NICMAR University, Pune

Comparative analysis of global rating systems

and IRC SP 122: identifying optimal methods
for green rating of Indian highways.
By

Manasa N (P2270248)
Diksha A M (P2270187)
Sonu Gupta (P2270203)
Abhishek N K(P2270293)

Under the guidance of

Dr. Shashank B S

MBA-ACM Batch-1
2022- 2024

This Thesis Report submitted in partial fulfilment of the Academic

requirements for the Master of Business Administration in
Advance Construction Management
 NICMAR University, Pune
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our guide, Dr. Shashank B S, for his
guidance, expertise, and unwavering support throughout the entire research process. His
valuable insights and constructive feedback have been instrumental in shaping the direction of
this thesis, we would like to extend our gratitude to Dr. Ashish Rastogi and Dr. Deepak M D
for their valuable insights.

We are also indebted to Dr. Nilesh Patil, Thesis committee head, whose expertise and
thoughtful critiques enriched the quality of my work. His commitment to academic excellence
has been a constant source of inspiration.

First and foremost, I extend my deepest appreciation to the President and Chancellor Dr.
Anil Kashyap, and Vice-Chancellor Dr. Sushma Kulkarni for providing us a great
opportunity to work on this thesis for our academic excellence and also to Dean, School of
Construction Dr. Smita Yadav who has continuously supporting us throughout the academic
year. This academic journey has been a challenging yet rewarding experience, and we are
thankful for the support and encouragement we have received along the way.

We extend our heartfelt thanks to NICMAR University, Pune for providing the necessary
resources and environment conducive to research. The School of Construction has been a
nurturing academic home, and we are grateful for the opportunities it has provided.

Diksha A M (P2270187)
Sonu Gupta (P2270203)
Manasa N (P2270248)
Date: Abhishek N K (P2270293)

i
Ethical Informed Consent Form for Students to Conduct Anonymous Online/Offline
Survey

Study Title: Comparative Analysis of global rating systems and IRC SP 122: Identifying
optimal methods for green rating of Indian highways.

Student’s Name:
Diksha A M (P2270187)
Sonu Gupta (P2270203)
Manasa N (P2270248)
Abhishek N K (P2270293)

Guide’s Name and Department:

Dr. Shashank B S
Dean, School of Engineering
Mob: +919901729657

Ethics Statement
We make the declaration of our commitment to upholding the highest standards in our conduct,
emphasizing honesty, objectivity, integrity, and fidelity. Openly taking responsibility for our
actions, we pledge to honor agreements with unwavering dedication. We will refrain from
intentionally causing harm to any individual or animal, recognizing and respecting their
inherent dignity and well-being. Additionally, we will prioritize the privacy and autonomy of
all individuals in our professional interactions. In the pursuit of knowledge, we will engage in
critical self-examination and thorough evaluation of both our work and that of our peers.
Maintaining meticulous records of research activities is a priority to ensure transparency and
accuracy. Furthermore, we will uphold intellectual integrity by seeking permission before using
unpublished data, methods, or results and consistently giving credit where it is due. Treating
peers with respect and fairness, fostering a collaborative and inclusive environment, and
avoiding discrimination based on non-scientific factors are integral to our commitment. Lastly,
we will adhere strictly to relevant laws, institutional rules, and governmental policies, ensuring
compliance in all aspects of our professional endeavors.

Introductory Statement
This document serves to declare the commencement of our research study titled "Comparative
Analysis of Global Rating Systems and IRC SP 122: Identifying Optimal Methods for Green
Rating of Indian Highways." The study aims to evaluate international rating systems in
comparison with IRC SP 122 guidelines, specifically designed for the green rating of Indian

ii
highways. Your participation is vital in providing insights for identifying optimal methods to
enhance green rating practices associated with Indian highway development.

What is the purpose of this study?

The purpose of this study is to compare various global rating systems used for assessing the
sustainability and environmental performance of highways worldwide. Specifically, we aim to
analyze and evaluate how these systems align with IRC SP 122, a set of guidelines for a green
rating of Indian highways. By conducting a comparative analysis, our goal is to identify the
most effective and suitable methods for assessing and promoting sustainability in the context
of Indian highway infrastructure. This study aims to provide valuable insights and
recommendations for optimizing green rating practices in the development and maintenance
of highways in India.

What will I do in this study?

In this study, your involvement will include a simultaneous application of a questionnaire and
the Delphi method. Upon your decision to participate, you will be provided with a
comprehensive questionnaire that seeks your initial perspectives and insights on the subject at
hand. Concurrently, you will engage in the Delphi method, involving iterative surveys and
controlled feedback sessions, allowing for real-time collaboration with other participants. This
simultaneous approach aims to efficiently gather diverse opinions while fostering collective
refinement and convergence toward consensus-based conclusions. Your active and concurrent
participation in both aspects of the study will greatly contribute to the richness and depth of
the insights generated.

How long will it take me to do this?

Participating in this study involves dedicating approximately 25 to 30 minutes of your time to
complete the questionnaire. The comprehensive nature of the survey is designed to ensure a
thorough exploration of your perspectives on the subject matter. While the estimated time is
set at 25 minutes, providing a range of 25 to 30 minutes allows for individual differences in
response speed and consideration of potential variations in the complexity of responses. This
range aims to accommodate participants' comfort and flexibility, ensuring a thoughtful and
unhurried completion of the survey within the specified timeframe. Your willingness to invest
this time is crucial for the study's success, and your thoughtful responses are highly valued

Are there any risks of participating in the study?

While this study aims to minimize risks, participants should be aware of potential discomforts.
There is a slight risk of unintentional disclosure of personal information, despite confidentiality
measures. Some survey questions may touch on topics, possibly causing temporary emotional
discomfort. The time commitment required for both the questionnaire and the Delphi method
may pose an inconvenience, and participants could experience boredom. Additionally,

iii
technological issues during the online survey may lead to frustration. Though efforts have been
made to mitigate these concerns, participants are encouraged to consider these factors before
deciding to take part in the study.

What are the benefits of participating in the study?

Participating in this study offers several potential benefits to the subjects involved. Firstly,
your input and expertise will contribute significantly to the generation of informed insights,
potentially influencing positive changes within the field under investigation. Additionally,
participants may gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter through the sharing of
project results, fostering professional development and knowledge enrichment. The
collaborative nature of the Delphi method allows for collective refinement of perspectives,
providing participants with exposure to diverse viewpoints and fostering a sense of community
within the research process. Furthermore, upon request, participants will have access to a
copy of the project results, ensuring transparency and offering a tangible resource that may
prove valuable in various professional contexts. Overall, your participation not only enhances
the quality of the study but also provides you with valuable knowledge and potentially
influential outcomes.

Will anyone know what I do or say in this study (Confidentiality)?

While complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed given the collaborative nature of the study,
robust measures have been meticulously devised to ensure the utmost confidentiality for
participants. The scope of access to participant data will be tightly restricted, limited to the
essential group members directly engaged in the study and a select group of faculty members.
Rigorous anonymization procedures will be applied during data analysis, eliminating personal
identifiers and coding responses in a manner that prevents any potential traceability back to
individual participants. Moreover, all project-related documentation will be securely stored,
with access strictly controlled and granted only to authorized personnel.

Will I receive any compensation for participation?

In acknowledgment of your commitment to advancing knowledge in the field, it's important to
note that there is no provision for compensation in this study. Participants are invited to
contribute voluntarily, driven by a shared dedication to enriching the understanding of the
subject matter. While the study endeavors to create a meaningful and collaborative experience,
it does not offer any financial or material rewards. Your participation is esteemed as a genuine
contribution, and the organizers are committed to recognizing and valuing your insights within
the academic and professional community. Should you have any inquiries or seek additional
clarification on this matter, feel free to reach out for more information.

iv
Is there a different way for me to receive this compensation or the benefits of this study?
Participants will not receive monetary compensation for their involvement. Instead, your
contributions are met with sincere gratitude for enhancing this research. The study values your
time and insights, and the research team is dedicated to maintaining a positive and respectful
experience. Any feedback or concerns will be attentively considered to ensure your
participation is meaningful and valued.

Who can I contact for information about this study?

Manasa N, Mob: +916363156850
Diksha A M, Mob: +917019273208
Sonu Gupta, Mob: +91:9557556989
Abhishek N K, Mob: +918867379932
Guide: Dr. Shashank B S, Mob: +919901729657

You are free to refuse to participate in this research project or to withdraw your consent and discontinue
participation in the project at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise
entitled. Your participation will not affect your relationship with the institution(s) involved in this
project.
My return of this survey implies my consent to participate in this research and I have been given a
second copy of this form to keep for my records.
If you are not satisfied with how this study is being conducted, you may report (anonymously if you so
choose) any complaints to the helpdesk.acm@pune.nicmar.ac.in

v
15.03.24
 Table of Contents

NICMAR University, Pune ............................................................................................................. vi

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................... vi

NICMAR University, Pune ............................................................................................................ vii

GUIDE APPROVAL LETTER .................................................................................................... vii

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background. .................................................................................................................... 6

1.2. Problem Statement. ......................................................................................................... 7
1.3. Objective. ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.0 Literature Review. ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Green Highway Rating System. ....................................................................................... 9
2.2 Analytical method for assessing rating system. ............................................................. 13
2.3. Sustainable Road Construction Practices: ..................................................................... 14
2.4. Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................... 15
3.0 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................... 17

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17

3.1. Literature Review: ......................................................................................................... 20
3.2. Data Collection:............................................................................................................. 20
3.3. Comparative Analysis: .................................................................................................. 20
3.4. Comparative Results: .................................................................................................... 23
3.5. Results in Best Suited Method: ..................................................................................... 23
4.0 Analysis and Finding: ................................................................................................................. 24

4.1. Comparison of Green Rating Systems .......................................................................... 24

4.2. Determination of the Most Suitable Rating System Using the TOPSIS Method.......... 26
4.3. Application of INVEST Rating for Indian Roads: A Case Study. ................................ 35
4.4. Determination of weighted factors by the Delphi method for IRC SP 122-2019. ........ 38
4.5 Application of IRC Guidelines in the National Highway: A Case Study ...................... 41
4.6. Comparison of INVEST rating system and IRC SP-122-2019:.................................... 58
4.7 Conclusion Remarks: ..................................................................................................... 59
5.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 60

viii
 5.1 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................................... 60
Reference ............................................................................................................................................. 64

Annexure ............................................................................................................................................. 67

ix
 List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Research Methodology Workflow ........................................................................ 19

Figure 4.1 The weighted distribution of the categories by rating system. .............................. 25
Figure 4.2 Main criteria considered for conducting TOPSIS method .................................... 27
Figure 4.3 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Sustainable design criteria. ......................... 29
Figure 4.4 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Materials and resource criteria. .................. 28
Figure 4.5 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Energy and Environment criteria. .............. 28
Figure 4.6 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Stormwater management criteria. .............. 29
Figure 4.7 Sub criteria considered for assessing Reparation activities criteria. . .................... 29
Figure 4.8 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Corporate social responsibility criteria. ..... 30

x
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 List of literature on analytical methods for assessing rating system. ...................... 14
Table 2.2 List of literature on sustainable road construction practices. ................................... 14
Table 4.1 Comparison of Green Rating Systems .................................................................... 32
Table 4.2 Classification of the rating systems for the (TOPSIS) analysis ............................... 32
Table 4.3 Weighted normalized results. .................................................................................. 32
Table 4.4 The positive and negative ideal solutions result in .................................................. 33
Table 4.5 Determination of relative proximity. ....................................................................... 33
Table 4.6 INVEST Scorecard for National Highway 45 ........................................................ 33
Table 4.7 Mandatory Criteria ................................................................................................... 42
Table 4.8 Calculated weightage for green rating of NH-45..................................................... 45
Table 4.9 Details of criteria under different scenarios. ............................................................ 45
Table 4.10 Ranks assigned to different parameters in Scenario I & II in comparison ........ to 54

xi
 Executive Summary

The infrastructure sector, particularly the development of highways, plays a pivotal role in the
socio-economic growth of any nation. As the global consciousness towards sustainability
intensifies, there is an increasing emphasis on integrating environmentally responsible
practices into infrastructure development projects. In the context of India, where rapid
urbanization and industrialization exert significant pressure on natural resources and
ecosystems, the need for sustainable highway development is paramount.

The green rating of highways emerges as a crucial aspect in ensuring the environmental
sustainability of transportation infrastructure. It not only addresses environmental concerns but
also encompasses aspects of social equity, economic viability, and technological innovation.
In this regard, various international rating systems have been developed to evaluate and certify
the sustainability performance of highways worldwide.

This comparative analysis aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and suitability of
global rating systems with the IRC SP 122 guidelines for assessing the environmental
sustainability of Indian highways. By examining the strengths, weaknesses, and applicability
of each rating system in the Indian context, this study seeks to identify optimal methods for
green rating that align with the unique socio-economic and environmental dynamics of India.

Through a comprehensive review of existing literature, case studies, and expert insights, this
research endeavor aims to provide valuable insights into the selection and implementation of
green rating systems for Indian highways. By facilitating informed decision-making among
policymakers, infrastructure developers, and stakeholders, this study eendeavorsto contribute
to the sustainable development of India's highway infrastructure while mitigating
environmental impacts and fostering long-term resilience.

The primary goal of this thesis is to pinpoint the most fitting Green Rating System for Indian
roads by comparing international rating systems with the guidelines provided by the Indian
Roads Congress (IRC), specifically IRC SP-122: 2019. Secondly, the aim is to pinpoint the
most suitable green rating system specifically tailored for Indian roads.

The methodology section outlines the strategy for assessing and selecting the most fitting green
rating system for India. This process includes a literature review, data gathering, comparative
analysis using the TOPSIS method, obtaining expert consensus through the Delphi method,
and finalizing the most suitable methodology.

xii
The identification of optimal green rating methods is expected to result in more
environmentally friendly practices, such as reduced carbon emissions, responsible resource
use, and better habitat preservation along Indian highways. This thesis is likely to contribute to
heightened environmental awareness among stakeholders. Policymakers, developers, and the
public may become more informed about the importance of integrating green rating systems,
leading to better decision-making, industry best practices, and increased public advocacy for
environmentally conscious infrastructure development. Overall, the thesis holds the potential
to foster a more sustainable and ecologically aware approach to Indian highway development.

