Environmental sustainability and the human element: Decision making in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and Practice Greenhealth subscribing institutions

Background. Various aspects of sustainability have taken root in the hospital environment; however, decisions to pursue sustainable practices within the framework of a master plan are not fully developed in National Cancer Institute (NCI) -designated cancer centers and subscribing institutions to the Practice Greenhealth (PGH) listserv.^ Methods. This cross sectional study was designed to identify the organizational characteristics each study group pursed to implement sustainability practices, describe the barriers they encountered and reasons behind their choices for undertaking certain sustainability practices. A web-based questionnaire was pilot tested, and then sent out to 64 NCI-designated cancer centers and 1638 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv.^ Results. Complete responses were received from 39 NCI-designated cancer centers and 58 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv. NCI-designated cancer centers reported greater progress in integrating sustainability criteria into design and construction projects than hospitals of institutions subscribing to the PHG listserv (p-value = <0.05). Statistically significant differences were also identified between these two study groups in undertaking work life options, conducting energy usage assessments, developing energy conservation and optimization plans, implementing solid waste and hazardous waste minimization programs, using energy efficient vehicles and reporting sustainability progress to external stakeholders. NCI-designated cancer centers were further along in implementing these programs (p-value = <0.05). In comparing the self-identified NCI-designated cancer centers to centers that indicated they were both and NCI and PGH, the later had made greater progress in using their collective buying power to pursue sustainable purchasing practices within the medical community (p-value = <0.05). In both study groups, recycling programs were well developed.^ Conclusions. Employee involvement was viewed as the most important reason for both study groups to pursue recycling initiatives and incorporated environmental criteria into purchasing decisions. A written sustainability commitment did not readily translate into a high percentage that had developed a sustainability master plan. Coordination of sustainability programs through a designated sustainability professional was not being undertaken by a large number of institutions within each study group. This may be due to the current economic downturn or management's attention to the emerging health care legislation being debated in congress. ^ Lifecycle assessments, an element of a carbon footprint, are seen as emerging areas of opportunity for health care institutions that can be used to evaluate the total lifecycle costs of products and services.^

Investment decision-making under risk (reliability) and uncertainty for infrastructure asset management

Risks and uncertainties are inevitable in engineering projects and infrastructure investments. Decisions about investment in infrastructure such as for maintenance, rehabilitation and construction works can pose risks, and may generate significant impacts on social, cultural, environmental and other related issues. This report presents the results of a literature review of current practice in identifying, quantifying and managing risks and predicting impacts as part of the planning and assessment process for infrastructure investment proposals. In assessing proposals for investment in infrastructure, it is necessary to consider social, cultural and environmental risks and impacts to the overall community, as well as financial risks to the investor. The report defines and explains the concept of risk and uncertainty, and describes the three main methodology approaches to the analysis of risk and uncertainty in investment planning for infrastructure, viz examining a range of scenarios or options, sensitivity analysis, and a statistical probability approach, listed here in order of increasing merit and complexity. Forecasts of costs, benefits and community impacts of infrastructure are recognised as central aspects of developing and assessing investment proposals. Increasingly complex modelling techniques are being used for investment evaluation. The literature review identified forecasting errors as the major cause of risk. The report contains a summary of the broad nature of decision-making tools used by governments and other organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America, and shows their overall approach to risk assessment in assessing public infrastructure proposals. While there are established techniques to quantify financial and economic risks, quantification is far less developed for political, social and environmental risks and impacts. The report contains a summary of the broad nature of decision-making tools used by governments and other organisations in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and North America, and shows their overall approach to risk assessment in assessing public infrastructure proposals. While there are established techniques to quantify financial and economic risks, quantification is far less developed for political, social and environmental risks and impacts. For risks that cannot be readily quantified, assessment techniques commonly include classification or rating systems for likelihood and consequence. The report outlines the system used by the Australian Defence Organisation and in the Australian Standard on risk management. After each risk is identified and quantified or rated, consideration can be given to reducing the risk, and managing any remaining risk as part of the scope of the project. The literature review identified use of risk mapping techniques by a North American chemical company and by the Australian Defence Organisation. This literature review has enabled a risk assessment strategy to be developed, and will underpin an examination of the feasibility of developing a risk assessment capability using a probability approach.

