AllBack2Pave State of the art on sustainability impact ...€¦ · CEDR Call 2012: Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil fuel society Executive summary The design, construction,

CEDR Call 2012: Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil fuel society

CEDR Transnational Road Research Programme

Call 2012: Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil fuel society

funded by Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and Norway

AllBack2Pave

State of the art on sustainability impact

indicators of road pavements Deliverable No D5.1

October 2015


CEDR Call2012: Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil fuel society

ALLBACK2PAVE

Toward a sustainable 100% recycling of reclaimed

asphalt in road pavements

Deliverable No D5.1 State of the art on sustainability impact indicators of

road pavements

Due date of deliverable: 31.03.2015 Actual submission date: 26.11.2015

Start date of project: 01.11.2013 End date of project: 30.09.2015

Authors of this deliverable: Davide Lo Presti, University Of Nottingham, UK James Bryce, University of Nottingham, UK Tony Parry, University of Nottingham, UK

Version: 02.2015


Executive summary

The design, construction, maintenance, use and end-of-life management of road pavements

is associated with a number of important impacts on the environment; namely the

consequences of energy consumption, unsustainable use of materials/resources, waste

generation and release of hazardous substances into the environment. It is estimated that over

80% of all these environmental impacts are defined during the design phase of a product

(WRAP, 2013). Therefore sustainability principles should be already considered at the design

stage of a road pavement, as well as any other structures, so that a sustainable transport

infrastructure could be defined as: a construction that maximises the recycling of

waste/secondary materials within its structure and minimizes the environmental impacts,

through the reduction of energy consumption, natural resources and associated emissions

while meeting performance conditions, specification requirements and social needs throughout

its entire life cycle.

AllBack2Pave supports this philosophy and proposes sustainable solutions for European road

pavements by: 1) designing and characterising pavement technologies containing very high

content of reclaimed asphalt, 2) closely collaborating with industrial partners and sustainability

professionals to collect data and sustainable practices for performing a broad sustainability

assessment of each technology.

Measuring/assessing sustainability is still an evolving area of research within the whole

transport infrastructure field. For this reason the Work Package 5 (WP5) will provide the

following outputs that will be informative and practical outputs/methodologies to account for

the sustainability of pavement technologies already at the design stage:

D5.1 - A state of the art review of existing sustainability assessment tools of the impact

of road pavement infrastructures. This will serve as a base for the development of the

AllBAck2Pave sustainability assessment methodology

D5.2 - Evaluation of the environmental impact and economic impact of the defined

technologies taking into account the European level of the project and adapted to real

case studies

D5.3 - Sustainability assessment of the AllBack2Pave technologies adapted to real

case studies at European level, through a methodology developed by this project and

proposed in details for ease of use by CEDR members.


Table of contents

Executive summary ............................................................................................................... iii Table of contents ................................................................................................................... iv List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................... v 1 Sustainability principles applied to road pavements ........................................................ 1

1.1 Environmental Impact of Road Pavements: ............................................................. 2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ............................................................................................ 2

1.1.1 Conducting a Pavement LCA ........................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Suggested Pavement LCA and Carbon Footprinting Tools .............................. 4

1.2 Economic Impact of Road Pavements: .................................................................... 6 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) ........................................................................................ 6

1.2.1 LCCA Tools ...................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Sustainability Rating Systems for Road Pavements ................................................ 7

1.3.1 GreenLITES ..................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2 INVEST (FHWA) .............................................................................................. 9 1.3.3 GreenPave ..................................................................................................... 11 1.3.4 BE2ST-in-Highways™ .................................................................................... 12

2 Conclusions and Recommendations for AllBack2Pave Sustainability Assessment Frameworks ........................................................................................................................ 14 3 Acknowledgment .......................................................................................................... 15 4 References ..................................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 12


List of abbreviations

asPECT asphalt Pavement Embodied Carbon Tool BE2ST-in-Highways Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable

Transportation-Infrastructure-Highways ECORCE M ECO-comparator applied to Road Construction and Maintenance GHG Green House Gases GreenLITES Green Leadership In Transportation Environmental Sustainability FHWA Federal HighWay Administration INVEST Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool LCA LifeCycle Assessment LCC LifeCycle Costing LCCA LifeCycle Cost Analisys LCI LifeCycle Inventory LCiA LifeCycle Impact Assessment PaLATE Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and

Economic Effects


1

1 Sustainability principles applied to road pavements

Conceiving more sustainable road pavements implies maintaining acceptable condition of the

infrastructure while also considering the trade-off between cost, environmental impacts and

social impacts of infrastructure investments. Many definitions have been proposed to express

sustainability in terms of infrastructure, such as those put forth by the Brundtland Commission

(WCED, 1987) and the Council of the European Union (European Commission, 2006), and

several benefits and drawbacks have been noted for each of these definitions (Adams, 2006).

In general, definitions of sustainability are broad in nature as to not constrain potential

innovations contributing towards the goal of sustainability. For example, Muench (2010)

defines sustainability as, “a system characteristic that reflects the system’s capacity to support

natural laws and human values”. However, sustainable development definitions all follow

common themes of development that meets current needs without compromising the future

(Adams, 2006). Generally, this is broken into three objectives, typically referred to as the triple

bottom line of sustainability; (1) enhancing social structures, (2) increasing economic

efficiency, and (3) decreasing adverse impacts to the natural environment.

Generally, the relationships between the three factors which comprise the triple bottom line

are viewed in the form of weak sustainability (as opposed to strong sustainability; see Adams

(2006) and Johansson (2011)), as demonstrated in Figure 1. The implication of the weak

formation of sustainability is the view that tools to evaluate the three aspects of sustainability

can be developed independently, and then the results produced by each tool can be combined

to form some level of tradeoff. The thought that each factor in the triple bottom line can be

evaluated independently of the other factors before being combined through some tradeoff

analysis forms the basis of modern sustainability assessment applied to pavements.

Figure 1: The Triple Bottom Line of Sustainability in Terms of Weak

Sustainability

Following this philosophy, this report will provide an overview of the metrics and/or techniques

used to measure the single aspect of sustainable pavements but also the methodologies used

to integrate them in a common framework. Currently, the following metrics and/or techniques

are used to assess various aspects of sustainability:


2

Performance prediction metrics include more traditional prediction of the pavement

durability in relation to its intended function. This is carried out thorugh measurement

of damage-related properties (i.e. rutting, cracking, stiffness, roughness, etc.) of the

chosen pavement technologies. These are at the base of pavement design and

maintenance strategy definitions. WP4 will produce and report the findings related to

the performance prediction of the investigated solutions and these will be used within

the sustainability assessment exercise.

The environmental aspect of pavement sustainability is generally assessed using life

cycle assessment (LCA) tools (e.g., Jullien et al. (2014)) and can be supplemented by

measures to reduce envieronmental impacts not usually assessed using LCA (such as

traffic noise),

The economic aspect is conducted using life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) tools (e.g.,

Lee et al. (2013))

The metrics to account for social aspect are typically conducted by involving many

stakeholder in the decision making process (e.g., Mostafa and El-Gohary (2014)) or by

ensuring that the project meets the long-term goals of the community (e.g., VanZerr et

al. (2012)). However, metrics to measure social impacts associated with pavement

systems are still not widely accepted and will not be included in this review.

