Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering

°Cd
International Journal of
Pavement Research and Technology
Journal homepage: www.springer.com/42947

Comparative analysis of materials and energy

between sustainable roadway rating systems
Nam Hoai Tran, Shih-Hsien Yang*
Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No.1 University Rd, Tainan City 70101, Taiwan

Received 11 February 2020; received in revised form 17 April 2020; accepted 22 April 2020

Abstract

A sustainable roadway rating system (SR 2S) consists of a set of indicators to comprehensively measure the sustainability performance of roadway
projects. The sustainability level of the systems can be improved by implementing appropriate strategies pertaining to materials and energy. In the peer -
reviewed literature, some studies have conducted shallow comparisons of different SR 2Ss and no studies have compared the significance of material and
energy indicators in existing SR 2Ss. To bridge this research gap, five existing SR 2Ss were considered. These five SR 2Ss described overlapping categories of
indicators. Material and energy-related indicators (MEIs) were identified from the representative SR2Ss by conducting content analysis. Similar indicators
were regrouped into six different material and energy-related features (MEFs), corresponding to six categories of indicators: local materials; long-life designs;
materials obtained using the reduce, reuse, and recycle (3Rs) concept; energy efficiency; earthwork; and hazardous materials. Based on the relativ e
significance index (RSI), the weightings of the selected SR 2Ss and the significance of MEIs according to six MEFs were explored. In terms of the
aforementioned criteria, the Illinois Livable and Sustainable Transportation gives the greatest weight to material and energy (34.7% of the total points),
whereas GreenLITES gives the least weight to material and energy (i.e., 26.8% of total points). Regarding MEFs, SR 2Ss focus more on materials obtained
by using the 3Rs concept and energy efficiency. This means that indicators pertaining to these two features were considered t o contribute significantly to
evaluations of roadway sustainability. Aside from 3Rs and energy efficiency, hazardous materials were deemed to be not highly relevant to SR 2Ss. Discussion
on the indicator requirements related to material and energy are further provided based on different MEFs.

Keywords: Sustainability indicator; Material and energy; Feature; Sustainable roadway rating system

1. Introduction lights that employ a grid-connected wind–solar hybrid module

Roadway projects consume a large amount of energy and
produce substantial quantities of waste [1]. Energy consumption
results from three primary activities—transportation of materials,
equipment, and labor; equipment and vehicle operation, and
vehicles stranded in traffic [2]. According to Gambatese and
Rajendran [3], construction of asphalt pavement requires 30%
more energy than concrete pavement. The energy used for
constructing a 1-km-long section of a typical two-lane highway is
7 terajoules (TJ) for an asphalt concrete pavement and 5 TJ for a
continuously reinforced concrete pavement. During roadway
operation, road lighting accounts for 3% of the total electricity
consumption [4]. Lighting employing light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
consumes less electrical power than that using mercury lamps,
which are used in conventional roadway lighting [4]. Traffic signal
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: n68067076@gs.ncku.edu.tw (N.H. Tran);
shyang@gs.ncku.edu.tw (S.H. Yang).
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering.
ISSN: 1997-1400 DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s42947-020-0032-1
Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Springer Nature
provide a promising solution [5].
One of the primary objectives to improve roadway sustainability
is efficient use of materials to minimize waste. The reduce, reuse,
and recycle (3Rs) principle has been utilized to reduce the material
waste problems. Thus, this principle suggests that materials should
be utilized to the fullest before being disposed in landfills or
incinerated to reduce the influence on the environment [6]. In the
study by Gambatese and Rajendran [3], the use of recycled
materials, such as fly ash, reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), and
recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), in the highway construction
minimizes the energy consumption and material waste generated
during raw material production. According to Singh et al. [7],
granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS), which is a by-product of
thermal and steel plants, can be suitable for road embankments,
base course, and sub-base courses of highway pavements.
Moreover, recycled crushed glass can be used as an alternative to
natural aggregates [8]. For the rehabilitation and maintenance of
flexible pavements, methods such as hot in-place and cold in-place
recycling can be beneficial to reduce material waste [9]. Yang et
al. [10] and Zhang and Mohsens [2] suggested criteria, such as
local material, long -life design, earthwork, material quality
2 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx
certification, in accordance with the 3Rs principle to enable
sustainable roadway construction. Echoed with current studies, the
material and energy performance has been taken into consideration
in the existing sustainable rating system as critical aspects of
sustainable roadway projects.
The sustainable roadway rating system (SR2S) contains a set of
the best practices of sustainability that are substantially better than
the common current standards [11]. Thus, SR2S can be used as a
practical tool that quantifies and measures the sustainability
performance of any road project during its entire lifespan. SR2Ss
guide planners, designers, and contractors to assign priorities for
the sustainable practices conducted in transportation projects [12].
However, SR2Ss are not intended as substitutes for the existing
technical standards or specifications [11]. This overall project
performance can be translated into an overall standardized ranking,
which can be used for comparing various projects. Such tools have
promoted sustainable highway practices and have raised
stakeholder awareness of sustainability. Use of an SR2S helps in
effectively communicating the sustainable development objectives
of a roadway project to the associated stakeholders. Some SR2Ss
have been enacted for a decade. This is a strong signal that these
SR2Ss will be the focus of numerous sustainability policies in the
transportation field—such as Greenroads, Illinois Livable and
Sustainable Transportation (I-LAST), Green Leadership in
Transportation Environmental Sustainability (GreenLITES),
Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool (INVEST).
Category and indicators are the two successive layers in an SR2S
except for INVEST. INVEST only has an indicator layer. Common
categories in existing SR2Ss are traffic and transportation planning,
materials and resources, energy consumption, construction
activities, and environment and landscape. However, the weights
allocated to these categories in SR2Ss vary considerably [13-15].
Some published studies have proposed different categories for a
highway rating system. Park and Ahn [16] recommended five
categories for such a system—green road design or pavement
technologies, green environment, green resources and energy,
green traffic system, and custom credit. Moreover, Sarsam [17]
developed a rating system by including the following categories—
sustainable alignment, materials and resources, storm-water
management, energy and environmental control, construction
activities, and innovation and design. Each category comprises a
collection of best sustainability practices and activities that are
known as “indicators” or “credits.” Indicators are perceived as a
set of variables that are used to evaluate the roadway performance
in terms of qualitative and quantitative methods. Based on the
influences of indicators on sustainability, a point value is assigned
Fig. 1. Research procedure.
to each indicator and its corresponding requirements. Roadway
projects can be certified by an SR2Ss with or without using the total
indicator points achieved.
The aforementioned studies have compared different SR 2Ss in
terms of their categories [13-15] and have sought to develop new
criteria for road pavement types [2,18]. However, no study has
been conducted to analyze the weighting of the material and
energy category in SR2Ss. To bridge this research gap, this study
aimed to investigate insights related to material and energy issues
for roadway projects by conducting a comparative analysis of the
five selected SR2Ss. The study objectives in this study were as
follows:
1. To investigate the focus on material and energy in the
different SR2Ss.
2. To compare the relative significance of the material and
energy category in the five selected SR2Ss relative to six
other features—local material; long-life design; materials
obtained using the reduce, reuse, and recycle (3Rs) concept;
earthwork; hazardous material; and energy efficiency.
3. To examine how current SR2Ss facilitate material and
energy-related practices for each feature.
2. Research method
According to the designated research objectives, this study
adopted a comparative analysis that investigates the contrasts
among different level units, such as categories, sustainability
indicators, and indicator scores at one point or at a higher number
of points in time. This approach attempts to attain the conclusions
provided by each system and explains the similarities and
discrepancies between different rating systems. Such a method
was also used in developing a performance rating system due to its
effectiveness in identifying the best practice indicator [19]. As
shown in Fig. 1, this was the first study to identify the
representative SR2Ss from the existing rating systems. Next, the
study identified the material and energy-related indicators (MEIs)
adopted in selected SR2Ss and grouped similar indicators into
various materials and energy-related features (MEFs). Finally, the
relative significance of the material and energy requirements and
the weightings of SR2Ss on their categories were investigated.
2.1. Criteria for selecting SR2Ss
Prior to the screening procedure, a preliminary pool was created
to filter i used four criteria—availability, latest version, relevant
 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx 3

