Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.3 Identifying and Ranking
3.3.1 Data Collection Method
Figure 3.2: Research Methodology of the Survey
A comprehensive literature review was conducted to investigate: (1) previous studies in the area of maintenance strategies evaluation; (2) current methods of evaluation; (3) current standard and guidelines; and (4) most importantly, a list of factors that can influence decision making in road maintenance. Additionally, reports, standards and guidelines were analysed in depth to apply the data as references to calculate the values and refer to identify the influencing factor. Table 3.1 presents the lists that this study adopted and applied directly to calculate the value of factors, while Table 3.2 presents a list of the reports, standards and guidelines adopted to identify the influencing factors on road maintenance.
Table 3.1: Data Used Directly for the Value Calculation
Title Publication Country Adopted data
National Greenhouse Accounts Factors
Australian National Greenhouse Accounts
Australia
(2015) Emissions factors Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Workbook for Road Projects
Transport Authorities Greenhouse Group
Australia
(2013) Emissions factors Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation in Road Construction and Rehabilitation
The World Bank The US
(2010)
Emissions factors Capacity data source
PV2 Road Parameter Values Transport and Infrastructure Council
Australia (2016)
RUC parameter values and equations
Table 3.2: List of Reports, Standards and Guidelines
Title Publication Year Country Reference
Transport and Main Roads Specifications, MRTS30 Asphalt Pavements
State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)
2017 Australia Asphalt pavement requirements
Sustainable Asset Management Report (Project 3.48)
Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre
2017 Australia LCA process, LCCA process
State Roads Infrastructure Asset Management Policy
Tasmanian Government (Department of State Growth)
2017 Australia Asset management policy
Guide to Pavement Technology Austroads 2013,
2014, 2016
Australia Pavement principles and practice
Pavement Rehabilitation Manual State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)
2012 Australia Pavement principles and technology
Austroads Technical Report Austroads 2011 Australia RUC and cost relationship
Austroads Research Report Austroads 2005 Australia RUC models
Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Framework US Department of Transportation 2016 US LCA process Rehabilitation Design of Asphalt Concrete
Pavements at the North Area Recovery Station (NARS)
Department of Waste Management and Recycling
2015 US Rehabilitation design
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
US Department of Transportation 2015 US Pavement treatment types
Evaluation of Traffic Flow Analysis and Road User Cost Tools Applied to Work Zones
US Department of Transportation 2015 US RUC categorised situation cases
Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions Generated by the Transport Sector in ECA: Policy Options
The World Bank 2013 US Regulation and technology of transport
sector
Work Zone Road User Costs US Department of Transportation 2011 US RUC parameters
Road User Cost Manual US Department of Transportation 2001 US RUC parameters and equation methods
Guidelines for Assessing Pavement Preservation Treatment and Strategies
Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation 2006 Canada Process of treatment selections
Road Rehabilitation Energy Reduction Guide for Canadian Road Builders
Canadian Construction Association 2005 Canada Energy use of equipment
Energy Use Generated by Traffic and Pavement Maintenance
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute
2012 Europe (Sweden)
Energy calculation
Life Cycle Inventory: Bitumen Eurobitume 2012 Europe
(Belgium)
LCI of material (bitumen)
Life Cycle Assessment of Roads and Pavement Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute
2011 Europe (Sweden)
LCA of road pavements
Life Cycle Assessment of Road IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
2001 Europe (Sweden)
A questionnaire was designed in accordance with the research aim and Objective 1. The development and dissemination of the questionnaire supported the quantitative analysis of the research. The questionnaire included questions relating to the influencing factors of road maintenance, as displayed in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Road Maintenance Decision-making Indicators for This Study
Road maintenance decision-making indicators M: Assessing the effect of maintenance activities
Me: Economic (cost)
Mc1: Construction material cost
Mc2: Transportation cost
Mc3: Onsite construction cost
Mc4: End-of-life cost
Mo: Organisational
Mo1: Budget limitations
Mo2: Selection of contractors/sub-contractors
Mo3: Availability of human resources
Mo4: Guidelines, regulations, policies
Mo5: Road conditions
Ms: Social
Ms1: VOC
Ms2: VOT
Ms3: AC
Ms4: Local business effects
Me: Environmental
Me1: Emissions cost
Me2: Waste
Me3: Energy
Mw: Willingness to improve maintenance practice
Mw1: Top management commitment
Mw2: Availability of relevant resources
Mw3: Appropriate training
R&E: Factors leading to the low adoption of RUC and environmental considerations Ro & Eo: Organisational
Ro1 & Eo1: Cost of investment
Ro2 & Eo2: Learning curves to obtain new knowledge
Ro4 & Eo4: Difficulty measuring benefits
Rk & Ek: Knowledge
Rk1 & Ek1: Unfamiliar with the assessment methodology
Rk2 & Ek2: Unavailability of a ready-to-use platform
Rk3 & Ek3: Translation to maintenance decision making
Rl & El: Legal
Rl1 & El1: Lack of industry standards
Rl2 & El2: Limited successful implementation
Rl3 & El3: Lack of incentive
Rl4 & El4: Lack of promotion from the government
The importance of the factors was rated using a nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 9, where 1 = not important at all, 5 = moderately important and 9 = extremely important. In addition, based on previous studies on the social impact of maintenance activities, the knowledge level of RUC calculation method was considered to investigate the application status of the current situation, and rated on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = extremely low, 3 = moderate and 5 = extremely high. The five-point Likert scale was used in this section because it was not intended to analyse the details, but to identify which methodology was well known and being used. General descriptions of these factors are provided in Chapter 4 and the sample questionnaire is attached in Appendix 1.