Browsing by Author "Riikonen, Anu"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Co-Designing Urban Carbon Sink Parks: Case Carbon Lane in Helsinki
(2021-08-19) Tammeorg, Priit; Soronen, Päivi; Riikonen, Anu; Salo, Esko; Tikka, Suvi; Koivunen, Minja; Salonen, Anna-Reetta; Kopakkala, Topi; Jalas, Mikko
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
In order to achieve the goals of carbon (C) neutrality within next 20 year, municipalities worldwide need to increasingly apply negative emission technologies. We focus on the main principles of urban demonstration areas using biochars for C sequestration and explore the lessons learned from a co-creation process of one such park, Hyväntoivonpuisto in Helsinki, Finland. Demonstration sites of urban C sinks in public parks must be safe, visible and scientifically sound for reliable and cost-effective verification of carbon sequestration. We find that different interests can be arbitrated and that synergy that emerges from co-creation of urban C sink parks between stakeholders (scientists, city officials, companies, and citizens) can result in demo areas with maximized potential for impact, dissemination and consideration of principles of scientific experimentation.
Environmental Product Declarations for plants and soils: How to quantify carbon uptake in landscape design and construction?
(2021-06) Kuittinen, Matti; Hautamäki, Ranja; Tuhkanen, Eeva Maria; Riikonen, Anu; Ariluoma, Mari
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
Purpose: Currently, no clear guidance exists for ISO and EN standards of calculating, verifying, and reporting the climate impacts of plants, mulches, and soils used in landscape design and construction. In order to optimise the potential of eco-system services in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment, we unequivocally propose their inclusion when assessing sustainability. Methods: We analysed the life cycle phases of plants, soils, and mulches from the viewpoint of compiling standard-based Environmental Product Declarations. In comparison to other construction products, the differences of both mass and carbon flows were identified in these products. Results: Living and organic products of green infrastructure require an LCA approach of their own. Most importantly, if conventional life cycle guidance for Environmental Product Declarations were to be followed, over time, the asymmetric mass and carbon flows would lead to skewed conclusions. Moreover, the ability of plants to reproduce raises additional questions for allocating environmental impacts. Conclusions: We present a set of recommendations that are required for compiling Environmental Product Declarations for the studied products of green infrastructure. In order to enable the quantification of the climate change mitigation potential of these products, it is essential that work for further development of LCA guidance be mandated.