Sustainable Road Infrastructure Project Implementation in Developing Countries: An Integrated Model

The sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a collection of 17 goals to address the world’s most pressing sustainable development (SD) concerns by 2030. Third-world countries have a lesser global environmental impact than developed countries, and account for 66% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Infrastructure development has a key role to play in establishing a green society, with approaches such as green policy, sustainable monitoring, and sustainability reports. Indirect and induced sustainable infrastructure development (SID) dominates the SDGs, with the goal of providing secure, acceptable, readily available, and efficient transportation networks by 2030. Road infrastructure development (RID) should become more sustainable considering depleting natural resources, fragile ecological circumstances, and limited financial resources. Sustainable road infrastructure projects (SRIPs) provide several advantages, such as increased economic efficiency, lower resource utilization, greater social well-being, and enhanced protection of natural services. However, incorporating SD prerequisites into highway infrastructure projects in developing countries has been difficult due to a variety of factors. Efforts to develop sustainability certification standards for infrastructure systems are recommended, and it is important to define relevant ideas and principles for SRIP implementation. However, incorporating SD prerequisites into highway infrastructure projects in developing countries has been difficult due to a variety of factors. Different people have varied ideas about sustainability. This book aims to provide a unified guideline to aid developing nations in undertaking SRIPs and to develop a SRIP implementation model. This chapter provided a background for the book; it also provided insight into its organization, foundation, and significance. It also discusses the objectives of the book and emphasized on the purpose and motivation for writing the book.

The Brundtland Commission report has been widely cited in debates about sustainable development (SD), but disagreements still exist about what SD is and the role or importance of ecology are central to the debate. SD is a movement that seeks to address social and economic issues to meet the needs of the entire community through alternative methods of development. The Kyoto Protocol, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), World Summit on Sustainable Development, and Rio+20 have all been significant initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This book focused on the development of sustainable infrastructure, which is linked to seven of the recently established Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Researchers emphasized the importance of developing an objective definition of SD. The most used definition of SD is proposed in the World Conference on Environment and Development (WCED) report, which emphasizes harmony among the three pillars: social, ecological, and economic. However, Lehtonen (2004) contends that separating the terms ‘social’ and ‘economic’ will isolate economic problems from their larger social context. This SD model recognizes that economic activities must be carried out for the benefit of society and that initiatives affecting humanity’s social context must be completed within ecological bounds. Mebratu (1998) classified SD definitions and origins into three categories: functional, conceptual, and intellectual. Hopwood et al. (2005) demonstrated the many ecological, social, and economic implications of SD. O’Riordan (1988) and Robinson (2004) define sustainability as an integral concept with a strong emphasis on nature. SD is a conservationist approach to natural resource allocation that focuses on technology to address pollution and resource depletion issues. To achieve development, current institutions must be transformed, with an emphasis on meeting people’s wants and interests in a way that is consistent with economic, equitable, and environmental concerns. It is frequently used to describe outdated economic development that disregards the environment. SD is viewed differently by different authors. Mitcham (1995) discovered ‘investigated or creative ambiguity’ in the term, which is a strength, not a flaw. O’Riordan (1988) admitted that the ambiguity surrounding the concept’s definition has sparked debate. Dresner (2008) demonstrated that the confusion surrounding SD does not render it ineffective. The Forum for the Future’s 5-capitals model and the triple bottom line (TBL) model are two examples of SD models that promote SD, but technological and scientific progress has been slow. The definition of SD is ambiguous, with various perspectives and insights from various authors. This section examined the body of knowledge on sustainability and its underlying concepts and principles, with references and a discussion of the TBL.

