Publication Detail
Life-Cycle Assessment and Co-benefits of Cool Pavements
|
UCD-ITS-RP-17-83 Research Report UC Pavement Research Center
Available online at
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3kc414sc
|
Suggested Citation:
Levinson, Ronnen M., Haley E. Gilbert, Ling Jin, Benjamin H. Mandel, Dev Millstein, Pablo J. Rosado, John T. Harvey, Alissa Kendall, Hui Li, Arash Saboori, Jon Lea, George Ban-Weiss, Arash Mohegh, Nicholas J. Santero (2017) Life-Cycle Assessment and Co-benefits of Cool Pavements. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) Publications
Alongside other strategies such as urban forestry, solar PV, and cool roofs, the use of high-albedo “cool” pavements can be considered in programs intended to help cities, regions, and the state meet California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and sustainable community goals. While cool pavements can mitigate urban heat islands, improve urban air quality, and in some cases reduce GHG emissions from building energy use, it is also important to consider the environmental consequences of pavement materials and pavement construction, and thus the life-cycle environmental impacts.
Recognizing this, the researchers developed a pavement life-cycle assessment for California cities and translated it into a dynamic decision support tool. Local officials can use this tool to evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of various pavements, both conventional (lower albedo) and cool (higher albedo). The tool compares the primary energy demand (without feedstock energy), feedstock energy, and environmental effects of two possible pavement treatment scenarios over a 50-year life cycle, spanning the extraction and manufacturing of pavement materials to the removal and disposal or recycling of the material at the end of its service life. Users can determine, based on outputs from the tool, which options translate to reductions or increases in global warming potential, smog formation potential, generation of particulate matter, and energy demand. Local governments may use the tool as they evaluate pavement-related strategies for reducing their carbon footprints, which will in turn help the state meet its climate goals. It may also be useful as they weigh the potential public health impacts of different pavement options.
It is important to note that the tool does not consider the interaction of other cool community measures, such as urban forestry, with cool pavements; however, the researchers recommend examining these interactions in future research. We also recommend that the tool be transferred to a web-based platform to make it more accessible. In addition, a panel of local government and pavement stakeholders should develop local pavement scenarios to evaluate with the tool. This would provide real-world results to analyze for California cities.
Recognizing this, the researchers developed a pavement life-cycle assessment for California cities and translated it into a dynamic decision support tool. Local officials can use this tool to evaluate the life-cycle environmental impacts of various pavements, both conventional (lower albedo) and cool (higher albedo). The tool compares the primary energy demand (without feedstock energy), feedstock energy, and environmental effects of two possible pavement treatment scenarios over a 50-year life cycle, spanning the extraction and manufacturing of pavement materials to the removal and disposal or recycling of the material at the end of its service life. Users can determine, based on outputs from the tool, which options translate to reductions or increases in global warming potential, smog formation potential, generation of particulate matter, and energy demand. Local governments may use the tool as they evaluate pavement-related strategies for reducing their carbon footprints, which will in turn help the state meet its climate goals. It may also be useful as they weigh the potential public health impacts of different pavement options.
It is important to note that the tool does not consider the interaction of other cool community measures, such as urban forestry, with cool pavements; however, the researchers recommend examining these interactions in future research. We also recommend that the tool be transferred to a web-based platform to make it more accessible. In addition, a panel of local government and pavement stakeholders should develop local pavement scenarios to evaluate with the tool. This would provide real-world results to analyze for California cities.