Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Strategy of indicator incorporation for roadway sustainability

certification
Andrew S. Chang a, Hsiao J. Chang b, Calista Y. Tsai c, *, Shih H. Yang a, Steve T. Muench d
a
Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung Univ., No.1 University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan
b
Public Works Section, Taiwan Water Corporation, No.1 University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan
c
Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering, National Cheng Kung Univ., No.1 University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan
d
Tom and Marilyn Draeger | The Beavers Charitable Trust, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, 3760 E. Stevens Way NE,
Seattle, WA 98195, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Over the last decade, various rating systems and indicators have been proposed for evaluating or
Received 5 February 2018 certifying roadway sustainability. However, there is no systematic method for the roadway projects to
Received in revised form adopt the indicators of the rating systems to enhance sustainability for certification. This study devel-
1 August 2018
oped a strategy for adopting indicators in a roadway rating system for sustainability certification. First,
Accepted 4 August 2018
Available online 25 August 2018
the framework and rules for prioritizing the indicators were established from literature review. Then,
carbon emissions, costs, and the difficulties of employing the indicators were analyzed in a roadway case
study. Finally, the priorities for adopting the indicators were determined. The results revealed that the
Keywords:
Greenroads
indicators with higher scoreeunit ratios should have higher priorities in the project. By using the
Sustainable indicator developed framework, the simultaneous analysis of multiple dimensions enables appropriate investi-
Roadway gation into roadway sustainability problems. The scoreeunit ratio is a simple but effective metric to
Carbon emission evaluate whether a project has incorporated appropriate indicators to enhance sustainability.
Cost © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Scoreeunit ratio

1. Introduction 2015). Organizations such as Greenroads, GreenLITES, and I-LAST

After being widely used for green buildings in the construction
industry, sustainable development objectives have been gradually
applied to transportation infrastructure in recent years (Gonzalo
and Fernado, 2010; Holton et al., 2010; Farzaneh et al., 2012). The
transport sector contributed 7 Gt of equivalent carbon dioxide
(CO2e) that is 14% of total energy-related emissions in the world in
2010 (IPCC, 2015). As a part of transportation infrastructure,
Roadways utilize resources, consume energy, and generate carbon
emissions (Jesús et al., 2013). Thus, reducing the impacts of
roadway projects on the environment has become an important
issue.
Infrastructure projects' achievement of sustainability objectives
is commonly assessed using a sustainability rating system with a
set of indicators (Oswald and McNeil, 2010; Veeravigrom et al.,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anschang@mail.ncku.edu.tw (A.S. Chang), cecilia791122@
gmail.com (H.J. Chang), calista0523@gmail.com (C.Y. Tsai), shyang@mail.ncku.edu.
tw (S.H. Yang), stmuench@uw.edu (S.T. Muench).
have developed rating systems to evaluate the sustainability of
roadways (Raja et al., 2014). These rating systems use performance
indicators and implementation levels to distinguish between the
levels of sustainability achieved by infrastructure projects (Gonzalo
and Fernado, 2010).
Indicators often used in the roadway rating systems include
runoff, noise, materials, water quality, and aquatic habitat
(Eisenman, 2012). For land use, infrastructure, construction, and
innovation design, Oswald and McNeil (2010) developed 37 in-
dicators, such as stormwater management and light disaster
reduction, for sustainability evaluation. Tsai and Chang (2012)
developed 60 sustainability indicators for roadways and divided
them into 14 categories, including reduction in volume, grinding
stones or soft reinforcing, infiltration trenches or catch basins,
growing vegetation, and topsoil recycling.
These indicators are related to the sustainability issues that are
usually encountered during roadway design and construction. The
indicators can be used by project engineers for designing and
constructing sustainable projects. In particular, the indicators are
useful for designers during the design phase because this phase
requires fast information turnaround and decision-making. The

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.047
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847
earlier the environmental dimension is integrated, the greater is
the potential of the indicators for reducing environmental impacts
(Lame
et al., 2017; Krantz et al., 2017). Setting specific environ-
mental sustainability targets prior to designing allows designers to
iteratively improve the design to reduce the impact of the con-
struction on the environment (Russell-Smith et al., 2015).
Some rating systems are open for projects to apply for certifi-
cation to evaluate their sustainability levels. One of them is
Greenroads Rating System who issues certification to roadway
projects applying from USA, Canada, New Zealand, South African,
etc. (Pittenger, 2011; Greenroads, 2018). When a project, such as a
building or roadway, applies for sustainability certification, various
indicators are incorporated during its design and construction
phases to earn scores. However, to achieve the scores desired for
the project, additional costs are incurred to meet the indicator re-
quirements and difficulties may be encountered. A trade-off among
these factors is then required for prioritizing the incorporation of
the indicators. Therefore, for a roadway project applying for certi-
fication, a strategy must be implemented to earn higher scores and
simultaneously reduce the cost and difficulty of using the
indicators.
The aim of this study is to propose a strategy framework for
indicator adoption for roadway projects that are applying for
Greenroads certification. This framework includes rules for
assigning strategy units and three evaluation dimensions, namely
carbon emissions, cost, and difficulty of using the indicators. The
scores and strategy units of the indicators are assessed using a case
study. The scoreeunit ratio is used to determine the priority of
indicators. Finally, indicator priorities for the certification are pro-
posed for the roadway project.
2. Literature review
This study analyzed indicator adoption, which has been
addressed by few studies. This section reviews studies related to
the sustainability rating systems and indicators, the carbon emis-
sions of roadways, and difficulties in utilizing these indicators. The
Greenroads Rating System is also reviewed. Moreover, the scores of
indicators are analyzed prior to the explanation of the indicator
priority and strategy in the Section 4.
2.1. Sustainability rating systems and indicators
In addition to the aforementioned Greenroads, GreenLITES, and
I-LAST systems, the Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustain-
ability Tool is a nonmandatory, self-evaluation tool that enables
agencies to improve the sustainability of the various phases of a
transportation project (Bevan et al., 2015). The Envision Rating
System contains sustainability best practices that can be applied to
various types of infrastructure, including transportation infra-
structure (Shivakumar et al., 2014). CEEQUAL is a transportation
sustainability rating system applicable to all types of infrastructure
(VanZerr et al., 2012).
Sustainability indicators are essentially index representations of
sustainability, and they have developed in various industries and
for different purposes. Yuan (2013) identified 30 key indicators that
affect the overall effectiveness of construction and demolition
waste management. Kamali and Hewage (2017) identified and
validated 33 sustainability performance indicators for evaluating
modular and conventional construction methods. Rooshdi et al.
(2014) proposed seven sustainable design and construction
criteria and assessed their scores for green highways. Two criter-
iadcontext sensitive design and alignment selectiondwere
considered at the design stage, and the other five
837
criteriadconstruction management plan, noise mitigation control,
equipment and machinery efficiency, quality management, and
erosion and sedimentation controldwere implemented at the
construction stage. These criteria are indicators that can be incor-
porated by designers and contractors into their projects.
Indicators can be established at different levels of aggregation
(Abeelen et al., 2015). The four levels of measurement for sustain-
ability are industry, organization, project, and process (Caiado et al.,
2017). Most environmental performance indicators measure envi-
ronmental performance by focusing on the operational-stage fac-
tors such as material use and energy consumption (McBride et al.,
2011; Shen et al., 2011). The operational level usually means
lower of aggregation, and considerable data are required to
appropriately identify performance-related problems (Abeelen
et al., 2015).
Veeravigrom et al. (2015) described sustainability indicators as a
list of best sustainability practices. A key advantage of the indicator
sets of a rating system is that the diverse measurement units of
indicators can all be directly compared using a point-based system.
The sustainability performance evaluation by using pre-set in-
dicators is a corporate social responsibility practice that is more
frequently used by the companies in Brazil (Cazert et al., 2018).
2.2. Carbon emissions of roadways
Muench (2010) reviewed 14 roadway construction life cycle
assessment (LCA) studies and indicated that the majority of energy
consumption and emissions occurred during material production.
Construction activities at jobsites accounted for less than 5% of the
total energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Similarly, Wang et al.
(2015) estimated the CO2 emissions generated from a highway
construction and showed that more than 80% were generated
through raw material production. The onsite construction activities
and material transportation only accounted for 10% and 3% of total
CO2 emissions, respectively. CO2 emissions during bridge and
tunnel construction were considerably higher than those during
subgrade and pavement construction.
To analyze the differences in the emissions contributed by
various types of road projects, Mao et al. (2017) examined various
urban road construction activities in Shenzhen, China, between
2004 and 2013. The results showed that the carbon footprint
generated from the material used for newly constructed roadways
and that for the maintenance activities of the roadways accounted
for 52.3% and 24.3% of the total carbon footprint, respectively. Liu
et al. (2017) applied LCA for 20 asphalt and 18 concrete roadway
projects. The findings revealed that the average total CO2 emissions
per kilometer per lane were approximately 1250 and 500 tons for
asphalt and concrete roadways, respectively. Emissions from off-
road machinery matched those of materials for the concrete
roadways. Therefore, in addition to controlling CO2 emissions from
the materials utilized, construction effectiveness and efficiency
should be improved because it plays a crucial role in reducing CO2
emissions.
Meng et al. (2017) evaluated the environmental sustainability of
the bus rapid transit and normal bus transit systems in Xiamen city,
China. For both systems, higher energy consumption was observed
in the material production and vehicle fuel production phases and
higher greenhouse gas emissions were observed in material pro-
duction and vehicle operation phases. The material and energy
inputs are the critical factors that decrease roadway sustainability.
The carbon emissions during construction stage are small
compared to those from material production. In this study, they are
calculated from material production, material transportation and
construction activities as explained in Section 3.1.
838 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847

