A Transformed Approach for Benchmarking the Performance of ‘Sustainable’ Infrastructure
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- To identify EPS areas where discipline-specific terminology and lexicon were creating barriers to comprehension (Workshop 1).
- To identify opportunities and challenges to integrating EPS into infrastructure practice (Workshop 2–3).
- To create a proof of concept for the EPS method to be applied in infrastructure projects (Mapping and user-case example).
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Evolution of Sustainability Schemes and Frameworks
2.2. Consideration of Ecosystem Services within Infrastructure
2.3. Ecological Performance Standards for Regenerative Design
3. Method
3.1. Workshop Setting and Scoping
3.2. Workshop Structure
3.2.1. Stage 1: Academic Workshop (Phoenix, AZ, USA)
3.2.2. Stage 2: Industry Workshops (Brisbane and Sydney, Australia)
- The extent to which each ecosystem service is addressed and delivered by current industry approaches (1–5, with 1 = Never and 5 = Always).
- The frameworks and schemes that address each ecosystem service, including those that prompt or enable action.
- Specific examples of controls and initiatives used to manage/deliver those ecosystem services on infrastructure projects.
- A prioritisation ranking of the perceived importance of each ecosystem service to project performance.
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Academic Workshop
4.2. Industry Workshops
4.2.1. Ecosystem Services Performance
4.2.2. EPS Process
4.3. EPS Mapping for a Typical Infrastructure Project
5. Discussion
5.1. Opportunities for Standardisation and Integration
5.2. Incorporating EPS into Sustainability Rating Schemes
5.2.1. Creating an Overarching Governance Credit for EPS
5.2.2. Embedding EPS within Existing Credits
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hayes, S.; Desha, C.; Baumeister, D. Learning from nature–biomimicry innovation to support infrastructure sustainability and resilience. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 161, 120287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldera, S.; Hayes, S.; Dawes, L.; Desha, C. Moving beyond Business as Usual toward Regenerative Business Practice in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Front. Sustain. 2022, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, K.A.; Boyle, C.; Henning, T.F. Comparison of project performance assessed by infrastructure sustainability rating tools. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Infrastruture Sustainability Council of Australia. Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool Version 2.0; Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- CEEQUAL. CEEQUAL for Projects Assessment Manual Version 5; CEEQUAL: Watford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hes, D. Beyond sustainability-the importance of thinking beyond efficiency based initiatives in buildings. In Proceedings of the World Sustainable Building Conference (WSB11), Helsinki, Finland, 18–21 October 2011. Forecasts and Globalisation. [Google Scholar]
- Geels, F.W. Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72, 681–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumeister, D.; Tocke, R.; Dwyer, J.; Ritter, S.; Benyus, J. The Biomimicry Resource Handbook: A Seedbank of Best Practices, Missoula, Biomimicry 3.8; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Glass, J. The state of sustainability reporting in the construction sector. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2012, 1, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Framework Guidance Manual: Version 3; Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- US Green Building Council. LEED v4 for Building Design and Construction; USGBC Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Transforming out World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Hes, D.; du Plessis, C. Designing for Hope: Pathways to Regenerative Sustainability; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lynn Birkeland, J. Positive development and assessment. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2014, 3, 4–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.; Sheate, W.R.; Phillips, P.; Eales, R. Ecosystem services in environmental assessment—Help or hindrance? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broekx, S.; Liekens, I.; Peelaerts, W.; De Nocker, L.; Staes, J.; Meire, P.; Landuyt, D.; Schaafsma, M.; Van Reeth, W.; Van den Kerckhove, O.; et al. Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Honrado, J.; Vieira, C.; Soares, C.; Monteiro, M.B.; Marcos, B.; Pereira, H.; Partidario, M. Can we infer about ecosystem services from EIA and SEA practice? A framework for analysis and examples from Portugal. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40, 14–24. [Google Scholar]
- Stack, K. The Origin of Ecological Performance Standards as Applied to the Built Environment; State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry: Syracuse, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Dwyer, J. “Campus as a Forest” Inspires a School Master Plan. 2019. Available online: https://synapse.bio/blog/campus-as-a-forest (accessed on 11 November 2019).
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Daniels, P.; El Baghdadi, O.; Desha, C.; Matthews, T. Evaluating net community benefits of integrating nature within cities. Sustain. Earth 2020, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahern, J.; Cilliers, S.; Niemelä, J. The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Birkeland, J. Positive development: Designing for net positive impacts. Environ. Des. Guide 2007, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Zari, M.P. Regenerative Urban Design and Ecosystem Biomimicry; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mathew, M. Factory as a Forest: Reimagining Facilities as Ecosystems. 2018. Available online: https://blog.interface.com/en-au/factory-forest-reimagining-facilities-ecosystems/ (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- DOW-TNC. ESII Tool 2019. Available online: https://www.esiitool.com/ (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- Hayes, S.; Desha, C.; Gibbs, M. Findings of case-study analysis: System-Level biomimicry in built-environment design. Biomimetics 2019, 4, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hayes, S.; Desha, C.; Burke, M.; Gibbs, M.; Chester, M. Leveraging socio-ecological resilience theory to build climate resilience in transport infrastructure. Transp. Rev. 2019, 39, 677–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baran, E.; Uygun, E.; Altan, T.; Bahcekapili, T.; Cilsalar, H. Investigating technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: Workshop design cases. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE): Morgantown, WV, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Rossi, M.; Sein, M.K. Design Research Workshop: A Proactive Research Approach. Present. Deliv. IRIS 2003, 26, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
- Lain, S. Show, Don’t Tell: Reading Workshop Fosters Engagement and Success. Tex. J. Lit. Educ. 2017, 5, 160–167. [Google Scholar]
- Spagnoletti, C.L.; Spencer, A.L.; Bonnema, R.A.; McNamara, M.C.; McNeil, M.A. Workshop Preparation and Presentation: A Valuable Form of Scholarship for the Clinician-Educator. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2013, 5, 155–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Guba, E.G.; Lincoln, Y.S. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handb. Qual. Res. 1994, 2, 105–117. [Google Scholar]
- Biernacki, P.; Waldorf, D. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1981, 10, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedersen Zari, M.; Hecht, K. Biomimicry for regenerative built environments: Mapping design strategies for producing ecosystem services. Biomimetics 2020, 5, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- International Living Future Institute. Living Building Challenge Standard; International Living Future Institute: Seattle, WA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Green Building Council Australia. Green Star—Design & As Built v.1.3. 2019. Available online: https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-system/design-and-built/ (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- TCFD. Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. 2017. Available online: https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2021/10/FINAL-2017-TCFD-Report.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- DJSI. Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. 2022. Available online: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/index-family/esg/core-esg/djsi/#overview (accessed on 21 November 2022).
- CDP. CDP: Guidance for Companies. 2022. Available online: https://www.cdp.net/en/guidance/guidance-for-companies (accessed on 21 November 2022).
Key Challenge/Barrier Category | Sub-Categories |
---|---|
Scoping and boundaries |
|
Knowledge sharing | (1) Lack of prior examples, and (2) availability of scientific data. |
Market supply and demand | (1) Limited availability of products, (2) low market capability, and (3) few proven project examples to assist in establishing a business case for uptake and client engagement. |
Workshop Type | Location | Academia Participants | Industry Participants |
---|---|---|---|
Academic | Phoenix, AZ, USA | 13 | 2 |
Industry | data | 0 | 9 |
Industry | data | 1 | 14 |
Total | 14 | 25 |
Ecosystem Services | Rank |
---|---|
Mitigation of Flood | 1 |
Erosion Control | 1 |
Waste Minimisation | 1 |
Moderation of Noise | 4 |
Aesthetic Value and Artistic Inspiration | 5 |
Biodiversity Retention | 6 |
Purification of Water | 6 |
Purification of Air | 6 |
Habitat Provision | 9 |
Education and Knowledge | 10 |
Soil Formation and Retention | 11 |
Recreation, Relaxation and Psychological Wellbeing | 12 |
UV Protection and Temperature Moderation | 13 |
Generating Energy | 14 |
Food (Human and Wildlife) | 15 |
Pollination and SeedDdispersal | 16 |
Carbon Sequestration | 17 |
Spiritual Inspiration | 18 |
Ecosystem Service Category | Ecosystem Service Name | Perceptions of Current Industry Performance | Average Score for Ecosystem Service Category |
---|---|---|---|
(1 = Never Addressed, 5 = Always Addressed) | |||
Supporting services | Habitat provision | 3.63 | 3.24 |
Biodiversity retention | 3.75 | ||
Soil formation and retention | 3.58 | ||
Carbon sequestration | 2.00 | ||
Regulating services | UV protection and temperature moderation | 3.40 | 4.39 |
Mitigation of flood | 5.00 | ||
Erosion control | 5.00 | ||
Waste minimisation | 5.00 | ||
Purification of water | 3.75 | ||
Purification of air | 3.75 | ||
Moderation of noise | 4.80 | ||
Provisioning services | Generating energy | 3.25 | 2.81 |
Pollination and seed dispersal | 2.30 | ||
Food (human and wildlife) | 2.88 | ||
Cultural services | Education and knowledge | 3.60 | 3.21 |
Aesthetic value and artistic inspiration | 4.00 | ||
Recreation, relaxation and psychological wellbeing | 3.50 | ||
Spiritual inspiration | 1.75 |
EPS Process Steps | ‘Entry-Level’ Approaches For Introducing Ecological Performance Standards into Current Practice | EPS Process Steps |
---|---|---|
Identify reference habitat |
|
|
Convert ecosystem services into EPS metrics |
|
|
Prioritise ecosystem services |
|
|
Quantify business as usual design baseline |
|
|
Set objectives and targets |
|
|
Design based on EPS metrics |
|
|
Assess performance |
|
|
IS Rating Scheme (V2.0 Design and As-Built) Categories | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Governance | Economic | Environment | Social | ||||||||||||||
Context | Leadership and Management | Sustainable Procurement | Resilience | Innovation | Options Assessment and Business Case | Benefits | Energy and Carbon | Green Infrastructure | Environmental Impacts | Resource Efficiency | Water | Ecology | Stakeholder Engagement | Legacy | Heritage | Workforce Sustainability | |
Ecosystem services | |||||||||||||||||
Supporting Services | |||||||||||||||||
Habitat Provision | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
Biodiversity Retention | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||||
Soil Formation and Retention | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
Carbon Sequestration | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
Regulating Services | |||||||||||||||||
UV Protection and temperature moderation | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
Mitigation of Flood | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
Erosion Control | X | X | X | ||||||||||||||
Waste Minimisation | X | X | |||||||||||||||
Purification of Water | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
Purification of Air | X | X | |||||||||||||||
Moderation of Noise | X | X | |||||||||||||||
Provisioning Services | |||||||||||||||||
Generating energy | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||||
Pollination and seed dispersal | |||||||||||||||||
Food (human and wildlife) | X | ||||||||||||||||
Cultural Services | |||||||||||||||||
Education and knowledge | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
Aesthetic value and artistic inspiration | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||||
Recreation, relaxation and psychological wellbeing | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||||||
Spiritual inspiration | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hayes, S.; Desha, C.; Caldera, S.; Gibbs, M. A Transformed Approach for Benchmarking the Performance of ‘Sustainable’ Infrastructure. Resources 2023, 12, 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12030037
Hayes S, Desha C, Caldera S, Gibbs M. A Transformed Approach for Benchmarking the Performance of ‘Sustainable’ Infrastructure. Resources. 2023; 12(3):37. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12030037
Chicago/Turabian StyleHayes, Samantha, Cheryl Desha, Savindi Caldera, and Mark Gibbs. 2023. "A Transformed Approach for Benchmarking the Performance of ‘Sustainable’ Infrastructure" Resources 12, no. 3: 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources12030037