Search results

It is essential for developed nations to have adequate and functional infrastructure to sustain economic growth and well-being. Despite efforts to reduce the chances of infrastructure problems, several scholars have expressed concern about infrastructure standards deteriorating at an alarming rate and the need to ensure their sustainability. To achieve sustainable infrastructure development (SID), Sahely et al. (2005) proposed an uncomplicated strategy based on fundamental cooperation between infrastructure and ecological, economic, and social frameworks. Sustainable infrastructure is defined as the development and dependable management of a safe built environment based on efficient resource utilization and environmental standards. SID aims to mitigate or eliminate ecological problems and challenges while maximizing the potential social and economic benefits. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP, 2007) defines SID as infrastructure compatible with continued financial and environmental sustainability. Sustainable road development infrastructure (SRID) is a procedure for constructing infrastructure that incorporates all the essential sustainable development (SD) parameters and is complicated by the interdependence of multiple factors. Stakeholders are essential for the successful execution of infrastructure projects, and a comprehensive evaluation of stakeholder interests and requirements is necessary to achieve SRID goals while meeting the needs of all parties involved. To achieve SRID, it is necessary to understand the relationship between road infrastructure development (RID) processes and SD standards and to implement criteria and indicators that accurately depict the long-term viability of a development process. Al Sanad (2015) identified several factors that may impede the implementation of SD in the infrastructure sector. Shafii et al. (2006) identified insufficient knowledge of SID, lack of SID training, a perception of SID as expensive, acquisition concerns, administrative issues, expert capacities, and motivational factors for manufacturing local materials as potential obstacles. Serpell (2013) identified four categories of SID challenges, including knowledge, economic and financial, organizational, and go. Darko and Chan (2016) identified the most prevalent barriers as a lack of data, training, research, information, and expertise, high cost, government interest, premium and demand, and the absence of SID standards of practice. Azis et al. (2012) identified improved project efficiency, waste reduction in the construction industry, and energy efficiency as advantages of SID. Ametepey and Aigbavboa (2014) identified energy savings, environmental protection, contribution to a higher standard of living and a healthy work environment, resource preservation for future generations, reduction in lifecycle costs, promotion of sustainable economic development, and stakeholder satisfaction as the top benefits of sustainable construction (SC). Du Plessis (2007) identified technological factors, Al Sanad (2015) identified educational programmes, Serpell et al. (2013) identified transformation, economic, and stakeholder engagement as drivers of SC, and Hankinson and Breytenbach (2012) identified enhanced SC awareness. This chapter reviewed the literature on international infrastructure and sustainability development, discussing factors, and benefits promoting SID.

The construction industry’s contribution to environmental deterioration is widely established in the literature, implying that addressing this issue will require a coordinated effort from all stakeholders. According to literature, stakeholder involvement without stakeholder management (SKM) is not enough, in ensuring efficient construction waste management (CWM). This study investigates the impact of SKM on efficient CWM by aggregating all relevant SKM variables and measuring their degree of influence on efficient CWM.

This study used a four-stage research approach that included a literature review, a pilot study, a questionnaire survey and statistical analysis. After a thorough examination of the literature, nine essential SKM factors were identified and tested by a questionnaire survey following a pilot study. A total of 310 questionnaires were filled out and returned for analysis (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis).

The study established that SKM is a unidimensional construct since all the variables extracted unto one underlying component with total variance explained (TVE), accounting for 58.938% of the total Variance in the measure of SKM in efficient CWM. Additionally, the reliability and validity test results satisfied the recommended thresholds, thus justifying the factorability of the construct. Furthermore, the hypothesis test revealed that SKM has a statistically significant impact on efficient CWM, implying that increasing SKM will have a beneficial impact on efficient CWM.

The study is limited to material waste management in the construction industry and the outcome was determined solely by a field survey in Ghana. Extending the study to other jurisdictions would have improved its findings and made them easier to generalise.

The study’s findings are helpful for practitioners and researchers, especially regarding the influence of the eight SKM variables on efficient CWM.

The study’s findings will reduce pollution, thus enhancing public health and encouraging social inclusion through the creation of jobs in the waste management chain.

The uniqueness of this study is anchored on the fact that no CWM study has considered all the eight SKM variables measured in this study at the same time. Also, this study has contributed to the literature by establishing the determinants of SKM in efficient CWM in Ghana.

