See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280581139

Defining Green Road Infrastructure Projects—A Critical Review

Conference Paper · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-46994-1_11

CITATIONS READS

0 60

4 authors, including:

Bo Xia Xianbo Zhao

Queensland University of Technology Central Queensland University
123 PUBLICATIONS   773 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   712 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Josua Pienaar
Central Queensland University
21 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Green procurement View project

Providing Appropriate Facilities in Not-for-profit Retirement Villages View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bo Xia on 07 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 11
Defining Green Road Infrastructure
Projects—A Critical Review

Peng Wu, Bo Xia, Xianbo Zhao and Josua Pienaar

Abstract Green infrastructure is considered as a strategic approach to address the

ecological and social impacts of urban sprawl. The main elements of green infra-
structure have been well established and include a series of multifunctional eco-
logical systems, such as green urban space, green road infrastructure and the links
between these systems. However, it should be noted that the elements of green road
infrastructure have only been briefly mentioned in isolated life cycle stages, e.g.
design, procurement, construction, maintenance and operation. The definition of
green road infrastructure and the elements in green road infrastructure projects
remain largely unknown. To explore the elements in green road infrastructure, a
critical review was adopted. As the development of green road infrastructure pro-
jects is guided by rating systems, a comparison of three major green roads rating
systems, including GreenroadsTM, EnvisionTM and Infrastructure Sustainability
Rating Tool—IS, was conducted. The comparison reveals that green roads can be
defined as road projects that have superior performance in economic, social and
environmental sustainability. The sustainability features in green roads mainly
include environmental sustainability, social sustainability, economic sustainability,
quality, pavement technology and innovation. The results will contribute to an
increased understanding of green roads and will be useful to improve the perfor-
mance of road projects on these sustainability features.

P. Wu (&)
X. Zhao
J. Pienaar

School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Sydney, Australia
e-mail: p.wu@cqu.edu.au
X. Zhao
e-mail: b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
J. Pienaar
e-mail: j.pienaar@cqu.edu.au
B. Xia
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
e-mail: paul.xia@qut.edu.au

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015 125

L. Shen et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium
on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-46994-1_11

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
126 P. Wu et al.

Keywords Green roads
Sustainable development
Sustainability features

Rating systems

11.1 Introduction

“Green infrastructure” is used to describe the abundance and distribution of natural

features in the landscape like forests, wetlands, and streams (Weber et al. 2006).
The concept is based on increasing global recognition of sustainable development,
which is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED
1987, p. 43). The terms “green” and “sustainable” are often used interchangeably.
Similar to the definition of green building, green projects or sustainable projects
refer to projects that can enhance the environment and benefits human well being,
community, environmental health and life-cycle cots (Adler et al. 2006). In the past
few decades, green projects, notably green buildings, have been through a flour-
ishing development due to a growing market demand for environment-friendly
solutions and products (Wu and Low 2010; Xia et al. 2013).
The transportation sector has a large impact on the sustainable development of the
human society. The sector is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. For example, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013),
transportation represented approximately 27 % of total U.S. GHG emissions. The
sector also accounted for overall half of the net increase in total U.S. GHG emissions
from 1990–2011 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2013). Road transport also
has other significant impacts on a variety of environmental issues, such as biodi-
versity, wildlife, urban stormwater and urban environment (Australian Bureau of
Statistics 2013). Given the importance of the transportation sector for the society to
achieve sustainable development, many green initiatives have been taken. Of par-
ticular interest is the development of green road infrastructure projects (hereinafter
referred to as green roads) in recent years. Mulmi (2009) argued that the triple bottom
line of sustainable development can be applied to road construction and green roads
should fulfill the requirements of environment sustainability, sustainable communi-
ties and sustainable economy. The European Commission (2012) stated that green
roads fit into its surroundings and contribute, by means of design and composition, to
minimizing the impact of traffic (noise, air pollution and vibrations) and energy
consumption of the transport system. Mandalozis et al. (2013) provided some good
practices, which were drawn from a series of case studies, in green roads.
However, it should be noted that these studies focus on isolated life cycle stages or
issues in the development of green road infrastructure. A holistic approach should be
used when examining the concept and requirements in green roads to assist future
development. This paper therefore aims to examine the concept and requirements in
green roads through a comprehensive literature review, based on which further
analysis on the development of green road infrastructure projects can be conducted.

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
11 Defining Green Road Infrastructure Projects—A Critical Review 127

11.2 What Are Green Roads?

Green projects refer to projects that can meet the requirements of the triple bottom
line of sustainable development, including environmental, economical and social
aspects. One notable example in the history of green projects is green building,
which emerged during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Cassidy 2003). The
concept refers to tailoring a building and its placement on the site to the local
climate, site conditions, culture, and community to reduce resource consumption,
augment resource supply, and enhance the quality and diversity of life (Adler et al.
2006).
The whole green concept is a division under the umbrella of sustainable
development, which is characterized by Sara Parkin of the British environmental
initiative forum for the future as “a process that enables all people to realize their
potential and improve their quality of life in ways that protect and enhance the
Earth’s life support system” (Forum for the Future 2008). The concept has gained
rapid recognition in the building industry through “green building”, which is a
holistic solution to achieve sustainable development in the project life cycle.
However, the concept has only been applied similarly to the transportation sector
recently. According to Muench et al. (2010), a green road is defined as roadway
project that has been designed and constructed to a level of sustainability that is
substantially higher than current common practice. These may include the imple-
mentation of new techniques and tools to promote reuse and recycling, the use of
low energy consuming construction and maintenance technology, the use of
environmentally-friendly materials, etc.
In order to systematically assess the development of green road infrastructure
and more importantly, to guide the development, similar to the practices that are
adopted in green buildings, various rating systems have been developed. In order to
assess and certify green building, many rating systems, including the most com-
monly used the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) and the
Green Globes, were developed. Similarly, the most commonly used rating systems
for green roads include: GreenroadsTM, EnvisionTM and Infrastructure sustainability
rating tool (IS).

11.3 Green Road Rating Systems

11.3.1 GreenroadsTM

GreenroadsTM is a comprehensive rating system that is designed for the certification

of green road projects by the University of Washington in 2007. The aim of the
rating system is to:
• Define what sustainable features should be assessed in green road projects;
• Provide accountability for the assessment of these sustainable features;

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
128 P. Wu et al.

Table 11.1 Compulsory requirements in GreenroadsTM

PR-1 Environmental review
process
PR-2 Life cycle cost analysis
PR-3 Life cycle inventory
PR-4 Quality control plan
PR-5 Noise mitigation plan
PR-6 Waste management plan
PR-7 Pollution prevention
plan
PR-8 Low impact
development
PR-9 Pavement management
plan
PR-10 Site maintenance plan
PR-11 Educational outreach
Source Anderson et al. 2011
A comprehensive environmental review must be completed
A life cycle cost analysis for pavement section must be
performed
A life cycle inventory analysis for pavement section must be
performed
A quality control plan should be established to assess the
contractor
A noise mitigation plan should be established
A waste management plan should be established
Stormwater pollution prevention plan should be established
A low impact development feasibility study should be
conducted
Have a pavement management system
Have a roadside maintenance plan
Publicize sustainability information of the project

