Zhou Et Al 2021

Article
Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment: Study

of Bridges in China’s Five Major Economic Regions
ZhiWu Zhou *, Julián Alcalá and Víctor Yepes
Institute of Concrete Science and Technology (ICITECH), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valenci,
Spain; jualgon@cst.upv.es (J.A.); vyepesp@cst.upv.es (V.Y.)
* Correspondence: zhizh2@doctor.upv.es; Tel.: +34-96-387-9563
Abstract: The construction industry of all countries in the world is facing the issue of sustainable
development. How to make effective and accurate decision-making on the three pillars (Environ-
ment; Economy; Social influence) is the key factor. This manuscript is based on an accurate evalua-
tion framework and theoretical modelling. Through a comprehensive evaluation of six cable-stayed
highway bridges in the entire life cycle of five provinces in China (from cradle to grave), the research
shows that life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), life cycle cost assessment (LCCA), and social impact
life assessment (SILA) are under the influence of multi-factor change decisions. The manuscript fo-
cused on the analysis of the natural environment over 100 years, material replacement, waste recy-
cling, traffic density, casualty costs, community benefits and other key factors. Based on the analysis
data, the close connection between high pollution levels and high cost in the maintenance stage was
deeply promoted, an innovative comprehensive evaluation discrete mathematical decision-making
model was established, and a reasonable interval between gross domestic product (GDP) and sus-
tainable development was determined.
Citation: Zhou, Z.; Alcalá, J.; Yepes,

Keywords: sustainable development; LCIA; LCCA; SILA; cable-stayed bridge; GDP
V. Environmental, Economic and
Social Impact Assessment: Study of
Bridges in China’s Five Major Eco-
nomic Regions. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2021, 18, 122. https://
1. Introduction
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010122 The most common greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere include water vapour
(H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3) and chloro-
Received: 26 November 2020 fluorocarbons (CFC). The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a domi-
Accepted: 22 December 2020 nant influence on global warming [1,2]. According to predictions by the United Nations,
Published: 26 December 2020 the world’s population will reach 9.8 billion in 2050 [3]. Population shifts will result in a
massive consumption of resources and a rapid growth of energy requirements [4]. This
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
makes the sustainable development of the construction industry, which accounts for 44%
tral with regard to jurisdictional
of all energy consumption, become more urgent [5,6]. What is the key to sustainable de-
claims in published maps and insti-
velopment? It is to reduce environmental, economic and social impacts [7]. Thus, the scope
tutional affiliations.
of research is expanded to the economic and social aspects, and the close correlation be-
tween producers and consumers is increased [8].
To avoid the serious consequences brought about by climate change, efforts should
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors.
be made to substantially reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Hansen et al. revealed
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must be less than 350 parts per
This article is an open access article million (ppm); otherwise, climate change will get worse [9]. The analysis of the latest
distributed under the terms and global atmospheric observations by the World Meteorological Organisation shows that
conditions of the Creative Com- the global mean surface mole fractions of CO2, CH4, and N2O reached new highs in 2015,
mons Attribution (CC BY) license i.e., 400.0 ± 0.1 ppm, 1845 ± 2 parts per billion (ppb), and 328.0 ± 0.1 ppb, respectively.
(http://creativecommons.org/li- These values constitute 144%, 256% and 121% of the pre-industrial levels (before 1750),
censes/by/4.0/). respectively [10].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010122 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 122 15 of 32
Low-carbon energy consumption and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

from the construction industry are particularly critical [11]. Lin and Liu. cited the CO2
emissions from commercial and residential buildings in China, surveyed by the Index De-
composition Analysis (IDA), which concluded that emissions from the construction in-
dustry account for 30–50% of the total emissions [12]. Science researchers all over the
world have proposed measures to reduce environmental pollution caused by the con-
struction industry. For the accuracy and systematisms of the research, LCIA was intro-
duced to solve problems facing the construction industry [13,14]. Standardised provisions
for multiple systemic analysis methods were given in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 [15].
Table 1 shows a comparative analysis of the latest research results of LCIA, LCCA
and SILA.
First, this study aims to evaluate the impact of LCIA~LCCA~SILA (2L~1S) on six
bridges in five different regions of China. This study will fill the gap in the research for
bridges of similar structure and purpose across regions, provinces, and economic belts in
this field. Secondly, the process of 2L~1S is digitised and visualised to display the research
results more intuitively. Thirdly, this study also considers the mutual influence between
2L~1S and the regional economic belts, to obtain the optimal interval and scope of influence.
The main purpose of this research is to analyse and study the comprehensive impact
of bridges of the same structure in different regional economic zones on the environment,
economy and society (three pillars) throughout their life cycle through software. In addi-
tion, discussed the correlation between regional economic development and the three pil-
lars through modelling.
The innovations of the research are as follows: (1) break through the usual sustaina-
bility research and only focus on textual descriptions, without accurate modelling data
descriptions; (2) the selected research case represents the influence status between the
main economic belts in China and has important guiding significance for the future plan-
ning of the government and related departments.
The rest of this work will be divided into the following sections: Section 2: Methods;
Section 3: Results and Discussion; Section 4: Conclusions.
Table 1. Recent statistics and analysis of some closely related achievements.

Referen
Methods Description Characteristic Limitation
ces
How to reduce
Preventive design using The research content is
environmental pollution in
15 different methods of relatively concentrated, single,
the maintenance stage: [16]
LCA concrete bridge and focuses on material
Design and evaluation of 15
deck. replacement.
preventive measures.
Ideal research design for the
future. There are currently no
Use wooden bridges and
Use LCIA to evaluate the large-span wooden bridges in
alternative concrete to
rationality of the bridge operation. There are [17]
analyse the LCA impact of a
design. assumptions and uncertainties
cable-stayed bridge.
in the maintenance assessment
LCIA of wooden bridges.
The study was conducted
The LCA study of ordinary
Apply life cycle using 27 bridges, and it was
highway bridges, the
sustainability assessment determined that a bridge
conclusion is whether it is [18]
to the superstructure of composed of steel and
suitable for long-span special
small span bridges. concrete was the best
bridges.
indicator.
LCA was used to assess
The research structure has a
the environmental The road selection is in a
complete range of tunnels,
impact of the entire 60- remote area, and the research [19]
bridges, roadbeds, culverts,
year life span of the data are not representative.
etc.
provincial highway.
Several cases (schools,

There are many types of
hospitals, commercial
structures studied, and an The research conclusions are
and residential
evaluation model is poorly comparable, and the [20]
buildings) were
established to quantitatively LCA data are highly uncertain.
quantitatively studied
analyse emissions.
using LCA.
The article introduces a
The focus is on analysis, All the articles in this article are
general framework for
prediction, optimization and cost theory analysis, and there
evaluating bridge life [21]
decision-making under is no specific bridge case
cycle performance and
bridge uncertainty. analysis.
cost.
Research and develop an Contributed to the systematic
LCCA model to evaluate and informatised evaluation Lack of case studies and model
[22]
highway infrastructure method of highway application research.
investment. infrastructure investment.
The energy consumption Combining LCA and LCCA
Case application analysis of
cost of highway to determine the best
pavement concrete
pavement is analysed pavement frame, road [23]
LCCA sustainability, no structural
based on LCCA and expansion projects are more
concrete evaluation.
LCA. practical.
Calculate the environmental
Quantify the life cycle
costs of materials, energy, The main research is the LCCA
environmental impact of
transportation and influence of the bridge girder [24]
the structure through
construction equipment for structure.
environmental costs.
the bridge structure.
The LCC and LCA
Economic and environmental
analysis of concrete The bridge structure is simply
impact analysis of reinforced
bridges were discussed, a simply supported beam [25]
concrete and prestressed
and the optimization bridge across the river.
concrete bridges.
scheme was proposed.
Use SLCA to clarify the Use representational models
assessment (IA) methods to analyse the difference and All are written descriptions,
and information covered connection between social without modeling and data [26–28]
in the different impact influence and social analysis.
guidelines. performance.
Analysed the overall social
Use SIA to study and
issues in the process of
practice all issues related
community and project
to social issues in the Lack of case application
management. Put forward [29,30]
entire project life cycle analysis and discussion.
that the biggest social
(before conception to
problem management in the
after closure).
project is corruption.
SIA is undergoing a SIA’s unfamiliarity with
revolutionary force and social sciences and the Lack of case application
[31,32]
revolutionary force for concerns of practitioners’ lack analysis and discussion.
change. of competence.
Talked about the project SIA’s
Consider four conceptual attention to sensitive factors
EIA and SIA have
elements in a sociological and the improvement of social
technical flaws in [33,34]
context of complexity and responsibility. How to realize
analysis and evaluation.
vitality. the scientific methodology
needs to be developed.
Evaluate the Multi-criteria decision
The research is sustainable and
sustainability analysis methods are used to
comprehensive, the evaluation
performance of different evaluate and prioritise the [35]
structure is single, and
concrete and stone walls alternative walls generated
recycling is not considered.
LCIA\LCCA\ used in the building. by LCA, LCC and S-LCA.
SILA The study analysed the There are few studies on the
The comparison of wood and
impact of different mixed three pillars of sustainability.
concrete in the building
timber building This article has the same [36]
structure has been analysed
structures on three research route and different
to improve sustainability.
different categories of structures.
environment, economy
and society.
Researchers focus on the It mainly studies the process of
Three box-type concrete
environmental pillar, while sustainability assessment and
bridges were optimised [37]
the social pillar has been slow briefly analyses three precast
and sustainable.
to develop. concrete bridges.
Discussed the framework
for assessing the The sustainability of four
sustainability of bridges, versions of the same bridge There is a lack of sustainable
including related was studied, and the local research on regional and actual [38]
technical, economic, details of the bridge were operating bridges.
environmental and social analysed.
issues.
2. Methods
LCIA has become an international standardisation tool for environmental assessment
[39,40]. Preliminary conditions need to be defined for every study: the functional unit and
system boundary of the assessment were the six bridges and the SILAs of the correspond-
ing communities. The assessment was conducted based on the LCIA, covering the whole
of the life cycle. LCIA was analysed by using OpenLCA (Life cycle assessment) 1.10.1,
LCCA by the budgetary estimate process, and SILA by OpenLCA1.10.3(OpenLCA devel-
opment team, Berlin, Germany)[14]. The three tools are relevant and systematic. The da-
tabases used in this study included Ecoinvent [41], Bedec [42], and Product Social Impact
Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) [43]. See Sections 2.1 and 2.2 for detailed modelling.
2.1. Modeling Analysis

