg 2.82 
Wet-spraying machine Diesel 437.42 kg 3.096 kgCO2e/kg 1.35 
Boat for spraying Diesel 832.00 kg 3.096 kgCO2e/kg 2.58 
Total carbon emissions (EP) 19.89 tCO2e 

The carbon emissions from vegetation maintenance in eco-slope protection are delineated in Table 5. This assessment is founded on detailed field investigations, through which the quantities of various plant types used in the eco-slope protection are determined. Moreover, maintenance-related carbon EFs for each plant species were obtained from referenced literature sources (Luo et al. 2023).

Table 5

Carbon emissions from maintenance

CategoryUnitAmountEmission factor (kgCO2e/unit·a)Annual carbon emission (tCO2e/a)
Tree Single tree 526.00 1.00 0.53 
Shrub Single tree 4,230.00 0.71 3.00 
Herbaceous plant m2 10,941.33 0.42 4.60 
Total annual carbon emissions (EY) 8.13 tCO2e/a 
Life cycle carbon emissions 243.90 tCO2e 
CategoryUnitAmountEmission factor (kgCO2e/unit·a)Annual carbon emission (tCO2e/a)
Tree Single tree 526.00 1.00 0.53 
Shrub Single tree 4,230.00 0.71 3.00 
Herbaceous plant m2 10,941.33 0.42 4.60 
Total annual carbon emissions (EY) 8.13 tCO2e/a 
Life cycle carbon emissions 243.90 tCO2e 

Synthesizing the data, the eco-slope protection project's life cycle total carbon emissions have been calculated to be 608.01 tCO2e with a breakdown of the contributions from the five carbon emission sources illustrated in Figure 5. The findings indicate emissions from materials and maintenance are the predominant sources, contributing 54.69 and 40.11% to the project's life cycle carbon emissions, respectively. This underscores the need for targeted scrutiny in these areas. Specifically, for material emissions, cement, anchor bars, and galvanized steel wire mesh emerge as the top contributors, with respective shares of 37.14% (123.48 tCO2e), 25.52% (84.47 tCO2e), and 19.70% (65.51 tCO2e). For maintenance emissions, herbaceous plants and shrubs represent significant portions, contributing 56.58 and 36.9%, respectively.
Figure 5

Proportion of life cycle carbon emissions from five carbon sources.

Figure 5

Proportion of life cycle carbon emissions from five carbon sources.

Close modal

Sensitivity analysis of carbon EFs

Sensitivity analysis quantitatively assesses how input variables' changes impact output variables in a model. This method alters input factors within a defined range and recalculates outcomes to pinpoint which inputs notably affect the project's total life cycle carbon emissions. Identifying these critical elements enables the formulation of targeted reduction strategies, potentially minimizing their contributions to carbon emissions.

Considering the results from the previous sections, this study selects the carbon EFs of cement, anchor bar, galvanized steel wire mesh, and the maintenance of herbaceous plants and shrubs for sensitivity analysis. The analysis involves adjusting the values of these factors by increments of −20, −15, −10, −5, 5, 10, 15 and 20%, respectively, to observe shifts in the eco-slope protection's overall life cycle carbon emissions.

The results of the sensitivity analysis for five key factors are presented in Figure 6. This analysis finds that the carbon EFs for cement and herbaceous plant maintenance significantly influence the eco-slope protection project's total life cycle carbon emissions. Specifically, a 20% reduction in the carbon emission factor of cement leads to a 4.06% decrease in the total life cycle carbon emissions of this eco-slope protection. Similarly, a 20% reduction in the carbon emission factor for herbaceous plant maintenance results in a 4.53% decrease in the total life cycle carbon emissions of this eco-slope protection. The main reasons for these results are twofold. Cement serves as a crucial binding material in the wet-spraying concrete method, characterized by its substantial use and significant carbon emission factor. Secondly, to ensure the early strength of the eco-slope protection, extensive coverage with herbaceous plants is necessary, which incurs high maintenance costs. In addition, a 20% reduction in the carbon EFs of other key elements results in a 2.15–2.96% reduction in the total life cycle carbon emissions of the eco-slope protection. While this impact is less significant than that of cement and herbaceous plant maintenance, it nonetheless warrants consideration.
Figure 6

Sensitivity analysis of carbon emission factors for five key factors.

Figure 6

Sensitivity analysis of carbon emission factors for five key factors.

Close modal

Calculation results of vegetation carbon assimilations

The vegetation species used in eco-slope protection are divided into two categories: woody plants (encompassing trees and shrubs) and herbaceous plants. The calculation results for the annual carbon assimilations of these species are detailed in Tables 6 and 7. This study undertook detailed field investigations to accurately determine the variety and quantity of woody plants, as well as the biomass per unit area and the extent of areas planted with herbaceous species. The annual carbon assimilation capacity of these plants was established through an examination of relevant scholarly works (Wang & Mu 2014; Guo 2017; Long et al. 2022).

Table 6

Carbon assimilations from woody plants

Latin nameCategoryAmountCarbon assimilation capacity (kgCO2e/unit·a)Annual carbon assimilations (tCO2/a)
Robinia pseudoacacia Tree 168.00 59.58 10.01 
Broussonetia papyrifera Tree 242.00 49.57 12.00 
Rhus chinensis Tree 116.00 49.57 5.75 
Indigofera amblyantha Shrub 2,445.00 8.35 20.42 
Amorpha fruticosa Shrub 1,436.00 21.10 30.30 
Senna tora Shrub 349.00 8.35 2.92 
Total annual carbon assimilations (AW) 81.40 tCO2/a 
Life cycle carbon assimilations 2,442.00 tCO2 
Latin nameCategoryAmountCarbon assimilation capacity (kgCO2e/unit·a)Annual carbon assimilations (tCO2/a)
Robinia pseudoacacia Tree 168.00 59.58 10.01 
Broussonetia papyrifera Tree 242.00 49.57 12.00 
Rhus chinensis Tree 116.00 49.57 5.75 
Indigofera amblyantha Shrub 2,445.00 8.35 20.42 
Amorpha fruticosa Shrub 1,436.00 21.10 30.30 
Senna tora Shrub 349.00 8.35 2.92 
Total annual carbon assimilations (AW) 81.40 tCO2/a 
Life cycle carbon assimilations 2,442.00 tCO2 
Table 7

Carbon assimilations from herbaceous plants

Latin name/categoryBiomass (kg/m2)Planting area (m2)Annual carbon assimilation (tCO2/a)
Cynodon dactylon 0.246 1,869.33 0.84 
Medicago sativa 0.334 3,580.00 2.19 
Local wildflower combination 0.475 5,492.00 4.78 
Total annual carbon assimilations (AH) 7.81 tCO2/a 
Life cycle carbon assimilations 234.30 tCO2 
Latin name/categoryBiomass (kg/m2)Planting area (m2)Annual carbon assimilation (tCO2/a)
Cynodon dactylon 0.246 1,869.33 0.84 
Medicago sativa 0.334 3,580.00 2.19 
Local wildflower combination 0.475 5,492.00 4.78 
Total annual carbon assimilations (AH) 7.81 tCO2/a 
Life cycle carbon assimilations 234.30 tCO2 

It should be highlighted that the average values of 49.57 and 8.35 kgCO2e/unit·a are used in this study to make up for the lack of research on the carbon assimilation capacities of some trees and shrub species, respectively.

Figure 7 showcases the distribution of carbon assimilations across various vegetation types within the eco-slope protection initiative. The data demonstrate that collectively, the vegetation can sequester approximately 89.21 tCO2 annually, amounting to a lifecycle total of 2,676.30 tCO2. Despite the prevalent use of herbaceous plants, their contribution to total lifecycle carbon assimilation is relatively minimal at 234.30 tCO2, which constitutes only 8.75% of the overall figure. In contrast, shrubs and trees make significantly larger contributions, sequestering 1,609.20 tCO2 (60.13%) and 832.80 tCO2 (31.12%) of the total carbon, respectively.
Figure 7

Proportion of life cycle carbon assimilations of different vegetation types.

Figure 7

Proportion of life cycle carbon assimilations of different vegetation types.

