A Systematic Review of Sustainability Criteria in Infrastructure Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a potentially interesting paper about an important topic.
However, I recommend that the paper is further improved.

Most important issues for improvement (from beginning to end of paper):
1) the selection of papers that are reviewed (Table 1) are very diverse - from very specific (e.g. Sharma et al. 2022), detailed to more general overview (e.g. Cimen 2021) articles, and from very different (sub) sectors Ahern et al. 2014, Buehler et al. 2021 - and it is not clear why these publications have been selected - the definition of infrastructure as used seems not being very guiding. More clarity should be given to the selection of the articles of Table 1 (section 2 is not fully clarifying the selection of the articles of Table 1 at the moment).

2) a consequence of this is that the paper is rather unfocused see e.g. lines 52-60. (almost) everything is just mentioned... (see also comment 5 and 6 below).

3) the 3-stage approach in section 2 is in principle ok. This part is a it long - and nevertheless  for a reader it does not clarify how Table 1 was composed (see earlier comment). The text (esp. in the dark green) boxes is very difficult to read. NB: Figure 5 is difficult to read.

4) The results part is interesting, although the results of the content analysis of the selected articles are sometimes a bit counterintuitive. The overall distribution of categories and the top 20 criteria (see figure 7) is overall ok(ish). When digging in the details of the criteria, however, counterintuitive issues are presented. For instance: You would expect that prevention of environmental impacts was mentioned as highest/very high, but mitigation of impacts is highest! This is not what common sense would tell (prevention is better than mitigation). Most likely such issues arise because of the rather unbalanced, diverse selection of publications analyses, which becomes clear to a reader when checking the reference list and Table 1 (see earlier comment). Therefore it also not surprising that the FGD-participants had different priorities than the content analysis revealed. Also criterion 10 (p.12)  does not directly make sense: why would a technical issue as smart technology results in sustainable infrastructures? Idem criterion 14 effective infra planning is not per se sustainable (line 396). Criterion 15: why not addressing the issue of prevention (is better Tham mitigation and repairing. Such quite particular reasonings need further explanation.

5) A critical reflection on figure 7 and 8 as well as the discussion of the top 20 criteria is warranted. Especially as the FGD-results seems not to align well with the results of the content analysis - see Figure 9 as well as the authors own remark in lines 480-483. This needs further (critical) reflection about the 'why?' than is currently. Now in ,Ines 484-489 another let of relevant factor is provided, and again another in lines 490-494. As a reader you are overwhelmed with a series of lists of issues but how they relate to each other, if they are congruent remains unclear - creating a feeling with the reader of 'so what'. In the last paragraph of section 3 suddenly is focused on municipalities, but why? NB: line 474 'use of smart technologies' is not indicated in bold in Figure 9 so how is this top 5 in lines 473-478 constructed?

6) The discussion section does not well relate to the previous and the authors seem to want to raise another (series of) discussions. The first 3 paragraphs are ok and relate back to the previous text. However from line 551-onwards a complete new discussion is started which relates only limited to the previous (apart from the 4 main categories). Why is expanded that much on the difference between state and regional - is this relevant elsewhere?  etc. NB: why is in step 3 the color scheme for ESG categories lost and all three are green? line 614-621: references are needed in relation to the interesting conclusion about the importance of spatial planning for infrastructure development (see the references in the list Ran et al. 2018 and Tran eta al. 2020) ut e.g. also Heeres et al 2012 (83. Heeres, N., T. Tillema & J. Arts (2012), Integration in Dutch planning of motorways: From "line" towards "area-oriented" approaches, Transport Policy, 24, 148-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.08.002 ).

7) Overall a more critical reflection on the (limited) coherence of the results of the content analysis and the FGDs is needed. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English s quite ok. A check could help to further improve.

