Tài liệu International conference on sustainable infrastructure 2017 methodology

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 METHODOLOGY Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 > New York, New York > October 26–28, 2017 EDITED BY Lucio Soibelman, Ph.D. Feniosky Peña-Mora, Sc.D. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE 2017 METHODOLOGY PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE 2017 October 26–28, 2017 New York, New York SPONSORED BY Committee on Sustainability of the American Society of Civil Engineers EDITED BY Lucio Soibelman, Ph.D. Feniosky Peña-Mora, Sc.D RESTON, VIRGINIA Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Published by American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382 www.asce.org/publications | ascelibrary.org Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents. ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be requested by sending an e-mail to [email protected] or by locating a title in ASCE's Civil Engineering Database (http://cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library (http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link. Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481196 Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-7844-8119-6 (PDF) Manufactured in the United States of America. International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Preface THE CHALLENGE Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. The 2017 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure focused on developing roadmaps to address the UN Sustainability Goals of developing Sustainable cities and building resilient infrastructure as well as the NAE Grand Challenge to "restore and improve urban infrastructure," all while supporting the ASCE Grand Challenge of "how we can work together towards the shared goal of reducing life cycle costs by 50% by 2025 and foster the optimization of infrastructure for society." THE ASCE The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is respected worldwide for bringing to the forefront new ideas and critical concepts and technical knowledge on subjects of importance to the civil engineering professions and the public and private clients that civil engineers serve. Specialty conferences of the ASCE, such as ICSI2017, bring together, educate and inform the diverse civil engineering community, including practitioners, public and private infrastructure owners, policy makers, researchers, graduates and engineering students. The workshops, keynote lectures, panel discussions and tours broadened our understanding of research underway and best practices in the field. THE CONFERENCE The International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure for an Uncertain World addressed what we know about an uncertain future, and probed the edges of what we do not know. Uncertainty prods engineers to go deeper, seek higher, and initiate research collaborations to assure that the best efforts can be brought together to combat the impact of climate change and energy unpredictability. THE GOALS These proceedings fulfill a primary purpose of the ICSI2017 conference: to assemble, deliver and disseminate a cogent and comprehensive assessment of he current state of sustainable infrastructure in an uncertain world. Local and global decision-making on energy policy, infrastructure maintenance, enhancement and replacement and investments in hydrology and transit were discussed and debated by experts from around the world. Those working to maintain and improve infrastructure performance in a rapidly changing operating environment face difficult and unprecedented challenges pertaining to lack of predictability, both fiscal and political. Civil engineers and allied professionals working for progressive public and private clients are able to take the long view in regards to the systems and public space that helps define the success of world class cities, from New © ASCE iii International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 York to Paris, and Shenzhen to Montreal. To constructively provide infrastructure solutions to emerging needs, and responses that transcend electoral vicissitudes or geographic determinants, a broad, more long-ranging perspective becomes the cornerstone of the civil engineering profession's values and value. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. THE SPEAKERS This conference began with an emphasis on the role of cities and metropolitan areas, with keynote speakers that included some of the most distinguished luminaries from the civil engineering academic and professional communities. They were complemented by two strong and pragmatic voices for grand visions and reinventing the possible: New York City's First Deputy Mayor Anthony Shorris and Paris Deputy Mayor Jean-Louis Missika. THE TECHNICAL SESSIONS The technical sessions address issues of methodology, technology, finance, policy and education while describing case studies, projects, research and lessons learned about sustainability, resilience and social equity. THE PUBLICATION This publication includes all papers presented by the authors in the plenaries, the technical sessions and concurrent poster sessions. The technical papers range from five to twelve pages and describe in significant detail the results and findings from both research and practice-oriented projects of broad interest to the civil engineering community. Case studies are also included. Each of the papers accepted for podium or poster presentation received a detailed review and evaluation by members of the Steering and Advisory Committees. The papers published in this proceeding are organized on 3 main areas: (1) Technology, (2) Policy, Finance, and Education, and (3) Methodology. Acknowledgments The editors of this publication, on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the ICSI2017 Steering Committee, Advisory Committee and Technical Committee, wish to acknowledge and thank all those who presented from the conference podium or at the poster session. The editors also thank those who served on the conference committees, including those at the NYC Metropolitan Chapter of the ASCE. Reviewing papers, moderating and introducing panel discussions and organizing site visits and tours are often thankless tasks which individually and collectively made this conference possible and these Proceedings a reality. © ASCE iv International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 2017 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure Organizing Committee Conference Chair Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Feniosky Peña-Mora, ScD, FCIOB, NAC Technical Chair/Proceedings Editor Lucio Soibelman, PhD Sponsorship Chair Paul Zofnass Local Organizing Committee Chair Art Alzamora Conference Steering Committee Feniosky Peña-Mora (Chair), Rick Bell, Lucio Soibelman, John Crittenden, Bill Wallace, Doug Sereno, Michel Khouday, Katherine Sierra, Elizabeth Ruedas Conference Advisory Committee Stephen Ayres, Rick Chandler, Kathryn Garcia, Lorraine Grillo, Hank Hatch, Michael Horodniceanu, Bryan Jones, Benjamin Prosky, Vincent Sapienza, Mitchell Silver, Ponisseril Somasondaran, James Starace, Maria Torres-Springer, Polly Trottenberg , Vilas Mujumdar, Richard Anderson Conference Technical Committee Lucio Soibelman (Chair), Samuel Ariaratnam, David Ashley, Patrick Askew, Gina Bocra, Mikhail Chester, Glen Daigger, Cliff Davidson, John DeFlorio, Reginald DesRoches, Christine Flaherty, Jack Fritz, Theresa Harrison, Dan Hoornweg, Arpad Horvath, Beatrice Hunt, Chris Hendrickson, Marie Jean-Louis, Bill Kelly, John Lazzara, Angela Licata, Ray Palmares, Rosa Rijos, Encer Shaffer, Gina Bocra, Marie Jean-Louis, Mikhail Chester, Thewodros Geberemariam © ASCE v International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Contents Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. A Research Framework for Compiling and Evaluating Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Incentive Programs ...................... 1 Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany Sustainable and Resilient Cities: Is It an Infrastructure Problem?..................... 11 Youssef Diab An Envision Rating System Approach to Sustainable Infrastructure in Latin America and the Caribbean .......................................................................... 20 C. Contreras and T. Gloria Application of Envision for Enhanced Evaluation of Alternatives in Wastewater Utility Capital Improvement Projects ............................................... 32 Evan C. Bowles, Evelio Agustin, Norman Bradley, Enrique Vadiveloo, James G. Mueller, and James B. Ferguson Chemistry of Stormwater Runoff from a Large Green Roof in Syracuse, NY ............................................................................................................. 45 Alexander Johnson and Cliff I. Davidson Climate Change Vulnerability in the North Cascades .......................................... 53 C. D. DeLorto Decision Support System for Optimum Lifetime Sustainability-Based Maintenance Planning of Highway Bridges ........................................................... 65 Samantha Sabatino and Dan M. Frangopol Engineers Are Telling the TBL-CBA Value Story: Financial + Social + Environmental Returns from Sustainable Infrastructure .................................... 73 John F. Williams, James Grant, Peter J. Hall, and Kari Hewitt Evaluating a Survey of Public Livability Perceptions and Quality-of-Life Indicators: Considering Freight-Traffic Impact ................................................... 86 Golnaz Sarram and Stephanie S. Ivey Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project―East End Crossing: Evaluating Sustainability Performance on a P3 Transportation Mega Project ............................................................................................................. 99 Catherine T. Sheane and Shawn J. Woodruff © ASCE vi International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Factor Analysis of Construction Delays in the U.S. Construction Industry ................................................................................................................... 111 Mohammadsoroush Tafazzoli and Pramen Shrestha Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. High-Level Framework for GIS-Based Optimization of Building Photovoltaic Potential at Urban Scale Using BIM and LiDAR .......................... 123 N. Salimzadeh and A. Hammad Green Development: A Case for Bangladesh? ..................................................... 135 Simi Hoque How Do Green Healthcare Facilities Perform Financially When Compared to Non-Green Hospitals Overtime? Results from a National Database................................................................................................................... 145 Hessam Sadatsafavi, Mardelle Shepley, Amy Kim, and Huy Huynh Howard Beach Flood Risk Reduction Study: Valuing Nature’s Role ............... 161 Jonathan Goldstick, Mary Jo Kealy, Emily Nobel Maxwell, Lauren Allemen, Joshua Carrera, and Elizabeth C. Smith Community Resiliency Assessments: A New Application of Risk Management Tools Developed for the Hunts Point Neighborhood in the Bronx, New York City ............................................................................................ 171 R. Beduhn, J. Colon, J. Cook, E. Sossenkina, J. Stein, C. Strickland, and L. Yeung Integrating GIS and BIM for Community-Scale Energy Modeling .................. 185 Y. Bai, P. A. Zadeh, S. Staub-French, and R. Pottinger Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete Industry in Developing Nations ................. 197 Pamela Semaan, Mirella Abdel Massih, Mario Chalouhy, Sophia Ghanimeh, and Dima Jawad Life-Cycle Assessment of the Energy Code for Office Buildings Using the Prescriptive Approach in Israel ............................................................................ 207 S. Pushkar and O. Verbitsky Maintaining Reliability of Transportation Systems and Interconnected Infrastructure under Climate Change .................................................................. 219 Samuel A. Markolf, Christopher Hoehne, Andrew Fraser, and Mikhail Chester Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Civil Infrastructure Projects Using Green Performance Bond............................................................................ 231 Sadegh Asgari, Xinyi Song, and Ibrahim Odeh Modeling of Traffic Carbon Monoxide Emissions in Urban Communities ...... 244 Y. J. Kuo, N. Li, and D. Lopez © ASCE vii International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Multi-Objective Optimization for Rehabilitation of Heath Facilities ................ 254 M. Salah, H. Osman, and O. Hosny Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. New York City’s Water-Energy Nexus: A Tool to Measure Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Water Sustainability Initiatives ............................................. 268 Elaine Labate, Paul Knowles, Sandeep Mehrotra, Alan Cohn, John Brock, and Mikael Amar PANYNJ Sustainable Design Guidelines and Envision ...................................... 280 Melissa Targett Power System Planning and Operation across Multiple Coincident Non-Stationary Temperature Futures .................................................................. 293 Daniel Burillo, Mikhail Chester, and Benjamin Ruddell Analyzing the Drivers of Pedestrian Activity at High Spatial Resolution ......... 303 Yuan Lai and Constantine Kontokosta Regional Stormwater BMPs .................................................................................. 315 L. Tortuya Resilient by Design: Approaches to Advancing Climate Resilience in the Greater New York City Region ............................................................................. 322 Peter H. Adams, Susan Yoon, and Josh DeFlorio Sustainability of Moving Atlanta Interstate Highways within the Perimeter Underground: Preliminary Detour Analysis ..................................... 329 Mengmeng Liu and J. David Frost Sustainable Infrastructure through an Effective Quality Management System ...................................................................................................................... 340 Mohammad Saleem and Indra Banerjee Temporary Works for Major Infrastructure Projects: Need for a Risk Analysis Based Approach....................................................................................... 351 Krishnan Murugappan and Vidya Murugappan The Nexus of Urban Energy-Water-Mobility Futures: Key Transitions and Their Potential Impacts ...................................................... 359 Samuel White, Joshua Sperling, and Ilan Juran Urban Infrastructure and Social Conflict in Latin America .............................. 377 Hendrik Meller, Sven-Uwe Müller, Maria Cecilia Ramirez, Tomás Serebrisky, Graham Watkins, and Andreas Georgoulias © ASCE viii International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Intervention Strategy for Enhanced User Satisfaction Based on User Requirement Related BPAs for Government Residential Buildings ................. 389 Col S. Gopikrishnan and Virendra Kumar Paul Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Using Sustainable Return on Investment to Evaluate an Alternative Use of Biogas at the Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant ......... 