The Best Construction of the Regional Road toSupport CO2 Emissions Reduction in Critical Area:
A Case Study of Maros-Watampone RoadANY WAHYUNI
Graduate School of Environment and Life Science Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology
YUZURU MIYATA
Graduate School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology
HIROYUKI SHIBUSAWA
Graduate School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology
1. Introduction
Road is a public good; therefore, to provide it should be by the government because nobody wanted
to pay for something, which had benefited for all. How much money should be provided by theGovernment for a road development; it is an issue. We cannot apply price system to reach efficiencyof economic resources for provided it. Instead by a vote to do it because the public neither can
explicate their references of the public goods. In a democratic society, preferences and willingness topay for public sectors should be a way of voting.Distribution and a way of a vote are determinant of a
result of voting.
Road construction is a specific sector which the professional reference is the one way of public
participation in making of decision.Professional is a community who expert in road planning anddevelopment. Complexity of knowledge and understanding about road planning and development of
the professional can be simplified through by an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach. This is
an approach a mathematic concept to make a structure of a problem by matrix.All factors are arranged
and selected then descending in hierarchy structure to criteria and alternatives in successive levels.
Determination of criteria of road construction selection is not the main parameters for road
construction but should be considered in the decision-making.
While the construction sector is one of the major contributors to the economic development ofIndonesia, instead of the construction process and operation had a fairly large consumption of energy
and created of CO2 emissions significantly. We need to effort to estimate an amount of CO2 emissions
that potential produce by construction activities in order to do prevention or improvement of theenvironmental impact.The best construction by selection of public preferences must support theCO2emissionsreduction program of the Government.
Government of Indonesia had a limited budget for the development implementation.Therefore,theresult of selectioncan be conducted by an efficiency of economic resource evaluation. The roadinvestment benefited purpose for community. The evaluation method of the economic resource
provides an integrated framework to investment evaluation from a public standpoint. Method of
evaluation calculated based on: Benefit-Cost (B/C) analytic, Net Present Value (NPV) analytic andInternal Rate of Return (IRR) analytic; to be proved that reference of public is the best choice for
implementation.
2. Research Methods
Method of selection construction by public and the evaluation of efficiency of the economic resource
through the approach, namely:
2.1. AHP for selection of the road construction typeThis approach built formed matrix of relative weights among the criteria performed by the value ofthe preference. The method used is AnalyticalHierarchyProcess (AHP) todetermine the choice type
ofconstruction.This methodwas first developedbySaaty(1988)and is commonly usedby decisionmakers to be decided ona policyby performingthe synthesisofseveral optionsin a singlemethod. The
core ofthis analysisis totransformasubjectiveassessmentbecomesawholehas a valueorweight.

1

Acquisition ofdataweighting isderivedfromthe analysisofthe surveyinterview, inwhich respondentsare
faced withthe question ofhow largeaninterestratecriterioncomparedwithother criteria. The criteria
usedare theresults of identificationofthe things thathave amajor influence onchoicethantoachieve
thegoal.
Relativeofweightsamongthe
criteriausedtoobtaincomparisonsbetweencriteriaweightingarenormalizedand determine thelevel ofimportanceamongthe criterionvariablescompared.Relative preference values obtained through analysis
of interviews with questionnaires to respondents whom the importance level among the elements usinga scale of 9.
Respondents were selected are the ones who have the technical expertise or knowledge of roads andbridges. They consisted of government officials, planners, engineering and academia. The respondents
are not representative of the population as a whole because their numbers a bit so that each grouprepresented by 10 people. However, overall it is considered that the respondents have representing of
the community.
Respondentsare assumed tobe consistentin providingan assessment ofeach pair ofcriteriaandalln
criteriahave the same valuewhen comparedagainst itself.
The results ofcalculationof eachrowin thematrixcomparisons willobtainthe value of eigenvectorwhichistheweightsvalue
ofthenormalizedaverageof
eachfactorin
eachrow.
The weightmatrix ofpair-wise comparisons has acharacteristicmaximumvalueof nis positive, both
simpleandcharacteristicvectorassociatedwithapositive(Theoremof
PerroninGarminia,
2010).
Therefore,can berepresentedthat thepair wise comparisonmatrixhas aconsistency indexis zero.
Selection criteria were compared using a survey by PT. Yodya Karya and previous study(Badriana,2009) of the problems found in the Maros-Watampone road namely: benefits, environmental,
economical, cost of construction, technology, maintenance costs, esthetics value, ease handling of
implementation, and time of construction.
The criterion for selection of the type of construction was made in a hierarchy of decision-making sothat the selected alternative able to accommodate all aspects of the problem. Top level shows where
the selection is the best type of construction. On the second level are the criteria that influence theselection. For the third level is going to alternative construction selected by considering the criteria on
the second level. Selection hierarchy is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Selection of Alternative Handling Geometric Hierarchy
2.2. CO2 emissions calculation
Calculate the approximate number of environmental impacts such as CO2 emissions caused by analternative construction to using the value of emission factorresults of several studies of the scientific
literature published. Due to limited data and literature, we made a lot of assumptions to simplify thecalculation. Assumed the value of emissions factor was used to have indicators and geographicalconditions of the same. The main construction was using the results of the greenhouse-gas calculations
performed by Kato et al (2005), Sripple (2001), and Rajagopalan (2007). Emissions caused bytransportation mode refer to the results of scientific research Rose (2010). It is important to note thatthe calculation results depend on the actual construction design.
2.3. Efficiency of economic evaluation