A sustainability rating system is essentially a list of sustainability best practices with an

associated common metric which provides only a qualitative measurement of road

pavement sustainability.

This report will firstly provide an overview of the techniques to account for the environmental

and economic aspects of sustainable road pavemements. At last, an overview of the currently

used sustainability assessment frameworks for road pavements will allow drawing out

conclusions and reccomendations to integrating the various aspect of sustainability

measurements in the Allback2Pave methodology (D5.3).

1.1 Environmental Impact of Road Pavements:

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

LCA’s are tools that study the inputs and outputs of a system, generally with the goal of

understanding the systems’ environmental impacts in terms of energy consumption or material

use. The purpose of a pavement LCA is to quantify the total environmental impact of the

pavement throughout the pavement’s life, which is generally divided into the following five

phases (Santero et al. 2011); (1) raw materials and production, (2) construction, (3) use, (4)

maintanenance and (5) end of life. Ideally an LCA should be considered a cradle to grave

analysis that accounts for the entire life of the materials, all the processes involved with the

system, as well as other processes directly impacted by the system. Nevertheless, a lack of

information, such as the impact of infrastructure decisions on what are considered secondary

systems, leads to a constraint on the system boundaries for a pavement. Thus, in the case of

pavements, typical LCA boundaries are constricted to cover only the time period from material


3

extraction through the end of the construction phase of the project, also referred to as cradle

to laid analysis.

1.1.1 Conducting a Pavement LCA

LCA’s are generally based on process-based models, economic input-output models or hybrid

(a combination of process-based and input-output models). Process-based models compute

the resource use and environmental impacts from the main processes of the system under

evaluation (Suh et al. 2004). Generally, the process-based LCA’s can be represented as flow

diagrams or matrices describing each process interactions. Economic input-output models are

top down hierarchical models which use total factor multipliers based on the national economy

to determine embodied effects per unit of production (Lenzen, 2008). Different parameters

within the process are weighted based on their contribution, and then broken into more detailed

levels until the entire process is defined at an adequate level of detail. Input-output LCA

models account for interdependencies between sectors and processes using monetary

transactions between the sectors on a national or global economic scale. A more detailed

discussion of the LCA types, along with a comparison of strengths and weaknesses can be

found in Santero, et al. (2011).

The process based LCA method is standardized, as defined by the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO) which outlines a four step approach in their standard ISO 14040 and

ISO 14044, Standards for a Process-Based LCA Approach (ISO, 2006). A similar approach is

suggested from another standard tailored for the construction industry ISO/TS 14067:2013.

The steps are as follows; Goal and Scope Definition, Inventory Assessment, Impact

Assessment, and Interpretation. Goal and scope definition is the process by which the

objective and boundaries of the LCA are defined, and the functional unit (essentially the project

characteristics) and limitations are declared. Among the other purposes it serves, the goal and

scope definition represents an important step in clarifying the assumptions and limitations of

the study for comparability to other studies.

The most resource intensive aspect of the LCA is the inventory assessment, and as a result,

several databases are used as default values. For example, several studies (e.g., Weiland and

Muench (2010), Giustozzi et al. (2012), Noshadravan et al. (2013), Butt et al. (2014), Santos

et al. (2014)) refer to the same inventory data developed in a Swedish study by Stripple (2001)

in order to conduct a pavement LCA. Several methodological choices must be made regarding

the LCA inventory, including allocation of the environmental burdens among various co-

products of production or among the different stages of recycling. In general, there is no

standardised method for allocation, and the choice of how to allocate the environmental

burdens may significantly impact the results of the LCA (Huang et al. 2013).

Following the inventory assessment, the impact assessment is the step where the data is

translated into impacts linked to certain criteria. Several life cycle impact assessment

methodologies exist, such as ReCiPe (Goedkoop, et al., 2009) and TRACI (Bare, 2011). In

general, the impact assessment methodologies vary based on geographical locations for many

pollutants. The final step is interpretation, which may include normalisation (e.g., Sleeswijk et

al. (2008)) in order to translate the relatively abstract results into relative contributions. In many

LCA studies (e.g., Santos et al. (2014)), the results of the impact assessment are reported

directly at the final stage.


4

1.1.1.1 LCA versus Carbon Footprinting

In many cases, authorities charged with managing transportation infrastructure are concerned

mainly with the impacts towards climate change, and are not as concerned with the additional

information produced by an LCA. This may be driven by legislative actions which set goals

towards the reduction of carbon emissions, such as when countries adopt the goals set forth

in the Kyoto Protocol. In response to these goals, many countries also standardize the

measurement of carbon emissions linked to the global warming process, such as the UK’s

PAS-2050 (Huang, et al., 2013). Additionally, the process of calculating the carbon footprint is

simplified from an LCA given that the remainder of the environmental impacts associated with

LCA (e.g., acidification, eutrophication, etc.) do not need to be calculated in a carbon footprint

analysis, leading to a much smaller required inventory.

In many cases, the carbon footprint may be seen as a proxy for environmental impacts, and

thus displace the need for conducting a full LCA. However, the limitations of using the carbon

footprint as a proxy for environmental sustainability was thoroughly evaluated in Laurent et al.

(2012), and the authors found that limited conclusions can be drawn from carbon footprints

regarding other pollutants. However, the authors note that products which are dominated by

relatively few processes, the correlation between carbon footprint and other impact

assessment results may become much stronger (Laurent, et al., 2012).

1.1.2 Suggested Pavement LCA and Carbon Footprinting Tools

A recent comprehensive overview of the currently available pavement LCA and carbon

footprinting tools allowing an estimate of the environmental impacts of road pavement

technologies (i.e. asphalt mixtures) within their lifecycle, is provided by Spriensma et al. (2014).

This section presents an overview of suggested tools that could be used from Road Authorities

to perform an environmental impact assessment exercise, similarly to what has been done

with the AB2P technologies in D5.2. These tools have the common characteristics of being:

Freely available and accessible

Based on full process LCA

User-friendly and in any case accompanied by a user manual

Able to perform at least a cradle-to-laid Carbon foot printing of road pavement

technologies

Furthermore some of them also allow to:

Perform a full pavement LCA, not only provide the carbon footprint

Perform a cradle-to-grave analysis (up to end of life)

Use references and databases developed in EU countries

Additionally, other more general, complex professional LCA tools can be used to

assess/compare the environmental impact of road pavement technologies to be used in road

pavements. These tools are not presented in this report and consist in softwares such as BEES

(NIST, 2010), GaBi (PE International, 2014) and SimaPro (SimaPro Ltd, 2014), which allows

higher flexibility and possibly a more detailed estimation, but are not cost-free and need

professional expertise.


5

1.1.2.1 asPECT

asPECT (asphalt Pavement Embodied Carbon Tool) is a pavement carbon footprint tool which

was developed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), and released in its current

version in 2014 (Wayman, et al., 2014). The tool estimates CO2 emissions from asphalt paving

processes in a cradle to gate scenario, and has been designed to meet the specifications in

the UK standard PAS 2050 (Huang, et al., 2013). Several thorough reviews have been

conducted on the capabilities and limitations of asPECT, one of which is presented in

Spriensma et al. (2014).