A striking issue is the use of the wordd 'appear' in line 115. This seems a bit strange to me here. You would expect that the authors are sure about this. Most likely this is a language/translation issue. Perhaps the authors mean something like: 'was grounded' 'should be grounded' etc...? 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for recognizing the timeliness of our paper's topic and for your helpful suggestions for improvement, which we have incorporated as follows:

1) the selection of papers that are reviewed (Table 1) are very diverse - from very specific (e.g. Sharma et al. 2022), detailed to more general overview (e.g. Cimen 2021) articles, and from very different (sub) sectors Ahern et al. 2014, Buehler et al. 2021 - and it is not clear why these publications have been selected - the definition of infrastructure as used seems not being very guiding. More clarity should be given to the selection of the articles of Table 1 (section 2 is not fully clarifying the selection of the articles of Table 1 at the moment).

We agree that including diverse references in Table 1 without clear selection criteria could be confusing. To address this, we have removed Table 1 and instead focused on a narrative description of the background research in the Introduction that highlights the fragmentation and lack of consensus in infrastructure sustainability evaluation.

2) a consequence of this is that the paper is rather unfocused see e.g. lines 52-60. (almost) everything is just mentioned... (see also comment 5 and 6 below).

To ensure a clear focus on the definition of intersectoral criteria for sustainable infrastructure throughout the paper, we have strengthened the emphasis on the critical role these criteria play in bridging the gaps identified in the literature review. We achieve this by dedicating more space to discussing and analyzing existing frameworks or proposed criteria for sustainable infrastructure, all within the context of addressing our research question: "What are the characteristics of sustainable infrastructure?"

3) the 3-stage approach in section 2 is in principle ok. This part is a it long - and nevertheless  for a reader it does not clarify how Table 1 was composed (see earlier comment). The text (esp. in the dark green) boxes is very difficult to read. NB: Figure 5 is difficult to read.

We appreciate your acknowledgment that the 3-stage approach in principle is sound. We have strived to ensure this section remains concise while effectively explaining the approach. Following your suggestion, we replaced Table 1 with a background narrative and enlarged Fig. 5. We clarified in the Annex that Fig. 5's purpose is to illustrate the process rather than convey specific details.

4) The results part is interesting, although the results of the content analysis of the selected articles are sometimes a bit counterintuitive. The overall distribution of categories and the top 20 criteria (see figure 7) is overall ok(ish). When digging in the details of the criteria, however, counterintuitive issues are presented. For instance: You would expect that prevention of environmental impacts was mentioned as highest/very high, but mitigation of impacts is highest! This is not what common sense would tell (prevention is better than mitigation). Most likely such issues arise because of the rather unbalanced, diverse selection of publications analyses, which becomes clear to a reader when checking the reference list and Table 1 (see earlier comment). Therefore it also not surprising that the FGD-participants had different priorities than the content analysis revealed. Also criterion 10 (p.12)  does not directly make sense: why would a technical issue as smart technology results in sustainable infrastructures? Idem criterion 14 effective infra planning is not per se sustainable (line 396). Criterion 15: why not addressing the issue of prevention (is better Tham mitigation and repairing. Such quite particular reasonings need further explanation.

We thank you for your thoughtful comments on the results section. We agree that some findings from the content analysis appeared counterintuitive. We explored triangulation with the focus group to address this. We observed differences between the content analysis and FGD participant priorities and discussed the contrasting viewpoints in the revised manuscript. We used the FGD findings to enrich our interpretation of the content analysis results.

Addressing Specific Criteria:

• Criterion 10 (Smart Technology): We provided a clearer explanation of how smart technologies contribute to sustainable infrastructure, emphasizing optimizing resource use, improving efficiency, and facilitating preventive maintenance.
• Criterion 14 (Effective Infrastructure Planning): We elaborated on how effective planning, incorporating sustainability considerations from the outset, can lead to long-term solutions with reduced environmental impact and improved social and economic benefits.
• Criterion 15 (Mitigation of pollution): The content analysis revealed a stronger focus on mitigation processes within the reviewed papers. We acknowledge the importance of prioritizing prevention strategies in sustainable infrastructure development. To address this, we added a section to the discussion that explores this finding and its potential implications. This section highlights the need for further research.