indicator, and measurable indicator—to select the most suitable
SR2Ss for this study. The justifications specified in the following
texts provide reasons why these criteria were used.
Regarding the first criterion (i.e., availability), if an SR2S is to be
considered accessible, then the manual or scorecard providing
indicator requirements and indicator scores in the relevant SR2S
must be readily available; information is typically made accessible
through straightforward web databases. As a result, four SR2Ss,
that is, BE2ST-in Highways, GreenPave, STARS, and STEED,
were excluded from the selected rating systems that are listed in
Table 1. The second criterion was that the representative systems
should be currently in use with the latest content. Because SR2Ss
can have several versions, as displayed in Fig. 2, the indicators and
their corresponding scores have been customized. The third
criterion was that the selected rating systems should include
indicators related to material and energy issues. The system-
relevance criterion allows researchers to compare the MEIs of
different SR2Ss. Table 1 specifies that all existing nine SR2Ss
defined MEIs. Regarding the last criterion, indicators advised in
corresponding MEIs must be measurable to objectively compare
their relative significance in different systems. By using the
normalized indicator scores, a quantitative comparison can be
conducted between indicators. Due to this criterion, STARS and
STEED were filtered out because they do not assign weights for
sustainability indicators.
The screening process, as presented in Table 1, revealed that five
out of the nine existing SR2Ss (i.e., Green Guide for Roads,
GreenLITES, Greenroads, I-LAST, and INVEST) met all four
criteria and thus were selected for further analysis.

a
Note: Name of the version
b
Date of public release
Latest version

Fig. 2. SR2S timeline.

Table 1
Screening procedure of existing SR2Ss.
SR2Ss Source Relevant Latest Measurable Availability Note
indicator version indicator
BE2ST-in [18,20-22] √ √ √ Only employ for
Highwaysa pavement
GreenPave [23] √ √ √ Applicable to the
pavement within Ontario
Province, Canada
STARSb [22,23] √ √ Draft version 1.0
Green Guide [25] √ √ √ √ Only internal use of
for Roads Stantec
GreenLITES [1,18,20-23,26] √ √ √ √ Primarily use within New
York
Greenroads [1,11,20-22] √ √ √ √ Application worldwide
I-LAST [1,20-23,27] √ √ √ √ Using within Illinois State
INVEST [1,18,20,23,28,29] √ √ √ √ Free self-evaluation tool
STEEDc [1] √ √ Drafted version
a
Building environmentally and economically sustainable transportation infrastructure highways
b
Sustainable transportation analysis rating system
c
Sustainable transportation engineering and environmental design.
4 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx

2.2. Qualitative content analysis feature i and system j and SR2Sj is the total indicator points of the
system j.
Content analysis is commonly employed to evaluate text data [30] To exemplify the calculations of RSI1 and RSI2, analyses for I-
and has been used in studies associated with sustainability rating LAST and energy-efficiency-related features were conducted for
systems [24,31,32]. In this study, based on SR2S-related both calculations. In I-LAST, the subtotal of the MEI scores for
documents, such as manuals, scorecards, and requirements, MEIs the six features (i.e., MEFij values) were as follows: local material:
and corresponding indicator points were identified and recorded. 12, long-life design: 11, materials obtained using the 3Rs concept:
The various rating systems, which describe the same problems, do 39, energy efficiency: 19, earthwork: 4, and hazardous material: 0.
not define comparable indicators in identical terms. Similar Moreover, and the rating system score was 245 (i.e., SR2Sj value).
indicators from the different categories of the five selected SR2Ss Thus, the RSI1 can be formulated as shown below:
were regrouped into different MEFs. Fig. 3 displays the step-by- ∑6𝑖=1 𝑀𝐸𝐹𝑖𝑗
step method to reorganize many indicators relevant to material and 𝑅𝑆𝐼1 (I − LAST) = × 100%
𝑆𝑅2 𝑆𝑗
energy into different features—local material; long-life design;
materials obtained using the 3Rs concept; earthwork; hazardous 12+11+39+19+4+0
= × 100%
245
material; and energy efficiency. Finally, the scores of all indicators
listed under a feature were added to determine the relative Regarding energy efficiency, the subtotal of the MEI score and
significance in the next step. This procedure was repeated for the the total system points in each system were, respectively, as
six aforementioned features and the five selected systems. follows: Green Guide for Roads: 17 and 100, GreenLITES: 13 and
276, Greenroads: 13 and 130, I-LAST: 19 and 245, and INVEST:
2.3. Relative significance index 14 and 171, respectively. RSI2 for the energy-efficiency-related
feature can presented as follows:
Relative significance indexes (RSIs) were used to identify the
∑5𝑗=1 𝑀𝐸𝐹𝑖𝑗
priorities of the MEIs obtained from the SR2Ss and investigate the 𝑅𝑆𝐼2 (energy efficiency) = × 100%
𝑆𝑅2 𝑆𝑗
weightings of the material and energy category in the different
rating systems. In this study, two RSIs were calculated using the 17 13 13 19 14
= + + + + +× 100%
normalization values of indicator scores, as expressed in Eq. (1) 100 276 130 245 171
and Eq. (2). RSI, in the first equation, calculates the weighted = 47.7%
scores of all indicators pertaining to material and energy in each
SR2S. The second equation explores the generalized proportion of
3. MEIs in five selected SR2Ss
all MEIs within each MEF across the five selected SR 2Ss.
∑6𝑖=1 𝑀𝐸𝐹𝑖𝑗 3.1. Framework of SR2Ss
𝑅𝑆𝐼1 = × 100% (1)
𝑆𝑅2 𝑆𝑗

