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.

Dynamic decision-making based on NFR for managing software variability and configuration selection

Due to dynamic variability, identifying the specific conditions under which non-functional requirements (NFRs) are satisfied may be only possible at runtime. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the dynamic treatment of relevant information during the requirements specifications. The associated data can be gathered by monitoring the execution of the application and its underlying environment to support reasoning about how the current application configuration is fulfilling the established requirements. This paper presents a dynamic decision-making infrastructure to support both NFRs representation and monitoring, and to reason about the degree of satisfaction of NFRs during runtime. The infrastructure is composed of: (i) an extended feature model aligned with a domain-specific language for representing NFRs to be monitored at runtime; (ii) a monitoring infrastructure to continuously assess NFRs at runtime; and (iii) a exible decision-making process to select the best available configuration based on the satisfaction degree of the NRFs. The evaluation of the approach has shown that it is able to choose application configurations that well fit user NFRs based on runtime information. The evaluation also revealed that the proposed infrastructure provided consistent indicators regarding the best application configurations that fit user NFRs. Finally, a benefit of our approach is that it allows us to quantify the level of satisfaction with respect to NFRs specification.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interlink decision making index (IDMI) -- a simple tool/concept to assist decision making for sustainability Part 1: definition of IDMI

There is an apparent gap between the LCA or other assessment's outcomes and its effective application in the decision making process. It is needed to provide to the decision makers a simple, less human interfered mechanism that integrates all the key criteria (environmental, economic, technical and safety etc.). The proposed index: Interlink Decision Making Index (IDMI) has all these features: simple, interlink (all criteria) and automatically and quantified influence of critical criteria (ie. no human weighting needed) and is able to assist the multi-criteria decision making for sustainability based on the outcomes of specific assessments (eg. LCA, ElA etc.). The index represents a pure numerical value and does not necessarily have any physical meanings, but it reflects the total merits of a particular option once the normal decision making criteria and (up to two) critical criteria (CC) have been chosen. Then, without arbitrarily weighting process, the comparison and selection of the best possible option, ie. decision can be made based on the derived IDMI results. Two hypothetical examples are presented in part 2 of the paper to demonstrate the application of the IDMI concept and it's differences with the traditional "tabular method" in the decision making process.

Interlink decision making index (IDMI) : a simple tool/concept to assist decision making for sustainability part 2 : calculation and examples of IDMI

There is an apparent gap between the LCA or other assessment's outcomes and its effective application in the decision making process. It is needed to provide to the decision makers a simple, less human interfered mechanism that integrates all the key criteria (environmental, economic, technical and safety etc.). The proposed index: Interlink Decision Making Index (IDMI) has all these features: simple, interlink (all criteria) and automatically and quantified influence of critical criteria (ie. no human weighting needed) and is able to assist the multi-criteria decision making for sustainability based on the outcomes of specific assessments (eg. LCA, BIA etc.). The index represents a pure numerical value and does not necessarily have any physical meanings, but it reflects the total merits of a particular option once the normal decision making criteria and (up to two) critical criteria (Ce) have been chosen. Then, without arbitrarily weighting process, the comparison and selection of the best possible option, ie. decision can be made based on the derived IDMI results. Two hypothetical examples are presented in the part 2 of the paper to demonstrate the application of the IDMI concept and it's differences with the traditional "tabular method" in the decision making process.

Emergetic ternary diagrams: five examples for application in environmental accounting for decision-making

In a recent paper, "A combined tool for environmental scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting." [Giannettti BF, Barrella FA, Almeida CMVB. A combined tool for environment scientists and decision makers: ternary diagrams and emergy accounting. J Clean Prod, in press http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.09.002] Ternary diagrams were proposed as a graphical tool to assist emergy analysis. The graphical representation of the emergy accounting data makes it possible to compare processes and systems with and without ecosystem services, to evaluate improvements and to follow the system performance over time. The graphic tool is versatile and adaptable to represent products, processes, systems, countries, and different periods of time.The use and the versatility of ternary diagrams for assisting in performing emergy analyses are illustrated by means of five examples taken from the literature, which are presented and discussed. It is shown that emergetic ternary diagram's properties assist the assessment of the system of the system efficiency, its dependance upon renewable and non-renewable inputs and the environmental support for dilution and abatement of process emissions. With the aid of ternary diagrams, details such as the interaction between systems and between systems and the environment are recognized and evaluated. Such a tool for graphical analysis allows a transparent presentation of the results and can serve as an interface between emergy scientists and decision makers, provided the meaning of each line in the diagram is carefully explained and understood. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.^