The study, "Comparative Analysis of Global Rating Systems and IRC SP 122: Identifying
Optimal Methods for Green Rating of Indian Highways," conducts a thorough examination of
sustainable road infrastructure development in India. It emphasizes the critical need to
incorporate sustainability principles into the nation's road construction practices, given the
challenges presented by rapid urbanization and economic growth. While both INVEST and
IRC SP-122-2019 have distinct advantages and limitations, INVEST emerges as the preferred
option for evaluating highway projects. Its comprehensive criteria, user-friendly interface, and
standardized framework outweigh the complexities associated with its implementation. The
adoption of INVEST by stakeholders ensures a more holistic and consistent approach to
sustainable highway development, resulting in enhanced outcomes for both the environment
and society.

The key output of this thesis is the identification of INVEST as the preferred choice for
evaluating highway projects. This determination is based on the comprehensive criteria it
offers, coupled with its user-friendly interface and standardized framework. Despite the
complexities associated with its implementation, the advantages of INVEST outweigh its
limitations, making it the optimal selection for stakeholders involved in highway projects.

xiii
1.0 Introduction

General
The discussion highlights the growing global emphasis on sustainability, particularly in the
domain of transportation, with a specific focus on road infrastructure. It emphasizes the
consequences of India's rapid urbanization and economic progress, which demand an expansion
of transportation networks. Simultaneously, it underscores the crucial need to align growth
objectives with environmental preservation.
The thesis proposes the development of a tailored Green Rating System for Indian roads,
drawing inspiration from established international frameworks like LEED and ISCA. It outlines
the various sustainability challenges faced by road construction projects in India, addressing
issues such as habitat fragmentation, resource depletion, pollution, social impacts, and
regulatory compliance. The narrative emphasizes the essential integration of environmental,
social, and economic considerations into road construction initiatives, advocating for the
adoption of a Green Rating System to effectively address these challenges. Additionally, the
thesis articulates its research agenda, aiming to scrutinize the complexities and deficiencies in
existing green rating protocols for highways, to provide recommendations for improvement.
In recent years, there has been a growing urgency in the global sustainability conversation,
leading industries and governments to prioritize environmentally responsible practices. The
transportation sector, particularly road infrastructure, plays a crucial role in this context due to
its large environmental impact and influence on economic development. With India
experiencing rapid urbanization and economic growth, there is a growing demand for
transportation infrastructure, especially roads. However, this growth must be balanced with
environmental conservation and sustainable development goals.
Historically, the construction, upkeep, and running of roads have been linked to significant
environmental harm, such as habitat fragmentation, air and water pollution, and depletion of
natural resources. Recognizing these challenges, it is crucial to transform road infrastructure
development methods by incorporating sustainability principles throughout the entire road
lifecycle.
This thesis aims to address this important issue by suggesting the Green Rating System tailored
specifically for Indian roads. Based on established international models like LEED and ISCA,
this study aims to compare global rating systems with IRC SP 122-2019 Green Rating System
for road projects to find the optimal Green rating system for Indian roads. It will cover

1
 environmental, social, and economic factors, promoting sustainable practices in the
infrastructure sector. This research focuses on the Indian context to address the lack of
exploration of the applicability of existing global rating systems in India's unique socio-
economic and environmental settings.

The real estate industry, which is expected to be worth US$ 9.30 billion by 2025 and account
for 13% of the country's GDP, has a well-established IGBC Rating system in place to encourage
sustainable practices (source: ibef.org). The National Highways network grew significantly
from 91,287 kilometers to an astounding 145,240 kilometers in the fiscal year 2022–2023. The
notable accomplishment underscores India's resolute dedication to improving its road network,
as demonstrated by the significant funding of $33 billion (₹2.7 lakh crore) forthe Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways in the Union Budget for 2023–2024. (source: investindia.gov.in).
These expansions have an impact on the country's economic growth, connectivity, and
sustainable development that goes beyond simple statistics (source: ibef.org)

Amid an astounding surge in India's National Highway expansion, which is set to increase the
network by a remarkable 43% from 1.45 lakh km to an impressive 200,000 km by 2024,
(Source: investindia.gov.in) a pressing concern becomes apparent. However, amidst this
remarkable progress in infrastructure, one undeniable void lingers - the lack of a comprehensive
and cohesive Green Rating System within the nation.

The expanding highways are a powerful representation of progress and connectivity,

demonstrating the country's remarkable advancements in infrastructure. Amid this rapid
development, there is a significant lack of a standardized environmental assessment mechanism.
The lack of representation in this matter sounds the alarm on the potential environmental
consequences of such extensive growth, presenting a substantial challenge.

The sustainability-related challenges encountered in the construction of roads in India

Constructing Indian roads poses numerous sustainability challenges stemming from factors
such as rapid urbanization, population growth, resource limitations, and the imperative for
economic development. The following are significant hurdles encountered in ensuring the
sustainability of road construction in India:

1. Land Use and Habitat Fragmentation: The expansion of urban areas and the construction of
roads often result in the loss and fragmentation of habitats, impacting biodiversity and
ecological equilibrium. Transforming natural landscapes into roadways disrupts wildlife

2
 habitats, alters hydrological patterns, and contributes to the reduction of vital green spaces
crucial for environmental sustainability.
2. Resource Intensity and Material Acquisition: Conventional Road construction techniques
heavily depend on resource-intensive materials like concrete and asphalt, which possess notable
environmental footprints. The extraction, processing, and transportation of these materials
consume energy, emit pollutants, and deplete natural resources. The challenge of sourcing
sustainable materials, such as recycled aggregates and alternative binders, persists due to their
limited availability and technological constraints.
3. Air and Water Pollution: Activities involved in construction, such as excavation and paving,
release pollutants like particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds into
the atmosphere. These emissions contribute to air pollution, respiratory ailments, and climate
change. Additionally, inadequate management of construction runoff and improper waste
disposal can lead to water pollution, adversely affecting aquatic ecosystems and public health.
4. Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions: Both Road construction and transportation
operations demand substantial energy, primarily derived from fossil fuels, thereby contributing
to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. High energy consumption during construction
and emissions from vehicular traffic exacerbate environmental degradation and hinder
sustainability objectives. Introducing energy-efficient construction techniques and promoting
the use of low-carbon technologies face significant challenges in India due to infrastructural
constraints and cost considerations.
5. Social Impacts and Community Resilience: Road construction projects often entail land
acquisition, community displacement, and disruption of livelihoods, resulting in social
challenges such as diminished access to resources, cultural heritage loss, and weakened social
cohesion. Ensuring equitable participation, consultation, and benefit-sharing with affected
communities remains pivotal for sustainable road development. Moreover, insufficient
provisions for amenities like pedestrian walkways, cycle lanes, and public transportation
infrastructure can exacerbate social disparities and compromise community resilience.
6. Regulatory Compliance and Enforcement: Despite progress in formulating environmental
regulations and standards for road construction in India, challenges persist in enforcement and
compliance. Inconsistent enforcement, institutional weaknesses, and corruption undermine the
efficacy of regulatory frameworks, leading to environmental degradation and unsustainable
practices. Strengthening regulatory mechanisms, bolstering monitoring and enforcement

3
 capacities, and fostering transparency and accountability are imperative for promoting
sustainable road construction practices.

Addressing these challenges necessitates a comprehensive approach integrating environmental,

social, and economic considerations into road construction planning, design, and execution.
Embracing sustainable design principles, adopting innovative technologies, fostering
stakeholder collaboration, and promoting capacity-building and awareness initiatives are vital
steps toward achieving sustainable road infrastructure in India

The requirement for sustainability in Indian road infrastructure and the integration of a
green rating system from various critical factors

1. Environmental Conservation: Given the escalating concerns about climate change and
environmental degradation, there's an urgent demand to minimize the ecological impact of
infrastructure projects. Embracing sustainable approaches in road construction can aid in
curbing habitat destruction, safeguarding biodiversity, mitigating pollution, and conserving
natural resources.
2. Addressing Climate Change: The transportation sector stands as a significant contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions. Developing sustainable road infrastructure, characterized by energy-
efficient designs, utilization of low-carbon materials, and fostering alternative transportation
modes, holds immense potential in mitigating climate change effects by curbing emissions and
promoting cleaner transportation options.
3. Resource Management: Conventional road construction methods often heavily rely on the
depletion of finite resources like aggregates, cement, and fossil fuels. By advocating sustainable
material sourcing, recycling construction waste, and optimizing resource consumption, a green
rating system can contribute to conserving natural resources and minimizing the environmental
impact associated with road projects.
4. Boosting Resilience and Adaptation: Sustainable Road infrastructure exhibits greater
resilience against the impacts of climate change, natural calamities, and extreme weather
conditions. Incorporating features such as stormwater management systems, green
infrastructure, and climate-resilient designs enables roads to withstand environmental
challenges while minimizing disruptions to communities and ecosystems.
5. Enhancing Economic Efficiency: Investment in sustainable road infrastructure can yield
substantial long-term economic benefits by lowering lifecycle costs, enhancing operational
efficiency, and fostering improvements in public health and well-being. Green rating systems

4
 offer a structured framework for evaluating the economic viability of sustainable infrastructure
projects and encouraging investments in environmentally responsible solutions.
6. Compliance with Regulatory Standards: With governments worldwide tightening
environmental regulations and sustainability benchmarks, there's mounting pressure on
infrastructure developers to adhere to stringent requirements. Implementing a green rating
system for Indian roads can facilitate adherence to regulatory standards, demonstrate a
commitment to sustainability, and enhance project eligibility for funding and permits.
7. Improving Public Health and Quality of Life: The environmental and social repercussions
of road infrastructure significantly impact public health and overall quality of life. Addressing
concerns such as air and noise pollution, ensuring road safety, and mitigating community
displacement through sustainable design and planning can yield improvements in public health
outcomes, elevate livability standards, and foster social cohesion and equity.

In essence, the imperative for sustainability and the adoption of a green rating system for Indian
road infrastructure is crucial in addressing environmental challenges, mitigating climate change
impacts, conserving resources, bolstering resilience, enhancing economic efficiency, meeting
regulatory mandates, and enhancing public health and quality of life. Through the integration
of sustainability principles into road development practices and the implementation of
transparent evaluation mechanisms, India can pave the way for a greener, more resilient, and
equitable transportation network.

Without a national Green Rating System in place, the rapid growth of highways may result in
overlooking the environmental impacts. India's infrastructure development narrative is marred
by the profound problem of lacking a structured system to evaluate and mitigate the ecological
impact of an extensive road network.

It is both urgent and crucial to adopt a comprehensive and integrated approach to integrate
environmental sustainability into this ambitious expansion. As the roads continue to expand to
unimaginable lengths, it is crucial to acknowledge and rectify this significant lack of
consideration. We must prioritize the alignment of progress with environmental conservation,
securing the well-being of our planet for future generations.

In a larger share, the National Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP) project in India is a huge
undertaking, with a $1.4 trillion investment budget that has been carefully distributed over
several sectors. A notable sizeable amount—18% of the entire allotment—is designated for the

5
development of roads and highways. But even with all of this growth and investment in the
road industry, there is still a noticeable lack of a standard operating procedure for attaining
sustainability in this crucial market.

Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) said: We are building 26 Green
Expressways and Logistics Parks worth Rs 200,000 crores. The absence of standardized
evaluation systems in the field of infrastructure and environmental conservation is a well-
known concern. This issue is particularly relevant in large-scale construction projects, such as
highway expansions, where it could result in significant environmental damage.

Not having a well-defined framework for environmental assessment could lead to numerous
negative consequences. The development of road infrastructure could potentially result in
increased deforestation, disturbance of habitats, and pose threats to wildlife as vast areas are
being utilized. Additionally, a failure to implement sufficient strategies for the control of
pollution caused by construction activities may lead to the contamination of air, soil, and water,
thereby affecting ecosystems and neighboring communities.

If efficient resource management is not considered, it can result in the unnecessary squandering
of materials and energy. Similarly, the lack of sustainable construction practices has the
potential to contribute to climate change by amplifying carbon emissions

1.1. Background.

The notion of "green" encompasses strategies for the effective management, improvement, and
preservation of natural resources. A "green highway" is a roadway deliberately crafted, built,
and upheld with the intent of conserving, improving, and managing natural resources. The
extent of green initiatives can vary across projects, contingent upon factors such as economic
viability, technical feasibility, and the accessibility of technological resources. The evaluation
of highways based on their environmental impact constitutes their "green rating." This rating
framework endeavors to encourage a comprehensive appraisal of highways' environmental
sustainability.

In the Conference of Parties (COP-21), our nation voluntarily agreed to cut its GDP's carbon
emission intensity from 2005 levels by 30 to 35 percent by 2030. One of the main industries
that contributes to carbon emissions is road transport. Over 2.5 lakh kilometers of National and

6
State highways are dispersed throughout our nation, and during their construction, upkeep, and
use, they leave behind an environmental impact, including a carbon footprint.

1.2. Problem Statement.

The Guidelines for Green Rating of Highways, aiming to promote a sustainable environment
in highway projects, have significant challenges that obstruct their effectiveness. The following
essential matters require distinctive attention.

1. Guidelines complexity disorients stakeholders, limiting effective implementation and

widespread adoption of sustainable highway practices.

2. Lack of Standardization, this inconsistency leads to confusion among stakeholders and

uncertainty regarding the criteria for evaluating highway projects.

1.3. Objective.

This thesis aims to address the challenges ineffectiveness of the Guidelines for Green Rating of
Highways. Its emphasis will be on the subsequent domains.

1. Analysing the complexity of the guidelines.

2. Investigating the lack of standardization in guideline application across different regions
and its implications for evaluating highway projects.
3. Conducting case studies and comparative analyses to identify best practices and lessons
learned from other rating systems or standards in similar contexts.
4. Providing recommendations to overcome the identified challenges and improve the
implementation and adoption of green rating guidelines for highways.

