Next Article in Journal
The Management of Railway Operations during the Planned Interruption of Railway Infrastructure
Previous Article in Journal
Inertial Methodology for the Monitoring of Structures in Motion Caused by Seismic Vibrations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Infrastructures
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/infrastructures9070117
infrastructures-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development of an Assessment and Management Framework for Sustainable Construction Projects in Jordan by Incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals

by
Rami Alawneh
1,*,
Ismael Jannoud
1,
Hesham Rabayah
1,
Rana Imam
2 and
Hatem Almasaeid
3
1
Department of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, P.O. Box 130, Amman 11733, Jordan
2
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
3
Center of Sustainable Development and Women Empowerment, Al al-Bayt University, Mafraq 25113, Jordan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Infrastructures 2024, 9(7), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures9070117
Submission received: 19 May 2024 / Revised: 4 July 2024 / Accepted: 11 July 2024 / Published: 21 July 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Countries worldwide have implemented several strategies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to which sustainable construction projects can contribute significantly. However, an integrated assessment and management method for sustainable construction projects is needed to improve the contributions of such projects to achieving the SDGs. Hence, this research aims to develop an innovative framework that integrates contributions to achieving the SDGs within the assessment and management of sustainable construction projects. We reviewed previous research and used the Delphi method to identify assessment indicators and construct a framework. Next, two new indices were constructed: the Sustainable Construction Project Indicator Contributions Index (SCPICI) and the Integrated Sustainable Construction Project Contributions Index (ISCPCI). Lastly, a focus group discussion was conducted. According to the SCPICI, the top five indicators are energy-efficient management (27.58), the use of renewable energy (27.51), measurements of energy savings during the construction and operation phases (26.64), water savings during construction and operation phases (26.18), and water recycling (25.46). The research findings indicate that sustainable construction projects substantially contribute to achieving SDGs 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 15. Policymakers and other stakeholders in the construction sector could use the proposed framework to assess and manage sustainable construction projects. Moreover, researchers worldwide could use the proposed methods to develop new frameworks in other countries.

1. Introduction

With the increase in the population and environmental pollution, it is crucial to effectively oversee construction and infrastructure projects to minimize adverse environmental effects and reduce pollution. Against this background, sustainable development aims to mitigate environmental harm, enhance the economic viability of projects, and promote comfort and social equity [1]. The construction industries in developed countries have undertaken several initiatives to mitigate their environmental impacts. Developing countries, on the other hand, often overlook sustainability due to factors such as uncertain economies, monopolistic practices, and insufficient legislation. Recent studies have demonstrated the pressing need for sustainable construction methodologies in developing countries. These practices are necessary to restore construction systems that now consume resources, harm the environment, and jeopardize the health and well-being of stakeholders [2].
The construction industry consumes significant amounts of raw materials, producing both the final product and, notably, waste materials [3]. This industry has a significant impact on the environment, society, and economic growth [4]. Accordingly, sustainable construction, defined as the efficient use of resources while incorporating environmental design principles, depends on three key pillars: environmental preservation, social well-being, and economic growth [5].
The concept of sustainability has achieved global acceptance in the construction sector [6]. As a result, the construction industry is exploring alternative materials. For example, researchers have conducted several studies to integrate recycled materials into Portland cement concrete [7]. However, implementing sustainable practices, particularly those related to raw material waste in civil construction, often faces multiple obstacles [8]. Given the rapid environmental transformations in recent years, it is now essential to prioritize the adoption of sustainable practices within the construction sector [9] and foster awareness among stakeholders in the construction industry. Ultimately, these measures will facilitate the implementation and adoption of sustainable construction [5], reduce environmental harm, and improve sustainability [10].
Identifying adverse environmental effects has led the construction industry to integrate sustainable practices across its production processes [11], aiming to mitigating adverse impacts. However, while there is a growing emphasis on incorporating economic and environmental factors into assessment frameworks for building sustainability, social sustainability has received comparatively less attention [6]. In practice, incorporating sustainability has emerged as a crucial qualitative and quantitative measure, especially for the project’s environmental dimensions; however, social issues have been addressed more slowly [12]. Consequently, the frameworks for assessing sustainability place less emphasis on social concerns. Future frameworks should adequately address the social dimensions of sustainability, highlighting the need for more analytical support in sustainable decision making [6].
The construction sector has been criticized for its lack of sustainability, underscoring the need for practical tools to evaluate and enhance this dimension. However, sustainability assessment is challenging for project managers due to the multifaceted nature of sustainability and its pillars, requiring project managers to prioritize and select appropriate indicators [13]. As a result, the construction industry has developed several indicators to measure sustainability. Indeed, selecting appropriate sustainability indicators throughout the execution of a construction project is crucial to achieve sustainability goals [14].
Sustainable development is a comprehensive concept that underscores the need to integrate and achieve a dynamic equilibrium among economic, social, and environmental dimensions within a given area. The primary objective of sustainable development is to guarantee equitable outcomes for both current and future generations [15]. In this space, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent a progressive trajectory for the global community, considering social, economic, and environmental sustainability across all policies and activities to eliminate poverty and inequality and achieve a more prosperous society [16]. The SDGs represent a comprehensive framework for the construction sector to advance sustainable development within the environment, society, and economy [17] and offer an alternative perspective for converting global needs and goals into practical business options [16]. In the same context, the construction sector has demonstrated its significant capacity and potential to contribute to achieving the SDGs [18].
The construction industry is vital to achieving the SDGs since it serves as the physical foundation for the economic activities required to achieve both short-term economic growth and long-term development. Moreover, this industry serves as a source of revenue and significantly contributes to many economic sectors. Products from the construction industry are crucial to improving overall quality of life. However, the sector must execute each constructed item with the utmost care to meet the demands of the global agenda. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a method for assessing the achievement of sustainability goals within a project [19], especially since such projects serve various critical functions in society and everyday life.
The construction industry has a worldwide reputation as a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption worldwide. This makes achieving sustainability a key goal for the building and construction industry, mainly to support the global transition to a sustainable carbon-neutral built environment. The ratification of the 2030 Agenda and the associated SDGs serve as strategic tools in this area [20].
Assessing and tracking the sustainability of construction projects during their lifecycles is necessary for stakeholders to inform implementation and achieve sustainability more efficiently. All involved stakeholders, including but not limited to planners, contractors, and facility managers, must use a sustainability assessment method to establish sustainable project goals, choose sustainable execution options, and operate sustainably designed facilities [21]. Integrating sustainability into the project management and delivery processes is essential to guarantee the sustainability of projects and the assets they generate [22].
Sustainable project management approaches have consistently grown in significance in recent years. Relevant indicators serve as a method for guiding contemporary projects towards sustainability. Therefore, it is essential to determine a specific group of sustainability indicators that impact such processes [23].
The project manager makes critical decisions about sustainability in both governmental and commercial building projects. Thus, examining sustainable construction project management from various perspectives is becoming increasingly significant. Construction projects may include large-scale endeavors that are essential for sustained economic expansion and may need to follow environmental sustainability principles based on the project’s planned material use. Although primarily financed by governmental entities, these initiatives often aim to stimulate economic expansion, frequently resulting in the implementation of smaller-scale building endeavors, which effectively impose additional time, cost, quality, and scope constraints [24].
The use of indices is a significant approach for addressing sustainability challenges. Indicators and indices are valuable instruments for objectively measuring and understanding sustainable development [15]. It is imperative for the global construction sector to critically assess its sustainability practices to align them with the prevailing global patterns in sustainable development [25].
In Jordan, natural resource availability and usage create difficulties due to the limited supply of water and fossil fuels, as well as rising demand. In particular, Jordan has some of the world’s fewest water sources and is thus facing severe water shortages, contributing to several significant challenges such as the overuse of groundwater, rising demand, and inefficient practices. Additionally, Jordan had to rely on imports for 93% of its energy needs in 2018 compared to 97% in 2014 [26,27,28] due to a lack of domestic energy resources. Despite these challenges that Jordan is currently facing, the country has undertaken the task of implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and achieving the SDGs [29]. In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Index and Dashboard Report (2023) released by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Jordan ranked as the 77th country globally [30].
As discussed earlier, implementing sustainable construction projects contributes significantly to achieving the SDGs. Thus, it is crucial to assess and manage the sustainable construction industry and its contributions to improve the achievement of the SDGs in Jordan. However, developing countries have persistent difficulties in adopting sustainable practices within the construction sector [31]. Moreover, there remains a lack of sustainable construction project assessment and management frameworks explicitly outlining the association between the assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects and the SDGs.
Accordingly, information on this vital topic is scarce. A quantitative assessment of sustainable construction projects’ contributions to achieving the SDGs in Jordan is necessary to properly manage these projects and the construction industry in general. This study aims to create an innovative framework that incorporates the SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable construction projects in Jordan.
The primary goal of this study is to address three research questions: (1) What are the assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects? (2) How could implementing these indicators contribute to achieving the SDGs? (3) How can we assess and manage sustainable construction projects in Jordan according to their contributions to the SDGs?
Therefore, the specific objectives of this research can be summarized as follows:
  • Identifying the assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects in Jordan;
  • Developing indices for assessing the contributions of implementing assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects to achieving the SDGs;
  • Developing a framework for sustainable construction project assessment and management.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 1 introduces sustainable construction projects and sustainable development. Section 2 details the methodology employed in this research. Section 3 and Section 4 describe and discuss the results in more detail. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions of this research.

2. Research Methods

2.1. Identification of Assessment Indicators Using the Delphi Method

In this study, we generated a list of appropriate assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects from previous related research [1,13,14,21,32,33,34]. Then, the Delphi consultation method was used to ascertain appropriate assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects in Jordan.
The Delphi method is a commonly used and highly acknowledged systematic approach for collecting data from and achieving reliable agreement between participants within their areas of expertise [35]. The Delphi method is a practical approach for fostering consensus by using a sequence of questionnaires administered several times to gather data from a carefully chosen panel of participants [36]. Over the last two decades, many construction engineering and management researchers have adopted the Delphi method as their primary research methodology [37]. This method was selected for the present study because the assessment criteria for sustainable construction projects are multi-dimensional, and the approach used in this study is consensus based. Moreover, research on sustainable construction has shown the effectiveness of the Delphi approach [35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
The dimensions and configuration of the panel are crucial for effectively implementing the Delphi method [45,46,47,48,49]. The current body of construction management and engineering research has yet to conclusively determine the optimal dimensions of a Delphi panel. In the 88 examined publications that used the Delphi method, the expert panel sizes varied from 3 to 93 [37]. Delphi experts should be selected based on their expertise, experience, professional qualifications, specialized knowledge and expertise, professional positions, qualifications, job experience, and background in the research subject. Furthermore, the eagerness of experts to engage is a crucial factor to consider since several iterations of surveys are necessary to achieve a consensus.
This research began the Delphi process by carefully selecting 40 Jordanian experts. The experts were chosen according to their professional backgrounds in the construction industry, a sustainable construction evaluation, and their readiness to participate. The composition of the Delphi panel was as follows: 22.5% from non-government organizations, 25% from engineering consultant companies, 17.5% from the government, 15% from supplier contracting companies, and 20% from institutions and universities.
Subsequently, a questionnaire was designed to gather the perspectives of Jordanian specialists on three aspects of assessment and 27 assessment indicators that were acquired from a comprehensive review of relevant literature. The first round of Delphi consultations included the participation of 39 experts, while the subsequent rounds involved the participation of 37 experts. The questionnaire utilized a five-point Likert scale to gather the perspectives of the specialists on the degree of significance assigned to each assessment indicator, ranging from “not important” to “extremely important”. In the Delphi consultation technique, a questionnaire survey is conducted in three rounds. During the first phase in this study, the experts were requested to make adjustments, include additional indicators, and endorse or rank the assessment indicators. Each indicator’s rank was determined based on the mean values.
Consequently, a primary area focus was determined. The design of the second-round questionnaire survey aligned with that of the first-round questionnaire and incorporated input from the experts. The experts were provided the second-round questionnaire to review and reassess their original ideas and conclusions. Subsequently, the comments provided by the experts in the second round of the questionnaire were analyze. The consensus was then assessed, with the results indicating few changes in the opinions of each expert when compared to the first response. The outcomes of this round were condensed and disseminated again in a subsequent round. The third round of the questionnaire consisted of evaluation indicators similar to those used in the second round. Summaries of the first- and second-round questions were included in the third-round questionnaire, representing the experts’ viewpoints as a statistically derived group answer (mean/median). The survey was then sent to the panel of Delphi experts to obtain their final assessments of the indicators. In addition, the experts determined the significance threshold for each assessment indicator to enhance the quality of judgments and augment the general level of accuracy. While various analytic techniques are available for assessing consensus [37], the mean and standard deviation were selected in this research. Standard deviations for the assessment indicators below 1 indicated a consensus among the experts.

2.2. Weighting Assessment Indicators Using the RII

The RII can be applied to analyze and rank various elements [50] and has attracted increasing attention in previous studies on sustainable construction [51,52,53,54,55,56]. After adopting the Delphi technique to identify applicable assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects in Jordan, the RII method was employed to determine the weights assigned to the specified assessment indicators based on their contributions to achieving the SDGs.
The assessment indicators were evaluated using a Likert scale with five points, from “very low” to “very important”. A questionnaire was then developed and sent to 120 experts, including those who previously participated in the Delphi method. A significant association between assessment indicators and SDGs was considered when the mean value of the responses exceeded 3 (p-value < 0.05). The RII was calculated if there was a substantial correlation between each assessment indicator and SDG. Equation (1), as described in [57], was used to compute the RII for each assessment indicator. The computational procedure included computing the geometric means of the RII values for each assessment indicator. Here, a higher RII value indicates a more significant contribution to achieving the SDGs in Jordan:
R I I = ∑ i = 1 n   W i A ∗ N
where W is the contribution weight of implementing each assessment indicator on achieving the SDGs, as given by respondents; A represents the highest weight, and N is the total number of respondents.

2.3. Constructing the Sustainable Construction Project Contribution Index and Framework

One useful mathematical tool for combining many variables is a composite index. This tool is widely acknowledged to represent a valuable approach for comparing performance in policy research and public communication [58].
This research utilized data collected from a survey to develop sustainable construction project contribution indices. These indices are based on the opinions of Jordanian experts on the contributions of implementing assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects (ISCP) to achieving the SDGs in Jordan. As stated in Section 2.2, a significant association between ISCP and the SDGs was considered when the mean value of the responses exceeded 3 (p-value < 0.05). The RII calculation relied upon a substantial correlation between the ISCP and SDG. The following indices were suggested in this study.

2.3.1. Sustainable Construction Project Indicator Contributions Index (SCPICI)

The SCPICI is a comprehensive index that quantifies the overall percentage contribution of each assessment indicator for a sustainable construction project (ISCPi: assessment indicators for a sustainable construction project: ISCP1, ISCP2, ISCP3, ISCP4, ISCP5, ISCP6, ISCP7, ISCP8, ISCP9, ISCP10, ISCP11, ISCP12, ISCP13, ISCP14, ISCP15, ISCP16, ISCP17, ISCP18, ISCP19, ISCP20, ISCP21, ISCP22, ISCP23, ISCP24, ISCP25, ISCP26, and ISCP27) to achieving each of the SDGs (SDGi: SDGs 1–17) in Jordan. The Sustainable Construction Project Indicator Contributions Index (SCPICI) is calculated by multiplying the geometric mean of all RII values for each ISCP by the NSDGs (the number of SDGs that the implementation of ISCP significantly contributes to achieving is divided by 17, which is the total number of SDGs).
SCPICISCPi = % of Achievement × Geometric mean (RIIISCPi&SDGi) × (NSDGs/17) × 100%
where % of Achievement is the percentage of achievement, which is 100% if the assessment indicator is achieved; % of Achievement is the percentage of achievement, which is 0% if the assessment indicator is not achieved; RII is the relative Importance Index for each assessment indicator for sustainable construction projects; ISCPi represents the assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects; and NSDGs represents the number of SDGs that the implementation of ISCPi significantly contributes to achieving.

2.3.2. The Integrated Sustainable Construction Project Contributions Index (ISCPCI)

ISCPCI is an integrated index that describes the overall contributions of sustainable construction projects to the achievement of the SDGs in Jordan. The summation of all SCPICIISCPi values was used to calculate the ISCPCI:
ISCPCI = Σ SCPICIISCPi.

2.4. Validating Results

The focus group discussion method has attracted increasing attention in previous studies on sustainable construction [59,60,61,62]. The proposed framework and results were validated using a focus group discussion approach. Ten Jordanian construction project specialists, including both males and females, were chosen based on their skills, roles, and experience. These experts came from various backgrounds, including professionals such as contractors, engineering consultants, government officials, and university-based academic experts. Thus, the experts possessed both academic and practical expertise in sustainable construction projects.