Close modal

Carbon neutral capacity of eco-slope protection

Figure 8 illustrates that the project reaches carbon neutrality in the 4.59th year, subsequently generating substantial carbon sinks. By the end of its lifecycle, it contributes a net carbon sink of 2,068.29 tCO2, averaging an annual net sink of 1.15 kg CO2 per square meter. This eco-slope protection project not only attains carbon neutrality within its expected lifespan but also creates a considerable carbon sink, markedly aiding in climate change mitigation.
Figure 8

Carbon neutral time and life cycle net carbon sinks of eco-slope protection.

Figure 8

Carbon neutral time and life cycle net carbon sinks of eco-slope protection.

Close modal

The findings indicate that in the realm of wet-spraying vegetation concrete technology, while cement is still a primary component, its use has been reduced by about 30% compared to conventional shotcrete methods, significantly lowering the carbon emissions associated with materials (Xu et al. 2004; Han et al. 2008). Nonetheless, the imperative to curtail the use of materials with high embodied carbon – such as anchor bars and galvanized steel wire meshes – persists. The integration of sustainable materials, particularly bio-composites, and use low-carbon cement or cement produced with carbon-reduction technologies have emerged as a promising avenue for further reducing carbon emissions (Cao et al. 2017; Ryłko-Polak et al. 2022). By substituting conventional high-carbon materials with these greener alternatives, the technology's carbon footprint could be substantially lessened.

The study uncovers that while vegetation plays a vital role in carbon assimilation, the potential benefits may be offset by the carbon emissions associated with maintenance activities. Specifically, the lifecycle maintenance carbon emissions of herbaceous plants contribute to 58.90% of their total carbon assimilations. This significant proportion markedly undermines their net contribution to carbon sequestration. It underscores the necessity of implementing scientifically backed and efficient maintenance practices to lower these emissions effectively. For instance, transitioning from conventional labor-intensive maintenance methods to advanced smart irrigation systems can lead to a considerable reduction in maintenance-related carbon emissions (Zou et al. 2023).

Additionally, this analysis uncovers the critical influence of plant selection and configuration on the carbon neutrality of eco-slope protection initiatives. Shrubs, characterized by their compact spatial requirements and moderate carbon absorption capabilities, emerge as significant contributors to carbon sequestration when employed at high densities. Conversely, trees, despite their strong individual carbon absorption rates, are limited in their density by their larger size, resulting in comparatively modest total carbon sequestration. Herbaceous plants, covering more extensive areas, exhibit minimal carbon sequestration but are vital for the initial stabilization of eco-slope protections. Hence, optimizing the proportion of shrubs, alongside ensuring structural integrity at project inception, can markedly enhance a project's capacity for carbon neutrality. Furthermore, plants exhibit enhanced carbon sequestration under optimal environmental conditions (Yang et al. 2023). It is thus prudent to prioritize native plant species that are well-adapted to local conditions and possess high-carbon sequestration capacities. While prioritizing local plant species for their adaptability and reduced transportation-related emissions is paramount, incorporating exotic species with demonstrably higher carbon sequestration capacities may be considered when native species' carbon absorption proves significantly lower. This approach ensures the ecological compatibility and effectiveness of carbon sequestration efforts within the eco-slope protection strategy.

The findings of this study are consistent with prior research (Yu et al. 2021), which examined the life cycle carbon footprint of an ecological revetment case study and determined that materials were the largest source of carbon emissions. Their analysis also underscored the advantages of eco-slope protection over traditional methods, particularly in terms of diminished environmental impacts and lower costs. Extending beyond these findings, our study elaborates on the significant impact of maintenance practices on the carbon emission profile of eco-slope protection initiatives and articulates the critical contribution of plant carbon absorption to these projects. This nuanced understanding underscores the capacity of eco-slope protection efforts to significantly contribute to ecological restoration and mitigate the effects of climate change, offering a comprehensive view of their environmental benefits.

