Sustainability of bridge maintenance

Teslim B Balogun,Hazem Gouda,Jessica Lamond,Colin A Booth,Adrienn Tomor

doi:10.1680/jbren.15.00027

Teslim B Balogun, Hazem Gouda + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1680/jbren.15.00027

Copy DOI

Abstract

Bridge maintenance activities are important to consider within sustainable development due to the cost and environmental impact associated with various maintenance activities. Comparisons have been made between different bridge structural forms, based on materials, components and construction method, but less information is available on bridge maintenance activities to help decide a sustainable structural form. Typical maintenance aspects of the predominant forms of bridge structure (i.e. concrete, steel and masonry bridges) were considered in this study to reveal their sustainability in terms of materials, energy, transportation, human health and ecosystems. The results indicate that concrete and steel bridge maintenance activities have an average impact of 42% and 46% compared with 12% for masonry bridge maintenance activities. It is concluded that the component parts of concrete and steel bridges should be revised as they play an integral role in the selection of maintenance options.

Highlights

Ethical principles and their application in practice have come to matter to many individual forensic geneticists, working to ensure that, while the scientific foundation of the techniques they are developing and deploying for casework is reliable, they are contributing to a just society
While we focus on the estimation of externally visible characteristics in this case study, we do acknowledge that the testing of biogeographic ancestry (BGA) has its own technical and ethical pitfalls, some of which it shares with forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) and some of which are specific to biogeographic ancestry testing (BGA)
As science is afforded a powerful role in knowledge production and meaningmaking in the criminal justice system, could this lead to a ‘technological tyranny’ [98] in which individuals and communities have to prove their innocence against probabilities? Might forensic scientists inadvertently contribute to creating new kinds of inequalities and insecurity when it comes to policing and criminal justice? (p. 365, [99])

Summary

Introduction

Ethical principles and their application in practice have come to matter to many individual forensic geneticists, working to ensure that, while the scientific foundation of the techniques they are developing and deploying for casework is reliable, they are contributing to a just society. Forensic genetics as a discipline and a community of practice—research scientists, laboratory practitioners, journals, industry, professional bodies, and users of forensic genetic analyses in policing and elsewhere—continue to face scrutinize new and emerging forensic genetic technologies for their social, ethical, and legal ramifications, alongside their scientific and technical dimensions. The Law Commission of New Zealand reported on new and emergent forensic genetics in 2020, recommending the comprehensive revision of legislation; increased oversight; and greater consideration of concerns surrounding privacy and discrimination [2]. The Law Commission of Ontario reviewed Artificial Intelligence (AI) and probabilistic genotyping DNA tools in June 2021, suggesting that inherent biases in these technologies challenge the notion of DNA profiling as a “gold standard” and requires that there is continuous scrutiny as well as new legislation [3]. The Scottish Government and the UK House of Lords have commenced parallel enquiries into developments in technologies for policing in 2021 [4,5], scoping opportunities, and challenges arising for policing from new technologies

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion