sustainability driver for decision making in...
Post on 11-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Smart Systems Research
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
July 2010
SUSTAINABILITY: DRIVER FOR
DECISION MAKING IN
INFRASTRUCTURE
Siew Neng Franks LEONG
B Eng (Hons) Monash
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
BN72 Master of Engineering (Master by Research)
I
Keywords
KEYWORDS
Decision indicator
Decision indicators for sustainability
Decision making
Infrastructure
Infrastructure sustainability
Sustainability
II
Abstract
ABSTRACT
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.
III
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Keywords I
Abstract II
Table of Contents III
List of Figures VI
List of Tables VIII
List of Abbreviations IX
Statement of Original Authorship XI
Acknowledgements XII
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.1.1 Research problem & objectives 3
1.2 Significance, definitions and scope 5
1.3 Structure of thesis 7
Chapter 2 Literature Review 10
2.1 Overview 10
2.1.1 Key definitions 11
2.2 Legacy: Historical evolution 13
2.2.1 Economic motivation 13
2.2.2 Resource management 15
2.2.3 Transportation needs 18
2.2.4 Towards sustainability in the construction industry of Australia 20
2.3 Gap: Accountable decisions 22
2.4 Action paradigm: Towards sustainability 28
2.5 Potential research in decision indicators for sustainability 31
IV
Table of Contents
2.6 Summary and implications 44
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology 46
3.1 Overview 46
3.2 Methodology 47
3.3 Participants and research techniques 50
3.4 Procedures and timeline 50
3.5 Result analysis 53
3.6 Ethical considerations and limitations 54
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey 55
4.1 Overview 55
4.2 Structure of questionnaire survey 56
4.2.1 Survey preparation 58
4.2.2 Survey participation 59
4.3 Questionnaire survey data analysis 61
4.3.1 Respondents’ background 63
4.3.2 Current project approach 66
4.3.3 Sustainable paradigm shift 68
4.4 Summary of questionnaire survey findings 76
Chapter 5 Interview 78
5.1 Overview 78
5.2 Structure of interviews 78
5.3 Interview survey finding analysis 80
5.4 Summary of interview findings 87
Chapter 6 Case Study 89
6.1 Overview 89
6.2 Case study finding analysis 89
6.2.1 Case Study 1: Brisbane Northern Busway, Queensland 90
6.2.2 Case Study 2: Context integration in infrastructure project 92
6.2.3 Case Study 3: New Perth Bunbury Highway, Western Australia 93
6.2.4 Case Study 4: Traveston Crossing Dam, Queensland 95
6.2.5 Case Study 5: Northern Gateway Alliance, New Zealand 98
V
Table of Contents
6.3 Summary of case study findings 100
Chapter 7 Result Analysis 103
7.1 Overview 103
7.2 Analysis of research findings 104
7.3 Summary of result analysis 115
Chapter 8 Conclusion 118
8.1 Overview 118
8.2 New knowledge arising from this research 119
8.3 Research limitations 121
8.4 Opportunities for future research 122
8.5 Conclusion 124
Bibliography A-1
Appendices A-11
Appendix A : Email for invitation to online questionnaire survey
Appendix B : Reminder letter for submission of questionnaire survey
Appendix C : Online survey questionnaire
Appendix D : Survey Report as generated from Key Survey
Appendix E : Letter for invitation for interview
Appendix F : Interview questionnaire
VI
List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Research proposition 3
Figure 1-2 Thesis map 7
Figure 2-1 Outline of Chapter 2 10
Figure 2-2 Concentric circles representing sustainable development
concept 25
Figure 2-3 Waves of innovation 28
Figure 2-4 Project phases and stakeholder involvement for a typical
infrastructure project 32
Figure 3-1 Research design framework 46
Figure 4-1 Outline of Chapter 4 55
Figure 4-2 Proportions of participant’s background 60
Figure 4-3 Response for Question 1 in survey 61
Figure 4-4 Response for Question 2 in survey 61
Figure 4-5 Response for Question 3 in survey 62
Figure 4-6 Response for Question 5 in survey 62
Figure 4-7 Response for Question 6 in survey 64
Figure 4-8 Response for Question 7 in survey 65
Figure 4-9 Response for Question 8 in survey 65
Figure 4-10 Response for Question 8(a) in survey 65
Figure 4-11 Response for Question 9 in survey 66
Figure 4-12 Response for Question 10 in survey 67
Figure 4-13 Response for Question 11 in survey 67
Figure 4-14 Response for Question 12 in survey 68
Figure 4-15 Response for Question 13 in survey 69
VII
List of Figures
Figure 4-16 Response for Question 14 in survey 70
Figure 4-17 Response for Question 15 in survey 72
Figure 4-18 Response for Question 16 in survey 73
Figure 4-19 Response for Question 17 in survey 74
Figure 5-1 Outline of Chapter 5 78
Figure 5-2 Interviewing process 79
Figure 5-3 Professions of interview participants 81
Figure 7-1 Structured approach in research analysis 103
Figure 8-1 Thesis title, research problem and research questions 124
VIII
List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Key definitions of sustainability and sustainable
development from several sources 11
Table 2-2 Sustainable development (SD) concept 12
Table 2-3 Sustainability rating tools 21
Table 2-4 Key comparison between the neoclassical and institutional
conceptual frameworks for decision system theories 23
Table 2-5 Development of decision indicators for sustainability in
infrastructure 35
Table 3-1 Differences between qualitative and quantitative research
methods 48
Table 3-2 Summary of qualitative and quantitative research methods 48
Table 3-3 Timeline for research data collection and result analysis 52
Table 4-1 Outline of survey questionnaire structure 57
Table 4-2 Questionnaire survey invitees 59
Table 8-1 New knowledge contributing from the development of
decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure 118
IX
List of Abbreviations
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AGIC Australian Green Infrastructure Council
BCI Building Council of Australia
BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
CEEQUAL Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award
Scheme
CIE Centre for International Economics
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
DM Decision Making
DSS Decision Support System
EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Act)
EPHC Environment Protection and Heritage Council of Australia and New
Zealand
GBCA Green Building Council of Australia
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GOD Green-orientated Development
IA Infrastructure Australia
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MCDM Multi-criteria Decision Making
NABERS National Australian Built Environment Rating System
X
List of Abbreviations
NGA Northern Gateway Alliance
NPBH New Perth Bunbury Highway
POD Pedestrian-orientated Development
PPP Private Public Partnership
SD Sustainable Development
SDM Sustainable Decision Making
SGA Southern Gateway Alliance
TBL Triple-Bottom-Line
TCD Traveston Crossing Dam
TOD Transit-orientated Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
WCED World Commission of Environment and Development
XI
Statement of Original Authorship
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature :
LEONG, Siew-Neng Franks
Date :
27 July 2010
XII
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks must go to Professor David A Hood and Professor John Bell of the
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering (BEE) at Queensland University of
Technology (QUT) for accepting and supervising me in this postgraduate by
research. Professor Hood, my principal supervisor, who is a Chartered Professional
Engineer and also the inaugural chairman of the Australian Green Infrastructure
Council (AGIC), has been giving me his invaluable guidance, consistent support,
motivation, glamour and humour throughout my postgraduate journey.
Professor Bell is the Assistant Dean-Research has been contributing significantly in
nanotechnology, energy efficiency, integrated photovoltaic system and renewable
energy. Despite of his busy lifestyle encompassing regular research collaborations,
consultation works and faculty duties, Professor Bell as my associate supervisor has
been continuously encouraging and providing positive advice to my research. In
addition, I am privileged having involved in the energy master planning strategies
for the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) with the recommendation of my
supervisors. My involvement in this QUT-BAC research project has provided me
with a real opportunity to enhance my knowledge and strategise my major research
objective in energy efficiency and sustainable development. Again, thank you David
and John.
I also wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the QUT Research Budget and QUT
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering for the complete funding of my
postgraduate research scholarship—Queensland University of Technology Masters
Scholarship. Similarly, appreciation and thanks go to the academic and support staff
within the BEE HDR office. I am grateful to their full cooperation and support.
Specifically, the most special loves and thanks are dedicated to my beloved wife,
Chai-Ling; I have overrun my research time into the moments which we would
otherwise been shared together. Chai-Ling has been absolutely positive in my
XIII
Acknowledgements
research journey by showing her emotional support and encouragement, and
keeping my spirits up with her consistent motivation. Likewise, the playfulness and
liveliness of our children, Kai-Henn and Kai-Xunn, have shredded off my loads when
I was at my lows. As a family, we continue to grow, learn and enjoy together!
Last but not least, the participants in my research surveys and interviews deserved
for my thanks. They have contributed their kind efforts, knowledge and time in
making a success of my research.
Siew-Neng Franks Leong
July 2010
Brisbane
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Infrastructure developments are fundamental assets of national growth indicators
(UNEP, 2008; World Bank, 2010). Also, infrastructure development has been one of
the determining factors for competitiveness of a nation. Essentially, boosting
economic growth is one major reason for infrastructure development. However,
economic growth has long been thriving as incremental developments at the
expense of social and natural capital (Dzeng & Wang, 2008; UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, 2010).
Similarly, the escalating rate of global natural resource consumption and ecosystem
destruction are resulting in enormous damage to the natural environment and its
community of species. In addition, the serial consequences of rapid urbanization
and natural habitat vulnerability are being linked with the catastrophes due to
climate change, such as the severe atmospheric temperature increase, sea level
rise, torrential rains and rampant wildfires. Due to these ‘hotspots’, people begin to
be concerned for the care of the society and environment; people are beginning to
acknowledge the criticality of infrastructure sustainability (Kurucz, 2005; Nilsson,
1997).
Thesis Title
Sustainability: Driver for decision making in infrastructure
2
Chapter 1 Introduction
Following on the above discussion, the construction industry in Australia has
adopted the green building practice in the building services sector. Over the years,
this practice has become the forefront and imperative in the construction industry
(Green Building Council of Australia, 2002). As valuable as the constructional
activities are in the building sectors, infrastructure development has long been
regarded as one of the major components in the economic spine for the nation.
However, there is a lack of effective and complete rating tools for sustainability
practice in the infrastructure sector.
The excessive focus on economics as a driver for infrastructure development has
resulted in serious socio-environmental vulnerability. Therefore, it rapidly affirms
that research to investigate sustainability as a driver for decision making in
infrastructure is crucial for the future generations. Specifically, the research
problem comes clear as:
In addition to its economic value, how can infrastructure transform,
enhance and contribute positively to the environment and society?
Arising from the research problem, this investigation seeks to conduct research in
infrastructure with the main objective to study and develop a set of new decision
indicators to principally assess sustainability outcomes for infrastructure. In
conjunction with the emerging sustainability framework in infrastructure, the new
decision indicators to be developed aims to enable and enhance the
interconnectivity and traceability of the decision making processes for sustainability
in the infrastructure sector.
3
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1.1 Research problem & objectives
The preceding section uncovers the background supporting the research problem. It
signifies the research importance. Thus, it creates a strong proposition for the new
paradigm in decision making for sustainability in infrastructure development. It also
seeks to revitalise with profound changes in the way we conceptualise the needs of
infrastructure, its methods of design and construction, as well as in planning and
management strategies. Secondly, it also creates new forms of cooperation,
collaboration and regulations among various government offices, regulatory bodies
and major stakeholder groups.
Figure 1-1 Research proposition
Research Problem
•In addition to its economic value, how can infrastructure
transform, enhance and contribute positively to the environment
and society?
Research Questions
•Q1 What have been the most deciding factors which steer developments in
the infrastructure sector? Why are positive changes required?
•Q2 How can the changes be effectively adopted for enhancing sustainability
in infrastructure?
•Q3 How can decisions influence and drive the sustainability outcomes in
infrastructure?
Research Hypothesis
•Research design and methodology
•Data collection
•Result analysis and research outcomes
Research Problem
In addition to its economic value, how can infrastructure transform,
enhance and contribute positively to the environment and society?
4
Chapter 1 Introduction
The identification of the research problem leads the road map in research
proposition as outlined in Figure 1-1. The research problem initiates the research
questions which are significant to seek exploratory and confirmatory evidences to
establish the interconnection to the research intent (Graziano & Raulin, 2007;
Thomas, 2003). In addition, the research questions trigger and define the research
scope and hypothesis to be established and investigated. The research questions
also channel the key areas to be examined, so that research data and findings can
be accurately developed, cross-checked and thoroughly analysed. Consequently,
the solutions to the research questions will be critically assessed and analysed in
the succeeding chapters. Fundamentally, the new decision indicators for
sustainability in infrastructure set to transform the decision making processes in
infrastructure planning, development and operation. Predominantly, the objectives
in developing the new decision indicators for sustainability are to:
Investigate and identify the major decision parameters as the key criteria in
driving the sustainability outcomes in infrastructure needs and its
development
Transform the key decisions and policies which signify sustainable
development and operation in infrastructure
Map and emphasise the critical resources flow, rethinking challenge and
project delivery strategy in the infrastructure sector
Validate the interrelationship and interdependency in sustainability,
decision making and infrastructure
Create an impetus for change leading to sustainability in infrastructure
Integrate the societal cares and environmental concerns into the emerging
financial management as an essential part in business operation and survival
Positively transform the stakeholders’ habits and behaviours, and improve
their awareness and knowledge in sustainability
5
Chapter 1 Introduction
Be sensitive to the global climate change consequences, as well as their
impacts in Australia.
1.2 Significance, definitions and scope
Reiterating from the needs due to the lack of effective and outcome-orientated
rating tools in sustainability practice in the infrastructure sector of Australia, the
research significance emphasises the criticality to formulate and develop the new
decision indicators for sustainability to be used in conjunction with the
sustainability assessment framework for infrastructure nationally. Moreover,
achieving sustainability in infrastructure development requires a committed change
in the processes which resources used and key decisions made. Therefore, the
research objectives as identified in the preceding section also seek to enhance the
positive transformation in the national construction industry.
Whilst thorough definitions in the research context will be explained as the
research hypothesis progresses, the author defines the key terms of ‘sustainability’,
‘sustainable development’ and ‘infrastructure’ in this section for purpose of
identification and clarity of the research scope. ‘Sustainability’ and ‘sustainable
development’ carry many profound definitions. Particularly, the formal definition
for ‘sustainable development’, as used in the World Commission on Environment
and Development (WCED) and Dictionary of Environmental Science and
Technology, refers to a development which meets the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs (Brundtland & WCED, 1987; Porteous, 2008). Likewise, ‘infrastructure’ is
defined as the basic physical and organizational structures (buildings, roads, power
supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise (Soanes & Hawker,
2006). Comparatively, Infrastructure Australia (IA), a statutory advisory council for
the Australian Government, defines ‘infrastructure’ not only to include the civil
infrastructure (utilities, road and rail networks, seaports and airports), but it also
6
Chapter 1 Introduction
comprises the social infrastructure (for social and community), buildings (health
care and educational facilities), security and defence.
Converging to the context of the research, the author delineates ‘infrastructure’
and refers to civil infrastructure only, within the scope of the Australian Green
Infrastructure Council (AGIC, 2009) which includes:
Roads and tunnels
Railways and bridges
Airports
Ports and marinas
Cycle and pedestrian pathways
Distribution grids (for electricity)
Telecommunication infrastructure
Water and wastewater supply and treatment infrastructure
Waste management and disposal
Civil engineering headworks of industrial processes.
The principal reason for delineating the definition of infrastructure in the research
context is that buildings, which include in IA’s definition, have already been
governed by the various recognized sustainability schemes and green building
rating tools, both mandated and voluntary, for the building sector in Australia (BCI
Australia & Green Building Council of Australia, 2006). Therefore, infrastructure
terminology to be used in this research will exclude building structures. Similarly,
the nature of social infrastructure is broad base; it may need longer time and
resources to complete the investigation. This accounts for another reason for
converging the research scope to focus on the civil infrastructure only (excluding
the military and ‘soft’ or social infrastructure).
7
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.3 Structure of thesis
This section presents the overview of the thesis structure. The thesis structure
consists of four sections and spreads across eight chapters; Figure 1-2 shows an
outline of the thesis map. The thesis commences with an Introduction in Chapter 1;
this chapter sets the scene by giving a background justifying the research
importance and leading the research problem and research questions. Secondly, it
presents the importance of infrastructure and its impact on the economy, society
and the environment. In parallel, it leads to the correlation of infrastructure
development and economic needs in nation building. This chapter also establishes
the research objectives and context; it follows with the research significance and
scope.
Figure 1-2 Thesis map
Commencement
Chapter 1: Introduction• Thesis structure• Research scope
Literature Review
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Research Design & Findings
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology
Chapter 4: Questionnaire Survey
Chapter 5: Interview
Chapter 6: Case Study
Consolidated Research Findings and Conclusion
Chapter 7: Result Analysis
Chapter 8: Conclusion
8
Chapter 1 Introduction
To strengthen the research overview as originated in Chapter 1, it is important to
have the key topics related to infrastructure and its systems to be thoroughly
studied. Therefore, a comprehensive literature review in these areas is covered in
Chapter 2. This chapter reviews and makes reference to the current Infrastructure
Sustainability Assessment Categories of the Australian Green Infrastructure Council
(AGIC, 2009). Here, the author reinforces and augments the categories which need
to be investigated for the development of new decision indicators for sustainability
in infrastructure. Broadly, this chapter critically evaluates:
The legacy in infrastructure development and its impacts on society and the
environment
How decisions can influence sustainability outcomes in the infrastructure
sector
The interconnectivity and interdependency on sustainability, decision
making and infrastructure.
With the identification of current literature gaps and realization of research
milestones in the earlier chapter, Chapter 3 on research design and methodology
discusses the effective research approaches which would be appropriate to yield
the realistic results and practical findings. This chapter begins with the salient
effects of the various scientific research methods and converges with the
integration of quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Subsequently, the
three research techniques of questionnaire survey, interview and case study are
covered in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 respectively. These three chapters present the
participant response and results in details.
Consolidating on all results gathered in the three research techniques and
supporting with the gap in the literature, Chapter 7 on result analysis further
9
Chapter 1 Introduction
examines and discusses the findings in the research. In particular, it focuses and
addresses the research problem; it also provides full solutions to the research
questions. Next, Chapter 8 provides the thesis conclusion; this final chapter
presents the research achievements. It balances the findings with signposting the
research limitations. The thesis concludes with future research opportunities.
Finally, supporting materials in the research, for example survey questionnaire,
survey response summary, interview questionnaire and sample letters, are
provided as Appendices in the closing section of the thesis.
10
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview
Firstly, this chapter sets out to critically evaluate the literature and compare it with
the industry practices relevant to sustainability, decision making and infrastructure
development. This paves the way to develop a conceptual framework for the
research proposition in examining the research questions and addressing the
hypothesis. Figure 2-1 shows the chapter outline; fundamentally, this chapter aims
to review the current approaches in the infrastructure development and
management, uncover the gaps in the literature and justify the needs to transform
the decision making regime towards sustainability in infrastructure. Finally,
summary and implications from the literature review will be presented at the last
section of this chapter.
Figure 2-1 Outline of Chapter 2
OverviewLegacy:
Historical evolution
Gap: Accountable
decisions
Action paradigm: Towards
sustainability
Potential research in
decision indicators for sustainability
Summary and implications
11
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1.1 Key definitions
There have been many definitions for the three key terms — sustainability,
sustainable development and infrastructure. Universally, a commonly acceptable
definition is elusive; it is dependent on the scale and area concerned (Brown et al.,
1987; CSIRO, 2010). One of the globally recognised definitions for sustainable
development is pioneered by the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED). Since Brundtland (1987) has the WCED’s definition for
sustainable development, there have been numerous versions and enhanced
concepts in sustainability and sustainable development as shown in Table 2-1 and
Table 2-2. Although different authors, world organisations and institutional bodies
have put different emphasis into these definitions, there is a general alignment that
sustainable development has evolved towards triple-bottom-line (TBL) approach.
Similarly, Chapter 1 has identified and introduced the generic definitions for these
three key terms.
Table 2-1 Key definitions of sustainability and sustainable development from several sources
Definitions Sources
Sustainable development refers to the development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the
future generations to meet their own needs.
(Brundtland & WCED, 1987;
Diesendorf, 2007; Porteous,
2008)
Sustainable development – The concept of sustainable
development (SD) was introduced in the World Conservation
Strategy (IUCN 1980) and had its roots in the concept of a
sustainable society and in the management of renewable
resources. Adopted by the WCED in 1987. SD integrates the
political, social, economic and environmental dimensions.
(Bruce et al., 1996)
Sustainability means that all future generations will inherit
substantive environmental and democratic rights – control over
the means of survival, an increased ecological base, and genuine
social choice (not ‘substituted’ by manufactured capital).
(Birkeland, 2008)
Sustainability is not just about the environment. It is also about
the way development contributes to, and the impacts on, all
(Brisbane (Qld.). Council,
12
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Definitions Sources
facets of a community, from its economic stability to the
availability of natural resources, the health of its citizens and its
sense of community.
2009)
Sustainability is about making sure the social, economic and
environmental needs of our community are met and kept healthy
for future generations.
(Sustainability Victoria,
2010)
Table 2-2 Sustainable development (SD) concept
Sustainable development (SD) concept as proposed by Brundtland in WCED
It is multidimensional (rather one dimensional).
It emphasizes ethics in relation to future generations or intergenerational (rather than
mathematical calculation).
It is built on ideas about democracy and the involvement of stakeholders and actors as in the
case of Agenda 211.
Reiterating in this research context, infrastructure refers to civil infrastructure as
used in AGIC. As important as Brundtland’s definition for sustainability is, the
author would like to re-define sustainability in the engineering application to
include:
‘An interrelationship of organised systems or principles that adequately meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future
generations to meet their own needs. Fundamentally, these are societal
responsibilities which to be attained without causing diminished quality of life,
instability, unexpected shocks and long-term degradation within the systems;
and these are to be accessible to the present and future generations.’
1 Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment. Agenda 21 was adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992, from: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
13
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.2 Legacy: Historical evolution
2.2.1 Economic motivation
Urban sprawl resulted from rapid economic growth and population expansion is the
major driving forces for the infrastructure development in urban centres
(Fillingham, 2004; Herb, 2007; Ian, 2006; Sahely et al., 2005). Similarly, the
economic growth and population expansion in Australia have resulted in more than
three-quarters of the populations living in many of the major cities of 100,000
people or more, which include the largest five cities — Sydney, Melbourne,
Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. By 2050, the population of Australia is projected to
reach 35 million, with the capital cities becoming home to the vast majority of this
increased population. Undoubtedly, the economic growth and population
expansion have significantly improved the quality of life and majority of the social
issues in the Australian cities, but these have also confronted with extensive
debatable challenges (Infrastructure Australia, 2010; Ralph, 1999; Searle, 2004;
Taylor, 2004). Infrastructure bottlenecking, transport congestion, pollution,
ecological degradation and climate change consequences are the analytical
challenges (O'Hara, 2009; Stern & Great Britain Treasury, 2007; Verbruggen et al.,
2009).
