Evaluation of Social Responsibility of Major Municipal Road Infrastructure—Case Study of Zhengzhou 107 Auxiliary Road Project
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
3.1. Selection of the Primary Indicators
3.1.1. Social Responsibility Dimension Determination
3.1.2. Identification of Indicator Sources
- (1)
- Academic literature—A systematic search of relevant databases was conducted by using keywords such as “infrastructure project”, “social responsibility”, “stakeholder” and “indicator system”, and the publication year is between 2001 and 2021;
- (2)
- Relevant international standard systems for the social responsibility guidelines, such as ISO 26000;
- (3)
- Relevant social responsibility reports related to MIPs, such as those issued by enterprises or organizations;
- (4)
- Relevant industry principles and guidelines, such as the Guidelines on Social Responsibility in the Chinese Foreign Contracting Engineering Industry; and
- (5)
- Relevant feasibility study reports, such as prefeasibility study decision reports for MMRI.
3.2. Screening for Indicator Optimization
3.3. Establishment of the Indicator System
3.4. Calculation of the Indicator Weights
3.5. Comprehensive Evaluation
4. Analysis and Results
4.1. Analysis of Indicator Screening
4.2. Establishment of the Indicator System
4.3. Analysis of Indicator Weighting
5. Case Study
5.1. Case Background
5.2. Acquisition and Quantification of the Evaluation Indicator Data
5.3. Application of the Evaluation Model
5.4. Analysis of the Evaluation Results
6. Discussion and Implication
6.1. Discussion
6.2. Management Implication
7. Conclusions and Future Research
7.1. Conclusions
7.2. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire on MMRISR Indicators
Target Level | Component Level | Level of Endorsement (1 Strongly Disagree; 2 Disagree; 3 Not Necessarily; 4 Agree; 5 Strongly Agree) | ||||
Political responsibility | Compensation for land acquisition and relocation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Regional transportation network construction | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Meets the needs of residents’ life and travel | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Maintaining relationships with the surrounding community | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Effective coordination between the main government departments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Engineering anticorruption | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Proper handling of the relationship between people, vehicles, roads and the environment | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Public event emergency response | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Supplementary | ||||||
Financial and Legal Liability | Project economic feasibility decision | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Project technical feasibility decision | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Technology innovation and application | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Sound engineering project governance mechanism | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Quality and safe construction of road projects | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Road construction cost and schedule control | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Road maintenance | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Project operating costs and safety assurance | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Supplementary | ||||||
Legal Liability | Information disclosure | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Effective regulation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Design, construction, and operation comply with transportation industry specifications and legal requirements | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Project coverage compliance | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Project reporting independence and impartiality | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Supplementary | ||||||
Environmental and Ethical Responsibility | Water, noise, dust, and other pollution control | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Environmental ecological and cultural protection along the road | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Consideration of the impact of the proposed road on existing tracks | ||||||
Interoperability with the surrounding environment | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Protecting the rights and interests of participating employees | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Rational use of construction resources | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Coordinate the sequence of road construction and pipeline construction | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Public opinion monitoring | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Raising awareness of environmental protection | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Monitoring and reporting wrongdoing | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
Supplementary |
Appendix B. Questionnaire on the Relative Importance of MMRISR Indicators
- At the level of social responsibility indicators for large municipal road projects, please compare the relative importance of political responsibility U1, economic and quality responsibility U2, legal responsibility U3, environmental and ethical responsibility U4.
Extremely Important | Very Important | Obviously Important | Slightly More Important | Equally Important | Slightly Unimportant | Obviously Not Important | Very Unimportant | Extremely Unimportant | |
U1/U2 | |||||||||
U1/U3 | |||||||||
U1/U4 | |||||||||
U2/U3 | |||||||||
U2/U4 | |||||||||
U3/U4 |
- 2.
- At the level of political responsibility (U) for large municipal road projects (1), please compare the relative importance of the following secondary indicators two by two. Construction of regional transportation network, U11; meeting residents’ living and travel needs, U12; maintaining relations with surrounding communities, U13; effective coordination among main government departments, U14; engineering anticorruption, U15; proper handling of relations among people, vehicles, roads and environment, U16; emergency response to public events, U17.