One trade off when using asPECT that is noted in Spriensma et al. (2014) is the required input

from the user. Other tools contain many default values within the database for processes, such

as HMA plant specifics, which limits the user input to material amounts, material types,

construction processes and transportation types and distances. asPECT requires several user

inputs, such as the characteristics of the HMA mixing plant (e.g., annual production values,

the profile of the power consumed by the plant, etc.). This specificity of data has the benefit of

increasing the reliability of the results, due to more accurate information, but has the drawback

of considerably increasing the complexity over similar tools.

1.1.2.2 ECORCE M

ECORCE M (ECO-comparator applied to Road Construction and Maintenance) was

developed by the French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport Development and

Networks (IFSTTAR), and the international version was released in mid-2014 (Dauvergne et

al. 2014, Jullien et al. 2014). ECORCE M is a process based LCA tool with an extensive

integrated default database used to complement the lifecycle inventory phase. The data used

to populate the integrated database is drawn from multiple sources. However, in cases that an

international consensus does not exists for data, ECORCE M draws upon research conducted

in France to populate values.

Inputs into ECORCE M include; volumetric data, equipment type (e.g. roller, paver, etc.), layer

composition data, the type of mixing plant, and the transport distances and modes. Based on

these inputs, several default values that are stored in the ECORCE M LCI database are used

to populate an inventory of environmental data. The input data is then combined with inventory

data to develop environmental impact values. The indicators calculated, as well as the sources

for the various contribution coefficients are discussed in (Dauvergne, et al., 2014). The

following indicators are presented as results from ECORCE M; Total Energy Consumption

(MJ), Total Water Consumption (m3), Greenhouse Effect (kg eq.CO2), Acidification (kg

eq.SO2), Eutrophication (kg eq.PO4), Tropospheric Ozone Formation (kg eq. ethylene),

Ecotoxicity and Chronic Toxicity (both measured in terms of kg equivalent of 1,4

dichlorobenzene).

1.1.2.3 Carbon Road Map (CEREAL)

Royal HaskoningDHV BV, in a consortium with KOAC*NPC, The Netherlands and the Danish

Road Directorate (DRD) in Denmark, initiated the research and development of a European

Carbon footprinting tool for more sustainable road management and construction in the project

called “CEREAL”: CO2 emission Reduction in road lifecycles (CEREAL, 2014). The

consortium of CEREAL evaluated data of several popular national tools and finally created a


6

tool, “Carbon Road Map”, which concentrates on maintenance and rehabilitation of in service

roads and was harmonized in the Western-European Countries that funded the project:

Germany, Denmark, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and The United Kingdom.

When compared to asPECT, Carbon Road Map has the strong points of being as user-friendly

but needs fewer data easily accessible by engineers of road authorities and it is able to include

lifecycle maintenance strategies for road pavements allowing calculating a full lifecycle carbon

footprint. The tool is programmed in Excel and already includes all CO2 data for materials,

transports and equipment for UK, Denmark and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the tool allows

customisation to other regions.

1.2 Economic Impact of Road Pavements:

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

Economic evaluation of pavement alternatives using LCCA is a method by which costs are

estimated throughout the lifecycle of a pavement (Hudson, et al., 1997). LCCA is a method for

comparing investment options over a defined time frame, generally with the purpose of

comparing the overall long-term costs of several alternatives (Flintsch & Bryce, 2014). The

uses of LCCA in pavement design and management have been demonstrated in several

cases, such as comparing rehabilitation strategies (Jones, et al., 2005) or selecting the type of

pavement for construction (Rangaraju, et al., 2008). This section of the report will briefly

discuss LCCA and then introduce two modern LCCA tools which are widely used.

Similar to LCA, LCCA follows a standard method in order to develop a set of solutions, and an

outline of how to conduct an LCCA can be found in FHWA (1998). The first step in conducting

an LCCA is to develop several management alternatives, along with the analysis time frame,

and activity timing and condition triggers for specific maintenance actions. Next, agency and

user costs should be developed for each of the activities over the analysis time frame. User

costs may also include the marginal increase in fuel consumption that results from an increase

in pavement roughness between the specific activities. The next step in an LCCA is to develop

expenditure streams, which include the discounted costs over time, and compute the net

present value for each alternative. Following each of these steps, the alternatives can be

compared to determine the most cost effective option. Additionally, the results can be

compared to benefits in order to conduct a cost-benefit assessment of the various alternatives.

Several methodological variations to LCCA can be made based on the goals of the analysis.

For example, the choice of a discount rate, decisions regarding the salvage value of the

pavement, and the length of the analysis are all choices which must be made by the analyst.

Potentially the most unsettled aspect of LCCA is the treatment of the user costs. It has been

noted that user costs can dominate agency costs (the cost to build and maintain the pavement)

(Jones, et al., 2005), and therefore the construction strategy becomes more important than the

material or design choices. However, it has been argued in many cases that user costs should

be weighted less than agency costs given that user costs are indirect and subject to very high

levels of uncertainty.

Some literature also uses Life Cycle Cost (LCC) to account for the economical impact of

transport infrastructure solutions. It is important to note here that LCC and life cycle cost

analysis LCCA are not defined in the same manner. LCC is a process that is designed to model


7

closely to LCA (Klöpffer, 2008) and therefore requires a much higher level of disaggregation

than what is traditionally performed in LCCA. For example, LCC standards require the

disaggregation of material production costs so that each environmental process has a

corresponding monetary flow. However, LCCA may be considered an adequate ‘aggregate

approximation’ of LCC results given the discussion in Klöpffer (2008) and Bachmann (2013),

as long as externalities (e.g., user costs from maintenance) are accounted.

1.2.1 LCCA Tools

Many LCCA tools have been developed for use by specific agencies. In general, if a

deterministic approach is employed, then a simple spreadsheet tool commonly proves to be

the most useful (West, et al., 2013). Many states in the US have taken advantage of this, and

have developed simple spreadsheet based tools which incorporate specific state policies (e.g.,

VDOT (2011)). However, given the inherent uncertainties in LCCA inputs, probabilistic

approaches that require more analytical tools have also been developed. Two tools which

employ probabilistic approaches are FHWA’s Realcost, and the US Asphalt Pavement Alliance

(APA) which is simply called LCCAExpress. Similar to Realcost, LCCAExpress is freely

available for download1 via the APA website. The most prevalently used LCCA tool for

pavements is Realcost, which is discussed below.

1.2.1.1 FHWA Realcost

The US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a guide for LCCA (FHWA, 1998),

along with a subsequent freely available2 tool for conducting LCCA. Realcost has been widely

used (e.g., Jones et al. (2005), Mandapaka et al. (2012) and West et al. (2013)) for LCCA

based decisions, as well as implemented into the pavement LCA tool PaLATE (Horvath, 2007),

and recommended by the sustainability analysis method Greenroads (Muench & Anderson,

2009).Realcost automates the calculation of the value of pavement management decisions

including current and future cost estimation, as well as including estimates for user cost due

to delays during construction and maintenance.

Realcost is designed to also include uncertainties in the costs using probablistic methods. The

user has the choice to enter a mean value for costs, along with variations in the costs based

on several pre-defined distributions. For example, the user may choose that a given treatment

will last a mean value of six years, with a minimum value of four years, a maximum value of

eight years, and based on a triangular distribution. The distribution types, choice of mean value

and choice of variance are decisions which must be made by the analysts. Realcost then

employs simple Monte Carlo simulation to develop probability distributions of the costs for the

various alternatives.

1.3 Sustainability Rating Systems for Road Pavements

Pavement sustainability assessment is the evaluation of the system effectiveness,

environmental integrity, economic valuation, and social implications of a pavement system

across its entire life cycle (Eisenman, 2012). Generally, this is narrowed down to the triple

1 http://www.asphaltroads.org/why-asphalt/economics/life-cycle-cost/ 2 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/lccasoft.cfm


8

bottom line of sustainability; economic cost, environmental stewardship, and enhancing quality

of life (social). Several methods have been proposed for pavement sustainability assessment,

but they generally follow similar techniques of assigning point values to actions which are

determined to contribute to the overall sustainability of the project. These types of systems are

typically qualitative evaluation frameworks referred to as sustainability rating systems. This

section describes selected portion of the systems available for rating pavement sustainability.

Several evaluations and comparisons of existing pavement sustainability rating tools exist in

literature (e.g., Eisenman (2012), VanZerr et al. (2012) and Brodie et al. (2013)). This review

will report the currently exisiting road pavement systems with an order based on the type of

rating:

Qualitative sustainability rating: GreenLITES

Hybrid Qualitative-quantitaive rating: INVEST and Greenpave

Quantitative rating: BE2ST

1.3.1 GreenLITES

GreenLITES (Green Leadership In Transportation Environmental Sustainability) is a self-

sustainability rating tool which was developed for use by the New York Department of

Transportation (NYDOT, 2014). Every project conducted by NYDOT is evaluated using the

GreenLITES framework, including projects which are not required to submit formal plans (e.g.,

pavement maintenance and bridge painting) (Eisenman, 2012). GreenLITES is a point based

rating system with a very similar philosophy to the Project Development module of INVEST,

but with a customised scorecard which includes five categories with related sub-categories

(Clevenger, et al., 2013):

Sustainable Sites:

o Alignment Selection

o Context Sensitive Solutions

o Land Use/Community Planning

o Protect, Enhance, or Restore Wildlife Habitat

o Protect, Plant, or Mitigate for Removal of Trees and Plant Communities

Water Quality:

o Stormwater management (volume and quality).

o Reduce runoff and associated pollutants by treating stormwater runoff through Best

Management Practices .

Material and Resources:

o Reuse of Materials

o Recycled Content

o Locally Provided Material

o Bioengineering Techniques

o Hazardous Material Minimization


9

Energy and Atmosphere:

o Improve Traffic Flow

o Reduce Electrical Consumption

o Reduce Petroleum Consumption

o Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

o Noise Abatement

o Stray Light Reduction

Innovation:

This category is intended to give credit to designs that significantly build upon GreenLITES

categories and objectives or incorporate significant innovations in transportation

environmental sustainability that have not been previously utilized

In total, 175 credits are possible across the five categories, and projects are awarded

certification level (gold, silver, bronze) based on the points they receive.

GreenLITES is usually applied for road projects; however it has a specific tool for evaluating

pavement maintenance and operations, as well as other activities which do not require formal

plans. In order to score the projects which do not require formal plans, each project is evaluated

based on all categories, and if the project gains at least 5 points it is simply labelled as ‘rated’.

Nevertheless, if the pavement maintenance project scores more than 29 points, it may be

certified as silver, gold, or evergreen using the standard GreenLITES rating system.

1.3.2 INVEST (FHWA)

The US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed the web based sustainability

assessment tool INVEST (Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool) (FHWA,

2014). INVEST defines sustainability in terms of the triple bottom line, and encourages

balancing between the social, environmental and economic criteria (Brodie, et al., 2013).

Scoring within INVEST is completed within specific modules; System Planning, Project

Development, and Operations and Maintenance. However the total score is not an aggregated

value from the three modules. Instead, the modules are designed to serve as sustainability

evaluations for different processes of the design, construction and maintenance phases

(VanZerr, et al., 2012).

Although INVEST is designed as a road sustainability assessment tool, within Browse>Project

Development module, it has a scorecard specifically designed for road pavements. The

scorecard for road pavements contains specific actions or goals that must be met in order to

obtain a certain number of points (e.g., LCCA results can be used to obtain 3 points). Here the

criteria identified within the paving scorecard (FHWA, 2014):

Life-Cycle Cost Analyses: Reduce life-cycle costs and resource consumption through the

informed use of life-cycle cost analyses of key project features during the decision-making

process for the project.

Highway and Traffic Safety: Safeguard human health by incorporating science-based

quantitative safety analysis processes within project development that will reduce serious

injuries and fatalities within the project footprint.


10

Educational Outreach: Increase public, agency, and stakeholder awareness of the

integration of the principles of sustainability into roadway planning, design, and

construction.

Tracking Environmental Commitments: Ensure that environmental commitments made by

the project are completed and documented in accordance with all applicable laws,

regulations, and issued permits.

Reduce and Reuse Materials: Reduce lifecycle impacts from extraction and production of

virgin materials by recycling materials.

Recycle Materials: Reduce lifecycle impacts from extraction, production, and

transportation of virgin materials by recycling materials.

Long Life Pavement Design: Minimize life-cycle costs by designing long-lasting pavement

structures.

Reduced Energy and Emissions in Pavement Materials: Reduce energy use in the

production of pavement materials.

Contractor Warranty: Improve quality and minimize life-cycle costs by promoting the use

of extended contractor warranties for pavement.

Construction Equipment Emission Reduction: Reduce air emissions from non-road

construction equipment.

Construction Quality Control Plan: Improve quality by requiring the contractor to have a

formal Quality Control Plan (QCP).

Construction Waste Management: Utilize a management plan for road construction waste

materials to minimize the amount of construction-related waste destined for landfill.

The criteria will include suggested best practices to improve the current design of the pavement

toward a more sustainable solution. Score is assigned on the base of the evidence of produced

documents and application of best practices. Once all of the criterias are scored, the sum of

the scores is used to rate the project with a Gold, Silver and Bronze.

The INVEST website suggests the interested Road Authorities to use the tool by identifying an

appropriate transportation engineer or project manager to conduct and lead the INVEST self-

evaluation process for a certain case study. The responsible should first evaluate if the criteria

of the paving scorecard are applicable to the project. Then a scoring team should be

assembled to conduct a scoring workshop. The team should be comprised of cross-discipline

members who were actively involved in developing the project; who are generally

knowledgeable about the environmental documentation completed or to be completed; and

who are knowledgeable about the design elements included in the criteria identified. As a result

of this workshop, here are the suggested steps that would need to be done to arrive to a final

assessment:

1. Summarise workshop outcomes based on the criteria identified and the Paving score card

2. Conduct the online web scoring;


11

3. Summarize and record the team’s scoring interpretation and thought process; and

4. Provide detailed knowledge of the Road Authority’s transportation plans and programs as

they relate to the Project Development module.

1.3.3 GreenPave

GreenPave is a system which was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation which

defines specific strategies which contribute to the increased sustainability of pavements (Lane,

et al., 2014). The strategies and goals were based on other sustainability assessment systems,

as well as a sustainable pavement workshop which brought together many stakeholders to

discuss techniques and policies which can contribute to pavement sustainability (Chan, 2010).

