Affiliation:
1. Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane 4111, Australia
2. School of Architecture & Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4000, Australia
Abstract
Environmental sustainability priorities for infrastructure development have traditionally focused on aspects including minimising negative impacts in areas such as water and air quality, erosion control, biodiversity and waste management, both in compliance and voluntary frameworks. Associated project performance priorities have focused on avoiding damage beyond ‘pre-project baselines’. In contrast, ‘best practice’ regenerative performance requires infrastructure project outcomes that not only avoid damage but contribute positively to social and ecological systems. For such best practice to become mainstream, industry frameworks, standards and rating schemes must evolve. However, there is limited knowledge regarding ‘how’ regenerative performance could be encouraged as a business-as-usual infrastructure expectation. This paper therefore explores the potential for a benchmarking methodology called Ecological Performance Standards (EPS) as a transformed approach to facilitate the mainstreaming of regenerative performance expectations. Three research workshops (Phoenix, AZ, USA; Sydney and Brisbane, Australia) were undertaken to investigate the potential for this methodology in infrastructure applications. Mapping was undertaken to align the EPS process steps with associated infrastructure lifecycle phases. Research findings include the synthesis of key opportunities for capturing EPS within infrastructure sustainability rating schemes to leverage current efforts and pivot towards regenerative performance. The authors present a comprehensive matrix mapping 18 ecosystem services against the Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) Rating Scheme credits and categories, summarising where ecosystem services are addressed within the current scheme. The authors conclude the presence of significant opportunities for a new ‘business-as-usual’ for infrastructure through the integration of regenerative performance benchmarking.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Nature and Landscape Conservation
Reference40 articles.
1. Learning from nature–biomimicry innovation to support infrastructure sustainability and resilience;Hayes;Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.,2020
2. Moving beyond Business as Usual toward Regenerative Business Practice in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises;Caldera;Front. Sustain.,2022
3. Griffiths, K.A., Boyle, C., and Henning, T.F. (2018). Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability, Thomas Telford Ltd.
4. Infrastruture Sustainability Council of Australia (2018). Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tool Version 2.0, Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia.
5. CEEQUAL (2018). CEEQUAL for Projects Assessment Manual Version 5, CEEQUAL.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献