Infrastructure developments have resulted in serious environmental degradation
and resource depletion over the past decades (Astleithner & Hamedinger, 2003;
Holden, 2006). During the infancy stage of sustainable urban infrastructure
developments in the 1980s, many of the developing countries have supported the
ideas in urbanisation by intensifying construction towards compact city theories
and policies (Chen et al., 2008; Lemanski, 2007; Vojnovic, 1999; Walmsley, 2006). A
compact city is referred to as a relative high-density and mixed-use urban centre
(Chen et al., 2008). Hypothetically, it seeks to contain an efficient public transport
system and associated infrastructure that encourage walking and cycling (Bell &
Johns, 2006; Shmelev & Shmeleva, 2009). Supporting this, the two dominant
environmental benefits that result from increased compact living to yield:
14
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Less private car dependency (reducing the CO2 footprint) and
Preservation of green fields and arable lands.
On the contrary, there are critiques against the process of urban compaction where
it has directly resulted in:
Higher density leading to traffic congestion
Greater local air and noise pollution
A series of ill-effect emission problems
Increase in social problems (crime, noise and overcrowding)
Increase in waste generation and disposal
Degradation in biodiversity and ecosystem.
Due to this controversy, city or urban centre compactness has initiated numerous
studies for empirical evidences to support its claims for sustainability. Therefore, it
is critical to have a deeper understanding and decision support system to evaluate
the relationship of urban compactness, sustainable performance of the cities and its
infrastructure development needs (Chen et al., 2008; Lemanski, 2007; McCann,
2004).
Indisputably, economic strength has been the key driver for people to move into
and live within the major cities. The capital cities contribute nearly 80% of national
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and employ 75% of the nation’s workforce. Despite
the evident economic and lifestyle contexts, the State of Australian Cities Report
2010 also points to concern for the well-being of urban communities which needs
to be addressed to support policy development and delivery. Similarly, the
completeness of networked infrastructure contributes significantly to the quality of
life in cities. However, the lack of integrated infrastructure has led the loss in global
economy competitiveness position (Bobker, 2006). Therefore, infrastructure
sustainability and city liveability are increasingly important issues in the context of
urban planning and development. Conversely, the lack of capability in planning
integration among the stakeholders and inadequacy in consensus in decision
15
Chapter 2 Literature Review
making of various departments in the local and federal governments have resulted
the problems in accommodating the equitable needs of expanding population,
economy and the environment (Au-Yeung et al., 2009).
The planning of economic growth and infrastructure development is often dealt
with separately and not included in the conventional land use planning and decision
making process (Hersh, 1998; Söderbaum, 2006). Söderbaum’s research also
reveals that conventional land use planning and infrastructure development
approaches to tackle economic growth issues have often been based on trends,
historical assumptions and policies, rather than on consolidated data on achievable
and sustainable development solutions. In particular, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature 2 (IUCN) also confirms in its report that development
decisions made by most of the governments, businesses and other private
institutions do allow trade-offs that exert emphasis on the economy above other
dimensions of sustainability (IUCN, 2006). Moreover, not only in Australia,
infrastructure developments are increasingly confronting with various physical,
socio-economic, environmental and political controversies. (Gleeson & Low, 2003).
2.2.2 Resource management
Natural waterways are one of the vital resources; they provide and facilitate a wide
range of uses which are essential to maintain our well-being and quality of life.
Waterways provide and enrich natural habitats, particularly for birds and all
wildlife; unfortunately, many of the other uses for commercial and economic
activities have profoundly degraded the natural habitats and destroyed the
ecosystem. Therefore, consistent outcome-orientated decisions among the major
stakeholders are crucial to water quality rehabilitation and treatment (Brown, 2008;
2 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was founded in 1948. It is the world first global environmental organisation that consists of large professional global conservation network. IUCN is a leading authority on the environment and sustainable development. It supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world and brings governments, non-government organizations, United Nations agencies, companies and local communities together to develop and implement policy, laws and best practice. From: http://www.iucn.org/about/
16
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Chen, 2008). Essentially, decisions for sustainability involve a balance among the
environmental, economic, social and technical considerations. In Australia, statistics
confirm that the drought conditions in 2002 and 2003 caused a reduction of more
than 20% of water stored in the large dams nationally (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2008). In response to the critical water conservation, stringent water
restrictions were imposed in the capital cities. Effectively, a 7% reduction in
residential water usage was recorded in 2004-2005, despite an increase in
population over the same period (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). As a result,
water restriction in urban areas has evolved a new water usage lifestyle and
created positive water conservation awareness in the community.
Energy, which encompasses the electricity, oil and gas transmission and distribution
networks, contributes a significant component in the national infrastructure;
substantially, it facilitates economic growth and enhances the standard of living
(Chan & Yeung, 2005; Del Río & Burguillo, 2008; Lu, 2007). However, the rampant
extraction of fossil fuel for electricity generation, distribution and consumption has
heavily impacted the environment and its community globally. The related
consequences include but not limited to a drastic increase in greenhouse gas
emission, series of environmental and oceanic catastrophes, serious natural
resource depletion, environmental and waste pollution (Bob, 2007; James & Matt,
2008; Pettenger, 2009).
Moreover, energy consumption has steadily increased over the past three decades
where the transport sector has accounted for a considerably larger proportion of
energy used, for example in electricity and petroleum-based consumption. Also,
60% of the energy consumed in the transport sector is associated with passenger
vehicles and the distribution of goods and services (Dimitriou, 2006; Goldman &
Gorham, 2005; May et al., 2008). In line with this argument, the national statistics
confirm 97% of the energy used in Australia in 2007-2008 was sourced from non-
renewable sources, mainly from coal, oil and natural gas (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2008).
17
Chapter 2 Literature Review
With the recognition of sustainability in waste management and disposal, public
concerns have been increasingly focusing on the externalities associated with
resource extraction, consumption and depletion. In particular, the Productivity
Commission3 is monitoring waste disposal nationally with the impacts on human
health, amenity and environmental pollution, as well as greenhouse emission
consequences. As identified in the preceding sections in which cities account for a
large proportion of national economic activities and population growths,
disappointingly cities are also generating major sources of waste. The per capita
waste generation is considered high as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008)
recorded (despite increasing national waste recycling over the years), the total
waste generation has continued to rise nationally.
Furthermore, construction and demolition waste accounted for the greatest source
of waste in Australia, more than 38% of total waste generated in 2006-2007 (EPHC,
2009). The waste management and disposal has not only resulted to debateable
issues in land filling, incineration, vitrification and recycling methods, but the
logistics involved in waste haulage has impacted the community due to the increase
in transportation costs and the need to upgrade infrastructure to meet the waste
transportation and disposal demand (Girardet, 2008; Linton & Yeomans, 2003). For
example, land has to be allocated and roads/ rails have to be constructed to waste
management sites. Inevitably, this has led to serious community and the
environmental problems. Therefore, the fundamental solution to address waste
management and disposal is to change the behavioural culture — not to
unnecessarily create the waste in the first place! Other positive action plans and
cultures include: cradle-to-cradle design; effective recycling; and resource
conservation at key decision and leadership levels (Girardet, 2008; Verhoef et al.,
2006; Williams & Dair, 2007).
3 The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government's independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role is to help governments make better policies in the long term interest of the Australian community, from: http://www.pc.gov.au/
18
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.2.3 Transportation needs
Congestion creates a series of detrimental urban lifestyle problems; it also results
negative economic impacts. Urban expansion without the alignment of decisions
towards sustainable transportation has led to the direct consequence of congestion
in cities (Bragdon, 2009; Stopher, 2004; Zachariadis, 2005). Furthermore,
congestion shortens the effective working and leisure hours, increases stress and
reduces productivity. Therefore, the decline in productivity correlates with
increases in business running costs (Jong et al., 2009; Stopher, 2004). Consequently,
times lost through traffic congestion are made up by additional hours spent to
complete the task or production. Thus, there must be a coordinated and integrated
assessment for urban transportation needs. Admittedly, a vibrant and monitored
approach is vital to achieve greater urban diversity, reduce urban traffic congestion,
and finally enhance a liveable environment and community leading to
sustainability.
Transport emissions are one of the strongest sources of unhealthy emission growth
in Australia (CSIRO, 2010; Infrastructure Australia, 2010). Emission from vehicles
leads to a chain of environmental impacts, social ill-effects and health problems.
Moreover, modern modes of transportation are substantial contributors to the
global carbon footprint. Without government leadership, the transportation sector
may not swiftly react and undergo the positive change to counteract the negative
impacts affecting the environment and society. (Bragdon, 2009; Stopher, 2004;
Zachariadis, 2005). Therefore, government intervention plays an influential role in
tackling the complex cross functional and sectoral policy matters for effectively
transitioning the transportation sector. Also, government decisions also influence
human cultures and behaviours towards a more efficient platform for sustainability
to support:
Active transportation research and development
Traffic impact and emission assessment
19
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Infrastructure supply chain mapping
Strategic urban land use and infrastructure interconnectedness
Infrastructure demand modelling for passengers, commuters and bulk
material haulage.
In minimising environmental and societal impacts, there have been several effective
and positive solutions in the direction towards sustainability in transportation or
green transport planning (Eason et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2008; Waddell et al.,
2007). The integration of fast dispersion of traffic and commuters in all major
corridors is top on the list; this integration includes the high speed light rails and
busways. Therefore, easy access to walkable areas, on-site cycling facilities and
secured cycle parking are crucial in the sustainable transport integration towards
system serviceability, affordability, reliability and interconnectedness (Dimopoulos,
2009; Newman, 2005; Situma, 2007). In implementing the sustainable
transportation system, it must be safe and efficient in providing accessibility and
mobility, without impacting negatively on the natural environment (Amekudzi et al.,
2009). Functionally, this provides an immediate solution to alleviate traffic
congestion; thus, it enhances positive urban lifestyle and economic productivity. As
important as these solutions are, imposing traffic calming measures (for example
congestion tax and removal of on-street parking spaces), and implementing transit-
orientated development (TOD), green-orientated development (GOD) and
pedestrian-orientated development (POD) are significant commitments towards
sustainable infrastructure development (Newman et al., 2008).
Despite the consequences on global climate change and the impacts on biodiversity
and food production, there is a significant gap between urban sustainability theory
and industry practice (James & Matt, 2008). Indisputably, infrastructure
development task is massive, costly and multi-disciplinary for long-term strategies;
therefore cities cannot be planned around the historic trends in stimulating traffic
growth. Similarly, urban congestion cannot be solved by building more roads,
tunnels and bridges (Dimopoulos, 2009). Likewise, Newman (2005) argues that car
20
Chapter 2 Literature Review
dependence has been the dominant Australian paradigm for 50 years and the
Australian cities are among the world’s highest consumers of transport energy. In
addition, the unplanned nature of economic growth raises several policy challenges
relating to resource use and traffic congestion in the emerging economic growth
corridor in Queensland. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008; Infrastructure
Australia, 2010; Spearritt, 2009).
2.2.4 Towards sustainability in the construction industry of
Australia
Enhancing the overall sustainable planning objectives and construction activities in
Australia, the building sector has been adopting the green building practice of the
Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) and National Australian Built
Environment Rating System (NABERS) for new building construction and
refurbishment of existing buildings. However, there has not been any standardised
measurable tool in sustainability for the infrastructure sector in Australia, for
example in the transportation system, energy development and water industry.
Hence, with the growing importance of sustainability, Infrastructure Australia (the
infrastructure advisory body for the Australian Government) supports targeted
investments in innovative public transport system, prioritises nationally significant
infrastructure and effectively reforms the regulatory system to improve the
efficient utilisation of national infrastructure networks (Infrastructure Australia,
2009b). The national infrastructure priority drives productivity and urban
invigoration in the major cities to maintain their economic success and
environmental stability (Adams, 2009; Infrastructure Australia, 2010). Particularly,
the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC) and Australian Sustainable Built
Environment Council (ASBEC), supported by governmental groups and industry
practitioners, spearheaded having sustainability incorporated and regulated into
the infrastructure sector in Australia (AGIC, 2009; ASBEC, 2009).
21
Chapter 2 Literature Review
ASBEC aims to be a leader in reducing ecological impacts, improving economic
returns and extending community amenity of the built environment, whilst AGIC4 is
a national industry association formed to establish a rating scheme to enhance
sustainability in Australian infrastructure. The emerging AGIC’s Infrastructure
Sustainability Rating Scheme intents to assess the economic, environmental and
societal dynamisms; its assessment areas embrace:
Project Management & Government
Economic Performance
Resources Usage
Emissions, Pollution & Waste
Biodiversity
People and Place
Workforce.
Table 2-3 Sustainability rating tools
Sustainability measurement tools Country of practice
NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System) Australia
Green Star Australia
Green Star NZ New Zealand
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
United States of
America
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) United Kingdom,
Netherlands
CEEQUAL (Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment & Award
Scheme)
United Kingdom
CNGBN (China Green Building Network) China
DGNB (translated as German Sustainable Building Council) Germany
Minergie Switzerland
HKBEAM (Hong Kong Building Environment Assessment Method) Hong Kong
GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment) India
GBI Malaysia (Green Building Index Malaysia) Malaysia
Green Mark Singapore
4 Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC) is formed by a group of industry professionals from: engineering, environmental, planning, legal, financial and construction backgrounds working in both private and public organisations related to infrastructure, from: http://www.agic.net.au/
22
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Inherent with the discussion of inadequacy in sustainability for the infrastructure
sector in Australia, the author also reviews other most commonly referred
sustainability rating tools in the global built environment:
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method) in the United Kingdom
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) in the United States
of America
NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System) in Australia
Green Star in Australia.
Similarly, there have been various sustainability assessment techniques, tools and
principles as shown in Table 2-3 for the building developments. Different countries
have their own sets of sustainability rating tools for the built environment, but
these sustainability rating tools have been mainly for the green design process on
housing and building applications.
2.3 Gap: Accountable decisions
The inadequate collaboration and ineffective commitment among various
stakeholders in the construction industry has led to the detrimental depletion and
degradation of the natural resources (James et al., 2005; Lim & Ofori, 2007; Milder,
2007). Data supporting the statistics in the recent report of the Intergovernmental
Panel of Climate Change (IPCC, 2008) confirms that the impacts from climate
change are occurring faster and are more destructive than anticipated earlier.
Rising sea level and increases in weather extremities are the major global climate
change consequences. Realizing the escalating dangers due to climate change,
people begin to rationalise that urbanisation and economic expansion could not be
potentially sustainable without the clear understanding of the environmental and
societal impacts (Manoliadis et al., 2006).
23
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Furthermore, the critiques argue that the developed world should supposedly have
started on strong sustainable development and be aware that its affluence has
resulted in an ecological debt (Brown et al., 1987; Milder, 2007). Nevertheless,
evidence shows that the proliferation of unbalanced economic growths and non-
integrated community-based developments have resulted urban disinvestment and
often abandonment in developed nations (Birch & Wachter, 2008; Mulder, 2006).
Likewise, central government uses key performance indicators as methods of
control for project developments, but the key government people leave some
decision-making power to the local authorities, while tying funding to performance
against the centrally outlined targets (Whitford & Wong, 2009). Therefore, a lack of
transparency in governance inhibits project objectives and decisions for
sustainability.
Theoretically, decision support systems (DSS) and multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM) are the two prominent scientific methods in decision simulation and
modelling. The fundamentals of these two methods are to examine the effects of
different policies, analyse the changes in policy, predict changes in availability of
different energy resources and investigate the effects of developments in
technology (Hersh, 1997, 1998). Therefore, these decision system techniques seek
to identify and understand the key elements in decision making to meet the
sustainability requirements in infrastructure development and management.
Table 2-4 Key comparison between the neoclassical and institutional conceptual frameworks
for decision system theories
Categories Neoclassical Framework Institutional Conceptual (Naturalistic)
Framework
Objectives Profit driven Balanced approach, with
consideration of triple-bottom-
line (TBL) aspects
Resource allocation Ideologically closed idea Ideologically open ideas
Decision making
approach
Optimization
Consequential and preference-
based
Matching, appropriateness,
pattern recognition, feedback
loop for sustainability
24
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Neoclassical Framework Institutional Conceptual (Naturalistic)
Framework
Dynamic
Main focus Driven by supply and demand Driven by social relationship
among various stakeholders;
multi-functionality
Indicator Gross National Product (GNP)
growth
Concern for TBL approach
Usage Used with alphanumerical data,
when there is an organisational
need to justify decision choices
Used by experience decision
makers under time pressure or in
dynamic situations
Reiterating on DSS in this research context, it can be broadly defined as computer-
based information systems that guide decision makers. Two main approaches for
modelling decision making have evolved — neo-classical and institutional
conceptual (naturalistic) decision theories. The distinctive features in the two
theories are categorised in Table 2-4. It is also apparent that many decisions are
part of a series of decisions or decision processes rather than occurring in isolation.
This series of decisions can then be divided into a number of decision steps or
components which occur either sequentially or simultaneously. Rarely, decisions
are totally independent of each other (Hersh, 1997). Therefore, these multi-stage
models of decision making promote the integration of various decision making
parameters. Although it is beyond the scope of this research for decision system
modelling, the evolution of DSS and MCDM has assisted the systematic approaches
by integrating and strategising the key elements to enhance accountability in
decision making.
In essence, an effective decision making system would also evaluate the viability
and validity of sustainable development. Whilst this research principally focuses on
infrastructure sustainability, the author agrees that environmental and ecosystem-
related problems are complex, multi-dimensional and intertwined with various
technical, social and economic activities. In many aspects, politicians and policy
makers intentionally drive the major decisions for urban planning, infrastructure
25
Chapter 2 Literature Review
development and its needs (Fred, 2007; O'Hara, 2009; Söderbaum, 2006; Whitford
& Wong, 2009). Similarly, there have been many attempts by infrastructure and
urban planning researchers to put forward models involving sustainability as tools
to inform better public decision making. However, often due to wrong ‘cherry-
picking’ decisions and poor evaluation processes adopted by local governments and
policy regulators, the ultimate goal of using models to contain sustainability as
public decision making tools has failed (Filion & McSpurren, 2007; Waddell et al.,
2007). Accordingly, there are many reasons for failing to achieve the sustainability
objectives, but the most common root causes are:
Lack of bold moves with consolidated efforts and behavioural changes
Unavailability of consistent and reliable planning support databases
Lack of holistic, long-term (ie. 30 to 50 years) and integrated approach
towards sustainability in infrastructure development and urban planning (in
contrast, decisions are short-term (ie. 5 to 10 years) and mostly
economically motivated).
Figure 2-2 Concentric circles representing sustainable development concept
Environment
Society
Economy
26
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Converging in the direction of the United Nations’ objective towards sustainable
development, it has been argued that the Brundtland’s definition was neat but
inexact; the concept is holistic, attractive, and elastic but imprecise (IUCN, 2006).
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) further argues that the
idea of sustainable development may bring people together, but it does not
completely help them to agree on their goals. Due to rapid and dominant
developments, the three pillars and the three equal overlapping circles used in the
earlier triple-bottom-line (TBL) approach cannot be treated as equivalent.
Therefore, a more realistic illustration is adopted and shown in Figure 2-2 where a
development is not sustainable when it exceeds the allowable capacity of the
environment to deliver and maintain it.
Understanding the interrelationships among the environment, society and
economic development are crucial, but this cannot be done without the realisation
of their constraints. As important as embarking sustainability is in the decision
making regime, it is critical to understand how societal and economic actions affect
the environment and how current decisions progressively impact future
generations (Hargroves & Smith, 2005). Therefore, increased knowledge and
awareness in the characteristics, interconnections and constraints of the issues
relating to the three dimensions of environment, society and economy are needed.
Genetically, the economy is an institution that emerges from society (Pellet, 2009).
But the environment is different; it is not created by the people, rather it exists by
nature (therefore, it justifies the position of environment as the globe to contain
the subsets of society and economy in Figure 2-2). Predominantly, environment
underpins both the society and economy, in which the resources available on earth
and the solar system effectively present a finite limit on human activities. Again,
this is clearly evident in practice where development decisions by governments and
businesses do allow trade-offs prioritising monetary values above other dimensions
in societal and environmental values (IUCN, 2006). As a result, this practice causes
the environment continuing to be degraded, and development failing to deliver its
desirable equity goals.
27
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Similarly, securing the welfare level of the population, preserving development
pathways and protecting infrastructure options for the future have also been
interpreted as a long-term criteria for sustainable development (Alfsen & Greaker,
2007). However, the lack of explicit and empirical sustainability frameworks in
global infrastructure construction leads to the arguments over what constitutes
sustainable development in infrastructure. Hence, prioritisation in technology,
decision-support tools and collaborative decision-making are crucial for the
understanding of the complex relationship of integrated systems to establish a
practical framework for sustainability in infrastructure development and
management (Fiskel, 2007). Researchers in this field also support the need for an
integrated and systematic approach to indicator definition and measurement; this
seeks to strengthen well-structured methodologies and assure all important aspects
are included and addressed in the key decisions towards sustainability in
infrastructure development (Manoliadis et al., 2006; Newman, 1999; Quinn, 1996;
Sahely et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2009; Ugwu & Haupt, 2007).
The author believes that a dynamic infrastructure sustainability framework will
embrace extensive key decision indicators. The quality and type of decisions today
determine the societal long term sustainability and quality of life. Similarly,
acknowledging the trade-offs between exploiting more today and leaving less for
the future is one of the important considerations in sustainability development
(Olewiler, 2006). Therefore, in pursuit of economic growth, positive decisions
signify the ‘driver’ behaviours and improve the environmental and societal benefits.
Eventually, major indicators which drive the crucial decision making processes will
also realistically address triple-bottom-line in fulfilling the sustainability approach.