2.3. Difficulties in achieving sustainable construction
Waage (2007) suggested that specifications, cost, time, mate-
rials, techniques, market, and designer's preference and experience
limit a project's design. Selih (2007) stated 11 potential obstacles in
the construction industry, such as high implementation costs, lack
of technology and materials, and lack of governmental pressure for
implementing environmental management. Lam et al. (2009)
stated that cost, time, and techniques are the major design diffi-
culties when realizing a sustainable construction. Holton et al.
(2010) found that barriers in managing sustainable construction
in the United Kingdom included the commitment of senior man-
agement, knowledge and experience of engineers, and communi-
cation with the British precast concrete companies. Anderson
(2012) stated that the factors affecting Greenroads certification
scores are budget, pavement surface layer, urban location, delivery
method, and sustainability focus. Lee et al. (2017) claimed that the
top-five noneconomic barriers to sustainability are related to the
failure of a government to provide reliable information and
incentives.
Chang and Tsai (2015) presented nine difficulties in the reali-
zation of a sustainable roadway designdfour predesign issues,
namely owner, policy and law, natural preconditions, budget and
schedule, and insufficient data, and five design problems, namely
criteria and specifications, lack of experience among engineers,
resources and techniques, constructability and maintainability, and
interface coordination. In general, predesign issues cause more
difficulty than design problems. These nine difficulties were
adopted in the framework proposed by this study.
2.4. Greenroads Rating System
Greenroads is a credit-based sustainability rating system for
roadways developed by University of Washington and CH2M Hill
(Pittenger, 2011). It awards points for approved sustainable prac-
tices and can be used to certify roadway projects based on the
achievements of the indicators' requirements and total points
earned (Anderson and Muench, 2013). Although room exists for
improvement in its category and weight assignment similar to
other rating systems (Berardi, 2012; Lew et al., 2016; Ismaeel, 2018).
Greenroads is adopted more by the roadway projects and used in
this study for analysis (Greenroads, 2018).
Table 1 shows the indicators and points of the Greenroads
Rating System Version 1.5 (Muench et al., 2011). The system in-
cludes six categories, namely project requirements (PR), environ-
ment and water (EW), access and equity (AE), construction
activities (CA), materials and resources (MR), and pavement tech-
nology (PT). Another category, custom credit (CC), is provided for
projects to propose creative sustainable measures for earning extra
points. PR indicators should be achieved by every project, and no
points are assigned for these indicators. The indicators in other five
categories can be voluntarily pursued and are voluntary credits
(VC).
As shown in Table 1, the PR category includes the common in-
dicators concerning project issues and activity plans such as the
environmental review process and quality control plan. The EW
category contains environmental indicators for the project such as
the environmental management system and runoff flow control.
The indicators in the AE category address traffic issues such as
safety auditing and intelligent transportation systems. The CA
category contains indicators that can reduce the impacts on the
environment in the construction stage, such as the quality man-
agement system and site recycling plan. The MR category contains
indicators that can reduce the impacts on the environment during
material manufacturing and transportation, such as pavement
reuse. The PT category indicators can reduce the pollution to the
surrounding environment during roadway construction or extend
the pavement lifetime. The CC category provides credit for novel
sustainability measures without using specific indicators.
The six categories comprise a total of 48 indicators. Apart from
the 11 PR indicators, different points are awarded for the indicators
in each category (Table 1). The points were determined on the basis
of the impact of the indicators on the environment (Muench et al.,
2011). The indicators that have a greater impact on the environ-
ment have more points.
A total of 108 points are available for the 37 voluntary indicators
in the five categories. A project can employ applicable indicators on
the basis of its conditions. Moreover, the extra points of the CCs are
earned by proposing creative ideas and additional efforts for
improving the sustainability. Based on the total number of points,
one of four certification levels is achieved. As shown in Fig. 1, a
project with a score between 32 and 42, or PR þ 30% of the points

Table 1
Greenroads indicators and points.

Project requirement (PR) Environment and water (EW) Pts. Access and equity (AE) Pts.

PR-1 Environmental Review Process EW-1Environmental Management System 2 AE-1 Safety Audit 1e2
PR-2 Lifecycle Cost Analysis EW-2Runoff Flow Control 1e3 AE-2 Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) 2e5
PR-3 Lifecycle Inventory EW-3Runoff Quality 1e3 AE-3 Context Sensitive Solutions 5
PR-4 Quality Control Plan EW-4Stormwater Cost Analysis 1 AE-4 Traffic Emissions Reduction 5
PR-5 Noise Mitigation Plan EW-5Site Vegetation 1e3 AE-5 Pedestrian Access 1e2
PR-6 Waste Management Plan EW-6Habitat Restoration 3 AE-6 Bicycle Access 1e2
PR-7 Pollution Prevention Plan EW-7Ecological Connectivity 1e3 AE-7 Transit & HOV Access 1e5
PR-8 Low Impact Development EW-8Light Pollution 3 AE-8 Scenic Views 1e2
PR-9 Pavement Management System Up to 21 AE-9 Cultural Outreach 1e2
PR-10 Site Maintenance Plan Up to 30
PR-11 Educational Outreach

Construction activities (CA) Pts. Materials and resources (MR) Pts. Pavement technology (PT) Pts.

