An Integrated DPSIR-SD Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Roads in Australia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
- Adopting a holistic approach;
- Moving from multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary towards transdisciplinary approaches;
- Adapting a normative function;
- Promoting social learning and mutual feedback;
- Dealing with uncertainties and scenarios.
3. Research Approach
4. Case Study
4.1. Sustainability Qualitative Analysis
4.1.1. Problem Identification and Scoping under the DPSIR Framework
4.1.2. Identifying System Archetypes of Causal Loop Diagrams
- i.
- Road roughness, road maintenance/rehabilitation activity and noise mitigation measures (Success to Successful archetype)
- ii.
- Congestion, GHG(CO2-eq) emissions, fuel consumption and accidents (Shifting the Burden archetype)
- iii.
- Travel time, GHG(CO2-eq) emissions, employment opportunities and congestion (Limits to Success archetype)
4.2. Sustainability Quantitative Analysis
4.3. Findings and Discussion
- If the volume-capacity ratio representing ‘congestion’ reaches 1, the road operates at full capacity. In the proposed model, congestion is affected by demand uncertainty based on economic and environmental externalities caused by vehicular traffic. Therefore, the gradient of the congestion (volume-capacity ratio) graph in Figure 10 shows that the increase in road capacity is almost at a higher pace for the freeway.
- We can also observe the spikes in GHG(CO2-eq) emissions at certain intervals during the operational and maintenance phase due to undertaking maintenance activities every five years. While traffic volume also contributes a considerable proportion to GHG emissions, this is higher for freeways than toll roads.
- It is clear from its mathematical relationship that noise emission is affected by operating speed, traffic volume and road gradient. The noise emission standard is 55 dB, but the freeway option exceeds noise emission standards by the end of the operational phase.
- On average, around 90 crashes are reduced during the operational and maintenance phase (30-year period) for the toll road option, mainly because of a decrease in congestion and better pavement conditions.
- According to the National Federation of Civil Contractors, seven workers are employed for every AUD 1 million invested in road infrastructure [65]. Apart from the investment cost, the difference in operation and maintenance cost between the freeway and the toll road is negligible, at only AUD 15 million.
- However, the cumulative increase in the maintenance cost for every five years increases by 1% considering the time value of money. Therefore, the difference in employment opportunities is close to 400 workers for toll and freeway roads in 30 years.
- The innovation initiatives indicator from the governance dimension has not been quantitatively evaluated as no data source is available for the innovative techniques/methods used in the Northern Connector project. Nevertheless, this indicator can be analysed under the innovation initiatives scenario.
4.4. Model Validation: Building Confidence in the Model
4.4.1. Behavioural Replication Tests (Coefficient of Determination (R2))
4.4.2. Robustness under Extreme Conditions Tests of Key Variables
4.4.3. Dimensional Consistency Test
4.5. Sustainability Performance Index in the DPSIR Model
4.5.1. Standardised Treatment of Evaluation Index
4.5.2. The Construction of the Sustainability Performance Index
5. Results and Discussion
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Parameter | Initial Value | Unit | Source | Explanation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Capital cost (investment cost) | AUD 872 million | Dollars | [67] | AUD 708 million from the Australian Government and AUD 177 million from the South Australian Government |
First year of FOMC | AUD 5.6 million | Dollars | [32] | Operation and management costs in first year |
Periodic FMC | AUD 28.7 million | Dollars | [67] | Periodic maintenance cost over 5-years |
First year of FMC | AUD 5.7 million | Dollars | [32] | Financial maintenance cost in first year |
Percentage increase in FOMC per year | 0.01 | Dimensionless | [68] | - |
Capacity factor | 0.1 | Dimensionless | [29] | The capacity of road depends on model state roads (MSR) |
Hourly capacity | 12,000 | Vehicles | [29] | Hourly capacity in PCE/hr by MRS for a three-lane road |
Traffic growth rate | 0.014 | Dimensionless | [67] | Estimated traffic growth rate of 1.4% every year |
Toll standard | 5 | Dollars/vehicles | [68] | Standard toll charges |
Price strategy | 5 | Dimensionless | - | Depends on the toll pricing policy |
Road length | 15.6 | km | [67] | - |
SPVCR1 | 70 | km/h | [29] | Operating speed at VCR of 1 |
PCSF1 | 0.96 | Dimensionless | [29] | Pavement condition speed factor at 110 NRM |
PCSF2 | 0.632 | Dimensionless | [29] | Pavement condition speed factor at 250 NRM |
VCRSPL (OS declines corrfreespeed) | 0.3 | Dimensionless | [29] | The VCR when operating speed declines from corrected free speed |
Roughness correction factor | 0.925 | Dimensionless | [29] | Adjustment for fuel consumed |
Fuel GradAdj | 0.043 | Dimensionless | [29] | Gradient adjustment factor |
Fuel cost | 1.36 | Dollars/litre | - | Fuel cost during analysis |
Tread cost | 0.55 | Dimensionless | [29] | Average tyre tread cost |
Grad (VT) | 0.02 | Dimensionless | [29] | Tyre wear gradient adjustment |
Rough (VT) | 0.2 | Dimensionless | [29] | Tyre wear roughness adjustment |
Travel for non-work | 17 | Dollars/h/vehicles | [32] | Wage rate for non-working trip |
Travel for work | 43 | Dollars/h/vehicles | [32] | Wage rate for working trip |
CO2-eq emissions of heavy vehicles | 2.6 | Tonne/litre/vehicles | [29] | - |
