Factors Affecting Social Sustainability in Highway ... - ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia Engineering 145 (2016) 548 – 555

International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction

"Factors affecting social sustainability in highway projects in Missouri" "Mohamed Abdel-Raheem a, Charles Ramsbottom b" * "a University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1201 West University Dr., Edinburg 78539, USA" "b Missouri Department of Transportation, 105 West Capitol Avenue , Jefferson City 65102, USA"

Abstract Sustainability focuses on the interaction between a given project and the social, environmental, and the economic dimensions of the system enclosing it. The majority of the studies conducted focused mostly on the environmental aspects of sustainability rather than the economic ones, while very few studies discussed the social dimension. Social sustainability promotes the concepts of respect, awareness, diversity, vitality, and responsibility toward the workforce and the society by keeping them healthy and safe from harm during the different phases of a project. Highway projects are one of the most critical infrastructure projects in the construction industry. This is due to their high budgets, frequent occurrences, and the inevitable disturbance they cause to the existing communities and environment. As such, a comprehensive study was conducted to analyze the performance of highway projects with respect to the social dimension of sustainability. Due to limitation of space, the paper presents only some aspects of this study. In this study, ten major core factors were identified as principle contributors to social sustainability, and recommended for implementation at different stages of highway projects. This paper discusses these factors in details. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the International Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). and Construction 2015. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICSDEC 2016 Keywords: "Social Sustainability; Highway Project; Construction"

1. Introduction The main concept of sustainability focuses on the interaction between a given project and the social, environmental, and the economic dimensions of the system enclosing it [1, 2]. It is evident that there is a relationship

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-956-665-2050; fax: +1-956-665-3527. E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-7058 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ICSDEC 2016

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.043

Mohamed Abdel-Raheem and Charles Ramsbottom / Procedia Engineering 145 (2016) 548 – 555

between promoting the concept of sustainability in one of its dimension and its propagation to the other areas of sustainability. For example, practicing green construction (environmental sustainability), will result in savings in the operation cost on the long run (economic sustainability), and will enforce healthy work environment for the workforce (social sustainability) [3, 4, 5]. In construction, sustainable development of a construction project incorporates the major principles of sustainability with respect to the society, environment, and the economic conditions through the various stages of a construction project [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. The three dimensions of sustainability are usually referred to as the triple bottom line, as shown in Fig. 1(a) [14]. To be socially sustainable, the systems and processes proposed for executing a project should be contributing to the objectives of creating healthy, livable, equitable, diverse, vital, and sustainability-aware workforces and communities [2, 4]. Clear guidelines for social sustainability practice in construction projects should be stipulated and enforced. Such guidelines should dictate - besides the ethical and safe practice of construction - the accountability of day-to-day operations to respecting, caring, and improving the quality of living for the workforces as well as within the communities impacted by the project [15]. Many studies have been conducted to address different aspects of sustainability in various industrial sectors. The majority of these studies focused on a single aspect of sustainability rather than incorporating all the three dimensions in one comprehensive model. Some studies mainly revolved around addressing some of the social aspects as in [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27], the environmental aspects as in [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37], and the economic aspects as in [38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. Most studies that addressed the sustainable development of construction projects focused more on the environmental aspects rather than the social and economic ones. In general, the environmental dimension of sustainability has been given more priority and usually considered before the economic and social aspects in construction projects [4, 43]. This is for reasons related to organizations having to obey environmental regulations and meet law requirements [2]. For example, considering the state and federal laws for minimizing wetlands or historical site degradation, the highway department will have to design and build a highway with the objective of reducing environmental impacts around such wetlands. This can result in additional cost (tax dollars), and may cause disturbance to communities to which the highway will be rerouted by diverting the traffic to or from them. This is clearly evident in Missouri Department of Transportation (MODOT) regulations; for any project, environmental studies are required for suspected wetlands and unusual features of an area including historical sites threatened or endangered species [4], while the Socio-economic impacts are the last on the list. 2. "Problem and research objectives" Highway projects are unique type of construction due to their special nature. The construction of a highway is a costly project that requires careful planning and significant amount of time and resources to complete. For instance, the interstate highway system is the most expensive project in the history of U.S. Despite the complexity of these projects, the disturbance they cause to their surrounding environment and communities, and their obvious impact on the economy, highway projects are very frequent either through the construction of new roads or the periodic maintenance of existing ones. In literature, very limited number of studies focused on the sustainability of highway projects; and very few of these studies addressed the social dimension in highway projects, as in [44, 45, 46] The priorities of most entities working on a highway project are getting the project done on time, within budget, and respecting the regulations. Although there are clear federal and state laws and regulations for protecting the environment and public money, this is not the case for social sustainability. The problem of the lack of consideration and non-practice of social sustainability at different stages of the highway projects can be rooted to two main causes. First is the lack of awareness of the importance of social sustainability, and the difficulty of identifying the factors that define it. The second cause is the initial cost associated with implementing social sustainability as well as the lack of clear evidence of the claimed benefits since the majority of them are intangible and very hard to quantify [1, 2, 4]. As such, there is a need for more studies that promote and facilitate the implementation and practice of social sustainability in highway project. The main objective of this study is to define, identify, and assess the importance and likelihood of considering the social sustainability dimension in highway projects in Missouri. Ten major factors were identified as principle contributors to social sustainability. For each factor, a set of performance measures were further identified to