7
2.0 Literature Review.

General

The literature review provides an extensive analysis of diverse methodologies and rating
systems employed in the evaluation of sustainability within highway projects. Methodologies
such as the Delphi technique, TOPSIS, and AHP are introduced as tools facilitating consensus-
building and the assessment of technology. Moreover, the review examines green rating
systems including Greenroads, I-LAST, Envision, GreenLITES, and INVEST, underlining
their comprehensive evaluation criteria, certification levels, and emphasis on environmental
considerations throughout project lifecycles. Additionally, frameworks like CEEQUAL are
noted for their contribution to global sustainability standards, particularly within the UK and
Ireland context, while IRC SP 122 2019 is recognized for its meticulous criteria and
standardized procedures aimed at advancing environmental sustainability in Indian highway
projects. The literature further investigates analytical methodologies and sustainable practices
in road construction, emphasizing the significance of initiatives such as carbon emission
reduction, adoption of environmentally friendly road practices, and utilization of eco-friendly
pavement materials. Overall, the comprehension and application of these methodologies and
practices are deemed crucial for the progression of sustainable highway development and the
effective mitigation of environmental impacts.

2.1 Introduction

The literature reviews present several approaches and rating systems for assessing the
sustainability of highway projects are presented in the literature review. The Delphi technique
makes it easier to reach agreements and make decisions on complicated projects, while the
TOPSIS and AHP methods provide analytical techniques to evaluate the effectiveness and
suitability of technologies.

The extensive evaluation criteria and certification levels of Green Roads, I-LAST, Envision,
GreenLITES, and INVEST set them apart from other green rating systems. Green roads are an
extensive project-based system with four certification levels that were started by the University
of Washington. I-LAST, created in partnership with the Illinois Department of Transportation,
places a strong emphasis on user-friendly instruments for evaluating sustainability. Envision

8
encompasses all phases of the project lifecycle and is a joint venture between Harvard
University and the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. GreenLITES offers a thorough
assessment for project-based and design-level evaluations, drawing inspiration from Green
Roads and LEED. With backing from the Federal Highway Administration, INVEST provides
a free, adaptable self-assessment tool that covers project development, system planning, and
operation and maintenance.

Other rating frameworks like CEEQUAL offer global benchmarks for sustainability
assessment, particularly in the UK and Ireland. These frameworks evaluate projects based on
various categories such as administration, environment, and transport. Understanding these
methodologies and systems is crucial for effectively assessing and promoting sustainable
practices in highway development.

2.2 Green Highway Rating System.

1. Greenroads:

The Greenroads rating system originated from the University of Washington in 2007, involving
over 4,444 participants, including professionals from diverse fields. Although initially tailored
for the United States, its principles are adaptable globally. This system, centered on individual
projects, aims to endorse 4,444 initiatives that promote sustainability. The evaluation comprises
two components: mandatory project requisites and supplementary credits.

Project compliance involves meeting technical and legal standards, emphasizing proactive
measures over binding legal obligations. Certification levels include Bronze (40 points
minimum), Silver (50 points minimum), Gold (60 points minimum), and Evergreen (80 points
minimum). With a broad user base of over 1,100 organizations spanning 62 countries and 50
US states, Greenroads has overseen 130 project varieties, involving 4,444 investment grantees
and 50 qualified projects, suggesting its significant impact.

Greenroads prioritizes managerial instruments, offering detailed yet inclusive evaluation

methods that portray sustainable development comprehensively, albeit with a predominant
focus on environmental aspects. While acknowledging the three facets of sustainable
development, the system prominently addresses environmental concerns (source:
greenroad.com).

9
2. I-LAST:

The I-LAST system, developed in partnership with the Illinois Department of Transportation
and the engineering and construction community, aims to assess and enhance investment
stability using straightforward tools. It comprises a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with 4,444
pieces of information and instructions. This system, offered at no cost, facilitates rapid and
uncomplicated evaluation. The comprehensive criteria within the system, totaling 4,444, are
structured into nine primary categories and further divided into subcategories. From these
criteria, a total of 233 points are derived to assess sustainability, considering practical
implications and the evolving landscape of technology.

Similarly, ENVISION, a collaborative effort between Harvard University's Graduate School of

Design, the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, and the Zofnass Program for Sustainable
Infrastructure, emerged in 2012. Originally designed for project design and development, its
recent iterations encompass the construction, operation, and maintenance phases. ENVISION
serves as a holistic toolkit throughout the project lifecycle, aiming to foster sustainability across
technical, social, environmental, and economic dimensions. Its planning manual outlines
objectives and performance levels, supplemented by tools like the Envision Checklist for initial
self-assessment. The system's current editions assess projects based on five main categories,
with 60 credits totaling 1,000 points. Independent ENVISION inspectors evaluate collected
data, offering a comprehensive perspective on sustainability at a broader scale.

Both I-LAST and ENVISION systems represent robust approaches to evaluating and promoting
sustainability within infrastructure projects, each offering unique frameworks and
methodologies tailored to different stages of project development and execution. (source:
illinois.gov)

3. ENVISION:

Envision emerged from a partnership between Harvard University's Graduate School of Design,
the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, and the Zonas Program for Sustainable
Infrastructure. Its inception in 2012 aimed at enhancing design projects and project
development. However, the latest iteration extends its scope to encompass construction,
operation, and maintenance processes. Consequently, Envision offers a comprehensive toolkit
covering all facets of the project life cycle. Apart from certification, its assessment framework

10
endeavors to advance sustainability across technical, social, environmental, and economic
dimensions, leveraging detailed guidelines.

The planning manual outlines objectives and performance benchmarks enabling users to gauge
project sustainability. Complementary to certification, the Envision Checklist comprises binary
queries aiding early-stage project evaluation when specific performance metrics might not be
readily available. Presently, the system offers the second and third editions for evaluation
purposes. All Envision versions appraise projects across five primary categories, further
subdivided into 60 credits totaling 1000 points.

Evaluation is conducted by independent third-party inspectors, ensuring a thorough assessment

of sustainability at a macroscopic level. The Envision system finds diverse applications across
various domains, reflecting its adaptability and utility in fostering sustainable infrastructure
practices. (source: sustainableinfrastructure.org)

4.GreenLITES:

GreenLITES, a system developed by the New York City Department of Transportation, draws
inspiration from the Green Roads system and LEED, as well as the Green Guide to
Transportation and Conservation. Its inaugural edition emerged in 2008, focusing on design-
level assessments, termed GreenLITES project design. The subsequent launch of the
GreenLITES Task in 2009 broadened its scope. Projects undergo evaluation across 4,444,175
subcategories distributed among five main categories and 271 indicators. Successful
completion may result in one of four-degree levels.

Detailed information is available in a downloadable MS Excel spreadsheet, containing sections

with questions scored from 0 to 4 as per the guide's instructions. The Evaluation System serves
the dual purpose of assessing programs, measuring the performance of the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and identifying areas for improvement. Moreover,
it functions as a communication tool with the public, fostering transparency and accountability
in transportation initiatives. (source: dot.ny.gov)

5. INVEST:

INVEST, an Infrastructure Investment Assessment Tool, was established in 2010 by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) based in Washington, USA. Accessible online, INVEST is
a user-friendly and free-of-charge system. However, it does not provide formal certification due

11
to the absence of third-party verification. The primary objective of INVEST is to encourage the
adoption of more sustainable practices through self-assessment and design, guiding users
toward sustainable solutions.

INVEST operates across three distinct sections of a project: System Planning (SP), Project
Development (PD), and Operation and Maintenance (OM). Notably, the PD category boasts
extensive detail, featuring numerous scorecards tailored to accommodate varying scopes,
scales, and contexts of projects nationwide. The SP module assesses the feasibility of larger
networks, such as state or regional systems, employing 17 criteria within a comprehensive
scorecard.

Project Development encompasses assessments from the initial planning stages to alternative
selection, environmental analysis, final planning, and implementation. INVEST offers seven
assessment papers for project evaluation, ensuring flexibility as not all methods suit every
project type. Six scorecards cater to specific project types: urban, rural, expansion,
entertainment, and employment, each comprising 33 criteria adjusted according to project
specifications. The seventh assessment sheet allows for individualized self-assessment on
topics not covered by predefined criteria.

In the OM category, the focus lies on evaluating operational and maintenance activities for their
contributions to the sustainability of the transportation system. This section encompasses 14
criteria with 210 points distributed among them. INVEST serves as a comprehensive self-
assessment tool covering the entire life cycle of transportation facilities, facilitated through
various worksheets. Its applicability spans strategic and operational levels, offering indicative
or quantitative methods depending on criteria.

Despite its comprehensive nature, it's important to recognize that measuring and distinguishing
effects at strategic and operational levels pose unique challenges compared to project-level
assessments. (source: sustainablehighways.org)

6. CEEQUAL:

CEEQUAL is a British framework designed to assess and enhance sustainability in civil

engineering, construction, and public spaces. It originated in 2003 and has gained recognition
in the UK and Ireland. In 2019, CEEQUAL launched Adaptation 6, aiming to establish a global
benchmark for infrastructure sustainability, facilitating comparisons across different markets
and regions.

12
The assessment process of CEEQUAL Adaptation 6 revolves around eight main categories:
Administration, Adaptability, Communities and Partnerships, Land Use and Ecology,
Landscape and Historic Environment, Pollution, Resources, and Transport. Additionally, the
framework outlines specific requirements that projects must meet initially, including the
resolution of certain issues for certification purposes. These criteria ensure that projects adhere
to sustainability principles and address key considerations from the outset. (Source:
bregroup.com)

7. IRC SP 122 2019: Guidelines for green rating of highways:

It provides comprehensive criteria and procedures for evaluating the environmental

sustainability of highway projects. Developed by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC), this
document aims to establish a standardized framework for assessing the ecological impact and
sustainability of highway development across India. The guidelines encompass various aspects
such as resource utilization, environmental conservation, and social considerations. They
emphasize the adoption of environmentally friendly practices, innovative technologies, and
sustainable construction methods throughout the project lifecycle. IRC SP 122 2019 encourages
stakeholders to prioritize environmental conservation and integrate green principles into
highway planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. By promoting the
adoption of sustainable practices and ensuring compliance with environmental standards, these
guidelines play a crucial role in mitigating the environmental footprint of highway projects and
fostering a more sustainable approach to infrastructure development in India. (source: irc.
nic.in)

Other Rating Systems.

Feasible Transportation Examination Rating Framework

2.2 Analytical method for assessing rating system.

The literature review highlights various methods and rating systems available for assessing the
sustainability of highway projects. The Delphi technique facilitates consensus-building and
decision-making in complex projects, whereas the TOPSIS and AHP methods offer analytical
tools to assess the efficiency and appropriateness of technologies.

13
 Table 2.1 List of literature on analytical methods for assessing rating system

Papers Technique and tools Reference

P1 TOPSIS method (Zlatko Pavić et al., 2013), (Asis Sarkar et
al., 2014)
P2 AHP (Omkar prasad et al., 2006)

P3 MCDM (Ching-Lai Hwang et al., 1981)

P4 Delphi method (Chitu Okoli et al., 2004), (Sharareh

Kermanshach et al., 2016)

2.3. Sustainable Road Construction Practices:

This section reviews the principles and practices of sustainable road construction,
highlighting concepts such as carbon emissions reduction, green road practices,
and the use of environmentally friendly pavement materials.

Table 2.2 List of literature on sustainable road construction practices

Practice Reference
P1 Sustainable Road Construction (Liu, N., Wang et al., 2022).
Principles
P2 Road Carbon Emissions Review (G.AppaRoa et al., 2013)
P3 Green Road Development in India (Mastura Bujang et al., 2014)
P4 Green Pavement Materials (Jeralee AndersonStephen et al., 2013)
P5 Green Roads Rating System (Abhiman Das et al., 2009)
P6 Green Road Construction in Nepal (J. A. AdzarR. et al., 2019)
P7 pHJKR Green Road Rating (Michelle Oswald et al., 2015)
P8 Green Paths Rating System (Ismail Mohd AffendiZakaria et al., 2013)
P9 Malaysia Green Highway (Rong Yau et al., 2008)
P10 Assessment Framework for Green (Andrew S. et al., 2015)
Highways
P11 Sustainable Roadway Design in Taiwan (Raja Rafidah et al., 2014)

14
 P12 Green Highway Design Criteria (P. C. BuenoJ. et al., 2015)
P13 Transport Infrastructure Sustainability (Stephen T. et al., 2010)
Tools
P14 Green Roads Sustainability Metric (M Clark et al., 2009)
P15 Green Guide for Roads (SI Sarsam et al., 2015)
P16 Sustainable Roadway Ratings (KY Chen et al., 2015)
P17 Roadway Sustainability in Texas (SH Yang et al., 2018)
P18 Sustainability Indicators for Pavement (JA Gambatese et al., 2005)
P19 Energy Consumption in Roadways (Jose Manuel et al., 2016)
P20 Sustainable Infrastructure Rating (S Balubaid, et al., 2015)
Systems
P21 Green Highway Assessment Index (Yibo et al., 2018)
P22 Pavement Maintenance Rating Tool (Rozana ZakariaFoo et al., 2013)
P23 Energy Efficiency in Green Highways (Adil UmerKasun Hewage et al., 2016)
P24 Sustainability Assessment under (Assa AmirilAbdul Hadi Nawawi et al.,
Uncertainty
2014)
P25 Green Pavement Recycling Solution (Hongmei LiJiwang JiangQiang Li

et al., 2023)

2.4. Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, the literature review provides an insightful overview of various approaches and
rating systems for assessing the sustainability of highway projects. It underscores the
importance of methodologies like the Delphi technique, TOPSIS, and AHP in facilitating
decision-making and evaluating technology effectiveness. Green rating systems such as Green
Roads, I-LAST, Envision, GreenLITES, and INVEST offer comprehensive evaluation criteria
and certification levels, setting them apart in promoting sustainable practices. The analysis of
these systems reveals their emphasis on environmental impact, user-friendliness, and coverage
across project lifecycles. Moreover, frameworks like CEEQUAL contribute to global
sustainability benchmarks, particularly in the UK and Ireland. IRC SP 122 2019 stands out for
its detailed criteria and standardized procedures, promoting environmental sustainability in
highway projects across India. The literature also explores analytical methods and sustainable
road construction practices, providing valuable insights into reducing carbon emissions,

15
adopting green road practices, and utilizing eco-friendly pavement materials. Understanding
and implementing these methodologies and practices are imperative for advancing sustainable
highway development and mitigating environmental impacts effectively.

16
3.0 Research Methodology

General

The research methodology section commences with an exhaustive review aimed at identifying
and scrutinizing various Green Highways systems in conjunction with national rating or
certifying systems, elucidating their scopes, methodologies, and global implementation
strategies. The principal aim is to evaluate the suitability of the IRC SP: 122-2019 system
concerning international sustainability rating systems within the specific context of India,
employing Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis. The Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) emerges as a prominent decision-making method in the literature within
construction contexts, accompanied by other MCDM techniques such as the Delphi model and
the TOPSIS method. The thesis employs TOPSIS to rank existing systems and utilizes the
Delphi model within IRC SP:122-2019 for the assessment of indicator weights. A research
methodology workflow delineates a systematic approach, encompassing literature review, data
collection involving exploration of international systems and study of IRC SP: 122-2019, and
comparative analysis employing TOPSIS and Delphi methods. The subsequent comparative
results section critically evaluates the strengths and limitations of TOPSIS and the Delphi
method, pivotal for informed decision-making regarding the most appropriate evaluation
method for green highway rating systems.

3.1. Introduction

In the initial phase of this thesis, a comprehensive review was conducted to identify and analyze
various systems about Green Highways, along with an examination of existing national rating
or certifying systems. This literature review revealed the diverse scope and methodologies of
these systems, as well as their implementation practices across different nations.

The primary objective of this thesis was to assess the applicability of the IRC: SP: 122-2019
system in comparison to other international sustainability rating systems within the context of
India, aiming to determine the most suitable system. The study encompassed an exploration of
global practices in green rating systems and an evaluation of established methodologies for
formulating and implementing a domestic model.

17
Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis was employed to select the most appropriate
system. Through the literature review, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) emerged as a
commonly utilized method for decision-making in construction-related contexts, particularly in
determining the weights of various sustainability indicators. Besides AHP, researchers
frequently utilized the Delphi model, the TOPSIS method, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW),
and other MCDM techniques either individually or in combination for ranking and decision-
making purposes.

This thesis adopts the TOPSIS method to rank existing rating systems while employing the
Delphi model in IRC SP:122-2019 to assess the weightage of indicators within a national
evaluation framework. Through these approaches, the thesis aims to provide insights into the
selection and refinement of sustainability rating systems for effective implementation in the
Indian context.

IRC: SP: 122-2019 system in comparison to other international sustainability rating systems
within the context of India, aiming to determine the most suitable system. The study
encompassed an exploration of global practices in green rating systems and an evaluation of
established methodologies for formulating and implementing a domestic model.

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) analysis was employed to select the most appropriate
system. Through the literature review, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) emerged as a
commonly utilized method for decision-making in construction-related contexts, particularly in
determining the weights of various sustainability indicators. Besides AHP, researchers
frequently utilized the Delphi model, the TOPSIS method, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW),
and other MCDM techniques either individually or in combination for ranking and decision-
making purposes.

This thesis adopts the TOPSIS method to rank existing rating systems while employing the
Delphi model in IRC SP:122-2019 to assess the weightage of indicators within a national
evaluation framework. Through these approaches, the thesis aims to provide insights into the
selection and refinement of sustainability rating systems for effective implementation in the
Indian context.

18
Figure 3.1 Research Methodology Workflow

19
3.1. Literature Review:

This step involves gathering a wide range of literature related to green highway rating systems.
This includes exploring international rating systems for roads from various countries and
understanding the specific guidelines outlined in IRC SP 122-2019. The purpose is to
comprehensively understand the existing frameworks and methodologies used for evaluating
the sustainability of highway projects.

3.2. Data Collection:

3.2. a) Explore and understand international rating systems for roads: This involves
conducting a thorough examination of different rating systems implemented globally to assess
the sustainability of highways. Understanding the components, criteria, and methodologies of
these systems provides valuable insights for comparative analysis.

3.2.b) Study IRC SP 122-2019: Delve into the guidelines provided by IRC SP 122-2019,
which specifically focus on the green rating of highways. Understanding these guidelines is
crucial as they provide a standardized framework for assessing the environmental sustainability
of highway projects in India.

Refer to research papers relevant to your study: Reviewing relevant research papers helps in
gaining deeper insights into the methodologies, findings, and discussions related to green
highway rating systems and comparative analysis methods.

3.3. Comparative Analysis:

3.1 Analyse data using the TOPSIS method: A multi-criteria decision-making technique called
TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) is used to
determine which choice out of a set is the best. TOPSIS is a useful tool for comparing various
rating systems or techniques according to predetermined standards.
One benefit of this method is that it may be implemented in an obvious and unquestionable
order of preference as follows:

max [f_1 (x), f_2 (x)…,f_k (x) -1

x∈X = {x | g_i (x) ≤ 0, I = 1, 2…, m} -2

20
where,

f- factors considered in nonlinear dimension.

x- represents the vector of the n-dimensional choice variable.
n- decision variables.
m constants, and
k objectives in the problem.
Every function can be nonlinear. This issue is frequently referred to as a vector maximization
problem in the literature. Generally speaking, there are four classes of MODM techniques:

(a) preferential information that is not articulated;

(b) preference information that has already been articulated;
(c) preference information that is articulated gradually or through interactive methods;
(d) preference information that is articulated later or through non-dominant solution generation
methods. Preferential information is not expressed in the TOPSIS example.
Therefore, the method's guiding premise is that the selected alternative should be as near to the
positive ideal solution (PIS) as feasible and as far away from the negative ideal solution (NIS).
Decision-makers are not satisfied with a single criterion that has the quickest path to a certain
objective or PIS. Practically speaking, decision-makers tend to choose the best course of action
that concurrently maximizes rewards and minimizes risks, guaranteeing a balanced
optimization of both variables.
Finding the performance information for n options over k requirements. Standardized
measurements (sij) are often obtained by converting raw measurements (xij).
1. The creation of an importance weighting system for every criterion.
2.Calculating D+, the best substitute.
3. Outlining the option for a negative maximum (low point), D-.
4. Calculate the distance to each criterion's ideal (D+) and negative maximum (D-) points.
5. Determine the ratio R for each option by:

𝑅𝑖 = (3)
where, R = the distance to the negative ideal solution, divided by the sum of the distances to
the ideal and nadir solution.

𝐷 = Distance from Euclidian ideal positive solution.

21
𝐷 = Distance from Euclidian ideal negative solution.

7. Ranking alternatives by maximizing the ratio in Equation (3).

With this series of steps, TOPSIS minimizes the distance to the ideal solution while maximizing
the distance from the negative ideal solution. For steps (2) to (5), several different methods can
be used.

3.2 Employ the Delphi method for expert consensus: The Delphi method involves gathering
input from a panel of experts through a series of structured questionnaires or rounds of
discussion. This method helps in achieving consensus among experts regarding the suitability
and effectiveness of different rating systems or methodologies. These are the steps carried out
in Delphi method:

1. Selection of Experts: Identify a panel of experts with relevant knowledge and expertise
on the topic.
2. Questionnaire Development: Prepare a questionnaire with open-ended or closed-ended
questions to gather insights.
3. Round 1 - Initial Responses: Distribute the questionnaire to experts, who provide their
independent responses.
4. Data Analysis: Analyse responses to identify areas of agreement and divergence.
5. Round 2 - Feedback: Share summarized results with experts and request further input
or clarification.
6. Consensus Building: Facilitate discussions among experts to converge on shared
viewpoints.
7. Iteration: Repeat rounds of data collection and analysis until consensus is reached or
predefined stopping criteria are met.
8. Final Report: Compile findings into a comprehensive report outlining the consensus and
any remaining areas of uncertainty.

Step 8: Certifying the Project.

Classify a particular scenario as Certified, Silver, Gold, or Evergreen based on the percentage
calculated in Step 7

22
3.4. Comparative Results:
In evaluating the pros and cons of the TOPSIS method, it is crucial to assess its strengths and
weaknesses for comparative analysis. Factors such as accuracy, complexity, and practicality
play significant roles in determining its suitability for assessing green highway rating systems.

4.1 Evaluate the pros and cons of the TOPSIS method: Assess the strengths and weaknesses of
using the TOPSIS method for comparative analysis. Consider factors such as accuracy,
complexity, and practicality in evaluating green highway rating systems.

When assessing the pros and cons of the Delphi method, it's essential to analyze the advantages
and limitations of utilizing it for expert consensus. Factors like reliability, subjectivity, and time
efficiency are pivotal in gathering expert opinions effectively.

4.2 Assess the pros and cons of the Delphi method: Analyze the advantages and limitations of
employing the Delphi method for expert consensus. Consider aspects like reliability,
subjectivity, and time efficiency in gathering expert opinions.

In presenting results for the best-suited method, it's imperative to analyze and showcase
findings from the comparative analysis. Considerations such as reliability, applicability,
stakeholder feedback, and alignment with project objectives should guide the decision-making
process.

3.5. Results in Best Suited Method:

In the results section, we analyze and show the findings from comparing different methods for
evaluating green highway rating systems. We look at things like how dependable they are, how
well they work for our specific situation, what stakeholders think about them, and if they match
our project goals. By considering all these factors, we figure out which method is the best fit
for our needs. This helps us make informed decisions about which method to use when
evaluating green highway rating systems. It is important to choose a method that is reliable,
practical, and aligns with what we want to achieve with our project .

23
4.0 Analysis and Finding:

General
This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the most suitable rating system for Indian roads.
Initially, the TOPSIS method is employed to compare existing road systems worldwide,
identifying the most suitable one for adaptation to Indian conditions. Subsequently, the chapter
examines the guidelines for green highways as outlined in IRC 122:2019. A case study is
conducted to identify the limitations of this guideline, followed by a comprehensive summary
highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of IRC SP 122:2019 and the Invest method.

4.1. Comparison of Green Rating Systems

Several rating and evaluation systems are presently in use worldwide to assess various aspects
of infrastructure projects. The systems under this study were chosen based on a prior study
mentioned in Chapter 2. Conducted by a select group of experts with diverse backgrounds in
academia and industry. Table 4.1. outlines the key features of the Green roads, Green LITES,
I-LAST, Envision, and INVEST systems as summarized from the study.

Most of the system credits can be categorized into the subsequent groups:

 Accessibility and equality.

 Energy efficiency.
 Environment and water.
 Sustainable Design and construction.
 Material technology.
However, different systems consider the different field as the "most important,” i.e., they
emphasize (weight) the importance of environmental solutions in the main categories in diverse
ways.

24
 Table 4.1. Comparison of Green Rating Systems

Figure 4.1 The weighted distribution of the categories by rating system.

25
Figure 4.1 represents the determination of the weights of the rating systems by different
categories, the study was conducted by collecting the relevant information for each criterion.
The result of the weights was based on the personal experience and technical estimation of the
authors (Andrew S. Chang et. al 2015).

The number of credits and maximum points available varies significantly across certification
systems, yet all systems compel a minimum score for certification, typically ranging from 5%
to 30%. The outcomes of certified projects serve educational, labeling, and diverse marketing
purposes, helping decision-making processes (Green Roads, 2017; Greenlites, 2017; I-LAST,
2012; Envision, 2018; INVEST, 2018).

Some of the outlined above hold greater significance in the context of the current Indian
scenario compared to others. Innovative design concepts and construction methods are
infrequently employed, and generally limited to pilot projects. Moreover, energy efficiency
considerations throughout project lifecycles are typically overlooked in many instances (Green
Roads, 2017; Greenlites, 2017; I-LAST, 2012; Envision, 2018; INVEST, 2018). This study
underscores the importance of these sustainability criteria and integrates them into the
evaluation process for comparing rating systems.

4.2. Determination of the Most Suitable Rating System Using the TOPSIS Method

As a result of the evaluation, we want to determine which of the evaluation systems of

Greenroads, GreenLITES, I-LAST, Envision, and INVEST is the one that satisfies the criteria
to the greatest extent and should be chosen; therefore, it can potentially be used in Indian road
construction practice. The first step to achieve this is to define the set of criteria that is used to
examine and distinguish between the systems. This study finds 6 different Main criteria and 22
sub-criteria for the evaluation were taken over from the mentioned IRC (Indian Road Congress)
SP 122-2019.

26
 Main Evaluation Criteria

Sustainable Design (SD)

Materials & Resources (MR)

Energy and Environment (EE)

EVALUATION

Interventions as Reparation
Activities and Enhancement
(compensating for water used
during construction through RWH)
(RA)
Stormwater Management
(SM)
CSR activity (CSR)

Figure 4.2 Main criteria considered for conducting TOPSIS method

1.Alignment design

2.Traffic flow improvement

Sustainable Design (SD)

3.Traffic safety

4.Long life pavement design

5.Habitat fragmentation
6.Cut & Fill

7.Landscaping and Aesthetic

8.Cultural and Historical Preservation

9.Accessibility and Universal Design

Figure 4.3 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Sustainable design criteria.

27
 1. Recycled content

Materials & Resources (MR)

2. Carbon footprint

3. Local Sourcing

4. Renewable Materials

Figure 4.4 Sub criteria considered for assessing Materials and resource
criteria.

1.Cool pavement

2.Lighting efficiency
Energy and Environment (EE)

3.Traffic safety

4.Noise Attenuation

5.Carbon sequestration/ reduction in emission

6.Vehicular emission of ambient air pollutant
7.Site Vegetation or plantation Plan

8.Renewable Energy Integration

9.Wildlife Crossings and Corridors

Figure 4.5 Sub criteria considered for assessing Energy and Environment
criteria.

28
 1.Provision for management
practice.
2.Maintenance

Stormwater Management (SM) 3.Run off treatment

4.Ground water recharge

5. Permeable area

6.Green Infrastructure
7. Flood Prevention Measures

Figure 4.6 Sub criteria considered for assessing Stormwater

management criteria.
during construction through RWH)
(compensating for water used

1. Rain water harvesting through

Activities and Enhancement
Interventions as Reparation

ponds
(RA)

2.Roof top rain water harvesting

Figure 4.7 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Reparation activities criteria.

29
 responsibility to promote
1.Corporate social responsibility-1

healthy / hygienic
Corporate social

practices(CSR) 2.Community Engagement and Empowerment

Figure 4.8 Sub-criteria considered for assessing Corporate social responsibility criteria.

The Figure 4.2 illustrates the six main evaluation criteria used for the TOPSIS method
evaluation. These criteria receive points if they are present in the examining rating system, as
depicted in Table 4.2. Following this, Figure 4.3 presents the sub-criteria used for assessing
Sustainable design criteria in the evaluation process. Likewise, Figures 4.3 to 4.8 detail the sub-
criteria considered under each of the main criteria for evaluation.

The study gathered the pertinent data for each criterion to calculate the weights of the various
grading systems per category. However, the technical estimation results served as the basis for
the final weight determination, which are as follows.

1.Design for Sustainability (SD) -

Greenroads: The system's website (greenroads.org) has the evaluation form and explanations
of the scoring. Using this rating system, the evaluation is carried out by locating the sub-criteria
listed above: stormwater management, energy-efficient lighting, use of renewable energy
sources, integration of green infrastructure, and Achieved points: 5.

Green LITES: These are the available criteria for the Sustainable Design and can be obtained
for free from the GreenLITES website (www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites/project-design-
cert). decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and improvement of habitat and environment.
Achieved points: 3.

I-LAST: This handbook is available for free download at idot.illinois.gov, the I-LAST website.
The evaluation system is presented well in the file, which also includes a checklist with a

30
thorough explanation of each item. Planning, designing, and building infrastructure with
sustainability principles in mind decrease in carbon emissions, protection and improvement of
natural resources, and resistance to the effects of climate change. Achieved points: 4.

ENVISION: The website sustainableinfrastructure.org contains information about the

ENVISION system. These are the attainable standards for sustainable design. community
improvements in quality of life, Conservation of the natural environment, Resource allocation
and utilisation, Resilience to risk and climate Additionally, inventiveness and leadership in
sustainable methods. Achieved points: 5.

INVEST: This website (sustainablehighways.org) offers a wealth of information about the

system, including its components, structure, and outcomes. The website has the guide's
components, description, and scoring. These are the attainable standards for sustainable design.
Planning, developing, and operating transport projects with a focus on sustainability
Minimising negative effects on the environment, improving the standard of living in the
community, maximizing project delivery and lifecycle costs, enhancing system performance
and operations, and encouraging sustainable and multimodal transportation options. Achieved
points: 4.

Similarly, each of the other primary criteria and its corresponding sub-criteria are evaluated
based on the criteria that are provided within the rating system. Points are allocated to every
rating system according to the criteria that each system meets.

Table 4.2 provides a summary of the performance data that was acquired. This is a normalized
rating system classification, where a scale of 1 to 5 is used for the categorization. For the
criterion, a score of 1 represents the least favorable outcome, and a score of 5 represents the
most favorable outcome. The research's weights are determined by taking into account the
technical assessments and subjective impressions of the participants, as well as insights from
in-person interviews with industry and academic professionals.

31
 Table 4.2 Classification of the rating systems for the (TOPSIS) analysis
Rating System Evaluation Criterion
SD MR EE SM RA CSR
Green roads 5 5 3 4 4 5
GreenLITES 3 4 2 3 3 2
I-Last 4 5 3 3 3 1
Envision 5 5 4 4 4 5
Invest 4 4 5 3 3 3

The next task was to calculate the weighted normalized classification based on the following
Equation (4) and the results are shown Table 4.3

𝑑𝑖𝑗= (4)
∑

Table 4.3 Weighted normalized results.

Rating System Criterion
SD MR EE SM RA CSR
Green roads 0.524 0.483 0.378 0.521 0.521 0.625
GreenLITES 0.314 0.387 0.252 0.391 0.391 0.250
I-Last 0.419 0.483 0.378 0.391 0.391 0.125
Envision 0.524 0.483 0.504 0.521 0.521 0.625
Invest 0.419 0.387 0.630 0.391 0.391 0.375

Referring to the above, the positive and negative ideal solutions can be identified using
Euclidian Equations (5) and (6). The results are shown in Table 4.4.

D+= {𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑗 𝑑𝑖𝑗|𝑗∈𝐽1, 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑗, 𝑑𝑖𝑗|𝑗∈𝐽2|𝑖=1....5} (5)

D− = {𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝑑𝑖𝑗|𝑗∈𝐽1, 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑗, 𝑑𝑖𝑗|𝑗∈𝐽2|𝑖=1.... 5} (6)

32
 Table 4.4 The positive and negative ideal solutions result

Ideal Solutions Criterion

SD MR EE SM RA CSR
Positive ideal solution A+ 0.524 0.483 0.630 0.521 0.521 0.625
Negative ideal solution A- 0.314 0.387 0.252 0.391 0.391 0.125

The distance is calculated using n-dimensional Euclidean distance for both positive (Di+) and
negative (Di−) distances in Equations (7) and (8).

𝐷𝑖+= ∑ (𝑑𝑖𝑗 − 𝑑𝑖 +) (7)

𝐷𝑖−= ∑ (𝑑𝑖𝑗 − 𝑑𝑖 −) (8)

The next step was to determine the R relative proximity ratio. This is calculated using Equation
(9).

𝑅𝑖 = ± (9)

The results should have a value between 0–1. The solution whose value is closest to 0 has the
highest priority. The result of the calculation is shown in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 Determination of relative proximity.

Rating System Di+ Di− Ri

Green roads 0.252 0.594 0.736

GreenLITES 0.608 0.125 0.741

I-Last 0.589 0.190 0.523

Envision 0.130 0.632 0.259

Invest 0.341 0.465 0.250

33
By evaluating various rating systems using the TOPSIS method, the results are expected to
yield values within the range of 0 to 1, where a value closer to 0 signifies higher priority. As
illustrated in Table 4.5, each rating system is assigned Di+, Di−, and Ri values, indicating their
performance across different criteria. Among the rating systems considered, INVEST emerges
as the most suitable choice for implementation in India, with a calculated value of 0.341 for
Di+ and 0.465 for Di−, resulting in a Ri of 0.250. This indicates that INVEST demonstrates
relative suitability across the evaluated criteria compared to other rating systems.

Further examination of the data, it becomes evident that INVEST exhibits a competitive edge
over its counterparts, particularly when considering factors relevant to India's context. The
proximity of Envision values underscores its viability as an alternative option, albeit with a
slightly higher difference compared to INVEST. These findings substantiate the conclusion that
INVEST stands out as the most suitable rating system for India, based on the comprehensive
assessment conducted using the TOPSIS method

34
4.3. Application of INVEST Rating for Indian Roads: A Case Study.

The project under consideration aims at developing the normal highways Chennai- Trichy NH-
45 in Tamil Nadu state is a part of the National Highway Development Program (NHDP)
towards green highways using the INVEST Score card. This rating is formed process used to
predict the environmental consequence of any development project. It is intended to identify
the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a proposed development using a rating
system in asset the suitable environmental option and alternative process at an early stage.

National highway-45 is the one of the busiest highway in Tamil Nadu with a total length of
474 km. The highways exactly start from Guindy Kathipara Bridge to Theni. The highway has
a 4-lane (2 lanes from each direction) between Chennai and Madurai. The length of two lane
is 16 feet, footpath is 6 feet on both sides in the Towns and villages and the centre landscaping
length is 5 feet. (Source: CR Suresh et al.2015)

35
 Table 4.6. INVEST Scorecard for National Highway 45

Total Score= 130

As per the score card the National Highway –45 is scored 130 points out of 210 points. Hence
the NH-45 needs to undergo developments as per the recommendation:

36
Primary Recommendations:

1. Basic amenities such as portable toilets, water facilities, and daily maintenance should
be provided along NH-45.
2. Hospital signal boards should be installed at strategic points.
3. Parking areas should be established every 20 kilometers.
4. Separate paths should be designated for non-fossil fuel vehicles and differently-abled
individuals.
5. Adequate lighting should be installed in necessary areas along the highway.
6. A water management system should be established along NH-45.
7. Drainage facilities should be implemented on both sides of the highway.
8. Drought-tolerant species and native plants should be planted along the highway.
9. Rainwater harvesting pits should be provided at least every 100 meters.
Secondary Recommendations:

1. Preserve natural assets, such as in Chengalpattu.

2. Implement measures to reduce the heat island effect along the highway during the
summer season.
3. Reduce light pollution.
4. Implement pollution prevention measures during construction.
5. Utilize brownfield areas for highway development.
6. Maintain quality control from construction to maintenance stages.
7. Provide guidance notices for users post-construction.
8. Ensure contractual conditions include specified standards.
9. Implement a water management system for irrigation, wastewater treatment, and
landscaping.
10. Install meters for monitoring energy consumption and pollutant emissions.
11. Incorporate on-site renewable energy generation.
12. Establish proper commissioning processes as per guidelines.
13. Consider innovative pavements for highway construction.
14. Minimize waste generation during construction.
15. Promote the use of recycled and local materials.
16. Use certified renewable materials in highway construction.
17. Install indicators (sensors) before hazardous points.
18. Align highway selection according to local environmental management systems.

37
 19. Ensure regular maintenance and rating of the highway throughout its lifetime.
20. Establish water treatment plants near KOLAVAI lake.
21. Install solar panels to offset energy consumption.
22. Reduce wastelands along the sides of the highway.
23. Establish waste material storage and collection facilities outside urban areas.
24. Ensure that walking areas designated for pedestrians are not occupied by platform
shops.
25. Provide cycle paths along the sides of the highway.
26. Install and maintain proper signal boards at all turns.
27. Strictly implement safety and noise mitigation plans on the highway.
Conclusion of case study:

In conclusion, the case study focused on the development of the Chennai-Trichy NH-45 in
Tamil Nadu as part of the National Highway Development Program, aiming to transform it
into a green highway using the INVEST Scorecard. The INVEST Scorecard serves as a
predictive tool for assessing the environmental, social, and economic impacts of development
projects, aiding in the identification of suitable environmental options and alternative
processes.

NH-45, spanning 474 kilometers, holds a significant position as one of Tamil Nadu's busiest
highways. The study identified various criteria across different categories, outlining the areas
requiring improvement and development to enhance the highway's green rating. As per the
INVEST Scorecard evaluation, NH-45 scored 130 out of 210 points, indicating the need for
substantial development and enhancement initiatives.

These recommendations underscore the importance of integrating sustainability principles into

highway development projects, emphasizing the need for comprehensive planning,
implementation, and maintenance strategies. By adhering to these recommendations, NH-45
can evolve into a model green highway, contributing positively to environmental conservation,
community well-being, and sustainable infrastructure development in Tamil Nadu.

4.4. Determination of weighted factors by the Delphi method for IRC SP 122-2019.

The green rating guidelines for highways aim to address the significant limitations found in
existing rating systems, particularly the lack of objectivity in criterion selection and weighting
processes. They embrace environmentally friendly and innovative techniques, including

38
material recycling, renewable resource utilization, soil stabilization with stabilizers, warm mix
technology, and management of construction and demolition waste. These practices, although
new in India, are integral to the evolving landscape of sustainable infrastructure development.

The system has 13 mandatory Qualifying Criteria (QC) and 7 Evaluating Criteria (EC),
encompassing 24 sub-criteria. Mandatory qualifying criteria serve as the baseline requirements
for project rating, while Evaluating Criteria assess various environmental parameters across all
project alternatives, requiring quantification.

The following steps are considered in the Guidelines for green rating for highways in IRC SP
122-2019:

Step 1: Identify Qualifying Criteria

Identify criteria necessary for a highway project to qualify for green rating, projects must
meet these criteria to be eligible for green rating assessment.

Step 2: List and Describe Evaluation Criteria

List evaluation criteria and describe each within the context of the project.

Table 3 provides a standard list of evaluation criteria; no criteria can be excluded, but site-
specific conditions may warrant inclusion.

Weightage is assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion.

Weightage sequence can be adjusted based on the Delphi technique to reflect the severity of
impact and overall importance.

Step 3: Create Project Scenarios

In the case of an Existing highway the scenario will be:

Scenario -1: Quantification of criteria based on the existing road or based on conventional
approach or maximum feasible greener intervention

Scenario-2: Quantification of criteria based on proposed greener intervention

In the case of a green field highway the scenario will be:

Scenario-1 Quantification of criteria based on maximum feasible greener intervention or

based on the conventional approach

39
Scenario-2 Quantification of criteria based on proposed greener intervention Interventions on
each criterion shall be represented in the form of a percentage share of improvement upon an
existing condition or total improvement possible.

In the case of existing road

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠(%)
𝐴𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
= 𝑋 100
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑜𝑓𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑑/𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒/ max 𝑖 𝑚𝑢𝑚𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

In the case of Greenfield Road

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠(%)
𝐴𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑑𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
= 𝑋 100
𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑑𝑓𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒/ max 𝑖 𝑚𝑢𝑚𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

For greenfield highways, scenarios consider the maximum possible greener interventions or
conventional approaches. Interventions are represented as a percentage share of improvement
upon existing conditions or total improvement possible.

Step 4: Assign Ranks Based on Percentage

Allocate ranks to different criteria according to the provided percentage scale outlined in Table
5. Ranks range from 0 to 7, correlating with percentages from 0 to 100. The ranking increases
as the percentage share of improvement rises, ensuring a proportional relationship. Ranks are
assigned on a parameter-wise basis.

Step 5: Calculate Total Weighted Ranking

Compute the total weighted ranking for a specific scenario by multiplying the weight of each
criterion by its assigned rank. Sum these values using Formula-1 to derive the overall total
weighted rank achieved by the scenario.

Total weighted rank of one scenario (TWRS) = ∑ 𝑟 𝑋𝑤 (1)

Step 6: Determine Maximum Total Weighted Ranking for the Project (MWRP)

Calculate the maximum total weighted ranking for the project (MWRP) by assigning the
highest value rank to each criterion. Multiply these ranks by their corresponding weights
allocated to them. Sum the products obtained from each criterion to derive the MWRP using
Formula 2.

40
Maximum Total Weighted Ranking for the Project (MWRP) = ∑ 𝑟ℎ 𝑋 𝑤 (2)

Where r is the highest rank i.e. 7 (Except in the case of criteria on Project Identification which
will be 1 as identification is assumed to be only 10 % of work done)

Step 7: Determine Percentage Share of Weighted Rank

Calculate the percentage share of the weighted rank achieved by a particular scenario, as
computed in Step 5, out of the maximum weighted rank of the project, as determined in Step
6. Use Formula 3 to derive this percentage share.

% of weighted rank = 𝑋 100 (3)

Step 8: Certifying the Project.

Classify a particular scenario as Certified, Silver, Gold, or Evergreen based on the percentage
calculated in Step 7

4.5 Application of IRC Guidelines in the National Highway: A Case Study

GREEN RATING OF NATIONAL HIGHWAYS - National highway-45

National Highway-45, spanning a total length of 474 kilometers, stands as one of the busiest
thoroughfares in Tamil Nadu. Stretching from the Guindy Kathipara Bridge to Theni, the
highway boasts a four-lane configuration, with two lanes dedicated to each direction of travel
between Chennai and Madurai. In urban areas and villages along the route, the highway
features two lanes, each measuring 16 feet, accompanied by footpaths measuring 6 feet on both
sides. Additionally, the highway incorporates center landscaping with a length of 5 feet,
enhancing its aesthetic appeal and environmental integration.

Step -1 Criteria to qualify for being assessed as a “Green” highway

Qualifying criteria as per the list given in Table -i are checked one by one and found
incorporated in the Environment report and design report.

41
 Table 4.7 Mandatory Criteria

Sl.no Qualifying Criteria Yes/ No Reference to the section of

Incorporated Environment or Design
report
1 Extensive study with a baseline of Yes Section 5.12 of Chapter 5 of
all environmental parameters and the EIA report
Strength, Weakness, Opportunity
Threat (SWOT) analysis of
identified issues
2 Stormwater management Yes Section 9.10 of Chapter 9 of
measures the EIA report
3 Noise attenuation measures Yes Section 10.4 of Chapter 10 of
the EIA report
4 Liquid and solid Waste Yes Section 11.9 of Chapter 11
management measures (solid EIA report
waste includes all types of waste
likely to be generated)
5 Air pollution mitigation measures Yes Section 11.8 of Chapter 11 of
the EIA report
6 Life cycle cost analysis Yes Section 11.2 of Chapter 11of
Design Report
7 Greenhouse gas emission Yes Section 10.5 of Chapter 10 of
assessment for Construction, the EIA report
maintenance, and Operation
period
8 Life cycle inventory of pavement Yes Section 11.8 of Chapter 11 of
material the EIA report
9 Stakeholders Consultation plan Yes Section 5.2 of Chapter 5 of the
EIA report
10 Formal Contractor Quality Yes Section 5.5 of Chapter 5 of the
Control Plan Design report
11 Environment Monitoring plan for Yes Section 10.8 of Chapter 10 of
pre-construction, construction, the EIA report
and operation stage
12 Plantation plan Yes Section 11.8 of Chapter 11 of
the EIA report
13 Environmental management Plan Yes Section 10.2 of Chapter 10 of
for pre-construction, construction the EIA report
and

42
Step -2 Listing the criteria/ parameter
The criteria for this project have been adjusted to align with the project's definition, which
involves enhancing an already well-conditioned road to enhance safety and sustainability
through an integrated approach. This table outlines the criteria to define the specific context of
the project, detailing how improvements or modifications will be assessed. Standard weights
and sub-weightages are provided as per the guidelines outlined in Table 4.8.

To determine the weights, a survey was conducted among experts using Google Forms. The
expert group formed 34 individuals with substantial years of experience, including participants
from consultant, contractor, and client companies.

Figure 4.9 describes the allocation of weightages to the main criteria, as determined by the
survey. According to the findings, Material and Resource receive the highest weightage of 30%
of the total score, indicating their significance in the assessment. Sustainable Design and
Stormwater Management follow closely, each allocated 20% of the weightage, highlighting
their substantial roles in the evaluation process. The remaining criteria are assigned weights
proportional to their importance within the rating system. This distribution of weights reflects
the priorities and emphasis placed on different aspects of sustainability and infrastructure
development within the survey's scope.

43
 Figure 4.9. Response received for the weightage of main criteria.

Fig 4.10. Sample questions were asked and the responses received

The weightage distribution is elucidated in Table 4.8, and the correlation between the survey
outcomes and weightage allocation is illustrated in Figure 4.9. The objective is to ensure that
the total weightage assigned to the main criteria equals 1.

Mathematically, the weightage given to sustainable design (SD) is denoted as W_SD and is
assigned a value of 0.15, representing approximately 20% of the total weightage. This is
expressed as: 𝑊 = 0.15

The ranking of sub-criteria, ranging from 1 to 5, is instrumental in determining the weight

distribution for each. The higher-priority sub-criteria receive a greater share of the weightage,
while the lower-priority ones receive proportionally less. The sub-criteria and their respective
weights are as follows:
44
𝑊 =0.022
𝑊 =0.005
𝑊 =0.014
𝑊 =0.05
𝑊 =0.005
The summation of these sub-criteria weights yields the total weightage assigned to sustainable
design:
𝑊 = 𝑊 +𝑊 +𝑊 +𝑊 +𝑊 =0.15.
Similarly, weightage calculations are conducted for all main criteria. The survey findings are
applied consistently to determine the weightage for each main criterion and its corresponding
sub-criteria. The objective is to ensure that the combined weightage of all criteria and sub-
criteria sums up to 1.

Table 4.8 Calculated weightage for a green rating of NH-45

Criteria and Sub-criteria Weightage Description

Sl.
no
1 Sustainable design (SD) 0.15
SD-1 Alignment design 0.022 The design of road alignment is
already existing; any innovative
measure taken to curb the main
identified issue of road users

SD-2 Traffic flow improvement 0.005 Reduction in congestion or

SD-3 Traffic safety
average speed expected after
improvement
0.014 Reduction in human-vehicle
conflict; vehicle-vehicle conflict;
cattle-vehicle conflict

SD-4 Long-life pavement design 0.05 Life cycle (years); frequency of

mandatory maintenance

45
 SD-5 Public input
2 Materials & Resources (MR)
MR-1 Construction waste
management
MR-2 Reuse of pavement
MR-3 Recycled content
MR-4 Carbon footprint
MR-5 Ambient air pollution
MR-6 Regionally provided material
3 Stormwater management (SM)
SM-1 Provision for Management
Practice
SM-2 Maintenance
SM-3 Run-off treatment
SM-4 Groundwater recharge
SM-5 Permeable area
SM-6 Integrated Stormwater
management
4 Energy and Environment (EE)
EE-1 Cool pavement
0.005 Incorporation of users' and local
stakeholders' views and
requirements into the design
(number of interventions
recommended out of the
requirements expressed by users)
0.25
0.02 Use of construction and
demolition debris
0.05 Use of scarified bitumen in
construction as a sub-base
0.04 Use of recycled
material/reduction in waste
dumps
0.07 Reduction in carbon emission
during construction (both
embodied emission of materials
and direct emission due to fossil
fuel burning)
0.05 Reduction in NOx and SOx
0.02 Identification of material sources
at a minimum distance from the
project area
0.18
0.07 Type of technology used and
extent covered
0.007 In terms of maintenance
requirements and estimated life
of the structure in comparison
with a traditional stormwater
drain
0.01 Amount of runoff to be treated
and pollutants that could be
removed
0.02 Amount of water that could be
recharged
0.015 Share of permeable area to that
of non-permeable
0.04 Integration with landscaping and
groundwater recharge and pre-
separation from sewage
0.20
0.025 Pavement with higher albedo
46
 EE-2 Lighting efficiency
EE-3 Quiet pavement
EE-4 Carbon sequestration/reduction
in emission
EE-5 Vehicular emission of ambient
air pollutants
EE-6 Aesthetics
EE-7 Site Vegetation
5 Interventions as Reparation
Activities
RA-1 Rainwater harvesting through
ponds
RA-2 Rooftop rainwater harvesting
6 CSR activity
CSR-1 Corporate social
responsibility to promote
healthy/hygienic practices
7 Project Identification
PI-1 Solid waste management of
villages/towns
PI-2 Liquid waste management for
villages/towns
0.01 Use of renewable energy sources
with low electricity-consuming
fixtures
0.015 Reduction in noise level
0.06 Carbon footprint reduction
during operation
0.035 Improvement in ambient air
quality during operation
0.005 Material used for
rectification/curtaining/enhancin
g of eye soars identified
0.05 Share of vegetation cover within
the project area
0.12
0.08 Enhancement of ponds through
improving recharge rate and
quality of water by segregating it
from liquid/solid waste.
Evaluated in terms of share of
used water (for construction)
compensated per year.
0.04 Identifying and designing
rooftop rainwater harvesting on
buildings. Evaluated in terms of
share of used water (for
construction) compensated per
year.
0.05
0.07 Solid and liquid waste
management of Dhabas.
Evaluated based on coverage.
0.05 Identification is only 10% of the
work done
0.02 Planning for reducing the
nuisance along the road.
Evaluated based on coverage.
0.01 Planning for reducing the
nuisance along the road.
Evaluated based on coverage.
47
 PI-3 Potential Green Belt 0.04 Vacant or barren areas left with
Development the 60m belt provided under the
Controlled area plan of the
National Capital Region
Planning Board (NCRPB), apart
from Agricultural land shall be
developed as green belt.
Evaluated based on coverage.

Total Weightage 1

Step-3 Creation of scenarios

Scenario I: Existing Condition

Description: The existing road comprises a 6-lane divided traditional or conventional bitumen
pavement (TBP) carriageway with 1.5m paved shoulders on either side. As rated by iRAP
(International Road Assessment Programme), the road is in very good riding condition but poor
in terms of traffic safety. The project scope aims to enhance safety and environmental
sustainability within the Right of Way (RoW) to the maximum feasible extent.

Details: Please refer to Table iii for specifics on each parameter.

Scenario II: Improvement with Nature-Conforming Techniques

Description: Within the project scope, this scenario involves the use of Portland cement with
additives for structures such as flyovers, drains, footpaths, parking, VUP, PUP, bridges, etc.
Additionally, it incorporates bio-retention techniques for stormwater management, integrates
landscaping, and utilizes renewable energy applications.

Table 4.9 Details of criteria under different scenarios.

48
Sl.no Criteria and Sub- Description Scenario -1 Scenario- 2
criteria

1 Sustainable design (SD)

SD-1 Alignment design Unauthorized median opening; Elevated service roads with at grade Physical segregation of main
local traffic slowing through U-turns and closing unauthorized carriageway from service road
traffic to cross the road medians - (50% segregation) by railings; throughout service
road; all grade-separated
junctions; closing of all median
openings (100 % segregation)
SD-2 Traffic flow Journey speed 24 to 76kmph Journey speed 50 to 80 mph or Journey speed 60 to 80 kmph
improvement (average 50 km) improvement by 40% Or an improvement by 40%
SD-3 Traffic safety 346 Accidents /year 10 to 20% reduction in accidents 30 to 50% reduction in
expected accidents expected
SD-4 Long-life pavement 15 years with maintenance 30 years (50% more than of TBP) 30 years (50% more than of
design every 5 years TBP)
SD-5 Public input Cumulative- 37.8% proposed as per A cumulative 81.5% was
requirement of users proposed as per the requirement
of users
2 Materials & Resources
(MR)
MR-1 Construction waste Nil 100% use in the rehabilitation of 100% use in the rehabilitation
management borrow areas of borrow areas
MR-2 Reuse of pavement Nil 50% of scarified Granular sub-base 50% of scarified Granular sub-
and Wet macadam mix base and Wet macadam mix

MR-3 Recycled content 0 out of 58.10 lakh MT 6.1 out of 56.62 lakh MT (10%) 8.43 lakh MT out of 34.55 lakh
MT, i.e. 24.39%
MR-4 Carbon footprint Carbon footprint- 157.59 Carbon footprint- 111.85 tCO2.eq Carbon footprint- Less by 44%
tCO2.eq. (Less by 29% than TBP) than TBP

49
 MR-5 Ambient air Sox- 27.8 lakh kg Sox- 19.79 lakh kg, NOx- 153.71 Less by 44% than TBP
pollution lakh kg (Less by 29.02% than TBP)
MR-6 Regionally 81% material within 55km of 82% within 55 km lead 73% material within 55 km of
provided material lead lead
3 Stormwater management

SM-1 Provision for Storm water drain for 9 km out Storm water drain for 113.4 km – Bio retention for 34.7 km and
Management Practice of 113.4 km (both sides) – 100% coverage drain for 22km on the left;
7.9% coverage drain with groundwater
recharge trench on RHS for
56.7km- 100% coverage
SM-2 Expected Lifetime- 25 years, Lifetime: 25 years, Maintenance: To Lifetime: 20 years,
Lifetime/Maintenance Maintenance - Nil be cleaned twice a year (Pre and post- Maintenance: Bio-retention and
monsoon) in case of stormwater groundwater recharge trench:
drains (STD) without any recharging After every storm exceeding ½
pits – 40% increase in maintenance inch of rainfall for 1st six
activity. Rank shall be given in months, 4 times a month
reverse order i.e. for 60% relief in watering for initial 2 months of
requirement of maintenance. July – August depending on
rainfall, Mulch raking twice
during growing season, Replace
mulch layer every 3 years,
Prune trees and shrubs
annually, Remove sediments in
pre-treatment cell in 2-3 years
(80% more than STD). Rank
shall be given in reverse order
i.e. for 20% relief in
requirement of maintenance.
SM-3 Run-off treatment Nil No removal (0%), Removal of
oil/grease, debris, suspended particles
– 95%, Removal of hydrocarbons –

50
 75%, Metallic ions- 90% (86%
removal against 0 through STD)

SM-4 Groundwater Nil Nil 14.05 lakh m3 through bio-

recharge retention on the left and
recharge trench along the right
drain (100% more than STD)
SM-5 Permeable area 7.41 Ha.- 2.21% of total area 34.96 Ha- 10.46% of total area 83.37Ha -24% of total area

SM-6 Integrated Separate area for landscaping Separate area for landscaping and Integration of vegetation and
Stormwater management and STD; stormwater mixing STD however separated from sewage stormwater management- 100%
with sewage – 50% integration integration
4 Energy and Environment

EE-1 Cool pavement 0.05 albedo, Surface 0.3 - 0.4 albedo, Surface Temperature 0.05 albedo (0% more than
Temperature around 65 to 70 around 65 to 70 °C TBP), Surface Temperature
°C around 65 to 70 °C
EE-2 Lighting efficiency Only 20 % present out of the 2499.52 kW/year of electricity 0% of the electricity required
total required requirement in case of grid-connected for solar-LED Efficiency is
incandescent bulb street lights - 100%
efficiency is 0%
EE-3 Noise attenuation Nil Nil 23 dB(A) shall be reduced by
using noise barriers to reach the
time limit of 50 dB(A) for
residential areas (100%)
EE-4 Carbon 0.211% through landscaping 1.08 % through landscaping, 22.97%
sequestration reduction in through landscaping, smart traffic
emission management, solar-LED lighting, and
fuel saving
EE-5 Vehicular emission Nil Nil SOx- 4065.39 kg/km/yr less
reduction of ambient air against 0 kg/km/yr in TBP
pollutant

51
 pavement, NOx- 32148.9
kg/km/
Energy and Environment Aesthetics Nil Use of vegetative screens at 3
locations <br>Enhancing the
water bodies at 4 locations
<br>(100% - treatment to all
eye soars through methods that
would increase vegetation
cover/quality of surface and
groundwater)
Energy and Environment Site Vegetation Existing: 7.3 ha - 2.18% of total area
<br> Proposed: 34.85 ha - 10.43% of
total area <br> Proposed: 60.69 ha - 18%
of total area
Interventions outside the Rainwater harvesting through Nil 30% of the water used in
project area as Reparation ponds construction is compensated per
Activities year

Interventions outside the Roof-top rainwater harvesting Nil

project area as Reparation
Activities
5 CSR activity Corporate social responsibility to Nil 100%
promote healthy/hygienic
practices
Project Identification Solid waste management of Nil Yes (Identification is assumed to
villages/towns be only 10% of the work done)
Project Identification Liquid waste management for Nil Yes (Identification is assumed to
villages/towns be only 10% of the work done)

Project Identification Potential Green Belt Development Nil Yes (Identification is assumed to
be only 10% of the work done)

52
Step -4 Assigning Ranks

Improvements likely to be achieved under scenarios II and III have been estimated and
expressed in percentage increments on the base data of scenario I. Percentage from 0 to 100
has been assigned ranks from 0 to 7 as per standards given in Table iii.

Step-5 & 6 Computations of Weighted Ranks

Assigned to different groups of percentage share are as given in (Table iv). The total weighted
ranks for each scenario and maximum weighted rank for the project are calculated using
formulas 1 and 2 mentioned earlier (Table v).

Ranks against percentage share of various interventions

Percentage share Ranks

<0 0
0-15 1
15- 30 2
30- 45 3
45- 60 4
60-75 5
75- 90 6
>90 7

53
 Table 4.10 Ranks assigned to different parameters in Scenario I & II in comparison

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Criteria and Sub-criteria % of Improvement Ranks Weights Weighted Ranks % of Ranks Weightages Weighted
Achieved Improvement Ranks
Achieved
1 Sustainable design (SD)

SD-1 Alignment design 50 7 0.05 0.35 100 7 0.05 0.35

SD-2 Traffic flow improvement 40 3 0.02 0.06 40 3 0.02 0.06

SD-3 Traffic safety 20 4 0.03 0.12 50 4 0.03 0.12

SD-4 Long-life pavement design 50 4 0.07 0.28 50 4 0.07 0.28

SD-5 Public input 38 6 0.01 0.06 82 6 0.01 0.06

Subtotal 16 0.63 0.87 24 0.18 0.87
2 Materials & Resources (MR)

MR-1 Construction waste 100 7 0.01 0.07 100 7 0.01 0.07

management

MR-2 Reuse of pavement 50 4 0.04 0.16 50 4 0.04 0.16

MR-3 Recycled content 10 2 0.03 0.06 24 2 0.03 0.06

54
 MR-4 Carbon footprint 29 3 0.07 0.21 44 3 0.07 0.21

MR-5 Ambient air pollution 29 3 0.05 0.15 44 3 0.05 0.15

MR-6 Regionally provided 82 6 0.02 0.12 73 6 0.02 0.12

material
Subtotal 22 0.62 0.77 25 0.22 0.77
3 Stormwater management

SM-1 Provision for Management 100 7 0.05 0.35 100 7 0.05 0.35
Practice

SM-2 Expected 60 2 0.005 0.01 20 2 0.005 0.01

Lifetime/Maintenance

SM-3 Run-off treatment 0 6 0.01 0.06 86 6 0.01 0.06

SM-4 Groundwater recharge 0 7 0.02 0.14 100 7 0.02 0.14

SM-5 Permeable area 10 2 0.015 0.03 24 2 0.015 0.03

SM-6 Integrated Stormwater 50 7 0.04 0.28 100 7 0.04 0.28

management

Subtotal 16 0.545 0.87 31 0.14 0.87

4 Energy and Environment

EE-1 Cool pavement 87 6 0.025 0.15 0 0 0.025 0

EE-2 Lighting efficiency 0 7 0.01 0.07 100 7 0.01 0.07

EE-3 Noise attenuation 0 0 0.015 0 100 7 0.015 0.105

55
 EE-4 Carbon 1.08 2 0.06 0.12 22.97 2 0.06 0.12
sequestration/reduction in
emission

EE-5 Vehicular emission 0 1 0.035 0.035 4 1 0.035 0.035

reduction of ambient air pollutant

EE-6 Aesthetics 0 0 0.005 0 100 7 0.005 0.035

EE-7 Site Vegetation 10.43 2 0.05 0.1 18 2 0.05 0.1

Subtotal 7 0.26 0.465 32 0.2 0.465

5 Interventions as Reparation
Activities

RA-1 Rainwater harvesting 0 2 0.06 0.12 30 2 0.06 0.12

through ponds

RA-2 Rooftop rainwater 0 2 0.04 0.08 30 2 0.04 0.08

harvesting

Subtotal 0 0.2 4 0.1 0.2

6 CSR activity
CSR 1 Corporate social 0 7 0.09 0.63 100 7 0.09 0.63
responsibility to promote
healthy/hygienic practices

Subtotal 0 0 0.07 3 0.03 0 0.07

7 Project Identification

PI-1 Solid waste management of 0 1 0.02 0.02 10 1 0.02 0.02

villages/towns

56
PI-2 Liquid waste management 0 1 0.01 0.01 10 1 0.01 0.01
for villages/towns

PI-3 Potential Green Belt 0 1 0.04 0.04 10 1 0.04 0.04

Development

Subtotal 0 0 0.07 0.07 3 0.03 0 0.07

Total ranks achieved 63 2.055 3.875 126 0.96 3.875

Maximum Weighted rank for the 6.58

project

57
Step-7 Green Rating

Green Rating involves using Formula 3. Scenario I attain 31% of the maximum weighted ranks,
while Scenario II achieves 59% of the maximum weighted ranks. Consequently, the project
aligned with the conditions of Scenario I is expected to attain a "certified" category rating.
Conversely, the implementation of Scenario II conditions is expected to elevate the project to
the "Gold category." These findings underscore the significance of the project's adherence to
specific scenarios outlined within IRC 122 2019 for achieving distinct green ratings. Such
categorization not only reflects the project's environmental consciousness but also indicates its
adherence to sustainable practices, thereby contributing positively to its overall assessment and
recognition within the designated categories.

4.6. Comparison of INVEST rating system and IRC SP-122-2019:

INVEST Rating System:

Advantages:

Comprehensive Criteria: INVEST encompasses a wide range of criteria covering economic,

environmental, and social aspects of highway development.

User-Friendly Interface: The system is designed to be easily understandable by stakeholders,

facilitating effective implementation.

Standardization: INVEST provides a standardized framework for evaluating highway

projects, ensuring consistency and clarity in the assessment process.

Disadvantages:

Complexity: Despite its user-friendly interface, the complexity of INVEST guidelines can
sometimes overwhelm stakeholders, leading to difficulties in implementation.

Limited Widespread Adoption: The intricate nature of the criteria may hinder the widespread
adoption of the INVEST system among stakeholders.

IRC SP-122-2019:

Advantages:

Clear Guidelines: IRC SP-122-2019 offers clear guidelines for evaluating highway projects,
reducing ambiguity among stakeholders.

58
Focus on Specific Areas: The system may focus on specific areas of highway development,
allowing for targeted evaluation and improvement.

Disadvantages:

Lack of Comprehensive Criteria: IRC SP-122-2019 may lack comprehensive criteria

compared to INVEST, potentially overlooking important aspects of sustainability.

Lack of Standardization: The absence of standardization in IRC SP-122-2019 may lead to

inconsistencies in evaluation methods and criteria interpretation.

4.7 Conclusion Remarks:

While both INVEST and IRC SP-122-2019 offer unique advantages and face certain
limitations, INVEST appears as the preferred choice for evaluating highway projects. Its
comprehensive criteria, user-friendly interface, and standardized framework outweigh the
complexities associated with its implementation. By embracing INVEST, stakeholders can
ensure a more holistic and consistent approach to sustainable highway development, leading to
better outcomes for both the environment and society.

59
5.0 Conclusion

General
In summary, this thesis conducts a thorough investigation into global infrastructure project
assessment methodologies by analyzing various rating and evaluation systems. Facilitated by
a comprehensive inquiry led by a diverse panel of experts, the study employs the TOPSIS
method to ascertain the most appropriate evaluation system from a selection including green
roads, GreenLITES, I-LAST, Envision, and INVEST, aimed at augmenting Indian road
construction practices. The outcomes of this research offer valuable insights into the field,
laying a foundation for further progression in the evaluation and selection of infrastructure
rating systems. Through rigorous data collection and analysis procedures, INVEST emerges as
the optimal choice for implementation in India, demonstrating superior performance across
evaluated criteria. Moreover, the case study focusing on National Highway-45 illustrates the
efficacy of the Delphi method in assessing and enhancing infrastructure compliance with IRC
SP 122-2019 standards, providing comprehensive insights into its infrastructure attributes. The
comparative analysis between the INVEST rating system and IRC SP-122-2019 delineates the
advantages and disadvantages of each approach, with INVEST being favored for its
comprehensive and consistent approach to highway evaluation, thereby fostering sustainable
outcomes in environmental and societal spheres.

5.1 Concluding remarks

In conclusion, this thesis delved into the global landscape of infrastructure project assessment
by examining various rating and evaluation systems. The selection of specific systems for our
study was rooted in a prior comprehensive investigation led by a diverse group of experts in
academia and industry, as outlined in Chapter 2. Subsequently, employing the TOPSIS method
for analysis, our research aimed to identify the most suitable evaluation system among
Greenroads, GreenLITES, I-LAST, Envision, and INVEST. The overarching goal is to
determine the system that aligns most effectively with predefined criteria, paving the way for
its potential application in the realm of Indian road construction practices. This journey
contributes valuable insights to the field and provides a foundation for further advancements
in the evaluation and selection of infrastructure rating systems.

60
The study focused on determining the weights of various rating systems by category, collecting
pertinent information for each criterion. The conclusive determination of these weights,
however, relied on the outcomes of technical estimation, shaping the following allocations.

A similar approach is adopted for the remaining key criteria, utilizing the available criteria and
their corresponding sub-criteria within each rating system. Points are assigned to each rating
system based on the criteria they fulfil within the respective rating system. TOPSIS method
procedure involved calculating Ri. The solution with a value closest to 0 was considered to
have the highest priority. Among the evaluated rating systems, INVEST emerged as the most
suitable choice for implementation in India, resulting in a Ri of 0.250. This signifies that
INVEST exhibits relatively superior performance across the assessed criteria compared to other
rating systems.

Commencing the case study "Implementing the INVEST Rating System for Indian Roads: This
case study underscores the challenges and opportunities in transforming NH-45 into a more
sustainable and eco-friendlier corridor. The INVEST Scorecard evaluation serves as a valuable
tool for identifying specific areas for improvement. The recorded score of 130 points out of
210 emphasizes the urgency of undertaking significant development and enhancement
initiatives to align the highway with higher sustainability standards.

The application of the Delphi method for determining weighted factors in IRC SP 122-2019
marks a significant advancement in addressing limitations observed in existing highway rating
systems. The methodical steps, from criteria identification to project certification, provide a
structured and objective framework for evaluating and certifying projects, contributing
significantly to the advancement of sustainable practices in highway development.

The application of the Delphi method for evaluating National Highway-45 in adherence to IRC
SP 122-2019 standards has provided valuable insights into its infrastructure attributes. Utilizing
the formula specified in the guidelines, Scenario I attained 31% of the maximum weighted
ranks, while Scenario II reached 59%. Consequently, implementing the case project under
Scenario I conditions would lead to its categorization as "certified," whereas Scenario II would
position it in the "Gold category."

