10.1007/s40095-021-00419-8

Case study of a water bioengineering construction site in Austria. Ecological aspects and application of an environmental life cycle assessment model

HTML PDF
  • M. von der Thannen*1,
  • S. Hoerbinger1,
  • C. Muellebner2,
  • H. Biber2,
  • H. P. Rauch1,
  1. Department of Civil Engineering and Natural Hazards, Institute for Soil Bioengineering and Landscape Construction, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, AT
  2. Via Donau - Österreichische Wasserstraßen-Gesellschaft mbH, Vienna, AT
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2021-08-16

How to Cite

von der Thannen, M., Hoerbinger, S., Muellebner, C., Biber, H., & Rauch, H. P. (2021). Case study of a water bioengineering construction site in Austria. Ecological aspects and application of an environmental life cycle assessment model. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 12(4 (December 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-021-00419-8
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

HTML views: 15

PDF views: 111

Abstract

Abstract Recently, applications of soil and water bioengineering constructions using living plants and supplementary materials have become increasingly popular. Besides technical effects, soil and water bioengineering has the advantage of additionally taking into consideration ecological values and the values of landscape aesthetics. When implementing soil and water bioengineering structures, suitable plants must be selected, and the structures must be given a dimension taking into account potential impact loads. A consideration of energy flows and the potential negative impact of construction in terms of energy and greenhouse gas balance has been neglected until now. The current study closes this gap of knowledge by introducing a method for detecting the possible negative effects of installing soil and water bioengineering measures. For this purpose, an environmental life cycle assessment model has been applied. The impact categories global warming potential and cumulative energy demand are used in this paper to describe the type of impacts which a bioengineering construction site causes. Additionally, the water bioengineering measure is contrasted with a conventional civil engineering structure. The results determine that the bioengineering alternative performs slightly better, in terms of energy demand and global warming potential, than the conventional measure. The most relevant factor is shown to be the impact of the running machines at the water bioengineering construction site. Finally, an integral ecological assessment model for applications of soil and water bioengineering structures should point out the potential negative effects caused during installation and, furthermore, integrate the assessment of potential positive effects due to the development of living plants in the use stage of the structures.

Keywords

  • Water bioengineering,
  • Case study,
  • Ecological assessment,
  • Life cycle assessment,
  • Global warming potential,
  • Cumulative energy demand
HTML PDF