Sustainability indicators for environmental management and decision making

The general objective of this research is to explore theories and methodologies of sustainability indicators, environmental management and decision making disciplines with the operational purpose of producing scientific, robust and relevant information for supporting system understanding and decision making in real case studies. Several tools have been applied in order to increase the understanding of socio-ecological systems as well as providing relevant information on the choice between alternatives. These tools have always been applied having in mind the complexity of the issues and the uncertainty tied to the partial knowledge of the systems under study. Two case studies with specific application to performances measurement (environmental performances in the case of the K8 approach and sustainable development performances in the case of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy) and a case study about the selection of sustainable development indicators amongst Municipalities in Scotland, are discussed in the first part of the work. In the second part of the work, the common denominator among subjects consists in the application of spatial indices and indicators to address operational problems in land use management within the territory of the Ravenna province (Italy). The main conclusion of the thesis is that a ‘perfect’ methodological approach which always produces the best results in assessing sustainability performances does not exist. Rather, there is a pool of correct approaches answering different evaluation questions, to be used when methodologies fit the purpose of the analysis. For this reason, methodological limits and conceptual assumptions as well as consistency and transparency of the assessment, become the key factors for assessing the quality of the analysis.

The governance of inter-organisational decision-making : understanding the impacts of informal networks on formal decision-making regimes in the Brisbane Airport region

Airports and cities inevitably recognise the value that each brings the other; however, the separation in decision-making authority for what to build, where, when and how provides a conundrum for both parties. Airports often want a say in what is developed outside of the airport fence, and cities often want a say in what is developed inside the airport fence. Defining how much of a say airports and cities have in decisions beyond their jurisdictional control is likely to be a topic that continues so long as airports and cities maintain separate formal decision-making processes for what to build, where, when and how. However, the recent Green and White Papers for a new National Aviation Policy have made early inroads to formalising relationships between Australia’s major airports and their host cities. At present, no clear indication (within practice or literature) is evident to the appropriateness of different governance arrangements for decisions to develop in situations that bring together the opposing strategic interests of airports and cities; thus leaving decisions for infrastructure development as complex decision-making spaces that hold airport and city/regional interests at stake. The line of enquiry is motivated by a lack of empirical research on networked decision-making domains outside of the realm of institutional theorists (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Provan, Fish & Sydow, 2007). That is, governance literature has remained focused towards abstract conceptualisations of organisation, without focusing on the minutia of how organisation influences action in real-world applications. A recent study by Black (2008) has provided an initial foothold for governance researchers into networked decision-making domains. This study builds upon Black’s (2008) work by aiming to explore and understand the problem space of making decisions subjected to complex jurisdictional and relational interdependencies. That is, the research examines the formal and informal structures, relationships, and forums that operationalise debates and interactions between decision-making actors as they vie for influence over deciding what to build, where, when and how in airport-proximal development projects. The research mobilises a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods to examine three embedded cases of airport-proximal development from a network governance perspective. Findings from the research provide a new understanding to the ways in which informal actor networks underpin and combine with formal decision-making networks to create new (or realigned) governance spaces that facilitate decision-making during complex phases of development planning. The research is timely, and responds well to Isett, Mergel, LeRoux, Mischen and Rethemeyer’s (2011) recent critique of limitations within current network governance literature, specifically to their noted absence of empirical studies that acknowledge and interrogate the simultaneity of formal and informal network structures within network governance arrangements (Isett et al., 2011, pp. 162-166). The combination of social network analysis (SNA) techniques and thematic enquiry has enabled findings to document and interpret the ways in which decision-making actors organise to overcome complex problems for planning infrastructure. An innovative approach to using association networks has been used to provide insights to the importance of the different ways actors interact with one another, thus providing a simple yet valuable addition to the increasingly popular discipline of SNA. The research also identifies when and how different types of networks (i.e. formal and informal) are able to overcome currently known limitations to network governance (see McGuire & Agranoff, 2011), thus adding depth to the emerging body of network governance literature surrounding limitations to network ways of working (i.e. Rhodes, 1997a; Keast & Brown, 2002; Rethemeyer & Hatmaker, 2008; McGuire & Agranoff, 2011). Contributions are made to practice via the provision of a timely understanding of how horizontal fora between airports and their regions are used, particularly in the context of how they reframe the governance of decision-making for airport-proximal infrastructure development. This new understanding will enable government and industry actors to better understand the structural impacts of governance arrangements before they design or adopt them, particularly for factors such as efficiency of information, oversight, and responsiveness to change.

