Aryan Yash, Dikshit Anil Kumar, Shinde Amar Mohan
Environmental Science and Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India.
Department of Civil Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.
J Environ Manage. 2023 Jun 15;336:117697. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117697. Epub 2023 Mar 14.
In recent years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies related to road pavements and road infrastructures. The main aim of this study is to perform a critical analysis of various studies undertaken so far to examine goals, scopes, impact categories, life cycle phases, methods and approaches, and limitations. A total of 67 LCA studies reported in literature were analysed and categorized into four categories viz. flexible pavement; rigid pavement; flexible and rigid pavement; and road infrastructure. The analysis revealed that 80% of the studies were carried out in developed countries while just 20% of studies were from developing countries. Most of the road pavement LCA studies (∼76%) considered material and construction phase and assessed the impacts in terms of only two impact categories viz. global warming potential and energy demand. Only 10-15% of studies considered a wide range of impact categories and used commercial software such as GaBi and SimaPro for impact assessment. 19 studies were on flexible pavements, 4 on rigid pavements, 30 on both flexible and rigid pavements and 14 on infrastructure. Bridges, tunnels, drainage, lighting, and road marking were the major components of road infrastructure studied while other road infrastructures such as culverts, toll plazas, and vehicle underpasses were not included. Majority of the studies depended on secondary or background data for the development of life cycle inventory. Out of 67 studies, only 18 studies performed the sensitivity analysis while only 6 studies carried out uncertainty analysis. There is a need for inclusion of all supporting infrastructures along with road pavement, and also for paying greater attention to sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in studies pertaining to the transportation sector. During construction phase, no LCA study considered the important impacts due deforestation, defragmentation, restriction of free wildlife movement etc. Hence, future LCA road studies must evaluate the negative consequences of these as well as integrate social and economic impacts via Multi-Criteria Decision Making to make LCA a robust decision-making tool for sustainability.
近年来，与道路路面和道路基础设施相关的生命周期评估（LCA）研究数量急剧增加。本研究的主要目的是对迄今为止进行的各种研究进行批判性分析，以审视目标、范围、影响类别、生命周期阶段、方法和途径以及局限性。对文献中报道的67项LCA研究进行了分析，并分为四类，即柔性路面；刚性路面；柔性和刚性路面；以及道路基础设施。分析表明，80%的研究在发达国家进行，而只有20%的研究来自发展中国家。大多数道路路面LCA研究（约76%）考虑了材料和施工阶段，并且仅根据全球变暖潜势和能源需求这两个影响类别评估影响。只有10%-15%的研究考虑了广泛的影响类别，并使用GaBi和SimaPro等商业软件进行影响评估。19项研究针对柔性路面，4项针对刚性路面，30项针对柔性和刚性路面，14项针对基础设施。桥梁、隧道、排水、照明和道路标线是所研究道路基础设施的主要组成部分，而涵洞、收费站和车辆地下通道等其他道路基础设施未被纳入其中。大多数研究依赖二手或背景数据来编制生命周期清单。在67项研究中，只有18项研究进行了敏感性分析，而只有6项研究进行了不确定性分析。需要将所有辅助基础设施与道路路面一起纳入研究范围，并且在与交通部门相关的研究中更加关注敏感性和不确定性分析。在施工阶段，没有LCA研究考虑到森林砍伐、碎片化、野生动物自由活动受限等带来的重要影响。因此，未来的LCA道路研究必须评估这些负面影响，并通过多标准决策整合社会和经济影响，以使LCA成为可持续性的强大决策工具