CO2-eq emissions of light vehicles | 2.5 | Tonne/litre/vehicles | [29] | - |
Unit cost of CO2 per tonne | 23.5 | Dollars/tonne | [32] | - |
Crash rate | 0.43 | 1/vehicles | [29] | Accidents per MVKT |
Crash cost per road type | 125,532 | Dollars | [29] | Average accident cost based on crash rate |
Per period rate of discount | 0.03 | Dimensionless | - | - |
Noise emission standard | 55 | dB | [69] | Noise emission limit |
Road surface correction factor | 5 | dB | [68] | Noise emission corrected for roughness |
Distance attenuation correction factors | 7 | dB | [68] | Decrease in sound with distance from the sound source |
The total sound level during equipment operation | 52 | dB | [68] | Sound during maintenance activities |
Emissions from light vehicles | 48.6 | dB | [68] | Average noise emission from light vehicles |
Emission from heavy vehicles | 68 | dB | [68] | Average emission from heavy vehicles |
Road grade | 0.03 | Dimensionless | [29] | Road steepness |
Unit cost of SCM emissions | 102 | Dollars/tonne | [49] | Supplementary cementitious material cost |
Unit cost of street lightings CO2-eq | 4863 | Dollars/tonne | [49] | |
Indirect job opportunities per unit investment | 5.11 | Jobs/dollars/year | [66] | Indirect jobs per 1 million investments |
Direct job opportunities per unit investment | 1.79 | Jobs/dollars/year | [66] | Direct jobs per 1 million investments |
Annual average daily traffic volume (AADTV) in first year | 25,683 | Vehicles/day | [35] | Predicted traffic volume in first year of operational phase |
Appendix B. Scripts and Model Equations
- Annual Average daily traffic volume (AADTV) = IF THEN ELSE (Time > 4,”Annual average daily traffic volume (AADTV) in first year”+ (Time-4) × “Annual average daily traffic volume (AADTV) in first year” × (1 + Traffic growth rate)−”Annual average daily traffic volume (AADTV) in first year”), IF THEN ELSE (Time = 4, “Annual average daily traffic −volume (AADTV) in first year”), IF THEN ELSE (Time = 4, “Annual average daily traffic volume (AADTV) in first year”, 0))
- Road capacity = Hourly capacity/Capacity factor
- Free speed = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, 110, 0)
- Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) = Road length × Practical Vehicle volume
- Volume-capacity Ratio (VCR) = (Practical Vehicle volume)/ (Road capacity)
- change in roughness = IF THE ELSE (Time = 8: OR: Time = 13: OR: Time = 18: OR: Time = 23: OR: Time = 28: OR: Time = 33, ((−Maintenance Impact on road roughness)), IF THEN ELSE (Time < 4, 0, 5))
- Traffic volumes of light vehicles = 0.75 × Practical Vehicle volume
- Traffic volumes of heavy vehicles = 0.25 × Practical Vehicle volume
- Basic Fuel consumption = IF THEN ELSE (“Operating Speed (OS)” ≥ 88: AND: “Operating Speed (OS)” ≤ 95: AND: Time ≥ 4, 0.1, IF THEN ELSE (“Operating Speed (OS)” > 95: AND: “Operating Speed (OS)” ≤ 110: AND: Time ≥ 4, 0.098, 0))
- Basic tyre wear = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, 115.9, 0)
- Fuel RoughnessAdj = GCGFAC × Roughness correction factor
- Fuel congestionAdj = MIN (1, “Volume-capacity ratio” × FCONGF)
- Fuel consumption = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, Basic Fuel consumption × (1 + Fuel congestionAdj + Fuel GradientAdj + Fuel RoughnessAdj), 0)
- Total fuel consumption cost = ((Fuel cost × Fuel consumption) × Road length)
- Operating Speed (OS) = IF THEN ELSE (“Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)” < “VCRSPL (OS declines corrfreespeed)”, Corrected free speed for roughness, IF THEN ELSE (“VCRSPL (OS declines corrfreespeed)” < “Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)”:AND:” Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)” < 1, SPVCR1 + (Corrected free speed for roughness −SPVCR1) × ((1−”Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)”)/(1−“VCRSPL (OS declines corrfreespeed)”)), IF THEN ELSE (1 < “Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)”:AND: “Volume–capacity Ratio(VCR)” < 1.25, 30 + (SPVCR1−30) × ((1.25−”Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)” “Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)” < 1.25,30 + (SPVCR1−30) × ((1.25−“Volume–capacity Ratio (VCR)”)/(1.25−1)), 30)))
- Corrected free speed for roughness = IF THEN ELSE (Road roughness > 60, Pavement condition speed factor × Free speed, Free speed)
- Pavement condition speed factor = IF THEN ELSE (Road roughness ≤ 60, 1, IF THEN ELSE (Road roughness > 60: AND: Road roughness ≤ 110, 1−((1−PCSF1) × ((Road roughness−60)/(110−60))), MAX (PCSF1−((PCSF1−PCSF2) × ((Road roughness−110)/(250−110))), PCSF2)))
- Total Vehcile tyre cost = ((Basic tyre wear × (1 + ”CongestionAdj (VT)” + ”GradientAdj (VT)” + ”RoughnessAdj (VT)” + ”CurvatureAdj (VT)”) × Tread cost) × Road length)/1000
- Vehicle Operating cost (VOC) = (Total fuel consumption cost + Total vehicle tyre cost) × 365
- Travel time (TT) = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, (Road length/“Operating Speed (OS)”), 0)
- Vehicle Travel time (VTT) cost = (365 × “Travel time (TT)” × Value of time per vehicle × Practical Vehicle volume)
- Value of time per vehicle = 0.7 × Average wage rate + 0.3 × Average freight rate
- Average hourly speed (heavy vehicles) = “Average hourly speed (light vehicles)“ × 0.8
- Average hourly speed (light vehicles) = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, 212 × ((traffic volumes of light vehicles)^(−0.175)) × (“Operating Speed (OS)”/120), 0)
- Average wage rate = Travel for work + Travel for non-work
- Accidents (crashes) = (Crash rate × “Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT)”)/10,000
- Accidents cost = “Accidents (crashes)” × Crash cost per road type
- Unit externalities cost = (Air pollution externality cost + Noise emission externality cost)