405 Jeremy Holland Improving Reliability of Urban Water Systems under Southwest Climate Change Stressors ..................................................................................................... 419 Emily N. Bondank, Mikhail V. Chester, and Benjamin Ruddell © ASCE ix International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 A Research Framework for Compiling and Evaluating Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Incentive Programs Mohammed S. Hashem M. Mehany, Ph.D.1 1 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Assistant Professor, Construction Management Dept., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523-1584. Abstract Green infrastructure (GI) and low impact developments (LID) benefits have been realized environmentally and economically. However, the application of the GI and (LID) is hampered by the lack of funding for stormwater utilities combined with the hesitancy of the private sector to take on the financing risk and transaction costs. Therefore, there are currently dozens of incentive programs and innovative financing models to attract private sector sources into GI and LID implementation beyond the minimum development ordinance requirements. While the multitude of incentive programs at the federal and state levels for GI and LID is encouraging, there is no assessment of those program’s success, failures or the lessons learned from them. Although, there have been many case studies done by the EPA and others, there is no comprehensive research of the exact incentive programs and/or their effectiveness. The objective of this paper is to provide a research framework for creating an extensive, easy-to-navigate compendium of incentive programs that is categorized by several attributes for the end users as well as to establish a comprehensive set of measurable performance indicators for incentive programs that help the end-users to identify the most efficient incentives. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure can be defined as a network of interconnected green space that maintains the natural ecosystem and provides the human population its associated benefits. However, the definitions of green infrastructure are numerous and diverse (Benedict & McMahon, 2012). It generally embodies several components as a holistic approach including storm water management, climate adaptation, heat stress reduction, biodiversity, food production, air quality, sustainable energy production, clean water and healthy soils, as well as increasing quality of life through recreation and providing shade and shelter in and around towns and cities (Lehmann, 2010; Naumann et.al, 2011). U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines the green infrastructure in two scales. The first scale is the macro scale level represented in a country or a mega city in which green infrastructure acts as patchwork of natural areas that provide habitat, flood protection, clean air and water. The second scale is the micro level represented in the neighborhood or site where the green infrastructure acts as the storm water management systems mimicking the nature by soaking up and storing water (EPA, 2015a). The exact term of green infrastructure application was originated in a Florida 1994 report to the governor, regarding land conservation © ASCE 1 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 strategies, which emphasized the importance of natural systems as components of infrastructure in addition to the existing grey infrastructure systems (Firehock, 2013). Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Low Impact Development (LID) One of the main components of green infrastructure is the Low Impact Development (LID) designs that attempt to mimic and restore the pre-development hydrologic conditions resulting in less surface runoff (storm water), less pollution and improved water quality (EPA, 2015 b; Coffman, 2002; Davis, 2005). LID features many practices such as bioretention, Grass Swales, rain gardens and vegetative roof covers, permeable pavements and many more. Green Infrastructure, LID systems and their best practices implementation have proven to be of great benefit in mitigating flood risks, increasing water supply, reducing urban heat islands, improving air quality, increasing climate resiliency, providing habitat connectivity, improving recreation space, and increasing property values through many studies over the last decade (EPA, 2000; Wise, 2008; Dunn, 2010; Ahiablame, Engel, & Chaubey, 2012; Sexton, 2014; Kramer, 2014; Shafique & Kim, 2015). GI AND LID INCENTIVE PROGRAMS In the last decade, Green infrastructure and LID benefits have been realized environmentally and economically. A U.S. EPA study of six communities concluded that “on average, every $1 spent on source-water protection saved an average of $27 in water treatment costs” (Winiecki, 2012). Many other studies confirmed the economic and social benefits such as reducing grey infrastructure investments and the associated wastewater pumping