Extremely Important | Very Important | Obviously Important | Slightly More Important | Equally Important | Slightly Unimportant | Obviously Not Important | Very Unimportant | Extremely Unimportant | |
U11/U12 | |||||||||
U11/U13 | |||||||||
U11/U14 | |||||||||
U11/U15 | |||||||||
U11/U16 | |||||||||
U11/U17 | |||||||||
U12/U13 | |||||||||
U12/U14 | |||||||||
U12/U15 | |||||||||
U12/U16 | |||||||||
U12/U17 | |||||||||
U13/U14 | |||||||||
U13/U15 | |||||||||
U13/U16 | |||||||||
U13/U17 | |||||||||
U14/U15 | |||||||||
U14/U16 | |||||||||
U14/U17 | |||||||||
U15/U16 | |||||||||
U15/U17 | |||||||||
U16/U17 |
- 3.
- At the level of economic and quality responsibility (U2) for large municipal road projects, you are invited to compare the relative importance of the following secondary indicators two by two. Project economic feasibility decision, U21; project technical feasibility decision, U22; perfect project governance mechanism, U23; road project quality and safety construction, U24; road construction cost and schedule control, U25; project operation cost and safety guarantee, U26.
Extremely Important | Very IMPORTANT | Obviously Important | Slightly More Important | Equally Important | Slightly Unimportant | Obviously Not Important | Very Unimportant | Extremely Unimportant | |
U21/U22 | |||||||||
U21/U23 | |||||||||
U21/U24 | |||||||||
U21/U25 | |||||||||
U21/U26 | |||||||||
U22/U23 | |||||||||
U22/U24 | |||||||||
U22/U25 | |||||||||
U22/U26 | |||||||||
U23/U24 | |||||||||
U23/U25 | |||||||||
U23/U26 | |||||||||
U24/U25 | |||||||||
U24/U26 | |||||||||
U25/U26 |
- 4.
- At the level of legal responsibility for large municipal road projects (U3), please compare the relative importance of the following secondary indicators two by two. Information disclosure, U31; effective regulation, U32; design, construction, and operation in accordance with transportation industry norms and legal requirements, U33.
Extremely Important | Very Important | Obviously Important | Slightly More Important | Equally Important | Slightly Unimportant | Obviously Not Important | Very Unimportant | Extremely Unimportant | |
U31/U32 | |||||||||
U31/U33 | |||||||||
U32/U33 |
- 5.
- At the level of environmental and ethical responsibility of large municipal road projects (U4), please compare the relative importance of the following secondary indicators two by two. Water, noise, dust, and other pollution control, U41; environmental, ecological, and cultural protection along the road, U42; consideration of the impact of the proposed road on the existing tracks, U43; interoperability with the surrounding environment, U44; protection of the rights and interests of the participating employees, U45; coordination of the road construction and pipeline construction sequence, U46; awareness of environmental protection, U47; monitoring and prosecution of illegal acts, U48.
Extremely Important | Very Important | Obviously Important | Slightly More Important | Equally Important | Slightly Unimportant | Obviously Not Important | Very Unimportant | Extremely Unimportant | |
U41/U42 | |||||||||
U41/U43 | |||||||||
U41/U44 | |||||||||
U41/U45 | |||||||||
U41/U46 | |||||||||
U41/U47 | |||||||||
U41/U48 | |||||||||
U42/U43 | |||||||||
U42/U44 | |||||||||
U42/U45 | |||||||||
U42/U46 | |||||||||
U42/U47 | |||||||||
U42/U48 | |||||||||
U43/U44 | |||||||||
U43/U45 | |||||||||
U43/U46 | |||||||||
U43/U47 | |||||||||
U43/U48 | |||||||||
U44/U45 | |||||||||
U44/U46 | |||||||||
U44/U47 | |||||||||
U44/U48 | |||||||||
U45/U46 | |||||||||
U45/U47 | |||||||||
U45/U48 | |||||||||
U46/U47 | |||||||||
U46/U48 | |||||||||
U47/U48 |
References
- Flyvbjerg, B. What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, H.; Zeng, S.; Ma, H.; Zeng, R.; Tam, V. An indicator system for evaluating megaproject social responsibility. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1415–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilashi, M.; Rupani, P.F.; Rupani, M.M.; Kamyab, H.; Shao, W.; Ahmadi, H.; Rashid, T.A.; Aljojo, N. Measuring sustainability through ecological sustainability and human sustainability: A machine learning approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 240, 118162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, R.; Hobbs, B. Governance Regimes for Large Complex Projects. Proj. Manag. J. 2005, 36, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Over Budget, Over Time, Over and Over Again: Managing Major Projects. In The Oxford Handbook of Project Management; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 321–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demetriades, P.O.; Mamuneas, T.P. Intertemporal output and employment effects of public infrastructure capital: Evidence from 12 OECD economies. Econ. J. 2000, 110, 687–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Wu, P.; Wu, X.; Zhang, H.; Guo, Q.; Cai, Y. Mapping global research on sustainability of megaproject management: A scientometric review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Marrewijk, A.; Clegg, S.R.; Pitsis, T.S.; Veenswijk, M. Managing public-private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 591–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davies, A.; Gann, D.; Douglas, T. Innovation in Megaprojects: Systems Integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 101–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, H.; Zeng, S.; Ge, S.; Chen, Y. Can the bullet train speed up climate change mitigation in China? Front. Eng. Manag. 