CA-1 Quality Management System 2 MR-1 Lifecycle Assessment 2 PT-1 Long-Life Pavement 5
CA-2 Environmental Training 1 MR-2 Pavement Reuse 1e5 PT-2 Permeable Pavement 3
CA-3 Site Recycling Plan 1 MR-3 Earthwork Balance 1 PT-3 Warm Mix Asphalt 3
CA-4 Fossil Fuel Reduction 1e2 MR-4 Recycled Materials 1e5 PT-4 Cool Pavement 5
CA-5 Equipment Emission Reduction 1e2 MR-5 Regional Materials 1e5 PT-5 Quiet Pavement 2e3
CA-6 Paving Emission Reduction 1 MR-6 Energy Efficiency 1e5 PT-6 Pavement Performance Tracking 1
CA-7 Water Use Tracking 2 Up to 23 Up to 20
CA-8 Contractor Warranty 3
Up to 14
 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847 839

32–42 scores 43–54 scores 55–63 scores 64+ scores

PR + 30% VC PR + 40% VC PR + 50% VC PR + 60% VC
Fig. 1. Greenroads certification levels.
(Source: Muench et al., 2011).

earned from VC indicators, is granted the certified level. A project
with a score higher than 64 obtains the highest evergreen certifi-
cation level.
3. Methods
In this study, a strategy was developed for adopting Greenroads
indicators, and a roadway project was utilized to demonstrate the
application of the strategy. Moreover, a framework involving three
dimensionsdcarbon emission, cost, and difficulty of using the
indicatorsdwas established. The framework also incorporated
their strategy for assigning rules. The applicable indicators for the
case project were analyzed to assess whether the project adhered
to the Greenroads indicator requirements for estimating potential
scores. The carbon emissions, costs, and difficulties of employing
the indicators were also calculated. Finally, the indicator priority
was determined on the basis of the derived scoreeunit ratios.
Because emissions, cost, difficulty, and requirements were analyzed
for the indicators, indicators were the unit of analysis in this study.
Here, CO2e was adopted as an evaluation dimension in the
framework because it has been used as a metric to represent global
warming potential (GWP) in many studies. Although energy effi-
ciency is also critical, various types of energy can be converted into
CO2e through characterization factors. The CO2e involved in an
indicator was calculated to represent the GWP. This information
assists designers and contractors in understanding the effect of
Table 2
Strategy units and combinations.
Strategy unit Combination type
0 0 þ 0
1 0 þ 1
2 1 þ 1, 2 þ 0
3 2 þ 1, 3 þ 0
4 3 þ 1, 2 þ 2
5 3 þ 2
6 3 þ 3
GWP when incorporating an indicator into a project. Cost was
another evaluation dimension. Knowledge of the cost required for
individual indicators helps clients decide which indicators should
be incorporated. Difficulty was also included as a dimension,
because knowledge of the difficulties of incorporating indicators
enables the project participants to identify the order of preference
for indicators.
Greenroads was chosen because the case project was applying
for its certification. This study used the indicators from Version 1.5
because the data from the case project were collected against the
indicators under Version 1.5.
A roadway construction project in Taiwan was used as the case
study. This roadway has a length of 9513 m and consists of bridges
(3265 m), embankments, cuttings, and tunnels (175 m) with in-
terchanges and service roads. The roadway construction involved
various types of bridges, tunnels, pavements, landscapes and
ecologies, transportation pathways, geotechnical areas, drainages,
soil and water conservation channels, and accessory works.
The carbon emissions, costs, and difficulties for the Greenroads
indicators were determined for the roadway case. The carbon
emissions were calculated by the research team by using the ma-
terial and equipment data in the bill of quantities (BOQ) and unit
price breakdown tables of the project documents. The carbon
emission coefficients were adopted from government publications,
relevant studies, and databases.
The costs and difficulties of employing individual indicators
were obtained mainly by interviewing the project participants,
especially the designers. First, the indicator tables (similar to
Table 3) with the last four cost and difficulty column titles were
provided to designers. These tables were completed by eight design
engineers who were involved in the project. Then, individual de-
signers were interviewed separately to discuss the requirements of
the indicators, ensure that they were interpreted correctly, and
confirm the estimated costs and difficulty levels. The contractor
engineers were also interviewed, mainly to clarify the values
specified by the designers. The interviewees were involved in the
certification of the project and all had more than 15 years of

Table 3
CO2e, cost, and difficulty of EW indicators.

Indicator Max. point Score CO2e (T) Cost ($1000) Cost per point ($1000) Difficulty reason Level of difficulty

EW-1 2 2 0 68 34 6 2
EW-2 3 1 10,967 10,205 10,205 0
EW-3 3 0 0 0 e 1, 4 2.2
EW-4 1 1 0 1 1 0
EW-5 3 2 9 1,110 555 2, 1 1
EW-6 3 N/A e e e e N/A
EW-7 3 0 0 38 e 4, 6 2.8
EW-8 3 1 215 994 994 1, 5, 3 2.6

Total 21 7 11,191 12,416 1,774 1.5

840 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847
experience. The quantification methods of the three dimensions are
described as follows.
3.1. Carbon emission
The carbon emissions of individual indicators were calculated as
follows: carbon emissions ¼ activity data  carbon emission coef-
ficient. The activity includes the materials and equipment that
generate carbon emissions. Activity data for the project were ob-
tained from the work items in the BOQ and the materials and
equipment listed in the unit price breakdown tables of the project.
Coefficients from databases such as SimaPro and Gabi are often
adopted by researchers to calculate energy consumption and
emissions (Gowri, 2004). Because the coefficients were adopted
from recognized data sources, the calculated carbon emissions
were recorded as CO2e, which includes the contributions of other
greenhouse gases.
For a roadway project, carbon emissions are mainly generated
from material manufacturing, material transportation, and con-
struction activities (Jeong et al., 2017). Therefore, the carbon
emissions were calculated from these three sources by using the
commonly used formulas provided below. The carbon emissions
were not calculated if the materials or equipment were not used
after incorporating the indicators. For example, no carbon emis-
sions were incurred for the indicators of the PR2 life cycle cost
analysis or CA1 quality management system.
(1) Material manufacturing
This study calculated the carbon emissions of five major
manufacturing materials used in the roadway case project-
dcrushed stones for base and sub-base, steel reinforcement, con-
crete, asphalt concrete, and prestressed steel. These five materials
accounted for 74% of the total carbon emissions of the project
(Chang, 2015). The calculation formula is as follows:
X
ðWM  CMÞ
Where WM: Weights of materials used, CM: Carbon emission co-
efficient of materials.
(2) Material transportation
Material transportation includes transportation of materials,
equipment, personnel, and waste. Because the data for equipment
and personnel transportation were not available and waste was
negligible, only material transportation was considered in this
study. The carbon emissions of material transportation were
calculated according to the weights of materials, transportation
distance, unit fuel consumption, and vehicle loading capacities. The
calculation formula is as follows:
X XWM
 TD  UF  CF
LV
Where WM: Weights of materials, LV: Load capacity of vehicle,
TD: Two ways of transportation distances, UF: Unit fuel consump-
tion, CF: Carbon emission coefficient of fuels.
(3) Construction equipment operations (construction activities)
The carbon emissions from construction equipment operations
were calculated using the following equation.
X
EH  UF  CF (3)
Where EH: Operation hours of equipment, UF: Unit fuel or energy
consumption of equipment, CF: Carbon emission coefficient of fuel
or electricity.
3.2. Cost
Costs related to the indicators included design, construction,
and maintenance costs. Design cost was calculated according to the
hours employed by the designers and their fee. The hourly rate of
the designers was US$31. The construction cost for the contract
with a value of US$155 million is displayed in the case project's
BOQ. The maintenance cost was estimated on the basis of the
payment records of a roadway agency's maintenance work.
These costs included conventional project costs that are unre-
lated to sustainability (e.g., preparing design reports and pouring
concrete) and the costs related to the sustainability indicators (e.g.,
the costs of ecological connectivity). Some work items in the BOQ
were related to both the conventional and sustainability costs (e.g.,
drainage and the intelligent transportation system). However, some
regular work items in conventional roadway projects are related to
sustainability (e.g., landscape design). These costs provided by the
interviewees were allocated to applicable indicators for the case
study.
The indicators were classified into four levels on the basis of the
cost involved: none (approximately US$0), low (<US$100,000),
medium (US$100,000eUS$300,000), and high (>US$300,000).
3.3. Difficulty
First, the requirements of the indicators were analyzed to
identify the difficulties that can be encountered when employing
them. Then, related documents provided by the designers and
contractors were examined, including the design concept, mate-
rials, construction plan, and construction equipment. Finally, the
designers and contractors involved with the project were inter-
(1) viewed, and the difficulties of employing the indicators were
classified on the basis of the aforementioned nine difficulties
(Chang and Tsai, 2015). Each indicator was assigned a maximum of
three difficulties, each with an associated level: low (1), medium
(2), or high (3). A difficulty level of 0 implied that the indicator can
be incorporated into the project without difficulty.
An indicator can have multiple difficulties. Weights were
assigned if an indicator had two or three difficulties. A weight of 1.0
was assigned if an indicator had a single difficulty, whereas weights
of 0.8 and 0.2 were applied when two difficulties were involved and
weights of 0.5, 0.3, and 0.2 were assigned for three difficulties. In
this study, a maximum of three difficulties per indicator was
assumed to prevent multiple difficulties from obscuring the con-
ditions of the indicator (Chang and Tsai, 2015). The average diffi-
culty level was calculated on the basis of the assumed weights. For
example, PT3 (Table A4) had three difficulties: budget and schedule
(reason 3), which was categorized under the high difficulty level;
(2) resources and techniques (reason 7), which was categorized under
the low difficulty level; and lack of experience (reason 6), which
was categorized under the medium difficulty level. The average
difficulty level of this indicator was 0.5  3 þ 0.3  1 þ 0.2  2 ¼ 2.2.
4. Results
4.1. Strategy framework and rules for strategy units
A three-dimensional strategy framework for incorporating
 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847 841

