Alexandria Engineering Journal (2019) 58, 1399–1411

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Sustainability index for highway construction

projects
Ahmed H. Ibrahim, Mohamed A. Shaker *

Construction Engineering and Utilities, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

Received 28 October 2019; revised 8 November 2019; accepted 16 November 2019

Available online 7 December 2019

KEYWORDS Abstract The focus of this research is to develop a sustainability index for Egyptian highways con-
Sustainability; struction projects that assist highways engineers, mangers and highways agencies to develop sus-
Highways; tainable design, construction, operation and maintenance processes for highways. It acts as a
Index; sustainable measurement tool for highways construction and maintenance practices to determine
Sustainability index; the achieved performance of sustainability in the highways construction projects represented by
Evaluation model; an index. This index reflexes the implementation amount of sustainable choices used throw the high-
Analytical hierarchy process; ways construction process and even more in the maintenance process. A review on recent studies
Rating system and available tools on highways sustainability covered to develop appropriate parameters for the
indexing model and avoidance of non-compatible parameters with the Egyptian highways nature
then performing questionnaire on these model parameters to obtain optimum sustainable choices.
In order to get reliable results correlation and reliability analysis performed on the data then
extracting the most effective parameters according to Pareto concept then making pairwise compar-
ison questionnaire serving AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) requirements to obtain the weights
of each parameter in the model. A scorecard for the indexing model developed to get rating system.
Case studies presented to demonstrate the use of the sustainability index for Egyptian highways
construction projects.
Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction The sustainability characteristics of a highways project should

be defined and fulfilment during its different lifecycle stages [2].
Sustainable highways takes into account development of com- Sustainability in highways has to be handled with the real-
munity and economy within the improvement of the natural ization that highways are the pivotal part of transportation
environment and minimization of natural resource usage [1]. infrastructure, and transportation is unavoidable to face
human needs. Besides environmental and natural resource
requirements handling, the development of a sustainable high-
* Corresponding author.
ways should concentrate on attained access (not just mobility),
E-mail addresses: mekky69@yahoo.com (A.H. Ibrahim), zmohamed- transport people and goods (not just vehicles), and supplying
shakerz@gmail.com (M.A. Shaker).
human with transportation possibilities, such as safe and com-
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
fortable roads for walking, cycling, and transit [3].
University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.11.011
1110-0168 Ó 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1400
Highways construction projects are voracious of energy
and material which outcomes a large amount of losses [4].
For example, (7TJ) of energy consumed to construct a 1-km
length of typical two-lane road with flexible pavement [5]. A
sustainable way to highways construction starts with reusing
plan and practical usage of the material already existing on
the site.
Lack of comparative and quantitative analysis methods
prevent rating the economic and environmental advantages,
which carried out by using recycled materials in construction.
The highways construction industry emphasized three factors
throw its history: cost, time, and quality. Those factors do
not take into consideration human needs, environmental
impacts, or social responsibility risks [6].
Sustainable choices become the base of the transportation
section and adopted by many countries transportation author-
ities. Sustainable choices become the phraseology of trans-
portation sectors, but the adoption of such choices, not fast
enough to get over the increasing universal demand of
resources [7].
2. Literature survey
Numerous professionals consider the term ‘‘Sustainable high-
ways” an ironic expression as there are huge material con-
sumption and have significant impacts to the natural
resources due to highways construction and vehicles use of
the highways [8]. When think carefully about the triple bottom
line principles, the social and economic benefits that our high-
ways provide must also considered, such as access, mobility,
and the economic benefits of transport people and goods. In
that situation, highways are a very vital part of our infrastruc-
ture and certainly a necessary infrastructure of our society [9].
2.1. Existing highways sustainability rating systems
2.1.1. GreenLITES (Green Leadership in transportation and
environmental Sustainability)
GreenLITES developed by New York State department of
transportation (DOT) to recognize best practices and to mea-
sure their performance by evaluating projects incorporating
sustainable choices. Highways construction projects evaluated
for sustainable choices on the basis of two certification pro-
grams; i.e., a rating program for project designs and a rating
program for operations then a certification level (i.e., certified,
silver, gold, and evergreen) is assigned according to the total
credits received [10].
2.1.2. Greenroads (University of Washington)
Greenroads is a collection of sustainability best choices that
can be applied to highways construction. Greenroads consists
of required best choices and voluntary best practices. Required
best choices should be satisfied as a minimum requirement,
while voluntary best practices on the other hand to enhance
sustainability [11].
2.1.3. IN-VEST (Infrastructure voluntary evaluation
sustainability Tool)
IN-VEST is a web-based self-evaluation tool developed by the
Federal Highways Administration to measure the sustainability
A.H. Ibrahim, M.A. Shaker
of highways construction. IN-VEST consists of 68 practice
based on sustainability best choices. IN-VEST uses other tools
(e.g., GreenLITES and Greenroads) as references [12].
2.1.4. CEEQUAL (Civil engineering environmental quality
assessment and award Scheme)
CEEQUAL considered as a sustainability evaluation to rate
civil engineering, infrastructure and, landscaping. CEEQUAL
gives support and raise the achievement of high economic,
environmental and social development in all forms of civil
engineering through determining and applying best choices.
It looking forward to assist clients, designers and contractors
to get improved sustainability performance in a project or con-
tract, during specification, design and construction. In addi-
tion to its use as a rating system to assess performance, the
rigor and flexibility of the scheme can significantly influence
project or contract team decisions as they develop, design
and construct their work. It stimulate them to consider the sus-
tainability choices they face at the most appropriate time and
enables them to achieve the CEEQUAL score their work
deserves. CEEQUAL helpful in projects and contracts [13].
2.1.5. STEED (Sustainable transportation environmental
engineering and Design)
STEED is a 35-page document organized by categories and
checklists. In order to use STEED practices on a project there
are four-stage process in which each stage of design, construc-
tion, etc. is evaluated. By evaluating a project in each stage of
project completion, the overall project intentions can be
tracked to determine if the objectives were met, ‘‘and, if not,
during which stage things either improved or deteriorated.”
While one project may not up hold all of the intentions from
the planning to environmental stages, or environmental to
design and then construction, the goal of measuring the project
at each of the four stages is ultimately to learn where and how
sustainable practices can be effectively integrated so that future
project sustainability can be maximized. Use of materials is
one emphasis of the STEED program [14].
2.1.6. Envision
The Envision is a rating system consists of five sections: Qual-
ity of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural World,
and Climate and Risk. Totally, 60 credits make up this rating
system. A 2-page write-up describing each credit includes the
intent, levels of achievement, a description of how to achieve
a higher level, documentation, and related credits [15].
2.1.7. I-LAST (Illinois livable and sustainable transportation
rating system and Guide)
I-LAST consists of two main parts, the first part is the rating
system and the second part is a guide developed by Illinois
department of transportation to evaluate the sustainability of
highways projects. I-LAST consists of over 150 sustainable
items. The scoring process of I-LAST consists of three steps:
(1) determining the items applicable to a project; (2) evaluating
the total points for the achieved items; and (3) scoring by cal-
culating the percentage of achieved points to the total available
points [16].
Summary of all previous systems appears in Table 1.
Sustainability index for highway construction 1401

