Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integration of life cycle assessment into planning and project delivery for pavements in the USA

  • ROADWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Environmental impacts are typically considered in transportation decisions through planning and environmental review processes. Recent state-level legislation in the USA institutes requirements to track environmental performance of construction materials in bidding on public projects. To support this new initiative, this study aims to identify specific life cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks that can effectively impact the decisions on every level in the planning and project delivery process and evaluate the implementation readiness level.

Methods

The objective of this study was pursued through literature review and discussions facilitated at a workshop with representatives of six State Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Through the dialog with stakeholders, the details of the current planning and project delivery process were identified. After the participants were provided with background on LCA, LCA methodology, the most suitable to impact decisions at every decision-making level, was investigated considering key decisions (Why?), type of the analysis (How?), available data (What?), and the involved decision-makers (Who?) pertinent to each phase. The potential to develop tools to inform the decisions, the readiness level, and obstacles to LCA implementation was evaluated subsequently by authors and informed by a literature review.

Results and discussion

A consequential LCA was identified as the effective method to inform long-range planning. Attributional LCAs for a network and project level were regarded as suitable in programming and project development, respectively. Environmental product declatations (EPDs) were found applicable in bidding, while the construction phase was found best suited for data collection that can feed back into the upstream decision-making phases. The lack of a feedback loop between the quantified environmental impacts and the decision-making was identified as a major obstacle by stakeholders. A lack of clarity on progress toward environmental goals was specified as another hindrance. The development of tools and systems for communication and data transfer among the key stakeholders is expected to facilitate LCA use, close a feedback loop, and provide for progress tracking.

Conclusions

The relatively high readiness level of LCA implementation was identified in the pavement design phase (parallel to life cycle cost analysis (LCCA)) and in the construction phase (as-built environmental impact tracking and data collection). Initiating data collection in these two phases can provide an impetus for improving environmental performance and meaningfully inform other decision-making phases. Additionally, the importance of education and cross-collaboration is recognized by all stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akbarian M et al (2019) Overview of pavement life cycle assessment use phase research at the MIT concrete sustainability hub. In: Airfield and highway pavements 2019: innovation and sustainability in highway and airfield pavement technology. American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA, pp 193–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Qadi et al (2015) Scenarios developed for improved sustainability of Illinois Tollway: life-cycle assessment approach. Transp Res Rec 2523(1):11–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Antón LÁ, Díaz J (2014) Integration of LCA and BIM for sustainable construction. Int J Soc Manag Econ Bus Eng 8:1345–1349

    Google Scholar 

  • AzariJafari H, Yahia A, Ben Amor M (2016) Life cycle assessment of pavements: reviewing research challenges and opportunities. J Clean Prod 112:2187–2197

    Google Scholar 

  • AzariJafari H, Yahia A, Amor B (2019) Removing shadows from consequential LCA through a time-dependent modeling approach: policy-making in the road pavement sector. Environ Sci Technol 53(3):1087–1097

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Batouli M et al (2017) Putting sustainability theory into roadway design practice: implementation of LCA and LCCA analysis for pavement type selection in real world decision making. Transp Res D 52:289–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhat CG, Mukherjee A (2019) Sensitivity of life-cycle assessment outcomes to parameter uncertainty: implications for material procurement decision-making. Transp Res Rec 2673(3):106–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley et al (2016) BIM for infrastructure: an overall review and constructor perspective. Automat Const 71:139–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt A et al (2015) Life cycle assessment for the green procurement of roads: a way forward. J of Clean Prod 90:163–170

    Google Scholar 

  • California Legislative Organization (2017) Buy Clean California Act [3500 - 3505] https://www.dgs.ca.gov/PD/Resources/Page-Content/Procurement-Division-Resources-List-Folder/Buy-Clean-California-Act. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • California State Senate (2016) SB 32-California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB32. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • California Transportation Comission (2017) California Transportation Comission STIP Guidelines. https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/f0002862-2018-stip-guidelines-adopted-081617.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Caltrans (2011) How Caltrans Builds Projects. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/sustainability/documents/2011-how-caltrans-builds-projects-a11y.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Carbon Leadership Forum (2013) Product Category Rules for Concrete. https://www.nrmca.org/sustainability/epdprogram/Downloads/CLF_PCR_V1.1_2013-12-04.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Carbon Leadership Forum (2019) Buy Clean Washington: Study Overview. http://www.carbonleadershipforum.org/projects/buy-clean-washington/. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (2019) U.S. State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets. https://www.c2es.org/document/greenhouse-gas-emissions-targets/. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Chen Q et al (2015) Time and cost performance of design–build projects. J Constr Eng M 142(2):4015074

    Google Scholar 

  • Chester et al (2012) Life cycle assessment for transportation decision-making. UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability

  • City of Portland Office of Management and Finance (2019) Notice of New Requirements for Concrete. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/brfs/article/731696. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Eccleston CH (1999) Integrating a life-cycle assessment with NEPA: does it make sense? Env Qual M 8(3):43–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2015) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://www.epa.gov/naaqs. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Fauzi RT et al (2019) Exploring the current challenges and opportunities of life cycle sustainability assessment

