Alqahtani, D (2022) A sustainability assessment framework for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in highway projects. PhD thesis, Syracuse University, USA.
Abstract
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) and sustainability have received considerable attention in the United States transportation sector. Existing sustainability rating tools are neither designed nor suitable for PPPs due to unbalanced weights among the triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability and the lack of additional considerations beyond the TBL. Therefore, this research aims to address these two gaps by proposing an integrated sustainability assessment framework (ISAF) that encompasses five dimensions (i.e., economic/financial, social, environmental, technical, and contractual). The proposed framework seeks to improve project decision-making in highway projects delivered with PPPs by determining the level of achievement in sustainable practices in terms of important decision factors that fall under these five dimensions.Through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and questionnaire surveys featuring Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) techniques, a list of applicable assessment factors (five dimensions, 18 indicators, and 65 sub-indicators) and their weights and priorities were identified. The proposed assessment framework was validated by conducting an online survey, which has verified its applicability and usability for U.S. PPP highway projects.The results have revealed that economic/financial dimension was the main concern among highway PPP experts, followed by contractual, technical, environmental, and social dimensions in a descending order by relative importance. This calls for additional attention to be paid to environmental and social sustainability considerations in PPP highway projects. Meanwhile, the results showed that the top ten sustainability factors according to priority weight values were the following: Value for Money (5.66%), internal rate of return (4.58%), enhancing and maintaining public health and safety (3.59%), payback period (3.40%), congestion reduction (2.96%), resilience and adaptive capacity (2.81%), proper working conditions (2.64%), dispute resolution (2.61%), economic development (2.55%), and fair allocation of risks (2.53%). The bottom ten sustainability factors according to priority weight values were the following: Site selection (0.68%), diversity and inclusion in employment (0.60%), disadvantaged business enterprises (0.60%), equipment management (0.52%), preservation of historical and cultural resources (0.51%), environmental justice (0.48%), interruptions to businesses (0.44%), noise reduction (0.29%), light pollution (0.25%) and land acquisition (0.25%). The results also reflect an urgent need for better sustainability planning and awareness among stakeholders of PPP highway projects.This research makes unique theoretical and practical contributions in decision-making processes for sustainable highway projects by incorporating additional factors beyond the traditional TBL into sustainability considerations while developing a usable, comprehensive, and flexible sustainability assessment framework for agencies and private sector stakeholders. This framework serves as a valuable reference for improving the status quo in sustainability performance assessment frameworks by proposing a method that is particularly suitable for PPP highway projects. It also helps the public and private sectors to consider and integrate a higher number of sustainability criteria in evaluating the PPP project performance, to adopt effective incentive mechanisms for some sustainable practices, and to promote innovative solutions and modern technologies for enhancing the sustainability of PPP highway projects. The adopted research methods and results can be a stimulus for further studies to maximize the potential of PPPs toward more sustainable infrastructure development practices in the U.S.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Salman, B |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | economic development; environmental justice; sustainability; value for money; highway; pollution; public health; United States; project performance; analytic hierarchy process; public-private partnership; interview; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | sustainability performance, public health, adaptive capacity, dispute, private sector, partnership, transportation sector, employment, decision-making process, pollution, sustainable practice, noise reduction, resolution, working conditions, dimension, project performance, social sustainability, highway construction, survey, infrastructure development, literature review, usability, equipment management, relative importance, interview, sustainability assessment, economic development, justice, diversity and inclusion, United States, value-for-money, agency, site selection, questionnaire, payback, land acquisition, decision-making |
| Subjects: | communities and social development, cognitive psychology, Geography, infrastructure engineering, urban design, evaluation, sustainability assessment, economic development, legal systems, economic analysis, acoustic engineering, industry analysis, environmental health, conflict resolution, partnership management, sociology, decision analysis, sustainable practices, employment law, project management theory and practice, management, civil engineering, data analysis and analytics, health monitoring assessment and metrics, operational management, real estate economics, dispute resolution, risk assessment, data collection methods, user-centered design |
| Topics: | Value Management, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Human Resources, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Plant and Equipment, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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