∑5𝑗=1 𝑀𝐸𝐹𝑖𝑗
As addressed before, SR2Ss differ considerably from each other
𝑅𝑆𝐼2 = × 100% (2) in terms of the developer background, main categories, and
𝑆𝑅2 𝑆𝑗
ranking benchmarks. Some aspects of the five selected SR 2Ss are
where, MEFij is the subtotal of the indicator scores of all MEIs in presented in the following subsections.

Note: Cm Category m in SR2S

MEImn Indicator n in the category m
Hierarchical structure in the existing SR2S
Regrouping MEIs into different MEFs

Fig. 3. Procedure for creating MEFs.

 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx 5

3.1.1. Green guide for roads Department of Transportation (IDOT), Illinois Road and
Transportation Builders Association, and the American Consulting
Stantec Consulting Ltd., which is a global design firm in
Engineers Council. I-LAST is considered both as a rating system
Edmonton (Canada), established the Green Guide for Roads in
and a guideline to evaluate highway projects with respect to
2008 to promote sustainable practices in the transportation
livability, sustainability, and effect on the natural environment
industry. Initially, this guide was an internal concept document
within the state of Illinois. This guide contains a wide variety of
within the company. Stantec hoped that the Transportation
potentially sustainable practices across eight categories based on
Association of Canada will embrace this rating system as a
which points are awarded—planning, design, environmental,
benchmark in the sustainable transportation sector of Canada [25].
water quality, transportation, lighting, materials, and innovation.
In 2009, another guide version was drafted collaboratively by
In contrast to other rating systems, I-LAST is not an official policy
Stantec and the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. In the revised
or procedure of IDOT [27] and does not offer ranking benchmarks.
version of the Green Guide for Roads, 100 points can be awarded
By using I-LAST, practitioners can identify potentially sustainable
in the following seven categories: mobility for all, transportation
practices that should be applied to state highway projects. Note that
planning, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources,
I-LAST is not intended to be used as a substitute for the present
environmental impact, community impact, and innovation in
IDOT and American Association of State Highway and
design. Each category contains the prerequisite and voluntary
Transportation Officials design and construction standards.
indicators. The Green Guide for Roads offers certification tiers for
projects based on their credit scores. These scores are ranked using 3.1.5. INVEST
four levels—certified ≥ 40%, silver ≥ 50%, gold ≥ 60%, and
The Federal Highway Administration established the INVEST in
platinum ≥ 80%.
2012. INVEST, which is a web‐based tool, helps transportation
3.1.2. GreenLITES agencies to maximize the sustainability of their highway projects
by integration of recognized “best practices.” This tool is used at
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) has
the national level for various transportation stakeholders. Note that
initiated GreenLITES (Green Leadership In Transportation and
INVEST is not employed to compare transportation agencies (28).
Environmental Sustainability) to integrate sustainability principles
In 2018, the version 1.3 of INVEST was classified into four
into transportation projects throughout NYSDOT. GreenLITES
modules—system planning for states, system planning for regions,
began with the Project Design Program in 2008, followed by the
operations and maintenance, and project development (PD) [28,
April 2009 GreenLITES Maintenance/Operations Plan
29]. For roadway PD, the PD module is used to evaluate new
Spreadsheet [18]. GreenLITES is a self-certification program that
transportation projects and is made up of scorecards with multiple
distinguishes between transportation projects and operations based
best voluntary indicators, especially for paving activities [18]. The
on the extent to which they incorporate sustainable practices. This
INVEST score can be categorized into four grades—bronze (score
program was initially used as a tool for conducting environmental
≥ 30%), silver (score ≥ 40%), gold (score ≥ 50%), and platinum
assessment and then was adopted as a more holistic approach
(score ≥ 60%). INVEST is a self-evaluation tool, and thus, this
framed in terms of the three pillars of sustainable development
award serves as unofficial recognition because of the lack of a
(that is, economy, society, and environment). GreenLITES
third-party assessment.
evaluates projects under five categories—sustainable sites, water
quality, material resources, energy and atmosphere, and innovation.
3.2. MEIs in five selected SR2Ss
Based on the gained credit scores, transportation projects were
certified as follows: certified ≥ 15%, silver ≥ 30%, gold ≥ 45%,
and evergreen ≥ 60%. All MEIs were retrieved from different categories for the five
selected SR2Ss (Fig. 4), and similar indicators were classified into
3.1.3. Greenroads six-different features, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 reveals that two
features—3Rs and energy efficiency—occurred in all selected
In 2009, the University of Washington and CH2M Hill, Inc.
systems, and the hazardous material feature is merely stipulated in
initiated the Greenroads rating system, which was considered a
three rating systems. A comparison between the features presented
voluntary third-party rating system for transportation projects.
in Table 2 revealed that INVEST includes the lowest value of
This system is a collection of “best practices” for sustainability,
MEFs. The Greenroad rating system covers all six features
and is conceptualized in units called “credits.” These credits are
pertaining to the material and energy practices of roadway projects.
categorized into required and voluntary credits. Required
To ensure a comprehensive sustainability assessment of
indicators are known as project requirements that must be
transportation projects, SR2S developers should consider adding
completed for certification. In the latest version (Version 2.0),
any missing MEIs.
voluntary credits exist in five areas—involving construction
activities, materials and design, utilities and controls, access and
livability, and creativity and effort. Points for each credit are 4. Comparison between material and energy in SR 2Ss
assigned based on the measurable performance outcomes achieved
and are weighted based on the relative lifecycle influences and 4.1. Comparison between MEIs of different SR2Ss
motivations for the activity. A project is awarded the following
titles by the Greenroads rating system based on the points attained: After MEIs had been identified, the subtotal of the indicator
bronze: 40–49 points, silver: 50–59 points, gold: 60–79 points, and scores in each feature was recorded, as shown in Table 3. These
evergreen: 80 points and above [11]. scores were used to obtain the values of RSI1 and RSI2, according
to Eq. (1) and Eq. (2).
3.1.4. I-LAST The results of RSI1, as shown in Table 3, reveal that the MEIs in
I-LAST was developed in 2010 with the collaboration of Illinois the selected SR2Ss are differently weighted. The RSI1 of material
6 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx

Note:
MRP: Material & Resources Prerequisite; CM: Construction & Material; EW: Environment & Water;
MR: Material & Resources; CE: Construction & Efficiency; UC: Utilities & Controls;
EA: Energy & Atmosphere; L: Lightings; CA: Construction Activities;
EI: Environmental Impact; D: Design; AL: Access & Livability;
CI: Community Impacts; MD: Materials & Design; E: Energy;
M: Material; PR: Project Requirements; PD: Project Development.

Fig. 4. MEIs in five selected SR2Ss.

Table 2
MEFs in five selected SR2Ss.
Feature Green Guide GreenLITES Greenroads I-LAST INVEST Number of SR2Ss
for Roads
Local Material ○ ○ ○ ○ ● 4
Long-Life Design ○ ● ○ ○ ○ 4
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Material (3Rs) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5
Energy Efficiency ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 5
Earthwork ● ○ ○ ○ ○ 4
Hazardous material ○ ○ ○ ● ● 3
Number of features 5 5 6 5 4
Note: “○” referss to an SR2S that incorporates related indicators in a particular feature;
“●” refers to SR2S that do not incorporate related indicators in a particular feature.

and energy in each system were as follows: 31.0% for Green Guide
for Roads, 26.8% for GreenLITES, 30.8% for Greenroads, 34.7%
for I-LAST, and 30.4% for INVEST. These values state that I-
LAST considers the material and energy issues to the most
significant for the five selected SR2Ss. Green Guide for Roads and
Greenroads focus on the effective use of material and energy
during the construction stage. GreenLITES and INVEST consider
that MEIs are least necessary for the five systems.
4.2. Comparison between the MEIs of the six MEFs for the five
selected SR2Ss
Based on the RSI2 values, the foci of SR2Ss on MEFs were
displayed in Fig. 5. Indicators of the materials obtained using the
3Rs concept take higher priority than all other MEIs through the
highest RSI2 value. The 3Rs principle is believed to contribute
greatly to the sustainability of the roadway project. The primary
 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx 7

Table 3
MEI scores.
Green Guide for Roads Green-LITES Greenroads I-LAST INVEST
(SST) % (SST) % (SST) % (SST) % (SST) % RSI2
SR2S’s total score 100.0 276.0 130.0 245.0 171.0
Local Material 2.0 2.0 7.0 1.4 5.0 3.8 12.0 4.9 0 0.0 13.3
Long Life Design 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.8 11.0 4.5 7.0 4.1 16.4
Reduced, Reused &
Recycled Material 6.0 6.0 40.0 14.5 10.0 7.7 39.0 15.9 22.0 12.9 57.0
Energy Efficiency 17.0 17.0 13.0 4.7 13.0 10.0 19.0 7.8 14.0 8.2 47.7
Earthwork 0.0 0.0 8.0 2.9 3.0 2.3 4.0 1.6 5.0 2.9 9.8
Hazardous material 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.2 4.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3
RSI1 31.0 26.8 30.8 34.7 28.1
Note: SST Subtotal of the indicator scores in each feature;
% Percentage of the “SST” value complying with the total rating system score.
purposes of incorporating indicator instructions in 3Rs are to six features—materials obtained using the 3Rs concept, energy
reduce the use of natural resources, minimize the hauling of usable efficiency, long-life design, earthwork, local material, and
construction material and potential vehicle emissions, and build hazardous material.
cost-effective structures. The common indicators in this feature are
MR3 in Green Guide for Roads, MD2 in Greenroads, M1 and M2 4.3. Related practices of materials obtained using the 3Rs
in GreenLITES, and PD19 in INVEST (Fig. 4). The energy concept
efficiency indicators of these SR2Ss were significant. The indicator
contents (e.g., EA1 in Green Guide for Roads, L1 in I-LAST, and The “3Rs” principle is considered the basis for sustainable waste
PD17 in INVEST), as shown in Fig. 4, focus on reducing the management to minimize the amount of virgin materials used for
energy consumption of the lighting and signals and minimizing the pavement and nonpavement structures (i.e., bridges, retaining
usage of fossil fuels for construction equipment and vehicles. walls, storm-water infrastructure). In this principle, reducing
Although the long-life design, local material, and earthwork material consumption is the most favorable option for reducing
influences the sustainability of roadway projects, they were construction waste, and reusing is more desirable than recycling in
awarded low weighting proportions. In view of the cross-SR2S general situations (Fig. 6) [6,32]. The five selected SR2Ss
assessment, the RSI2 value of hazardous material was 7.3% of the designated the 3Rs principle as a vital element of the material and
total system value. Thus, these rating systems considered that this energy category. I-LAST and GreenLITES allocated higher
feature has a lower contribution to roadway sustainability. indicator proportions to 3Rs, that is, 15.9% and 14.5% of the total
The results disclosed that different SR2Ss focus on various features system score, respectively (Table 3).
of materials and energy. However, because the principal aim of Some rating systems defined what constitutes reducing, reuse,
these rating systems is promoting the sustainability of roadway and recycling to avoid ambiguity. INVEST specifies that material
projects, an integrated analysis of the five selected SR2Ss was reduction refers to the processes that reduce raw materials required
employed to obtain a better understanding of materials and energy for pavements and other structures. The definitions of reusing
in sustainable roadway projects. In the following items, indicator materials in Greenroads and INVEST are different from each other.
requirements in the representative SR2Ss are discussed in terms of “Reuse” in Greenroads is defined as the continued use or
repurposing of existing materials for pavements and structures
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 within the project boundary, and materials must not leave the
project boundary. However, INVEST does not set the limitation
Reduced, Reused & Recycled that the reused materials must not leave the project boundary and
57.0
Material
describes “reusing” as the usage of existing materials or industrial
Energy Efficiency 47.7