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 goals to address the world’s most pressing sustainable development (SD) concerns by 2030. Third-world countries have a lesser global environmental impact than developed countries, and account for 66% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Infrastructure development has a key role to play in establishing a green society, with approaches such as green policy, sustainable monitoring, and sustainability reports. Indirect and induced sustainable infrastructure development (SID) dominates the SDGs, with the goal of providing secure, acceptable, readily available, and efficient transportation networks by 2030. Road infrastructure development (RID) should become more sustainable considering depleting natural resources, fragile ecological circumstances, and limited financial resources. Sustainable road infrastructure projects (SRIPs) provide several advantages, such as increased economic efficiency, lower resource utilization, greater social well-being, and enhanced protection of natural services. However, incorporating SD prerequisites into highway infrastructure projects in developing countries has been difficult due to a variety of factors. Efforts to develop sustainability certification standards for infrastructure systems are recommended, and it is important to define relevant ideas and principles for SRIP implementation. However, incorporating SD prerequisites into highway infrastructure projects in developing countries has been difficult due to a variety of factors. Different people have varied ideas about sustainability. This book aims to provide a unified guideline to aid developing nations in undertaking SRIPs and to develop a SRIP implementation model. This chapter provided a background for the book; it also provided insight into its organization, foundation, and significance. It also discusses the objectives of the book and emphasized on the purpose and motivation for writing the book.

The pursuit of sustainable development goals (SDGs) is the primary driver of road infrastructure development (RID), but multiple parties are involved in the process, causing confusion. To effectively manage stakeholder processes, Jeffry (2009) proposed a framework based on a preventative double-path relationship between stakeholders and institutions. Bal et al. (2013) proposed a five-stage framework for stakeholder management, which includes identifying key players and issues, conducting analysis and plans, tightening restraints on making promises, creating a plan and soliciting input from interested parties, and monitoring its effectiveness. Successful stakeholder management for sustainable road infrastructure project (SRIP) implementation has been shown to have several benefits, such as enhanced understanding of the fiscal position, improving status, building relationships, developing trust, and enduring collaborative relationships, distributing skills and practices, and recognizing and mitigating threats and vulnerabilities. Infrastructure projects involving roads include a range of complex activities, and it is essential for infrastructure projects to evaluate potential project partners prior to making a final decision. Dealing with many stakeholders and maintaining a reasonable degree of concordance between their interests is crucial for fruitful endeavours. It is important for project groups and partners to have a shared understanding of the project’s goals and solicit their input and for a precise approach to identify and manage project partners throughout the execution phase. However, RID is still in its infancy when it comes to managing stakeholders and relationships. Stakeholder management has been ad hoc due to a lack of standardized methodologies, approaches, strategies, and processes, and infrastructure development procedures should include a systematic approach to managing stakeholders. The bulk of SRIP implementation needs come from stakeholders, making project partners crucial. The sustainable development (SD) strategy emphasizes the importance of SRIP execution to stakeholders, such as architects, quantity surveyors, conservationists, environmentalists, regional managers, project managers, suppliers, subcontractors, and sustainability consultants. This section of the research addressed the omissions of previously analysed comprehensive factors in SID models and frameworks, including climate change response, public involvement, and stakeholder management. Strategies for filling these gaps were discussed. An analysis of relevant academic literature was conducted.

The CEEQUAL certification system promotes sustainable development (SD) principles in infrastructure construction, with 12 categories of criteria and indicators. ENVISION assigns 60 points to five categories, while Green Guide is divided into seven classifications. SD certification requires 11 requirements, including an ecological assessment procedure, life-cycle costing assessment, quality control plan, noise mitigation plan, waste management plan, pollution prevention plan, low impact development, pavement management system, site maintenance plan, and educational outreach. SD certification technique provides 8 critical criteria, 153 standards, 17 stringent prerequisites, and 8 categories of points. Culp (2011) developed a grading system to incorporate SD principles into infrastructure projects; Shen et al. (2011) explored significant assessment parameters for the SD of infrastructure projects using the fuzzy set method; Lui and Cui (2012) studied SD frameworks for building projects, Montgomery et al. (2014) and Lim (2009) identified 77 major SD indicators based on a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, and the Transport Division of New South Wales established a Transportation Project Sustainability Framework to ensure the long-term viability of their transportation network and the continuous improvement of their environmental and sustainability performance. Assah Amiril (2014) revealed a global network of 27 SD criteria produced by professionals, for-profit and non-profit organizations, divided into five groups: ecological, financial, sociological, engineering, asset use, and project management. The most important details in this study are that 57 indicators were categorized into eight types, weighted according to their respective impacts, and the influence of each component on SD was evaluated using a 100-dimensional scale. This study investigated the eight criteria and the impact of three additional criteria (public participation, climate change response, and stakeholder management). This chapter examined the criteria and indicators of SD criteria and indicators for road infrastructure development in developing countries. The most important findings are that the CEEQUAL, Ugwu, Haupt, and Lim models are the most comprehensive theoretical models of SD requirements for infrastructure design, and that all frameworks and models promote the sharing, promotion, and acknowledgement of SD concepts.