Cost
Y
High
EW5 (L,H,L)

Medium

EW8 (L,H,H) Low MR3 (M,L,0)

Carbon emission
Low
Low Medium High X
Medium
High
Difficulty Z
Fig. 2. Strategy framework for incorporating indicators.

indicators was established, as shown in Fig. 2. The three dimensions requirements. The score and unit are integrated into the scoreeunit
were carbon emission (X-axis), cost (Y-axis), and difficulty (Z-axis). ratio to determine the feasibility of incorporating the indicator.
Each dimension was divided into three zones of high, medium, and Because higher scores and fewer units are preferred, indicators
low; thus, 27 zones were obtained in total. The indicators were with higher scoreeunit ratios are assigned higher priorities.
categorized into the 27 zones on the basis of their values for carbon
emissions, cost, and difficulty.
4.2. Carbon emissions, costs, and difficulties of the indicators
This indicator categorization facilitates decision-making for the
incorporation of suitable indicators. As shown in Fig. 2, the in-
The indicators and their respective weight points are displayed
dicators located closer to the origin, which represent lower carbon
in Table 1. The carbon emissions, costs, and difficulties of individual
emissions, costs, and difficulty, can be more easily incorporated
indicators were analyzed, calculated, and summarized. The detailed
into a project. Conversely, indicators located far from the origin,
results are shown in Table 3 and described as follows by taking the
representing high barriers to incorporation, should be chosen the
EW indicators as an example. The results for other categories are
latest. If a project is assessed as worthy of receiving certification,
provided in the Appendix A.
the incorporation of the indicators would depend on the project
Table 3 lists the CO2e, cost, and difficulty for incorporating the
budget and difficulty in incorporation.
indicators in the EW category. Maximum points are assigned for
The categorization of low, medium, and high for carbon emis-
individual indicators in Greenroads. The scores were assessed for
sions, cost, and difficulty can be defined according to a project's
the roadway case study on the basis of the degree of adherence to
conditions, that is, the values in the three dimensions. Consider the
the indicator requirements. The level of difficulty indicated the
following case study as an example. For carbon emissions, emis-
average difficulty as described in Section 3.3.
sions of <1,000, 1000e10,000, and >10,000 tons are considered as
As shown in Table 3, the maximum number of points of EW2
low, medium, and high, respectively. Costs of <US$100,000,
was 3. The score of EW2 was estimated to be 1 after assessing the
US$100,000eUS$300,000, and >US$300,000 are considered as low,
design of the runoff flow control and relevant measures in the
medium, and high, respectively. Difficulty values of <1, 1e2, and >2
roadway case, which satisfied the requirements of EW2 only
are considered as low, medium, and high, respectively.
partially. The score of EW3 was 0 because the runoff quality indi-
The rules used to assign strategy units are listed as follows. Units
cator was not pursued by the project. The score of EW6 was
of 0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively, are assigned to zero, low, medium, and
recorded as N/A because the habitat restoration indicator was not
high levels for CO2e, cost, and difficulty. “Unit” is used to avoid the
applicable to the project.
confusion with “point” or “score” for the indicators.
For the eight EW indicators in Table 3, only EW2, 5 and 8
generated CO2e. Other indicators with 0 CO2e were paper work
(1) Zero CO2e, cost, or difficulty: 0 unit
such as EW1 environmental management system and EW4
(2) Low CO2e, cost, or difficulty: 1 unit
stormwater cost analysis that did not generate CO2e.
(3) Medium CO2e, cost, or difficulty: 2 units
The CO2e values in Table 3 have support. For example, CO2e for
(4) High CO2e, cost, or difficulty: 3 units
EW2 runoff flow control was 10,967 T. As presented in Table 4,
factors such as the drainage system involving concrete and steel
Table 2 lists the strategy units and possible combinations for an
reinforcement (10,542 T), material transportation (151 T), and
indicator in two dimensions. For the strategy unit of 0, two of the
equipment operation (274 T) mainly contributed to the CO2e.
three dimensions receive 0 units. For the strategy unit of 1, one
Table 4 was prepared using three tablesdmaterials, material
dimension receives 0 units and the other receives 1 unit. For the
transportation, and equipment operation. Many calculations and
strategy unit of 6, each of the two dimensions receives 3 units.
interim tables were required for preparing the three tables for the
Fewer units implies that the indicator has low carbon emissions,
selected case project that included bridges, roads, pavements, and
incurs low difficulty for incorporation, and thus is preferred.
drainages. The values for the tables were calculated from the
Conversely, indicators with more units are not preferred.
quantities and carbon coefficients by using the formulas presented
Other than the strategy unit, the indicators under assessment
in Section 3.1. Detailed calculations and tables were provided by
earn scores on the basis of the degree to which they meet the
Chang (2015).
842 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847

Table 4
Carbon emissions of EW2.

CO2 Sources Work

Bridges Road, pave- ment Drainage system Geotech. Road lighting … Total (ton)

1.Materialst
Concrete 140 1,386 3 695 0 0 2,084
245 353 170 5,599 0 0 6,122
280 18,926 1,302 407 0 0 20,635
Steel SD280 5,368 405 2,398 43 55 8,269
SD420 36,529 0 1,443 0 0 37,972
Subtotal 10,542

2.Transportationt
Concrete 898 32 136 0.04 2 1,068
Steel 169 2 15 0.18 0.24 187
Subtotal 151

3.Equipment
Tower crane 345 0 ` 761
Excavators 3,388 1,700 36 10 5,194
Subtotal 274

After the scores and costs were acquired, the cost per point was Table 5
calculated by dividing the total cost by the score of an indicator. For Scoreeunit ratios of indicators.

example, EW1 had a cost per point of US$34,000 (68,000/2). EW2 Indicator Score Dimension Unit Score/unit Priority
had the highest cost per point ($10,205,000) among the eight in- CO2e Cost Difficulty
dicators. The cost per point became an employing criterion for an
EW1 2 0 1 2 3 0.7 2
indicator. The lower is the cost per point for an indicator, the higher
EW2 1 3 3 0 6 0.2 5
is the priority to incorporate the indicator. EW4 1 0 1 0 1 1.0 1
The nine difficulties described by Chang and Tsai (2015) and the EW5 2 1 3 1 5 0.4 5
weight assignment method explained in Section 3 were used to EW8 1 1 3 3 7 0.1 5
determine the difficulty dimension for incorporating indicators. For Subtotal 7 5 11 6 22 0.3 5
example, EW3 (runoff quality) had two difficultiesd“owner, policy, AE1 1 0 1 1 2 0.5 4
and law” and “insufficient data”dthat were marked as 1 and 4, AE2 4 1 3 2 6 0.7 2
respectively, in Table 3. The former was assessed as level 2 and the AE3 5 0 1 0 1 5.0 1
latter was assigned level 3 by the interviewees. Then, the average AE9 2 0 2 2 4 0.5 4
level of difficulty was 0.8  2 þ 0.2  3 ¼ 2.2. EW7 had the highest Subtotal 12 1 7 5 13 0.9 1
level of difficulty (2.8). CA1 2 0 3 2 5 0.4 5
At the bottom in Table 3, the eight EW indicators with a CA2 1 0 1 1 2 0.5 4
maximum of 21 points (from Table 1) were assessed, and the CA3 1 0 2 0 2 0.5 4
project could achieve 7 points. The total CO2e of the EW indicators CA7 2 0 0 1 1 2.0 1
CA8 3 0 0 3 3 1.0 1
was 11,191 T. The cost for satisfying the EW indicators was
US$12,416,000, and the cost per point was US$1,774,000 Subtotal 9 0 6 7 13 0.7 2
(12,416,000/7). The average level of difficulty was 1.5, which was MR1 2 0 1 2 3 0.7 2
categorized as medium difficulty. MR3 1 2 1 0 3 0.3 5
As shown in Fig. 2, EW5, EW8, and MR3 are located in different MR4 2 1 0 3 4 0.5 3
MR5 4 0 3 0 3 1.3 1
zones in the three-dimensional framework. The (X, Y, Z) coordinate
MR6 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 5
of EW5 was (low, high, low) due to the CO2e of 9 T, cost of
Subtotal 11 4 7 8 19 0.6 4
US$1,110,000, and difficulty level of 1 (Table 3). That of EW8 was
(low, high, high) due to the CO2e of 215 T, cost of US$994,000, and PT1 5 3 3 2 8 0.6 2
difficulty level of 2.6. MR3 was located closer to zero than EW5 and PT3 3 0 2 2 4 0.8 2

EW8 and thus should be incorporated into the design earlier than Subtotal 8 3 5 4 12 0.7 3
EW5 and EW8. The three-dimensional analysis is explained in Total 47 13 36 30 79 0.6
Appendix B.

implying that the score (1) earned is not worth the cost (3) and
4.3. Scoreeunit ratios and priority of indicators
difficulty (3) with low CO2e (1).
The priority of indicator incorporation for the certification is
Table 5 lists the scoreeunit ratios of the indicators considered in
shown in Table 6. As seen in Table 6, five priorities were offered for
the roadway case study. For example, after the assessment, EW1
the roadway case study. The five sets of indicators were determined
earned a score of 2 and received 3 units (0 þ 1 þ 2 ¼ 3). The
according to their scoreeunit ratios and marked with priority
scoreeunit ratio in Table 5 represents the assessed score and unit
numbers in Table 5. The first priority included five indica-
calculated on the basis of the CO2e, cost, and difficulty. AE3 (context
torsdEW4, AE3, CA7, CA8, and MR5dwith scoreeunit ratios of
sensitive solutions) had the highest scoreeunit ratio (5), implying
1.0, as shown in Table 5. They could yield a total score of 15
that the 5 points of this indicator could be earned with the least
(1 þ 5 þ 2 þ 3 þ 4). However, this score was insufficient for the
effort [low cost (1) and no difficulty (0)] and without CO2e (0).
certification level, which requires 32 points, as indicated in Fig. 1. In
Conversely, EW8 (light pollution) had the lowest ratio (1/7 ¼ 0.1),
 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847
Table 6
Priority of indicator incorporation for certification.
Priority Indicator
1st EW4,AE3,CA7, CA8, MR5
2nd EW1, AE2,MR1, PT1, PT2
3rd MR4
4th AE1,AE9, CA2,CA3
5th EW2, EW5, EW8, CA1, MR3, MR6
the second priority level, the five indicators contributed an addi-
tional 16 points (2 þ 4 þ 2 þ 5 þ 13), thus increasing the score to 31.
However, an additional 1 point was required to reach the certified
level.
In the third priority level, MR4 (recycled materials) was selected
because it contributed 2 points and the cost was 0 in the case
study. Therefore, the total score was 33, and the project could
receive the first level of certification. For higher levels of certifica-
tion, the fourth and fifth priorities could be employed to increase
the score by 5 and 9 points, respectively, to a total of 47. Because
this score is higher than 43, the project could receive the silver
certification.
The indicator incorporation can be determined on the basis of
the project owner's target certification level. If the target level is
only to obtain a certification, then the case project should incor-
porate the indicators up to the third priority, as presented in
Table 6. If a silver certification is desired, then all the indicators
listed in Table 6 should be adopted for the roadway case study. If the
target is higher, additional indicators that were not considered in
the case study's design must be adopted, such as EW6, AE4e7,
CA4e6, MR2, PT2, and PT4e6.
In summary, Section 4.1 presents the strategy framework and
rules for the strategy units. Section 4.2 presents the calculated the
carbon emissions, costs, and difficulties of incorporating the in-
dicators (Table 3). Section 4.3 presents the calculated scoreeunit
ratios of the indicators (Table 5), and lists the priority sequence
for incorporating certain indicators into the project (Table 6).
Tables 3, 5 and 6 are crucial when using this framework. By
following the steps listed in Section 4, a project can establish its
own tables and evaluate its strategy by selecting appropriate in-
dicators for certification.
5. Discussions
This study analyzed indicator adoption for roadway sustain-
ability certification, which has received scant attention. In partic-
ular, the developed framework includes unique details, such as the
scoreeunit ratio in Table 5. Related studies that have investigated
green construction, decision-making methods or tools, and
assessment criteria support the findings of the current study. The
clarifications and extensions provided by the current study are
discussed in the second half of this section.
Decision-making methods for green construction include mul-
tiobjective optimization, ranking methods, index-based methods,
and costebenefit analysis (Martin et al., 2007). Among these, the
multiobjective or multicriteria method is the most suitable tool for
the decision-making (Walker, 2010; Flintsh and Bryce, 2014; Sierra
et al., 2018). Criteria methods were identified as a suitable approach
to overcoming the obstacles when integrating environmental
analysis into decision-making (Lame
et al., 2017). The selection of
the indicators on the basis of a trade-off among CO2e, cost, and
difficulty in this study is similar to the selection in multiobjective
optimization. The indicator-incorporation priority was obtained
843
Score Certification level
Total Accumulated
15 15 Not certified
16 31 Not certified
2 33 Certified
5 38 Certified
9 47 Silver
through a ranking method. The CO2e dimension is intended to
provide benefits by reducing emissions; thus, the costebenefit
analysis is also implied in this study. Therefore, the developed
strategy framework is an operational tool for decision-making and
is similar to the decision-analytical framework that can be easily
implemented for sustainable manufacturing (Stoycheva et al.,
2018).
Castro-Lacouture et al. (2009) mentioned that a standard
method to select alternatives that can achieve environmental ob-
jectives and adhere to budget and design limitations has not been
developed. Virtanen et al. (2013) indicated that sustainability
research is required to develop pragmatic tools to integrate sus-
tainability targets with performance management. Moreover,
Trianni et al. (2014) stated that researchers should explore deci-
sion-makers’ needs and identify how different actors' involvement
can be improved. Lew et al. (2016) recommended that the process
of incorporating sustainability into practice by the industry should
be investigated. Stoycheva et al. (2018) stated that the tradeoffs
between sustainability dimensions have rarely been examined in a
sustainability framework. This study responds to these statements
by providing the following: 1) a sustainability strategy framework
to facilitate the selection of alternatives based on the budget, 2) a
pragmatic tool for integration and performance management, 3) a
method to help project owners to get involved in the roadway
sustainability development process, 4) a guidance method to
enable designers and contractors to incorporate sustainability into
their projects, and 5) strategy units to evaluate the tradeoffs among
the CO2e, cost, and difficulty of employing the indicators.
The use of CO2e, cost, and difficulty in the current study is
supported by other studies. For example, Gscho € sser and Wallbaum
(2013) and Liu et al. (2015) have stated that the most commonly
used multiobjective parameters are costs, such as construction and
life cycle costs, and environmental impact factors, such as carbon
footprint. Flintsh and Bryce (2014) considered level of achievement
as a third parameter to identify performance. The level of
achievement can be partially determined by the “difficulty” of
incorporating an indicator. Jeong et al. (2017) evaluated the CO2
emissions, cost, and productivity of building columns. Productivity
is also relevant factor for difficulty because productivity will be
high if the difficulty level is low.
Some issues have been clarified in the research process. The
CO2e, cost, and difficulty of incorporating indicators and the
derived adoption priority were determined on the basis of data
obtained from a roadway project in Taiwan. Carbon emission co-
efficients differ slightly between countries, and costs and diffi-
culties also vary between projects. However, these are minor
problems that do not affect the function of the established
framework.
Although the weights were the same for the three dimensions in
this study, they could differ. Conventional projects would empha-
size cost over the other two dimensions. However, each roadway
project has unique characteristics and considerations. Some pro-
jects may emphasize the environment over cost and difficulty.
844 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847