Table 1 Summary of literature review.

System Brief Reference
GreenLITES Evaluating projects incorporating sustainable choices. NYSDOT [10]
Greenroads Consists of required best choices and voluntary best practices Muench et al. [11]
IN-VEST Web-based self-evaluation tool. Shepherd, G. [12]
CEEQUAL Sustainability evaluation to rate civil engineering, infrastructure and, landscaping. Bocchini et al. [13]
STEED A 35-page document organized by categories and checklists. Ana Athalia [14]
Envision A rating system consists of five sections: Quality of Life, Leadership, Institute for Sustainable
Resource Allocation, Natural World, and Climate and Risk. Infrastructure [15]
I-LAST Consists of two main parts, the first part is the rating system and the second part Knuth, D., and Fortmann, J. [16]
is a guide to evaluate the sustainability of highways projects.

2.2. Problem statement non-applicable elements in the Egyptian highways construc-

It is important that highways departments set their targets and
key performance indicators at the right level, to realize contin-
uous improvement in sustainability performance [22]. The
objective of this paper is to get over this problem by
developing extensive sustainability index for Egyptian high-
ways construction projects with certification levels. As the
existing systems mentioned in the literature review have
tion projects nature such as GreenLITES, which is an internal
management program for NYSDOT to measure their perfor-
mance internally and based on their local parameters.
2.3. Aim of the research
The overall aim of this research is to develop a practical and
easy to use indexing model to aid the implementation, integra-
tion and management of sustainability issues in the highways
construction wider uptake of the concept in the highways con-
struction industry in Egypt. This could be achieved by devel-
oping a model that helps construction companies identify
gaps in their corporate sustainability implementation efforts,
focus attention on areas for improvement, benchmark their
performance with peers and the highways construction indus-
try as a whole. In this context, four key objectives were identi-
fied as following.

1. Investigate the concept of sustainability, sustainable devel-

opment, sustainability indexing, highways sustainability
and existing strategic approaches and systems. This
objective achieved in the literature review by reviewing
recent studies and available tools on highways sustainabil-
ity to develop appropriate parameters for the indexing
model;
2. Identify model parameters and performing questionnaire
on these parameters to obtain optimum sustainable choices.
In order to get reliable results correlation and reliability
analysis performed on the questionnaire data. This objec-
tive achieved in the data collection stage by obtaining
parameters of the model then performing questionnaire to
obtain optimum sustainable parameters then processing
of questionnaire data using correlation and reliability anal-
ysis to get the most reliable and correlated data;

10% 7% Academics

Industry
Organizations

83% Research centres

Fig. 1 Research methodology. Fig. 2 Profile of participants.

1402
Table 2 Sustainability Index for Highway Construction Projects for design and construction (Score Sheet) [10–16].
Sustainability Index for Highway Construction Projects (Score Sheet)
Category
1. Sustainable Alignment
2. Energy Efficiency and
Emissions Reduction
3. Materials and Resources
A.H. Ibrahim, M.A. Shaker
ID Description Points
(0)or(1)
1.1 Alignment Precautions
1_1.1_1 Selecting alignment needs the minimum water structure facilities.
1_1.1_2 Selecting alignment to minimize over all earthworks.
1_1.1_3 Avoidance or the less impact to social resources (historic sites, commercial facilities,
residential buildings).
1.2 Management Precautions
1_1.2_1 Was an Economic Impact Analysis completed?
1_1.2_2 Contractor required to plan and implement quality control measures through construction
and for materials required by specifications.
1_1.2_3 Employ Stakeholder involvement techniques to achieve consensus for Preferred Project
Alternative.
1.3 Sensitive Solutions
1_1.3_1 Safe illumination of roadways while minimizing unnecessary and harmful illumination of
the surrounding communities.
1_1.3_2 Did the project integrate context sensitive aesthetic treatments?
2.1 Reduce Petroleum Consumption
2_2.1_1 Projects better enabling use of public transit through increasing transportation efficiencies
for moving freely and conserve fuel.
2_2.1_2 Use of warm mix asphalt.
2_2.1_3 Using LED sign traffic signals and usage of all stop phase.
2_2.1_4 Diamond grinding of existing Portland Cement Concrete pavement.
2_2.1_5 Was at least 50 percent of the total project pavement material (by weight) a low energy
material from asphalt production (warm mix asphalt)?
2_2.1_6 Was the warm mix asphalt mixing temperature reduced by a minimum of 50 degrees from
that recommended by the binder supplier. Or, it was asphalt from a plant utilizing the
energy and fuel savings according to energy star certified .
2.2 Reduce Electrical Consumption
2_2.2_1 Installation of preemptive signals.
2_2.2_2 Use of LED street lighting.
2_2.2_3 Retrofit existing street sign lighting with LED.
2.3 Improve Pedestrian and Bicycling Facilities
2_2.3_1 Create new or extend existing sidewalks.
2_2.3_2 Work with local communities to create parallel bike routes where city roads are not
suitable for less experienced cyclists.
2_2.3_3 Upgrading pedestrian signals, inclusion of pedestrian buttons and countdown timers.
2_2.3_4 New curbing (where none previously existed), to better define the edge of a roadway and to
provide vertical separation of pedestrian facilities; does not include flush, mountable or
bridge curbing.
2.4 Noise Abatement
2_2.4_1 Applying traffic system management techniques to reduce noise levels (e.g. use of truck
routes, progressive traffic signals, lowering speeds).
2_2.4_2 Provide planting to improve perceived noise impacts.
3.1 Reusing
3_3.1_1 50% or more of topsoil removed for grading reused on site.
3_3.1_2 Major structural elements such as piers reusing if the life cycle feature guaranteed.
3_3.1_3 Reuse of industrial products in pavement materials, ancillary structures, and other
roadway elements.
3_3.1_4 Has topsoil been preserved or reused on this project?
3.2 Recycling
3_3.2_1 Specify rubble or crack and seating of Portland Cement Concrete pavement.
3_3.2_2 Contract provides scrap metals for reuse or recycling.
3_3.2_3 Recycled Asphalt Pavement mixes usage.
3.3 Environmental Footprint
3_3.3_1 Project design substantially minimizes the need to use hazardous materials (e.g. steel or
concrete railroad ties instead of treated wood), or increases the interval before re-
construction must be performed using hazardous or toxic materials, or improves durability
of components that contain hazardous substances.
3_3.3_2 Specify locally available natural light weight fill.
3.4 Sensitive Precautions
Sustainability index for highway construction 1403

Table 2 (continued)
Sustainability Index for Highway Construction Projects (Score Sheet)
Category
4. Water and Environment
5. Life Standard
Total Points
ID Description Points
(0)or(1)
3_3.4_1 Increase remaining service life through retrofitting existing bridge structures.
3_3.4_2 Designing of long lasting pavement structures to minimize lifecycle costs.
3_3.4_3 Project designs that utilize soil-bioengineering solutions to reliance on plant material for
slope protection, rebuilding, stabilization, and erosion control along waterways.
3_3.4_4 Reduction of new pavement materials amount needed.
4.1 Water Precautions
4_4.1_1 The project treatment of 80% of the total runoff volume at least.
4_4.1_2 Manage and control the flow based on controlling peak flows or durations from the
project site.
4_4.1_3 Were high quality aquatic resources avoided or were the impacts minimized on this
project?
4_4.1_4 Shoulders constructed of permeable pavement.
4.2 Wildlife and Plant Communities
4_4.2_1 Re-establishment and expansion of native vegetation into reclaimed work areas.
4_4.2_2 Environmental third party to monitor and provide quality assurance services and report
directly and make recommendations to the regulatory and lead agencies.
4_4.2_3 Were high quality environmental resources avoided or were the impacts minimized on this
project?
5.1 Visual Enhancement
5_5.1_1 Availability of vision of (landscapes, landmarks) on the highway.
5_5.1_2 Decorative bridge fencing (instead of standard fencing).
5_5.1_3 Is the contractor required to establish, implement, and maintain a formal Noise Mitigation
Plan during roadway construction?
5.2 Safety
5_5.2_1 Installation of preemptive signals.
5_5.2_2 Does the authority conduct explicit consideration of safety using quantitative, scientifically
proven methods?
5.3 Public Partnership and Historical Preservation
5_5.3_1 Were freight facilities installed on this project consistent with the need, purpose, and
appropriateness for freight mobility within the project footprint within enhancing mobility
of freight movements, decrease fuel consumption and emissions impacts, and reduce
freight related noise?
5_5.3_2 Corporation with public educational outreach to promote and educate the public about
sustainability.
5_5.3_3 Has an effort been made to minimize impacts, avoid impacts, or enhance features to
preserve, protect, or enhance cultural and historic assets, and historic, archaeological, or
cultural intrinsic qualities in a roadway?
5_5.3_4 Effort been made to minimize impacts, avoid impacts, or enhance features on a portion of
the project along one of any route designated or officially recognized as significantly
historical, cultural, or archaeological.
0