GreenPave can be applied at both “Design Stage”, to evaluate the “greenness” of design

alternatives and at “As-Constructed Stage”, to Encourage “green” practices at the construction

stage by evaluating constructed pavements and contractor performance. The strategies

defined in Greenpave are linked to 4 categories and 14 subcategories that are defined as

practical ways to increase pavement sustainability as follows (Lane, et al., 2014):

Pavement technologies:

o Long Life Pavements (Rigid pavement better than flexible)

o Permeable Pavements (i.e. porous asphalt)

o Noise Mitigation (i.e. Open graded Friction Course)

o Cool Pavements (i.e. Open graded Friction Course)

Material and Resources:

o Recycled Content (based on % of recycled materials within the pavement)

o Undisturbed Pavement Structure (based on maintenance strategies)

o Local Materials (based on % of material transported within 100 Km)

o Construction Quality (based on post-construction quality)

Energy and Atmosphere:

o Reduce Energy Consumption (compared to average LCA output)

o GHG Reduction (compared to average LCA output)

o Pavement Smoothness (compared to IRI limit)

o Pollution Reduction (from construction vehicle)

Innovation and Design process

o Innovation in Design (not addressed in the other categories)

o Exemplary Process (improvement of a conventional process or exceptional

consideration for other social aspects)

Projects are evaluated using the GreenPave Rating Guidelines and the GreenPave Rating

Worksheet (available in MS Excel Format).The GreenPave Rating Worksheet consists of a

summary sheet as well as a score sheet for each of the eight sustainable design options to be

compared. Each option will be scored based on the 4 categories previously listed. In order to

score a project in Greenpave, specific characteristics of the project (e.g., the materials used,

distance to material source, etc.) are compared to specific goals indicated in the guidelines.

For example, constructing a rigid pavement results in three points for the category regarding


12

long life pavements. Once all available categories are evaluated against the project, the sum

of the obtained points for each category are then used to score the project overall with Gold,

Silver and Bronze system. After the rating, each alternative should be provided with result of

a Life Cycle Cost calculation

The GreenPave rating system has been developed and beta tested by Engineering

Development Program interns and staff in the Pavements and Foundations Section of the

Materials Engineering and Research Office of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. It started

to be implemented in 2014.

1.3.4 BE2ST-in-Highways™

BE2ST-in-Highways (Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Transportation-

Infrastructure-Highways) was developed by the Recycled Materials Research Institute as a

sustainability rating tool with the objective of quantifying the impact of using recycled materials

in construction (Lee, et al., 2011). In order to evaluate the sustainability in quantitative terms,

such as in the BE2ST-in-Highways program, the design alternatives of the pavement must be

compared to a conventional pavement design. In other words, the quantification of the benefits

is performed by assessing the degree of compliance to a certain set of goals that a particular

pavement design achieves relative to a baseline pavement design scenario.

Mandatory Screening

Layer

Regulatory/Social

Indicator

Project Specific

Indicator

Judgment

Layer

Environmental

Indicator

Economic

Indicator Bronze

(50%)

Silver

(75%)

Gold

(90%)

1st Layer 2nd Layer

Rating

Figure 2: BE2ST Sustainability Rating system (Lee, et al., 2013).

The structure of BE2ST-in-Highways (Figure 2) includes two layers, a mandatory screening

layer and a judgement layer (Lee, et al., 2013). The screening layer is the first evaluation, and

is used to ensure that the project conforms to all regulatory standards. The judgement layer

includes the calculation of nine metrics related to environmental and economic assessments.

The whole procedure is summarised below:

Mandatory Screening Layer:

o Social Requirements Including Regulation & Local Ordinances (target: satisfied/not

satisfied)

Judgement Layer:

o GHG emission (intention: CO2 reduction in 50 yrs up to 20%)

o Energy Consumption (intention: Reduction of energy use by 20%)


13

o Waste reduction including ex-situ materials (intention: Reduction of resource mining

up to 20%)

o Recycling in-situ materials (intention: Reduction of waste to landfill up to 20%)

o Water Consumption (intention: Reduction of water consumption up to 20%)

o Social carbon (intention: Average annual salary for 1 person by saving social carbon

cost)

o Life Cycle Cost (intention:10% annual reduction of life cycle cost)

o Traffic Noise (intention: Prerequisite: traffic noise modeling to maintain moderate

living condition)

o Hazardous Waste (intention: Reduction of hazard waste up to 20%)


14

2 Conclusions and Recommendations for AllBack2Pave

Sustainability Assessment Frameworks

Conclusions:

All assessment systems currently used in this sector are based upon assessment of the

three ‘triple bottom line’ factors separately, followed by trade-off decisions. The serious

limitation of this approach is that it does not account for interactions between factors, within

a wider system, nor does it acknowledge that decisions made may not respect

environmental limits (which can be very difficult to define).

A ‘strong sustainability’ approach, incorporating a systems approach and with an emphasis

on respecting environmental limits is beyond the remit of this project and is a serious

undertaking. This means the results of sustainability assessment using the former

approach is limited and results need to be interpreted carefully. In particular, in this case,

with respect to the impacts of the wider transport network and the role of pavements within

it.

Many assessment techniques take the approach of undertaking LCA and LCCA, possibly

supplemented with ‘social’ impact assessment confined to areas such as use of low-noise

surfaces. LCA and LCCA results can then be assigned certain weights and scored or a co-

optimisation process can be undertaken.

Of existing pavement sustainability rating systems BE2ST and GreenPave, by

incorporating benchmarking against standard designs, make a semi-quantitative

assessment beyond the scope of LCA/LCCA. These also lend themself to the case study

approach proposed in this project.

Recommendations within AllBack2Pave:

Use both the GreenPave and BE2ST approach to sustainability rating of the outcomes of

this project, on the identified case studies.

Review the criteria in GreenPave and BE2ST and decide if they are the most relevant to

our exercise and eventually adapt those identified as not suitable to the European and/or

local context of the analysed case studies

Review European freely available tools to account for sustainability performance of road

pavements, and draw recommendations for their future use within a CEDR sustainability

rating system.


15

3 Acknowledgment

The research presented in this report was carried out as part of the CEDR Transnational Road research Programme Call 2012. The funding for the research is provided by the national road administrations of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and Norway.


1

4 References

AASHTO, 2010. GreenDOT. [Online] Available at: http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2621 [Accessed 2 October 2014].

Adams, W., 2006. The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in

the Twenty-first Century, Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting., Gland, Switzerland: The World Conservation Union.

Amirkhanian, S., 1993. Utilization of Scrap Tires in Flexible Pavements - Review of Existing

Technology. In: H. F. Waller, ed. ASTM STP 1193. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 233-250.

Apul, D., 2011. University of Toledo: BenReMod. [Online]

Available at: http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/civil/newweb/sustainability/Sustainability%20Tools.htm [Accessed 2 October 2014].

Athena Institute, 2006. A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways:

Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential, Ottawa, ON: Cement Association of Canada.

Athena Institute, 2014. Impact Estimator for Highways. [Online]

Available at: http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impact-estimator-for-highways/ [Accessed 1 October 2014].

Australian Green Infrastructure Council, 2013. Australian Green Infrastructure Council IS

rating scheme. [Online] Available at: http://www.agic.net.au/ISratingscheme1.htm [Accessed 09 October 2014].

