Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Development of a metric system measuring infrastructure

sustainability: Empirical studies of Hong Kong
Bingsheng Liu a, Bin Xue a, *, Xingbin Chen b
a
School of Public Affairs, Chongqing University, No. 174, Shazheng Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, China
b
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sustainable infrastructure development is an indispensable driving force for successfully advancing ur-
Received 10 January 2020 banization globally. Evaluation of Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) has become an area of research
Received in revised form increasingly gaining scrutiny. However, there exists a knowledge gap of a formal and comprehensive
5 May 2020
metric system measuring IS in current studies. By reviewing infrastructure assessment studies and in-
Accepted 21 August 2020
Available online 26 August 2020
ternational rating systems, this study identified 64 metrics measuring IS. Building upon this, an empirical
survey was designed and conducted to propose an IS metric system by analyzing 68 responding samples
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s adopting ranking analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. This IS metric system consists of 4 mea-
surement dimensions integrating the triple bottom line e environmental IS, social IS, and economic IS e
Keywords: with a fourth sustainability pillar of managerial IS. Three case studies evaluating sustainable in-
Infrastructure sustainability frastructures in Hong Kong were conducted to validate the formality and comprehensiveness of the
Metric system developed IS metric system. It is claimed that, on the one hand, the IS metric system is formal enough to
Multidisciplinary evaluation accommodate 4 dimensions, 15 criteria, and 50 metrics required for lifecycle IS evaluation. On the other
Empirical study
hand, it is comprehensive enough to distinguish heterogeneous IS criteria adopted by multidisciplinary
Case study
professionals in IS evaluation. The IS metric system not only contributes to the knowledge and practice in
Hong Kong
the field of multidisciplinary sustainability evaluation but also serves as a guide for infrastructure
stakeholders making multidisciplinary decisions in terms of sustainable infrastructure developments.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (Xue and Xu, 2018). Early decision-making for IS considers multi-
dimensional sustainability performances of the project
The role of the Architecture, Engineering & Construction (AEC) throughout its lifecycle, including planning, design, construction,
sector becomes vitally important owing to various worldwide operation & maintenance, and decommissioning (Yu et al., 2018).
megatrends, such as the advancing urbanization. Urbanization is Besides, the decision-making process is increasingly systematic and
promoted globally to accommodate 200,000 people increased per complex, involving multidisciplinary teams who are responsible for
day (World Economic Forum, 2017), in which infrastructure the lifecycle delivery. Therefore, how to deliver sustainable in-
development is one of the driving forces. However, stringent frastructures by satisfying multidisciplinary stakeholders’ prefer-
environmental green standards are revolutionizing traditional ences is gaining more concerns in early development decision-
infrastructure development practices. AEC industry is the largest making.
global consumer of raw materials and the built environment ac- Evaluation of IS has led to a research area of establishing in-
counts for 25e40% of the world’s total carbon emissions (World dicators and criteria systems. Existing IS measurement studies have
Economic Forum, 2017). To this end, infrastructure sustainability advanced the triple bottom line (TBL) theory proposed by Elkington
(IS) was proposed as a driver to develop the urban economy, (1997), including economic, social, and environmental perfor-
improve the social utility, and enhance environmental implication mances. For instance, economic-based cost and profitability, social-
based wellbeing and quality of life, and environmental-based
resource consumption and ecological impacts account for the
* Corresponding author.
most assessment criteria (Siew et al., 2013). Although those TBL
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Liu), [email protected] factors have been widely operationalized, IS metrics regarding
(B. Xue), [email protected] (X. Chen). lifecycle integrated management are rarely highlighted in early

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123904
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

development decisions. Many emerging international rating sys- concluding remarks and future research directions are put forward
tems (CEEQUAL, 2015; ISCA, 2018; ISI, 2018) have been focusing on in Section 8.
the significance of assessing managerial and innovative perfor-
mances of an infrastructure project. This means that management 2. Research framework
is arisen as the fourth pillar to support the TBL, such as project risk
management and sustainable procurement adopted by infrastruc- To develop a formal and comprehensive metric system for IS
ture stakeholders who evaluate IS in practices (Diaz-Sarachaga assessment, an empirical research was designed to collect empir-
et al., 2016). ical opinions from infrastructure professionals, as shown in Fig. 1.
However, existing IS indicators and rating systems are frag- Based on the literature review and case observations, Step 1 values
mented and have not been integrated between theoretical evalu- the significance of IS measurement for multidisciplinary infra-
ation and practical rating. Moreover, existing IS metrics cannot structure developments. This value leads to the exploration of
represent heterogenous priorities across evaluators with multi- existing metrics in Step 2, including assessment criteria in literature
disciplinary expertise. To this end, evaluation information provided and international rating systems in practice. Notably, knowledge
by those evaluators against those metrics they are unfamiliar with gaps of current metric systems hindering evaluation of environ-
is somewhat subjective and untrustworthy, which results in in- mental, social, economic, and managerial IS for multidisciplinary
consistencies. Therefore, there lacks a formal and comprehensive use were discovered from literature. Step 3 designs a questionnaire
metric system measuring IS for multidisciplinary use in early in- survey indicating 64 identified IS metrics to collect empirical evi-
tegrated decision-making. On the one hand, formality (Carr and dence from multidisciplinary infrastructure professionals. A ques-
Tah, 2001; Kim and Fischer, 2014) describes the integrative tionnaire survey was selected as the main research methodology
assessment regarding environmental, social, economic, and because it can collect data answering research questions and con-
managerial sustainability from a lifecycle perspective. Compre- forming to specific data types. Furthermore, data analysis methods
hensiveness (Kim and Fischer, 2014; Phan and Baird, 2015), on the including ranking analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were
other hand, means that the system is capable of heterogeneously adopted to process the collected data with 68 valid samples in Step
distinguishing different evaluation priorities among multidisci- 4. Finally, three case studies of typical Hong Kong infrastructures
plinary AEC professionals. were conducted in Step 5 to validate the developed metric system
To support integrative and multidisciplinary evaluation of IS, the for IS by claiming its formality and comprehensiveness. The
research question is proposed as what is a formal and compre- developed IS metric system consisting of 4 dimensions, 15 criteria,
hensive metric system measuring IS? This study aims to answer the and 50 metrics fills the knowledge gap discovered in literature and
question with two research objectives: (1) developing a dimension- corresponds to the values of IS measurement in multidisciplinary
criterion-metric IS system; and (2) validating its formality and evaluation contexts.
comprehensiveness. This study integrates the TBL theory
(Elkington, 1997) and product, organization, and process (POP) 3. Literature review
framework (Fischer et al., 2017; Kam and Fischer, 2004; Kunz et al.,
1993). A four-dimension IS measurement framework e environ- 3.1. Infrastructure sustainability
mental, social, economic, and managerial e is proposed. The IS
metric system is developed based on an empirical survey and Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) has been recognized as a crit-
validated by three typical infrastructure assessment cases in Hong ical benchmark measuring the lifecycle sustainable development of
Kong. The formality and comprehensiveness of the IS metric system a project, a city, or a nation (Meng et al., 2018). From a project
are finally claimed. perspective, IS has the property of maintaining long-term infra-
This study contributes to the body of knowledge of sustain- structure functional values, such as safety, validity, and durability
ability measurement and infrastructure evaluation. For practical (Kivila€ et al., 2017; Meng et al., 2015; Xue et al., 2018). From an
implications, it serves as a guide for infrastructure stakeholders urbanization viewpoint, IS provides a sustained and effective sys-
making multidisciplinary decisions in terms of sustainable infra- tem enhancing living conditions and quality of life for communities
structure developments. The developed metric system enables (Dhakal and Chevalier, 2017; Meng et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2018).
comprehensive IS evaluation from six multidisciplinary perspec- From an angle of national culture, IS leads to societal survival and
tives, including owners, architects, engineers, contractors, sup- prosperity while promoting the environmental, economic, and
pliers, and consultants. Furthermore, it provides a benchmark for human growth of regions (Mcmanamay et al., 2017; Meng et al.,
professionals adopting their highly weighted criteria in evaluating 2018; Mieg and To € pfer, 2013).
IS for infrastructure development alternatives. Besides, it promotes Existing studies scrutinized IS from various lenses. To begin
integrated management of multidisciplinary stakeholders who with, IS has is an indispensable objective for lifecycle project
participated in collectively developing sustainable infrastructures. planning (Yu et al., 2018). Chawla et al. (2018) found that IS has
The remainder of this study is structured as the following. A paramount impacts on its project conception, planning, scheduling,
research framework combining an empirical survey and validation and execution. In the same vein, Lenferink et al. (2013) and Kivila €
case studies is presented in Section 2. A critical overview of existing et al. (2017) considered IS as both sustainable project deliverables
literature in the domain of IS and multidisciplinary evaluation of (products) and sustainable project deliveries (processes). To ach-
AEC projects is articulated in Section 3 to discover knowledge gaps. ieve IS through project management, green procurement (Silvius,
Section 4 describes the methodology followed by this study, 2017), strategic asset management (Mohammadifardi et al., 2019),
including the design of questionnaires, methods of data analysis, and relational contracting (Harris et al., 2017) have been identified
and validation by case studies. This is followed by the detailed re- as the critical strategies.
sults of the proposed IS metric system, including the data collection Furthermore, developing sustainable infrastructures requires
and respondent profiles, ranking analysis, and CFA in Section 5. collaborative coordination and effective participation among key
Section 6 validates developed IS metric systems in terms of for- stakeholders, including governments, industries, academia, and the
mality and comprehensiveness. Besides, the main findings of this public (Berawi, 2016; El-Gohary and Qari, 2010). Li et al. (2018)
study including the metric system measuring IS and the multidis- examined the positive effects of incorporating stakeholders’ opin-
ciplinary IS priorities are discussed in Section 7. Ultimately, ions into the sustainability decision-making of infrastructure
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 3

Fig. 1. Research framework.

developments. Based on the social welfare theory, Mostafa & El- perspective, resources consumption behaviors of infrastructures
gohary (2014) classified the benefits of IS into social, environ- have been highlighted for IS assessment (Fern andez-Sa nchez and
mental, and economic benefits to public stakeholders. Building Rodríguez-Lo pez, 2010; Sahely et al., 2005), including water, ma-
upon the utility theory, Eid & El-adaway (2018) proposed that IS terial, energy, etc. Regarding social sustainability, Sierra et al. (2016)
can be achieved by decreasing the vulnerability of built environ- measured the lifecycle performances of public infrastructures from
ments and increasing individual utilities of local stakeholders. stakeholder participation, internal human resources, external local
Besides, IS was evidenced as one of the main driving forces for participation, and macro-social actions of socioenvironmental and
social developments (Berawi, 2016). Fischer and Amekudzi (2011) socioeconomic activities. In terms of economic sustainability, direct
explained the significance of considering the quality of life in the and indirect costs, as well as the lifecycle costs expended on
decision-making of achieving IS. From a socio-technical viewpoint designing, constructing, and maintaining infrastructures, are one
(Josa and Aguado, 2019), examined the interrelationships between concern in evaluating IS success (Ferna ndez-Sa nchez and
infrastructures and society. Their connections and interactions can Rodríguez-Lo pez, 2010; Ugwu et al., 2006a; b). Another concern
bring about infrastructures that are more socially sustainable. As a is the assessment of how infrastructure developments affect the
sociotechnical system, sustainable infrastructure underpins the local economic conditions, such as business attractiveness, labor
formalization of cultural heritage (Pellicer et al., 2016), public be- growths, etc. (Zhou and Liu, 2015).
haviors (Faust et al., 2016), socioeconomics (Haider et al., 2018), and Other IS metrics related to engineering criteria (Sahely et al.,
juridical governance (Hueskes et al., 2017) for social organizations 2005), laws and regulations (Dasgupta and Tam, 2005), project
and communities. production (Matar et al., 2017) also have been identified in recently
to complement the TBL. Besides, Meng et al. (2015) examined the IS
construct from internal IS and external IS perspectives. In terms of
3.2. Infrastructure sustainability metrics internal IS, it concentrates on efficient planning, construction, and
facility management within the infrastructure internal system. This
3.2.1. Triple bottom line (TBL) theory metric highlights the sustainable competitiveness and advantages
The triple bottom line (TBL) theory was proposed by Elkington of an infrastructure development alternative compared with other
(1997) for organizations to achieve sustainable success from the alternatives. When it comes to external IS, it indicates keeping
perspective of economy, society, and environment, which is also resilience and upgrading abilities against infrastructure external
known as the triple-P (i.e., profit, people, and planet). To measure disturbances in the long run. This metric also measures an infra-
infrastructure sustainability, many factor systems have been pro- structure of maximizing positive functions in harmoniously coex-
posed by extending the TBL theory (Elkington, 1997), which eval- isting with surroundings and minimizing negative impacts on
uates economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Research social utilities and environmental implications.
scholars have been discerning critical metrics measuring IS mainly
through literature reviews, case studies, and empirical studies (i.e.,
questionnaire and interview surveys). To be precise, infrastructure 3.2.2. Product, organization, and process (POP) framework
economic performances, social impacts, environmental influences, The product, organization, and process (POP) framework was
and ecological challenges (Berawi, 2016; Ferna ndez-S anchez and applied in design thinking to define high-performance buildings
Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010, 2011; Jalaei and Jrade, 2014; Morrissey (Fischer et al., 2017; Kam and Fischer, 2004). Essentially, POP
et al., 2012; Newman et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2011; Ugwu et al., highlights the three levers for achieving project objectives, because
2006a; b; Ugwu and Haupt, 2007) accommodate the most assess- multidisciplinary teams can change the characteristics of the thing
ment criteria of IS. From an environmental sustainability being constructed (i.e., product), can determine what people are
4 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