Long Life Design 16.4

Local Material 13.3

Earthwork 9.8

Hazardous material 7.8

Note:

Fig. 5. RSI2 comparison between the MEIs of different features

Material- and energy-related practices in SR2Ss. Fig. 6. 3Rs principle hierarchy for material [32].
8 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx
by‐products for a new purpose in road projects. In Greenroads and
INVEST, recycled materials originate from old materials inside or
outside the project boundary and are reprocessed for a similar or
new function for new projects. Because Green Guide for Roads,
GreenLITES, and I-LAST do not provide a specific definition to
the 3Rs principle, some indicators pertaining to material recycling
can be found in the material reusing category. For example, Green
Guide for Roads stipulated the used of industrial by-products (e.g.,
coal fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, rice hull ash, and
silica fume) as a recycling-related indicator, in contrast to the
definition by Greenroads and INVEST.
INVEST promotes the notion of reducing the use of resources.
Soil stabilization by using geosynthetics (geogrids and fabrics)
may be necessary to minimize the materials required for structural
backfill and pavement thickness. Points are awarded based on the
criterion that at least 50% of the pavement area should be
constructed using this method.
The reusing of materials is particularized in all presented SR2Ss
except for Green Guide for Roads. The relevant instructions
explicitly introduce the reuse of existing materials, such as hot mix
asphalt (HMA), portland cement concrete (PCC), bridge decking,
unbound granular base material, stabilized base material, structural
foundations, abutments, walls, and superstructures. However, the
thresholds proposed in Greenroads and INVEST are disparate.
Greenroads awards points to projects that reuse at least 50% of the
existing material, calculated in terms of the volume, within the
project boundary. INVEST assigns points to a roadway project if
it reuses at least 25% of the existing pavement material. Moreover,
the materials reused for the road pavement can be different types
of industrial by-products, such as coal ash, fly ash, foundry sand,
slag, tires, and asphalt shingles, according to the instructions in
INVEST and I-LAST.
The principle of recycling materials is incorporated into all five
SR2Ss. The recycled material indicators in GreenLITES, I-LAST,
and INVEST address recycling methods by integrating reclaimed
asphalt pavement (RAP), recycled concrete aggregate (RCA);
cold‐in‐place recycling (CIR); hot‐in‐place recycling (HIR); and
full-depth reclamation (FDR) to minimize the amounts of energy
and water used in asphalt pavement operations. For RAP and RCA,
if the average recycled content (by weight or volume) compared
with all existing pavement materials is not less than 10%, then the
project can obtain the indicator points. For the CIR, HIR, and FDR
methods, points are awarded when a minimum of 50% of the
pavement area is constructed using recycled materials. In
Greenroads, the average percentage of recycled content calculated
by weight should not be less than 8% of the total weight of
materials, such as binder materials, structural and reinforcing steel
materials, and HMA and PCC pavement materials. Moreover, in
Green Guide for Roads, the recycled aggregate materials, such as
crushed asphaltic concrete and PCC, should be 90%, by volume,
of all the aggregates. For asphalt pavements, the asphaltic concrete
pavement should be a minimum of 15%, by volume, of the
recycled asphaltic concrete pavement. For rigid pavements, the
recycled admixtures that are used in PCC should leverage coal fly
ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, rice hull ash, and silica
fume and reduce them by at least 25% of the typical Portland
cement content of the concrete mix.
4.4. Energy-efficiency-related practices
According to Gambatese and Rajendran [3], reducing the energy
consumed by construction activities is one of the leading
approaches for improving roadway sustainability. All five SR 2Ss
adhered to this central tenet and stipulated energy-efficiency-
related indicators as vital project elements. Reduction of energy
consumption is particularly relevant to the material and energy
category. Several energy-related indicators are designated as
prerequisite indicators such as PR2 in Greenroads, which requires
an inventory of energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from material- and construction-related tasks and
maintenance activities (Fig. 4). Among the five selected systems,
Green Guide for Roads assigns the highest emphasis to energy-
related indicators (17%) among all systems. However, these
indicators only have 4.7% of the total points in GreenLITES. From
the indicator instructions, SR2Ss emphasize on how to 1) minimize
the power consumption in the lighting or signal systems, 2) reduce
the dependence on fossil fuels in construction equipment and
vehicles, and 3) reduce energy usage in producing pavement
materials (Table 4).
For minimizing power consumption, green technologies are
encouraged to economize electrical consumption of street lighting
and highway signage equipment, such as solar energy equipment,
LEDs, induction lamps, and combinations of new high-intensity
discharge lamp and ballast, during the project operation phase. The
thresholds offered by SR2Ss pertaining to the amount of energy
consumption for complying with the baseline energy use (i.e.,
annual energy before green technologies are applied) are different
from each other. The minimum amount of energy reduction given
by Greenroads and Green Guide for Roads is 20% and 15%,
respectively. INVEST controlled this percentage based on the total
amount of electricity used during the operation phase, as shown in
Fig. 7.
In terms of fossil fuel consumption, indicators advised in Green
Guide for Roads and Greenroads lean toward the use of renewable
energies (i.e., electricity, natural gas, biofuel, and biofuel blends)
to minimize the amount of conventional diesel consumed by
machinery during the construction stage and thus reduce CO 2
emission. Note that main construction activities include transport
of materials, mixing, and paving and compacting materials. In
Greenroads, the total amount of operating hours for construction
equipment using alternative sources should not be less than 10%
of the entire fleet operating hours. In contrast to Greenroads, the
related requirements in Green Guide for Roads are not specified
explicitly. Instead, the project team is required to develop and
execute a plan that demonstrates the outputs of fuel use and
emission for equipment and operation vehicles.
INVEST suggests the utilization of pavement materials that
reduce energy consumption in the material-production process.
For flexible pavements, more than 50% of the total amount of
asphalt must include low-energy materials, such as warm-mix
asphalt and asphalt produced using burn-recycled oil, waste
materials, or natural gas. For rigid pavements, the limestone
content in the cement should be more than 3%. Moreover, the
concrete should be produced in plants certified by National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association.
4.5. Long-life design-related practices
The lifecycle perspective reveals that designing longer-service
products may require higher upfront costs but offer more benefits
during the product’s service life [10]. The net costs or other
associated influences can be reduced at the end of the product life.
This approach promotes the design of a durable roadway pavement,
minimizes the requirement of surface restoration, and thus reduces
 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx 9