- Externalities cost= IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, Unit externalities cost ×” Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT)” × 365,0)
- Air pollutant emissions of heavy vehicles = (“CO2-eq emissions of heavy vehicles” × Traffic volume of heavy vehicles × Road length × Fuel consumption)
- Air pollutant emissions of light vehicles = (“CO2-eq emissions of light vehicles” × Fuel consumption × Road length × Traffic volume of light vehicles)
- “Rate of GHG(CO2-eq) emissions during operational phase” = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, (Air pollutant emissions of heavy vehicles + Air pollutant emissions of light vehicles), 0)
- “Rate of GHG(CO2-eq) emissions during operational phase” = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 5: OR: Time = 10: OR: Time = 15: OR: Time = 20: OR: Time = 25: OR: Time = 30, (−0.35 × Percentage Quantity of Asphalt Binder replacement + 0.92 × Percentage Quantity of Recycled Asphalt pavement) × Road length × GHG emissions of concrete pavement × 13, 0)
- Total GHG(CO2-eq) emissions during operation and maintenance work = “Rate of GHG(CO2-eq) emissions during operational phase” + “Innovatives GHG(CO2-eq) emission”
- GHG emissions cost = ((“Unit cost of CO2-eq per tonne” + (Time)) ×” Total GHG(CO2-eq) emissions during operational and maintenance”) × 10
- GHG(CO2-eq) emissions cost saving = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, (“Unit cost of CO2-eq per tonne” + Time × c9 × c1) × (“Reduction in GHG(CO2-eq) emissions (Base case)”), 0)
- Noise emission levels during operational phase = 10 × LOG (10^(0.1 × Received noise emission of light Vehicles at receiving site) + 10^(0.1 × Received noise emission of heavy vehicles at receiving site), 10)
- Received noise emission of Light Vehicles at receiving site = (Emissions from light vehicles + 10 × LOG ((traffic volumes of light vehicles/(Operating speed)), 10) +Correction values of the light vehicles due to road grade−13)
- Received noise emission of heavy vehicles at receiving site = (Emission from heavy vehicles + 10 × LOG ((traffic volumes of heavy vehicles/(Operating speed)), 10) + Correction values of heavy vehicles due to road grade−13)
- Difference bw Noise emission and emission standard during maintenance = IF THE ELSE (Time = 8: OR: Time = 13: OR: Time = 18: OR: Time = 23: OR: Time = 28: OR: Time = 33, Noise emission during maintenance – Noise emission standard, 0)
- Difference bw Noise emission and Noise emission standard during Operational phase = Noise emission levels during operational phase − Noise emission standard
- Emissions from light vehicles = 62.6 + 0.32 × Operating speed
- Emission from heavy vehicles = 77.2 + 0.82 × Operating speed
- Noise emission during maintenance = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 8: OR: Time = 13: OR: Time = 18: OR: Time = 23: OR: Time = 28: OR: Time = 33, (The total sound level during equipment operation −Distance attenuation correction factors + Road surface correction factor), 0)
- Noise emission levels during operational phase = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, 10 × LOG (10^(0.1 × Received noise emission of Light Vehicles at receiving site) + 10^(0.1 × Received noise emission of heavy vehicles at receiving site), 10), 0)
- Noise emission standard = 63
- Noise emission standard after adopting Mitigation measure = IF THEN ELSE (Reduced noise emission levels = 1: OR: Reduced noise emission levels = 0, Noise emission during maintenance, IF THEN ELSE (Reduced noise emission levels = 2, Noise emission during maintenance−5, IF THEN ELSE (Reduced noise emission levels = 3, Noise emission during maintenance −10, IF THEN ELSE (Reduced noise emission levels = 4, Noise emission during maintenance−15, IF THEN ELSE (Reduced noise emission levels =5, Noise emission during maintenance−20, Noise emission during maintenance−25)))))
- Noise emission levels after adopting Mitigation measure = IF THEN ELSE (Type of Mitigation measure adopted = 1: OR: Type of Mitigation measure adopted, IF THEN ELSE (Type of Mitigation measure adopted = 2, Total Noise emission levels during operation and maintenance works−5, IF THEN ELSE (Type of Mitigation measure adopted = 3: AND: Time ≥ 4, Total Noise emission levels during operation and maintenance work−10, IF THEN ELSE (Type of Mitigation measure adopted = 4, Total Noise emission levels during operation and maintenance works−20, 0))))
- Correction values of heavy vehicles due to road grade = 98 × road grade
- Correction values of the light vehicles due to road grade = 73 × road grade
- Total Noise emission levels during operational and maintenance works = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 8: OR: Time = 13: OR: Time = 18: OR: Time = 23: OR: Time = 28: OR: Time = 33, 10 × LOG(10^(0.1 × Noise emission levels during operational phase) + 10^(0.1 × Noise emission during maintenance ), 10), Noise emission levels during operational phase)
- 50% Supplementary cementitious material (SCM) replacement = (423 × 6 × 0.6 × Road length)/30
- Cost for SCM (additional) = Unit cost of SCM emissions × 0.6 × 6 × ”50% Supplementary cementitious material (SCM) replacement”
- Cost saving for Smart street lighting = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, Unit cost of street lightings × 0.6 × Solar street lighting
- Economic Benefits (toll) = INTEG (“Present value of economic inflow (toll)”, 0)
- Economic cash inflow = Accidents cost saving + “GHG(CO2-eq) emissions cost saving” + “Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) saving” + ”Vehicle Travel Time (VTT) cost saving”
- Economic Cash Outflow = Economic Operational and maintenance cost + ”Capital cost (economic)”
- Economic Costs (toll) = INTEG (“Present value of economic outflow (toll)”, 0)
- Economic Maintenance cost (EMC) =IF THEN ELSE (Time = 8: OR: Time = 13: OR: Time = 18: OR: Time = 28: OR: Time = 33, Periodic EMC, IF THEN ELSE (Time < 4, 0,IF THEN ELSE (Time = 23, 2 × Periodic EMC, (percentage increase in EMC × Total Economic maintenance cost) + First year of EMC)))
- Economic Net Cash Flow (ENCF) = Economic cash inflow-Economic Cash Outflow
- Economic Operational and maintenance cost = “Economic Operational and Management Cost (EOMC)” + “Economic Maintenance cost (EMC)” + ”GHG emissions cost + Externalities cost” + ”Impact of Combined initiatives on Operational & management cost”
- Economic Operational and Management Cost (EOMC) = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 4, First year of EOMC, IF THEN ELSE (Time < 4, 0, (percentage increase in EOMC × Total Economic Operational Management cost + First year of EOMC)))
- Financial Benifits (toll) = INTEG (Present value of cash inflow, 0)
- Financial Cash Inflow = Sum of toll income from vehicles
- Financial Cash Outflow = Financial operational and maintenance cost + “Capital cost (Investment cost)”
- Economic cash inflow = Accidents cost saving + “GHG(CO2-eq) emissions cost saving” + ”Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC) saving” + “Vehicle Travel Time (VTT) cost saving”
- Economic Cash Outflow = Economic Operational and maintenance cost + ”Capital cost (economic)”
- Financial Costs (toll) = INTEG (Present value of cash outflow, 0)
- Financial Maintenance Cost (FMC) = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 8: OR: Time = 13: OR: Time = 18: OR: Time = 23: OR: Time = 28: OR: Time = 33, Periodic FMC, IF THEN ELSE (Time < 4, 0, (percentage increase in FMC × Total Financial Maintenance cost) + First year of FMC))
- Financial Net Cash flow (FNCF) = Financial Cash Inflow − Financial Cash Outflow
- Financial operational and maintenance cost = “Financial Operational and Management Cost (FOMC)” + ”Financial Maintenance Cost (FMC)” + Impact of Combined initiatives on Operational and management cost
- Financial Operational and Management Cost (FOMC) = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 4, First year of FOMC, IF THEN ELSE (Time > 4, ((percentage increase in FOMC × Total Operational management cost + First year of FOMC)), 0))
- Impact of management strategy on F = WITH LOOKUP (WITH LOOKUP (Management strategy, ([(0,0)–(10,10)], (1,0.8), (2,0.65), (3,0.6), (4,0.55), (5,0.5)))
- Impact of Price strategy on F = WITH LOOKUP (WITH LOOKUP (Price strategy, ([(0,0)–(10,10)], (1,1.983), (2,1.484), (3,1), (4,0.8), (5,0.76), (6,0.65), (7,0.6)))
- Impact of price strategy on toll standard = WITH LOOKUP (Price strategy, ([(0,0)–(10,10)], (1,0.01), (2,0.02), (3,0.03), (4,0.04), (5,0.05), (6,0.06), (7,0.07)))
- Impact on mitigation measures on operational and maintenance cost= WITH LOOKUP (Type of Mitigation measure adopted, ([(0,0)–(10,10)], (0,0), (1,0), (2,0.001), (3,0.002), (4,0.0035), (5,0.005), (6,0.007)))
- Indirect job opportunities = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, Indirect job opportunities per unit investment × Financial operational and maintenance cost, 0)
- Financial Management strategy = IF THEN ELSE (Road roughness 60: AND: Road roughness ≤ 80, 1, IF THEN ELSE (Road roughness ≥ 80: AND: Road roughness ≤ 100, 2, IF THEN ELSE (Road roughness ≥ 100: AND: Road roughness ≤ 120, 3, IF THEN ELSE (Road roughness ≥ 120: AND: Road roughness ≤ 140, 4, 5))))
- Operational and maintenance cost = Routine Maintenance cost + Operational management cost
- Present value of cash inflow = Discount factor × Financial Cash Inflow
- Present value of cash outflow = Financial Cash Outflow × Discount factor
- Present value of ENCF each year = (Discount factor × “Economic Net Cash Flow (ENCF)”)
- Present values of FNCF each year = (Discount factor × “Financial Net Cash flow (FNCF)”)
- Present values of FNCF each year = Discount factor × Financial Net Cash flow
- Discount factor = 1/(1 + Per period rate of discount)^(Time−1)
- Rate of change of OMC next year = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 1, First year of OMC, “% increase in OMC per year “× Operational management cost)
- Rate of change of RMC 5 year = IF THE ELSE (Time = 5: AND: Time = 10: AND: Time = 15: AND: Time = 20: AND: Time = 25: AND: Time = 30, Routine MC per 5 year, 0)
- Financial benefit-cost ratio = Financial Net Cash flow/(“Capital cost (Investment cost)” + Operational and maintenance cost)
- Emission reduction = (Unit cost of CO2 per tonne + Time) × GHG emissions reduction operational phase
- Sum of toll income from vehicles = Practical Vehicle volume × Toll standard each day
- Toll standard each day = road toll standard moderate pricing × Impact of price strategy on toll standard
- Practical vehicle volume = Annual Average daily traffic volume (AADTV) × Impact of Price strategy on FAADTV
- Impact of price strategy on toll standard = With LOOKUP (Price strategy on road toll, ([(0,0)–(10,10)], (1,1), (2,1.5), (3,3), (4,5), (5,6))
- Impact of Price strategy on FAADTV = With LOOKUP (Price strategy on road toll, ([(0,0)–(10,10)], (1,1.983), (2,1.484), (3,1), (4,0.8), (5,0.69))
- Total Job opportunities = Indirect job opportunities + Direct job opportunities
- Direct Employment opportunities = Operational and maintenance cost × Direct job opportunities per unit investment
- Indirect Employment opportunities = Capital cost (Investment cost) × Indirect job opportunities per unit investment
- Economic OC per year=IF THEN ELSE (Time = 1, First year of OC, “% increase in OC per year “× Economic Operational Management cost)
- Ecoomic MC per year = IF THEN ELSE (Time = 5: AND: Time = 10: AND: Time = 15: AND: Time = 20: AND: Time = 25: AND: Time = 30, Economic maintenance cost per 5 year, 0)
- Economic benefit–cost ratio = Economic Net Cash Flow/(Economic Operational and maintenance cost + Economic investment cost)
- “Impact of Combined initiatives on Operational & management cost” = “Cost for SCM (additional) “+ Cost saving for Smart street lighting
- “Concrete pavement (GHG emission)” = 1821 × 6 × 0.6 × Road length × c2
- “50% Supplementary cementitious material (SCM) replacement = (423 × 6 × 0.6 × Road length × c2)/30
- Innovative GHG emission reduction = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, Solar street lighting + ”50% Supplementary cementitious material (SCM) replacement”, 0)
- Solar street lighting = (492 × 0.6 × Road length × c2)/30
- LED street lighting = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, 0.6 × 492 × Road length × c2, 0)
- Cost saving for Smart street lighting = IF THEN ELSE (Time ≥ 4, “Unit cost of street lightings CO2−eq” × 0.6 × Solar street lighting, 0)
- “Cost for SCM (additional)” = Unit cost of SCM emissions × 0.6 × 6 × ”50% Supplementary cementitious material (SCM) replacement”
References
- Transurban. FY21 Sustainability Supplement. 2021. Available online: https://www.transurban.com/content/dam/transurban-pdfs/01/sustainability-reports/FY21-Sustainability-Supplement.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2021).
- Newman, P.; Hargroves, K.J.; Desha, C.; Kumar, A. Reducing the Environmental Impact of Road Construction; Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre, Curtin University: Perth, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Westland, J. The Project Management Life Cycle: A Complete Step-By-Step Methodology for Initiating, Planning, Executing & Closing a Project Successfully; Kogan Page: London, UK; Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kaira, S.; Mohamed, S.; Rahman, A. Dynamic Sustainability Assessment of Road Projects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Construction Engineering and Project Management, ICCEPM2020 Organizing Committee, Hong Kong, 7–8 December 2020; pp. 493–502. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Lu, H.; Peng, H. System Dynamics Model of Urban Transportation System and Its Application. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2008, 8, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sala, S.; Ciuffo, B.; Nijkamp, P. A Systemic Framework for Sustainability Assessment. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 119, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadhim, A.J.; Banyhussan, Q.S.; Jameel, A.K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a road improvement proposal based on sustainability Indicators: Case study Al-Nebai-Baghdad highway. Period. Eng. Nat. Sci. 2020, 8, 916–932. [Google Scholar]
- Bryce, J.; Brodie, S.; Parry, T.; Lo Presti, D. A Systematic Assessment of Road Pavement Sustainability through a Review of Rating Tools. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Zhao, J.; Tam, V.W.Y. System Dynamics-Based Stakeholders’ Impact Analysis of Highway Maintenance Systems. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Transp. 2019, 172, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trigaux, D.; Wijnants, L.; De Troyer, F.; Allacker, K. Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing of Road Infrastructure in Residential Neighbourhoods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 22, 938–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, S.; Kumar, A.; Dawes, L. Sustainability Assessment of Road Infrastructure Using Sustainability Index. Infrastruct. Asset Manag. 2017, 5, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsulami, B.A.; Mohamed, S. Hybrid Fuzzy Sustainability Assessment Model: A Case Study of a Regional Infrastructure Transport Project. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction 2012, ASCE, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 7–9 November 2012; pp. 400–408. [Google Scholar]
- Mensah, S.; Eshragh, S.; Faghri, A. Modern Roundabouts and Sustainable Intersection Design. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Roundabouts, Transportation Research Board (TRB), Carmel, IN, USA, 18–20 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ahac, S.; Ahac, M.; Domitrović, J.; Dragčević, V. Modeling the Influence of Roundabout Deflection on Its Efficiency as a Noise Abatement Measure. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez, A.X.; Lehtiranta, L.; Hampson, K.D.; Kenley, R. Evaluation Framework for Green Procurement in Road Construction. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2014, 3, 153–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nabavi, E.; Daniell, K.A.; Najafi, H. Boundary Matters: The Potential of System Dynamics to Support Sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 312–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oswald Beiler, M. Measuring Sustainable Transportation: Incorporating Social Sustainability Indicators into Transportation Rating Systems. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 8, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, K.; Boyle, C.; Henning, T.F.P. Sustainability Rating Tools for Highway Projects: The Nature and Outcomes of Use. Infrastruct. Asset Manag. 2018, 5, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bueno, P.C.; Vassallo, J.M.; Cheung, K. Sustainability Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Projects: A Review of Existing Tools and Methods. Transp. Rev. 2015, 35, 622–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahely, H.R.; Kennedy, C.A.; Adams, B.J. Developing Sustainability Criteria for Urban Infrastructure Systems. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2005, 32, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLeod, S. Likert Scale Definition, Examples and Analysis. 2008. Available online: https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html (accessed on 18 November 2019).