3. Model development by refinement of the parameters 3. Methodology

obtained in the data collection. This objective achieved in
the model development stage by extracting the most
Methodology consists of performing data collection and per-
effective parameters according to Pareto concept then
forming reliability and correlation analysis on the collected
making pairwise comparison questionnaire -serving AHP
data, then develop the model by applying Pareto concept
(Analytical Hierarchy Process) requirements- to obtain
and Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP. Finally develop a
the weights of each parameter in the model and provide
scoring system to use the model as a rating system as shown
of a scorecard for the indexing model developed to get a
in Fig. 1.
rating system;
4. Evaluate the indexing model on existing highways construc-
3.1. Data collection
tion projects. This objective achieved by presenting case
studies to demonstrate the use of the sustainability index
for highways construction projects in order to find the In this section, a model was developed to address the major
position of the highways construction industry from sus- factors that influence highways construction sustainability that
tainability. had been adopted by existing systems to assess the sustainability
1404 A.H. Ibrahim, M.A. Shaker

Table 3 Sustainability Index for Highway Construction Projects for operation, maintains and planning (Score Sheet) [10–16].
Sustainability Index for Highway Construction Projects (Score Sheet)
Category ID Description Points (0)
or(1)
1. Management and 1.1 Management Standards
Leadership 1_1.1_1 Are Financial Management Systems integrated within the Maintenance Management System?
1_1.1_2 Are Construction/Project Management Systems integrated within the Maintenance Management
System?
1_1.1_3 Has the authority implemented an road maintenance plan?
1_1.1_4 Does the plan include performance measures that can be used to monitor the effects of plan
implementation?
1.2 Partnership
1_1.2_1 Does the authority use best practice quantitative methods to analyze and evaluate the
performance of alternative land use/ transportation scenarios?
1_1.2_2 Provide institutional leadership in encouraging transportation designing that’s in step with land
use and economic development plans which supports property principles.
1.3 Leadership
1_1.3_1 Has the authority developed a comprehensive internal sustainability plan that includes goals,
performance metrics, quantifiable targets, strategies, and actions?
1_1.3_2 Is sustainability training provided for staff, including an introduction to the Comprehensive
Internal Sustainability Plan?
2. Energy Efficiency 2.1 Energy Reduction Strategies
2_2.1_1 Does the authority employ a representative or maintain an employee committee focused on the
reduction of energy consumption and sustainability?
2_2.1_2 Does the authority coordinate with partner agencies and integrate energy and fossil fuel reduction
strategies in the Long Range Transportation Plan, and does the Long Range Transportation Plan
includes a discussion of the impacts of including these strategies?
2_2.1_3 Had the authority incorporated energy and fossil fuel reduction performance measures into the
transportation planning process?
2.2 Energy efficiency Leadership
2_2.2_1 Does the authority include in the Long Range Transportation Plan or other appropriate plan
specific goals for maintaining and improving freight connectivity between modes and to freight
generators for bothinter and intra town freight, in ways in which enhance sustainability?
2_2.2_2 Does the authority utilize institutional mechanisms to facilitate the engagement of freight
stakeholders?
2_2.2_3 Does the authority include and monitor freight access performance measures in planning
documents?
2_2.2_4 Does the authority include and monitor freight mobility performance measures in planning
documents?
3. Materials and 3.1 Reusing
Financials 3_3.1_1 Has the authority set goals for operation and maintenance material reduction, reuse, and
recycling?
 Goals are set for both administrative waste and operations and maintenance waste.
3_3.1_2 Does the authority have a documented plan that outlines how the reduce, reuse, and recycle goals
will be accomplished?
 A plan is developed for both administrative waste and operations and maintenance waste.
3.2 Revenue and cost
3_3.2_1 Does the authority undertake systematic forecast updates?
3_3.2_2 Does the authority have established processes for engaging stakeholders in a dialogue about the
implications of any changes in revenue forecasts?
3.3 Data evaluation
3_3.3_1 Does the authority demonstrate that the analysis has a strong foundation in observed data
suitable for developing tools which model the land use, socioeconomic, transport, and
environmental systems?
3_3.3_2 Does the authority’s organizational structure include a technical committee to ensure the
technical review of data collection/ quality, planning assumptions, and forecasting methods?
3_3.3_3 Has the authority developed clearly defined goals and objectives for linking planning in their
planning documents?
4. Environment and 4.1 Environmental precautions
Emissions 4_4.1_1 Does the authority utilize institutional mechanisms to facilitate the engagement?
4_4.1_2 Does the authority apply system or landscape scale evaluation techniques using natural resource
data?
Sustainability index for highway construction 1405

Table 3 (continued)
Sustainability Index for Highway Construction Projects (Score Sheet)
Category ID Description Points (0)
or(1)
4_4.1_3 The authority monitors progress toward goals for at least one year and the authority can show
measurable advancement towards goals.
4.2 Emission reduction
4_4.2_1 Does the authority partner with the governmental environmental authority, to coordinate and
implement vehicle technologies including diesel emissions reduction strategies and clean vehicle
strategies?
4_4.2_2 Does the authority have quantifiable air emissions performance measures incorporated into its
transportation planning documents?
5. Life Standard 5.1 Integrated Planning
5_5.1_1 Does the authority demonstrate to stakeholders how their input was used to inform and affect
transportation planning decisions?
5_5.1_2 Does the authority implement transportation investments that support the community’s vision
and goals and help achieve sustainability outcomes?
5_5.1_3 Does the authority analyze how its transportation planning documents address or improves
concerns/issues into the development of plans and policies?
5_5.1_4 Does the authority’s Long Range Transportation Plan include performance measures that can be
used to monitor the effects of plan implementation on transportation accessibility and
affordability?
5.2 Safety
5_5.2_1 Does the authority integrate quantitative safety considerations in the selection and evaluation of
strategies during the transportation planning process?
5_5.2_2 Does the authority routinely join roadway, operation, asset management, medical, and other
datasets spatially with crash data in the analysis?
5.3 Multimodal transportation and public health
5_5.3_1 Has the authority developed goals and objectives for enhancing the extent and connectivity of
multimodal infrastructure within its jurisdiction?
5_5.3_2 Has the authority developed clearly defined goals and objectives for improving the efficiency of
the transportation system within its jurisdiction?
5_5.3_3 Are the goals and objectives also consistent or surpass with relevant local, and metropolitan goals
and objectives for improving transportation system efficiency?
Total Points

Table 4 Pearson correlation Output.

Phase 1: Correlations Phase 2: Correlations
Axis Subcategory Significance Axis Subcategory Significance
1 1_1 0.73 1 1_1 0.89
1_2 0.79 1_2 0.84
1_3 0.77 1_3 0.7
2 2_1 0.89 2 2_1 0.9
2_2 0.93 2_2 0.9
2_3 0.91 3 3_1 0.7
2_4 0.79 3_2 0.95
3 3_1 0.94 3_3 0.96
3_2 0.91 4 4_1 0.97
3_3 0.75 4_2 0.95
3_4 0.85 5 5_1 0.97
4 4_1 0.96 5_2 0.7
4_2 0.97 5_3 0.92
5 5_1 0.91
5_2 0.77
5_3 0.89
1406 A.H. Ibrahim, M.A. Shaker

values and comprises five axis (each axis has its subcategory
Table 5 Cronbach’s Alpha Output.
axes) in each phase – phase one represents (Design and Con-
Axis Reliability Statistics Axis Reliability Statistics struction) and phase two represents (Operation, and Mainte-
Phase: 1 Cronbach’s Alpha Phase: 2 Cronbach’s Alpha nance) – each phase content will be showed clearly in Tables
1 0.8 1 0.82 2 and 3. The labels of subcategory mentioned in Table 4
2 0.83 2 0.89 explained with details in Tables 2 and 3. Pearson’s coefficient
3 0.82 3 0.84 showed that this questionnaire is an accepted correlation.
4 0.92 4 0.91 Pearson’s coefficient = 0.7 as its lowest value and no items
5 0.84 5 0.83 need to be removed as shown in Table 4.

3.1.2. Reliability analysis

of the roads and also from previous studies that were exposed
in the introduction. A first questionnaire survey was adminis-
tered to address the major factors that influence highways con-
struction sustainability from the point of view of the road
industry sector in Egypt, and finally revise the results obtained
and form the final model.
Reliability analysis was carried out on the first question-
naire to determine the reliability of the results of the collected
data. Correlation analysis was carried out on the first question-
naire to determine the correlation of the results of the collected
data.
In the first questionnaire design process, previous studies
undertaken in the area of highways sustainability, green high-
ways, and existing systems that rate highways sustainability
have been taken into consideration. First questionnaire were
sent out by electronic mail and were also hand-delivered to
100 experts in the highways sustainable construction field. A
total of 70 questionnaires were duly completed and retrieved.
The profile of participants illustrated in Fig. 2.
3.1.1. Correlation analysis
Correlation is a statistical tool that helps to measure and ana-
lyze the degree of relationship between two or more variables
[17]. Correlation analysis was carried out on the perceived task
Reliability analysis make an allusion to the reality that a scale
ought to reliably reflect the construct it is measuring [18]. To
ascertain the confidence level of the collected data, reliability
analysis was performed and the values of Cronbach’s Alpha
shown in Table 5.
Comprising five axes (each one has its subcategory axes).
Cronbach’s alpha (a) showed that this questionnaire is an
accepted reliability. a = 0.80 as its lowest value and no items
need to be removed.
3.2. Model development
The criteria used to develop the model is AHP (Analytical
Hierarchy Process) as following:
 Input elements of AHP induced by extracting the most
effective elements from the questionnaire after correlation
and reliability analysis according to Pareto concept.
 Perform pairwise comparison questionnaire to serve AHP
requirements in order to find relative weight of each
element.
 Formation of the final model, which appears in the Tables 2
and 3.