> 110% 6
100-110% 5
90-100%
Reduction in kWh usage

80-90% 4
70-80% 3
60-70% 2
50-60%
40-50% 1
30-40%
20-30%
10-20%
0-10% 16--18
10-12
12-14
14-16

18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
30-32
32-34
34-36
36-38
38-40
40-42
42-44
44-46
46-48

48-50
8-10

>50
2-4

4-6
6-8
<2

The annual baseline energy usage with conventional technologies (1,000 kWh/yr)

Fig. 7. Range of indicator scores for electricity consumption reduction in INVEST [28].

future rehabilitation activities. Among the selected SR2Ss that SR2Ss recommend three potential strategies to minimize the
designated the long-life design strategies, I-LAST dedicated the amount of earthwork (Table 4). First, during the earthwork, a
highest weighting of indicators for this feature, that is, 4.5% of the balance should be maintained between the excavated volume (cut)
total rating system scores (Table 3). and the volume of the embankment (fill). This proportion should
Based on the description of long-life design indicators, the be less than 10% and can be calculated by Eq. (3):
critical concern in existing SR2Ss is to encourage the development
(A  C)  (B D)
of projects with long lifespans. However, the long-life thresholds 100%
1
for the pavement structure differ among rating systems. Green (A  C B D)
Guide for Roads and I-LAST advise designing a pavement lifespan 2 (3) [28]
of at least 30 years for both HMA and concrete pavement.
Greenroads and INVEST suggest a minimal service life of 40 years where, A is the volume of the cross-section cut, B is the volume of
for new construction or major reconstruction projects that add the cross-section fill, C is the volume of the miscellaneous cut, D
travel lanes to an existing roadway. For the small reconstruction is the volume of the miscellaneous fill.
projects that do not expand the capacity of the road, that is, The second approach addressed in I-LAST, GreenLITES, and
preservation or restoration projects, the service life should be more Greenroads is the utilization of two main techniques—
than 20 years. If at least 50% or 75% of the total trafficked area bioengineering and biotechnical engineering—to preserve and
fulfills this long‐life criterion, the indicator points are awarded by reuse topsoil or contaminated soils. The first method uses plant
Greenroads or INVEST, respectively. material to protect soil slopes, rebuild and stabilize soil, and
The long-life indicators also emphasize the maintenance control soil erosion. Soil biotechnical engineering integrates plant
activities for existing pavement structures. Greenroads suggests materials and structural elements, such as vegetated crib wall,
that at least 95% of the pavement area should be maintained to vegetated gabion, and vegetated mats. However, these
extend the service life of the existing facility to five years or 20% requirements do not specify the thresholds for rewarding points
of the facility age. Note that the facility age must be more than and thus leads to obstacles for implementing these indicators for
eight years. Moreover, there should be no maintenance activity for roadway projects.
at least five years.
4.7. Local material-related practices
4.6. Earthwork-related practices
Local material instructions include reducing haul distance of
According to Fleming et al. [34] and Capony et al. [35] usable construction materials to and from project sites [11].
appropriately designed earthworks could reduce the construction Therefore, the use of local materials can minimize the
cost of roadway projects and the influence on the local consumption of fossil fuels during the construction phase and thus
environmental. Thus, earthen material-related indicators are potentially reduce vehicle emissions and effective development
incorporated into GreenLITES, Greenroads, I-LAST, and cost. The typical unit for hauling in the local material indicator is
INVEST. Among these systems, INVEST and GreenLITES assign ton-km or cost-km. These units indicate the percentage of the total
the highest attention to indicators related to earthwork, that is, 2.9% material weight and total material costs within the specific hauling.
of the total SR2S scores. All systems except INVEST incorporated local material-related
10 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx

Table 4
Common MEIs and their corresponding requirements in five selected SR2Ss.
Feature Common Requirement SR2S* Note
indicator
Reduced At least 50% of the pavement area using INVEST Geosynthetics includes
Reduced, reused, and recycled

materials geosynthetics for soil stabilization geogrids and fabrics

Reused Reusing a minimum of 25% existing material GreenLITES, The volume of industrial
materials areas (e.g., HMA, PCC, bridge decking, granular Greenroads, I-LAST, by-products is not
materials

base material, structural foundations, etc.) INVEST specified in SR2Ss

Reusing industrial by-products coal ash, fly ash,
foundry sand, slag, tires, asphalt shingles
Recycled Using the recycling methods for asphalt GreenLITES, Thresholds for gaining
materials pavement, such as RAP, CIR, HDR, HIR, FDR Greenroads, I-LAST, points differ between
Recycling PCC pavement, structural and INVEST, Green Guide SR2Ss
reinforcing steel materials for rigid pavement for Roads
Energy and Conduct an inventory of energy usage and Greenroads A prerequisite indicator
emissions greenhouse gas emissions for materials,
control construction, and maintenance activities of at
least final alternative
Energy efficiency

Green Using green technologies for lighting and traffic Green Guide for Roads, Achieved points are
technologies signals GreenLITES, based on the percentage
Greenroads, I-LAST, of reduced electricity
INVEST usage
Renewable More than 10% of the entire fleet operating hours Green Guide for Roads, Focus on the
energies using renewable resources to replace fossil fuel Greenroads, construction phase of the
project
Low-energy Using pavement materials lessening the energy INVEST Applicable to asphalt,
pavement consumption in the material-producing process cement, or concrete
material
Long-life Design at least 50% total trafficked area of Green Guide for Roads, 20 years of long-life
Long-life design

pavement projects meet long-life pavement of more than 30 I-LAST, Greenroads, criterion for small
design years INVEST reconstruction
Extended At least 95% of the trafficked area is maintained Greenroads Applicable to no
service to extend the existing facility’s service life to the maintenance activities
five years or 20% of facility age, whichever is for at least five years
larger
Earthwork Making a balance between the cut and fill GreenLITES, Contaminated soils are
Local material Earthwork

reduction volume of earthwork within 10% Greenroads, I-LAST, not included in the soil
INVEST volume
Bioengineering Apply the bioengineering and biotechnical GreenLITES, No specific thresholds is
techniques engineering techniques to soil treatments Greenroads, I-LAST incorporated in SR2Ss
Local material At least 50% of the material weight within 325 GreenLITES, Applicable either of two
km from the project site. Greenroads, I-LAST, requirements
At least 50% of the total material cost is supplied Green Guide for Roads
within 80 km from the project site.