  • FHWA [U.S. Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration] (2012) Technical Advisory T 5040.39A: Use of Alternate Bidding for Pavement Type Selection. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/t504039.cfm#How_should_AB_be_administered. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • FHWA [U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration] (2013) Generic Work Plan for Developing Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/tamp/workplan.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • FHWA [U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration] (2019) FHWA Pavement Design Policy Peer Exchanges. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/notebook/chapter01.cfm. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • FHWA [United States Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration] (2017) Trends in Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plans: Core and Emerging Topics. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/practices/slrtp/fhwahep18003.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • FHWA [United States Department of Transportation- Federal Highway Administration] (2018) Transportation planning process: briefing book. Key Issues for Transportation Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/publications/briefing_book/fhwahep18015.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Gao J et al (2019) Stochastic multi-objective optimization-based life cycle cost analysis for new construction materials and technologies Transp Res Rec, 0361198119853578

  • Gelowitz MDC, McArthur JJ (2017) Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: material sourcing and harmonization evaluation. J Clean Prod 157:125–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasson J et al (2005) Introduction to environmental impact assessment, natural and built environment series. Rutledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo F, Gregory J, Kirchain R (2020) Incorporating cost uncertainty and path dependence into treatment selection for pavement networks. Transp Res C 110:40–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey J et al (2014) Application of LCA results to network-level highway pavement management. In climate change, energy, sustainability and pavements, 41–73. Springer

  • Harvey J et al (2015) The role of life cycle assessment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from road construction and maintenance. UC Davis White Paper. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/89w5g2h6. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Harvey J et al (2016) Pavement life cycle assessment framework. Report no. FHWA-HIF-16-014. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey J et al (2018) Framework for life cycle assessment of complete streets projects. UC Davis Research Report. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0vw335dp. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Harvey J et al (2019) Life cycle assessment for transportation infrastructure policy evaluation and procurement for state and local governments. Sustainability 11(22):6377

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollberg A, Ruth J (2016) LCA in architectural design—a parametric approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(7):943–960

    Google Scholar 

  • ICF International, & URS Corporation (2014) SHRP 2 Report S2-C01-RR-1 Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. https://doi.org/10.17226/22851

  • Ingwersen W, Stevenson M (2012) Can we compare the environmental performance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product category rules and future challenges toward alignment. J Clean Prod 24:102–108

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO [International Standard Organization] (1997) ISO 14040: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework

  • ISO [International Standard Organization] (2006) ISO 14025: Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type III Environmental Declarations—Principles and Procedures

  • Jelse K, Peerens K (2018) Using LCA and EPD in public procurement within the construction sector. In designing sustainable technologies, products and policies, 499–502. Springer

  • Jullien A, Dauvergne M, Cerezo V (2014) Environmental assessment of road construction and maintenance policies using LCA. Transp Res D 29:56–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A (2012) Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints. International J Life Cycle Assess 17(8):1042–1049

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A et al (2018) Program for Vehicle Regulatory Reform: Assessing Life Cycle-Based Greenhouse Gas Standards. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/49g4h212. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Koffler C, Finkbeiner M (2018) Are we still keeping it ‘real’? Proposing a revised paradigm for recycling credits in attributional life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(1):181–190

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kulczycka J, Smol M (2016) Environmentally friendly pathways for the evaluation of investment projects using life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Clean Technol Envir 18(3):829–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee J et al (2013) Building environmentally and economically sustainable transportation infrastructure: green highway rating system. J Constr Eng M 139(12):A4013006

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurie C et al (2019) Integrating sustainability planning and the environmental review process. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and medicine. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25638

  • Medas M et al (2015) Towards BIM-integrated, resource-efficient building services. Product Lifetimes And The Environment. PLATE conference - Nottingham Trent University

  • Minchin RE et al (2013) Comparison of cost and time performance of design-build and design-bid-build delivery Systems in Florida. J Constr Eng M 139(10):4013007

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerie van Verkeer and Waterstaat (2015) Green public procurement. The Rijkswaterstaat Approach. http://primes-eu.net/media/8772517/6_presentation-riga-blue-version-pp.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Minkov N et al (2015) Type III environmental declaration programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges. J Clean Prod 94:235–246

  • Minnesota Legislature (2019a) Minesotta Bill HF2204: Maximum Acceptable Global Warming Potential. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF2204&version=latest&session=90&session_number=0&session_year=2019. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Minnesota Legislature (2019b) Minnesota Bill HF2203: Buy Clean Minnesota Act. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF2203&version=latest&session=90&session_number=0&session_year=2019. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • MnDOT [Minnesota Department of Transportation] (2018) Guide to MnDOT Project Selection

  • Mukherjee A et al (2020) Challenges in meeting data needs for use of environmental product declarations in pavement design and construction: state of practice and future scope. Report no FHWA-HRT-20-022. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahlik et al (2015) Policy making should consider time-dependent greenhouse gas benefits of transit-oriented smart growth. Trans Res Rec 2502(1):53–61

