With the ever-increasing road mileages worldwide, the focus of pavement construction has been shifted from new pavement construction to pavement maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R). The corresponding huge environmental burdens and capital consumptions posed big challenges in achieving the target of sustainable development. In this study, an eco-efficiency analysis (EEA) framework was developed and applied to compare two common asphalt pavement rehabilitation techniques: hot-in-place recycling (HIRP) and milling-and-filling (M&F), by integrating the life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing analysis (LCCA), which followed by a sensitivity analysis to investigate the eco-efficiency performances of the two alternatives under different life extension scenarios. The eco-efficiency portfolio positions of hot-in-place recycling and milling-and-filling provided by the eco-efficiency analysis clearly indicated that hot-in-place recycling was more eco-efficient than milling-and-filling under the same assumed service life (15 years) for the cases studied. Hot-in-place recycling could save 5% cost and reduce 16% overall environmental impacts than milling-and-filling, while milling-and-filling saved 7% energy consumption than hot-in-place recycling. When the life extension ratio of the two alternatives reaches 12/15 (HIPR/M&F), milling-and-filling starts to show its advantages in both environmental and economic aspects in the long-term perspective. These findings indicated that if the hot-in-place recycling technique could ensure its treatment effectiveness. Its wider adoption would be championed for more sustainable transportation infrastructure development. The method and results of this study were expected to serve as a reference for decision-makers to make well-informed project decisions on the optimum rehabilitation alternative from the view of eco-efficiency.

随着全球道路里程的不断增加，路面施工的重点已经从新的路面施工转移到了路面维护和修复（M＆R）。相应的巨大环境负担和资本消耗对实现可持续发展目标提出了巨大挑战。在这项研究中，开发了一种生态效率分析（EEA）框架，并通过整合生命周期来比较两种常见的沥青路面修复技术：现场热回收（HIRP）和铣刨和填充（M＆F）评估（LCA）和生命周期成本分析（LCCA），然后进行敏感性分析，以研究两种替代方案在不同寿命延长情景下的生态效率表现。生态效率分析提供的现场热回收和研磨填充的生态效率投资组合位置清楚地表明，在相同假设下，现场热回收比研磨和填充更具生态效率研究案例的使用寿命（15年）。与现浇回收相比，现场热回收可节省5％的成本并减少16％的整体环境影响，而现浇回收可比现热回收节省7％的能源消耗。当两种替代品的寿命延长比达到12/15（HIPR / M＆F）时，从长期的角度来看，研磨和填充在环境和经济方面都开始显示出其优势。这些发现表明，就地热回收技术可以确保其处理效果。为更可持续的交通基础设施发展而提倡广泛采用该技术。这项研究的方法和结果有望为决策者从生态效率的角度，就最佳的康复方案做出明智的项目决策提供参考。