2017, 4, 104–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faber, B. Trade Integration, Market Size, and Industrialization: Evidence from China’s National Trunk Highway System. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2014, 81, 1046–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, X. Key Assessment Indicators for the Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, Q.; Chen, X.; Wang, G.; Zhu, J.; Li, Y. Managing social responsibility for sustainability in megaprojects: An innovation transitions perspective on success. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, S.X.; Ma, H.Y.; Lin, H.; Zeng, R.C.; Tam, V. Social responsibility of major infrastructure projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 537–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Gao-Zeller, X.; Rizzuto, T.E.; Yang, F. Institutional pressures on corporate social responsibility strategy in construction corporations: The role of internal motivations. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 721–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Xue, X.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Z.; Shen, G.Q.; Luo, X. Major Knowledge Diffusion Paths of Megaproject Management: A Citation-Based Analysis. Proj. Manag. J. 2020, 51, 242–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derakhshan, R.; Turner, R.; Mancini, M. Project governance and stakeholders: A literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Sheng, Z.; Gao, X. Social responsibility in infrastructure mega-projects: A case study of ecological compensation for Sousa chinensis during the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Front. Eng. Manag. 2018, 5, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, F.Y. Study on Construction Technology of Municipal Road and Bridge Concrete. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Energy Equipment Science and Engineering (ICEESE), Beijing, China, 28–31 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rokicki, B.; Stepniak, M. Major transport infrastructure investment and regional economic development—An accessibility-based approach. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 72, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amekudzi, A.A.; Thomas-Mobley, L.; Ross, C. Transportation planning and infrastructure delivery in major cities and megacities. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 1997, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Merrow, E.W.; McDonnell, L.M.; Arguden, R.Y. Understanding the Outcomes of Mega-Projects: A Quantitative Analysis of Very Large Civilian Projects; RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, J. Feasibility Analysis on the Application of 3D Printing Technology on Municipal Roads. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series; IOP Publishing: Chengdu, China, 2020; p. 072023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaofu, L. The application of EPC general contracting model in municipal road engineering. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 688, 055066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ugwu, O.O.; Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Wong, A.; Ng, S.T. Sustainability appraisal in infrastructure projects (SUSAIP): Part 2: A case study in bridge design. Autom. Constr. 2006, 15, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gil, N.; Beckman, S. INTRODUCTION: Infrastructure Meets Business: Building new bridges, mending old ones. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 6–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, H.; Zeng, S.; Lin, H.; Chen, H.; Shi, J.J. The societal governance of megaproject social responsibility. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1365–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, R. Three Gorges Dam: Into the unknown. Science 2008, 321, 628–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xie, L.; Han, T.; Chu, H.; Xia, B. Behavior Selection of Stakeholders toward Megaproject Social Responsibility: Perspective from Social Action Theory. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 4956067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ansar, A.; Flyvbjerg, B.; Budzier, A.; Lunn, D. Should we build more large dams? The actual costs of hydropower megaproject development. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carroll, A.B. Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct. Bus. Soc. 1999, 38, 268–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.Y.; Zhao, X.J.; Davidson, K.; Jian, Z. A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29–30, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lwin, M.; Panuwatwanich, K. Identification and evaluation of green building assessment indicators for myanmar. J. Green Build. 2021, 16, 143–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Mi, C. Social responsibility research within the context of megaproject management: Trends, gaps and opportunities. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1378–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adetayo, O.; Innocent, M. Barriers to BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment for Buildings: An Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Osei-Kyei, R. Sustainability of off-site construction: A bibliometric review and visualized analysis of trending topics and themes. J. Green Build. 2020, 15, 131–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Ye, K.; Jiang, W. Moderating Effects of Internationalization between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: The Case of Construction Firms. Buildings 2022, 12, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heather, F.R. Corporate social responsibility disclosure: The three concentric circles model—A proposed framework for classifying sustainability initiatives in the fashion supply-chain. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2014, 13, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolk, A. The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. J. World Bus. 2016, 51, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, V.W.Y.; Tam, C.M.; Zeng, S.X.; Chan, K.K. Environmental performance measurement indicators in construction. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, D.J. Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 50–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, S.; Kahn, M.E. China’s bullet trains facilitate market integration and mitigate the cost of megacity growth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, E1248–E1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hueting, R.; Reijnders, L. Broad sustainability contra sustainability: The proper construction of sustainability indicators. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 50, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Wang, F.; Zhang, C.; Wang, L.; An, X.; Dong, G. Sustainable supplier selection for water environment treatment public-private partnership projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, W.; Liu, Y.; Lu, F.; Huang, G. Establishing a sustainable evaluation indicator system for railway tunnel in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seager, T.P.; Theis, T.L. A taxonomy of metrics for testing the industrial ecology hypotheses and application to design of freezer insulation. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 865–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erkman, S. Industrial ecology: An historical view. J. Clean. Prod. 1997, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, C.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Ahmadi, H.B.; Sarkis, J. Social sustainable supplier evaluation and selection: A group decision-support approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 7046–7067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azhar, S.; Carlton, W.A.; Olsen, D.; Ahmad, I. Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED (R) rating analysis. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Siqueira, A.C.H.; Mohammad, K.N.; Ahmed, W.A.H.; Assed, H.; Elaine, V. Sustainable Urban Development in Slum Areas in the City of Rio de Janeiro Based on LEED-ND Indicators. Buildings 2020, 10, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pushkar, S. LEED-CI V3 and V4 Gold Projects for Office Spaces: The Difference between Shanghai and California. J. Green Build. 2021, 16, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pushkar, S. The leed-commercial interiors (V4) projects in california. J. Green Build. 2021, 16, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoogmartens, R.; Van Passel, S.; Van Acker, K.; Dubois, M. Bridging the gap between LCA, LCC and CBA as sustainability assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2014, 48, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.; Dong, Q.; Ni, F.; Wang, L. LCA and LCCA based multi-objective optimization of pavement maintenance. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 124583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cinelli, M.; Coles, S.R.; Kirwan, K. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Joseph, S. Making a Sustainability Business Case for Alternative Building Designs Using the LEED Requirements. J. Green Build. 2006, 1, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marwa, M.G.M.; Zeyad, M.T.E.S.; Ahmed AbdelMonteleb, M.A.; Mona, G.I. Assessment of Green Building Materials’ Attributes to Achieve Sustainable Building Façades Using AHP. Buildings 2021, 11, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, H.-M.; Sun, W.-J.; Shen, S.-L.; Zhou, A.-N. Risk Assessment Using a New Consulting Process in Fuzzy AHP. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04019112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kubler, S.; Robert, J.; Derigent, W.; Voisin, A.; Le Traon, Y. A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 65, 398–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usama, I.; Fam, S.; Yehia, M.; Muwaffaq, A.; Emad, O. Hybrid AHP-Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for Selecting Deep Excavation Support System. Buildings 2022, 12, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcus, V.A.P.M.F.; Bruno, B.F.d.C.; Mohammad, N.; Karoline, V.F.; de Marcos Barreto, M.; Assed, N.H. Sustainability Assessment of a Low-income Building: A BIM-LCSA-FAHP-based Analysis. Buildings 2022, 12, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John, E. Accounting for the triple bottom line. Meas. Bus. Excell. 1998, 2, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Liu, H.; Chen, J.; Liu, T.; Deng, Z. Evaluating the sustainability of marine industrial parks based on the DPSIR framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahraman, C.; Cebeci, U.; Ulukan, Z. Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist. Inf. Manag. 2003, 16, 382–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.H.I.; Chen, W.C.; Chang, C.J. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst. Appl. 2008, 34, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Chan, A.P.C.; Le, Y.; Xu, Y.; Shan, M. Developing a Program Organization Performance Index for Delivering Construction Megaprojects in China: Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation Analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 05016007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.H.Y.; Ng, S.T.; Skitmore, M. Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: A fuzzy approach. Autom. Constr. 2013, 29, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qh, A.; Lan, L.A.; Yi, H.B.; Apcc, C. Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China—A fuzzy analytic network process analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 549–563. [Google Scholar]
- Ting-Ya, H.; Shih-Tong, L.; Gwo-Hshiung, T. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, A.K.; Ross, B.E.; Albright, D. Evaluating the weighted-sum approach for measuring buildings’ adaptability. J. Green Build. 2020, 15, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, S.; Yang, R. Indigenous Characteristics of Chinese Corporate Social Responsibility Conceptual Paradigm. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 93, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, Z.; Ahola, T.; Le, Y.; Xie, J. Governmental Governance of Megaprojects: The Case of EXPO 2010 Shanghai. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locatelli, G.; Mariani, G.; Sainati, T.; Greco, M. Corruption in public projects and megaprojects: There is an elephant in the room! Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 252–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, D.; He, Q.; Cui, Q.; Hsu, S.-C. Non-economic motivations for organizational citizenship behavior in construction megaprojects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2020, 38, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Locatelli, G.; Wan, J.; Li, Y.; Le, Y. Governing behavioral integration of top management team in megaprojects: A social capital perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Zeng, S.; Ma, H. Water scheme acts as ecological buffer. Nature 2016, 529, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Levitt, R.E. CEM research for the next 50 years: Maximizing economic, environmental, and societal value of the built environment. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2007, 133, 619–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oladinrin, T.O.; Ho, C.M.-F. Strategies for Improving Codes of Ethics Implementation in Construction Organizations. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darendeli, I.S.; Hill, T.L. Uncovering the complex relationships between political risk and MNE firm legitimacy: Insights from Libya. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2016, 47, 68–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, H.; Sun, D.; Zeng, S.; Lin, H.; Shi, J.J. The Effects of Megaproject Social Responsibility on Participating Organizations. Proj. Manag. J. 2021, 52, 418–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, Y.; Wang, S.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I. Preferred risk allocation in China’s public-private partnership (PPP) projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 482–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, Z.; Shan, M.; Le, Y. Investigating the impact of governmental governance on megaproject performance: Evidence from China. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2020, 26, 449–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanessa, V.; Susan, M.B. Assessing the link between public opinion and social sustainability in building and infrastructure projects. J. Green Build. 2015, 10, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mengmeng, W.; Lili, L.; Caixia, H.; Xiaotong, G.; Hanliang, F. Building and Health: Mapping the Knowledge Development of Sick Building Syndrome. Buildings 2022, 12, 287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Zhou, X.; Qian, L. Online Public Opinion Analysis on Infrastructure Megaprojects: Toward an Analytical Framework. J. Manag. Eng. 2021, 37, 04020105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Sui, Y.; Ma, H.; Wang, L.; Zeng, S. CEO Narcissism, Public Concern, and Megaproject Social Responsibility: Moderated Mediating Examination. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B. Why Mass Media Matter to Planning Research: The Case of Megaprojects. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2012, 32, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Toor, S.-U.-R.; Ogunlana, S.O. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flyvbjerg, B.; Holm, M.S.; Buhl, S. Underestimating costs in public works projects-Error or lie? J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2002, 68, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El Mekaoui, A.; Tariq, R.; Ramirez, O.B.; Mendez-Monroy, P.E. Sustainability, Sociocultural Challenges, and New Power of Capitalism for Renewable Energy Megaprojects in an Indigenous Mayan Community of Mexico. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantarelli, C.C.; Molin, E.J.E.; van Wee, B.; Flyvbjerg, B. Characteristics of cost overruns for Dutch transport infrastructure projects and the importance of the decision to build and project phases. Transp. Policy 2012, 22, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cantarelli, C.C.; Flyvbjerg, B.; Molin, E.J.E.; van Wee, B. Cost Overruns in Large-scale Transportation Infrastructure Projects: Explanations and Their Theoretical Embeddedness. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2010, 10, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