Incorporating sustainability measures in life-cycle financial decision making for highway construction

Public awareness and the nature of highway construction works demand that sustainability measures are first on the development agenda. However, in the current economic climate, individual volition and enthusiasm for such high capital investments do not present as strong cases for decision making as the financial pictures of pursuing sustainability. Some stakeholders consider sustainability to be extra work that costs additional money. Though, stakeholders realised its importance in infrastructure development. They are keen to identify the available alternatives and financial implications on a lifecycle basis. Highway infrastructure development is a complex rocess which requires expertise and tools to evaluate investment options, such as environmentally sustainable features for road and highway development. Life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a valuable approach for investment decision making for construction works. However, LCCA applications in highway development are still limited. Current models, for example focus on economic issues alone and do not deal with sustainability factors, which are more difficult to quantify and encapsulate in estimation modules. This paper reports the research which identifies sustainability related factors in highway construction projects, in quantitative and qualitative forms of a multi-criteria analysis. These factors are then incorporated into past and proven LCCA models to produce a new long term decision support model. The research via questionnaire, model building, analytical hierarchy processes (AHP) and case studies have identified, evaluated and then processed highway sustainability related cost elements. These cost elements need to be verified by industry before being integrated for further development of the model. Then the Australian construction industry will have a practical tool to evaluate investment decisions which provide an optimum balance between financial viability and sustainability deliverables.

Sustainability : driver for decision making in infrastructure

With the growing importance of sustainability assessment in the construction industry, many green building rating schemes have been adopted in the building sector of Australia. However, there is an abnormal delay in the similar adoption in the infrastructure sector. This prolonged delay in practice poses a challenge in mapping the project objectives with sustainability outcomes. Responding to the challenge of sustainable development in infrastructure, it is critical to create a set of decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure, which to be used in conjunction with the emerging infrastructure sustainability assessment framework of the Australian Green Infrastructure Council. The various literature sources confirm the lack of correlation between sustainability and infrastructure. This theoretical missing link signifies the crucial validation of the interrelationship and interdependency in sustainability, decision making and infrastructure. This validation is vital for the development of decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure. Admittedly, underpinned by the serious socio-environmental vulnerability, the traditional focus on economic emphasis in infrastructure development needs to be drifted towards the appropriate decisions for sustainability enhancing the positive social and environmental outcomes. Moreover, the research findings suggest sustainability being observed as powerful socio-political and influential socio-environmental driver in deciding the infrastructure needs and its development. These newly developed sustainability decision indicators create the impetus for change leading to sustainability in infrastructure by integrating the societal cares, environmental concerns into the holistic financial consideration. Radically, this development seeks to transform principles into actions for infrastructure sustainability. Lastly, the thesis concludes with knowledge contribution in five significant areas and future research opportunities. The consolidated research outcomes suggest that the development of decision indicators has demonstrated sustainability as a pivotal driver for decision making in infrastructure.

Megaprojects, Affected communities and sustainability decision making

Increasing scrutiny from the wider community is contributing to a shift towards the delivery and operation of major projects that meets and maintains the sustainability priorities of the community. This is especially significant for large economic projects which have a global track record of social benefit shortfalls, cost overruns, and underestimation of risks. Major industrial and infrastructure projects that cost more than US$1 billion are typically called mega-projects. Globally, investment in mega-projects has exceeded $10 trillion in the last ten years. With so many projects in the pipeline -and many taking place in emerging economies – the effectiveness of the sustainability decision making process is particularly important. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the existing sustainability decision making processes and strategies address the potential challenges facing communities affected by mega-projects. It highlights issues with current operational level approaches to social sustainability assessment at the project level, and argues that to improve accountability and transparency of project outcomes, positive externalities that flow from goods and services provided by the social and cultural systems of the community must be incorporated into decision making.

Framework for investment decision-making under risk and uncertainty for infrastructure asset management

A study has been conducted to investigate current practices on decision-making under risk and uncertainty for infrastructure project investments. It was found that many European countries such as the UK, France, Germany including Australia use scenarios for the investigation of the effects of risk and uncertainty of project investments. Different alternative scenarios are mostly considered during the engineering economic cost-benefit analysis stage. For instance, the World Bank requires an analysis of risks in all project appraisals. Risk in economic evaluation needs to be addressed by calculating sensitivity of the rate of return for a number of events. Risks and uncertainties of project developments arise from various sources of errors including data, model and forecasting errors. It was found that the most influential factors affecting risk and uncertainty resulted from forecasting errors. Data errors and model errors have trivial effects. It was argued by many analysts that scenarios do not forecast what will happen but scenarios indicate only what can happen from given alternatives. It was suggested that the probability distributions of end-products of the project appraisal, such as cost-benefit ratios that take forecasting errors into account, are feasible decision tools for economic evaluation. Political, social, environmental as well as economic and other related risk issues have been addressed and included in decision-making frameworks, such as in a multi-criteria decisionmaking framework. But no suggestion has been made on how to incorporate risk into the investment decision-making process.

Delivering value for money in the procurement of public sector major infrastructure : a new first-order decision making model

The significant challenge faced by government in demonstrating value for money in the delivery of major infrastructure resolves around estimating costs and benefits of alternative modes of procurement. Faced with this challenge, one approach is to focus on a dominant performance outcome visible on the opening day of the asset, as the means to select the procurement approach. In this case, value for money becomes a largely nominal concept and determined by selected procurement mode delivering, or not delivering, the selected performance outcome, and notwithstanding possible under delivery on other desirable performance outcomes, as well as possibly incurring excessive transaction costs. This paper proposes a mind-set change in this particular practice, to an approach in which the analysis commences with the conditions pertaining to the project and proceeds to deploy transaction cost and production cost theory to indicate a procurement approach that can claim superior value for money relative to other competing procurement modes. This approach to delivering value for money in relative terms is developed in a first-order procurement decision making model outlined in this paper. The model developed could be complementary to the Public Sector Comparator (PSC) in terms of cross validation and the model more readily lends itself to public dissemination. As a possible alternative to the PSC, the model could save time and money in preparation of project details to lesser extent than that required in the reference project and may send a stronger signal to the market that may encourage more innovation and competition.

Developing a research method to test a new first-order decision making model for the procurement of public sector major infrastructure

Given global demand for new infrastructure, governments face substantial challenges in funding new infrastructure and simultaneously delivering Value for Money (VfM). The paper begins with an update on a key development in a new early/first-order procurement decision making model that deploys production cost/benefit theory and theories concerning transaction costs from the New Institutional Economics, in order to identify a procurement mode that is likely to deliver the best ratio of production costs and transaction costs to production benefits, and therefore deliver superior VfM relative to alternative procurement modes. In doing so, the new procurement model is also able to address the uncertainty concerning the relative merits of Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and non-PPP procurement approaches. The main aim of the paper is to develop competition as a dependent variable/proxy for VfM and a hypothesis (overarching proposition), as well as developing a research method to test the new procurement model. Competition reflects both production costs and benefits (absolute level of competition) and transaction costs (level of realised competition) and is a key proxy for VfM. Using competition as a proxy for VfM, the overarching proposition is given as: When the actual procurement mode matches the predicted (theoretical) procurement mode (informed by the new procurement model), then actual competition is expected to match potential competition (based on actual capacity). To collect data to test this proposition, the research method that is developed in this paper combines a survey and case study approach. More specifically, data collection instruments for the surveys to collect data on actual procurement, actual competition and potential competition are outlined. Finally, plans for analysing this survey data are briefly mentioned, along with noting the planned use of analytical pattern matching in deploying the new procurement model and in order to develop the predicted (theoretical) procurement mode.

Navigating the social dimension of sustainability decision making of mega-projects

Until recently, sustainable development was perceived as essentially an environmental issue, relating to the integration of environmental concerns into economic decision-making. As a result, environmental considerations have been the primary focus of sustainability decision making during the economic development process for major projects, and the assessment and preservation of social and cultural systems has been arguably too limited. The practice of social impact and sustainability assessment is an established and accepted part of project planning, however, these practices are not aimed at delivering sustainability outcomes for social systems, rather they are designed to minimise ‘unsustainability’ and contribute to project approval. Currently, there exists no widely recognised standard approach for assessing social sustainability and accounting for positive externalities of existing social systems in project decision making. As a result, very different approaches are applied around the world, and even by the same organisations from one project to another. This situation is an impediment not only to generating a shared understanding of the social implications as related to major projects, but more importantly, to identifying common approaches to help improve social sustainability outcomes of proposed activities. This paper discusses the social dimension of sustainability decision making of mega-projects, and argues that to improve accountability and transparency of project outcomes it is important to understand the characteristics that make some communities more vulnerable than others to mega-project development. This paper highlights issues with current operational level approaches to social sustainability assessment at the project level, and asserts that the starting point for project planning and sustainability decision making of mega-projects needs to include the preservation, maintenance, and enhancement of existing social and cultural systems. It draws attention to the need for a scoping mechanism to systematically assess community vulnerability (or sensitivity) to major infrastructure development during the feasibility and planning stages of a project.

Sustainability in infrastructure investment : building the business case

Many infrastructure agencies adopt sustainability objectives at a corporate level and incorporate sustainability targets and indicators as part of corporate reporting processes. These objectives are expected to translate to all stages of the project delivery process, including project selection. For infrastructure capital works projects and programs, a robust project management approach involves the development of a business case to guide investment decision making. A key tool in the assessment of project options and selection of a delivery strategy is Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). Infrastructure providers are required to undertake cost benefit analysis to support project selection through regulatory approval and budgetary processes. This tool has emerged through the prism of economic analysis rather than sustainability. A literature review reveals the limitations of CBA alone to effectively evaluate economic, environmental and social externalities or impacts that apply over a long time frame, and that are ultimately irreversible. Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) has been introduced as a means to incorporate a wider array of factors into decision making such as sustainability. This, however, presents new challenges with issues around how to transparently represent wider community values in the selection of a preferred solution. Are these tools effective in assessing the wider sustainability costs and benefits taking into account that these are public works with long life spans and significant impacts across institutional boundaries? The research indicates a need to develop clear guidelines for investment decision making in order to better align with corporate sustainability objectives. Findings from the literature review indicate that a more sustainable approach to investment decision-making framework should include: the incorporation of sustainability goals from corporate planning documents; problem definition and option generation using best practice investment management guidelines; improved guidelines for Business Case development using a combination of both Cost Benefit Analysis and Multi-Criteria Analysis; and an integrated public participation process.

A decision support framework for infrastructure maintenance investment decision-making

Infrastructure management agencies are facing multiple challenges, including aging infrastructure, reduction in capacity of existing infrastructure, and availability of limited funds. Therefore, decision makers are required to think innovatively and develop inventive ways of using available funds. Maintenance investment decisions are generally made based on physical condition only. It is important to understand that spending money on public infrastructure is synonymous with spending money on people themselves. This also requires consideration of decision parameters, in addition to physical condition, such as strategic importance, socioeconomic contribution and infrastructure utilization. Consideration of multiple decision parameters for infrastructure maintenance investments can be beneficial in case of limited funding. Given this motivation, this dissertation presents a prototype decision support framework to evaluate trade-off, among competing infrastructures, that are candidates for infrastructure maintenance, repair and rehabilitation investments. Decision parameters' performances measured through various factors are combined to determine the integrated state of an infrastructure using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). The integrated state, cost and benefit estimates of probable maintenance actions are utilized alongside expert opinion to develop transition probability and reward matrices for each probable maintenance action for a particular candidate infrastructure. These matrices are then used as an input to the Markov Decision Process (MDP) for the finite-stage dynamic programming model to perform project (candidate)-level analysis to determine optimized maintenance strategies based on reward maximization. The outcomes of project (candidate)-level analysis are then utilized to perform network-level analysis taking the portfolio management approach to determine a suitable portfolio under budgetary constraints. The major decision support outcomes of the prototype framework include performance trend curves, decision logic maps, and a network-level maintenance investment plan for the upcoming years. The framework has been implemented with a set of bridges considered as a network with the assistance of the Pima County DOT, AZ. It is expected that the concept of this prototype framework can help infrastructure management agencies better manage their available funds for maintenance.

International practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of an international review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different countries and international organisations. Road assets are powerful drivers of economic development and social equity. They also have significant impacts on the natural and man-made environment. The traditional definition of asset management is “A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and operating physical assets cost effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory and it provides tools to facilitate a more organised, logical approach to decision-making” (US Dept. of Transportation, 1999). In recent years, the concept has been broadened to cover the complexity of decision making, based on a wider variety of policy considerations as well as social and environmental issues rather than is covered by Benefit-Cost analysis and pure technical considerations. Current international practices are summarised in table 2. It was evident that Engineering-economic analysis methods are well advanced to support decision-making. A range of tools available supports performance predicting of road assets and associated cost/benefit in technical context. The need for considering triple plus one bottom line of social, environmental and economic as well as political factors in decision-making is well understood by road agencies around the world. The techniques used to incorporate these however, are limited. Most countries adopt a scoring method, a goal achievement matrix or information collected from surveys. The greater uncertainty associated with these non-quantitative factors has generally not been taken into consideration. There is a gap between the capacities of the decision-making support systems and the requirements from decision-makers to make more rational and transparent decisions. The challenges faced in developing an integrated decision making framework are both procedural and conceptual. In operational terms, the framework should be easy to be understood and employed. In philosophical terms, the framework should be able to deal with challenging issues, such as uncertainty, time frame, network effects, model changes, while integrating cost and non-cost values into the evaluation. The choice of evaluation techniques depends on the feature of the problem at hand, on the aims of the analysis, and on the underlying information base At different management levels, the complexity in considering social, environmental, economic and political factor in decision-making is different. At higher the strategic planning level, more non-cost factors are involved. The complexity also varies based on the scope of the investment proposals. Road agencies traditionally place less emphasis on evaluation of maintenance works. In some cases, social equity, safety, environmental issues have been used in maintenance project selection. However, there is not a common base for the applications.