Annotated Bibliography for........

Sustainabilityfactorsaffectinglocalinfrastructure.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help > Annotated Bibliography for........

Facilities Sustainability factors affecting local infrastructure project: The case of water resource, water supply, and local market projects in Thai communities Preenithi Aksorn, Chotchai Charoenngam,

Article information: To cite this document: Preenithi Aksorn, Chotchai Charoenngam, (2015) "Sustainability factors affecting local infrastructure project: The case of water resource, water supply, and local market projects in Thai communities", Facilities, Vol. 33 Issue: 1/2, pp.119-143, https://doi.org/10.1108/F-01-2013-0005 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/F-01-2013-0005

Downloaded on: 11 December 2017, At: 00:01 (PT) References: this document contains references to 96 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 920 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2015),"Assessment of social sustainability in construction projects using social network analysis", Facilities, Vol. 33 Iss 3/4 pp. 152-176 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/F-05-2013-0042">https:// doi.org/10.1108/F-05-2013-0042</a> (2013),"Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: what standards say", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 36-50 <a href="https:// doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017">https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:552352 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

https://doi.org/10.1108/F-01-2013-0005

Sustainability factors affecting local infrastructure project

The case of water resource, water supply, and local market projects in

Thai communities Preenithi Aksorn and Chotchai Charoenngam

School of Engineering and Technology, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong Luang, Thailand

Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to identify the critical factors highly influencing sustainability of local infrastructure projects in the Thai community. Design/methodology/approach – Both qualitative and the quantitative analyses were used when needed to follow the right procedure. Together, the panels of experts, selected from the related fields, were always prompt to cooperate with the strategies upon request. At the early stage, thoroughly fresh and in-depth information, theoretical and practical, in local infrastructure sustainability development, was gathered through literature review, a semi-structure interview and a focussed group meeting. For the pilot project, all crucial attributes were assigned to items of a questionnaire by a representative sample, Huai Hong Khrai Royal Development Study Centre, one of the most important sources in community development in Thailand. Afterward, the improved questionnaires were surveyed for exact data by all target respondents: local infrastructure project managers/representatives plus the working staff. These accumulated data were analysed by SPSS and finally produced the expected outcome. Findings – They are categorised into 25 factors of 6 dimensions: management and administration, information and knowledge, policy and plan, environmental and natural resources, facility and infrastructure and finance and budget. Originality/value – With regard to a valid analysis reference, the study outcome can be applied to be the deciding factor in choosing the proper local development projects or the model measuring the sustainability level of community projects in a real-life context.

Keywords Project management, Infrastructure management, Sustainability, Water resource, Water supply, Thai communities

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Infrastructure projects play an important role in community development and have significantly contributed to economic growth and sustainable development (Fedderke, 2006; Nijaki and Worrel, 2012). According to Gandhi et al. (2006), the bottleneck of transformation process for implementing sustainable development projects is successfully linked to adequate support that is actively involved in this aspect. The local development plan is a major key to enhance management capacity for encouraging community participation in developing infrastructure projects. The system needs to combine area-based conditions and appropriate knowledge and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

Sustainability factors

119

Received 25 January 2013 Revised 14 June 2013

25 September 2013 18 November 2013

Accepted 13 January 2014

Facilities Vol. 33 No. 1/2, 2015

pp. 119-143 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0263-2772 DOI 10.1108/F-01-2013-0005

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-01-2013-0005

technology for doing various tasks and has to be strengthened. Local authorities and public organisations are playing a vital role to facilitate sustainable development processes to directly intervene in making a plan with a variety of functions. The sustainable infrastructure development requires appropriate strategies including mediator prompts to respond to any call for help among competing pressures for economic development, environmental protection, more equitable society and also generating useful current affairs for the public.

The main objectives of infrastructure development are to attain economic efficiency, social equity and good environmental structure. The indicators of economic, human, cultural and environmental capital are significant determinants of economic performance in rural areas. However, different constraints and conditions, especially in community, occasionally impede their progress to reach the goal. The infrastructure projects, using the application of holistic management, always meet project requirements and participants’ satisfaction (Lee and Chan, 2008). The integration of socio-economics, environment and local culture needs to be evaluated to achieve all aspects of the sustainability infrastructure development (Mitchell et al., 2008). The social and cultural resources are considered as their basic factors in area-based conditions (Mahmoud and Selman, 2011). Because of Sultana and Abeyasekera (2008), the community-based implementation is more effective when initiated through a process of a participatory action plan. Public participation and the opportunity for developing particular skills are found to be the significant underlying factors for effectively sustainable development projects (Yung and Chan, 2012). In short, the holistic perspective of infrastructure development can be applied to improve the performances of the public, community and organisation sectors for achieving infrastructure sustainability.

In Thailand, the entire infrastructure development project, in the present situation, seems to be obviously ineffective. Numerous important problems and constraints have occurred because of two main causes: the limited resources and a shortage of qualified project manager/researcher/staff. The limited resources cannot meet the actual needs of local residents in community. Few decades ago, lack of finance and budgetary provisions was one of the critical problems caused because of the regional financial crisis in 1990. Even so, the basic infrastructure development has still expanded to support economic growth. For the latter, most of the key authorities of local government are incompetent, lack technical ability and have poor management skills which sometimes lead to poor work performance (Moore and Finch, 2004). About any progress concerning the limited resources, the efficiency and management skills provided by local government need to be improved to deliver optimal benefits to local residents in the long term.

A lot of these problems are complex and require the best remedy. It is difficult to resolve the problems, as well as the unsatisfactory situation, especially ones that have existed for such a long period. Even so, various new ways of coping with these problems have to be sought out and later resolved. With regard to the aforementioned matter, research is needed on the specific causes. Of the problems is worth conducting. For infrastructure development, this study aims to investigate the sustainability factors on how they can meet the projects’ requirements and sustainability. The expected outcome provides holistic perspectives in terms of knowledge elements, tacit knowledge, and technical elements to suitably apply for

F 33,1/2

120

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

area-based project management projects. The Huai Hong Khrai RDSC, one of the most famous sources of community development in Thailand, was chosen to be a pilot study for conducting the first draft of a questionnaire. The improved questionnaires developed by researcher and working groups from related fields were later surveyed for exact data by all the targeted respondents from the Office of Royal Development Project Board (RDPB) and the Royal Development Study Centres (RDSCs). The final outcome analysed by SPSS was also expected to be accepted as the basis of local infrastructure projects for introducing sustainability. That is so local administrators and managers can make use of the findings as the model to drive project success and later achieve sustainable infrastructure development in the community. Therefore, the underlying factors identified from this study would also be applicable to other similar infrastructure development projects worldwide.

2. Literature review The background of local infrastructure project and community-sustainable development was reviewed thoroughly. Many researchers have suggested models and frameworks to achieve project sustainability. Choguill (1996) introduced a model and management structure for infrastructure-sustainable development. Mancini and Marek (2004) presented a model to outline the sustainability process for community-based programs. Johnson et al. (2004) proposed an associated planning model of both infrastructure and interventions for sustaining innovations within organisational community and state systems. The Office of RDPB in Thailand (RDPB, 2005) has presented the management framework of local projects in different geographical and sociological settings for achieving effectively sustainable development. The project was determined to support basic occupations for both of the local and urban people. Most projects involve significant improvement in an agriculture career, occupational promotion, water resources and water supply. Lee and Chan (2008 and 2009) developed a model for measuring and evaluating the sustainability performance of local/urban projects. The model can help to identify the sustainability criteria of the renewed projects, and also the level of satisfaction of the people involved. However, because of the limited number of cases, only a small group of renewed projects was available in community.

At the early period of infrastructure development in Thailand, the related projects were developed by the central government. Because of the limited funds, only public goods and services for the capital and big cities were available. This inequitable distribution of resources caused economic and social problems in the deprived rural communities. By contrast, in 1995, there was an immediate requirement to decentralise and devolve development to the regional government. Accordingly, the central government transferred the authority, responsibility and resources of providing local goods and services to the local government. The more the central government gave full support, the more the local government would match the availability of necessary resources to meet the needs of local residents. The infrastructure provision was recognised as the most critical aspect of local government services. The management of local authorities has to be focussed on whether infrastructure services providing for community development are worth paying close attention of conduct to the well-organised plan. The inefficient

121

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

infrastructure provisions and services might limit access to improve the living standards of ordinary people. From the previous study, infrastructure development links poverty reduction that helps to create careers and productions (The World Bank, 2003; ESCAP, 2003; IISD, 2008). Besides, the ability of local administrations was found inadequate to achieve the effective infrastructure project development (Leungbootnak and Charoenngam, 2003; Posayanant and Chareonngam, 2010).