We believe these revisions address your concerns and provide a more nuanced and insightful analysis of the research findings. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

5) A critical reflection on figure 7 and 8 as well as the discussion of the top 20 criteria is warranted. Especially as the FGD-results seems not to align well with the results of the content analysis - see Figure 9 as well as the authors own remark in lines 480-483. This needs further (critical) reflection about the 'why?' than is currently. Now in ,Ines 484-489 another let of relevant factor is provided, and again another in lines 490-494. As a reader you are overwhelmed with a series of lists of issues but how they relate to each other, if they are congruent remains unclear - creating a feeling with the reader of 'so what'. In the last paragraph of section 3 suddenly is focused on municipalities, but why? NB: line 474 'use of smart technologies' is not indicated in bold in Figure 9 so how is this top 5 in lines 473-478 constructed?

We recognized the need for a clearer connection between the content analysis, focus group results, and the identified factors. We addressed this by:

• Providing additional explanations on the criteria selection process at the end of section 3.2.
• Modifying Fig 9 to better visualize the various lists of factors and improve clarity.
• Clarifying the rationale behind participants' choices.

We believe the manuscript now provides a more cohesive and impactful presentation of the findings.

6) The discussion section does not well relate to the previous and the authors seem to want to raise another (series of) discussions. The first 3 paragraphs are ok and relate back to the previous text. However from line 551-onwards a complete new discussion is started which relates only limited to the previous (apart from the 4 main categories). Why is expanded that much on the difference between state and regional - is this relevant elsewhere?  etc. NB: why is in step 3 the color scheme for ESG categories lost and all three are green? line 614-621: references are needed in relation to the interesting conclusion about the importance of spatial planning for infrastructure development (see the references in the list Ran et al. 2018 and Tran eta al. 2020) ut e.g. also Heeres et al 2012 (83. Heeres, N., T. Tillema & J. Arts (2012), Integration in Dutch planning of motorways: From "line" towards "area-oriented" approaches, Transport Policy, 24, 148-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.08.002 ).

In response to your feedback, we have revised the manuscript so the results section effectively highlights the discussion section's key points. We acknowledge that the section you identified may have deviated from the original discussion flow.

To ensure a more cohesive narrative, we have removed the proposal for a regional criteria methodology (previously discussed from line 551 onwards). However, we recognize the potential value of this approach and will explore its feasibility in future studies.

We appreciate the suggestion to include additional references on the importance of spatial planning for infrastructure development. We will incorporate references to Heeres et al. 2012 and Meerow (2017) to strengthen the concluding remarks about spatial planning.

7) Overall a more critical reflection on the (limited) coherence of the results of the content analysis and the FGDs is needed.

In response to your feedback, we have revised the manuscript to enhance the overall coherence between the results and discussion sections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is quite ok. A check could help to further improve.

We appreciate your feedback on the English language as we are not native speakers. We've already conducted a grammar and clarity check, but we're always looking for ways to improve.

A striking issue is the use of the wordd 'appear' in line 115. This seems a bit strange to me here. You would expect that the authors are sure about this. Most likely this is a language/translation issue. Perhaps the authors mean something like: 'was grounded' 'should be grounded' etc...?

We have replaced this with "was grounded."

We believe that the revisions we have made throughout the manuscript address all of the reviewer's comments and have strengthened the overall clarity, focus, and coherence of our work. We are grateful for the reviewer's time and insightful feedback, which has helped us to improve the quality of our paper.

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief summary:

The authors explore sustainability indicators to assess infrastructure planning, development, and operations, drawing from a content analysis of 124 diverse sources. While the topic holds significance amidst growing infrastructure demands and their detrimental effects on climate change, the article falls short in discussing the significance of the findings and the organization of the text.

General concept comments:

The methodology lacks novelty, presenting a rather straightforward approach. The manuscript suffers from poor writing quality, and the results are confined solely to the Latvian context, limiting their broader applicability.

 Specific comments:

The introduction section must be rewritten, including updated review literature in a descriptive way, and Table 1 must be presented as a Result. Please consider including the ESC concept from here, not just in the Discussion section.

Please, rewrite Lines 61 to 80. There is no "Chapter" in a manuscript.

There is no reference in the Methodology section.

Figures must be improved as the letters are difficult to read.

Results are poorly described, and there is a lack of relevance in the Discussion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for recognizing the timeliness of our paper's topic and for your helpful suggestions for improvement, which we have incorporated as follows:

The authors explore sustainability indicators to assess infrastructure planning, development, and operations, drawing from a content analysis of 124 diverse sources. While the topic holds significance amidst growing infrastructure demands and their detrimental effects on climate change, the article falls short in discussing the significance of the findings and the organization of the text.

General concept comments:

The methodology lacks novelty, presenting a rather straightforward approach. The manuscript suffers from poor writing quality, and the results are confined solely to the Latvian context, limiting their broader applicability.’

We acknowledge that the methodology employed may not be entirely novel in the broader research field. However, our focus was on selecting the approach that would be most understandable and applicable within the context of less developed countries. We understand the importance of methodological innovation and will explore how to integrate this into future work. However, our primary focus was on achieving reliable results, therefore, we explored methodologies currently utilized in the region.

While broader applicability may not have been our initial focus, we recognize the critical nature of diverse samples. The current evidence is indeed significantly limited by the lack of data from minority countries. Incorporating data from a wider range of countries, particularly minority countries, would significantly enhance the generalizability of the evidence. We are actively exploring avenues to expand the research scope and address this gap.

We believe that by incorporating a more diverse sample and potentially revisiting the methodology for broader applicability, we can significantly strengthen the overall impact of our study.

Specific comments:

The introduction section must be rewritten, including updated review literature in a descriptive way, and Table 1 must be presented as a Result. Please consider including the ESC concept from here, not just in the Discussion section.

We rewrote the introduction section to incorporate an informative narrative that integrated the latest and most relevant review literature on the topic.  Following your suggestion, we removed Table 1 and instead introduced the ESC (Economic, Social, and Governance) concept to provide the framework for our research.

Please, rewrite Lines 61 to 80. There is no "Chapter" in a manuscript.

All "Chapters" were replaced with "Sections." The entire text was then proofread.

There is no reference in the Methodology section.

The references in the Methodology sections were well-prescribed.

Figures must be improved as the letters are difficult to read.

We revised and re-uploaded most figures to improve clarity.

Results are poorly described, and there is a lack of relevance in the Discussion section.

In response to your feedback, we revised the manuscript so that the results section more effectively highlights the key points of the discussion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language. English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.

We apologized for any shortcomings in clarity or conciseness that might have stemmed from our use of non-native English. To ensure clear communication of our research findings, we committed to providing a revised manuscript with native English editing.

We believe these revisions addressed all the points raised and strengthened the overall clarity, focus, and coherence of our work. We express our gratitude to the reviewer for their time and insightful feedback, which significantly improved the quality of our paper.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors conducted a literature review about Sustainability Criteria for Infrastructure Development.

1.       You might want to give some details about the focus on “Development, Public administration; Regional planning and Urban Studies”.

2.       Is there something missing at the top of figure 1?

3.       The font in figure 2 is too small to read. The same applies to a few of the following figures.

4.       “Not stated” is a strange inclusion criteria. I guess you are referring to no duplicates. However, I don’t think you need to mention this in this table as excluding duplicates is expected. You might just want to mention this in the text.

