Sustainable Performance of Public Infrastructure Mike Benson, MIT - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Measuring the Sustainable Performance of Public Infrastructure Mike Benson, MIT University of New Brunswick, Masters Candidate Jeff Rankin, P.Eng. University of New Brunswick, Chair in Construction Engineering and Management Overview
University of New Brunswick, Masters Candidate
University of New Brunswick, Chair in Construction Engineering and Management
2
3
Environmental Protection Social Development Economic Development Sustainable Development
4
5
6
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
7
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
9
value to determine their relative impact. e.g. Value of a Fatality = $9.6 million (US DOT 2016)
to determine their relative impact. e.g. Reducing 1 fatality per year = 20 points
10
Advantages
Disadvantages
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046
Social Benefit ($C 2016) Year
11
2. Non-Monetary Multi-Criteria Analysis Advantages
Disadvantages
12
2. Non-Monetary Rating Schemes These are essentially MCAs that have been built by a credentialing
13
14
“Stochastic decision support system which combines economic, environmental, and social criteria into a single quantitative indicator using monetary and non-monetary methods” 𝑇𝐹𝑇𝑏 =
𝑗=1 𝐽
𝑥𝑗 𝑛𝐶𝐷𝑆𝑗𝑏 +
𝑘=1 𝐾
𝑥
𝑘 𝑅𝑈𝐹𝐽𝑘𝑏 + 𝑙=1 𝐿
𝑥𝑙 𝑅𝑀𝐹𝐽𝑙𝑏
Monetary Non-Monetary
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:
16
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 A – Major City Intersection Upgrades Project highlights:
20
Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades
Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency Indicator Indicator Type Result 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
2.4%
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:
23
Project A – Major City Intersection Upgrades
Category Criteria Sustainable Efficiency Indicator Indicator Type Result Wi SESi x 100 Economic (18.9%) Life-Cycle Costs = PVLCC/Ca M
10.9%
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
3.6%
Material Use = RMi/RMmax NMQT
0.00 2.4% 0.00
Energy Use = ∆EU/EUo NMQT
1.9%
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% 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Relative Frequency Sustainable Efficiency Score (SES) Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrades Regent and Prospect Street Intersection Upgrades @RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
@RISK Course Version
University of New Brunswick
25
Lessons Learned 1. Inclusion of regulatory requirements and legal commitments
upgrades (discretionary)
team
challenges that are unique to them…
26
Contact Me: Mike Benson R.V. Anderson Associates Limited mbenson@rvanderson.com