water
Article
Study on the Calculation Method of Carbon Emissions in the
Construction Industry: Targeting Small River Maintenance
Projects in Korea
Youngseok Song 1 , Moojong Park 2 and Jingul Joo 3, *
Citation: Song, Y.; Park, M.; Joo, J.
Study on the Calculation Method of
Carbon Emissions in the
Construction Industry: Targeting
Small River Maintenance Projects in
Korea. Water 2023, 15, 3608.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15203608
Academic Editors: Siyu Chen,
Shaowei Wang, Qiubing Ren and
Xudong Chen
Received: 9 September 2023
Revised: 11 October 2023
Accepted: 12 October 2023
Published: 16 October 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Water 2023, 15, 3608. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15203608
1 Department of Fire and Disaster Prevention, Konkuk University, Chungju 27478, Republic of Korea;
yssong@kku.ac.kr
2 Department of Aeronautics and Civil Engineering, Hanseo University, Seosan 31962, Republic of Korea;
mapark@hanseo.ac.kr
3 Department of Civil Environmental Engineering, Dongshin University, Naju 582452, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: jgjoo@dsu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-61-330-3138
Abstract: The construction industry, responsible for approximately 30% of global carbon emissions,
is closely linked to national development, making carbon reduction challenging. While national
development is of paramount importance, it is essential to prioritize individual projects and establish
a direction for reducing carbon emissions. The starting point should involve calculating the carbon
emissions for each project and comprehending their quantitative impact. In this study, we calculated
the carbon emissions for a small river maintenance project aimed at disaster prevention in the
construction industry in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea. The total carbon emissions generated by
the small river maintenance project in the target area amounted to 2016.6 tonCO2 . By process,
the embankment construction was responsible for 789.7 tonCO2 , while the revetment construction
contributed 1226.9 tonCO2 . The analysis revealed that the carbon emissions generated by the small
river maintenance project equated to 10.2 tonCO2 /km of river length. Additionally, we developed
an equation by applying the double-log function model (log–log) to small river length and carbon
emissions. The coefficient of determination for the calculation equation is 0.42, which may not yield
highly precise results. However, it is believed that this equation will provide a rough estimate of the
carbon emissions associated with the small river maintenance project.
Keywords: carbon emissions; construction industry; small river; maintenance projects; double-log
function model
1. Introduction
Climate change is a major problem facing human society, and impacts and damage
will continue to occur worldwide [1,2]. Many countries are preparing various measures to
reduce carbon emissions through the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement.
According to the IEA (2021), the nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris
Agreement target is to reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by 35% by 2030 [3].
Various industries emit carbon, and among them, the construction industry emits
about 33% of the world’s carbon every year [4–8]. Additionally, raw materials, construction,
and building operations are among the largest sources of carbon emissions worldwide [2,9–12].
The construction industry is a major contributor to carbon emissions, and strategic controls
are needed to address climate change [13–15]. In addition, urban development, a common
element in construction projects, has a significant impact on carbon emissions due to the
construction of roads, buildings, and facilities. The annual urbanization rate is expected to
increase by 1.46% from 2015 to 2030 [16].
Global carbon dioxide emissions in 2021 are approximately 36 billion tons. Of these,
carbon dioxide emissions from the construction sector account for approximately 40%. In
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Water 2023, 15, 3608 2 of 15

the construction field, 30% of greenhouse gases are generated from raw material processing
and 70% from building operations [17]. China’s building and construction industry is the
most carbon-emitting industry, with emissions comparable to those of the entire Middle
East or twice that of Africa [18–20]. An analysis of the spatial and temporal evolution
of 30 regions in China from 2005 to 2019, using the Theil index, GIS techniques, and
Moran’s I index, revealed that construction is one of the industries with the highest carbon
emissions [21,22]. Additionally, it is suggested that rapid urbanization increases carbon
emissions due to increases in energy consumption and the construction industry [23]. Since
2015, energy consumption in the construction industry has accounted for 25% to 33% of
China’s total energy consumption [11,24–26]. In Europe, a method for calculating carbon
emissions was presented by evaluating the fuel consumption process at construction
sites. The analysis found that carbon emissions were relatively low in transportation,
demolition, and construction, in that order. Based on the calculated carbon emissions,
Austria implemented a carbon emissions taxation system [27,28].
Buildings are one of the major structures created by the construction industry. Dur-
ing the construction process of large-scale residential complexes, carbon emissions from
high-rise buildings and villas account for approximately 84% of the total emissions [29].
Additionally, energy consumption continues to be required for operation even after the
building is completed, and carbon emissions account for approximately 24% of the total
emissions [30]. Some studies indicate that 12.6%, 85.4%, and 2% of carbon emissions
occur at different stages of the building’s life cycle: construction, operation, and demo-
lition [25,31–38]. It has been analyzed that carbon emissions have a ripple effect based
on the spatial characteristics of the city, and building materials also make a significant
contribution [39–41]. Cement, widely used in the construction sector, has been found to
account for approximately 5% of global carbon emissions [42].
Methods for measuring and evaluating carbon emissions in the construction field are
being explored in many studies, including assessments of asphalt, exhaust gas, and energy
consumption [43–46]. These studies argue for the need for quantitative management of
carbon emissions generated in the construction sector [19,47–49]. Quantitative calculation of
carbon emissions can serve as a standard for carbon reduction. Given that the construction
field is a sector with high carbon emissions, it underscores the importance of alternative
approaches to carbon reduction and suggests effective carbon reduction methods based
on the construction stage and building life cycle [18,19,50–52]. Carbon emissions must be
reduced during the design and operation process, and research on low-carbon construction
projects is also underway [11,53–58].
The construction industry includes businesses engaged in construction activities
such as civil engineering, architecture, equipment, and facilities, as well as businesses
involved in the installation, maintenance, and repair of facilities and structures. However,
previous studies on carbon emissions in the construction industry have primarily analyzed
integrated carbon emissions at the national or regional level. Furthermore, a standardized
carbon emissions calculation method was developed to establish quantitative standards
and emphasize the importance of carbon reduction. While there have been studies on
carbon emissions by country, region, city, etc., there has been a lack of analysis of detailed
projects within the construction industry. Additionally, no research has been conducted
to calculate carbon emissions for projects such as the installation and maintenance of
facilities or structures. In the construction industry, small river maintenance projects,
which involve the installation of facilities and structures, are projects aimed at disaster
prevention through the installation of structures such as levees or revetments in small rivers.
Disaster management is a field that generates a significant amount of carbon emissions as
it falls within the construction industry, so it is imperative to establish a carbon reduction
plan. However, there is currently no standard for the total carbon emissions associated
with small river maintenance projects, and a calculation method has not been established.
Therefore, this study aims to develop an evaluation method by investigating the calculation
methods used in the construction industry to assess the carbon emissions of small river
Water 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Water 2023, 15, 3608 3 of 15

