Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uncertainty analysis of greenhouse gas emissions of monorail transit during the construction

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the uncertainty of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during monorail construction. Firstly, a deterministic analysis is conducted. Subsequently, the obtained data are evaluated using the data quality indicator (DQI), and a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation method is employed to assume different parameter distributions. The results of the deterministic calculation indicate that the calculated emissions per unit area of the station amount to 1.97 ton CO2e/m2, while the calculated emissions per unit section length reach 7.55 ton CO2e/m2. To simulate parameter distribution, we utilize a Beta distribution with good shape applicability. Furthermore, we establish scenarios involving system boundary reduction, low-emission factors, and reduced material and energy inputs in order to analyze scenario uncertainties. Regarding model uncertainty, this paper assumes that the material and energy quantity data conform to the normal, log-normal, uniform, and triangular distributions, respectively, subsequently analyzing the uncertainty distributions. This paper analyzes the GHG emission uncertainty evaluation of 16 monorail stations and sections during the construction period, which is divided into parameter, scenario, and model uncertainty. We provide a concrete framework for studying uncertainties related to GHG emissions at stations and sections during the monorail construction period. The scenario analysis results will help to make decisions about the choice of parameters, system boundaries, and other settings. It provides new guidance for emission reduction policies, such as reducing the use of steel-related products or using alternative environmentally friendly materials, considering emission reduction factors more comprehensively and setting emission reduction factors according to uniform distribution principle as far as possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon request.

References

  • Ansah MK, Chen X, Yang H, Lu L, Li H (2021) Developing a tier-hybrid uncertainty analysis approach for lifecycle impact assessment of a typical high-rise residential building. Resour Conserv Recy 167:105424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek C-Y, Tahara K, Park K-H (2018) Parameter uncertainty analysis of the life cycle inventory database: application to greenhouse gas emissions from brown rice production in IDEA. Sustainability 10(4):922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund AE (2002) Survey of approaches to improve reliability in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:64–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canter KG, Kennedy DJ, Montgomery DC, Keats JB, Carlyle WM (2002) Screening stochastic life cycle assessment inventory models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:18–26

  • Chen X, Yang H, Sun K (2017) Developing a meta-model for sensitivity analyses and prediction of building performance for passively designed high-rise residential buildings. Appl Energy 194:422–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • China Association of Metros (2022) Urban rail transit 2021 annual statistical and analysis report. China Association of Metros

  • Chun YH, Waston EF (2023) Markov chain Monte Carlo approach to the analysis of response patterns in data collection process. Infor 61:509–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Clavreul J, Guyonnet D, Christensen TH (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in LCA-modelling of waste management systems. Waste Manag 32(12):2482–2495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis B, Patil GP (1984) The gamma distribution and weighted multimodal gamma distributions as models of population abundance. Math Biosci 68(2):187–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong Y, Cui X, Yin X, Chen Y, Guo H (2019) Assessment of energy saving potential by replacing conventional materials by cross laminated timber (CLT)—a case study of office buildings in China. Appl Sci 9(5):858

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar N, Ribal J, Clemente G, Sanjuán N (2014) Consequential LCA of two alternative systems for biodiesel consumption in Spain, considering uncertainty. J Clean Prod 79:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Rebitzer G (2005) The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database. J Clean Prod 13(13–14):1337–1343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groen EA, Heijungs R, Bokkers EAM, De Boer IJM (2014) Methods for uncertainty propagation in life cycle assessment. Environ Model Software 62:316–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson CS, Noland RB, Porter CD (2016) Greenhouse gas emissions associated with materials used in commuter rail lines. Int J Sust Transport 10(5):475–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Frischknecht R (2005) Representing Statistical Distributions for Uncertain Parameters in LCA. Relationships between mathematical forms, their representation in EcoSpold, and their representation in CMLCA (7 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:248–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland DM, Fitz-Simons T (1982) Fitting statistical distributions to air quality data by the maximum likelihood method. Atmos Environ 16(5):1071–1076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Norris G, Bretz R, Ciroth A, Maurice B, von Bahr B, Weidema B, de Beaufort ASH (2001) Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Gilijamse W, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L (2003) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37(11):2600–2608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Imbeault-Tétreault H, Jolliet O, Deschênes L, Rosenbaum RK (2013) Analytical propagation of uncertainty in life cycle assessment using matrix formulation. J Ind Ecol 17(4):485–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karim MR, Zain MFM, Jamil M, Lai FC, Islam MN (2011) Use of wastes in construction industries as an energy saving approach. Energy Procedia 12:915–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy DJ, Montgomery DC, Quay BH (1996) Stochastic environmental life cycle assessment modeling: a probabilistic approach to incorporating variable input data quality. Int J LCA 1(4):199–207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • La Notte A, Tonin S, Lucaroni G (2018) Assessing direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases in road transportation, taking into account the role of uncertainty in the emissions inventory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 69:82–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewerenz S, Sailer G, Pelz S, Lambrecht H (2023) Life cycle assessment of biowaste treatment—considering uncertainties in emission factors.Clean Eng Technol 15: 149-157

