Sandanayake, M S; Vrcelj, Z; Bouras, Y; Chau, H W and Hastings, P (2024) Simplified rating tool to evaluate sustainable practices of small-scale infrastructure projects in Australia – a comparative review. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 13(5), pp. 1260-1280. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose: The present study aims to inform the requirements for developing a sustainable rating tool for small-scale infrastructure projects (SSIPs) through research findings. Design/methodology/approach: A review-based comparative study of existing infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating tools for assessment of SSIPs is presented. Key stakeholder participants of the existing IS rating tools, are interviewed to identify existing barriers and requirements for sustainability rating. The study further presents possible rating tool options to optimise the sustainable performance evaluation of SSIPs. Findings: Findings of this study indicated that prevalent IS rating tools are majorly applied to large-scale infrastructure projects and sustainability of SSIPs are seldom assessed. Based on a literature review and series of interviews, it was found that user friendliness, efficient structure, training and technical support, cost effectiveness and stakeholder recognition are the five key requirements of a sustainability rating tool for SSIPs. Additionally, six sustainability assessment options were proposed for SSIPs which range from pathways for existing tools through to new, customisable tools. Upon comparison, a new modified tool with verification process and revised tool with defined grouping of sustainable criteria was more effective for evaluation of SSIPs. Research limitations/implications: Use of case specific information for validation and framework development may lack generalisation. However, methodology can be used for future decision-making by making necessary adjustments to suit different local regional requirements. Originality/value: Despite lack of generalisation, the findings can lead to future general studies on sustainability of SSIPs. Findings of the study provide foundation knowledge and awareness for sustainability evaluation of SSIPs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure; rating tool; small-scale; sustainability |
| Index terms: | framework development, Australia, sustainable practice, infrastructure sustainability, infrastructure project, option, comparative study, literature review, interview, sustainability assessment, cost-effectivenes, performance evaluation, decision-making, methodology, validation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, research design and methodology, data analysis and analytics, professional development, performance measurement, economics, infrastructure and transport systems, sustainable practices, decision analysis, contractual arrangements, Geography, sustainability assessment, research methods, sustainable engineering |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Procurement, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Quality Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| 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