established. Therefore, this study aims to develop an evaluation method by investigating
the calculation methods used in the construction industry to assess the carbon emissions
of small river improvement projects. We aim to evaluate the carbon emissions in the field
improvement projects. We
of disaster prevention aim tothrough
projects evaluatethe thedeveloped
carbon emissions
carbon in the field calculation
emissions of disaster
prevention
method forprojects through
small river the developed
maintenance carbon emissions calculation method for small
projects.
river maintenance projects.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Estimation Method of Carbon Emissions in the Construction Industry
2.1. Estimation Method of Carbon Emissions in the Construction Industry
In Korea, guidelines have been developed for calculating carbon emissions in the
In Korea, guidelines have been developed for calculating carbon emissions in the
construction industry. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport issued guide-
construction industry. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport issued guidelines
lines in 2012 for carbon emissions calculation for various facilities, including roads, rail-
in 2012 for carbon emissions calculation for various facilities, including roads, railways,
ways, buildings, ports, dams, river maintenance, and urban regeneration. These guide-
buildings, ports, dams, river maintenance, and urban regeneration. These guidelines
lines outline the carbon emission calculation process for each facility and provide carbon
outline the carbon emission calculation process for each facility and provide carbon dioxide
dioxide emission coefficients for raw materials, materials, equipment, and more, meas-
emission coefficients for raw materials, materials, equipment, and more, measured in
ured in /unit.
tonCO tonCOThe2/unit. The carbon dioxide emission factors in MOLIT (2012) were derived
carbon dioxide emission factors in MOLIT (2012) were derived from the
2
from theLife
national national
CycleLife Cycle Inventory
Inventory Database
Database (LCI DB), (LCI DB), developed
developed in accordance
in accordance with
with ISO 14044
ISO 14044 procedures and the IPCC
procedures and the IPCC 4th report [59]. 4th report [59].
The carbon
The carbon emissions
emissions calculation
calculation process
process forfor the
the river
river maintenance
maintenance sector
sector comprises
comprises
four stages. In river maintenance projects, data for calculating carbon emissions
four stages. In river maintenance projects, data for calculating carbon emissions is collected, is col-
lected, and material inputs for each process are quantified. Furthermore,
and material inputs for each process are quantified. Furthermore, energy consumption energy consump-
tion associated
associated with with equipment
equipment used during
used during the process
the process is calculated
is calculated to determine
to determine the
the overall
overall carbon emissions. For energy consumption related to input
carbon emissions. For energy consumption related to input materials and equipment for materials and equip-
mentprocess,
each for eachwe process,
appliedwe theapplied the carbon
carbon dioxide dioxide
emissions emissions
values values
specified specified
in the in the
guidelines for
guidelines for calculating carbon emissions by facility. Additionally, the Ministry
calculating carbon emissions by facility. Additionally, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure of Land,
Infrastructure
and Transportand Transport
utilized utilized
the 2021 the 2021 standard
construction construction standardfor
calculation calculation for work
work volume per
volume
hour forper
each hour forofeach
piece piece of [60].
equipment equipment [60]. The
The carbon carboncalculation
emission emission calculation
process forpro-the
cess for
small themaintenance
river small river maintenance project isinillustrated
project is illustrated Figure 1. in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flowchart
Flowchart of
of the
the carbon
carbon emissions
emissions calculation
calculation process
process in
in the
the construction
constructionindustry
industry[59,60].
[59,60].
The guidelines for calculating carbon emissions by facility provide equations for
The guidelines
calculating for calculating
carbon emissions carbon
based on emissions
material by each
inputs for facility provide
process, equations
energy for cal-
consumption
culating
due carbon emissions
to equipment usage forbased
each on material
process, inputs
carbon for eachresulting
emissions process, from
energy consumption
material inputs,
due to
and equipment
carbon usage
emissions for each
arising process,
from carbon
equipment emissions
usage. resultinginput
The material fromfor
material inputs,
each process
is determined by Equation (1), energy consumption due to equipment usage is calculated
using Equation (2), carbon emissions resulting from material inputs are calculated through
 and carbon emissions arising from equipment usage. The material input for each process
is determined by Equation (1), energy consumption due to equipment usage is calculated
using Equation (2), carbon emissions resulting from material inputs are calculated
Water 2023, 15, 3608 4 of 15
through Equation (3), and carbon emissions arising from equipment usage are determined
using Equation (4).
Material input for each process = Workload (unit) × Material input quantity
Equation (3), and carbon emissions arising from equipment usage are determined using (1)
Equation (4). for standard quantity-per-unit cost (ton, m3, m, etc./unit)

Energy
Material consumption
input for each
for each process process =(unit)
= Workload × Material
Workload (unit) × Equipment
input quantity usage
3 , m, etc./unit) (1) (2)
for standard quantity-per-unit
time per unit workload cost (ton,×m
(h/unit) Fuel efficiency(L/h)

Energy consumption
Carbon for each
emissions fromprocess = Workload
material (unit)
input(tonCO × Equipment usage
2) = Material input (unit) × (2)
time per unit workload (h/unit) × Fuel efficiency(L/h) (3)
Carbon emission coefficient of materials (tonCO2/unit)
Carbon emissions from material input(tonCO2 ) = Material input (unit) ×
(3)
Carbon Carbon
emissions from equipment
emission use
coefficient of (tonCO(tonCO
materials 2) = Energy usage(unit) × Net
2 /unit)
calorific value (kcal/unit) × Carbon emission coefficient of materials for en- (4)
Carbon emissions from equipment use (tonCO2 ) = Energy usage(unit) × Net
ergy (tonC/kcal) × Oxidation rate (%) × 44/12 (tCO2/tC)
calorific value (kcal/unit) × Carbon emission coefficient of materials for (4)
energy (tonC/kcal) × Oxidation rate (%) × 44/12 (tCO2 /tC)
2.2. Establishment of the Carbon Emissions Process for Small River Maintenance Projects
2.2. Establishment of the Carbon Emissions Process for Small River Maintenance Projects
In this study, our objective is to establish a carbon emissions process for small river
In this study,
maintenance our objective
projects is to establish
in Yongin-si, a carbon
Gyeonggi-do, emissions
which process
is one of for small
the cities, river and
counties,
maintenance projects in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, which is one of the cities, counties, and
districts in Korea. In Korea, the Small River Maintenance Act mandates that each city,
districts in Korea. In Korea, the Small River Maintenance Act mandates that each city,
county, and district formulate a comprehensive small river maintenance plan every 10
county, and district formulate a comprehensive small river maintenance plan every 10 years.
years. Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, is home to a total of 124 small rivers with a combined
Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, is home to a total of 124 small rivers with a combined length of
lengthkm
196.89 of 196.89 km (see
(see Figure Figure 2) [61].
2) [61].

Figure2.2.Study
Figure Studyarea.
area.

The
The small
smallriver
rivermaintenance
maintenancecomprehensive
comprehensive plan provides
plan approximate
provides approximatevalues for for
values
area, volume, and construction quantities related to small river maintenance projects.
area, volume, and construction quantities related to small river maintenance projects. By By
examining the construction details for each small river within the project, common represen-
examining the construction details for each small river within the project, common repre-
tative construction types were selected, as shown in Table 1. The small river maintenance
sentative construction types were selected, as shown in Table 1. The small river mainte-
project involves several main processes, including embankment construction, revetment
nance project involves several main processes, including embankment construction, re-
construction, structure construction, appurtenant work, overhead expenses, and compensa-
vetment construction, structure construction, appurtenant work, overhead expenses, and
tion expenses. Embankment construction and revetment construction focus on building
compensation
river expenses.
embankments, whileEmbankment construction
structure construction and
entails revetment
installing construction
various facilities.focus
Ap- on
purtenant work, overhead expenses, and compensation expenses cover supplementary
construction and operational costs essential for executing a small river maintenance project.
Water 2023, 15, 3608 5 of 15

The quantity calculation for each process within the small river maintenance project pro-
vides an initial overview of unit prices, units, quantities, and construction costs.

Table 1. Examples of representative processes of small river maintenance projects.

Process Unit Process Unit

1. Embankment construction 3. Structure construction
(1-1) Embankment m3 (3-1) Drainage culvert ea
(1-2) Useful Embankment m3 (3-2) Drainpipe ea
(1-3) Sandy soil m3 (3-3) Bridge m2
(1-4) Cutting Slope m2 (3-4) Weir and Drop structures m
(1-5) Side grading m2 4. Appurtenant work Form
2. Revetment construction 5. Overhead expenses Form
(2-1) Precast concrete block installation m2 6. Compensation expense m2
(2-2) Stone pitching m2
(2-3) Vegetation mat m2

For structure construction, the plan includes the number of drainage culverts, drain-
pipes, as well as the area and length of bridges, weirs, and drop structures. Additionally,
the appurtenant work specifies the number of auxiliary facilities, while overhead expenses
and compensation costs are presented in terms of monetary amounts. To calculate carbon
emissions, the quantities of materials and equipment input are multiplied by the carbon
generation intensity associated with each unit. Consequently, this study aims to calculate
carbon emissions for embankment construction and revetment construction, as these pro-
cesses allow us to verify the quantities of materials and equipment used in various stages
of small river maintenance projects.

2.3. Calculation of Material and Equipment Input for Each Process

2.3.1. Embankment Construction
Embankment construction comprises a total of five stages (Table 1). Embankment,
Useful Embankment, Sandy Soil, and Side Grading do not require additional materials and
utilize excavators among the equipment. The process of cutting slopes along small rivers
involves the use of vegetation and equipment for tasks like attaching nets, installing and
dismantling mechanical equipment, and applying squirt and paste. Vegetation is excluded
from carbon emissions calculations, while the equipment used includes generators and
cranes for attaching nets, cranes for installing and disassembling mechanical equipment,
and generators, truck-mounted cranes, and dump trucks for spraying.
The quantity of excavators used in embankment construction is determined based
on the slope protection process specified in the 2021 Construction Standard Quantity
(MOLIT) [60]. When calculating the excavator’s hourly workload, we consider coefficients
for volume conversion, work efficiency, bucket capacity, and cycle time adjustments based
on the characteristics of the construction area. However, due to the numerous variables
involved in considering the characteristics of all small rivers, we apply standard values
typically used for general small river maintenance work.
For embankment construction along small rivers, a bucket coefficient of K = 0.98
is applied, assuming slightly hard soil types such as sand, normal soil, and clay. Work
efficiency is assumed as E = 0.75, considering normal, disturbed, sandy, and sandy soil
conditions. A one-cycle time is assumed to be a 135◦ rotation, with a bucket capacity of
0.8 m3 , and we use a cm = 20 s for cycle time calculations.

3600 × q × k × f × E
Q= (5)
cm

Here, Q: hourly workload(m3 /h), q: bucket capacity (m3 ), f: volume conversion

coefficient, E: work efficiency, K: bucket coefficient, cm: one cycle time (s).
Water 2023, 15, 3608 6 of 15

Cutting Slope was referenced based on the slope protection hole installation standard
in the 2021 Construction Standard Test (MOLIT) [60]. The installation standard for attach-
ment nets is 0.2 h for a 50 kW generator and 0.05 h for a 5-ton crane per 10 m2 . The quality
standard for installing and dismantling mechanical equipment was established at 4 h per
5-ton crane. The quality standard for squirt and paste application is 0.51 h for a 50 kW
generator, 5-ton truck-mounted crane, and 6-ton dump truck per 10 m2 .
Table 2 displays the quantities of materials and equipment required for each type of
embankment construction. For cutting and filling, equipment input for 1 m3 was calculated
at 0.0137 h, based on a 0.6 m3 excavator. Regarding the installation of attachment nets on
the cutting slope, the input amount was calculated as 0.02 h for a 50 kW generator and
0.005 h for a 5-ton crane. For the installation and dismantling of mechanical equipment, an
input amount of 0.04 h was calculated for a 5-ton crane. As for squirt and paste application,
the input amount of 0.051 h remains the same for a 50 kW generator, 5-ton truck-mounted
crane, and 6-ton dump truck per 10 m2 .

Table 2. Material and equipment input for embankment construction.