Therefore, assigning weights to the three dimensions by consid-
ering the actual conditions of individual projects can be considered
in future research.
Realization of sustainable projects is often limited by budget,
manpower, and difficulty. The incorporation of Greenroads in-
dicators into the case project presented similar problems. Hence,
some indicators were not considered in the case study. The strategy
framework can be used systematically to incorporate appropriate
indicators into roadway projects. After more data are collected by
using the framework, barriers will become clear and benchmarks
can be identified with which designers can compare their projects
(Lew et al., 2016; Lame
et al., 2017).
Finally, the strategy framework can be further used to compare
sustainability among various disciplines and projects. As presented
in Table 5, the scoreeunit ratios of various categories can be
compared to determine the category that should be considered
first. For example, AE had a subtotal ratio of 0.9, the highest among
the five categories. Hence, AE indicators were selected under the
first priority level, as stated in Section 4.3. A project team that ex-
cels in certain disciplines could target related indicators to earn
higher scores. Furthermore, the total score, unit, and scoreeunit
ratio of the case study were 47, 79, and 0.6, respectively. These
values can be compared with those of other projects to identify the
projects with high chances of receiving certification.
6. Conclusions
This study developed a strategy framework for indicator adop-
tion in roadway projects for obtaining the Greenroads Rating Sys-
tem certification. The carbon emissions, costs, and difficulties of
employing the indicators were categorized into three levels and
converted into strategy units. Because the certification is awarded
on the basis of the scores, the indicator requirements were
analyzed to assess the scores earned for the case project. The scores
and units were combined to form scoreeunit ratios. The indicators
with higher scoreeunit ratios were assigned higher incorporation
priorities. This simple quantitative ratio is a powerful metric that
can be used to evaluate whether a project has incorporated
appropriate sustainable indicators. Furthermore, the proposed
strategy framework supplements prior research in indicator
employment methods for roadway designing and construction.
Sustainability is an emerging factor in the construction industry.
Many engineers aim toward this goal but lack suitable methods or
tools. The strategy framework developed in this study is a tool to
examine sustainability and arrange the indicators related to the
design and construction work on the basis of their priorities.
Tables 3, 5 and 6 are crucial when using this framework. By
following the steps in Section 4, a project can prepare its own tables
and evaluate its strategy in by selecting appropriate indicators for
obtaining the certification.
Carbon emissions have been researched and calculated in
numerous studies in recent years. However, such calculations are
not ends in themselves. The calculation results should be used in
other applications that warrant further research. In this study, the
calculated CO2e was integrated with the cost and difficulty of
incorporating an indicator. Multiple dimensions can be analyzed
together to better understand the sustainability challenges faced by
engineering projects.
When clients are approached for building a sustainable project,
they often ask questions concerning the related cost, difficulty, and
effects. Cost refers to the cost of incorporating the indicators, and
difficulty reflects experiences using the indicators. Moreover, the
effects can involve carbon emissions caused by the infrastructure
and its use. These three questions can be answered individually or
together by using the values presented in the proposed framework
and tables.
Appendix A. CO2e, Cost, and Difficulty of Indicators in Other
Four Categories

Table A1
CO2e, cost, and difficulty of AE indicators

Indicator Point Score CO2e (T) Cost ($1000) Cost per point ($1000) Difficulty reason Level of difficulty

AE-1 2 1 0 5 5 6 1
AE-2 5 4 221 1,710 428 1 2
AE-3 5 5 0 51 10 0
AE-4 5 N/A e e e N/A
AE-5 2 N/A e e e N/A
AE-6 2 N/A e e e N/A
AE-7 5 N/A e e e N/A
AE-8 2 0 0 0 e 2 3
AE-9 2 2 0 248 124 1、3 1.8

Total 30 12 221 2,014 168 1.6

Table A2
CO2e, cost and difficulty of CA indicators

Indicator Point Score CO2e (T) Cost ($1000) Cost per point (US$1000) Difficulty reason Level of difficulty

CA-1 2 2 0 544 272 6 2

CA-2 1 1 0 14 14 7 1
CA-3 1 1 0 244 244 0
CA-4 2 N/A e e e N/A
CA-5 2 N/A e e e N/A
CA-6 1 N/A e e e N/A
CA-7 2 2 0 0 0 6 1
CA-8 3 3 0 0 0 3 3

Total 14 9 0 802 89 1.4

 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847 845

Table A3
CO2e, cost and difficulty of MR indicators

Indicator Point Score CO2e (T) Cost ($1000) Cost per point ($1000) Difficulty reason Level of difficulty

MR-1 2 2 0 35 18 4、6 1.8

MR-2 5 N/A e e e N/A
MR-3 1 1 4,630 41 41 0
MR-4 5 2 822 544 272 1、5 2.8
MR-5 5 4 120,301 61,631 15,408 0
MR-6 5 2 37 192 96 1、3、7 2.5
Total 23 11 125,790 61,355 5,578 1.4

Table A4
CO2e, cost, and difficulty of PT indicators

Indicator Point Score CO2e (T) Cost ($1000) Cost per point ($1000) Difficulty reason Level of difficulty

PT-1 5 5 9,824 561 112 1 2

PT-2 3 N/A e e e N/A
PT-3 3 3 230 197 66 3、7、6 2.2
PT-4 5 N/A e e e N/A
PT-5 3 N/A e e e N/A
PT-6 1 N/A e e e N/A
Total 20 8 9,594 758 95 2.0

Appendix B. Three-Dimensional Analysis
The priority for incorporating indicators was evaluated using a
three-dimensional analysis. However, two dimensions can be used
to approximate the idea of the priority. Table B1 lists the indicators
in the carbon and cost dimensions in the EW, AE, CA, MR, and PT
categories. Sixteen zones exist for the zero, low, medium, and high
levels. For carbon emissions and costs, the integral numbers such as
impact to the environment. MR5 (regional materials) was placed
here because it reduced CO2e due to material transportation. The
zone of zero carbon emissions and low cost included six indicators.
Therefore, several indicators, such as EW1 (environmental man-
agement system), incurred low cost. For the zone of low carbon
emissions and zero cost, incorporating a “cheaper” indicator, such
as MR4 (recycled materials), could reduce the cost. For the zone of
high carbon emissions and high cost, EW2 (runoff flow control) and
PT1 (long-life pavement), should be assigned the lowest priority.

