Search results

This section describes sustainable development (SD) in relation to infrastructure projects and explains how to evaluate SD. SD is assessed as context-dependent, considering the project’s economic, social, and ecological context. Sustainable road infrastructure projects (SRIP) should encapsulate the complete life cycle from idea to development, functionality, and maintenance. SD should be considered as part of the evaluation process prior to project execution, but it can also serve other functions. Sustainability evaluation must start with project appraisal or evaluation and the earliest stages of project decision-making. Sustainable infrastructure projects (SIPs) are evaluated using a variety of techniques and models, such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), multi-criteria techniques, ecological and societal impact assessments, ranking techniques, models, and evaluation guidelines. Established SD structures and modelling techniques for infrastructure projects are presented from an SD perspective, with the primary objective of investigating how they operate and determining whether existing models provide an effective method for applying the SD idea into infrastructure development. CBA is a widely used strategy for evaluating alternatives to maximize sociocultural well-being. It is based on the likelihood of costing customer advantages and negative impacts and has been discussed in scholarly articles. The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach is an acceptable methodology for addressing complex matters involving high risk, conflicting objectives, different types of information and data, different concerns and points of view, and the representation of complex and evolving biological, ecological, and financial frameworks. It combines many methodologies and offers various advantages over more conventional ways of decision-making and plan development. It should be used to increase community participation and empower partner organizations and should apply several criteria at the same time, including those that are difficult to adjust and quantify. The key difficulty with this strategy is the usage of weightings, which has been sharply criticized by several researchers. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an adaptive tool used to assess the ecological effects of a particular action, task, or procedure. It is applied globally to decision-making in numerous fields, including transportation, energy, and water, and has become a typical tool for determining the ecological performance of infrastructure projects. However, it has a few flaws and could benefit from improvements to assess SD with greater precision. It is a fragmented mechanism for assessing the three components of SD, but its incorporation into other evaluation approaches is desirable. The evaluation of societal implications has been conducted using a variety of methods and techniques, but there is currently no standard method for assessing the communal and appropriation consequences of infrastructure initiatives. Social life-cycle assessments (SLCAs) are advancing, but consensus remains a challenge. The Evaluation Partnership and the Centre for European Policy Studies identified several obstacles and challenges to implementing an outstanding societal assessment, such as the term ‘societal impacts’ being potentially overbroad and not adequately defined, and the lack of a suitable method for quantitatively evaluating sociological effects. Additionally, a large section of societal assessments is biased and frequently inconsequential. The chapter discussed the theoretical and methodological stances on sustainable road infrastructure, using current SID concepts and evaluation techniques thoroughly.

The need for infrastructure is growing as urbanization picks up speed, and the infrastructure REITs financing model has been crucial in reviving the vast infrastructure stock, alleviating the pressure on government funds and diversifying investment entities. This study aims to propose a framework to better assess the risks of infrastructure REITs, which can serve for the researchers and the policy makers to propose risk mitigation strategies and policy recommendations more purposively to facilitate successful implementation and long-term development of infrastructure REITs.

The infrastructure REITs risk evaluation index system is established through literature review and factor analysis, and the optimal comprehensive weight of the index is calculated using the combination weight. Then, a risk evaluation cloud model of infrastructure REITs is constructed, and experts quantify the qualitative language of infrastructure REITs risks. This paper verifies the feasibility and effectiveness of the model by taking a basic REITs project in China as an example. This paper takes infrastructure REITs project in China as an example, to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the cloud evaluation method.

The research outcome shows that infrastructure REITs risks manifest in the risk of policy and legal, underlying asset, market, operational and credit. The main influencing factors in terms of their weights are tax policy risk, operation and management risk, liquidity risk, termination risk and default risk. The financing project is at a higher risk, and the probability of risk is 64.2%.