3. Results

3.1. Identified Assessment Indicators for Sustainable Construction Projects

The identification of assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects was guided by prior research ([1,13,14,21,32,33,34]) and expert opinions. A framework with two hierarchical levels was built using the consensus of the Delphi panelists (Table 1). Three environmental, economic, and social dimensions were identified, including twenty-seven assessment indicators. Table 1 presents the identified assessment indicators. Table 2 shows the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals extracted from the website of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform/Sustainable Development Goals [63].

3.2. The Weighting of Assessment Indicators for Sustainable Construction Projects

The RII values shown in Table 3 provide statistical evidence for the correlation between the assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects (ISCP) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The calculation of RIIs was contingent upon identifying a significant relationship between each assessment indicator (ISCP) and SDG. The relationship was considered significant if the mean of the responses exceeded three, and the p-value was less than 0.05.

3.3. Proposed Indices and Framework

A framework with two hierarchical levels was proposed based on the consensus of the Delphi panelists. This framework features three environmental, economic, and social dimensions, including twenty-seven assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects (ISCP). Table 4 presents the identified assessment indicators (ISCP); the RII values, which represent the weight of each ISCP based on its contributions to achieving each SDG; the overall RII value for each ISCP, which represents the geometric mean of all RII values for each ISCP; the SCPICI, which is a comprehensive index that quantifies the overall percentage contribution of each ISCP to achieving all SDGs; and the Integrated Sustainable Construction Project Contributions Index (ISCPCI), which is an integrated index that describes the overall contributions of a sustainable construction project to achieving the SDGs in Jordan. If all assessment indicators of a sustainable construction project are achieved, the maximum value of the ISCPCI would be 391.57. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the weights of the assessment indicators based on the SCPICI. Figure 4 shows the contributions of sustainable construction projects to achieving the SDGs.

3.4. Validation of the Proposed Framework

In this study, experts were provided a suggested framework. They gave their opinions on the ease or difficulty in applying this framework and conveyed their thoughts on the subject matter’s resilience and applicability within the specific context of Jordan.
All the participants in the focus group agreed that the framework is simple and fits Jordan’s specific circumstances. Moreover, the experts determined that the proposed framework provides substantial insights into how sustainable construction projects might contribute to achieving the SDGs in Jordan. The experts also agreed that the suggested indices would help evaluate sustainable construction projects.
Nine participants, representing a majority of 90%, reached a consensus on the chosen research methodology for developing the suggested framework, primarily because of its high reliability. Thus, this study may help academics and policymakers worldwide create a new framework for sustainable construction projects in any country. It could also improve existing evaluation systems for sustainable construction projects. Overall, the participants validated the proposed framework.

4. Discussion

Recently, there has been a significant surge in research on assessing sustainable construction projects. One of this research’s primary limitations is the need for a pre-existing framework that incorporates the SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable construction projects in Jordan and can quantitatively assess the contributions of sustainable construction projects to achieving the SDGs. These limitations impeded our ability to compare the proposed framework in this research with other existing frameworks or tools.
The present research identified 27 assessment indicators for sustainable construction projects and used the proposed ISCPCI to evaluate each assessment indicator’s contributions to achieving the SDGs. The indicators were as follows: SCP7. Energy-efficient management (27.58), SCP6. Usage of renewable energy (27.51), SCP5. Measurements of energy savings during construction and operation phases (26.64), SCP2. Water savings during construction and operation phases (26.18), SCP3. Water recycling (25.46), SCP15. Waste management (25.18), SCP10. Usage of green-labeled products (24.69), SCP4. Non-pollution of surface water and underground water (20.87), SCP20. Promotion of sustainable technologies and processes after project completion (19.81), SCP17. Protection of stakeholder safety (16.41), SCP1. Usage of low air pollution methods (15.87), SCP9. Alternatives for toxicants (15.71), SCP21. Free access for the disabled (15.5), SCP14. Usage of recycled materials (14.8), SCP23. Efficient allocation of resources (14.76), SCP16. Disaster risk reduction (10.33), SCP8. Reduction in noise pollution (10.23), SCP27. Lifecycle costs (9.76), SCP13. Preventing soil erosion (9.61), SCP11. Protecting biodiversity (5.65), SCP19. Paying attention to cultural heritage (5.65), SCP12. Reducing degradation of natural habitats (5.59), SCP22. Creating equal job opportunities (5.53), SCP26. Positive impacts on the region’s economy (5.18), SCP18. Public participation (5.06), SCP24. Paying attention to society and market needs (4.94), and SCP25. Cost-effectiveness/economic profit (4.76).
There are some similarities between the findings of this research and those of previous studies worldwide, which also found the construction industry to significantly contribute to achieving the SDGs. A previous study related to the critical role of the construction industry in achieving the SDGs [16] indicated that the construction sector is crucial in attaining almost all 17 SDGs. Ten significant SDGs, specifically SDG 3, SDGs 5–9, SDGs 11–13, and SDG 15 [16], prominently feature the roles of the construction sector. Furthermore, a previous study in Brazil [64] examined sustainability practices within the construction industry, revealing that civil construction sector practices generally contribute positively to achieving the SDGs. In particular, these practices have significantly advanced SDG 1, SDG 4, SDGs 6–7, SDG 9, and SDGs 11–12.

