Mengatasi Keberlanjutan dalam Sistem Transportasi:

Definisi, Indikator, dan Metrik

Christy Mihyeon Jeon, SMASCE,
1

dan Adjo Amekudzi, M.ASCE

2
Abstrak: Mengatasi keberlanjutan sistem transportasi adalah kegiatan penting sebagaimana dibuktikan oleh semakin banyak
inisiatif di seluruh dunia untuk menentukan dan mengukur keberlanjutan dalam perencanaan transportasi dan penyediaan
infrastruktur. Tulisan ini mengulas inisiatif utama di Amerika Utara, Eropa, dan Oceania. Tujuannya adalah untuk
mengkarakterisasi pemikiran yang muncul tentang apa yang merupakan keberlanjutan transportasi dan bagaimana mengukurnya.
Meskipun tidak ada definisi standar untuk keberlanjutan sistem transportasi, hal ini sebagian besar didefinisikan melalui dampak
sistem terhadap ekonomi, lingkungan, dan kesejahteraan sosial umum; dan diukur dengan efektivitas dan efisiensi sistem, dan
dampak sistem terhadap lingkungan alam. Kerangka kerja berdasarkan hubungan sebab akibat penting antara infrastruktur dan
lingkungan yang lebih luas, dampak infrastruktur pada ekonomi, lingkungan, dan kesejahteraan sosial; dan pengaruh relatif
lembaga-lembaga di atas faktor-faktor penyebab, sebagian besar digunakan untuk mengembangkan dan menentukan sistem
indikator untuk mengukur keberlanjutan dalam sistem transportasi. Pendekatan berbasis proses melibatkan perwakilan
masyarakat dan pemangku kepentingan lainnya dalam merencanakan dan menyajikan peluang untuk mendidik masyarakat dan
mempengaruhi perilaku kolektif. Kerangka kerja ini dapat digunakan secara kolektif untuk membantu lembaga memperbaiki visi
mereka serta mengembangkan kebijakan, prosedur perencanaan, dan sistem pengukuran dan pemantauan untuk mencapai sistem
transportasi yang berkelanjutan.
DOI: 10.1061 / ASCE 1076-0342 2005 11: 1 31
CE Judul subjek database: Pembangunan berkelanjutan; Sistem transportasi; Evaluasi kinerja; Sistem metrik.

