Increased environmental awareness has led road agencies to consider the implementation of green public procurement (GPP). Besides sustainability rating systems, environmental indicators can also be implemented in GPP to help road agencies make informed decisions about the environmental impact of the pavement works they procure. A vast literature review revealed that it is still unclear which impact categories are responsible for the majority of the total environmental impact of asphalt mixtures. The objective of this study was to identify the impact categories with the greatest contribution to the total environmental impact of hot mix asphalt so that they can be implemented in the form of environmental indicators in GPP. The scope included conventional and polymer-modified binder and three mix design alternatives: only virgin aggregate, reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), and RAP with rejuvenators. The cradle-to-cradle life cycle assessment (LCA) performed showed that global warming (GW), fine particulate matter formation, fossil resource scarcity, and human non-carcinogenic toxicity were responsible for at least 90% of the total impact according to the ReCiPe 2016 hierarchic assessment method. Therefore, a simplified LCA focusing on these four impact categories seems sufficient for the purpose of comparing the environmental performance of alternatives in GPP. It was also found that GW alone accounted for approximately 50% of the total impact, which seems to make GW a good surrogate for the total impact among the asphalt mixtures evaluated. Future work should investigate whether the conclusions from this study still hold up when using secondary materials, lower temperature mixing technologies, or in-situ recycling.
WilliamsB. A.WillisJ. R.ShacatJ.Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on Recycled Materials and Warm-Mix Asphalt Usage: 2019. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Greenbelt, MD, 2020, p. 48. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21946.82888.
2.
European Commission. Buying Green! A Handbook on Green Public Procurement, 3rd ed. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Europe, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2779/246106.
PraticòF. G.GiuntaM.MistrettaM.GulottaT. M.Energy and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Pavement Materials and Technologies for Urban Roads. Sustainability, Vol. 12, 2020, p. 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020704.
5.
MaH.ZhangZ.ZhaoX.WuS.A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) and Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement: A Case Study in China. Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2019, 2019, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9391857.
6.
De VisscherJ.MaeckJ.VansteenkisteS.VanelstraeteA.WaymanM.PeelingJ.BuecheN.SchobingerB.AnastasioS.HoffI.EDGAR: Evaluation and Decision Process for Greener Asphalt Roads. Final Report. Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR), Brussel, Belgium, 2016.
7.
IvelJ.WatsonR.AbbassiB.Abu-HamattehZ. S.Life Cycle Analysis of Concrete and Asphalt Used in Road Pavements. Environmental Engineering Research, Vol. 25, 2019, pp. 52–61. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.399.
BareJ. C.GloriaT. P.Environmental Impact Assessment Taxonomy Providing Comprehensive Coverage of Midpoints, Endpoints, Damages, and Areas of Protection. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, 2008, pp. 1021–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.001.
10.
VidalR.MolinerE.MartínezG.RubioM. C.Life Cycle Assessment of Hot Mix Asphalt and Zeolite-based Warm Mix Asphalt With Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 74, 2013, pp. 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.02.018.
11.
SantosJ.BressiS.CerezoV.Lo PrestiD.SUP&R DSS: A Sustainability-based Decision Support System for Road Pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 206, 2019, pp. 524–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.308.
12.
SanteroN. J.MasanetE.HorvathA.Life-cycle Assessment of Pavements. Part I: Critical Review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 55, 2011, pp. 801–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.03.010.
13.
WangT.LeeI.-S.KendallA.HarveyJ.LeeE.-B.KimC.Life Cycle Energy Consumption and GHG Emission From Pavement Rehabilitation With Different Rolling Resistance. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 33, 2012, pp. 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.001.
14.
FarinaA.ZanettiM. C.SantagataE.BlenginiG. A.Life Cycle Assessment Applied to Bituminous Mixtures Containing Recycled Materials: Crumb Rubber and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 117, 2017, pp. 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.015.
15.
GilbertH. E.RosadoP. J.Ban-WeissG.HarveyJ. T.LiH.MandelB. H.MillsteinD.MoheghA.SabooriA.LevinsonR. M.Energy and Environmental Consequences of a Cool Pavement Campaign. Energy and Buildings, Vol. 157, 2017, pp. 53–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.051.
Siverio LimaM. S.HajibabaeiM.HesarkazzaziS.SitzenfreiR.ButtgereitA.QueirozC.TautschnigA.GschösserF.Environmental Potentials of Asphalt Materials Applied to Urban Roads: Case Study of the City of Münster. Sustainability, Vol. 12, 2020, p. 6113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156113.
18.
SantosJ.FerreiraA.FlintschG.A Life Cycle Assessment Model for Pavement Management: Road Pavement Construction and Management in Portugal. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 16, 2015, pp. 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.942862.
19.