doing (i.e., process), and can decide how people are organizing international rating systems.
themselves (i.e., organization). Consistent with the TBL, the POP
framework enables the simultaneous achievement of product, or-
3.3. Multidisciplinary evaluation of AEC sustainability
ganization, and process sustainability goals (Fischer et al., 2017). To
be specific, the building delivered is sustainable if the product can
An AEC project with high-performing sustainability outcomes
make end-users healthy, satisfied, and effective. Organizational
delivered by integrated methods is intrinsically a multidisciplinary
sustainability represents how multidisciplinary teams organize
artwork. Sustainability evaluation has become a new trend
their works safely and productively through deciding who to
requiring the integration of design knowledge from multidisci-
involve and when and how. Also, process sustainability decides
plinary professionals (Reefman and Van Nederveen, 2012). Azari
what the different decision-makers will do, when and in what
and Kim (2016) proposed the sustainability evaluation of AEC
sequence, which shapes the objectives to pursue and with what
projects as a multidisciplinary integration of people (i.e., disci-
priority. Overall, the POP framework holistically integrated the
plines), information, and building systems. Multidisciplinary eval-
sustainability performances into how the building is going to be
uation ensures the delivery of sustainable values to the owner in a
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained. However, the
holistic lifecycle-oriented manner. An integrated team of multi-
POP framework is mainly proposed and validated in building sus-
disciplinary stakeholders (owner, architect, contractors, suppliers,
tainability contexts, rather than for IS domains concentrated in this
users) is formed in sustainability evaluation settings. Collaborative
study.
eco-charrette, i.e., inclusive brainstorming session or workshop, is
Although current developed IS metrics in the literature cover
one of the important formats for such multidisciplinary decision-
multiple sustainability dimensions, little accounts have been taken
making contexts (Azari and Kim, 2016). Decisions are collectively
in integrating the three TPL dimensions with managerial sustain-
made to define project goals about sustainability (economic, social,
ability highlighted in the POP framework. Moreover, rare existing IS
environmental, and managerial) and realize synergies and trade-
metric systems provide heterogeneously prioritized metrics for
offs over the project lifecycle. Several recurring principles in
multidisciplinary decision-makers based on their expertise in
defining multidisciplinary integrated design in AEC projects
evaluations (Kivila€ et al., 2017).
include (1) early involvement of stakeholders (Jalaei et al., 2020),
(2) lifecycle and iterative processes (Sandberg et al., 2019), (3)
3.2.3. International rating systems
multidisciplinary collaboration and decision-making (Xue and Li,
Several international organizations have published regional IS
2019), (4) systematic value synergies (Erdogan et al., 2019), and
rating systems for assessing lifecycle sustainability performances of
(5) green and sustainable performance assessment (Goubran et al.,
construction and infrastructure projects. The IS rating scheme
2019).
launched by the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia
Although multidisciplinary features have been emphasized and
(ISCA, 2018) is a comprehensive system verifying sustainability
highlighted in evaluating AEC sustainability, little studies scruti-
performances for civil and infrastructure works. Management and
nized heterogeneous preferences of multidisciplinary evaluators
governance aspects are integrated into the IS assessment practice.
throughout the evaluation process. Moreover, specific sustainabil-
Furthermore, the BCA Green Mark maintained by the Building &
ity metric system indicating multidisciplinary preferences for
Construction Authority (BCA, 2009) of Singapore measures the
infrastructure project type remains unwell studied. Therefore, a
sustainability of buildings and infrastructures in the tropical built
formal and comprehensive IS metric system evaluating in-
environment. Also, the Civil Engineering Environmental Quality
frastructures for multidisciplinary use in early integrated decision-
Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL, 2015) in the UK high-
making is discovered as a knowledge gap in this domain.
lights environmental and social considerations in sustainability
decision-making. Besides, the Envision system organized by the
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI, 2018) in the US holis- 4. Research methodology
tically evaluates the environmental, community, and leadership
benefits of all types of infrastructures. Apart from the triple bottom We initially set up 64 metrics measuring IS based on the
line (economic, social, and environmental dimensions), the IDB abovementioned literature review, as shown in Table 1. Specifically,
Group (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018) proposed the 4 proposed IS dimensions are drawn from the TBL theory indicating
institutional dimension. It measures governance and management environmental, social, and economic sustainability and the POP
capacities of a sustainable infrastructure during its planning, framework indicating managerial sustainability for infrastructures.
design, construction, operation, and decommissioning. It can be The 64 metrics comprehensively combine indicators proposed from
concluded from those rating systems that the management IS literature and rating systems used in IS certification practices. By
dimension has become the fourth pillar to support the TBL for extending the above 4 dimensions and categorizing those 64
sustainable infrastructure decision-making (Diaz-Sarachaga et al., metrics, 15 criteria subgroups are proposed in between to assess IS
2016). Building upon the managerial IS dimension, evaluation for in a multidisciplinary manner.
product, process, and organizational innovative performances have Notably, the Cost criterion is mainly evaluated by the direct costs
also been proposed in nowadays IS rating systems. for developing infrastructure itself, which can be measured by
However, rare studies have comprehensively integrated lifecycle costs (Ferna ndez-S anchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010;
different metrics and criteria of IS rating systems from various re- Shen et al., 2011; Ugwu et al., 2006a). However, a sustainable
gions. For instance, IS rating systems in Australia (ISCA, 2018) and infrastructure should minimize its external costs in terms of social
the IDB Group (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018) empha- and environmental governance, which may be adversely affected
size the sustainability of governance and institutional dimensions. by the project development (Diaz-Sarachaga et al., 2016; Holthe,
Nevertheless, the Envision system in the US (ISI, 2018) highlights 2009). Therefore, indirect cost metrics including ‘acceptance of so-
the sustainability per romances of team leadership. Moreover, little cial costs’ and ‘acceptance of environmental costs’ were proposed to
efforts have been made to examine and validate how those rating supplement the internal lifecycle cost metric, which measures so-
systems can be incorporated into developed IS indicators drawn cial costs including transaction costs, compensation for demolition,
from TBL dimensions and POP considerations. More importantly, etc. and environmental costs including pollution costs, natural
multidisciplinary characteristics have rarely been studied in IS resource costs, etc.
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 5

Table 1
Identified IS metrics from literature.

IS dimensions IS criteria IS metrics Code Sources

Environmental Resource Preservation of water resources IS1 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; Elbarkouky, 2012; ISCA, 2018)
IS Consumption of Consumption of IS2 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; Elbarkouky, 2012; ISCA, 2018)
lifecycle water operational water
Consumption of IS3 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; Elbarkouky, 2012; ISCA, 2018)
construction water
Monitoring of water systems IS4 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; Elbarkouky, 2012; ISCA, 2018)
Reuse of stormwater IS5 Krajangsri & Pongpeng (2017)
Reuse of earthwork IS6 Ferna ndez-Sa
nchez & Rodríguez-Lo  pez (2010)
Protection of soil health IS7 Ferna ndez-Sa
nchez & Rodríguez-Lo  pez (2010)
Usage of sustainably procured materials IS8 (ISI, 2018; Patil et al., 2016)
Usage of recycled materials IS9 (ISI, 2018; Patil et al., 2016)
Consumption of Consumption of operational IS10 (Ariaratnam et al., 2013; Ferna ndez-Sanchez and Rodríguez-Lopez, 2010; ISI,
lifecycle energy energy 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Consumption of IS11 (Ariaratnam et al., 2013; Ferna ndez-Sanchez and Rodríguez-Lopez, 2010; ISI,
construction energy 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Usage of renewable energy IS12 (Ariaratnam et al., 2013; Ferna ndez-Sanchez and Rodríguez-Lopez, 2010; ISI,
2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Monitoring of energy systems IS13 (Fern andez-S
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
Ecology Reduction of pesticide & fertilizer IS14 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Protection of groundwater quality IS15 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Maintenance of Functions of terrestrial IS16 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015)
ecosystem functions habitats
Functions of wetland IS17 (Krajangsri and Pongpeng, 2017; Shen et al., 2011)
Avoidance of natural IS18 (Fern
andez-S  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
floodplains
Control of invasive species IS19 (ISI, 2018; Patil et al., 2016)
Siting Avoidance of ecological sitting IS20 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Buffers for ecological land IS21 (BCA, 2009; CEEQUAL, 2015; Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; Ugwu
et al., 2006a)
Avoidance of farmland disturbance IS22 (Fern andez-S  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
Usage of developed land IS23 (CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018; Krajangsri and Pongpeng, 2017)
Usage of brownfields IS24 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015)
Atmosphere Control of noises IS25 (Fern andez-S pez, 2010; Inter-American Development
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
Bank, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Control of lights IS26 (Fern andez-S pez, 2010; Inter-American Development
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
Bank, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Maintenance of landscapes IS27 (Fern andez-S pez, 2010; Inter-American Development
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
Bank, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Pollution Diversion of lifecycle Diversion of operational IS28 (CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018; Shen et al., 2011)
waste waste
Diversion of construction IS29 (CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018; Shen et al., 2011)
waste
Control of emissions Reduction of greenhouse IS30 (Fern
andez-S  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
gas (GHG)
Reduction of air pollutant IS31 (Fern
andez-S  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo

Social IS Culture Preservation of cultural heritage IS32 (Meng et al., 2018; Sahely et al., 2005)
Respect for local character IS33 (Meng et al., 2018; Sahely et al., 2005)
Responsibility Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of IS34 (Fern andez-S anchez and Rodríguez-Lo pez, 2010; Inter-American Development
organizations Bank, 2018)
Sustainable awareness for all participants IS35 (Fern andez-S anchez and Rodríguez-Lo pez, 2010; Inter-American Development
Bank, 2018)
Community Quality of life for communities IS36 (Sierra et al., 2016; Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz, 2013)
Social equity & justice for communities IS37 (Sierra et al., 2016; Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz, 2013)
Amenities for communities IS38 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018)
Connectivity among communities IS39 (ISI, 2018; Sierra et al., 2016; Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz, 2013)
Wellbeing Health & safety of the public IS40 (Fern andez-S anchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
Safety of lifecycle Safety of construction staffs IS41 (Fern andez-S anchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
staffs Safety of operational staffs IS42 (Fern andez-S anchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
Wayfinding for the public IS43 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; ISI, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Mobility for the public IS44 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; ISI, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
Information sharing to the public IS45 (CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018; Shen et al., 2011)

Economic IS Cost Acceptance of direct (lifecycle) costs IS46 (Fern

andez-S
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010; Shen et al., 2011; Ugwu et al.,
2006a)
Acceptance of Acceptance of social costs IS47 Newly proposed
indirect costs Acceptance of environmental IS48 Newly proposed
costs
Local economy Growth of employment IS49 (CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018; Patil et al., 2016)
Development of local workforce IS50 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015; Patil et al., 2016)
Development of business attractiveness IS51 (CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018; Patil et al., 2016)

Managerial IS Collaboration Commitment of leadership IS52 (ISI, 2018; Meng et al., 2015)
Teamwork of multidisciplinary professionals IS53 (Ferna ndez-S  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
Decision-making of all stakeholders IS54 (ISI, 2018; Meng et al., 2015)
(continued on next page)
6 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Table 1 (continued )

IS dimensions IS criteria IS metrics Code Sources

Integration of various infrastructure systems IS55 (Fernandez-S  pez, 2010; ISI, 2018)
anchez and Rodríguez-Lo
Project Management system for sustainability IS56 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; ISI, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
management Management system for lifecycle monitoring & IS57 (Inter-American Development Bank, 2018; ISI, 2018; Ugwu et al., 2006a)
maintenance
Resilience plan Vulnerability to climate threat IS58 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018)
Durability of infrastructure IS59 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018)
Adaptability of infrastructure IS60 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018)
Recovery ability of infrastructure IS61 (Aboushady and El-Sawy, 2013; CEEQUAL, 2015; ISI, 2018)
Innovation Achievement of extra product values IS62 (BCA, 2009; ISCA, 2018; ISI, 2018)
Resolution of process barriers IS63 (BCA, 2009; ISCA, 2018; ISI, 2018)
Creation of transferable knowledge IS64 (BCA, 2009; ISCA, 2018; ISI, 2018)