References

  1. Rey et al. (2018) Soil and water bioengineering: practice and research needs for reconciling natural hazard control and ecological restoration (pp. 1210-1218) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.217
  2. Rauch et al. (2014) Installation of a riparian forest by means of soil bio engineering techniques—Monitoring results from a river restoration work in Southern Brazil (pp. 161-169)
  3. Howell (1999) His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
  4. Lammeranner et al. (2005) Implementation and monitoring of soil bioengineering measures at a landslide in the middle mountains of Nepal (pp. 159-170) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-7012-8
  5. Petrone and Preti (2008) Suitability of soil bioengineering techniques in Central America: a case study in Nicaragua (pp. 1241-1248) https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1241-2008
  6. Florineth (2012) Patzer Verlag, Berlin-Hannover
  7. Gerstgraser (2000) Österr. Kunst- u. Kulturverlag
  8. Zeh (2007) vdf Hochschulverlag
  9. Begemann and Schiechtl (1994) Bauverlag GmbH
  10. Gray and Sotir (1996) Wiley
  11. Schiechtl and Stern (1992) Österreichischer Agrarverlag
  12. Schiechtl and Stern (1994) Österreichischer Agrarverlag
  13. Zeh, H.: Ingenieurbiologische Bauweisen im naturnahen Wasserbau. Praxishilfe. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 1004. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU), Bern (2010)
  14. Giupponi et al. (2017) A proposal for assessing the success of soil bioengineering work by analysing vegetation: results of two case studies in the Italian Alps (pp. 305-318) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-016-0323-5
  15. Mickovski and Thomson (2017) Developing a framework for the sustainability assessment of eco-engineering measures (pp. 145-160) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.10.004
  16. Begon et al. (2017) Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49906-1
  17. Tansley (1904) The problems of ecology 3(8) (pp. 191-200) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1904.tb07347.x
  18. Elton (1927) Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd., London
  19. Rickfels (1973) Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, London
  20. Townsend, C. R., Begon, M. & Harper, J. L.: Essentials of ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 530 pp, paperback. ISBN 1-40510-328-0 (2003)
  21. von der Thannen et al. (2017) Development of an environmental life cycle assessment model for soil bioengineering constructions https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1369460
  22. ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006 07 01 (Vol. ISO 14040:2006 ). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006)
  23. CEN 2011. EN 15978: 2011 11 - Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation method Planning & implementation of construction projects, Buildings, Other buildings.
  24. DIN EN 15978.
  25. Brussels: European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2011)
  26. CEN 2013. EN 15804:2012+A1:2013–11 - Sustainability of construction works - Environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of construction products planning & implementation of construction projects, Building construction, Other aspects. Brussels: European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2013)
  27. GEBAUER, S., GRUNDER, H. T., IDEL, M., KHORASANI, R., LÜHR, H. P. & RIETH, U.: Eisensilikat-Gestein und Natursteine im Wasserbau. Fachzeitschrift: Binnenschifffahrt
  28. 55
  29. (3), 82–88 (2001)
  30. Noda et al. (2014) Evaluation of CO2 emissions reductions by timber check dams and their economic effectiveness (pp. 461-472) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-014-1423-1
  31. Storesund, R., Massey, J. & Kim, Y.: Life cycle impacts for concrete retaining walls vs. bioengineered slopes. In: Reddy, K.R., Khire, M.V., Alshawabkeh, A.N. (eds.) GeoCongress 2008: Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation, pp. 875–882. New Orleans, LA, 2008. ISBN (print): 9780784409718 (2008)
  32. PARATSCHA, R., VON DER THANNEN, M., SMUTNY, R., LAMPALZER, T., STRAUSS, A. & RAUCH, H. P.: Screening LCA of torrent control structures in Austria.
  33. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
  34. (2018). https://doi-1org-100137b1j0c71.pisces.boku.ac.at/
  35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1501-5
  36. EFIB - Europäische Richtlinie für Ingenieurbiologie/European Guidelines for Soil and Water bioengineering/Directrices Europeas de Bioingeniería del Paisaje/Directrizes Europeias de Engenharia Natural/Directives Européennes pour le Génie Biologique/Direttiva Europea per l'Ingegneria Naturalistica.
  37. In:
  38. INGENIEURBIOLOGIE, E. F. F. (ed.). Aachen : Gesellschaft für Ingenieurbiologie e.V. (2015)
  39. BMLFUW (Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft): Technische Richtlinien für die Bundeswasserbauverwaltung RIWA-T. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien (2015)
  40. Bergmeister, K., Suda, J., Hübl, J. & Rudolf-Miklau, F.: Beton Kalender. Schutzbauwerke gegen Wildbachgefahren. Ernst W. & Sohn Verlag, Berlin, ISBN: 978-3-433-03301-2 (2008)
  41. Suda, J., Rudolf-Miklau, F. (2009) Rund um den Lebenszyklus von Schutzbauwerken: Schadenshäufigkeit, Zustandsbewertung und Dauerhaftigkeit. Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau, 73. Jg.,S. 163. Verein der Diplomingenieure der wildbach und lawinenverbauung Österreichs, Villach.
  42. Böll, A., Greber, W., Graf, F. & Rickli, C. (1999) Holzkonstruktionen im Wildbach-, Hang- und Runsenverbau. Berichte der Eidgenössischen Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft. Birmersdorf
  43. BMLFUW: Richtlinien - für die Wirtschaftlichkeitsuntersuchung und Priorisierung von Maßnahmen der Wildbach- und Lawinenverbauung gemäß § 3 Abs. 2 Z 3 Wasserbautenförderungsgesetz 1985. Teil I: Kosten-Nutzen-Untersuchung (KNU) und standardisierte Nutzenuntersuchung: Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Sektion Forstwesen, Marxergasse 2, 1030 Wien (2006)
  44. BAFU. EconoMe 3.0 - Richtwerte zur Bestimmung der jährlichen Kosten. In: BUNDESAMT FÜR UMWELT BAFU, A. G. & SBB, S. B. (Eds.). 3003 Bern (2015)
  45. Winter et al. (2017) Including biodiversity in life cycle assessment - State of the art, gaps and research needs (pp. 88-100) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.08.006
  46. Bischetti et al. (2014) On the origin of soil bioengineering (pp. 583-595) https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.730139
  47. Hacker, E., Johannsen, R. (2012) Ingenieurbiologie. Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart
  48. Patt, H., Jürging, P., Kraus, W. (2011) Naturnaher Wasserbau. Entwicklung und Gestaltung von Fließgewässern. Springer, Heidelberg