- Cinelli, M.; Coles, S.R.; Kirwan, K. Analysis of the Potentials of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods to Conduct Sustainability Assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharyya, R.; Mukherjee, S. Fuzzy Membership Function Evaluation by Non-Linear Regression: An Algorithmic Approach. Fuzzy Inf. Eng. 2020, 12, 412–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CRC CARE National Remediation Framework. Guideline on Performing Cost-Benefit and Sustainability Analysis of Remediation Options; CRC Care: Callaghan, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zare, F.; Elsawah, S.; Bagheri, A.; Nabavi, E.; Jakeman, A.J. Improved Integrated Water Resource Modelling by Combining DPSIR and System Dynamics Conceptual Modelling Techniques. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Ding, P.; Xue, B.; Zhu, H.; Gao, J. Urban Sustainability Evaluation Based on the DPSIR Dynamic Model: A Case Study in Shaanxi Province, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queensland Government. Cost-Benefit Analysis Manual Road Projects; Transport and Main Roads; Queensland Government: Brisbane City, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, H.; Shen, L.; Tan, Y.; Hao, J. Simulating the Impacts of Policy Scenarios on the Sustainability Performance of Infrastructure Projects. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 1060–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, C.; Shackleton, J.-C.; McRobert, J.; Austroads. Guidelines for Environmental Reporting; Austroads Publication No. AP-G70-11; Austroads: Sydney, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gunarathna, W.P.H. Performance Measures for Sustainable Road Transport Asset Management Practice. Ph.D. Thesis, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, V.T. Designing a Stakeholder-Centric Framework for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transport Infrastructure Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hargroves, C. ISCA “Infrastructure Sustainability” Rating Tool and Low Carbon Tendering; Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, Curtin University: Perth, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, Y. A Dynamic Approach for Evaluating the Sustainability Performance of Infrastructure Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 2008. Available online: https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB5770.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Brander, M.; Davis, G. Greenhouse Gases, CO2, CO2e, and Carbon: What Do All These Terms Mean? Ecometrica. 2012. Available online: https://ecometrica.com/greenhouse-gases-co2-co2e-and-carbon-what-do-all-these-terms-mean/ (accessed on 21 July 2020).
- Yao, H.; Hao, J.L. Simulation Model for Identifying Effective Policy in Mitigating Noise Emissions from Highway Projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2014, 14, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Błach, J. Barriers to Financial Innovation—Corporate Finance Perspective. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Northern Connector Project Impact Report: Part B (1). Need for the Project; Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, Government of South Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 2011. Available online: https://www.dit.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/nsc/northern_connector/publications?a=70738 (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Northern Connector Project Impact Report: Part F(2). Environmental Management. Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, Government of South Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 2011. Available online: https://dit.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/70730/Northern_Connector_-_Project_Impact_Report_-_Volume_2_Part_F_July_2011.PDF (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines M2 Roads. Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP). 2020. Available online: https://www.atap.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/atap-m2-roads.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2022).
- Wang, C. Review of Emissions Reduction Opportunities; EDGE: Adelaide, Australia, 2019; pp. 20–37. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, B.; Hummelbrunner, R. Systems Concepts in Action: A Practitioner’s Toolkit; Stanford Business Books: Stanford, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Albin, S.; Forrester, J.W.; Breierova, L. Building a System Dynamics Model: Part 1: Conceptualisation; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, W. The System Archetypes. Available online: https://pdfslide.net/documents/the-system-archetypes-system-archetypes-copyright-2002-by-william-braun-20020227.html (accessed on 8 September 2021).
- Abeygunawardhana, C.; Sandamal, R.M.K.; Pasindu, H.R. Identification of the Impact on Road Roughnesson Speed Patterns for Different Roadway Segments. In Proceedings of the 2020 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, 28–30 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Hasan, M.M.; Alam, A.; Mim, A.M.; Das, A. Identifying User Satisfaction Level of Road Services: A Focus on Rajshahi City Bypass Road, Bangladesh. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 48, 3132–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anne King, B.; The Effect of Road Roughness on Traffic Speed and Road Safety. Undergraduate Dissertation, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences: University of Southern Queensland. 2014. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/211497865.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2022).
- Senate Economics References Committee. Toll Roads: Issues of Building, Financing and Charging. 2017. Available online: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/TollRoads/Report/c02 (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- Yang, H.; Huang, H. Mathematical and Economic Theory of Road Pricing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Losa, M.; Bellucci, P.; Grecco, R.; Pacciardi, S. Development of Guidelines for the Implementation of Alternative “Smart” Noise Mitigation Measures; CEDR Transnational Research Programme: London, UK, 2015; Available online: https://www.cedr.eu/download/other_public_files/research_programme/call_2012/road_noise/distance/DISTANCE-ANAS-D51-V01-06102015-Critical-guidelines-to-the-effective-implementation-of-alternative-smart-noise-mitigation-measures.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2022).
- Kim, D.H.; Anderson, V. Systems Archetype Basics: From Story to Structure; Pegasus Communications: Waltham, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Rutgers University. Keeping Roads in Good Shape Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Delaying Pavement Maintenance Boosts Emissions and Costs. 2019. Available online: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190115124451.htm (accessed on 18 January 2022).
- Amos, D. Pavement Smoothness and Fuel Efficiency: An Analysis of the Economic Dimensions of the Missouri Smooth Road Initiative; Missouri Department of Transportation Organizational Results: Jefferson City, MO, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, J.; Mitchell, D. Measuring Infrastructure Asset Performance and Customer Satisfaction: A Review of Existing Frameworks; Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development: Canberra, Australia, 2017. Available online: https://www.bitre.gov.au/sites/default/files/rr_147.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2021).
- Retallack, A.E.; Ostendorf, B. Relationship between Traffic Volume and Accident Frequency at Intersections. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yasin, Y.J.; Grivna, M.; Abu-Zidan, F.M. Global Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Road Traffic Collisions. World J. Emerg. Surg. 2021, 16, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowland, T.; McLeod, D. Time and Fuel Effects of Different Travel Speeds. NZ Transport Agency Research Report 582, New Zealand. 2017. Available online: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/research/reports/582/RR-582-Time-and-fuel-effects-of-different-travel-speeds.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2021).
- Barth, M.; Boriboonsomsin, K. Real-World Carbon Dioxide Impacts of Traffic Congestion. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2008, 2058, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastiaanssen, J.; Johnson, D.; Lucas, K. Does Transport Help People to Gain Employment? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence. Transp. Rev. 2020, 40, 607–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naughtin, C.; Horton, J.; Marinoni, O.; Mailloux, M.; Bratanova, A.; Trinh, K.; Ux, M.; Bratanova, A.; Trinh, K. Time Travel: Megatrends and Scenarios for Queensland Transport out to 2048; CSIRO Data61: Brisbane, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Fitzpatrick, K.; Carlson, P.; Brewer, M.A.; Woolridge, M.D.; Miaou, S.-P. Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices; NCHRP Report 504; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; Available online: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2021).
- Sterman, J.D. All Models Are Wrong: Reflections on Becoming a Systems Scientist. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2002, 18, 501–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sterman, J.D. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World; Irwin: Boston, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Government of South Australia. Northern Connector Project Impact Report: Part D (2). Effects of the Project on the Social, Cultural and Economic Environment; Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure: Adelaide, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zagonel, A.A.; Corbet, T.F. Levels of Confidence in System Dynamics Modeling: A Pragmatic Approach to Assessment of Dynamic Models. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.408.6549 (accessed on 14 March 2021).
- Hartmann, I. More Funding Needed for Civil Construction. 2021. Available online: https://infrastructuremagazine.com.au/2021/05/10/report-more-funding-needed-for-civil-construction/ (accessed on 8 May 2021).
- Jakeman, A.J.; Letcher, R.A.; Norton, J.P. Ten Iterative Steps in Development and Evaluation of Environmental Models. Environ. Model. Softw. 2006, 21, 602–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Tang, Z.; Liu, X. Evaluation of Low-carbon City Development Based on DPSIR Model: A Case Study of Jiyuan City. Urban Issues 2012, 12, 42–47. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.Q.; Yi, K.P.; Tani, H.; Wang, X.F.; Tong, Z.J.; Liu, X.P. Ecological security assessment of Baishan City in Jilin Province based on DPSIR. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 22, 189–195. [Google Scholar]
- Ramani, T.; Zietsman, J.; Eisele, W.; Rosa, D.; Spillane, D.; Bochner, B. Developing Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures for TXDOT’s Strategic Plan: Technical Report. 2009. Available online: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/16844 (accessed on 11 May 2020).
- Swart, R.J.; Raskin, P.; Robinson, J. The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 2004, 14, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No | Dimension | Criteria | ISCA Tool Awards Point | Indicators under Selected Criteria | References |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Economic (E) |
| 14.51 4.54 |
| [27,28] |
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
2 | Environment (En) |
| 9.27 3.54 1.45 5.99 6.54 4.54 | 2.1.1. GHG(CO2-eq) emissions | [29,30,31] |
3 | Governance (G) |
| 10 9.08 9.34 5.32 3.87 | 3.1.1. Innovation initiatives | [32] |
4 | Social (S) |
| 9.38 4.36 2.18 9.08 | 4.1.1. Congestion (volume-capacity ratio) | [30,31,32,33,34,35] |
4.1.2. Road safety (accidents) | |||||
4.1.3. Employment (job) opportunities | |||||
4.1.4. Noise pollution |
Criteria | Explanation | Indicator | Explanation |
---|---|---|---|
Business case | This is a process of critically examining the opportunities, alternatives, project stages and economic and financial investment to recommend the best course of action to create business value [32]. | Financial net present value (FNPV) | Measures the annual net financial benefit from the investor’s perspective. Therefore, FNPV should be used when comparing mutually exclusive project options [27,28]. The option with the highest FNPV is the preferred option for an investor. |
Economic net present value (ENPV) | Measures a project’s annual net economic benefit to society, including externalities in monetary terms [27,28]. | ||
Financial benefit-cost ratio (FBCR) | This ratio provides a single measure that can support the decision to accept or reject a project in economic and financial terms. In a budget-constrained environment, the BCR can be used to rank and prioritise all projects in the budget pool [27]. | ||
Economic benefit-cost ratio (EBCR) | |||
Stakeholder engagement | A crucial step that aims to involve or consider the needs of all project stakeholders in the planning, decision- making and implementation phases of a project. Satisfying stakeholder needs reduces the likelihood of conflict and sets clear project priorities by addressing the key issues relating to stakeholder viewpoints during project evaluation [31]. | Congestion (volume-capacity ratio) | Volume-capacity ratio is one of the most important indexes to measure the congestion of a traffic network [27]. Key stakeholders concerned with congestion and hassle-free traffic include government and resident users [31]. |
Road safety (crashes) | This measure includes accidents (crashes) leading to death and injury [33]. This indicator affects residential users (road users) are the primary stakeholder group affected by this indicator [31]. | ||
Employment (job) opportunities | Measures the level of direct employment (people employed on the project) and indirect employment (people employed in the supply of goods or services to the project) [31]. | ||
Noise emission | Measures unwanted sound and is officially reassessed whenever a new road is built, an existing road is altered, or traffic on the road increases [35]. High-impact stakeholders for this indicator include environmentalists. | ||
Energy | The measure of consumption of traffic energy needs and maintenance/management needs [33,34]. | Greenhouse gas (GHG(CO2-eq)) emissions | Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) is a measure used to compare the emissions from various GHGs [34]. It allows different bundles of GHGs emitted from pavement materials and consumed fuel to be easily compared in a single measure (in terms of their total global warming impact). This is quoted as kg CO2-eq per unit of energy consumed and emitted. |
Innovation | Innovation advances the capabilities of road infrastructure and prompts the development of changes to accelerate results and lower risk [32]. | Innovation initiatives | Measures the impacts of implementing innovation initiatives on road infrastructure; this study considers construction, technological, and financial structuring innovations [36]. |
Sustainability Indicators | Influencing Factors | Sustainability Indicators | Influencing Factors |
---|---|---|---|
Financial net present value | Financial, operational and management cost | Innovation initiatives | Impact of initiatives on operational and maintenance cost |
Financial maintenance cost | Smart street lighting | ||
Investment cost (financial) | Supplementary cementitious material (SCM) replacement | ||
Per-period rate of discount | The unit cost of street lighting (CO2-eq) | ||
Traffic volume | Unit cost of SCM (CO2-eq) | ||
Maintenance activities interval | Congestion | Traffic volume | |
Toll rate | Road capacity | ||
State government need/satisfaction | Traffic growth rate | ||
Economic net present value | Economic maintenance cost | Road roughness | |
Investment cost (economic) | Vehicular composition | ||
Per-period rate of discount | Price strategy for road toll | ||
Vehicle operating cost saving | Vehicular composition | ||
Vehicle travel time cost saving | Price strategy for road toll | ||
Accident cost saving | Road gradient | ||
Externalities cost | Road length | ||
Financial benefit-cost ratio | Financial cash inflow | Road safety | Crash rate |
Financial cash outflow | Operating speed | ||
Discount factor | Resident (community) need/satisfaction | ||
Economic benefit-cost ratio | Economic cash inflow | Employment opportunities | Direct job opportunities |
Economic cash outflow | Indirect job opportunities | ||
Discount factor | Operational and maintenance cost | ||
Energy consumption | Fuel consumption | Resident (community) need/satisfaction | |
Environmentalist (NGO) need/satisfaction | Noise pollution | Maintenance activities | |
Vehicular composition | Noise mitigation measures | ||
Maintenance activities | Vehicular composition | ||
Pavement condition speed factor | Operating speed | ||
Road gradient | Resident (community) need/satisfaction | ||
Pavement condition speed factor | Environmentalist (NGO) need/satisfaction | ||
Road roughness | Resident (community) need/satisfaction |
DPSIR Elements | Equation | Parameter Explanation |
---|---|---|
Driving Force Index (D) | , i = 1,2,3… n | |
Pressure Index (P) | , i = 1,2,3… n | |
State Index (S) | , i = 1,2,3… n | |
Impact Index (I) | , i = 1,2,3… n | |
Response Index (R) | , i = 1,2,3… n |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kaira, S.; Sahin, O.; Rahman, A.; Mohamed, S. An Integrated DPSIR-SD Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Roads in Australia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127142
Kaira S, Sahin O, Rahman A, Mohamed S. An Integrated DPSIR-SD Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Roads in Australia. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127142
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaira, Sneha, Oz Sahin, Anisur Rahman, and Sherif Mohamed. 2022. "An Integrated DPSIR-SD Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Roads in Australia" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127142