The construction industry is the most active sector in both developed and developing
countries, forming a high global consistency [44]. LCIA was included as a sustainable sur-
vey method, because it can systematically assess the environment in all directions and
complete the selection of friendly products [45]. ISO has issued a series of 14,040 standards
and International Life Cycle Data (ILCD) manuals to promote sustainable development
[15,46].
2.1.1. LCIA
The studied cases were six representative cable-stayed bridges, including South Tai
Hu Lake Bridge (STHB), Shenzhen Bay Bridge (SZBB), New Bridge of Xishuangbanna
Tropical Botanical Garden (BGNB), Cable-stayed Bridge of Changjiang West Road,
Deyang City (CJWB), Hanjiang Highway Bridge, Xiantao City (XTHB), and Baishan
Bridge, Baishan City (BSCB). Five of them adopted a reinforced concrete structure and
one adopted a steel structure (the main beam of SZBB is constructed by welding and bolt-
ing steel components). All of them have a single tower. The length of the main bridge
ranges from 136 to 410 m and all six bridges are Class I municipal highway bridges. Table
2 shows the detailed data.
Table 2. Cable-stayed bridge maintenance data statistics table.

Check Inspection
Check Parts Maintenance Cycle
Method Cycle
Daily check Working day Pier foundation, cone slope, side wall of bridge abutment,
pavement of bridge deck, drainage system, sidewalk,
railing, guardrail, anti-collision wall of bridge deck,
lighting system on bridge, expansion device, bridge head
One Maintenance/year,
Frequency laying plate, sign, marking and traffic safety facilities,
time/every Overhaul/5 years.
check bridge installation sensors, wiring, cables, anchorage
month
protection inspection, bridge damping device normal
operation, support cleaning, rust and corrosion
prevention.
Maintenance/year,
Coating layer of exposed concrete.
Replacement/5 years.
Maintenance/year,
Bridge deck paving, waterproof layer. Overhaul/2 years,
Maintenance/year,
Anti-collision guardrail, expansion joint. Overhaul/2-5 years,
Maintenance/year,
Cable-stayed bridge cables, slings, tie rods, external
Overhaul/5 years,
damping devices.
Regular One time/one
Maintenance/year,
check to three years Main beams, steel supports, bridge floor drainage pipes,
Overhaul/5 years,
bridge floor lighting facilities.
Maintenance/year,
Basin type rubber bearing. Overhaul/5 years,
Maintenance/year,
Damping device between towers and beams. Overhaul/5 years,
Maintenance/year,
Main beams, steel supports, bridge floor drainage pipes,
Overhaul/5 years,
bridge floor lighting facilities.
According to ISO standards, and the requirement for the scope of strict assessment
and examination of the life cycle of the bridge [47–49], the full life cycle of these six bridges
was analysed in five stages: survey and design, material manufacturing, construction and
installation, maintenance and operation, and disassembly and recycling. Since the cross
section of the main girder of the bridge is variable, the calculation unit was based on 1
cubic meter. In order to achieve the rationality of the data comparison study and analysis,
the study length of the six cable-stayed bridges was selected as a uniform 390 m to input
relevant data (390 m including the main bridge and some auxiliary bridges).
Seven key impact categories, including energy use, ecotoxicity, acidification, eu-
trophication, climate change, particulate matter formation and ozone depletion, were de-
termined through the comparative analysis of the oxidation separation of fossil materials
and the European Union Product Environmental Footprint (EUPEF) [50–52]. Five of these
seven categories were selected as the important goals of bridges’ LCIA: global warming
potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), free-water eutrophication potential (FEP),
particulate matter formation potential (PMFP), including fumes and dust, and waste po-
tential (WP).
The assessment and modelling method of LCIA has a midpoint and endpoint.
Huijbregts et al. made a clear distinction and explanation in their reports ReCiPe 2008 and
2016 LCIA [53,54]. By comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the two modelling
approaches [55], it was found that the midpoint modelling is more appropriate for stages,
while the end-point modelling is more appropriate for intervals.
Major modelling formulas of LCIS:
Environmental impact contribution of transport vehicle:
E =∑ K × ∑ K + K + ⋯⋯+ K × M × （1 + α） × V × λ +······
(1)
+K × ∑ K + K + ⋯⋯+ K × M × （1 + β） × V × λ
where E = Environmental impact contribution of transport vehicle (kg); K , K = Fuel
consumption of vehicles i , j (L/100 km); V = Quantity of surveying vehicles i , j ; α, β =
Engine fuel loss of different types of vehicles (%); and λ = Physical and chemical envi-
ronmental emission coefficient of fuel μ (kg/kg) [56].
Environmental impact contribution of mechanical equipment:
M =∑ { G × (1 + α) × T × λ ⊕λ +⋯ ⋯ + G × (1 + α) × T ×
(2)
λ ⊕λ }
where M = Environmental impact contribution of mechanical equipment (kg); G , G
= Fuel consumption and power consumption of equipment i j (kg/h, kWh); T = Nor-
mal working hour of mechanical equipment (h); ⊕ = Logic “Or”; and λ = Physical and
chemical environmental emission coefficient of electric energy ν (kg/kg).
Environmental impact contribution of personnel:
P =W ×λ × T (3)
where P = Environmental impact contribution of personnel (kg); W = Total number
of personnel (persons); λ = Environmental impact coefficient of personnel (kg/working
day/person); T =Total working hours of personnel (working day).
Environmental impact contribution of office facilities:
W =∑ [F × T × (1 + L ) × λ ] +······ [F ×T × 1+L ×λ] (4)

where W = Environmental impact contribution of office facilities (kg); F , F = Power
consumption of office facilities i, j (Kwh); T , T = Working hours of office facilities i , j
(h); and L , L = Electricity loss coefficient of facilities i, j (%).
SimaPro has been the world’s leading life cycle assessment (LCA) software package
for 30 years; it is trusted by industry and academics in more than 80 countries [57].
OpenLCA can access the social and economic impact of 15 different life cycles. The soft-
ware has been widely used in various industries and research fields in Europe, the United
States, Japan and the rest of the world; it is supported by databases such as Ecoinvent,
Bedec, Soca, bridge design, construction drawings, and published research results.
2.1.2. LCCA
LCCA of bridges mainly includes initial cost, cost of maintenance, repair and replace-
ment, casualties of personnel or loss of goods during operation, road use cost, and indirect
loss of socio-economic benefits [58,59]. In order to accurately estimate these costs, it is
necessary to clarify the degradation rate of bridge components and build a correct model
for the designated fatigue life index [60,61]. Table 2 shows the maintenance cycle. The core
elements of LCCA are financial factors, inter-generational responsibility, environmental
aspects and sustainability, realising the optimal balance between safety, economic effi-
ciency, and sustainability [62].
LCCA was conducted in accordance with the process of highway engineering in
China, as shown in Figure 1. It was of equal importance to determine the life cycle cost,
cost benefit, or cost risk by considering a variety of ways of calculating cost benefit [58].
∑ ( ,) ∑ [ ( , )] ∑ ( ,)
E C x，T =C (x)+∑ ( )
(5)
where E C x，T = LCCA cost in the preparatory stage (Chinese Yuan: CNY);
C (x) = Direct cost in the preparatory stage (CNY);∑ E C (x, t) = Consulting fee
of the development organisation (CNY); ∑ E[C (x, t)] = Impact assessment fee of
the development organisation (CNY); ∑ E C (x, t) = Other costs incurred in the
preparatory stage of the project, including expert review fee, transportation fee, approval
procedure fee, office fee, labour fee for related personnel (CNY); and r = Discount rate
(%).
Figure 1. Basic procedure flow chart of highway engineering construction.
The service rate for the project-bidding agency issued by National Development and
Reform Commission is given by [63]:
C =
500 million CNY ≤ C (x，T ) ≤ 1,000 million CNY C = 0.035% ∗ C
⎧
⎪ 1,000 million CNY < C (x ，T ) ≤ 5,000 million CNY C = 0.008% ∗ C
(6)
5,000 million CNY < C (x ，T ) ≤ 10,000 million CNY C = 0.006% ∗ C
⎨ 10,000 million CNY < C (x，T ) C = 0.004% ∗ C
⎪
⎩ C = Maximum amount 3.5 million CNY 3.0 million CNY, 4.5 million CNY
Costs of survey and design:
C (x, T )=
C (x) + ∑ x, t (1 ± λ ) + ∑ x, t +C (x) + ∑ x, t
[1 (7)
(1 + r)
± (C )][1 ± (R )]
where C (x, T ) = LCCA cost in the stage of survey and design (CNY); C (x),
C (x) = Direct cost in the stage of survey and design
(CNY);∑ x, t ,∑ x, t =Indirect cost in the stage of survey and design
(CNY); R = National tax rate (%); C = Adjustment range (%); and λ = Adjustment
coefficient [64].
T ≥ 35℃ λ = 1.2
⎧ T ≤ −10℃ λ = 1.2
⎪
2,000meters ≤ H ≤ 3,000meters λ = 1.1
λ = (8)
⎨3,001meters ≤ H ≤ 3,500meters λ = 1.2
⎪3,501meters ≤ H ≤ 4,000meters λ = 1.3
⎩ 4,001meters ≤ H λ ≫ 1.3(Negotiated price)
where T = Ambient temperature of the place where the project locates (℃), and
H = Altitude of the place where the project locates (m).
Concerning the rate for the design and examination of construction drawings [63], it
is charged by the budgetary investment ratio, thus the rate should not be higher than 2‰
of the budget amount of the project.
Construction costs:
C x，T =
C +C + C +C ∗C (9)
[1 ± (R )]
(1 + r)
where C (x，T ) = LCCA cost in the stage of construction (CNY); C = Di-

rect cost of the project (CNY); C = Indirect cost of the project (CNY); and C
= Construction profits of the project (CNY).
Costs of maintenance and operation:
Global warming and extreme weather events have resulted in observable effects on
people, the environment, and civil infrastructures [6]. Stewart et al. proposed four main
factors for infrastructure corrosion and structural performance deterioration, including
temperature [65]. Barbara Rossi et al. concluded that the total project cost decreases with
the increase in the discount rate, and the period of investment return ranges between 18.5
and 24.2 years [66].
The six bridges are located in five economic belts. Climate, traffic density, traffic ac-
cidents, load effect of heavy-duty vehicles, and natural disasters (such as flooding, ice
damage, freezing damage and mudslides) have different degrees of impact on the mainte-
nance costs of bridges. The analysis was carried out according to the Chinese Code for
Maintenance of Highway Bridges and Culverts (JTG H11-2004), as shown in Table 1
[67,68].
Costs of maintenance and repair: C x, T =
⎧ C +C T
[1 ± (R )] Maintenance costs
⎪ (1 + r) T
⎪
⎪ C +C T
⎪ [1 ± (R )] Strengthening structure costs
⎪ (1 + r) T
⎪
⎪ C +C T
⎪ [1 ± (R )] Emergency repair costs of road
(1 + r) T
⎪
⎪
C +C T
[1 ± (R )] Routine maintenance costs (10)
⎨ (1 + r) T
⎪
⎪ C +C T
⎪ [1 ± (R )] Intermediate maintenance costs
(1 + r) T
⎪
⎪
⎪ C +C T
[1 ± (R )] Heavy maintenance costs
⎪ (1 + r) T
⎪
⎪ C +C T
⎪ [1 ± (R )] Mad improvement costs
(1 + r) T
⎩
where C x, T = Costs of maintenance and operation (CNY);
T represents the days of each maintenance cycle (days); and
T ,T ,T ,
T ,T ,T , and T
represent the total time for maintenance (days), the total time for strengthening (days),
the total time of emergency repair (days), the total time for routine maintenance (days),
the total time for intermediate maintenance (days), the total time for heavy maintenance
(days), and the total time for overhaul maintenance (days), respectively.
Costs of traffic accidents:
Civilian car ownership in China reached 232,312,300 units in 2018, increasing by

42.7% since 2015 [69]. Wang et al. analysed the severity of traffic accidents in China from
a macro perspective, finding that the total fatality rate and man-made injury rate of high-
way traffic accidents from 2000 to 2016 increased by 19.0% and 63.7% [70]. Vlegel et al.
found that the average per capita health care cost was EU 8200 and the productivity cost
was EU 5900 [71]. Rukaibi et al. estimated that the average cost of a traffic accident in
Kuwait was 9122 KD/crash (equivalent to EU 25,333.02) [72]. According to the data in the
China Statistical Yearbook-2019, there were 244,937 traffic accidents in 2018, resulting in
63,194 deaths, 258,532 injuries, and direct property losses of CNY 1385 million [69].
C x, T =
⎧ C +C +C
[(1 + e) ]
⎪ (1 + r)
⎪
⎪
⎪ C = C +C +C
⎪
(11)
⎨
⎪ C = C +C
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ C = C +C +C
⎩
where C x, T = Cost of traffic accidents (CNY);
C ;C ; C = Human costs (CNY); property damage
(CNY); other related losses (CNY); and e = Economic growth rate (%).
The six bridges studied are municipal highway bridges and no traffic tolls were
charged during the operation.
The total costs required in the stage of maintenance and operation are the sum of
Equations (10) and (11).
Disassembly costs:
The cable-stayed bridges will be disassembled at the expiration of their designed ser-
vice life. The modelling of incurred costs was subject to Eq. (4). The materials to be demol-
ished include broken concrete, scrap steel and waste. Construction wastes dumped and
stacked in the natural environment without authorisation are one of the sources of envi-
ronmental pollution [73]. In recent years, countries all over the world have been using
recycled materials for sustainable development and steel is re-smelted for recycling
[74,75].
Recycling cost of waste and scraps:
C x, T =
C ∗u ∗C C ∗u ∗C (12)
(1 + r)
where C x, T = Recycling costs of waste and scraps (CNY); C

= Quantity of demolished concrete waste (kg); u , = Recovery rate of concrete
and steel waste (%); and C ,C ”51” = Cost of recycling and
disposal (CNY/kg).
2.1.3. SILA
SILA witnessed its heyday from 1970 to 1980 and has been widely practiced in many
fields around the world [76]. Social impact assessment comprises analysing, monitoring,
and managing the social impacts of a project to bring about a more sustainable and equi-
table biophysical and human environment [77]. However, the assessment criteria and the
quality of collected data are affected due to the limited resources of social assessment and
the limited ability of regulatory agencies to control the management system [78,79].
PSILCA and USDA data and the Social Hotspots Database (SHDB) were used in this
study to assess the research on sustainable social pillars [80,81]. The PSILCA database
features the latest data sources, the original data sources and the quality assessment of
risk data. Furthermore, the social contact messages from the PSILCA database can be as-
sociated with each other in the manner of SOCA (SOCA is an add-on for the Ecoinvent
database, containing social inventory data based on PSILCA.) via Green Delta. The pro-
cesses that are identical to those in environmental assessment can be used for social as-
sessment, thus realising the coherence of the entire assessment (show in Figure 2). SILA
uses input data from the LCIA for environmental and social assessment and determines
54 quantitative and qualitative indexes for 18 categories [82]. Five of the analysis indexes
are closely related to the community stakeholders, according to the location where the six
bridges are located and can be used as the factors for the social impact analysis. The five
indexes are fatal accidents (FA), international migrant workers (IMW), youth illiteracy
(YI), corruption (C), and sanitation coverage (SC).
According to the location of the six bridges in the region, the five indexes selected are
closely linked to community stakeholders and can be used as factors for social impact
analysis.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the LCIA, LCCA, and SILA analysis process.
2.2. Research Process

The six cable-stayed bridges across five geographical zones of China (Northeast
China, East China, Central China, South China, and Southwest China) and six provinces
(Zhejiang, Guangdong, Sichuan, Hubei, Yunnan and Jilin) were selected as the objects of
study [83]. They are important in terms of geographical location, economic value, envi-
ronmental impact, and social assessment, becoming the strong backing for this study, as
shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of cable-stayed bridge regional distribution [83].
2.2.1. LCIA
General information about the six bridges is shown in Table 2. All of these bridges
have been completed and put into operation. They are the main highway bridges of the
cities where they are located.
The Chinese government classifies cities by criteria including the agglomeration de-
gree of commercial resources, urban pivotability, resident activeness, lifestyle diversity
and future plasticity [84]. Among these six cable-stayed bridges, STHB is located in a
third-tier city, SZBB in a first-tier city, BGNB in a fourth-tier city, CJWB in a fourth-tier
city, XTHB in a fifth-tier city, and BSCB in a fifth-tier city.
They were designed by six design institutes in different regions, which are between
84 and 2380 km away from the project sites. The surveying equipment used was self-
owned, calibrated equipment with high precision, which needed to be transported by
truck to the project site. The expressway is the preferred mode of transport, but rail travel
should be adopted if the transport distance is larger than 500 km. The development or-
ganisation was not allowed to use self-produced concrete for cable-stayed bridges, be-
cause the bridges are municipal works. All concrete used for the cable-stayed bridges had
to be purchased as commercial concrete. Concrete is classified into C55, C50, C40, C30,
C25 and C20. SZBB is a steel bridge, using 374 m3 of precast blocks of commercial concrete
for the bridge deck.
During the construction, the materials were mainly transported and hoisted by a
tower crane, a 25 T/50 T truck crane, and a floating crane (for the sections across the river),
because the main tower of the cable-stayed bridge was too high. The main beam of SZBB
is made of Q345-C low alloy steel and the accessory structures are made of Q235-B steel.
The components and parts were connected by high-strength bolts and welding. The
bridge was divided into 31 beam sections, which were manufactured in the factory and
then transported to the bridge position by barges. The floating crane and land cranes
worked together to lift and install these sections in the right place. The other five cable-
stayed bridges adopted reinforced concrete structures. The main towers were subject to
cast-in-place construction with creeping formwork by sections. The main beams were sub-
ject to cast-in-place construction with a sliding formwork using the full framing method.
The details are shown in Table 3.
BSCB is located in Baishan City, Jilin Province. The construction environment is af-
fected by the local climate. The local temperature in winter can be as low as −42 °C, with
an annual average temperature of 4.6 °C [85]. Construction has to be stopped in October
every year and can restart again by the end of April of the next year. The affected con-
struction duration reaches 210 days a year.
The operation stage is the key period for the environmental impact contribution of
bridges. A large number of vehicles will emit exhaust gases within the 100 years of service
life, causing severe environmental pollution. Exhaust gas pollution is the key to research
on LCIA. Dargay et al. concluded that the automobile saturation in China is 807 vehicles
for every 1000 persons [86], which is set as the upper limit of the number of vehicles in
each region. According to the study by Wu et al., car ownership will grow up to 4.8% in
2030, with the growth rate in 2050 being 2.9%, reaching 455 vehicles for every 1000 persons
[87]. The traffic volume in 100 years is determined according to the comprehensive data
analysis of the China Statistical Yearbook [88], as shown in Figure 4.
Establish a traffic flow analysis model:
N (x,T )=
T T = Completion report query, T = Design time(100 Y) ①

⎧
. . .
⎪ N (λ1 ) P = [88] I, P = [96] I(P ,P ,P ) ②
⎪
⎪ N T (λ2 ) T = [96]I, T = CA based on λ ③ (13)
455 V
⎨ N v (λ3 ) V = [86] I(GA = [87]), λ3 (λ3 . % , λ3 . % , ) ④
⎪ 1000 persons
⎪ N N = The above ①②③④ CA ⑤
⎪
⎩N =④×L N = The above ⑤ CA ⑥
where B = Billion; CA = Calculated; C = Completed; D = Disassembly; GA = Greatest

amount; GR = Growth rate; H = Highways; I =Inquiry; N = Number; P = Population; SD =
Start disassembly; SO = Start operation; V = Vehicles; and Y = Years. (Note: this abbrevia-
tion is only used in Equation (13)).
Figure 4 and Equation (13) show that the traffic volume of SZBB and BGNB is 2 to 5
times that of the traffic volume of the other four bridges, which will affect the subsequent
environmental pollution data of the bridges. After 2000, infrastructure expenditure in
China accounted for approximately 6.5% of gross domestic product (GDP), much higher
than the average level of 4% in other developing countries. After 2009, coastal provinces
and cities increased investment in infrastructure (including energy, transportation, tele-
communications, water and sewage treatment), reaching 15–20% of GDP [89].
Table 3. Cable-stayed bridge engineering data statistics table.
Regional
Bridge Name Basic Situation Bridge Layout Drawing
Location
The main bridge is a double-cable, plane H-shaped, single-tower,

concrete, cable-stayed bridge with a span layout of 160 + 190 + 38
m, an urban expressway level, and a design speed of 60 Km/h.
South Tai Hu East China, The standard section width of the bridge is 40.5 m. The main
Lake Bridge (338 Huzhou in beam adopts the cross-section form of double main ribs, the
m) Zhejiang building height is 3.055 m, the full width is 40.5 m, and the
standard main rib is 2.7 m high and 1.7 m wide. The transverse
partition is 0.28 m wide; the bridge deck is 28 cm thick, and each
cable plane has 24 pairs of cables.
The North Channel Bridge adopts the “180 + 90 + 75 m” span

layout, the main beam adopts bolt-welded streamlined steel box
girder, the beam height is 4.12 m, the standard section length is
12 m, and the overall width is 38.6 m. The total height of the
Central and
Shenzhen Bay pylon is 139.053 m. The main beam adopts a single-box, four-
South China,
Bridge (345 m) chamber, thin-walled structure composed of steel box beams
Shenzhen Bay
with cantilever arms. The top plate thickness of the bridge deck is
18 mm; the bottom plate is 12–20 mm. The bridge has a total of 12
pairs of stay cables with a cable distance of 3 m and a standard
cable distance of 12 m.
The main bridge is an elliptical steel box with a concrete tower

column, double cable plane, cable-stayed bridge with a span of 75
+ 90 m and a total length of 165 m. The side span is 75 m and the
New Bridge of Southwest
main span is 90 m. The full width of the bridge deck is 14.2 m, the
Xishuangbanna China,
side main beam is 1.8 m high, the bottom width is 1.2 m, the
Tropical Botanical Xishuangbanna
outer top and bottom width is 1.55 m, and the bridge deck is 22
Garden (225 m) Prefecture
cm thick. The tower column of the cable-stayed bridge adopts a
steel box concrete structure with a cross section of 2.5 * 4.0 m and
a steel plate thickness of 20 mm.
Single tower, single cable, plane cable-stayed bridge without

back cable, main span 108 m, side span 27.7 m, harp-shaped cable
surface, tower and beam consolidation. The standard cable
distance on the beam is 8 m, the standard section is 8 m long and
weighs about 300 Tons. The main beam adopts a pre-stressed
Cable-stayed
concrete, single-chamber, three-box, flat, thin-walled box beam.
Bridge of Southwest
The top plate of the box is 24 m wide; the bottom plate is 8.4 m
Changjiang West China, Deyang
wide, the beam height is 2.5 m, the top plate thickness is 24 cm,
Road, Deyang City
the bottom plate thickness is 30 cm, the inclined web plate
City (136 m)
thickness is 22 cm, and the vertical web plate thickness is 30 cm.
A horizontal partition is set every 4 m with a thickness of 28 cm.
The approach bridge adopts multi-span continuous beams, all of
which are 20 m in span, and the main beam is a 1.4 m high box
girder.
The main bridge is a 50 + 82 + 180 m, three-span, single-tower,

Hanjiang double-cable plane cable-stayed bridge, the main girder has a full
Highway Bridge Central China, cross-section width of 25.6 m, a basic section length of 8 m, a
in Xiantao City Xiantao City basic width of side ribs of 1.8 m, and a basic spacing of 8 m
(312 m) between the diaphragms. The roof thickness of the main beam is
0.30 m, and the beam height is 1.9 m.
The main bridge is a two-span, single-cable, plane cable-stayed

bridge with a span of 85 + 85 m. The main beam adopts a single
box three-chamber section, the beam height is 2.0 m, the
Baishan Bridge in
Northeast China, thickness of the top plate is 20 cm, and the thickness of the
Baishan City (410
Baishan City bottom plate is 40 cm. The section of the main tower adopts an
m)
“H” shaped cross-section concrete tower column. Oblique cable
harp layout, single-cable deck bridge type, double-width layout
with a net width of 15.5 m and a total width of 23.3 m.
After the expiration of the operation stage, the cable-stayed bridges enter the disas-
sembly stage. These bridges will be demolished by mechanical disruption because blast-
ing demolition has many safety-impacting factors and these bridges are all located in ur-
ban areas. The scrapped steel materials will be transported to steel works for recycling.
Concrete blocks will be transported to the production plants of reclaimed materials for
crushing and classification. All of the remaining waste will be transported to the waste
treatment plant for recycling.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the number of vehicles driving on six cable-stayed bridges.
2.2.2. LCCA
All of these cable-stayed bridges are municipal works, so the construction costs are
analysed based on Engineering Standards for China’s Transportation Industry, JTG 3830-
2018 Measures for Preliminary Estimate/Budgeting of Highway Projects, and JTG/T 3831-
2018 Norms for Preliminary Estimate of Highway Projects [90].
The construction cost is first calculated by Equation (9), in accordance with design
drawings, bill of quantities, and norms for preliminary estimates of highway projects. As
shown in Table 4, the construction costs of the cable-stayed bridges were: CNY
72,055,116.25 for STHB, CNY 103,996,538.70 for SZBB, CNY 18,803,871.58 for BGNB, CNY
24,721,480.22 for CJWB, CNY 47,164,942.89 for XTHB, and CNY 37,812,245.23 for BSCB,
respectively.
In the operation stage, aging parts and components need to be repaired and replaced
in the bridges. Table 1 presents the maintenance and repair cycles of the main compo-
nents. The costs generated by multiple replacements will be included in the costs for the
construction stage, and the economic growth coefficient can then be considered.
The costs of traffic accidents are mainly used to analyse losses caused by traffic acci-
dents and related expenses. According to the Chinese transportation statistics [32], the inci-
dence of traffic accidents from 2001 to 2018 dropped by 25.7%, resulting in the reduction in
property losses by 29.3%. After 2014, the annual reduction rate of traffic accidents stayed
between 0.4% and −0.7%, and the property losses remained at CNY 5600 per accident.
Table 4. Statistical table of construction cost of six cable-stayed bridge projects ([91]). Unit: CNY.
Calculation
Number Cost Incurred Ratio STHB SZBB BGNB CJWB XTHB BSCB
Method
15,353,271.8
1 Direct project cost 63,392,933.82 92,208,319.2 20,691,737.1 40,938,707.24 32,501,337.6
8
2,766,249.57 460,598.156
2 Insurance fee 1,901,788.015 620,752.114 1,228,161.217 975,040.129
6 4
Project insurance
2-1 stipulated in the 2.50% 1*2（2-1) 1,584,823.346 2,305,207.98 383,831.797 517,293.428 1,023,467.681 812,533.441
contract
Third-party liability
2-2 insurance stipulated 0.50% 1*2（2-2) 316,964.6691 461,041.596 76,766.3594 103,458.686 204,693.5362 162,506.688
in the contract
Constant
3 Completion Files. 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
cost
Construction
Constant
4 environmental 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
cost
protection fees
Safety production 1,383,124.78 230,299.078
5 1.50% 1*5 950,894.0074 310,376.057 614,080.6085 487,520.064
fees 8 2
Engineering
management Constant
6 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
software (temporary cost
estimate)
Application fee for
building Constant
7 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
information model cost
technology
Temporary road
construction, 147,533.310 24,565.2350
8 101,428.6941 33,106.7794 65,501.93158 52,002.1402
maintenance and 7 1
dismantling fees
Fees for the
construction,
73,766.6553
8-1 maintenance and 0.08% 1*8（8-1） 50,714.34706 12,282.6175 16,553.3897 32,750.96579 26,001.0701
6
dismantling of the
original roads
Construction,
maintenance and
73,766.6553
8-2 dismantling fees of 0.08% 1*8（8-2） 50,714.34706 12,282.6175 16,553.3897 32,750.96579 26,001.0701
6
temporary steel
trestle and wharf
Temporarily
9 occupying land and 0.25% 1*9 158,482.3346 230,520.798 38,383.1797 51,729.3428 102,346.7681 81,253.3441
occupying the river
Erection,
maintenance and
73,766.6553
10 dismantling of 0.08% 1*10 50,714.34706 12,282.6175 16,553.3897 32,750.96579 26,001.0701
6
temporary power
supply facilities
Provision,
maintenance and
73,766.6553
11 dismantling of 0.08% 1*11 50,714.34706 12,282.6175 16,553.3897 32,750.96579 26,001.0701
6
telecommunications
facilities
Water supply and 73,766.6553