Pendahuluan
Definisi pembangunan berkelanjutan yang paling banyak digunakan, dari Komisi Brundtland, adalah dasar dari sebagian besar
definisi keberlanjutan dalam berbagai ekonomi nasional: Pembangunan berkelanjutan adalah pembangunan yang memenuhi
kebutuhan masa kini tanpa mengorbankan kemampuan generasi mendatang untuk bertemu. kebutuhan mereka sendiri WCED
1987. Karena pembangunan berkelanjutan menjadi prioritas internasional pada 1980-an dan 1990-an, ketahanan infrastruktur
telah menjadi bidang minat yang semakin berkembang dalam praktik, penelitian, dan pendidikan, lihat, misalnya, OECD 1999b;
Segnes- tam 1999; Gilbert dan Tanguay 2000; Gudmundsson 2000; Meyer dan Jacobs 2000; Rijsberman dan van de Ven 2000;
Deakin 2001–2003; Ashley dan Hopkinson 2002; Balkema dkk. 2002; Black et al. 2002; Pearce dan Vanegas 2002; Ban- nister
dan Pucher 2003; CST 2003; Cortese 2003; Federico dkk. 2003; Litman 2003; Wheeler 2003. Dalam perencanaan untuk
transportasi dan sistem infrastruktur lainnya, beberapa lembaga telah mengadopsi keberlanjutan dalam pernyataan misi mereka.
Tabel 1 menunjukkan bagaimana pernyataan misi berbagai Departemen
Transportasi DOT di Amerika Serikat menangkap konsep keberlanjutan. Misi-misi tersebut diambil dari pencarian situs-situs
web dari 51 DOT Negara Bagian. Mereka menunjukkan bahwa definisi operasional keberlanjutan sistem transportasi, sementara
bervariasi, menangkap atribut efektivitas sistem dan efisiensi, dan dampak sistem pada ekonomi, lingkungan, dan kualitas sosial
kehidupan.
Apa itu keberlanjutan sistem transportasi? Bagaimana ini diukur? Jenis kebijakan apa yang digunakan untuk mempromosikan
atau mengembangkan kemajuan menuju sistem transportasi berkelanjutan? Jawaban atas pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini akan berguna
bagi praktisi yang tertarik dalam menerapkan kebijakan, prosedur perencanaan, dan sistem pendukung keputusan untuk bergerak
menuju ketahanan sistem transportasi sebagaimana didefinisikan dalam misi mereka. Mereka juga akan menguntungkan para
peneliti yang tertarik dalam memajukan alat analisis dan instrumen kebijakan, serta para pendidik yang tertarik untuk
memperluas kurikuler yang ada untuk mengatasi keberlanjutan dalam sistem infrastruktur sipil.
Makalah ini menilai inisiatif transportasi berkelanjutan yang terpilih di Amerika Utara, Eropa, dan Oceania untuk
mengkarakterisasi keadaan pemikiran saat ini tentang apa yang merupakan keberlanjutan dalam perencanaan dan penyediaan
sistem transportasi, dan bagaimana hal ini me-
1
Asisten Peneliti Pascasarjana, Program Sistem Transportasi, Sekolah Sipil dan Teknik Lingkungan, Georgia Institute of
sured. Pertama, penulis meninjau definisi; indikator dan metrik transportasi dan sistem infrastruktur lainnya Teknologi
keberlanjutan. Email: gtg649@mail.gatech.edu
berdasarkan terutama pada 16 inisiatif keberlanjutan
dalam praktik dan kembali menjadi
Asisten Profesor, Program Sistem Transportasi, Sekolah
pencarian di Amerika Utara, Eropa, dan Oceania,
serta Teknik Sipil dan Lingkungan, Institut Teknologi Georgia.
inisiatif penelitian yang terlestarikan dalam literatur.
Istilah indikator E-mail: adjo.amekudzi@ce.gatech.edu
Catatan. Diskusi dibuka hingga 1 Agustus 2005. Diskusi terpisah harus diserahkan untuk masing-masing makalah. Untuk
memperpanjang tanggal penutupan oleh satu bulan, permintaan tertulis harus diajukan ke ASCE Managing Editor. Naskah untuk
makalah ini diajukan untuk ditinjau dan publikasi yang mungkin pada tanggal 3 Desember 2003; disetujui pada 24 Mei 2004.
Makalah ini merupakan bagian dari Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 11, No. 1,
dan metrik digunakan untuk merujuk pada ukuran kualitatif dan kuantitatif keberlanjutan, masing-masing Indikator Definisi
Web; Metrik Definisi Web. Tinjauan pustaka didasarkan pada literatur transportasi dan perencanaan kota, sistem infrastruktur,
dan literatur keberlanjutan, serta laporan berbasis web yang mendokumentasikan pekerjaan yang sedang dalam proses atau baru
selesai pada tanggal 1 Maret 2005. © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0342 /2005/1-31–50/$25.00.
berbagai organisasi dan lembaga. Selanjutnya, para penulis menilai
JURNAL SISTEM INFRASTRUKTUR © ASCE / MARET 2005/31
Tabel 1. Keberlanjutan dalam Misi Departemen Negara Bagian Transportasi Amerika Serikat
Departemen / Lembaga Misi Transportasi Pernyataan
Amerika Serikat Departemen Perhubungan
Federal
"Melayani Amerika Serikat oleh sistem transportasi yang cepat, aman, efisien, mudah diakses dan nyaman yang memenuhi
kepentingan nasional kita yang vital dan meningkatkan kualitas hidup rakyat Amerika, hari ini dan di masa depan.
”http://www.dot.gov/mission.htm
Florida “Departemen akan menyediakan sistem transportasi yang aman yang menjamin mobilitas orang dan
barang, meningkatkan kemakmuran ekonomi dan menjaga kualitas lingkungan dan masyarakat kita.”
Http://www.dot.state.fl.us/publicinformationoffice/moreDOT /mvv.htm
Georgia “Kami anggota Dewan Transportasi, Komisaris dan karyawanGeorgia
Departemen Transportasi, berkomitmen untuk keamanan, efisiensi ient dan sistem transportasi berkelanjutan untuk semua
pengguna. "http:
//www.dot.state.ga.specialsubjects/aboutgdot/index.shtml Indiana" Misi kami adalah untuk menyediakan pelanggan kami dengan
sistem transportasi terbaik yang meningkatkan mobilitas,
merangsang pertumbuhan ekonomi, dan mengintegrasikan keamanan, efisiensi dan kepekaan lingkungan. "
http://www.ai.org/dot/
Louisiana" Untuk meningkatkan kualitas kehidupan dan mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi dengan mengelola sumber daya,
perencanaan, meningkatkan
keselamatan, melestarikan dan mengoperasikan infrastruktur, dan memajukan mobilitas dan akses, semua dengan cara yang
sensitif terhadap lingkungan. ”http://webmail.dotd.state.la.us/data2/strtpln3.nsf
Michigan“ Menyediakan layanan transportasi berkualitas tinggi untuk manfaat ekonomi dan peningkatan kualitas
hidup . ”Http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9623-65024--,00.html
Montana“ Misi MDT adalah melayani publik dengan menyediakan sistem transportasi dan layanan yang
menekankan kualitas , keamanan, biaya, efektivitas, vitalitas ekonomi dan kepekaan terhadap lingkungan. "
http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/
New Jersey Ini adalah misi dari Departemen Transportasi New Jersey untuk menyediakandapat diandalkan, ramah lingkungan
transportasi dan jaringan kendaraan bermotor yangdan bertanggung jawab untuk mendukung dan meningkatkan keamanan dan
mobilitas orang dan barang di New Jersey.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/mission.htm
New York Ini adalah misi dari Departemen Transportasi Negara Bagian New York untuk memastikan pelanggan kami - mereka
yang tinggal, bekerja dan bepergian di New York State - memiliki sistem transportasi yang aman, efisien, seimbang dan ramah
lingkungan. http://www.dot.state.ny.us/info/info.html#mission
Nevada "Untuk merencanakan, merancang, membangun, dan memelihara sistem transportasi yang aman dan efektif secara efektif
untuk kebutuhan
ekonomi, lingkungan, sosial, dan intermodal Nevada." http://www.nevadadot.com/
Oregon “Untuk menyediakan sistem transportasi yang aman dan efisien yang mendukung peluang ekonomi danlayak huni
komunitas yangbagi penduduk Oregon” http://www.odot.state.or.us/06about.htm
Rhode Island “ Untuk memelihara dan menyediakanaman, efisien, ramah lingkungan, estetis dan budaya yang sensitif
jaringan transportasi intermodal yangyang menawarkan berbagai peluang mobilitas yang mudah, hemat biaya untuk orang-orang
dan pergerakan barang yang mendukung pembangunan ekonomi dan peningkatan kualitas hidup. ”Http: /
/www.dot.state.ri.us/WebOrgz/mission.htm
South Dakota “Kami menyediakan Sistem Transportasi untuk memenuhi kebutuhan mobilitas yang beragam sambil tetap
memperhatikan
keselamatan dan lingkungan.” http://www.sddot.com/geninfo misi
org.asp Vermon Misi VTrans adalah bekerja secara kooperatif untuk merencanakan dan mengakomodasi kebutuhan pergerakan
orang dan perdagangan secara aman, andal, hemat biaya, bertanggung jawab terhadap lingkungan, dan adil.
http://www.aot.state.vt.us/MissionVision.htm
West Virginia Ini adalah misi dari Departemen Transportasi West Virginia untuk membuat dan memelihara bagi-
orangorang di West Virginia, Amerika Serikat dan dunia yang multimodal dan sistem transportasi intermodal yang mendukung
pergerakan orang, informasi, dan barang yang aman, efektif dan efisien yang meningkatkan peluang bagi masyarakat dan
masyarakat untuk menikmati pembangunan yang berwawasan lingkungan dan sehat secara ekonomi. http://www.wvdot.com/11
WVDOT / 11 about.htm Catatan: URL diakses September hingga November 2003.
32 / JURNAL SISTEM INFRASTRUKTUR © ASCE / MARET 2005
hasil tinjauan untuk mengidentifikasi kerangka dasar yang menjadi ciri pemikiran terkini tentang keberlanjutan dalam
transportasi dan sistem infrastruktur lainnya, serta indikator dan metrik yang tepat untuk mengukur kemajuan menuju
keberlanjutan. Akhirnya, penulis membahas temuan ulasan dan implikasinya untuk kemajuan di masa depan dalam menangani
keberlangsungan sistem transportasi dalam pendidikan, penelitian, dan praktik.
Definisi Keberlanjutan Transportasi
Enam belas praktisi dan inisiatif penelitian tentang ketahanan transportasi ditinjau untuk menentukan definisi saat ini, indikator
dan metrik yang digunakan untuk mengatasi keberlanjutan sistem transportasi. Inisiatif termasuk beberapa studi tingkat nasional
atau internasional yang dilakukan oleh organisasi yang berbeda. Tabel 2 memberikan ikhtisar dari inisiatif ini melalui ringkasan
tujuan mereka, hasil yang diharapkan, dan sumber pendanaan, serta definisi masing-masing kelestarian sistem transportasi.
Inisiatif termasuk dua studi nasional di Amerika Serikat, tujuh studi nasional di Kanada, dua studi tingkat dunia, tiga studi Eropa
dengan fokus internasional, dan penelitian lain yang dilakukan di Inggris dan Selandia Baru. Mayoritas inisiatif sedang
berlangsung di Eropa dan Kanada. Tujuan umum dari inisiatif ini adalah untuk mengembangkan indikator yang tepat untuk
mengukur keberlanjutan dalam hal kebutuhan khusus yang diidentifikasi dan ditangkap dalam definisi keberlanjutan yang unik.
Proyek Indikator Kinerja Transportasi Berkelanjutan dari Pusat Transportasi Berkelanjutan CST di Kanada, misalnya, telah
melakukan tinjauan literatur yang relatif luas dan program keterlibatan pemangku kepentingan selama periode waktu yang
diperluas untuk mengembangkan definisi dan sistem indikator yang tepat dan metrik.
Seperti yang ditunjukkan Tabel 2, inisiatif tersebut mengungkapkan bahwa tidak ada definisi standar untuk keberlanjutan
sistem transportasi. Dengan demikian, hasil akhir dari studi, indikator dan metrik, cenderung didasarkan pada definisi unik dari
keberlanjutan yang diadopsi, dan karenanya cenderung memiliki penekanan yang berbeda - seperti fokus yang berbeda dari
pernyataan misi DOT sehubungan dengan keberlanjutan lihat Tabel 1. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini memperkuat gagasan bahwa
mendefinisikan keberlanjutan transportasi merupakan elemen penting dalam pengembangan indikator dan metrik untuk menilai
keberlanjutan dalam sistem transportasi.
Sementara definisi transportasi berkelanjutan mengungkapkan bahwa tidak ada cara standar di mana transportasi
berkelanjutan sedang dipertimbangkan, tampaknya ada konsensus bahwa kemajuan harus terjadi pada setidaknya tiga bidang:
pembangunan ekonomi, pelestarian lingkungan, dan pembangunan sosial Lingkungan Kanada 1991, 2003. Kerangka kerja tiga
dimensi untuk keberlanjutan ini tampaknya menjadi substansi dari beberapa definisi transportasi berkelanjutan dan sistem
infrastruktur lainnya, baik dalam praktik maupun dalam penelitian, lihat Tabel 2, misalnya. Indikator dan metrik aktual yang
dipilih untuk menangkap kemajuan dalam ketiga dimensi ini mungkin berbeda untuk agensi yang berbeda.
Kerangka untuk Indikator / Metrik Keberlanjutan Transportasi
Beberapa kerangka kerja ditemukan dalam literatur untuk mengukur kemajuan menuju keberlanjutan dalam transportasi dan
sistem infrastruktur lainnya. Seperti halnya definisitransportasi, bagaimanapun, kerangka kerja standar untuk mengevaluasi
ketahanankemajuan menuju keberlanjutan tidak ada. Mirip dengan definisi yang ada, bagaimanapun, tema dan dimensi umum
ditemukan dalam kerangka kerja ini. Kerangka kerja yang ditemukan dalam literatur dapat ditempatkan ke dalam tiga kategori: 1
kerangka kerja berbasis keterkaitan, 2 kerangka kerja berbasis dampak, dan 3 kerangka berorientasi pengaruh. Dalam makalah
ini, istilah "berbasis keterkaitan" digunakan untuk merujuk pada kerangka kerja yang menangkap hubungan antara faktor
penyebab, dampak dan tindakan korektif yang terkait dengan pencapaian keberlanjutan. Istilah “berbasis dampak” digunakan
untuk menangkap kerangka kerja yang berfokus pada sifat dan jangkauan berbagai jenis dampak misalnya, ekonomi, lingkungan,
sosial yang secara kolektif menentukan keberlangsungan suatu sistem tanpa perlu menangkap faktor-faktor kausal dan koreksi
tindakan. Istilah "berorientasi pengaruh" digunakan untuk menangkap kerangka kerja yang dikembangkan dengan mengingat
tingkat relatif pengaruh yang dimiliki lembaga atau organisasi yang bertanggung jawab terhadap berbagai tindakan dan / atau
kegiatan yang memengaruhi kemajuan menuju keberlanjutan. Dalam arti, kerangka kerja ini dapat dilihat sebagai lebih sensitif
terhadap kendala kelembagaan yang ada untuk mengatasi keberlanjutan transportasi. Bagian di bawah ini menjelaskan kerangka
kerja yang dipilih dari 16 inisiatif Tabel 2 serta contoh lain dari literatur penelitian. Masing-masing kerangka kerja ini dapat
ditempatkan ke dalam salah satu dari tiga kategori yang dijelaskan di atas. Dalam mengembangkan definisi dan sistem indikator,
masyarakat dan lembaga juga dapat memilih untuk mengadopsi pendekatan berbasis proses, sangat melibatkan perwakilan
masyarakat dan pemangku kepentingan lainnya dalam mendefinisikan visi untuk keberlanjutan dan mengadopsi kebijakan untuk
mencapai visi ini.

Kerangka Kerja BerbasisKerangka

Hubungankerja berbasis-jaringan untuk indikator dan metrik menangkap berbagai indikator dan metrik yang menyebabkan
kondisi tertentu mempengaruhi keberlanjutan, dampak dari penyebab ini, dan tindakan korektif yang dapat diambil untuk
mengatasinya. Contoh kerangka kerja yang banyak digunakan adalah kerangka PSR tekanan-keadaan-respons. Dikembangkan di
Kanada Gilbert dan Tanguay 2000, kerangka ini awalnya diusulkan oleh Tony Friend dan David Rapport untuk tujuan
menganalisis interaksi antara tekanan lingkungan, keadaan lingkungan, dan tanggapan lingkungan. Kerangka PSR didasarkan
pada konsep kausalitas. Ini menyatakan bahwa aktivitas manusia memberikan tekanan seperti emisi polusi atau perubahan
penggunaan lahan pada lingkungan, yang dapat menyebabkan perubahan dalam keadaan kualitas dan kuantitas lingkungan
seperti perubahan tingkat pencemar ambien, keragaman habitat, aliran air, dll. . Masyarakat kemudian menanggapi perubahan
tekanan atau negara dengan kebijakan dan program lingkungan dan ekonomi yang dimaksudkan untuk mencegah, mengurangi
atau mengurangi tekanan dan / atau kerusakan lingkungan OECD 1999b. Gambar. 1 menunjukkan kerangka kerja model PSR.
Model menggambarkan bahwa aktivitas manusia memberikan tekanan pada lingkungan dan mempengaruhi kualitas / kuantitas
kehidupan dan sumber daya alam "negara"; masyarakat merespon perubahan ini melalui kebijakan lingkungan, ekonomi, umum,
dan sektoral dan meskipun perubahan dalam kesadaran dan perilaku "respon masyarakat". Model PSR memiliki keuntungan
menyoroti keterkaitan ini, dan membantu pembuat keputusan dan publik untuk melihat isu lingkungan dan lainnya sebagai
OECD 1999b yang saling berhubungan.
Berdasarkan penggunaannya yang luas, kerangka PSR dapat diidentifikasi sebagai kerangka indikator yang disepakati
bersama. Sejak tahun 1970-an, Organisasi untuk Kerjasama Ekonomi dan Pembangunan OECD telah menerapkan versi yang
diadaptasi dari kerangka kerja untuk pekerjaannya dalam pelaporan lingkungan. Relevansi dan kegunaan model PSR dievaluasi
kembali pada tahun 1989-1990 ketika
JURNAL SISTEM INFRASTRUKTUR © ASCE / MARET 2005/33
Tabel 2. Gambaran Umum Enam Belas Inisiatif Transportasi Berkelanjutan
Pendanaan Sumber Tinjauan dan catatan
USDOT 2003 Kinerja Rep. 2004 Rencana Kinerja, Washington, DC
http://www.dot.gov/PerfPlan2004/index.html
USDOT DOT telah menetapkan lima bidang sasaran strategis yang mencakup keselamatan;
mobilitas; pertumbuhan ekonomi dan perdagangan; lingkungan manusia dan alam; dan keamanan nasional. Untuk setiap tujuan,
serangkaian sasaran hasil strategis dan sejumlah ukuran kinerja yang lebih spesifik ditetapkan untuk digunakan dalam
perencanaan kinerja tahunan.
Empat tujuan hasil strategis untuk lingkungan adalah kualitatif:
1 mengurangi jumlah polutan terkait transportasi dan gas rumah kaca yang dilepaskan;
2 mengurangi dampak buruk penempatan, konstruksi dan operasi fasilitas transportasi;
3 meningkatkan keberlanjutan dan kelayakan hidup masyarakat melalui investasi di fasilitas transportasi; dan
4 meningkatkan lingkungan alam dan masyarakat yang terkena dampak oleh fasilitas dan peralatan yang dimiliki DOT, Indikator
Dampak Lingkungan USEPA 1999 Transportasi, pembaruan Edisi Kedua, Washington, DC
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/99indict.pdf
USEPA Laporan-laporan ini berusaha untuk memberikan gambaran umum yang komprehensif tentang
berbagai dampak lingkungan termasuk dampak pada udara, air, iklim, habitat alam, dan titik akhir lainnya dari moda transportasi
termasuk jalan, kereta api, udara, laut, dalam perspektif sistem-lebar termasuk dampak dari produksi, penggunaan dan
penghapusan kendaraan dan infrastruktur.
Keberlanjutan tidak disebutkan. Indikatornya, bagaimanapun, termasuk dampak transportasi di bidang-bidang berikut:
1 Dampak pada udara, air, iklim, habitat alam, dan dampak endpoint lainnya 9;
2 Dampak dari semua moda sistem transportasi jalan, kereta api, udara, laut;
3 Dampak dari elemen sistem utama kendaraan, infrastruktur, sebagian bahan bakar; dan
4 Dampak dari beberapa tahap siklus hidup setiap elemen termasuk produksi, konstruksi, penggunaan / pemeliharaan dan
pembuangan. TC 2001 Strategi pembangunan berkelanjutan 2001–2003, Ottawa, Kanada.
SEBAGIAN BESAR Program, Menteri Transportasi, Kanada
Laporan disusun sekitar tujuh tantangan, dipecah menjadi 29 komitmen, yang dipecah lagi menjadi target dan indikator kinerja.
Tiga tingkat indikator, yang mencerminkan lingkup pengaruh yang berbeda, termasuk indikator tingkat negara bagian yang
menggambarkan keadaan sistem transportasi dalam hal keberlanjutan, indikator perilaku yang menggambarkan perilaku atau
kegiatan para aktor dan pemangku kepentingan yang tindakannya penting bagi keadaan sistem, dan indikator operasional yang
menggambarkan indikator untuk operasi dan tindakan Transportasi Kanada itu sendiri.
Transportasi Kanada telah mengadopsi seperangkat prinsip yang mengakui pembangunan berkelanjutan sebagai salah satu
prioritas departemen tertinggi.
1 Prinsip sosial: keselamatan dan kesehatan, akses dan pilihan, kualitas hidup;
2 Prinsip ekonomi: efisiensi, internalisasi biaya, keterjangkauan;
3 Prinsip-prinsip lingkungan: pencegahan polusi, perlindungan dan konservasi, penatalayanan lingkungan: dan
4 Prinsip-prinsip manajemen: kepemimpinan dan integrasi, prinsip pencegahan, konsultasi dan partisipasi publik, akuntabilitas
http://www.tc.gc.ca/Finance/Dpr/0102/ Bahasa Inggris / bagian 3 3 3.htm EC 1991 dan 2003 Kemajuan Kanada Menuju Set
Indikator Lingkungan Nasional, Negara Bagian Lingkungan Hidup No. 91-1, Ottawa, Kanada.
Menteri Lingkungan Hidup
Laporan ini menyajikan 43 indikator awal di 18 bidang isu dengan banyak pemangku kepentingan dan kepentingan media. Ini
menggunakan kerangka "Tekanan-Negara-Respon" yang dimodifikasi, dan juga termasuk kategori keempat yang terkait dengan
sifat aktivitas manusia. Dengan demikian, struktur ini mencakup empat set masalah: sistem pendukung kehidupan ekologis;
keberlanjutan sumber daya alam; kesehatan manusia dan kesejahteraan; dan faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pervasive.
Kemajuan dalam tiga bidang disajikan dengan konsensus: 1 Pembangunan ekonomi, pembangunan sosial, dan pelestarian
lingkungan;
2 Untuk bergerak menuju negara yang berkelanjutan; dan 3 Keterkaitan yang kuat ada di antara dimensi-dimensi ini.
Tabel 2. Lanjutan.
Sumber Pendanaan Ikhtisar Definisi dan catatan
NRTEE 2003 ESDI untuk Kanada, Ottawa, Kanada. http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/ CurrentProgram / SDIndicators /
ESDI-Laporan / ESDI-Laporan-E.pdf
ESDI Initiative, Menteri Keuangan, Kanada
NRTEE telah mengembangkan serangkaian prinsip transportasi berkelanjutan yang menyangkut akses, kesetaraan, tanggung
jawab individu dan masyarakat, kesehatan dan keselamatan, pendidikan dan partisipasi publik, perencanaan terpadu, penggunaan
lahan dan sumber daya, pencegahan polusi, dan kesejahteraan ekonomi.
Berurusan terutama tetapi tidak secara eksklusif dengan lingkungan, fokus inisiatif ESDI adalah keberlanjutan pembangunan
Kanada jangka panjang. Sebenarnya, ini merupakan upaya untuk meningkatkan dan mempopulerkan informasi yang tersedia bagi
warga Kanada untuk menilai ekuitas antargenerasi.
ORTEE 1995. Indikator Keberlanjutan: Sektor Transportasi, Toronto, Kanada.
N / A Laporan mengembangkan dan menilai indikator untuk mengevaluasi
dampak dari tindakan yang mungkin atau tindakan pada keberlanjutan sistem transportasi di Ontario. Kerangka yang diadopsi
didasarkan pada sistem “criterion-influence-actions-measures”. Model konseptual yang digunakan adalah versi revisi komputer
dari "model hubungan lingkungan-ekonomi."
1 Menghasilkan emisi keluaran pada tingkat yang mampu diasimilasi oleh lingkungan.
2 Memiliki kebutuhan yang rendah untuk input sumber daya tak-terbarukan di mana yang tidak terbarukan digunakan,
penggunaannya akan untuk investasi non-konsumtif dan mereka akan didaur ulang ketika tidak lagi berguna atau diperlukan.
3 Meminimalkan gangguan proses ekologi, penggunaan lahan dan air juga diminimalkan serta penggunaan habitat sensitif. TAC
1999, Ottawa. Kanada.
http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/ productsandservices / ui / exec.asp
N / A TAC menyajikan 13 prinsip yang mengarah padaberkelanjutan
sistem transportasidan penggunaan lahan kota terkait di Kanada pada tahun 1993. Survei untuk memantau tren menuju
pencapaian dari prinsip-prinsip dapat dianggap sebagai indikator framing atau indikator potensial sejauh bahwa mereka
memberikan tanggapan kuantitatif yang sesuai.
Transportasi berkelanjutan didefinisikan sebagai berikut:
1 Di lingkungan alam: membatasi emisi dan limbah yang mencemari udara, tanah dan air dalam kemampuan daerah perkotaan
untuk menyerap / mendaur ulang / membersihkan; menyediakan tenaga untuk kendaraan dari sumber energi terbarukan atau tak
habis-habis seperti tenaga surya dalam jangka panjang; dan mendaur ulang sumber daya alam yang digunakan dalam kendaraan
dan infrastruktur seperti baja, plastik, dll.
2 Dalam masyarakat: berikan kesetaraan akses bagi orang dan barang mereka, di generasi ini dan di semua generasi masa depan;
meningkatkan kesehatan manusia; membantu mendukung kualitas hidup tertinggi yang kompatibel dengan kekayaan yang
tersedia; memfasilitasi pembangunan perkotaan dalam skala manusia; membatasi intrusi kebisingan di bawah tingkat yang
diterima oleh masyarakat; dan aman untuk orang dan properti mereka.
3 Dalam ekonomi: menjadi terjangkau secara finansial di setiap generasi; dirancang dan dioperasikan untuk memaksimalkan
efisiensi ekonomi dan meminimalkan biaya ekonomi; dan membantu mendukung ekonomi yang kuat, bersemangat dan beragam.
Litman, Todd; VTPI 2003. “Indikator Transportasi Berkelanjutan,” Victoria, Kanada
http://www.vtpi.org/sus-indx.pdf
N / A Victoria Transport Institute menyajikan tinjauan literatur tentang
pendekatan dan kriteria pemilihan untuk indikator transportasi berkelanjutan. Mereka menawarkan perspektif alternatif pada
pemilihan indikator transportasi dengan berfokus pada akses kemampuan untuk mencapai barang, layanan atau tujuan daripada
pada kemampuan sistem transportasi untuk "memindahkan kendaraan" dengan mengukur kemacetan lalu lintas misalnya.
Pembangunan berkelanjutan dapat didefinisikan sebagai. "Menyediakan masa depan materi yang aman dan memuaskan bagi
semua orang, dalam masyarakat yang adil, peduli, dan memperhatikan kebutuhan dasar manusia." Transportasi berkelanjutan
membutuhkan penggunaan setiap mode untuk apa yang terbaik, yang biasanya berarti ketergantungan yang lebih besar pada
nonmotorized untuk lokal perjalanan, peningkatan penggunaan angkutan umum di daerah perkotaan, pengurangan tetapi tidak
penghapusan penggunaan mobil pribadi. Perencanaan berkelanjutan berfokus pada hasil, seperti kualitas akses kemampuan untuk
memperoleh barang, layanan, dan kegiatan yang diinginkan, daripada hanya mengukur kuantitas mobilitas seperti kecepatan
perjalanan atau total jarak tempuh.
Tabel 2. Lanjutan.
Sumber Pendanaan Ikhtisar Definisi dan catatan
CST 2003. STPI, Toronto, Kanada.
Pusat Transportasi Berkelanjutan dan Pemerintah Kanada
Lingkungan Kanada dan Transportasi Kanada
Pusat untuk Transportasi Berkelanjutan, Kanada mengembangkan set awal 14 STPI. Mereka mengadopsi empat kriteria untuk