549

550


facilitate the implementation, and monitoring and controlling. Due to limitation of space, this paper only addresses the first part of this study, which is the research methodology used, and a thorough discussion of the ten factors identified as the main contributors to social sustainability in highway projects. 3. "Research methodology" The comprehensive methodology of conducting this research started with extensive review of the available literature in specifically three areas – see Fig. 1(b). The first area focused on green building and sustainability in general, which helped in defining the broad lines of this research. The other two areas of focus were social sustainability and highway construction to identify the social sustainability requirements at each specific stage in the construction of a highway. Based on previous sustainability models, a clear definition of social sustainability was given along with a complete list of factors that should be considered to guarantee the practice and implementation of social sustainability in highway projects. The research identified ten main factors that if considered social sustainability can be easily implemented in highway construction. A questionnaire was then designed to solicit the opinions of experts in the construction of highway about two main aspects: 1) the importance of the consideration of each of the identified factors to achieve social sustainability in highway projects; and 2) the likelihood that such factors are currently considered by practitioners at different stages of highway construction. The questionnaire included 10 questions; only the first question solicited the experts’ opinion about the importance and the likelihood of implementing the identified factors using a Likert scale and its corresponding weights, as shown in Fig. 2. The rest of the questions addressed other issues related to social sustainability in highway construction, which will be discussed in a separate paper. The collected data were analyzed and statistical tests were conducted to verify the consensus in responses from two different highway project stakeholders, i.e. owner and contractor. The following sections present detailed discussion of the ten factors of social sustainability used in the questionnaire, while the questionnaire, data statistical analysis, and findings will be addressed in separate papers. 4. "Social sustainability factors" In this research social sustainability was defined as fulfilling the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Future generations should have the same or greater access to social resources, such as transportation, communication and recreational amenities as current generation do. Ten factors were identified as performance measures for the implementation and practice of social factors in construction from the literature, as follows: 1) respecting and caring for communities, 2) improving quality of living, 3) diversity with employees and community during construction projects, 4) vitality of a community during construction project, 5) minimizing usage of non-renewable resources during projects construction, 6) changing attitudes and practices, 7) tracking measures for social sustainability, 8) awareness of social sustainability, 9) global networking for social sustainability, and 10) responsibility and accountability of organizations [4]. 4.1. Respecting and caring for communities During stages of highway projects, one of the main objectives of social sustainability is to protect the communities impacted by the project in both urban and rural areas. Aspects of minimal consideration should include: cropland, natural resources, heritages, cultures and historical sites. The need to consider these determinations for highway projects will reduce negative impacts of project development on any cultural heritage [47]. One approach involves the community in estimating the impacts of a highway project on where they live, work, play, and engages in cultural activities [26]. Such involvement will create a sense of ownership of the project and enforce the feel of respect for the communities. The social responsibility obliges the departments of transportation to consider these aspects during the different stages of their highway projects. In turn, this will set an example for practicing social sustainability in construction projects, which provides a strong foothold toward increasing the trends of social sustainability consideration in construction.