5.       Please list how many papers have been identified through each search term (before the inclusion criteria were applied). Please have a look at the PRISMA guidelines and create a figure illustrating the search process as suggested in these guidelines. Since you call your paper a systematic review, I would expect that the PRISMA guidelines have been followed, otherwise it may be another type of review such as a scoping review etc.

6.       Are these the search terms?: “Criteria of sustainable infrastructure” , “Sustainable infrastructure components”, “Sustainable Development Goals and infrastructure planning”, were they combined with an AND or and OR?

7.       Were some of the papers categorised by two authors? If yes, what was the inter-rater reliability?

8.       How many participants took part in the focus group? Please also add the demographics of the participants, recruitment, duration of focus group…

9.       I find it strange that you state “literature review and content analysis”. Usually, a literature review includes an analysis of the content of the reviewed papers.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not sure what this means: “The triangulation was made with focus group that consist of Latvian diverse range of decision makers.” (with [a] focus group …?)

“While the research expanded understanding of criteria for assessing sustainable infrastructure, developing an indicator system based on these criteria was deemed be yond the study's scope.”

(While the research [provides] an understanding of [the] criteria…)

“as Scopus has multidisciplinary coverage that make difficult for extraction in social science.”

“The selection of the search terms appears to be grounded” It should not “appear to be” – I hope you know the methodology you applied to identify suitable search terms.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful suggestions for improvement, which we have incorporated as follows:

The authors conducted a literature review about Sustainability Criteria for Infrastructure Development.

1. You might want to give some details about the focus on “Development, Public administration; Regional planning and Urban Studies”.

We supplemented the text with the phrase “These areas offer a comprehensive view of infrastructure development without delving into overly specialized fields like engineering or environmental science.”

2. Is there something missing at the top of figure 1?

We re-uploaded Figure 1

3. The font in figure 2 is too small to read. The same applies to a few of the following figures.

We re-uploaded Figure 2 and some other figures

4. “Not stated” is a strange inclusion criteria. I guess you are referring to no duplicates. However, I don’t think you need to mention this in this table as excluding duplicates is expected. You might just want to mention this in the text.

You're correct, it doesn't need to be included in the table. We removed this row for clarity.

5. Please list how many papers have been identified through each search term (before the inclusion criteria were applied). Please have a look at the PRISMA guidelines and create a figure illustrating the search process as suggested in these guidelines. Since you call your paper a systematic review, I would expect that the PRISMA guidelines have been followed, otherwise it may be another type of review such as a scoping review etc.

We appreciate you bringing the PRISMA guidelines to our attention. While we had followed a methodology commonly used within our affiliation, we recognized the importance of aligning with established best practices for systematic reviews.

The number of papers per search term was presented in Figure 2. To improve clarity, we provided additional explanation in the figure caption.

6. Are these the search terms?: “Criteria of sustainable infrastructure” , “Sustainable infrastructure components”, “Sustainable Development Goals and infrastructure planning”, were they combined with an AND or and OR?

Yes, you've correctly identified the core search terms we employed in our systematic review. We provided additional explanation in the text for more clarity.

7.Were some of the papers categorised by two authors? If yes, what was the inter-rater reliability?

We employed a two-reviewer approach for classifying the retrieved papers. Each reviewer independently categorized the papers based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.  We didn’t face any differences in the results of the categorization on this step. We provided this explanation in the text.

8. How many participants took part in the focus group? Please also add the demographics of the participants, recruitment, duration of focus group…

We ammended our metohodology part with the suggested information

9. I find it strange that you state “literature review and content analysis”. Usually, a literature review includes an analysis of the content of the reviewed papers.

We rephrased it as “Targeted Content Analysis of the Selected Literature”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not sure what this means: “The triangulation was made with focus group that consist of Latvian diverse range of decision makers.” (with [a] focus group …?)

Rephrased: Triangulation was achieved through a focus group comprised of a diverse range of Latvian decision-makers.