BE2ST-In-Highways is a framework for assessing the social impact of reusing materials in pavement building, using the Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic Impacts (PaLATE) and life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). ENVISION is a two-stage assessment method with four levels of certification: bronze award, silver award, gold award, and platinum award. Stantec published the Green Guide for Roads in 2008 as a marketing tool to highlight its commitment to sustainable development (SD), and the certification policy was created using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification policy. As part of their first-year requirements, Stantec and a team of Worcester Polytechnic Institute students created another ‘Green Guide for Roads’ in 2009 to integrate previously missing components of the certification guidelines. GreenPave was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation as an SD certification framework based on the Greenroads and GreenLITES SD certification frameworks. Specifications are classified into three types: repair activities, new development projects, and credit for evident and clear criteria. The Greenroads SD certification process reintroduces SD ideas into highway building by awarding points to projects that effectively integrate SD objectives. I-LAST is a tool developed by the Illinois Department of Transportation, American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC), and Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association (IRTBA) to analyse SD principles in road infrastructure building. INVEST (Infrastructure Voluntary Assessment Sustainability Tool) is designed to be simple to use and includes four stages of a project. Scorecards for pavement, basic rural, basic urban, extended rural, extended urban, and custom are included. CEEQUAL (Sustainability Assessment and Awards for Civil Engineering, Infrastructure, Landscaping, and the Public Realm) was established to improve infrastructure sustainability and award projects to organizations that address environmental concerns in a productive and effective manner. It is managed by CEEQUAL Ltd. and is based on three SD principles: environment, economics, and labelling the social component of SD with access. Customized scorecards may be used when a project does not fit into one of the pre-defined scorecards. The framework was initially created for the United Kingdom (UK) but has now been revised to be worldwide relevant and includes two categories of projects: domestic (UK and Ireland) projects and foreign initiatives. It also offers six project awards. This chapter reviewed frameworks, models, and guidelines for sustainable infrastructure projects, emphasizing the Be²st-In-Highway rating system, ENVISION certification policies, green guide for road rating systems, greenlights certification system or policy, Greenpaves rating system, Greenroads rating system, I-LAST certification tools, invest rating tools, CEEQUAL certification system, and stars rating tools.

The essence of finance has become essential in the sustainability discussion in recent times as a result of the capital intensive nature of sustainable projects. This has motivated financial experts and institutions to develop various financial instruments and mechanisms to further advance the course of protecting the environment, and decreasing the release of excess carbon and GreenHouse Gases. This is to also provide the opportunity for funding Green or sustainable infrastructure development. This chapter advances a discourse on matters relating to sustainable financing of infrastructure projects. The fundamentals of sustainable or green funding of infrastructure projects, and sustainable schemes of financing green infrastructure projects are discussed.

This Chapter examined the development of sustainable road infrastructure in Ghana including transportation roads, and laws, regulations, and frameworks. The Ministry of Transport (MoT) and the Ministry of Roads and Highways (MRH) are responsible for the development of transportation infrastructure and related services. The Department of Urban Roads (DUR) is responsible for facilitating the movement of people, goods, and services and promoting economic and social development of urban regions. The Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies established road centres to manage, construct, and maintain city roads, the Ghana Road Fund (GRF) was established to provide funding for the maintenance of Ghana’s road network, and the Koforidua Training Centre (KTC) was established in 2007 to provide management and project implementation staff with professional development and hands-on training. The current road length is 71,418 km, including 42,045 km of feeder roads, 14,873 km of trunk roads, and 14,500 km of urban roads. The budget for preventative maintenance is expected to rise year over year. Road infrastructure development (RID) can lead to positive societal outcomes, such as financial gains, employment opportunities, social support systems, equal rights for women and men, increased productivity, and less pollution, but it can also have unintended consequences such as deteriorating air and water quality, noise and vibration, soil erosion and sedimentation, disruption of essential services, confusion between drivers and pedestrians, changes to the landscape and habitat, and eminent domain takings. Environmental and social evaluations of development projects in Ghana must comply with several laws and regulations, and there is no unified sustainability policy or guideline in place to regulate the development of highway infrastructure projects. Resettlement is expected to help those who have been displaced by development initiatives and the Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1994 provides the authority to authorize facilities, set performance standards, and ensure compliance with standards and regulations. The Forestry Policy focusses on reducing deforestation and enhancing ecological and social commitment of forest areas, while the method for managing cultural property requires investigating and cataloguing damaged objects. Sector medium-term development plan (SMTDP) provides solutions for enhanced RID access, while the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) incorporates ecological factors into the Ghana Integrated Transport Plan. The resettlement policy framework (RPF) coordinates laws, rules, and procedures to manage road infrastructure projects and establishes criteria for determining eligibility and entitlement. The Directorate of Policy and Planning of the MRH is responsible for managing road safety and the environment, while the Directorate of Monitoring and Evaluation oversees Monitoring and Evaluation of road projects. The Ghana Highway Authority’s (GHA) four-person Road Safety and Environmental Management Unit (EMU) is responsible for addressing social and environmental issues associated with the feeder roads zone. Sustainable development (SD) has not received much attention from the Ghanaian government, with state-owned institutions prioritizing economic growth over social benefits and environmental preservation. Local governments should include a sustainability framework in their strategic planning for the successful execution of sustainable projects.

Climate change adaptation strategies are critical for long-term road infrastructure development (RID) because it is expected to put more land and transportation infrastructure at risk from stronger winds, more intense storms, and rising sea levels. Deformation and subsidence could occur if concrete pavements crumbled and asphalt roads softened due to higher temperatures, and changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation could have far-reaching consequences for the smooth operation of transportation networks. The developed world is primarily responsible for the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, while less developed countries are insignificant. The African Union sees climate change as a major threat to the continent’s economic development and is working with member states and key organizations to address it. It is critical for developing countries to establish frameworks for detecting climate change risks, developing adaptation strategies, and implementing plans. The sustainable development plan (SRIP) is critical for protecting transportation networks from the effects of climate change. Sustainable development principles are critical for clarifying the proposed project’s relationships with the local and larger society, economy, ecosystems, and various institutions. The ability of a system or structure to recover from disruption while continuing to function and adapt to new circumstances is referred to as resilient infrastructure. Low-carbon infrastructure coexists with resilient infrastructure, and the pursuit of resilient infrastructure necessitates a reduction in the likelihood of failure, a lessening of the negative consequences when failures do occur, and a reduction in the time required to recover due to an increase in the facilities’ capacity to endure, adapt, and change. As part of the implementation process, RID experts must consider how climate change will impact transportation infrastructure. Risk assessment is a systematic method of looking for things that could go wrong, determining how bad they could be, and determining how likely they are to happen. Adaptable designs must include multiple measures to prevent system breakdowns. Climate change’s effects on road infrastructure, as well as rising sea levels, continue to jeopardize low-lying transportation infrastructure. Implementing SRIP necessitates the development of a climate change response mechanism.

This chapter discusses the proposed integrated sustainable road infrastructure project implementation (ISRIPI) model and its constructs and sub-constructs, as well as public participation (PP), climate change response (CCR), and stakeholder management (SM). CEEQUAL was the most comprehensive rating system, with 11 criteria. Lim (2009) and Ugwu and Haupt (2007) were the most thorough studies examining sustainability models for infrastructure projects, focussing on social and cultural sustainability (SCS), economic sustainability (ES), environmental sustainability (EnS), institutional sustainability (IS), health and safety (HS), project management (PM), resource utilization and management (RUM), and engineering performance (EP). The Brundtland Report and Rio Summit defined social sustainability as the right to a decent standard of living, social justice between generations, within generations, and around the world. Thin (2002) showed social justice, unity, investment, and safety as aspects of society. Rosenström et al. (2006) defined social qualities as objects that make people happy. Cultural sustainability is access to cultural assets for current and future generations, and cultural legacy is the collection of physical signals passed on from the past to each civilization and, by extension, to all humans. EnS seeks to reduce the environmental impact of road infrastructure projects. Sustainable road infrastructure project implementation (SRIPI) must consider PM issues such as delivery system, risks, duration, performance assessment, sustainability clauses, and contract type. Quality control systems must be set up to ensure the optimum utilization and management of resources in SRIPI. EP criteria measure sustainable road infrastructure projects’ (SRIP) durability, quality, resilience, adaptability, functionality, carrying capacity, and robustness. This research developed an SRIPI model based on the models of CEEQUAL, Lim (2009), and Ugwu and Haupt (2007). The hypothesized framework consists of 37 SRIPI factors, including SCS, ES, IS, HS, PM, RUM, EP, CCR, PP, and SM. It projected the analytical authority of these constructs in the success of SRIPs to test whether the realization of SRIPI outcomes depends on the supposed indicators of the variables. SRIPI is a multidimensional structure composed of 11 latent variables, derived from literature review and Delphi study findings.