5. Conclusions

Globally, governments have formulated plans to achieve the SDGs, for which sustainable construction projects may play a substantial role. However, the relationship between the SDGs and relevant assessment indicators must be further clarified to develop an integrated sustainable construction project assessment and management system. Consequently, further information is required. The present study developed a new framework incorporating the SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable construction projects in Jordan. This framework includes 27 assessment indicators and identifies their contributions to achieving the SDGs. For this framework, two indices were constructed. The first index is the SCPICI, which quantifies the overall percentage contribution of implementing each assessment indicator for sustainable construction projects, and the second index is the ISCPCI, which describes the overall contributions of sustainable construction projects to the achievement of the SDGs in Jordan.
The top 10 weight indicators, as determined by the proposed Sustainable Construction Project Indicator Contributions Index (SCPICI), are as follows: energy-efficient management (27.58), the use of renewable energy (27.51), measurements of energy savings during the construction and operation phases (26.64), water savings during the construction and operation phases (26.18), water recycling (25.46), the use of green labels (24.69), waste management (25.18), non-pollution of surface water and underground water (20.87), the promotion of sustainable technologies and processes after project completion (19.81), and the protection of stakeholder safety (16.41).
Governments, designers, developers, and other stakeholders in the construction industry need quantitative tools to prioritize and optimize the contributions of sustainable construction projects to achieving the SDGs. Thus, applying the proposed framework could aid policymakers and practitioners in the Jordan construction industry. This research offers valuable insights and recommendations to assist the government in developing, implementing, assessing, and/or revising current sustainable construction guidelines and standards to explicitly align them with the SDGs. Diverse stakeholders, including the government, developers, and project practitioners, could utilize the suggested framework to evaluate sustainable construction projects. The suggested framework will also help academics and policymakers worldwide to develop novel sustainable construction project evaluation systems or enhance current sustainable construction project assessment systems. Therefore, the results of this study have the potential to aid in developing a framework for sustainable construction projects and improve the achievement of the SDGs in Joran and other countries.
Despite achieving the goals stated in the introduction, developing the proposed framework for sustainable construction projects in Jordan remains a research limitation. Moreover, the lack of a pre-existing framework that quantitatively integrates SDGs into the assessment and management of sustainable construction projects in Jordan hinders comparisons between the proposed and existing frameworks. However, researchers in other countries could use this study’s findings as a guideline to develop their own frameworks for sustainable construction projects.
Ultimately, incorporating SDGs into the assessment and management frameworks of sustainable construction projects in Jordan may optimize their contribution to achieving these goals.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.A.; methodology, R.A.; software, R.A., I.J. and H.R.; validation, R.A., I.J. and H.A.; formal analysis, R.A., I.J. and H.A.; investigation, R.A., I.J., H.R., R.I. and H.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A.; writing—review and editing, R.A., I.J., H.R., R.I. and H.A.; visualization, R.A., I.J., H.R., R.I. and H.A.; supervision, R.A., I.J. and H.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, grant number (13/11/2020-2021), for a project titled “Developing a Novel Framework for Assessing and Managing the Contributions of Sustainable Construction Projects to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals in Jordan”.

