It is necessary to realise that development of sustainable designs, and in particular the aspect of adding value, starts with the clear definition of project objectives. Both the primary functional objectives of the infrastructure, and the additional objectives related to the broader range of services for sustainability in the project area, should be taken into account.
The Sand Engine, a 2-kilometre-long sandy peninsula built in 2011 to ensure the long-term safety of the Delfland coast while creating space for nature and recreation, has turned into a popular kitesurfing spot in the Netherlands due to its shallow, flat water and consistent wind.
Approaching the project design process from a more holistic point of view generally influences the choice of the system boundaries and stakeholders to involve. This in turn can result in different types of solutions, which deliberately incorporate ecosystem benefits. For the dykes discussed here, this could lead to the implementation of more mildly sloped vegetated foreshores for wave height reduction rather than the harder and steeper dyke reinforcements that are more traditionally used. For ports and waterways this can lead to accommodating more dynamics of tidal flats and channels in estuaries or the creation of habitats that provide shelter for migratory fish. The designs thus obtained align better with the natural system and are likely more acceptable to stakeholders that find these aspects important.
The broader range of services for sustainability in the project area and the additional objectives that can originate form that should be introduced as early in the design process as possible. Only then will there be maximum degrees of freedom in design choices . Doing so guarantees their full consideration throughout the design process and enables the development of truly sustainable solutions with added value for the environment, the economy and society. Later in the design process the various design alternatives will have to be evaluated for selection. It could be that at the end of the design process an alternative with a more narrow objective emerges as the preferred option. But at least all design alternatives will have been evaluated at a similar level of detail, enabling a fair comparison. When additional objectives are introduced too late in the design process, only marginal changes to the already considered design options can usually be achieved.
For this, early engagement of key stakeholders is crucial. They can provide important input on what is considered to be relevant in the given project area. Furthermore, they can help to specify the functional requirements as well as the preferred additional services the project would be expected to provide. The earlier such integral perspectives are included in the development process, the more influence they may have on the final outcome.
To actually put this approach into practice, a fundamentally different way of thinking, acting and interacting is needed:
Thinking – Thinking does not start from a certain design concept focusing on the primary function, but rather from the natural system, its dynamics, functions and services, and from the vested interests of stakeholders. Within this context, one seeks optimal solutions for the desired infrastructural functionality.
Acting – The project development process requires different action, because it is more collaborative and extends beyond the mono-disciplinary delivery of engineering objects. The natural and socio-economic components embedded in the project will take time to develop afterwards, and one has to make sure they function as expected. Post delivery monitoring and projections into the future are an integral part of the project. This also creates opportunities to learn a lot more from these projects than from traditional ones.
Interacting – Sustainable project development is a matter of co-creation between experts from different disciplines, problem owners and stakeholders. This requires a different attitude from all parties involved and different ways of interaction, in interdisciplinary collaborative settings rather than each actor taking away their task and executing it in relative isolation.
In order to influence the design process effectively it is important to understand a few things about the process of infrastructure development, which, albeit iteratively, generally goes through a number of consecutive phases.
Initiation – The Initiation phase deals with a first definition of the problem or opportunity at hand and the scoping of potential solutions. Most influence can be exerted in this phase.
Planning and design – Where the Initiation phase focused on the problem definition and project scope, the more detailed planning and design phase deals with developing alternative strategies within this given scope and handles the selection of the preferred alternative(s). Compared with the Initiation phase the degrees of freedom are reduced.
Construction – In previous phases the problem definition, project scope, project strategy and design have been addressed. The construction phase encompasses the project execution approach. As the most important design choices are now fixed only incremental improvements to the design itself can now be achieved. The incremental improvements, however, may still provide win-win opportunities for other local interests (e.g. recreation, nature development).