  • Li Q, Dong A, Zhang B (2022) Impact of the opening of high-speed rail on environmental pollution in the Yangtze River Economic Belt: promoting or inhibiting? Int J Environ Sci Technol 19:11145–11160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limpert E, Stahel WA, Abbt M (2001) Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues: on the charms of statistics, and how mechanical models resembling gambling machines offer a link to a handy way to characterize log-normal distributions, which can provide deeper insight into variability and probability—normal or log-normal: that is the question. Bioscience 51(5):341–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan W, Teng Y, Bai Y, Yu C, Xu J (2022) A holistic framework for determining the trade-off between embodied and operational carbon emissions of high-rise residential buildings. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1101(2):022014

  • Peng Z, Lu W, Webster CJ (2021) Quantifying the embodied carbon saving potential of recycling construction and demolition waste in the Greater Bay Area, China: status quo and future scenarios. Sci Total Environ 792:148427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R, Fannon D, Eckelman MJ (2022) Dynamic modeling of future climatic and technological trends on life cycle global warming impacts and occupant satisfaction in US office buildings. Energy Build 256:111705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi F, Tosti L, Basosi R, Cusenza MA, Parisi ML, Sinicropi A (2023) Environmental optimization model for the European batteries industry based on prospective life cycle assessment and material flow analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 183:399–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastre CM, González-Arechavala Y, Santos AM (2015) Global warming and energy yield evaluation of Spanish wheat straw electricity generation—a LCA that takes into account parameter uncertainty and variability. Appl Energy 154:900–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe S, Miller E, Guthrie P (2017) The net greenhouse gas impact of the Sheppard Subway Line. Transport Res Part D 51:261–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scollnik DPM (2001) Actuarial modeling with MCMC and BUGS. North Am Actuar J 5(2):96–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan X, Li H, Guo J, Gu B, Zeng Y (2019) Energy-saving and emission-reduction technology selection and CO2 emission reduction potential of China’s iron and steel industry under energy substitution policy. J Clean Prod 222:823–834

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thies C, Kieckhäfer K, Spengler TS, Sodhi MS (2019) Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: a review. Eur J Oper Res 274(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang E, Shen Z (2013) A hybrid Data Quality Indicator and statistical method for improving uncertainty analysis in LCA of complex system—application to the whole-building embodied energy analysis. J Clean Prod 43:166–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Wang C, Wang Y, Gao X, Yu C (2017) Bayesian forecasting and uncertainty quantifying of stream flows using Metropolis-Hastings Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm. J Hydrol 549:476–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidema B, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Vadenbo C et al (2011) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent report 1

  • Weidema BP, Wesnæs MS (1996) Data quality management for life cycle inventories—an example of using data quality indicators. J Clean Prod 4(3–4):167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi H, Braham WW (2015) Uncertainty characterization of building emergy analysis (BEmA). Build Environ 92:538–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu B, Wang S, Gu X (2018) Estimation and uncertainty analysis of energy consumption and CO2 emission of asphalt pavement maintenance. J Clean Prod 189:326–333

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Zheng R, Wang F (2019) Uncertainty in the life cycle assessment of building emissions: a comparative case study of stochastic approaches. Build Environ 147:121–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zini G, Mangeant C, Merten J (2011) Reliability of large-scale grid-connected photovoltaic systems. Renew Energy 36(9):2334–2340

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number 52172335).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China

    Teng Li & Eryu Zhu

Authors
  1. Teng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eryu Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Teng Li: conceptualization, methodology, software, data curation, writing — original draft preparation. Eryu Zhu: supervision, writing — reviewing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eryu Zhu.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Tables 9, 10 and 11

Table 9 DQI parameters for uniform distribution and triangular distribution
Full size table
Table 10 Parameter values of normal distribution and log-normal distribution of station material quantity
Full size table
Table 11 Parameter values of normal distribution and log-normal distribution of section material quantity
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, T., Zhu, E. Uncertainty analysis of greenhouse gas emissions of monorail transit during the construction. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31, 25805–25822 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32863-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32863-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation