joshua olorunkiya, ph.d candidate elizabeth …
TRANSCRIPT
TODAY’S COLLABORATION, TOMORROW’S SUCCESS IN LID TECHNOLOGIES ADOPTION
JOSHUA OLORUNKIYA, Ph.D CandidateELIZABETH FASSMAN, PhD, A.M.AMSCE
ASSOC.PROF. SUZANNE WILKINSON, PhD
The University of AucklandDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering
20 Symonds Street, Auckland, New ZealandTel: +64212628688
Email:[email protected]
Philadelphia Low Impact Development SymposiumGreening the Urban EnvironmentSeptember 25-28, 2011, Philadelphia, PA
Research Background: LID in NZNegative environmental impacts associated with stormwaterrunoff;
Slow rate of LID uptake and failure of pioneered LID projects as aresult of design and construction defects.
Promotes uptake of LID technologies through: Identification and development of implementation framework
that ensure project team collaboration to ensure properconstruction; and
Develop framework(s) for creating incentives to influencestakeholders’ decisions to design, commission and build LIDinfrastructures.
The DCB hesitation factors to adopt LID technologies
Design it Commission it
Build it
Cost of adoption
Maintenance and durability
Perception about failed pilot projects
Methodology
On-the-Spot Survey with Interview
Profession # Interviewed
Avg. Yrs.Experience
Developers 2 40
D/Architects 5 30
Engineers 4 26
L/ Architects 4 20
TOTAL 15
Online SurveyProfession #
SurveyedAv.Yrs.Experience
Architects 25
Reg. Authority 30
Engineers 37
Developers 14
Contractors 20
Other Consultants
42
TOTAL 168
Respondents’ perception of LID adoption barriers(On-the-spot survey)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No
of
Po
siti
ve R
esp
on
ses
Barriers to LID Adoption
Technical Factor
Economic Factor
Risk Factor
Social Factor
Institutional Factor
Risk Factor28%
Economic Factor15%
Technical Factor23%
Institutional Factor23%
Social Factor11%
Categorical barriers to LID adoption
Proposed Solutions...
1. Fair and equitable contractual risk-sharing– Pre-contract risk terms negotiations?
- IRA∫(P)
– Contract form = risk sharing + adoption
– Risk sharing +Incentive
61%
10%
29%
70%
6%
24%
51%
18%
31%
71%
13%
16%
Proposed Solutions continues...
2. Target solutions for appropriate stakeholders
– Channels of influence
3. Incentives provisions to influence stakeholders decisions to design, commission and build;
4. Target institutional change.
Channels of influence to promote LID uptake
Conclusion
• Overwhelming response supports fair andequitable contractual risk sharing to promoteadoption of LID infrastructures;
• There is a general trend and preference fordemonstration projects.
• The younger and less experienced are moreopen to new ideas than the “old guard”
THANK YOU [email protected]