In Thailand, the sustainable development concepts have strived to be a guideline of area-based development at a community level that meant to help provide sufficient food, improve living standards, reduce the impact of external risks and accomplish project sustainability (RDPB, 2005). Based on the concepts of community, strength and empowerment are encouraged through collaboration. The Office of RDPB and the RDSCs have established live natural museums by providing one-stop service and acting as the model of success. This is also a reason to disseminate useful information and transfer valuable lessons among the local people. Moreover, they provided cooperation and coordination of the government sectors in planning renewed projects and management. At present, more than 3,000 projects have been fully supported by RBDB and RDSCs. Most of them are categorised into different types: agriculture, water sources, environment, occupation promotion, public welfare, public health and communication. Especially water infrastructure development could be regarded as one aspect of the agriculture sector of enhancement. Greater agricultural productivity will stabilise earnings and also increase the income of people.

According to the fundamental principle of infrastructure projects, various factors involved in the project development and their interactions have to be clarified thoroughly. In general, the project success relies on the perfect adequacy of multidisciplinary knowledge and integration of significant key aspects throughout the development process. From literature, the holistic perspectives of local infrastructure development could establish key factors in the significant areas of socio-economic, environmental and culture concerns to achieve the expected outcome of the projects sustainability (Ghomashchi, 2012; Doloi, 2012; Yung and Chan, 2012; Mahmoud and Selman, 2011; Shah and Baporikar, 2010; Lee and Chan, 2009; Lee and Chan, 2008; McShane, 2006). Nevertheless, the structured integration of strategic level, policy setting, and its associated operational level, inside local authorities, is often lacking in cohesiveness (McAdam et al., 2011). The active participation of local government, advisory agencies and community members is an important attribute that leads to the goal of public projects success. Their participation in negotiation, with all stakeholders, to guarantee its relevancy to practice is presented in a combined bottom-up and top-down approaches. Public involvement is also required in the planning process, which strongly correlates with social, environmental and economic development (Shan and Yai, 2011). Apparently, the stakeholders’ commitment usually enhances the certainty of achieving the ultimate objectives of a plan. The area-based implementation also requires additional assistance to strengthen policies and actions across all diverse different sectors and also involve government, business, trade and society.

Holistic management is a critical key to establish a clear goal that embraces all of the desired results and expresses the commitment of those who have achieved success. The sustainability management policy has an influence on sustainable

F 33,1/2

122

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

performance (Price et al., 2011). The management strategy should adapt to both top-down and bottom-up approaches in accordance with the area-based conditions and constrains (Lin et al., 2010). This approach needs to fulfill community requirements and find appropriate methods for area-based conditions. In addition, the promotion of research and development programs, networking development and knowledge transfer are significant factors to provide success for the local infrastructure development (Lee et al., 2009). These key factors are helpful in promoting practical application of community-based conditions, community collaboration, partnership creation and skill and expertise development for community infrastructure projects. Utilizing these key aspects can increase professional development, create community cohesion and help develop humanitarian concerns (Evans, 2009). Shah and Baporikar (2010) recommend the role of socio-cultural factors effecting rural development which could develop the framework for facilitating genuine participation in problem-solving, planning, institutional building and implementing activities to ensure the sustainability of local organisations in the long run.

As for the aim of sustainable development of a community project, the basis may not always obtain the economic returns, but it may procure the peoples’ satisfaction instead. Environment and community benefits are an obvious example of important concerns (Brundtland, 1985). Sustainability can be recognized from the result of implementing a development project to maintain or expand a flow of benefits at a specified level for a long period after the project inputs have ceased (Hodgkin, 1994). The objective aims are to meet human needs, preserve the environment, offer social equity, provide economic efficiency and offer environmental protection. The integration of environmental aspects, skill and expertise of stakeholders, pragmatic approach in self-government and the role of community management are instruments that help achieve community sustainable development (Benjamin, 2008; Beausejour, 2009; Lee and Chan, 2009). Additionally, the project management success is another critical key in accomplishing a project’s goal. One of the key elements of project development is to know how well the process is going. It is easier to prevent any impediment happening now than to undo the damage or cure the task later. Project success needs an efficient management of all kinds of different factors and needs to be able to help support the technical development work through specified routes. The community infrastructure projects require addressing the sustainability factors of project success and sustainable development achievement. They are expected that their results can be utilized as the basis for improving the process and criteria for sustainability infrastructure projects in the community.

3. Research method After understanding the objectives of the study, the preliminary factors based on wide-ranging theoretical concepts from related literature were reviewed thoroughly. For any details concerning the essential factors in practice, they could be collected from full and fresh investigations by a wide variety of project representatives or participants. The brainstorming and discussing on how to efficiently implement the policy of local infrastructure sustainable development through a semi-structured interview and focussed group seminar/meeting was conducted. Accordingly, the researcher was able to gain thoroughly fresh and in-depth information covering all

123

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

contextual conditions relevant to the actual phenomena. In particular, agricultural infrastructure and local commercial infrastructure projects were focussed on because of the high significant effects on community development. The agricultural infrastructure deals with the water resource and water supply projects that were prevailing in the areas of the projects. The local commercial infrastructure covers the community market, market building and village industry and crafts. Most of all, this best of available information warrants approval, as it is derived from one of the most reliable source in Thailand, Huai Hong Khrai RDSC which is equipped with all the completely essential elements to be of service to community. This is one of the most renowned agencies because of its efficient programs and eminent achievement on community sustainable development. It is also regarded as a model for local infrastructure sustainability projects.

Throughout this study, a group of the best seven experts selected from a variety of specialists working as project developers/managers or decision-making authorities was sought out to deal with all requests that led the team to succeed in achieving the goal. The experts’ selection was based on two important criteria:

(1) to have at least 20 years’ of experience of implementing local infrastructure projects; and

(2) that they were willing to participate in this research.

They also had to have experience in dealing with particular research on community development.

All of the theoretical and practical factors were later recognised to formulate the research questions, settle on a particular design, outline a source of the subject, provide a sample size and use a set of measurements. To write out the first draft of valid questionnaire, for the pilot project, a working group of the experts and the researcher tried to settle on the wording of individual items so as to be clear, accurate and reliable. Each of them must have prepared an adequate range of responses. To decide whether an item was suitable to be included, improved or abandoned, the working group had to use good judgement. Besides, they had to think ahead when analysing and reporting the final results including all items that were necessary for answering the research questions. When there was any doubt about whether a question would be used in later analyses, it was abandoned. All questions were ranked in terms of their importance to the primary aims of the study. Low priority items were left out until the questionnaire was pruned down to the desired length.

As a matter of fact, for factor analysis, a statistical tool, SPSS, was selected to provide validity evidence concerning the structure of instruments and to reduce a large number of items for each questionnaire. Pett et al. (2003) recommended that factor analysis would be used for theory and instrument development and assessing the validity of an established instrument when proposed to a specific population. According to Nunnally and Berstein (1994), factor analysis may also be used to identify external variables that appear to relate to the various dimensions of interest. In short, analysis of the items, tasks and construct level could ensure that the qualitative and quantitative data generated were related to its reliability, validity and efficiency.

F 33,1/2

124

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

The required contents of pretest questionnaire were fully specified into 6 groups of 60 items meant to be trialled by 17 feasible representative samples of the target population and the project representatives/staffs from RDSC. The process of validating factors, pilot surveying and trialling of the pretest were conducted from June to December 2011.

All answered items of the pretest questionnaire were submitted and identified to be improved or eliminated by the working group. Most of them later agreed on a total of 32 key validated content and concurrent factors. A total of 32 items under 6 group factors (independent variables) inquiring about current practices to achieve the sustainability of local infrastructure project (dependent variable) were developed to become an actual questionnaire. This was designed to specify a 5-point Likert scale, ranging in importance from 1 � not important to 5 � very important. Successively, the revised versions of questionnaire were distributed to 720 target respondents and project managers/staffs/representatives to answer all requests in accordance with their work in the project (from January to March 2012). All of them have worked with an Office of RDPB (central areas) and the RDSCs located in scattered areas around Thailand: Khao Hin Sorn and Huai Sai RDSC (Central), Kung Krabaen Bay RDSC (East), Pikun Thong RDSC (South), Puparn RDSC (Northeast) and Huai Hong Khrai RDSC (North). For many decades, they have developed and worked with local infrastructure projects by adapting community sustainable development as the guiding principle for the project planning and development. One of their main tasks was to provide and promote water resource, water supply and local market strategies for supporting the agricultural careers that can satisfy much of the main content of this research. Only RDSCs and RDPB, in Thailand, have been highly regarded as typical examples of well-organised workings to implement their policy and achieve the expected goal. Therefore, all of the collected data were worthwhile studying further. According to Shenton (2004), provision of data background for establishing the context of study and detailed description of projects which were made for detail comparison and was assigned for transferability.

Later, from all 720 questionnaires sent out, 243 sets (35 per cent) with complete answers were returned and then analysed. As a result, the descriptive data of all respondents’ characteristics were represented in terms of position, work experience, age, education and gender as shown in Table I. So as to obtain reliable results from this analysis, five major steps are followed (Comrey and Lee, 1992):

(1) identify the variables; (2) compute a correlation matrix for the variables; (3) extract the unrotated factors to see whether the chosen model fits the data; (4) rotate the factors to make them more interpretable; and (5) interpret and label the rotated factors.

3.1 Pilot project: local infrastructure projects in Chiang Mai At Huai Hong Khrai Royal RDSC, in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand, check dams and concrete weirs have been built to preserve forest management and community development patterns. The holistic management was applied and included in which the conservation of watershed area had been set up by using water from the

125

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

irrigation system, rain, and check dams to maintain the moisture and establish wet fire breaks. The development patterns rely on community members’ good deeds and without destroying or damaging the environment. Reservoirs and ponds were also implemented to support agricultural land, workers and machinery. The community market was built to directly transport the agricultural products and a variety of other goods. The market also included cottage and village industry and crafts for numerous customers and tourists visiting Thailand. The information and knowledge study centre had been set up to share the expertise for the productivity improvement programs in the surrounding communities.

The review of sustainability factors and validated factors with coding are listed as shown in Table II.

4. Data analyses The SPSS software for Windows version 19 was used to analyse the data and test the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis was applied to examine the validity and the reliability of the components. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to examine reliability of the instruments, evaluate

Table I. Profile of respondents (n � 243)

Variables Frequency %

Position Manager 22 9.05 Specialist 32 13.17 Researcher 65 26.75 Technician 111 45.68 Participant 13 5.35

Working experiences Less than 5 years 76 31.28 5-10 years 49 20.16 � 10-20 years 59 24.28 � 20-30 years 49 20.16 More than 30 years 10 4.12

Age Less than 25 years 10 4.12 � 25-30 years 53 21.81 � 30-40 years 75 30.86 � 40-50 years 72 29.63 � 50-60 years 31 12.76 More than 60 years 2 0.82

Education Master and higher 67 27.57 Bachelor 151 62.14 Under bachelor 25 10.29

Gender Male 125 51.44 Female 118 48.56

F 33,1/2

126

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

Table II. Review of

sustainability factors for local

infrastructure project and coding

of validated variables

Sustainability factors References Validated variable coding

Factors related to policy and plan (11 items) Response to the sources of problems or requirements RDPB (2005) POL1 Combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches Lin et al. (2010) POL2 SWOT analysis Terrados et al. (2007) POL3 Natural compatibility service, product and process Klevas et al. (2009) POL4 Professional management or organisation support Othman (2009) POL5 Research and development for practical application Lee et al. (2009) POL6 Development of networking and collaboration Barrutia et al. (2007) POL7 Scope of agency implementation Slotterback (2009) No Application of standardisation Joseph et al. (2008) No Active additional assistance to sectors/stakeholders Peterson et al. (2010) No Self-governance arrangement Zoppi and Lai (2010) No

Factors related to environment and natural resource (10 items) Community strength and weakness Nasuchon and Chareles (2010) ENV1 Community cooperation and collaboration Fleeger and Becker (2008) ENV2 Government agency support McFadden and Barnes (2009) ENV3 Integration perspective of socio-economic, environment and culture concern

Ghomashchi (2012), Mahmoud and Selman (2011), Mitchell et al. (2008)

ENV4

Environment conservation concern Lam et al. (2010), Azerrad and Nilon (2006)

ENV5

Knowledge and experience of environment share Campo et al. (2009) No Community ownership of resource Yates et al. (2010) No Positive impact on environment Chang and Chou (2010) No Evaluation of environmental impact on agriculture Purvis et al. (2009) No Effectiveness of legal regulation Geng and Doberstein (2008) No

Factors related to facility and infrastructure (10 items) Facility and infrastructure investment Fedderke (2006) INF1 Public involvement Shan and Yai (2011), Mcshane

(2006) INF2

Physical infrastructures support Mauricio et al. (2009) Lee and Chan (2008)

INF3

Public–community participation Yung and Chan (2012), Lei and Herder (2011), Shah and Baporikar (2010), Chakrabarti et al. (2009)

INF4

Community responsibility and control Ngowi (1997) No Practical monitoring system Lundberg et al. (2010) No Inter-local government authority boundary arrangement Firman (2010) No Systematic reconstruction after failure or preventive repair Rackwitz et al. (2005) No Inspection-base maintenance Sheils et al. (2010) No Skills and expertise development Beausejour (2009) No

(continued)

127

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

Table II.

Sustainability factors References Validated variable coding

Factors related to finance and budget (10 items) Financial source Kamara et al. (2008) FIN1 Budget provision and support Eedlenbruch et al. (2009) FIN2 Community financial institution development George and Prabhu (2003) FIN3 Budget allocation Eedlenbruch et al. (2009) FIN4 Ownership perception Xu et al. (2012), Hui and

Zheng (2010), Ashby and Burgoyne (2009)

FIN5

Continuity budget in operational matters Frow et al. (2010) FIN6 Budget plan Wen et al. (2005) No Financial sources Kamara et al. (2008) No Correlation between cost and effectiveness Laycock et al. (2009) No Transparency and accountability in financial management

Smith and Amoako-Adu (1999)

Factors related to information and knowledge (7 items) Adequacy information service Razali and Juanil (2011),

Omekwu (2003) KNO1

Incorporation of local or indigenous knowledge Raymond et al. (2010) KNO2 Information and knowledge centre of organisation Ferguson et al. (2010) KNO3 Study centre for productivity improvement Peskircioglu (2008) KNO4 Multiple sources of gathered information Barish and Knoblock (2008) No Knowledge based in multi-agent Haapasaari and Karjalainen

(2010) No

Knowledge transfer Helden et al. (2010) No

Factors related to management and administration (12 items) Community leader competence RDPB (2005) MAN1 Trust in agency Hong et al. (2012), Jabareen

and Carmon (2010) MAN2

Project management tool application Kumar and Markeset (2006) MAN3 Maintenance of good relationship among all stakeholders Perez (2009) MAN4 Community policing agencies Lilley and Hinduja (2006) MAN5 Training program for expertise development Collins (2008) MAN6 Partnership arrangement Furmankiewicz et al. (2010) No Community involving the preparation of management plan Newport and Jawahar (2003) No Active participation of agencies Oladio (2008) No Reorientation of institution structure Day (2008) No Continuity of performance improvement Game (2006) No Flexibility of power and responsibility Coafee and Johnton (2005) No

Note: No � not validated factor

F 33,1/2

128

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

the factors’ internal consistency and help to determine where they best fit when loaded onto multiple factors feature. A higher cut-off of 0.70 was used because the instrument was newly developed. The correlation matrix and multicollinearity testing apparatus were put into practice. Multicollinearity is a statistical phenomenon in which two or more independent variables in a multiple regression model are highly correlated. The high correlation coefficient between two independent variables above approximately 0.80 was determined to have a possible problem of multicollinearity and which has to be excluded (Allison, 1999). This study set is used as the p-value at 0.05.

For this analysis, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test were put into practice. The latter sampling of adequacy tests showed whether or not the partial correlations among variables were 0.952 or larger than 0.70. The former tested whether the correlation matrix was an identity matrix, which would indicate that the significant level of less than 0.05 was acceptable (Pett et al., 2003).

Factor analysis with Varimax was to identify influential factors and check undimensional items that were finished. According to Pett et al. (2003), the approach for determining the numbers of initial factors was to select only those whose eigenvalues that are greater than 1.00. For factor analysis, the factors would be accounted for by more than their share of the total variance of the items. The items with a factor of a loading value less than 0.50 were deleted (Pett et al., 2003).

With regard to the matter of the research method and data analyses, the method used in this study is similar to the study by Yung and Chan (2012). Their study identified the critical factors for enhancing social sustainability of the conservation of built heritage projects and to highlight the importance of addressing social sustainability in urban conservation. The research started out from a list of social sustainability factors compiled from international literature and then verified by the experts in the field of heritage conservation. A pilot study was conducted in Hong Kong to develop the main questionnaire. After that, through a questionnaire survey carried out in Hong Kong for an urban conservation project, the citizens’ responses were obtained and evaluated. The results were derived from factor analysis. However, the literature review captured and conducted from all dimensions of sustainable development projects the social, economic, environmental and culture concerns (Ghomashchi, 2012; Doloi, 2012; Yung and Chan, 2012; Mahmoud and Selman, 2011; Shah and Baporikar, 2010; Lee and Chan, 2009, 2008; McShane, 2006).

5. Findings and discussion The 243 sets of the questionnaire, with complete answers, were analysed by SPSS. As a result, the answers with a eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and with a total of three components at about 60.047 per cent of the variance in responses were extracted. Such findings were also confirmed by total variance explained in Table III. The graph plotted the extracted factors against their eigenvalues in descending order of magnitude to identify distinct breaks in the slope of the plot. Because the factor that appears prior to the beginning of a straight line, through the lower values of the plotted eigenvalues, is generally regarded as a cut-off factor and three factors are retained for an in-depth study. All 25 items could be grouped into six critical dimensions. The details of the factor loading, percentage of variance explained and the cumulative percentage of the variance are shown in Table IV.

129

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

5.1 Management and administration The management and administration consist of five items, but only one of them, “maintenance of the good relationship among stakeholders”, can support the highest loading factor 0.708. As far as we are concerned, a wonderful relationship is based on mutual trust between the stakeholders and project developers, as trust is recognized as one of the most valuable and vulnerable quality to achieve project sustainability (Jabareen and Carmon, 2010; Hong et al., 2012). The project developers put in much effort to establish complete mutual trust in a community to help lead key members to participate in the infrastructure project. It is easy to achieve a good understanding and join hands among project managers, local authorities and residents when the maintenance of a close relationship and mutual trust are firmly established. People can spontaneously participate in the project without hesitation when trust is established. Moreover, the trustworthiness of a project manager can help motivate the people’s efforts and create the best possible relationship among all the stakeholders. A good relationship should be maintained

Table III. Total variance explained of sustainability factors

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared

loadings Rotation sums of squared

loadings

Total % of

variance Cumulative

(%) Total % of

variance Cumulative

(%) Total % of

variance Cumulative

(%)

1 13.868 49.528 49.528 13.868 49.528 49.528 6.513 23.261 23.261 2 1.618 5.779 55.307 1.618 5.779 55.307 6.314 22.549 45.810 3 1.327 4.740 60.047 1.327 4.740 60.047 3.986 14.237 60.047 4 0.985 3.517 63.564 5 0.907 3.239 66.803 6 0.828 2.956 69.759 7 0.798 2.851 72.610 8 0.694 2.479 75.089 9 0.629 2.248 77.337

10 0.578 2.064 79.401 11 0.537 1.920 81.320 12 0.517 1.847 83.167 13 0.503 1.796 84.963 14 0.421 1.503 86.466 15 0.399 1.425 87.891 16 0.369 1.319 89.210 17 0.349 1.245 90.455 18 0.341 1.218 91.673 19 0.309 1.105 92.778 20 0.289 1.033 93.811 21 0.270 0.965 94.776 22 0.249 0.890 95.666 23 0.236 0.841 96.507 24 0.224 0.799 97.306 25 0.208 0.741 98.047 26 0.200 0.715 98.762 27 0.183 0.653 99.416 28 0.164 0.584 100.000

F 33,1/2

130

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

to ensure availability of sufficient resources in the long term and improvement in the production chain.

In short, the critical factor for this dimension is to maintain a good relationship among stakeholders and to stimulate mutual trust among the community residents. The trusting relationship is able to facilitate and secure the goals of sustainability development.

Table IV. Varimax rotated

component matrix of sustainability

factors

Items Factor loading % of variance

explained Cumulative %

of variance

Dimension 1: Management and administration (five items) Maintenance of good relationship among stakeholders 0.708 Community policing agencies 0.657 Project management tool application 0.650 Training program for practical expertise development 0.642 Trust in agency 0.581

Dimension 2: Information and knowledge (four items) Incorporation of local or indigenous knowledge 0.738 Adequacy information service 0.679 Information and knowledge centre of organisation 0.616 Study centre for productivity improvement 0.579 23.261 23.261

Dimension 3: Policy and plan (five items) Response to the sources of problem or requirements 0.777 Combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches 0.746 Development of networking and collaboration 0.683 Professional management or organisation support 0.619 Research and development for practical application 0.521

Dimension 4: Environment and natural resource (five items) Community cooperation and collaboration 0.654 Integration of perspectives of socio-economic, environment and culture 0.639 Environment conservation concern 0.622 Community strength and weakness 0.608 Government agency support 0.534 22.549 45.810

Dimension 5: Facility and infrastructure (three items) Public involvement 0.761 Physical infrastructures support 0.759 Public-community participation 0.676

Dimension 6: Finance and budget (three items) Ownership perception 0.621 Budget allocation 0.603 Continuity of budget in operational matters 0.551 14.237 60.047

Note: Three items with a factor loading value less than 0.50 were deleted

131

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

5.2 Information and knowledge Information and knowledge comprises four items. The most distinctive one, “incorporation of local or indigenous knowledge”, can present the highest loading of 0.738. Both branches of knowledge, indigenous and scientific, are simplified, and, when used together, it makes it easier for people to understand. This appropriate knowledge is accumulated from area-based conditions in the local area and also from officials and/or experts working in various areas. The information and knowledge centre can support the productivity improvement of community-based projects and provide services at the area-based level (RDPB, 2005). One of those distinct examples is the provision of sustainable development guidelines that is suitable for different conditions in various areas, as they are to become models of success to follow. The centre has to actively provide an essential series of disseminating fresh and useful information of effective strategies and experiments. They also have to deal with infrastructure sustainability, especially in the rural areas. People can study the selected topics as needed and probably regard them as the models to enhance their capacity for carrying out any further projects with greater efficiency. According to the utilisation of knowledge and technology, the study in practice should be simple, inexpensive and applicable for the villagers.

In summary, this significant factor has coped with the way to equip community people with an understanding of their local conditions, current scientific awareness and the practical ways to address their development problems. This is made possible by providing essential fresh and useful information of efficient strategies and experiments to the community.

5.3 Policy and plan The policy and plan are classified into five variables, but only the “response to the sources of problems or requirements” item can maintain the highest factor loading of 0.777. The policies are usually developed by the central government as important guidelines for local development plans that are normally implemented to solve critical problems and respond to the local requirements. The appropriate plans should meet both the area-based conditions and policy-based guidelines. Their contributions can fulfil community requirements and use suitable methods for area conditions to achieve sustainable development (RDPB, 2005). Community-based implementation is more effective when initiated as a participatory action through the process. However, the regional authorities should not interfere with the administrative autonomy of the local communities as long as they are willing and able to proceed and successfully govern certain matters by themselves (Zoppi and Lai, 2010). The participation of the local people through interviews, discussions and brainstorming can provide the decision-making needed for the exact requirements of community members. In short, the local government is often the centrepiece of rural political systems.

This factor deals with how to manage policies and plans for solving critical problems and responding to community requirements effectively. That is while the central government determines the policies as important guidelines for local development and local authorities implement the plans as directed.

F 33,1/2

132

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

5.4 Environment and natural resource The environment and natural resources comprise five items. The most important one is “community cooperation and collaboration”, and it can exhibit the highest loading factor of 0.654. These two relations can be informally initiated and secured within a short term and later help provide enough experience in working together, sharing commitments and resources and goals for long-term success. This factor could form a partnership of development among the community members, government agencies and professional organisations. In other words, how to achieve the expected outcome by a working group rather than an individual is created and developed while proceeding on the project. The environment and natural resources management should take full advantage of the unique original knowledge inside the community for exploiting limited natural resources economically and appropriately for optimal long-term benefits. The forces to accomplish the resource conservation cover the integration of all environmental aspects, skill and expertise of villagers’ development and community-based management. Management has to be able to encourage the feeling of optimism by using natural resources. It is essential to note that community-based resources management can play an effective role in resource conservation and sustainability (Ellis and Bolland, 2008). The development has to take the local environment into account in terms of the physical environment, sociological environment and cultural environment. This view can support the fundamental basis of why community-based development requires culture-sensitive planning (Fleeger and Becker, 2008; Jabareen and Carmon, 2010).

In brief, it is mentioned that the outcome of any plan implemented by a working group is more effective than by an individual. Besides, the cooperation can provide enough experience/knowledge from community cooperation and collaboration to share and exploit the limited natural resources for the optimal benefit of the community.

5.5 Facility and infrastructure The facility and infrastructure are categorised into three items. The significant one “public involvement” can support the highest factor by displaying a loading of 0.761. The public involvement has prevailed over central or regional government agencies whose overall responsibility is to develop infrastructure development at all levels. In rural areas, local governments usually emphasise basic infrastructure investment which enables them to help facilitate and support the community and to increase production by promoting and contributing to economic development. To illustrate an example of this point, some infrastructure elements can be adapted to give access for transporting local products to markets and facilitate interaction between the producers and consumers. Financial support from private and/or governmental agencies is needed to provide sufficient infrastructure elements. With a tight budget, local government cannot afford to maintain and preserve newly established infrastructures prevailing in the region. The shortage of an effective maintenance system is one of the main causes of the gradual deterioration of the infrastructure. Nevertheless, the inspection-based or systematic reconstruction following its failure or obsolescence can provide an efficient tool for addressing management and securing sustainability (Rackwitz et al., 2005; Sheils et al., 2010).

133

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

Public– community participation is also a suggested method for small infrastructure operations to obtain project sustainability (Chakrabarti et al., 2009).

In conclusion, it is revealed how central and regional government agencies can facilitate and support the community to increase production by promoting and contributing to economic development. Moreover, financial support is required to provide sufficient infrastructure elements.

5.6 Finance and budget Finance and budget consist of three items. The crucial one is “ownership perception” with the highest factor by loading at 0.621. Ownership perception is related to giving a project developer permission to implement new project proposals and also approve completed projects from the community. When making new plans for rural development, sufficient budget support from the central government and government agencies becomes a top priority of local government because many projects have to be abandoned on account of insufficient financial support. In addition, the effective selection of newly qualified proposals put into practice has to be equipped with enough satisfactory information including active participation of local people and/or their representatives. Clearly, top-down planning of budget provision and the support process without the participation of beneficiary communities and parties has often proven to influence the expected outcome. The projects development centre of local infrastructure is worth looking into and fulfilling the real requirements of local people in the public sector. The financial management and ownership participation can be regarded as the fundamental basis upon a community-based project that can enhance sustainability (Ashby and Burgoyne, 2009; Hui and Zheng, 2010; Xu et al., 2012).

In short, this is dealt with by how to select only the best proposal to implement under a limited financial and budget allowance. Only sufficient budget support, satisfactory information, active participation of local residents and project developers/representatives can help implement a new, well-planned project proposal to reach the expected goal.

6. Recommendations Applied from previous projects under control of the RDPB (2005), this study provides important factors for planning and managing to achieve the sustainability of infrastructure projects in the rural community. For any details concerning the practical application of the study, the missing links of the project/researcher work have been completed as needed. A very clear description of strategies in action through the research method/techniques is needed to identify and highlight the critical factors for accomplishing effective project sustainability has been added.

Examining and pinpointing local sustainability factors for development, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits, it is a very difficult task because it is still a complex process which is not yet fully understood. While the water resource and water supply projects can provide sufficient water in agriculture and the community market, it must match the availability of the consumers demand with the supply held by the local community. Factors from this study still encourage productivity for expanding the average earnings, learning skills and professional development and acquiring self-reliance within the community (Evans, 2009; Yung

F 33,1/2

134

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

and Chan, 2012). The key to economic sustainability has to relate to sustainable incomes from goods and productions of the local inhabitants (RDPB, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2008). From particular projects, that measure social sustainability performance within sustainable development context, that are qualified in terms of social benefits flowing to the stakeholders, as well as to the community at large (Doloi, 2012). The social sustainability can be measured in areas of public– community participation, community cohesion and generosities in contributing help to each other (Evans, 2009; Yung and Chan, 2012). The cooperation of these strategies is also needed in decision-making while developing infrastructure sustainability. The local people’s participation in this strategy can be extended to the capabilities of the local residences to enhance social relations (Lei and Herder, 2011). Moreover, the effective preservation and conservation of natural resources and the environment are also highlighted as the critical factors in bringing desirable living condition to the community (RDPB, 2005; Azerrad and Nilon, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2008; Campo et al., 2009; Lam et al., 2010; Chang and Chou, 2010; Nasuchon and Chareles, 2010).

Because of the actual procedure conducted in this study, the skill and professional development in community was carried out with the aim to broaden expertise and experience of local residents about things helpful to them in life and also with infrastructure concerns. To satisfy the goal, one major technique was to keep the public up-to-date with useful information. The study centre can provide valuable information from the successful works of academic researchers and specialists. Obviously, the important information dissemination is a definite advantage that the public can gain more proficiency. The other strategy is to present a variety of training programs classes for the public to choose from. Local specialists are encouraged to join, provide supplementary resources or even lead some special programs when asked. On completion of each training program, the participants will be equipped with suitable knowledge, experience and analytical ability and are expected to continue improving their livelihood and practical progressive concerns. The goal of increasing qualified local residents could be accomplished by full support by providing income and an expert advice provision from both government and private agencies.

The advantage of community cohesion is implemented through numerous strategies with very satisfactory results. The project manager has to initiate and complete useful programs. One effective technique in an effort to win the support of local residents is by regularly taking part in the infrastructure community activities. Therefore, by providing a warm atmosphere for persuading members to join and work out strategies together has to be well implemented. The project manager should be hospitable and friendly, generous and welcoming to new participants doing the community project. Public-spirited members are encouraged to cooperate closely and regularly in the proceeding efficiently strategies. When local residents propose their ideas, opinions and suggestions, the project manager and/or staff need to be helpful. The local residences must feel accepted as co-coordinators and only then will they voluntarily take part in the project. The crucial support from local government and government agencies can help to develop a cohesive community.

The result of this study should be considered carefully as the basis of criteria for any other country in deciding on the right proposals for implementing local

135

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

infrastructure sustainability policies effectively in their regions. However, for studying across cultures and/or different types of infrastructure and project development, a thorough study of related influential factors, both theoretical and practical, are needed in shaping the actual sustainability policy. These points need to be grasped before developing the questionnaires and testing the validity and reliability. In the concluding recommendation, each of the six critical dimensions of sustainability factors has to be clarified through a full and proper investigation. According to the best available information and through accurate calculation, the analysis consequences are expected to be commonly accepted for any further strategy.

In particular, the appropriate method of implementing the project management method can make a project successful. In this study, the success of local infrastructure development on sustainability is presented. However, the problems of community infrastructure projects are usually complex and exist because of several causes requiring immediate response from managers. The local project management requires integration of both knowledge and the use of technical elements. Knowledge is usually acquired from tacit knowledge obtained from experience, whereas use of technical elements is mostly obtained from area-based conditions or local technology. From the study of holistic perspectives, both are needed to suitably apply for area-based project management position. In practice, the manager should develop the implementation of a plan and major activities of infrastructure development project by using an appropriate knowledge element and technical elements to achieve sustainability. At the early stage of project implementation plan, the important aims are related to gathering data on area-based conditions for clarifying scopes, objectives and requirements. Later, the design and development process is planned to carefully take into consideration of initiating the project or eliminating it. Next, the implementation process is determined to prepare details of plan, estimate cost, procure the resources, execute and control the works. Finally, the final process is focussed on evaluating the works, providing suggestions and finding solutions, improving the project, transferring information to all parties and re-assigning the project team members or a handover to the villagers. The project management tools, with respect to knowledge and technical elements, are critical attributes that promote the implementation plan of community infrastructure projects and creates opportunities to handle multidisciplinary issues. The managers should recognise that they can use local knowledge and an uncomplicated technology to sustaining the problem-solving process. Simple technology should be widely applied and appropriate for use in local areas.

7. Conclusion This research has provided a broad examination to initiate the process and display the criteria of local infrastructure projects sustainability with data collected in Thailand. These critical factors can be utilised as a typical example so as to illustrate how to implement sustainability of a project on water resource, water supply and local market projects effectively. The finding conveys 6 dimensions of 25 authentic key factors that have a significant influence on infrastructure sustainability. These issues are proven to be valid, reliable and suitable enough to be maintained and expanded in a flow of sustainability benefits for a long term after

F 33,1/2

136

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

the completion of an infrastructure project. Moreover, following a sound understanding all these significant factors, project managers, researchers and local authorities can recommend each issue for planning, managing and approving the decision to implement any new project in the community.

To sum up, with the inclusion of the complete and theoretical practical and exact data from reliable sources and a well-planed and scientific way implementing, under control, of a qualified working group, experts and the researchers, the research should be accepted as a good model for doing further work effectively. Besides, the expected outcomes, influential factors for local sustainability projects can be used to be the deciding factor in choosing only the best from all newly proposed proposals to be carried out in practice. However, while this research has coped with only three fields (water resource, water supply and local markets), it is worth widening the scope of the studies. Moreover, when required to do any further exercises in a cross-cultural area or foreign countries, all of the significant elements have to be well adapted to suit the surrounding and emphasize the value of being realistic and systematic. The research can certainly provide the expected outcome useful in developing the area.

References Allison, P.D. (1999), Multiple Regression, Pine Forge Press, Thousan Oaks, CA.

Ashby, K.J. and Burgoyne, C.B. (2009), “The financial practices and perceptions behind separate systems of household financial management”, The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 519-529.

Azerrad, J.M. and Nilon, C.H. (2006), “An evaluation agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 255-262.

Barish, G. and Knoblock, C.A. (2008), “Speculative plan execution for information gathering”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 172 Nos 4/5, pp. 413-453.

Barrutia, J.M., Aguado, I. and Echebarria, C. (2007), “Networking for local agenda 21 implementation: learning from experiences with Udaltalde and Udalsarea in the Basque autonomous community”, Geoforum, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 33-48.

Beausejour, J. (2009), “Managing delivery of sanitation infrastructures for poor communities: decentralizing without penalizing”, International of Managing Project in Business, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 355-369.

Benjamin, C.E. (2008), “Legal pluralism and decentralization: natural resource management in Mali”, World Development, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 2255-2276.

Brundtland, H. (1985), “World commission on environment and development”, Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 14, p. 26.

Campo, P.C., Mendoza, G.A., Guizol, P., Villanueva, T.R. and Bousquet, F. (2009), “Exploring management strategies for community-based forests using multi-agent systems: a case study in Palawan, Philippines”, Journal of Environment Management, Vol. 90 No. 11, pp. 3607-3615.

Chakrabarti, S., Majumder, A. and Chakrabarti, S. (2009), “Public-community participation in household waste management in India: an operational approach”, Habitat International, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 125-130.

137

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2009.06.016&isi=000270208400048&citationId=p_37

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.socec.2009.02.007&citationId=p_30

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.habitatint.2008.05.009&isi=000262208700016&citationId=p_38

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.landurbplan.2005.03.001&isi=000240085800004&citationId=p_31

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.artint.2007.08.002&isi=000253329500003&citationId=p_32

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.geoforum.2006.05.004&isi=000243845600005&citationId=p_33

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F17538370910971027&citationId=p_34

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.worlddev.2008.03.005&isi=000261117100009&citationId=p_35

Chang, K.F. and Chou, P.C. (2010), “Measuring the influence of the greening design of the building environment on the urban real estate market in Taiwan”, Building and Environment, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 2057-2067.

Choguill, C.L. (1996), “Ten steps to sustainable infrastructure”, Habitat International, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 389-404.

Coafee, J. and Johnton, L. (2005), “The management of local government modernization”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 164-177.

Collins, M.E. (2008), “Evaluating child welfare training in public agencies: status and prospects”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 241-246.

Comrey, A.L. and Lee, H.B. (1992), A First Course in Factor Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Day, J. (2008), “The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management-lessons from the Great Barrier Reef”, Marine Policy, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 823-831.

Doloi, H. (2012), “Assessing stakeholders’ influence on social performance of infrastructure projects”, Facilities, Vol. 30 Nos 11/12, pp. 531-550.

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) (2003), Guidelines for Rural Centre Planning, United Nations, New York, NY.

Eedlenbruch, K., Thoyer, S., Grelot, F., Kast, R. and Enjolras, G. (2009), “Risk-sharing policies in the context of the French Flood Prevention Action Programs”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 363-369.

Ellis, E.A. and Bolland, L.P. (2008), “Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas? A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico”, Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 256 No. 11, pp. 1971-1983.

Evans, E. (2009), “A framework for development? The growing role of UK local government in international development”, Habitat International, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 141-148.

Fedderke, J.W. (2006), “Infrastructure investment in long-run economy growth: South Africa 1875-2001”, World Development, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1037-1059.

Ferguson, J., Huysman, M. and Soekijad, M. (2010), “Knowledge management in practice: pitfalls and potentials for development”, World Development, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 1797-1810.

Firman, T. (2010), “Multi local-government under Indonesia’s decentralization reform: the case of Kartamantul (The Greater Yogyakarta)”, Habital International, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 400-405.

Fleeger, W.E. and Becker, M.L. (2008), “Creating and sustaining community capacity for ecosystem-based management: is local government the key?”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 1396-1405.

Frow, N., Marginson, D. and Ogden, S. (2010), “Continuous budgeting: Reconciling budget flexibility with budgetary control”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 444-461.

Furmankiewicz, M., Thompson, N. and Zielinska, M. (2010), “Area-based partnerships in rural Poland: the post-accession experience”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 52-62.

Game, C. (2006), “Comprehensive performance assessment in English local government”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 466-479.

F 33,1/2

138

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2007.07.018&isi=000258871900078&citationId=p_53

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632771211252351&citationId=p_45

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2007.07.018&isi=000258871900078&citationId=p_53

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aos.2009.10.003&isi=000278689500004&citationId=p_54

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jrurstud.2009.05.001&isi=000275131400006&citationId=p_55

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2009.09.002&isi=000272952000008&citationId=p_47

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.buildenv.2010.02.013&isi=000279464900001&citationId=p_39

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2009.09.002&isi=000272952000008&citationId=p_47

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2F0197-3975%2896%2900013-6&isi=A1996UQ30100007&citationId=p_40

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.foreco.2008.07.036&isi=000261115800016&citationId=p_48

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F17410400610682497&citationId=p_56

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F09513550510584982&citationId=p_41

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.habitatint.2008.10.010&isi=000264651900003&citationId=p_49

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.worlddev.2005.11.004&isi=000238941100007&citationId=p_50

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.evalprogplan.2008.04.010&isi=000258088500003&citationId=p_42

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.worlddev.2010.05.004&isi=000284664900010&citationId=p_51

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.habitatint.2009.11.005&isi=000279493200005&citationId=p_52

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.marpol.2008.03.023&isi=000259253400009&citationId=p_44

Gandhi, N.M.D., Selladurai, V. and Santhi, P. (2006), “Unsustainable development to sustainable development: a conceptual model”, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 654-672.

