Glick, S; Shuler, S and Guggemos, A A (2013) Life cycle analysis for sustainable development: A case study of parking lot pavements. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 9(3), pp. 226-236. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
The use of porous pavement allows water to drain into an aggregate storage layer beneath the pavement for temporary storage as it percolates into the aquifer below. When using this system in a parking lot application, the need for curb and gutter to channel the stormwater into a nearby retention basin is eliminated, as is the retention basin itself. An initial analysis of the porous system appears to solve some of the environmental issues related to stormwater runoff and aquifer recharge. However, these systems have not been evaluated using both life-cycle cost and life-cycle assessment to fully understand the costs and environmental implications of choosing one system over another. A case study was used to compare the two asphalt systems in a large parking lot application. The results show that the conventional asphalt system is both more cost effective and environmentally benign. The emissions area identified as having the greatest CO2 impact is the manufacturing/mining and extraction of aggregates making it an area that could be targeted for increased efficiencies and emission reductions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | assessment; life-cycle; life-cycle cost; porous asphalt |
| Index terms: | sustainable development, stormwater, retention, mining, life cycle analysis, aggregate, case study, efficiency, environmental issue |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, environmental engineering, environmental issues, environmental impact, materials science, health safety and environment, geotechnical engineering, performance management, management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Quality Management, Sustainability, Human Resources, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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