memilih indikator: indikator harus relevan dengan definisi, deret waktu, mewakili seluruh Kanada, dan berasal dari sumber yang
dapat dipercaya. Arah grafik mewakili deret waktu untuk masing-masing indikator menunjukkan apakah kemajuan telah dicapai
menuju transportasi berkelanjutan atau tidak.
Pusat Transportasi Berkelanjutan, sebuah organisasi Kanada, mendefinisikan sistem transportasi berkelanjutan sebagai salah satu
yang:
1 Memungkinkan akses dasar kebutuhan individu dan masyarakat untuk bertemu dengan aman dan dengan cara yang konsisten
dengan kesehatan manusia dan ekosistem, dan dengan kesetaraan di dalam dan di antara generasi;
2 Apakah terjangkau, beroperasi secara efisien, menawarkan pilihan moda transportasi, dan mendukung ekonomi yang dinamis;
3 Batasi emisi dan limbah di dalam kemampuan planet untuk menyerapnya, meminimalkan konsumsi sumber daya tak
terbarukan, menggunakan kembali dan mendaur ulang komponennya, dan meminimalkan penggunaan lahan dan produksi
kebisingan. OECD 1999a Indikator untuk Integrasi Kekhawatiran Lingkungan ke dalam Kebijakan Transportasi, Direktorat
Lingkungan, Paris, Perancis.
N / A Dokumen ini berkaitan dengan integrasilingkungan
masalahke dalam kebijakan transportasi melalui pengembangan dan penggunaan indikator. Indikator disusun berdasarkan tiga
tema: tren sektoral yang memiliki signifikansi lingkungan; dampak lingkungan dari sektor transportasi; dan keterkaitan ekonomi
antara transportasi dan lingkungan.
Direktorat Lingkungan dari OECD telah mendefinisikan transportasi yang ramah lingkungan sebagai: "Transportasi yang tidak
membahayakan kesehatan masyarakat atau ekosistem dan yang memenuhi kebutuhan untuk akses yang konsisten dengan
1 penggunaan sumber daya terbarukan di bawah tingkat regenerasi mereka; dan
2 penggunaan sumber daya tak terbarukan di bawah tingkat pengembangan pengganti terbarukan. "Segnestam, 1999. Indikator
Kinerja Lingkungan
Edisi Kedua, Bank Dunia, Seri Ekonomi Lingkungan, Kertas No. 71
http://wwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/ WDSServlet? Detail pcont & eid 000094946 0001250540075
Dept. Lingkungan Bank Dunia
Unit EEI Bank telah menyiapkan manual tentang EPI . Dokumen ini membahas kerangka indikator, kriteria seleksi untuk
indikator proyek lingkungan, dan masalah yang perlu dipertimbangkan untuk berbagai bidang lingkungan.
Ekonom Bank Dunia, Herman Daly, mendefinisikan prinsip operasional umum untuk masyarakat yang berkelanjutan secara fisik,
khususnya untuk sektor transportasi sebagai berikut: “Tingkat penggunaan sumber daya terbarukan mereka tidak melebihi
tingkat regenerasi mereka. Tingkat penggunaan sumber daya tak-terbarukan mereka tidak melebihi tingkat di mana pengganti
dikembangkan. Tingkat pencemaran mereka tidak melebihi kapasitas asimilasi dari lingkungan. ”PROSPEK 2003.
Mengembangkan Strategi Penggunaan dan Transportasi Lahan Perkotaan yang Berkelanjutan: Buku Pedoman Metodologi:
Prosedur untuk Menyarankan Perencanaan Berkelanjutan yang Optimal dari Sistem Transportasi Kota
Eropa Program Energi, Lingkungan, dan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan Eropa
Tujuan dari laporan ini adalah:
1 Untuk menyajikan pendekatan umum yang koheren namun fleksibel untuk perencanaan untuk sistem penggunaan /
transportasi lahan perkotaan yang berkelanjutan, membangun struktur logis;
2 Untuk menawarkan metode inovatif dalam melaksanakan langkah-langkah struktur logis tersebut, terutama mengenai penilaian
strategi penggunaan lahan / transportasi sehubungan dengan keberlanjutan, dan optimalisasi sehubungan dengan keberlanjutan;
dan
3 Untuk memberikan saran rinci tentang sejumlah masalah dalam proses perencanaan.
Sistem transportasi dan penggunaan lahan perkotaan yang berkelanjutan:
1 Menyediakan akses ke barang dan jasa dengan cara yang efisien untuk semua penduduk di daerah perkotaan;
2 Melindungi lingkungan, warisan budaya dan ekosistem untuk generasi sekarang; dan 3. Tidak membahayakan peluang
generasi mendatang untuk mencapai setidaknya tingkat kesejahteraan yang sama dengan yang hidup sekarang, termasuk
kesejahteraan yang mereka peroleh dari lingkungan alam dan warisan budaya mereka.
EEA 2002 TERM 2002 —Memiliki jalan untuk perluasan UE: Indikator transportasi dan integrasi lingkungan, Masalah
Lingkungan, Kopenhagen, Denmark.
EEA, EU Laporan ini menjelaskan kemajuan yang dibuat Uni Eropa terhadap
integrasi masalah lingkungan ke dalam kebijakan transportasinya. Tujuannya adalah untuk memantau kemajuan di tiga bidang:
tingkat integrasi lingkungan di sektor transportasi UE, kemajuan menuju sistem transportasi yang lebih kompatibel dengan
pembangunan berkelanjutan, dan efektivitas langkah-langkah kebijakan yang diadopsi.
Sustainable development may refer to systemic characteristics such as carrying capacities of the environment, or it may refer to
interrelations between economy, society and the environment.
Table 2. Continued.
Source Funding Overview Definitions and notes
Baltic 21 2000 Series No 13/98: Indicators on sustainable development in the Baltic Sea Region
An initial Set : Baltic 21 Transport Sector Report No. 8/98 . Annex 5: Indicators for Sustainable Transportation, Stockholm,
Sweden
http://www.ee/baltic21
Ministry of Environment
Baltic 21 selects indicators according to three different types of goals and measures:
1 Indicators with regard to primary goals for sustainable transport;
2 Indicators with regard to institutions, instruments, and measures;
3 Indicators with regard to the transport system and transportation activity
The essential objective of Baltic Sea Region cooperation is the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of
their peoples within the framework of sustainable development, sustainable management of natural resources, and protection of
the environment.” Sustainable development includes three mutually interdependent dimensions—economic, social, and
environmental.
DSD 2003 Achieving a better quality of life, review of progress towards sustainable development, United Kingdom,
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/ ar2002/pdf/ar2002.pdf
DEFRA The United Kingdom presents the ten guiding principles:
1 Putting people at the center; 2 Taking a long term perspective; 3 Taking account of costs and benefits; 4 Creating an open and
supportive economic system; 5 Combatting poverty and social exclusion; 6 Respecting environmental limits; 7 The precautionary
principle; 8 Using scientific knowledge; 9 Transparency, information, participation, and access to justice, and
10 Making the polluter pay.
Sustainable development is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. This requires
meeting four key objectives at the same time in the United Kingdom and the world as a whole:
1 Social progress which recognizes the needs of everyone; 2 Effective protection of the environment; 3 Prudent use of natural
resources, and 4 Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
NZME 1999 Proposals for Indicators of the Environmental Effects of Transport
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/ transport-proposals-full-jun99.pdf
NZME The main purpose of the document is to provide the basis
for agreement on the use of a core set of indicators to measure the environmental effects of transport. The components of the
framework are these:
1 Root causes of transport activity; 2 Indirect pressures; 3 Direct pressures; and 4 State or effects indicators
Supposed indicators are balanced between indicators of direct for example, atmospheric emissions and indirect for example,
development density, travel demand transport pressures on the environment. The PSR framework was used for developing
indicators.
Note: USDOT United States Department of Transportation; USEPA United States Environmental protection Agency; TC
Transport Canada; EC Environmental Canada; MOST moving on sustainable transportation; NRTEE National Round Table on
the Environment and the Economy; ESDI environmental sustainable development indicators; ORTEE Ontario Roundtable on the
Environment and the Economy; N/A not available; TAC Transportation Association of Canada; VTPI Victoria Transport Policy
Institute; CST Centre for Sustainable Transportation; STPI sustainable transportation performance indicators; OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; EEI environmental economic indicators; EPI environmental
performance indicators; PROSPECT procedures for recommending optimal sustainable planning of European city tranport
systems; EEA European Environment Agency; TERM transport and environment reporting mechanism; EU European Union;
DSD Department of Sustainable Development; DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; NZME New
Zealand Ministry of the Environment; and PSR pressure state response.
Fig. 1. Pressure-state-response model adapted from OECD 1999b
OECD initiated its work on environmental indicators. In develop- ing a core set of environmental indicators, OECD countries
agreed that the PSR model was a robust and useful framework and should continue to be used in the Organization's work on
environmental data and indicators OECD 1999b .
The OECD's indicator development is thus based on a modi- fied version of the PSR model, adapted to take into account speci-
ficities in the transport sector. The model has been modified to distinguish between two categories of pressures: driving forces
and pressures, and two categories of state: state and impact. The modified model is called drivers-pressures-state-impact-
responses DPSIR . The DPSIR model has been adopted as the most appro- priate way to structure environmental information by
most mem- ber states of the European Union EU and by international orga- nizations dealing with environmental information,
including the European Environmental Agency and EUROSTAT, the statistical office for the European Communities Gilbert and
Tanguay 2000 . Another example of the linkages framework is seen in the work of The Ontario Round Table on Environment and
Economy ORTEE . The ORTEE has adopted a framework based on a “criterion-influences-actions-measures” system. The
conceptual model adopted was a computerized revised version of the “environment-economy linkages model” developed by
Hickling Corporation and Econometrics Research Limited in 1993. The system, similar to the PSR framework, is really a
“model” of the relationships among sustainability criteria, the output being the set of indicators. The model connects
environmental discharge and resource use, on a country basis, to a regionalized input– output model of the Ontario economy. A
selected criterion, such as carbon dioxide emissions, for example, can be deconstructed into a number of influences eg, persons
per vehicle, vehicle kilometers traveled, etc. . These influences can trigger different actions by policy makers such as the
establishment of new transit lines or car pool databases. These actions can, in turn, be facili- tated by different policy measures
Gilbert and Tanguay 2000 .
38 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005
Indicator systems developed based on this concept can help agencies to develop a better understanding of the actions and
activities that are influencing the state of the system, and appro- priate responses for addressing them, both for the agency and
other stakeholders of the system.