and treatment costs, reducing energy consumption, improving air quality, increasing climate resiliency, providing habitat connectivity and recreation space, increasing property values among many others (Horinko Group, 2015; Gartner et.al., 2014; Myles, 2014; EPA, 2013; Gallet, 2011). However, the application of the green infrastructure and LID is hampered by the lack of funding for stormwater utilities combined with the hesitancy of the private sector to take on the financing risk and transaction costs (Cotting, 2013; Horinko Group, 2015). Therefore, there are currently dozens of incentive programs and innovative financing models to attract private sector sources into green infrastructure implementation beyond the minimum development ordinance requirements. These infrastructure & LID incentive programs include but are not limited to low/no interest loans, land banking until property value rise, urban easement and new market tax credits, tax increment financing, reinvestment zoning, and many other incentive programs used all over the U.S. (Horinko Group, 2015). RESEARCH NEED While the multitude of incentive programs at the federal and state levels for green infrastructure and LIDs is encouraging, there is no assessment of those program’s success, failures or the lessons learned from them. Although, there have been many case studies done by the EPA and others (Hall, 2010; Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010; EPA, 2013; Jaffe, 2011; Allen, 2012; Mayer et.al, 2012), there is no comprehensive © ASCE 2 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. research on the different variations of the incentive programs and/or their effectiveness. Some of these programs might be very successful while others might struggle with issues where the economics for the incentives are not favorable due to low fees and the credits/rebates associated with these fees (Thurston et.al, 2008). Also, incentive programs are not a one size fits all. Hence, the end-users represented by utility and stormwater program managers, city planners, and water demand managers cannot depend on one anecdotal case study or an incentive program bestpractices that have been developed for a different size utility or one that is operating in a very different location with different environmental and economic conditions. Therefore, the end-users are in need to access a compendium of incentive programs that is organized and sorted by attributable characteristics (size, location, financial structure, etc.…) along with a benchmark that determines the effectiveness of different programs based on quantitative measures. With an attribute-based compendium of incentive programs and established benchmarks, utilities will be able to learn from these programs and establish and promote better cost-effective incentives that are customized to their needs, size, location and operational structure. Given this, the main objectives of this paper is to provide a detailed research framework for the creation of an extensive, easy-to-navigate compendium of incentive programs that is categorized by several attributes (e.g. types, geographic location and size of utilities) for the end users. It will also establish the base to devise a comprehensive set of measurable performance indicators for GI and LID incentive programs that helps the end-users to identify the most efficient incentives through a simple decision framework. RESEARCH APPROACH/METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK The proposed research framework will adopt a thorough comprehensive methodology to identify, examine and analyze key/major GI and LID incentive programs. In addition, the research will develop measurable quantitative metrics to assess and benchmark the efficiency of the different incentive programs and base the recommendations on solid qualitative and quantitative platforms. The methodology is built on a conglomerate of well-established conventional research methods including literature review, interviews, workshops and primary data collection and analysis. The full research framework including all the phases and the tasks employing these methods is diagrammed in Figure 1. The main methods to be used in this framework is as in the following: Literature Review: review and organize published information on the different incentive programs for GI and LID and their application in different settings (size, location, regulatory restrictions) to summarize and synthesize relevant findings and information. A literature review establishes a sound foundation for research by surveying the past and current studies in the field to identify the current state of knowledge and documents the need for the proposed study (Creswell, 2009). © ASCE 3 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Interviews: conduct semi-structured interviews with the identified range of stakeholders and subject matter experts by asking fixed-structured questions with an option of follow-up with open-ended questions to obtain the needed information and capitalize on their experience in the subject matter (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Empirical Evaluation and Data Collection: Build on the previous two methods (Literature Reviews & Interviews) to develop comprehensive quantitative metrics/performance indicators to evaluate the incentive programs’ performance. This also include developing a data collection tool to collect these metrics from a representative sample of different incentive programs. The data collection tool is a flexible tool to collect data from different utilities that implement incentive programs with different settings as they pertain to their geographical location, size, regulatory restrictions, etc. Workshops: Engage experts from water utilities and use the industry stakeholders’ expertise in interactive sessions to brainstorm, identify, confer, and add metrics/performance indicators and quantitative measure for the incentive programs. Data Analysis: Analyze the collected data through a non-parametric analysis to benchmark different incentive programs. This will establish references for the best practices to select or create successful incentives based on specific attributes. The aforementioned research methods will be employed according to the phases and tasks in the research approach as shown in Figure 1. Phases 1 and 2 are aiming to achieve the objective of producing a compendium of research that will identify successes and lessons learned on how GI and LID can be incentivized on private property. Phases 3 and 4 will be tasked to achieve the objective of developing and collecting measurable quantitative metrics for the incentive programs in order to benchmark the different incentives and select the most effective recommendations for practice. Phase 1: Extensive Literature Review and Jurisdiction Targeting The main goal of the literature review is to explore the current state of knowledge and research regarding the implementation and the success and failures of the different incentive programs across different utilities and jurisdictions. This task will also accumulate all the pertinent information from different published literature and the existing case studies on the GI and LID incentives programs that encourage private investment or public-private partnerships (PPP). The main outcome of this phase is to identify and create a diverse list of potential key/major incentive programs (stakeholders) to be targeted for data collection and interviews in the next phase of research. The diversity of the list is paramount to insure that the research covers a variety of incentive programs with different attributes such as goals, type, size, etc... © ASCE 4 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 5 Phase 1 – Extensive Literature Review & Jurisdiction Targeting Task 1 Literature Review Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Outcome 1.1 Identification of Key/ Major Incentive Programs Outcome 1.2 Identification of Key Jurisdictions Phase 2 – Engaging Targeted Jurisdictions Task 2 Engaging Targeted Jurisdictions Outcome 2.1 Compilation of Incentive Programs Outcome 2.2 Categorization of Incentive Programs Attributes Phase 3 – Establish/Develop and Collect Quantitative Metrics Task 3 Data Metrics Development & Collection Outcome 3.1 Outcome 3.2 Measurable Quantitative Metrics Data Sets & Databases Phase 4 – Data Analysis and Recommendations Task 4 Analysis & Report Compilation Outcome 4.1 Outcome 4.2 Outcome 4.3 Benchmarking Incentive Programs Recommendations Best Practices Figure 1. Research Framework © ASCE International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 This phase will also help to design structured potential interview questions for the identified set of diverse stakeholders to warrant quantitative and qualitative responses that will confer previously established measurable performance indicators for the incentive programs as well as to identify new ones. Phase 2: Engaging Targeted Jurisdiction Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. This phase will be tasked with the collection of the incentive programs that will be based on geo-specific targeting to accumulate a representative sample of the incentive programs all across the U.S. The collection of the incentive programs will be through meetings, interviews and follow up calls with the utilities/jurisdictions identified. In this phase, the compiled programs will be organized based on a developed set of attributes based on the types of incentives (Water Environment Federation “WEF” recognized types), the geographic location and the size of utilities. These efforts will help leverage the experts’ input regarding the attributes of the incentive programs, and assist in the identification of the qualitative and quantitative evaluation measures and performance indicators. The main outcomes of this phase is to compile a comprehensive exhaustive list of green infrastructure, LID and incentive programs that identify successes, failures/challenges and lessons learned for each program. In addition, this compendium will be categorized by several attributes (e.g. types, geographic location and size of utilities) to provide an easy to navigate accessible database/results for the end users. Phase 3: Data Metrics Development and Collection This phase will be tasked with final development and collection of measurable metrics/performance indicators for the incentive programs which will be referenced to the sustainability triple bottom line (TBL): 1) Economic bottom line, 2) Environmental bottom line, and 3) Social bottom line. The choice of the performance metrics will be determined and based upon interview questions (identified in task 1) along with a series of workshops to confer and validate the incentive programs metrics. These workshops will be a central part of this phase with the goal to engage experts from water utilities and the industry to confer old and establish new performance metrics for the incentive programs. A demonstration example of these metrics are as shown in figure 2. The data collection tool will be a flexible survey tool to collect the performance data from different utilities that implement incentive programs with different attributes (e.g. location, size, etc.). The main outcomes of this phase is to Identify and establish a comprehensive set of measurable performance indicators for GI and LID incentive programs which will be the base for the datasets to be analyzed in phase 4. © ASCE 6 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Triple Bottom Line Green Infrastructure Performance Metrics Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Impact on Infrastructure Costs Affordability of housing costs Econ. Cost to City (taxes) PPP Enhancement Water Quality Improvement Enviro. Runoff Reduction (Rate) Runoff Reduction (Volume) Enhance Living condition Social Increase Recreation Figure 2. Demonstration of Performance Indicators referenced by the Sustainability Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Phase 4: Analysis & Recommendation The final phase is tasked with the analysis of the datasets collected, organized, and categorized by the predefined attributes. The data will be analyzed to benchmark different incentive programs and identify the most efficient incentives for the different datasets. The results of this analysis will then provide the basis for recommendations and best practices for identifying the most efficient incentives by a utility/jurisdiction. Several statistical tools can be used separately or combined for the analysis including but not limited to Causey-Trager Benchmarking, non-parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Natural Cubic Splines Benchmarking Method. Causey-Trager Benchmarking is an iterative nonlinear method that uses numerical algorithm subjected to asset of constraints. DEA is a nonparametric that is © ASCE 7 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. based on production theory and the principles of linear programming to imperially measure decision making efficiency while Natural Cubic splines is an interpolating method that uses new points to form a converging function toward the optimal results. The benchmarking and evaluation of the different incentive programs will identify the most efficient incentives based on different attributes. It will also provide wellinformed recommendations for future efficient incentives and incentive programs based on past data. It will also act as a simple decision framework and/or best practice that helps to select the suitable incentive or establish an efficient incentive program based on specific attributes. EXPECTED RESULTS AND BENEFITS The key expected results and outputs of the research approach following the aforementioned main framework are as in the following: • To identify and develop a list/inventory of incentive programs across the country that represent different attributes and conditions for utilities and municipalities. This list/inventory will be based on the in-depth literature and case study review and the interviews of a diverse range of stakeholders that mostly include but not limited to the water utilities and municipalities who are implementing incentive programs. • To identify, document and compile the different incentive programs and categorize the programs by specific attributes such as goals, type, size, etc. • To produce a well-organized and categorized compendium of GI and LID incentive programs. • To develop triple bottom line (economic, environmental and social) performance metrics for the different incentive programs. • To create a flexible data collection tool that allows for collecting incentive programs’ performance data for a broad range of utilities/municipalities that varies in their attributes. • To collect organized datasets and analyze the collected data through a nonparametric analysis in order to identify and recommend the most successful and efficient incentives and the best practices for establishing an efficient incentive program based on specific attributes. • To provide a simple decision framework for the end-user as a best practice for establishing or selecting an efficient incentive program based on specific attributes. REFERENCES Ahiablame, L. M., Engel, B. A., & Chaubey, I. (2012). Effectiveness of low impact development practices: literature review and suggestions for future research. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 223(7), 4253-4273. Allen, W. L. (2012). Environmental Reviews And Case Studies: Advancing Green Infrastructure at All Scales: From Landscape to Site. Environmental Practice, 14(01), 17-25. © ASCE 8 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2012). Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities: Island Press. Coffman, L. S. (2002). Low impact development: Smart technology for clean water definitions, issues, roadblocks, and next steps. Paper presented at the Global Solutions for Urban Drainage, Proc. of the Ninth Int. Conf. on Urban Drainage, Sept 8-13 2002, Portland, OR. Cotting, J. (2013). Encouraging Efficient Green Infrastructure Investment. National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council and the US Forest Service: Environmental Finance Center University of Maryland Creswell, W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, SAGE Publications, Inc. Davis, A. P. (2005). Green engineering principles promote low-impact development. Environmental science & technology, 39(16), 338A-344A. Dunn, A. D. (2010). Siting green infrastructure: legal and policy solutions to alleviate urban poverty and promote healthy communities. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 37. EPA. (2000). Low Impact Development (LID): a literature review: United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC. EPA. (2013). Case Studies Analyzing the Economic Benefits of Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Programs: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. (2015a). Urban Runoff: Low Impact Development. Retrieved 8-1-2016, 2015, from https://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/urbanrunoff-low-impact-development EPA. (2015b). What is Green Infrastructure? Retrieved 9-1-2015, 2015, from http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm Firehock, K. (2013). EVALUATING AND CONSERVING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE: A Practitioner’s Guide. Charlottesville, Virginia, USA: The Green Infrastructure Center Inc. Gallet, D. (2011). The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2011(17), 924-928. Gartner, T., MEHAN III, G. T., Mulligan, J., Roberson, J. A., Stangel, P., & Qin, Y. (2014). Protecting forested watersheds is smart economics for water utilities. Journal of American Water Works Association, 106. Hall, A. (2010). Green infrastructure case studies: municipal policies for managing stormwater with Green Infrastructure. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: http://rfcd. pima. gov/pdd/lid/pdfs/40-usepagi-casestudies-2010. pdf. Horinko Group. (2015). The Role of Green Infrastructure - Nature, Economics, and Resilience: CLC - Conservation Leadership Council © ASCE 9 International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Jaffe, M. (2011). Environmental reviews & case studies: reflections on Green Infrastructure economics. Environmental Practice, 12(04), 357-365. Kazmierczak, A., & Carter, J. (2010). Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure. A database of case studies. Kramer, M. G. (2014). Enhancing Sustainable Communities With Green Infrastructure - Guide To Help Communities Better Manage Stormwater While Achieving Other Environmental, Public Health, Social, And Economic Benefits: EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency Kvale, S.; Brinkmann, S. 2009. InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Lehmann, S. (2010). Green urbanism: Formulating a series of holistic principles. SAPI EN. S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society(3.2). Mayer, A. L., Shuster, W. D., Beaulieu, J. J., Hopton, M. E., Rhea, L. K., Roy, A. H., & Thurston, H. W. (2012). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Building Green Infrastructure via Citizen Participation: A Six-Year Study in the Shepherd Creek (Ohio). Environmental Practice, 14(01), 57-67. doi: doi:10.1017/S1466046611000494 Myles, K. (2014). Economic Benefits of Low-Impact Development and Green Infrastructure: Case Studies: Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. Naumann, S., Davis, M., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M., & Rayment, M. (2011). Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report, European Commission, Brussels, 138. Sexton, B. (2014). Potential Stormwater Runoff Reductions by Incorporating Low Impact Development: Rocky Branch Watershed, Columbia, SC. Shafique, M., & Kim, R. (2015). Low impact development practices: a review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S, 22(4), 543-563. Thurston, H. W., Roy, A. H., Shuster, W. D., Cabezas, H., Morrison, M., & Taylor, M. (2008). Using economic incentives to manage stormwater runoff in the Shepherd Creek Watershed, Part I. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 45268. Winiecki, E. (2012). Economics and Source Water Protection. Presentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Wise, S. (2008). Green infrastructure rising. Planning, 74(8), 14-19. © ASCE 10