Operation and maintenance – The design process obviously should be extended as far as the operation and maintenance phase. Considering maintenance aspects early on in the design process may optimise the design and reduce life-cycle cost significantly. Furthermore sustainable design considerations may lead to forms of adaptive management and development that generate additional environmental and cost benefits.
Although there is room for improvement of a design in any phase, the earlier the approach is embraced in the project development process, the more significant its potential impact. Ideally several alternatives are detailed simultaneously from the start, allowing selection of the most suitable option later in the process. Rapid selection of a preferred solution early on in the design process may initially be perceived as an efficient work process – however, as time proceeds the design enters a restriction and narrowing of options, like a journey down a funnel, and it becomes increasingly difficult to change direction when necessary. These reduced degrees of freedom of various design funnels are illustrated in Figure 1. Once inside such a funnel, it becomes very difficult to fundamentally revise a design.
Reduction of degrees of freedom during consecutive stages of project development. Adopting a broader approach that allows for prolonged stakeholder inputs, a sustainable project development is likely to result in a more successful environmental and societal project implementation.
A late redesign may lack societal support or may fail to qualify for the required environmental permits. Application of sustainable design principles helps to avoid the occurrence of such awkward situations, and the associated unexpected cost increases in the later stages of the project development process. Considering the major impact of decisions taken in the early stages of project development, it is crucial that all key stakeholders, with different perspectives, are involved from the very first start of a project development.
For the design process, it is important to think from different perspectives. In general:
The (natural) environmental perspective – In any project, a good starting point to look for added value is the natural environment or ecosystem in which the project is to be embedded. Each environment is unique, with its own characteristics, values and associated opportunities.
The project perspective – Each phase of a project generally comes with a specific scope/goal. As such it represents the starting point for considering opportunities to add value.
The governance perspective’s– The governance context, i.e. the complex set of legislation, regulations, institutional arrangements and decision-making processes, etc., is a third perspective from which opportunities to add value have to be developed.
Different actors have different preferential perspectives when starting design iteration. An ecologist, for example,may take the natural environment as a starting point and consider what kind of human use the environment can support – if any. A project proponent might reason from a functional project goal where a certain trigger or ambition is formulated, and the challenge is to fit this into the environment in the most sustainable manner. A civil servant might reason from the governance perspective and analyse what kind of design is feasible from a regulatory and decision-making perspective. The challenge is then to come up with a design that fits with the governing regulations and would be acceptable given the political landscape.
Involving these different perspectives (the (natural) environmental perspective; the project perspective and the governance perspective) throughout the project development process, enriches the final design and broadens the base of support with stakeholders.
A starting point in any design process is to think about the strategic scoping of the challenge at hand. It might be tempting and even seem logical to take the expected final solution (i.e. the project that will be built) as a starting point for the definition of the objectives. Though perceived as a short-cut to rapid success at first glance, such a focused, solution-driven approach is often found to generate resistance in society, which may even jeopardise the continuity of the complete project. A narrow definition of the project objectives consequently limits the range of solutions that is taken into account. Instead, the integral problem at hand in its broadest sense should be taken as a starting point for the definition of solutions and project objectives. In other words, be careful not to focus on solutions too early.
The process described in box 2 and 3 has been called a process of “objectification”, underlining the need to specify clear objectives on the one hand, and the isolation of design components that can become objects of study on the other, both with the aim to rationalise the project development process. Its application in practice generally involves the following stages:
The described conceptual and detailed design steps are generally undertaken in an iterative manner throughout the project development process; both diverging and converging repeatedly. During diverging activities alternative solutions can be developed and proposed. These are often intuitive processes where decisions can be guided by professional judgement. During the converging activities decision-making should increasingly be guided by an evidence-based approach: what are the costs, what are the anticipated benefits, how will the solution achieve its objectives in practice and how can this be monitored properly? For the primary objectives of water infrastructure developments a proper evidence base is often available in the form of empirical data and well-tested models. For the additional objectives that are associated with sustainability, this is often not yet the case. Uncertainties have to be dealt with during the proces of designing a sustainable infrastructure project.
Key elements to facilitate such a design process are:
The development of sustainable infrastructure solutions with added value for nature and society involves interplay of physical, ecological and governance processes. The combination of these disciplines can yield new opportunities, which will improve the feasibility of hydraulic infrastructure projects (engineering perspective), in sensitive environments (ecologist perspective), while meeting societal wishes and legislative constraints (governance perspective). Setting up collaboration between representatives of these disciplines is already challenging of itself, yet it becomes even more challenging when you realise that the development and implementation of new, innovative solutions typically generates its own resistance.
Sustainable infrastructure solutions developed over the last years (e.g. Sand Engine Delfland the Netherlands, mangrove-protected shorelines Demak Indonesia, Amazonehaven Rotterdam the Netherlands, Horseshoe Bend Dredging Atchafalaya River United States, amongst others) have shown that it usually takes several years of intense collaboration to achieve the realisation of a project in practice. The experience gained from these projects allows for the formulation of generic guidance for setting up successful, multi-disciplinary collaborations:
1. Integral approach– Set up a project team that covers all relevant disciplines. The team should at least represent engineers, ecologists, policy makers and legislators; note that developing a better solution in itself is not enough, it should also be feasible within the existing legislative framework and acceptable to society. Missing out on key disciplines, even if only of secondary importance at first glance, may initiate risks and uncertainties that in the longer run can seriously hamper a project.
2. Knowledge level– Make sure all members of the team bring in sound expertise from their own discipline and are sufficiently familiar with the project or case study at hand. Integrated design of innovative solutions relies on the capability of making scientifically-robust, in-depth assessments of each key discipline. Requiring a minimum level of expertise for all members strongly facilitates interaction amongst team members and smooth decision-making during for instance integral design workshops.
3. Attitude – Besides a thorough understanding of individual disciplines, true multi-disciplinary collaboration also requires team members to be open-minded towards other disciplines. Awareness of the broader scope will help enormously in identifying and exploring innovative solutions at the interface of different fields. A similar attitude is also needed for the translation of third-party requirements into boundary conditions for more detailed mono-disciplinary studies, and vice versa the translation of the outcomes of these expert studies into meaningful findings for the broader project context.
4. Interaction– Multi-disciplinary collaboration inherently implies interaction between professionals of diverse background. Make sure sufficient time is allocated to familiarise with the other team members and become acquainted with different habits and cultures. Most notably, collaboration between hands-on professionals with a strong focus on solutions and rapid outcomes versus consensus-oriented professionals who put high value on a balanced process resulting in broadly supported solutions deserves attention. Needless to say the long time needed to arrive at a balanced compromise solution is perceived to be totally different by the two groups of professionals. The importance of a careful process of team building can therefore not be underestimated.
Early involvement of all key actors is a prerequisite for success. In addition, the design process should be open and transparent in every project phase, and the integral design workshops should be populated with the right participants. Once these aspects are in place, careful process management is needed to guide the project development process to a successful end.
Sustainable infrastructure projects operate on the boundaries of physical, ecological and socio-economic domains. As a consequence a multitude of interests and backgrounds are involved in the successful development of such projects. This is why they are usually complex and of high exposure. Thoughtful management of these interests – as well as combining them as much as possible in a specific design – is essential for project success. Effective incorporation of interests can only be achieved by careful engagement of stakeholders. Today, more and more projects are developed in a stakeholder-inclusive way. However, due to their novel and innovative nature, sustainable solutions can encounter resistance, as unfamiliarity often triggers a conservative response. Attentive identification and involvement of stakeholders can help make dynamic, sustainable solutions feasible.
Stakeholders can be defined as “any group or individual who can actively affect or be affected by the project development”. As such, stakeholders can be anything from individuals affected by a project through to large-scale NGOs whose organisational goals are related to aspects of the project. A practical approach for stakeholder analysis is available, which essentially relies on a systematic identification and classification of relevant stakeholders, followed by the assessment of their interests and power.