Bachmann, T. M., 2013. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: drawing on the

NEEDS project’s total cost and multi-criteria decision analysis ranking methods. International Journal of Life Cycle Assesment, Volume 18, pp. 1698-1709.

Bare, J., 2011. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other

environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Volume 13, pp. 687-696.

Barrella, E. M., Amekudzi, A. A. & Meyer, M. D., 2013. Evaluating Sustainability Approaches

of Transportation Agencies Through a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,and Threats Framework. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , Volume No. 2357, pp. 41-49.

Bevan, T. et al., 2012. Invest V1.0. [Online]

Available at: https://www.sustainablehighways.org/INVEST_1.0_Compendium_Web.pdf [Accessed 08 October 2014].


2

Bosch, M., Kemperman, M. & Raes, S., 2012. Sustainable Procurement and International Financial Institutions. Washington, DC: Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington DC.

Bossel, H., 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, methods, applications,

Winnipeg, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Brodie, S. et al., 2013. Review of Sustainability Rating Systems for Transportation and

Neighborhood-Level Developments. Austin, TX, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 337-354.

Bryce, J., 2014a. Applying Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Results to Enhance

Sustainable Pavement Management Decision Making, Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech. Bryce, J., 2014. Applying Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Results to Enhance Sustainable

Pavement Management Decision Making, Blacksburg, VA, USA: Virginia Tech. Bryce, J., Flintsch, G., Katicha, S. & Diefenderfer, B., 2012. Developing a Network-Level

Structural Capacity Index for Asphalt Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139(2), pp. 123-129.

Bryce, J., Flintsch, G., Katicha, S. & Diefenderfer, B., 2013. Enhancing Network-Level

Decision Making Through the Use of a Structural Capacity Index. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2366(1), pp. 64-70.

Bryce, J. et al., 2014. Probablistic Lifecycle Assessment as a Network-Level Evaluation Tool

for the Use and Maintenance Phases of Pavements. Washington, DC, 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Bryceson, D. F., Bradbury, A. & Bradbury, T., 2008. Roads to Poverty Reduction? Exploring

Rural Roads’ Impact on Mobility in Africa and Asia. Development Policy Review, 26(4), pp. 459-482.

Butt, A. A., Mirzadeha, I., Tollerb, S. & Birgissona, B., 2014. Life cycle assessment

framework for asphalt pavements: methods to calculate and allocate energy of binder and additives. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 15(3-4), pp. 290-302.

Campbell-Lendrum, E. & Feris, J., 2008. Trialling Ceequal on a London Railway

Embankment. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 161(1), pp. 71-76.

CBO, 2007. Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to

2004, Washington: United States Congressional Budget Office. Ceequal, 2008. Ceequal Scheme Description and Assessment Process Handbook. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ceequal.co.uk/pdf/handbook.pdf [Accessed 07 October 2014].

Ceequal, 2013. Ceequal Version 5.1 Assessment Manual for Projects, London: Ceequal Ltd.


3

CEREAL, 2014. CEREAL project. [Online] Available at: http://cereal.dk/ [Accessed August 2015].

Chan, P. C. P., 2010. Quantifying Pavement Sustainability for Ontario Highways: MS Thesis,

Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo. Chatti, K. & Zaabar, I., 2012. Estimating the Effects of Pavement Condition on Vehicle

Operating Costs, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Chinowskya, P. S., Priceb, J. C. & Neumannb, J. E., 2013. Assessment of climate change

adaptation costs for the U.S. road network. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), pp. 764-773.

Clevenger, C. M., Ozbek, M. E. & Simpson, S., 2013. Review of Sustainability Rating

Systems used for Infrastructure Projects. San Luis Obispo, Associated Schools of Construction.

Dauvergne, M. et al., 2014. ECORCE M User's Manual, Nantes, FR: French Institute of

Science and Technology for Transport Development and Networks (IFSTTAR). Dauvergne, M. et al., 2014. ECORCE M Reference Manual, Nantes, FR: French Institute of

Science and Technology for Transport Development and Networks (IFSTTAR). Davis, S., Caldeira, K. & Matthews, D., 2010. Future CO2 Emissions and Climate Change

from Existing Energy Infrastructure. Science, Volume 329, pp. 1330-1333. DBIS, 2013. UK Construction: An economic analysis of the sector , London: Department for

Business Innovation and Skills. Demich, G., 2010. A Greenscale for Continuous Improvement: Sustainability in Highway

Design. 1 ed. Denver: Lochner, Inc.. ECMT, 2004. European Conference of Ministers of Transportation: Assessment and

Decision Making for Sustainable Transport, Paris: OECD Publications Service. Eisenman, A. A. P., 2012. Sustainable Streets and Highways: An Analysis of Green Roads

Rating Systems: Masters Thesis, Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology. Eldin, N. & Piekarski, J., 1993. Scrap Tires: Management and Economics. Journal of

Environmental Engineering, 119(6), pp. 1217-1232. ERANET, 2012. Tool assessment for CEREAL: Evaluation of existing CO2 tools for roads.

s.l.:s.n. European Commission, 2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy - A platform for action, Brussels: Council of the European Union.

FHWA, 1998. Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design Demonstration Project 115 –

Participant Handbook, s.l.: FHWA.


4

FHWA, 2004. Realcost version 2.1: User Manual. Washington, DC, Federal Highway Administration: Office of Asset Management.

FHWA, 2011. Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook, Washington, DC: US

Department of Transportation. FHWA, 2014. Invest User Guide. [Online]

Available at: https://www.sustainablehighways.org/120/learn.html [Accessed 08 October 2014].

FHWA, 2014. INVEST v1.0. [Online]

Available at: https://www.sustainablehighways.org/ [Accessed 08 October 2014].

Fiksel, J., 2006. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability:

Science, Practice, & Policy , 2(2), pp. 14-21. Flintsch, G. & Bryce, J., 2014. Sustainable Pavement Management. In: K. Gopalakrishnan, W. J. Steyn & J. Harvey, eds. Climate Change, Energy, Sustainability and

Pavements. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 373-392. Giustozzi, F., Crisino, M. & Flintsch, G., 2012. Multi-attribute Life Cycle Assessment of

Preventive Maintenance Treatments on Road Pavements for Achieving Environmental Sustainability. International Journal of Lifecycle Assessment, Volume 17, pp. 409-419.

Goedkoop, M. et al., 2009. ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which

comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation. [Online] Available at: http://www.lcia-recipe.net [Accessed 5 December 2014].

Gudmundsson, H., Harmer, C., Hewitt, A. & Jensen, A. V., 2013. Sustainability Definitions for

NRAs - Framework Part 1, Kongens Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark. Guinee, J. B. & Heijungs, R., 2011. Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis. Journal of Industrial

Ecology, 15(5), pp. 656-658. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. & Cheshire, D., 2006. Defining and Identifying Environmental

Limits for Sustainable Development , Nottingham, UK: Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham . Hans-Jörg Althaus, C. B. G. D. D. R. H. S. H. S. H. T. K. Y. L. M. M. T. N., 2007.

Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods , Dübendorf: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories.

Harvey, J. et al., 2010. Pavement life cycle assessment workshop: discussion summary and

guidelines (Technical Memorandum: UCPRC-TM-2010-03), Davis, CA, USA: University of California Pavement Research Centre.


