Consistency between Infrastructure Rating Systems in Measuring Sustainability

Abstract

To date, several transportation sustainability rating systems (TSRS) have been developed to measure and promote sustainability. However, studies show that these TSRS have not been developed with a consistent sustainability scope. This raises the question of the consistency of these TSRS in measuring the sustainability of transportation projects. This study assesses how three prominent TSRS (Envision, INVEST, and GreenLITES) rate the sustainability performance of transportation projects with the goal of determining if a consistency exists in the way these three TSRS measure sustainability. These three TSRS are applied to five transportation projects. The results showed that these three rating tools assess and reward sustainability practices differently. Additionally, results suggest that it may be easier for a project to get awarded in GreenLITES compared to the other two TSRS. Notwithstanding all of the above, a consistency was noted in all three rating systems in the quality of life/social performance of projects. This study helps to inform stakeholders in the transportation industry on how transportation projects perform when run through each of these rating systems. This will help stakeholders to make informed decisions with respect to choosing one (or more) TSRS to assess their projects with and evaluating the results obtained from such TSRS.

The Limitations of EMSs in Comparison with the SDGs When Considering Infrastructure Sustainability: The Case of the Terzo Valico Dei Giovi, Italy

“…To carry out this process, the comparison with Envision was decided upon since the latter is structured according to a clear methodical checklist valid for any infrastructure and is, therefore, reproducible. The evaluation systems for sustainable infrastructures differ in their choice of credits, their organization, and the importance attached to each [75] and it is, therefore, possible to assess Envision's adherence to the SDGs by verifying which aspects the 59 credits cover.…”

“…The first approach is based on a process of analogy and similarity of intentions; the second involves a weighted application between the targets of the SDGs and the Envision score attributions (Figure 2). to each [75] and it is, therefore, possible to assess Envision's adherence to the SDGs by verifying which aspects the 59 credits cover.…”