Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs

  • Murat Kucukvar
  • Mehdi Noori
  • Gokhan Egilmez
  • Omer Tatari



In the USA, several studies have been conducted to analyze the energy consumption and atmospheric emissions of Warm-mix Asphalt (WMA) pavements. However, the direct and indirect environmental, economic, and social impacts, termed as Triple-Bottom-Line (TBL), were not addressed sufficiently. Hence, the aim of this study is to develop TBL-oriented sustainability assessment model to evaluate the environmental and socio-economic impacts of pavements constructed with different types of WMA mixtures and compare them to a conventional Hot-mix Asphalt (HMA). The types of WMA technologies investigated in this research include Asphamin® WMA, Evotherm™ WMA, and Sasobit® WMA.


To achieve this goal, supply and use tables published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis were merged with 16 macro-level sustainability metrics. A hybrid TBL-LCA model was built to evaluate the life-cycle sustainability performance of using WMA technologies in construction of asphalt pavements. The impacts on the sustainability were calculated in terms of socio-economic (import, income, gross operating surplus, government tax, work-related injuries, and employment) and environmental (water withdrawal, energy use, carbon footprint, hazardous waste generation, toxic releases into air, and land use). A stochastic compromise programming model was then developed for finding the optimal allocation of different pavement types for the U.S. highways.

Results and discussion

WMAs did not perform better in terms of environmental impacts compared to HMA. Asphamin® WMA was found to have the highest environmental and socio-economic impacts compared to other pavement types. Material extractions and processing phase had the highest contribution to all environmental impact indicators that shows the importance of cleaner production strategies for pavement materials. Based on stochastic compromised programming results, in a balanced weighting situation, Sasobit® WMA had the highest percentage of allocation (61 %); while only socio-economic aspects matter, Asphamin® WMA had the largest share (57 %) among the asphalt pavements. The optimization results also supported the significance of an increased WMA use in the U.S. highways.


This research complemented previous LCA studies by evaluating pavements not only from environmental emissions and energy consumption standpoint, but also from socio-economic perspectives. Multi-objective optimization results also provided important insights for decision makers when finding the optimum allocation of pavement alternatives based on different environmental and socio-economic priorities. Consequently, this study aimed to increase awareness of the inherent benefits of economic input–output analysis and multi-criteria decision making through application to emerging sustainable pavement practices.


Economic input–output analysis Life-cycle sustainability assessment Multi-criteria decision making Pavements Triple bottom line 