- Bowen, P.; Akintoye, A.; Pearl, R.; Edwards, P.J. Ethical behaviour in the South African construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2007, 25, 631–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Zeng, S.; Ma, H.; Chen, H. Does commitment to environmental self-regulation matter? An empirical examination from China. Manag. Decis. 2015, 53, 932–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.-Y.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Tam, L.; Ji, Y.-B. Project feasibility study: The key to successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 254–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babatunde, S.O.; Opawole, A.; Akinsiku, O.E. Critical success factors in public-private partnership (PPP) on infrastructure delivery in Nigeria. J. Facil. Manag. 2012, 10, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Lu, Y.; Cui, Q.; Han, Y. Organizational Behavior in Megaprojects: Integrative Review and Directions for Future Research. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 04019009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type | Classification | Percentage | Type | Classification | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 100% | Years of work | 1 to 5 years | 10% |
Female | 0 | 6 to 10 years | 70% | ||
Age | 21 to 30 years old | 10% | 11 to 20 years | 10% | |
31 to 40 years old | 70% | More than 20 years | 10% | ||
41 to 50 years old | 10% | Unit Roles | Government | 10% | |
>50 years old | 10% | Owners | 10% | ||
Specialties | Engineering Technology | 50% | Designers | 50% | |
Engineering Management | 50% | Constructor | 20% | ||
Academic qualifications | Undergraduate | 30% | Supervisors | 10% | |
Master | 60% | Operators | 10% | ||
PhD | 10% | Project Phase | Project stage | 70% | |
Title | Primary | 10% | Design Phase | 70% | |
Intermediate | 40% | Construction Phase | 60% | ||
Advanced | 50% | Operation and maintenance phase | 10% |
Number | Indicators | Average Value | Normalization | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Meets the needs of residents’ life and travel | 4.9 | 1.00 | 1 |
2 | Public event emergency response | 4.9 | 1.00 | 1 |
3 | Quality and safe construction of road projects | 4.9 | 1.00 | 1 |
4 | Water, noise, dust, and other pollution control | 4.8 | 0.94 | 4 |
5 | Regional transportation network construction | 4.7 | 0.88 | 5 |
6 | Proper handling of the relationship between people, vehicles, roads, and the environment | 4.7 | 0.88 | 5 |
7 | Project technical feasibility decision | 4.7 | 0.88 | 5 |
8 | Raising awareness of environmental protection | 4.7 | 0.88 | 5 |
9 | Road construction cost and schedule control | 4.6 | 0.82 | 9 |
10 | Design, construction, and operation comply with transportation industry specifications and legal requirements | 4.6 | 0.82 | 9 |
11 | Environmental ecological and cultural protection along the road | 4.6 | 0.82 | 9 |
12 | Consideration of the impact of the proposed road on existing tracks | 4.5 | 0.76 | 12 |
13 | Protecting the rights and interests of participating employees | 4.5 | 0.76 | 12 |
14 | Coordinate the sequence of road construction and pipeline construction | 4.5 | 0.76 | 12 |
15 | Sound engineering project governance mechanism | 4.4 | 0.71 | 15 |
16 | Interoperability with the surrounding environment | 4.4 | 0.71 | 15 |
17 | Monitoring and reporting wrongdoing | 4.4 | 0.71 | 15 |
18 | Maintaining relationships with the surrounding community | 4.3 | 0.65 | 18 |
19 | Project economic feasibility decision | 4.3 | 0.65 | 18 |
20 | Project operating costs and safety assurance | 4.3 | 0.65 | 18 |
21 | Effective coordination between the main government departments | 4.2 | 0.59 | 21 |
22 | Information disclosure | 4.2 | 0.59 | 21 |
23 | Engineering anticorruption | 4 | 0.47 | 23 |
24 | Effective regulation | 4 | 0.47 | 23 |
25 | Rational use of construction resources | 3.8 | 0.35 | 25 |
26 | Road maintenance | 3.8 | 0.35 | 25 |
27 | Project coverage compliance | 3.8 | 0.35 | 25 |
28 | Technology innovation and application | 3.8 | 0.35 | 25 |
29 | Project reporting independence and impartiality | 3.8 | 0.35 | 25 |
30 | Compensation for land acquisition and relocation | 3.5 | 0.18 | 30 |
31 | Public opinion monitoring | 3.3 | 0.06 | 31 |
32 | Actively organizes public participation | 3.2 | 0.00 | 32 |
Target Level | Component Level | Factor Level | Combined Weights |
---|---|---|---|
Social responsibility evaluation of major municipal road infrastructure | Political responsibility (0.2633) | Regional transportation network construction (0.1506) | 0.03966 |
Meets the living and travel needs of residents (0.1522) | 0.03977 | ||
Maintaining neighboring community relations (0.1420) | 0.03739 | ||
Effective coordination among governmental subject departments (0.1387) | 0.03652 | ||
Engineering anticorruption (0.1386) | 0.03648 | ||
Proper handling of the relationship between people, vehicles, roads, and the environment (0.1391) | 0.03663 | ||
Public event emergency response (0.1399) | 0.03685 | ||
Economic and quality responsibility (0.2533) | Project economic feasibility decision (0.1689) | 0.04277 | |
Project technical feasibility decision (0.1719) | 0.04353 | ||
Well-established governance mechanism for engineering projects (0.1639) | 0.04151 | ||
Quality and safe construction of road works (0.1701) | 0.04308 | ||
Road construction cost and schedule control (0.1621) | 0.04105 | ||
Project operating costs and safety assurance (0.1631) | 0.04130 | ||
Legal responsibility (0.2472) | Information disclosure (0.3508) | 0.08673 | |
Effective regulation (0.3271) | 0.08086 | ||
Design, construction, and operation in accordance with transportation industry specifications and legal requirements (0.3221) | 0.07962 | ||
Environmental and ethical responsibility (0.2361) | Water, noise, dust and other pollution control (0.1271) | 0.03002 | |
Environmental eco-cultural protection along the road (0.1262) | 0.02980 | ||
Consideration of the impact of the proposed road on existing tracks (0.1251) | 0.02954 | ||
Interoperability with the surrounding environment (0.1248) | 0.02946 | ||
Safeguarding the rights and interests of participating employees (0.1261) | 0.02978 | ||
Coordinate road construction with pipeline construction sequence (0.1224) | 0.02891 | ||
Raising awareness of environmental protection (0.1269) | 0.02997 | ||
Supervision and prosecution of wrongdoing (0.1212) | 0.02862 |
Indicators | Evaluation Status | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Excellent | Good | General | Poor | Very Poor | ||
Political responsibility | Regional transportation network construction | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 |
Meets the needs of residents’ life and travel | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Maintaining relationships with the surrounding community | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | |
Effective coordination between the main government departments | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | |
Engineering anticorruption | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | |
Proper handling of the relationship between people, vehicles, roads, and the environment | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | |
Public event emergency response | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | |
Economic and Quality Responsibility | Project economic feasibility decision | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 |
Project technical feasibility decision | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0 | |
Sound engineering project governance mechanism | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0 | |
Quality and safe construction of road projects | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | |
Road construction cost and schedule control | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0 | |
Project operating costs and safety assurance | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | |
Legal Liability | Information disclosure | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 0 | 0 |
Effective regulation | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Design, construction, and operation comply with transportation industry specifications and legal requirements | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | |
Environmental and Ethical Responsibility | Water, noise, dust, and other pollution control | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 |
Environmental ecological and cultural protection along the road | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | |
Consideration of the impact of the proposed road on existing tracks | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | |
Interoperability with the surrounding environment | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
Protecting the rights and interests of participating employees | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0 | |
Coordinate the sequence of road construction and pipeline construction | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.2 | |
Raising awareness of environmental protection | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0 | |
Monitoring and reporting wrongdoing | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0 |
Evaluation results | 0–0.1 | 0.1–0.2 | 0.2–0.3 | 0.3–0.4 | 0.4–0.5 |
Rank | Very poor | Poor | General | Good | Excellent |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, D.; Li, J.; Peng, J.; Zhu, J.; Luo, L. Evaluation of Social Responsibility of Major Municipal Road Infrastructure—Case Study of Zhengzhou 107 Auxiliary Road Project. Buildings 2022, 12, 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030369
Yang D, Li J, Peng J, Zhu J, Luo L. Evaluation of Social Responsibility of Major Municipal Road Infrastructure—Case Study of Zhengzhou 107 Auxiliary Road Project. Buildings. 2022; 12(3):369. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030369
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Delei, Jiawen Li, Jiudong Peng, Jun Zhu, and Lan Luo. 2022. "Evaluation of Social Responsibility of Major Municipal Road Infrastructure—Case Study of Zhengzhou 107 Auxiliary Road Project" Buildings 12, no. 3: 369. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030369