This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by supplementing a set of scientific and practical risk evaluation methods to assess the potential risks of infrastructure REITs project, which contributes the infrastructure financing risk management system. Identify key risk factors for infrastructure REITs with underlying assets, which contributes to infrastructure REITs project management. This research can help relevant stakeholders to control risks throughout the infrastructure investment and financing life cycle, provide them with reference for investment and financing decision-making and promote more sustainable and healthy development of infrastructure REITs in developing countries.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a novel risk analysis method named fuzzy critical risk analysis (FCRA) for assessing the infrastructure risks from a risk-community network perspective. The basis of this new FCRA method is the integration of existing risk magnitude analysis with the novel risk impact propagation analysis performed in specific infrastructure systems to assess the criticality of risk within specific social-infrastructure interrelated network boundary.

The FCRA uses a number of scientific methods such as failure mode effect and criticality analysis (FMECA), social network analysis (SNA) and fuzzy-set theory to facilitate the building of risk evaluation associated with the infrastructure and the community. The proposed FCRA approach has been developed by integrating the fuzzy-based social network analysis (FSNA) method with conventional fuzzy FMECA method to analyse the most critical risk based on risk decision factors and risk impact propagation generated by various stakeholder perceptions.

The application of FSNA is considered to be highly relevant for investigating the risk impact propagation mechanism based on various stakeholder perceptions within the infrastructure risk interrelation and community networks. Although conventional FMECA methods have the potential for resulting in a reasonable risk ranking based on its magnitude value within the traditional risk assessment method, the lack of considering the domino effect of the infrastructure risk impact, the various degrees of community dependencies and the uncertainty of various stakeholder perceptions made such methods grossly ineffective in the decision-making of risk prevention (and mitigation) and resilience context.

The validation of the model is currently based on a hypothetical case which in the future should be applied empirically based on a real case study.

Effective functioning of the infrastructure systems for seamless operation of the society is highly crucial. Yet, extreme events resulted in failure scenarios often undermine the efficient operations and consequently affect the community at multiple levels. Current risk analysis methodologies lack to address issues related to diverse impacts on communities and propagation of risks impact within the infrastructure system based on multi-stakeholders’ perspectives. The FCRA developed in this research has been validated in a hypothetical case of infrastructure context. The proposed method will potentially assist the decision-making regarding risk governance, managing the vulnerability of the infrastructure and increasing both the infrastructure and community resilience.

The new approach developed in this research addresses several infrastructure risks assessment challenges by taking into consideration of not only the risk events associated with the infrastructure systems but also the dependencies of various type communities and cascading effect of risks within the specific risk-community networks. Such a risk-community network analysis provides a good basis for community-based risk management in the context of mitigation of disaster risks and building better community resilient.

The novelty of proposed FCRA method is realized due to its ability for improving the estimation accuracy and decision-making based on multi-stakeholder perceptions. The process of assessment of the most critical risks in the hypothetical case project demonstrated an eminent performance of FCRA method as compared to the results in conventional risk analysis method. This research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, based on a comprehensive literature review, this work established a benchmark for development of a new risk analysis method within the infrastructure and community networks. Second, this study validates the effectiveness of the model by integrating fuzzy-based FMECA with FSNA. The approach is considered useful from a methodological advancement when prioritizing similar or competing risk criticality values.

As evacuation is one of the most used response actions to such disasters, it is essential to understand correctly what a resilient evacuation would mean. One critical factor in evacuation resilience is the resilience level of evacuation infrastructures. Also, UN sustainable development has a goal to build resilient infrastructures. This study aims to investigate the characteristics of resilient evacuation infrastructures.

A systematic methodology for reviewing articles has been implemented to understand how vulnerable cities can be more prepared, especially for pedestrian evacuation.

This study has developed an evacuation scoring system framework for pedestrians to investigate evacuation infrastructure in terms of different resilience features, such as redundancy, safe-to-fail, readiness and capacity. The most practical evacuation system will be estimated. The output of this study can provide insight into a final output to provide the features of a successful pedestrian evacuation system for future policy drafting for infrastructure strategy decision-makers.