  1. Ang B, Fwa T, Ng T (1993) Analysis of process energy use of asphalt-mixing plants. Energ 18(7):769–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) (2002) Benchmark input–output data. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved from <> Accessed 15 March 2013
  3. BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) (2002) Industry injury and illness data. Retrieved from <>. Accessed 15 March 2013
  4. Bengtsson M (2001) Weighting in practice. Implications for the use of life‐cycle assessment in decision‐making. J Ind Ecol 4:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boufateh I, Perwuelz A, Rabenasolo B, Jolly-Desodt AM (2011) Multiple criteria decision-making for environmental impacts optimization. Int J Bus Perf Supp Chain Model 3(1):28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cas D, Mukherjee A (2011) Calculation of greenhouse gas emissions for highway construction operations by using a hybrid life-cycle assessment approach: case study for pavement operations. J Constr Eng Manage 137(11):1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casifo S, Di Graziano A, Kerali HR, Odoki JB (2002) Multicriteria analysis method for pavement maintenance management. Transp Tes Rec J Transp Res Board 1816:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang NB (2011) Systems analysis for sustainable engineering. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, New Jersey, p 655Google Scholar
  9. Chowdhury A, Button JW (2008) A Review of Warm Mix Asphalt. College Station, Texas, p 75Google Scholar
  10. CMU (2002) EIO-LCA (Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment). Accessed 15 February 2013
  11. Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Sustainability assessment of U.S. manufacturing sectors: an economic input output-based frontier approach. J Clean Prod 53:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elkington J (1998) Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. J Environ Qual Manage 8(1):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis JB, Deutsch JC, Mouchel JM, Scholes L, Revitt M (2004) Multicriteria decision approaches to support sustainable drainage options for the treatment of highway and urban runoff. Sci Total Env 334:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eurostat manual of supply, use and input–output tables (2008) LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  15. Facanha C, Horvath A (2007) Evaluation of life-cycle air emission factors of freight transportation. Environ Sci Technol 41(20):7138–7144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. FHWA (1998) Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design - Pavement Division Interim Technical BulletinGoogle Scholar
  17. Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, vol 78. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Filippo S, Martins Ribeiro PC, Kahn Ribeiro S (2007) A fuzzy multi-criteria model applied to the management of the environmental restoration of paved highways. Transp Res Part D Transp Env 12(6):423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finkbeiner M, Schau EM, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 2(10):3309–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finnveden G (1997) Valuation methods within LCA – where are the values? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C (2005a) Balancing Act: a triple-bottom-line analysis of the Australian economy. CSIRO, Australia, p 75Google Scholar
  22. Foran B, Lenzen M, Dey C, Bilek M (2005b) Integrating sustainable chain management with triple bottom line accounting. Ecol Econ 52(2):143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giustozzi F, Crispino M, Flintsch G (2012) Multi-attribute life cycle assessment of preventive maintenance treatments on road pavements for achieving environmental sustainability. Int J Life Assess 17(4):409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Global Footprint Network (2010) National footprint accounts: ecological footprint and bio-capacity. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from
  25. Gloria TP, Lippiatt BC, Cooper J (2007) Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 41(21):7551–7557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greening LA, Bernow S (2004) Design of coordinated energy and environmental policies: use of multi-criteria decision-making. Energ Policy 32(6):721–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. GTAP (2008) Global Trade Analysis Project. Version 7. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, US. Retrieved from
  28. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hassan M (2010) Evaluation of the environmental and economic impacts of warm-mix asphalt using life-cycle assessment. Int J Constr Edu Res 6(3):238–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews S (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input–output approach, 1st edn. Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Hermann BG, Kroeze C, Jawjit W (2007) Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators. J Clean Prod 15(18):1787–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hertwich EG, Peters GP (2009) Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environ Sci Technol 43(16):6414–6420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Euro J Oper Res 202(1):16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Horvath A, Hendrickson C (1998) Comparison of environmental implications of asphalt and steel-reinforced concrete pavements. Trans Res Record 1626:105–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huang YA, Lenzen M, Weber CL, Murray J, Matthews HS (2009) The role of input–output analysis for the screening of corporate carbon footprints. Econ Syst Res 21(3):217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huppes G, Koning A, Suh S, Heijungs R, Oers L, Nielsen P, Guinée JB (2006) Environmental impacts of consumption in the European Union: high-resolution input–output tables with detailed environmental extensions. J Ind Ecol 10(3):129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hurley GC, Prowell BD, Kvasnak AN (2009) Ohio field trial of warm mix asphalt technologies: construction summary. Auburn, ALGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO (14042) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—life cycle impact assessment. Geneva: International Standard OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  39. Jamshidi A, Hamzah MO, You Z (2013) Performance of warm-mix asphalt containing Sasobit®: state-of-the-art. Constr Buil Mater 38:530–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jullien A, Baudru Y, Tamagny P, Olard F, Zavan D (2011) A comparison of environmental impacts of hot and half-warm mix asphalt. Routes/Roads, Belgium, p 350Google Scholar
  41. Kanemoto K, Lenzen M, Peters GP, Moran D, Geschke A (2011) Frameworks for comparing emissions associated with production, consumption, and international trade. Environ Sci Technol 46(1):172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiran BA, Rao PN (2013) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) for planning, designing and commissioning of green buildings. Int J Adv Trends in Compute Sci Eng 2(1):476–479Google Scholar
  43. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95Google Scholar
  44. Kohn JL (2010) Multiple criteria decision analysis for the selection of a land use impact method for a life cycle assessment of switchgrass as a bioenergy feedstock in the Pee Dee region of South Carolina. Doctoral dissertation, Clemson UniversityGoogle Scholar
  45. Kristjánsdóttir Ó, Muench ST, Michael L, Burke G (2007) Assessing potential for warm-mix asphalt technology adoption. Trans Res Rec J Trans Res Board 2040:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2013) Towards a triple bottom-line sustainability assessment of the U.S. construction industry. Int J Life Cycl Assess 18(5):958–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2011) A comprehensive life cycle analysis of cofiring algae in a coal power plant as a solution for achieving sustainable energy. Energ 36(11):6352–6357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2012) Ecologically based hybrid life cycle analysis of continuously reinforced concrete and hot-mix asphalt pavements. Transp Res Part D Trans Environ 17(1):86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Larsen O, Moen O, Robertus C, Koenders B (2004) WAM Foam asphalt production at lower operating temperatures as an environmentally friendly alternative to HMA. Proceedings of the 3rd Eurasphalt and Eurobitume Congress (Vol. 1). ViennaGoogle Scholar
  50. Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Foran B, Lobefaro L, Geschke A (2012) International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486(7401):109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: an input–output approach. Rev Econ Stat 52:262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Linkov I, Seager TP (2011) Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. Environ Sci Technol 45(12):5068–5074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lippiatt BC (2007) BEESRG 4.0: Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability Technical Manual and User GuideGoogle Scholar
  54. Liu KFR, Ko CY, Fan C, Chen CW (2012) Combining risk assessment, life cycle assessment, and multi-criteria decision analysis to estimate environmental aspects in environmental management system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(7):845–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. MATLAB (2012) Version 7.14.0. Natick. The MathWorks Inc, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  56. Milani AS, Eskicioglu CK, Robles KB, Bujun K, Hosseini-Nasab H (2011) Multiple criteria decision making with life cycle assessment for material selection of composites. Express Polymer Lett 5(12):1062–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miller RE, Blair PD (2009) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  58. NREL—National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2010) U.S. life-cycle inventory database. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from
  59. OSU- The Ohio State University (2009) Eco-LCA software, ecologically based life cycle assessment, 1997 U.S. benchmark model. Columbus,OHGoogle Scholar
  60. Park K, Hwang Y, Seo S, Seo H (2003) Quantitative assessment of environmental impacts on life cycle of highways. J Constr Eng Manage 129(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M (2004) Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—A review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 8(4):365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rao RV (2007) Introduction to Multiple Attribute Decision-making (MADM) Methods. Decision Making in the Manufacturing Environment: Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods, pp 27–41Google Scholar
  63. Raballand G, Macchi P (2008) Transport prices and costs: the need to revisit donors’ policies in transport in Africa, Washington, D.C. Scholar
  64. Rubio MC, Martínez G, Baena L, Moreno F (2012) Warm mix asphalt: an overview. J Clean Prod 24:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rubio MC, Moreno F, Martínez-Echevarría MJ, Martínez G, Vázquez JM (2013) Comparative analysis of emissions from the manufacture and use of hot and half-warm mix asphalt. J Clean Prod 41:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Santero NJ, Masanet E, Horvath A (2010) Life-cycle assessment of pavements: a critical review of existing liteature and research. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Santero NJ, Masanet E, Horvath A (2011) Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I Crit Rev Res Conser Recy 55(9–10):801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Streicher G, Stehrer H (2012) Whither Panama? Constructing a consistent and balanced world SUT system including international trade and transport margins. 7th EU-framework project, World Input–output Database: construction and applications, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  69. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O et al (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tatari O, Nazzal M, Kucukvar M (2012) Comparative sustainability assessment of warm-mix asphalts: a thermodynamic based hybrid life cycle analysis. Res Conser Recy 58:18–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16(5):680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Treloar GJ, Love PE, Crawford RH (2004) Hybrid life-cycle inventory for road construction and use. J Constr Eng Manage 130(1):43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tukker A, Poliakov E, Heijungs R, Hawkins T, Neuwahl F, Rueda-Cantuche JM, Bouwmeester M (2009) Towards a global multi-regional environmentally extended input–output database. Ecol Econ 68(7):1928–1937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. UN (1999) Studies in methods: handbook of national accounting. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  75. U.S. Department of Transportation (2010) Warm-mix asphalt technlogies and research. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Industry injury and illness data. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from Accessed 30 March 2013
  76. Wachsmann U, Wood R, Lenzen M, Schaeffer R (2009) Structural decomposition of energy use in Brazil from 1970 to 1996. App Energ 86(4):578–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhao JH (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 13(9):2263–2278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Weber CL, Matthews HS (2007) Embodied environmental emissions in U.S. international trade, 1997–2004. Environ Sci Technol 41(14):4875–4881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wiedmann T, Lenzen M (2009) Environmental management accounting for cleaner production. Unravelling the impacts of supply chains: a new triple-bottom-line accounting approach and software tool (S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, R. L. Burritt, & C. Jasch, Eds.) Eco-Eff Ind Sci 24:65–90Google Scholar
  80. Wiedmann T, Lenzen M, Barrett JR (2009) Companies on the scale: comparing and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. J Ind Ecol 13(3):361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wiedmann T, Suh S, Feng K, Lenzen M, Acquaye A, Scott K, Barrett JR (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies–the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45(13):5900–5907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. WIOD (2012) World input–output database: construction and applications, FP7 Research Project, 2009–2012. Retrieved from
  83. Zamagni A, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Masoni P (2012) Life cycle sustainability analysis. Life cycle assessment handbook: a guide for environmentally sustainable production. pp 453–474Google Scholar
  84. Zapata P, Gambatese JA (2005) Energy consumption of asphalt and reinforced concrete pavement materials and construction. J Infra Syst 11(1):9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zeleny M (1973) In: Cochrane JL, Zeleny M (eds) Compromise programming in multiple criteria decision making. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp 262–301Google Scholar
  86. Zopounidis C, Doumpos M (2002) Multi-criteria decision aid in financial decision making: methodologies and literature review. J Mult-Criteria Dec Analy 11(4–5):167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Kucukvar
    • 1
  • Mehdi Noori
    • 1
  • Gokhan Egilmez
    • 2
  • Omer Tatari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction EngineeringUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoUSA

Personalised recommendations