Sustainability in road construction projects is hindered by the extensive use of non-renewable materials, high greenhouse gas emissions, risk cost, and significant disruption to the local community. Sustainability involves economic, environmental, and social aspects (triple bottom line). However, establishing metrics to evaluate economic, environmental, and social impacts is challenging because of the different nature of these dimensions and the shortage of accepted indicators. This paper developed a comprehensive method considering all three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social burdens. Initially, the economic, environmental, and social impact category indicators were assessed using the Life cycle approach. After that, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) were utilized to prioritize the alternatives according to the acquired weightings and sustainable indicators. The steps of the AHP method involve forming a hierarchy, determining priorities, calculating weighting factors, examining the consistency of these assessments, and then determining global priorities/weightings. The TOPSIS method is conducted by building a normalized decision matrix, constructing the weighted normalized decision matrix, evaluating the positive and negative solutions, determining the separation measures, and calculating the relative closeness to the ideal solution. The selected alternative performs the highest Relative Closeness to the Ideal Solution. Lastly, a case study was undertaken to validate the proposed method. In three alternatives in the case study (Cement Concrete, Dense-Graded Polymer Asphalt Concrete, and Dense-Graded Asphalt Concrete), option 3 showed the most sustainable performance due to its highest Relative Closeness to the Ideal Solution. Integrating AHP and TOPSIS methods combines both strengths, including AHP’s structured approach for determining criteria weights through pairwise comparisons and TOPSIS’s ability to rank choices based on their proximity to an ideal solution.

This paper provides a unique empirical analysis of the effects of political factors on the adoption of PPP contracts in Brazil. As such, it innovates along two different lines: first, political factors behind the adoption of PPPs have been largely ignored in the vast body of empirical literature, and second, there is scant work done on the motives of any kind behind the adoption of PPPs in Brazil. Various economic and financial reasons have been evoked to justify the use of PPPs in general. These include the goal of promoting socio-economic development in a tight public budgetary framework or of improving the quality of public services through the use of economically efficient and cost-effective mechanisms. Any possible underlying political motives, however, have been overlooked in the PPP research. And yet, there is abundant literature suggesting a link between the adoption of PPPs and the ideology of the governing body or the political cycles associated with elections. This study examines the impact of ideological commitment and opportunistic political behavior on the process of PPP contracting in Brazil, including the stages of public consultation, the publication of tender, and the signature of the contract, using federative-level data for the period between 2005 and 2022. Consistent with the outstanding literature, the two hypotheses are tested: first, conservative parties tend to celebrate more PPP contracts than left-leaning parties, and second, the electoral calendar has a significant effect in the process, allowing for opportunistic behaviors. Empirical results suggest that there is little evidence for the relevance of ideological leanings in the process of adopting PPPs in Brazil. Additionally, regardless of ideology, parties significantly choose to enter PPPs at specific points in the electoral cycle, suggesting decisions are influenced by political considerations and electoral strategy rather than by purely financial or ideological considerations. This may pose severe constraints on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the contracts, negatively impacting public governance and leading to protracted costs for taxpayers.