Translated Titles

Multi-Criteria Life Cycle Approach to Develop Weighting of Sustainability Indicators for Pavement



Key Words

none ; Multi-criteria approach ; Weighting ; LCA ; Indicators ; Sustainable Rating Systems ; Sustainable Transportation



Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication


Academic Degree Category




Content Language


Chinese Abstract


English Abstract

Transportation projects are a resource intensive activity that cause significant negative impacts on the environment. As environmental initiatives are being put in place, the industries related to transportation have been working towards more sustainable practices in the past decade. In order to measure how sustainable these engineering projects are as a whole, the development of rating systems with the use of indicators to assess and reward points based on various sustainable best practices has been established. The aim of this research is to establish weighting of different indicators related to materials and resources most commonly used by various transportation rating systems based on their contribution to sustainability. The indicators selected: recycled materials, reuse of materials, local materials, and long life design were evaluated for their benefits and trade-offs using a life-cycle approach with specific scenario conditions that match each indicator. A systematic methodology for this evaluation was proposed using a multi-attribute criteria approach for assessing the indicators by three criteria: performance, environment, and costs. The criteria were them used to weigh points typically granted by indicators for their contribution towards sustainable development. Results showed that engineering state of practices can significantly affect the contribution and therefore the weighting of these points. As a result, the benefits of higher accomplishment may not contribute on a linear increasing scale of points used for awarding indicators found in most rating systems. Moreover, the implementation of a point cap becomes crucial during weighting to ensure all indicators are fairly represented.

Topic Category 工學院 > 土木工程學系
工程學 > 土木與建築工程
  1. Andreen, B., Rocheville, H., & Ksaibati, K. (2012). A Methodology for Cost/Benefit Analysis of Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in Various Highway Applications. In Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting (No. 12-1138).
  2. Carse, A., Spathonis, M. J., Chandler, M. L., Gilbert, M. D., Johnson, M. B., UWS, A. J., & Pham, L. Whole of life cycle cost analysis in bridge rehabilitation.
  3. Chiu, C. T., Hsu, T. H., & Yang, W. F. (2008). Life cycle assessment on using recycled materials for rehabilitating asphalt pavements. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(3), 545-556.
  4. Cooper, Jr, S. B., Mohammad, L. N., & Elseifi, M. A. (2014). Infrastructure Sustainability: The Use of Recycled Asphalt Shingles in Flexible Pavements. In Pavement Materials, Structures, and Performance (pp. 69-78).
  5. EPA, A. (2011). Inventory of US greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2012. Environmental Protection Agency2012.
  6. Giustozzi, F., Crispino, M., & Flintsch, G. (2012). Multi-attribute life cycle assessment of preventive maintenance treatments on road pavements for achieving environmental sustainability. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(4), 409-419.
  7. Gschösser, F., & Wallbaum, H. (2013). Life cycle assessment of representative swiss road pavements for national roads with an accompanying life cycle cost analysis. Environmental science & technology, 47(15), 8453-8461.
  8. Harvey, J., Meijer, J., & Kendall, A. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment of Pavements (No. FHWA-HIF-15-001).
  9. Labi, S., & Sinha, K. C. (2003). Measures of short-term effectiveness of highway pavement maintenance. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 129(6), 673-683.
  10. Litman, T. (2005). Well Measured-Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning.
  11. Liu, R., Smartz, B. W., & Descheneaux, B. (2015). LCCA and environmental LCA for highway pavement selection in Colorado. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8(2), 102-110.
  12. Moretti, L., Mandrone, V., D’Andrea, A., & Caro, S. (2017). Comparative “from cradle to gate” life cycle assessments of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) materials. Sustainability, 9(3), 400.
  13. Peshkin, D. G. (2011). Guidelines for the preservation of high-traffic-volume roadways. Transportation Research Board.
  14. Qasrawi, H., & Asi, I. (2016). Effect of bitumen grade on hot asphalt mixes properties prepared using recycled coarse concrete aggregate. Construction and Building Materials, 121, 18-24.
  15. Schenck, R. (2000). Using LCA for procurement decisions: A case study performed for the US Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 19(2), 110-116.
  16. Sengoz, B., & Topal, A. (2005). Use of asphalt roofing shingle waste in HMA. Construction and Building Materials, 19(5), 337-346.
  17. Weiland, C., & Muench, S. (2010). Life-cycle assessment of reconstruction options for interstate highway pavement in Seattle, Washington. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2170), 18-27.
  18. Athena, I. (2006). A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential. Cement Association of Ottawa: Ottawa, ON, Canada.
  19. Copeland, A. (2011). Reclaimed asphalt pavement in asphalt mixtures: State of the practice (No. FHWA-HRT-11-021).
  20. Cox, B. C., & Howard, I. L. (2013). Cold in-place recycling and full-depth reclamation literature review. White Paper Number CMRC WP-13, 1.
  21. FHWA. (2002). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer FHWA IF-02-047. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
  22. FHWA. (2011). Transportation planning and sustainability guidebook. Federal Highway Administration. Atlanta: Federal Highway Administration.
  23. FHWA. (2011). Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook. Federal Highway Administration. Atlanta: Federal Highway Administration.
  24. FHWA. (2016). Sustainable Pavements Program. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from: https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOT/FHWA/OAM/DTFH61-10-R-00017/listing.html
  25. FHWA. (2017a). State of Practice on Sustainability Rating Systems. Retrieved from:https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/sustainability/articles/rating_systems.cfm
  26. FHWA. (2017b). History of Invest. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from: https://www.sustainablehighways.org/1664/history.html
  27. Flintsch, G., and Bryce, J. (2014) Sustainable Pavement Management. Climate Change, Energy, Sustainability and Pavements pp. 373-392. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg.
  28. ISI. (2012). The Envision Rating System. Retrieved from at: http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/downloads/index.cfm
  29. MOTC. (2014). 104年汽車運調查報告. Ministry of Transportation and Communication. Taiwan.
  30. Muench, S. T., Anderson, J. L., Hatfield, J. P., Koester, J. R., & Söderlund, M. (2011). Greenroads Manual v1. 5. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
  31. NYSDOT. (2011). NYSDOT Sustainability & GreenLITES. Retrieved from: https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites/repository/GreenLITES%202011%20sustainability%20flyer_092111.pdf
  32. Ozbay, K., Parker, N. A., & Jawad, D. (2003). Guidelines for life cycle cost analysis (No. FHWA-NJ-2003-012).
  33. Peshkin, D. G., Hoerner, T. E., & Zimmerman, K. A. (2004). Optimal timing of pavement preventive maintenance treatment applications (Vol. 523). Transportation Research Board.
  34. Smith, R. (1987). Technical Appendices Describing the Development and Operation of the Bay Area Pavement Management System. Texas A&M University.
  35. UCPRC. (2010). Pavement life cycle assessment workshop: Discussion summary and guidelines. University of California Pavement Research Center, California.
  36. Walls III, J., & Smith, M. R. (1998). Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design-interim technical bulletin (No. FHWA-SA-98-079,).
  37. Wu, Z., Groeger, J. L., Simpson, A. L., & Hicks, R. G. (2010). Performance evaluation of various rehabilitation and preservation treatments.
  38. Zhang, Y., Novick, D. A., Ladavi, A. I., & Krizek, R. J. (2008). Whole life cycle cost for Chicago type bascule bridges. Cost engineering, 50(4), 28.