Input Input
Process Unit Material Equipment
(ton) (h)
Embankment m3 - - 0.6 m3 excavator 0.0137
Useful Embankment m3 - - 0.6 m3 excavator 0.0137
Sandy soil m3 - - 0.6 m3 excavator 0.0137
Installation of 50 kW generator 0.02
m2 - -
attachment nets 5-ton crane 0.005
Installation and
dismantling of
Cutting - - 5-ton crane 0.04
mechanical
Slope
equipment
50 kW generator
0.051
5-ton truck-
Squirt and paste Vegetation - 0.051
mounted crane
0.051
6-ton dump truck
Side grading m2 - - 0.6 m3 excavator 0.009

2.3.2. Revetment Construction

Revetment construction offers a range of construction methods that vary depending
on the type and design of the revetment. However, in the case of most small rivers, the
primary methods employed include precast concrete block installation, stone pitching, and
vegetation mat. The input quantities for each process within revetment construction were
derived from the 2021 Construction Standard Quantity (MOLIT). The slope protection
process aligns with precast concrete block installation, stone construction aligns with stone
pitching, and river revetment aligns with vegetation mat installation.
In the precast concrete block installation method, concrete is used as the primary
material, and a 5-ton crane (tire) serves as the equipment. Based on 1 m2 , the input quantity
of concrete was computed to be 0.375 tons, while based on 1 m3 , the input quantity for
the 5-ton crane (tire) was calculated as 0.09 h. Assuming a concrete thickness of 15 cm,
approximately 0.15 m3 of concrete are estimated for each 1 m2 .
The stone pitching method typically involves manual labor and the use of an excavator.
In the case of manual labor, it was excluded from the carbon emissions calculation due
to its absence from the report. Taking into account that an excavator requires additional
manpower during working hours and that equipment does not operate continuously, the
input quantity for a 0.6 m3 excavator was calculated as 0.25 h/m2 . For vegetation mat
installation, the input quantity for a 0.6 m3 excavator was determined as 0.031 h/m2 .
Water 2023, 15, 3608 7 of 15

Table 3 provides details regarding the quantities of materials and equipment input for each
process within revetment construction.

Table 3. Material and equipment input for revetment construction.

Input Input
Process Unit Material Equipment
(m3 ) (h)
Precast concrete
m2 Concrete 0.15 5-ton crane 0.09
block installation
Stone pitching m2 - 0.6 m3 excavator 0.25
Vegetation mat m2 - 0.6 m3 excavator 0.031

3. Results
3.1. Standards for Calculating Carbon Emissions by Process
To calculate carbon emissions within the small river maintenance project, the quantities
of materials and equipment input for each process were established in Section 2.3. The
carbon emissions for the small river maintenance project were computed based on the
guidelines for calculating carbon emissions for river maintenance facilities published by
MOLIT in 2012 [59]. Table 4 provides information on the carbon emissions associated
with materials and equipment for each process as outlined in the report. Concrete stands
out with the highest carbon emissions at 346 tonCO2 /m3 , while cranes exhibit the lowest
carbon emissions at 13.28 tonCO2 /h. Carbon emissions for the equipment sector were
presented within the range of 13.28 tonCO2 /h to 26.56 tonCO2 /h.

Table 4. Carbon emissions of materials and equipment.

Carbon Emissions
Materials and Equipment Unit
(kgCO2 /Unit)
concrete m3 346
0.6 m3 excavator h 26.56
50 kW generator h 22.66
5-ton crane h 13.28
5-ton truck-mounted crane h 13.28
6-ton dump truck h 20.83

The carbon emissions associated with the materials and equipment used throughout
the entire small river maintenance project are detailed in Table 5. When the same equipment
was applied to multiple processes, carbon emissions were calculated consistently. Embank-
ment, Useful Embankment, Sandy Soil, and Side Grading for Embankment construction
were uniformly assessed, resulting in a carbon emission rate of 0.364 tonCO2 /m3 for a
0.6 m3 excavator. The carbon emissions for Cutting Slope ranged from 0.066 kgCO2 /m2
to 1.062 kgCO2 /m2 , varying by process. In the case of revetment construction, concrete
materials exhibited a carbon emission rate of 51.9 tonCO2 /m3 , while equipment emissions
ranged from 0.823 kgCO2 /m2 to 1.195 kgCO2 /m3 , depending on the specific process.
Water 2023, 15, 3608 8 of 15

Table 5. Standards for calculating carbon emissions by process.

Carbon Input Amount Carbon

Materials and Emissions by Process Emissions
Process Unit
Equipment (kgCO2 /Unit) (h/Unit) (kgCO2 /Unit)
(A) (B) (C = A × B)
(1) Embankment construction
0.6 m3
Embankment m3 26.56 h 0.0137 0.364
excavator
0.6 m3
Useful Embankment m3 26.56 h 0.0137 0.364
excavator
0.6 m3
Sandy soil m3 26.56 h 0.0137 0.364
excavator
50 kW
Installation of 22.66 h 0.02 0.453
generator
attachment nets
5-ton crane 13.28 h 0.005 0.066
Installation and
dismantling of
5-ton crane 13.28 h 0.04 0.531
mechanical
Cutting Slope equipment m2
5-ton crane 22.66 h 0.051 1.156
5-ton
Squirt and paste truck-mounted 13.28 h 0.051 0.677
crane
6-ton dump
20.83 h 0.051 1.062
truck
Side grading m2 5-ton crane 13.28 h 0.04 0.531
(2) Revetment construction
m2 5-ton crane 13.28 h 0.09 1.195
Precast concrete block installation
m3 concrete 346 m3 0.15 51.900
0.6 m3
Stone pitching m2 26.56 h 0.25 6.640
excavator
0.6 m3
Vegetation mat m2 26.56 h 0.031 0.823
excavator

3.2. Development of Carbon Emissions Calculation Equation for Small River Maintenance Projects
The established standards for calculating carbon emissions for each process within the
small river maintenance project were applied to a total of 124 small rivers. The analysis
revealed a cumulative carbon emissions total of 2016.6 tonCO2 generated through the small
river maintenance project in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do (see Figure 3). In Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-
do, 96.8% of small rivers have lengths of 3 km or less, and 78.7% exhibit carbon emissions
of 20 tonCO2 or less. The highest carbon emissions were observed in Minjegungcheon, with
90.1 tonCO2 , while the lowest carbon emissions were recorded in Daechigaecheon, totaling
0.42 tonCO2 . It was noted that carbon emissions resulting from small river maintenance
projects tended to increase as the length of the small rivers increased.
 revealed a cumulative carbon emissions total of 2016.6 tonCO2 generated through the
small river maintenance project in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do (see Figure 3). In Yongin-si,
Gyeonggi-do, 96.8% of small rivers have lengths of 3 km or less, and 78.7% exhibit carbon
emissions of 20 tonCO2 or less. The highest carbon emissions were observed in Minjegung-
cheon, with 90.1 tonCO2, while the lowest carbon emissions were recorded in Daechi-
Water 2023, 15, 3608 9 of 15
gaecheon, totaling 0.42 tonCO2. It was noted that carbon emissions resulting from small
river maintenance projects tended to increase as the length of the small rivers increased.

