Sustainability Science

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 377–391 | Cite as

The triple bottom line: bringing a sustainability framework to prioritize climate change investments for infrastructure planning

  • Amy SchweikertEmail author
  • Xavier Espinet
  • Paul Chinowsky
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Climate Change Mitigation, Adaption, and Resilience


Climate change is an increasing concern of agencies, governments, and communities around the world. It poses potential adverse impacts to civil infrastructure, with consequences that include increased financial resources, economic impacts, social impacts, and planning issues. This paper aims to enhance and broaden the discussion on sustainability and the importance of the consideration of social, environmental, and technical aspects in relation to infrastructure planning. Particularly under climate change, these considerations allow for more holistic, effective, and long-term benefits to communities and economies. This paper introduces the triple bottom line (TBL) approach to sustainability as a framework for holistic infrastructure planning under the uncertainty of climate change. The economic pillar will focus on the impacts of climate change on road infrastructure and the cost–benefit of potential adaptation options; environmental considerations include quantifying the potential increase in GHG emissions from increased roadworks required by climate change damages; and the social pillar will be quantified using an index based upon the SoVI method. Each of these ‘pillars’ of sustainability will be analyzed individually and mapped using geographic information systems (GIS). Finally, a ‘holistic’ approach will be discussed, where these individual layers are combined using GIS to display the information. A case study focused on the Sacramento Region of California is used as a proof-of-concept for how the triple bottom line framework introduced here can be utilized to provide actionable, more equitable decision-making for investment in critical infrastructure adaptation policy.


Road infrastructure Climate change Adaptation Sustainability Triple bottom line 



The authors acknowledge the feedback from the following members for their feedback and valuable input that contributed to the design of this study and results presented in this article: Dr. Bernard Amadei and Dr. Ross Corotis of the Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department at the University of Colorado Boulder; Dr. Seth Spielman of the Department of Geography at the University of Colorado Boulder; and Dr. Sherman Robinson of the International Food Policy Research Institute.