4.1. Design of questionnaire survey samples were randomly drawn on a pro-rata basis from the 174
HKIA fellow members, 240 HKIE fellow members, 538 HKIS fellow
A questionnaire survey was designed to solicit empirical opin- members, and 48 HKICM fellow members.
ions regarding measuring metrics for IS in infrastructure manage- The questionnaire, designed for responses over a Google Form
ment practices. Specifically, the questionnaire was divided into link, was distributed to the 250 professional respondents by email.
three sections (refer to Appendix 1). Empirical information was The respondents were allowed to complete the questionnaire
collected by inviting respondents to indicate the value of each within two weeks. For those who did not respond in the time limit,
question item throughout all the three sections of the question- we emailed the link once again to remind them of questionnaire
naire instrument. completion. For those responded questionnaires with errors or
missing data, we made a further explanation and asked the re-
1. Infrastructure Characteristics: This section was designed to spondents to revise or supplement valid information.
obtain general information about infrastructure projects the
respondents participated or are participating in, including 4.2. Data analysis
infrastructure type, location, construction area, contract value,
etc. Internal consistency was initially examined to measure the
2. Attitudes on Benchmarks Evaluating IS: This section aimed to reliability of all collected data based on the questionnaire survey.
understand professionals’ perspectives on using measuring Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0 to 1 was computed to determine
metrics to evaluate IS in practice. To begin with, the extent to the internal consistency, where the higher the alpha the higher the
which respondents adopt the 64 identified IS metrics (Table 1) is internal consistency of the questionnaire design (Bland and
examined. A seven-point Likert scale was applied to indicate Altman, 1997). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 software was adopted to
their agreements on the abovementioned 64 variables process the valid questionnaire responses.
measuring IS, where 1 represents strong disagreement, 4 rep-
resents neutral, and 7 represents strong agreement. Further-
4.2.1. Ranking analysis
more, IS measurement dimensions and criteria were ranked by
Based on the collected data, a ranking analysis was conducted to
respondents according to their expertise and experience. Both
identify critical metrics with high important degrees and delete the
questions were designed to obtain various priorities among
ones with low important degrees among all the 64 IS metrics. To
multidisciplinary professionals in evaluating IS.
rank the significant levels, mean values and standard deviation
3. Respondent Profile: The demographic profile of respondents
values of the IS metrics were calculated. To be precise, the ranking
was derived in this section. For example, questions regarding
principle is set as the descending order of mean values (primary
respondents’ years of working experience and job title, com-
condition) and the ascending order of standard deviation values
panies’ disciplinary role and workforce, as well as normal types
(secondary condition) when mean values are equivalent (Wang and
and contract values of infrastructures were asked.
Yuan, 2011). As a result, metrics scored less than 5 were deleted
from the IS metric system, as scores 5, 6, and 7 in the 7-point Likert
The questionnaire survey was carried out from April to June of
scale are considered as positive responses (Dawes, 2008). Surveyed
2018. Before massive distribution, the designed questionnaire was
metrics with positive means are considered as important ones for
assessed following a two-round process: (1) by two academic full
further analyses.
professors; and (2) by three industry practitioners with working
experience of more than 30 years. The quality, format, and read-
ability of the items and contents presented in the questionnaire 4.2.2. ANOVA analysis
were critically examined and polished. During the massive distri- One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was adopted to deter-
bution, fellow committee members registered in reputable AEC mine whether there exist statistically significant differences be-
industry associations were selected as the survey population. These tween the measurement means of several independent subgroups
organizations include The Hong Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA), (Ross and Willson, 2017). For this study, the measurements are the
The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE), The Hong Kong 15 proposed IS criteria and the independent subgroups are classi-
Institute of Surveyors (HKIS), and The Hong Kong Institute of fied into including client, architect, engineer, main contractor,
Construction Managers (HKICM). These potential respondents were supplier, and consultant. A further ranking analysis for the 15 IS
selected due to two reasons. First, the registered members are criteria was conducted to scrutinize heterogeneous priorities in
qualified and experienced professionals with rich expertise in evaluating IS performances among multidisciplinary professionals.
developing AEC projects. Second, they come from multidisciplinary This multidisciplinary ranking analysis provides insights on deter-
AEC backgrounds, such as architects, engineers, project managers, mining who prefers what criteria according to their expertise in IS
surveyors, consultants, etc. As a result, two hundred and fifty (250) measurement and evaluation (Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006). By
dividing the data sample into disciplinary subgroups, the 15 IS
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 7

criteria were manipulated by the ANOVA test and further ranked determining the above three cases. First, they are all typical
based on multidisciplinary perspectives. To this end, the hetero- governmental-driven infrastructure projects for local urbanization
geneous priorities of IS criteria distributed among multidisciplinary developments. This is because compared to other construction
respondents can be derived. project types (such as buildings or small civil engineering projects),
most of the infrastructures are developed by governmental-driven
4.2.3. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) departments in Hong Kong (Information Services Department of
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is widely applied to ascertain Hong Kong, 2010). Second, these cases not only have in-depth
pre-established relationships among measurement constructs and socio-economic effects but also can raise environmental and
variables (Thompson, 2004). CFA was conducted in this study ecological concerns from the public. Third, different types of in-
because it can validate the confidence and reliability level of the frastructures, including energy, transportation, and landscape,
ranking analysis results using constructs path models. Based on the were selected to guarantee the generality of the validation studies.
identified significant IS metrics after ranking analysis, CFA was
conducted to confirm the factor structures among them. It also 5. Results and analysis
validates the interrelationships between the 4 dimensions and 15
criteria variables. 5.1. Data collection and preprocessing
To demonstrate the reliability and robustness of the CFA, IBM
Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) version 21.0 was employed to Sixty-eight (68) valid responses were collected using the ques-
conduct composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) tionnaire survey designed in this study with a response rate of
tests. In particular, the composite reliability test measures the 27.2%. This research adopted stratified random sampling to guar-
confidence level of latent variables in the proposed CFA model, antee an acceptable response rate for the survey. Furthermore, this
which considers the variables’ factor loadings and error variances research adopted CFA to deal with the collected data, which is
(Raykov, 1997). AVE test, serving as a convergence validity indicator, suitable for analyzing empirical data with a relatively small sample
evaluates the variances of measurement variables that are size, around 30 to 460 datasets (Wolf et al., 2013). Based on the
explained by latent variables with a discriminating standard reliability analysis function in IBM SPSS Statistics 23, the Cronbach’s
threshold of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Alternatively, a larger alpha value of 0.719 was yielded, indicating an acceptable degree of
AVE value means that more characteristics of the mutual construct internal consistency and reliability for data analysis (Bland and
can be reflected by their measurement variables. Consequently, the Altman, 1997).
CFA can be claimed as reliable and robust as long as the composite
reliability and AVE test meet their requirements. 5.2. Profiles of the surveyed respondents and infrastructures

4.3. Validation by case studies The profile information of the respondents and the infrastructures
are shown in Table 2. To be specific, around 41% of the respondents
Case study is widely adopted in the construction management have more than 10 years of working experience in the infrastructure
domain (Taylor et al., 2011), which can be classified into the construction industry, and over 82% of them have more than 10 years
following three types: 1) descriptive case studies that summarize working experience. Furthermore, six different disciplinary roles are
single project without generalizing the findings to other projects; distributed among the 68 respondents, with the engineer and
2) validation case studies that evaluate whether the model devel- consultant professionals account for more than 20% respectively.
oped generates similar results to the studied cases; and 3) theory- Most of the respondents (around 76%) have participated in more than
building case studies that propose generalizable new constructs, 5 infrastructure developments. As for the infrastructures collected
propositions, or theoretical models beyond the studied cases (Yin, from this questionnaire survey, six project types have been high-
2013). To validate the formality and comprehensiveness of a lighted, with the transportation infrastructures (e.g., bridge, highway,
developed ontology, Kim and Fischer (2014) adapted the validation tunnel, etc.) accounting for 47%. Besides, approximately 88% of all the
case studies. Specifically, they claimed the formality and compre- infrastructures are located in Hong Kong and Mainland China,
hensiveness when all identified properties from the cases can be whereas the infrastructures having a contract value of more than 1
represented and distinguished in their developed ontology. billion HKD share the same percentage (88%).
Therefore, this study applied the second type of case study to Therefore, most of the responding professionals have long-term
validate the formality and comprehensiveness of the developed and rich working experience in infrastructure developments and
metric system measuring IS. most of the surveyed infrastructures are typical and representative
To validate the proposed metric system measuring IS, three enough in types and scales. These indicate that the collected
infrastructure cases from Hong Kong were studied to examine its empirical data can represent objective insights from infrastructure
formality and comprehensiveness. On the one hand, the metric professionals in evaluating IS.
system is formal enough when assessing dimensions, criteria, and
metrics identified from case studies can be represented in the 5.3. Results of ranking analysis
proposed metric system. On the other hand, it is comprehensive
enough when heterogeneous priorities of IS criteria adopted by 5.3.1. Ranking analysis of IS metrics
multidisciplinary professionals for IS evaluation in case studies can Table 3 demonstrates the ranking analysis for the 64 IS metrics.
be distinguished. The most important IS metrics with the mean value above 6 include
For in-depth case studies, the cases selected should be repre- infrastructure performances in safety, energy behavior, water con-
sentative and observable (Seawright and Gerring, 2008). Therefore, sumption, and material recycling. This indicates that wellbeing im-
Lamma Power Station Navigation Channel (LPS-NC: energy infra- pacts and resource usage have significant impacts on IS performances
structure), Tuen Mun Chek Lap Kok Link of Hong Kong-Zhuhai- of infrastructure developments. However, seven metrics with the
Macau Bridge (TM-CLKL: transportation infrastructure), and Hung mean value being less than 5 have been identified. For example,
Shui Kiu New Development Area (HSK-NDA: landscape infrastruc- protection of groundwater quality and avoidance of farmland distur-
ture) were finally selected as research cases to demonstrate the bance were rated the least, indicating that they are less considered in
validation purpose in this study. Several reasons were considered in assessing IS performances evidenced by professional respondents.
8 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Table 2
The demographic profile of respondents and general information of infrastructures.

Profile of Respondents Working Experience (year) Ratio (%) Disciplinary Role Ratio (%) No. Of Infrastructures Involved in Ratio (%)
<10 17.65 Client 14.71 <5 23.53
10e20 41.18 Architect 17.65 5e15 58.52
>20 41.18 Engineer 20.59 >15 17.65
Main contractor 13.24
Supplier 11.76
Consultant 22.06
Information of Infrastructures Type Ratio (%) Contract Value (HKD) Ratio (%) Location Ratio (%)
Energy 17.65 <1 billion 11.76 Hong Kong SAR 52.94
Information 5.88 1e10 billion 58.82 Mainland China 35.29
Landscape 11.76 >10 billion 29.41 Others (i.e., Indonesia, Guinea, Australia) 11.76
Transportation 47.06
Waste 5.88
Water 11.76

Besides, the distributions of the environmental, social, eco- infrastructures themselves and the optimization of social and
nomic, and managerial dimensions are also connected within the environmental costs caused by developing infrastructures, as well
metric rankings. Notably, six environmental IS metrics, two social IS as the stimulation of local business and labor growths. Besides,
metrics (with the safety of construction staffs ranked first), and two Managerial IS demonstrates the building of management abilities. It
managerial IS metrics ranked in the top ten. This indicates that is introduced to represent sustainability management perfor-
environmental metrics are the most considered information in mances from POP perspectives.
evaluating IS, followed by social and managerial metrics. However,
the economic dimension is identified as common but necessary IS
5.3.2. Ranking analysis of IS criteria among multidisciplinary
metrics, as no economic metrics with a mean value of lower than 5.
professionals
Apart from the deleted seven IS metrics with mean values lower
The one-way ANOVA test was conducted in the IBM SPSS Sta-
than 5, another 14 metrics were combined into 7 metrics to keep
tistics 23 environment, with the results shown in Table 5. It reveals
conciseness. Particularly, consumption of operational water and
that there are statistically significant differences between multi-
consumption of construction water are combined into metric ‘life-
disciplinary subgroups in terms of many IS criteria across the four IS
cycle consumption of water’. From a lifecycle management
dimensions. To be specific, the atmosphere criteria (P ¼ .007 <0 .01)
perspective (Yeheyis et al., 2013), AEC projects should be assessed
under the environmental IS dimension, the community criteria
comprehensively considering sustainability performances during
(P ¼ .002 <0 .01) under the social IS dimension, the cost criteria
design, construction, operation, and disposal. The same combina-
(P ¼ .004 <0 .01) under the economic IS dimension, and the project
tions include ‘lifecycle consumption of energy’ and ‘diversion of life-
management criteria (P ¼ .009 <0 .01) and resilience plan criteria
cycle waste’. Furthermore, functions of terrestrial habitats and
(P ¼ .000 <0 .01) under the managerial IS dimension are signifi-
functions of wetland were combined into metric ‘maintenance of
cantly different across multidisciplinary subgroups at the 0.01 level.
ecosystem functions’. Because many infrastructures can have im-
To scrutinize how multidisciplinary professionals heteroge-
pacts on various ecosystem functions other than terrestrial habitats
neously prioritize the 15 IS criteria in evaluating IS performances, a
and wetlands, such as surface and groundwater, floodplains, etc.
 et al., 2016). In addition, safety of construction staffs and further ranking analysis for the 15 criteria was conducted, which is
(Thome
shown in Table 6. The top 8 IS evaluation criteria are quite different
safety of operation staffs were combined into metric ‘health and
among multidisciplinary AEC professionals. For example, the IS
safety of staffs’ to highlight staff wellbeing as a whole. Reduction of
criteria preferred by owner and consultant professionals are relatively
greenhouse gas and reduction of air pollutant were integrated as
comprehensive incorporating environmental, social, economic, and
‘control of emissions’, as both of them indicate environmental
managerial dimensions. Furthermore, the main contractor and sup-
pollution caused by emissions (Gantner et al., 2018). Besides,
plier professionals prioritize the evaluation of economic and mana-
acceptance of social costs and acceptance of environmental costs were
gerial performances of sustainable infrastructure developments. Also,
denoted as ‘acceptance of indirect costs’ to measure social costs
social and environmental IS performances are the main concern of
including transaction costs, compensation for demolition, etc. and
architectural professionals in their decision-making. Besides, engi-
environmental costs including pollution costs, natural resource
neer professionals rate high in social and managerial sustainability
costs, etc. (Diaz-Sarachaga et al., 2016; Holthe, 2009).
performances of infrastructure developments.
Therefore, the 64 initial identified metrics from the literature
Building upon the ranking analysis, the distributions of evaluation
were refined into 50 IS metrics after deleting 7 and combining 7
priorities among multidisciplinary professionals are illustrated in a
among them. An IS metric system with 4 dimensions, 15 criteria,
radar chart in Fig. 2. To be specific, owner professionals care more
and 50 metrics is developed in this study. Table 4 tabulates the
about project management, resource, and wellbeing criteria when
hierarchical structure of the IS metric system and details the defi-
evaluating infrastructure developments. Furthermore, wellbeing, at-
nition for each IS metric. Four measuring dimensions form the
mosphere, and ecology criteria are favored by architects in making IS
metric system foundation integrating sustainability perspectives of
decisions in development stages. Engineer experts prefer resilience
the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997) with project administration
plan, community, and resource criteria when selecting infrastructure
(Diaz-Sarachaga et al., 2016). Environmental IS highlights the per-
development alternatives. In addition, pollution, cost, and collabora-
formance of restoring natural resources and ecosystem functions,
tion criteria are prioritized by the main contractor when evaluating IS
as well as mitigating adverse environmental impacts. Social IS in-
performances of construction schemes. Supplier participants rate
dicates the capability of benefiting the wellbeing of the public and
wellbeing, project management, and cost criteria high in assessing
community, as well as conducting corporate social responsibilities
sustainability performances of subcontracting infrastructure works.
of organizations. Economic IS explains the balance of lifecycle cost of
Besides, consultant professionals are expertized in project
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 9

Table 3
Ranking analysis for 64 IS metrics.

Code IS metrics Dimension Mean SD Rank

IS41 Safety of construction staffs Social 6.162 0.745 1

IS13 Monitoring of energy systems Environmental 6.044 0.742 2
IS3 Consumption of construction water Environmental 6.029 0.828 3
IS9 Usage of recycled materials Environmental 6.000 0.829 4
IS42 Safety of operational staffs Social 6.000 0.898 5
IS57 Management system for lifecycle monitoring & maintenance Managerial 5.985 0.906 6
IS8 Usage of sustainably procured materials Environmental 5.956 0.721 7
IS56 Management system for sustainability Managerial 5.926 0.982 8
IS6 Reuse of earthwork Environmental 5.824 0.690 9
IS5 Reuse of stormwater Environmental 5.809 0.797 10
IS12 Usage of renewable energy Environmental 5.794 0.744 11
IS17 Functions of wetland Environmental 5.765 0.831 12
IS16 Functions of terrestrial habitats Environmental 5.735 0.874 13
IS7 Protection of soil health Environmental 5.662 0.840 14
IS4 Monitoring of water systems Environmental 5.632 0.945 15
IS25 Control of noises Environmental 5.529 0.762 16
IS21 Buffers for ecological land Environmental 5.515 0.906 17
IS35 Sustainable awareness for all participants Social 5.485 1.015 18
IS20 Avoidance of ecological sitting Environmental 5.456 0.888 19
IS38 Amenities for communities Social 5.441 0.904 20
IS26 Control of lights Environmental 5.441 0.998 21
IS2 Consumption of operational water Environmental 5.441 1.028 22
IS19 Control of invasive species Environmental 5.426 0.951 23
IS53 Teamwork of multidisciplinary professionals Managerial 5.412 0.981 24
IS11 Consumption of construction energy Environmental 5.412 0.981 25
IS36 Quality of life for communities Social 5.412 0.996 26
IS29 Diversion of construction waste Environmental 5.397 0.883 27
IS44 Mobility for the public Social 5.382 1.008 28
IS64 Creation of transferable knowledge Managerial 5.382 1.037 29
IS37 Social equity & justice for communities Social 5.368 0.913 30
IS59 Durability of infrastructure Managerial 5.368 0.960 31
IS62 Achievement of extra product values Managerial 5.368 0.960 32
IS39 Connectivity among communities Social 5.353 0.943 33
IS32 Preservation of cultural heritage Social 5.353 0.989 34
IS54 Decision-making of all stakeholders Managerial 5.353 1.004 35
IS45 Information sharing to the public Social 5.338 0.924 36
IS27 Maintenance of landscapes Environmental 5.324 0.837 37
IS31 Reduction of air pollutant Environmental 5.324 0.999 38
IS46 Acceptance of direct (lifecycle) costs Economic 5.309 0.833 39
IS49 Growth of employment Economic 5.309 0.935 40
IS40 Health & safety of the public Social 5.309 0.966 41
IS34 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of organizations Social 5.309 0.981 42
IS33 Respect for local character Social 5.294 0.978 43
IS23 Usage of developed land Environmental 5.279 0.960 44
IS30 Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) Environmental 5.265 0.940 45
IS55 Integration of various infrastructure systems Managerial 5.265 1.060 46
IS51 Development of business attractiveness Economic 5.265 1.115 47
IS63 Resolution of process barriers Managerial 5.250 0.952 48
IS28 Diversion of operational waste Environmental 5.235 0.883 49
IS10 Consumption of operational energy Environmental 5.235 0.994 50
IS14 Reduction of pesticide & fertilizer Environmental 5.191 0.996 51
IS50 Development of local workforce Economic 5.176 1.132 52
IS60 Adaptability of infrastructure Managerial 5.132 0.896 53
IS52 Commitment of leadership Managerial 5.118 1.086 54
IS61 Recovery ability of infrastructure Managerial 5.103 0.964 55
IS48 Acceptance of environmental costs Economic 5.088 1.655 56
IS47 Acceptance of social costs Economic 5.029 1.304 57
IS43 Wayfinding for the public Social 4.382 1.159 58
IS18 Avoidance of natural floodplains Environmental 4.132 0.913 59
IS24 Usage of brownfields Environmental 4.103 0.849 60
IS1 Preservation of water resources Environmental 4.074 0.903 61
IS58 Vulnerability to climate threat Managerial 4.029 0.880 62
IS22 Avoidance of farmland disturbance Environmental 3.853 0.950 63
IS15 Protection of groundwater quality Environmental 3.779 0.895 64

management, wellbeing, and atmosphere criteria when offering deci- 5.4. Results of CFA
sion suggestions in evaluating sustainable infrastructure alternatives.
Overall, IS criteria including wellbeing, resource, and ecology are A CFA model was proposed based on the hierarchical relation-
considered as indispensable benchmarks in measuring sustainability ships among 4-dimensional constructs, 15 criterion measurements,
performances of infrastructure developments among all surveyed and 50 metric variables. After this analysis of the empirical data set
multidisciplinary professionals. based on the CFA modeled in AMOS version 25.0, Fig. 3 illustrates the
10 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Table 4
The metric system measuring IS with 4 dimensions, 15 criteria, and 50 metrics.

IS Dimensions IS Criteria IS Metrics Definition

Environmental Resource Lifecycle consumption of water The percentage of lifecycle water consumption that can be reduced in developing infrastructures.
IS Reuse of stormwater The percentage of stormwater runoff that can be reused in developing infrastructures.
Monitoring of water systems The percentage of lifecycle water use that can be monitored in developing infrastructures.
Reuse of earthwork The percentage of excavated, removed, and replaced earthwork on site that can be reused in
developing infrastructures.
Protection of soil health The degree to which infrastructure developments can protect soil health by restoring functions and
minimizing disruptions of site soils.
Usage of sustainably procured The percentage of project materials procured for developing infrastructures that meet sustainability
materials requirements.
Usage of recycled materials The percentage of project materials used by developing infrastructures that come from recycled
sources.
Lifecycle consumption of energy The percentage of lifecycle energy consumption that can be reduced in developing infrastructures.
Usage of renewable energy The percentage of all energy consumed by developing infrastructures that come from renewal
sources.
Monitoring of energy systems The percentage of lifecycle energy use that can be monitored in developing infrastructures.
Ecology Maintenance of ecosystem The number of ecosystem functions (e.g., surface and groundwater, terrestrial habitats, wetlands,
functions floodplains, etc.) that can be maintained in developing infrastructures.
Reduction of pesticide & fertilizer The degree to which the pesticide and fertilizer usage (e.g., quantity or toxicity) can be reduced in
developing infrastructures.
Control of invasive species The degree to which invasive species usage can be reduced and controlled in developing
infrastructure DAs.
Siting Avoidance of ecological siting The percentage of construction sites with ecological values (e.g., farmland, wetland, etc.) that can be
avoided in siting infrastructures.
Buffers for ecological land The width of buffer zones that can be established in siting infrastructures to protect ecological
functions.
Usage of developed land The percentage of previously developed lands (e.g., wasted lands, brownfields, etc.) that can be used
in siting infrastructures.
Atmosphere Control of noises The degree to which the construction and operational noises can be mitigated and controlled in
developing infrastructures.
Control of lights The number of control strategies reducing backlight, uplight, and glare that can be implemented in
developing infrastructures.
Maintenance of landscapes The degree to which the surrounding landscape features and beauties can be maintained in
developing infrastructures.
Pollution Diversion of lifecycle waste The percentage of lifecycle wastes that can be diverted and recycled in developing infrastructures.
Control of emissions The percentage of emissions that can be reduced in developing infrastructures, including GHG, air
pollutants, net embodied carbon, etc.

Social IS Culture Preservation of cultural heritage The degree to which local cultural heritage can be preserved in developing infrastructures.
Respect for local character The degree to which surrounding local characters and visual effects can be maintained and fitted in
developing infrastructures.
Responsibility CSR of organizations The degree to which the CSR towards sustainability can be fully committed and fulfilled by
organizations who deliver infrastructures.
Sustainability awareness for The degree to which sustainability awareness can be widely raised among stakeholders in developing
participants infrastructures.
Community Quality of life for communities The degree to which the overall quality of life for communities can be positively influenced in
developing infrastructures.
Social equity & justice for The degree to which the social equity and justice for communities who share the interests of
communities infrastructure development can be considered in developing infrastructures.
Amenities for communities The degree to which livable amenities for communities can be preserved or provided in developing
infrastructures.
Connectivity among communities The degree to which integration and connection among various communities can be coordinated in
developing infrastructures.
Wellbeing Health & safety of the public The degree to which the health and safety of the public can be guaranteed in developing
infrastructures.
Safety of lifecycle staffs The degree to which the health and safety of project staffs can be guaranteed in developing
infrastructures.
Mobility for the public The degree to which the efficiency of public mobility (e.g., convenient wayfinding, multiple
transportation options, etc.) can be improved in developing infrastructures.
Information sharing to the public The degree to which the project-specific information can be shared with the public in developing
infrastructures.

