Goh, Kai Chen (2011) Developing financial decision support for highway infrastructure sustainability. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Abstract
The development of highway infrastructure typically requires major capital input over a long period. This often causes serious financial constraints for investors. The push for sustainability has added new dimensions to the complexity in the evaluation of highway projects, particularly on the cost front. This makes the determination of long-term viability even more a precarious exercise. Life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA) is generally recognised as a valuable tool for the assessment of financial decisions on construction works. However to date, existing LCCA models are deficient in dealing with sustainability factors, particularly for infrastructure projects due to their inherent focus on the economic issues alone. This research probed into the major challenges of implementing sustainability in highway infrastructure development in terms of financial concerns and obligations. Using results of research through literature review, questionnaire survey of industry stakeholders and semi-structured interview of senior practitioners involved in highway infrastructure development, the research identified the relative importance of cost components relating to sustainability measures and on such basis, developed ways of improving existing LCCA models to incorporate sustainability commitments into long-term financial management. On such a platform, a decision support model incorporated Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and LCCA for the evaluation of the specific cost components most concerned by infrastructure stakeholders. Two real highway infrastructure projects in Australia were then used for testing, application and validation, before the decision support model was finalised. Improved industry understanding and tools such as the developed model will lead to positive sustainability deliverables while ensuring financial viability over the lifecycle of highway infrastructure projects.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Yang, Jun and Wong, Kwok Wai Johnny |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | sustainability; highway; infrastructure; life-cycle costing analysis; decision support |
| Index terms: | financial viability, Australia, investor, financial management, exercise, platform, testing, highway infrastructure, dimension, analytical hierarchy process, costing, infrastructure project, highway construction, construction work, lifecycle, commitment, literature review, survey, interview, relative importance, decision support, complexity, practitioner, validation, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | professional development, civil engineering, systems engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, decision analysis, risk assessment, data collection methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, project delivery, data analysis and analytics, digital design, Geography, accounting and finance, decision-making and optimization, practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, economic analysis, business management, professional practice, operations management, psychology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Risk Management, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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