measuring the sustainable performance of public infrastructure · iso/ts 21929-2:2015...
TRANSCRIPT
Measuring the
Sustainable
Performance of
Public
Infrastructure
Mike Benson, MITUniversity of New Brunswick, Masters Candidate
Jeff Rankin, P.Eng.University of New Brunswick, Chair in Construction Engineering and Management
Overview
• Sustainability
• Measuring Sustainable Performance
• Sustainable Efficiency Model (SEM)
• Case Study
• Lessons Learned
2
Sustainability
3
Environmental
Protection
Social
Development
Economic
Development
Sustainable
Development
Sustainability
4
So what does this include?
It depends on who you ask…
Sustainability
5
Sustainability
6
ISO/TS 21929-2:2015
Sustainability in building construction -- Sustainability
indicators -- Part 2: Framework for the development of
indicators for civil engineering works
Not perfect but it can provide owners
with a starting point
Sustainability
7
ISO/TS 21929-2:2015
Economic Environmental Social
Life-Cycle Costs GHG Emissions Health and Safety
Other External Costs Material Use Job Creation
Water Use Cultural Heritage
Energy Use Access to Nature
Waste Production Urban Sprawl
Eutrophication Potential Public Acceptability
Acidification Potential Aesthetic Value
Ozone Depletion Potential
Land Use Changes
Tells us what to measure, not how to measure
8
How can we measure the
sustainable performance of
public infrastructure?
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Measuring Performance
9
1. Monetary
• Impacts are given a dollar
value to determine their
relative impact.
e.g. Value of a Fatality = $9.6
million (US DOT 2016)
2. Non-Monetary
• Impacts are given points
to determine their relative
impact.
e.g. Reducing 1 fatality per
year = 20 points
Measuring Performance
10
1. Monetary
Advantages
• Common unit (dollar)
• Life-cycle analysis
• Easily include uncertainty
Disadvantages
• Cannot include all criteria
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046
Socia
l B
enefit
($C
2016)
Year
Measuring Performance
11
2. Non-Monetary
Multi-Criteria Analysis
Advantages
• Can include any criteria
• Flexible methodologies
• Simple and easy to use
Disadvantages
• Subjective weighting factors
• What metrics do we use?
Measuring Performance
12
2. Non-Monetary
Rating Schemes
These are essentially MCAs that
have been built by a credentialing
organization
Why not both?
13
Sustainable Efficiency Model
14
“Stochastic decision support system which
combines economic, environmental, and social
criteria into a single quantitative indicator using
monetary and non-monetary methods”
𝑆𝐸𝑆𝑎 =
𝑖=1
𝐼
𝑤𝑖 𝑚𝐵𝐶𝑅𝑖𝑎 +
𝑗=1
𝐽
𝑤𝑗 𝑄𝑇𝐸𝐼𝑗𝑎 +
𝑘=1
𝐾
𝑤𝑘 𝑄𝐿𝐸𝐼𝑘𝑎
Monetary Non-Monetary
Sustainable Efficiency Model
15
Emphasis is on the use of efficiency indicators…
Measuring how effectively an infrastructure project
achieves an objective. All criteria are then on a
common scale (between -1.00 and 1.00).
3 Types of Indicators:
1. Monetary
2. Non-Monetary Quantitative
3. Non-Monetary Qualitative
Applications of the SEM
16
1. Project Prioritization
2. Compare Design Alternatives
3. Network/Systems Decision Making
Case Study – Project Prioritization
17
City of Fredericton
Project A – Major City
Intersection Upgrades
Project B – Additional
Secondary Clarifier
Which one has the higher
sustainable performance?
Case Study – Project Prioritization
18
Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades
Case Study – Project Prioritization
19
Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades
Project highlights:
• Intersection re-design to improve safety
• Reconstruction of existing concrete intersection
• Replacement of underground services
• Increased lighting and visibility.
Case Study – Project Prioritization
20
Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades
Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency IndicatorIndicator
TypeResult Wi
SESi x
100
Economic
(18.9%)
Life-Cycle Costs = PVLCC/Ca M 0.13 10.9% 1.45
Travel Time = PVTT/Ca M 0.15 6.8% 1.00
Environmental
(29%)
GHG Emissions = PVGHG/Ca M 0.00 6.0% 0.02
Land Use Changes None n/a 0.00 3.6% 0.00
Material Use = RMi/RMmax NMQT 0.05 2.4% 0.12
Energy Use = ∆EU/EUo NMQT 0.59 1.9% 1.12
Water Use = ∆WU/WUo NMQT 0.91 3.5% 3.16
Waste Reduction = WR/WG NMQT 0.00 4.0% 0.00
Eutrophication Potential None n/a 0.00 2.6% 0.00
Acidification Potential None n/a 0.00 2.0% 0.00
Ozone Depletion Potential None n/a 0.00 2.3% 0.00
Social
(53.1%)
Health and Safety = PVH&S/Ca M 0.55 37.1% 20.44
Access to Nature Contribution to Nature Access NMQL 0.20 2.1% 0.43
Urban Sprawl Contribution to Urban Sprawl NMQL -0.20 2.4% -0.49
Public Acceptance Degree of Public Acceptance NMQL 0.40 1.9% 0.75
Aesthetic Value Contribution to Aesthetic Value NMQL 0.40 1.8% 0.71
Job Creation = LRi/LRI NMQT 0.57 4.5% 2.57
Cultural Heritage None n/a 0.00 4.2% 0.00
Total 31.27
Case Study – Project Prioritization
21
Project B – Additional Secondary Clarifier
Case Study – Project Prioritization
22
Project B – Additional Secondary Clarifier
Project highlights:
• Significant capacity upgrade
• Redundancy to allow for maintenance
• Avoid primary bypass during wet season
23
Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades
Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency IndicatorIndicator
TypeResult Wi
SESi x
100
Economic
(18.9%)
Life-Cycle Costs = PVLCC/Ca M -0.10 10.9% -1.12
Travel Time = PVTT/Ca M 0.00 6.8% 0.00
Environmental
(29%)
GHG Emissions = PVGHG/Ca M 0.00 6.0% 0.00
Land Use Changes None n/a -0.04 3.6% -0.14
Material Use = RMi/RMmax NMQT 0.00 2.4% 0.00
Energy Use = ∆EU/EUo NMQT -0.02 1.9% -0.04
Water Use = ∆WU/WUo NMQT 0.92 3.5% 3.22
Waste Reduction = WR/WG NMQT 0.00 4.0% 0.00
Eutrophication Potential None n/a 0.94 2.6% 2.49
Acidification Potential None n/a 0.00 2.0% 0.00
Ozone Depletion Potential None n/a 0.00 2.3% 0.00
Social
(53.1%)
Health and Safety = PVH&S/Ca M 0.00 37.1% 0.05
Access to Nature Contribution to Nature Access NMQL 0.00 2.1% 0.00
Urban Sprawl Contribution to Urban Sprawl NMQL 0.20 2.4% 0.49
Public Acceptance Degree of Public Acceptance NMQL 0.60 1.9% 1.12
Aesthetic Value Contribution to Aesthetic Value NMQL 0.00 1.8% 0.00
Job Creation = LRi/LRI NMQT 0.21 4.5% 0.96
Cultural Heritage None n/a 0.00 4.2% 0.00
Total 7.02
Case Study – Project Prioritization
Case Study – Project Prioritization
24
Comparing the two…
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Re
lati
ve F
req
ue
ncy
Sustainable Efficiency Score (SES)
Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrades
Regent and Prospect Street Intersection Upgrades
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
Case Study – Project Prioritization
25
Lessons Learned
1. Inclusion of regulatory requirements and legal
commitments
• Wastewater treatment (mandated) vs. transportation
upgrades (discretionary)
2. Need for a collaborative and integrated evaluation
team
3. Criteria should be flexible – every jurisdiction has
challenges that are unique to them…
Something to think about…
26
1. What economic, environmental, or
social impacts are important to your
organization?
2. How will you evaluate these criteria?
3. How will they be included in the larger
decision making process?