Impacts-Based Frameworks
Impacts-based frameworks are focused on the impacts of various actions on the sustainability of the particular system under con-
sideration. A common impacts-based framework is the three- dimensional framework of indicators based on economic, envi-
ronmental, and social impacts. The tripartite framework, as it is known in some of the research literature see, for example, Ash-
ley and Hopkinson 2002 has also been used in evaluating trans- portation system sustainability. For example, the evaluation
framework proposed for sustainable urban transportation systems by the Transportation Association of Canada TAC has three di-
mensions related to the economy, natural environment, and soci- ety. In the natural environment, the system is expected to limit
emissions and waste; in society, it is expected to provide equity of access for people and their goods, enhance human health, and
support the highest quality of life compatible with available wealth; and, in the economy, it is expected to help support a strong,
vibrant and diverse economy TAC 1999 . The Victoria Transport Policy Institute VTPI uses a similar framework for sustainable
transportation indicators. Although VTPI has a stron- ger focus on transportation and land use interactions, their com- prehensive
list of sustainable transportation indicators are also organized according to economic, social, and environmental im- pacts Litman
2003 .
The tripartite framework is also found in the research literature for addressing sustainability in other types of civil
infrastructure systems. Ashley and Hopkinson 2002 , for example, present a tripartite framework as key groups of indicators to
characterize
Fig. 2. Triaxial representation of technological sustainability
adapted from Pearce and Vanegas 2002, used with permission
alternative measures of sustainable development in decision mak- ing for water and sewer systems. For each of the three dimen-
sions: economic, ecological, and socio-political, important aspects are identified and then measurement methods and measures
are developed for each aspect. For example, growth, equity and effi- ciency are identified as important aspects of economic
sustain- ability; and methods such as the Green Gross National Product and resource accounting are identified for measuring
progress in these domains, using such relevant metrics as money and energy per unit of expenditure. Balkema et al. 2002 also
present a tri- partite framework for measuring sustainable technology in waste- water treatment systems based on the nature and
extent of the interaction of technology with the economic, physical, and socio- cultural environment.
Using a similar paradigm, Pearce and Vanegas 2002 discuss the thermodynamic foundations of sustainability and develop
three parameters for measuring technological sustainability in de- cision making for building infrastructure. The thermodynamic
foundations of sustainability assume that the earth is a constrained open system virtually closed with solar radiation as an input
and waste heat as an output. While there is no net loss of matter or energy, there is degradation of energy from higher to lower
forms, ie, entropy. Entropy results from consumption and is offset by natural ecosystems in the form of photosynthesis Pearce
2000 . Thus, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the two objectives nec- essary to maintain sustainability of the global earth
system are: 1 to minimize the consumption of matter and energy and 2 to minimize negative impacts to natural ecosystems, as
they are the only mechanism for offsetting the entropy resulting from con- sumption. These concepts of consumption and
environmental im- pact minimization can extended to the operation and management of built systems, where the objectives
become exploring invest- ment options that achieve comparable levels of system perfor- mance with a net reduction in system
inputs, eg, the total energy consumed per mile of travel in a metropolitan transportation sys- tem, and outputs, eg, total amount of
pollutants emitted by the system in a specified period. Pearce and Vanegas 2002 extend this concept to develop the following
three dimensions for mea- suring technological sustainability: 1 the level of stakeholder satisfaction, 2 the resource base impact,
and 3 the ecosystem impact. Fig. 2 shows the triaxial representation of the parameters for technological sustainability. The figure
illustrates that in se-
JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 39
lecting among alternatives to move building and other infrastruc- ture systems toward sustainability, the alternatives should
satisfy stakeholders ie, they should not necessarily be optimal but sat- isficing with regard to stakeholder desires , while having a
net positive or neutral impact on the resource base and the natural environment ie, they results of decisions should lie in the “oc-
tant of sustainability” .
Also using a similar paradigm, Rijsberman and van de Ven 2000 discuss four basic approaches to sustainability, which are
influenced by four aspects: people, norms, values, and the envi- ronment. In this framework, two contrasting attitudes toward the
relationship of people–environment can be distinguished. In a people-driven approach, people and their desires, needs, and ob-
jectives are the driving forces behind the perception of sustainable development. Environment-driven approaches, on the other
hand, state that the seriousness and extent of environmental problems should be established objectively from nature. The way in
which this relationship or interaction is evaluated can also be distin- guished by two contrasting approaches: a quantitative
approach based on norms, and a qualitative approach based on values. Vari- ous combinations of these four aspects result in four
basic ap- proaches: 1 norms and environment: capacity approach; 2 norms and people: ratiocentric approach; 3 values and
people: sociocentric approach; and 4 values and environment: ecocen- tric approach. The carrying capacity approach is a
normative ap- proach that focuses on the carrying capacity of supporting eco- systems or the environment and develops target
values that are sustainable levels of environmental stress within the existing car- rying capacities of various norms, eg, air quality,
water quality, etc. The ecocentric approach views sustainability as ecologically feasible. The objectives are not met by trying to
meet stringent norms but by creating positive conditions for desired develop- ment. It is more of a proactive than retroactive
approach. In the ratiocentric approach, choices are made based on the evaluation of multiple criteria in the present situation,
considering the objec- tives of decision making, and evaluating all interests involved. In a sociocentric approach, the interests and
opinions of stakeholders are central, and priorities are set in an interactive process. This is a qualitative approach that emphasizes
participation in the objec- tives of decision making and the decision making itself. These four approaches point out various
emphases that can be made in sustainability planning; depending on the existing decision- making context; institutional
constraints; data availability; rela- tive levels of stakeholder interest and involvement; presence or absence of executives and/or
political leaders who are champions of sustainability; and other relevant resources.
Influence-Oriented Frameworks
Influence-oriented frameworks categorize indicators by the level of influence and control that the responsible agency has with re-
spect to the various factors that cause or otherwise influence the sustainability of the infrastructure system under consideration.
Transport Canada 2001 has developed an important tiered framework of performance indicators that reflects the relative level of
influence and control that the agency has with respect to making progress toward sustainability. The framework has three levels
of indicators: state level indicators, behavioral indicators, and operational indicators. State level indicators or state-of-the- system
indicators describe the state of the transportation system in terms of sustainability. This level of indicators addresses the over- all
vision or goal of activities for obtaining a sustainable trans- portation system and measures how well the system is performing
outcome-oriented relative to this vision. Behavioral indicators, on the other hand,
performance goals, while the
European ap- are related to the behavior or activities of the actors and stake-
proach seemed to be reaching “inwards” for policy-
related re- holders whose actions influence the state of the system. Stake-
sponse or input. An appropriate balance of input and
outcome holders include transportation infrastructure and service provid-
measures, distributed appropriately across the
various responsible ers, system operators, political, and other decision-makers, and
agencies in a manner that is consistent with their
different mis- the general public. This level of indicators is relates to the mission
sions and spheres of influence, could be more
effective for ad- of Transport Canada and captures the extent to which the agen-
dressing sustainability. cy's activities are resulting in
behavioral and activity change within the system, which then impacts the overall goals for the system. Operational indicators are
described as indicators for op-
Synthesis of Indicator Frameworks erations and
actions of Transport Canada itself. This level of in- dicators is related to the agency's mandate, ie, where it has clear
responsibilities. As such, Transport Canada's indicator system recognizes explicitly that the agency has varied degrees of control
and influence over different activities and aspects that influence transportation system sustainability. The indicator system explic-
itly recognizes that the agency has only indirect influence over the state level indicators, direct influence over the behavioral
indica- tors, and direct control over the operational indicators Gud- mundsson 2000 .
The indicator frameworks discussed above can be helpful in vari- ous ways to agencies that are contemplating including
sustainabil- ity in their mission statements, revisions to their mission state- ments or the development of indicators and metrics to
evaluate progress toward predefined goals. Such frameworks have been used by various agencies to develop indicator and metric
systems for addressing sustainability. For example, Canada's CST initial plan was to develop indicators that added quantitative
flesh to its definition of sustainable transportation. This was achieved by de- constructing the definition of sustainable
transportation into nu- merous elements, quantifying each element as a target, and fash- Process-Based or Stakeholder
Approaches
ioning for each target one or more indicators that represent movement toward or away from the target. Canada's CST devel- A
process-based approach to sustainability acknowledges that ad-
oped three levels of STPIs, a single composite
indicator with dressing sustainability must be done through a planning process
descriptive indicators that reflect the components of
the single which effectively engages stakeholders in creating their vision of
indicator, and explanatory indicators that enhance
understanding sustainability. Process-based frameworks are based on a decision-
of transport activity and its impacts. Descriptive
indicators simi- making process for developing consensus, involving all the rep-
lar to state indicators in the PSR framework were
developed to resentatives from various constituencies within the community
represent the effects of transportation and whether
these effects Environmental Defense 1999 . Initiatives such as the DOE “Ten
were changing in directions consistent with
sustainability. Ex- Steps to Sustainability” outline a process for engaging
planatory indicators similar to pressure indicators in
the PSR communities/stakeholders in thinking about and articulating their
 framework were developed to represent contributory
factors that vision for sustainability, developing a roadmap for reaching this
can help explain changes in descriptive indicators
and that con- vision, developing indicators to measure progress toward this vi-
tribute to policy formulation CST 2003 . sion, and
incorporating sustainability into local policy to promote
Agencies can also combine the frameworks to
help them de- attainment of sustainability USDOE . Process-based mechanisms
velop more comprehensive indicator systems. For
example, an are crucial for articulating the right vision for a community at the
indicator system that includes all the three elements:
ie, one that local, state, national or multinational levels . They are also poten-
is impacts-based, linkages-based, and level-of-
influence-based, tially effective mechanisms for educating stakeholders and the
would help an agency to understand the most
effective actions general public about sustainability and promoting progress toward
they can take linkages element to make progress in
selected consensual sustainability goals through collective behavioral
domains impacts element, eg, safety, economics,
environment, change. From an agency viewpoint, this implies that there is tre-
etc., related to their mission level of influence
element . Such a mendous value in viewing public involvement as a critical com-
comprehensive framework could also be useful for
thinking about ponent of sustainability planning.
an appropriate balance of input or inward-looking indicators versus output or outward-looking indicators as captured in

Balance in Frameworks
Table 3 . Fig. 3 illustrates this concept of a unified framework for developing indicator and metric systems. The unified
framework It is important that agencies give thought to defining an appropri-
identifies three attributes for guiding the
development of indicator ate balance of input causative versus outcome impact mea-
systems: 1 what level of influence does the agency
have over sures. Gudmundsson's 2000 evaluation of transportation sus-
this indicator x axis ? 2 Is the indicator an input or
output of tainability initiatives in Europe and North America revealed
the system y axis ? 3 What is the relative level of
impact of this seemingly different foci with respect to achieving transport sus-
indicator on achieving system sustainability z axis ?
In this uni- tainability in Europe and North America. Table 3 summarizes the
fied paradigm, an agency, such as one of the DOTs
with a mission foci of the different initiatives. The EU had set up seven policy
to develop a sustainable transportation system see
Table 1 , could questions, Transport Canada TC had established seven chal-
focus on identifying the current and predicted areas
of highest lenges, and the United States Department of Transportation
 impact relative to creating a sustainable transportation
system, USDOT had established five strategic outcome goals. Gud-
identify causal factors inputs, y+ axis that have the
most signifi- mundsson found Europe's approach to cover a wider range of
cant effect on these high impact areas z+ axis ,
narrow down on surrounding policy issues that would affect or influence progress
the causal factors that are within its domain of
highest influence toward transport sustainability , while TC and the USDOT ap-
or control related to its mission x+ axis , and then
begin to proaches more or less concentrated on management challenges
develop policies, planning procedures, databases,
and analysis and internal responsibilities. He concluded that the North Ameri-
tools to address these areas. Such an approach could
also be used can approach seems to be reaching “outwards” for more results or
in defining transportation system sustainability in a manner that is
40 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005
Table 3. Input and Output-Oriented Systems for Achieving Sustainable Transportation adapted from Gudmundsson 2000
EU 2000 Transport and environment reporting mechanism “7 policy questions”
Transport Canada 2000 sustainable development strategy “7 challenges”
USDOT 1997 Strategic goals-Human and natural environment “4 strategic outcome goals for the environment”
Is the environmental performance of the transport sector improving?
Reducing pollution of land and water Reduce the amount of transportation-related
gases released
Reducing air emissions
Reduce the adverse effects ofsiting, construction, and operation of transportation facilities
Are we getting better at managing transport demand and at improving the modal split?
——
Are spatial and transport planning becoming better coordinated so as to the needs of access?
— Improve the sustainability and livability of
communities through investments in transportation facilities
Are we optimizing the use of existing transport infrastructure capacity and moving towards a better-balanced intermodal transport
system?
Promoting a more efficient transportation system
—
Are we moving towards a fairer and more efficient pricing system, which ensures that external costs are recovered?
——
How rapidly are improved technologies being implemented and how efficiently are vehicles being used?
Promoting improved technology for sustainable transportation
—
How effectively are environmental management and monitoring tools being used to support policy and decision making?
Improving environmental management in the transportation sector Developing tools for better decisions Improving education and
awareness of sustainable transportation
Improve the natural environment and communities affected by DOT-owned facilities and equipment
Note: EU European Union; and USDOT United States Department of Transportation.
most relevant to an agency and its jurisdiction's present and fu-
being used to address transportation sustainability
can be inferred ture needs. Using these frameworks, in the context of a process/
from this table. The indicators and metrics are sorted
by the rela- stakeholder-based approach, could substantively improve effec-
tive frequencies with which they appear in the
indicator systems tiveness and efficiency in addressing sustainability in
of the 16 initiatives. infrastructure systems, as
progress is simultaneously being made
From Table 4, it is clear that transport-related and
environmen- with the institutional reform, data and analytical capabilities, and
tal indicators seem to be the most widely used
indicators for education initiatives necessary to address sustainability in the
 sustainable transportation. The transport-related
indicators include longer term.
safety indicators. About half of the initiatives have safety indica- tors. These indicators are largely focused on outcome measures
such as injury or fatality crashes. All the 16 initiatives have envi- Indicators and Metrics of Transportation
ronmental indicators. Environmental indicators that
seem to be in Sustainability
higher use are linked to vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. Common environmental indictors include emissions of various
air All the indicators and metrics being used in the 16 initiatives may
pollutants, especially green house gases such as
carbon dioxide, be classified as one of the following: transportation-related in-
nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds.
Fuel consump- cluding safety , economic, environmental, and socio-cultural/
tion also appears to be a common environmental
indicator. Eco- equity-related. Table 4 provides a comprehensive list of the indi-
nomic measures, largely captured as per capita
indicators, are cators and metrics being used in the 16 initiatives to evaluate
seen in only few of the initiatives. Canada's ORTEE
and TAC, the progress toward sustainability. In general, the main indicators
World Bank, Europe's PROSPECTS 2003 , and New Zealand
JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 41
Fig. 3. Unified framework for developing indicator systems for infrastructure system sustainability
are the only initiatives with any economic indicators. Socio- cultural and equity-related indicators do not seem to be in wide use
either. Canada's ORTEE, VTPI, PROSPECTS, the Baltic States, and New Zealand are the only initiatives with socio-
cultural/equity-related indicators, and even so each initiative has very few indicators in this domain. Thus, the synthesis of indica-
tors in Table 4 would seem to suggest that sustainable transpor- tation is largely being captured more by transportation effective-
ness and efficiency indicators including safety indicators and environmental indicators; and, to a lesser extent by economic and
social indicators. In addition, there are significant differences in the balance of input and output measures being used in the dif-
ferent domains, ie, environmental versus economics. While analysis of the adequacy of the different indicator systems is be- yond
the scope of this paper, the point must be made that any analysis of these indicator systems cannot be conducted outside the
context of their relative adequacy for achieving the visions that they were created to support.

Findings and Implications

The review and synthesis of the literature on sustainability in transportation and other infrastructure systems leads to a number of
important findings. First of all, it is clear that sustainability in infrastructure systems planning and provision is an issue of grow-
ing importance based on ongoing activity in practice and research to define and measure sustainability in infrastructure systems.
Second, while there are no standard definitions for sustainable transportation systems, there is consensus that sustainable trans-
portation must impact at least three areas: the economy, the envi- ronment, and overall social well-being. Third, while there is no
standard framework for evaluating progress toward sustainability, it is clear that the existing and emerging evaluation
frameworks try to do at least one of the following: 1 capture the causal relationships that lead to progress toward or deviation
away from sustainability; 2 capture the impacts of decisions on the three
42 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005
important areas that define sustainability: ie, the economy, envi- ronment and social-well being or quality of life; and 3 capture
the level of influence or control that the responsible agencies have over the causal factors of sustainability. In addition, a
stakeholder or process-based approach seems critical in sustainability plan- ning for capturing the visions and values of different
communities at various sociopolitical levels local, state, national, and multina- tional . Fourth, the present status of addressing
sustainability in transportation planning and provision seems to indicate a higher focus on the effectiveness and efficiency of
transportation systems planning and provision as well as the resulting environmental impacts, and less of a focus on economic
and social impacts.
Generally absent in the 16 initiatives reviewed are consider- ations of education initiatives to promote awareness of the impor-
tance, benefits, and challenges of moving toward sustainability. Public education is clearly an integral component of any system-
atic initiative to move toward sustainability. Sustainability plan- ning initiatives that are process-based with heavy involvement of
stakeholders naturally have an education component that may not require measurement. Nonetheless, there is arguably value in
viewing education as a tool in itself for achieving sustainability, in which case there would be value in developing specific educa-
tion initiatives to achieve certain goals, and measuring how well these initiatives are achieving such predetermined goals. Educa-
tion is a potentially powerful tool for cultivating collective behav- iors that support sustainability. Also generally absent from the
indicator systems are factors influencing or otherwise impacting the security of transportation and other infrastructure systems,
also a critical element of infrastructure system sustainability. Se- curity is used here to refer to the vulnerability and survivability
of infrastructure systems in various attack scenarios.
It also worth noting that not all the indicator systems have both input and output indicators in every domain of indicators, eg,
safety, economics, etc. Where any particular domain is heavily output-oriented, this is an indication that little is being done to
track and influence actual actions and/or activities that affect sus- tainability in this domain. If such actions and activities were
out-
Table 4. Indicators and Metrics for Sustainable Transportation Systems Sixteen Initiatives
JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 43
Table 4. Continued.
44 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005
Table 4. Continued.
JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 45
Table 4. Continued.
46 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005
Table 4. Continued.
JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 47
side the responsibility or mission of the responsible agency, then it would seem logical that the agency has chosen to focus only
on outputs in this domain, in the short term. Otherwise, there would be value in identifying and including input indicators and
defining associated policies and procedures to directly or indirectly affect progress toward sustainability.
It is also generally the case that the indicator systems do not attempt to separate out higher-impact indicators and metrics from
lower-impact ones. A recent paper by Banister and Pucher 2003 identifies and discusses critical-impact areas for attaining
sustain- ability in transportation systems. Beginning to prioritize factors for evaluating sustainability according to their relative
potential for moving jurisdictions forward toward sustainability would be a useful step forward in the development of systematic
approaches for evaluating sustainability in infrastructure systems.

Other Relevant Issues

Many debates about the merits of sustainability hinge on the bur- den of proof of a sustainable system. In essence, if there is no
consensus on what would constitute a sustainable system state, how can one plan for such a system? Furthermore, uncertainties
that characterize long range planning eg, data forecasting, tech- nological innovation, and sociopolitical upheavals, etc. introduce
risks that would make it more difficult to plan for sustainability. To compound these issues is the question of whether a “sustain-
able transportation system” can exist in isolation of the numerous other systems with which it interacts, and if not, how one then
Table 4. Continued.
48 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005
goes about delineating the boundaries of such a system. Scenario planning and the concept of satisficing as opposed to optimizing
together present a conceptual platform on which to address these issues. Herbert Simon made a strong impact on the field of
orga- nizational decision making by demonstrating that far from mak- ing optimal choices, organizations often search through the
set of possible alternatives until they find one that satisfies an aspiration level, and then terminate their search Dawes 1988 .
Scenario planning, traditionally used in business-strategic planning, helps organizations judge how decisions made today will be
effective in an uncertain future. Hence, rather than forecasting conditions for an uncertain future, several plausible future
scenarios are consid- ered and the robustness of various decisions under these scenarios are evaluated Schwartz 1996 . The
benefits of scenario planning are being considered for regional strategic transportation planning purposes see for example Zegras
et al. 2004 as they address uncertainties better than traditional planning methods. Coupled with the concept of satisficing,
scenario planning can serve as a point of departure for addressing the issues of burden of proof and uncertainty in sustainability
planning. The issue of defining the boundaries of the system could also be addressed through the scenarios that are depicted. In
other words, the extent to which land use policies, technological innovations, and other causal fac- tors and systems are
incorporated in the planning will be left to the jurisdiction of the planner as s/he develops alternative future scenarios.
Two types of questions emerge in practical considerations for addressing sustainability in transportation and other
infrastructure systems: 1 what is the right vision for a particular community
and 2 how can this community most effectively achieve this vision? The latter includes the development of policies with teeth,
education initiatives, and other tools to promote or cultivate movement toward the vision; and the effective measurement of
progress toward this vision . Thus, “do we have the right vision?” and “do we have the right measurement system for attaining
this vision?” are both critical questions that any entity interested in addressing sustainability must answer. Inherent in these
questions are issues of growth used here to depict getting bigger versus development used here to depict getting better . The
effective- ness of an indicator/metric system cannot be evaluated outside the context of how well it is able to measure the vision
for which it was developed. Information quality attributes such as data com- pleteness, accuracy, and precision also cannot be
evaluated out- side the context of these broader and more fundamental questions.