5

Harvey, J., Kendall, A., Santero, N. & Wang, T., 2014. Use of Life Cycle Assessment for asphalt pavement at the network and project levels. Raleigh, NC, USA, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 1797-1806.

Hayat, J., Atkins, S., Housley, A. & Potter, R., 2007. Review of research relating to

sustainable development for the railway, London, UK: Rail Safety and Standards Board.

Highfield, C., 2011. Sustainable Pavement Construction: Developing a methodology for

integrating environmental impact into the decision making process, Blacksburg, VA, USA: Masters Thesis Submitted to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Hirschberg, S. et al., 2008. Final set of sustainability criteria and indicators for assessment of

electricity supply options, Zurich: Paul Scherrer Institut. HM Treasury, 2013. Investing in Britain’s future, London: Her Majesties Treasury

Department. Horvath, A., 2003. Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessment of Using Recycled

Materials for Asphalt Pavements, Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.

Horvath, A., 2004. A Life-Cycle Analysis Model and Decision-Support Tool for Selecting

Recycled Versus Virgin Materials for Highway Applications, Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.

Horvath, A., 2007. University of California Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing.

[Online] Available at: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~horvath/palate.html [Accessed 29 August 2014].

HTMA, 2014. Highways Term Maintenance Association. [Online]

Available at: http://www.htma.info/utilities/download.BDCF6267-88D0-495B-BEA70E65E87E07D6.html [Accessed 9 October 2014].

Huang, Y., Bird, R. & Heidrich, O., 2009. Development of a life cycle assessment tool for

construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, pp. 283-296.

Huang, Y., Hakim, B. & Zammataro, S., 2013. Measuring the carbon footprint of road

construction using CHANGER. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 14(590-600).

Huang, Y., Spray, A. & Parry, T., 2013. Sensitivity analysis of methodological choices in road

pavement LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 18, pp. 93-101.

Hudson, Haas & Uddin, 1997. Infrastructure management: integrating design, construction,

maintenance, rehabilitation, and renovation. New York: McGraw Hill.


6

Huijbregts, M. A. J. et al., 2013. LC Impact Version 0.1. [Online] Available at: http://www.lc-impact.eu/downloads/documents/Overall_report_Batch_1_FINAL.pdf [Accessed 5 December 2014].

Humbert, S. et al., 2012. IMPACT 2002+: User Guide, Lausanne, Switzerland: Quantis. IFSTTAR, 2014. ECO-comparison Road Construction and Maintenance. [Online]

Available at: http://ecorcem.ifsttar.fr/ [Accessed 29 August 2014].

Illinois Department of Transportation, 2012. Illinois - Livable and Sustainable Transportation. [Online] Available at: http://www.eastsidehighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/I-LAST-Version-2-DRAFT.pdf [Accessed 5 December 2014].

IPCC, 2007. Chapter 2: changes in atmospheric constituents and radiative forcing. In: S.

Solomon, et al. eds. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth assessment report, climate change: the physical science basis. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, p. 996.

IRF, 2014. International Road Federation: Changer. [Online]

Available at: http://www.irfghg.org/ [Accessed 30 September 2014].

ISI, 2012. ENVISION Version 2.0: A Rating System for Sustainable Infrastructure,

Washington: Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. ISI, 2014. The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure: Envision™ Sustainable Infrastructure

Rating System. [Online] Available at: http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/rating/ [Accessed 07 October 2014].

ISO, 2006. Environmental Management: Life cycle assessment -- Principles and framework.

Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. Johansson, R., 2011. Evaluation of experiences from using CEEQUAL in infrastructure

projects, Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University. Jones, D., Lee, C. & Harvey, J., 2005. Economic Implications of Selection of Long-Life

versus Conventional Caltrans Rehabilitation Strategies for High-Volume Highways, Davis, CA: University of California Pavement Research Center.

Jullien, A., Dauvergne, M. & Cerezo, V., 2014. Environmental Assessment of Road

Construction and Maintenance Policies Using LCA. Transportation Research Part D, Volume 29, pp. 56-65.

Keeney, R., 2007. Developing Objectives and Attributes. In: W. Edwards, R. Miles & D. von

Winterfeldt, eds. Advances in Decision Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 104-129.


7

Klöpffer, W., 2008. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), pp. 89-95.

Knaap, T. & Oosterhaven, J., 2011. Measuring the welfare effects of infrastructure: A simple

spatial equilibrium evaluation of Dutch railway proposals. Research in Transportation Economics, Volume 31, pp. 19-28.

Kucukvar, M., Noori, M., Egilmez, G. & Tatari, O., 2014. Stochastic Decision Modeling for

Sustainable Pavement Designs. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(6), pp. 1185-1199.

Lane, B., Lee, S., Bennett, B. & Chan, S., 2014. GreenPave Reference Guide: Version 2.0,

Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Materials Engineering and Research Office.

Laurent, A., Olsen, S. & Hauschild, M., 2012. Limitations of Carbon Footprinting as Indicator

of Environmental Sustainability. Environmental Science and Technology, Volume 46, pp. 4100-4108.

Leclère, D. et al., 2014. Climate change induced transformations of agricultural systems:

insights from a global model. Environmental Research Letters, Volume 9, pp. 1-14. Lee, J. C., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H. & Tinjum, J. M., 2011. Evaluation of Variables Affecting

Sustainable Highway Design With BE2ST-in-Highways. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Volume 2233, pp. 178-186.

Lee, J., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H. & Tinjum, J. M., 2013. Building Environmentally and

Economically Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure: Green Highway Rating System. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(12), p. A4013006.

Lee, J., Edil, T., Benson, C. & Tinjum, J., 2013. Building Environmentally and Economically

Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure: Green Highway Rating System. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(12).

Lenzen, M., 2008. Errors in Conventional and Input-Output–based Life-Cycle Inventories.

Journal of Industrial Ecology, pp. 127-148. Lenzen, M., 2008. Errors in Conventional and Input-Output–based Life-Cycle Inventories.

Journal of Industrial Ecology, pp. 127-148. Mandapaka, V. et al., 2012. Mechanistic-Empirical and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for

Optimizing Flexible Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Volume 138, pp. 652-633.

Mansfield, T. J. & Hartell, A. M., 2012. Institutionalizing Sustainability at the Level of State

Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume No. 2271, pp. 9-18.

Massai, L., 2011. The Kyoto Protocol in the EU: European Community and Member States

under International and European Law. First Ed. ed. The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press.


8

McVoy, G. R. et al., 2010. oving towards Sustainability: New York State Department of Transportation's GreenLITES Story. Denver, American Sosciety of Civil Engineers, pp. 461-479.

Mostafa, M. & El-Gohary, M., 2014. Stakeholder Sensitive Social Welfare-Oriented Benefit

Analysis for Sustainable Infrastructure Project Development. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(9), pp. 1-12.

MTU, 2011. PE-2: Project Emission Estimator. Houghton, Michigan: Michigan Technical

University. Muench, S., 2010. Roadway Construction Sustainability Impacts: Review of Life-Cycle

Assessments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2151, pp. 36-45.

Muench, S. & Anderson, J., 2009. Final Technical Report on Greenroads: A sustainability

performance metric for roadway design and construction. Report No. TNW 2009-13/WA-RD 725.1, Seattle: University of Washington.

