Sow2012 0822 Electronic

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

1/45

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

2/45

Disclaimer

The views expressed are endorsed by FIDIC, and while FIDIC aims to ensure that its publications represent the best in

business practice, the federation accepts or assumes no liability or responsibililty for any events or the consequencesthereof that derive from the use of its publications. FIDIC publications are provided as is, without warranty of any kind,either express or implied, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purposeand non-infringement. FIDIC publications are not exhaustive and are only intended to provide general guidance. Theyshould not be relied upon in a specific situation or issue.

The FIDIC State of the World Report 2012 was commissioned by the FIDIC Executive Committee,

comprising: Geoff French, URS, UK (President); Pablo Bueno, Typsa, Spain (Vice President); AndreasGobiet, Gobiet & Partners, Austria; Jae-Wan Lee, Sekwang Engineering Consultants, Korea; AkihikoHirotani, Oriental Consultants, Japan; Bisher Jardaneh, Arabtech Jardaneh Group, Jordan; ChrisNewcomb, McElhanney Consulting Services, Canada; Alain Bentjac, COTEBA, France; Kaj Mller,SWECO, Sweden.

The Report was compiled by Professor Peter Guthrie, Professor of Engineering for SustainableDevelopment, and Thalia Konaris, Centre for Sustainable Development, University of Cambridge, UK,with contributions from Geoff French, URS, UK; John Boyd, Golder Associates, Canada; Jean Felix,Syntec Ingnierie, France; Enrico Vink and Franois Baillon (FIDIC Secretariat).

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

3/45

FIDIC is the international Federation of national Member Associations ofconsulting engineers.

FIDIC was founded in 1913 by three national associations of consultingengineers within Europe. The objectives of forming the Federationwere to promote in common the professional interests of the Member

Associations, and to disseminate information of interest to their members.Today, FIDIC membership covers more than 90 countries from all partsof the globe and encompassing most consulting engineers in privatepractice.

FIDIC is charged with promoting and implementing the consultingengineering industrys strategic goals on behalf of Member Associations.Its strategic objectives are to: represent world-wide the majority of firmsproviding technology-based intellectual services for the built and naturalenvironment; assist members with issues relating to business practice;define and actively promote conformance to a code of ethics; enhancethe image of consulting engineers as leaders and wealth creators in

society; promote the commitment to sustainability.

FIDIC arranges seminars, conferences and other events in the furtheranceof its goals: maintenance of high ethical and professional standards;exchange of views and information; discussion of problems of mutualconcern among Member Associations and representatives of theinternational financial institutions; development of the consultingengineering industry in developing countries.

FIDIC members endorse FIDICs statutes and policy statements and

comply with FIDICs Code of Ethics which calls for professionalcompetence, impartial advice and open and fair competition.

FIDIC, in the furtherance of its goals, publishes international standardforms of contracts and agreements for works and for clients, consultants,sub-consultants, joint ventures and representatives, together with relatedmaterials such as standard pre-qualification forms.

FIDIC also publishes business practice documents such as policystatements, position papers, guides, guidelines, training manuals andtraining resource kits in the areas of management systems and business

processes.

FIDIC organises the FIDIC World Consulting Engineering Conferenceand an extensive programme of seminars, conferences, capacity buildingworkshops and training courses.

FIDICs contracts andagreements are recognisedinternationally as the industrystandard for infrastructure, civilengineering and construction.They have been adopted bythe mutilateral development

banks, by bilateral aidagencies, nationalgovernments, procurementauthorities, and byprivate clients in all sectors.

FIDIC works contracts cover the full range ofinfrastructure projects - from relatively shortconstruction-time projects to design-build-operateprojects combining design, construction andlong-term operation and maintenance.

FIDIC professional services agreements are

based upon the FIDIC Client/Consultant ModelServices Agreement. Together with agreementsfor joint ventures, and subconsultants, they arewidely used in the public and private sectors.

FIDIC is the authority on business practicefor the consulting engineeringindustry. The Federationdevelops and disseminatespolicies, guidance andtraining materials for firmssupplying technology-basedintellectual services for the builtand natural environment.

ProcurementConsultant selectionRisk managementScope of servicesQuality managementQuality of constructionBusiness integrityEnvironmentalmanagementProject sustainabilityInsuranceCapacity buildingTransfer of technologyProfessional liabilityInformation technologyProject management

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

4/45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Why decision-making? 2

Sustainability - Risk, Resilience and Opportunity 3

Sustainability Tools 4

Chapter 1 - What is Sustainability 6

Why focus on decision-making 6

Sustainable Decision-making hierarchy 6

Case Study 1 Olympic Games - London 2012 9

Case Study 2 Swedish SymbioCity Approach 10

Chapter 2 - Sustainability - Risk, Resilience and Opportunity 11

Risk 11

Resilience 14

Opportunity 15

Chapter 3 - Sustainability Tools 16

Overview 16

Decision - Support Tools 18

Rating & Certification Tools 24

Calculators 31

Guidelines 33

Chapter 4 - FIDICs Role 34

Appendix I - Sustainability Calculators 35

Appendix II - Useul Sustainability Guidelines 39

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

5/45

SustainableInfrastructure

1

Maintaining and improving our Quality of Life todayoffers many new challenges and opportunities. Thisreport sets out to make sense of sustainable developmentin the context of key infrastructure. It describes howdecisions might be made towards a sustainable future inour societal fabric, of roads, railways, ports and airports,

in water and wastewater, and in power generation. Inother words, in all that underpins society worldwide.

In 2009, the International Federation of ConsultingEngineers (FIDIC), released the State of the World:FIDIC Infrastructure Report 2009, to raise awarenessof the increasingly complex challenges being faced bythe infrastructure sector today. These include economiccrises, global urbanisation, non-renewable resourcedepletion, water scarcity, climate change, wastemanagement and increasingly complex disasters, whichthreaten the resilience of critical infrastructure and

services globally. A key message resonating throughthe report was the leading role that the consultingengineering industry has to play in tackling thesechallenges. The Report offered constructive examples asto how that can be achieved.

In parallel, through the publication of their ProjectSustainability Management Guidelines (PSM) in 2004FIDIC began the process of making a significantcontribution internationally to the global arena ofemerging sustainability guidelines and tools for theinfrastructure sector. Such tools use internationally

recognised sustainability indicators, calculationmethodologies and green technologies to guide projectteams reliably towards sustainable project designand execution. The 2004 PSM framework proposeda set of core project sustainability issues traceable tothe overall sustainability indicators endorsed by theworlds governments as the basis for Agenda 21, aninternationally agreed global action plan by the UNfor sustainable development. By relating these issuesto engineering projects, PSM enables project ownersand consulting engineers to set project objectives andassociated indicators, and pursue the full range of

opportunities for improving sustainability performance.PSM II is currently under development to further enhancethe guidance it provides for projects to be executed moresustainably.

Following on from these developments, this State ofthe World 2012 Report Sustainable Infrastructurepresents FIDICs belief that these challenges can onlybe addressed by having a clear view of sustainability ininfrastructure development.

Sustainable development is derived from the Brundtlanddefinition and embraces respect for environmentalconcerns, social fairness, and future generations whilstacknowledging the realities of economic drivers.

Infrastructure needs to deliver its service over its lifetime,efficiently and reliably, and it needs to be adaptableand resilient to change and shock. This implies assetswith a long useful life, with minimum reliance onnon-renewable resources, with maximum benefit tosociety and the environment and which contribute to,rather than endanger, economic prosperity in the long

term. At its core, sustainable development is a way toexpress societys demand for all aspects of decisions tobe taken into account, not to allow narrow interests toavoid consideration of the full implications of decisions.It is a modern expression of the ambition to actresponsibly, fairly, effectively, efficiently, sensitively, andwith a view to the long term.

The approach of sustainable development offers asystematic perspective which is crucial for embracingcomplexity, balancing tradeoffs and managingcompeting priorities that are in the nature of modern

infrastructure projects. Sustainability is not responsiblefor this complexity or trade-offs, rather it brings themtogether so that informed decisions can be made early.

Sustainability ensures that risks to infrastructureassets and services are predicted early and mitigatedagainst. Furthermore, its systematic perspective enablesconsideration of risks occurring when systems individuallyconsidered are suddenly put together.

Rather than being one of many competing objectives,sustainable infrastructure is an underlying philosophy

which should guide decision-making throughout projectsfor meeting the wider objectives of durability andperformance.

