Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative field survey reveals accuracy and cost trade-offs of road roughness metrics across unpaved roads, suggesting tiered monitoring architectures for resource-constrained networks.
More than 90% of the road network of Loja, Ecuador, is unpaved and lacks an official condition metric. Low-cost measures relate to the IRI on pavements, but not demonstrably on unpaved roads. A 15 km Andean corridor was surveyed in one dry season with four visual–manual indices (URCI, MTC, PASER, ICNP), a Class III profilometer, and an uncalibrated smartphone application, over 150 stations harmonized from 60 native index observations, 30 for the MTC. A single profilometer run was moderately reliable (ICC = 0.631, 95% CI 0.559–0.699); four runs averaged 0.872, so repeated runs are a quantified requirement, not a convention. The application erred in level, not in spatial pattern (standardized ICC = 0.900), placing 88.7% of stations within one quartile of the reference: its role is segment-scale screening, not absolute IRI. Under leave-one-block-out spatial validation, the index–IRI equations retain an R2 of 0.32–0.40; MTC was the only index whose association depended on the measuring instrument (p = 0.010). Surveying on foot cost 4.45–12.36 USD/km against 23.68 for reference profilometry, whose largest item is the vehicle. A tiered cost–accuracy architecture is proposed, with URCI and ICNP as preliminary candidates for official adoption, subject to validation based on further corridors and in wet condition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vasquez-Monteros et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: