measuring the sustainable performance of public infrastructure · iso/ts 21929-2:2015...

Measuring the

Sustainable

Performance of

Public

Infrastructure

Mike Benson, MITUniversity of New Brunswick, Masters Candidate

Jeff Rankin, P.Eng.University of New Brunswick, Chair in Construction Engineering and Management

Overview

• Sustainability

• Measuring Sustainable Performance

• Sustainable Efficiency Model (SEM)

• Case Study

• Lessons Learned

2

Sustainability

3

Environmental

Protection

Social

Development

Economic

Development

Sustainable

Development

Sustainability

4

So what does this include?

It depends on who you ask…

Sustainability

5

Sustainability

6

ISO/TS 21929-2:2015

Sustainability in building construction -- Sustainability

indicators -- Part 2: Framework for the development of

indicators for civil engineering works

Not perfect but it can provide owners

with a starting point

Sustainability

7

ISO/TS 21929-2:2015

Economic Environmental Social

Life-Cycle Costs GHG Emissions Health and Safety

Other External Costs Material Use Job Creation

Water Use Cultural Heritage

Energy Use Access to Nature

Waste Production Urban Sprawl

Eutrophication Potential Public Acceptability

Acidification Potential Aesthetic Value

Ozone Depletion Potential

Land Use Changes

Tells us what to measure, not how to measure

8

How can we measure the

sustainable performance of

public infrastructure?

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

Measuring Performance

9

1. Monetary

• Impacts are given a dollar

value to determine their

relative impact.

e.g. Value of a Fatality = $9.6

million (US DOT 2016)

2. Non-Monetary

• Impacts are given points

to determine their relative

impact.

e.g. Reducing 1 fatality per

year = 20 points


10

1. Monetary

Advantages

• Common unit (dollar)

• Life-cycle analysis

• Easily include uncertainty

Disadvantages

• Cannot include all criteria

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046

Socia

l B

enefit

($C

2016)

Year


11

2. Non-Monetary

Multi-Criteria Analysis

Advantages

• Can include any criteria

• Flexible methodologies

• Simple and easy to use

Disadvantages

• Subjective weighting factors

• What metrics do we use?


12

2. Non-Monetary

Rating Schemes

These are essentially MCAs that

have been built by a credentialing

organization

Why not both?

13

Sustainable Efficiency Model

14

“Stochastic decision support system which

combines economic, environmental, and social

criteria into a single quantitative indicator using

monetary and non-monetary methods”

𝑆𝐸𝑆𝑎 =

𝑖=1

𝐼

𝑤𝑖 𝑚𝐵𝐶𝑅𝑖𝑎 +

𝑗=1

𝐽

𝑤𝑗 𝑄𝑇𝐸𝐼𝑗𝑎 +

𝑘=1

𝐾

𝑤𝑘 𝑄𝐿𝐸𝐼𝑘𝑎

Monetary Non-Monetary

Sustainable Efficiency Model

15

Emphasis is on the use of efficiency indicators…

Measuring how effectively an infrastructure project

achieves an objective. All criteria are then on a

common scale (between -1.00 and 1.00).

3 Types of Indicators:

1. Monetary

2. Non-Monetary Quantitative

3. Non-Monetary Qualitative

Applications of the SEM

16

1. Project Prioritization

2. Compare Design Alternatives

3. Network/Systems Decision Making

Case Study – Project Prioritization

17

City of Fredericton

Project A – Major City

Intersection Upgrades

Project B – Additional

Secondary Clarifier

Which one has the higher

sustainable performance?


18

Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades


19


Project highlights:

• Intersection re-design to improve safety

• Reconstruction of existing concrete intersection

• Replacement of underground services

• Increased lighting and visibility.