Executive Summary

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

6/45


2

This Report focuses on the nature of decisions made byproject teams, their impacts and some of the dimensionsof sustainability that influence decision-makers, includingRisk, Resilience and Opportunity. Identifying the barriersto the uptake of sustainability, the report presents aglobal review of the key Sustainability Tools under

deployment in the infrastructure sector today, includingRating & Certification Tools, Decision-Support Tools,Calculators and Guidelines, which utilise motivators ofrisk minimisation, resilience, opportunity, competition,security and prosperity to guide project teams towardssustainable infrastructure assets and services.

Why decision-making?

This Report seeks to aid decision-making as a way offacilitating sustainable infrastructure. It highlights theimportance of participatory, transparent decision-making

which involves affected stakeholders, as a prerequisiteto ensuring buy-in to decisions and minimisingdisruptions as projects proceed. It requires thatconsulting engineers are better equipped with theskills to facilitate sustainable projects and that they areinvolved as early in the project development path aspossible.

To this end, the report presents a new approach. Thisis the Hierarchy of Sustainability Decisions that projectteams are faced with during the life-cycle of a project.The hierarchy is composed of 6 categories of decisions

(Conceptual, Inherent, Strategic, Tactical, Operationaland End-of-Life) which are distinct in terms of whenduring the project cycle they are made, their powerto influence project sustainability and the detail ofinformation that guides them.

Conceptual Decisions: These are typically made duringthe Project Initiation stage where decisions at a highlevel are made, and there are minimum constraints onthe project and maximum opportunity for sustainabilitythinking to be incorporated in all aspects of the planneddevelopment. Furthermore, questions on whether theproject is justifiable from a sustainability point of viewcan be raised.

Inherent Decisions: These are typically made duringthe Design Brief and Feasibility stage by which pointthe nature of the project to be carried out (in terms ofservices) and the stakeholders this will involve havealready been outlined, but major decisions such as thedetailed site selection for example, may not yet havebeen made. There are now more constraints on theproject, but within these, there is still potential to look atthe bigger picture of how the development can repair,restore and upgrade the communities and local economyit is influencing.

Strategic Decisions: These are typically made during theDesign Outline and Design Option Formulation stagesof the project, leading up to what is commonly knownas Optioneering - a multi-criteria decision-makingprocess where the most suitable design option is selectedfor further development. Decisions at this stage arebased on more detailed information regarding feasibility,innovation, synergies, boundaries and quality. Theproject is split into discrete components (water, energy,waste etc.) and a strategy for the execution of each isdeveloped.

Tactical Decisions: These are typically made duringthe Detailed Design and Construction stages of theproject and decisions are concerned with the detaileddevelopment and execution of each project component,guided by decisions taken during previous stages.Decisions made at this stage and their realisation ishighly dependent on the skills of designers, contractorsand operators.

Operational Decisions: These are concerned first withensuring that operational sustainability is consideredthroughout project development, and that a soundOperational and Management plan is in place to realisethem once the project is delivered and operation begins.

End-of-life Decisions: As with operational sustainability,these are concerned with ensuring that end of lifeconsiderations for the project are considered right fromthe start of its planning, prioritising the minimisation ofwaste through assets that are adaptable to upgrades,flexible to the integration with new systems, flexible to achange of use at the end of its useful life, dismantlinginto individual components which can be re-used, soldon or recycled.

Key Messages

The nature of sustainability decisions during aproject changes significantly, each stage offeringa different visibility of tradeoffs, risks andopportunities, thus being valuable in its ownway. Conceptual and Inherent decisions duringthe early stages of the project, suffer from lack ofdetailed information, but benefit from an overallview of the project and a lack of constraints on

project definition. It also enables the settingof Overarching Sustainability Principles thatwill guide all subsequent stages of the project.Another way of expressing this is to say that

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

7/45


3

decisions made at each stage of the hierarchyare progressively determining the range ofopportunities that are available to subsequentstages. The chance for greatest impact bothpositive and negative is at the earliest stage, whenoften the functionality of the project or scheme

tends to dominate discussion and sustainability isinsufficiently considered.

Along the hierarchy, early decisions form theassumptions and constraints for subsequentdecisions. This is the case for any project, whetherthere is concern for sustainability or not. Whatthe FIDIC Hierarchy highlights is that unlesssustainability is prioritised from the outset,decision-makers are already very limited atlater stages in making choices that will havea profound effect on the sustainability of the

project. If the project encounters bottleneckssuch as community opposition, more costlyoperations or environmental violations, it becomesincreasingly, and ultimately prohibitively,expensive to alter the course of the project.

Moving from Conceptual to Tactical concerns, i.e.as the project develops, decisions are naturallygoverned more by what is economically andtechnically feasible rather than what is desirabledue to the nature of the work that projectstages involve. Therefore, if sustainability is

not embedded into early conceptual, strategicthinking, then technical and economicparameters end up dominating the nature of thenal product.

A Whole-Life sustainability approach isimportant from the project onset, which includesconsiderations of minimisation of embodiedresources, sustainable material procurement,construction, operation and decommissioning.

Decisions along the Sustainability Decision-making

Hierarchy are made by different actors who come onboard as the project progresses. There is a challengein ensuring that the sustainability vision behind earlierdecisions is carried forward through iterations from onedecision-maker to another, as ownership of responsibilityand risk changes hands.

Sustainability - Risk, Resilience

and Opportunity

This Report focuses on three dimensions of sustainability

which influence decision makers of infrastructureprojects and the extent to which they are willing totake sustainability concerns on board. These are thedimensions ofRisk, Resilience and Opportunity. Thereare of course other important motivators which include

contribution to society and the environment or setting aglobal example for innovation and progress. However,given that the progress of mainstreaming sustainabilitythinking into projects is so varied across the globe, thedimensions discussed in the report are those which helpmake a Business Case for sustainability.

Risk

The report defines Project Risk and Service Risk as therisks felt by stakeholders depending on their legal orprofessional responsibility during the Project Phase orthe Service Phase of a project.

During the Project Phase, crucial decisions are made bydecision-makers who are not involved in the long-termoperation of the resulting assets. These decisions aregoverned by the desire to reduce perceived Project Risk

by reducing capital expenditure, potentially shying awayfrom novel technologies, materials or design methods,and by delivering the final product as quickly as possibleand according to specifications. Taking sustainability onboard then, can itself be considered an added risk aswell as an opportunity.

Sources o Service Risks during theemployment o inrastructure assetsinclude:

Climatic and extreme weather uncertainties:

the increasing interconnectedness of criticalinfrastructure in urban centres poses a risk ofincreasing vulnerability to the real threat ofincreasingly frequent and compound naturaldisasters.

Political and economic uncertainties: Sustainabilitythinking can advise on efficient use of resources,maximisation of local energy generation anduse of local resources and services for reducingoperational expenditure and increasing resourcesecurity.

Resource scarcity and material criticality:Sustainability can provide the framework toconsider increases in efficiency, reuse andrecycling to minimise reliance on crucial resourcesof water, fuel, chemical agents and rare-earthmetals.

Human, material and system performance:Sustainability calls for material selection whichencourages adaptability, disassembly, reuse,reduction of waste, recycling and safety. Itssystemic perspective also helps view infrastructuresystems as Complex Adaptive Systems where thebehaviour of a system is different to the sum of thebehaviour of its components, and may thereforehide other risks.

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

8/45


4

Key Messages

This Report identifies that the main barrier tosustainable infrastructure is the perceivedincrease in risk (Project Risk) that takingsustainability on board during project

development involves. This leads tosustainability being considered at a minimum(compliance level) during these stages, whichactually leads to a compromise in the longterm sustainability and resilience of assets i.e.increases the Service Risk felt by owners andoperators.

As early decisions constrain the project, suchdecisions have influence and repercussionsthroughout its lifetime.

Major infrastructure projects have for manyyears employed Risk Assessment to aiddecision-making. By adopting the languageof risk for sustainability, it may be possibleto engage decision-makers in infrastructureprojects with the aspirations of sustainability.

For these reasons, a large proportion of theState of the World 2012 report is dedicated tothe introduction of Sustainability Tools, whosepurpose is to guide practitioners towardssustainable projects and reduce the perceivedProject Risk of taking sustainability on board.These do not provide a solution to sustainableinfrastructure, but they do offer valuable supporttowards achieving it.