Economic IS Cost Acceptance of direct (lifecycle) The acceptance level of lifecycle costs that can be expended during design, construction, operation &
costs maintenance, and demolition in developing infrastructures.
Acceptance of indirect (social or The acceptable level of social costs (e.g., transaction costs, compensation for demolition, etc.) that can
environmental) costs be caused in developing infrastructures; or environmental costs (e.g., pollution costs, natural resource
costs, etc.) that can be caused in developing infrastructures.
Local Growth of employment The degree to which the quantity of local job employment that can be increased in developing
economy infrastructures.
Development of business The degree to which the condition of local business attractiveness that can be created in developing
attractiveness infrastructures.
Development of workforce The degree to which the knowledge, skill, and capacity of the local workforce that can be improved in
developing infrastructures.

Managerial IS Collaboration Commitment of leadership The degree to which involved parties can commit leadership to achieve sustainability objectives in
developing infrastructures.
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 11

Table 4 (continued )

IS Dimensions IS Criteria IS Metrics Definition

Teamwork of multidisciplinary The degree to which multidisciplinary professionals can team up to deliver sustainable
professionals infrastructures.
Decision-making of all stakeholders The degree to which integrated decisions can be made by primary, secondary, and key stakeholders in
developing infrastructures.
Integration of various infrastructure The degree to which the functions of diverse surrounding infrastructure projects can be integrated
systems into developing infrastructures.
Project Management system for The degree of comprehensiveness of the scope, scale, and complexity of sustainability management
management sustainability systems in developing infrastructures.
Management system for lifecycle The degree of comprehensiveness of the scope, scale, and complexity of lifecycle monitoring and
monitoring & maintenance maintenance systems in developing infrastructures.
Resilience Durability of infrastructure The degree of lifecycle durability of withstanding hazards in developing infrastructures.
plan Adaptability of infrastructure The degree of adaptability to long-term challenges in developing infrastructures.
Recovery ability of infrastructure The degree of recovery ability to long-term challenges in developing infrastructures.
Innovation Achievement of extra product The degree to which infrastructure developments can achieve extra product values, e.g., budget
values reduction, byproducts creation, renewable energy generation, etc.
Resolution of process barriers The degree to which infrastructure developments can reduce process barriers, e.g., negative impacts
on the economy, society, or environment.
Creation of transferable knowledge The degree to which infrastructure developments can create transferrable knowledge to the
development of the same or other types of infrastructures.

Table 5
Results of the ANOVA test.

IS Criteria ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. (P)

resource Between Groups 100.996 5 20.199 .995 .428

Within Groups 1258.945 62 20.306
Total 1359.941 67
ecology Between Groups 91.185 5 18.237 1.130 .354
Within Groups 1001.050 62 16.146
Total 1092.235 67
siting Between Groups 95.050 5 19.010 1.160 .339
Within Groups 1016.256 62 16.391
Total 1111.305 67
atmosphere Between Groups 294.377 5 58.875 3.531 .007a
Within Groups 1033.642 62 16.672
Total 1328.018 67
pollution Between Groups 102.856 5 20.571 1.142 .348
Within Groups 1117.062 62 18.017
Total 1219.918 67
culture Between Groups 188.441 5 37.688 1.948 .099
Within Groups 1199.217 62 19.342
Total 1387.658 67
responsibility Between Groups 44.449 5 8.890 .531 .752
Within Groups 1037.573 62 16.735
Total 1082.022 67
community Between Groups 263.791 5 52.758 4.412 .002a
Within Groups 741.429 62 11.959
Total 1005.221 67
wellbeing Between Groups 186.692 5 37.338 2.336 .052
Within Groups 990.878 62 15.982
Total 1177.570 67
cost Between Groups 327.326 5 65.465 3.944 .004a
Within Groups 1029.204 62 16.600
Total 1356.529 67
local economy Between Groups 183.855 5 36.771 2.155 .071
Within Groups 1057.975 62 17.064
Total 1241.830 67
collaboration Between Groups 99.480 5 19.896 1.038 .404
Within Groups 1188.880 62 19.175
Total 1288.360 67
project management Between Groups 272.082 5 54.416 3.367 .009a
Within Groups 1001.889 62 16.159
Total 1273.971 67
resilience plan Between Groups 432.840 5 86.568 6.355 .000a
Within Groups 844.514 62 13.621
Total 1277.355 67
innovation Between Groups 68.097 5 13.619 .802 .552
Within Groups 1052.417 62 16.974
Total 1120.515 67
a
The mean difference is significant between groups at the 0.01 level.
12 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

modeling results including factor loadings and reliability co-

Local economy Collaboration Project management Resilience plan Innovation efficients (i.e., the variances that can be explained). Then the CFA

10.571

10.067
8.000
model for construct IS was validated based on composite reliability
4.643

9.167
3.639

4.071

9.111
4.076

7.750
5.175

3.555

9.309
4.090
and AVE tests, with the results shown in Table 7. As is demonstrated,

14

12

14

14
8

6
all the composite reliability values are larger than threshold 0.6 and
all the AVE values are higher than 0.5, proving the acceptability of
CFA regarding its model quality and constructs convergence validity.

10.533

10.250
8.170
4.153

7.700
4.100

3.000
2.219

4.039

3.576

7.767
3.968

7.491
4.366
10

15

14
6. Metric system validation
7

5
The developed IS metric system should be not only formal
enough to accommodate 4 dimensions, 15 criteria, and 50 metrics
required for evaluating sustainable infrastructure developments,
but also comprehensive enough to distinguish heterogeneous IS
10.333
4.750
4.380

2.871

8.250
3.534

7.889
3.887

5.500
4.036

5.333
4.938

7.088
4.361
criteria adopted by multidisciplinary professionals in IS evaluation.
13
1

3
Therefore, validation analysis using three case studies regarding IS
assessment was conducted to claim the formality and compre-
hensiveness of the developed IS metric system. Specifically, these
9.280
3.619

9.250
4.957

6.786
4.154

6.333
3.640

6.250
4.773

7.853
4.713

7.700
4.385 cases are LPS-NC (an energy infrastructure), TM-CLKL (a trans-
12

11

portation infrastructure), and HSK-NDA (a landscape infrastruc-

5

ture), all of which are developed in Hong Kong SAR, China.

6.1. Formality of the metric system measuring IS

11.583

10.000

11.375
7.100
4.149

3.919

9.121
3.781

4.000

4.207

7.800
4.601

9.349
4.305
15

10

14

15

15

The IS metric system is validated to be formal enough when the

6

5
11.429

10.667

structured 4 dimensions, 15 criteria, and 50 metrics identified from

6.900
4.818

9.333
4.658

3.031

6.000
2.828

5.875
4.016

4.515

8.853
4.500
Resource Ecology Siting Atmosphere Pollution Culture Responsibility Community Wellbeing Cost

case studies can be represented in the proposed metric system.

12

15

15

13
5

Documents including EIA reports and design memorandums pro-

vided by the design teams describing feasibility studies of the three
6.600
3.098

4.333
5.483

9.143
3.325

7.389
4.386

5.125
2.588

5.667
4.047

6.449
4.192

case infrastructures were thoroughly reviewed. From the review,

11
3

information regarding engineering feasibility, economic con-

straints, social impacts, and environmental considerations were
analyzed and categorized. IS indicators considered in the cases
10.500

10.917
3.064

1.782

5.286
2.673

7.556
4.216

8.500
3.891

8.067
4.480

8.338
3.873

were then identified to be matched to the proposed metric system,

14

14

10
2

including 4 dimensions, 15 criteria, and 50 metrics.

To be specific, 3 IS dimensions and 10 IS criteria with 35 IS
metrics considered in the LPS-NC case were identified, all of which
are represented by the IS metric system. For instance, noise impact
8.900
3.957

9.217
3.810

7.714
4.340

6.944
4.362

9.250
3.059

7.913
4.427

8.276
4.019

and hazard to life are evaluated in the feasibility study of the LPS-
11

10

12
6

NC project development, which can be matched onto the control

11.600
2.319

6.167
4.859

8.429
5.185

8.111
5.645

8.000
4.375

9.833
3.304

8.713
4.551

of noises metric under atmosphere criteria and public and staff

Ranking analysis for 15 IS measuring criteria among multidisciplinary professionals.

15

13

12

safety metrics under wellbeing criteria in the proposed IS metric

5

system. For the TM-CLKL case, the IS- metric system can success-
10.214

fully represent 4 dimensions, 12 criteria, and 39 metrics adopted to

8.100
5.259

8.750
3.671

2.259

5.967
4.247

8.875
4.673

8.800
5.046

8.613
4.267
12

11

12

11

evaluate project alternatives. In this case, land issues such as

9

brownfields and contamination are evaluated in the project plan-

ning stage, which is highlighted by the siting criteria under the
10.557

10.000

environmental IS dimension in the proposed metric system. In the

6.750
3.048

4.833
3.945

4.753

7.444
4.362

4.175

6.267
3.882

7.563
4.452
13

13

HSK-NDA case, 4 dimensions, 12 criteria, and 40 metrics considered

4

for evaluation of sustainable development alternatives were fully

9.700
5.078

5.917
3.081

7.750
3.446

8.778
4.994

7.875
4.190

8.733
3.807

8.081
4.073

represented by the developed IS metric system. This case evaluates

13

11

11
4

8
IS Measuring Criteria

some sustainability performances including cultural heritage im-

7.600
3.748

5.583
2.778

6.000
3.783

8.333
4.301

8.500
5.581

8.133
4.121

7.235
4.038

pacts and integration with retained villages. All these considered

10

10

factors can be represented by the developed IS metric system, such

7

as the culture criteria and the metric named integration of various

infrastructure systems under the collaboration criteria.
5.900
5.626

6.667
2.741

5.643
5.138

9.111
4.859

6.875
3.980

8.200
4.212

7.029
4.505
13

10

Although a single validation case failed to represent all proposed

2

criteria and metrics, the 4 IS dimensions, 15 IS criteria, and 50 IS

Mean

Mean

Mean

Main contractor Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean
Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

Rank

metrics were all identified and matched from the reviewed docu-
SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

ments of all three validated cases. Particular measuring di-

Multidisciplinary

mensions, criteria, and metrics identified from the three validation

Professionals

Consultant

case studies are detailed in Appendix 2. As a result, 100% of the 4 IS

Architect

Engineer

Supplier

dimensions, 15 IS criteria, and 50 IS metrics are successfully rep-

Owner
Table 6

Total

resented in three infrastructure development cases accommoda-

ting different project types. This indicates that the proposed IS
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 13

Fig. 2. Measuring priorities among AEC multidisciplinary professionals of IS criteria.

metric system can be adapted and applied to various sustainability evaluated the impacts of infrastructure developments on public
evaluation scenarios of infrastructure developments. To this end, wellbeing from perspectives of minimizing hazards to life and
the formality of the IS metric system has been corroborated for maximizing transportation mobility across all the three cases.
measuring sustainable infrastructure developments. Table 8 details the multidisciplinary distributions of IS measuring
criteria identified in the design memorandums of the three case
studies. To be precise, the heterogeneous IS evaluation priorities of
6.2. Comprehensiveness of the metric system measuring IS
multidisciplinary AEC professionals regarding the IS criteria (shown
in Table 5) have been distinguished. All the identified IS criteria
The IS metric system is validated to be comprehensive enough
adopted by professionals in each discipline are ranked top eight
when IS measuring criteria are heterogeneously distinguished by
among the 15 criteria demonstrated in Fig. 2. As a result, the
multidisciplinary professionals in evaluating sustainable infra-
comprehensiveness of the IS metric system has been evidenced by
structure developments. For example, in the LPS-NC case, the
highlighting the decision preferences of multidisciplinary decision-
owner (an electricity company) adopted monitoring and audit re-
makers in evaluating sustainable infrastructure developments.
quirements to evaluate IS performances in terms of management
system monitoring and maintenance under the criterion of project
management. For architects across all the three cases, landscape 7. Findings and discussion
and visual impacts were applied to predict how infrastructure
development alternatives can perform under the criterion of at- A metric system measuring IS (shown in Table 4) with 4 di-
mosphere. In the TM-CLKL case, engineers assessed the benefits mensions (environmental, social, economic, and managerial), 15
and costs of resource allocation and consumption for each of the criteria, and 50 metrics is developed based on the empirical study
infrastructure development alternatives, including water quality and analysis. Another finding of this study lies in heterogeneous
and material control. Project managers from the main contractor evaluation priorities of IS criteria in making multidisciplinary de-
side evaluate the pollution criterion during construction by cisions of developing sustainable infrastructures.
measuring solid waste recycling and air quality impacts in the HSK-
NDA case. In the same case, one sub-contractor manager from the 7.1. Metric system measuring IS
supplier side mentioned their concern in evaluating infrastructure
cost performances by measuring indirect environmental costs in This study fills the gap of a formal and comprehensive metric
developing green drainage systems. Consultancy professionals system for measuring IS by adapting the TBL theory and the POP
14 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Fig. 3. CFA modeling results of IS dimensions and criteria.

Table 7
Reliability test results of CFA.

Indicators Factor Loading Reliability Coefficient Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Resource .629 .517 e e

Ecology .685 .581 e e
Siting .541 .420a ee e
Atmosphere .882 .633 e e
Pollution .833 .693 e e
Environmental IS e e .855 > .6 .549 > .5
Culture .764 .584 e e
Responsibility .775 .600 e e
Community .841 .594 e
Wellbeing .614 .546 e e
Social IS e e .842 > .6 .575 > .5
Cost .616 .547 e e
Local economy .922 .850 e e
Economic IS e e .797 > .6 .671 > .5
Collaboration .861 .742 e e
Project management .643 .502 e e
Resilience plan .868 .619 e e
Innovation .542 .420a e e
Managerial IS e e .832 > .6 .562 > .5
a
Reliability coefficients that are lower than the standard threshold of 0.5, but acceptable as exceeding 0.4.

framework. Based on the TBL theory (Elkington, 1997), environ- sustainability (Jalaei and Jrade, 2014; Morrissey et al., 2012;
mental, social, and economic IS dimensions are extended in the Newman et al., 2015; Shen et al., 2011). Furthermore, IS criteria
proposed metric system. This is consistent with most existing accommodating specific IS metrics constitute each of the TBL IS
studies developing sustainability indicators for construction project dimensions. As suggested by the sustainable breakdown structure
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 15

Table 8
Case studies validating the comprehensiveness of the developed IS metric system.

Validation Cases Multidisciplinary Professionals IS Measuring Criteria Adopted Total

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15

LPS-NC Owner ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5
Architect ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Engineer ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4
Main contractor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 4
Supplier ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5
Consultant ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Total 5 4 3 4 2 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 4 0 1 10
TM-CLKL Owner ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Architect ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8
Engineer ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Main contractor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Supplier ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Consultant ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8
Total 5 4 3 4 2 2 0 3 5 3 0 4 5 3 0 12
HSK-NDA Owner ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Architect ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6
Engineer ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7
Main contractor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5
Supplier ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5
Consultant ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8
Total 5 4 3 4 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 4 4 3 2 12

C1: resource; C2: ecology; C3: siting; C4: atmosphere; C5: pollution; C6: culture; C7: responsibility; C8: community; C9: wellbeing; C10: cost; C11: local economy; C12:
collaboration; C13: project management; C14: resilience plan; C15: innovation.

(Fernandez-Sanchez and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010), this hierarchical measurement guidelines in collaboration, project management,
classification can make the measurement system applicable and resilience plan, and innovation aspects that can be contributed by
manageable. multidisciplinary stakeholders.
Compared to existing project sustainability measurement sys-
tems, this study adjusts some IS metrics following the project
lifecycle perspective, such as lifecycle water consumption, lifecycle 7.2. IS evaluation priorities in multidisciplinary decision-making
energy consumption, lifecycle waste diversion, lifecycle staff safety,
etc. Although current IS measurements consider sustainability The reliability of IS evaluation is considered very high if opinions
performances in construction and operation stages (ISI, 2018), AEC from every stakeholder and all possible opportunities for achieving
sustainability can be gathered and identified (Ferna ndez-Sa nchez
projects should be assessed comprehensively during their design,
and Rodríguez-Lo  pez, 2010). However, as concluded in this study,
construction, O&M, and disposal (Yeheyis et al., 2013). Another
difference lies in that the external cost is measured by infrastruc- it is quite difficult to reach an evaluation agreement among IS
ture social and environmental costs in the IS economic dimension. criteria between different evaluators.
Although indirect cost metrics including expenditures of resettling Among the four IS dimensions, IS criteria under the environ-
residents or rehabilitating ecosystems influenced by the developed mental dimension are ranked quite differently across multidisci-
infrastructure have been proposed, costs expended in social and plinary experts (as shown in Fig. 2). Owners and engineers rate
environmental governance should be evaluated on a case by case resource criteria high among others. The reason for this may lie in
basis (Diaz-Sarachaga et al., 2016). that client representatives and multidisciplinary engineers make
On top of that, managerial performances form the fourth sup- early decisions on design and construction configurations, which
plementary dimension measuring IS in the proposed system. This is optimizes resource allocation and utilization throughout project
echoed with the organizational sustainability performances high- lifecycles (Ugwu and Haupt, 2007). Architect and consultant eval-
lighted in the POP framework in the building project contexts uators prefer evaluating the atmosphere criterion in this dimen-
(Fischer et al., 2017; Kam and Fischer, 2004). Some existing IS in- sion, which highlights their expertise in designing aesthetic visuals
ternational rating systems have already mentioned categories and and landscapes for infrastructure planning. What is more,
indicators regarding managerial performance measurement. contractor respondents rate the pollution criterion the highest
However, these categories and indicators are mixed up with TBL among others. This reveals that environmental-friendliness has
dimensions. For instance, categories such as management systems become the priority for the construction teams no matter what
for procurement are listed in the IS rating scheme in Australia construction methods or strategies they are applying on sites.
(ISCA, 2018) and Inter-American Development Bank (Inter- Furthermore, for the IS criteria supporting the social dimension,
American Development Bank, 2018). Furthermore, project man- most multidisciplinary professionals, including owners, architects,
agement practices have been listed in IS measurement systems in suppliers, and consultants, consider wellbeing as an indispensable
Green Mark in Singapore (BCA, 2009) and CEEQUAL in the UK benchmark. This indicates that public wellbeing elements, such as
(CEEQUAL, 2015). Besides, leadership performances and innovative health and safety, have become critical reference points for
knowledge-sharing opportunities within multidisciplinary teams measuring the social sustainability of infrastructures (Fulford et al.,
in infrastructure developments are highlighted in the ENVISION 2015; Sierra et al., 2017). However, it is revealed that engineers
system in the US (ISI, 2018). As managerial performances in IS prioritize community criterion in evaluating social IS. As proposed
evaluation have been paid more attention in practice (Diaz- by Chan and Fishbein (2009), engineers should adapt their roles
Sarachaga et al., 2016), this study systematically provides and values to identify solutions in improving communities’
livability, which is also named as “global engineers for global
16 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Fig. 4. Weights benchmarking in the multidisciplinary evaluation of IS.

communities”. multidisciplinary perspectives, including owners, architects, engi-

For the economic dimension, contractor and supplier pro- neers, contractors, suppliers, and consultants. Second, decision
fessionals care more about the cost criterion in evaluating the weights information of multidisciplinary professionals against the
economic IS dimension. This contradicts the empirical study from 15 IS criteria can be obtained, as illustrated in Fig. 4. This provides a
(Ugwu and Haupt, 2007), who found that contractors did not rank benchmark for professionals adopting their highly weighted
the lifecycle cost in the top 30 sustainability indicators. However, in criteria in evaluating IS for infrastructure development alternatives.
their case, the indicator lifecycle cost had a high mean value of 4 out Third, the IS metric system promotes integrated management of
of 5 among the surveyed contractors. Because social and environ- multidisciplinary stakeholders who participated in collectively
mental costs are easily caused during construction and operation developing sustainable infrastructures.
stages, that is why more weights are assigned on these two metrics
by contractors and suppliers.
8. Conclusions and future works
Besides, various IS criteria are also heterogeneously prioritized
among multidisciplinary decision-makers in the managerial IS
A comprehensive evaluation of sustainable infrastructure de-
dimension. For instance, the project management criterion is
velopments has become one of the determinants for multidisci-
highly preferred by professionals from owner, supplier, and
plinary stakeholders achieving lifecycle success. This study
consultant disciplines. This suggests that sustainability awareness
bridges the theoretical gap of developing a formal and compre-
and recognition should be integrated into infrastructure project
hensive metric system measuring IS for multidisciplinary
management practices (Silvius, 2017). Contractor teams weight the
decision-making. Therefore, a metric system measuring IS has
collaboration criterion high among others in the managerial
been proposed accommodating 4 IS dimensions, 15 IS criteria,
dimension. This is because as contractor professionals are involved
and 50 IS metrics. A Managerial IS dimension was integrated into
in earlier collective decisions, it is a pre-requisite for them to
the metric system supplementing the TBL of sustainability eval-
facilitate collaborative working relationships with both upstream
uation, i.e., environmental IS, social IS, and economic IS. As for the
designers and downstream suppliers to achieve integrated sus-
IS measuring criteria, it is found that they are heterogeneously
tainability goals. Within the same managerial IS dimension, engi-
prioritized by multidisciplinary AEC professionals in evaluating
neers are widely expertized in evaluating the resilience plan
sustainable infrastructure developments. Validation studies were
performances for sustainable infrastructures. By integrating sus-
then conducted to claim the formality and comprehensiveness of
tainability with resilience ability, engineers should make balanced
the developed IS metric system. As a result, it is not only formal
decisions on optimizing an infrastructure system regarding its
enough to accommodate 4 dimensions, 15 criteria, and 50 metrics
long-term maintenance plans, management strategies, as well as
required for evaluating sustainable infrastructure developments
impacts on the society as a whole (Bocchini et al., 2014).
but also comprehensive enough to distinguish heterogeneous IS
As a result, the metric system developed in this study has evi-
criteria adopted by multidisciplinary professionals in IS evalua-
denced that IS criteria are heterogeneously prioritized across
tion. To conclude, the developed metric system measuring IS has
multidisciplinary AEC professionals. This finding is consistent with
the following novelty compared to other assessment systems.
the conclusions proposed by Haymaker et al. (2003), which in-
First, it is more formal and comprehensive, as it integrates
dicates that current AEC disciplines are over-specialized and
various IS dimensions emphasized in different rating systems
excessively-expertized. To this end, the adoption of differently
from various countries. Second, it integrates the IS dimensions
prioritized criteria in evaluating IS among multidisciplinary pro-
and criteria in practical rating systems with indicators proposed
fessionals is influenced by their heterogeneous preferences in
from academic literature. Third, it distinguishes the multidisci-
making collective decisions.
plinary preferences of owners, architects, engineers, contractors,
Practically, the developed IS metric system considering hetero-
suppliers, and consultants in IS evaluation.
geneous preferences underpins multidisciplinary decision-making
The IS metric system contributes to the body of knowledge in
from three implications. First, IS performances of infrastructure
sustainability evaluation for infrastructure developments from a
development alternatives are comprehensively evaluated from six
multidisciplinary decision-making perspective. On the one hand, it
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 17

extends the TBL theory of evaluating project sustainability with a financial interests or personal relationships that could have
managerial dimension from a lifecycle viewpoint. Within this IS appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
dimension, long-term resilience ability, project management sys-
tems, multidisciplinary collaboration, and lifecycle innovation are
Acknowledgment
highlighted corresponding to the POP engineering theory. On the
other hand, the metric system lays a foundation for conducting
This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of
multidisciplinary IS evaluation by distinguishing decision priorities
China (Grant No. 2018YFC1509008), the National Natural Science
and preferences among group decision-makers. This fully considers
Foundation for Excellent Young Scholars of China (Grant No.
the disciplinary expertise acquired by professionals in each AEC
71722004), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China
discipline regarding lifecycle evaluation and prediction of IS per-
(Grant No. 71572123), which is gratefully acknowledged by the
formances. As for practical significances, the findings presented in
authors.
this study can generate informative insights for guiding multidis-
ciplinary decision-making on IS. Decision-makers, policymaker,
and stakeholders participated in sustainable infrastructure de- Appendix 1
velopments can make multidisciplinary decisions in individual and
team levels of detail adopting the IS metric system. Infrastructure Sustainability Decision-Making Knowledge Sur-
For future development and application in lifecycle infrastruc- vey of AEC Multidisciplinary Professionals (an extract format).
ture evaluation, the IS metric system needs to be validated using This survey is intended to investigate different disciplinary AEC
more cases of different infrastructure types. These may include professionals’ different knowledgebase when making decisions on
water, waste, or information infrastructures driven by govern- ranking sustainable infrastructure design alternatives. The survey
mental or non-governmental organizations. Moreover, only should take approximately 15 min to complete, which is comprised
multidisciplinary stakeholders within the AEC professionals are of THREE sections.
considered in this study. To this end, the generalizability of the
developed IS metric system can be further evidenced by capturing
criteria preferred by more internal project development pro- Section 1: Infrastructure Characteristics
fessionals and external impacted actors. Internal professionals may
include some emerging specialized AEC roles, such as integrated 1) Which of the following infrastructure type did/do you partici-
design facilitators, BIM managers, VDC professionals, etc. External pate in? (check all that apply)
actors may consist of authorities, regulatory agencies, non- ( ) Airport
governmental organizations, research institutions, public and ( ) Electrical Distribution;
community representatives, etc. Besides, this study mainly focuses ( ) Highway;
on IS measurement in the early development stages of sustainable ( ) Process Control Factory;
infrastructures. Therefore, further metric system measuring IS can ( ) Rail;
be refined and extended to accommodate metrics regarding sus- ( ) Water/Wastewater;
tainable construction methods or tools, green operation & main- ( ) Telecom;
tenance practices, or post-sustainability-evaluation standards. ( ) Pipeline;
( ) Tank Farms
( ) Gas Distribution;
CRediT authorship contribution statement
( ) Other: [ ].
2) Where is the location of your participated infrastructure projects? (
Bingsheng Liu: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - re-
).
view & editing. Bin Xue: Investigation, Methodology, Data curation,
3) What is the project size in contract value? ( ) million HKD/RMB.
Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Xingbin Chen: Software,
Validation, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest Section 2: Attitudes on Benchmarks Evaluating IS

The authors declare that they have no known competing

Please indicate your agreements on the following 64 benchmarks, where 1 represents strong disagreement, 4 represents neutral, and 7 represents strong agreement.

Environmental IS Social IS Economic IS Managerial IS

Preservation of water resources: The Preservation of cultural heritage: The Acceptance of direct (lifecycle) costs: The Commitment of leadership: The degree to
percentage of lifecycle water degree to which local cultural heritage acceptance level of lifecycle costs that can which involved parties can make a
resources that can be preserved in can be preserved in developing be expended during design, construction, commitment of leadership to achieve
developing infrastructures. infrastructures. operation & maintenance, and demolition sustainability objectives in developing
in developing infrastructures. infrastructures.

1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567

Reduction of pesticide & fertilizer: The CSR of organizations: The degree to Growth of employment: The degree to Management system for sustainability: The
degree to which the pesticide and which the CSR towards sustainability which the quantity of local job degree of comprehensiveness of the scope,
fertilizer usage (e.g., quantity or can be fully committed and fulfilled by employment that can be increased in scale, and complexity of sustainability
toxicity) can be reduced in developing organizations who deliver developing infrastructures. management systems in developing
infrastructures. infrastructures. infrastructures.

1234567 1234567 1234567 1234567

…… …… …… ……
18 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Section 3: Respondent Profile ( ) Consultant (Cost, Energy, Green, Ecology, etc.);

( ) Other: [ ].
1) Total years of industry experience: ( ). 4) Company’s common project size:
2) Approx. No. Of infrastructure project worked on during career: ( ). ( ) Contract value up to $100 million (HKD/RMB) (small
3) Company’s primary service/discipline in industry (select one projects);
option): ( ) Contract value up to $1000 million (HKD/RMB) (medium
( ) Owner/Developer; projects)
( ) Governmental representative; ( ) Contract value exceeding $1000 million (HKD/RMB) (large
( ) Facility manager; projects)
( ) End-user/Public representative;
( ) Main Contractor/CM;
( ) Architecture; Appendix 2
( ) Engineering;
( ) Supplier (Subcontractor, Fabricator, Manufacturer, etc.); Details of the identified and matched IS dimensions, criteria,
and metrics from the three validation case studies.

Validation Cases IS Dimensions IS Criteria IS Metrics Measurement

LPS-NC Environmental IS Resource C1 Lifecycle consumption of water IS1 Percentage float: 0 to 1

Reuse of stormwater IS2 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Monitoring of water systems IS3 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Reuse of earthwork IS4 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Protection of soil health IS5 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Usage of sustainably procured materials IS6 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Usage of recycled materials IS7 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Lifecycle consumption of energy IS8 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Usage of renewable energy IS9 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Monitoring of energy systems IS10 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Ecology C2 Maintenance of ecosystem functions IS11 Non-negative integer
Reduction of pesticide & fertilizer IS12 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Control of invasive species IS13 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Siting C3 Avoidance of ecological siting IS14 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Buffers for ecological land IS15 Non-negative integer
Usage of developed land IS16 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Atmosphere C4 Control of noises IS17 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Control of lights IS18 Non-negative integer
Maintenance of landscapes IS19 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Pollution C5 Diversion of lifecycle waste IS20 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Control of emissions IS21 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Social IS Culture C6 Preservation of cultural heritage IS22 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Respect for local character IS23 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Wellbeing C9 Health & safety of the public IS30 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Safety of lifecycle staffs IS31 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Mobility for the public IS32 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Information sharing to the public IS33 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Managerial IS Collaboration C12 Commitment of leadership IS39 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Teamwork of multidisciplinary professionals IS40 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Decision-making of all stakeholders IS41 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Integration of various infrastructure systems IS42 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Project management C13 Management system for sustainability IS43 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Management system for lifecycle monitoring & maintenance IS44 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Innovation C15 Achievement of extra product values IS48 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Resolution of process barriers IS49 Likert integer: 1 to 7
TM-CLKL Environmental IS Resource C1 Lifecycle consumption of water IS1 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Reuse of stormwater IS2 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Monitoring of water systems IS3 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Reuse of earthwork IS4 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Protection of soil health IS5 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Usage of sustainably procured materials IS6 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Usage of recycled materials IS7 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Lifecycle consumption of energy IS8 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Usage of renewable energy IS9 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Monitoring of energy systems IS10 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Ecology C2 Maintenance of ecosystem functions IS11 Non-negative integer
Reduction of pesticide & fertilizer IS12 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Control of invasive species IS13 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Siting C3 Avoidance of ecological siting IS14 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Usage of developed land IS16 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Atmosphere C4 Control of noises IS17 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Control of lights IS18 Non-negative integer
Maintenance of landscapes IS19 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Pollution C5 Control of emissions IS21 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Social IS Culture C6 Preservation of cultural heritage IS22 Likert integer: 1 to 7
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 19

(continued )

Validation Cases IS Dimensions IS Criteria IS Metrics Measurement

Community C8 Quality of life for communities IS26 Likert integer: 1 to 7

Social equity & justice for communities IS27 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Amenities for communities IS28 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Connectivity among communities IS29 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Wellbeing C9 Health & safety of the public IS30 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Safety of lifecycle staffs IS31 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Mobility for the public IS32 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Information sharing to the public IS33 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Economic IS Cost C10 Acceptance of direct (lifecycle) costs IS34 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Acceptance of indirect (social or environmental) costs IS35 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Managerial IS Collaboration C12 Commitment of leadership IS39 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Teamwork of multidisciplinary professionals IS40 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Decision-making of all stakeholders IS41 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Integration of various infrastructure systems IS42 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Project management C13 Management system for sustainability IS43 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Management system for lifecycle monitoring & maintenance IS44 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Resilience plan C14 Durability of infrastructure IS45 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Adaptability of infrastructure IS46 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Recovery ability of infrastructure IS47 Likert integer: 1 to 7
HSK-NDA Environmental IS Resource C1 Lifecycle consumption of water IS1 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Reuse of stormwater IS2 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Monitoring of water systems IS3 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Reuse of earthwork IS4 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Protection of soil health IS5 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Usage of sustainably procured materials IS6 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Usage of recycled materials IS7 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Lifecycle consumption of energy IS8 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Usage of renewable energy IS9 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Monitoring of energy systems IS10 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Ecology C2 Maintenance of ecosystem functions IS11 Non-negative integer
Reduction of pesticide & fertilizer IS12 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Control of invasive species IS13 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Siting C3 Avoidance of ecological siting IS14 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Buffers for ecological land IS15 Non-negative integer
Usage of developed land IS16 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Atmosphere C4 Control of noises IS17 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Control of lights IS18 Non-negative integer
Maintenance of landscapes IS19 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Pollution C5 Diversion of lifecycle waste IS20 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Control of emissions IS21 Percentage float: 0 to 1
Social IS Responsibility C7 CSR of organizations IS24 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Sustainability awareness for participants IS25 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Wellbeing C9 Health & safety of the public IS30 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Safety of lifecycle staffs IS31 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Mobility for the public IS32 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Economic IS Local economy C11 Growth of employment IS36 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Development of business attractiveness IS37 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Development of workforce IS38 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Managerial IS Collaboration C12 Commitment of leadership IS39 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Teamwork of multidisciplinary professionals IS40 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Decision-making of all stakeholders IS41 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Integration of various infrastructure systems IS42 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Project management C13 Management system for sustainability IS43 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Management system for lifecycle monitoring & maintenance IS44 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Resilience plan C14 Durability of infrastructure IS45 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Adaptability of infrastructure IS46 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Recovery ability of infrastructure IS47 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Innovation C15 Achievement of extra product values IS48 Likert integer: 1 to 7
Creation of transferable knowledge IS50 Likert integer: 1 to 7

References Berawi, M.A., 2016. Accelerating sustainable infrastructure development: assuring

well-being and ensuring environmental sustainability. Int. J. Technol. 7 (4),
527e529.
Aboushady, A.M., El-Sawy, S.A.R., 2013. Qualitative assessment framework to eval-
Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G., 1997. “Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314 (7080),
uate sustainability indicators affecting infrastructure construction projects in
572.
developing countries using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). WIT Trans.
Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D.M., Ummenhofer, T., Zinke, T., 2014. Resilience and sus-
Ecol. Environ. 179, 1309e1320.
tainability of civil infrastructure: toward a unified approach. J. Infrastruct. Syst.
Ariaratnam, S.T., Piratla, K., Cohen, A., Olson, M., 2013. Quantification of sustain-
20 (2), 04014004 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943e55.
ability index for underground utility infrastructure projects. J. Construct. Eng.
Carr, V., Tah, J.H.M., 2001. A fuzzy approach to construction project risk assessment
Manag. 139 (12), A4013002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-78.
and analysis: construction project risk management system. Adv. Eng. Software
Azari, R., Kim, Y.-W., 2016. Integration evaluation framework for integrated design
32 (10e11), 847e857.
teams of green buildings: development and validation. J. Manag. Eng. 32 (3),
CEEQUAL, 2015. Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award
4015053. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943e5479.0000416.
Scheme (CEEQUAL): Version 5.2. http://www.ceequal.com/version-5/.
BCA, 2009. BCA green Mark for infrastructure: version 1.0. https://www.bca.gov.sg/
Chan, A.D.C., Fishbein, J., 2009. A global engineer for the global community. J. Policy
GreenMark/others/GM_Infra_V.
Engagement 1 (2), 4e9.
20 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904

Chawla, V., Chanda, A., Angra, S., Chawla, G., 2018. The sustainable project man- energy analysis tools with green building certification system to conceptually
agement: a review and future possibilities. J. Proj. Manag. 3 (3), 157e170. design sustainable buildings. J. Inf. Technol. Construct. 19, 494e519.
Dasgupta, S., Tam, E.K., 2005. Indicators and framework for assessing sustainable Josa, I., Aguado, A., 2019. Infrastructures and society: from a literature review to a
infrastructure. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32, 30e44. conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 238, 117741. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Dawes, J., 2008. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale j.jclepro.2019.1177.
points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. Int. J. Kam, C., Fischer, M., 2004. Capitalizing on early project decision-making opportu-
Mark. Res. 50 (1), 61e104. nities to improve facility design, construction, and life-cycle performance - POP,
Dhakal, K., Chevalier, L., 2017. Managing urban stormwater for urban sustainability: PM4D, and decision dashboard approaches. Autom. ConStruct. 13 (1), 53e65.
barriers and policy solutions for green infrastructure application. J. Environ. Kim, T.W., Fischer, M., 2014. “Ontology for representing building users’ activities in
Manag. 203 (1), 171e181. space-use analysis. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 140 (8) https://doi.org/10.1061/
Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M., Jato-Espino, D., Alsulami, B., Castro-Fresno, D., 2016. Evalua- (ASCE)CO.1943e78, 04014035.
tion of existing sustainable infrastructure rating systems for their application in Kivila€, J., Martinsuo, M., Vuorinen, L., 2017. Sustainable project management
developing countries. Ecol. Indicat. 71, 491e502. through project control in infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6),
Eid, M.S., El-adaway, I.H., 2018. Decision-making framework for holistic sustainable 1167e1183.
disaster recovery: agent-based approach for decreasing vulnerabilities of the Krajangsri, T., Pongpeng, J., 2017. Effect of sustainable infrastructure assessments on
associated communities. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 24 (3) https://doi.org/10.1061/ construction project success using structural equation modeling. J. Manag. Eng.
(ASCE)IS.1943e55, 04018009. 33 (3) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943e54, 04016056.
El-Gohary, N., Qari, A., 2010. Towards a formal axiology for sustainable infrastruc- Kunz, J.C., Luiten, G.T., Fischer, M.A., Jin, Y., Levitt, R.E., 1993. CE4: concurrent en-
ture development. In: Proceedings of the ASCE International Conference on gineering of product, process, facility, and organization. Concurr. Eng.: Res.
Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, pp. 357e362. Appl. 4 (2), 187e198.
Elbarkouky, M.M.G., 2012. A multi-criteria prioritization framework (MCPF) to Lenferink, S., Tillema, T., Arts, J., 2013. Towards sustainable infrastructure devel-
assess infrastructure sustainability objectives. J. Sustain. Dev. 5 (9) https:// opment through integrated contracts: experiences with inclusiveness in Dutch
doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v5n9p1. infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (4), 615e627. Elsevier Ltd and
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century IPMA.
Business. Alternative Management Observatory, Capstone, Oxford. Li, L., Li, Z., Jiang, L., Wu, G., Cheng, D., 2018. Enhanced cooperation among stake-


