4.7 Article

Supply chain management approach for greenhouse and acidifying gases emission reduction towards construction materials industry: A case study from China

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 258, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120521

关键词

Acidifying gas; Construction materials industry; Environmental evaluation method; Greenhouse gas; Supply chain

资金

  1. Chinese Universities Scientific Fund [2010SCU22009]
  2. Scientific Research Staring Foundation of Sichuan University [2015SCU11034]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71601134]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The significant rise in greenhouse gas (GHG) and acidifying gas (AG) emissions have resulted in serious global warming and acidification problems, a major source of which are the emissions from construction materials. To reduce these adverse effects, it is vital that the overall environmental performances of construction materials supply chain networks (CMSCN) be evaluated and optimized. To this end, to fully consider the GHG and AG emissions, control total CMSCN costs, and determine a reasonable trade-off between economic development and environmental protection, this paper developed an innovative environmental evaluation method (EEM) nested in a multi-objective optimization model. The proposed approach was then applied to a practical case study in China to demonstrate its efficiency and effectiveness in controlling GHG greenhouse and AG acidification problems and mitigating ecological-economic conflicts. Scenario analyses were also conducted focused on cost control and problem attention ratios, after which some targeted conclusions and policy suggestions were given. By comprehensively considering both the environmental effects and the economic benefits, the proposed methodology was shown to efficiently control GHG and AG emissions, reduce costs, and provide practical guidance on the sustainable development of CMSCN. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据