In the context of current global efforts toward carbon neutrality, evaluating the carbon neutral capacity of eco-slope protection projects is crucial. These evaluations provide decision-makers with the insights needed to identify key project components, enhancing ecological restoration outcomes and carbon sequestration effectiveness under the constraints of limited land and resources. Moreover, the ability to convert net carbon sinks into tradable carbon credits opens up economic opportunities in the carbon market (Oke et al. 2024), underscoring the value of assessing the carbon neutrality of eco-slope protection endeavors. This approach not only supports the goals of carbon neutrality but also offers economic benefits, encouraging the development of environmentally friendly projects with substantial carbon offset capabilities. As a result, it accelerates both ecological restoration and the achievement of carbon neutrality objectives, fostering a virtuous cycle within the industry.

The study faces three main limitations. Firstly, data on eco-slope protection projects are limited and challenging to compile due to the variety of materials, equipment, and plant species each project requires, alongside the technical variances across different geographies which result in discrepancies in carbon EFs. Despite efforts to gather and analyze the available data, these challenges have limited the scope and depth of the analysis. Second, the dynamic and complex nature of plant evolution in eco-slope protection projects complicates the assessment of their net carbon sink. This study is conducted based on an ideal state of fixed vegetation configuration, yet the diverse growth rates, life cycles, and adaptability of plant species to environmental changes can alter the vegetation composition over time, impacting carbon absorption performance. Finally, there is less data on the carbon sequestration capacity of various vegetation types. Some of the lack of data on plants can only be replaced by the average value of that type of plant, which may lead to a bias between the results of carbon uptake by plants and the reality.

This research thoroughly assesses the carbon neutrality of the Eco-slope Protection Project's second phase at Huama Lake, Ezhou City, Hubei Province, China, with a focus on optimizing the calculation of carbon emissions across five sources: materials, transport, workforce, energy, and maintenance. Anticipated to reach carbon balance by the 4.59th year, the project is projected to contribute a net carbon sink of approximately 2068.29 tons over its lifespan. A significant insight from this study is the critical role of vegetation – particularly the strategic use of local shrub species with high-carbon absorption capacities – in enhancing the carbon neutral capacity of eco-slope protection without undermining slope stability.

Furthermore, this investigation highlights the potential for reducing carbon emissions through the use of sustainable materials and the implementation of effective maintenance strategies, underscoring the broader applicability to eco-slope protection projects. These findings advocate for policy and practice shifts toward more environmentally sustainable approaches within civil engineering, suggesting that such projects can serve as a viable model for achieving carbon neutrality. The study underscores the necessity of integrating ecological considerations into infrastructure development, offering a blueprint for future projects to contribute meaningfully to climate change mitigation and the green transformation of the industry.