Hazardous Reducing hazardous materials or materials Green Guide for Roads, A specific amount of
material harmful to the local ecology GreenLITES, hazardous material are
minimization not pointed out
Hazardous
material

Applying Identifying materials and products with EPDs Greenroads Project team choose
EPDs and and HPDs within the project boundary either or both of these
HPDs certifications
Note: * Indicates SR2Ss that incorporates a specific sustainability indicator.

indicators. I-LAST allocates the highest weighting for local
material, that is, up to 4.9% of the total score. Moreover,
GreenLITES dedicates 1.4% of the total scores to those indicators
(Table 3).
In SR2Ss, the minimal distance of transporting materials and the
percentage of material weight have essential proportions for
awarding scores. However, these distance values vary with the
SR2Ss due to the contextual conditions that rating systems could
apply. Roadway projects using at least 50% of the material weight
within 325 km or at least 95% of material weights that come from
a maximum of 500 miles (804 km) away from the project sites gain
points from Green Guide for Roads and Greenroads, respectively.
Moreover, Greenroads prescribes that at least 50% of the total
production cost should be paid to material suppliers, processors,
 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx
distributors, and producers who are situated within a distance of
50 miles (80 km) from the geographic center of the project. The
total cost for all materials, products, and components must include
transportation fees. This distance must be determined along a
straight line “as the crow flies” between the source and the project
site. Conversely, GreenLITES and I-LAST describe local
materials such as natural lightweight fill, local seed stock, and
plants. Use of these materials may cause the growth of success of
plants and make the project’s construction cost-effective.
4.8. Hazardous-material-related practices
Hazardous materials often cause a negative influence on both
human health and habitats surrounding roadway projects [24]. The
relevant indicators defined in all the selected SR2Ss except I-LAST
and INVEST aim to lower the degree of hazards present in all
construction materials and thus decrease the exposure of workers
to hazardous substances (e.g., dust, fumes, and gases). Greenroads
allocates the highest proportion of weights to hazardous materials,
that is, 3.1%, followed by GreenLITES (2.2%) and Green Guide
for Roads (2.0%).
Indicator requirements in SR2Ss specify potential strategies for
hazardous material minimization. Designers should limit the use
of materials using toxic chemical agents, such as toxic metals and
contaminated soils. In the case of potential pitfalls for groundwater
pollution, constructors have to identify, remove, and dispose the
contaminated soils prior to the construction activities. The project
should also employ fewer materials that emit polluted wastes and
could harm the local ecology system (e.g., nonsolvent traffic or
bridge paints and nonhazardous air-pollutant bridge deck sealers).
To reduce the exposure of workers to paving emissions, Green
Guide for Roads emphasizes on the usage of Best Management
Practices that concern environmental health for pavement marking
products, such as waterborne paint, epoxy paints, and polyurea
marking.
To ensure transparency of projects’ influences on the
environment and human health, Greenroads encourages projects to
use all materials and products that are certified by environmental
product declarations (EPDs) and health product declarations
(HPDs). To achieve indicator points, the project team should
prepare a list of all products and materials used within the project
boundary and indicate which item has been approved by EPD,
HPD, or both.
5. Conclusion
In roadway development, the appropriate use of materials and
energy plays a leading role in ensuring a functionally cost-effective
and environmentally sustainable roadway project. The material
and energy category should be considered in SR 2Ss to certify the
sustainability of roadway projects. In this study, five well-known
SR2Ss were selected for content analysis, and significance
evaluation of material- and energy-related indicators was
performed.
The results reveal that among the five selected SR2Ss, I-LAST
assigns higher weighting scores to MEIs, that is, 34.7% of the total
system score. GreenLITES considers material and energy
problems to be least significant, that is, 26.8% of the total system
score. Moreover, the weightings on different MEFs in the five
selected systems vary noticeably among the six features. The
materials obtained using the 3Rs concept and energy efficiency are
given higher priority than the other features. Moreover, these
11
features are recognized to provide the highest contribution to the
sustainability levels of roadways projects, in contrast to hazardous
material.
This study provides relevant stakeholders with the material and
energy instructions required for developing the roadway project.
The results enable practitioners to identify and aim to realize MEI
instructions that are suited for their contextual situation or that are
considered as a better contribution to the sustainability of the
roadway project. The findings of this study also provide an
improved understanding of the different attributes of MEIs to the
SR2S developers. Therefore, improving existing SR2Ss is possible.
The researchers can apply the method used in this study to other
categories addressed in SR2S, such as water resources, ecology,
and landscape. The empirical study also can be conducted using a
questionnaire survey to investigate how the participants rated the
significance and difficulty of applying MEIs to roadway projects
under different contextual conditions.
References
[1] J. Lee, T. B. Edil, C. H. Benson, J. M. Tinjum, Building
Environmentally and Economically Sustainable
Transportation Infrastructure: Green Highway Rating
System, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 139 (12) (2013) A4013006
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000742
[2] Y. Zhang, J. P. Mohsen, A Project-Based Sustainability
Rating Tool for Pavement Maintenance, Eng. 4 (2) (2018)
200-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.03.001
[3] J. A. Gambatese, S. Rajendran, Sustainable roadway
construction: Energy consumption and material waste
generation of roadways, Construction Research Congress,
San Diego, California, USA, 2005.
https://doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)21
[4] F. Li, D. Chen, X. Song, Y. Chen Y, LEDs : a Promising
Energy-Saving Light Source for Road Lighting, 2009 Asia-
Pacific Power Energy Engineering Conference, Wuhan,
China, 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1109/APPEEC.2009.4918460
[5] W. Qiao, A. Sharma, J. L. Hudgins, E. G. Jones, Wind/Solar
Hybrid Generation-Based Roadway Microgrids, 2011 IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Detroit, MI,
USA, USA, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1109/PES.2011.6039884
[6] C. L. Peng, D. E. Scorpio, C. J. Kibert, Strategies for
successful construction and demolition waste recycling
operations, Constr. Manag. Econ. 15 (1) (1997) 49-58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997373105
