Siew, R Y J; Balatbat, M C A and Carmichael, D G (2016) A proposed framework for assessing the sustainability of infrastructure. International Journal of Construction Management, 16(4), pp. 281-298. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
The development of sustainability assessment and sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) for infrastructure is pivotal because they serve to inform on progress towards achieving sustainability goals. However, the assessment of sustainability can be improved. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the deficiencies and limitations of existing SRTs and offer an alternative framework that is intended as a guide to enhancing assessment and reporting, and addressing current deficiencies. The alternative framework proposed encompasses six elements: (1) systems-based criteria selection; (2) quantitative measurement scales for criteria; (3) characterizing each criterion by a measure of central tendency and dispersion; (4) the distinction of additionality; (5) criteria weighting; and (6) combining criteria to give an overall score characterized by a measure of central tendency and a measure of dispersion. This is based on infrastructure project comparison. It is contended that, within the alternative framework offered, overall sustainability scores obtained provide an improved characterization of sustainability, because of the acknowledgement of the different elements and their combination. The paper offers a rational way by which the sustainability of infrastructure projects can be gauged and compared.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | additionality; infrastructure assessment; sustainability reporting tools; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | infrastructure assessment, sustainability assessment, sustainability reporting tool, infrastructure project |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, sustainability assessment, infrastructure engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 P |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here