551


a b

Define Social Sustainability Design Survey & Collect Data

Literature Review

Analyze Data

Findings & Conclusions

Identify Factors of Social Sustainability

Fig. 1. (a) triple bottom line of sustainability; (b) methodology implemented in this research

4.2. Improving quality of living Another objective of social sustainability is improving the quality of living during the different stages of highway construction. This can be achieved by establishing an infrastructure of sufficient quality and capacity for the impacted communities. This infrastructure factors consists of transportation, communications, recreation, and safety for all communities and surrounding areas [1, 2, 4, 12, 13]. For example, during the preliminary studies, one of the parameters used for assessing the feasibility of highway project should account for the anticipated growth and increase in amenities the project will bring to different communities. Alternate routes for transportation should be provided for the communities before the start of construction. These routes should allow and support the growth of the communities during the construction phase. Social sustainability aims at bringing forth equity by constructing a highway that establishes and improves the access for all communities to education, decent housing, services, social infrastructure, green space, and cultural and recreational activities [27]. 4.3. Diversity with employees and community Diversity addresses matters related to co-existing and working with different people or communities as a whole. This includes the deployment of processes to acquire a wide spectrum of workforces representing the varieties of backgrounds of the communities with which the organization deals. [47]. In highway construction, diversity can be achieved by attracting and retaining workforce throughout the organization and community; for example, hiring local contractors and suppliers. Diversity in highway construction projects adds a substantial value for the community and working organizations. It brings knowledge and ideas from different ethnic backgrounds, provides mentoring for future generations, and establishes respect to women’s views and opinions in the workforce. Diversified employees should not be regarded just as resources, but more like information and financial assets [47]. 4.4. Vitality for social sustainability The vitality during highway projects focuses on the capacity to live and continue to develop for both the workforces and communities during the project phases. This includes providing the workforce with added flexibility in the work times. This relieves workforce resources from becoming exhausted. Keeping flexible work schedules ensures a lower risk of time off and better work force efficiency. Other aspects of the vitality for the workforces include protecting and promoting human health through a healthy and safe work environment [4, 49]. An example set for transportation projects is risk assessment plans. Maintenance supervisors are trained to strive for safety first, quality second and quantity last. This guarantees that supervision will not push the work forces to hurry up and compromising their human rights [4, 51].

552


For the communities, the vitality factor aims at establishing safe and comfortable environments as well as creating opportunities for development for the communities during highway construction projects. Although detouring aims first at reducing accidents by directing the public away from the construction site, it should be planned to avoid disruption of existing businesses and create opportunities for new businesses, such as offering services for the workforce of the project. Reducing disruption for the communities can be a strong motive to increase the efficiency in construction operation to complete the project in the least possible time. To keep the community vital, the underlying premise is to transform the negatives impacts of highway construction into to positive opportunities for the community [4].

Fig. 2: scales used for rating the social sustainability factors identified in this research

4.5. Minimizing the use of non-renewable resources Minimizing usage of non-renewable resources during the stages of highways projects will serve three different purposes. First, it will create value for communities and local business by protecting their environment and limited resources, and saving it for future generations; second, it increases the value of the road due to the practice of sustainability in highway construction industry; and third, it minimizes the non-recoverable cost associated with temporary increases in the prices of fuels and utilities for the communities during construction [4]. Although infrastructure projects create values to the communities, it can also cause harm. Communication between decision makers and communities should be established to measure the values created from public opinions [4, 47]. Having acceptance from communities allow different project entities (designers, contractor, project management firms, etc) determine what resources should and should not be used during the planning and construction phases. It should be noted that minimizing the use of non-renewable resources can be tied to the first factor, which is respecting and caring for community. Trusting that organizations are becoming more socially sustainable will create a competitive advantage for highway departments in executing fast, inexpensive, and sustainable projects [4, 50]. 4.6. Changing attitudes and practices Changing attitudes and practice focuses on aspects related to creating and maintaining ethics and responsibilities in dealing with the workforce as well as communities. It establishes the promotion of positive outcomes from the


negative sources in society. For example, MODOT set a goal to replace and maintain 800 bridges within a set period of time and did so with adequate resources and proper planning and scheduling. Some bridges that were constructed in the 1930’s were replaced by modern safer bridge that provided the communities with safer ways to travel. The new bridge design accounted for pedestrian walkways on bridges for the safe travel of commuters [4, 51]. The new design aspect sets an example of changing the practice to consider all society and improving the quality of living (factor 2) by promoting walking as a travel option. Another example of changing practice toward the workforce is the initiative of promoting safer work environments. A policy -stemmed from contractor based organizations - that all employees will go home uninjured and safe. This policy enforces the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). By utilizing proper safety equipment, such as hardhats and high visual safety vests, and following proper procedures that promote safety and quality production over the quantity workforce injuries and downtimes in highway projects has been reduced by 20% [4]. 4.7. Tracking measures for social sustainability Establishing measures for social sustainability during the different phases of a highway project will provide feedback to highway departments and contractors about their efficiency in practicing social sustainability. These measures can provide information about the key social factors that provide the best outcomes in the different phases of a highway project. Social sustainability has many factors and not all factors will be attainable for all communities. However, if key social factors are identified, social sustainability can be achieved during the project different phases [1, 2, 4, 12, 13]. 4.8. Awareness of social sustainability Creating awareness promotes social sustainability before and during the phases of highway projects by providing education, information, demonstration of techniques, and educational materials about the social sustainability factors selected for implementation in the highway projects. The creation of awareness requires involving the communities, which promotes respect to highway departments and contractors. Examples of the methods used for spreading the awareness is the use of signage or billboards delivering information about the officials’ plan to execute the project, duration of construction, and start and end time of lane closures. Another example is launching a campaign in the region that creates a sense of social responsibility of involvement in the coming highway project [1, 2, 4, 12, 13]. 4.9. Global networking for social sustainability Networking is another key social factor that aims at gaining additional resources for the highway department to continuously update their social sustainability plans. In general, sharing information, techniques, and lessons learned between the departments of transportations in all states can improve design, construction, and operations of highway projects for highway departments and contractors performing work. Similarly, sharing the best sustainability practices and techniques nationwide and internationally provides additional resources to other states or countries for that can be very useful for the implementation of social sustainability in their different projects [1, 2, 4, 12, 13]. 4.10. Responsibility and Accountability of Organizations This factor deals with organizations becoming sustainable by placing social responsibilities to leadership of organizations. This factor ties into the already mentioned factors. Within any organization someone has to answer for outcomes that may not be socially-responsible to communities and workforces [47]. This could cause negative impacts to communities and workforces. However, keeping organizations in check by requiring sustainable reports that focus on how organizations can better provide for societies needs of social sustainability during highway projects can form accountable and responsible outcomes toward organizations. Another element of social sustainability is providing services to the public to create revenue that will provide communities a payback of using highways or bridges in their locations. A way of providing payback is forming toll roads, designed to pay for the

