Naderpajouh, N; Mahdavi, A; Hastak, M and Aldrich, D P (2014) Modeling social opposition to infrastructure development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(8): 04014029, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Social and political dynamics increasingly determine the fate of infrastructure development around the world. Decision makers involved with projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline in North America, the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil, and the Bujagali Dam in Uganda have been forced to substantially change their plans as a result of opposition. This study looks at such emergent dynamics to provide a quantitative assessment of risks associated with social sustainability in infrastructure development. An interactional model is proposed to analyze emergent risks in a complex system of systems and it is applied to emergent risks in infrastructure development. The analysis is based on the game-theoretic equilibria for an interaction between two actors, namely, the developer and the opposition. Using simulation the structural and contextual variations were investigated in the context of the project along with consequent emergent patterns of outcomes and associated risk profiles. The model comprises informal and formal interactional stages to investigate the impact of alternative mitigation strategies on project risk. The application of the proposed methodology is showcased in an analysis of informal and formal strategies to deliver socially sustainable projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure; organizational issues; quantitative analysis; risk management; sustainable development; systems engineering |
| Index terms: | pipeline, systems engineering, complex system, risk management, social sustainability, dynamics, Uganda, organizational issue, modelling, interaction, infrastructure development, sustainable development, Brazil, strategy, mitigation, methodology, variation, quantitative analysis |
| Subjects: | analytical methods, data analysis and analytics, business, risk assessment, behavioral psychology, systems engineering, communities and social development, infrastructure and transport systems, infrastructure engineering, financial risk, contractual condition, health safety and environment, Geography, research methods, management |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Contract Administration, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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