“While the research expanded understanding of criteria for assessing sustainable infrastructure, developing an indicator system based on these criteria was deemed be yond the study's scope.”

Rephrased: While this research provides understanding of criteria for assessing sustainable infrastructure, developing an indicator system based on these criteria fell outside the scope of the current study

“as Scopus has multidisciplinary coverage that make difficult for extraction in social science.”

We excluded this part

“The selection of the search terms appears to be grounded” It should not “appear to be” – I hope you know the methodology you applied to identify suitable search terms.

Rephrased: The selection of the search terms was grounded

We believe that the revisions we have made throughout the manuscript address all of the reviewer's comments and have strengthened the overall clarity, focus, and coherence of our work. We are grateful for the reviewer's time and insightful feedback, which has helped us improve the quality of our paper.

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have in a remarkably short time revised the paper and have well addressed most of my comments which results in an improved paper. 

As  was myself puzzled about the issue of limited overview studies on sustainable infrastructure, I did myself also some search and I found some articles that should not be missed out in this paper (FYI: so I am not one of the author of these papers).

I think the authors should read carefully the first article and reflect on what this means for their article (e.g. in the discussion, conclusions section).
And I think that the other references provided below are also very relevant to address in this article, considering its aim and scope (especially as these articles are not regarding very specific 'niches' but more general studies into sustainable infrastructure relevant for the readers to know). By this the author's article would be more rigorous and relevant for an international readership.

A very good literaturereview article:
Endo, K., Edelenbos, J., & Gianoli, A. (2023). Sustainable Infrastructure: A Systematic Literature Review on Finance Arrangements and Governance Modes. Public Works Management & Policy, 28(4), 443-475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X221130284

An article with a good, helpful definition of sustainable infrastructure p.265: Hendricks, M. D., Meyer,M. A., Gharaibeh, N. G., Van Zandt, S., Masterson, J., Cooper, J. T. Jr., Horney, J. A., & Berke, P. (2018). The development of a participatory assessment technique for infrastructure: Neighborhood-level monitoring towards sustainable infrastructure systems. Sustain Cities Soc, 38, 265-274. DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.039.

[def. of sust. infra: p.265: “systems that have the capacity to endure over a long period of time; enabling the human built environment to thrive and providing an opportunity for human society to improve its quality of life, without compromising the integrity and availability of natural, economic and social assets for future generations”]

Furthermore relevant:
Ferrer, A. L. C., Thomé, A. M. T., & Scavarda, A. J. (2018). Sustainable urban infrastructure: A review. Resour Conserv Recy, 128, 360-372. DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.017.

Munyasya, B. M., & Chileshe, N. (2018). Towards sustainable infrastructure development: Drivers, barriers, strategies, and coping mechanisms. Sustainability, 10(12), 4341. DOI:10.3390/su10124341.

OECD (2020). Sustainable infrastructure policy initiative. https://www.oecd.org/finance/Sustainable-Infrastructure-Policy-Initiative.pdf.

Thomé, A. M. T., Ceryno, P. S., Scavarda, A., & Remmen, A. (2016). Sustainable infrastructure: A review and a research agenda. J Env Manage, 184(2), 143-156. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.080.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality of our work. We are pleased to inform you that we have incorporated all of the points mentioned:

• We had requested the author and included discussions on the Endo et al. publication, iincorporating this reference into the manuscript.
•  In addition to Endo et al., we have also introduced two other your mentioned publications to strengthen the foundation of our work. We believe these additional references provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date perspective on the topic.

We believe these revisions enhance the overall quality and impact of our work.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Sincerely,

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my previous suggestions were adequately accommodated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript. We appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback and suggestions. We are pleased to hear that all of your previously mentioned points have been adequately addressed in the revised manuscript.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript. We appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback and suggestions. We are pleased to hear that all of your previously mentioned points have been adequately addressed in the revised manuscript.

Authors