Resilience

The importance of protecting critical infrastructurefrom threats lies not only in its critical role of sustainingsocieties and economies, but also in its role of helpingcommunities and economies to rebuild themselvesfollowing any shock. For this reason, ensuring thatcritical infrastructure is resilient to the risks outlinedabove is becoming more and more central to thesustainability agenda as these risks are becomingincreasingly complex.

Sustainability thinking from the project onset iscrucial in making clear the connections of theintended project with the local and wider society,economy, environment, and other businesses, andunderstanding where these connections can causeserious vulnerabilities putting the entire system at risk.Sensitivity to the interests of society, economy and the

environment implies that sustainability approachesattempt to nurture these connections and ensure theyare elastic, adaptable and resilient.

Opportunity

Sustainability can offer project teams opportunitiesboth at the Project Phase and during the Service Phaseof projects. During the Project Phase, designing withsustainability in mind can enable teams to exploit various

nancial incentives as a reward for the incorporationof green technologies, for achieving water or energyconsumption targets or for the acquisition of certificationby a relevant Rating & Certification scheme for example.Although it is a hurdle for project teams to developthe skills for sustainable design and construction,once this experience is acquired it offers its developersa competitive advantage over other contractors orengineering consultants. As a result, several consultingengineering firms are now offering Sustainability Servicesand accompanying Sustainability Tools as part of theirnormal service portfolio.

During the Service Phase, sustainability thinkingduring project development offers the obvious benefitsof: increased efficiencies hence reduced cost andincreased resource security; increased synergies formore competitive and income generating business;reduced disruptions due to the presence of healthiersurrounding communities and economies; benefitsfrom employment of innovative technologies andsystems; increased resilience to environmental, social,economic and political threats.

Sustainability Tools

FIDIC recognises the importance of sustainabilityguidelines and tools, like PSM, in reducing the riskperceived by project teams of adopting sustainabilityduring project development. This Report offers aglobal review of the tools currently available onthe market. These have been grouped into the fourcategories of: Rating & Certification Tools, DecisionSupport Tools, Calculators and Guidelines, whichdiffer mainly in their origin and intended use.

Rating & Certication (R&C) Tools: These aretypically produced by governmental or reputablenon-governmental institutions offering schemes againstwhich projects can be assessed and rated for theirperformance against sustainability. Critical qualitycharacteristics for these tools include: guidelinesoffered to applying projects; intensity ofevidencecollection required; timing and risk management;credibility & recognition offered to awardedprojects; performance levels available and methodsof performance scoring; options fortailoring theassessment process through

materiality, weighting,minimum standards; quality ofsustainability criteriaemployed.

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

9/45


5

Decision Support (DS) Tools: These are typicallyproduced by engineering consultancies or engineeringand construction firms that wish to ensure thesustainability of their own projects and to offersustainability services to their clients. Their Criticalquality characteristics include: the quality of the

Sustainability Criteria Set employed in terms ofvisualisation & usability, relevance, traceability tointernational standards; ability to provide relevantand adequate sustainability input during criticaldecision-making points in the project developmentprocess; quality ofguidance, materiality and baselineassessment at initial stages in the project; quality of inputto the design process; ability to capture the sustainabilityperformance of design options and facilitatemulti-stakeholder, multi-criteria decision-making;ability to ensure sustainable construction, operation anddecommission.

Calculators: Calculators are of value in informing theassessment stage of the above two types of tools byproviding quantitative and qualitative information in theform that is required. Their Critical quality characteristicsinclude: guidelines foruse, suitability, improvementof results; quality ofin-built library; suitability offunctions; quality ofmethodologies employed; dataintensity; assumptions; comprehensiveness; calculationboundaries; speed; simplication.

Guidelines: These form the backbone of all othertools as they provide expert advice on what constituteseconomic, environmental, social and institutionalsustainability for each sector of infrastructure. TheirCritical quality characteristics may include: geographicaland sectoral relevance; quality ofindicator sets; validityand traceability of information.

Key Messages

DS tools are generally superior to R&C toolsin capturing the complexity of incorporatingsustainability into projects. R&C tools risk

mechanistically following a checklist, withoutappreciating the value of what they are doing. Thelack of focus on participatory decision-makingwith R&C tools, a principle itself of sustainability,risks R&C applicants not being able to gaincooperation from other stakeholders, on whichproject progress depends.

R&C tools may be preferred to DS tools inattracting projects and rewarding them for theirefforts. DS tools are not typically linked to anyfinancial incentives or government recognition, donot offer certification at the end of the process, norvisibility of project successes which could be used

to justify to external stakeholders the reasons forthe chosen design.

There is potential in the future for collaborationbetween DS tool firms and R&C bodies.

R&C tools offer certification and hence arevery focussed on ensuring that the claimedsustainability performance of a project isrepresentative of the actual performance.

DS tools are generally very focused on theDesign Option appraisal phase of projects. Their

contribution is much lower at the stages of guidingdesign and generation of these options. Theircontribution is also much lower at stages followingdetailed design, partly because DS developer firmsare not necessarily involved in the construction,operation or decommission of projects.

Tailoring the assessment process of R&C and DStools to the project at hand is a very importantfunction. With DS tools there is generallysignificant freedom to do this. For R&C toolsthis is a challenge because there is a trade-off

between tailoring the assessment and ensuringcomparability between awarded projects ofa similar type. Tools should be as targeted aspossible to the type of projects they are assessing.

Calculators can be particularly useful whendeveloped for intended use with specific R&C orSD tools, as they provide data that can directlyinform the decision-making processes.

There is a risk that stand-alone calculators,particularly ones recommended for compliance

to regulatory requirements, are treated asdesign tools in order to maximise the chances ofcompliance. This can severely undermine otherimportant dimensions of quality design includingsustainability, aesthetics, comfort, usability andeven constructability.

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

10/45


6

There is no shortage of definitions of sustainabledevelopment, starting famously from the 1987 definitionin the Brundtland Report Our Common Future asdevelopment that meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs (UN 1987).

Several models of sustainable development have beendeveloped, including the 5 Capitals Model by Forumfor the Future (defined as natural, social, human,manufactured and financial capital), the Triple BottomLine (defined as society, environment and economy orpeople, planet, profit) and the four-systems conditionsof the Natural Step Framework. All these systems pointto development which would only be truly sustainable,and hence universally beneficial in the long term, ifit balances social, environmental, economic interestsand technological capabilities justly, as expressed intheir local context. Despite widespread and consistent

efforts towards delivering meaningful change, progressin engineering and infrastructure has been slower thanmight have been expected. The essential difficulty lies inthe details of how these aspects are measured, balancedand valued, and then how decisions are made.

The aim of this report is to explore the critical dimensionsof sustainable development and the tools that can enableinfrastructure developers, owners and managers to worktowards projects which ensure asset performance andresilience in a context wider than just business profitability.

Why ocus on decision-making?

Utility firms and property owners/managers providecritical services of water, power, transport, and wastemanagement, to society, investing in large scaleinfrastructural assets of significant value and operationalcost. At the interface between the service provider andfinal user, there is naturally a focus on service andquality. At the same time, there are wider issues ofsocietys enduring wellbeing, and infrastructure has tobe delivered in a context of respect for environment,social fairness, and a long-term future. These sometimes

competing needs have to be considered together. Thisbalancing of unlike aspects is the essence of sustainabledevelopment. The process of achieving agreed outcomesdepends crucially on sound decision-making techniques.

Infrastructure needs to deliver services over its lifetimeefficiently, reliably, and be adaptable and resilient toshocks. This implies assets with a long useful life, withminimum reliance on non-renewable resources, whichminimise impact to society and the environment andwhich benefit, rather than endanger, economic prosperityin the long term. Sustainable infrastructure then, rather

than being one of many competing objectives, becomesan underlying philosophy which guides decision-makingtowards meeting corporate objectives of durabilityand performance. Furthermore, it offers a systemicperspective which is crucial for embracing complexity,balancing tradeoffs and managing competing prioritiesthat are in the nature of modern infrastructure projects.

This State of the World 2012 Report highlightsdecision-making as a way to facilitate sustainableinfrastructure. Decision-making is addressed at thedifferent stages of the infrastructure project cycle, from

inception through development to implementation anddecommissioning.

The emergence of a project is often a tortuous processwhich can take many years. Any project is set againstthe context of a political and economic background,which can be dynamic, and usually results from policiesof a national government, which can then be translatedinto local ambitions, action plans, and developmentprogrammes. The considerations of wider implicationsof such programmes and projects are becominglyincreasingly expressed as aspects of sustainability. The

language and conventions of sustainability, up to now,have not expressly acknowledged different layers fordifferent stages, as a project takes form. But the featuresof sustainability of a project differ for different stages ofdevelopment of a scheme.

Sustainability Decision-making

hierarchy

In order to better understand sustainabilitydecision-making during infrastructure lifetime, six distinct

levels of decision-making are identified. These areConceptual, Inherent, Strategic, Tactical, Operationaland End-of Life decisions, as shown in Figure 1.1.

Chapter1

What is Sustainability?

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

11/45


7

Project Stage Service Stage

Figure 1.1 also demonstrates the weight of sustainabilitydecisions at the Project Stage rather than the ServiceStage of projects.

It is a hierarchy, because as the project moves fromhigh level strategic thinking to specifics, decisions madeconsciously or sub-consciously at each level, formthe assumptions of subsequent levels. For example,

Inherent decisions made on site selection at initial stagesof the project, form assumptions during Strategic andTactical levels on designing site layout, whether the initialdecisions were made from a sustainability perspectiveor not. In terms of sustainability, each decision madein the early phases of development has a strong andlargely irreversible influence on subsequent phases.Taking a sustainability perspective from the outset,which encourages consideration of all interests, risksand opportunities, reduces the chances of having torespond to pressures for change later on. Equally,the opportunity for major sustainability gains is more

prevalent at the earliest stages of project formulation.This was highlighted by the State of the World FIDICInfrastructure Report 2009 and raises the challenge ofthe early involvement of consulting engineers in projects,engineers with the breadth of skills required to makesystematic, multi-disciplinary decisions.

Figure 1.2 shows the decision-making in relation tosustainability involved at different stages in the projectcycle. The figure highlights the importance of whole-lifesustainability considerations, including operational andend-of life considerations, right from the project initiation

stage. It also indicates typical entry points for differentactors showing the challenge of carrying decisions and

assumptions through the cycle as responsibility changeshands.

The nature of sustainability decisions during a projectchanges significantly, each stage offering a differentvisibility of tradeoffs, risks and opportunities, thusbeing valuable in its own way. Conceptual and inherentdecisions suffer from lack of detailed information, butbenefit from a birds-eye view and a lack of constraints

on project definition. They also enable the settingof overarching, sustainability principles that guideall subsequent stages of the project. Strategic andTactical decisions are far more constrained, but containthe wealth of information to design principles intoinfrastructure in a technologically and financially feasibleway. The chance for greatest impact, both positive andnegative, is greatest at the earliest stage, when oftenthe functionality of the project dominates discussionand sustainability is insufficiently considered. Thefollowing paragraphs explain this novel characterisationof sequential approaches to sustainability as a projectevolves and matures.

Conceptual Sustainability Decisions

Conceptual sustainability decisions come at the projectinitiation stage, where there is minimum constraint on theproject. During this stage there is maximum opportunityfor embracing the widest range of issues and benefitsand achieving what FIDICs Project SustainabilityManagement guidelines define as RestorativeSustainability. That is sustainability that goes beyond

minimising damage and tries to restore and improvesociety and the environment.

Figure 1.2 Sustainability decision-making potential along project cycle

Figure 1.1 Sustainability decision-making hierarchy

Operational Sustainability Tactical SustainabilityConceptual

Sustainability

Inherent

SustainabilityStrategic Sustainability

End-of-Life Sustainability

Contractor OperatorDesigner / Architect Consultant

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

12/45


8

There is therefore potential for:

Sustainability thinking to be incorporated in allaspects of the planned development

Selection of development site locations

Identifying benefits and adverse impacts forcommunities and environments

Identifying current and future vulnerabilities andbuilding in resilience

Deciding whether it would be more sustainablein the long term not to proceed with thedevelopment

This last point on whether or not to proceed with aproject is often not made (or allowed as an option

to be considered) by the consulting engineer, whoseappointment is based on the assumption that the projectwill proceed. The Conceptual Phase applies mostpertinently to large scale projects such as entire citydevelopments, major water or wastewater schemes ona city scale, new transport systems, or nuclear, wind, orhydroelectric power proposals.

Inherent Sustainability Decisions

Inherent sustainability decisions are typically made atthe Design Brief stage of the project by which point

the nature of the project to be carried out (in terms ofservices) and the stakeholders this will involve havealready been outlined, but major decisions such as thesite for the development may not yet have been selected.

Inherent sustainability decisions, like conceptual ones,are still based more on the desired outcomes. There arenow more constraints on the project due to the decisionsmade at the Conceptual Stage. There is still potential tolook at the bigger picture issues such as:

What site is feasible and desirable to develop,in terms of ease of access, environmentalimpacts, cost and opportunities to maximise onthe investment?

Where should the development best be placedto benefit society by providing needed services?Which communities could benefit the most fromthese, and who is disadvantaged?

What is the range of services that it could offer,and the positive and negative impacts of these?

Strategic Sustainability Decisions

Decision-making becomes strategic as design teamsconsider different strategies with associated indicatorsand targets that will ensure the satisfactory fulfilment

of sustainability objectives identified at the conceptualstage of the project. Decisions at this stage are based onmore detailed information regarding feasibility, quality,innovation, synergies, and boundaries. The project issplit into physical components and a strategy for theexecution of each is developed. This includes financing

models, procurement method, responsibilities, designoptions, necessary expertise, costing and engineeringfeasibility.

A project which begins to consider sustainability only atthis stage in the project cycle, risks being limited in itspotential as there are already limitations on the projectdue to decisions made during previous phases. There isof course some overlap between stages dependent onthe style of development of each project.

The detail that characterises strategic sustainability

allows for the outline design of different optionsinformed by specialised studies and water, carbon andenergy calculations for each option, leading up to theevaluation of options, and to the choice of a final design.Decision-support tools (Chapter 3), are particularlyimportant during this phase, in helping decision-makingthrough information management, multi-criteria analysisand identification of the most sustainable option.Although application for the necessary permissions maybe carried out at an earlier point, the project now has aselected design and results of specialised studies.

Tactical Sustainability Decisions

Once the project is defined, decisions are concernedwith the realisation of strategic objectives for each projectcomponent through detailed design, technology andmaterial selection and preparation of Tender Documents.Tactical sustainability decisions are concerned with howthis can be done most sustainably to minimise impact.This includes:

Design for constructability, operability andde-constructability including minimisation of

embodied and operational carbon, water andenergy (Life cycle analysis)

Technical design which incorporates passivedesign, waste minimisation, non-renewableresource minimisation, ethical & sustainablematerial procurement, renewable resourcemaximisation (and generation), design forre-use or recycling

Tactical sustainability decisions are limited by decisionsmade earlier in the process, but have the responsibility

of implementing sustainability objectives in the designdetails. Decisions made at this stage and their realisationare determined by the skills of consulting engineers,designers, contractors and operators.

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

13/45


9

Operational Sustainability Decisions

These are concerned firstly with ensuring that operationalsustainability considerations are considered throughoutthe planning and construction project phases, and asound Operational and Management plan is in place to

realise them.

Behaviour of operators, managers or occupiers at theoperational/in-use stage of the project can severelycompromise the intended sustainability performanceof the development at the design and constructionstage. A comprehensive management system forMaintenance and Operations which extends the usefullife of components, ensures timely monitoring, repairand replacement can ensure optimum system operationthroughout asset lifetime.

End-o-Lie Sustainability Decisions

Similarly to operational sustainability, it is importantthat decisions made throughout the project cycle, andparticularly during project planning, are made withsustainability at end-of-life in mind, prioritising the

minimisation of waste. This includes decisions whichpromote infrastructure that is:

Adaptable to upgrades

Flexible to integration with new systems

Flexible to change of use at end of useful life

Can be dismantled into individual componentswhich can be re-used, sold on or recycled

Olympic Park - London 2012

The Conceptual, Inherent and Strategic Sustainability Decision-makingfor the main site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Gameswith whole-life considerations in mind from the outset

Conceptual Sustainability

In the earliest stages of deciding whether or not to make a bid for theGames in 2012, decisions at a conceptual level were made whichhad implications for sustainability that were then effectively locked

into the project. The decision that London would be the biddingcity, the decision that the main Olympic Park would be located inan area which would respond positively to the requirements of theInternational Olympic Committee to provide a lasting legacy for theevent, and the decision to seek for sustainability as a guiding principleof the bid were all conceptual and pivotal in the future decisions.