Geng, Y. and Doberstein, B. (2008), “Greening government procurement in developing countries: building capacity in China”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 932-938.

George, G. and Prabhu, G.N. (2003), “Developmental financial institutions as technology policy instruments: implications for innovation and entrepreneurship in emerging economies”, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 89-108.

Ghomashchi, V. (2012), “Building sustainability through collaborative planning”, International Journal of Sustainable Development Planning, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-25.

Haapasaari, P. and Karjalainen, T.P. (2010), “Formalizing expert knowledge to compare alternative management plans: sociological perspective to the future management of Baltic salmon stocks”, Marine Policy, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 477-486.

Helden, G.J., Aardema, H., ter Bogt, H.J. and Groot, T.L.C.M. (2010), “Knowledge creation for practice in public sector management accounting by consultants and academics: preliminary findings and directions for future research”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 83-94.

Hodgkin, J. (1994), “The sustainability of donor-assisted rural water supply projects”, WASH Technical Report No. 94, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC.

Hong, Y., Chan, D.W.M. and Chan, A.P.C. (2012), “Exploring the applicability of construction partnering in Mainland China: a qualitative study”, Facilities, Vol. 30 No. 13, pp. 667-694.

Hui, E.C.M. and Zheng, X. (2010), “Measuring customer satisfaction of FM service in housing sector: a structural equation model approach”, Facilities, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 306-320.

Initiative and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2008), Research and Learning Programme 2007-8: Critical Success Factors and Performance Measures for Start-Up Social and Environmental Enterprises, Initiative and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Manitoba.

Jabareen, Y. and Carmon, N. (2010), “Community of trust: a socio-cultural approach for community planning”, Habitat International, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 446-453.

Johnson, K., Hays, C., Center, H. and Daley, C. (2004), “Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 135-149.

Joseph, C., Gunton, T.I. and Day, J.C. (2008), “Implementation of resource management plans: identifying keys to success”, Journal of Environment Management, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 594-606.

Kamara, L., Milstien, J.B., Patyna, M., Lydon, P., Levin, A. and Brenzel, L. (2008), “Strategies for financial sustainability of immunization programs: a review of the strategies from 50 national immunization program financial sustainability plans”, Vaccine, Vol. 26 No. 51, pp. 6171-6726.

Klevas, V., Streimikiene, D. and Kleviene, A. (2009), “Sustainable assessment of the energy project implementation in regional scale”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 155-166.

Kumar, R. and Markeset, T. (2006), “Implementation and execution of industrial service strategy”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 105-117.

139

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.evalprogplan.2004.01.002&isi=000220688400002&citationId=p_68

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.marpol.2009.10.002&isi=000275842800017&citationId=p_61

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2007.03.028&isi=000258871900002&citationId=p_69

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.vaccine.2008.10.014&isi=000261869900031&citationId=p_70

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.mar.2010.02.008&citationId=p_62

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.rser.2007.05.004&isi=000260972200009&citationId=p_71

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F13552510610667147&citationId=p_72

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632771211270603&citationId=p_64

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632771011031538&citationId=p_65

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F14777830610702502&citationId=p_57

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2007.04.016&isi=000258871900034&citationId=p_58

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.habitatint.2009.12.005&isi=000279493200011&citationId=p_67

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2FS0048-7333%2802%2900002-1&isi=000180350600006&citationId=p_59

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.2495%2FSDP-V7-N1-14-25&citationId=p_60

Lam, E.W.M., Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, D.W.M. (2010), “Benchmarking success of building maintenance projects”, Facilities, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 290-305.

Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffaelli, D. and White, P. (2009), “Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of conservation: the UK biodiversity action plan”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 142 No. 12, pp. 3120-3127.

Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E.H.W. (2008), “A sustainability evaluation of government-led urban renewal projects”, Facilities, Vol. 26 No. 13, pp. 526-541.

Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E.H.W. (2009), “Indicators for evaluating environmental performance of the Hong Kong urban renewal projects”, Facilities, Vol. 27 No. 13, pp. 515-530.

Lee, H., Park, Y. and Choi, H. (2009), “Comparative evaluation of performance of R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: a DEA approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 196 No. 3, pp. 847-855.

Lei, T.E. and Herder, P.M. (2011), “A double analysis of stakeholder interaction in public infrastructure management”, Facilities, Vol. 29 No. 13, pp. 563-576.

Leungbootnak, N. and Charoenngam, C. (2003), “Budgeting process improvement in rural infrastructure development of Thai sub-district local government”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 56-78.

Lilley, D. and Hinduja, S. (2006), “Officer evaluation in the community policing context”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategy & Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19-37.

Lin, G.T.R., Shen, Y.C. and Chou, J. (2010), “National innovation policy and performance: comparing the small island countries of Taiwan and Ireland”, Technology in Society, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 161-172.

Lundberg, K., Balfors, B., Folkeson, L. and Nilsson, M. (2010), “SEA monitoring in Swedish regional transport infrastructure plans - improvement opportunities identified in practical experience”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 400-406.

McAdam, R., Walker, T. and Hazlett, S.A. (2011), “An inquiry into the strategic-operational role of performance management in local government”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 303-324.

McFadden, K.W. and Barnes, C. (2009), “The implementation of an ecosystem approach to management within a federal government agency”, Marine Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 156-163.

McShane, I. (2006), “Community facilities, community building and local government - an Australian perspective”, Facilities, Vol. 24 Nos 7/8, pp. 269-279.

Mahmoud, N. and Selman, P. (2011), “Natural infrastructure concept in arid regions: two case studies in Egyptian context”, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 336-336.

Mancini, J.A. and Marek, L.I. (2004), “Sustaining community-based program for families: conceptualization and measurement”, Family Relations, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 339-347.

Mauricio, A.Q., Lins, E.S. and Alvarenga, M.B. (2009), “A national residue control plan from the analytical perspective-the Brazilian case”, Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 637 Nos 1/2, pp. 333-336.

Mitchell, D., Clarkeb, M. and Baxterc, J. (2008), “Evaluation land administration project in developing countries”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 464-473.

Moore, M. and Finch, E. (2004), “Facilities management in South East Asia”, Facilities, Vol. 22 Nos 9/10, pp. 259-270.

F 33,1/2

140

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.marpol.2008.05.007&isi=000262186200017&citationId=p_84

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632770910996351&citationId=p_76

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632770610666125&citationId=p_85

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ejor.2008.06.016&isi=000263817600001&citationId=p_77

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.2495%2FSDP-V6-N3-336-359&citationId=p_86

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1111%2Fj.0197-6664.2004.00040.x&isi=000222433500001&citationId=p_87

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F13639510610648467&isi=000237046800003&citationId=p_80

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.aca.2008.09.061&isi=000264947100045&citationId=p_88

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.techsoc.2010.03.005&citationId=p_81

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632771011031529&citationId=p_73

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.landusepol.2007.10.004&isi=000256289700002&citationId=p_89

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eiar.2009.12.002&isi=000282851800008&citationId=p_82

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.biocon.2009.08.010&isi=000272100100035&citationId=p_74

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632770410555986&citationId=p_90

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.biocon.2009.08.010&isi=000272100100035&citationId=p_74

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F09513551111133461&citationId=p_83

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632770810914280&citationId=p_75

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F09513551111133461&citationId=p_83

Nasuchon, N. and Chareles, A. (2010), “Community involvement in fisheries management: experiences in the Gulf of Thailand countries”, Marine Policy, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 163-169.

Newport, J.K. and Jawahar, G.G.P. (2003), “Community participation and public awareness in disaster mitigation”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 33-36.

Ngowi, A.B. (1997), “Community-managed infrastructure facilities”, Facilities, Vol. 15 Nos 12/13, pp. 323-330.

Nijaki, L.K. and Worrel, G. (2012), “Procurement for sustainable local economic development”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 133-153.

Nunnally, J.C. and Berstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.

Oladio, J.A. (2008), “Project planning and implementation at the local government level. Lessons of experience”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 83-91.

Omekwu, C.O. (2003), “National agricultural information management system in Nigeria: a conceptual framework”, Library Review, Vol. 52 No. 9, pp. 444-451.

Othman, A.A.E. (2009), “An innovative partnership framework for sustainable development of rural areas in South Africa”, Journal of Engineering Design and Technology, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 243-263.

Perez, A. (2009), “Fisheries management at the tri-national border between Belize, Guatemala and Honduras”, Marine Policy, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 195-200.

Peskircioglu, N. (2008), “MpM’s productivity improvement project approach in provinces”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 440-448.

Peterson, P.J., bin Mokhtar, M., Chang, C. and Krueger, J. (2010), “Indicators as a tool for the evaluation of effective national implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1202-1208.

Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. and Sullivan, J.J. (2003), Making Sense of Factor Analysis, SAGE Publication, Thousan Oak, CA.

Posayanant, S. and Chareonngam, C. (2010), “Prototype KPIs for rural infrastructure development: the practice of sub-district local governments”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 717-733.

Price, S., Pitt, M. and Tucker, M. (2011), “Implications of a sustainability policy for facilities management organisations”, Facilities, Vol. 29 No. 9, pp. 391-410.

Purvis, G., Louwagie, G., Northey, G., Mortimer, S., Park, J., Mauchline, A., Finn, J., Primdahl, J., Vejre, H., Vesterager, J.P., Knickel, K., Kasperczyk, N., Balazs, K., Vlahos, G., Christopoulos, S. and Peltola, J. (2009), “Conceptual development of harmonized method for tracking change and evaluating policy in the agri-environment: the Agri-environmental Footprint Index”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 321-337.

Rackwitz, R., Lentz, A. and Faber, M. (2005), “Socio-economically sustainable civil engineering infrastructures by optimization”, Structural Safety, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 187-229.

Raymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Robinson, G.M. and Evely, A.C. (2010), “Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91 No. 8, pp. 1766-1777.

Razali, M.N. and Juanil, D.M. (2011), “A study on knowledge management implementation in property management companies in Malaysia”, Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 9/10, pp. 368-390.

141

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F09653560310463838&citationId=p_92

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F17410401011089436&citationId=p_103

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632779710188315&citationId=p_93

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632771111146314&citationId=p_104

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F09513551211223785&citationId=p_94

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.envsci.2009.01.005&isi=000266196700010&citationId=p_105

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.strusafe.2004.10.002&isi=000228783300001&citationId=p_106

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2010.03.023&isi=000279062800017&citationId=p_107

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F17410400810893374&citationId=p_100

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632771111146305&citationId=p_108

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F00242530310501464&citationId=p_97

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2010.01.008&isi=000276372800017&citationId=p_101

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F17260530910998677&citationId=p_98

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.marpol.2009.06.005&isi=000271128300022&citationId=p_91

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.marpol.2008.05.012&isi=000262244700002&citationId=p_99

Shah, I.A. and Baporikar, N. (2010), “Participatory rural development program and local culture: a case study of Mardan, Pakistan”, International Journal of Sustainable Development Planning, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 31-42.

Shan, C. and Yai, T. (2011), “Public involvement requirements for infrastructure planning in China”, Habitat International, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 158-166.

Sheils, E., O’Connor, A., Breysse, D., Schoefs, F. and Yotte, S. (2010), “Development of a two-stage inspection process for the assessment of deteriorating infrastructure”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 182-194.

Shenton, A.K. (2004), “Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects”, Education for Information, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 63-75.

Slotterback, C.S. (2009), “Evaluating the implementation of environmental review mitigation in local planning and development processes”, Environment Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 546-561.

Smith, B. and Amoako-Adu, B. (1999), “Management succession and financial performance of family controlled firms”, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 341-368.

Sultana, P. and Abeyasekera, S. (2008), “Effectiveness of participatory planning for community management of fisheries in Bangladesh”, Journal of Environment Management, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 201-213.

Terrados, J., Almonacid, G. and Hontoria, L. (2007), “Regional energy planning through SWOT analysis and strategic planning tools. Impact on renewable development”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 1275-1287.

The Office of Royal Development Projects Board (RDPB) (2005), “Projects initiated by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej: Background of the Royal Development Projects”, The Golden Jubilee Network, Crete, available at: http://kanchanapisek.or.th (accessed 10 January 2011).

The World Bank (2003), Comprehensive Development Framework: Implementing the CDF Principles—Status in 48 IDA Countries, January 27, 2003, (IDA/SecM2003-0027), CDF Secretariat, The World Bank, New York, NY.

Wen, W., Wang, W.K. and Wang, C.H. (2005), “A knowledge-based intelligent decision support system for national defense budget planning”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 55-66.

Xu, P.P., Chan, E.H.W. and Qian, Q.K. (2012), “Key performance indicators (KPI) for the sustainability of building energy efficiency retrofit (BEER) in hotel buildings in China”, Facilities, Vol. 30 No. 9 pp. 432-448.

Yates, G.E., Stein, T.V. and Wyman, M.S. (2010), “Factors for collaboration in Florida’s tourism resources: shifting gears from participatory planning to community-based management”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 97 No. 4, pp. 213-220.

Yung, H.K.E. and Chan, H.W.E. (2012), “Critical social sustainability factors in urban conservation: the case of the central police station compound in Hong Kong”, Facilities, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 396-416.

Zoppi, C. and Lai, S. (2010), “Assessment of the Regional Landscape Plan of Sardinia (Italy): A participatory-action-research case study type”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 690-705.

Further reading Barrios, E.B. (2008), “Infrastructure and rural development: household perceptions on rural

development”, Progress in Planning, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 1-44.

F 33,1/2

142

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

http://kanchanapisek.or.th

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ress.2009.09.008&isi=000274590900004&citationId=p_111

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2004.08.010&isi=000225261500006&citationId=p_119

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.3233%2FEFI-2004-22201&citationId=p_112

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.landurbplan.2010.06.003&isi=000282411900001&citationId=p_121

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eiar.2008.01.003&isi=000261132600003&citationId=p_113

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&system=10.1108%2F02632771211235224&citationId=p_122

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2FS0929-1199%2899%2900010-3&citationId=p_114

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.landusepol.2009.09.004&isi=000276734300002&citationId=p_123

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jenvman.2006.12.027&isi=000251315300018&citationId=p_115

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.progress.2008.04.001&isi=000258818400001&citationId=p_124

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.rser.2005.08.003&isi=000244826700012&citationId=p_116

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.2495%2FSDP-V5-N1-31-42&citationId=p_109

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?doi=10.1108%2FF-01-2013-0005&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.habitatint.2010.06.004&isi=000283909000019&citationId=p_110

About the authors Preenithi Aksorn is currently a PhD candidate at the Asian Institute of Technology. He received a Bachelor of Engineering at Khon Kaen University, Thailand. He completed Master of Structural Engineering at Thummasart University, Thailand. His research dissertation topic focusses on the management of community infrastructure projects. Preenithi Aksorn is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Chotchai Charoenngam is an Associate Professor of the School of Engineering and Technology at the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. He holds an MSc in Construction Engineering and Management from the University of Kansas, USA, and a PhD in Construction Engineering and Management from the University of Texas, Austin, USA. His research interests include project planning, project scheduling, project budgeting, project development, project evaluation, project management, strategic planning, strategic policy, business planning and knowledge management. He also has professional experiences in planning, scheduling, and engineering.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

143

Sustainability factors

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

mailto:[email protected]

This article has been cited by:

1. Zileska PancovskaValentina, Valentina Zileska Pancovska, PetrushevaSilvana, Silvana Petrusheva, PetrovskiAleksandar, Aleksandar Petrovski. 2017. Predicting sustainability assessment at early facilities design phase. Facilities 35:7/8, 388-404. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

D ow

nl oa

de d

by W

al de

n U

ni ve

rs it

y A

t 00

:0 1

11 D

ec em

be r

20 17

( P

T )

https://doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2016-0033

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/F-03-2016-0033

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/F-03-2016-0033

Sustainability factors affecting local infrastructure project

1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. Research method

3.1 Pilot project: local infrastructure projects in Chiang Mai

4. Data analyses
5. Findings and discussion

5.1 Management and administration
5.2 Information and knowledge
5.3 Policy and plan
5.4 Environment and natural resource
5.5 Facility and infrastructure
5.6 Finance and budget

6. Recommendations
7. Conclusion
References