12 0.08% 1*12 50,714.34706 12,282.6175 16,553.3897 32,750.96579 26,001.0701
sewage facilities 6
The construction fee
387,274.940 64,483.7418
13 of the contractor’s 0.42% 1*13 266,250.3221 86,905.2959 171,942.5704 136,505.618
6 9
project department
（1 + 2 + 3 +
4+5+6+7
Provisional 4,952,216.12 895,422.456
14 5.00% + 8 + 9 + 10 3,431,196.012 1,177,213.34 2,245,949.661 1,800,583.11
expenses. 9 1
+ 11 + 12 +
13)*14
103,996,538. 18,803,871.5
The total fees of the project 1 +…+ 14 72,055,116.25 24,721,480.2 47,164,942.89 37,812,245.2
7 8
As shown in Table 5, LCCA was conducted in three stages. The first stage covered
the years from 2003 to 2018. The costs of traffic accidents were analysed based on the ex-
isting data. The coefficient for the growth or reduction rate of traffic accidents in 15 years,
and the annual average number of traffic accidents were also determined. The second
stage covered the years from 2019 to 2030. In 2030, the population of China will reach its
peak and so will the level of car ownership (Figure 4). The population and car ownership
will begin to decline after 2031 and the accident rate will tend to be stable.
Table 5. Statistical table of loss from traffic accidents of six bridges during operation ([32]).
Bridge Accident Loss Times of Comprehensive Loss

Time Period (Years)
Name (CNY/Time) Accidents Fee (CNY)
2006~2018, 2019~2030,
STHB 3866 693\659\460 7,005,192
2031~2105
2007~2018, 2019~2030,
SZBB 3259 268\255\179 2,287,818
2031~2106
2006~2018, 2019~2030,
BGNB 4831 301\286\201 3,806,828
2031~2105
2005~2018, 2019~2030,
CJWB 8706 1070\1019\718 24,437,742
2031~2104
2003~2018, 2019~2030,
XTHB 6885 262\250\175 4,730,682
2031~2102
BSCB 2019~2030, 2031~2118 7213 456\434\306 8,626,748
2.2.3. SILA
As shown in Figure 2, SILA was also conducted in five stages. The impact of the
bridges on communities was analysed for all aspects, from the design stage to the final
disassembly stage. The International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards on
Social and Environmental Sustainability (IFC 2012a) was taken as the reference. These
Standards has become globally recognised good practice for handling environmental and
social risk management and has been adopted by more than 80 leading banks as the “gold
standard” for guiding project development [92,93]. The Standards formulate eight perfor-
mance standards, including social and environmental assessment and management sys-
tems, labour and working conditions, pollution prevention and abatement, community
health, safety and security, land acquisition and involuntary resettlement, biodiversity
conservation and sustainable natural resource management, indigenous peoples, and cul-
tural heritage. Based on the characteristics of Chinese communities (aboriginals will not
be considered, because there are no aboriginals in the communities where cable-stayed
bridges are located, and cultural heritage will also not be considered, because there is no
newly-built cultural heritage in the construction areas), and the latest assessment factors
in the PSILCA database, five assessment standards were selected as the research parame-
ters, in accordance with the conclusions of comprehensive analysis (see Figure 2).
3. Results and Discussion

3.1. LCIA
According to our findings (shown in Table 6), the GWPs of six bridges are the main
sources of environmental pollution, accounting for over 92% of the total pollution of each
bridge. This is why the authors chose these five parameters in the long-term research.
Effective control of GWP is the top priority for alleviating global pollution.
Table 6. Life cycle assessment (LCA) statistical tables for six cable-stayed bridges. Unit: kg.
Bridge Name GWP AP FEP PMFP WP

STHB 285,792,121.03 758,359.05 778,387.38 2,755,862.99 4,202,670.97
SZBB 75,192,817.81 538,510.86 445,853.55 1,469,182.83 3,451,343.80
BGNB 69,261,736.42 214,170.43 251,077.34 756,768.56 1,397,595.57
CJWB 80,429,187.06 236,629.18 264,255.94 845,577.45 1,414,549.54
XTHB 167,606,486.66 424,005.32 502,313.61 1,559,831.83 2,530,246.34
BSCB 151,598,681.32 322,031.97 424,120.38 1,219,842.08 1,917,809.39
Figure 5 shows the environmental impact contributions of the six cable-stayed

bridges, in the maintenance and operation stage, as follows: STHB = 209,488.94 tonnes >
XTHB = 133,511.65 tonnes > BSCB = 126,010.36 tonnes > CJWB = 648,518 tonnes > BGNB =
49,735.66 tonnes > SZBB = 1230.24 tonnes.
An interesting research finding is that the main beam of SZBB is a steel struc-
ture, 𝐸𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 >
𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 , which is 40,327.22 tonnes
and accounts for 49.73% of the total contribution of SZBB. This finding also proves that
the environmental impact contribution of the steel bridge mainly comes from the material
manufacturing stage and the construction and installation stage, accounting for 83.82% of
the total contribution. Although there is a huge difference between the environmental im-
pact contribution of a steel bridge and that of a concrete bridge, the total environmental
impact contribution of the two kinds of bridges are approximate to each other.
Figure 5. Environmental impact contribution diagrams of six cable-stayed bridges at various

stages.
3.2. Comparison
The differences in the durability of building materials and standards between Europe
and China result in a difference in the life span of bridges, and the difference is mainly
manifested in the service life of concrete; the warranty period of concrete for stay cables
in Europe is 100 years, while in China, it is 20 or 50 years [67,94].
Thus, a large amount of maintenance and replacement work is required, resulting in
great changes in environmental pollution values during the maintenance period.
Table 7 shows the environmental impact contribution values of five impact factors in
the maintenance stage. Subject to the European and Chinese design standards, the maxi-
mum value falls on 𝐺𝑊𝑃 = 5343.68 tonnes for SZBB and
𝐺𝑊𝑃 = 19,736.99 tonnes for STHB. Interestingly, the value of SZBB’s steel
structure under the European standard is 10,824.72 tonnes greater than that under the
Chinese standard. The difference in the design life of the materials leads to 33- to 73-fold
differences, in terms of the environmental pollution value in the maintenance stage, and
this is just a comparison analysis for one stage.
Table 7. Environmental pollution data in Europe and China during the maintenance phase. Unit: kg.
Quantity Analysed According to Quantity Analysed According to

Bridge Name
Chinese Standards European Standards
STHB 202,577,714.70 4,060,953.15
SZBB 8,469,275.96 5,413,303.55
BGNB 46,427,579.22 1,264,900.09
CJWB 61,909,222.65 1,857,067.35
XTHB 127,556,952.20 3,689,371.79
BSCB 120,405,196.80 1,648,154.08
Figure 6 shows the difference in the environmental pollution value for the six bridges
under five environmental impact factors and subject to two standards. The replacement
times of the exposed stable cables and concrete of the cable-stayed bridges in the 100 years
of the service life increases with time, resulting in an increase in GWP by 3249~15761
tonnes, particularly the GWP of the steel bridge at SZBB, which reduces by 4568 tonnes.
The pollution contributions of the six cable-stayed bridges increase by 549,412.2 tonnes in
total, which is an amazing figure.
Figure 6. Environmental impact contribution diagrams of six cable-stayed bridges at various

stages.
3.3. LCCA
The conclusions of LCCA are shown in Table 8. The bridges selected in the case anal-
yses are located in China, so the norms for Chinese highways were used in each analysis.
For the cable-stayed bridges with reinforced concrete structures, the cost ratio of the
maintenance and operation stage remains between 49% and 64%. However, the cost of
steel bridges in the construction stage accounts for 63.2% of the total expenses because of
the high investment cost. The maintenance cost of the steel bridge is 30% lower than that
of the concrete bridge. The main reason is that the steel structure is superior to the concrete
structure in terms of durability.
Table 8. Statistical table of the cost ratio of 6 cable-stayed bridges.
Cost Name STHB SZBB BGNB CJWB XTHB BSCB

Cost of project preparation 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%
Survey and design costs 0.07% 0.13% 0.06% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06%
Project construction costs 33.63% 63.20% 28.29% 24.39% 30.40% 29.99%
Maintenance and operating costs 60.57% 33.56% 63.69% 49.94% 63.78% 60.00%
Accident costs 3.27% 1.39% 5.73% 24.11% 3.05% 6.84%
Demolition stage costs 2.45% 1.69% 2.23% 1.50% 2.69% 3.10%
As shown in Figure 7, the maintenance cost of STHB is CNY 120 million, which is 1.8
times the construction cost. The maintenance costs of BGNB, CJWB, XTHB and BSCB are
2.0 to 2.3 times their construction costs. For the cable-stayed bridges with the reinforced
concrete structure, the stay cables and concrete need to be replaced two to five times, be-
cause their service life and durability ranges between 20 and 50 years. Costs for multiple
replacement events are the primary reason for the excessive maintenance costs, so the key
to reducing costs is to improve the service life of materials.
Figure 7. The cost diagram of six cable-stayed bridges at different stages.

3.4. SILA
SILA was conducted for the six cable-stayed bridges from four categories, including
the population impact, community system, social resources and economic development.
Five impact factors were selected according to the classification.
Table 9 shows some of the SILA values for the six bridges. For each cable-stayed
bridge, corruption > sanitation coverage > fatal accidents > international migrant workers >
youth illiteracy.
Table 9. Statistical table of five social environmental impact data for 6 cable-stayed bridges. Unit:
med risk hours.
Bridge Fatal International Migrant Youth Sanitation

Corruption
Name Accidents Workers Illiteracy Coverage
STHB 55,792,892.84 31,765,165.76 28,624,476.33 118,864,998.3 88,496,114.86
SZBB 47,282,293.11 26,919,734.79 24,258,123.41 1,007,33434 74,996,993.87
BGNB 6,502,779.89 3,702,297.38 3,336,243.37 13,853,967.44 10,314,409.72
CJWB 9,202,951.4 5,239,614.97 4,721,563.11 19,606,597.66 14,597,297.3
XTHB 28,358,724.3 16,145,776.5 14,549,409.27 60,417,367.61 44,981,301.3
BSCB 14,063,615.15 8,006,988.77 7,215,320.78 29,962,088.48 22,307,058.1
As shown in Figure 8, the values of five impact factors in each stage of the six cable-
stayed bridges are ranked as follows:
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 > 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 >
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 >
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 >𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 .
Figure 8. (a) The content in the first panel is the description of the five SILA factors of STHB; (b)
The content in the second panel is the description of the five SILA factors of SZBB; (c) The content
in the third panel is the description of the five SILA factors of BGNB; (d) The content in the fourth
panel is the description of the five SILA factors of CJWB; (e) The content in the fifth panel is the
description of the five SILA factors of XTHB; (f) The content in the sixth panel is the description of
the five SILA factors of BSCB.
3.5. Deepen the Analysis

3.5.1. Economic Evaluation
As shown in Figure 9, the bridges with the peak value of GDP in 10 years are SZBB
and STHB (Government, n.d.); the bridges with the peak value of LCIA are STHB and
XTHB; the bridges with the peak values of LCCA and SLCA are STHB and SZBB. The
analysis concludes that the environmental pollution, production cost and social impact
generated by infrastructure in developed regions increase accordingly. In particular, there
is a complementary relationship between GDP and the emissions of environmentally pol-
luting gases. The constant emission load of environmental pollution gases under GDP
growth signifies that the current energy technologies must be replaced with renewable
energy resources, and/or more energy-efficient production technologies must be adopted
[95].
Figure 9. Schematic diagram of gross domestic product (GDP) [96], LCIA, LCCA, and SILA data in
the area where the six cable-stayed bridges are located.
3.5.2. Modelling and Discussion

Definition of Markov chain: assuming that X , X , ⋯ ⋯ X is the discrete sequence of
random influence variables, abbreviated as {X }, the state space of the entire {X } is de-
noted as E = {x , x , ⋯ ⋯ x } ; if any impact factor is subject to x x , ⋯ ⋯ x E , then
P(X ) = x ∣ X = x ，⋯⋯X = x .
The impact matrix is established based on the definition,
x (h ) x (h ) ⋯ ⋯ x (h ) h = GDP
⎧
⎪x (h ) x (h ) ⋯ ⋯ x (h ) h = GWP
K = ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ (14)
⎨ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
⎪
⎩x (h ) x (h ) ⋯ ⋯ x (h ) h =H
where K = conclusion of the infrastructure’s comprehensive impact assessment.
According to Equation (13),
GDP LCIA LCCA SLCA − 1 SLCA − 2 SLCA − 3 SLCA − 4 SLCA − 5
⎡4766 2943 2143 559 318 284 1189 885 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢8169 811 1645 473 269 243 1007 750 ⎥
K =⎢1510 718 665 65 37 33 139 103 ⎥
⎢3384 832 1014 92 52 47 196 146 ⎥
⎢3289 1726 1551 283 162 146 604 450 ⎥
⎣1453 1555 1261 141 80 72 300 223 ⎦
GDP LCIA LCCA SLCA − 1 SLCA − 2 SLCA − 3
⎡4766 2943 2143 559 318 284 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢8169 811 1645 473 269 243 ⎥
K =⎢1510 718 665 65 37 33 ⎥
⎢3384 832 1014 92 52 47 ⎥
⎢3289 1726 1551 283 162 146 ⎥
⎣1453 1555 1261 141 80 72 ⎦
4766 2943 2143 559 318 284

⎡8169 811 1645 473 269 243⎤
⎢ ⎥
1510 718 665 65 37 33 ⎥
K =⎢
⎢3384 832 1014 92 52 47 ⎥
⎢3289 1726 1551 283 162 146⎥
⎣1453 1555 1261 141 80 72 ⎦
4766 − λ 2943 2143 559 318 284

8169 811 − λ 1645 473 269 243
1510 718 665 − λ 65 37 33
Assuming K −λ E = =
3384 832 1014 92 − λ 52 47
3289 1726 1551 283 162 − λ 146 (5)
1453 1555 1261 141 80 72 − λ
If the diagonal method is used, then (14) = (4766 – λ1) × (811 – λ1) × (655 – λ1) × (92 –
λ1) × (162 – λ1) × (72 – λ1) − 433287870784λ1 – 5454599392867510 = 0 ，
λ =∑ (12588 + 4766 + 811 + 665 + 92 + 162 + 72)⁄7 = 2736.7 ≈ 2737.
4766 2943 2143 559 1189 885
⎡8169 811 1645 473 1007 750⎤
⎢ ⎥
1510 718 665 65 139 103⎥
K =⎢
⎢3384 832 1014 92 196 146⎥
⎢3289 1726 1551 283 604 450⎥
⎣1453 1555 1261 141 300 223⎦
4766 − λ 2943 2143 559 1189 885

⎡ 8169 811 − λ 1645 473 1007 750 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
1510 718 665 − λ 65 139 103
Assuming K − λ E =⎢ ⎥=
⎢ 3384 832 1014 92 − λ 196 146 ⎥ (15)
⎢ 3289 1726 1551 283 604 − λ 450 ⎥
⎣ 1453 1555 1261 141 300 223λ ⎦
If the diagonal method is used, then (15) (4766-λ ) ×（811-λ ）×（665-λ ）×（92-λ ）
×（604-λ ）×223λ -147825193568210000λ -1046549405522410=0,
λ =∑ (82565 + 4766 + 811 + 665 + 92 + 604 + 223)⁄7=12818.
Based on Equations (14) and (15), we can conclude that the most reasonable impact
range is 2737 < K < 12818.
According to Figure 10, five-point positions are located in the reasonable comprehen-
sive evaluation range. The five points are Point ② and ⑤ of STHB, Point ① of SZBB,
Point ③ of CJWB, and Point ④ of XTHB.
Figure 10. Schematic diagram of discrete points for comprehensive evaluation.
4. Conclusions
The manuscript proposes a comprehensive and effective sustainability assessment
method and establishes an assessment framework and modelling theory for complex
structural bridges (cable-stayed bridges) in terms of environment, economy, and social
impact. Through the comprehensive evaluation of six highway cable-stayed bridges in
five provinces of China in the whole life cycle (from cradle to grave), the conclusion is
drawn. GWP is the main source of environmental pollution in LCIA, accounting for more
than 92% of the emissions of each bridge, which are concentrated in the maintenance
stage. In LCCA, the proportion of maintenance stage cost is 49–64%. In SILA, the corrup-
tion value has the greatest influence, accounting for 36% of the total amount. The SZBB
steel structure bridge is special: GWP accounts for 50% in the LCIA material stage and
63.2% in the LCCA construction stage.
In view of the high pollution and high cost in the maintenance stage, the conclusion
shows that it is closely related to the design standard and service life of the materials. It is
found that the difference in LCIA between Europe and China is 33~73-fold, which is due
to the difference in the replacement period between the main girder and stay cable of 80
years and 50 years/cycle. More interestingly, the LCIA value of SZBB in Europe is higher
than that in China by 10,824.7 tonnes, because the maintenance period of steel structure
differs by 15 years/cycle. The differences in the above conclusions are closely related to
regional population density, vehicle ownership and traffic frequency, which is one of the
research directions in the future.
Finally, to obtain the relationship between GDP and sustainable impact, the compre-
hensive evaluation coefficient of the influence matrix is established by using discrete
mathematics for multi factor decision-making, and the reasonable range of 2737~12,818
(The theoretical judgment standard of innovation) between China’s five major economic
regional bridges and regional GDP is analysed.
This study aims to propose a complete method for assessing the sustainability of
bridges. This article provides important knowledge for preliminary decisions in the con-
struction of bridges as well as how to mitigate the loads of the three pillars. The limitation
of the study is that there is no questionnaire survey in the social impact assessment, and
it is impossible to compare and analyse whether there is a big difference between the con-
clusion and the actual impact. Future research directions need to strengthen the resilience
analysis of evaluating the impact of the construction industry on society, and the mutual
promotion and optimization of the GDP influencing factors and sustainable development.
Author Contributions: Investigation, Z.Z. and J.A.; methodology, Z.Z, J.A., and V.Y.; supervision,
J.A. and V.Y.; validation, Z.Z. and V.Y.; writing—original draft, Z.Z.; writing—review and editing,
J.A. and V.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness,
along with FEDER (Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional), project grant number: BIA2017-85098-
R.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the re-
search, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. ISO 14044:2006/AMD 1:2017. Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. ISO. 2006.
Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/72357.html (accessed on 20 November 2020).
2. Wuni, Y.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Osei-Kyei, R. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals
from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build. 2019, 190, 69–85, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.02.010.
3. United Nations. World Population in 2050. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/popula-
tion/world-population-prospects-2017.html (accessed on 20 November 2020).
4. Huisingh, D.; Zhang, Z.; Moore, J.C.; Qiao, Q.; Li, Q. Recent advances in carbon emissions reduction: Policies, technologies,
monitoring, assessment and modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 1–12, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.098.
5. Zhang, X. Toward a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment: From vision to reality. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,
65, 3–6, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.025.
6. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. 2014. Available online:
https://www.buildup.eu/en/practices/publications/ipcc-2014-climate-change-2014-mitigation-climate-change-contribution-
working (accessed on 20 November 2020).
7. Dong, Y.H.; Ng, S.T. A social life cycle assessment model for building construction in Hong Kong. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015,
20, 1166–1180, doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0908-5.
8. Hellweg, S.; Canals, L.M.I. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 2014, 344, 1109–
1113. doi.org/10.1126/science.1248361.
9. Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Kharecha, P.; Beerling, D.; Berner, R.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pagani, M.; Raymo, M.; Royer, D.L.; Zachos,
J.C. Target Atmospheric CO: Where should Humanity Aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2008, 2, 217–231,
doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.
10. World Meteorological Organization. WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2016. 2017. Available online:
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3414 (accessed on 20 November 2020).
11. Muntean, M.; Guizzardi, D.; Schaaf, E.; Crippa, M.; Solazzo, E.; Olivier, J.G.J.; Vignati, E. Fossil CO2 Emissions of All World Coun-
tries: 2018 Report; EU Science Hub, European Commission, Joint Research Centre: Ispra (VA), Italy, 2018; ISBN 9789279972409,
doi:10.2760/30158.
12. Lin, B.; Liu, H. CO2 emissions of China’s commercial and residential buildings: Evidence and reduction policy. Build. Environ.
2015, 92, 418–431, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.05.020.
13. Kim, T.H.; Tae, S.H. Proposal of environmental impact assessment method for concrete in South Korea: An application in LCA
(life cycle assessment). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1074, doi:10.3390/ijerph13111074.
14. Hildenbrand, J.; Michael Srocka, A.C. OpenLCA 1.10. 2020. Available online: http://www.openlca.org/openlca/ (accessed on 23
November 2020).
15. ISO,14044:2006/AMD 2:2020,Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. ISO. 2006.
Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/76122.html (accessed on 23 November 2020).
16. Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V.; Martí, J.V.; González-Vidosa, F. Life cycle impact assessment of corrosion preventive designs applied to
prestressed concrete bridge decks. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 698–713, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.110.
17. O’Born, R. Life cycle assessment of large scale timber bridges: A case study from the world’s longest timber bridge design in
Norway. Transp. Res. Part. D Transport. Environ. 2018, 59, 301–312, doi:10.1016/j.trd.2018.01.018.
18. Milani, C.J.; Kripka, M. Evaluation of short span bridge projects with a focus on sustainability. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 16,
367–380, doi:10.1080/15732479.2019.1662815.
19. Trunzo, G.; Moretti, L.; D’Andrea, A. Life cycle analysis of road construction and use. Sustainability 2019, 11, 377,
doi:10.3390/su11020377.
20. Li, H.; Deng, Q.; Zhang, J.; Xia, B.; Skitmore, M. Assessing the life cycle CO2 emissions of reinforced concrete structures: Four
cases from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 1496–1506, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.102.
21. Frangopol, D.M.; Dong, Y.; Sabatino, S. Bridge life-cycle performance and cost: Analysis, prediction, optimisation and decision-
making. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 13, 1239–1257, doi:10.1080/15732479.2016.1267772.
22. Goh, K.C.; Goh, H.H.; Chong, H.-Y. Integration Model of Fuzzy AHP and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Evaluating Highway
Infrastructure Investments. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2019, 25, 04018045, doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000473.
23. Heidari, M.R.; Heravi, G.; Esmaeeli, A.N. Integrating life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost analysis to select sustainable pave-
ment: A probabilistic model using managerial flexibilities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120046.
24. Wang, Z.; Yang, D.Y.; Frangopol, D.M.; Jin, W. Inclusion of environmental impacts in life-cycle cost analysis of bridge structures.
Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct. 2020, 5, 252–267, doi:10.1080/23789689.2018.1542212.
25. Cadenazzi, T.; Dotelli, G.; Rossini, M.; Nolan, S.; Nanni, A. Life-Cycle Cost and Life-Cycle Assessment Analysis at the Design
Stage of a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer-Reinforced Concrete Bridge in Florida. Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 2019, 8, 20180113,
doi:10.1520/acem20180113.
26. ESMS. Social Impact Assessment (SIA). 2016. Available online: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_esms_sia_guid-
ance_note.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2020).
27. Zhang, A.; Zhong, R.Y.; Farooque, M.; Kang, K.; Venkatesh, V.G. Blockchain-based life cycle assessment: An implementation
framework and system architecture. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104512, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104512.
28. Parent, J.; Cucuzzella, C.; Revéret, J.P. Impact assessment in SLCA: Sorting the sLCIA methods according to their outcomes. Int.
J. Life Cycle Assess. 2010, 15, 164–171. doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0146-9.
29. Vanclay, F. Reflections on Social Impact Assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2020, 38, 126–131,
doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1685807.
30. Zamarrón-Mieza, I.; Yepes, V.; Moreno-Jiménez, J.M. A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for
aging-dam management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 217–230, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.092.
31. Parsons, R. Forces for change in social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2020, 38, 278–286,
doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1692585.
32. Vanclay, F. Statistical Analysis on the Number of Traffic Accidents in China. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2003, 21, 3–4,
doi:10.3152/147154603781766464.
33. Domínguez-Gómez, J.A. Four conceptual issues to consider in integrating social and environmental factors in risk and impact
assessments. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016, 56, 113–119, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.09.009.
34. Fischer, T.B.; Jha-Thakur, U.; Fawcett, P.; Clement, S.; Hayes, S.; Nowacki, J. Consideration of urban green space in impact
assessments for health. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2018, 36, 32–44, doi:10.1080/14615517.2017.1364021.
35. Balasbaneh, A.T.; Marsono, A.K. Bin Applying multi-criteria decision-making on alternatives for earth-retaining walls: LCA,
LCC, and S-LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 2140–2153, doi:10.1007/s11367-020-01825-6.
36. Balasbaneh, A.T.; Marsono, A.K. Bin; Khaleghi, S.J. Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium
cost single-story residential building: Environmental, economic and social assessment. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 20, 235–247,
doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.006.
37. Penadés-Plà, V.; Martínez-Muñoz, D.; García-Segura, T.; Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
of Optimized Post-Tensioned Concrete Road Bridges. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4265, doi:10.3390/su12104265.
38. Ali, M.S.; Aslam, M.S.; Mirza, M.S. A sustainability assessment framework for bridges—A case study: Victoria and Champlain
Bridges, Montreal. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2016, 12, 1381–1394, doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1120754.
39. Kloepffer, W. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess. 2008, 13, 89–95, doi:10.1065/lca2008.02.376.
40. Hu, M. Building impact assessment—A combined life cycle assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis framework. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 150, 104410, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104410.
41. Association, E. Ecoinvent Datebase. Ecoinvent. 2019. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html (ac-
cessed on 23 November 2020).
42. Bedec Datebase. The Regional Catalan Government. 2010. Available online: https://en.itec.cat/database/ (accessed on 23 Novem-
ber 2020).
43. Psilca Greendatebase. Available online: https://psilca.net/ (accessed on 23 November 2020).
44. Ortiz, O.; Castells, F.; Sonnemann, G. Sustainability in the construction industry: A review of recent developments based on
LCA. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 28–39, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.012.
45. Asdrubali, F.; Baldassarri, C.; Fthenakis, V. Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: Guiding the optimization of conven-
tional Italian buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 64, 73–89, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.04.018.
46. European Union. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook; Springer Science + Business Media B.V.: Berlin,
Germany, 2011; p. 2011933605. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-1899-9_11 (accessed on
23 November 2020).
47. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1592–1600,
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007.
48. Cabeza, L.F.; Rincón, L.; Vilariño, V.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of
buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 394–416, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037.
49. Chau, C.K.; Leung, T.M.; Ng, W.Y. A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions
assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy 2015.143,395-413.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.023.
50. Baker, L. Of embodied emissions and inequality: Rethinking energy consumption. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 36, 52–60,
doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.027.
51. Chen, L.; Pelton, R.E.O.; Smith, T.M. Comparative life cycle assessment of fossil and bio-based polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
bottles. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 667–676, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.094.
52. Walker, S.; Rothman, R. Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 121158,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121158.
53. Recipe. 2008. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230770853_Recipe_2008 (accessed on 30 November
2020).
54. New Version Recipe. New Version ReCiPe 2016 to Determine Environmental Impact|RIVM. 2016. Available online:
https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/new-version-recipe-2016-to-determine-environmental-impact (accessed on 30 November 2020).
55. Penadés-Plà, V.; Martí, J.V.; García-Segura, T.; Yepes, V. Life-cycle assessment: A comparison between two optimal post-ten-
sioned concrete box-girder road bridges. Sustainability 2017, 1864, 1–21, doi:10.3390/su9101864.
56. Zhou, Z.; Alcalá, J.; Yepes, V. Bridge Carbon Emissions and Driving Factors Based on a Life-Cycle Assessment Case Study:
Cable-Stayed Bridge over Hun He River in Liaoning, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5953,
doi:10.3390/ijerph17165953.
57. SimaPro, 2020. Available online: https://simapro.com/about/ (accessed on 23 November 2020).
58. Lee, K.M.; Cho, H.N.; Cha, C.J. Life-cycle cost-effective optimum design of steel bridges considering environmental stressors.
Eng. Struct. 2006, 28, 1252–1265, doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.12.008.
59. Navarro, I.J.; Penadés-Plà, V.; Martínez-Muñoz, D.; Rempling, R.; Yepes, V. Life cycle sustainability assessment for multi-criteria
decision making in bridge design: A review. J. Civil. Eng. Manag. 2020, 26, 690–704, doi:10.3846/jcem.2020.13599.
60. García-Segura, T.; Penadés-Plà, V.; Yepes, V. Sustainable bridge design by metamodel-assisted multi-objective optimization and
decision-making under uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 904–915, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.177.
61. Jang, B.; Mohammadi, J. Impact of fatigue damage from overloads on bridge life-cycle cost analysis. Bridge. Struct. 2019, 15, 181–
186, doi:10.3233/BRS-190153.
62. Matos, J.; Solgaard, A.; Santos, C.; Silva, M.S.; Linneberg, P.; Strauss, A.; Casas, J.; Caprani, C.; Akiyama, M. Life cycle cost, as a
tool for decision making on concrete infrastructures. In Proceedings of the High-Tech Concrete: Where Technology and Engineering
Meet, Maastricht, The Netherlands,12–14 June 2017; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 1832–1839,
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59471-2_210.
63. Edited by the Policy Research Office, National Development and Reform Commission, 2011. National Development and Reform
Commission Notified to Reduce Fees for Some Construction Projects. Available online:
https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/xwfb/201103/t20110323_956782.html (accessed on 23 November 2020).
64. Edited by the Ministry of Construction , National Development and Reform Commission, 2002. Engineering Survey and Design
Charging Standards. Available online: https://wenku.baidu.com/view/3fa74a62effdc8d376eeaeaad1f34693daef1088.html (ac-
65. Stewart, M.G. Analysis of Climate Change Impacts on the Deterioration of Concrete Infrastructure—Part. 1 : Mechanisms, Practices...
Analysis of Climate Change Impacts on the Deterioration of Concrete Infrastructure Part. 1 : Mechanisms, Practices, Modelling and Sim;
Published by CSIRO, Canberra, 2016; ISBN 9780643103658. pp,1-88.https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2011-
02/apo-nid25469_5.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2020).
66. Rossi, B.; Marquart, S.; Rossi, G. Comparative life cycle cost assessment of painted and hot-dip galvanized bridges. J. Environ.
Manag. 2017, 197, 41–49, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.022.
67. Ministry of Communications of China, 2004. Code for Maintenance of Highway Bridge and Culvers. Available online:
http://www.chhca.org.cn/web_html/001/HYDT03.asp (accessed on 23 November 2020).
68. Wang, H.; Schandl, H.; Wang, X.; Ma, F.; Yue, Q.; Wang, G.; Wang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, R. Measuring progress of
China’s circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 163, 105070, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105070.
69. National Bureau of Statistics-2019. Available online: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/ (accessed on 23 November 2020). (In Chi-
nese)
70. Wang, D.; Liu, Q.; Ma, L.; Zhang, Y.; Cong, H. Road traffic accident severity analysis: A census-based study in China. J. Saf. Res.
2019, 70, 135–147, doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2019.06.002.
71. van der Vlegel, M.; Haagsma, J.A.; de Munter, L.; de Jongh, M.A.C.; Polinder, S. Health Care and Productivity Costs of Non-
Fatal Traffic Injuries: A Comparison of Road User Types. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2217,
doi:10.3390/ijerph17072217.
72. Al-Rukaibi, F.; AlKheder, S.; AlOtaibi, N.; Almutairi, M. Traffic crashes cost estimation in Kuwait. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2020,
25, 203–212, doi:10.1080/13588265.2019.1567966.
73. Jiménez, J.R.; Ayuso, J.; Agrela, F.; López, M.; Galvín, A.P. Utilisation of unbound recycled aggregates from selected CDW in
unpaved rural roads. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 58, 88–97, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.10.012.
74. Tavira, J.; Jiménez, J.R.; Ayuso, J.; Sierra, M.J.; Ledesma, E.F. Functional and structural parameters of a paved road section
constructed with mixed recycled aggregates from non-selected construction and demolition waste with excavation soil. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 164, 57–69, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.195.
75. Sangiorgi, C.; Lantieri, C.; Dondi, G. Construction and demolition waste recycling: An application for road construction. Int. J.
Pavement Eng. 2015, 16, 530–537, doi:10.1080/10298436.2014.943134.
76. Prenzel, P.V.; Vanclay, F. How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict management. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2014,
45, 30–37, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.11.003.
77. Vanclay, F. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2003, 21, 5–12,
doi:10.3152/147154603781766491.
78. Esteves, A.M.; Franks, D.; Vanclay, F. Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2012, 30, 34–42,
doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.660356.
79. Sierra, L.A.; Pellicer, E.; Yepes, V. Method for estimating the social sustainability of infrastructure projects. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 2017, 65, 41–53, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.02.004.
80. Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V.; Martí, J.V. Social life cycle assessment of concrete bridge decks exposed to aggressive environments.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2018, 72, 50–63, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2018.05.003.
81. Shab-Home. 2020. Available online: http://www.socialhotspot.org/ (accessed on 23 November 2020).
82. Ciroth, A.; Eisfeldt, F. PSILCA-A Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment Database Database Version 1.0. 2016. Available
online: https://www.openlca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/PSILCA_documentation_v1.1.pdf (accessed on 23 November
2020).
83. Wiki. 2020. Geographical Division of China-Wikiwand. Wiki. Available online: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Geogra-
phy_of_China (accessed on 23 November 2020).
84. List of New Cities in China-Wikiwand. 2020. Available online: https://m.sohu.com/n/486287408/ (accessed on 23 November
2020).
85. Baishan City People’s Government. 2020. Available online: http://www.cbs.gov.cn/sq/sthj/201805/t20180519_323816.html. (ac-
86. Dargay, J.; Gately, D.; Sommer, M. The saturation is 807 cars per 1000 people. Energy J. 2007, 28, 143–170, doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-
6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-7.
87. Wu, T.; Zhang, M.; Ou, X. Analysis of Future Vehicle Energy Demand in China Based on a Gompertz Function Method and
Computable General Equilibrium Model. Energies 2014, 7, 7454–7482, doi:10.3390/en7117454.
88. Huzhou Statistical Yearbook-2019. Available online: http://tjj.huzhou.gov.cn/hustats/html/tjnj2019/05.html (accessed on 20 No-
vember 2020).
89. Shi, Y.; Guo, S.; Sun, P. The role of infrastructure in China’s regional economic growth. J. Asian Econ. 2017, 49, 26–41,
doi:10.1016/j.asieco.2017.02.004.
90. Announced by the Ministry of Transport of the Peopleʹs Republic of China, M. of T. of the P.R. of. Highway Engineering Con-
struction Project Estimate Budget Preparation Method (JTG 3830-2018). Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China.
2019. Available online: http://xxgk.mot.gov.cn/2020/jigou/glj/202006/t20200623_3313130.html (accessed on 24 November 2020).
(In Chinese)
91. Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Transport , Announced by the Ministry of Transport of the Peopleʹs Repub-
lic of China, M. of T. of the P.R. of. Highway Engineering Industry Standard. China Communications Press Co.,Ltd. 2018. Avail-
able online: http://www.mot.gov.cn/ (accessed on 24 November 2020).
92. Vanclay, F.; Franks, D.M. International Association for Impact Assessment Purpose and Intended Readership. 2015, pp. 1–74.
Available online: https://www.socialimpactassessment.com/documents/IAIA%202015%20Social%20Impact%20Assess-
ment%20guidance%20document.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2020).
93. Appiah-Opoku, S. Land access and resettlement: A guide to best practice, by Gerry Reddy, Eddie Smyth, and Michael Steyn.
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2015, 33, 290–290, doi:10.1080/14615517.2015.1069667.
94. Fomento, T. Virtual de Publicaciones del M. de. 2010. Code on Structural Concrete (EHE-08) Articles and Annexes. Available
online: http://asidac.es/asidac-en/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EHE-ENG.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2020).
95. Suzuki, S.; Nijkamp, P. An evaluation of energy-environment-economic efficiency for EU, APEC and ASEAN countries: Design
of a Target-Oriented DFM model with fixed factors in Data Envelopment Analysis. Energy Policy 2016, 88, 100–112,
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.007.
96. Government, C. Data of GDP. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/shuju/index.htm (accessed on 24 November 2020).

Zhou Et Al 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zhou Et Al 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zhou Et Al 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Environmental, Economic and Social Impact Assessment: Study

Citation: Zhou, Z.; Alcalá, J.; Yepes,

Low-carbon energy consumption and the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

Table 1. Recent statistics and analysis of some closely related achievements.

Several cases (schools,

2.1. Modeling Analysis

Table 2. Cable-stayed bridge maintenance data statistics table.

W =∑ [F × T × (1 + L ) × λ ] +······ [F ×T × 1+L ×λ] (4)

Figure 1. Basic procedure flow chart of highway engineering construction.

where C (x，T ) = LCCA cost in the stage of construction (CNY); C = Di-

Civilian car ownership in China reached 232,312,300 units in 2018, increasing by

where C x, T = Recycling costs of waste and scraps (CNY); C

2.2. Research Process

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of cable-stayed bridge regional distribution [83].

T T = Completion report query, T = Design time(100 Y) ①

where B = Billion; CA = Calculated; C = Completed; D = Disassembly; GA = Greatest

Table 3. Cable-stayed bridge engineering data statistics table.

The main bridge is a double-cable, plane H-shaped, single-tower,

The North Channel Bridge adopts the “180 + 90 + 75 m” span

The main bridge is an elliptical steel box with a concrete tower

Single tower, single cable, plane cable-stayed bridge without

The main bridge is a 50 + 82 + 180 m, three-span, single-tower,

The main bridge is a two-span, single-cable, plane cable-stayed

Water supply and 73,766.6553

Bridge Accident Loss Times of Comprehensive Loss

3. Results and Discussion

Bridge Name GWP AP FEP PMFP WP

Figure 5 shows the environmental impact contributions of the six cable-stayed

Figure 5. Environmental impact contribution diagrams of six cable-stayed bridges at various

Quantity Analysed According to Quantity Analysed According to

Figure 6. Environmental impact contribution diagrams of six cable-stayed bridges at various

Table 8. Statistical table of the cost ratio of 6 cable-stayed bridges.

Cost Name STHB SZBB BGNB CJWB XTHB BSCB

Figure 7. The cost diagram of six cable-stayed bridges at different stages.

Bridge Fatal International Migrant Youth Sanitation

3.5. Deepen the Analysis

3.5.2. Modelling and Discussion

4766 2943 2143 559 318 284

4766 − λ 2943 2143 559 318 284

4766 − λ 2943 2143 559 1189 885

Figure 10. Schematic diagram of discrete points for comprehensive evaluation.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.