[7] S. P. Singh, D. P. Tripathy, P. G. Ranjith, Performance
evaluation of cement stabilized fly ash-GBFS mixes as a
highway construction material, Waste. Manag. 28 (8) (2008)
1331-1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.017
[8] M. M. Disfani, A. Arulrajah, M. W. Bo, N. Sivakugan,
Environmental risks of using recycled crushed glass in road
applications, J. Clean. Prod. 20 (1) (2012) 170-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.020
[9] C. Robinette, J. Epps, Energy, emissions, material
conservation, and prices associated with construction,
rehabilitation, and material alternatives for flexible
pavement, Transp. Res. Rec. 2179 (1) (2010) 10-22.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2179-02
[10] S. H. Yang, J. Y. H. Liu, N. H. Tran, Multi-criteria life cycle
approach to develop weighting of sustainability indicators
12 N.H. Tran and S.H. Yang / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xx (2020) xxx-xxx
for pavement, Sustain. 10 (7) (2018) 2325.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072325
[11] J. Anderson, S. Muench, J. Holter, J. Lew, C. Weiland, A.
Botha, Greenroads Rating System Version 2.0 (Greenroads
International, 2015). https://www.greenroads.org. Accessed
20 May 2019
[12] S. Simpson, M. Ozbek, C. Clevenger, R. Atadero, A
Framework for Assessing Transportation Sustainability
Rating Systems for Implementation in U.S. State
Departments of Transportation. Report number MPC-14-268.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 2014.
[13] C. Clevenger, M. Ozbek, S. Simpson, Review of
sustainability rating systems used for infrastructure projects,
49th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings,
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, 2013.
[14] R. Curz, J. L. Kim, H. S. Cha, Using a thematic framework
to compare sustainability rating, Construction Research
Congress 2012: Construction Challenges in a Flat World,
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 2012.
[15] J. M. Diaz-Sarachaga, D. Jato-Espino, B. Alsulami, D.
Castro-Fresno, Evaluation of existing sustainable
infrastructure rating systems for their application in
developing countries, Ecol. Indic. 71 (2016) 491-502.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.033
[16] J. W. Park, Y. H. Ahn, Development of a green road rating
system for South Korea, Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol.
Urban. Dev. 6 (4) (2015) 249-263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2015.1117404
[17] S. I. Sarsam, Sustainable and Green Roadway Rating System,
Int. J. Sci. Res. Environ. Sci. 3 (3) (2015) 99-106.
https://doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2015-p0099-0106
[18] J. Bryce, S. Brodie, T. Parry, D. L. Presti, A systematic
assessment of road pavement sustainability through a review
of rating tools, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 120 (2017) 108-119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.11.002
[19] L. Y. Shen, O. J. Jorge, M. N. Shah, X. Zhang, The
application of urban sustainability indicators - A comparison
between various practices, Habitat. Int. 35 (1) (2011) 17-29.
h ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.03.006
[20] P. C. Bueno, J. M. Vassallo, K. Cheung, Sustainability
Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Review
of Existing Tools and Methods, Transp. Rev. 35 (5) (2015)
622-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1041435
[21] J. Lee, T. Edil, C. Benson, J. Tinjum, Evaluation of variable
affecting sustainable highway design using the BEST2ST-in-
Highways system, Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board.
2233 (1) (2011) 178-186.
https://doi.org/10.1061/41148(389)39
[22] H. Naganathan, W. K. Chong, Evaluation of state sustainable
transportation performances (SSTP) using sustainable
indicators, Sustain. Cities. Soc. 35 (2017) 799-815.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.06.011
[23] E. Barrella, K. Lineburg, P. Hurley, Applying a
transportation rating system to advance sustainability
evaluation, planning, and partnerships, Int. J. Sustain. High.
Educ. (2017) https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2015-0087
[24] Z. Wu, L. Shen, A. Yu, X. Zhang, A comparative analysis of
waste management requirements between five green
building rating systems for new residential buildings, J.
Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 895-902.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.073
[25] M. Clark, C. Paulli, Z. Tetreault, J. Thomas, Green Guide for
Roads Rating System, (Master Thesis), Worcester
Polytechnical Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 2009.
[26] New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT).
(GreenLITES Project Design Certification Program, 2010),
https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites/repository/Gre
en LITES Certification Program Document - April 2010.pdf.
Accessed 1 June 2019
[27] K. Douglas, F. John, D. Abdul, W. Rick, A. Michelle, H.
Dave, … C. W. Tanyu, (Illinois Livable and Sustainable
Transportation Rating System and Guide (I-LAST), 2012),
https://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Transportation-
System/Reports/Desenv/Enviromental/I-
LAST%20V%202%2002.pdf. Accessed 05 June 2019
[28] L. Reid, T. Bevan, A. Davis, T. Neuman, K. Penney, S.
Seskin,… J. Schulz, Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation
Sustainability Tool (INVEST)_Version 1.2.
(Sustainablehighway, 2015),
https://www.sustainablehighway.org. Accessed 10 June
2019
[29] L. Reid, T. Bevan, A. Davis, T. Neuman, K. Penney, S.
Seskin,... J. Schulz, Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation
Sustainability Tool (INVEST)_Version 1.2_Criteria
Modifications Matrix, (Sustainablehighway, 2018,
https://www.sustainablehighways.org/files/3316.pdf.
Accessed 06 October 2019
[30] H. F. Hsieh, S. E. Shannon, Three approaches to qualitative
content analysis, Qual. Health. Res. 15 (9) (2005) 1277-1288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
[31] X. Huo, A. T. W. Yu, Z. Wu, A comparative analysis of site
planning and design among green building rating tools, J.
Clean. Prod. 147 (2017) 352-359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.099
[32] N.H. Tran, S.H. Yang, T. Huang, Comparative analysis of
traffic-and-transportation-planning-related indicators in
sustainable transportation infrastructure rating systems, Int.
J. Sustain. Transp. (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1722868
[33] H. Yuan, L. Shen, Trend of the research on construction and
demolition waste management, Waste, Manag. 31 (4) ( 2011)
670-679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.10.030
[34] P. R. Fleming, M. W. Frost, J. P. Lambert, Sustainable
Earthworks Specifications for Transport Infrastructure,
Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board. 1975 (1) (2006) 73-
80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106197500108
[35] A. Capony, B. Muresan, M. Dauvergne, J. C. Auriol, V.
Ferber, A. Jullien, Monitoring and environmental modeling
of earthwork impacts: A road construction case study,
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 74 (2013) 124-133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.007.