| 流域水环境调控措施协同减污降碳成本效益评估 |
| 摘要点击 864 全文点击 16 投稿时间：2025-07-30 修订日期：2025-10-02 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 减污降碳 调控措施 成本效益 流域水环境 滇池流域 |
| 英文关键词 pollution and carbon reduction intervention strategies cost-benefit watershed water environment the Dianchi watershed |
| DOI 10.13227/j.hjkx.202507403 |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 定量分析流域水环境调控措施的水环境效益、碳排放量以及经济成本对于实现减污降碳目标尤为重要. 然而，现有的评估研究大多集中在其环境效益和经济成本，少数评估其碳排放量的研究仅针对单一类型的措施，缺乏对整个流域水环境调控措施碳排放量的全面系统分析. 首先构建了流域水环境调控措施减污降碳成本效益核算体系，进而以滇池流域为例，通过对比不同水环境调控措施特征及其水质和水量调控效益，结合措施建设与运行阶段的碳排放以及经济成本系数，分析了不同调控措施情景下的成本效益情况. 案例研究结果表明，流域中城市低影响开发（LID）设施建设等与其他措施的协同效应明显；城市LID设施建设和农村最佳管理措施（BMP）建设等对于削减单位污染物浓度的边际碳排放成本较低，跨流域生态调水工程的边际碳排放成本较高；跨流域生态调水工程和合流制调蓄池建设等措施的边际经济成本较低，城市LID建设较高. 该框架能够识别解析不同水环境调控措施之间的关联协同效应，可为系统全面地评估调控措施对于整个流域水环境系统的成本效益提供借鉴意义. |
| 英文摘要 |
| Quantitative analysis of the environmental benefits， carbon emissions， and economic costs of watershed management interventions is crucial for meeting pollution and carbon reduction targets. However， existing watershed studies mainly focus on assessing the environmental benefits and financial costs of pollution control facilities. Few evaluate their carbon emissions， and those that do typically focus on single facility types， missing a comprehensive and systematic analysis of emissions across entire watershed pollution control systems. This study creates a watershed cost-benefit assessment framework for water interventions， demonstrated in the Dianchi watershed. By comparing the characteristics of interventions and their effects on water quality and quantity， along with carbon emission and economic cost data from facility construction and operation， this analysis examines the cost-benefit performance under various scenarios. The results revealed notable synergistic effects between urban low impact development （LID） implementation and other watershed facilities. Urban LID and rural best management practices （BMP） measures showed lower marginal carbon abatement costs per unit pollutant reduction， while the inter-basin ecological water diversion involved higher costs. Conversely， water diversion and combined sewer storage capacity expansion （SCE） exhibited lower marginal economic costs， whereas urban LID implementation incurred higher costs. This framework uncovers synergistic interactions among water environment control measures， providing a methodological foundation for systematic cost-benefit assessment of watershed intervention systems. |