The decision which stakeholders should be involved in a project development process is a strategic choice. In general, people should be involved if they have information that cannot be gained otherwise, or if their participation is necessary to assure successful implementation of the initiative. Normally, stakeholders are identified through structured brainstorming sessions by the project initiators, taking into account both existing networks as well as new actors gained from public hearings. Considering the innovative nature of sustainable water infrastructure solutions, it is suggested to be very open-minded about involving interested stakeholders, including those you may initially not think of. They may turn out to be the deciding factor for project acceptance and a driver for project success.
In participation processes, a large number of stakeholders can be present. Not all of these stakeholders have the same attitude towards the project, and they are not equally important either. Therefore, it is important to identify the role of different stakeholders in the envisaged project development, so that specifuc management strategies can be utilised for their involvement. Stakeholder analysis can easily be done using stakeholder matrices, such as “power versus interest” or “problem-frame versus stakeholder”.
By combining interest and power, it is possible to map each actor in one of four positions in a matrix (i.e. key players, context setters, subjects and crowd) and prioritise them according to their importance for the project (see Figure 2).
Classification of stakeholders via interest-power matrix.
Generally speaking, stakeholders wish to be involved in the process of project development. However, not all stakeholders are equally concerned with the project. Close engagement of key stakeholders is fundamental to the success of a water infrastructure development, which justifies a substantial effort to ensure their involvement. Open stakeholder engagement is supported and recommended, however, it is also recognised to be costly and time consuming so, inevitably, resources will need to be focused on the main groups. It is helpful to categorise the stakeholders and adopt different engagement strategies for each category. The position in the interest-power matrix (Figure 2) provides a basis to decide which action to take. It is important to realise that the four different stakeholder groups identified in Figure 3 have a very different position and attitude towards the project. For that reason, different strategies should be followed to ensure appropriate involvement:
Key players (high power, high interest): Important to keep them fully involved and satisfied with the project plans. These are stakeholders with high power and high interest. Their involvement can relate to the actor's own interest as well as the project developer's interest in what the actor can add to the project in terms of relevant knowledge, perspectives and resources. These are the people to fully and intensively engage in the processes and as such warrant and require the most effort. They should be actively involved in the project development and consulted regularly.
Context setters (high power, low interest): Keep included and well informed.These are stakeholders with high power but less interest. Their power provides part of the context in which a development is pursued. It is important to invest enough effort to keep them included. When possible, try to increase their level of interest as this is of benefit to all.
Subjects (high interest, low power): Keep informed.These are stakeholders with low power but high value. Often these actors can be helpful with identifying opportunities for further improvement of the design for the project and often include supporters/ ambassadors to the project.
Crowd (low interest, low power): Monitor. These are stakeholders with low power and low interest. These should be monitored and informed passively via general communication means (website, newsletter). When possible, try to increase their level of interest. The identification of stakeholders that might become key players is especially crucial to a project's success. They have a high political interest and are powerful enough to stop the project completely or make sure that it succeeds. Economic interests are often secondary to the position actors take.
Strategies for stakeholder engagement.
Environmental legislation and regulation (or at least their interpretation) can pose an impediment to successful implementation of sustainable solutions, for instance, if they are exclusively focused on reducing environmental impact in a way that reduces opportunities to create environmental gains. This was often the case with many earlier regulations on sediments that originated from dealing with sediments that were subject to high levels of contamination. Sediment quality is much improved in many areas today. However, the past regulatory focus has led to circumstances where excessive concern is sometimes focused on very low levels of contamination, making it economically and/or logistically infeasible to use that sediment beneficially to create much needed aquatic habitat.
