Evaluation and Assessment of the Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects

Abstract

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.

Citation

Ametepey, S.O., Aigbavboa, C.O. and Thwala, W.D. (2023), "Evaluation and Assessment of the Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects", Sustainable Road Infrastructure Project Implementation in Developing Countries: An Integrated Model, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-810-220231004