Inherent Sustainability

In the development of the London Bid for the 2012 Olympicand Paralympic Games, the Bid Team were able to build on theconceptual sustainability principles and the reasons for the choiceof the Olympic Park site included the regeneration of a poor andrun-down part of London, using the Games as a catalyst, the clean-up

of a seriously contaminated area following industrial abandonment,and excellent transport connections already in place and capableof upgrading. Of course the selection of this location came ata cost. The major overhead power lines would have to be taken

underground, the decontamination would entail significant cost, andthere were businesses on the site which would be displaced, as wellas communities which would be disrupted.

Strategic Sustainability

The headline theme for the games, Towards a one planet 2012,expressed an overarching vision of minimising the use of resourcesthroughout the preparation (planning & construction), staging

(operation) and legacy (end-of-life and beyond) of the Games. To thisend, 12 objectives were decided on, with subsequent decision-makingfocusing on how these objectives could be realised in preparation,during and after the Games. These included: Minimisation ofcarbonemissions, efficient wateruse, reuse and recycling; protection andenhancement ofbiodiversity and ecology;transport and mobilitywhich prioritises cycling, walking and use of public transport;

waste reduction through efficient use, reuse and recycling ofmaterials; supporting communities with new, safe, mixed-use publicspace, housing and appropriate facilities to the demographics;identification, sourcing and use of environmentally and sociallyresponsible materials; a highly accessible Olympic Park and venues;optimisation of positive and minimisation of adverse impacts on land,

water, noise and airquality; creation ofemployment and businessopportunities locally, regionally and nationally; providing forhealthylifestyle opportunities during the design and construction of the Parkand venues; to involve, communicate and consult effectively withstakeholders and the diverse communities surrounding the OlympicPark and venues.

Tactical Sustainability

The guidance set by the prior stages enabled the design teams to delivera wide range of sustainability gains through detailed decisions suchas almost complete recovery of construction and demolition waste,high levels of materials transport to site by rail and barge, design ofpermanent facilities with Olympic additions which are demountable,sustainable urban drainage systems, enhanced ecology and waterquality, prudent selection of materials for construction, training andemployment opportunities for local people, and transparent andefficient management procedures.

Case Study I:

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

14/45


0

Swedish SymbioCity Approach orCaoeidian Eco-City in Tangshan, China

Strategic Sustainability (SWECO 2011)

The Cafoeidian Eco-City project, to be completed in 2020, is ajoint collaboration between the Peoples Republic of China and theSwedish Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Urban Developmentin Sweden. The planned eco-city development in Tangshan is partof a larger development of a new international deep water harbourand a large industrial area incorporating equipment manufacturing,chemical industries, steel industries and modern logistics. SwedishConsulting firm SWECO was appointed when the development sitehad already been identified, to work on several tasks including thedevelopment of sustainability guidelines and conceptual physicalplanning for the first phase of the Eco-city.

To carry this out, SWECO utilised their in-house Decision-Supporttool (see Chapter 3) which is based on a sustainable masterplanningframework called the SymbioCity Approach. Characteristics of this

approach include encouragement of holistic, interdisciplinary anditerative planning, identification and utilisation of synergies andefficiencies between sub-systems (transport, energy, water systems),and systemic consideration of environmental, economic and socialbenefits in the development of new cities.

Strategies identified through the SymbioCity Approach were basedon 9 major planning themes for development of a: Liveable,Innovative, Accessible, Green & Blue, Climate-neutral, ResourceEfficient, Flexible and Beautiful city. The strategy for each theme isaccompanied by planning and monitoring indicators with associatedtargets, including achieving 95% energy supply from renewablesources and dedicating 35% of the city area to public spacesincluding green spaces and market places. Characteristics of the

development include: urban nodes around the city which act ascentres for innovation, science, trade or spectator sports; road andtransport infrastructure which encourages walking, cycling and publictransport; a citywide framework of green (parks, greens, recreationareas) and blue (canals, ponds and rivers) features; energy efficientbuildings, local renewable power production from wind turbinesand waste incineration with potential for inclusion of tidal and solarsystems; integrated handling of energy, waste and water for utilisationof synergies including the use of biogas from waste to power vehicles;grid development pattern which is flexible to rapid or slow expansion,with strong urban integration for better quality of life, liveability, socialsecurity, inclusion and health.

Case Study II:

Sweco - Tangshan Bay Eco-City

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

15/45


11

In order to identify the opportunities and threats affectinginfrastructure projects, sustainability should be a majorearly stage consideration. The benefits of this approachinclude balancing risks, improving resilience andcapturing opportunities that might otherwise be missed.Most importantly, this approach can reduce the barriersto more sustainable projects.

Risk

In the 2009 publication of the ISO 31000 RiskManagement standard, risk is defined as the effect ofuncertainty on objectives. Risk accompanies strategicdecisions made about an uncertain future. Sustainabilitythinking is holistic and participatory and, by includingdifferent perspectives and areas of expertise, enablesearly identification and mitigation of risks arising frominfrastructures complexity and its interdependence withother systems.

During the infrastructure project cycle differentstakeholders have legal and professional responsibilitiesfor the project, and their perception of risk is governedby those responsibilities. More importantly, during theproject phase, crucial sustainability choices are oftenmade by decision-makers who are not involved in thelong-term operation of the resulting assets. To explorethis further, a differentiation is made between Project Riskand Service Risk.

Project Risk

Project risk refers to the risks felt by differentparticipants involved during the Project Phase of aninfrastructure assets life-time - i.e. clients, funders,consulting engineers, architects and contractors. Takingsustainability on board to ultimately benefit the operationof infrastructure can increase the short-term risk felt bythese participants. This can be a barrier to the uptake ofsustainable project design.

Service Risk

Service risk refers to risks felt by participants duringthe Service Phase of an assets lifetime, namely assetowners and operators, and facilities and maintenancemanagers. Such risk is spread over a longer proportion

of the assets lifetime and includes the real threat ofvulnerability to economic or environmental shocks, socialchange, escalating costs due to resource scarcity andasset degradation.

The short term risks of adopting sustainability at theProject Phase can discourage uptake, and potentially

increase long term service risk.

Sustainability & Project Risk

The question is therefore, what is the scale of risk felt bydifferent participants at the Project Phase that governstheir decisions, and how can this be mitigated toencourage the inclusion of sustainability? Sustainabilitycan increase perceived project risk in the following ways:

Designer skills: Lack of appropriate skills forsustainability can lead to a design that does notmeet client requirements or is not practicable toconstruct. This can make tendering uncompetitivewith fewer contractors willing to take on the job,and at a higher price for those that are.

Contractor skills: Lack of contractor staff skills forsustainable design can lead to a final productthat does not meet quality specifications and doesnot have the desired performance. The client canperceive this as a waste of investment. This canalso discourage contractors from bidding in thefirst place

Technology credibility: Increased risk posedto clients, associated with adopting a noveltechnology the performance of which may not befully understood, and which may be surpassed byhigher performing versions later

Multidisciplinary & multi-stakeholder: Themultidisciplinary nature of sustainability requiresthe engagement of many experts. This makesthe process more complex, involving morestakeholders, more specialists, and moreinformation

Complexity: Decisions need to be made balancingmany trade-offs, multiple priorities (comparedto the conventional cost-time-quality), and large

Chapter2

Sustainability - Risk, Resilience and Opportunity

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

16/45


2

amounts of information

Sustainability limits: There is no perceived limit tosustainability. How much sustainability is sufficient?Is zero negative impact a realistic target to strivefor?

What responsibilities and risks different participants carrydepends, at least partly, on the procurement methodselected. Different contracts can favour or discourageuptake of sustainability considerations.

Single stage, two-stage and design-build procurementare commonly used procurement methods. All involvethe invitation of tenders by firms who typically competeon the basis of price and quality. Two-stage procurementis distinct in that there is an early tendering andcontractor appointment before the design has been

finalised, with the selected contractor contributing to thedesign process. Design-build involves the appointmentof a single entity including both the designer andthe contractor. This ensures their joint responsibilitythroughout the project.

Green Procurement or Sustainable Procurement isan emerging term used to describe the considerationof environmental, social and economic parametersin addition to the conventional ones of cost, time andquality, for selecting suppliers and service providers(contractors, designers, consulting engineers). These

considerations become embedded in tendering andspecification documentation and require that suppliersare able to report on the sustainability impact of thematerials and products they offer (e.g. embodied waste,carbon, water involved in their production, and theirconsumption during operation). It also requires thatbidding designers and contractors can collaborate withsuch suppliers and have the expertise to deliver thefinal product at the required sustainability standard.Prequalication of consultants, suppliers or contractorsto recognise those able to deliver sustainable servicesand products can help to compensate for the risk

associated with the designer and contractor skillsidentified above. Such a competitive advantage canencourage other firms to develop their skills and servicesto ensure they can also meet the prequalificationrequirements.

Sustainability & Service Risk

According to the World Economic Forum 2010Global Risk Report, the world is characterised bymore system risks than ever before due to increasinginterconnectedness, underinvestment in much-neededinfrastructure, biodiversity loss, cyber vulnerability andcreeping risk due to tipping points being reached. Intheir report, the WEF express elegantly through graphicalrepresentations the interdependence and severity of

different global risks, which can be adapted to articulatethe dimensions of sustainability. One of the benetsof linking the language of risk to the aspirationsof sustainability is that risk necessarily requires anunderstanding of the interrelationship of many factors,and sustainability equally depends on such complexity.

Furthermore, major infrastructure projects have for manyyears handled project design and delivery using, amongother tools, Risk Assessment, to aid decision-making.By adopting similar language for sustainability, it maybe possible to engage decision-makers in infrastructureprojects more effectively.

Sustainability thinking very quickly highlights trade-offs.For example a tidal power project can, from onesustainability perspective, offer the opportunity for hugeincreases in renewable energy use. From a different

sustainability perspective, it can result in widespreadenvironmental loss and change. Sustainability is notresponsible for these trade-offs, rather it brings themto the surface so that informed decisions can bemade. Furthermore, sustainability thinking enablesthe systematic thinking needed to avoid the risk ofwhat happens when things considered individually aresuddenly put together.

Risks to infrastructure assets, utilities and services thatcan be predicted and mitigated by being examinedthrough the lens of sustainability, are elaborated onbelow.

1.Natural Hazards

There has been an increase of natural disasters over thelast three decades. This is demonstrated in Figure 2.1,although it may be argued that early data in particularsuffers from a lack of information and reporting ofincidents. It is also true that increasing urbanisation,and increasing population pressures mean that naturalhazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts,floods, hurricanes and cyclones will have progressivelymore adverse consequences.

This implies that interdependent infrastructure will haveto operate under increasing pressure from its externalenvironment from multiple directions. The nature ofconnectivity between systems will determine the way thatimpact is felt. For example, in 2003, a power outagein northern Ohio caused the largest blackout in thehistory of North America which affected, amongst others,water supply (loss of pressure due to pumping failure),power supply (hydro, coal and oil fired plants had to be

employed to replace nuclear), telecommunications andtransportation (airports and rail stations shut down due tolack of electricity) for 50 million people. Estimates for thetotal cost of the blackout, which lasted around 4 days,range between $4 - 10 billion.

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

17/45


13

Figure 2.1 Increasingly frequent and complex natural disasters(1974-2006)

2.Political and economic uncertainties

Infrastructure projects involve high capital costs andyears of operational costs throughout an assetslifetime. They require stable financial environments andconstant revenue streams to ensure healthy businesses.The Global Financial Crisis that started in 2008 is anexample of economic instability that has had far-reaching

implications on businesses, employment, the housingmarket and infrastructure finance.

Sustainable infrastructure can help to reduce exposure tothese uncertainties by advising on sustainable sourcingto reduce tensions, increased efficiencies to reducecost and consumption and use of local sourcing, localgeneration and use of renewables to increase security.Unsustainable infrastructure can lock communities andbusinesses in to diminishing and expensive resources,vulnerable infrastructure configurations and outdatedstandards.

3. Resource scarcity

Water, one of our most abundant resources, is alreadycritically scarce for a quarter of the worlds population.The heavy reliance of global economies and industrieson non-renewable sources has been raising theconcerns of increased carbon footprint, resourcedepletion and resource security. However, switching toa green economy is also a challenge. While the currentinfrastructure may be unable to deliver a low-carbonfuture, there is a danger that switching to greentechnologies on a large scale will increase resourcestresses on an entirely different set of non-renewablematerials.

As one example of resource scarcity, the US Departmentof Energy outlines 14 materials that will become critical,in terms of importance and uncertainty in supply, withthe growth of a green economy (Figure 2.2). Cobaltin particular, vital for use in lithium ion batteries ofelectric vehicles, is making a comeback after lack of

supply in the 1970s forced its replacement with othermetals. Its newly found applications in military aerospaceengineering and green technologies (with a singleelectric vehicle expected to require 9.4kg of Cobalt)are over and above its current demand in cell phone,tablet and laptop technologies that also use lithium ionbatteries. Currently 99% of Cobalt production originatesfrom African mines, and is predominantly processed andsold by Chinese firms.

According to the US Critical Materials Strategy, thefollowing materials will reach criticality in the short and

medium term:

Lithium, Cobalt, Manganese, Nickel,Neodymium, Praseodymium, Cerium andLanthanum used in electric vehicle batteries

Neodymium, Praseodymium, and Dysprosiumwith Samarium and Cobalt as potentialsubstitutes, magnets used in electric vehiclesand wind turbines

Lanthanum, Cerium, Europium, Terbium andYttrium used in phosphors forenergy efcientlighting

Indium, Gallium and Tellurium used in thin filmsforsolar cells

Figure 2.2 shows the criticality of these materials in theshort and medium-term.

Figure 2.2 Medium-term criticality of green technology raw materials

4. Human perormance

An inevitable source of risk for infrastructure is uncertaintyassociated with human performance during the operation

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

18/45


4

of critical assets. A dramatic example of this is the BhopalGas tragedy in India. This has been labelled one of theworlds worst chemical industrial accidents. On the 3rdDecember in 1984, toxic gas (methyl isocyanate (MIC))leaked from the Union Carbide India Limited pesticidefactory in the Indian city of Bhopal. The leak was caused

by water entering one of the MIC storage tanks, whichtriggered a reaction and caused a tremendous increase intemperature and pressure in the tank. The MIC plant wasnot designed to handle runaway reactions and so the toxicgases were automatically released into the atmosphere.

The gas spread through the shanty towns of Bhopal,resulting in the death of 3,000 people during the firstweeks and leaving 100,000 persons with permanentinjuries. It is believed that the accident was caused bycompromised safety standards at the factory for thepurpose of cost-cutting. Although human error cannot be

eliminated, the combination of safety and sustainabilitypractices ensures that the adverse impacts of errors ornegligence to a wide spectrum of stakeholders are fullyunderstood and mitigated against, from the project onset.

5. System perormance

Conventional engineering design is focussed on extensivetesting of individual components to determine expectedperformance and resilience. However, there is lessconsideration of the emergent behaviour of componentsonce they are combined and interacting. The increasinginterconnectedness between services implies thatdamage at any point in the system can have knock-oneffects through that and other systems. A further aspectof vulnerability for critical infrastructure is the long lifespan of its assets, which can lead to components beingadded on over time, without adequate consideration ofsystem behaviour and systematic risk management. Thisstems from the fundamental problem which sustainabilitytries to tackle, which is the lack of holistic considerationof infrastructure systems in their entirety and not merelyof the component parts individually.

Sustainability thinking demands the input ofconsultants and other experts, and early stakeholderinvolvement to bring to light possible adverse effects ofinfrastructure development. It requires the selection ofdevelopment routes with the least all-round risk, andhence maximum buy-in, and its systematic perspectiveallows identification and reinforcement of criticalinterdependency connections within infrastructure, orbetween infrastructure and the society it serves. Finally,sustainability rises to the challenge of assigning a valueto the cost of social and environmental impact, thus

enabling a balanced cost and benefit analysis of optionsduring project initiation and raising the question, Is it abetter option not to carry out this project?

Sustainability can most easily be embraced whenan organisation is able to take into account all theconsequences of its decisions. If all aspects are theresponsibility of a single organisation, including thelong term implications, then the decisions made will beholistic, rounded and more sustainable.

Resilience

The Institute of Resilient Infrastructure (IRI) of LeedsUniversity in the UK, defines resilience as the ability of asystem to withstand disruption and continue to functionand develop, adding further that resilient infrastructureis low carbon infrastructure.

Failure in one asset or infrastructure can cascadeto disruption or failure in others, and the combinedeffect could prompt far-reaching consequences

affecting government, the economy, public health andsafety, national security and public confidence.

National Strategy for Physical Protection of CriticalInfrastructures and Key Asset, US (2003)

Infrastructural vulnerability describes critical assetsexposure and susceptibility to threat, with riskdescribing the severity of its consequences. Thepursuit of infrastructure resilience then involvesreduced probabilities of failure, reduction of negative

consequences when failure does occur, and reduction inrecovery time, through an increase in the systems abilityto persist, adapt and transform.

Inrastructure as a Complex Adaptive System

To better understand the behaviour of infrastructure, itshould be modelled as a Complex Adaptive System

(CAS). This is an attempt to explain that the behaviour ofa system is more than merely an addition of thebehaviour of its individual components. Such systemsoccur widely in nature, and have several important

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

19/45


15

characteristics of resilience (shown in Figure 2.3), fromwhich infrastructure systems could also benefit. Thesecharacteristics are also inherently encouraged by theincorporation of sustainability into project design andoperations.

Figure 2.3 Resilience characteristics of Complex Adaptative Systems(CAS)

A sustainability perspective is holistic, and recognises theconnectivity between infrastructure services and withinthe systems of society and the economy. By prioritisingthese connections, sustainability encourages, through theparticipation and early involvement of experts, theircriticality to be identified and that they are nurtured to be

flexible and strong. The advancement of infrastructure tothe detriment of society or the environment, would in turnnegatively impact infrastructure in the longer term.Sustainability embraces and offers frameworks forparticipatory, multi-stakeholder, multi-criteriadecision-making, that do not shy away from complexity.This offers a wide-ranging view of the project whichenables identification ofemergent behaviour and risks,and which embraces diversity andvariety of opinions,skills and interests. It can be a feature of ComplexAdaptive Systems to encourage self-organising of systemcomponents such that they can react and adapt to

maintain viability.

A CAS system tries to be sub-optimal, i.e. not striving foroptimisation in its services. Rather it need only be slightlybetter than its competitors, spending remaining energyon robustness and effectiveness rather than efficiency.This is again in line with sustainability which tries to moveprojects away from the narrowly focussed ambitions ofquality, time and cost, which can potentially be optimisedto the detriment of other important parameters such asrobustness and societal, environmental and economicenhancement.

Opportunity

During the Project Phase, sustainable design canenable teams to exploit various financial incentives as areward for the incorporation of green technologies, forachieving resource consumption targets or for acquiring

certification by a relevant Rating & Certification scheme.Sustainability Tools that are aligned with governmentpolicies allow for endorsement of such schemes,making it increasingly beneficial for projects to strive forsustainability targets.

Although it is a hurdle for engineering consultants,designers and contractors to develop skills forsustainable design and execution, once this experienceis acquired it offers a competitive advantage overother contractors or engineering consultants. Severalconsulting engineering firms and design and buildcompanies are already broadening their service portfolioto include sustainability services. This has largely beenthe motivator for the development of Decision Supporttools, which are discussed in Chapter 3.

During the Service Phase, sustainability enablesoperators to capitalise on earlier sustainability decisionsthrough:

increased technical efficiencies;

reduced operational and maintenance costs;

resource security through local energygeneration, local resource utilisation, andreduced consumption;

identification of synergies for greaterefficiencies, buy-in and ultimately a profitablebusiness;

reduced disruption due to the presence ofhealthier communities and economies whichin turn have a positive impact on infrastructuresystems;

utilisation of innovative technologies andsystems offering a competitive advantage;

increased resilience to environmental, social,economic and political shocks

The extent to which a client adopts these approaches canbe an indicator of their commitment to sustainability.

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

20/45


6

Overview

The aim of this section is to investigate the nature ofsustainability tools currently available on the market.These are not a solution to sustainable infrastructureprojects, but offer valuable support. Such tools aim

to reduce the risk of incorporating sustainability at theProject Phase, for the benefit of long-term sustainability,asset risk reduction, and to maximise exploitation ofopportunities. This Report has grouped sustainabilitytools into the four categories shown in Figure 3.1 below,depending on their origin and intended use.

Chapter3

Sustainability Tools

Decision-Support (DS) Tools

These are typically produced by engineeringconsultancies and occasionally by academia. Whatdifferentiates DS tools, is that they use sustainability

guidelines and methodologies to provide expertconsulting support to decision-making all along theproject cycle. The most popular feature of a DS toolis an assessment framework which uses Multi-criteriaAnalysis Methods to assess the sustainability performance

of different design options during the Appraisal ofDesign Options stage. However such tools are equallyvaluable in guiding the project Design Stage accordingto sustainability principles.

The incentive for developing a DS tool is to developin-house expertise in project sustainability, to offersustainability consulting services to clients and even tohelp clients projects prepare for rating and certification(R&C). The Decision-Support tools investigated as part ofthis study are listed in Table 3.1.

Tool Developer Sector Country of origin

HalSTAR Halcrow All infrastructure UK

SPeAR ARUP All infrastructure UK

ASPIRE ARUP & Engineers Against Poverty All infrastructure UK

INDUS Mo MacDonald All infrastructure UK

Tandem Empreinte Egis All infrastructure FranceSustainable Water

Engineering Opportunity

Tool

Mo MacDonald Water & Wastewater

Sector

UK

SWARD Guidelines

(Sustainable Water

industry Asset Resource

Decisions)

Richard Ashley (University of Bradford),

David Blackwood (University of Abertay

Dundee), David Butler (Imperial College),

Paul Jowi (Heriot-Wa University)

Water & Wastewater

Sector

UK

Safety & Sustainable

Development (S&SD)

Valuaton Framework

AngloAmerican Mining Sector Internatonal

SPRIng University of Manchester in collaboraton

with City and Southampton Universites

Nuclear Energy Sector UK

MAESTRO Arrival

Departure Manager

Egis Avia and French Civil Aviaton DSNA Transport (Aviaton) Sector France

Symbio City Approach SWECO Urban Planning Sweden

Sustainability Matrices Max Fordham Buildings UK

Figure 3.1 Sustainability tool categories

Table 3.1 Decision Support tools investigated

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

21/45


17

Rating and Certifcation (R&C) Tools

These are typically produced by reputable governmentalor non-governmental institutions, sometimes incollaboration with academia. They are intendedto assess, rate and award a planned or existing

development, depending on its performance againstrelevant sustainability criteria.

The incentive for applying for R&C is to gain recognitionfor the sustainability performance of a development andgain competitive advantage in the market. The incentivefor a certifying body is to set nationally or internationallyrecognised voluntary sustainability standards for theirsector. The Rating & Certification tools investigated aspart of this study are listed in Table 3.2.

Calculators

Calculators are important in informing DS and R&C toolsby providing quantitative and qualitative values in theform that they are required. Calculators are developedboth by the private and public sector either as isolatedtools or to accompany another sustainability tool (e.g.the Building Energy Intensity Tool (BEIT) calculatoraccompanying the Green Building Index (GBI) R&C toolin Malaysia). Calculators are intended to provide values

for a variety of quantities such as carbon emissions,energy use or water consumption for a specific designoption. They are of particular importance to R&Ctools, as these place more emphasis on collection ofquantitative evidence for sustainability assessment.

The incentive for using Calculators is to report on valuesrequired by regulation, certifying bodies or clients. Theincentive for developing a Calculator is to standardisemethodologies for the speedy, expert calculationof quantities of importance. Appendix I provides anon-exhaustive list of some of the Calculators currentlyon the market.

Guidelines

Guideline documents typically inform other sustainabilitytools on sustainability quality, standards, indicators

or methodologies. They can also inform on relevantregulations and sector specific sustainability technologiesand strategies. These can be general and directed ata wide audience, including members of the public forawareness-raising. More usefully, they can be targetedat specific sectors or geographies and present keyopportunities, risks and coping strategies. Appendix IIprovides a listing of some useful Guideline documentswhich are freely available online.

Tool Certfying body Sector Country of origin

CEEQUAL Insttuton of Civil Engineers (ICE) All Infrastructure UK

ENVISION Insttute of Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) & Harvard

University

All Infrastructure US

IS Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC) All Infrastructure Australia

GreenLITES New York State Department of Transport Transport US (New York)

Greenroads University of Washington & CH2MHILL Transport US

STARS Portland Bureau of Transport Transport US (Portland)

INVEST US Department of Transport Federal Highway

Administraton

Transport US

BREEAM Building Research Establishment (BRE) Buildings UK

LEED US Green Building Council Buildings US

CalGREEN California Building Standards Commission Buildings US (California)

CASBEE Japan Sustainable Building Consortum Buildings Japan

Estdama Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council Buildings Abu Dhabi

BERDE Philippines Green Building Council Buildings Philippines

GreenMark Building and Constructon Authority of Singapore Buildings Singapore

GBI Associaton of Consultng Engineers Malaysia &

Malaysian Insttute of Architects

Buildings Malaysia

Green Star Green Building Council of Australia Buildings Australia

BEAM Hong Kong Green Building Council Buildings Hong Kong

Sustainable

Community

Ratng

Government of Victoria (Australia) Buildings Australia

Green Star SA

Ratng Tools

Green Building Council South Africa Buildings South Africa

Table 3.2 Rating and certication tools investigated

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

22/45


8

Decision-Support Tools

Decision-Support (DS) tools are predominantly developedby consultancies and hence are typically used to supportconsultancy services rather than to act as standalonetools. This is one reason why they are not usually madefully commercially available - consulting services areconsidered indispensable for their correct use.

DS tools are also called Process tools, because theyoutline a process which maps onto the conventionalproject cycle and uses various tools (such as calculatorsof multi-criteria analysis methods) to support moresustainable decision-making.

DS tools are developed to assist engineering consultantswho are advising client projects. For this reason they areflexible enough to be tailored to a range of projects.

This can include advising a specific project phase(such as site selection), advising an entire project, oradvising organisational practices and corporate socialresponsibility.

Overall, this Report distinguishes DS tools for their

participatory nature, their injection of sustainabilityconsultant expertise into client projects, for theirmanagement of complex sustainability decision-makingand for their innovative sustainability models. A corefeature of DS tools is a set of sustainability criteria andindicators, called a Sustainability Criteria Set (SCS), whichserves different functions along the project cycle. It is anintellectually intensive feature and so is not usually madepublicly available in all detail. An SCS enables three basicactivities:visualisation, assessment and guidance. In thefollowing sections advice is provided on how DS tools canoffer decision support to each stage in the project cycle.

Table 3.3 summarises recommendations on how DS tools can contribute to each stage in the project cycle

Project Phase Contributon of Decision Support Tools

Scoping & Objectves Conceptual Sustainability decisions (incl. consideratons of Operatonal & End-of-Life)

Advice on sustainability related opportunites & risks to be incorporated into overall

project objectves and goals

Baseline assessment

Design Brief & Feasibility Inherent Sustainability decisions (incl. Operatonal & End-of-Life)

Sustainability priorites incorporated into project definiton

Sustainability considerations ensure whole-life integraton of risk, value and opportunity

in feasibility studies

Sustainability priorites are translated into weightngs to be used during performance

assessment of design in subsequent stages

Design Outline & Opton

Formulaton

Strategic Sustainability decisions (incl. Operatonal & End-of-Life)

Checklist of important features for sustainability performance

Guidance and criteria for designers on sustainable design

Innovatve technologies and methods to improve sustainability performance

Appraisal of Design

Optons

Strategic Sustainability decisions (incl. Operatonal & End-of-Life)

Involvement of experts in advising on specialised studies and detailed weightngs for

performance assessment

Assessment of each design opton against sustainability criteria

Calculators to provide useful values needed for the assessment

Partcipatory assessment which brings stakeholders, experts and planning authorites

together to decide on final weightngs, materiality and performance of each opton

Comprehensive performance mapping of each opton enables selecton of best

performing opton

Sensitvity analysis inspires confidence in results

Detailed Design of

preferred opton

Tactcal Sustainability decisions (incl. Operatonal & End-of-Life)

Performance snapshot of preferred opton used for improvement

Detailed guidelines on sustainable design and novel technologies

Guidance for incorporatng whole-life consideratons including constructability,

operability and de-constructability

Tendering Acton Guidance for ensuring contractor selecton based not only on cost and tme but also

ability to produce desired sustainability outcome

Constructon Tactcal Sustainability decisions (incl. Operatonal & End-of-Life)

Guidance on realising design intent

Assessment of end product against performance criteria to enable comparison with

intended sustainability performance at design stage

Operaton/In Use Operatonal Sustainability decisions

Assessment of product in operaton to enable comparison with intended sustainability

performance at design stage

Guidelines on operatonal procedures for whole-life sustainabilityDeconstructon

/Decommission

End-of-life Sustainability decisions

Guidelines on good deconstructon/decommission procedures (re-use, recycle, disposal)

for whole-life sustainability

Table 3.3 Contribution of Decision Support tools

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

23/45


19

1. Scoping & Objectives

During project initiation, the client and engineeringconsultants explore the vision behind the desireddevelopment and how this can be realised in a givenregulatory and commercial environment. Overarching

project objectives are formalised and alignment withorganisational and national strategies are exploredfor identifying regulatory requirements and incentives.It involves the preparation of financial and technicalfeasibility studies to advise on areas of high risk,uncertainty and constraints to development. It alsoinvolves the preparation of a project managementstructure, scheduling, identification of external expertiserequired and selection of a suitable procurementmethod.

The size, complexity and key drivers for a project will

determine the need for sustainability decision support.DS tools assist with processing large amounts of dataand supporting decisions in the face of complex projectimpacts, risks, interests and tradeoffs.

The larger and more disruptive the planneddevelopment, the more crucial this support becomes.It can be perceived that conducting such projectssustainably will add to their complexity, butsustainable thinking from the outset enables earlyidentication of tradeoffs, risks and opportunities thatwould exist regardless and would cause delays later.

For this reason, the following actions identify therecommended ways that DS tools can be utilised for:guiding uptake of sustainability principles, informing thebaseline assessment and determining the materiality ofimpacts.

Guidance

During Conceptual or Inherent decision-making,sustainability DS services can offer valuable support in:

Early exploration of affected groups(Stakeholder Analysis) and likely negativeimpacts. This enables identification of ways forproject development to minimise impact anddisruption

Formalisation of pro-sustainability strategicgoals and objectives with associated targets.This helps other stakeholders buy in to theproject vision later on. It becomes a commonlanguage for designers and ensures thatthe developer commits to their sustainability

priorities throughout the project

Selection of pro-sustainability Key PerformanceIndicators (KPIs) for evaluating against later

Social and Environmental Impact Assessmentsalongside financial or technical feasibilitystudies

Systemic perspective from the outset whichembraces interdependence between

infrastructure systems and with society andthe economy. This maximises the chancesof identification of unforeseen risks andvulnerabilities that may cause delays oreven failure later on. This helps formulateoverarching strategies that guide scheduling,assigning of responsibilities, specialiststudies, design of options and procurementconsiderations so as to mitigate these risks

Early identification of trade-offs and support ofdecision-making in light of these

Collaborative project planning whichencourages buy-in and explores win-winavenues through dialogue with local or nationalgovernment, interest groups or possiblebeneficiaries

Emphasis on the local context and earlyawareness of local needs, peculiaritiesand regulations that may influence projectdevelopment

Baseline Assessment

Early feasibility analysis includes an assessment of thebaseline state prior to the planned development. It iscritical that a holistic sustainability assessment of thestresses and interests of a region is made to determine ifand how the project should proceed. DS tools can guideconsiderations of the following:

What local or national critical service gaps existthat could be met by the project?

What would be the direct and indirect benefits

(e.g. employment, local economic regeneration)of providing such services, and how could thedevelopment maximise these? What are thepossible negative effects of the project on socialvulnerabilities?

What are the local or national strategies andregulations that could accelerate progress orcause delays? What necessary specialist studiesor licenses do these point to?

Will any strain on local resources beexacerbated by the project?

What local competing or supporting services(e.g. transport services) are available?

7/28/2019 Sow2012 0822 Electronic

24/45


20

What local environmental vulnerabilities couldbe exacerbated by the project and in turn causefurther complications and delays?

What would be an optimum site for thedevelopment in order to maximise the use

of existing services, contribute towards localregeneration and minimise adverse impacts onaffected communities and the environment?Design teams should always consider whetherit is better for the project not to take placeat all, or to change radically from the initialscope or location.

Materiality

As the project vision is formalised and a baselineassessment conducted, some potential sustainability

impacts will emerge as priorities over others. It is advisedthat the Sustainability Criteria Set of a DS tool is used atthis stage as a comprehensive list of potentially importantcriteria to consider