Data Availability Statement

Data generated during this study are reported in the main text, tables, and figures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hatefi, S.M.; Tamošaitienė, J. Construction projects assessment based on the sustainable development criteria by an integrated fuzzy AHP and improved GRA model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pradhananga, P.; Elzomor, M.; Kasabdji, G.S. Barriers and drivers to the adoption of sustainable construction practices in developing countries: A case study of Venezuela. J. Archit. Eng. 2021, 27, 05021005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kazerooni Sadi, M.A.; Abdullah, A.; Sajoudi, M.N.; Kamal, M.F.M.; Torshizi, F.; Taherkhani, R. Reduce, reuse, recycle and recovery in sustainable construction waste management. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 446, 937–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cortés, D.; Traxler, A.A.; Greiling, D. Sustainability reporting in the construction industry–Status quo and directions of future research. Heliyon 2023, 9, e20404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Maqbool, R.; Arul, T.; Ashfaq, S. A mixed-methods study of sustainable construction practices in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 430, 139087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fatourehchi, D.; Zarghami, E. Social sustainability assessment framework for managing sustainable construction in residential buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abendeh, R.M.; AbuSalem, Z.T.; Baker, M.I.B.; Khedaywi, T.S. Concrete containing recycled waste glass: Strength and resistance to freeze–thaw action. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Constr. Mater. 2021, 174, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Da Trindade, E.L.G.; Lima, L.R.; Alencar, L.H.; Alencar, M.H. Identification of obstacles to implementing sustainability in the civil construction industry using bow-tie tool. Buildings 2020, 10, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maqbool, R.; Saiba, M.R.; Altuwaim, A.; Rashid, Y.; Ashfaq, S. The influence of industrial attitudes and behaviours in adopting sustainable construction practices. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 893–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ahmad, W.; Ahmad, A.; Ostrowski, K.A.; Aslam, F.; Joyklad, P. A scientometric review of waste material utilization in concrete for sustainable construction. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lima, L.; Trindade, E.; Alencar, L.; Alencar, M.; Silva, L. Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marcelino-Sádaba, S.; González-Jaen, L.F.; Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. Using project management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 99, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hashemi, H.; Ghoddousi, P.; Nasirzadeh, F. Sustainability indicator selection by a novel triangular intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making approach in highway construction projects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rajabi, S.; El-Sayegh, S.; Romdhane, L. Identification and assessment of sustainability performance indicators for construction projects. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2022, 15, 100193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kwatra, S.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, P. A critical review of studies related to construction and computation of Sustainable Development Indices. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 112, 106061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fei, W.; Opoku, A.; Agyekum, K.; Oppon, J.A.; Ahmed, V.; Chen, C.; Lok, K.L. The critical role of the construction industry in achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs): Delivering projects for the common good. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Opoku, A.; Deng, J.; Elmualim, A.; Ekung, S.; Hussien, A.A.; Abdalla, S.B. Sustainable procurement in construction and the realisation of the sustainable development goal (SDG) 12. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gade, A.N.; Selman, A.D. Early implementation of the sustainable development goals in construction projects: A Danish case study. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 79, 107815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ofori, G. Get Construction Project Performance Parameters Right to Attain Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Scrucca, F.; Ingrao, C.; Barberio, G.; Matarazzo, A.; Lagioia, G. On the role of sustainable buildings in achieving the 2030 UN sustainable development goals. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 100, 107069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yu, W.; Cheng, S.-T.; Ho, W.-C.; Chang, Y.-H. Measuring the Sustainability of construction projects throughout their lifecycle: A Taiwan lesson. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Goel, A.; Ganesh, L.S.; Kaur, A. Sustainability integration in the management of construction projects: A morphological analysis of over two decades’ research literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K. Investigating the significance of sustainability indicators for promoting sustainable construction project management. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023, 23, 434–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kiani Mavi, R.; Gengatharen, D.; Mavi, N.K.; Hughes, R.; Campbell, A.; Yates, R. Sustainability in construction projects: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Huang, R.-Y.; Hsu, W.-T. Framework development for state-level appraisal indicators of sustainable construction. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2011, 28, 143–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ministry of Water & Irrigation. Jordan. Water Sector Facts and Figures. 2022. Available online: https://www.mwi.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/ar/eb_list_page/jordan_water_sector_-_facts_and_figures_2022.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  27. Al-Addous, M.; Bdour, M.; Alnaief, M.; Rabaiah, S.; Schweimanns, N. Water Resources in Jordan: A Review of Current Challenges and Future Opportunities. Water 2023, 15, 3729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Summary of Jordan Energy Strategy 2020–2030. Available online: https://www.memr.gov.jo/EBV4.0/Root_Storage/EN/EB_Info_Page/StrategyEN2020.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  29. United Nations Jordan. Available online: https://jordan.un.org/en/42127-jordans-first-national-voluntary-review-implementation-2030-agenda#:~:text=Jordan%20has%20developed%20a%20roadmap,systems%2C%20and%20monitoring%20and%20evaluation (accessed on 1 May 2024).
  30. Sachs, J.D.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Drumm, E. Implementing the SDG Stimulus. Sustainable Development Report 2023; SDSN: Paris, France; Dublin University Press: Dublin, Ireland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tjebane, M.M.; Musonda, I.; Onososen, A.; Ramabodu, M. Challenges for the Implementation of Sustainable Construction Practices in Developing Countries: A Bibliometric Review. In Advances in Information Technology in Civil and Building Engineering. ICCCBE 2022; Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Skatulla, S., Beushausen, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gunarathne, A.S.; Zainudeen, N.; Perera, C.S.R.; Perera, B.A.K.S. A framework of an integrated sustainability and value engineering concepts for construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 22, 2178–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K.; Leopoulos, V. Integrating sustainability indicators into project management: The case of construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, G.; Qiang, G.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, X.; Chang, R. What are the key indicators of mega sustainable construction projects?—A stakeholder-network perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sourani, A.; Sohail, M. The Delphi method: Review and use in construction management research. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2015, 11, 54–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hsu, C.-C.; Sandford, B.A. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2007, 12, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ameyaw, E.E.; Hu, Y.; Shan, M.; Chan, A.P.C.; Le, Y. Application of Delphi method in construction engineering and management research: A quantitative perspective. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2016, 22, 991–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cruzado-Ramos, F.; Brioso, X. Sustainability performance evaluation in building projects by integrating lean and sustainable management using the delphi method. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Berkeley, CA, USA, 6–12 July 2020; pp. 805–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, W. The concept of sustainable construction project management in international practice. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 16358–16380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chan, P. An empirical study on data validation methods of delphi and general consensus. Data 2022, 7, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abdel-Basset, M.; Gamal, A.; Chakrabortty, R.K.; Ryan, M.; El-Saber, N. A comprehensive framework for evaluating sustainable green building indicators under an uncertain environment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tokbolat, S.; Karaca, F.; Durdyev, S.; Calay, R.K. Construction professionals’ perspectives on drivers and barriers of sustainable construction. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 4361–4378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, J.C.; Huang, K.-T.; Ko, M.Y. Using the fuzzy delphi method to study the construction needs of an elementary campus and achieve sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ahiabu, M.K.; Emuze, F.; Das, D. Perception of the benefits of sustainable construction in Ghana. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2023, 13, 306–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dalkey, N.; Helmer, O. An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts. Manag. Sci. 1963, 9, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Delbecq, A.L.; Van de Ven, A.H.; Gustafson, D.H. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes; Scott Foresman: Glenview, IL, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  47. Okoli, C.; Pawlowski, S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 2004, 42, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rowe, G.; Wright, G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 1999, 15, 353–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schmidt, R.; Lyytinen, K.; Keil, M.; Cule, P. Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2001, 17, 5–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hossen, M.M.; Kang, S.; Kim, J. Construction schedule delay risk assessment by using combined AHP-RII methodology for an international NPP project. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2015, 47, 362–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Okoye, P.; Odesola, I.; Okolie, K. Evaluating the importance of construction activities for sustainable construction practices in building projects in Nigeria. J. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. 2020, 5, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ayarkwa, J.; Opoku, D.-G.J.; Antwi-Afari, P.; Li, R.Y.M. Sustainable building processes’ challenges and strategies: The relative important index approach. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 7, 100455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chigozie Osuizugbo, I.; Oyeyipo, O.; Lahanmi, A.; Morakinyo, A.; Olaniyi, O. Barriers to the Adoption of Sustainable Construction. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 9, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fathalizadeh, A.; Hosseini, M.R.; Vaezzadeh, S.S.; Edwards, D.J.; Martek, I.; Shooshtarian, S. Barriers to sustainable construction project management: The case of Iran. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2022, 11, 717–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zulu, S.L.; Zulu, E.; Chabala, M.; Chunda, N. Drivers and barriers to sustainability practices in the Zambian Construction Industry. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2023, 23, 2116–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, J.; Yi, Y.; Wang, X. Exploring factors influencing construction waste reduction: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Durdyev, S.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Thurnell, D.; Banaitis, A.; Ihtiyar, A. Sustainable construction industry in Cambodia: Awareness, drivers and barriers. Sustainability 2018, 10, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S. State-of-the-Art Report on Current Methodologies and Practices for Composite Indicator Development; European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Technological and Economic Risk Management Unit: Ispra, Italy, 2002; Volume 214. [Google Scholar]
  59. Nasereddin, M.; Price, A. Addressing the capital cost barrier to sustainable construction. Dev. Built Environ. 2021, 7, 100049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Opoku, A. SDG2030: A sustainable built environment’s role in achieving the post-2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, Manchester, UK, 5–7 September 2016; Association of Researchers in Construction Management: Manchester, UK, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 1149–1158. [Google Scholar]
  61. Nwokoro, I.; Onukwube, H. Sustainable or green construction in Lagos, Nigeria: Principles, attributes and framework. In Proceedings of the West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, Accra, Ghana, 19–21 July 2011; pp. 883–895. [Google Scholar]
  62. Griffin, C.T.; Knowles, C.; Theodoropoulos, C.; Allen, J.H. Barriers to the implementation of sustainable structural materials in green buildings. In Proceedings of the Structures and Architecture, 1st International Conference on Structures & Architecture (ICSA2010), Guimarães, Portugal, 21–23 July 2010. [Google Scholar]
  63. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 4 April 2024).
  64. Barbosa Júnior, I.d.O.; Macêdo, A.N.; Martins, V.W.B. Construction Industry and Its Contributions to Achieving the SDGs Proposed by the UN: An Analysis of Sustainable Practices. Buildings 2023, 13, 1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Infrastructures 09 00117 g001
Figure 1. Ranking of environmental assessment indicators based on the SCPICI.
Figure 1. Ranking of environmental assessment indicators based on the SCPICI.
Infrastructures 09 00117 g001
Infrastructures 09 00117 g002
Figure 2. Ranking of social assessment indicators based on the SCPICI.
Figure 2. Ranking of social assessment indicators based on the SCPICI.
Infrastructures 09 00117 g002
Infrastructures 09 00117 g003
Figure 3. Ranking of economic assessment indicators based on the SCPICI.
Figure 3. Ranking of economic assessment indicators based on the SCPICI.
Infrastructures 09 00117 g003
Infrastructures 09 00117 g004
Figure 4. The sustainable construction project’s contributions to achieving the SDGs.
Figure 4. The sustainable construction project’s contributions to achieving the SDGs.
Infrastructures 09 00117 g004
Table 1. Identified assessment indicators for a sustainable construction project.
Table 1. Identified assessment indicators for a sustainable construction project.
Dimension IndicatorCitations