28
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.4 Action paradigm: Towards sustainability
Profit has been the major driver of innovation and motivation in the construction
industry; profit maximisation goals have been the important driving force in the
ultimate decision objectives for construction firms (Lim & Ofori, 2007; O'Hara, 2009;
Verbruggen et al., 2009). Moreover, in sustaining economic growth, urban
consolidation has been the prime planning policy for maximising growth in cities. It
offers a range of enticements for pushing forward urban growth, but increasing
consolidation has exceeded the threshold of a city’s limits and unfortunately tip the
sustainability balance (Searle, 2004). Consequently, the lack of equitable and
integrated infrastructure urban planning and construction impede further urban
consolidation. Incidentally, there is also limited open space and recreation area to
sustain the growing population in the city fringe, which lead to the degradation of
quality of life and bio-diversity (Au-Yeung et al., 2009). Hence, this clearly identifies
that economic growth could not be strategically sustained in long-term, without the
balanced triple-bottom line consideration.
Figure 2-3 Waves of innovation5
5 Source: The Natural Edge Project (TNEP), 2005, from: http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/
29
Chapter 2 Literature Review
The waves of innovation, projected in Figure 2-3, illustrates that it takes relative
shorter timeframe to reach the sixth wave from the fifth wave, as compared to
historical revolutions. In the fifth wave of digital revolution, the market needs was
driven by speed, cost reduction and connectivity. These have seen much new
industry formation associated with information and communications technology
(ICT). Unfortunately, the ICT age also led the demise of many other sunset
businesses. Similarly, with the intense global aspiration towards sustainability, the
sixth wave is anticipated not only to aim at the improvement of quality of life, but it
also aims to enhance the environmental values and societal benefits, on top of the
economic development. Moreover, the inspiration towards sustainability spans
across several major sectors (inclusive of governments, legislation and regulatory
practices, financial institutions, healthcare facilities, universities and engineering
practices), the possibilities in disposing of the unsustainable industries and business
supply chains are imminent and radical (Hargroves & Smith, 2005). Revitalising
resource efficiency and ecosystem conservation is the action paradigm.
In economics, single-minded advocacy of monetary indicators are used as financial
performance and rating metrics, such as gross national product (GNP) and gross
domestic product (GDP) (Riddell, 2005; Skousen, 2009). Therefore, GDP and GNP
have been used as the respective standard of living indicator domestically and
nationally. Apart from the composite index in the share market, urban
infrastructure development has been widely practiced and accepted as a major
economic performance and national growth indicator. With the recent paradigm
change towards sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
sustainability rating indicators have been gaining prominence globally in a wide
spectrum for industrial practice, covering the commonly referred triple-bottom-line
(TBL) approach (Singh et al., 2009).
Next, in the same argument as in sustainable development, democracy can be
defined in many ways. At a fundamental level, it is the respect for human rights and
30
Chapter 2 Literature Review
ideas about how power can be divided rather than concentrated (Whitford &
Wong, 2009). Incidentally, concentration of power in the form of dictatorship could
become the opposite of democracy. As a result, changing of mental maps and
ideological preferences of influential policy makers could not be easily done,
because each individual or corporate body has their own set of perceptions and
cultures (Söderbaum, 2004). Consolidating from the evolution explicitly on
sustainability, the preceding sections demonstrated that holistic decision making
processes have gained prominence and become more a matter of complex pattern-
recognition than simple optimization in monetary value (Claire & Sally, 2008;
Söderbaum, 2004).
In the past, environmental factors have been treated as externalities and generally
omitted from the crucial economic decision making processes in infrastructure
planning and management. Now, with the criticality in sustainable development,
the increase in exploitation of non-renewable natural resources have, however, led
to many global debates on climate change consequences. In order to overcome the
consequences, sustainable development paths require balanced, transformative
and adapting solutions to align with the financial development aid for emerging
economies to enhance infrastructure development with strong emphasis in
optimisation in sustainable resource utilisation and distribution (Houck & Rickerson,
2009; Williams & Dair, 2007). Similarly, due to relatively long life times of
infrastructure, strategic decisions have to explicitly consider value creation and
available technological alternatives, but not neglecting the risks of uncertainties
(Störmer et al., 2009). In addition, lessons learnt and reliable historical data
recorded from the developed nations are useful indications to minimise the
ecosystem burdens and imminent developmental problems for the emerging
economies.
31
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.5 Potential research in decision indicators for
sustainability
We now have a broader grasp about sustainability and sustainable development
through the literature review covered and discussed in the preceding sections. The
literature review is significant in strengthening the premise for this research. It
reveals and supports the needs to address the gap in integrating positive decision
making indicators at the various phases in the project life cycle to enhance and
stimulate sustainability in infrastructure (Amekudzi et al., 2009; Dasgupta & Tam,
2005; Hersh, 1997; Koo et al., 2009; Pettenger, 2009; Ugwu et al., 2006).
Apart from the definitions and explanations for sustainability and sustainable
development as discussed earlier, the redefinition and revitalisation of concepts in
infrastructure design and implementation emerge to support TBL approach
(Girardet, 2008; Sahely et al., 2005). Moreover, the growing convergence and
volatility of global economics as realised in the global economic crisis in 2008,
coupled with the increase of environmental and societal catastrophes, it is a crucial
tipping point for the positive transformation towards the sustainability equilibrium.
This strong and critical change is an important milestone for the key decision
indicators to be integrated into the emerging sustainable infrastructure approach
and management.
There have been numerous concepts and frameworks developed for assessing the
infrastructure feasibility and constructability, but these lack the integration and
measurement metrics of the interrelationship of various decision categories,
project life cycle and asset management for sustainability (Nilsson, 1997; Ralph,
1999; Wolf & Meyer, 2009; World Bank, 2010). In addition, other scholars concur
with the need for new research in the measurement for infrastructure sustainability
to tackle the developmental challenge and streamline the decisions for new
sustainable infrastructure developments (Sahely et al., 2005; Thabrew et al., 2009).
32
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Figure 2-4 Project phases and stakeholder involvement for a typical infrastructure project
With the emergence and evolution of sustainability, the global economy has begun
shifting from the traditional neo-classical economy to a knowledge-based economy.
In a knowledge-based economy, knowledge is an important element of decision
making, investment, planning, implementation, construction and management of
infrastructure. Moreover, infrastructure sustainability requires an effective
operational and monitoring assessment framework. Hence, in line with meeting
triple-bottom-line objectives in infrastructure development, it is essential to
incorporate prime decision making indicators into the emerging sustainability
assessment framework for infrastructure.
Stage1: Project Planning
•Define the need
•Feasibility study
•Project assessment & brief development
•Project modelling (technical, finance & management)
Stage 2: Design
•Budget & optioneering
•Concept & detailed design
•Progress measurement
•Performance indicator
Stage 3: Construction
•Construction management
•Certification & commissioning
•Defect & performance reporting
•Delivery
Stage 4: Operation
•Post -construction management
•Asset management
Stage 5: Deconstruction
•Decommission
•Demolition
•(Consideration for reuse/ refurbishment)
Stakeholders…
Governments Infrastructure owners Investors
Financiers Asset managers Approving authorities
Regulatory bodies Consultants Architects
Engineers Environmentalists Planners
Project managers Geologists Lawyers/ legal advisors
Insurance specialists Main contractors Specialist/ trade contractors
Trade certifiers The community General public
33
Chapter 2 Literature Review
The ways in which a piece of infrastructure evolves and operates through its whole-
of-life cycle present a significant challenge and opportunity towards the
sustainability goal (Dasgupta & Tam, 2005; Infrastructure Australia, 2009a; Williams
& Dair, 2007). An overarching project life cycle in a typical infrastructure project is
illustrated in Figure 2-4. Although the project phases involved may be different for
different infrastructure developments, the 5 stages are widely practised in the
industry.
Moving forward essentially from the typical infrastructure project phases and
stakeholder involvement as illustrated in Figure 2-4, and the gaps as uncovered
earlier in the literature, the author uses the AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability
Assessment Categories (AGIC, 2009) to formulate and develop the new decision
indicators for sustainability in infrastructure in this research as detailed in Table 2-5.
There are three columns as shown in Table 2-5 which covering several pages,
where:
Column 1 reproduces the 7 thematic categories and 27 sub-categories used
in the AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment Categories6
Column 2 presents the objectives of the thematic categories and the intents
of the sub-categories
Column 3 introduces the new decision indicators for sustainability in
infrastructure. These decision indicators will be progressive examined and
integrated with the objectives and intents for sustainability in infrastructure.
The decision indicators which embrace triple-bottom-line objectives will be verified
through investigations in the research techniques. Therefore, the scope to be
investigated in the area for potential research predominantly includes:
Mapping of the key trade-offs among different strategic options
6 Source: AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment Categories, Fact Sheet No. 2, dated 08 January 2009, from: http://www.agic.net.au/Tool_category_overviews.htm
34
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Formulating a decision action list of parameters to drive sustainability
Aligning infrastructure needs with consideration of ultimate delivery values
Creating a structured, systematic and dynamic approach which allows
tracking for stakeholder responsibilities and actions
Creating a structured policy formulation and review processed leading to
sustainability
Enabling stakeholder participation and coordination, including knowledge
management and information sharing leading to sustainability
Supporting problem resolutions, sharing lessons learnt and acknowledging
for foreseeable constraints/ barriers
Transforming project management with a positive drive for long-term
strategies and deliverables towards sustainability in infrastructure.
In strengthening the research findings, pilot studies and data collection will be
obtained from a wide spectrum of stakeholders in the infrastructure sector.
Therefore, the area in potential research demonstrates the significant development
in sustainability for infrastructure. The proposed decision indicators set an
important benchmark towards sustainability by:
Facilitating a platform to critically examine and evaluate the various decision
activities spanning across TBL objectives
Ensuring a traceable way to understand and visualise a broader set of
upstream and downstream decisions at the various project phases across
the project life cycle
Enhancing a holistic view to the stakeholders
Enabling better inputs and support from the community for infrastructure
development.
35
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Table 2-5 Development of decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
1 Project Management & Governance To ensure sustainability in all project phases till deconstruction/ demolition
1.1 Purchase & Procurement • Influence and transform the sustainability awareness in
supply chain, sourcing and application of materials
o Be socially responsible for the equipment/ materials used in the entire
process
o Prioritise the use of local products
o Support the use of renewable and recyclable products
o Be cautious to material wastage during sourcing
1.2 Reporting & Responsibilities • Monitor, measure, assess and report integration of
sustainability objectives
o Be responsible for project design, management, delivery and
operation, which include policies/ measures involving multiple
stakeholders for project management and governance reporting
o Develop systematic and structured monitoring plans to meet the
sustainability objectives
o Measure and report the progress leading to sustainability
o Prioritise traceable and transparent records and documentations, eg.
Secured and multiple archiving
o Assess and report the opportunities, constraints and risks in
sustainability
1.3 Climate Change Vulnerability • Identify/ mitigate risks and associated impacts on climate
change
o Be forewarned the likelihoods of accidents/ disasters, eg. Landslides,
droughts, erosions and flesh floods
o Improve climate stability and predictability
o Concern for the devastating impacts due to unpredictable climate
36
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
extremes
o Concern for human activities which may cause devastating effects
1.4 Making Decisions • Identify/ examine opportunities for improved
performance; promote transparency in all decision making
levels; enhance 'fix-it-now' for problem resolution
o Scrutinise and constructively manage institutional barriers which could
inhibit positive decisions
o Be knowledgeable on planning and development policies which could
enhance sustainability and assist the delivery of long-term strategies
o Demonstrate strong leadership and engagement
o Work towards responsible, transparent and traceable decisions
o Balance competing and conflicting needs
o Be sensitive to project decision interdependencies and priorities
o Decide for the most suitable and practical finance method,
construction option and contract management
o Be realistic and care for the society and environment when making
decisions
o Embed a holistic and positive culture with the principles of openness,
accountability and commitment when making decisions
o Be sensitive and responsible for unethical decisions and negligence
which could impact triple-bottom line objectives
1.5 Knowledge Sharing & Capacity
Building
• Foster innovative, caring and adaptable approaches; build-
on lessons learnt from previous experience
o Ensure stakeholders’ understanding in infrastructure constructability,
construction and asset management quality
o Promote trust and constructive conflict management and resolution
37
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
among stakeholders
2 Economic Performance To use finance effectively and ethically for long-term infrastructure sustainability
2.1 Value for Money • Ensure the balanced approach and consider for inter/
intra-generational equity
o Evaluate economic security and viability
o Be accountable for construction and asset management costs
o Re-assess and optimise cost progressive
o Minimise excessive and detrimental developmental activities
o Explore the economic opportunities for the interconnectedness,
completeness, upgradability and functionality of infrastructure
2.2 Due Diligence • Ensure risks/ opportunities are systematically evaluated o Examine and analyse risks in all foreseeable aspects; then succinctly
categorise risks as immediate, short and long terms
o Be alert for indirect cost associated, eg. relocation and temporary
facilities; understand any legal implication
o Examine infrastructure needs and solution outcomes, inclusive of the
consideration of integrated application, safety and health of the
community, apart from the economic benefits
o Ensure the completeness of risk management and identify the most
adequate adaptation/ implementation solutions
2.3 Economic Life • Ensure a cradle-to-cradle approach o Be open to options for anticipated upgrade and future rehabilitation
o Provide high quality of infrastructure, inclusive of optimisation of its
useful lifespan, ensuring its safety to the community and minimisation
of its maintenance and downtime
38
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
o Commit and plan for progressive improvement towards sustainability
3 Using Resources To harmonise the use of natural resources
3.1 Energy Use • Explore possibilities/ opportunities for minimising energy
use; enhance for energy efficiency and renewable/
recyclable alternatives
o Consider both the direct/ embodied energy associated with the
infrastructure development and asset management stage
o Minimise energy use and consider for renewable options
o Prioritise on energy conservation
o Explore for new renewable energy generation, distribution and
application
3.2 Water • Protect the water environment; explore possibilities/
opportunities for minimising fresh water use; enhance for
water reuse and recycling
o Be socially responsible for economic activities which affect the natural
waterways
o Prioritise for water conservation
o Work towards a positive water control and monitoring plan
3.3 Material Selection & Use • Encourage material reuse and recycling; minimise
redundancy/ maintenance/ failure in the entire asset
lifecycle
o Increase capacity of existing material usage without rebuilding/
demolition
o Consider for construction methods leading to sustainability
o Prioritise on local production and use of local materials
o Emphasise quality control throughout the developmental and asset
lifecycle for materials
o Encourage for cradle-to-cradle, eco-design and green-design
approaches
39
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
o Prioritise and be accountable for resource management
o Be concern for resource depletion
o Integrate whole-of-life cycle approach and performance-based
consideration
4 Emissions, Pollution & Waste To minimise environment pollution and degradation in all aspects
4.1 Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Management
• Measure and report GHG emissions across the asset
lifecycle; improve and enhance wherever the possibilities/
technologies permit
o Be alert and address project constraints and impacts, critically evaluate
the embodied energy emission
o Monitor and control emission
4.2 Discharge to Air, Water &
Land
• Minimise harmful discharge which degrades the life of
natural inhabitants; enhance and develop natural capital
o Examine the consequences of air, water, land and environmental
pollution
o Impose stringent environmental pollution control during construction
and operation
o Enforce stringent emission control and monitor plan during operation
4.3 Land Management • Minimise impacts on land exploitation o Be alert and address project constraints and impacts
o Understand the consequences of land pollution and contamination
o Be sensitive and responsible for detrimental land exploitation and
wastage
o Re-life contaminated land
o Examine the ecological value, soil erosion and sediment control
40
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
4.4 Waste Management • Minimise waste management and disposal; encourage for
reuse, recycle and design optimisation across the asset
lifecycle
o Consider for waste management and handling in the whole asset
lifecycle, eg. Recycling of materials
o Be responsible for waste management and disposal, inclusive of the
waste transportation
5 Biodiversity To harmonise and enhance biodiversity
5.1 Functioning Ecosystems • Protect and enhance the ecosystems (eg. Watercourses,
bushlands and estuaries; enhance the greenbelt
o Establish new amenities, eg. Sustainable urban drainage systems and
waterway rehabilitation
o Be socially responsible by minimising the disruption in ecosystems
across the entire asset lifecycle, including infrastructure construction,
operation and decommissioning stages
o Provide wildlife refuges, such as ponds and sanctuaries
o Preserve ecosystem integrity, eg. Natural watercourse and soil nutrient
cycle
o Be socially responsible for activities which lead to negative impact to
the natural capital, eg. Unexpected shocks and degradation to the
environments and ecosystems
5.2 Enhanced Biodiversity • Protect and enrich the biodiversity o Integrate biodiversity with development options
o Promote the natural habitat to enrich species growth, survival and
diversity
o Protect the flora, fauna and ecological footprint
41
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
6 People & Place To leave a positive legacy for inter/ intra-generations and instil sustainable cultures
6.1 Health, Well-being, Safety • Minimise the impact on community's health, well-being or
safety
o Contribute towards job creation in the local community
o Consider the health, happiness, well-being and safety of the
community
o Be concerned for the quality of services, benefits and public amenities
for the community with the infrastructure provided
o Contribute positively and safely to the poor and under-privileged
6.2 Natural & Cultural Heritage
Values
• Treasure and acknowledge the natural and cultural
heritage values
o Consider for preservation of historical and archaeological assets
o Be sensitive to community’s belongings and feelings
6.3 Participatory Processes • Communicate with stakeholders for sharing of views/
benefits associated with the asset throughout its lifecycle
o Ensure the public is well-informed about the infrastructure objectives
and delivery options
o Be receptive to the community comments and opinions
o Encourage local community from various backgrounds/ professions to
participate during infrastructure project phases
o Align the infrastructure needs with the community benefits
o Ensure the infrastructure project for social integration
6.4 Positive Legacy for Current &
Future Generations
• Explore and enhance positivity towards triple-bottom-line
objectives
o Assess the public support for new infrastructure development/ re-
development
o Consider the economic, environmental and social benefits to the
community
42
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
o Value and show concerns for people’s connectivity and cohesiveness
with their culture and environment
o Enhance the standard of living, harmony and lifestyle among the
communities
o Ensure ethical business/ developmental activities in the community
throughout the supply chain, development and asset management of
the infrastructure
o Recognise constraints and burdens during implementation
6.5 Enhanced Urban & Landscape
Design & Aesthetics
• Encourage the people-infrastructure harmonisation and
interdependence
o Provide a balanced mix of land usage and infrastructure application, so
that the viability and vitality of the intended used of infrastructure are
enhanced
o Ensure the accessibility, interconnectedness, serviceability and
functionality of infrastructure for sustainability
o Value and show concerns for people’s connectivity and cohesiveness
with their habitat
o Enhance surveillance and security by minimising vandalism and
sabotage
6.6 Knowledge Sharing, Shared
Intellectual Property
• Encourage positive knowledge management; enrich from
lessons learnt; facilitate innovation
o Acknowledge the contribution and benefits of the community
o Share the pride, knowledge and information with the community
7 Workforce To promote welfare and continual development of the workforce
7.1 Safety, Health & Well-being of • Due care for the social welfare and safety of the workforce o Provide continual work opportunities to the workforce
43
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Categories Objectives/ Intents Decision indicators for sustainability
Workforce o Be sensitive to and thoughtful for the safety, health and welfare of the
workforce
o Be appreciative for healthy, happy and cooperative workforce
o Be concerned for the quality of site services, benefits and amenities for
the workforce in the development and asset lifecycle of the
infrastructure
7.2 Capacity Building • Optimise the potential skills and capabilities of the
workforce
o Enhance skill developments in the workforce
o Provide a wide choice of employment opportunity arisen from the
infrastructure project
7.3 Increased Knowledge of
Applied Sustainability
• Encourage continual knowledge development through
education and training
o Encourage continual educational/ skill development for sustainability
o Be thoughtful for positive human resource management
o Provide opportunities for training in new knowledge development in
sustainability for the workforce
7.4 Equity • Explore opportunities for skill development to benefit the
disadvantage communities
o Encourage the use and employment of people in the local community
o Understand and concern for the feelings and constraints of the
workforce
44
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.6 Summary and implications
This chapter began with the definition of sustainability in the research context; it
followed with a comprehensive literature review on infrastructure approaches and
needs. The literature indisputably revealed that supporting the economy has been
the main driver for infrastructure developments and needs, especially in the urban
centres. The uncoordinated assessments in infrastructure developments have
resulted many societal disadvantages and environmental degradations. History is an
important starting point for most of the evidence-based improvements and
solution-based action learning. Firstly, the literature supported that infrastructure
development is a crucial element in enabling economic expansion in urban centres.
Unfortunately, historical evidence also confirms the environmental factors and
societal concerns have long been regarded as externalities and avoided in the key
decision making regime in infrastructure planning and management.
Momentum due to rapid economic expansion and population growth has seriously
impacted on the resource usage, mainly in natural waterways and fossil fuel
resources. Next, building roads and motorways to meet the transportation needs,
which have been widely seen globally, may not be regarded as the most efficient
solution to urban growth. Furthermore, the increase in vehicular volume has
resulted serious traffic congestion, transmission emissions and health problems in
urban centres. The historical decision making regime of treating environmental and
societal challenges as externalities has also unearthed a series of consequences in
environmental pollutions, waste generation and disposal, as well as many other
social ill-effects. The gap uncovered in the literature supports the imperative to
1. What is sustainable development?
2. How does decision making positively contribute to sustainability in
infrastructure?
45
Chapter 2 Literature Review
have responsibilities, governance and long-term accountability being embedded at
the various stages in the project life cycle of infrastructure. Due to long life time of
infrastructure serviceability, strategic and multi-faceted decisions are crucial to
yield economic gains and positive societal value creation. Moving toward the
paradigm shift, it is vital to integrate and reinforce the risk assessment in
environmental impacts and uncertainties in the development of sustainability in
infrastructure.
In line with the evolution of the several forward-looking sustainability techniques
and frameworks in the construction industry, the correlations among the several
sustainability categories and requirements have been examined. Infrastructure
development is not a one-off process; therefore, the forward looking project life
cycle of infrastructure development could not neglect its future maintenance and
probable expansion or integration. Moreover, infrastructure development, as well
as its operation, is a long term functional investment for the benefits of society and
the economy, in parallel with creating the environmental values. Particularly, the
proposed decision indicators developed in this research seek to present a well-
structured, dynamic and traceable sustainability paradigm in infrastructure. As a
result, with the decision indicators to be structured into the sustainability
frameworks, these will enhance and reinforce the infrastructure sustainability
delivery and acceptability.
46
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
Chapter 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overview
This chapter presents a detailed description of the research design and
methodology used during the course of the program. Next, it gives an account of
the participants involved in the study and describes the procedures and timelines in
the research design. Moreover, this chapter also explains the data analysis
approach and ethical clearance requirements. The research design framework is
outlined in Figure 3-1 to give a clear understanding of the systematic processes
undertaken. Deciding on the appropriate research design is significant to address
the research problem and identify the research strategies for fulfilling the research
knowledge contribution.
Figure 3-1 Research design framework
Research Approach
Literature & Theory
Survey Questionnaire
Data Collection
Results
Interview
Data Collection
Results
CaseStudy
Data Collection
Results
Reseach Finding Analysis
47
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
3.2 Methodology
In achieving the research objectives stated in Section 1.1.1, it is crucial to have a
research methodology that addresses the research problem, examines the research
variables and produces the significant outcomes. In broad classification, research
design consists of qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches
(Creswell, 2009).
Qualitative research involves the studies and collection of a variety of empirical
materials which may include case study; personal experience; introspection; life
story; interview; and observational, historical, interactional and visual texts. The
results collected from this approach may need a wide range of interconnected
interpretative analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Thomas, 2003). The qualitative
approach crosscuts discipline, fields and subject. It produces contextual analysis
and cognitive interpretation of information provided from the sampling process.
Moreover, this approach allows the author to get close to an individual perspective
in contextual details and data specific to the research subject (Kayrooz & Trevitt,
2005). Therefore, the active reaction, participation and knowledge contribution
from the respondents form the major challenge during data collection in qualitative
research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Mason, 2002).
In contrast, quantitative research involves an inquiry into an identified problem,
based on testing a theory composed of variables, measured with numbers, and
analyses using statistical techniques; the goal is to determine whether the
predictive generalizations of a theory holds true. (Creswell, 2009; Johnson &
Christensen, 2008; Taylor, 2006). This research method uses statistical design with
mathematically analysis for collection and analysis of data (Kayrooz & Trevitt,
2005). Philosophically, quantitative approach encompasses positivism, post-
positivism and many other quantitative research perspectives as explained in
several literature sources in research design and methodology (Denzin & Lincoln,
48
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
2008; Fowler, 2009; Graziano & Raulin, 2007; Taylor, 2006). Table 3-1 differentiates
and Table 3-2 provides the characteristics for the two approaches respectively.
Table 3-1 Differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods
Qualitative Research Quantitative Research
o Inductive
o Describe results
o Formulate an account of the topic
o Observation, empirical survey, interview,
code, analysis, case study
o Deductive
o Formulate initial account of the topic
o Discuss whether initial account or
proposed explanation is valid or otherwise
o Test, experiment, numerical survey
Table 3-2 Summary of qualitative and quantitative research methods
Research approach
Qualitative Quantitative
Level of knowledge about topic
A little known about topic A lot known about topic
Purposes To understand and explain from researcher’s own frame of reference
To seek causes and predict social phenomena
Orientation Close to the data: the insider’s perspective
Removed from the data: the outsider’s perspective
Main questions What is your experience of this event?
What are useful explanations/ interpretations of this event?
What is associated with this event?
What facilitates/ inhibits this event?
What is the number? What is the statistical analysis?
Strength Results are real, rich, deep data Results are hard and replicable data
Philosophical underpinning
Naturalistic, constructivist (participant’s interaction and theory generation)
Positivism and post-positivism (includes numerical analysis and theory verification)
49
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
Complementary to the qualitative and quantitative approaches, triangulation is a
process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning, verify the repeatability of
an observation or interpretation. Acknowledging that no observations or
interpretations are perfectly repeatable, triangulation also serves to clarify meaning
by identifying different ways the case is being seen and to provide an alternative to
data validation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008; Turner & Turner, 2009). Whilst the
qualitative method produces diversity of perception; triangulation facilitates the
combination of multiple methodological practices, identifies the different
perspectives of a similar situation or object in the study, and uncovers the deviant
dimension of the research inquiry. Thus, triangulation sets to enrich data reliability
and depth in research design (Jick, 1979).
Predominantly, a quantitative approach prepares the ground work for the
qualitative approach, whilst a qualitative approach provides the research
hypotheses and formulate an account of the topic (Kayrooz & Trevitt, 2005).
Recognising the key strengths exhibit in these two approaches, their integration
could further affirm the data generated from one source and verify again in the
other approach. Thus, the mixed method often claims greater validity of results in
research (Creswell, 2009; Fowler, 2009; Turner & Turner, 2009). Central to the
research objectives, the mixed method of qualitative and quantitative approaches
enables:
Multiple forms of data drawing on all possibilities
Statistical and description data analysis
Sequential, concurrent and transformative strategies of research enquiry
Design of open- and closed-ended questions in research techniques
Minimisation of biased data, errors and deviance in research inquiry
Development for a rationale in triangulation for data verification.
50
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
3.3 Participants and research techniques
To understand the criticality and interrelationship of decision making affecting
sustainability, a prospective research participant pilot group was selected. These
participants involved and contributed to decision making in infrastructure planning,
development and operation. The pilot group was made up of a wide combination of
the practitioners and stakeholders of various backgrounds, in particular engineers,
architects, contractors, environmentalists, government policy makers, researchers
and independent reviewers in Australia. In line with the time frame and resources
allocated, the author pre-screened and shortlisted 108 people to form the pilot
group for the research purpose.
Three research techniques — online questionnaire survey, interview and case study
were used in the research design. Questionnaire survey was used as the first
research technique to mobilise and kick-start the data collection process from the
research pilot group. Subsequently, the participants in the interview and case study
techniques were selected from the respondents in the survey who have completed
their questionnaires and allowed the author to further contact them.
3.4 Procedures and timeline
Recognising the strengths in the mixed research method of qualitative and
quantitative approaches, the research techniques deployed were online
questionnaire survey, interview and case study. As the first research technique, the
online survey questionnaire consisted of questions addressing inductive and
deductive issues on:
Purpose of the research investigation
Demography of the sampling group
Traditional decision drivers which have been used in the infrastructure
sector
Needs and reasons for a change towards sustainability objectives
51
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
Key decisions to contribute to the emerging sustainability outcomes in
infrastructure planning, development and operation
Degree of importance for the sustainability decision indicators to be
investigated
Open-ended questions enabling additional comments from participants.
Hypothetically, a standardised and well-structured questionnaire is used to collect
data for qualitative and quantitative analysis (Johnson & Christensen, 2008; Saris &
Gallhofer, 2007). Questionnaire survey is generally versatile; it allows the collection
of both subjective and objective data through the use of open- and closed-ended
question formats. Therefore, questionnaire survey was used in the research as a
mobilisation and screening tool to kick-start the data collection from the
participants.
Next, interview is regarded as one of the important and result-orientated methods
as follow-up to questionnaire by further understanding and investigation into the
response of the participants (Campbell & Groundwater-Smith, 2007). Moreover,
interview also facilitates the causal relationship building with the respondents and
data validation through triangulation. These formulate the essential step in
research progress by generating intellectual and observational findings, thereby
affirming results relevant to the research questions (Mason, 2002) . Functionally,
the application of the questionnaire survey-and-interview approach unearthed
intensive information in the research topic by communicating directly with the
individual participants on the background and practice associated with their
knowledge, as well as clarifying their response in the survey.
Thirdly, case study enhances credibility in results by thorough triangulating on the
subject and interpretations, not just in a single step but continuously throughout
the investigative process. Through case study, it facilitates the understanding in
issue choice, triangulation, experiential knowledge, contexts and activities (Lambert
& Loiselle, 2008; Ugwu et al., 2006). Furthermore, it seeks to develop assertions or
52
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
generalizations on the research inquiry. Hence, central to the research objectives,
triangulation strengthened the research inquiry with interviews on the stakeholders
in the industry; whilst case studies of several infrastructure projects fulfilled the in-
depth result confirmation, understanding on practical theories and knowledge
development supporting the application. In addition, case studies gave the real
project experience and contextual issues to facilitate result analysis in the research.
Table 3-3 Timeline for research data collection and result analysis
Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10
Questionnaire Surveys
3 months
Interviews
2.5 months
Case studies
1.5 months
Data collection
6 months
Result analysis
3.5 months
With the allocated time frame and resources in this research, the online
questionnaire survey closed three months from the survey launch date. Interview
program commenced when sufficient participant response has been collected from
the questionnaire survey. As the participants consisted of people in Queensland
and from interstates, interviews took two and a half months to complete. Two
types of interviews were conducted: face-to-face interviews and teleconferences. In
parallel with the interview program, case studies were also conducted to further
verify results as gathered from the questionnaire surveys and interviews.
Practically, case studies provided real project examples to cross-check and
authenticate with the research findings. Thus, a total of six months was spent on
the entire data collection phase. Eventually, complete result analysis commenced
when sufficient data has been collected from the three research techniques. The
53
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
result analysis concluded in three and a half months. Table 3-3 shows the timeline
taken for the overall tasks of data collection and result analysis.
3.5 Result analysis
With repeated and regular follow-ups with the pilot group, a total of forty
completed questionnaires surveys were submitted during the questionnaire data
collection period. Firstly, the result analysis began when the participants submitted
the online questionnaires through Key Survey which is web-based survey software.
Key Survey collated, generated and scaled the numerical data for statistically
analysis. However, it posed a challenge for the qualitative data. Thus, the author
examined the empirical and descriptive findings provided by the participants in the
questionnaire surveys. Divergence, deviance and doubtfulness of the findings in the
questionnaire surveys were extracted for clarification with the participants during
interviews and case studies.
Twenty interviews were conducted with the participants. Their findings have made
significant contribution in the research through verification of results, concept
studies and triangulation. With the findings developed in the interviews and gap
earlier revealed in the literature, case studies of several infrastructure projects built
on the practical applications and reinforced with the research objectives. Case
studies also examined the real life situation and its challenges confronted during
the respective project executions. Subsequently, the combination of interview and
case study research techniques developed the pivotal evidences in cognitive
applications, lessons learnt and institutional constraints, as well as change
reluctance, in the infrastructure sector. Thus, the evidence-based and action-based
findings as gathered in the interviews and case studies formed the other important
milestones to facilitate result analysis. Table 3-3 shows result analysis began when
adequate data from questionnaire survey, interview and case study techniques
have been collated and examined.
54
Chapter 3 Research Design and Methodology
Finally, the findings gathered from these three research techniques were
consolidated and studied for detailed analysis; both the inductive and deductive
results were also critically examined and evaluated. Summaries at the end of
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 will highlight the main findings as examined in the respective
research techniques of questionnaire survey, interview and case study. Overarching
with the sustainability principles, applications and outcomes, Chapter 7 will present
the complete discussion on final result analysis. Limitations and assumptions will
also be discussed in the result analysis.
3.6 Ethical considerations and limitations
Having observed that the research involved human participation, the author
applied for the ethical clearance prior to the commencement of the investigative
works in the program. Subsequently, the ethics approval was granted for low risk
human research ethics from the University Human Research Ethics Committee
(UHREC) of QUT7. This approval authorises the author to conduct questionnaires,
interviews and case studies with human participants specific to the research intent
in Australia. As one of the ethics requirements, the author does not allow the
participant’s identity to be published without the prior consent from the
supervisory team in this research.
Theoretically, ethical standards are guidelines to responsible professional relations
(Kayrooz & Trevitt, 2005). Thus, all participant responses are anonymous and to be
treated confidentially. The ethical clearance is limited to this research study. It is
stipulated in the ethics approval that any variation in the research plan to seek
further consent from the Research Ethics Coordinator.
7 UHREC approval number: 0900001302. Approval granted on 19 November 2009.
55
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Chapter 4 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
4.1 Overview
Whilst various research approaches have been thoroughly examined and justified in
Chapter 3, these have asserted the importance for the integration of research
techniques to yield realistic research outcomes. As significant as the several
scientific researches (Fowler, 2009; Saris & Gallhofer, 2007; Thomas, 2003),
questionnaire survey was also deployed as an effective tool for a pilot study in this
research. Pilot study seeks to uncover the preliminary research findings (Creswell,
2009; Graziano & Raulin, 2007). Consequently, the results obtained in this process
would be investigated and progressively validated with interviews and case studies.
This chapter specifically reports one of three research techniques used —
questionnaire survey; Figure 4-1 gives the chapter outline.
Figure 4-1 Outline of Chapter 4
Overview
Structure of questionnaire
survey
•Survey preparation
•Survey participation
Questionnaire survey data
analysis
•Examination of response from all
respondents
Summary of questionnaire
survey findings
56
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Key Survey, web-based survey software licensed by the university for this research,
was used to design, track and collate the online questionnaire survey. A total of 108
people was invited in this questionnaire survey. Appendix C shows a copy of the
online questionnaire survey and Appendix D presents the survey report generated
through Key Survey.
4.2 Structure of questionnaire survey
An organised structure in questionnaire enhances the conciseness and improves
the participants’ understanding towards the research variables. Essentially, a well-
planned questionnaire is an effective survey tool to deliver the research objectives
(Fowler, 2009; Saris & Gallhofer, 2007). In the questionnaire survey, there were 22
major questions which spread into five sections, namely:
(a) Overview of the survey
(b) Participant’s brief
(c) The transition: Project approach
(d) The shift: Sustainable paradigm
(e) Comments.
Table 4-1 shows the targeted objectives for the types and contexts of questions
designed in the survey questionnaire. Overarching the research objectives, the
author affirmed each question to address and contribute to the significance in
research findings. Therefore, it was important to have a combination of various
question types in the questionnaire. The question types included ‘pick one or other’,
‘pick one and comment’, ‘check all that apply’, ‘dropdown box’, ‘rate items along
scale’, ‘rate items in matrix’ and ‘add-on comments’. Moreover, the combination of
question types and reiterations reaffirmed the participants’ response by probing
into their understanding in the survey. The combination method also supplemented
triangulation in research as discussed in Chapter 3. Thereby, this combination
sought to develop realistic outcomes in the survey response.
57
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Table 4-1 Outline of survey questionnaire structure
Section heading used in online questionnaire survey/ Targeted objectives
Survey significance Question numbers/ types
(a) Overview of the survey
- Give an overview of the survey
questionnaire structure and
objectives
- Reiterate the estimated
timeframe to complete the
online survey
- Reiterate the research ethics and
confidentiality
Provide introductory notes to
the participants and re-assure
them the research ethics and
confidentiality
No question asked in this
section
(b) Participant’s brief
- Investigate the participant
professional background,
individual experience
- Establish the link with their
project responsibilities and
organisational strengths
Significantly probe into the
decision making responsibilities
and their experience in
infrastructure development
8 questions
Questions 1 to 8
(combination of ‘pick one or other’, ‘pick one and comment’, ‘check all that apply’ and ‘dropdown box’)
(c) The transition: Project approach
- Examine the participant current
decision making approaches at
the various stages in project
cycle
Understand their current
infrastructure development
approach
Justify the criticality to have a
new sustainability framework
3 main questions
Questions 9 to 11
(combination of ‘pick one
or other’, ‘rate items
along scale’ and ‘rate
items in matrix’)
(d) The shift: Sustainable paradigm
- Examine the participants’
individual competency in
sustainability for project tasks
- Compare that with their
organisational competency
knowledge in sustainability
- Explore decision making skills in
sustainability at various project
stages
- Probe into and evaluate how
their decision making regime
influence sustainability in the
project outcomes of
infrastructure development
Examine and reinforce the
functionality of the new
sustainability framework
Validate sustainability as the key
decision driver in infrastructure
Validate and strengthen the
various variables used in the
sustainability framework
6 questions
Questions 12 to 17
(combination of ‘rate items along scale’ and ‘rate items in matrix’)
(e) Comments
- Encourage the participants to
Augment the research results
3 main questions
58
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Section heading used in online questionnaire survey/ Targeted objectives
Survey significance Question numbers/ types
provide with additional remarks
which could assist the research
findings
- Explore probable barriers/
limitations
Seek the participants to share
their experience and knowledge
in the industry
Questions 18 to 20
(‘add-on comments’)
(f) Conclusion
- Request participants’ contact
details
- Seek their consents for further
research participation in
interview and case study
- Thank you note and end of
questionnaire survey
Authenticate and consolidate the
research results from more than
one perspective
2 questions
Questions 21 and 22
(combination of ‘pick one
with comments’ and ‘add-
on comments’)
4.2.1 Survey preparation
To facilitate the pilot study, Key Survey was used to design, organise and collate the
online questionnaire survey. Implicit to the research objectives, the author used
Key Survey to:
Plan and develop a complete online questionnaire
Distribute, monitor and receive the questionnaire online
Track the participants’ response and facilitate data analysis
Examine all questionnaire response from participants
Generate survey report.
Moreover, in enhancing the reliability and accuracy of data in the pilot study, a
wide sampling of participants was screened during the pre-launch of the
questionnaire survey. These participants spanned across industry practitioners
working in the consultancy, education and finance sectors; they also included
engineers, architects, environmentalists and professionals being employed in the
contracting companies, law firms and legislations; and several of them were
59
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
infrastructure owners and investors. During the survey launch, the author allowed
the participants to invite additional people to contribute in the online survey.
4.2.2 Survey participation
Table 4-2 presents the breakdown and spectrum of their professional backgrounds
showing the participants in this questionnaire survey. The extensive participant
involvement established realistic survey findings; thereby it strengthened the
research objectives which inclusive of the extensive task in investigating decision
making as the key driver for sustainability in infrastructure.
Table 4-2 Questionnaire survey invitees
Invitees’ background Number of persons
invited in the survey
Percentage to
group total
Consultancy (eg. Architect, engineer, geologist,
environmentalist, quantity surveyor)
25 23.1%
Contracting 15 13.9%
Education (eg. Professor, lecturer, researcher) 16 14.8%
Finance (eg. Investment banker, financier, investor) 15 13.9%
Infrastructure owner (eg. Federal/ state government,
local council, private developer/ owner)
17 15.7%
Policy legislation/ Law making 12 11.1%
Supplier/ vendor 3 2.8%
Others (inclusive of general public and categories not
specified above)
5 4.6%
Total 108 100.0%
The 108 participants invited were moderately spread across the various professions
which involved the infrastructure stakeholders. As this questionnaire survey was
designed to target for the key decision makers in infrastructure, Figure 4-2 also
shows that more than 90% of them were in that category. These decision makers
were:
Project consultants
Contractors
Educational/ academic professionals
Financiers/ investors
60
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Infrastructure owners
Policy makers/ legal advisors.
Figure 4-2 Proportions of participant’s background
Participants from different professions placed emphasis on different priorities
during project optioneering, design and implementation. The survey data presents
that professionals with technical background focused more on the engineering
delivery solutions; financial advisors specialised on the projection on commercial
yields for the projects; whilst the legal advisors advised the owners and consultant
teams with the legal implications during the various stages in project life cycle.
Hence, it was crucial to investigate how the major infrastructure stakeholders made
decisions in the current construction industry.
By recognising the importance of sustainability, as well as its constraints, in the built
environment, the results obtained from this survey strengthened the need in
decision making for sustainability in infrastructure divisions.
23.1%
13.9%
14.8%13.9%
15.7%
11.1%2.8%4.6%
Consultancy ContractingEducation Finance Infrastructure owners Policy legislation/ Law makingSupplier/ vendor Others
61
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
4.3 Questionnaire survey data analysis
This section examines the data obtained in the survey. The survey data reinforced
the research problem and established the response to the research questions as
developed in Chapter 1. Infrastructure stakeholders from both the public and
private sectors participated in the survey. At the end of the survey, 40 people
completed and submitted the online questionnaires. The participants’ response for
Question 1 as depicted in Figure 4-3 shows that there were more than two-third of
the respondents employed in the private sectors. Next, the response for Question 2
as shown in Figure 4-4 illustrates that 73% of the 40 respondents worked in the
consultancy and contracting organisations, while 8% of them employed as
infrastructure owners.
Figure 4-3 Response for Question 1 in survey
Figure 4-4 Response for Question 2 in survey
70.0%
27.5%
2.5%
Private sector Public sector Other. Please specify:
50%
23%
8%
5%
8%
3%
3%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Consultancy Contracting
Education Finance
Infrastructure owners Policy legislation/ Law making
Supplier/ vendor Others
62
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-5 Response for Question 3 in survey
Figure 4-6 Response for Question 5 in survey
3%
3%
15%
18%
63%
0% 20% 40% 60%
20 years or more 15 to < 20 years
10 to < 15 years 5 to < 10 years
0 to < 5 years
38%
43%
60%
30%
50%
33%
58%
60%
70%
25%
83%
30%
0% 25% 50% 75%
Airports Building services
Civil engineering Cycle and pedestrian pathways
Electricity power distribution Military and defense
Ports and marines Railways and bridges
Roads and tunnels Telecommunication infrastructure
Water and wastewater Other. Please specify:
63
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
4.3.1 Respondents’ background
In line with the investigation of research objectives, the participants’ response for
Questions 3 and 4 on their working experience and prime project responsibilities
demonstrated the relevance and appropraiteness in selecting them in this pilot
study. Most importantly, Figure 4-5 shows that 81% of the respondents held senior
positions, whereby they had 15 years or more in the construction industry and their
prime role were in management and financial planning. Among these management
and financial planning professionals, their positions spanned across from
sustainability planner, senior engineers and senior finance advisors to senior
managers, directors and managing directors. They essentially involved and took
control of the decision making dynamics.
Supplement to the the preceding question intents, Questions 5 and 6 delved into
their project specialisation and main responsibilities in the organisations. Figure 4-6
confirms that the participants involved in infrastructure projects which are relevant
to infrastructure as defined in this research context8. Moreover, the statistics
present highly relevant data in which 83% of the participants or their organizations
specialised on water and waste water management; 70% of them in roads and
tunnels and the other high proportions in railways and bridges (60%), civil
engineering works (60%), ports and marines (58%), and electricity power
distribution (50%). Probing into and validating the response for Question 4, Figure
4-7 on response for Question 6 concurs that the seniority of their professions did
not only involve them in organisational management, they were also heavily
responsible for project management, facility management, design, cost and
budgetary, and training.
8 Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1 for the definition of infrastructure in the research context.
64
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-7 Response for Question 6 in survey
Questions 7 and 8 were the two last questions in Part B on Participant’s brief in the
survey questionnaire. The feedbacks from these questions as shown in Figure 4-8,
Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-10 exemplify that they had sufficiently demonstrated their
involvement in the project life cycle and key decision making in infrastructure. Their
feedback statistics respectively present that:
80% of them work in large organisations employing 500 staff or more
With that, 70% of their organisations have projects internationally
78.6% of their international projects in countries of emerging economies.
3%
13%
13%
5%
58%
10%
30%
8%
8%
8%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Contracting Design
Facility management Health and safety
Management/ senior management Project costing/ budgets
Project management Purchasing and procurement
Research and development Specifications and contract administration
Training
65
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-8 Response for Question 7 in survey
Figure 4-9 Response for Question 8 in survey
Figure 4-10 Response for Question 8(a) in survey
0%
8%
13%
80%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
500 or more 100 to <500 people
10 to <100 people Less than 10 people
13%
18%
70%
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Internationally Nationally
Locally
78.6%
21.4%
0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0%
Developed Economies Emerging Economies
66
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
4.3.2 Current project approach
Questions 9 to 11 formed the series of questions in Part C on The transition: Project
approach in the survey questionnaire. Question 9 assessed the sustainability
competency of the individual participants, their departments and organisations. It
also examined their willingness and enthusiasm in knowledge management for
sustainability. Their response as shown in Figure 4-11 justifies their competency
and optimism towards the emerging sustainability paradigm. Inheriting from this
response, the statistics on Question 10 response as shown in Figure 4-12 signifies
that the importance of sustainability in the decision making process in the early
phases until the final phase of the project life cycle. In contrast, it reveals the
limitation of sustainability principles, if these were only introduced during project
commissioning. Next, Question 11 response in Figure 4-13 shows 85% of the
respondents involved in infrastructure projects; this means that their contributions
were relevant to the research intent. Furthermore, this question branches out a
sub-question, Question 11(a), to give an option for the respondents to quit the
survey, if they have not involved in any infrastructure work. However, the result
shows that only 2 people discontinued from the section on infrastructure
sustainability. Instead of an immediate quit from the survey, both of them moved
on and completed their comments in the last section of the online questionnaire.
Figure 4-11 Response for Question 9 in survey
What is your own competency in sustainability for project design/
implementation?
What is your department/ organization knowledge in
sustainability for project design/ implementation?
To what extent that your department/ organization has been acquiring to improve/ instill/ educate the staff’s
knowledge in sustainability?
1. Excellent 2. 3. Neutral 4. 5. Poor
67
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-12 Response for Question 10 in survey
Figure 4-13 Response for Question 11 in survey
Conceptual/ Feasibility stage
Design stage
Implementation stage
Commissioning stage
Operation and management stage
De-construction/ demolition/ 're-life' stage
1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Neutral
4. Less Important 5. Least Important
85%
15%
0% 25% 50% 75%
Yes - Go to Section D No - Continue with next question
68
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
4.3.3 Sustainable paradigm shift
On the completion in the response analysis to evaluate the current practice in the
infrastructure sector, the next set of questions (Questions 12 to 17 in Part D on The
shift: Sustainable paradigm) examined further on the needs for a change in the
decision making process in the national infrastructure sector. Moreover,
referencing to the categories and sub-categories as defined in the current AGIC
Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment Categories (AGIC, 2009) and reinforcing
with the author’s objectives in this research, this set of questions also established
and investigated the preparedness, dynamism and challenge for the sustainability
transformation in the infrastructure sector.
Figure 4-14 Response for Question 12 in survey
Biodiversity
Climate change
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Economics
Environment
Operation & Management
Project life cycle
The society/ community
1. Yes, design changes 2. Yes, cost changes
3. Yes, but minor effects 4. No, I have not considered
69
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-15 Response for Question 13 in survey
In particular, Question 12 was designed with ranking for the 8 classifications to be
considered in infrastructure projects. The high percentages achieved in 7 of the 8
classifications as shown in Figure 4-14 confirmed their validity for use in the new
decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure. These 7 classifications which
could influence to design and cost changes are:
Economics
Environment
The society/ community
Operation and management
Project life cycle
Biodiversity
Climate change.
Significantly, these aligned with the direction for the 7 sustainability categories
used in AGIC. Although the statistics in Figure 4-15 present that the participants still
considered economic factor as the prime mover (80% rated as very important on
scale) in decision making regime, their response also demonstrated a substantial
shift in scales toward the positive decision indicators involving governance, social
and environmental considerations.
Economic factor
Social factor
Environmental factor
Governance
1. Very Important 2. Important 3. Neutral
4. Less Important 5. Least Important
70
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-16 Response for Question 14 in survey
Similarly, Question 14 sought to study and reinforce the ranking of importance for
the 7 sustainability classifications. Participants were asked to rank the order of
importance in the scale from most important (scale 1) to the least important (scale
7). Figure 4-16 illustrates the response for this question in which the score for each
of the classifications represents the mean (m) derived from the respondents.
Arithmetically,
m =
i=1
∑ Si i=n
n
m = S1 + S2 + … + Sn-1 + Sn
n
where,
m is the mean
3.00
2.90
3.70
4.80
5.40
3.40
4.30
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
Workforce People and environment
Enhancement of biodiversity Waste management and handling
Care of resources Economic performance
Project management and governance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1…7 Ranking (Most important … Least important)
Most important to sustainability
Least important to sustainability
71
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
i is sampling member (respondent)
S is the score
n is the sampling size (total number of respondents)
From the statistics, the participants ranked the classifications which could influence
the decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure in the order of importance
(from most important to least important) as:
Economic performance
Project management and governance
People and environment
Care of resources
Workforce
Waste management and handling
Enhancement of biodiversity.
Questions 12 to 14 were primarily designed to ask the participants to rank the
factors/ classifications which prioritise their decision making process. Although
these 3 questions were asked from different perspectives, the qualitative
observation from the participants’ response confirmed that they have exhibited the
similar thinking in prioritising their consideration towards sustainability in decisions.
Therefore, the response derived from these 3 probing questions affirmed the data
accuracy.
Next, Questions 15 and 16 used the same set of parameters which have influence in
infrastructure projects, but the formal was directed to the participants as
individuals and the latter was aimed at their organisations/ clients. The survey data
shows that the participants as individuals and their organisations/ clients had
differing significance in the 8 factors. The author acknowledges these differences as
the 40 participants were of varying seniority, roles and duties. However, the
response of Questions 15 and 16 appears to be in the same positive direction
supporting sustainability in the aspect of:
72
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Enabling risk assessment
Improvement in transparency of project activities
Enabling integration of the major environmental, social and governance
considerations into the project and risk management policies
Enhancing key performance indicator
Enhancing project life cycle
Facilitating staff training.
Figure 4-17 and Figure 4-18 give the graphical representations of the respective
response in the 2 questions.
Figure 4-17 Response for Question 15 in survey
Enabling risk assessment
Improvement in transparency of project activities
Improvement in carbon footprint reduction
Enabling integration of the major Environmental. Social and Governance (ESG)
considerations into the project and risk …
Enhancing key performance indicator
Facilitating good governance in operation/ asset management
Enhancing project life cycle
Facilitating staff training
1. Strong Influence 2. Some Influence 3. Little Influence 4. No Influence
73
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-18 Response for Question 16 in survey
Overarching the main classifications for sustainability which have been investigated
in the preceding questions, Question 17 was designed to address the anticipated
shift in option analysis leading to project approval. Therefore, it sought to examine
the 10 prime objectives which drive sustainability in the proposed decision
indicators9. Figure 4-19 shows the ranking scale of participants’ response for this
question. The response demonstrated a constructive viewpoint in which the 10
objectives were notably concurred with high ranking in ‘definitely’ and ‘possibly’.
9 Refer Table 2-5 of Chapter 2 for a comprehensive list showing the decision indicators for sustainability. There were only 10 prime objectives in the online survey questionnaire because these were developed earlier in the research journey. Decision indicators have been further researched, developed and updated at the time of completing this thesis.
Enabling risk assessment
Improvement in transparency of project activities
Improvement in carbon footprint reduction
Enabling integration of the major Environmental. Social and Governance (ESG)
considerations into the project and risk …
Enhancing key performance indicator
Facilitating good governance in operation/ asset management
Enhancing project life cycle
Facilitating staff training
1. Strong Influence 2. Some Influence 3. Little Influence 4. No Influence
74
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Figure 4-19 Response for Question 17 in survey
Set a benchmark in the knowledge and applications of sustainability throughout the entire infrastructure project phases comprising the conceptual, design implementation,
commissioning, operation and management stages
Facilitate options in assessment and decision-making processes by providing an equitable comparison between multiple performance criteria
Facilitate a balanced and holistic approach with the identification of enhanced economics, social and environmental opportunity
Enhance operational outcomes for infrastructure projects
Enhance investment returns for infrastructure projects
Establish a value comparison between a project’s various development options and tender review appraisal process in the context of sustainability
Identify the quality of project risk profiles and align investment decisions with the required design guidelines
Enhance to formulate options and consolidate industry issues for government and non-government organizations to holistically discuss the major infrastructure policy issues (eg.
Climate change, carbon reduction, water conservation, energy consumption, jobs
Identify the strategic sustainability risks (eg. Climate change vulnerability), emerging regulatory and good governance compliance requirements for infrastructure projects
Accelerate the sustainable project approach by creating and adopting innovative ideas to meet the new paradigm of infrastructure projects
1. Definitely 2. Possibly 3. Unlikely 4. No
75
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
Consolidating on the response for Questions 18 and 19, the participants agreed
decision indicators could steer towards and align the sustainability goals in project
delivery. Firstly, the progressive integration of sustainability into the tertiary and
post-tertiary education curricula could be the fundamental step in educating the
future professionals in infrastructure sector; this could positive transform their
mindset in assessing and justifying the infrastructure needs. Secondly, organisations
could stimulate the sustainability drive in decision making process by regularly
providing the related continual developments, brainstorming the entire
infrastructure supply chains and projecting the new opportunities which would be
unfolded in the emerging sustainability paradigm. Essentially, it would be a change
for the people not to fear about their capacity, the risks and failures; instead the
integration of sustainability into the decision making process would revitalise the
employment opportunities and other untapped societal benefits throughout the
infrastructure project life cycle.
The other areas which the participants emphasised were the long term focuses,
leaderships and commitments from the governments and influential regulatory
institutions on sustainability policies. They must embark sustainability on a broader
spectrum in the infrastructure planning, delivery and management. As it would be a
challenge to change the laws of nature, the participants believed that the societal
behaviours and cultures could change over times and efforts. They accepted the
integration of sustainability into the decision making process could create a
responsible transformation in the infrastructure. Moreover, this integration could
also ‘de-risk’ the risk management, optimise the whole-of-life costs and explore for
new opportunities in infrastructure.
Undeniably, the participants argued that decision indicators would enhance and
drive sustainability across the project life cycle in infrastructure. However, there
tend to be barriers and limitations to be mitigated and overcome. The participant
response of Question 20 affirms the first stumbling block as the lack of political will
and support for sustainability in infrastructure; these have to be overcome by
76
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
transforming from ‘just talk and hesitation’ to ‘action and time’. The other
foreseeable barriers and limitations include:
Inaction in senior management and key decision makers in the
infrastructure teams
Snowball effects resulted from the lack of incentives and policies which
could delay the positive transition and transformation
Lacking in standardised and measurable framework in the infrastructure
sector
Indecisive in project governance
Lacking in clarity for long-term societal goals, environmental achievements
and economic shared benefits.
The final question in the survey questionnaire sought to obtain consent from each
participant for moving forward to the next research techniques of interview and
case study. The participant response in the questions and their comments in the
survey questionnaire established the building block for the author to clarify and
verify the research findings with the participants during the interviews. Case studies
further enhanced the results and authenticated with real life infrastructure projects.
Interview and case study findings will be presented at Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.
4.4 Summary of questionnaire survey findings
A well-structured questionnaire survey was an effective research tool to kick-start
the data collection process. Questionnaire survey investigated the decision making
responsibilities and project experience of the participants; examined the
participants’ current decision making approaches in infrastructure projects and
operations; and justified the criticality for a transformation leading to sustainability
in decision making processes. Central to the research objectives, the survey
77
Chapter 4 Questionnaire Survey
response also qualitatively and quantitatively examined the decision indicators for
sustainability in infrastructure.
Moreover, the survey data were formulated from participants, where 90% of them
involved and responsible for decision making. They were professionals employed
spanning from the government offices, financial institutions and universities to
engineering consultancy firms and various organisations in the private sector. Their
response agreed for embedding decisions and policies for sustainability in the
various project development stages, especially during project feasibility,
optioneering and designs. Undoubtedly, economic viability was still regarded as the
main decision driver in infrastructure. However, it has been observed for a
significant shift towards positive decisions for sustainability in the areas of project
management and governance, people and environment, care of resources,
workforce, waste management and handling, and enhancement of biodiversity.
The participant response obtained from the various questions also confirmed that
the decisions on sustainability could enhance risk management, transparency in
project activities, and integration of environmental, social and governance
consideration. These decisions could also improve the key performance indicators,
project life cycle outcomes, workforce capacity and knowledge management
leading to sustainability in infrastructure. As important as the new development of
the decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure, the long term focus on
infrastructure sustainability from the decision makers in the organisations formed
the vital impetus for change. Moreover, the transformation leading to sustainability
in decision making could also be strengthened through committed involvement
from the government regulatory bodies.
78
Chapter 5 Interview
Chapter 5 INTERVIEW
5.1 Overview
Following on the questionnaire survey findings reported in Chapter 4, this chapter
presents the findings from interviews. There are twenty people participated in the
interviews. These interviews comprised the face-to-face and teleconferencing
methods. Appendix F shows a copy of the interview questions. Figure 5-1 depicts
outline of this chapter; it consists of four sections.
Figure 5-1 Outline of Chapter 5
5.2 Structure of interviews
Similar to the questionnaire survey, each interview was conducted with a set of
structured interview questions as detailed in Appendix F. The standardisation of
interview questions provided a common platform for evaluation of findings as
obtained in the interviews. Supplement to the research findings, the participants
also encouraged to share their knowledge and experience in decision making and
OverviewStructure of interviews
Interview survey finding analysis
Summary of interview findings
79
Chapter 5 Interview
sustainability by providing additional materials and presenting case studies in
infrastructure projects. Figure 5-2 outlines the processes involved in the interview.
Each interview was structured to complete in the time frame between 30 to 45
minutes. However, several participants extended their participation to more than
90 minutes by presenting the relevant case studies, as well as follow-up interviews.
Their enthusiasm and additional efforts in the interviews and case studies have
contributed significantly in the research findings.
Figure 5-2 Interviewing process
Distinctively, face-to-face interviews were conducted for participants in the
Brisbane metropolitan and South East Queensland. These interviews were
conducted either in the interviewees’ offices or their designated project sites.
Although a face-to-face interview requires longer time and effort to conduct, this
type of interview builds interviewer-interviewee relationship and enhances
Interview preparation
• Invite participants for interview
• Follow up with letter of invitation
• Make appointment for interview
During interview
• Reiterate research ethics and confidentiality
• Restate research objectives and intents
• Approach with standardised and result-orientated discussion
• Allow interviewees to clarify and comment
• Record and verify findings and case studies
• Follow up with successive interviews, if necessary
End of interview
• Debrief and acknowledge their contribution
• Be grateful to the interviewees for their participation
80
Chapter 5 Interview
interviewer-interviewee involvement (Gillham & Ebooks Corporation., 2005;
Wengraf, 2001). Moreover, interviewee’s instantaneous communications and social
cues (for example voice, intonation and body language) observed during the each
face-to-face interview have significantly demonstrated their sincerity and
willingness in sharing of information.
As the interview participation intended to cover beyond Queensland
geographically, teleconferencing was used as an effective method to reach out
participants located in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and other cities in interstates.
Apart from the first interviews, teleconferencing was also set up for subsequent
interviews for several interstates participants. Therefore, teleconferences have
assisted in research time optimisation and cost minimisation which would
otherwise been spent on air travelling. Ultimately, the findings obtained from the
face-to-face interviews and teleconferences strengthened the research enquiry in
data collection and improved result validity.
5.3 Interview survey finding analysis
There were twenty individuals participated in the overall interview survey as shown
in Figure 5-3; with 9 of them working as consultants, 4 as contractors, 1 in the
tertiary education sector, 4 as infrastructure owners and 2 as investors/ bankers.
Among these 20 people, many of them involved in the infrastructure decision
making process. Their positions included managing director, director, general
manager, engineering manager, engineer, environmentalist and senior lecturer. In
this interview survey, the author conducted twelve face-to-face interviews and
eight teleconferences with the participants.
There are ten questions set in the interview survey, with the main aims to clarify
the participant response in the earlier questionnaire survey and strengthen the
findings in the research. Primarily, the interview questions addressed infrastructure
81
Chapter 5 Interview
decision making, project development and AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability
Assessment framework.
Figure 5-3 Professions of interview participants
The response collected for Question 1 confirmed that prior to the consideration of
sustainability, the main attributes in decision making for the participants commonly
included:
Project economics or cost associated decisions
Political and economic constraints
Findings from due diligence.
Probing into the transformation towards sustainability, Questions 2 and 3
investigated the principal changes needed in decisions and its effectiveness to drive
sustainability in the infrastructure development. Moreover, these questions also
sought to examine its limitations. The participants accepted that infrastructure
development was for long-term basis; it generally involved massive financial and
resource investments. Many of the respondents also agreed the decision indicators
should seek to address the asset life consideration, holistic business measures with
triple-bottom-line integration, and proper governance and assessment framework.
20%
20%
10%
45%
5%
Contracting Infrastructure Owner Investor/ banker
Consultancy Education
82
Chapter 5 Interview
In particular, participants from the major consulting and contracting organisations
informed that they have been using their in-house assessment tools for the design
and construction of the major engineering projects. However, the author realised
that there have not been any standardisation of tools used. It was found that some
of the tools have included decision making framework to evaluate the social,
economic, technical and environmental impacts of the projects, while other tools
have provided methodology for project improvement strategies.
As sustainability has been carrying various definitions by different disciplines and
organisations, the participants recognised the importance of bottom-up approach
with positive decision indicators to support and standardise the sustainability
framework. With this approach, it could create a consistent and harmonised
framework to signify and infiltrate the sustainability progress in the projects.
Generally, the many interviewees whose duties encompassed decision making
agreed for decision indicators for sustainability to significantly:
Instil sustainability awareness, considerations and responsibilities
throughout the project development cycle
Generate for an action list to adequately assess the environment,
community and the projected financial outcomes
Develop initiatives in enhancing water conservation, resource management
diligence and renewable energy innovation
Create new knowledge and education system in understanding of the
climate change adaptation, its criticality and consequences
Establish greater transparency and responsibility in communication and
reporting for sustainable procurement and resource use at the respective
project development stages
Specify the sustainability criteria and requirements in the infrastructure
design specifications and asset management
83
Chapter 5 Interview
Revitalise the use of various decision making tools, for example the multi-
criteria analysis, for tracking and consolidating the various important
decision making parameters
Mitigate risks in social and environmental impacts
Manage and report the various emission controls, for example embodied
energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the construction and
operation of infrastructure.
In the context of the change towards sustainability thinking, interviewees who
worked in the consultancy organisations, university and finance institutions agreed
to have decision indicators for sustainability to be embedded into the university
syllabus for various disciplines. In recognising the shortage of competent personnel
in infrastructure sustainability, it would be a significant development to have young
professionals and researchers trained in the disciplines of engineering,
architectural, urban design and planning, law and business. Due to climate change,
there have been many contemporary issues and challenges unfolded in the
infrastructure development and operation, it would be crucial to explore the
sustainability knowledge development in integrated urban development and
planning, carbon trading, environmental law, and ethical investment.
Whilst the preceding paragraphs have investigated the changes and needs for
incorporating sustainability in decision making, the response for Question 3 also
examined the limitations which inhibited change in decision making. The
interviewees reported that the major limitation was the inability to get the
infrastructure owners or the government agencies to support the implementation
policies, particularly in the increase in capital cost. Several participants reported
that there have been situations where the local governments pushed for the proper
project governance and benchmarking towards sustainability, unfortunately they
were just doing lip services. Therefore, it would be directionless for the consultants
and contracting alliances to push for the desirable positive outcomes if the
84
Chapter 5 Interview
infrastructure owners neither concerned for the sustainability benchmark nor
wanted to achieve beyond the compliance.
Next, the response for Question 4 reiterated that most of the participants agreed
that AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment framework could facilitate a
positive change towards sustainability in the infrastructure sector. Similar to the
various national sustainability rating tools in the building sector, AGIC framework
could inaugurate a new benchmark in the national infrastructure standards.
Therefore, understanding of the assessment categories was crucial to improve the
infrastructure delivery and operation; it also sought to cross-check the project
requirements with project delivery and operation regimes. Building on from the
response for Question 4, the successive set of questions (Questions 5, 6 and 7)
affirmed the findings by integrating the understanding of the AGIC Sustainability
Assessment criteria, influence from the political and government regulators, and
foreseeable barriers in decisions for sustainability in infrastructure.
The collective response for Question 5 discovered that the fundamental barriers
which hindered sustainability during project development in infrastructure projects
were due to the lack of consistent understanding and knowledge. Other major
obstacles might include the unwillingness for the senior management personnel to
accept the transformation with resource management, social and environmental
responsibilities; tardiness in their ‘business-as-usual’ attitudes and mindsets; lack of
measurable incentives; and lack of powerful legislation from the governments. As a
result, objectives for sustainability must be created based on context and principles.
These must be developed right up at the project initiation stage and progressively
put them alongside with the traditional decision assessment criteria. As this would
be a transformative process, performance-driven decision indicators were
necessary to steer forward the national industry acceptance.
The response for Question 6 confirmed politics/ government regulators had a
substantial influence in the development and implementation of sustainable
85
Chapter 5 Interview
infrastructure. Decision makers in the top government offices played significant
roles in the infrastructure development. They had the responsibilities and
authorities in the proper legislation of the infrastructure development and
operation standards for project specifications, contracting processes and operation.
In general, government should set and lead by examples and commitment towards
climate change adaptation in the infrastructure sector. Moreover, most large
infrastructures were owned either by the state or federal governments, the various
government agencies could provide the appropriate financial incentives/ subsidies
to drive investment and support for innovations. Participants also informed that the
successful completion and delivery of several infrastructure projects in alliances,
which involved the government agencies and private sectors, have shown the
sustainability acceptance in infrastructure works. With thoughtful planning and
design, sustainable outcomes could be achieved with the efficient use of resources
and reduced wastages. This effectively sought to translate into better triple-
bottom-line performance in the infrastructure development. Ultimately, this could
accrue economic savings in the whole-of-life cost, while enhancing its social and
environmental values.
Similar to the building sector, the response for Question 7 demonstrated that
participants involved in the infrastructure projects accepted the criticality for
having a standardised sustainability framework for the national infrastructure
sector. Therefore, they were well aware of the AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability
Assessment categories. Some of the individuals and their organisations have been
actively involved in the development and formalisation of the emerging
infrastructure assessment tool. In making a comprehensive assessment tool for the
national infrastructure sector, the author was advised that significant works have
been in progress to refine and define the appropriate scopes. Moreover, the
assessment tool would assist in aligning the objectives with the key decisions and
delivery principles.
86
Chapter 5 Interview
In consolidating the key decision indicators verified during the interview process,
Question 8 was set to reinforce the key findings gathered from the questionnaire
survey and re-examined with the participants. At the end of the interview survey,
90% of the participants admitted that the sustainability framework for
infrastructure would:
Facilitate the practitioners with a competitive advantage in tenders as well
as greater opportunities to showcase their achievements in the field of
sustainability and innovation
Facilitate the practitioners with a practical tool to undertake a holistic
assessment of operational performance and reward outcomes for
sustainability in delivery and operation
Facilitate the practitioners to identify strategic sustainability risks, emerging
compliance requirements and measure sustainability outcomes
Help the governments to establish common nationally-recognised
infrastructure sustainability criteria
Enhance the life cycle value of infrastructure
Enhance the continuous sustainability review and improvement in
workforce planning and development processes.
The participants supported the questions in the questionnaire and interview
surveys as these contributed the vital transformation leading to sustainability in
infrastructure. Additional qualitative inputs pertinent to the findings were provided
by the participants in the response for Question 10. Firstly, they suggested for the
collaborative design approach in which long-held contradictory assumptions to be
rectify for positive action towards decisions for sustainability. Secondly, they
proposed the assumptions and decisions to be scrutinised and made available to all
infrastructure stakeholders, for example alliancing partners. Most importantly,
participants agreed to have robust, realistic and dynamic assessments in the
longevity of the infrastructure. They believed the development of the extensive
87
Chapter 5 Interview
decision indicators and the wide coverage of the emerging infrastructure
sustainability assessment framework could have a considerable positive
transformation in the national infrastructure sector. Finally, five case studies have
been selected and further discussed with the participants through the interviews.
The case study findings will be presented on Chapter 6.
5.4 Summary of interview findings
Moving on from the findings obtained through the questionnaire survey, the
interviewing process facilitated the causal relationship building with the
participants. Interviews provided data validation by triangulation and probing into
complex issues. Additional experiential and knowledge inputs could also be derived
from the participants through interviews. These findings validated the research
inquiry and enhanced the accuracy in data collection.
The investigation on the principal changes and effectiveness in decision making to
drive sustainability in infrastructure development emphasised the need for a
standardised decision making framework for sustainability in infrastructure. This
could signify and infiltrate the sustainability progress and acceptance in the
industry. On affirming usefulness of the decision indicators for sustainability in
infrastructure, the participants agreed these indicators could contribute to asset life
consideration, enhance holistic business measures with triple-bottom-line
integration, and support proper governance during assessment. Moreover, the
participants also concurred with its relevance in developing initiatives in
optimisation of resources allocation, conservation of ecosystems, boosting the
renewable energy development and strengthening the new knowledge
development in climate change adaptation measures. Therefore, the development
of these decision indicators, which have widely focused on triple-bottom-line
objectives, could steer the robustness and longevity of infrastructure.
88
Chapter 5 Interview
On the other hand, the author also examined the limitations which have been
uncovered during the research investigation. Firstly, the lackadaisical attitudes
within society and of people in excessive use of resources and wastage warranted
for a change; secondly, the lack of powerful legislation and incentive schemes from
government has also resulted in the risks for using the sustainability principles in
project application. These implementation obstacles might be alleviated by instilling
understanding and knowledge on sustainability in infrastructure, and implementing
stronger project governance and responsible project management.
Through repeated communications with the participants on the research context,
these clarified the divergence and doubts in the results. Moreover, the
supplementary materials provided by the participants during the interviews also
strengthened their individual, as well the organisational, efforts leading to
sustainability in decision making. Thus, the interview findings have significantly
addressed the research inquiry by validating the various decisions which could
influence the sustainability outcomes in infrastructure.
89
Chapter 6 Case Study
Chapter 6 CASE STUDY
6.1 Overview
The findings from several interviews led to the examination of five case studies.
Case studies fulfilled the in-depth result validation, new knowledge development in
real project examples and understanding of lessons learnt in the infrastructure
projects. This chapter presents four case studies on completed infrastructure
projects and another case study on infrastructure proposal which was terminated
at the tender stage due to serious socio-environmental reasons related to
sustainability.
As each case contained its own characteristics during project execution and
development, the author adopted a semi-modular qualitative research approach to
investigate the individual case study. All the five infrastructure developments
exhibited the impacts and solutions in sustainability. Moving on with investigation,
the next section examines the respective case studies; while a summary of the case
study findings is presented at the last section of the chapter.
6.2 Case study finding analysis
The case study findings were provided by the various interview participants with a
combination of infrastructure owners, contractors and consultants. These
individuals included director, general manager, engineering manager and engineer.
Five infrastructure projects were covered in this section; with four projects in
Australia (Case Studies 1 to 4) and one project in New Zealand (Case Study 5) in
which the alliance was formed by Australian and New Zealander partners.
90
Chapter 6 Case Study
6.2.1 Case Study 1: Brisbane Northern Busway, Queensland
The Northern Busway Alliance was formed by the Queensland Government,
through the Department of Transport and Main Roads (Main Roads). Main Roads
was the public infrastructure owner. This alliance was a public private partnership
(PPP) with a design consulting firm and another contracting company in the private
sector. This case study involved the 1.2km busway which connects the Inner
Northern Busway at Herston (in the precinct of Royal Children’s Hospital) to
Windsor. The project started in 2007 and completed in August 2009, with a total
project value of $198 million10.
The rapid urban population growth and inadequacy in the existing transportation
network in the Brisbane metropolitan have initiated the public transport system
improvement study in the 1990s. Prior to the adoption of the busway network
development, Main Roads and the planning teams have also considered the light
rail and heavy rail options. The dispersed nature of the Brisbane’s urban
development might not possibly provide the efficient serviceability and economy of
scale for the new rail networks, especially in the southern and eastern regions. In
contrast, bus fleets could be easily expanded; bus routes could also be flexibly
expanded and diverted to meet the commuter demand. However, this led to a
deadlock in implementation where buses faced the serious traffic congestion
problems during the peak hours. Moreover, it also stemmed out a series of major
issues. These included the perception of a lack of service performance that people
have similarly associated with the existing rail system, serious pollution and
environmental problems.
Addressing to the multiple developmental issues in the early planning stage, Main
Roads have invited major players in the public and private sectors for decisions and
10 Source: Queensland Government, Department of Transports and Main Roads – News and Media, from: http://www.mainroads.qld.gov.au/en/News-and-media/News/News-archive/Brisbanes-Northern-Busway-reduces-travel-time-for-commuters.aspx
91
Chapter 6 Case Study
research studies in the new public transportation infrastructure. With the drive
towards long term triple-bottom-line objectives in the public infrastructure sector,
decisions leading to sustainability were made for the new development of
dedicated road network for buses — the busway networks.
Essentially, busways allowed the flexibility for future extension and connectivity to
the existing road and highway networks. Buses could reduce the number of cars
travelling on the roads. Moreover, buses had the flexibility to service the lower-
density communities and multiple local streets, as compared to a rail system.
Therefore, busway development was implemented in stages and the construction
of busways have been categorised into zones.
Similar to the Brisbane busway networks, Northern Busway has established the new
sustainable transport infrastructure. The integrated busway networks have
significantly improved the visual amenities of the inner city Brisbane, connected
and enhanced existing cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. The integrated
services networks have also enhanced the public transport to become a more
attractive and viable urban lifestyle. In addition, these reduced the city’s overall
carbon footprint. The integrated transport solutions also offered significant
advantages for future land use strategies for sustainable development — transit
orientated development.
Primarily, the Northern Busway has been providing uninterrupted bus flow during
the peak hours and shortened the travelling time for commuters in the northern
suburbs. The Northern Busway has also revitalised a network of commuter strategy
in facilitating the connection in pedestrian and cycle facilities.
92
Chapter 6 Case Study
6.2.2 Case Study 2: Context integration in infrastructure project
The Proper Coupling Concept (PCC) represents an advanced category of
sustainability for industrial projects and infrastructures11 in Hatch, which is a global
design and project management consultancy organisation with offices in Australia.
It supplements the more commonly treated aspects of sustainability, compliance
and eco-efficiency, by seeking a closer relationship between the project and its
socio-ecological contexts.
In the design and construction of industrial facilities and civil infrastructures, Hatch
and its clients were obliged to comply with the community expectations, especially
in environmental and social issues. Essentially, stringent and integrated decisions
were made in the direction towards energy efficiency, water conservation, carbon
dioxide abatement and society-based sustainability performance improvements.
The case example of context integration was regularly used in a typical resource
project with large indented workforce in construction, for example in the
development for a mineral processing plant in the Northern Queensland. During the
initial project construction stage, a large waste water treatment plant (WWTP) was
required to cope with the workforce living needs. However, when the project
completed, the demand was considerably reduced. Instead of scrapping the WWTP
at the end of the resource project construction, it was re-routed and designed to
treat waste from the local community. Its use was reinvigorated and the plant had
become a community asset and run by the community. Ultimately, it raised the
social and health context in the local community for the need of a proper sewerage
treatment system. The other close-loop benefits for sustainability in the ecological
and social footprints included:
Capturing of biogas and reticulating it for heating and cooking
Water from WWTP flowing into a wetland that boosting local ecology
11 Sources: Hatch, Proper Coupling Concept and Sustainable Development Capability Services
93
Chapter 6 Case Study
Creating new fish farms and thereby generating incomes to the local
community.
As a result, this industrial infrastructure demonstrated the fundamental principles
of sustainability in reuse, recycling, energy efficiency and resource efficiencies. With
the decisions and consideration in social equity improvement at societal level, it
created a positive paradigm shift where the community and the industrial facility to
be regarded as interdependent. Consequently, it transformed the project
significance with the socio-environmental integration and support from the local
community. Therefore, the case study signified where an industrial facility could be
coupled to the community, the project as a whole could also be coupled to society.
This leads to a common saying used in Hatch as ‘Don’t irritate, don’t make a mess’.
Another important approach in Hatch’s PCC is the concept of CDC – Context,
Drivers, Connections. With the CDC approach, industrial projects can integrate
sustainable development (SD) concepts easily and generate greater values. Hatch
recognises that fiscal drive is the normal way to organise and design projects;
however, CDC also unlocks other intrinsic values towards sustainability in projects.
6.2.3 Case Study 3: New Perth Bunbury Highway, Western
Australia
The New Perth Bunbury Highway (NPBH) was constructed by the Southern Gateway
Alliance (SGA), which comprised the infrastructure owner, designers, contractors
and project management team. It was a road infrastructure project funded by both
the Commonwealth and State Government of Western Australia. The project
commenced in December 2006 and completed in December 2009; its total cost was
A$511 million12. According to the SGA, it was a design-and-build contract of 70.5km
of dual carriageway freeway and also one of the most significant infrastructure
projects in Western Australia.
12
Source: Leighton Contractors, New Perth Bunbury Highway, from: http://www.leightoncontractors.com.au/verve/_resources/new-perth-bunbury-highway.pdf
94
Chapter 6 Case Study
According to Main Roads Western Australia, the freeway extension reduces the
travel time from Perth to Bunbury by 30 minutes. Moreover, this project has
considerable concerns for the community, environmental and ecosystem values by
incorporating the construction with 32km of principal shared path for pedestrians
and cyclists, 7 pedestrian and cyclist underpasses, and 14 fauna underpasses13. The
other major sustainability decisions embraced in the project includes sustainability
management and reporting, consideration for using resources, effective waste
management, and workforce capacity building.
Realising that community consideration played a major influential role in the
various project development stages, regular liaison and consultation were the key
activities in the planning and implementation phases. Furthermore, the alliance
partners appointed more than 1000 local suppliers and sub-contractors in the
project. This had not only provided direct engagement and benefits to the local
economy, but it also created job opportunities which expanded within the region.
In particular, the project delivered the major sustainability benchmarks with:
Enhanced road safety and network efficiency
Improved community and stakeholder expectations
Net economic, social and environmental benefits.
The NPBH is one of the first projects to formally embrace sustainability
consideration 14 . The major sustainability achievements in this new road
infrastructure project include the project completion under budget; recognition
with numerous awards from Engineers Australia15; exceeding mandated training
13 Source: Main Roads Western Australia, completed projects, from: http://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/buildingroads/projects/completedprojects/pages/npbh.aspx
14 Source: Leighton Contractors, New Perth Bunbury Highway, from: http://www.leightoncontractors.com.au/verve/_resources/new-perth-bunbury-highway.pdf
15 Source: Webpages of GHD and Engineers Australia, from: http://www.ghd.com/global/locations/australia/western-australia/ and http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ieaust/index.cfm?4B274629-D2B5-F3D1-EC4C-DA5201D2A5E5
95
Chapter 6 Case Study
requirements; delivery of positive community and environmental benefits; and
setting of a new industry benchmark in the road construction standards.
6.2.4 Case Study 4: Traveston Crossing Dam, Queensland
Traveston Crossing Dam (TCD) was a proposed South East Queensland Water Grid
project that was initiated by the state government of Queensland. This project was
initiated in 2006 due to the prolonged drought which had led to the record-low
water level in the existing dams in South East Queensland. The proposal involved
the building and operation of a new dam on the Mary River, near Gympie. The dam
development would include the diversion of local roads, one major rail line and
another major state highway. Moreover, the state government has acquired
properties and farmlands in the proposed dam catchment areas. The estimated
project cost was A$1.8 billion16. There was a controversy for this project among the
local residents, business groups, state government and the federal ministry.
The local residents protested against the dam development as they had sold off
their houses and farmlands due to land acquisition. On the contrary to the promise
by the state government, they feared for the loss of their jobs as dairy farmers and
fishermen. They also concerned for their life which would be drastically ruined due
to the chain effects of the social and environmental uncertainties.
On a broader influence, not only the local community has protested against the
dam development, there was also intense opposition from wider national and
international groups on the concern for the impact on the endangered and
vulnerable species in the river and their habitat, for example the Mary River cod,
Mary River turtle, Queensland lungfish, several frog species, parrot, the dugong and
also the migration species, such as shorebirds. These groups comprised the
environmentalists, academics, engineers, politicians, wildlife experts and business
16 The estimated project cost was advised by the design consultant team in the case study interview.
96
Chapter 6 Case Study
leaders. In addition, the conservationists also argued against the anticipated series
of problems; these included:
The extinction of endangered species, in particular the Mary River turtle and
Queensland lungfish. The lungfish requires the water rapids for breeding;
unfortunately, much of its breeding habitat has already been affected due to
man-made developments in other areas. Therefore, they strongly
demanded the fish species in the Mary River to be protected, otherwise
they would be classified as the ‘critically endangered’
The reduced river water flows to the downstream area would impact the
various food production and supply chains
Existing wide area of prime agricultural land would be flooded for the
proposed dam catchment area. Due to large water catchment area, it would
lead to considerable of greenhouse gas emissions in the future
Flooding and drastic change in the habitat could have negative
consequences for species, particularly their ability to breed and maintaining
the biodiversity
The potential threats the Great Sandy Straits Ramsar wetland and heritage
values of Fraser Island in the downstream.
Although the Queensland government has spent more than $500 million on
planning the project which promising for increase for job opportunities and water
security enhancement in the South East Queensland, the local community was not
convinced and worried the irreversible and adverse impacts on the people and
environment. Therefore, the TCD proposal has been extensively debated under the
bilateral agreement between the federal and state government17. Moreover, the
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) in the
17 Source: Traveston Dam – the federal process, EPBC Act, Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2006/3150/traveston-dam-the-federal-process.html
97
Chapter 6 Case Study
federal government engaged the Centre for International Economics (CIE) as an
independent reviewer for the proposal. CIE reported and disputed the doubt on the
economic merits of the dam, whilst they have outweighed against the social and
economic impacts of the project (Centre for International Economics, 2009).
Concerns on climate change uncertainty were also highlighted, where the benefit-
cost analysis used had also cast a doubt in the traditional approach of relying on
large infrastructure projects that required significant upfront funding and long lead
times in the construction.
DEWHA made the final decisions after collecting and consolidating the findings18.
Finally, the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, cancelled the TCD proposal at
project tender stage in November 2009. The Minister decided to cancel the project
due to series of problems which could cause serious environmental and social
impacts19. Particularly, the major problems included19, 20:
Impacts on threatened species would be at high risk
The science confirmed that the project would have adverse and irreversible
effects on many nationally listed species
Species habitat would be permanently damaged due to the proposed large
water catchment area and river flow change
High probability of species extinction resulted from their inability to breed
and survive in the habitat loss
Unacceptable impacts on matters of national environmental significance, for
example invasive species threats, habitat loss and climate change effects.
18 Source: Traveston Dam – the federal process, EPBC Act public notices, from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2006/3150/traveston-dam-the-federal-process.html
19 Source: The Hon Peter Garrett MP, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Proposed ‘no’ decision for Traveston, media release, 11 November 2009, from: http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/pubs/mr20091111.pdf
20 Source: The Hon Peter Garrett MP, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Traveston Dam gets final no, media release, 02 December 2009, from: http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/pubs/mr20091202a.pdf
98
Chapter 6 Case Study
Moreover, facilitating the net positive outcomes on sustainability approach, the
Minister’s decision has also considered other serious national environmental risks
and social significance which have been numerously raised by the communities in
the Mary Valley. Similarly, the Minister has also concern for the long term water
security need in South East Queensland by evaluating a number of alternative
water supply options available to the state government21.
6.2.5 Case Study 5: Northern Gateway Alliance, New Zealand
The Northern Gateway Alliance (NGA) comprised the design, project management
and construction consortium responsible for the design-and-construct road
infrastructure contract for the construction of the SH1 Northern Motorway
Extension for Transit New Zealand. The alliance was formed in 2004 and the project
completed in December 2008. The total construction cost was valued at A$248
million22. Leighton Contractors described this contract was one of the nation’s most
challenging road projects to design and build with the complex terrain topography
and local community considerations. The motorway is New Zealand’s first tolled
state highway.
The motorway passed through rich historical and diverse landscape with steep
topography, large tracts of native bush, streams, estuaries and areas of postural
farmlands, which have contributed to the prime controversial scenario in the early
project development phase. Also, community support, biodiversity protection and
ecosystem conservations were part of the sustainability challenges for the NGA.
However, the interviewee who involved in the construction team took pride in this
road infrastructure project as the Northern Motorway Extension was the first
construction project to report against triple-bottom-line measures in New Zealand.
21 Source: Traveston Crossing Dam, Queensland Government, from: http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/traveston/
22 Source: Webpage of Leighton Holding, from: http://www.leighton.com.au/about_us/projects/northern_gateway_alliance.html
99
Chapter 6 Case Study
Due to the chain of sustainability issues, many social and cultural considerations
were incorporated in the early project stage. Moreover, integrated decision making
and innovative thinking were actively participated among alliance stakeholders.
Most importantly, the consortium took ownership of the project’s risks and
opportunities. They operated as a fully integrated team and provided a single point
of contact for all issues to meet the project delivery. Particularly, in managing the
social impact during construction, they developed a comprehensive
communications and community relations program. This program has significantly
improved the community support for this road infrastructure and provided
opportunities for other alliancing partners in the local community.
Resolving the considerable public controversy which revealed at the project
planning stage, the alliance developed several enhancements in biodiversity. Firstly,
new fish baffles within culverts provided passage for native fish and these
reinvigorated the natural aquatic habitat in streams which located in the project
boundaries. Secondly, the other biodiversity and ecosystem improvements included
the stringent control of reducing vegetation clearance throughout the project site
and provision of additional planting areas at all tunnel portals. Also, effective risk
management allowed the alliancing team to act within the corporate governance
and design requirements, whilst balancing the risks-and-reward mix to maximise
the return on project opportunities. With the successful completion of this project,
Leighton Contractors have raised their engineering and environmental standards
and also won several awards related to infrastructure sustainability23. Essentially,
this road infrastructure project has driven new benchmarks for the erosion and
sediment control in the Auckland region.
23 Source: Leighton Contractors’ Awards, from: http://www.leightoncontractors.com.au/about_leighton/company_overview/awards.html
100
Chapter 6 Case Study
6.3 Summary of case study findings
Having examined from the real case examples provided in the case studies, these
findings enhanced the credibility in results by thorough triangulation of the
research variables and interpretation of multiple real life situations. As important as
the research technique of interview, case studies also enhanced the contextual
issues and further developed assertions on research inquiry to add values to
realistic result analysis. The case study findings confirmed the practical application
and empirical knowledge development were essential to support the research
objectives.
Case Study 1 on Brisbane Northern Busway explored the long term principles in
transportation infrastructure sustainability to address the rapid urban population
growth and alleviate the inadequacy in the existing transportation networks in
Brisbane metropolitan. The study of the busway development demonstrated that
the Queensland state government concerned for the social achievements and
environmental improvements. The new busway network has enhanced the viability
for sustainable urban lifestyle by integrating with transit orientated developments.
It also facilitated the interconnectivity of active transportation modes by providing
safe cycling and pedestrian pathways at several strategic intersections. The busway
network also provides connections for future expansions which progress with the
commuter capacity.
Case study 2 on context integration in infrastructure project validated decisions for
sustainability could foster a closer relationship between project and its socio-
ecological structure. In contrast with the traditional project approach, this case
study demonstrated well-formulated decisions could provide the close-loop
benefits for sustainability in the ecological and social footprints. It could also create
a positive paradigm shift where the community and the industry infrastructure
being treated as mutually interdependent. Apart from the fiscal drive in
101
Chapter 6 Case Study
infrastructure project, this holistic decision approach also unlocked the intrinsic
values contributing towards sustainability in resource waste minimisation, carbon
dioxide abatement and socio-environmental integration.
Case studies 3 and 5 on highway developments in Western Australia and Auckland
respectively concretised the evidences where project decision makers could
improve the project delivery outcomes by integrating and embedding the
sustainability parameters at early stages in the project development cycle. These
two highway projects have not only increased the job opportunities to the local
communities, they have also enabled community engagement and ecosystem
conservation, as well as biodiversity enhancement. The construction alliances
successfully managed the social and environmental challenges through regular
community consultation and risk mitigation. Both projects set new benchmarks in
the construction industry, where the New Perth Bunbury Highway Alliance in
Western Australia was awarded for the delivery of positive community and
environment benefits, and the Northern Gateway Alliance in New Zealand won
several awards related to infrastructure sustainability.
Lastly, case study 4 on Traveston Crossing Dam (TCD) presented that governments
played important and influential roles in decision formulation, evaluation and
finalisation on sustainability outcomes. Although TCD proposal aimed to alleviate
the prolonged drought situation in South East Queensland in 2006, the state
government decision to proceed based largely on economic consideration
indicators, instead of a well-defined and holistic decision approach. The lack in
focus for sustainability outcomes has resulted extensive controversies in the local
community. The local community life would be drastically devastated due to the
chain effects of socio-environmental uncertainties and the extinction of
endangered and vulnerable species and wildlife in the Mary River region. With the
expected change in river water flow, it could also lead to substantial threats in the
102
Chapter 6 Case Study
upstream where the proposed large water catchment area would flood the prime
agricultural land; thereby resulting considerable greenhouse gas emission in the
future. Similarly, the reduced water flow in the river downstream would damage
the various crop production and supply chains. Moreover, it would be vulnerable to
wetland and national heritage park. Therefore, realising the serious impacts
(associated with large project finance upfront, natural resource degradation,
environmental and land pollution, ecosystems and biodiversity threats, the
community well-being and heritage loss, as well as climate change vulnerability),
the Minister finally decided to cancel the TCD project at tender stage. The
Minister’s decisions in stopping the project demonstrated the net positive
outcomes for sustainability in infrastructure.
103
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
Chapter 7 RESULT ANALYSIS
7.1 Overview
The preceding chapters have presented the results and data obtained from the
forty questionnaire surveys, twenty interviews and five case studies across
stakeholders spanning from government agencies and universities to organisations
in the various sectors responsible for infrastructure development and operation.
Having collated the findings for this research and uncovered the gap in the
literature, these form the two important investigative processes to address the
research problem. Figure 7-1 illustrates the overview in the funnelling topology
used in the combination of addressing the research problem, evaluating the results
and healing the gap in literature for the detailed analysis of the overall research
findings.
Figure 7-1 Structured approach in research analysis
Results/ data
collectedGap in
literature
Reseach problem
•Research questions
104
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
The analysis of the research findings begins with reiterating the research problem
to meet the research objectives. Next, the research questions, which form the
subset reinforcing with the research significance, seek to recapitulate and cross-
check with the research hypothesis, research investigation and results for aligning
with the research objectives. Therefore, gap as earlier uncovered in the literature
review is also re-examined and validated with the research findings. Particularly,
this research design has evolved extensive data collection and case studies from the
infrastructure practitioners and stakeholders. Section 7.2 presents the analysis of
the findings to validate the research problem and research questions. This analysis
evaluates the rationale and focuses on sustainability as a driver for decision making
in the emerging infrastructure practice.
7.2 Analysis of research findings
The literature reveals and supports that infrastructure development has long been
regarded as the main economic spines for many countries. Indisputably, economic
strength has been the fundamental driver for people to move into and live in the
cities. By harnessing the results which centred on decision making dynamics in
infrastructure planning, development and operation, these address the gap as
uncovered in the literature earlier. Thus, the findings demonstrate the research
significance in driving sustainability to transform the public policy and business
practice in the infrastructure sector.
Research Problem
In addition to its economic value, how can infrastructure transform,
enhance and contribute positively to the environment and society?
105
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
Moreover, the findings consolidated from the three research techniques of
questionnaire survey, interview and case study indicate that most infrastructures
have been largely owned and managed by governments or government related
agencies. Addressing the socio-economic needs have been the prime reasons for
infrastructure development. Therefore, governmental agencies do play the
influential roles in getting the right decisions and policies to move across for the
sustainable development in infrastructure. The government leaderships have the
principal responsibilities and authorities in ensuring the proper legislation of the
infrastructure development and operation standards. Consequently, the federal
and state governments could stimulate and lead the forward actions leading to
sustainability by examples and commitments at improving policies for positive
transformation and adaptation in the infrastructure sector.
In addition, the statistical results obtained in the research confirm that the
construction industry needs a concise and responsible decision making regime
leading to sustainability. The decision making regime developed in this research is
referred to as decision indicators24 in this research context. The decision indicators
are set to benchmark sustainability in infrastructure and to achieve the balanced
and long-term outcomes in the direction of triple-bottom-line concept. Evidently,
these indicators are not only crucial for complementing to the new paradigm shift
towards sustainability in assessing the infrastructure needs, they also have
considerable influence towards making a positive lifestyle for the people,
community safety and well-being. The completeness in the decision indicators also
enhances knowledge management and capacity building in the alliance contracting;
strengthens community betterment for the future generations; and reinforces the
criticality in recognising climate change vulnerability. Thus, it rapidly becomes clear
24 The author develops the complete decision indicators to be used for the sustainability assessment in infrastructure. Refer Table 2-5 in Chapter 2 of this thesis for the complete decision indicators for sustainability.
106
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
that sustainability principles are to be substantially embedded right up at the
project initiation stage and progressive evaluate alongside with the traditional
decision assessment criteria which has been focusing on financial aspects. Secondly,
the sustainability principles could rigorously cross-check with the project objectives.
This overarching approach creates enduring benefits to the infrastructure
development.
Most importantly, massive investment and extensive resource usage are required in
infrastructure development. The imminent decision indicators developed principally
to examine the various categories in the infrastructure assessment framework
which predominately embracing the economic, environmental and societal needs.
Thus, the decision indicators contain the key decision elements to be considered at
the respective stages in the project development cycle and various categories in the
sustainability assessment for infrastructure. The comprehensive spectrum of
decision indicators seeks to rationally transform and justify the infrastructure needs
and its development. In tandem with the economic growth, it demonstrates that
infrastructure can transform, enhance and contribute positively to the environment
and society. In the drive towards sustainability, the decision indicators establish the
strategic and combined solutions to resolve the complex issues intertwined with
the political bureaucracies, societal impacts and ecological complications.
107
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
Validating the first part of this research question, economic bottom line has been
the most deciding and influencing factor in infrastructure development. Although,
critiques also argue that public infrastructures have been developed to improve the
socio-economic well-beings. On the downside, many of these infrastructures have
also seriously interlinked with a series of environmental degradation, social
conundrums and ethical problems as revealed in the literature and supported with
the research findings. Apparently, the research findings reflect the proliferation of
unbalance economic growths and disintegrated community based developments
could have led to urban disinvestment in some of the emerging economies.
Due to escalating global environmental concerns and political challenges,
infrastructure developments cannot be progressed solely on the economic
outcomes as in the traditional objectives in nation building, without the due
consideration in the socio-environmental impacts. On the contrary, there have
been arguments and even scepticisms that climate change threats have no relation
with the massive infrastructure developments. However, sustainability criticality in
infrastructure could not be enacted without understanding of the causes and
realisation of its consequences due to climate change. Similarly, the lack in
understanding could risk the mitigation policies being ineffective and delayed in
achieving its outcomes. Supporting this notion, the findings gathered from the
industry practitioners confirm that economics are still been regarded as the key
decision element, but there have been substantial shift in thinking, knowledge
development and policies towards cognitive decisions and behavioural responses in
addressing the non-fiscal considerations which encompass the areas of:
Research Question 1
What have been the most deciding factors which steer developments in
the infrastructure sector? Why are positive changes required?
108
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
Environment
Society/ community
Operation and management
Project life cycle
Biodiversity
Climate change
Project management and governance
Care of resources
People and workforce
Waste management and handling.
Primarily, positive changes are needed for holistic approach and sustainable
development in infrastructure. This transformation is needed to balance the needs
and developments in infrastructure, with due concern for a wider perspective
addressing the environmental and societal impacts. Whilst the emerging
sustainability assessment framework in infrastructure which spearheaded by AGIC
paves the way for a standardisation in benchmarking the infrastructure, the
decision indicators evaluate the project objectives and refine critical responses in
the infrastructure development cycle.
Opening the argument where many of the infrastructure developments have been
massive and costly, the author arrives at the discussion in which the future
developments could not be planned in the traditional approach without the
consideration for socio-environmental risk mitigation. Due to fragmentation and
disengagement in the traditional decision and policy making processes, many
commercial and economic activities have caused the profound degradation in the
natural habitats and ecosystems. In particular, these traditional ‘disjointed
phenomena’ in the infrastructure sector have been resulted from the lack of
systematic analysis and planning, lack of long-term goal orientation, and
109
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
inadequacy in coordinated decision and policy making framework. Ultimately, the
emerging decision indicator spectrum for sustainability in infrastructure justifies for
the positive changes required. It also sets the action and adaptation plan to address
the climate change vulnerability, monitor the social resource depletion and mitigate
the risks associated with the unpredictable climate condition. Consequently, the
positive changes enable the untapped opportunities in infrastructure with a
balanced approach in fulfilling the sustainability outcomes.
Participants demonstrated in the questionnaire survey for their individual
willingness and organisational efforts to improve their skills and knowledge in
sustainability. Their response also affirms their seriousness to embed the
sustainability thinking and criteria in the early project stages to create enduring
values, especially during the conceptual/ feasibility and design stages. However, it
may be a constraint to impose sustainability criteria in implementation stage when
both the technical and economic design specifications have been finalised. Design
variation may lead to additional cost implication and extension of time in project
delivery. Moreover, the results as consolidated from the research confirm the
participants’ preparedness and dynamics for the sustainability acceptability in the
emerging infrastructure development.
In addition, results obtained in the research survey and interview agree that
educating young professionals in this change paradigm could be one of the effective
ways in driving transformation leading to sustainability in the infrastructure sector.
Research Question 2
How can the changes be effectively adopted for enhancing
sustainability in infrastructure?
110
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
This has been put into practice by progressively integrating sustainability practice in
the curricula at tertiary and post-tertiary levels. Secondly, at organisational and
governmental levels, brainstorming the entire infrastructure supply chains through
continual staff training and development has also stimulated the sustainability
drive. The two principal approaches provide the opportunities in the emerging
sustainability paradigm by overcoming the fears, risks and failures on change and
turning over these untapped challenges in the socio-environmental contexts.
With the emerging sustainability assessment in infrastructure to be implemented in
the industry, the participants believed the decision indicators could significantly
address the socio-environmental problems, as well as enhancing the project
governance. The findings as gathered from the various case studies also strengthen
the integration of the infrastructure planning needs for improvement of the
workforce employment, social connectedness and community facilities, as
compared to the disintegrated and uncoordinated planning regime. Realistically,
the decision indicators provide the cross-functional team members with an
integrated and traceable regime in line with the sustainability principles. These
indicators seek to concretise and mould infrastructure project aims; they also
facilitate the integration of the various dimensions of sustainability for cohesion in
application.
Supplement to the sustainability assessment framework in infrastructure, the
spectrum of emerging decision indicators provides the tool in enabling and
enhancing the interdependency, interconnectivity and cross-examination of several
key decision and policy making processes. As the decision indicators address the
principles and streamline into the particular project context, they are tied in with
the project development cycle right up at the project initiation stage and
progressively put them alongside with the assessment criteria. As this is a
transformative process, the performance-driven decision indicators are necessary
111
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
to infiltrate for the national industry acceptance. It has been seen in the case
studies of industrial and road work infrastructure projects which involving alliance
contracting, community consultation and stakeholder participation, a responsible
decision and traceable policy making regime is required throughout the various
project development stages.
Decision indicators are a significant development to be effectively adopted for
enhancing long term sustainability in the infrastructure sector. These indicators set
to investigate the consolidated efforts among key decision and policy makers which
overstretching their cross-disciplinary engagement involving:
Leadership and commitment
Behavioural culture
Habitual characteristics
Cognitive development.
Ultimately, this development of decision indicators for sustainability provides the
qualitative policy formulation and knowledge management approach to enhance
the institutional, market and regulatory framework in transforming principles into
change actions for the infrastructure sector.
112
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
The research investigation confirms that the decision making processes in the
construction industry have been fragmented. Due to the unavailability of a unified
framework and lack of unified goals among the stakeholders, past decisions made
may not be readily traceable. Therefore reinforcing sustainability in infrastructure,
the development of decision indicators seeks to contribute significantly in
synergising and enhancing cohesion in decision making.
Results obtained from the participants confirm that the major decisions, particularly
from key decision makers and governments, have largely influenced the planning,
design and outcomes of infrastructure projects. The case study of Traveston
Crossing Dam in Queensland has clearly demonstrated that governments (both at
federal and state levels) could have influential roles in assessing the strategy
formulation and finalising the sustainability outcome evaluation. Unfortunately, the
Queensland Government slipped the major social and environmental consequences
associated with the proposed infrastructure development, in pursuit for the
politico-economic benefits which they could derive if the project were to be
implemented. A thorough multi-criteria analysis (MCA) design at the conceptual
stage of the project may have indicated the state government decisions to proceed
could face the potential for community opposition. Eventually, the responsible
Federal Minister intercepted and stopped this project due to the multiple serious
social disruptions and environmental consequences which could permanently
undermine the sustainability outcomes. Findings gathered from this case study
conclude the failures of decision makers at state government level resulted from:
Lack of traceable and responsible decisions relating to sustainability
Research Question 3
How can decisions influence and drive the sustainability outcomes in infrastructure?
113
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
Inappropriate weightings towards the community feelings and the
associated socio-environmental degradations
Indifferent project leadership based on politico-economic driver which was
above other dimensions of sustainability; despite reports, statistics and
public concerns for the series of serious social and environmental
devastation associated with the development.
Theoretically, decisions have been regarded as powerful tool in connecting people,
places and data. Decision making is a mental process involving a collective and
integrated approach. However, the decision making process may be complex; it
usually embraces with compelling and competing issues (Kunsch et al., 2007).
Therefore, the purposefulness, inclusiveness, flexibility and outcomes in the
decisions are crucial. Central to this discussion is the question of how to judge the
effectiveness of decisions; thus, decision indicators provide a platform enabling
decision making process. Linking to the research contexts, the decision indicators
principally set to evaluate options and ground thinking towards the effective
institutional arrangements for sustainability assessment. Apart from the traditional
decision focus on the project economics, the new decision indicators for
sustainability radically facilitate risk mitigation and assessment; improve
transparency in project activities; enable integration of the major environmental,
social and governance considerations into the project risk management policies;
and enhance project life cycle. The case studies on the two new highways
demonstrated the delivery of positive community and environmental outcomes.
These two projects set new industry benchmarks related to infrastructure
sustainability.
Qualitatively, knowledge is an important function of decision making. Therefore,
the decision indicators seek to augment the effective operational and monitoring
114
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
assessment framework. With the spectrum of decision indicators to be embedded
into the assessment framework, it is an important integration process in the
sustainability assessment for infrastructure. This also substantially address the gap
where the lack of integration and measurement metrics of interrelationship of
various decision categories, project life cycle and assessment management in the
existing concepts and frameworks available for use in the industry (Nilsson, 1997;
Ralph, 1999; Wolf & Meyer, 2009)
Literature reveals that changing of mental maps and ideological preferences of
influential policy makers could not be easily done, because each individual or
organisation has own set of perceptions and cultures (Hezri & Dovers, 2006; Hezri &
Hasan, 2004; Söderbaum, 2004). In the past, environmental factors have treated as
externalities and generally omitted from the crucial economic decision making
processes in infrastructure planning and management. The increase in exploitation
of non-renewable natural resources has however led to many global debates on
climate change consequences. Moreover, with the growing convergence and
volatility of global economics as realised in the recent global economic crisis,
coupled with the increase of environmental and societal catastrophes, it is a crucial
tipping point for the positive transformation towards the sustainability equilibrium.
This strong and critical change is an important milestone for the key decision
indicators to be integrated into the emerging sustainability practices in the
infrastructure sector.
Thus, understanding of the assessment categories is crucial to improve the
infrastructure delivery and operation; it also seeks to cross-check the project
requirements with project delivery and operation regimes as observed in the case
study on Brisbane busway development. Consequently, by consolidating the
evolution explicitly on sustainability as examined in the case study on context
integration in infrastructure project, the spectrum of decision indicators linked with
115
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
the assessment framework seek to establish the rational analysis of the various
data collection and facilitate the realistic comparison of consequences of
alternative strategies.
Predominately, the emerging decision indicators reinforce the awareness,
considerations and responsibilities throughout the project development cycle;
create new knowledge management in understanding of the climate change
adaptation, its criticality and consequences; and establish greater transparency and
responsibility in communication and reporting for procurement and resource use
leading to sustainability at the respective project development stage. These
indicators also generate for an action list to adequately assess the environment,
community and the projected financial outcomes; revitalise the use of various
decision making tools; and mitigate risks in social and environmental impacts.
Furthermore, they could also initiate the behavioural development towards
effective water conservation, resource management diligence and renewable
energy innovation. With the wide coverage of the indicators, decisions can
influence and drive the sustainability outcomes in infrastructure.
7.3 Summary of result analysis
This research investigated the decision indicators for sustainability to be used in the
infrastructure sector. The research findings examined these newly developed
decision indicators to be used in conjunction with the 7 categories and 27 sub-
categories in the emerging AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment
Framework. Consolidating from the findings obtained from questionnaire survey,
interview and case study techniques, these confirmed economic viability in project
was important, but there has been significant shift towards positive decisions for
sustainability objectives in addressing the social and environmental outcomes. The
consolidated findings also signified the development of a standardised decision
116
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
making tool for sustainability — decision indicators for sustainability to enhance the
decisions leading to sustainability in infrastructure. This could provide a responsible
decision making platform to achieve positive project outcomes for sustainability.
Another important aspect of decision making for sustainability relates to what
policies are appropriate responses to changes in the level of important system
variables, whether by regulation or changes in service provision. An example of
inappropriate responses in the area of public decision making is the increase in road
capacity to deal with the expected increases in the volume of car traffic, which has
resulted in further traffic generation and congestion. In contrast, a sustainable
approach would instead regulate traffic volumes, upgrade the public transport
networks and encourage the use of efficient public transport system (Hersh, 1997).
Due to the wide coverage in infrastructure application, determination of decisions
towards sustainability categories is dynamic, progressive and upgradable.
Enhancing the decision making of sustainable development at a practical level
demands simultaneously optimising all three performance measures in
environment, economics and social elements; but minimising negative impacts
from extremely complex relations in sustainability issues (Koo et al., 2009). One
major problem in many sustainability issues is the difficulty to quantify on a scale.
Environmental issues are explicitly taken into consideration in daily decisions
through limits and standards set by regulatory agencies or established by long term
policy analysis (May et al., 2008; Sahely et al., 2005). In addition, social and
environmental issues tend to be subjective and qualitative, while economic issues
can be converted into a monitoring factor based on quantitative analysis.
Nonetheless, it can be synthesised that decision making for sustainability generally
encompasses a range of environmental, economic and social factors. Functionally, it
will not be realistic without the political and ethical influences.
117
Chapter 7 Result Analysis
The decision indicators cover wide spectrum of decision parameters; these could
formulate a comprehensive decision action list to drive sustainability adoption and
practice in the infrastructure sector, and create a structured and systematic
approach to allow tracking for stakeholder responsibility and actions. This
structured approach also strengthens policy formation and regulation review
leading to sustainability. The research findings also validate that the positive
decisions could enhance stakeholder participation and coordination, effectively in
knowledge management and information sharing.
By integrating its application with the AGIC Infrastructure Sustainability Assessment
Framework, it could also align the assessment of infrastructure needs with the
consideration for the ultimate values in project delivery. The response from the
participants asserted the criticality in having a decision making tool that could
provide project options, support problem resolution and track lessons learnt. Thus,
the sustainability decision indicator development sought to map objectives with
outcome and radically transform principles into actions in infrastructure planning,
development and operation.
118
Chapter 8 Conclusion
Chapter 8 CONCLUSION
8.1 Overview
The research deliverable is to investigate and develop the new decision indicators
for sustainability in infrastructure. Whilst this research explicitly focuses on the
transition and needs towards sustainability in infrastructure, it recognises
sustainability as the important driver for decision making in infrastructure. With the
development of new decision indicators for sustainability, it seeks to transform the
people’s behaviours, culture, societal and environmental values in the
infrastructure sector, apart from the economic consideration. This final chapter
presents the new knowledge arising from this research as outlined in Table 8-1.
Prior to the conclusion, it also covers the research limitations and reveals the
opportunities for future research.
Table 8-1 New knowledge contributing from the development of decision indicators for
sustainability in infrastructure
Validate the interrelationship in sustainability, decision making and infrastructure
Establish a benchmark by strengthening knowledge management in the infrastructure sector
Create an impetus for change leading to sustainability in infrastructure
Enhance the sustainability assessment platform for infrastructure
Enable the study of attitudes, behaviours and awareness leading to sustainability adoption
119
Chapter 8 Conclusion
8.2 New knowledge arising from this research
The study was conducted with the aim of investigating and identifying the major
criteria in decision making for sustainability in infrastructure. Knowledge
contribution for this research has been achieved in five significant areas.
Firstly, the research identifies a need for sustainability to be an emerging driver for
decision making in infrastructure. A succinct and contextualised understanding of
sustainability is fundamental to establish the correlation between decision making
and successful outcomes. Relevant to the use in the engineering application, the
author redefine sustainability with the emphasis on interrelationship of organised
systems or principles25. It is vital to discuss the interrelationships and principles of
infrastructure as a system because it provides integrated functions to meet the
socio-economic needs, as well as the socio-environmental necessity. Furthermore,
decision making involves a series of cognitive processes, principles, actions and
reactions for collective outcomes. With the link established for these key words of
sustainability, infrastructure and decision making, it enables the effective
investigation on how sustainability could contribute to infrastructure decision
making and how decisions could further drive the sustainability outcomes in
infrastructure.
Therefore, a clear understanding of the decision needs and its parameters
demonstrates the importance of this study. Moreover, the investigation has
examined the interrelationships and principles in sustainable development. This
indeed provides a deeper understanding of its relevance to infrastructure.
25 Refer Section 2.1.1 in Chapter 2 of this thesis for the author’s redefinition of sustainability.
120
Chapter 8 Conclusion
Secondly, this research develops the comprehensive decision indicators for
sustainability 26 to be used in the sustainability assessment framework for
infrastructure. As important as the emerging sustainability assessment framework
for infrastructure, the spectrum of decision indicators captures the key decision
elements to be considered across the categories in the assessment frameworks.
This forms the pivotal strategy in cross-checking and evaluating the respective
elements in the decision making process. Moreover, it facilitates a wider
perspective in addressing the economic, social and environmental performance to
yield the sustainable outcomes in infrastructure. As verified in the various research
techniques, the industry practitioners value the development for a standardised
national sustainability assessment for infrastructure. This enhances triple-bottom
line benchmarking in future infrastructure projects and strengthens design
innovation and knowledge development in the infrastructure sector.
Thirdly, harnessing the development of the decision indicators for sustainability
enhances the collaboration among the various key stakeholders in decision making.
This development also provides good practice guidelines supporting the
institutional, market and regulatory requirements; and facilitates the consideration
beyond the engineering solutions in the project development of infrastructure.
Practically, these decision indicators create the impetus for change leading to
sustainability in the infrastructure sector.
Next, the decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure provide a staged
approach in assessing the various categories in the sustainability framework. In
meeting the objectives of a particular infrastructure project, these indicators could
be dynamically used and progressively upgraded to suit the decision making
26 Refer Table 2-5 in Chapter 2 of this thesis for the complete decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure.
121
Chapter 8 Conclusion
framework. The development of a wide spectrum of decision indicators for
sustainability also facilitates resource management; consolidating the
transportation needs; tracking waste, pollution and emissions; and mitigating the
climate change risks.
Lastly, with practical uptake by industry, the decision indicators establish the link
related to cognition and behaviours. Building on the findings obtained from the
practitioners through surveys, interviews and case studies, the infrastructure sector
is prepared for a modular approach with social and environmental consideration to
be built into their project evaluation baseline. Therefore, the development of the
decision indicators for sustainability also reinforces the study of individual attitudes,
organisational behaviour and public awareness towards the seriousness of
sustainability adoption. It makes a valuable knowledge contribution in the new
decision making regime leading to sustainability in infrastructure.
8.3 Research limitations
Determination of what data were needed and what data were available to provide
the outcomes was clearly the crucial steps leading to the practical outcomes in the
research inquiry. In view of the time frame available for this research, the sampling
size was considered reasonably adequate. Out of the forty respondents in the
questionnaire survey, a high percentage participated in the interviews and case
studies. However, the research outcomes could be further improved by
enlargement of the sampling size and increased participation from the public
sector. Enlargement of sampling size could include larger proportion of key people,
including decision makers in the institutional and governmental levels and
infrastructure owners across the capital cities in Australia.
122
Chapter 8 Conclusion
Furthermore, the intensiveness in research findings could also be further improved
by face-to-face interviews with people interstate, instead of long-distant
teleconferences. Long discussion and cross-sectoral meetings with key personnel in
the influential organisations of the private and public sectors at national level
remain a challenge for the researcher. The influential organisations could include
the leading mining, renewable energy and power generation organisations, while
the powerful public sector could comprise the active government lobby groups. The
author believes that the participation and contribution from these people could
have influential effects in the research findings in the areas of political will,
government directives, new policy change and sincerity in their commitment
leading to driving sustainability in the national interests.
Most importantly, the findings from this research have investigated the
preparedness for the infrastructure sector to move forward into a new
sustainability paradigm. The findings also contributed to a vital platform for
decision making towards sustainability for future research in the construction
industry.
8.4 Opportunities for future research
Continuous efforts in developing and fine-tuning sustainability decisions and
policies are required when considering the complexity and multi-disciplinary
aspects in the construction industry. Specifically in this research context, the
development of the decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure has
produced new knowledge contribution to several areas as described in the
preceding section. Moving on from the development of decision indicators, these
research findings could facilitate opportunities for future research in:
123
Chapter 8 Conclusion
Validating the newly developed decision indicators for sustainability for use
in the infrastructure sector nationally
Evaluating its usefulness and expandability to the contemporary financial
reporting and economic modelling
Linking the decision indicators for sustainability with legal and contractual
implications, in addition to triple-bottom-line objectives
Development of a standardised sustainability decision making guidelines in
infrastructure
Investigation of the sustainability barriers for the infrastructure sector and
formulation of strategies to overcome the constraints
Utilising and integrating the emerging sciences relating to multi-disciplinary
inputs to validate and strengthen the sustainability driver and its
performance indicators for decision making in infrastructure.
Ultimately, further research will enhance the need for continuous improvement in
the delivery and operation of infrastructure that replenishes natural and social
capital, and is not simply driven only by economic imperatives. Moreover, a
scientific and interdisciplinary approach to sustainability will be essential for the
development of the technical manuals and tools presently being formulated by
AGIC if they are to encourage positive development in infrastructure provision.
124
Chapter 8 Conclusion
8.5 Conclusion
Figure 8-1 Thesis title, research problem and research questions
Enhancing the positive transformation in the national construction industry, the
research findings suggest sustainability is being observed as a powerful and
influential socio-political and socio-environmental tool in assessing infrastructure
needs. Governments and practitioners in the industry play major roles in driving
and stimulating decisions leading to sustainability outcomes in infrastructure;
however, they can also be accounted for project failure resulted from over-
emphasis on politico-economic and fiscal drivers above the sustainability outcomes.
Therefore, decision indicators for sustainability seek to identify and align the
project goals with the actions required to balance triple-bottom-line approach.
Research Problem
• In addition to its economic value, how can infrastructure transform,
enhance and contribute positively to the environment and society?
Research Questions
• Q1 What have been the most deciding factors which steer
developments in the infrastructure sector? Why are positive
changes required?
• Q2 How can the changes be effectively adopted for enhancing
sustainability in infrastructure?
• Q3 How can decisions influence and drive the sustainability
outcomes in infrastructure?
Thesis Title
Sustainability: Driver for decision making in infrastructure
125
Chapter 8 Conclusion
Figure 8-1 reiterates the thesis title, research problem and research questions
which examined in this program. The emerging infrastructure sustainability
assessment framework provides the platform for change towards sustainability
adoption in the industry, whilst the newly developed decision indicators seek to
drive sustainability elements into the positive decision making in the various stages
of project life cycle. The research findings have identified the key criteria in driving
the sustainability outcomes in infrastructure. Secondly, the set of decision
indicators connects and enhances interrelationship, interdependency and
traceability in the applications of sustainability, decision making and infrastructure.
Thus, the decision indicators seek to establish the impetus for change leading to
sustainability in infrastructure by integrating societal care, environmental concern
into the well-structured financial management.
Thirdly, the decision indicators also enable the sustainability transformation in
infrastructure through cognitive development, leadership and commitment in
acknowledging the global climate change consequences and its adaptation needs.
Ultimately, the sustainability decision indicator development sets an important
benchmark to critically examine and evaluate the decisions for triple-bottom-line
objectives. This will raise the awareness and knowledge development among the
stakeholders and the community. Thus, the research findings concur that the
development of decision indicators has demonstrated sustainability must become a
vital driver for decision making in infrastructure.
A-1
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, R. (2009). Transforming Australian cities for a more financially viable and sustainable future: Transportation and urban design. Australian Economic Review, 42(2), 209-216.
AGIC. (2009). Welcome to the Australian Green Infrastructure Council. Retrieved 09 September, 2009, from http://www.agic.net.au/
Alfsen, K. H. & Greaker, M. (2007). From natural resources and environmental accounting to construction of indicators for sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 61(4), 600-610.
Amekudzi, A. A., Jotin Khisty, C. & Khayesi, M. (2009). Using the sustainability footprint model to assess development impacts of transportation systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 43(4), 339-348.
ASBEC. (2009). Aims and objectives - Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council. Retrieved 09 September, 2009, from http://www.asbec.asn.au/about_us/aims_and_objectives
Astleithner, F. & Hamedinger, A. (2003). Urban sustainability as a new form of governance: Obstacles and potentials in the case of Vienna 1. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 51-75.
Au-Yeung, B., Yigitcanlar, T. & Mayere, S. (2009). Brisbane urban growth model: Integrated sustainable urban and infrastructure management in Brisbane. Retrieved Jan 2010, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/20707/
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Year book Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
BCI Australia & Green Building Council of Australia. (2006). Green building market report 2006. Sydney: Green Building Council of Australia.
Bell, G. S. & Johns, D. A. (2006). A strategic approach to developing livable and sustainable arterial corridors in Auckland City, New Zealand. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 76(7), 30.
Birch, E. L. & Wachter, S. M. (2008). Growing greener cities: Urban sustainability in the twenty-first century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Birkeland, J. (2008). Positive development: From vicious circles to virtuous cycles through built environment design. London: Earthscan.
A-2
Bibliography
Bob, L. (2007). The commons revisited: The tragedy continues. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5806.
Bobker, M. F. (2006). Infrastructure conundrums: Investment and urban sustainability. Technology in Society, 28(1-2), 125-135.
Bragdon, C. R. (2009). Resilient communities: From sustainable to secure. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1157(1), 184-200.
Brisbane (Qld.). Council. (2009). How the Brisbane City Plan could change: Options for a sustainable future - A formal Statement of Proposals for the Brisbane City Plan 2000 review. Retrieved. from http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/_assets/main/lib576/statement_of_proposals_report_full.pdf.
Brown, B. J., Hanson, M. E., Liverman, D. M. & Merideth, R. W. (1987). Global sustainability: Toward definition. Environmental Management, 11(6), 713-719.
Brown, R. (2008). Local institutional development and organizational change for advancing sustainable urban water futures. Environmental Management, 41(2), 221-233.
Bruce, J. P., Yi, H.-s., Haites, E. F. & IPCC - Working Group III. (1996). Climate change 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate change. Cambridge [England]; New York: Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [by] Cambridge University Press.
Brundtland, G. H. & WCED. (1987). Our common future. [New York, N.Y.]: WCED.
Campbell, A. & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2007). An ethical approach to practitioner research: Dealing with issues and dilemmas in action research. London ; New York: Routledge.
Centre for International Economics. (2009). Review of economic aspects of Traveston Crossing Dam - Environmental Impact Assessment documentation. Canberra & Sydney. (C. f. I. Economics o. Document Number)
Chan, A. T. & Yeung, V. C. H. (2005). Implementing building energy codes in Hong Kong: Energy savings, environmental impacts and cost. Energy and Buildings, 37(6), 631-642.
Chen, H., Jia, B. & Lau, S. S. Y. (2008). Sustainable urban form for Chinese compact cities: Challenges of a rapid urbanized economy. Habitat International, 32(1), 28-40.
Chen, S.-H. (2008). Heading toward sustainable development from adaptation to climate change. Paddy and Water Environment, 6(2), 167-170.
A-3
Bibliography
Claire, R. & Sally, S. (2008). Cashing in on the green machine: Are developers in the UK missing out? International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 1(4), 362.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
CSIRO. (2010). The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO): Environment. Retrieved 01 May 2010, from http://www.csiro.au/science/Environment.html
Dasgupta, S. & Tam, E. K. L. (2005). Indicators and framework for assessing sustainable infrastructure. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 30-44.
Del Río, P. & Burguillo, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability: Towards a theoretical framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(5), 1325-1344.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Diesendorf, M. (2007). Greenhouse solutions with sustainable energy. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Dimitriou, H. T. (2006). Towards a generic sustainable urban transport strategy for middle-sized cities in Asia: Lessons from Ningbo, Kanpur and Solo. Habitat International, 30(4), 1082-1099.
Dimopoulos, N. (2009). Sustainable transport for future cities: Future city transport. Melbourne, Australia: NTC, Australia.
Dzeng, R.-J. & Wang, S.-S. (2008). An analysis of infrastructure development based on national competitiveness perspectives. Construction Management and Economics, 26(1), 47 - 61.
EPHC. (2009). Waste Management - Environment Protection and Heritage Council of Australia and New Zealand. Retrieved 18 December, 2009, from http://www.ephc.gov.au/taxonomy/term/79
Filion, P. & McSpurren, K. (2007). Smart growth and development reality: The difficult co-ordination of land use and transport objectives. Urban Stud, 44(3), 501-523.
Fillingham, C. (2004). Key to greening communities. Daily Commercial News and Construction Record, 77(239), 4.
A-4
Bibliography
Fiskel, J. (2007). Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 35(3), 5-5.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fred, C. (2007). Climate change, peak oil, and globalization: Contradictions of natural capital. Review of Radical Political Economics, 39(3), 385.
Gillham, B. & Ebooks Corporation. (2005). Research interviewing the range of techniques. from http://www.qut.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron?target=patron&extendedid=P_287863_0&
Girardet, H. (2008). Surviving the century: Facing climate chaos and other global challenges. from http://www.qut.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron?target=patron&extendedid=P_430110_0&
Gleeson, B. & Low, N. (2003). Australian urban planning new challenges, new agendas. from http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://etitle.title.com.au/Openlib/olcontent.asp?a=77&b=240&c=1&d=1&e=1
Goldman, T. & Gorham, R. (2005). Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions. Technology in Society, 28(1-2), 261-273.
Graziano, A. M. & Raulin, M. L. (2007). Research methods: A process of inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Green Building Council of Australia. (2002). Green Building Council of Australia. from http://www.gbca.org.au/welcome.asp
Hargroves, K. & Smith, M. H. (2005). The natural advantage of nations: Business opportunities, innovation, and governance in the 21st century. London Sterling, Va.: Earthscan.
Herb, T. (2007). Managing urban futures: Sustainability and urban growth in developing countries. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 37(2), 271.
Hersh, M. A. (1997). Sustainable decision making: The role of decision support systems. IEE Seminar Digests, 1997(366), 6.
Hersh, M. A. (1998). Sustainable decision making and decision support systems. Computing & Control Engineering Journal, 9(6), 289-295.
Hezri, A. A. & Dovers, S. R. (2006). Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 86-99.
A-5
Bibliography
Hezri, A. A. & Hasan, M. N. (2004). Management framework for sustainable development indicators in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. Ecological Indicators, 4(4), 287-304.
Holden, M. (2006). Urban indicators and the integrative ideals of cities. Cities, 23(3), 170-183.
Houck, J. & Rickerson, W. (2009). The sustainable energy utility (SEU) model for energy service delivery. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(2), 95-107.
Ian, H. (2006). Stemming urban sprawl. Daily Commercial News and Construction Record, 79(119), 1.
Infrastructure Australia. (2009a). Better infrastructure decision-making. Retrieved 10 January 2010. from http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/files/IA_Reform_Investment_Framework_Guidance_7Oct.pdf.
Infrastructure Australia. (2009b). Webpage of Australian Government - Infrastructure Australia. Retrieved 09 September, 2009, from http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/
Infrastructure Australia. (2010). State of Australian cities 2010. Canberra, ACT: Infrastructure Australia, Major Cities Unit.
IPCC. (2008). Climate change and water. from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tp-climate-change-water.htm
IUCN. (2006). The future of sustainability: Re-thinking environment and development in the 21 century o. Document Number)
James, H., Michael, M., Jack, C., Richard, S. & Zoë, B. (2005). Creative destruction: Building toward sustainability. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 170.
James, K. & Matt, L. (2008). Bridging the gaps between theory and practice: A service niche approach to urban sustainability indicators. Sustainable Development, 16(5), 329-340.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
A-6
Bibliography
Jong, M. d., Mu, R., Stead, D., Ma, Y. & Xi, B. (2009). Introducing public-private partnerships for metropolitan subways in China: What is the evidence? Journal of Transport Geography, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Kayrooz, C. & Trevitt, C. (2005). Research in organisations and communities: Tales from the real world. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.
Koo, D.-H., Ariaratnam, S. T. & Kavazanjian, J. E. (2009). Development of a sustainability assessment model for underground infrastructure projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(5), 765-776.
Kunsch, P., Theys, M. & Brans, J. (2007). The importance of systems thinking in ethical and sustainable decision-making. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 15(3), 253-269.
Kurucz, E. C. (2005). The social dynamics of sustainability: An inductive exploration of sustainability as social construction. Unpublished Ph.D., York University (Canada), Canada.
Lambert, S. & Loiselle, C. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228.
Lemanski, C. (2007). Global cities in the south: Deepening social and spatial polarisation in Cape Town. Cities, 24(6), 448-461.
Lim, J. N. & Ofori, G. (2007). Classification of innovation for strategic decision making in construction businesses. Construction Management and Economics, 25(9), 963.
Linton, J. D. & Yeomans, J. S. (2003). The role of forecasting in sustainability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(1), 21-38.
Lu, W. (2007). Potential energy savings and environmental impacts of energy efficiency standards for vapour compression central air conditioning units in China. Energy Policy, 35(3), 1709-1717.
Manoliadis, O., Tsolas, I. & Nakou, A. (2006). Sustainable construction and drivers of change in Greece: a Delphi study. Construction Management & Economics, 24(2), 113-120.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
May, A. D., Page, M. & Hull, A. (2008). Developing a set of decision-support tools for sustainable urban transport in the UK. Transport Policy, 15(6), 328-340.
McCann, E. J. (2004). Urban political economy beyond the 'global city'. Urban Studies, 41(12), 2315-2333.
A-7
Bibliography
Milder, J. C. (2007). A framework for understanding conservation development and its ecological implications. Bioscience, 57(9), 757-768.
Mulder, K. (2006). Sustainable development for engineers: A handbook and resource guide. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Newman, P. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 219-226.
Newman, P. (2005). Car glut threatens the sustainability of cities. Australasian Science, 26(7), 43.
Newman, P., Beatley, T. & Boyer, H. (2008). Resilient cities: Responding to peak oil and climate change. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Nilsson, B. B. (1997). The greening of business: Reasons, methods and learning. Unpublished Ed.D., University of Toronto (Canada), Canada.
O'Hara, P. A. (2009). Political economy of climate change, ecological destruction and uneven development. Ecological Economics, 69(2), 223-234.
Olewiler, N. (2006). Environmental sustainability for urban areas: The role of natural capital indicators. Cities, 23(3), 184-195.
Pellet, J. (2009). Succeeding with sustainability. Chief Executive(240), 66.
Pettenger, M. E. (2009). The social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discources. Aldershot, Hants, England Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Porteous, A. (2008). Dictionary of environmental science and technology (4th ed.). Chichester, England New York: Wiley.
Quinn, L. (1996). Sustainability: Another new paradigm. Civil Engineering, 66(10), 6.
Ralph, I. G. (1999). The changing face of infrastructure management. Systems Engineering, 2(4), 226-236.
Riddell, T. (2005). Economics: A tool for critically understanding society (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Addison Wesley.
Sahely, H. R., Kennedy, C. A. & Adams, B. J. (2005). Developing sustainability criteria for urban infrastructure systems. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1), 72-85.
Saris, W. E. & Gallhofer, I. N. (2007). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
A-8
Bibliography
Searle, G. (2004). The limits to urban consolidation: A framework to assessing limits. Australian Planner, 41(1), 42-48.
Shmelev, S. & Shmeleva, I. (2009). Sustainable cities: Problems of integrated interdisciplinary research. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(1), 4.
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K. & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189-212.
Situma, L. (2007). Expectations of the national transport master plan, Pretoria, South Africa.
Skousen, M. (2009). The making of modern economics: The lives and ideas of the great thinkers (2nd ed.). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Soanes, C. & Hawker, S. (2006). Compact Oxford English dictionary for university and college students. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Söderbaum, P. (2004). Democracy, markets and sustainable development: The European Union as an example. European Environment, 14(6), 342.
Söderbaum, P. (2006). Democracy and sustainable development: What is the alternative to cost-benefit analysis? Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(2), 182.
Spearritt, P. (2009). The 200km city: Brisbane, The Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. Australian Economic History Review, 49(1), 87-106.
Stern, N. H. & Great Britain Treasury. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stopher, P. R. (2004). Reducing road congestion: A reality check. Transport Policy, 11(2), 117-131.
Störmer, E., Truffer, B., Dominguez, D., Gujer, W., Herlyn, A., Hiessl, H., Kastenholz, H., Klinke, A., Markard, J., Maurer, M. & Ruef, A. (2009). The exploratory analysis of trade-offs in strategic planning: Lessons from regional infrastructure foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1150-1162.
Sustainability Victoria. (2010). Acting together for a sustainable future. Retrieved 02 March, 2010, from http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/www/html/1517-home-page.asp
Taylor, G. R. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in research, 2d ed. Scitech Book News, 30(1).
A-9
Bibliography
Taylor, P. (2004). National action towards sustainability. Engineers Australia, 76(7), 52.
Thabrew, L., Wiek, A. & Ries, R. (2009). Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: Applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(1), 67-76.
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative & quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Turner, P. & Turner, S. (2009). Triangulation in practice. Virtual Reality, 13(3), 171.
Ugwu, O. O. & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability: A South African construction industry perspective. Building and Environment, 42(2), 665-680.
Ugwu, O. O., Kumaraswamy, M. M., Wong, A. & Ng, S. T. (2006). Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development of indicators and computational methods. Automation in Construction, 15(2), 239-251.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2010). Demographic dynamics and sustainability. Retrieved 20 April 2010, 2010, from http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/indisd/english/chapt5e.htm
UNEP. (2008). UNEP annual report. from http://www.unep.org/publications/Annual_Reports.asp
Verbruggen, A., Fischedick, M., Moomaw, W., Weir, T., Nadaï, A., Nilsson, L. J., Nyboer, J. & Sathaye, J. (2009). Renewable energy costs, potentials, barriers: Conceptual issues. Energy Policy, 38(2), 850-861.
Verhoef, E. V., van Houwelingen, J. A., Dijkema, G. P. J. & Reuter, M. A. (2006). Industrial ecology and waste infrastructure development: A roadmap for the Dutch waste management system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(3), 302-315.
Vojnovic, I. (1999). The environmental costs of modernism: An assessment of Canadian cities. Cities, 16(5), 301-313.
Waddell, P., Ulfarsson, G. F., Franklin, J. P. & Lobb, J. (2007). Incorporating land use in metropolitan transportation planning. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(5), 382-410.
Walmsley, A. (2006). Greenways: Multiplying and diversifying in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 76(1-4), 252-290.
A-10
Bibliography
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
Whitford, A. & Wong, K. (2009). Political and social foundations for environmental sustainability. Political Research Quarterly, 62(1), 190.
Williams, K. & Dair, C. (2007). A framework for assessing the sustainability of brownfield developments. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 50(1), 23-40.
Wolf, T. & Meyer, B. C. (2009). Suburban scenario development based on multiple landscape assessments. Ecological Indicators, 10(1), 74-86.
World Bank. (2010). World development indicator. Retrieved 20 April, 2010, from http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2006/contents/Section5_1.htm
Zachariadis, T. (2005). Assessing policies towards sustainable transport in Europe: An integrated model. Energy Policy, 33(12), 1509-1525.
A-11
Appendices
APPENDICES
Appendix A : Email for invitation to online questionnaire
survey
Appendix B : Reminder letter for submission of
questionnaire survey
Appendix C : Online survey questionnaire
Appendix D : Survey Report as generated from Key
Survey
Appendix E : Letter for invitation for interview
Appendix F : Interview questionnaire
[0 master_101028]
top related