Erdogan, S.A., Saparauskas, J., Turskis, Z., 2019. A multi-criteria decision-making holders in PPP mega-infrastructure projects: a China study. Sustainability 10
model to choose the best option for sustainable construction management. (8), 2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082791.
Sustainability 11, 2239. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082239. Matar, M., Osman, H., Georgy, M., Abou-Zeid, A., El-Said, M., 2017. A systems en-
Faridi, A.S., El-Sayegh, S.M., 2006. Significant factors causing delay in the UAE gineering approach for realizing sustainability in infrastructure projects. HBRC
construction industry. Construct. Manag. Econ. 24 (11), 1167e1176. J. 13 (2), 190e201.
Faust, K., Mannering, F., Abraham, D., 2016. Statistical analysis of public perceptions Mcmanamay, R.A., Surendran Nair, S., Derolph, C.R., Ruddell, B.L., Morton, A.M.,
of water infrastructure sustainability in shrinking cities. Urban Water J. 13 (6), Stewart, R.N., Troia, M.J., Tran, L., Kim, H., Bhaduri, B.L., 2017. US cities can
618e628. manage national hydrology and biodiversity using local infrastructure policy.
Ferna ndez-Sa nchez, G., Rodríguez-Lo  pez, F., 2010. “A methodology to identify Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 114 (36), 9581e9586.
sustainability indicators in construction project managementdapplication to Meng, J.N., Xue, B., Liu, B.S., Fang, N., 2015. “Relationships between top managers’
infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indicat. 10 (6), 1193e1201. leadership and infrastructure sustainability A Chinese urbanization perspective.
Ferna ndez-Sa nchez, G., Rodríguez-Lo pez, F., 2011. Proposal for the integration of Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 22 (6), 692e714.
sustainability criteria in civil engineering projects: a case study. Inf. Con- Meng, J., Yan, J., Xue, B., 2018. Exploring relationships between national culture and
struccion 63 (524), 65e74. infrastructure sustainability using QCA. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 144 (9),
Fischer, J.M., Amekudzi, A., 2011. Quality of life , sustainable civil infrastructures and 04018082 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943e78.
sustainable development: strategically expanding coice. J. Urban Plann. Dev. 137 Mieg, H., To € pfer, K., 2013. Cross-national urban sustainability learning: a case study
(1), 39e48. on ‘continuous interaction’ in green infrastructure policies. In: Institutional and
Fischer, M., Khanzode, A., Reed, D., Ashcraft, H.W., 2017. Integrating Project Delivery. Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development, pp. 249e260.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mohammadifardi, H., Knight, M.A., Unger, A.A.J., 2019. “Sustainability assessment of
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable vari- asset management decisions for wastewater infrastructure system-
ables and measurement error: algebra and Statistics. J. Market. Res. 18 (3), sdimplementation of a system dynamics model. Systems 7 (3), 34. https://
382e388. doi.org/10.3390/systems7030034.
Fulford, R.S., Smith, L.M., Harwell, M., Dantin, D., Russell, M., Harvey, J., 2015. Human Morrissey, J., Iyer-Raniga, U., McLaughlin, P., Mills, A., 2012. A Strategic Project
well-being differs by community type: toward reference points in a human Appraisal framework for ecologically sustainable urban infrastructure. Environ.
well-being indicator useful for decision support. Ecol. Indicat. 56, 194e204. Impact Assess. Rev. 33 (1), 55e65. Elsevier Inc.
Gantner, J., Fawcett, W., Ellingham, I., 2018. In: Pomponi, F., De Wolf, C., Mostafa, M.A., El-gohary, N.M., 2014. “Stakeholder-Sensitive social welfare e ori-
Moncaster, A. (Eds.), “Probabilistic Approaches to the Measurement of ented benefit analysis for sustainable infrastructure project development.
Embodied Carbon in Buildings.” Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Measurement, J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 140 (9), 1e12.
Management, and Mitigation, pp. 23e50. Newman, P.W., Velazquez, L., Munguia, N.E., Will, M., Zavala, A.G., Verdugo, S.P.,
Goubran, S., Masson, T., Caycedo, M., 2019. No TitEvolutions in sustainability and 2015. Transport infrastructure and sustainability: a new planning and assess-
sustainable real estatele. In: Walker, T., Krosinsky, C., Hasan, L., Kibsey, S. (Eds.), ment framework. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 4 (2), 140e153.
Sustainable Real Estate. Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business in Association Patil, N.A., Tharun, D., Laishram, B., 2016. Infrastructure development through PPPs
with Future Earth. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. in India: criteria for sustainability assessment. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 59 (4),
Haider, H., Hewage, K., Umer, A., Ruparathna, R., Chhipi-Shrestha, G., Culver, K., 708e729.
Holland, M., Kay, J., Sadiq, R., 2018. Sustainability assessment framework for Pellicer, E., Sierra, L.A., Yepes, V., 2016. Appraisal of infrastructure sustainability by
small-sized urban neighbourhoods: an application of fuzzy synthetic evalua- graduate students using an active-learning method. J. Clean. Prod. 113,
tion. Sustain. Cities Soc. 36, 21e32. 884e896.
Harris, N., Shealy, T., Klotz, L., 2017. Choice architecture as a way to encourage a Phan, T.N., Baird, K., 2015. The comprehensiveness of environmental management
whole systems design perspective for more sustainable infrastructure. Sus- systems: the influence of institutional pressures and the impact on environ-
tainability 9 (1), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010054. mental performance. J. Environ. Manag. 160, 45e56.
Haymaker, J., Suter, B., Fischer, M., Kunz, J., 2003. The Perspective Approach: Raykov, T., 1997. Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Appl.
Enabling Engineers to Construct and Integrate Geometric Views to Generate an Psychol. Meas. 21 (2), 173e184.
Evolving Project Model. Stanford University. CIFE Working Paper. Reefman, R.J.B., Van Nederveen, G.A., 2012. Knowledge management in an inte-
Holthe, K., 2009. Improved building design by joint calculating building costs and grated design and engineering environment. eWork eBusiness Architec. Eng.
environmental costs? VTT Symp. (259), 268e281. Constr.: ECPPM 2, 331, 2012.
Hueskes, M., Verhoest, K., Block, T., 2017. Governing public–private partnerships for Ross, A., Willson, V.L., 2017. “One-Way Anova.” Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests.
sustainability; an analysis of procurement and governance practices of PPP SensePublishers, Rotterdam, pp. 21e24.
infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1184e1195. Sahely, H.R., Kennedy, C. a, Adams, B.J., 2005. Developing sustainability criteria for
Information Services Department of Hong Kong, 2010. Ten Major Infrastructure urban infrastructure systems. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 32 (1), 72e85.
Projects. Sandberg, M., Mukkavaara, J., Shadram, F., Olofsson, T., 2019. Multidisciplinary
Inter-American Development Bank, 2018. What Is Sustainable Infrastructure: A optimization of life-cycle energy and cost using a BIM-based master model.
Framework to Guide Sustainability across the Project Cycle. https:// Sustainability 11, 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010286.
publications.iadb.org/en/handle/11319/8798. Seawright, J., Gerring, J., 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research.
ISCA, 2018. The IS rating scheme: version 2.0. https://www.isca.org.au/is_ratings. Polit. Res. Q. 61 (2), 294e308.
ISI, 2018. Envision version 3. https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision-ver. Shen, L., Wu, Y., Zhang, X., 2011. Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of
Jalaei, F., Jalaei, F., Mohammadi, S., 2020. An integrated BIM-LEED application to infrastructure projects. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 137 (6), 441e451.
automate sustainable design assessment framework at the conceptual stage of Sierra, L.A., Pellicer, E., Yepes, V., 2016. Social sustainability in the lifecycle of Chilean
building projects. Sustain. Cities Soc. 53, 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/ public infrastructure. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 142 (5) https://doi.org/10.1061/
j.scs.2019.101979. (ASCE)CO.1943e78, 05015020.
Jalaei, F., Jrade, A., 2014. Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Sierra, L.A., Pellicer, E., Yepes, V., 2017. Method for estimating the social
 B. Liu et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 278 (2021) 123904 21

sustainability of infrastructure projects. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 65, 41e53. Wolf, E.J., Harrington, K.M., Clark, S.L., Miller, M.W., 2013. Sample size requirements
Siew, R.Y.J., Balatbat, M.C.A., Carmichael, D.G., 2013. A review of building/infra- for structural equation models: an evaluation of power, bias, and solution
structure sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2 propriety. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 73 (6), 913e934.
(2), 106e139. World Economic Forum, 2017. Shaping the Future of Construction: Inspiring In-
Silvius, G., 2017. Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. novators Redefine the Industry. Industry Agenda. Prepared in Collaboration with
J. Clean. Prod. 166, 1479e1493. Elsevier Ltd. The Boston Consulting Group.
Taylor, J.E., Dossick, C.S., Garvin, M., 2011. Meeting the burden of proof with case- Xue, B., Li, S., 2019. Formalizing an integrated multidisciplinary decision-making
study research. J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 137 (4), 303e311. methodology for ranking sustainable infrastructure designs. In: Computing in
Thome , A.M.T., Ceryno, P.S., Scavarda, A., Remmen, A., 2016. Sustainable infra- Civil Engineering 2019: Smart Cities, Sustainability, and Resilience - Selected
structure: a review and a research agenda. J. Environ. Manag. 184, 143e156. Papers from the ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil Engi-
Thompson, B., 2004. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding neering, pp. 436e443, 2019.
Concepts and Applications. American Psychological Association. Xue, B., Liu, B., Sun, T., 2018. “What matters in achieving infrastructure sustain-
Ugwu, O.O., Haupt, T.C., 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods ability through project management Practices : a preliminary study of critical
for infrastructure sustainability-a South African construction industry factors. Sustainability 10, 4421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124421.
perspective. Build. Environ. 42 (2), 665e680. Xue, B., Xu, H., 2018. A whole life cycle group decision-making framework for
Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Wong, A., Ng, S.T., 2006a. Sustainability appraisal sustainability evaluation of major infrastructure projects. In: Chau, K., Chan, I.,
in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 1. Development of indicators and Lu, W., Webster, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on
computational methods. Autom. ConStruct. 15 (2), 239e251. Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate. Springer,
Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Wong, A., Ng, S.T., 2006b. Sustainability appraisal Singapore, Hong Kong, China, December, pp. 129e140, 2016.
in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 2: a case study in bridge design. Autom. Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
ConStruct. 15 (2), 229e238. construction and demolition waste management in Canada: a lifecycle analysis
Valdes-Vasquez, R., Klotz, L.E., 2013. Social sustainability considerations during approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15 (1), 81e91.
planning and design: framework of processes for construction projects. Yin, R.K., 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, fourth ed. Sage, Thou-
J. Construct. Eng. Manag. 139 (1), 80e89. sand Oaks, CA.
Wang, J., Yuan, H., 2011. “Factors affecting contractors’ risk attitudes in construction Yu, W. Der, Cheng, S.T., Ho, W.C., Chang, Y.H., 2018. Measuring the sustainability of
projects: case study from China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (2), 209e219. construction projects throughout their lifecycle: a Taiwan Lesson. Sustainability
Wei, J., Qian, J., Tao, Y., Ou, W., 2018. Evaluating spatial priority of urban green 10 (5), 1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051523.
infrastructure for urban sustainability in areas of rapid urbanization: a case Zhou, J., Liu, Y.J., 2015. The method and index of sustainability assessment of
study of pukou in China. Sustainability 10 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ infrastructure projects based on system dynamics in China. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 8
su10020327. (3), 1002e1019.