2

Theimplementationofthepolicycanworkwelldoneprovingittheoreticallywithcalculatingeconomicvariabl
esthroughtheanalysisoftheCostBenefits(CBA)forthebestconstructiontosupportdecisionmaking.Thisanal
ysisisusedforactivitiesthatcouldpotentiallyinterferewiththeenvironmentandthepublicinterest.Theconcep
tisverysimple,whichmeasuresthevalueofthebenefitsandcostsofanactivityarecomparableinsize.Activities
willleadtotheallocationoffactorsofproductionmoreefficientifthevalueofthebenefitisgreaterthanthevalueo
fthecost.TheHighwayDevelopmentandManagementIVmethodcalculatedVehicleOperatingCosts(VOC)
basedonthepreliminarydesignsimulationsassumingthecurrentpriceandgeometricparameters.Component
ofthevalueoftimewascalculatedbyusingIntegratedRoadManagementSystem(IRMS)andtheapproachofG
rossOutput(HumanCapitalApproach)togetthecostofaccidents.
Expansion of the analysis of benefits and costs is to use criteria Net Present Value (NPV) to calculate
the level of investment feasibility, Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Benefit Cost Ratio. Test
sensitivity was calculated based on the eligibility conditions optimistic scenario (increase of thebenefits cost by 25% and investment costs decrease by 25%) and the condition of pessimism (decreaseof the benefit cost by 25% and investment costs increase by 25%).
3. Case Study
Maros-Watamponeroad is located in South Sulawesi, Indonesia, where the road built by the Dutch
government, and important for regional economic activity between South Sulawesi Province andSoutheast Sulawesi Province. This road has a length of 145km with a width average of 6 meters andcross some mountain areas with steep contour’s conditions.
Since2007 until 2009, the Government has conducted a study and discussion for the planning of roaddevelopment in an effort to improve the performance of Maros-Watamponeroad. This plan
recommended to improvement three alternate geometric road construction options that can be applied
to the elevated bridge, cut-fill and tunnel system. Implementation of the three construction alternatives
could potentially have a negative impact on the environment. Thus, special attention is needed to the
topography and geology, in particular, the choice of construction techniques and methods in order tomaintain the sustainability of ecosystems especially in the National Parks and heritage areas on thesides.
4. Analysis Results
4.1. Decision Making by AHP
The results of the pairwise comparison showed that the preferences of the respondents are consistentin providing options. This is evidenced by inconsistencies value less than 0.10 (0.08), and the weightof the criterion and alternative options can be seen in Table 1.
The existence of the road will make increased mobility so that the economic growth of the area,
traffic safety and comfort will be increased as well. Service delivery across between the provinces nolonger delayed so that the freshness of the food delivery can be assured.
Table 1: The Weighting of Criteria and Alternatives
Alternatif Weighting
GlobalInconsisten
Criteria
Elevated
Weightingcy
Cutfill Tunnel
BridgeBenefit
0.300
0.03
0.534
0.150
0.316
Environment
0.224
0.519
0.304
0.177
0.02
Technology
0.130
0.493
0.311
0.196
0.05
Economical
0.104
0.570
0.270
0.160
0.03
Construction Costs
0.081
0.550
0.210
0.240
0.02
Maintenance Costs
0.054
0.523
0.284
0.193
0.09
Esthetic Value
0.041
0.489
0.332
0.180
0.09
Easy
Handling
0.038
0.581
0.282
0.137
0.04
Implementation
Time of Implementation
0.029
0.534
0,.3160.150
0.03
Inconsistency
0.090
0.528
0.248
0.223
0.08
Priority
12
3
3

