Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42365066›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Better road conditions for everyone can be a co-benefit of road maintenance.

Florence Dadzoe, Jessica Boakye, Egemen Okte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Florence DadzoeCivil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Street, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA. fdadzoe@umass.edu.
Jessica BoakyeCivil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Street, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA.
Egemen OkteCivil and Environmental Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Street, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pavement management decisions shape how road quality is distributed across communities, yet equity is rarely evaluated as an outcome of standard prioritization practices. This study introduces a framework for assessing whether equity improvements can be a co-benefit of routine pavement maintenance without requiring equity-specific optimization. We propose two methodological advances. First, a community-based Gini coefficient computed at the census block group level, rather than at individual road segments, to meaningfully capture horizontal equity. Second, the Wasserstein distance to quantify vertical equity through distributional comparisons between Environmental Justice and non-Environmental Justice communities rather than relying on centrality measures. Four prioritization strategies combining pavement condition, traffic volume, and nearby population exposure are evaluated using Massachusetts Highway District 3 data (3000 lane-miles, 905 block groups). All strategies improve both equity metrics compared to baseline conditions, achieving up to 75% reduction in vertical disparity and 30% in horizontal inequality under a 150 lane-mile scenario. Crucially, for this case study, sensitivity analysis reveals that population-weighted strategies can widen rural-urban gaps at higher budget levels, while condition-only prioritization may sustain equity gains. These findings demonstrate that better road conditions for all communities can be achieved as a co-benefit of maintenance through careful selection of prioritization factors.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficAutomobile DrivingEnvironment DesignEnvironmental JusticeHumansMassachusettsFairnessPavement managementPrioritizationSocial equityTransportation infrastructure

Identifiers

PMID42365066
PMCPMC13451296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.