Prioritizing Infrastructure Investments in Afghanistan with Multiagency Stakeholders and Deep Uncertainty of Emergent Conditions

Lambert, James H.; Karvetski, Christopher W.; Spencer, David K.; Sotirin, Barbara J.; Liberi, Dawn M.; Zaghloul, Hany H.; Koogler, John B.; Hunter, Samuel L.; Goran, William D.; Ditmer, Renae D.; Linkov, Igor

doi:10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000078

Cited by 75 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section, it is also important to compare SIIP and the models presented by Ziara et al (2002) and Lambert et al (2012), which are very important because they were the first to have been developed in this field, although there is some evidence showing that SIIP is different and an advanced model. The most important differences is that Ziara et al (2002) and Lambert et al (2012) were developed to prioritize investments in developing countries, and the SIIP has been developed to prioritize investments in developed countries, as it has been mentioned throughout the paper.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most important differences is that Ziara et al (2002) and Lambert et al (2012) were developed to prioritize investments in developing countries, and the SIIP has been developed to prioritize investments in developed countries, as it has been mentioned throughout the paper. Moreover, SIIP uses more variables than the other two models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are two papers, Ziara et al (2002) and Lambert et al (2012), which have not been considered in that revision, but they are very interesting because they present an index to prioritize infrastructure. Although, they are used as theoretical references in this paper, both of them present some conceptual differences with SIIP.…”

Section: Decision-making In the Field Of Infrastructure Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main conclusion of their analysis is that the model is not discriminant (CV=0.20), a result that is lower than the 0.25 value that Morales (2008) considers the limit to have a discriminant classification. Lambert et al (2012) In that case, the indicators do not have any kind of relationship with the sustainable development, at least explicitly. It is interesting that this model does not take into account the cost of the project because it could be one of the most important determinants when the decision has to be made.…”

Section: Decision-making In the Field Of Infrastructure Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This kind of indicator appears in different papers, as for example on Lambert et al 2012 andVeldhuizen et al 2015.…”

Section: Surrounding Impacts Criterionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sustainability as the key to prioritize investments in public infrastructures

Pardo-Bosch

Aguado

2016

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructure construction, one of the biggest driving forces of the economy nowadays, requires a huge analysis and clear transparency to decide what projects have to be executed with the few resources available. With the aim to provide the public administrations a tool with which they can make their decisions easier, the Sustainability Index of Infrastructure Projects (SIIP) has been defined, with a multi-criteria decision system called MIVES, in order to classify non-uniform investments. This index evaluates, in two inseparable stages, the contribution to the sustainable development of each infrastructure project, analyzing its social, environmental and economic impact. The result of the SIIP allows to decide the order with which projects will be prioritized. The case of study developed proves the adaptability and utility of this tool for the ordinary budget management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Decision-making In the Field Of Infrastructure Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Decision-making In the Field Of Infrastructure Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This kind of indicator appears in different papers, as for example on Lambert et al 2012 andVeldhuizen et al 2015.…”

Section: Surrounding Impacts Criterionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sustainability as the key to prioritize investments in public infrastructures

Pardo-Bosch

Aguado

2016

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of the Urban Freight Transportation (UFT) Projects

Graindorge¹,

Breuil²

2016

Towards Innovative Freight and Logistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given unprecedented levels of urbanization and motorization in addition to deteriorating infrastructure in developed countries, cities around the world have been facing the enormous challenge of delivering sustainable forms of infrastructure with fewer resources. The challenges in urban infrastructure investment become even more daunting as manifested by the staggering size of infrastructure funding gap. Therefore, prioritizing projects at the system level based on transparent and evidenced-based decision-making processes has emerged as one of the most promising ways to bridge enormous funding gaps especially for developing countries. To address the current limitations, this paper proposes a scenario-based multi-criteria prioritization framework for urban transportation projects in developing countries and then formulates it. This is done with the efficient use of pre-existing project evaluation information and emergent scenario of various stakeholders' inputs. The framework is applied to set priorities for nine recent urban transportation projects constructed within a two-year framework in the Tianjin Binhai New Area, China. The results show that the proposed framework could serve as a consistent, robust, and comprehensive infrastructure project prioritization strategy that reconciles diverse perspectives among stakeholders. It also introduces sustainability in urban transportation decision making and links the prioritization process to the transportation planning that precedes it.

show abstract

Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority‐setting with an application to facility energy investments

Karvetski

Lambert

2012

Systems Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent paper in this journal described the identification and integration of sources of risk in a systems engineering process model [Lambert, Jennings, and Joshi, Syst Eng 9(3) (2006), 187–198]. The earlier effort falls short in addressing sources of deep, nonprobabilistic uncertainty that should enter to strategic systems design and reengineering. Our new paper incorporates the earlier effort to a framework for evaluating which are the deep uncertainties that most influence a priority‐setting among investments in large‐scale systems with multiple stakeholders, and therefore warrant more investigation. The framework addresses that deep uncertainties are continuously discovered and reflective of diverse and unique stakeholder experiences, knowledge bases, and advocacy positions. Deep uncertainties are epistemic viewpoints across which the strategic priorities for investments will differ. The framework modifies existing tools of scenario analysis and multicriteria analysis to process and filter the deep uncertainties. The framework is demonstrated in an application to reengineering of an energy system for a defense installation where frequent outages are disruptive to scientific and other missions. The sources of deep uncertainty in the demonstration include regulatory, economic, environment, cyber‐threat, and others. The investments include innovative microturbine and microgrid technologies. An example of a result is that international economic disruption is relatively more influential than cyber‐threats to strategic priority‐setting for investing in a microgrid at the particular installation. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 15

show abstract

Prioritizing Infrastructure Investments in Afghanistan with Multiagency Stakeholders and Deep Uncertainty of Emergent Conditions

Cited by 75 publications

References 7 publications

Sustainability as the key to prioritize investments in public infrastructures

Sustainability as the key to prioritize investments in public infrastructures

Evaluation of the Urban Freight Transportation (UFT) Projects

Evaluating deep uncertainties in strategic priority‐setting with an application to facility energy investments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About