4.2. Application of the Elevated Bridge Construction
Table 2 shows that the geometric changes of an existing condition to the implementation of theconstruction of an elevated bridge. There are several geometrical conditions, which cannot be adapted
to the National Road Standard because we keep trying to be realistic with the conservation zones andcritical area by use the lower level of service.
Table 2: The Geometric Change Parameters
BeforeAfter
Road Condition
Implementation Implementation
Length
10
11.5
Width
4.5
7
Width shoulder
1
2
Topography condition
Hill
Flat
Average slope (RR)
22.5
2.5
Average derivate (FR)22.5
3.5
Slope + derivate (TTR) 45
5
Degree of Curve (DTR) 200
15
Surface condition (IRI)
5
7
Average speed
40
65

Unit
Km
M
M
m/km
m/km
m/km
°/km
m/km
Km/jam

4.3. Construction Impacts on CO2 Emissions
Table 3illustrates that the amount of CO2 emissions and the relative contribution of the main
construction, maintenance and transportation of type of existing construction and two construction
alternatives. Cut and fill construction is post-dispatch construction, and therefore, we cannot display
the data on the number of the resulting CO2 emission.
Table 3: Estimate the Total Emissions Produced by Each Type of Alternative Construction
Ton CO2/KM
Type of
Main Construction
Construction
Transportation
Total
Construction
Maintenance
Elevated Bridge
1.05
0.03
0.23
1.31
Tunnel

1.50

0.07

0.23

1.79

Cut fill

NA

NA

NA

NA

Asphalt Surface

0.05

0.01

0.29

0.35

4.4. Analysis of the Economic Efficiency
4.4.1. Component of Cost Benefit
Vehicle operating costs was decrease after the implementation of the construction can be seen in
Table 4 that shows that the vehicle type truck having a lot of benefits caused by the project.
Table4:Operational Cost of Vehicle (Before and After the Project)
BeforeDifferent
VehicleAfter Project
Project
VOC
Sedan/city car
3,720
3,133
588
Sport utility vehicle
4,678
3,740
938
Mini Bus
8,140
7,603
537
Bus
11,5687,584
3,984
Light Truck
7,725
6,670
1,055
Medium Truck
12,901
11,208
1,693
HeavyTruck
14,813
8,671
6,142

4

Geometric changes will have a major impact on travel time. The average vehicle travel time
reduction of 20-30% of original condition. The accident rate will be decreased. Overall travel timechanges before and after project can be seen in the following table:

Table 5: Value Time Travel Before and After the Project
BeforeAfter
VehicleTime Rate
Project
Project
Sedan/city car
73,82145,42828,393
Sport Utility vehicle
53,17632,724
20,452
Mini Bus
106,352
65,44740,905
Bus
212,703130,894
81,809Light Truck
14,9609,206
5,754
Medium Truck
14,9609,206
5,754
Heavy Truck
14,9609,206
5,754
4.4.2. Feasibility and Sensitivity Analysis of Investment
Table 6 illustrates that the value of the benefits arising from the application of elevated bridge
construction at the time and in different conditions. The values of the evaluation of the implementationof this work are placed in the scale of priorities and investment feasible.
Table 6:Sensitivity Test on 25% ofProfits and Costs Change
NPV
IRR
(in
BCR
Test
(in Billion
Billion(12%)
Rupiah)Rupiah)Scenario 1: without accident cost saving
Condition
Test 1: cost investment up 25%, benefit down
25% (condition pessimistic)
Test 2: cost investment down 25%, benefit up
25% (condition optimistic)
Scenario 2: with accident cost saving
Condition
Test 1: cost investment up 25%, benefit down
25% (condition pessimistic)
Test 2: cost investment down 25%, benefit up
25% (condition optimistic)

BCR
(15%)

899,849

20.07%

2.78

2.21

385,052

17.91%

1.78

1.41

1,459,639

21.32%

4.34

3.45

1,078,678

20.36%

3.09

2.45

563,881

18.60%

2.03

1.61

1,638,468

21.43%

4.73

3.75

5. Conclusions
An AHP method has been applied to select of the best type construction road on Maros-Watampone,
Indonesia, for decision-making. To support these decisions for handling geometric construction on
Maros-Watampone roads should consider the non-economic aspects such as benefits, environment,
technology, economic, construction costs, maintenance costs, esthetic value, easyforimplementationand time of implementation. All criteria have to contribute with significantly in construction process
and operation for keep environmental sustainable. Criteriaof considerationare analyzed using AHP,
where the level of knowledge and information of the respondents affects the weights in this analysis.
AHP analysis showed that elevated bridge construction is the best alternative for geometricimprovements at Maros-Watampone road. This decision is supported by the results of a simple
analysis of the environmental impact and economic aspects of the evaluation of the selected
alternative. Overall, the selection of elevated bridge construction provided great benefits, have a little
impact on the environment, the achievement of geometric standards through technology, and the valueof BCR> 1.0 which indicates that the cost of the benefit is greater than the cost of investing in a state5

of optimistic and pessimistic. Besides, it has artistic value that can support increased conservation area
as an area of natural and cultural heritage.
The calculation of the ecological impacts out of the scope this project will work but need to beprepared as a follow-up of the value of CO2 emissions generated after a simple calculation. Future
study should be concentrated on the environmental impact of the energy consumption, especially inthe construction and transportation activities thoroughly involving all components in the construction,
maintenance and transportation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research is a project of Center for the Implementation of National Road VI Makassar, Department
Highways, Ministry of Public Works Republic of Indonesia and funded by APBN.
REFERENCES[1] Department for Communities and LocalGovernment., 2009. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual,London.
[2] Hemanta., Xiao-Hua., 2008. Modelling Multi-Criteria decision analysis for benchmarking
management practices in project management.,International Conference On Information
Technology In Construction.
[3] Hough, Michael., 1989, City Form and Natural Process, Routledge, New York.
[4] Horvath A., (1997). The Estimation of Environmental Implications of Construction Material and
Design Using Life-Cycle Assessment Techniques, PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering, Camegie Mellon University, Pittsburg.
[5] Kato et al, 2005. A Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Environmental Impact of Inter-Regional
High-Speed Mass Transit Projects, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, vol. 6. pp 3211-3224.
[6] Keiron, Audain., 2011. The Adverse Impacts of Road Construction on theEnvironment.www.eHow.com.
[7] Mackay City Council, 2008, Geometric Road Design-Urban and Rural.
[8] IanMacHarg, Ian., 1969. Design with Nature, University of Pennsylvania, New York.
[9] Ministry of Public Works of Indonesia.,2005. Feasibility study roads and bridgesguidelines,
Jakarta.
[10] Ministry of Public Works of Indonesia., 2010. Strategic Plan 2010-2014, Jakarta.
[11] Miyata et al, 2008. Rural Sustainable Development by Constructing New Roads in Advanced
Country: A Case Study of San-en Region in Japan.
[12] Rajagopalan, N., 2007. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Highway Construction Project,
Thesis, Master of Science in Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University.
[13] Rose, Ben J., 2010. GHG-Energy Calc Background Paper[14] Saaty, T.L., 1988. Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process, British
Library,USA.
[15] Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, European Journal ofOperational Research 48 (1990) 9-26,North-Holland.
[16] Sembiring, S.N and friends., 1998. Review of law and conservation area management policy inIndonesia towards decentralization and development of improved community participation;
Environmental Law Institute for Development of Indonesia in ,operation with the Natural
Resources Management Program, Jakarta.
[17] Simon Herbert A., 1947. Administrative Behavior; a Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization, New York.
[18] Sripple, Hakan., 2001. Life Cycle Assessment of Road a Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis,
Second Revised Edition, Gothenburg, Sweden.
[19] Tudela, Alejandro., Akiki, N., Cisternas, R., 2006. Comparing the output of cost benefit andmulti-criteria analysis an application to urban transport investment, Transportation ResearchPart A ˂www.elsevier.com/locate/tra˃.
[20] Zheng, Zhime Ronda., 1997. Application of Reliability Theory to Highway Geometric Design,
the University of British Columbia).
6