Following the extensive use of sustainability rating tools for buildings, similar tools for civil infrastructure have emerged. This study presents four industry-based infrastructure sustainability rating tools – Ceequal, Envision, Infrastructure Sustainability and Greenroads – and analyses how they assess and recognise performance. While other studies have examined the content and coverage of such tools, this study focuses on tool application – assessing a significant New Zealand-based state highway project by using each tool and comparing the results. The study explores biases within the tools and examines how each tool assesses and rewards projects and encourages project teams. The results show clear differences in the scores and award levels achieved from the same project practices and outcomes, thus encouraging infrastructure owners and tool users to challenge rating tool benchmarks and labels for sustainability. These findings highlight the dangers of direct comparisons across rating tools and the need for greater transparency in project-level sustainability reporting.

Sustainability consideration in designing, constructing, and operating civil infrastructure requires substantive action and yet progress is slow. This research examines the impact third-party infrastructure sustainability rating tools—specifically CEEQUAL, Envision, Greenroads, and Infrastructure Sustainability—have beyond individual project certification and considers their role in driving wider industry change. In this empirical study, engineering and sustainability professionals (n = 63) assess and describe their experience in using rating tools outside of formal certification and also the impact of tool use on their own practice and the practices of their home organizations. The study found that 77% of experienced users and 59% of infrastructure owners used the tools for purposes other than formal project certification. The research attests that rating tool use and indeed their very existence has a strong influence on sustainability awareness and practice within the infrastructure industry, providing interpretation of sustainability matters in ways that resonate with industry norms. The rating tools impact on individuals and their professional and personal practice, on the policies and practices of infrastructure-related organizations, and more widely on other industry stakeholders. The findings can be used to increase the value gained from sustainability rating tool use and to better understand the role such tools play in creating cultural change within the industry.

Many countries use some form of model to determine road user charges. Trucks are expected to pay for most of the cost because heavy vehicles are responsible for most of the deterioration of roads. This research documents findings that will ultimately be used to refine the New Zealand road user charge models. The research was undertaken on data from the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program with the specific aim of determining the relative damage caused by heavy-vehicle loading alone compared with the combined effects of loading and environmental impacts. As part of the overall research process, a cluster analysis was undertaken. The results from this analysis also emphasized the importance of drainage. The cluster analysis resulted in a recommended stratification of low-volume roads on the basis of their urban or rural location, traffic loading, and climatic area. This stratification could be used for a more detailed implementation of a user charge model if needed. On similar low-volume roads, an approximate 0.1-mm/year higher rut rate was observed in areas that had a wetter climate in combination with sensitive in situ soil conditions. The results also illustrated that adequate drainage was vital for limiting environmental impacts. Roads with inadequate drainage had a rut rate 2.5 times as high as that of roads with the necessary provision for drainage.