The comparative analysis between the INVEST rating system and IRC SP-122-2019 highlights
distinctive advantages and drawbacks associated with each approach. INVEST impresses with
its comprehensive criteria spanning economic, environmental, and social aspects, coupled with
a user-friendly interface and a standardized evaluation framework. Despite its complexity,

61
these attributes make it a favorable choice for stakeholders committed to sustainable highway
development. On the other hand, IRC SP-122-2019 excels in providing clear guidelines and
focusing on specific areas of highway development, ensuring targeted evaluation. However, it
falls short in comprehensive criteria and standardization, potentially overlooking key
sustainability aspects. Ultimately, INVEST emerges as the preferred choice, offering a more
holistic and consistent approach to highway evaluation, providing a robust foundation for
sustainable outcomes in both environmental and societal domains.

Limitation.

The potential limitations of the thesis work include the following:

1. Sensitivity to input data and subjectivity in criteria weighting are inherent limitations of the
Delphi method and the TOPSIS method chosen for the study. Variations in input data and
subjective interpretations of criteria weighting may influence the outcomes and reliability of
the analysis.

2. The study relies on a specific group of experts for consensus-building and decision-making,
which may lead to a limited diversity of perspectives and potential biases in the evaluation of
green highway rating systems. The exclusion of broader stakeholder input could affect the
comprehensiveness and inclusivity of the assessment process.

3. The study's focus on specific areas of highway development, while informative, may limit
the scope of evaluation and improvement in other critical aspects of sustainable highway
practices. By concentrating on certain aspects, the study may overlook potential opportunities
for enhancement in neglected areas of sustainable infrastructure development.

It is crucial to acknowledge these limitations when interpreting the findings and

recommendations of the thesis. Understanding these constraints ensures a balanced and
nuanced interpretation of the research outcomes, allowing for a more comprehensive
understanding of the complexities surrounding green highway rating systems and their
evaluation methodologies.

Recommendation

Recommendations for future studies include:

1. Standardization and Implementation: Future research emphasizes on exploring the

challenges associated with standardizing and implementing green rating guidelines for

62
highways. This entails delving into strategies aimed at addressing the lack of standardization
and the complexity of guidelines. Moreover, identifying best practices for effectively
implementing and promoting the widespread adoption of sustainable highway practices could
enhance the efficacy of green rating systems.

2. Stakeholder Engagement: Future studies could prioritize engaging a broader spectrum of

stakeholders, including government agencies, industry professionals, and environmental
organizations. By soliciting diverse perspectives, researchers can gain a more comprehensive
understanding of stakeholder preferences and priorities concerning green highway rating
systems. This inclusive approach fosters collaboration and ensures that the development of
sustainable highway practices aligns with the needs and expectations of various stakeholders.

3. Longitudinal Studies: Conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate the long-term impact and
effectiveness of the selected green rating system in actual highway projects across India is
recommended. By monitoring and assessing the implementation of the chosen rating system
over an extended period, researchers can gain valuable insights into its practical implications
and outcomes in real-world scenarios. This longitudinal approach provides a nuanced
understanding of the evolving dynamics and challenges associated with sustainable highway
development.

63
Reference
1. Adzar, J. A., Zakaria, R., Aminudin, E., Rashid, M. H. S. A., Munikanan, V., Shamsudin,
2. Amiril, A., Nawawi, A. H., Takim, R., & Latif, S. N. F. A. (2014). Transportation
infrastructure project sustainability factors and performance. Procedia-social and
behavioral sciences, 153, 90-98.
3. Anderson, J. L., & Muench, S. T. (2013). Sustainability trends measured by the
Greenroads rating system. Transportation research record, 2357(1), 24-32
4. Balubaid, S., Bujang, M., Aifa, W. N., Seng, F. K., Rooshdi, R. R. R. M., Hamzah,
N., ... & Ismail, H. H. (2015). Assessment index tool for green highway in Malaysia.
Jurnal Teknologi, 77(16), 99-104.
5. Bueno, P. C., Vassallo, J. M., & Cheung, K. (2015). Sustainability assessment of
transport infrastructure projects: A review of existing tools and methods. Transport
Reviews, 35(5), 622-649.Rozana ZakariaFoo Kian Seng[...]Farzaneh Moayedi Jurnal
Teknologi (Sciences and Engineering) (2013)
6. Bujang, M., Hainin, M. R., Yadollahi, M., Majid, M. Z. A., Zin, R. M., & Azahar, W. N.
A. W. (2014). Pavement material and technology elements in green highway rating
systems-A conspectus. Jurnal Teknologi, 70(7), 131-138.Abhiman Das Mulmi Journal of
Sustainable Development (2009)
7. Chang, A. S., & Tsai, C. Y. (2015). Difficulty and reasons for sustainable roadway
design– the case from Taiwan. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(4),
395-406.JA Gambatese, S Rajendran Construction research congress 2005:
Broadening perspectives, 2005•ascelibrary.org
8. Chen, K. Y. (2015). The study of roadway sustainability in Texas: a case study with
the use of the Greenroads rating system (Doctoral dissertation).
9. Clark, M., Paulli, C., Tetreault, Z., & Thomas, J. (2009). Green guide for roads rating
system. Degree Thesis.
10. Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Ameyaw, E. E., Owusu, E. K., Pärn, E., & Edwards, D. J.
(2019). Review of the application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction.
International journal of construction management, 19(5), 436-452.
11. Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D., Alsulami, B., & Castro-Fresno, D. (2016).
Evaluation of existing sustainable infrastructure rating systems for their application
in developing countries. Ecological indicators, 71, 491-502.
12. Gambatese, J. A., & Rajendran, S. (2005). Sustainable roadway construction: Energy
consumption and material waste generation of roadways. In Construction research

64
 congress 2005: Broadening perspectives (pp. 1-13).
13. Huang, R. Y., & Yeh, C. H. (2008). Development of an assessment framework for
green highway construction. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 31(4), 573-
585.
14. Ismail, M. A., Rozana, Z., Sani, B. A., Foo, K. S., Naadia, M. A., & Salfiza, Y. Y.
(2013). Fundamental elements of Malaysia's Green Highway. Applied Mechanics and
Materials, 284-
15. Kermanshachi, S., Rouhanizadeh, B., & Dao, B. (2020). Application of the Delphi
method in identifying, ranking, and weighting project complexity indicators for
construction projects. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering
and Construction, 12(1), 04519033.
16. Li, H., Jiang, J., & Li, Q. (2023). Economic and Environmental Assessment of a Green
Pavement Recycling Solution Using Foamed Asphalt Binder based on LCA and
LCCA. Transportation Engineering, 100185.
17. Liu, N., Wang, Y., Bai, Q., Liu, Y., Wang, P. S., Xue, S., ... & Li, Q. (2022). Road
life- cycle carbon dioxide emissions and emission reduction technologies: A review.
Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition).G. AppaRoaR.
Kumar T.L. Ryntathiang European Journal of Sustainable Development (2013)
18. Muench, S. T., Anderson, J. L., & Söderlund, M. (2010). Greenroads: A sustainability
performance metric for roadways. Journal of Green Building, 5(2), 114-128.Assa
AmirilAbdul Hadi Nawawi[...]Siti Nur Farhana Ab. Latif Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences (2014)
19. Mulmi, A. (2019). Green road approach in rural road construction for the sustainable
development of Nepal. J Sustain Dev 2 (3).Rong Yau HuangCheng Hung Yeh Journal
of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Transactions of the Chinese Institute of
Engineers, Series A/Chung-kuo Kung Ch'eng Hsuch K'an (2008) No. 1, p. 012058).
IOP Publishing.Raja Rafidah Raja Muhammad RooshdiNurizan Ab
Rahman[...]Faridah Ismail Procedia Environmental Sciences (2014)
20. Oswald Beiler, M., & Waksmunski, E. (2015). Measuring the sustainability of shared-
use paths: Development of the greenpaths rating system. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 141(11), 04015026.Stephen T. MuenchJeralee L. AndersonMartina
Söderlund Journal of Green Building (2010) 287.SI Sarsam International Journal of
Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 2015
21. Pavić, Z., & Novoselac, V. (2013). Notes on TOPSIS method. International Journal
65
 of Research in Engineering and Science, 1(2), 5-12.
22. Podvezko, V. (2009). Application of AHP technique. Journal of Business Economics
and Management, (2), 181-189.
23. Rooshdi, R. R. R. M., Ab Rahman, N., Baki, N. Z. U., Majid, M. Z. A., & Ismail, F.
(2014). An evaluation of sustainable design and construction criteria for green
highway. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 180-186.S Balubaid, M Bujang, WN
Aifa, FK Seng, R Rooshdi, N Hamzah, YSM Yazid, MZA Majid… Jurnal Teknologi,
2015
24. Ryntathiang, T. L., Amar, D. D., Kumar, R., & AppaRoa, G. (2013). Green road
approach for the sustainable development in India. European Journal of Sustainable
Development, 2(2), 165-165.
25. S. M., ... & Wah, C. K. (2019, May). Development of operation and maintenance
sustainability index for penarafan hijau jabatan kerja raya (pHJKR) green road rating
system. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 527,
26. Sarkar, A. (2013). A TOPSIS method to evaluate the technologies. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 31(1), 2-13.
27. Sarsam, S. I. (2015). Sustainable and green roadway rating system. International
Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 3(3), 99.
28. Suresh, C. R. (2015). Green highway ratings for existing NH& SH in Tamilnadu–a
case study. landscape, 20, 30
29. Szpotowicz, R., & Tóth, C. (2020). Revision of sustainable road rating systems:
selection of the best-suited system for Hungarian road construction using TOPSIS
method. Sustainability, 12(21), 8884.
30. Umer, A., Hewage, K., Haider, H., & Sadiq, R. (2016). Sustainability assessment of
roadway projects under uncertainty using Green Proforma: An index-based approach.
International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(2), 604-619.
31. Yang, S. H., Liu, J. Y. H., & Tran, N. H. (2018). Multi-criteria life cycle approach to
develop weighting of sustainability indicators for pavement. Sustainability, 10(7),
2325.
32. Zakaria, R., Seng, F. K., Majid, M. Z. A., Zin, R. M., Hainin, M. R., Puan, O. C., &
Moayedi, F. (2013). Energy efficiency criteria for green highways in Malaysia. Jurnal
Teknologi (Sciences and Engineering), 65(3), 91-95.
33. Zhang, Y., & Mohsen, J. P. (2018). A project-based sustainability rating tool for
pavement maintenance. Engineering, 4(2), 200-208.

66
 Annexure
Survey form

Comparative Analysis of Global Rating

Systems and IRC SP 122: Identifying Optimal Methods for Green Rating of Indian
Highways.
Thank you for your cooperation. We are students of NICMAR University, Pune pursuing
an MBA in Advanced Construction Management. As part of our curriculum, we are
researching preventive maintenance for residential buildings in India. Your professional
input in completing this survey is highly valued. Rest assured, all information is strictly
confidential and will be used solely for research purposes.

We are floating this form to understand the weightage of criteria to formulate the guidelines
for Identifying Optimal Methods for Green Rating of Indian Highways. Kindly rank the
following criteria according to your preference:

1. Sustainable Design: Creating environmentally responsible and resource-efficient

structures with principles like energy efficiency and renewable resources.
2. Materials & Resources: Selecting and using materials in highway construction with
a focus on sustainability, durability, and recyclability.
3. Storm Water Management: Mitigating stormwater runoff effects through strategies
like permeable pavements and detention ponds to protect water bodies.
4. Energy & Environment: Improving energy efficiency and reducing environmental
impact in highway infrastructure and operations.
5. Interventions as Reparation Activities and Enhancement: Implementing
measures like rainwater harvesting to compensate for environmental impacts during
highway construction.
. Corporate Social Responsibility: Engaging with communities, addressing social
issues, and promoting sustainable development in highway construction projects.

Your insights will contribute to the development of guidelines for promoting sustainable
and environmentally friendly practices in the construction and maintenance of Indian
highways. Thank you for your valuable input.
* Indicates required question

1. Name *

2. Company or Organization Name *

3. Designation *

67
4. Years of Experience *

5. Email ID *

6. Contact Number *

68
What % weightage should be assigned to the following criteria in the Indian green
highway rating system?

as Reparation
Activities and
Enhancement (Compensating for water used
during construction through Rain

69
Please rank the following sub-criteria of sustainable design from 1 to 5, with 1 being the
highest priority and 5 being the lowest:

Please rank the following sub-criteria of Materials & Resources (MR) from 1 to 5, with
1 being the highest priority and 5 being the lowest:

70
71
Please rank the following sub-criteria of Stormwater Management (SM) from 1 to 5,
with 1 being the highest priority and 5 being the lowest:
Mark only one oval per row.

Provision for
management practice (anything

Please rank the following sub-criteria of Energy and Environment (EE) from 1 to 5, with
1 being the highest priority and 5 being the lowest:

72
73
 Please rank the following sub-criteria of Interventions as Reparation Activities and
Enhancement (compensating for water used during construction through RWH) (RA)
from 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest priority and 5 being the lowest:

Mark only one oval per row.

Rain water harvesting

13. Please rank the following sub-criteria of Interventions as Reparation Activities and
Enhancement (compensating for water used during construction through RWH) (RA)
from 1 to 5, with 1 being the highest priority and 5 being the lowest:
Corporate social responsibility to promote healthy / hygienic practices Mark only

one oval per row.

Community
Engagement

74
 Comparative Analysis of global rating systems and IRC SP
122: Identifying optimal methods for Green rating of Indian
highways
ORIGINALITY REPORT

11 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
10%
INTERNET SOURCES
7%
PUBLICATIONS
1%
STUDENT PAPERS

MATCH ALL SOURCES (ONLY SELECTED SOURCE PRINTED)

6%

Réka Szpotowicz (née Nádasi), Csaba Tóth.

"Revision of Sustainable Road Rating Systems:
Selection of the Best Suited System for Hungarian
Road Construction Using TOPSIS Method",
Sustainability, 2020
Publication

Exclude quotes Off Exclude matches Off

Exclude bibliography On