EnvironmentSCP1Usage of low air pollution methods[1,13,14,21,32,34]
SCP2Water savings during construction and operation phases[13,14,21,32]
SCP3Water recycling[14,21,34]
SCP4Non-pollution of surface water and underground water[1,13,14,21,32,33,34]
SCP5Measurements of energy savings during construction and operation phases[1,13,14,21,32,33,34]
SCP6Usage of renewable energy[1,14,21,32,33,34]
SCP7Energy-efficient management[1,14,32,33,34]
SCP8Reduction in noise pollution[14,21,34]
SCP9Alternatives for toxicants[13,21,32,33]
SCP10Usage of green-labeled products[1,21,33]
SCP11Protecting biodiversity[1,13,14,21,32,33]
SCP12Reducing degradation of natural habitats[1,13,21,32,33]
SCP13Preventing soil erosion[13,21]
SCP14Usage of recycled materials[14,32,34]
SCP15Waste management[1,14,21,32,33,34]
SocialSCP16Disaster risk reduction[1,33]
SCP17Protection of stakeholder safety[13,14,32,33,34]
SCP18Public participation[1,13,21,33,34]
SCP19Paying attention to cultural heritage[1,13,21]
SCP20Promotion of sustainable technologies and processes after project completion[1,32,33]
SCP21Free access for the disabled[21]
EconomicSCP22Creating equal job opportunities[1,13,14,21,32,33,34]
SCP23Efficient allocation of resources[1,13,14,33,34]
SCP24Paying attention to society and market needs[1,13,14,32,33,34]
SCP25Cost-effectiveness/Economic profit[1,13,32,33,34]
SCP26Positive impacts on the region’s economy[1,14,32,33,34]
SCP27Lifecycle cost[13,32,33]
Table 2. Sustainable Development Goals.
Table 2. Sustainable Development Goals.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
1End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
3Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
4Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
5Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
8Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
9Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
10Reduce inequality within and among countries
11Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
14Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
15Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
16Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
17Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
Table 3. Weights of assessment indicators based on their contributions to achieving the SDGs.
Table 3. Weights of assessment indicators based on their contributions to achieving the SDGs.
Assessment IndicatorRII
Contributions to Achieving the SDGs
SDG#3SDG#6SDG#7SDG#8SDG#9SDG#11SDG#12SDG#13SDG#15All SDGs
EnvironmentSCP1. Usage of low air pollution methods0.94 0.860.900.899
SCP2. Water savings during construction and operation phases 0.97 0.880.85 0.940.82 0.890
SCP3. Water recycling 0.96 0.860.83 0.910.78 0.866
SCP4. Non-pollution of surface water and underground water0.920.98 0.73 0.940.887
SCP5. Measurements of energy savings during construction and operation phases 0.920.900.88 0.910.92 0.906
SCP6. Usage of renewable energy 0.980.920.89 0.930.96 0.935
SCP7. Energy-efficient management 0.960.940.90 0.940.95 0.938
SCP8. Reduction in noise pollution0.86 0.880.870
SCP9. Alternatives for toxicants0.97 0.79 0.920.890
SCP10. Usage of green-labeled products0.88 0.84 0.830.790.860.839
SCP11. Protecting biodiversity 0.960.960
SCP12. Reducing degradation of natural habitats 0.950.950
SCP13. Preventing soil erosion 0.75 0.890.817
SCP14. Usage of recycled materials 0.900.840.780.839
SCP15. Waste management0.88 0.860.920.880.750.856
SocialSCP16. Disaster risk reduction 0.94 0.82 0.878
SCP17. Protection of stakeholder safety0.96 0.91 0.92 0.930
SCP18. Public participation 0.86 0.860
SCP19. Paying attention to cultural heritage 0.96 0.960
SCP20. Promotion of sustainable technologies and processes after project completion 0.860.88 0.840.790.842
SCP21. Free access for the disabled0.95 0.81 0.88 0.878
EconomicSCP22. Creating equal job opportunities 0.94 0.940
SCP23. Efficient allocation of resources 0.84 0.860.81 0.836
SCP24. Paying attention to society and market needs 0.84 0.84
SCP25. Cost effectiveness/Economic profit 0.81 0.810
SCP26. Positive impacts on the region’s economy 0.88 0.880
SCP27. Lifecycle cost 0.85 0.81 0.830
Table 4. Proposed indices and framework for sustainable construction projects.
Table 4. Proposed indices and framework for sustainable construction projects.
Sustainable Construction Projects’ Contributions to Achieving the SDGs
Assessment IndicatorAchievement (%)RII
Contributions to Achieving the SDGs		SCPICIISCPCI
SDG#3SDG#6SDG#7SDG#8SDG#9SDG#11SDG#12SDG#13SDG#15All SDGs
EnvironmentSCP1. Usage of low air pollution methods100%0.94 0.860.900.899 15.87399.26
SCP2. Water savings during construction and operation phases100% 0.97 0.880.85 0.940.82 0.890 26.18
SCP3. Water recycling100% 0.96 0.860.83 0.910.78 0.866 25.46
SCP4. Non-pollution of surface water and underground water100%0.920.98 . 0.73 0.940.887 20.87
SCP5. Measurements of energy savings during construction and operation phases100% 0.920.900.88 0.910.92 0.906 26.64
SCP6. Usage of renewable energy100% 0.980.920.89 0.930.96 0.935 27.51
SCP7. Energy-efficient management100% 0.960.940.90 0.940.95 0.938 27.58
SCP8. Reduction in noise pollution100%0.86 0.880.870 10.23
SCP9. Alternatives for toxicants100%0.97 0.79 0.920.890 15.71
SCP10. Usage of green-labeled products100%0.88 0.84 0.830.790.860.839 24.69
SCP11. Protecting biodiversity100% 0.960.960 5.65
SCP12. Reducing degradation of natural habitats100% 0.950.950 5.59
SCP13. Preventing soil erosion100% 0.75 0.890.817 9.61
SCP14. Usage of recycled materials100% 0.900.840.780.839 14.80
SCP15. Waste management100%0.88 0.860.920.880.750.856 25.18
SocialSCP16. Disaster risk reduction100% 0.94 0.82 0.878 10.33
SCP17. Protection of stakeholder safety100%0.96 0.91 0.92 0.930 16.41
SCP18. Public participation100% 0.86 0.86 5.06
SCP19. Paying attention to cultural heritage100% 0.96 0.960 5.65
SCP20. Promotion of sustainable technologies and processes after project completion100% 0.860.88 0.840.790.842 19.81
SCP21. Free access for the disabled100%0.95 0.81 0.88 0.878 15.50
EconomicSCP22. Creating equal job opportunities100% 0.94 0.940 5.53
SCP23. Efficient allocation of resources100% 0.84 0.860.81 0.836 14.76
SCP24. Paying attention to society and market needs100% 0.84 0.84 4.94
SCP25. Cost effectiveness/Economic profit100% 0.81 0.810 4.76
SCP26. Positive impacts on the region’s economy100% 0.88 0.880 5.18
SCP27. Lifecycle costs100% 0.85 0.81 0.830 9.76
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alawneh, R.; Jannoud, I.; Rabayah, H.; Imam, R.; Almasaeid, H. Development of an Assessment and Management Framework for Sustainable Construction Projects in Jordan by Incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals. Infrastructures 2024, 9, 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures9070117

AMA Style

Alawneh R, Jannoud I, Rabayah H, Imam R, Almasaeid H. Development of an Assessment and Management Framework for Sustainable Construction Projects in Jordan by Incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals. Infrastructures. 2024; 9(7):117. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures9070117

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alawneh, Rami, Ismael Jannoud, Hesham Rabayah, Rana Imam, and Hatem Almasaeid. 2024. "Development of an Assessment and Management Framework for Sustainable Construction Projects in Jordan by Incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals" Infrastructures 9, no. 7: 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures9070117

APA Style

Alawneh, R., Jannoud, I., Rabayah, H., Imam, R., & Almasaeid, H. (2024). Development of an Assessment and Management Framework for Sustainable Construction Projects in Jordan by Incorporating the Sustainable Development Goals. Infrastructures, 9(7), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures9070117

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop