Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Conservation and Reuse of Historical City Center Applied Study on Jeddah—Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Journal
Between Empowerment and Gentrification: A Case Study of Community-Based Tourist Program in Suichang County, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Offsite Sustainability—Disentangling the Rhetoric through Informed Mindset Change
Article

Social Impact Assessment Comparison of Composite and Concrete Bridge Alternatives

Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Academic Editors: Monty Sutrisna and Wajiha Mohsin Shahzad
Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 5186; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095186
Received: 12 March 2022 / Revised: 19 April 2022 / Accepted: 22 April 2022 / Published: 25 April 2022
The definition of sustainability includes three fundamental pillars: economic, environmental, and social. Studies of the economic impact on civil engineering infrastructures have been focused on cost reduction. It is not necessarily in line with economic sustainability due to the lack of other economic factors. Moreover, the social pillar assessment has been weakly developed compared to the economic and the environmental ones. It is essential to focus on the social pillar and evaluate clear indicators that allow researchers to compare alternatives. Furthermore, bridge life cycle assessment studies have been focused on concrete options. This has resulted in a lack of analysis of the impact of composite bridge alternatives. This study is conducted in two stages. The first part of the study makes a cradle-to-grave social and environmental sustainability evaluation with the SOCA v2 and ecoinvent v3.7.1 databases. This assessment is carried out on four concrete and composite bridge alternatives with span lengths between 15 and 40 m. The social impact weighting method and recipe have been used to obtain the social and environmental indicators. The second part of the study compares the results obtained from the social and environmental assessment of the concrete and the composite alternatives varying the steel recycling rate. The bridge alternatives are prestressed concrete solid slab, prestressed concrete lightened slab, prestressed concrete box-girder, and steel–concrete composite box-girder. The results show that composite options are the best for environmental impact, but the concrete box girder solutions are better for social impact. Furthermore, an increase in the steel recycling rate increases the social impact and decreases the environmental one. View Full-Text
Keywords: sustainability; bridges; structures; LCA; recipe; soca sustainability; bridges; structures; LCA; recipe; soca
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Martínez-Muñoz, D.; Martí, J.V.; Yepes, V. Social Impact Assessment Comparison of Composite and Concrete Bridge Alternatives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095186

AMA Style

Martínez-Muñoz D, Martí JV, Yepes V. Social Impact Assessment Comparison of Composite and Concrete Bridge Alternatives. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martínez-Muñoz, David, Jose V. Martí, and Víctor Yepes. 2022. "Social Impact Assessment Comparison of Composite and Concrete Bridge Alternatives" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5186. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095186

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop