Moving toward sustainability and circularity in hill road construction: a study of barriers, practices and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study explores the relationships among sustainability implementation barriers (resource, managerial and regulatory barriers), sustainability practices (sustainable construction materials, sustainable construction design, modern construction methods and environmental provisions and reporting) and sustainability performance (environmental, economic and social) in hill road construction (HRC). Design/methodology/approach Primary data were collected from the 313 HRC practitioners with the help of a questionnaire, and research hypotheses were tested employing structural equation modeling. Findings The findings reveal a mixed effect of sustainability implementation barriers. Resource (managerial) barriers are negatively related to all practices except environmental provisions and reporting (sustainable construction materials), while regulatory barriers only negatively impact modern construction methods. On the other hand, all sustainability practices positively impact environmental performance, whereas economic (social) performance is positively influenced by all practices, except environmental provisions and reporting (modern construction methods), and positively affects economic performance. Originality/value In order to transform HRC toward sustainability, the barriers to sustainability implementation, sustainability practices and performance need to be understood by practitioners; however, the relationships have not previously been empirically assessed in extant literature. Besides, past research appears to be predominantly focused on the environmental aspect, thereby neglecting economic and social aspects. This study is a modest attempt to bridge these research gaps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".