Figure 3. Carbon emissions from small river maintenance projects.

The carbon emissions for each process were calculated to be 789.7 tonCO2 for em-
bankment construction, primarily involving land construction, and 1226.9 tonCO2 for
revetment construction, primarily associated with the installation of revetment facilities
(refer to Table 6). The average carbon emissions per 1 km of small rivers were 10.2 tonCO2 ,
with embankment construction accounting for 4.0 tonCO2 and revetment construction
totaling 6.2 tonCO2 . The average carbon emissions for a single small river amounted
to 16.0 tonCO2 , with embankment construction contributing 6.3 tonCO2 and revetment
construction resulting in 9.7 tonCO2 .

Table 6. Carbon emissions from small river maintenance projects.

Average
Average
Carbon
Number of Carbon Carbon
River Length Emissions
Process Small River Emissions Emissions
(km) per Small
(n) (tonCO2 ) per 1 km
River
(tonCO2 /km)
(tonCO2 /n)
Embankment
789.7 4.0 6.3
construction
Revetment 124 196.89
1226.9 6.2 9.7
construction
sum 2016.6 10.2 16.0

Regarding Carbon Emissions by Construction Type Along the Length of Small Rivers,
the average carbon emissions per river and per 1 km were analyzed, as illustrated in Table 7.
Carbon emissions by construction type, based on the length of small rivers, peaked at
699.7 tonCO2 within the 1 km to 2 km range. However, even though the number of small
rivers in the 2 km to 3 km range is one-third that of the 1 km to 2 km range and the total
length is 27.3 km, carbon emissions were estimated at 618.6 tonCO2 . The analysis of average
carbon emissions per river and per 1 km revealed that carbon emissions generally increased
with river length, except in the range of 0 km to 1 km. Surprisingly, despite the increase
in river length from 0 km to 1 km to 1 km to 2 km, both the average carbon emissions per
river and per kilometer decreased.
Water 2023, 15, 3608 10 of 15

Table 7. Carbon emissions by construction type for small river length.

River Length Average

Content
0~1 km 1~2 km 2~3 km 3~4 km 4~5 km (Sum)

Number of small River

38 60 24 3 1 (124)
small River (n)
River length (km) 30.8 89.2 61.9 10.7 4.3 (196.89)
sum 495.5 699.7 618.6 124.0 78.8 2016.6

Carbon emissions Embankment

281.8 229.2 211.9 42.0 24.9 789.7
(tonCO2 ) construction
Revetment
213.7 470.4 406.9 82.0 53.9 1226.9
construction
sum 13.1 11.7 25.8 41.3 79.0 16.0
Average carbon Embankment
emissions per small 7.4 3.8 8.8 14.0 25.0 6.3
construction
river (tonCO2 /n)
Revetment
5.6 7.8 17.0 27.3 54.0 9.7
construction
sum 16.1 7.8 10.0 11.6 18.4 10.2
Average carbon Embankment
emissions per 1 km 9.2 2.6 3.4 3.9 5.8 4.0
construction
(tonCO2 /km)
Revetment
6.9 5.3 6.6 7.7 12.6 6.2
construction

The carbon emissions resulting from the small river maintenance project and the
characteristics of each process concerning the length of the small river were analyzed (see
Figure 4). Across all processes, there was a tendency for the carbon emissions to increase
as the length of the small river extended. However, the variation in carbon emissions
depending on the length of the small rivers was substantial, making it challenging to derive
a suitable regression equation. The all-logarithmic (log–log) function model was employed
to establish the relationship between carbon emissions and the length of the small river.
An equation for calculating carbon emissions based on the length of small rivers
within small river maintenance projects was proposed. The calculation equation relating
small river length and carbon emissions is presented as Equation (6), with a Coefficient
of Determination analyzed at 0.42. Additionally, individual carbon emission calculation
equations were proposed for each process. The calculation equation linking small river
length and carbon emissions for embankment construction is expressed in Equation (7),
with a coefficient of determination analyzed at 0.38. Similarly, the calculation equation
for small river length and carbon emissions for revetment construction is provided as
Equation (8), with a coefficient of determination determined to be 0.46. These carbon
emissions calculation equations for each process within the small river maintenance project
highlight the trend of carbon emissions increasing with the length of the small river.
However, in terms of accuracy, the coefficient of determination for each process was
approximately 0.42, rendering it challenging to rely on quantitative calculation equations.
Consequently, the findings from this study are expected to serve as a qualitative indicator
of the carbon emissions generated by the small river maintenance project, facilitating the
estimation of rough values.
Y = 0.62 + 1.05 × X (6)

Y = 0.28 + 1.00 × X (7)

Y = 0.03 + 1.18 × X (8)

 as the length of the small river extended. However, the variation in carbon emissions de-
pending on the length of the small rivers was substantial, making it challenging to derive
a 15,
Water 2023, suitable
3608 regression equation. The all-logarithmic (log–log) function model was em- 11 of 15
ployed to establish the relationship between carbon emissions and the length of the small
river.
Here, X is log (small stream length (m)), Y is log (carbon emissions (kgCO2 )).

(a) Entire process

(b) Embankment construction (c) Revetment construction

Figure 4. Double logFigure
function analysis
4. Double of carbon
log function emissions
analysis from
of carbon smallfrom
emissions rivers.
small rivers.

