4.7 Article

Application of the Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System for Developing Countries (SIRSDEC) to a case study

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 73-80

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.011

关键词

Sustainability; Developing countries; Rating system; SIRSDEC; AHP; MIVES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A large amount of international public and private not-for-profit organizations strives to enhance the conditions of less developed economies under the flagship of sustainability throughout a wide range of infrastructure projects. However, the results are uncertain. Sustainable development in poorer countries requires effective frameworks to ensure the balanced consideration of social, economic and environmental dimensions. This paper discusses the application of the Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System for Developing Countries (SIRSDEC) to a mining infrastructure project located in Peru, in order to validate the methodology developed for this framework. The opinions returned from a questionnaire addressed to international experts according to the pairwise comparison scale of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method were processed to obtain the weights of the elements forming the decision-making tree of SIRSDEC. The Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment (MIVES) was introduced to assess infrastructure projects through the definition of value functions for each sustainability indicator, which enables the integration of variables measured in different units into a standardized value index. The weights obtained for SIRSDEC reflected the balance of the three pillars of sustainability, with a slight predominance of the social dimension. The case study highlighted the contribution of the new system to identify key sustainability issues which were omitted in the original project and posed several actions to improve community's perception and facilitate the development of the project. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据