Table 6 Fundamental scale of absolute numbers [21].

Intensity of Definition Explanation
Importance
1 Equal Importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective
2 Weak or slight
3 Moderate Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another
importance
4 Moderate plus
5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another
6 Strong plus
7 Very strong An activity is favored very strongly over another
8 Very, very strong
9 Extreme importance The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation

Sustainability index for highway construction projects

Design and Construction Operation, Maintenance, and Planning

Fig. 3 Hierarchy model of sustainability index for highway projects [10–16].

Sustainability index for highway construction 1407

 Input data of the model is one (applicable in project) or
zero (non-applicable in project).
 Output of the model is an index.
The final index produced by the model determines the
achieved performance of sustainability in a highways construc-
tion project. This index reflexes the implementation amount of
sustainable choices used throw the highways construction pro-
cess and even more in the maintenance process.
3.2.1. Pareto analysis
Pareto analysis is a statistical technique in decision making
which used for selection of a most choices that produce signif-
icant overall effect. [19]. It uses the concept based on identify-
ing the top 20% of causes that need to be addressed in order to
resolve 80% of the problems.
In this research, Pareto applied on the results of the first
questionnaire in order to extract the most important factors
affecting highways sustainability. Then AHP applied in order
to find relative weight of each element in the model.
3.2.2. Analytical Hierarchy process
The most effective element in making a decision is to choose
the factors that are important for that decision. In the Analytic
Hierarchy Process, we arrange these factors, once selected, in a
hierarchic structure descending from an overall goal to criteria,
sub-criteria and alternatives in successive levels [20].
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which improved by T.
Saaty, is one of the best known and most widely used
multi-criteria analysis approaches. It allows users to deter-
mine the relative weight of multiple criteria or multiple
choices against given criteria in an intuitive manner. In case
quantitative ratings are not available, policy makers or
assessors can still recognize whether one criterion is more
important than another.
Consistent way of converting pairwise comparisons into a
set of numbers representing the relative priority of each ele-
ment in the criteria. To make comparisons, a scale of numbers
which represent how many times more important or dominant
one factor is over another factor with respect to the criterion
which they are compared [21]. Table 6 exhibits the scale of
the method.
3.2.3. Applying of AHP
The hierarchy models appears in Figs. 3–5. AHP used to derive
weights for the most effective elements (the top quarter of each
axis) according to Pareto’s distribution, indicating their per-
ceived importance by making pairwise comparisons between
two factors throw a second questionnaire that delivered to
48 experts in the highways industry.

1.1 Alignment precautions

1. Sustainable alignment 1.2 Management Precautions

1.3 Sensitive Solutions

2.1 Reduce Petroleum Consumption

2.2 Reduce Electrical Consumption

2. Energy Efficiency and Emissions
Reduction 2.3 Improve pedestrian and bicycling
facilities
Design and Construction

2.4 Noise Abatement

3.1 Reusing

3.2 Recycling
3. Materials and Resources
3.3 Environmental footprint

3.4 Sensitive precautions

4.1 Water precautions

4. Water and Environment
4.2 Wildlife and plant communities

5.1 Visual enhancement

5. Life Standard 5.2 Safety

5.3 Public Partnership and Historical

Preservation

Fig. 4 Hierarchy model of design and construction phase [10–16].

1408 A.H. Ibrahim, M.A. Shaker

1.1 Management Standards

1. Management and Leadership 1.2 Partnership

1.3 Leadership

2.1 Energy Reduction Strategies

Operation, and Maintenance phase

2. Energy Efficiency
2.2 Energy efficiency Leadership

3.1 Reusing

3. Materials and Financials 3.2 Revenue and cost

3.3 Data evaluation

4.1 Environmental precautions

4. Environment and Emissions
4.2 Emission reduction

5.1 Integrated Planning

5. Life Standard 5.2 Safety

5.3 Multimodal transportation and

public health

Fig. 5 Hierarchy model of operation, and Maintenance phase [10–16].

Sustainability Index for Highway Construction Projects (Score Sheet)

Points
Category ID Description
(0)or(1)
1.1 Alignment Precautions
1_1.1_1 Selecting alignment needs the minimum water structure facilities.
1_1.1_2 Selecting alignment to minimize over all earthworks.
Avoidance or the less impact to social resources (historic sites,
1_1.1_3 commercial facilities, residential buildings).
1. Sustainable Alignment

1.2 Management Precautions

1_1.2_1 Was an Economic Impact Analysis completed?
Is the Contractor required to plan and implement quality control
measures throughout construction with care and for materials above
and beyond what is typically required by specifications and
1_1.2_2 regulations?
Employ Stakeholder involvement techniques to achieve consensus
1_1.2_3 for Preferred Project Alternative.
1.3 Sensitive Solutions
To safely illuminate roadways while minimizing unnecessary and
potentially harmful illumination of the surrounding sky,
1_1.3_1 communities, and habitat.
1_1.3_2 Did the project integrate context sensitive aesthetic treatments?

Fig. 6 Microsoft excel score sheet interface.

Sustainability index for highway construction 1409

Table 7 Model validation projects.

Project Project name Brief on the project
ID
1 Shubra-Banha free road The project involves the construction of a new freeway with five lanes in each direction with a total length
of 42 km and a total width of 43.4 m, 3.65 m for each lane on the earthen embankment with an average
height of 3 m. The owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
2 Middle Ring Road Middle Ring Road East Cairo involves the construction of a new road with four lanes in each direction
with a total length of 22 km and a total width of 35 m. The owner of the project is the general authority for
roads and bridges.
3 Axis of 30 June The project involves the construction of a new freeway axis with five lanes in each direction with a total
length of 95 km and a total width of 80 m. The owner of the project is the ministry of housing, utilities and
urban communities, central agency for reconstruction. Pedestrian lanes established on the road campus
and other cars without intersections.
4 The regional ring road The project starts from the intersection of Cairo Ismailia to Banha it involves the construction of a new
road with four lanes in each direction with a total length of 61 km and a width of 3.6 m for each lane. The
owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
5 Development of Cairo The project involves the expansion of the road by adding 3 lanes in each direction with a total length of
Suez road 70 km and a total width of 7.5 m concrete pavement plus 10.95 m asphalt pavement for each direction. The
owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
6 Katameya - Ain Sokhna The project is development and expansion of the road of Katameya - Ain Sokhna with a total length of
88 km and awidth of 6 lanes in each direction. The owner of the project is the ministry of defense.
7 International coastal The project is maintenance and upgrading of the international coastal road (Sector 3B and Sector 6) with a
road total length of 70 km. The owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
8 Nakhl - Alttamadd The project is strengthening and paving the path of Nakhl - Alttamadd with a total length of 50 km. The
owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
9 Al-Shat road The project is strengthening and covering the road of Al-Shat - Abu Al-Karam - Qantara East (first stage)
with a total length of 54 km. The owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
10 Zagazig - Belbeis The project is Maintenance and upgrading of the road of Zagazig – Belbeis with a total length of 28 km.
The owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
11 Mansoura-Sinblaoen The project is Maintenance and re-paving of the road Mansoura - Sinblaoen with a total length of 21 km.
The owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.
12 Abasah-Zagazig The project is maintenance and re-paving of the road Abasah-Abu-Akhdar-Zagazig with a total length of
19 km. The owner of the project is the general authority for roads and bridges.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
68 71
30 62 59 61
52
20
10
0
Case Case Case Case Case Case
study 1 study 2 study 3 study 4 study 5 study 6
Achieved certification level 52 62 59 61 68 71

Fig. 7 Implementation output of design and construction case studies.