An equation 4.forDiscussion
calculating carbon emissions based on the length of small rivers
The increase
within small river maintenance in carbon
projects was dioxide emissions
proposed. Thedue to the impacts
calculation of climate
equation change
relating
prompted the establishment of a global carbon neutrality goal, beginning with the Kyoto
small river length and carbon
Protocol emissions
in 1997. is presented
Many countries as Equation
have joined the carbon(6),neutrality
with a Coefficient
agreement and of are
Determination analyzed at 0.42.toAdditionally,
actively working individual
reduce carbon emissions. Amongcarbon emission
various industries calculation
contributing to
equations were proposed for each process. The calculation equation linking small
carbon emissions, the construction sector accounts for approximately 33% river
of the world’s
length and carbontotal [22–24,46,47].
emissions While the construction
for embankment industry is
construction is essential
expressed for national development,
in Equation (7), it
generates significant carbon emissions during construction, maintenance, and demolition
with a coefficient of determination analyzed at 0.38. Similarly, the calculation equation for
activities. The construction industry encompasses diverse projects, including urban devel-
small river length opment,
and carbon emissions for
road infrastructure, revetment
social facilities, construction is provided
and disaster prevention as Equa-
structures. However,
tion (8), with a coefficient of determination
prior research primarily focused determined to be 0.46.
on carbon emissions These
from carbon emissions
the construction industry as a
whole
calculation equations foror each
examined the life
process cycle ofthe
within buildings
small [11,13–15,24–26,31–38].
river maintenance project Additionally,
high-some
studies have been conducted to evaluate CO2 emissions due to the impact of fertilizers in
light the trend of carbon emissions increasing with the length of the small river. However,
rivers located near agricultural fields [62].
in terms of accuracy, the coefficient
In this study, weofanalyzed
determination for eachgenerated
carbon emissions processby was approximately
small river maintenance
0.42, rendering it challenging
projects for disaster prevention within the construction industry, Consequently,
to rely on quantitative calculation equations. targeting administra-
the findings from this study are
tive districts expected
in Korea. to serve
In Korea, asare
there a qualitative indicator
22,093 designated smallofrivers
the carbon
nationwide,
with the country’s 229 administrative districts managing
emissions generated by the small river maintenance project, facilitating the estimation of an average of approximately
100 small rivers each [63]. Although these small rivers are typically less than 3 km long
rough values. and have an average width of 2 m, they are often located in mountainous areas with rapid
rainwater runoff. As larger river maintenance projects have been completed since the 1990s,
Y = 0.62 + 1.05 × X (6)
small rivers have increasingly experienced significant disasters. Small river maintenance

Y = 0.28 + 1.00 × X (7)

Y = 0.03 + 1.18 × X (8)

Here, X is log (small stream length (m)), Y is log (carbon emissions (kgCO2)).
Water 2023, 15, 3608 12 of 15

projects at the administrative district level commenced in 2000, with plans for secondary
maintenance projects currently in progress.
Upon reviewing previous domestic and international studies, it became evident that
carbon emissions standards for various disaster prevention projects had not been exten-
sively researched. In this study, we established carbon emissions calculation standards
specifically for small river maintenance projects among various disaster prevention initia-
tives. As of 2021, Korea’s total carbon emissions amounted to 679 million tonCO2 , with the
construction industry contributing 258 million tonCO2 , or 38% of the total. This proportion
of carbon emissions generated by the construction industry aligns with rates observed in
other countries [2,4,5,11,14,26,30,58]. The total carbon emissions resulting from the small
river maintenance project in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, were calculated at 2016.6 tonCO2 .
When applied on a national scale, the carbon emissions generated by small river mainte-
nance projects within the construction industry for each administrative district amount to
approximately 0.179%.
In this study, we developed calculation equations linking small river length and
carbon emissions for small river maintenance projects. By applying these equations, the
estimated carbon emissions generated by maintenance projects for all 22,093 small rivers
nationwide sum up to 353,593 tonCO2 . This figure represents 0.14% of the total carbon
emissions produced by the construction industry. It is worth noting that the carbon
emissions calculations in this study exclude structures such as weirs and bridges within the
small rivers. If carbon emissions from these structures are incorporated through subsequent
research, it is expected that both the accuracy of the proposed calculation equations and
the total carbon emissions estimation will improve. Furthermore, considering that, as of
2021, only approximately 40% of the small river maintenance projects have been completed,
future efforts to implement eco-friendly processes aimed at reducing carbon emissions
could contribute to achieving the national carbon neutrality goal.
In this study, we specifically analyzed carbon emissions resulting from small river
maintenance projects within the context of disaster prevention initiatives in the construction
industry. The study was conducted in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, an administrative district
in Korea, and encompassed 124 small rivers. The analysis of total carbon emissions in the
administrative district was carried out by applying standards for calculating the input
of materials and equipment for each process within the small river maintenance project.
Currently, the construction industry has established carbon emissions calculation standards
based on material and equipment input. However, for structure construction, only the
number of existing drainage culverts or the length of drop holes has been presented and is
excluded from carbon emissions calculations.

5. Conclusions
In this study, we examined carbon emissions resulting from small river maintenance
projects within the realm of disaster prevention initiatives in the construction industry. Our
research focused on Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, an administrative district in South Korea,
encompassing 124 small rivers. We analyzed the total carbon emissions generated in this
administrative district by employing established standards for calculating the material
and equipment inputs for each phase of small river maintenance projects. Presently,
standards for calculating carbon emissions in the construction field are based on material
and equipment inputs. However, for structural construction, the calculation of carbon
emissions only takes into account the number of existing drainage culverts or the length of
drop structures and excludes other aspects.
The total carbon emissions stemming from the small river maintenance project situated
in Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, amounted to 2016.6 tonCO2 . Within this, embankment construc-
tion contributed 789.7 tonCO2 , while revetment construction accounted for 1226.9 tonCO2 .
The overall carbon emissions resulting from the small river maintenance project were
calculated at 10.2 tonCO2 /km for every 1 km of river length. Carbon emissions, when
analyzed according to the lengths of small rivers, revealed figures of 16.1 tonCO2 /km
Water 2023, 15, 3608 13 of 15

