Clarke, G M (1995) The integration of economic and environmental factors in project feasibility planning. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, USA.
Abstract
The planning of large construction projects by federal, state and private organizations has traditionally been accomplished by the development of an economic plan or feasibility study. This plan, formulated primarily in the context of a project's economic objectives, usually presents project alternatives described by engineering design parameters and tradeoffs in well defined, monetary terms of costs and benefits. Since enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, a separate environmental plan is also required to be prepared for review and approval of overall project feasibility. The environmental plan must account for the significant and critical environmental attributes of a project area that may be classified as ecological, cultural or aesthetic resources. Such a plan must also describe potential impacts on these resources and the mitigation measures that may be taken to minimize or avoid them. The focal point of this research is the integration of unlike factors, represented by different attributes and types of data in a planning and decision process. The expected outcome of such a process is the development of alternative courses of action or plans based on value systems applied to the major factors involved and the ultimate selection of a plan that is economically and environmentally most acceptable. The difficulty is found in measuring the environmental implications within the scope of a project that are categorical and qualitative in nature and managing decisions in support of a project's economic as well as environmental objectives. Since the enactment of NEPA and other significant environmental legislation, the public has become increasingly aware and more demanding of the assessment of the impacts of large construction projects and their related activities on the environmental resources of a project area. Traditional planning must be redesigned to give appropriate consideration to the integration of economic as well as environmental factors of such projects. This research investigates the concept of the statistical integration of these factors in the project planning process and contributes to the development of a more formal methodology for its accomplishment in the interest of improved project feasibility determination.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Anderson, S D |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | feasibility study; integration; legislation; policy; project planning; construction project |
| Index terms: | decision process, aesthetic, project feasibility, engineering design, tradeoff, large construction project, feasibility study, legislation, approval, project planning, environmental factor, environmental policy, mitigation, methodology, integration, construction project |
| Subjects: | contractual role, value management, control systems, public policy, design stages, legal systems, environmental science, factor and component analysis, research methods, production management, organizational theory, financial risk, design process, organizational analysis, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Governance, Risk Management, Research Practice, Project Management, Cost Management, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| 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