Every element was compared to all other elements. Then
weights were given to each element and full elements shown
in Tables 2 and 3. Final weights inserted into excel model to
be used in the producing of the final index of the model which
will represent a certification level.
3.3. Certification levels
Certification levels developed to categorize sustainable high-
ways as GreenLITES system. The certification levels are
Non-certified, Certified, Silver, Gold and Green. The score
range for these certification levels are 0–30, 31–50, 51–70,
71–90 and 91–100 respectively. Microsoft Excel used to facili-
tate the evaluation procedure as in Fig. 6.
4. Model application
In order to apply the developed Egyptian highways construc-
tion projects sustainability indexing model; we implemented
it on some projects. In order to apply the model a project
1410
100
90
80
70
60
50
40 77
30 68
20
10
0
Case Case
study 7 study 8
Achieved certification level 77 68
Fig. 8 Implementation output of operation and maintenance case studies.
has to be defined and establish the model elements. If any ele-
ment of the model applicable in the project then a value equals
1 inserted in front of the item and a value equals 0 inserted in
front of the item if not applicable in the project. The weight of
the related element multiplied by the score of 1 or 0 then the
summation of these scores gives the final total score of the pro-
ject which represent a certification category. These case studies
selected carefully from several existing projects to experience
the indexing model. Summary of the projects will shows in
Table 7. The output score of each case study shown in Figs. 7
and 8.
5. Research contribution
This research aimed at establishing a comprehensive rating sys-
tem, dedicated for sustainable highways in Egypt to help
improving the efforts in the direction of applying sustainability
and avoiding non-applicable elements in other existing sys-
tems, which involves non-existing conditions in the Egyptian
highways construction projects nature.
The contribution of this research can be summarized as
follows:
 Developing a list of criteria to build up a sustainability rat-
ing system for Egyptian highways construction projects.
 AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) used to determine the
weights of each criterion, proposing a conceptual module of
highways sustainability index as basis of developing a high-
ways construction projects sustainability rating system.
 Efforts done can be a first step to obtain a distinct Egyptian
sustainable highways certification system.
 Guidelines developed to identify sustainability performance
at different phases of the highways construction projects.
 Developing a sustainability index for Egyptian highways
construction projects and can be used as a rating system.
6. Conclusion
This study presents an organized methodology to assign sus-
tainable practices in highways construction projects. More-
over, detailed steps of the developed model have been
conducted to develop the proposed model.
The focus of this research is to develop a sustainability
index for highways construction projects, that assist highways
A.H. Ibrahim, M.A. Shaker
77 77 77
68
Case Case Case Case
study 9 study 10 study 11 study 12
68 77 77 77
engineers, mangers and highways agencies to develop sustain-
able design, construction, operation and maintenance pro-
cesses for highways. It acts as a sustainable measurement
tool for the existing highways construction and maintenance
practices. Not only to be confined just to the green building,
but also to expand our green and sustainable knowledge to
include highways sustainability and highways green practices.
As a result of this study a certification levels developed to cat-
egorize sustainability in highways.
However, the model can be used by other standards by
modifying the weights or the requirements of the criteria to
meet the required conditions and needs.
For future studies, the paper’s approach can be generalized
to be used as a guideline methodology for sustainable practices
assignment in highways construction projects. This study pre-
sents a new studied case in highways construction projects sus-
tainability assignment to sustainability assessment research
knowledge where future sustainability studies can stand on
to understand the process of producing a sustainability index-
ing model in construction projects. Therefore, the study
methodology and steps can be generalized to be applied to sim-
ilar sustainability assignment related to infrastructure projects.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] 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.
[2] Adil Umer, Kasun Hewage, Husnain Haider, Rehan Sadiq,
Sustainability assessment of roadway projects under uncertainty
using Green Proforma: An index-based approach, Int. J.
Sustain. Built Environ. 5 (2) (2016) 604–619, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.06.002.
[3] FHWA (2016), FHWA, federal highway administration, United
States department of transportation. https://
www.sustainablehighways.org/203/what-is-a-sustainable-
highway.html.
[4] Gambaotese, J.A. (2005). ‘‘Sustainable roadway construction:
Energy consumption and material waste generation of
roadways” Proc., Construction Research Congress 183, ASCE,
Reston, VA, 1–13. ; American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2008.
Sustainability index for highway construction
[5] A. Horvath, C. Hendrickson, Comparison of Environmental
Implication of Asphalt and Steel-Reinforced Concrete
Pavements” Transportation Research Record 1626, Transpor-
tation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1998, pp. 105–113.
[6] Abbasnejad, Behzad. Poor Quality Cost in Construction:
Literature Review. 2013, 10.13140/RG.2.1.2232.1683.
[7] F.S. Mendler, W. Odell, The HOK guidebook to sustainable
design’, Wiley, New York, 2000.
[8] FHWA (2016), FHWA, federal highway administration,
United States department of transportation. https://
www.sustainablehighways.org/790/sustainability-and-highways.
html.
[9] Naganathan, H., Chong, W., and Schrock, S. ‘‘Sustainability
Quantification System: A Quantitative Approach to Evaluate
Transportation Sustainability in U.S’’, ICSI 2014: pp. 1097-
1107, International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure
2014, Long Beach, California, November 6-8, 2014, ISBN
(PDF): 978-0-7844-7874-5, ASCE.
[10] NYSDOT. New York State Department of Transportation.
(2010).‘‘NYSDOTsustainability&GreenLITES.” (Nov. 19,
2010). https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites.
[11] S.T. Muench, J. Anderson, T. Bevan, Greenroads: A
sustainability rating system for roadways, Int. J. Pavement
Res. Technol. 3 (5) (2010) 270–279.
[12] Shepherd, G. ‘‘FHWA’s sustainable highways self-evaluation
tool.” 2010, (Nov. 19, 2010). http://www.transportation.org/
sites/aashto/docs/FHWA%20Sustainable%20Highways%20Tool
%20%20AASHTO%20102910%20v2%20(2)final.pdf.
[13] P. Bocchini, D.M. Frangopol, T. Ummenhofer, T. Zinke,
Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a
unified approach, J. Infrastruct. Syst. 20 (2014) 2.
1411
[14] A.A. Eisenman, Sustainable streets and highways: an analysis of
green roads rating systems, Doctoral dissertation, Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2012.
[15] Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, (2012), ‘‘Envision
checklist”, http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/portal/
envision2/checklist.cfm.
[16] D. Knuth, J. Fortmann, The development of I-LAST Illinois—
Livable and sustainable transportation, in: Green Streets and
Highways 2010: An Interactive Conference on the State of the
Art and How to Achieve Sustainable Outcomes, 2010, pp. 495–
503.
[17] A.P. Hüsser, Correlation Analysis, in: J. Matthes, C.S. Davis,
R.F. Potter (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of
Communication Research Methods, 2017, doi:10.1002/
9781118901731.iecrm0048.
[18] M. Reddy, Reliability Analysis and Validity, Analysis. (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429023309-13.
[19] Russell (2012). Russell, J., Cohn, Pareto Analysis,
9785511162423, 2012.
[20] Thomas L. Saaty , Joseph M. Katz,” How to make a decision:
The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, European Journal of
Operational Research 48, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
(North-Holland), Graduate School of Business, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA, 1990.
[21] Thomas L. Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy
process, Int. J. Services Sci. 1 (1) (2008), 2008, Katz Graduate
School of Business, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
15260, USA.
[22] Reid et al., Sustainable Highways: A Short Guide’, J.M. Reid,
J.W.E. Chandler, I. Schiavi, and A.P. Hewitt, Department for
Transport, June 2008, London.