This study underscores eco-slope protection projects as critical in combating climate change and promoting sustainable development within civil engineering. It provides actionable insights for stakeholders on selecting plant species, utilizing environmentally friendly materials, and implementing efficient maintenance practices. This aids in formulating more environmentally friendly and efficient strategies during the project's inception, thereby optimizing environmental performance and contributing new insights and robust empirical evidence toward achieving global carbon neutrality objectives. While this investigation stops short of delving into carbon trading specifics, it acknowledges the promising impact that the net carbon sink from eco-slope projects could have on the carbon market, highlighting a fertile ground for future research. In the future, the application of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, can be used as a means to surmount existing hurdles in data collection and analysis, promising to elevate the accuracy of life cycle assessments for eco-slope protection projects. Moreover, collaborating closely with ecologists to secure up-to-date data on plant species will enrich research into the dynamic evolution of vegetation, enhancing predictions on long-term carbon sequestration capabilities, and reducing biases in assessment results. Such interdisciplinary efforts will solidify a more scientific foundation for evaluating the carbon neutrality of eco-slope protection endeavors.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Benhelal
E.
,
Shamsaei
E.
&
Rashid
M. I.
2021
Challenges against CO2 abatement strategies in cement industry: A review
.
Journal of Environmental Sciences
104
,
84
101
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2020.11.020
.
Bilen
S.
,
Bilen
M.
&
Turan
V.
2019
Relationships between cement dust emissions and soil properties
.
Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
28
(
5
),
3089
3098
.
https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/92521
.
Buyle
M.
,
Braet
J.
&
Audenaert
A.
2013
Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review
.
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews
26
,
379
388
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.001
.
Cao
Z.
,
Shen
L.
,
Liu
L.
,
Zhong
S.
&
Liu
G.
2017
A bottom-up analysis of CO2 emission intensity of Chinese cement industry
.
Resources Science
39
(
12
),
2344
2357
.
CEIC
2020
Energy Consumption per Capita in China
. .
Chen
J.
,
Wang
X.
,
Wang
X.
,
Ma
X.
&
Chen
Y.
2016
Calculation of carbon dioxide emissions in the life cycle of high-speed railway
.
Journal of the China Railway Society
38
(
12
),
47
55
.
CPCD
2023
China Products Carbon Footprint Factors Database
.
Available from: http://lca.cityghg.com/ (accessed 20 October 2023)
.
Curran
M. A.
2013
Life cycle assessment: A review of the methodology and its application to sustainability
.
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering
2
(
3
),
273
277
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2013.02.002
.
Dinerstein
E.
,
Vynne
C.
,
Sala
E.
,
Joshi
A. R.
,
Fernando
S.
,
Lovejoy
T. E.
,
Mayorga
J.
,
Olson
D.
,
Asner
G. P.
,
Baillie
J. E. M.
,
Burgess
N. D.
,
Burkart
K.
,
Noss
R. F.
,
Zhang
Y. P.
,
Baccini
A.
,
Birch
T.
,
Hahn
N.
,
Joppa
L. N.
&
Wikramanayake
E.
2019
A global deal for nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets
.
Science Advances
5
(
4
).
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2869
.
Eab
K. H.
,
Likitlersuang
S.
&
Takahashi
A.
2015
Laboratory and modelling investigation of root-reinforced system for slope stabilisation
.
Soils and Foundations
55
(
5
),
1270
1281
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.09.025
.
Ecoinvent
2016
General LCIA Database Access Version 3.3
.
Available from: https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/ (accessed 20 October 2023)
.
Fang
J.
2000
Global Ecology: Climate Change and Ecological Response
.
Chinese High Education Press
,
Beijing, China
.
Feulner
G.
2017
Global challenges: Climate change
.
Global Challenges
1
(
1
),
5
6
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.1003
.
GB/T 2589-2020 General rules for calculation of the comprehensive energy consumption. State Administration for Market Regulation & Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China (Chinese)
.
GB/T 51366-2019 Standard for Building Carbon Emission Calculation. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China (Chinese)
.
Gray
D. H.
&
Sotir
R. B.
1996
Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control
.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
,
New York, USA
.
Guo
H.
2017
Analysis of carbon sequestration and oxygen release capacity of common vegetation in parks and green spaces in Zhengzhou City, Henan Province
.
Jiangsu Agricultural Sciences
45
(
15
),
103
106
.
Habert
G.
,
Miller
S. A.
,
John
V. M.
,
Provis
J. L.
,
Favier
A.
,
Horvath
A.
&
Scrivener
K. L.
2020
Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries
.
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
1
,
559
573
.
Han
X.
&
Yang
J.
2012
Quota Preliminary Research of the Slope Greening Technology Construction
.
Master Thesis
,
Beijing Forestry University
,
Beijing, China
.
Han
X.
,
Zhang
H.
&
Li
D.
2008
Main construction points of sprayed steel–fober concrete in soft rock roadway in coal mine
.
Coal Technology
27
(
09
),
98
99
.
Hoegh-Guldberg
O.
,
Jacob
D.
,
Taylor
M.
,
Bolanos
T. G.
,
Bindi
M.
,
Brown
S.
,
Camilloni
I. A.
,
Diedhiou
A.
,
Djalante
R.
,
Ebi
K.
,
Engelbrecht
F.
,
Guiot
J.
,
Hijioka
Y.
,
Mehrotra
S.
,
Hope
C. W.
,
Payne
A. J.
,
Poertner
H.-O.
,
Seneviratne
S. I.
,
Thomas
A.
,
Warren
R.
&
Zhou
G.
2019
The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5 °C
.
Science
365
(
6459
),
1263
.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw6974
.
Hu
X.
,
Gao
J.
,
Zhou
M.
,
Shen
J.
&
Zhao
T.
2021
Evaluating the success of engineering disturbed slope eco-restoration in the alpine region, southeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, China
.
Journal of Mountain Science
18
(
11
),
2820
2832
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-020-6502-8
.
IPCC
2006
Guidebook: Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
,
Kanagawa, Japan
.
IPCC
2019
Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
.
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
,
Kanagawa, Japan
.
IPCC
2013
Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
.
IPCC
2014
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
.
Ismail
Z.
,
Ali
S.
,
Zulfiqar
A.
&
El-Serehy
H. A.
2023
Impact of cement industries on potentially toxic elements’ contamination and other characteristics of topsoil: A case study
.
Environmental Pollutants and Bioavailability
35
(
1
),
2271664
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26395940.2023.2271664
.
ISO
2006
International Organization for Standardization ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework
.
Koca
M. Y.
&
Kıncal
C.
2004
Abandoned stone quarries in and around the Izmir city centre and their geo-environmental impacts – Turkey
.
Engineering Geology
75
(
1
),
49
67
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.05.001
.
Kong
F.
,
Wang
X.
&
Tian
X.
2017
Comparative study on carbon emission in construction phase between prefabrication and traditional residence based on carbon emission factor method
.
Ecological Economy
33
(
08
),
81
84
.
Lashof
D. A.
&
Ahuja
D. R.
1990
Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming
.
Nature
344
(
6266
),
529
531
.
https://doi.org/10.1038/344529a0
.
Li
J.
&
Liu
Y.
2015
The carbon emission accounting model based on building lifecycle
.
Journal of Engineering Management
29
(
04
),
12
16
.
Li
W.
,
Li
J.
&
Sun
J.
2013
Life cycle assessment of carbon emission in river revetment engineering
.
Environmental Science & Technology
36
(
02
),
200
205
.
Liu
L.
,
Qiu
W.
,
Xu
W.
,
Sun
C.
&
Guo
P.
2007
Discussion on traditional slope protection and ecological slope protection technology
.
Journal of China Three Gorges University (Natural Sciences)
29
(
06
),
528
532
.
Liu
M.
,
Meng
J.
&
Liu
B.
2014
Progress in the studies of carbon emission estimation
.
Tropical Geography
34
(
02
),
248
258
.
Long
S.
,
Shen
J.
,
Zhao
H.
&
Dong
H.
2022
Study on carbon sequestration of vegetation in expressway area
.
Communications Science and Technology Heilongjiang
45
(
03
),
149
152+157
.
Luo
Z.
,
Cao
Y.
,
Tian
H.
,
Hu
X.
,
Lu
M.
&
Xie
J.
2023
Study on calculation method of architectural landscape engineering life cycle carbon emissions – case of a residential community in Xi'An
.
Building Science
39
(
04
),
9
18
.
Medl
A.
,
Stangl
R.
&
Florineth
F.
2017
Vertical greening systems – a review on recent technologies and research advancement
.
Building and Environment
125
,
227
239
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.054
.
Mitsch
W. J.
&
Jørgensen
S. E.
2003
Ecological engineering: A field whose time has come
.
Ecological Engineering
20
(
5
),
363
377
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2003.05.001
.
Muzylo
A.
,
Llorens
P.
,
Valente
F.
,
Keizer
J. J.
,
Domingo
F.
&
Gash
J. H. C.
2009
A review of rainfall interception modelling
.
Journal of Hydrology
370
(
1
),
191
206
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.058
.
Nordstrom
K. F.
2014
Living with shore protection structures: A review
.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
150
,
11
23
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.11.003
.
Oda
T.
,
Nakajima
S.
&
Sugimura
T.
1991
Relationships between water quality, morphological factors in river basins, the diversity index and the biotic index
.
Environmental Technology
12
(
12
),
1147
1155
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593339109385115
.
Oke
A. E.
,
Oyediran
A. O.
,
Koriko
G.
&
Tang
L. M.
2024
Carbon trading practices adoption for sustainable construction: A study of the barriers in a developing country
.
Sustainable Development
32
(
1
),
1120
1136
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2719
.
Rebitzer
G.
,
Ekvall
T.
,
Frischknecht
R.
,
Hunkeler
D.
,
Norris
G.
,
Rydberg
T.
,
Schmidt
W.-P.
,
Suh
S.
,
Weidema
B. P.
&
Pennington
D. W.
2004
Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications
.
Environment International
30
(
5
),
701
720
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005
.
Shi
M.
,
Wang
Z.
,
Yang
G.
&
Li
D.
2020
Calculation and evaluation of carbon emission from different types of retaining structures
.
Railway Investigation and Surveying
46
(
04
),
41
48
.
Shim
H.
,
Kim
T.
&
Choi
G.
2019
Technology roadmap for eco-friendly building materials industry
.
Energies
12
(
5
).
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12050804
.
Stokes
A.
,
Douglas
G. B.
,
Fourcaud
T.
,
Giadrossich
F.
,
Gillies
C.
,
Hubble
T.
,
Kim
J. H.
,
Loades
K. W.
,
Mao
Z.
,
McIvor
I. R.
,
Mickovski
S. B.
,
Mitchell
S.
,
Osman
N.
,
Phillips
C.
,
Poesen
J.
,
Polster
D.
,
Preti
F.
,
Raymond
P.
,
Rey
F.
,
Schwarz
M.
&
Walker
L. R.
2014
Ecological mitigation of hillslope instability: Ten key issues facing researchers and practitioners
.
Plant and Soil
377
(
1
),
1
23
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2044-6
.
Wang
M.
&
Mu
L.
2014
11 Kinds of Shurbs Applicability Analysis of Slope Greening
.
Master Thesis
,
Northeast Forestry Unversity
,
Harbin, China
.
Wu
W.
,
Xia
G.
&
Bao
Z.
2016
The assessment of the carbon fixation and oxygen release value of the urban green space in Hangzhou
.
Chinese Landscape Architecture
32
(
03
),
117
121
.
Xu
W.
,
Ye
J.
,
Zhou
M.
&
Kou
G.
2004
Several problems of vegetation technology for protecting slopes using vegetation-growing concrete
.
Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering
35
(
10
),
50
52
.
Yang
Q.
,
Yuan
D.
,
Deng
C.
,
Wang
Y.
&
Qiao
L.
2023
Research progress on net carbon sequestration capacity of plants under the background of carbon neutralization
.
Chinese Journal of Ecology
42
(
06
),
1484
1496
.
Yao
Y.
,
Xu
P.
,
Li
J.
,
Hu
H.
&
Qi
Q.
2024
Advancements and applications of life cycle assessment in slope treatment: A comprehensive review
.
Sustainability
16
(
1
).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010398
.
Yu
Y.
,
Xiao
W.
,
Wang
Y.
,
Shang
S.
,
Wang
H.
&
Huang
Y.
2021
Evaluation of the carbon emission reduction effects of ecological river revetment construction
.
Journal of Water and Climate Change
12
(
2
),
362
370
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2020.223
.
Zhang
L.
,
Wu
B.
,
Li
X.
&
Xing
Q.
2014
Classification system of China land cover for carbon budget
.
Acta Ecologica Sinica
34
(
24
),
7158
7166
.
Zhang
Z.
,
Hu
G.
,
Mu
X.
&
Kong
L.
2022a
From low carbon to carbon neutrality: A bibliometric analysis of the status, evolution and development trend
.
Journal of Environmental Management
322
,
116087
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116087
.
Zhang
Z.
,
Jia
C.
,
Sun
X.
&
Luo
F.
2022b
Intelligent additive construction and traditional construction of concrete structure comparative analysis of carbon emission in materialization stage
.
Concrete
44
(
05
),
74
77 + 83
.
Zou
Q.
,
Liu
J.
&
Su
J.
2023
Design and application of intelligent irrigation for ecological restoration of high and steep rock slope – taking an abandoned quarry in Shenzhen as an example
.
Mining Research and Development
43
(
05
),
177
183
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Supplementary data