Qualitative assessment framework to evaluate sustainability indicators affecting infrastructure construction projects in developing countries using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Abstract

There are different sustainability indicators that may affect the construction projects which are necessary to be identified in order to improve the construction industry. This paper proposes a qualitative assessment framework that can assist construction project teams with a useful tool to identify and prioritize sustainability indicators impacting their projects. First, a literature review is conducted to identify the sustainability indicators that need to be considered in achieving a more sustainable construction project in Egypt. The factors are then ranked through a survey questionnaire and experts' judgment using a 7-point Likert scale to identify the most significant factors. The AHP is used in this paper to determine experts' importance weights. A case study of an infrastructure project in Egypt is conducted to identify, and prioritize different sustainability indicators affecting the construction of infrastructure projects in Egypt. The consent of framework development can be generalized and applied to other countries by changing related sustainability indicators and expert opinions. The framework solves a major problem that faces infrastructure construction project teams who want to Prioritize and assess quantitatively sustainability indicators existed in their projects prior to the start of construction phase.

Identifying the Key Risk Factors of Mega Infrastructure Projects from an Extended Sustainable Development Perspective

“…The economic sustainable development of MIPs requires the minimization of the direct costs of the MIPs themselves [ 27 , 37 ], the indirect costs of social and environmental governance [ 38 , 39 ], and the maintenance and enhancement of local economies [ 40 , 41 ], to achieve a positive long-term economic impact. The environmental sustainable development of MIPs requires the best use of resources (for example, water, energy, and land use) [ 28 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], minimum waste discharge (such as gas emissions, wastewater discharge, solid waste, light, and noise) [ 41 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], reduced damage to the natural landscape [ 50 , 51 ], maintenance of the biodiversity of the natural ecological system, ecological balance, and protection of the earth as far as possible [ 29 , 52 ]. The social sustainable development of MIPs requires the protection of regional culture [ 53 , 54 ], concern for the safety and health of employees and the public [ 29 , 55 ], compatibility with citizens’ ideals, encouragement of social integration [ 20 , 39 , 40 , 52 ] guaranteed social equality [ 56 , 57 ], and provision of a public service that improves the quality of life of all segments of the population [ 38 , 55 , 58 , 59 ].…”

“…The environmental sustainable development of MIPs requires the best use of resources (for example, water, energy, and land use) [ 28 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], minimum waste discharge (such as gas emissions, wastewater discharge, solid waste, light, and noise) [ 41 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], reduced damage to the natural landscape [ 50 , 51 ], maintenance of the biodiversity of the natural ecological system, ecological balance, and protection of the earth as far as possible [ 29 , 52 ]. The social sustainable development of MIPs requires the protection of regional culture [ 53 , 54 ], concern for the safety and health of employees and the public [ 29 , 55 ], compatibility with citizens’ ideals, encouragement of social integration [ 20 , 39 , 40 , 52 ] guaranteed social equality [ 56 , 57 ], and provision of a public service that improves the quality of life of all segments of the population [ 38 , 55 , 58 , 59 ]. The coordination of sustainable development of the MIPs was used to support the “three pillars,” wherein the MIPs project team comprised multidisciplinary (economic, social, and environmental) professionals [ 29 , 60 ]; furthermore, contracts, regulations, and policies that include sustainable development were formulated [ 37 , 60 ], and a comprehensive project lifecycle monitoring and maintenance management system was established [ 27 , 61 ].…”

“…If an MIP is not properly planned and designed, it may damage the local natural landscape heritage (ENRF15) owing to insufficient integration of the local natural environment (ENRF14), cause geological disasters (ENRF16), and lead to a less livable environment for residents (EN1) [ 5 , 48 ]. MIPs can easily disrupt ecosystems (EN7), including the destruction of biodiversity (ENRF17), the disruption of ecological balance (ENRF18), the decimation of surface vegetation (ENRF19), and the obstruction of animal migration routes (ENRF20) [ 52 ].…”

Toward Life Cycle Sustainability in Infrastructure: The Role of Automation and Robotics in PPP Projects

“…This paper makes reference to the sustainability dimensions and indicators of Li et al [43] (Table 1). Their work examines PPP projects in urban water treatment, but many of the indicators are general [45,46] and therefore applicable to other infrastructure types. A general consideration is the dynamic nature of sustainability assessments fueled by evolving perceptions of sustainability over time due to parallel societal, political, economic, organizational and technological changes [47], which precludes the completeness and generality of a framework.…”

What are the Key Indicators of Mega Sustainable Construction Projects? —A Stakeholder-Network Perspective

“…Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López [18] proposed a framework of sustainability indicators assessing infrastructure projects. Aboushady and El-Sawy [42] used the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method to develop the sustainability indicators of mega infrastructure construction projects. Waas et al [43] used sustainability assessment (SA) and sustainability indicators (SIs) as theoretical tools for evaluating the decision strategies of sustainable construction.…”