Sustainable Structural Engineering—Gaining Greater Benefits to Communities in Developing Nations

Gryc, Hayley

doi:10.1061/9780784412367.178

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A Sustainability Poverty Infrastructure Routine for Evaluation (ASPIRE) ASPIRE was developed by ARUP and Engineers Against Poverty (EAP) for a range of stakeholders committed to the development of sustainable pro-poor infrastructure (Gryc, 2012); it informs on poverty reduction performance of infrastructure projects. It considers four major criteria -the environment, society, economics and institutions -with breakdowns of four to six subcriteria under each criterion as depicted in Figure 2.…”

Section: Srts For Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Project viability, macroeconomic effects, livelihood opportunity and the creation of an equitable economy are considered. The criterion of institution encompasses four subcriteria, namely policy, governance, skills and reporting; these represent the capacity and effectiveness of the institutional environment in supporting the delivery of the infrastructure (Gryc, 2012). In the assessment, the user goes through a series of questions and is provided with illustrations of best to worst case scenarios to help in the allocation of non-weighted scores.…”

Section: Srts For Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of building/infrastructure sustainability reporting tools (SRTs)

Siew

Balatbat²,

Carmichael³

2013

Smart and Sustainable Built Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Buildings/infrastructure are recognised to have a significant impact on the environment and the community, and hence there is pressure on industry practitioners to incorporate environmental and social considerations in addition to the traditional cost, time and quality. The development of sustainability reporting tools (SRTs) to assist in the management of "green" building/infrastructure projects is pivotal in informing on progress in sustainability practices. However, the rapid growth of SRTs in the last decade, with different criteria and methodology, has created complications for stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach -The paper provides a comprehensive review of tools to guide practitioners, property investors, policy makers and developers towards making informed choices in "green" building/infrastructure projects. Comparative analyses, benefits and limitations of these tools are discussed in the paper. Findings -Some of the findings from the analysis of SRTs include: an emphasis on environmental issues; scoring which does not account for uncertainty or variability in assessors' perceptions; lack of published reasoning behind the allocation of scores; inadequate definition of scales to permit differentiation among projects; and the existence of non-scientific benchmarks. Originality/value -The paper departs from earlier reviews to include a discussion on infrastructure SRTs, life cycle tools, and issues broader than the environment. Changes and additions, subsequent to earlier reviews, have been made to SRTs, making the updated review provided here useful.

show abstract

Section: Srts For Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Srts For Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%