Muench, S. et al., 2011. Greenroads Manual v1.5, Seattle: University of Washington. Muench, S. T., Anderson, J. & Bevan, T., 2010. Greenroads: A Sustainability Rating System

for Roadways. Journal of Pavement Research Technology, 3(5), pp. 270-279. Muench, S. T. & Anderson, J. L., 2009. Greenroads: A sustainability performance metric for

roadway design and construction, Seattle: University of Washington. NASTC, 2014. North American Sustainable Transportation Council. [Online]

Available at: http://www.transportationcouncil.org/about-stars [Accessed 09 October 2014].

NIST, 2010. The National Institute for Standards and Technology Engineering Laboratory:

BEES Software. [Online] Available at: http://www.nist.gov/el/economics/BEESSoftware.cfm [Accessed 29 August 2012].

Noshadravan, A., Wildnauer, M., Gregory, J. & Kirchain, R., 2013. Comparative pavement

life cycle assessment with parameter uncertainty. Transportation Research Part D, Volume 25, pp. 131-138.

NYDOT, 2014. New York Department of Transportation: GreenLITES. [Online]

Available at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites [Accessed 08 October 2014].

OECD, 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators: Development Measurement and Use, Paris:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. PE International, 2014. GaBi Software. [Online]

Available at: http://www.gabi-software.com/uk-ireland/index/ [Accessed 29 August 2014].


9

Rangaraju, P. R., Amirkhanian, S. & Guven, Z., 2008. Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement Type Selection, Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Transportation.

Retzlaff, R. C., 2009. The Use of LEED in Planning and Development Regulation: An

Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(1), pp. 67-77. RMRC, 2012. Recycled Materials Resource Center. [Online]

Available at: http://rmrc.wisc.edu/be2st-in-highways/ [Accessed 14 November 2014].

Royal Roads University, 2014. Royal Roads University Sustainability Resources. [Online]

Available at: http://sustainability.royalroads.ca/transportation-0 [Accessed 08 October 2014].

Saaty, T., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 1 ed. New York, NY, U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill

International. Sala, S., Farioli, F. & Zamagni, A., 2013. Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context

of sustainability science progress (part 2). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 18, pp. 1686-1697.

Santero, N., Loijos, A., Akbarian, M. & Ochsendorf, J., 2011. Methods, Impacts and

Oppurtunities in the Concrete Pavement Lifecycle, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Santero, N., Masanet, E. & Horvath, A., 2010. Life Cycle Assessment of Pavements: A

Critical Review of Existing Literature and Research, SN3119a, Skokie, Il: Portland Cement Association.

Santero, N., Masanet, E. & Horvath, A., 2011. Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I:

Critical review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, pp. 801-809. Santos, J. et al., 2014. A life cycle assessment of in-place recycling and conventional

pavement construction and maintenance practices. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, p. In Press.

Scheffer, M. et al., 2009. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461(3), pp. 53-

59. SimaPro Ltd, 2014. SimaPro 8: Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment Carbon Footprinting.

[Online] Available at: http://www.simapro.co.uk/ [Accessed 29 August 2014].

Sleeswijk, A. W. et al., 2008. Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the

global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Science of The Total Environment, 390(1), pp. 227-240.

Smartrail Consortium, 2014. SmartRail LCA-LCC Tool. [Online]

Available at: http://smartrail.fehrl.org/index.php?m=40 [Accessed 29 August 2014].


10

Smeets, E. & Weterings, R., 1999. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Review, Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

Spriensma, R., Gurp, C. v. & Larsen, M. R. A., 2014. CEREAL: Final Report and User Guide,

The Netherlands: ERA-NET ROAD. Stripple, H., 2001. Life cycle assessment of road: a pilot study for inventory analysis,

Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL) report B 1210 E, 2nd revised ed..

Suh, S. et al., 2004. System Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid

Approaches. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(3), pp. 657-664. Suh, S. et al., 2004. System Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid

Approaches. Environmental Science and Technology, pp. 657-664. Sustainable Rail Programme, 2013. Sustainable Development Self-Assessment Tool.

[Online] Available at: http://sustainablerailprogramme.rssb.co.uk/home.aspx [Accessed 29 August 2014].

Thomassen, M., Dalgaard, R., Heijungs, R. & Boer, I. d., 2008. Attributional and

Consequential LCA of Milk Production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(4), pp. 339-349.

Tillman, A.-M., 20. Significance of Decision Making for LCA methodology. Environemental

Impact Assessment Review, 20(4), pp. 113-123. UCPRC, 2010. Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Workshop, Davis, CA: University of

California Pavement Research Center. UK Department of Transport, 2014. UK Government: Biggest upgrade to roads in a

generation. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-upgrade-to-roads-in-a-generation [Accessed 8 December 2014].

UNECE, 2014. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; Climate Change and

Sustainable Transport. [Online] Available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/theme_global_warm.html [Accessed 27 August 2014].

VanZerr, M., Connolly, S. & Sowerby, C., 2012. Best Practices in Sustainability Rating

Systems, Linköping, Sweden: The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI).

VDOT, 2011. Virginia Department of Transportation. [Online] Available at: http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/bu-mat-LLCA.pdf [Accessed 18 March 2015].

Ven, M. F. v. d., Sluer, B. W., Jenkins, K. J. & Beemt, C. M. v. d., 2012. New developments

with half-warm foamed bitumen asphalt mixtures for sustainable and durable pavement solutions. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 13(4), pp. 713-730.


11

Ventura, A., Monéron, P. & Jullien, A., 2008. Environmental Impact of a Binding Course Pavement Section, with Asphalt Recycled at Varying Rates. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 9(1), pp. 319-338.

VICROADS, 2010. Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy 2010-2015. Melbourne,

Roads Corporation of Victoria. Wang, T., 2013. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emmissions and Energy Consumption Using

Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation: Refinement and Application of a Life Cycle Assessment Approach, Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.

Wardenaar, T. et al., 2012. Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case

study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 17, pp. 1059-1067.

Wayman, M., Schiavi-Mellor, I. & Cordell, B., 2014. Protocol for the calculation of whole life

cycle greenhouse gas emissions generated by asphalt, Berks, UK: Transport Research Laboratory.

WCED, 1987. Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weidema, B., 2003. Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment, København: Danish

Environmental Protection Agency. Weiland, C. & Muench, S., 2010. Lifecycle Assessment of Portland Cement Concrete

Interstate Highway Rehabilitation and Replacement, Seattle, WA, USA: Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington.

West, R., Musselman, N. T. M., Skolnik, J. & Brooks, M., 2013. A Review of the Alabama

Department of Transpotation's Policies and Procedures for Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement Type Selection, Auburn, AL: Alabama Department of Transportation.

Zamagni, A., 2012. Life cycle sustainability assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment, Volume 17, pp. 373-376. Zhang, Z., Liu, X. & Yang, S., 2009. A Note on the 1-9 Scale and Index Scale In AHP. In: Y.

Shi, et al. eds. Cutting-Edge Research Topics on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Berlin: Springer, pp. 630-634.


12

List of Figures

Figure 1: The Triple Bottom Line of Sustainability in Terms of Weak Sustainability ............... 1 Figure 2: BE2ST Sustainability Rating system (Lee, et al., 2013). ........................................ 12

Documents

AllBack2Pave State of the art on sustainability impact ...€¦ · CEDR Call 2012: Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil fuel society Executive summary The design, construction,