SantosJ.BressiS.CerezoV.Lo PrestiD.DauvergneM.Life Cycle Assessment of Low Temperature Asphalt Mixtures for Road Pavement Surfaces: A Comparative Analysis. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 138, 2018, pp. 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.012.
20.
VegaA. D. L.SantosJ.Martinez-ArguellesG.Life Cycle Assessment of Hot Mix Asphalt With Recycled Concrete Aggregates for Road Pavements Construction. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 23, 2020, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2020.1778694.
21.
MantalovasK.BlancJ.ChailleuxE.Interpreting Life Cycle Assessment Results of Bio-asphalt Pavements for More Informed Decision-making. Proc., International Symposium o Pavement, Roadway, and Bridge Life Cycle Assessment 2020, Sacramento, CA, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2020, 11 p. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003092278-33.
22.
OretoC.RussoF.VeropalumboR.ViscioneN.BiancardoS. A.Dell’AcquaG.Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Asphalt Pavement Solutions Involving Recycled Aggregates and Polymers. Materials, Vol. 14, 2021, p. 3867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14143867.
23.
OretoC.VeropalumboR.ViscioneN.BiancardoS. A.RussoF.Investigating the Environmental Impacts and Engineering Performance of Road Asphalt Pavement Mixtures Made Up of Jet Grouting Waste and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. Environmental Research, Vol. 198, 2021, p. 111277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111277.
24.
International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. NBN EN ISO 14040. ISO, London, 2006.
25.
International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. NBN EN ISO 14044. ISO, London, 2006.
26.
European Committee for Standardization. Sustainability of Construction Works - Environmental Product Declarations - Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. NBN EN 15804. CEN, Brussels, BE, 2019.
27.
BuyleM.BraetJ.AudenaertA.Life Cycle Assessment in the Construction Sector: A Review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 26, 2013, pp. 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.001.
28.
KeijzerE.KootstraL.SchwarzA.BizarroD.KulingL.van HorssenA.AlbersR.Product Category Rules voor bitumineuze materialen in verkeersdragers en waterwerken in Nederland, Utrecht, 2020. www.milieudatabase.nl. Accessed October 26, 2020.
29.
AzarijafariH.YahiaA.AmorB.Removing Shadows From Consequential LCA Through a Time-Dependent Modeling Approach: Policy-Making in the Road Pavement Sector. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2019, 1087–1097. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02865.
30.
MoinsB.FranceC.Van den berghW.AudenaertA.Implementing Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Road Engineering: A Critical Review on Methodological Framework Choices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 133, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110284.
AnthonissenJ.Bituminous Pavements in Flanders. Quantifying the Effect of RAP on the Environmental Impact. PhD thesis. University of Antwerp, Belgium, 2017.
Bucher Municipal. Special Truck-mounted Sweepers: A Complete Product Range of Multi-functional, Heavy-duty and Custom Equipment for Construction, Industrial, Road and Airport Applications. Bucher Municipal, Niederweningen, Switzerland, n.d.
36.
OrtizO.CastellsF.SonnemannG.Sustainability in the Construction Industry: A Review of Recent Developments Based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 23, 2009, pp. 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.012.
37.
FinnvedenG.EldhP.JohanssonJ.Weighting in LCA Based on Ecotaxes - Development of a Mid-point Method and Experiences from Case Studies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 11, 2006, pp. 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015.
38.
BlenginiG. A.CarloT. D.The Changing Role of Life Cycle Phases, Subsystems and Materials in the LCA of Low Energy Buildings. Energy and Buildings, Vol. 42, 2010, pp. 869–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009.
39.
BlankendaalT.SchuurP.VoordijkH.Reducing the Environmental Impact of Concrete and Asphalt: A Scenario Approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 66, 2014, pp. 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.012.
40.
HuijbregtsM. A. J.SteinmannZ. J. N.ElshoutP. M. F.StamG.VeronesF.VieraM. D. M.HollanderA.ZijpM.van ZelmR.ReCiPe 2016: A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level Report I: Characterization. RIVM Report 2016-0104a. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2016.
41.
KalbarP. P.BirkvedM.NygaardS. E.HauschildM.Weighting and Aggregation in Life Cycle Assessment: Do Present Aggregated Single Scores Provide Correct Decision Support?Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 21, 2017, pp. 1591–1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12520.
42.
MoinsB.HernandoD.BuyleM.FranceC.Van den berghW.AudenaertA.On the Road Again! An Economic and Environmental Break-even and Hotspot Analysis of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Rejuvenators. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 177, 2022, p. 106014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106014.
ZaumanisM.MallickR. B.FrankR.100% Recycled Hot Mix Asphalt: A Review and Analysis. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 92, 2014, pp. 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.007.
45.
ParkW. J.KimR.RohS.BanH.Analysis of Major Environmental Impact Categories of Road Construction Materials. Sustainability, Vol. 12, 2020, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176951.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