• Encourage the use of innovative designs and technologies; and

• Communicate the sustainable features of the projects to various stakeholders.
In order to be certified by GreenroadsTM, the project needs to comply with 11
compulsory requirements. These requirements are shown in Table 11.1. As can be
seen from Table 11.1, the focus of GreenroadsTM covers the three aspects of sus-
tainability. The economic sustainability of the project is assured using life cycle
cost analysis. The environmental sustainability of the project is assured using life
cycle inventory and other waste or pollution management plans. The social sus-
tainability of the project can be achieved by publicizing sustainability information
of the project.
Other than the compulsory requirements, GreenroadsTM also has a total of 118
voluntary credits that are allocated to environment and water (EW), access and
equity (AE), construction activities (CA), materials and resources (MR), pavement
technologies (PT) and custom credits (CC). Depending on the voluntary credits
obtained, the projects can be awarded as certified (32–42 voluntary credits), silver
(43–53 voluntary credits), gold (54–63 voluntary credits) and evergreen (64+
voluntary credits).
GreenroadsTM focuses on some design issues (e.g. the use of recycled and
regional materials), construction issues (e.g. the construction activities) and oper-
ational issues (e.g. pavement management). However, if assessed using the life
cycle concept, there are two major issues in GreenroadsTM. The rating system does
not cover demolition or the end-of-life phase of the project which may have a
significant impact on the environmental performance of the project. For example,

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
11 Defining Green Road Infrastructure Projects—A Critical Review 129

Wu et al. (2014) found that the end-of-life phase of concrete can have a significant
impact on the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and the impact should be
appropriately included in the life cycle analysis. Similarly, the impact of end-of-life
treatment of pavement or other green road components should be appropriately
addressed. In addition, the main target of GreenroadsTM is pavement. As pavement
is the core structural component of road infrastructure, this strategic focus can
accurately assess the contractor’s ability to design or construct the green project.
However, road projects are designed to facilitate the use of transportation vehicles
and as a holistic approach to facilitate such use, the impact of the projects on
transportation vehicles should not be overlooked. For example, Loijos (2011) found
that in adequate design of the pavements can increase the fuel consumption of
transportation vehicles, thus increasing energy consumption and emissions. The
maintenance of roads (i.e. roadworks) should also be conducted in such a way to
cause minimum interruptions to the traffic to avoid an increase in energy con-
sumption and emissions. The impacts caused by components other than pavements
should also be investigated.

11.3.2 EnvisionTM—Sustainable Infrastructure Rating

System

The sustainable infrastructure rating system—EnvisionTM was launched by the

Institute of Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) in 2012. According to the Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure (2014), EnvisionsTM evaluates grades and gives recog-
nition to infrastructure projects, including road projects, that provide progress for
and contributions to a sustainable future. The purpose of the rating system is to
foster a necessary and dramatic improvement in the performance and resiliency of
physical infrastructure across the full dimensions of sustainability, i.e. the triple
bottom line including economic, social and environmental sustainability.
A major difference between EnvisionTM and GreenroadsTM is that the former
rating system adopts a life cycle view of the project. As can be seen in Fig. 11.1,
EnvisionTM adopts a four stage evaluation process. In the most important stage, i.e.

Fig. 11.1 The evaluation procedure in EnvisionTM (Source Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure
2014)

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
130 P. Wu et al.

assessment and recognition, the rating system adopts a life cycle point of view that
includes planning and design, construction, operations and maintenance, as well as
deconstruction and decommissioning.
In total, EnvisionTM has five main categories, including quality of life, leader-
ship, resource allocation, natural world and climate. Under each of the category,
there are a total of 60 subcategories against which a project should be evaluated.
Depending on the scores achieved, the project can be certified as improved,
enhanced, superior, conserving and restorative. Projects that are awarded as con-
serving usually have zero negative impact. If a regenerative effect can be identified
in the infrastructure project, the project can then be awarded as restorative.

11.3.3 Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool—IS

The IS rating tool was developed by the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of

Australia. The rating tool is a comprehensive system to evaluate sustainability in
three major areas in infrastructure system, including design, construction and
operation. One major difference between IS and other rating systems is that IS can
offer interim certification as the project progresses. For example, a certification for
design can be sought after by the developer at the end of planning and design. Such
certification will be replaced by the certification for construction and operation as
the project progresses.
There are five major categories in the IS, including management and gover-
nance, using resources, emissions, pollution and waste, ecology, as well as people
and place. There are 51 subcategories consisting of 100 scores to be allocated. An
additional 5 scores can be allocated to innovation. Depending on the scores
achieved, the project can be awarded as commended, excellent or leading.

11.4 Discussions

Green road projects are road projects that have superior performance on sustain-
ability features than other common road projects. The central issue in defining green
road projects is therefore the identification of sustainability features. Table 11.2
presents a comparison of the three major rating systems on green roads to identify
the sustainability features in green roads. As can be seen from Table 11.2, although
different rating systems have different focus, there are some common practices
adopted.
It is not surprising that environmental sustainability is one of the main focuses of
green road projects. Given that environmental issue is one of the most challenging
issues at the moment, focusing on environmental sustainability may help infra-
structure projects to address environmental issues.

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
11 Defining Green Road Infrastructure Projects—A Critical Review 131

Table 11.2 Sustainability features in green road rating systems

Sustainability features GreenroadsTM EnvisionTM IS
Economic Project
sustainability requirements
Environment and
water
Environmental Environment and Wellbeing Procurement and purchasing
sustainability water
Construction Materials Climate change adaption
activities
Materials and Energy Energy and carbon
resources
Water Water
Siting Materials
Land + water Discharges to air, land and water
Biodiversity Land
Emissions Waste
Resilience Ecology
Urban and landscape design
Social sustainability Project Purpose Community health, well-being
requirements and safety
Access and equity Wellbeing Heritage
Community Stakeholder participation
Collaboration
Pavement Pavement
technology
Quality Project Management Management system
requirements
Environment and Planning
water
Construction
activities
Innovation Custom credits Innovation Innovation

As can be seen from Table 11.2, environmental sustainability in green roads

includes:
• the selection of appropriate site for development;
• the use of appropriate urban and landscape design;
• addressing environmental impacts, especially emissions, land, waste and water;
• preserving ecology; and
• reducing the use of energy and materials by using low energy consumption
materials or regionally manufactured materials.

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
132 P. Wu et al.

The focus on environmental sustainability is in accordance with the development

of the rating systems in green buildings, such as LEED, the Green Globes and the
Green Mark (Wu and Low 2010). According to Wu and Low (2010), the assess-
ment of environmental impacts is one of the core areas in green building rating
systems and environment-friendly features have always been the best representative
features of green buildings.
Similarly, social sustainability accounts for a large portion of the credits in these
rating systems. Social sustainability in green roads includes:
• the provision of improved access to community;
• improving the wellbeing and safety of the community;
• collaborating with various stakeholders to encourage engagement; and
• knowledge sharing with the public.
In social sustainability, all rating systems highlight the importance of engage-
ment, either by educational and cultural outreach (in GreenroadsTM), fostering
collaboration and teamwork (EnvisionTM), or knowledge sharing and stakeholder
engagement (IS). It seems that the rating systems for green projects have evolved to
include more than just environmental aspects of the projects. Although addressing
environmental impacts is important, initiating a transition in decision making
process to include the triple bottom line of sustainability by education and
engagement is now a common practice.
It is surprising to see that only GreenroadsTM has listed economic sustainability
explicitly in the rating systems. A life cycle cost analysis of the overall project
should be conducted and separate life cycle cost analysis of the project components,
e.g. stormwater, may be needed. The issue with incorporating economic sustain-
ability is that the strategies taken to address environmental impacts may harm the
economic performance of the project and the costs associated with green projects
may be higher than traditional projects (Yudelson 2008). For example, According
to Hwang and Tan (2012), compressed wheat board, which is a green substitute for
plywood, costs about 10 times more than ordinary plywood. Searching for green
alternatives and the certification of buildings will also lead to high cost premium of
green projects (Yudelson 2008). Therefore, the rating systems do not list a certain
level of rate of return as the economic indicator. Conducting a life cycle cost
analysis of the project will be sufficient to gain relevant credits.
Another sustainability feature of green road projects is quality control. Quality
control plan, site maintenance plan, quality management system, risk management
system and other quality control issues should all be established to ensure that the
projects can have a superior long-term performance. One significant difference in
GreenroadsTM, compared with other rating system, is that it has a separate section
on pavement, one core component of road infrastructure projects. The performance
of pavement is therefore separately listed in GreenroadsTM.

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
11 Defining Green Road Infrastructure Projects—A Critical Review 133

11.5 Conclusion

Due to the global recognition of sustainable development, the development of green

projects has been expanded to infrastructure projects, including road projects. While
some initiatives in assessing green roads have been established, the education about
the definition and sustainability features of green roads may have been left behind.
Similar to the development of green buildings, green roads incorporate the triple
bottom line of sustainable development and have superior performance than other
traditional road projects on environmental sustainability, social sustainability,
pavement technology, quality control and innovation. The economic sustainability
may not be superior due to the high premium costs of green roads. The life cycle
costing of green roads should therefore be a future research focus because achieving
economic sustainability remains as one of the core areas in sustainable development
and should not be overlooked.

References

Adler A, Armstrong JE, Fuller SK, Kalin M, Karolides A, Macaluso J, Walker HA (2006) Green
building: project planning and cost estimating, 2nd edn. R.S. Means, Kingston
Anderson J, Weiland C, Muench S (2011) Greenroads: abridged manual v1.5. <https://www.
greenroads.org/366/download-the-manual.html> (cited 10 Jun 2014)
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Environmental impacts of Australia’s transport system.
<http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%
20Article312003?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2003&num=
&view=> (cited 05 May 2014)
Cassidy R (2003) White paper on sustainability: a report on the green building movement. Reed
Business Information, Clearwater (Building Design and Construction)
European Commission (2012) New road construction concept. <http://ec.europa.eu/research/
transport/projects/items/nr2c_en.htm> (cited 12 May 2014)
Forum for the Future (2008) Formal definitions of sustainable development. http://www.
forumforthefuture.org/node/327 (cited 15 Aug 2008)
Hwang BG, Tan JS (2012) Green building project management: obstacles and solutions for
sustainable development. Sustain Dev 20:335–349
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure(2014) Envision: a rating system for sustainable infrastruc-
ture. http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org (cited 06 Jun 2014)
Loijos AN (2011) Life cycle assessment of concrete pavements: impacts and opportunities.
Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Mandalozis D, Kalfa N, Zammataro S, Matyas M (2013) Moving towards green road
infrastructure: case studies and lessons learned. International Road Federation, Geneva
Muench ST, Anderson J, Bevan T (2010) Greenroads: a sustainability rating system for roadways.
Int J Pavement Res Technol 3(5):270–279
Mulmi AD (2009) Green road approach in rural road construction for the sustainable development
of Nepal. J Sustain Dev 2(3):149–165
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) Transportation and climate. http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/climate/basicinfo.htm (cited 04 May 2014)
WCED (1987) Our common future. Brudtland report. Oxford University Press, Oxford

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
 134 P. Wu et al.

Weber T, Sloan A, Wolf J (2006) Maryland’s green infrastructure assessment: development of a

comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Plann 77:94–110
Wu P, Low SP (2010) Project management and green buildings: lessons from the rating systems.
J Prof Issues in Eng Educ Pract 136(2):64–70
Wu P, Xia B, Zhao X (2014) The importance of use and end-of-life phases to the life cycle
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of concrete—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 37:
360–369
Xia B, Zuo J, Skitmore M, Pullen S, Chen Q (2013) Green star points obtained by Australian
building projects. J Archit Eng 19(4):302–308
Yudelson J (2008) The green building revolution. Island, Washington DC

b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
View publication stats