On the other hand, a well-developed system of environmental legislation can encourage the development and implementation of sustainable infrastructure solutions. Such a system guides the development of sound project requirements which realistically reect the perspectives of project proponents, contractors and other stakeholders. A good example comes from the London Convention, which requires countries to consider beneficial use of dredged material prior to granting a disposal licence. In the UK for instance, this was successfully implemented through the Marine Management Organisation for offshore disposal activities. In that sense, the regulatory regime in the UK is an enabling factor for the implementation of sustainable infrastructure solutions.
As nature-inclusive solutions promote the development of rich communities of ora and fauna, future maintenance of the infrastructure becomes a potential concern if that maintenance will be constrained due to the presence of the very communities of ora and fauna that the project produced. This circumstance could make maintenance more complex and costly, thus reducing the motivation to include nature-inclusive components as part of sustainable strategies for infrastructure projects. Similar considerations apply to the maintenance of land reclamations during the period before they are actually put into use. If habitat improvement leads to the introduction of rare vegetation and/ or species, it might hamper future use of the infrastructure asset. In such a case, early discussion and formal agreements amongst partners, regulators, sponsors and other stakeholders should be encouraged to alleviate such concerns, and hence to avoid hampering the sustainable solution.
In addition, it is not just legislation and regulations that can impede the process, rigid institutional arrangements can also obstruct the implementation of sustainable infrastructure solutions. The other way around advancing practice related to sustainable, for example Nature-based Solutions (NbS) can help improve institutional practices across multiple levels of government and other organisations.
Least but not last, it is important to pay attention to financial arrangements. Also this aspect should be adressed early on in the process of project development. As sustainable solutions usually address multiple objectives and governmental responsibilities are often spread across different agencies and/or departments, integral solutions can also demand for integral financing schemes. In the Netherlands for instance, truly integral financing of a sustainable solution to guarantee safety against flooding with simultaneous benefits for nature and recreation would require participation of at least the national Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management as well as regional and local public bodies, such as the province, council and the water board. Setting up such arrangements can be time consuming.
In summary, it is essential to identify possible project enablers and/or impediments related to legislation, regulations and institutional arrangements at the earliest stage possible, and to actively engage the actors involved in all successive steps of project development.
Application of sustainable development principles in hydraulic infrastructure projects can introduce new challenges for successful project procurement. Two key issues play a role in that respect:
1. Evaluation of integral costs and benefits– Sustainable solutions usually address more than one objective, and aim to include extra benefits for nature and society next to the primary function of the proposed infrastructure. This implies such solutions cannot be evaluated on the basis of monetary costs alone, but require a broader, more integral evaluation. Project contracting on the basis of Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) offers a good basis for that.
2. Handling project risk– As previously stated, sustainable solutions are inherently associated with a degree of risk. These risks can cover a variety of issues, including fears on future natural development, its operational effectiveness during the lifelime of the infrastructure, the outcome of the envisaged cost-benefit analysis and the societal acceptance of innovative, sustainable solutions. Whereas the more traditional arrangements (Build-only, Design and construct) aim to assess and allocate risk between the parties prior to contract award, new arrangements like early contractor involvement and alliance contracts (public-private partnerships (PPPs) aim to settle these on the basis of increased knowledge and insights developed during project preparation. Setting up and operating of either early contractor involvement or an alliance type contract relies on open collaboration and demands a different procurement process. Guidance for the latter is provided in box 5.
Considering the integral and innovative nature of sustainable infrastructure projects, the selected contract arrangement should allow the involvement of specialists from different backgrounds (knowledge institutes, consultants, government, contractors) during the early stages of project development. This can be achieved through all arrangements listed in box 4, albeit that early contractor involvement generally offers more direct benefit and flexibility than the traditional procument approach. Furthermore, it is important to assess the preferred contracting method early on in the process of project development, as this will govern the degrees of freedom available to introduce nature-based elements in the project design and timings for when this should be achieved.
Download the PDF version of this article with high resolution pictures and layout.