20


Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency IndicatorIndicator

TypeResult Wi

SESi x

100

Economic

(18.9%)

Life-Cycle Costs = PVLCC/Ca M 0.13 10.9% 1.45

Travel Time = PVTT/Ca M 0.15 6.8% 1.00

Environmental

(29%)

GHG Emissions = PVGHG/Ca M 0.00 6.0% 0.02

Land Use Changes None n/a 0.00 3.6% 0.00

Material Use = RMi/RMmax NMQT 0.05 2.4% 0.12

Energy Use = ∆EU/EUo NMQT 0.59 1.9% 1.12

Water Use = ∆WU/WUo NMQT 0.91 3.5% 3.16

Waste Reduction = WR/WG NMQT 0.00 4.0% 0.00

Eutrophication Potential None n/a 0.00 2.6% 0.00

Acidification Potential None n/a 0.00 2.0% 0.00

Ozone Depletion Potential None n/a 0.00 2.3% 0.00

Social

(53.1%)

Health and Safety = PVH&S/Ca M 0.55 37.1% 20.44

Access to Nature Contribution to Nature Access NMQL 0.20 2.1% 0.43

Urban Sprawl Contribution to Urban Sprawl NMQL -0.20 2.4% -0.49

Public Acceptance Degree of Public Acceptance NMQL 0.40 1.9% 0.75

Aesthetic Value Contribution to Aesthetic Value NMQL 0.40 1.8% 0.71

Job Creation = LRi/LRI NMQT 0.57 4.5% 2.57

Cultural Heritage None n/a 0.00 4.2% 0.00

Total 31.27


21

Project B – Additional Secondary Clarifier


22

Project B – Additional Secondary Clarifier

Project highlights:

• Significant capacity upgrade

• Redundancy to allow for maintenance

• Avoid primary bypass during wet season

23


Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency IndicatorIndicator

TypeResult Wi

SESi x

100

Economic

(18.9%)

Life-Cycle Costs = PVLCC/Ca M -0.10 10.9% -1.12

Travel Time = PVTT/Ca M 0.00 6.8% 0.00

Environmental

(29%)

GHG Emissions = PVGHG/Ca M 0.00 6.0% 0.00

Land Use Changes None n/a -0.04 3.6% -0.14

Material Use = RMi/RMmax NMQT 0.00 2.4% 0.00

Energy Use = ∆EU/EUo NMQT -0.02 1.9% -0.04

Water Use = ∆WU/WUo NMQT 0.92 3.5% 3.22

Waste Reduction = WR/WG NMQT 0.00 4.0% 0.00

Eutrophication Potential None n/a 0.94 2.6% 2.49

Acidification Potential None n/a 0.00 2.0% 0.00

Ozone Depletion Potential None n/a 0.00 2.3% 0.00

Social

(53.1%)

Health and Safety = PVH&S/Ca M 0.00 37.1% 0.05

Access to Nature Contribution to Nature Access NMQL 0.00 2.1% 0.00

Urban Sprawl Contribution to Urban Sprawl NMQL 0.20 2.4% 0.49

Public Acceptance Degree of Public Acceptance NMQL 0.60 1.9% 1.12

Aesthetic Value Contribution to Aesthetic Value NMQL 0.00 1.8% 0.00

Job Creation = LRi/LRI NMQT 0.21 4.5% 0.96

Cultural Heritage None n/a 0.00 4.2% 0.00

Total 7.02



24

Comparing the two…

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Re

lati

ve F

req

ue

ncy

Sustainable Efficiency Score (SES)

Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrades

Regent and Prospect Street Intersection Upgrades

@RISK Course VersionUniversity of New Brunswick
















25

Lessons Learned

1. Inclusion of regulatory requirements and legal

commitments

• Wastewater treatment (mandated) vs. transportation

upgrades (discretionary)

2. Need for a collaborative and integrated evaluation

team

3. Criteria should be flexible – every jurisdiction has

challenges that are unique to them…

Something to think about…

26

1. What economic, environmental, or

social impacts are important to your

organization?

2. How will you evaluate these criteria?

3. How will they be included in the larger

decision making process?

Questions?Contact Me:

Mike Benson

R.V. Anderson Associates Limited

[email protected]

measuring the sustainable performance of public infrastructure · iso/ts 21929-2:2015...

Documents