Climate change has made the risks of natural hazards such as tsunamis more intense for humans. Many people in the world live in hazardous environments and are susceptible to disasters. A community must be prepared to mitigate the destructive event and quickly respond to be called resilient.

This is an original work. The researcher has gone through a deep literature review and developed a cluster showing the features a resilient evacuation infrastructure should have.

The purpose of this paper is to present a novel approach that examines the vulnerability and interdependency of critical infrastructures using the network theory in geographic information system (GIS) setting in combination with literature and government reports. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to generate the network models of critical infrastructure systems (CISs), particularly electricity, roads and sewerage networks; to characterize the CISs’ interdependencies; and to outline the climate adaptation (CA) and flood mitigation measures of CIS.

An integrated approach was undertaken in assessing the vulnerability and interdependency of critical infrastructures. A single system model and system-of-systems model were operationalized to examine the vulnerability and interdependency of the identified critical infrastructures in GIS environment. Existing CA and flood mitigation measures from government reports were integrated in the above-mentioned findings to better understand and gain focus in the implementation of natural disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies, particularly during the 2010/2011 floods in Queensland, Australia.

Using the results from the above-mentioned approach, the spatially explicit framework was developed with four key operational dimensions: conceiving the climate risk environment; understanding the critical infrastructures’ common cause and cascade failures; modeling individual infrastructure system and system-of-systems level within GIS setting; and integrating the above-mentioned results with the government reports to increase CA and resilience measures of flood-affected critical infrastructures.

While natural DRR measures include preparation, response and recovery, this study focused on flood mitigation. Temporal analysis and application to other natural disasters were also not considered in the analysis.

By providing this information, government-owned corporations, CISs managers and other concerned stakeholders will allow to identify infrastructure assets that are highly critical, identify vulnerable infrastructures within areas of very high flood risk, examine the interdependency of critical infrastructures and the effects of cascaded failures, identify ways of reducing flood risk and extreme climate events and prioritize DRR measures and CA strategies.

The individualist or “pigeon-hole” approach has been the common method of analyzing infrastructures’ exposure to flood hazards and tends to separately examine the risk for different types of infrastructure (e.g. electricity, water, sewerage, roads and rails and stormwater). This study introduced an integrated approach of analyzing infrastructure risk to damage and cascade failure due to flooding. Aside from introducing the integrated approach, this study operationalized GIS-based vulnerability assessment and interdependency of critical infrastructures which had been unsubstantially considered in the past analytical frameworks. The authors considered this study of high significance, considering that floodplain planning schemes often lack the consideration of critical infrastructure interdependency.

Participatory action research can improve scientific knowledge and community capacity to address disaster resilience and environmental justice. Evidence from the literature suggests that resident participation enhances assessment of environmental risks, raises awareness and empowers residents to fight for equitable distribution of hazard and climate risk adaptations. Yet, risk assessment and urban planning processes still frequently operate within expertise-driven groups without significant community engagement. Such fragmentation results in part from a lack of appreciation for community expertise in built environment adaptations and educational tools to support resident involvement in the often technical built environment planning processes.

A participatory research and place-based education project was developed that enhanced co-learning between residents and researchers while collecting and analyzing local data on flood resilience in the built environment. Five research activities constitute the curriculum of resilience education on stormwater infrastructure: establishment of partnership agreement/memorandum of understanding, participatory GIS to identify flooding issues, water quality testing and health survey, stormwater infrastructure assessment and urban/landscape design. Partners included high school and college students, residents and environmental justice organizations.

Outcomes include a stakeholder-approved infrastructure assessment smartphone application, neighborhood maps of drainage issues, a report of water containments and neighborhood-scaled green infrastructure provisions and growth plans. Findings indicate that participatory research positively contributed to resilience knowledge of participants.

This paper outlines an interdisciplinary pedagogical strategy for resilience planning that engages residents to assess and monitor the performance of stormwater infrastructure and create resilience plans. The paper also discusses challenges and opportunities for similar participatory projects.

The “renaturing” of cities through an increased emphasis on the use of nature-based solutions (NBS) potentially offers urban areas the opportunity to deliver multiple environmental and socioeconomic benefits. In particular, approaches linked to NBS can limit the degree of climate exposure and vulnerability impacting upon urban infrastructures. The success of NBS in addressing climate change pressures will require an improved understanding of the characteristics of environmental risk and the ability to evaluate alternate adaptive pathways. In response, this chapter explores those components which are central to effective urban infrastructure assessment and considers how they may assist in the formulation of infrastructure strategies.

We stress the need for an approach which is both scenario-focused and fully integrated within existing spatial planning frameworks. Here, we draw specific attention to the utility of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in both embedding environmental evaluation within mainstream spatial planning and providing the basis for the comparative evaluation of alternatives. We also argue for an approach which recognizes areas of complementary interaction between “gray infrastructure” (whether existing or proposed) and approaches linked to NBS. In order to highlight examples of potential development responses, we draw on best-practice case study examples from the European Union (EU)–funded GROWGREEN project.

The Australian accounting profession has advocated that infrastructure should be accounted for by reporting it at current written down replacement values, on the basis that these financial disclosures would provide relevant information to stakeholders. While local councils are required to apply the profession’s asset valuation and accrual standards in preparing general purpose financial reports, the State of New South Wales has gone further by requiring local councils to also present information about the physical condition of infrastructure, together with estimates of the cost of bringing that infrastructure to a satisfactory condition, and the annual costs of maintaining infrastructure at that standard thereafter. This paper examines how this information was reported for 1995‐96. Analysis of reporting practices suggest that while there are some anomalies and uncertainties surrounding the rating of physical condition and the concept of “satisfactory condition”, the disclosures provided by NSW local government are more informative and arguably more relevant to external stakeholders and those responsible for asset management in local government than the information currently prescribed by accounting standards.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the severity of social and economic impact of floods on the communities and industries with respect to their reliance on the flood impacted critical infrastructure. This paper illustrates a severity assessment tool to determine the reduced serviceability level of critical infrastructure after a disaster, how the change in serviceability impacts activities of associated communities and industries, and the resulting social and economic impact.

The results presented in this paper are a part of a larger research designed to develop a decision support system for disaster impact mitigation. This research evaluated the impact of floods as a natural hazard on infrastructure and the related industries and communities in terms of criticality and vulnerability of infrastructure and the severity of social and economic impact if the critical infrastructure were to be affected. The overall research focused on the 2008 Midwest floods for the required data collection (including the cities of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Terre Haute, Indiana, St Louis, Missouri, Gulfport and Des Plaines, Illinois). Relevant data were collected through questionnaire surveys, personal interviews, and site visits.

The data collected through this research highlighted the importance of relationship between infrastructure, communities and industries with respect to technical, social and economic aspects. While the overall research resulted in a Decision Support System with three modules, to assess criticality, vulnerability and severity, this paper only elaborates the Severity Assessment Tool (SAT). Serviceability of an infrastructure plays an important role in post disaster recovery and response. Reduction in the serviceability of an infrastructure also affects the functionality of the activities that depend on the affected infrastructure resulting in social and economic impact. The tool presented in this paper determines the severity of social and economic impact by evaluating the reduction in the functionality of the affected activities.

The model (SAT) presented in this paper determines the social and economic impact on communities and industries due to natural disaster when the serviceability of disaster impacted critical infrastructure is impaired. This tool can be effectively used by city managers as well as emergency planners for industries and communities in developing mitigation strategies based on the severity of social and economic impact due to the affected critical infrastructure. The results would also help the decision makers in arriving at more effective investment decisions to repair/rehabilitate certain critical infrastructure.