Gandy, C A (2024) Social equity in transportation infrastructure management: Quantitative methods for assessing and improving the distribution of public investments. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, USA.
Abstract
In this dissertation, I study the distributional equity of transportation infrastructure conditions in the United States. Grounding my interdisciplinary approach in infrastructure asset management practice and social justice theory, I develop several analytical methods for conducting quantitative equity screenings, determining the socioeconomic impacts of infrastructure quality, and rectifying inequities through improved project selection. Previous studies of community-level impacts have either focused on individual projects or the distribution of roadway condition across a single city. Thus, the distribution of infrastructure condition, maintenance actions during the operational life of the assets, and the associated impacts on the neighboring communities are under-studied. To complement these important studies and inform the stakeholder engagement processes that emanate from them, I scale quantitative social equity screenings to state and national infrastructure management programs. For nationwide studies of bridge and highway inventories, I find that the risks and burdens associated with roads and bridges in poor condition have asymmetrically been borne by socioeconomically disadvantaged and marginalized communities (Study 1, Chapter 2). Through econometric assessments of the communities near the highway, I find that the burdens from poor condition highways are associated with less employment, lower earnings, and less vehicle commuting (Study 2, Chapter 3). For bridges in the United States, I show that addressing these inequities with socially-aware project selecting criteria is feasible within realistic budgets and does not decrease the overall performance of the inventory (Study 3, Chapter 4). Beyond transportation infrastructure management in the United States, these methods could be adapted to assess equity and prioritize investment plans for a myriad of infrastructure systems and public services that have long life-cycles and entrenched footprints such as dams, tunnels, and other such assets.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Armanios, D and Samaras, C |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | social justice; inventory; asset management; employment; infrastructure management; stakeholder; United States; econometric; bridge; highway; tunnel; investment; life cycle |
| Index terms: | quantitative method, employment, econometric, life cycle, program, infrastructure management, marginalized community, social justice, screening, tunnel, public services, dissertation, asset management, infrastructure asset management, United States, transportation infrastructure, stakeholder engagement, project selection, inventory |
| Subjects: | asset management, infrastructure and transport systems, research dissemination and communication, administrative law, data analysis and analytics, economic analysis, inventory management, value management, Geography, sociology, infrastructure engineering, community and social dimensions, demography, management, software systems |
| Topics: | Ethics, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Human Resources, Research Practice, Supply Chain Management, Digital Applications, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here