Table B1
Carbon emissions and costs of indicators in two dimensions

Cost CO2e

Zero (approximately zero or CO2e reduced) Low ˂1,000T Medium 1,000T High S10,000T
e10,000T

Zero (almost zero or cost reduced) CA7 Water use tracking MR4 Recycled materials (cost reduced)
CA8 Contractor warranty
Low ˂ $100,000 EW1 Environmental management system MR3 Earthwork balance
EW4Stormwatercost analysis
AE1Safetyaudit
AE3 Context sensitive solutions
CA2 Environmental training
MR1Lifecycle assessment
Medium AE9 Cultural outreach MR6 Energy efficiency
$100,000~$300,000 CA3Site recycling plan
PT3Warm mix asphalt (CO2e reduced)
High S$300,000 CA1 Quality management system EW5 Site vegetation EW2 Runoff flow control
MR5 Regional materials (CO2e reduced) EW8 Light pollution PT1Long-life pavement
AE2 Intelligent transportation
system

1,000T and $100,000 were used to divide the ranges because the
values calculated from the case project data distinguished the in-
dicators well into the zones. Zero was also used because many in-
dicators such as CA7 water use tracking did not generate emissions
or incur expenditure. The ranges can be determined based on the
conditions of a roadway project.
In Table B1, the zone of zero carbon emissions included 13 out of
the 21 applicable indicators for the case project. Therefore, many of
the indicators, such as CA7 (water use tracking), would cause no
The strategy units of indicators and the indicator-incorporation
priority are explained by taking EW1 as an example. According to
Table 3, EW1 generated a CO2e of 0 T, costed US$68,000, and had a
difficulty level of 2; thus, it was classified into the (zero, low, me-
dium) zone according to the definitions in Section 4.1. On the basis
of the prior rules, the strategy units for the CO2e, cost, and difficulty
of EW1 are 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Then, in the X (CO2e)eY (cost)
dimensions, as shown in Table B1, the combination type for EW1
was 0 þ 1 ¼ 1 unit. Thus, EW1 belongs to the second priority
846 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847
category, as shown in Table 2.
The other two dimensions indicated the following results. In the
Y (cost)eZ (difficulty) dimensions, the combination type of EW1
was 1 þ 2 ¼ 3 units. In the X (CO2e)eZ (difficulty) dimensions, the
combination type was 0 þ 2 ¼ 2 units. The combination type can be
analyzed according to the XeY, YeZ, or XeZ dimensions as per the
requirements. If only the budget and difficulty for the project are
considered, the results from the YeZ dimensions can be referred to
for incorporating appropriate indicators.
Three-dimensional strategy analysis provides a method to
consider CO2e, cost, and difficulty concurrently for the indicators.
However, the strategy excludes the PR indicators, the indicators
marked as N/A (e.g., EW6 in Table 3) and the indicators with a score
of 0 (e.g., EW3 and EW7 in Table 3).
References
Abeelen, C., Harmsen, R., Worrell, E., 2015. Counting project savings-an alternative
way to monitor the results of a voluntary agreement on industrial energy
saving. Energy Effic. 9 (3), 755e770.
Anderson, J.L., 2012. Measuring sustainability in Civil engineering: development,
testing and implementation of the Greenroads™ rating system. PhD thesis. In:
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. University of Washington.
Anderson, J.L., Muench, S.T., 2013. Sustainability trends measured by the Green-
roads rating system. J. Transport. Res. Board 2357, 24e32.
Berardi, U., 2012. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: rating sys-
tems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 20, 411e424.
Bevan, T., Reid, L., Davis, A., Neuman, T., Penney, K., Seskin, S., VanZerr, M.,
Anderson, J., Muench, S., Weiland, C., Ramani, T., Zietsman, J., Crossett, J.,
Crocker, C., Schulz, J., 2015. INVEST Economic, Social, Environmental Sustainable
Highways Self-evaluation Tool v1.2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
http://www.sustainablehighways.org/.
Caiado, R.G.G., Dias, R. d. F., Mattos, L.V., Quelhas, O.L.G., Filho, W.L., 2017. Towards
sustainable development through the perspective of eco-efficiency- A system-
atic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 165, 890e904.
Castro-Lacouture, D., Sefair, A., Florez, L., Medaglia, L., 2009. Optimization model for
the selection of material using a LEED-based green building rating system in
Colombia. J. Build. Environ. 44 (6), 1162e1170.
Cazert, G.T., Anholon, R., Silva, D. d., Ordonez, R.E.C., Quelhas, O.L.G., Filho, W.L.,
Santo-Eulalia, L. A. d., 2018. An assessment of the integration between corporate
social responsibility practices and management systems in Brazil aiming at
sustainability in enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 746e754.
Chang, A.S., Tsai, C.Y., 2015. Difficulty and reasons for sustainable roadway design-
the case from Taiwan. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21 (3), 395e406.
Chang, H.J., 2015. Roadway project CO2 emissions analysis and green strategies for
Greenroads indicators. Master thesis. In: Civil Engineering Department. Na-
tional Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan (Chinese).
Eisenman, A.P.A., 2012. Sustainable streets and highways: an analysis of green roads
rating systems. Master thesis. In: Civil Engineering. University of Georgia
Institute of Technology.
Farzaneh, R., Ramani, T., Krishnan, A., Zietsman, J., 2012. Performance Measures for
Sustainable Freight Movement. University Transportation Centre for Mobility
and Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology
Administration. UTCM 09-37-15.
Flintsh, G., Bryce, J., 2014. Sustainable pavement management. In:
Gopalakrishnan, K., Steyn, W.J., Harvey, J. (Eds.), Climate Change, Energy, Sus-
tainability and Pavements. Springer, New York.
Gonzalo, F., Fernado, R., 2010. A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in
construction project management－Application to infrastructure projects in
Spain. J. Ecol. Indicat. 10 (6), 1193e1201.
Gowri, K., 2004. Green building rating systems: an overview. ASHRAE J. 46 (11),
56e60.
Greenroads, 2018. https://www.greenroads.org/ratingsystem, assessed on July 30,
2018.
Gscho€sser, F., Wallbaum, H., 2013. Life cycle assessment of representative Swiss
road pavements for national roads with and accompanying life cycle cost
analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 8453e8461.
Holton, I., Glass, J., Price, A.D.F., 2010. Managing for sustainability: findings from
four company case studies in the UK precast concrete industry. J. Clean. Prod. 18,
152e160.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015. Climate Change 2014: Mitiga-
tion of Climate Change, vol. 3. Cambridge University Press.
Ismaeel, W.S.E., 2018. Midpoint and endpoint impact categories in Green building
rating systems. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 783e793.
Jeong, J., Hong, T., Ji, C., Kim, J., Lee, M., Jeong, K., Lee, S., 2017. An integrated eval-
uation of productivity, cost, and CO2 emission between prefabricated and
conventional columns. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2393e2406.


Jesús, M.B., Gonzalo, F.S., Alvaro, B., Juan, A.D., Francisco, J.A., 2013. Applying life
cycle thinking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road projects. J. Clean.
Prod. 57, 79e91.
Kamali, M., Hewage, K., 2017. Development of performance criteria for sustain-
ability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods.
J. Clean. Prod. 142, 3592e3606.
Krantz, J., Lu, W., Johansson, T., Olofsson, T., 2017. Analysis of alternative road
construction staging approaches to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. J. Clean.
Prod. 143, 980e988.
Lam, P.T.I., Chan, E.H.W., Chau, C.K., Poon, C.S., Chun, K.P., 2009. Integrating green
specifications in construction and overcoming barriers in their Use. J. Prof. Is-
sues Eng. Educ. Pract. 135 (4), 142e152.
Lame
, G., Leroy, Y., Yannou, B., 2017. Ecodesign tools in the construction sector:
analyzing usage inadequacies with designers' needs. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 60e72.
Lee, C.T., Hashim, H., Ho, C.S., Fan, Y.W., 2017. Sustaining the low-carbon emission
development in Asia and beyond: sustainable energy, water, transportation and
low-carbon emission technology. J. Clean. Prod. 146, 1e13.
Lew, J.B., Anderson, J.L., Muench, S.T., 2016. Informing roadway sustainability
practices by using a Greenroads certified project data. J. Transport. Res. Board
2589, 1e13.
Liu, R., Smartz, B.W., Descheneaux, B., 2015. LCCA and environmental LCA for
highway pavement selection in Colorado. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8 (2), 102e110.
Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Li, D., 2017. Estimation and uncertainty analysis on carbon dioxide
emissions from construction phase of real highway projects in China. J. Clean.
Prod. 144, 337e346.
Mao, R., Duan, H., Dong, D., Zuo, J., Song, Q., Liu, G., Hu, M., Zhu, J., Dong, B., 2017.
Quantification of carbon footprint of urban roads via life cycle assessment: case
study of a megacity-Shenzhen, China. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 40e48.
Martin, C., Ruperd, Y., Legret, M., 2007. Urban stormwater drainage management:
the development of multi-criteria decision aid approach for best management
practices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181, 338e349.
McBride, A.C., Dale, V.H., Baskaran, L.M., Downing, M.E., Eaton, L.M.,
Efroymson, R.A., Garten Jr., C.T., Kline, K.L., Jager, H.I., Mulholland, P.J.,
Parish, E.S., Schweizer, P.E., Storey, J.M., 2011. Indicators to support environ-
mental sustainability of bioenergy system. Ecol. Indicat. 11, 1277e1289.
Meng, F., Liu, G., Yang, Z., Casazza, M., Cui, S., Ulgiati, S., 2017. Energy efficiency of
urban transportation system in Xiamen, China. An integrated approach. Appl.
Energy 186, 234e248.
Muench, S.T., 2010. Roadway construction sustainability impacts: review of life-
cycle assessments. J. Transport. Res. Board 2151, 36e45.
Muench, S.T., Anderson, J.L., Hatfield, J.P., Koester, J.R., Soderlund, M., 2011. In:
Anderson, J.L., Weiland, C.D., Muench, S.T. (Eds.), Greenroads manual v1.5.
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Oswald, M.R., McNeil, S., 2010. Rating sustainability: transportation investments in
urban corridors as a case study. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 136, 177e185.
Pittenger, D.M., 2011. Evaluating sustainability of selected airport pavement treat-
ments with life-cycle cost, raw material consumption, and Greenroads stan-
dards. J. Transport. Res. Board 2206, 61e68.
Raja, R.R.M.R., Nurizan, A.R., Nazurah, Z.U.B., MuhdZaimi, M., Faridah, I., 2014. An
evaluation of sustainable design and construction criteria for green highway. In:
4th International Conference on Sustainable Future for Human Security, Sustain
2013, Procedia Environmental Sciences, vol. 20, pp. 180e186.
Rooshdi, R.R.R.M., Rahman, N.A., Baki, N.Z.U., Majid, M.Z.A.M., Ismail, F., 2014. An
evaluation of sustainable design and construction criteria for green highway.
Procedia Environ. Sci. 20, 180e186.
Russell-Smith, S.V., Lepech, M.D., Fruchter, R., Meyer, Y.B., 2015. Sustainable target
value design: integrating life cycle assessment and target value design to
improve building energy and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 88,
43e51.
Selih, J., 2007. Environmental management systems and construction SMES: a case
study for Slovenia. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 13 (3), 217e226.
Shen, L., Wu, Y., Zhang, X., 2011. Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of
infrastructure projects. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. ASCE 137 (6), 441e451.
Shivakumar, S., Pedersen, T., Wilkins, S., Schuster, S., 2014. EnvisionTM e a measure
of infrastructure sustainability. Pipelines 2249e2256.
Sierra, L.A., Yepes, V., Pellicer, E., 2018. A review of multi-criteria assessment of the
social sustainability of infrastructures. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 496e513.
Stoycheva, S., Marchese, D., Paul, C., Padoan, S., Juhmani, A., Linkov, I., 2018. Multi-
criteria decision analysis framework for sustainable manufacturing in auto-
motive industry. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 257e272.
Trianni, A., Cagno, E., De Donatis, A., 2014. A framework to characterize energy
efficiency measures. Appl. Energy 118, 207e220.
Tsai, C.Y., Chang, A.S., 2012. Framework for developing construction sustainability
items: the example of highway design. J. Clean. Prod. 20, 127e136.
VanZerr, M., Connolly, S., Sowerby, C., Harmer, C., Folkeson, L., Gudmundsson, H., de
Vos-Effting, S., Leegwater, G., 2012. Best Practices in Sustainability Rating Sys-
tems. SUNRA, Deliverable D3.1, Road ERA Net.
Veeravigrom, M., Muench, S.T., Kosonen, H., 2015. Global framework for sustainable
roadway rating systems. In: Presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, 11e15 January 2015, Washington, D.C.
Virtanen, T., Tuomaala, M., Pentti, E., 2013. Energy efficiency complexities: a tech-
nical and managerial investigation. Manag. Account. Res. 24, 401e416.
Waage, S.A., 2007. Re-considering product design: a practical road-map for inte-
gration of sustainability issues. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 638e649.
Walker, G., 2010. Environmental justice, impact assessment and politics of knowl-
edge: the implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental
outcomes. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30, 312e318.
Wang, X., Duan, Z., Wu, L., Yang, D., 2015. Estimation of carbon dioxide emission in
 A.S. Chang et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 203 (2018) 836e847
highway construction: a case study in southwest region of China. J. Clean. Prod.
103, 705e714.
Yuan, H., 2013. Key indicators for assessing the effectiveness of waste management
in construction projects. Ecol. Indicat. 24, 476e484.
Andrew S. Chang is a professor of Civil Engineering Department of National Cheng
Kung University in Taiwan. He got his PhD degree from the University of California at
Berkeley and used to work in the construction industry for 10 years. His current
research is in sustainable design and management.
Hsiao J. Chang is an Engineer of Taiwan Water Corporation. She got the Master degree
from Civil Engineering Department of National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan. Her
thesis analyzed roadway project CO2 emissions and green strategies.
847
Calista Y. Tsai is an assistant professor at Dept. of Hydraulic Engineering, National
Cheng Kung Univ. in Taiwan. She got her PhD from Civil Engineering Department of
National Cheng Kung University. She has 15 years of construction management and
project scheduling experience. Her current research focuses on infrastructure sus-
tainability evaluation.
Shih H. Yang is an assistant professor of Civil Engineering Department of National
Cheng Kung University in Taiwan. He got his PhD degree from University of Illinois at
Urbana Champaign. He has extensive experience in roadway engineering, pavement
materials, and infrastructure management.
Steve T. Muench is an associate professor of University of Washington in the USA.
Since 2011, Dr. Muench has been the holder of the Tom and Marilyn Draeger | The
Beavers Charitable Trust professorship. He has research interest in transportation
infrastructure. Current sustainability efforts include Greenroads, a sustainability rating
system for roadway design and construction.