553

554


transportation system, but also provide revenue to communities from out of state travelers local commuters would still have to pay but by allocating money to help improve the development can provide a source of revenue allowing communities to become sustainable [4, 12, 48].. 5. "Summary and conclusion" This Paper sheds the light on a part of a comprehensive study that aimed at: 1) defining social sustainability for highway construction, 2) identifying the major factors contributing to social sustainability, 3) assessing the importance of the identified factors and the likelihood of their implementation in highway projects in Missouri, 4) testing the consent in experts’ opinion about the importance of the identified factors, and 5) providing performance measures for each factors in highway construction projects. This paper focused on the first and second objectives of this study. Ten factors were identified through the comprehensive studying of the previous literature. The ten factors collectively provide a comprehensive plan for implementing and social sustainability in highway projects. They also serve as basis for establishing a system to evaluate the social dimension of sustainability in different types of construction. Each of the identified factors was thoroughly discussed with live examples in highway projects to clarify their purposes. The discussion also showed an interdependency between these factors, which was proven using statistical analysis, as will be discussed in the following publications. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Kibert, C. (2008). “Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery.” John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA. Ma, U. (2011). No waste: managing sustainability in construction. Gower Publishing, Ltd. Kats, Gregory (2006). "Greening AmericaËs Schools." http://usgbcncr.org/Documents/Greenschoolsreprint6_07.pdf. Web. 11 Mar. 2013. Ramsbottom, C. (2013). A Study on Social Sustainability in Missouri Highway Projects. M.Sc. Report. Missouri Western State University. Qualk, J. D., and McCown, P. (2009). "The cost-effectiveness of building green'." HPAC Heating, Piping, Air Conditioning Engineering, 81(10),18-23. [6] Miyatake, Y (1996). “Technology Development and Sustainable Construction.” Journal of Management in Engineering. Vol. (12), no. (4), 23-27. [7] Sage, A.P (1998). “Risk Management for Sustainable Development.” Proceeding of 1998 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Vol. (5), 4815 – 4819. [8] Chaharbaghi, K and Willis, R (1999). “Study and Practice of Sustainable Development.” Engineering Management Journal, Vol. (0), No. (1), 41-48. [9] Chen, JJ, and Chambers, D (1999). “Sustainability and the Impact of Chinese Policy Initiates upon Construction.” Construction Management and Economics, Vol. (17), 679-687. [10] Parkin, S (2000). “ Context and Drivers of Personalizing Sustainable Development.” Proceeding o f ICE Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. (138), 3-8. [11] Raynsford, N. (2000) Sustainable construction: the Government’s role, Proceedings of ICE, Vol. 138,16 – 22. [12] Langston, C., and Ding, G (2001). “ Sustainable Practices in the Built Environment.” Butterworth - Heinemann, England. [13] Khalfan, M. (2006). “ Managing Sustainability within Construction Projects.” Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol.(8), No. (1), 41-60. [14] Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21stǦ century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37-51. [15] Nielsen, A. E., & Thomsen, C. (2011). Sustainable development: the role of network communication. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 1-10. [16] Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California management review, 36(2), 90. [17] Omann, I. and Spangenberg, J.H. (2002). “Assessing social sustainability, the social dimension of sustainability in a socio-economic scenario.” Paper presented at the 7th Bienniel Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics, March 6–9, Tunisia. [18] Mihelcic, J. R., Crittenden, J. C., Small, M. J., Shonnard, D. R., Hokanson, D. R., Zhang, Q& Schnoor, J. L. (2003). Sustainability science and engineering: the emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(23), 5314-5324. [19] Labuschagne, C., Brent, A.C., and Van Erck, R.P.G. (2005). “Assessing the sustainability performances of industries.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(1), 373-385. [20] Littig, B., and Grießler, E. (2005). “Social Sustainability: A Catchword between PoliticalPragmatism and Social Theory.” Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 8, Nos. 1/2, 65-79 [21] Bramley, G., N. Dempsey, S. Power, and C. Brown (2006). “What Is 'Social Sustainability', and How Do Our Existing Urban Forms Perform in Nurturing It?” Proc. of Planning Research Conference, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, London. April 2006.


[22] Assefa, G., Frostell, B. (2007). “Social Sustainability and Social Acceptance in Technology Assessment: A Case Study of Energy Technologies.” Technology in Society,Vol. (29), No. (1), 63–78. [23] Chan, E. and G. K. L. Lee (2008). “Critical Factors for Improving Social Sustainability of Urban Renewal Projects.” Social Indicators Research, 85(2):243-257. [24] Hutchins, M., Sutherland, J. (2008). “An Exploration of Measures of Social Sustainability and their Application to Supply Chain Decisions.” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. (16), 1688–1698. [25] Dillard, J., Dujon, V. and King, M. C., eds. (2009). Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York. [26] Valdes-Vasquez, R. and Klotz, L., 2010. Considering social dimensions of sustainability during construction project planning and design, Int. J. Environmenal, Cultural, Economic &Social Sustainability, 6(6), 167-180. [27] Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., and Brown, C. (2011). “The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability.” Sustainable Development, Vol, (19), No. (5), 289–300 [28] Morel J.C., Mesbah A., Oggero M., Walker P. (2001). "Building houses with localmaterials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction". Building and Environment 36:1119-1126. [29] Tam, C. M., Tam, V. W. Y., and Zeng, S. X. (2002). “Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE) for construction” Building Research & Information, Vol. (30), No. (5), 349-361 [30] Doughty, M. R., & Hammond, G. P. (2004). Sustainability and the built environment at and beyond the city scale. Building and environment, 39(10), 1223-1233. [31] Tam V.W.Y., Tam C.M., Zeng S.X., Chan K.K. (2006). "Environmental performancemeasurement indicators in construction". Building and Environment 41:164-173. [32] Ding, G. (2008). “Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools”Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. (86), No. (3), 451–464 [33] Haron Z., Oldham D., Yahya K., Zakaria R. (2008). "A Probabilistic Approach for Modelling of Noise from Construction Site for Sustainable Environment ". Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 20:58-72. [34] Muga, H., & Mihelcic, J. (2008). “Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies”. Journal of Environmental Management (88), 437447. [35] Gangolells M., Casals M., Gassó S., Forcada N., Roca X., Fuertes A. (2009). "A methodology for predicting the severity of environmental impacts related to the construction process of residential buildings". Building and Environment 44:558-571. [36] Peters S., Thomassen Y., Fechter-Rink E., Kromhout H. (2009). "Personal exposure to inhalable cement dust among construction workers". Journal of Environmental Monitoring 11:174–80. [37] Lam P.T.I., Chan E.H.W., Chau C.K., Poon C.S., Chun K.P. (2011). "Environmental management system vs green specifications: How do they complement each other in the construction industry?". Journal of Environmental Management 92:788-795. [38] Vincent, J. (1997). “ Resource Depletion and Economic Sustainability in Malaysia.” Environment and Development Economics, Vol.(2), 1937 [39] Anand, S.; Sen, A. (2000). “Human Development and Economic Sustainability.” World Development, Vol. (28), No. (12), 2029–2049 [40] Isaksson, R. (2005). “Economic Sustainability and the Cost of Poor Quality.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. (12), No. (4), 197-209 [41] Spangenberg, J. (2005). “Economic Sustainability of the Economy: Concepts and Indicators.” International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 8, No. (1-2), 47-64 [42] Goerner, S., Lietaer, B., Ulanowicz, R. (2009). “Quantifying Economic Sustainability: Implications for Free-enterprise Theory, Policy and Practice.” Ecological Economics, Vol. (69), 76–81. [43] Chasey, A. D., & Agrawal, N. (2012). A case study on the social aspect of sustainability in construction. In ICSDEC 2012@ sDeveloping the Frontier of Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction (pp. 543-551). ASCE. [44] Egilmez, G., and Tatari, O. (2012). “A Dynamic Modeling Approach to Highway Sustainability: Strategies to Reduce Overall Impact” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46( 7): 1086–1096. [45] Tsai, C., and Chang, A. (2012). “Framework for developing construction sustainability items: the example of highway design” Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1): 127–136. [46] Black, J.A, Paez, A., and Suthanaya, P.A. (2002). “Sustainable Urban Transportation: Performance Indicators and Some Analytical Approaches.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 128 (4), December 2002. pp 184-209. [47] Shen, L., Wu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2010). Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of infrastructure projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 137(6), 441-451. [48] Institute for Supply Management, Paul Novak. (2008). Sustainability and Social Responsibility for Supply Management Assessment Elements and Criteria. Retrieved from https://www.instituteforsupplymanagement.org/files/SR/Assessment.pdf [49] Valentin, V., & Bogus, S. M. (2013). Public Opinion as an Indicator of the Social Sustainability of Construction Projects. In ICSDEC 2012@ developing the Frontier of Sustainable Design, Engineering, and Construction (pp. 561-568). ASCE. [50] Robin, C. Y., & Poon, C. S. (2009). Cultural shift towards sustainability in the construction industry of Hong Kong. Journal of environmental management, 90(11), 3616-3628. [51] MODOT, scoping report 2012

555