# Equity in Transportation Asset Management: A Proposed Framework
## 1 Introduction  
Transportation asset management significantly impacts various aspects of modern society, including mobility, health, safety, economic opportunities, and overall life quality. Decision-making is a very important step in asset management, as it involves a wide range of activities, including strategic planning, infrastructure design, treatment selection, and policy implementation. At the core of these impacts lie well-functioning transportation systems, which comprise infrastructure, vehicles, regulations, and user behavior, all of which interact to meet travel demand within a specific area [1]. Distress detection is one of the most critical topics in this domain. As transportation assets inevitably deteriorate over time due to various factors, including traffic loads and environmental conditions, efficientand timely inspection is a crucial element of a successful infrastructure management system [2]. Effective asset management requires a meticulous decision-making process, which includes identifying current problems; establishing objectives, criteria, and constraints; creating solutions, such as new infrastructure construction; rehabilitating existing assets; and implementing management strategies. The global cost of maintenance and repair for transportation infrastructure is remarkably high, amounting to hundreds of billions of USD annually. Numerous studies have consistently highlighted the detrimental impact of deteriorated transportation assets, such as pavements and bridges, on both public safety and economic productivity. A primary focus for researchers in this field is to minimize the substantial expenditures associated with inspection and maintenance efforts [3; 4]. The complexity of decision-making intensifies when considering the multitude of stakeholder objectives, which often conflict. Highway agencies face the challenge of developing effective maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) plans that accommodate limited funding and diverse stakeholder priorities. In transportation asset management, a wide range of stakeholders emerge, each representing distinct entities with varying objectives and vested interests. These stakeholders include local agencies overseeing highway infrastructure, highway users like commuters and businesses, environmental organizations advocating for ecological considerations, and local communities directly impacted by highway planning and operation. With such a diverse array of perspectives and priorities, decision-making processes require strategic coordination to address potential conflicts and maximize overall outcomes to provide an equitable system. Robust evaluation methods are crucial to achieving this balance by enabling a comprehensive assessment of trade-offs between various stakeholder priorities [5; 6; 7]. An effective transportation asset management program relies on various evaluation methods. These approaches differ in how they handle weight definition and analysis. In the field of transportation asset management, evaluation methods can be broadly categorized into parametric and non-parametric approaches, each with distinct implications for weight definition and analysis. Parametric methods, such as Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), assume a specific functional form for the relationship between inputs and outputs, with weights often determined exogenously based on theoretical or empirical considerations. In contrast, non-parametric methods like data envelopment analysis (DEA) do not assume a specific functional form, deriving weights endogenously from the observed data. This allows for a flexible evaluation of efficiency without predefined weights. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches often fall into the parametric category, with exogenously defined weights [8]. The United States has recently made significant investments in its highway infrastructure network to enhance sustainable development within the country.