Social Impact Assessment Comparison of Composite and Concrete Bridge Alternatives

David Martínez-Muñoz, Jose V. Martí and Víctor Yepes
Additional contact information
David Martínez-Muñoz: Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
Jose V. Martí: Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
Víctor Yepes: Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 9, 1-19

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: sustainability; bridges; structures; LCA; recipe; soca (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5186/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5186/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5186-:d:801854

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().