  1. Arent DJ, Tol RSJ, Faust E, Hella JP, Kumar S, Strzepek KM, Toth FL, Yan D (2014) Key economic sectors and services. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Berdica K (2002) An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and should be done. Transp Policy 9(2):117–127. doi: 10.1016/S0967-070X(02)00011-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloomberg M, Paulson H Jr, Steyer T (2014) Risky business: the economic risks of climate change in the United States.
  4. Bocchini P, Frangopol D, Ummenhofer T, Zinke T (2014) Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach. J Infrastruct Syst 20(2):04014004. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brekke L, Thrasher B, Maurer E, Pruitt T (2013) Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate projections: release of downscaled CMIP5 climate projections, comparison with preceding Information and Summary of User Needs.
  6. Chinowsky P, Arndt C (2012) Climate change and roads: a dynamic stressor-response model. Rev Dev EconGoogle Scholar
  7. Chinowsky P, Schweikert A, Strzepek N, Manahan K, Strzepek K, Schlosser A (2013a) Climate change adaptation advantage for African road infrastructure. Clim ChangeGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinowsky PS, Price JC, Neumann JE (2013b) Assessment of climate change adaptation costs for the U.S. Road Network. Global Environ Change 23(4):764–773. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinowsky P, Schweikert A, Strzepek N, Strzepek K (2014) Infrastructure and climate change: a study of impacts and adaptations in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia. Clim Change 130:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooley H, Moore E, Heberger M, Allen L (2012) Social vulnerability to climate change in California. Pacific Institute; California Energy Commission.
  11. Cutter SL (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20(4):529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc Sci Q 84(2):242–261. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environ Change 18(4):598–606. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalziell E, Nicholson A (2001) Risk and impact of natural hazards on a road network. J Transp Eng 127(2):159–166. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2001)127:2(159)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Homeland Security (2013) DHS climate action plan.
  16. Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4(2):107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edmonds G (1998) Wasted time: the price of poor access, vol 3. ILO-International Labour OfficeGoogle Scholar
  18. Espinet X, Schweikert A, Chinowsky P (2015) Robust prioritization framework for transport infrastructure adaptation investments under uncertainty of climate change. Am Soc Civil Eng J Risk Uncertain Eng Syst Part AGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission (2014) Climate action. Accessed 16 Sept 2014
  20. Executive Office of the President (2013) The president’s climate action planGoogle Scholar
  21. Federal Highway Administration (1999) Materials and procedures for sealing and filling cracks in asphalt-surfaced pavements: manual of practice. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-147Google Scholar
  22. Federal Highway Administration (2015) Office of Planning Environment and Realty (HEP). Census transportation planning products.
  23. Feng W, Lessard D, Cameron B, Crawley E (2013) Stakeholders, issues and the shaping of large engineering projects. In: Working paper proceedings, engineering project organization conferenceGoogle Scholar
  24. Field C, Barros V, Mach K, Mastrandrea M (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Technical summary. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II AR5.
  25. Füssel H-M, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75(3):301–329. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-0329-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gallivan F, Ang-Olson J, Papson A, Venner M (2010) Greenhouse gas mitigation measures for transportation construction, maintenance, and operations activities. NHCRP Project 25-25/Task58Google Scholar
  27. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Gloabl change and the ecology of cities. Science 319(756). doi: 10.1126/science.1150195
  28. Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environ Change Tradit Peoples Clim Change 19(2):240–247. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Industrial Economics (2010) Costing climate impacts and adaptation: a Canadian Study on Public Infrastructure, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Canada, Contributing AuthorGoogle Scholar
  30. Kajikawa Y (2008) Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain Sci 3(2):215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koetse MJ, Rietveld P (2009) The impact of climate change and weather on transport: an overview of empirical findings. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 14(3):205–221. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2008.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larsen PH, Goldsmith S, Smith O, Wilson ML, Strzepek K, Chinowsky P, Saylor B (2008) Estimating future costs for alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Global Environ Change 18(3):442–457. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leichenko R (2011) Climate change and urban resilience. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3(3):164–168. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27(4):1009–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00940.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lempert R, Nakicenovic N, Sarewitz D, Schlesinger M (2004) Characterizing climate-change uncertainties for decision-makers. An editorial essay. Clim Chang 65(1):1–9. doi: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037561.75281.b3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Macharis C, Ampe J (2007) The use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for the evaluation of transport projects: a review. Euro XXII Prague Book of AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  37. Macharis C, de Witte A, Ampe J (2009) The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice. J Adv Transp 43(2):183–202. doi: 10.1002/atr.5670430206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martens P (2006) Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(1):36–41Google Scholar
  39. Martinich J, Neumann J, Ludwig L, Jantarasami L (2012) Risks of sea level rise to disadvantaged communities in the United States. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 18(2):169–185. doi: 10.1007/s11027-011-9356-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meadows D, Meadows D, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) Limits to growth. Potomac Associates, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Meyer M, Amekudzi A, O’Har J (2010) Transportation asset management systems and climate change. Transp Res Rec 2160(1):12–20. doi: 10.3141/2160-02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035 (Draft Program Environmental Impact Report).
  43. Morrow BH (1999) Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters 23(1):1–18. doi: 10.1111/1467-7717.00102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moteff J, Parfomak P (2004) Critical infrastructure and key assets: definition and identificationGoogle Scholar
  45. MTP2035 Issue Papers: Road Maintenance.
  46. National Research Council, Policy Division. Board on Sustainable Development (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. Nebraska Department of Roads (2012) Estimating quantities in English and Metric.
  48. Nemry F, Demirel H (2012) Impact of climate change on transport: a focus on road and rail transport infrastructures. Joint Research Commission Scientific and Policy Reports, European Commission.
  49. Neumann J, Price J, Chinowsky P, Wright L, Ludwig L, Streeter R, Jones R et al (2014) Climate change risks to US infrastructure: impacts on roads, bridges, coastal development and urban drainage. Clim Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-1037-4 Google Scholar
  50. Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM (2007) Going beyond Panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(39):15176–15178. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701886104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Palmer M (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611291104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Revi A, Sattherwaite D (2013) IPCC WGII AR5 Chap. 8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II AR5.
  53. Sachs JD (2012) From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet 379(9832):2206–2211. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Mapping Center: Regional GIS Clearing House.
  55. Schweikert A, Chinowsky P, Kwiatkowski K, Johnson A, Shilling E, Strzepek K, Strzepek N (2014) Road infrastructure and climate change: impacts and adaptations for South Africa. J Infrastruct Syst. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000235 Google Scholar
  56. Schweikert A, Espinet X, Goldstein S, Chinowsky P (2015) Resilience versus risk: assessing the cost of climate change adaptation to California’s transportation system and the City of Sacramento. Transp Res Rec, 13–20. doi: 10.3141/2532-02
  57. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) (2013) Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  58. Superpave: Performance by Design (2005) Final Report of the TRB Superpave Committee. Transportation Research Board. ISBN 0-309-09414-3Google Scholar
  59. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.
  60. Taylor MAP, D’Este GM (2007) Transport network vulnerability: a method for diagnosis of critical locations in transport infrastructure systems. In: Murray AT, Grubesic TH (eds) Critical infrastructure. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, pp 9–30
  61. Transportation Research Board (2005) Superpave: performance by design. Final Report of the TRB Superpave Committee. ISBN 0-309-09414-3Google Scholar
  62. Transportation Research Board (2008) Potential impacts of climate change on US transportation. National Research Council.
  63. Triantaphyllou E, Baig K (2005) The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(2):213–226. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2005.845221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tribbia J, Moser S (2008) More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environ Sci PolicyGoogle Scholar
  65. Turner BL et al (2003) A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14)Google Scholar
  66. Tyler S, Moench M (2012) A framework for urban climate resilience. Clim Dev 4(4):311–326. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2012.745389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. U.S. Census Bureau (2013) TIGER/Line Shapefiles: roads. U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division. 2014. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. (accessed June 26)
  68. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs (2015) Climate change in the United States: benefits of global action. EPA 430-R-15-001.
  69. United States Census Bureau. Geographic terms and concepts—census tract.
  70. US DHS. National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP).
  71. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (1999) LTPP pavement maintenance materials: SHRP Crack Treatment Experiment, Final Report. FHWA-RD-99-143Google Scholar
  72. Walker D, Entine L, Kummer S (2002) Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating (PASER) Asphalt Roads Manual. Transportation Information Center, Wisconsin Transportation Information CenterGoogle Scholar
  73. Warner K, Van der Geest K, Kreft S (2013) Pushed to the limit: evidence of climate change-related loss and damage when people face constraints and limits to adaptation.
  74. Westphal M, Hughes G, Brommelhorster J (eds) (2013) Economics of climate change in East Asia. Asian Development Bank.
  75. Wood NJ, Jones J, Spielman S, Schmidtlein MC (2015) Community clusters of tsunami vulnerability in the US Pacific Northwest. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(17):5354–5359. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1420309112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. World Climate Research Programme. Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections’ website.
  77. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common futureGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural EngineeringUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations