Dahalan, N H; Rahman, R A; Ahmad, S W and Che Ibrahim, C K I (2025) Public monitoring of environmental management plan implementation in road construction projects: Key performance indicators. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 23(3), pp. 766-791. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to examine the performance indicators (PIs) for assessing environmental management plan (EMP) implementation in road construction projects. The specific objectives are to compare the key PIs between environment auditors and environment officers and among project stakeholders, develop components to categorize interrelated key PIs and evaluate the effectiveness of interrelated key PIs and components. Design/methodology/approach: Thirty-nine PIs were identified through a systematic literature review and in-depth interviews with environmental professionals. Subsequently, a questionnaire survey was designed based on this list of PIs and distributed to industry professionals. Sixty-one responses were collected in Malaysia and analyzed using the mean score ranking, normalization, agreement analysis, overlap analysis, factor analysis and fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Findings: The analyses identified 18 key PIs: soil erosion, dust appearance, spill of chemical substance, construction waste, clogged drainage, overflowed silt trap, oil/fuel spills, changes in the colour of bodies of water, excessive cut and fill, vegetation depletion, changes in the colour of the runoff water, landslide occurrence, slope failures, irregular flood, public safety, deforestation, open burning and increased of schedule waste. Also, the key PIs can be grouped and ranked into the following four components: geological, pollution, environmental changes and ecological. Finally, the overall importance of the key PIs is between important and very important. Originality/value: This study is a pioneer in quantitively examining the key PIs for EMP implementation in road construction projects. Researchers, industry practitioners and policymakers can use the findings to develop strategies and tools to allow public monitoring of EMP implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | environmental management plan; factor analysis; fuzzy synthetic evaluation; performance indicators; road construction; sustainable construction; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | systematic literature review, factor analysis, Malaysia, monitoring, road construction, practitioner, strategy, drainage, key performance indicator, questionnaire, effectiveness, landslide, pollution, project stakeholder, interview, deforestation, depletion, implementation, environmental management, slope, construction waste, public safety, survey, environmental change, sustainable construction, fuzzy synthetic evaluation, performance indicator, methodology |
| Subjects: | project delivery, research methods, practitioner, control systems, climate science, environmental resource management, sustainability assessment, decision-making and optimization, emergency and crisis management, Geography, statistical analysis, contractual arrangements, sociology, environmental hazards, environmental impact, data collection methods, sustainable construction, management, environmental health, geotechnical engineering, research evaluation and metrics, performance management, civil engineering, waste management, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Site Management, Quality Management, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Procurement, Research Practice, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety |
| 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