Comparison of project performance assessed by infrastructure sustainability rating tools

Griffiths, Kerry; Boyle, Carol; Henning, Theunis F. P.

doi:10.1680/jensu.18.00003

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Built-environment design is changing, with global shifts (albeit incremental) towards sustainable development including the emergence of sustainability rating schemes, adjustments to building codes and specifications, and shifting government and corporate policy [4,5]. As these approaches increasingly become standardized and integrated into business-as-usual practice, leading organisations and champions are looking towards 'next steps' in sustainable design and construction, identifying emerging opportunities for innovation and leadership [6][7][8].…”

Section: Sustainability Resilience and Biomimicry In The Built Envirmentioning

confidence: 99%

Findings of Case-Study Analysis: System-Level Biomimicry in Built-Environment Design

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Complex systems challenges like those facing 21st-century humanity, require system-level solutions that avoid siloed or unnecessarily narrow responses. System-level biomimicry aims to identify and adopt design approaches that have been developed and refined within ecosystems over 3.8 billion years of evolution. While not new, system-level biomimetic solutions have been less widely applied in urban design than the ‘form’ and ‘process’ level counterparts. This paper explores insights from a selection of system-level case studies in the built environment, using meta-analysis to investigate common challenges and priorities from these projects to support knowledge-sharing and continued development in the field. Using a grounded research approach, common themes are distilled, and findings presented regarding success and barriers to implementation and scaling. Considering the findings, and drawing on complex adaptive systems theory, the paper posits opportunities to facilitate broader implementation and mainstreaming of system-level biomimetic design approaches in the built environment.

show abstract

Section: Sustainability Resilience and Biomimicry In The Built Envirmentioning

confidence: 99%

Findings of Case-Study Analysis: System-Level Biomimicry in Built-Environment Design

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These systems have been developed with the intent of enhancing sustainability outcomes in the design and construction of transportation projects (K. A. Griffiths, Boyle, & Henning, 2017).…”

Section: Transportation Sustainability Rating Systems (Tsrs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Assessment of Transportation Sustainability Rating Systems

Oluwalaiye¹,

Ozbek²

2018

Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construction industry contributes a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions to the environment. This highlights the need for this industry to implement sustainable practices to mitigate its negative effects. Sustainability in the construction industry involves considering project development in terms of economic, social, and environmental aspects (triple bottom line). In the transportation sector of the construction industry, several transportation sustainability rating systems (TSRS) have been developed to measure and promote sustainability. However, studies show that these TSRS have not been developed within a consistent “sustainability scope”. This raises the question of the consistency of these TSRS in measuring sustainability of transportation projects. This study assesses three prominent TSRS to determine how each measures sustainability with respect to the triple bottom line. The TSRS that are in the scope of this study are: (i) Envision-a third-party rating system, (ii) INVEST-a self-assessed rating and, (iii) GreenLITES-an in-house developed self-assessed rating system for the New York State DOT. Results show that while these three rating systems provide different levels of credits/points with respect to the triple bottom line, they all place the highest focus on the environmental aspect.

show abstract

“…The emergence of these sustainability assessment tools highlights the need for the translation of high-level concepts and goals into useable frameworks [27]. Progress in the consideration of sustainability in civil infrastructures, however, has been slow [28].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nowadays, BREEAM and LEED are the major assessment systems in the built environment [31]. Since 2003, also for infrastructure and civil work, assessment tools have been developed such as the Civil Engineering Environmental Quality (CEEQUAL) and BREEAM Infrastructure in the UK, Envision and Greenroads in the US and Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) in Australia [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Griffiths et al [27], the right use of rating tools can support infrastructure owners and construction practitioners in making more informed decisions on how to use such tools and in developing their sustainability goals and visions. They reviewed the existing tools, showing among others which life cycle phases are covered by the tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating Sustainability into Major Infrastructure Projects: Four Perspectives on Sustainable Tunnel Development

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although sustainability is on the agenda of many countries and agencies, it is still a great challenge to properly integrate sustainability into major infrastructure projects, like tunnels. This is remarkable, as it is commonly accepted that the construction and operation of these civil infrastructures have a heavy impact on environmental, economic and social sustainability. In academia, the foregone conclusion seems to point to a lack of vision about sustainability with respect to tunnels. This article presents an empirical study that investigates sustainability ideas amongst tunnel practitioners in the Netherlands. The case was used as a practical environment to get access to tunnel practitioners, to explicitly define the meaning of a sustainable tunnel in its development phase. Perceptions of sustainable tunnels were extracted by means of a commonly accepted research methodology called Q-methodology. By applying this method, four perspectives were obtained: perspectives with a focus on energy, resilience, social or a transitional focus. Each perspective highlights distinct focal points on how to operationalize sustainability for tunnel projects. Each perspective is also accompanied by an anti-focus; how sustainability should not be approached, sometimes contrary to other perspectives. These insights help project practitioners in creating awareness for the existence of different perspectives, and subsequently help to focus project management efforts to implement sustainability in specific projects.

show abstract

Comparison of project performance assessed by infrastructure sustainability rating tools

Cited by 32 publications

References 14 publications

Findings of Case-Study Analysis: System-Level Biomimicry in Built-Environment Design

Findings of Case-Study Analysis: System-Level Biomimicry in Built-Environment Design

Comparative Assessment of Transportation Sustainability Rating Systems

Integrating Sustainability into Major Infrastructure Projects: Four Perspectives on Sustainable Tunnel Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About