Summary and Conclusions

Given the growing interest in addressing infrastructure sustain- ability, the objectives of this paper were to evaluate definitions,
indicators, and metrics being used to address sustainability in transportation and other infrastructure systems, in order to char-
acterize the current thinking on what constitutes infrastructure sustainability and how it is measured. Sixteen sustainability ini-
tiatives around the world were reviewed, together with selected sustainability initiatives of other civil infrastructure systems
found in the research literature. The findings indicate that while there is no standard definition for transportation sustainability,
there seems to be emerging consensus that, in order to be effec- tive, it must include impacts on the economy, environment, and
social well-being; it must address the causes of sustainable or nonsustainable trends; it must consider the relative levels of in-
fluence that oversight agencies have with respect to implementing policies and procedures that impact sustainability; it must
include an appropriate balance of input and output measures; and it must have a strong stakeholder component. The existing
indicator sys- tems reveal that operationally, transportation sustainability is largely being measured by transportation system
effectiveness and efficiency as well as the environmental impacts of the system. In general, the indicator systems do not seem to
be capturing the important role of education as a critical tool for moving social/ infrastructure systems toward sustainability; nor
capturing infra- structure security as a critical component of sustainability in in- frastructure systems. In addition, the existing
systems do not seem to be differentiating between the higher-impact and lower-impact areas for moving transportation systems
toward sustainability. Be- cause this is a relatively rapidly growing area however, opportu- nities continue to exist for refining
existing visions and indicator systems and advancing existing capabilities to support progress toward sustainable infrastructure
systems.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation NSF under Grant No. 0219607-0015693000: Applications of
Portfolio Theory and Sustainability Metrics in Civil Infrastructure Management. The writers remain exclusively responsible for
the contents of this paper.

References
Ashley, R., and Hopkinson, P. 2002 . “Sewer systems and performance indicators—Into the 21st century.” Urban Water, 4 2 ,
123–135. Balkema, AJ, Preisig, HA, Otterpohl, R., and Lambert, FJD 2002 . “Indicators for the sustainability assessment of
wastewater treatment systems.” Urban Water, 4, 153–161. Baltic 21. 2000 . “Indicators on sustainable development in the Baltic
Sea region An initial Set .” Baltic 21 Transport Sector Rep.— Indicators for Sustainable Transportation, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bannister, D., and Pucher, J. 2003 . “Can sustainability be made accept- able?” Paper for Presentation at the Proc., 2nd STELLA
focus group meeting on Institution, Regulation, and Markets in Transportation. Sustainable Transport in Europe and Links and
Liaisons with America
STELLA , Santa Barbara, Calif. Black, JA, Paez, A., and Suthanaya, PA 2002 . “Sustainable urban transportation:
Performance indicators and some analytical ap- proaches.” J. Urban Plann. Dev., 128 4 , 184–209. Centre for Sustainable
Transportation CST . 2003 . “Transportation per- formance indicators.” CSR, Toronto, www.cstctd.org , accessed Sep- tember
2003. Cortese, AD 2003 . “The critical role of higher education in creating a
sustainable future.” Planning Higher Education, 31 3 , 15–22. Dawes, RM 1988 . Rational choice in an uncertain world,
Harcourt
Brace College Publishers, San Diego. Deakin, E. 2001–2003 . “Sustainable development and sustainable trans- portation:
Strategies for economic prosperity, environmental quality and equity.” Working Paper 2001-03, Institute of Urban and Regional
Development, Univ. of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif. Department of Sustainable Development DSD . 2003 .
“Achieving a better quality of life, Review of progress towards sustainable devel- opment.” United Kingdom
http://www.sustainable- development.gov.uk/ar2002/pdf/ar2002.pdf Environment Canada. 1991 . “A Report on Canada's
Progress Towards a National Set of Environmental Indicators.” State of the Environment Rep. No. 91-1, Minister of Supply and
Services, Ottawa. Environment Canada. 2003 . “Environment signals: Canada's National
Environmental Indicator Series.” Canada. Environmental Defense. 1999 . “Environmental sustainability kit.” Pol-
lution Prevention Alliance, United States. European Commission Energy, Environment and Sustainable Develop- ment
Programme, Procedures for Recommending Optimal Sustain- able Planning of European City Transport Systems PROSPECTS .
2003 . “Developing Sustainable Urban Land Use and Transport Strategies:” Methodological guidebook. European Environment
Agency EEA . 2002 . “Transport and environ- ment reporting mechanism TERM 2002—Paving the way for EU enlargement:
Indicators of transport and environment integration En- vironmental Issues.” Copenhagen, Denmark. Federico, C., Cloud, JP, and
Wheeler, K. 2003 . “Kindergarten through twelfth grade education for sustainability.” Environmental law re- porter, Vol. 2,
Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC Gilbert, R., and Tanguay, H. 2000 . “Brief review of some relevant worldwide
activity and development of an initial long list of indica- tors.” Sustainable Transportation Performance Indicators STPI Project,
Center for Sustainable Transportation CST , Toronto. Gudmundsson, H. 2000 . “Indicators for performance measures for
transportation, environment and sustainability in North America: Re- port from a German Marshall Fund Fellowship 2000
individual study tour October 2000.” Research Notes Rep. No. 148, Ministry of Envi- ronment and Energy, National
Environmental Research Institute, Den- mark. Litman, T. 2003 . “Sustainable transportation indicators.” Victoria Trans- port
Policy Institute VTPI , Victoria, Canada. http://www.vtpi.org/ sus-indx.pdf Meyer, MD, and Jacobs, LJ 2000 . “A Civil
engineering curriculum for the future: The Georgia Tech Case.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 126 2 , 74–78.
JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005 / 49
edition National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy NRTEE .
, Environmental Economics Series.” Paper No.
71, The World 2003 . “Environment and Sustainable Development Indicators for
Bank.
http://wwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSServlet?pcont Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.” http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/programs/
details&eid 000094946 00012505400754 Current
Programs/SDIndicators/ESDI-Report/ESDI-Report-E.pdf ,
Transportation Association of Canada TAC . 1999 .
“Urban transporta- accessed October 2003. New Zealand Ministry of the Environment NZME . 1999 . “Proposals for indicators
of the environmental effects of transport.” http:// www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/transport-proposals-full-jun99.pdf Ontario
Round Table on Environment and Economy ORTEE . 1995 . “Sustainability indicators: The transportation sector.” Report,
ORTEE, Toronto. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD . 1999a . “Indicators for the integration of
environmental concerns into transport policies.” Environment Directorate, Paris. Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development OECD . 1999b . “Using the pressure-state-response model to develop indica- tors of sustainability.” OECD
Environmental Indicators. Pearce, AR 2000 . “Sustainability and the built environment: A metric and process for prioritizing
improvement opportunities.” PhD thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta. Pearce, AR, and Vanegas, JA 2002 . “Defining sustainability for built environment systems.” Int. J. Lingkungan.
Technol. Manage., 2 1 , 94– 113. Rijsberman, MA, and van de Ven, FHM 2000 . “Different ap- proaches to assessment of design
and management of sustainable urban water systems.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 20 3 , 333–345.
tion indicators.” Ottawa. http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/productsand services/ui/exec.asp Transport Canada TC 2001 .
“Sustainable development strategy 2001– 2003, Ottawa: Transport Canada.” http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/
environment/sd/strategy0103/actionplan.htm United States Department of Energy USDOE . “Ten steps to sustainabil- ity.”
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network http:// www.sustainable.doe.gov/management/tensteps.shtml , accessed Sep-
tember 2003. United States Department of Transportation USDOT . 2003 . Perfor- mance Rep. No. 2004 Performance Plan,
Washington, DC http:// www.dot.gov/PerfPlan2004/index.html United States Environmental Protection Agency USEPA . 1999 .
Indi- cators of the environmental impacts of transportation, 2nd. Ed., Washington, DC
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/99indict.pdf Web Definitions (Indicators). 2001 . www.scoea.bc.ca/glossary2001.
htm Web Definitions (Metrics). www.summary.net/manual/glossary.html Wheeler, KA, and Byrne, JM 2003 . “K-12
sustainability education: Its status and where higher education intervenes.” Planning Higher Education, 31 3 , 23–29. World
Commission on Environment and Development WCED . 1987 .
Our common journey, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England. Zegras, C., Sussman, J., and Christopher, C. 2004 . “Scenario
planning Schwartz, P. 1996 . The art of the long view, Doubleday, New York.
for strategic regional transportation planning.” J.
Urban Plann. Dev., Segnestam, L. 1999 . “Environmental performance indicators second
130 1 , 2–13.
50 / JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS © ASCE / MARCH 2005