for 0 km to 1 km, 7.8 tonCO2 /km for 1 km to 2 km, 11.6 tonCO2 /km for 2 km to 3 km,
11.6 tonCO2 /km for 3 km to 4 km, and 18.4 tonCO2 /km for 4 km to 5 km.
Through the analysis of small river length and carbon emissions characteristics, we
developed an equation based on the double-logarithmic function model. This calculation
equation estimates carbon emissions according to the small river route and is presented for
the entire process, embankment construction, and revetment construction, respectively. The
coefficient of determination for this calculation equation is 0.42, which may limit the preci-
sion of the results, but it should enable a rough estimation of carbon emissions from small
river maintenance projects. We anticipate that the carbon emissions calculations derived
from this study can serve as evidence of the viability of disaster prevention projects within
the field of disaster management or as foundational data for carbon neutrality initiatives.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.S. and J.J.; methodology, Y.S.; software, J.J.; validation, Y.S.,
J.J. and M.P.; formal analysis, M.P.; investigation, Y.S.; resources, J.J.; data curation, Y.S.; writing—original
draft preparation, Y.S.; writing—review and editing, J.J.; visualization, Y.S.; supervision, M.P.; project
administration, M.P.; funding acquisition, Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the program of Research Program to Solve Urgent Safety Is-
sues (2021M3E9A1103525), through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the
Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT), Ministry of the Interior and Safety (MOIS)).
Data Availability Statement: This data is analyzed based on a book report and has not been pub-
lished on the site.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Huisingh, D.; Zhang, Z.; Moore, J.C.; Qiao, Q.; Li, Q. Recent advances in carbon emissions reduction: Policies, technologies,
monitoring, assessment and modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 1–12. [CrossRef]
2. Allouhi, A.; El Fouih, Y.; Kousksou, T.; Jamil, A.; Zeraouli, Y.; Mourad, Y. Energy consumption and efficiency in buildings: Current
status and future trends. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 118–130. [CrossRef]
3. IEA. Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement: Malaysia; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2021.
4. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Buildings and Climate Change: Summary for Decision-Makers; UNEP DTIE
Sustainable Consumption & Production Branch: Paris, France, 2009.
5. Edenhofer, O.; Seyboth, K.; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and
Environmental Economics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.
6. Kang, G.; Kim, T.; Kim, Y.-W.; Cho, H.; Kang, K.-I. Statistical analysis of embodied carbon emission for building construction.
Energy Build. 2015, 105, 326–333. [CrossRef]
7. EPA. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington,
DC, USA, 2009.
8. IEA. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2019; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2019.
9. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Zhu, J.; Chang, R. Analyzing the influence factors of the carbon emissions from China’s building and construction
industry from 2000 to 2015. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, 552–566. [CrossRef]
10. Wu, P.; Song, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, X.; Zhao, X.; He, Q. Regional Variations of Credits Obtained by LEED 2009 Certified Green
Buildings—A Country Level Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 20. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, M.; Feng, C. Exploring the driving forces of energy-related CO2 emissions in China’s construction industry by utilizing
production-theoretical decomposition analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 710–719. [CrossRef]
12. Luo, W.; Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G. Direct and indirect carbon emissions in foundation construction—Two case studies of
driven precast and cast-in-situ piles. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1517–1526. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, G.Q.; Chen, H.; Chen, Z.M.; Zhang, B.; Shao, L.; Guo, S.; Zhou, S.Y.; Jiang, M.M. Low-carbon building assessment and
multi-scale input–output analysis. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2011, 16, 583–595. [CrossRef]
14. Li, X.; Wu, P.; Shen, G.Q.; Wang, X.; Teng, Y. Mapping the knowledge domains of Building Information Modeling (BIM): A
bibliometric approach. Autom. Constr. 2017, 84, 195–206. [CrossRef]
15. Wu, P.; Xia, B.; Wang, X. The contribution of ISO 14067 to the evolution of global greenhouse gas standards—A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 142–150. [CrossRef]
16. Sun, D.; Zhou, L.; Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Shen, X.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X. New-type urbanization in China: Predicted trends and investment
demand for 2015–2030. J. Geogr. Sci. 2017, 27, 943–966. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 3608 14 of 15