    Google Scholar 

  • New York State Assembly (2019) Bill No. S02992B: New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act

  • NYSDOT [New York State Department of Transportation (2016) Strategies for New Age: New York State’s Transportation Master Plan

  • NYSDOT [New York State Department of Transportation] (2018) TIP/STIP Guidance Part 2- Technical Guidance for Process and Procedures

  • OCAPA [Oregon Concrete and Aggregates Production Association] and Oregon DEQ [Department of Environmental Quality]. 2016. Oregon Concrete Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) Program. https://www.ocapa.net/oregon-concrete-epds. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Pittenger et al (2012) Stochastic life-cycle cost analysis for pavement preservation treatments. Trans Res Rec 2292(1):45–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnaergle Z (2020). Harmonization of environmental databases for road pavement in EU. Master’s thesis. University of Twente

  • Rybaczewska-Blażejowska M, Palekhov D (2017) Life cycle assessment (LCA) in environmental impact assessment (EIA): principles and practical implications for industrial projects. Management 22(1):138–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Santero N et al (2010) Life cycle assessment of pavements: part I: a critical review. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(9–10):801–809

    Google Scholar 

  • Santero et al (2011) Environmental policy for long-life pavements. Trans Res D 16(2):129–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos J, Bryce J, Flintsch G, Ferreira A, Diefenderfer B (2015) A life cycle assessment of in-place recycling and conventional pavement construction and maintenance practices. Struct Infrastruct E 11(9):1199–1217

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos R, Costa AA, Silvestre JD, Pyl L (2019) Integration of LCA and LCC analysis within a BIM-based environment. Automat Constr 103:127–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenck R, White P (2014) Environmental life cycle assessment: measuring the environmental performance of products. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA), Vashon

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlanbusch RD, Fufa SM, Häkkinen T, Vares S, Birgisdottir H, Ylmén P (2016) Experiences with LCA in the Nordic building industry–challenges, needs and solutions. Energy Procedia 96:82–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin Y, Cho K (2015) BIM application to select appropriate design alternative with consideration of LCA and LCCA. Math Probl Eng

  • Shrestha P et al (2011) Performance comparison of large design-build and design-bid-build highway projects. J Const Eng M 138(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • SHRP 2 (2013) Report S2-CO9-RW-2. Practitioners guide to incorporating greenhouse gas emissions into the collaborative decision-making process. The second strategic highway research program. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC

  • Skone TJ, Cooney G (2018) Development of an open-source life cycle baseline for electricity consumption in the United States. (no. NETL-PUB-21871). National Energy Technology lab (NETL)

  • Subramanian V, Ingwersen W, Hensler C, Collie H (2012) Comparing product category rules from different programs: learned outcomes towards global alignment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(7):892–903

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas Department of Transportation (2017) Project Development Process Manual

  • TPF (Transportation Pooled Fund Program) (2019) Improvements to the Infrastructure Carbon Estimator (ICE). https://www.pooledfund.org/details/study/614. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • Tran DQ, Molenaar KR (2013) Impact of risk on design-build selection for highway design and construction projects. J Manag Eng 30(2):153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • USGPO (U.S. Government Printing Office) (2006) National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC

  • Van Dam T et al (2015) Towards sustainable pavement systems: a reference document. Report no. FHWA-HIF-15-002. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang T, Harvey J, Kendall A (2014) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through strategic management of highway pavement roughness. Environ Res Lett 9(3):34007

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington State Legislature (2008) RCW 70.235.020: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions- Reporting Requirements. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.235.020. Accessed 8 June 2020

  • WSDOT [Washington State Department of Transportation] (2013) Proposed Outreach Process for the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

  • WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation] (2018) Washington State Department of Transportation 2018–2021 STIP

  • Xu X, AzariJafari H, Gregory J, Norford L, Kirchain R (2020) An integrated model for quantifying the impacts of pavement albedo and urban morphology on building energy demand. Energ Buildings 211:109759

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Heijungs R (2018) On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment. J Life Cycle Assess 23(4):751–758

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu B et al (2013) An improved pavement maintenance optimization methodology: integrating LCA and LCCA. Trans Res A 55:1–11

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was performed while the author, M. Rangelov, held an NRC Research Associateship award at Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Authors would also like to acknowledge Harlan Miller from the FHWA Office of Planning for providing feedback on the sections of the paper referring to planning.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Academy of Sciences/Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590, USA

    Milena Rangelov

  2. Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590, USA

    Heather Dylla & John Davies

  3. Federal Highway Administration, 6300 Georgetown Pike, HRDI-20, McLean, VA, 22101-2296, USA

    Nadarajah Sivaneswaran

Authors
  1. Milena Rangelov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Dylla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nadarajah Sivaneswaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milena Rangelov.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Omer Tatari

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rangelov, M., Dylla, H., Davies, J. et al. Integration of life cycle assessment into planning and project delivery for pavements in the USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25, 1605–1619 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01777-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01777-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation