sustainability driver for decision making in … · figure 2-2 concentric circles representing...

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 4-2 Proportions of participant’s background 60

Figure 4-3 Response for Question 1 in survey 61







Figure 4-10 Response for Question 8(a) in survey 65






VII

List of Figures






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


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


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



4


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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/

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

13


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


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


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/

http://www.iucn.org/about/

16


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


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/

http://www.pc.gov.au/

18


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


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


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


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/

http://www.agic.net.au/

22


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


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


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


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


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


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


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/

http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/

29


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.agic.net.au/Tool_category_overviews.htm

34


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


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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



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




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


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.


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




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


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.


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



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



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


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


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


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.




Improvement in carbon footprint reduction

Enabling integration of the major Environmental. Social and Governance (ESG)

considerations into the project and risk …


Facilitating good governance in operation/ asset management


Facilitating staff training

1. Strong Influence 2. Some Influence 3. Little Influence 4. No Influence

73



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.



Improvement in carbon footprint reduction

Enabling integration of the major Environmental. Social and Governance (ESG)

considerations into the project and risk …


Facilitating good governance in operation/ asset management


Facilitating staff training

1. Strong Influence 2. Some Influence 3. Little Influence 4. No Influence

74



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


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


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


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.


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


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

http://www.mainroads.qld.gov.au/en/News-and-media/News/News-archive/Brisbanes-Northern-Busway-reduces-travel-time-for-commuters.aspx

http://www.mainroads.qld.gov.au/en/News-and-media/News/News-archive/Brisbanes-Northern-Busway-reduces-travel-time-for-commuters.aspx

91


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


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


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

http://www.leightoncontractors.com.au/verve/_resources/new-perth-bunbury-highway.pdf

94


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

http://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/BUILDINGROADS/PROJECTS/COMPLETEDPROJECTS/Pages/npbh.aspx

http://www.leightoncontractors.com.au/verve/_resources/new-perth-bunbury-highway.pdf

http://www.ghd.com/global/locations/australia/western-australia/

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ieaust/index.cfm?4B274629-D2B5-F3D1-EC4C-DA5201D2A5E5

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ieaust/index.cfm?4B274629-D2B5-F3D1-EC4C-DA5201D2A5E5

95


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


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

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2006/3150/traveston-dam-the-federal-process.html


97


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



http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/pubs/mr20091111.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/pubs/mr20091202a.pdf

98


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

http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/traveston/

http://www.leighton.com.au/about_us/projects/northern_gateway_alliance.html

99


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

http://www.leightoncontractors.com.au/about_leighton/company_overview/awards.html

100


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


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


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


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



105


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


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


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


Environment

Society/ community

Operation and management

Project life cycle

Biodiversity

Climate change


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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]

sustainability driver for decision making in … · figure 2-2 concentric circles representing...

Documents