17. Blanco, J.; Engel, H.; Imhorst, F.; Ribeirinho, M.; Sjodin, E. Call for Action: Seizing the Decarbonization Opportunity in Construction;
McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
18. Chou, J.-S.; Yeh, K.-C. Life cycle carbon dioxide emissions simulation and environmental cost analysis for building construction.
J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 101, 137–147. [CrossRef]
19. Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q.; Feng, Y.; Lau, W.S.-t.; Mao, C. Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building: A case
study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 249–259. [CrossRef]
20. Arıoğlu Akan, M.Ö.; Dhavale, D.G.; Sarkis, J. Greenhouse gas emissions in the construction industry: An analysis and evaluation
of a concrete supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 1195–1207. [CrossRef]
21. Sun, Y.; Hao, S.; Long, X. A study on the measurement and influencing factors of carbon emissions in China’s construction sector.
Build. Environ. 2023, 229, 109912. [CrossRef]
22. Du, Q.; Deng, Y.; Zhou, J.; Wu, J.; Pang, Q. Spatial spillover effect of carbon emission efficiency in the construction industry of
China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 2466–2479. [CrossRef]
23. Chang, C.-C. A multivariate causality test of carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China. Appl.
Energy 2010, 87, 3533–3537. [CrossRef]
24. Li, W.; Sun, W.; Li, G.; Cui, P.; Wu, W.; Jin, B. Temporal and spatial heterogeneity of carbon intensity in China’s construction
industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 126, 162–173. [CrossRef]
25. Zhang, Y.; Yan, D.; Hu, S.; Guo, S. Modelling of energy consumption and carbon emission from the building construction sector
in China, a process-based LCA approach. Energy Policy 2019, 134, 110949. [CrossRef]
26. Xu, G.; Wang, W. China’s energy consumption in construction and building sectors: An outlook to 2100. Energy 2020, 195, 117045.
[CrossRef]
27. Weigert, M.; Melnyk, O.; Winkler, L.; Raab, J. Carbon Emissions of Construction Processes on Urban Construction Sites.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12947. [CrossRef]
28. Angela, K.; Stefan, S.; Margit, S. CO2 -Bepreisung in der Steuerreform 2022/2024; WIFO: Vienna, Austria, 2021.
29. Li, L.; Chen, K. Quantitative assessment of carbon dioxide emissions in construction projects: A case study in Shenzhen. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017, 141, 394–408. [CrossRef]
30. Zhang, Z.; Wang, B. Research on the life-cycle CO2 emission of China’s construction sector. Energy Build. 2016, 112, 244–255.
[CrossRef]
31. Li, X.; Shen, G.Q.; Wu, P.; Yue, T. Integrating Building Information Modeling and Prefabrication Housing Production. Autom.
Constr. 2019, 100, 46–60. [CrossRef]
32. Peng, C. Calculation of a building’s life cycle carbon emissions based on Ecotect and building information modeling. J. Clean.
Prod. 2016, 112, 453–465. [CrossRef]
33. Jiang, J.J.; Ye, B.; Ma, X.M. The construction of Shenzhen’s carbon emission trading scheme. Energy Policy 2014, 75, 17–21.
[CrossRef]
34. Acquaye, A.A.; Duffy, A.P. Input–output analysis of Irish construction sector greenhouse gas emissions. Build. Environ. 2010, 45,
784–791. [CrossRef]
35. Avetisyan Hakob, G.; Miller-Hooks, E.; Melanta, S. Decision Models to Support Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction from
Transportation Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 631–641. [CrossRef]
36. Bilec Melissa, M.; Ries Robert, J.; Matthews, H.S. Life-Cycle Assessment Modeling of Construction Processes for Buildings. J.
Infrastruct. Syst. 2010, 16, 199–205. [CrossRef]
37. Ye, H.; Hu, X.; Ren, Q.; Lin, T.; Li, X.; Zhang, G.; Shi, L. Effect of urban micro-climatic regulation ability on public building energy
usage carbon emission. Energy Build. 2017, 154, 553–559. [CrossRef]
38. De Wolf, C.; Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of
current industry practice. Energy Build. 2017, 140, 68–80. [CrossRef]
39. Wen, Q.; Hong, J.; Liu, G.; Xu, P.; Tang, M.; Li, Z. Regional efficiency disparities in China’s construction sector: A combination of
multiregional input–output and data envelopment analyses. Appl. Energy 2020, 257, 113964. [CrossRef]
40. Wang, S.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, Y. Spatial spillover effect and driving forces of carbon emission intensity at the city level in China. J.
Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 231–252. [CrossRef]
41. Lu, Y.; Cui, P.; Li, D. Carbon emissions and policies in China’s building and construction industry: Evidence from 1994 to 2012.
Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 94–103. [CrossRef]
42. Worrell, E.; Price, L.; Martin, N.; Hendriks, C.; Meida, L.O. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Global Cement Industry. Annu.
Rev. Energy Environ. 2001, 26, 303–329. [CrossRef]
43. Ren, Z.; Chrysostomou, V.; Price, T. The measurement of carbon performance of construction activities. Smart Sustain. Built
Environ. 2012, 1, 153–171. [CrossRef]
44. Seo, M.-S.; Kim, T.; Hong, G.; Kim, H. On-Site Measurements of CO2 Emissions during the Construction Phase of a Building
Complex. Energies 2016, 9, 599. [CrossRef]
45. Peng, B.; Cai, C.; Yin, G.; Li, W.; Zhan, Y. Evaluation system for CO2 emission of hot asphalt mixture. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. (Engl.
Ed.) 2015, 2, 116–124. [CrossRef]
46. Simonen, K.; Rodriguez, B.X.; De Wolf, C. Benchmarking the Embodied Carbon of Buildings. Technol. Archit. Des. 2017, 1, 208–218.
[CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 3608 15 of 15

47. Kim, B.; Lee, H.; Park, H.; Kim, H. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Onsite Equipment Usage in Road Construction. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 2012, 138, 982–990. [CrossRef]
48. Cabello Eras, J.J.; Gutiérrez, A.S.; Capote, D.H.; Hens, L.; Vandecasteele, C. Improving the environmental performance of an
earthwork project using cleaner production strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 368–376. [CrossRef]
49. Tang, P.; Cass, D.; Mukherjee, A. Investigating the effect of construction management strategies on project greenhouse gas
emissions using interactive simulation. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 54, 78–88. [CrossRef]
50. Jiang, P.; Dong, W.; Kung, Y.; Geng, Y. Analysing co-benefits of the energy conservation and carbon reduction in China’s large
commercial buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 58, 112–120. [CrossRef]
51. Cheng, M.; Lu, Y.; Zhu, H.; Xiao, J. Measuring CO2 emissions performance of China’s construction industry: A global Malmquist
index analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 92, 106673. [CrossRef]
52. Huo, T.; Tang, M.; Cai, W.; Ren, H.; Liu, B.; Hu, X. Provincial total-factor energy efficiency considering floor space under
construction: An empirical analysis of China’s construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118749. [CrossRef]
53. Guggemos Angela, A.; Horvath, A. Decision-Support Tool for Assessing the Environmental Effects of Constructing Commercial
Buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 2006, 12, 187–195. [CrossRef]
54. Li, B.; Han, S.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Y. Feasibility assessment of the carbon emissions peak in China’s construction
industry: Factor decomposition and peak forecast. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 135716. [CrossRef]
55. Chen, J.; Xu, C.; Managi, S.; Song, M. Energy-carbon performance and its changing trend: An example from China’s construction
industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 379–388. [CrossRef]
56. Li, W.; Wang, W.; Gao, H.; Zhu, B.; Gong, W.; Liu, Y.; Qin, Y. Evaluation of regional metafrontier total factor carbon emission
performance in China’s construction industry: Analysis based on modified non-radial directional distance function. J. Clean. Prod.
2020, 256, 120425. [CrossRef]
57. Joseph, V.R.; Mustaffa, N.K. Carbon emissions management in construction operations: A systematic review. Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manag. 2023, 30, 1271–1299. [CrossRef]
58. Monahan, J.; Powell, J.C. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: A case study
using a lifecycle assessment framework. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 179–188. [CrossRef]
59. Guidelines for Calculating Carbon Emissions by Facility, 1st ed.; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong-si, Republic
of Korea, 2012.
60. 2021 Construction Construction Standard Calculation, 1st ed.; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: Sejong-si, Republic of
Korea, 2021.
61. Yongin-Si Comprehensive Small River Maintenance Plan, 1st ed.; Yongin Special City Hall: Yongin-si, Republic of Korea, 2008.
62. Xiao, Q.; Hu, Z.; Hu, C.; Islam, A.R.M.T.; Bian, H.; Chen, S.; Liu, C.; Lee, X. A highly agricultural river network in Jurong Reservoir
watershed as significant CO2 and CH4 sources. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 144558. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Disaster Impact Assessment Strategy for Carbon Neutral Projects in Disaster Management Area, 1st ed.; National Disaster and Safety
Research Institute: Ulsan-si, Republic of Korea, 2021; pp. 58–88.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.