It is essential for developed nations to have adequate and functional infrastructure to sustain economic growth and well-being. Despite efforts to reduce the chances of infrastructure problems, several scholars have expressed concern about infrastructure standards deteriorating at an alarming rate and the need to ensure their sustainability. To achieve sustainable infrastructure development (SID), Sahely et al. (2005) proposed an uncomplicated strategy based on fundamental cooperation between infrastructure and ecological, economic, and social frameworks. Sustainable infrastructure is defined as the development and dependable management of a safe built environment based on efficient resource utilization and environmental standards. SID aims to mitigate or eliminate ecological problems and challenges while maximizing the potential social and economic benefits. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP, 2007) defines SID as infrastructure compatible with continued financial and environmental sustainability. Sustainable road development infrastructure (SRID) is a procedure for constructing infrastructure that incorporates all the essential sustainable development (SD) parameters and is complicated by the interdependence of multiple factors. Stakeholders are essential for the successful execution of infrastructure projects, and a comprehensive evaluation of stakeholder interests and requirements is necessary to achieve SRID goals while meeting the needs of all parties involved. To achieve SRID, it is necessary to understand the relationship between road infrastructure development (RID) processes and SD standards and to implement criteria and indicators that accurately depict the long-term viability of a development process. Al Sanad (2015) identified several factors that may impede the implementation of SD in the infrastructure sector. Shafii et al. (2006) identified insufficient knowledge of SID, lack of SID training, a perception of SID as expensive, acquisition concerns, administrative issues, expert capacities, and motivational factors for manufacturing local materials as potential obstacles. Serpell (2013) identified four categories of SID challenges, including knowledge, economic and financial, organizational, and go. Darko and Chan (2016) identified the most prevalent barriers as a lack of data, training, research, information, and expertise, high cost, government interest, premium and demand, and the absence of SID standards of practice. Azis et al. (2012) identified improved project efficiency, waste reduction in the construction industry, and energy efficiency as advantages of SID. Ametepey and Aigbavboa (2014) identified energy savings, environmental protection, contribution to a higher standard of living and a healthy work environment, resource preservation for future generations, reduction in lifecycle costs, promotion of sustainable economic development, and stakeholder satisfaction as the top benefits of sustainable construction (SC). Du Plessis (2007) identified technological factors, Al Sanad (2015) identified educational programmes, Serpell et al. (2013) identified transformation, economic, and stakeholder engagement as drivers of SC, and Hankinson and Breytenbach (2012) identified enhanced SC awareness. This chapter reviewed the literature on international infrastructure and sustainability development, discussing factors, and benefits promoting SID.

This section describes sustainable development (SD) in relation to infrastructure projects and explains how to evaluate SD. SD is assessed as context-dependent, considering the project’s economic, social, and ecological context. Sustainable road infrastructure projects (SRIP) should encapsulate the complete life cycle from idea to development, functionality, and maintenance. SD should be considered as part of the evaluation process prior to project execution, but it can also serve other functions. Sustainability evaluation must start with project appraisal or evaluation and the earliest stages of project decision-making. Sustainable infrastructure projects (SIPs) are evaluated using a variety of techniques and models, such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA), multi-criteria techniques, ecological and societal impact assessments, ranking techniques, models, and evaluation guidelines. Established SD structures and modelling techniques for infrastructure projects are presented from an SD perspective, with the primary objective of investigating how they operate and determining whether existing models provide an effective method for applying the SD idea into infrastructure development. CBA is a widely used strategy for evaluating alternatives to maximize sociocultural well-being. It is based on the likelihood of costing customer advantages and negative impacts and has been discussed in scholarly articles. The multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach is an acceptable methodology for addressing complex matters involving high risk, conflicting objectives, different types of information and data, different concerns and points of view, and the representation of complex and evolving biological, ecological, and financial frameworks. It combines many methodologies and offers various advantages over more conventional ways of decision-making and plan development. It should be used to increase community participation and empower partner organizations and should apply several criteria at the same time, including those that are difficult to adjust and quantify. The key difficulty with this strategy is the usage of weightings, which has been sharply criticized by several researchers. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an adaptive tool used to assess the ecological effects of a particular action, task, or procedure. It is applied globally to decision-making in numerous fields, including transportation, energy, and water, and has become a typical tool for determining the ecological performance of infrastructure projects. However, it has a few flaws and could benefit from improvements to assess SD with greater precision. It is a fragmented mechanism for assessing the three components of SD, but its incorporation into other evaluation approaches is desirable. The evaluation of societal implications has been conducted using a variety of methods and techniques, but there is currently no standard method for assessing the communal and appropriation consequences of infrastructure initiatives. Social life-cycle assessments (SLCAs) are advancing, but consensus remains a challenge. The Evaluation Partnership and the Centre for European Policy Studies identified several obstacles and challenges to implementing an outstanding societal assessment, such as the term ‘societal impacts’ being potentially overbroad and not adequately defined, and the lack of a suitable method for quantitatively evaluating sociological effects. Additionally, a large section of societal assessments is biased and frequently inconsequential. The chapter discussed the theoretical and methodological stances on sustainable road infrastructure, using current SID concepts and evaluation techniques thoroughly.

BE2ST-In-Highways is a framework for assessing the social impact of reusing materials in pavement building, using the Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic Impacts (PaLATE) and life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). ENVISION is a two-stage assessment method with four levels of certification: bronze award, silver award, gold award, and platinum award. Stantec published the Green Guide for Roads in 2008 as a marketing tool to highlight its commitment to sustainable development (SD), and the certification policy was created using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification policy. As part of their first-year requirements, Stantec and a team of Worcester Polytechnic Institute students created another ‘Green Guide for Roads’ in 2009 to integrate previously missing components of the certification guidelines. GreenPave was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation as an SD certification framework based on the Greenroads and GreenLITES SD certification frameworks. Specifications are classified into three types: repair activities, new development projects, and credit for evident and clear criteria. The Greenroads SD certification process reintroduces SD ideas into highway building by awarding points to projects that effectively integrate SD objectives. I-LAST is a tool developed by the Illinois Department of Transportation, American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC), and Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association (IRTBA) to analyse SD principles in road infrastructure building. INVEST (Infrastructure Voluntary Assessment Sustainability Tool) is designed to be simple to use and includes four stages of a project. Scorecards for pavement, basic rural, basic urban, extended rural, extended urban, and custom are included. CEEQUAL (Sustainability Assessment and Awards for Civil Engineering, Infrastructure, Landscaping, and the Public Realm) was established to improve infrastructure sustainability and award projects to organizations that address environmental concerns in a productive and effective manner. It is managed by CEEQUAL Ltd. and is based on three SD principles: environment, economics, and labelling the social component of SD with access. Customized scorecards may be used when a project does not fit into one of the pre-defined scorecards. The framework was initially created for the United Kingdom (UK) but has now been revised to be worldwide relevant and includes two categories of projects: domestic (UK and Ireland) projects and foreign initiatives. It also offers six project awards. This chapter reviewed frameworks, models, and guidelines for sustainable infrastructure projects, emphasizing the Be²st-In-Highway rating system, ENVISION certification policies, green guide for road rating systems, greenlights certification system or policy, Greenpaves rating system, Greenroads rating system, I-LAST certification tools, invest rating tools, CEEQUAL certification system, and stars rating tools.

The CEEQUAL certification system promotes sustainable development (SD) principles in infrastructure construction, with 12 categories of criteria and indicators. ENVISION assigns 60 points to five categories, while Green Guide is divided into seven classifications. SD certification requires 11 requirements, including an ecological assessment procedure, life-cycle costing assessment, quality control plan, noise mitigation plan, waste management plan, pollution prevention plan, low impact development, pavement management system, site maintenance plan, and educational outreach. SD certification technique provides 8 critical criteria, 153 standards, 17 stringent prerequisites, and 8 categories of points. Culp (2011) developed a grading system to incorporate SD principles into infrastructure projects; Shen et al. (2011) explored significant assessment parameters for the SD of infrastructure projects using the fuzzy set method; Lui and Cui (2012) studied SD frameworks for building projects, Montgomery et al. (2014) and Lim (2009) identified 77 major SD indicators based on a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, and the Transport Division of New South Wales established a Transportation Project Sustainability Framework to ensure the long-term viability of their transportation network and the continuous improvement of their environmental and sustainability performance. Assah Amiril (2014) revealed a global network of 27 SD criteria produced by professionals, for-profit and non-profit organizations, divided into five groups: ecological, financial, sociological, engineering, asset use, and project management. The most important details in this study are that 57 indicators were categorized into eight types, weighted according to their respective impacts, and the influence of each component on SD was evaluated using a 100-dimensional scale. This study investigated the eight criteria and the impact of three additional criteria (public participation, climate change response, and stakeholder management). This chapter examined the criteria and indicators of SD criteria and indicators for road infrastructure development in developing countries. The most important findings are that the CEEQUAL, Ugwu, Haupt, and Lim models are the most comprehensive theoretical models of SD requirements for infrastructure design, and that all frameworks and models promote the sharing, promotion, and acknowledgement of SD concepts.

The essence of finance has become essential in the sustainability discussion in recent times as a result of the capital intensive nature of sustainable projects. This has motivated financial experts and institutions to develop various financial instruments and mechanisms to further advance the course of protecting the environment, and decreasing the release of excess carbon and GreenHouse Gases. This is to also provide the opportunity for funding Green or sustainable infrastructure development. This chapter advances a discourse on matters relating to sustainable financing of infrastructure projects. The fundamentals of sustainable or green funding of infrastructure projects, and sustainable schemes of financing green infrastructure projects are discussed.

Public involvement, climate change reactions, stakeholder management, and stakeholder management have all been identified as weaknesses in sustainable road infrastructure development (SRID) inquiry. Most scholarly studies on sustainable infrastructure development (SID) are undertaken in advanced countries, while limited academic studies on the SID in third-world countries cite challenges impeding utilization. This chapter examines the conceptual holes in the SID model and aims to solve three identified gaps: public participation, climate change response, and stakeholder management. The inclusion of highlighted challenges is based on the belief that successful SRIP implementation would be impossible without public participation and climate change adaptation. Public participation is essential for the efficient implementation of SID. It allows stakeholders and everyone affected by infrastructure projects to participate in discussions, recognizing possible problems and creating solutions. International organizations, such as the World Bank, have embraced the concept of public participation as a need for effective project implementation. In underdeveloped countries, most infrastructure projects exclude the general populace, so public participation should be seen as a vital variable in the effective implementation of SRIP in poor countries. Arnstein (1969) proposed an eight-stage stepping ladder for citizen involvement from exploitation through consultation to citizens in control. Information is the cornerstone of all types of engagement, and the mildest kind of real involvement is a meeting when project participants voice their concerns and opinions. Co-creation and co-choice are rare in industrialized countries, and the issue of involvement has become a concern. Notification and attendance are prerequisites for meaningful participation, which can begin when the public is given the opportunity to express their opinions. Players are seen as social establishments or gatherings having the power to influence the fate of the organization, and an evaluation of the players is needed to determine whom to include. Participation in projects boosts decision-making efficacy and sufficiency by widening the information base, encouraging innovation, and fostering public acceptance of methodologies. Stakeholder engagement can increase the speed and quality of strategic decision-making. The key takeaways of the chapter are that public participation in road infrastructure projects should have a say in decisions concerning activities that affect their lives or occupations, should take into account the people’s history, cultural, natural, political, and sociological foundations and should be involved in the following ways: initiated early in the life cycle, organized and well-arranged, phased and improved, non-partisan professionals, learning about members’ traits and interests, and focussing on contentious subjects. Public engagement in SRIP implementation must be efficient and well-managed to be successful. Public participation is essential for SRID.

Climate change adaptation strategies are critical for long-term road infrastructure development (RID) because it is expected to put more land and transportation infrastructure at risk from stronger winds, more intense storms, and rising sea levels. Deformation and subsidence could occur if concrete pavements crumbled and asphalt roads softened due to higher temperatures, and changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation could have far-reaching consequences for the smooth operation of transportation networks. The developed world is primarily responsible for the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, while less developed countries are insignificant. The African Union sees climate change as a major threat to the continent’s economic development and is working with member states and key organizations to address it. It is critical for developing countries to establish frameworks for detecting climate change risks, developing adaptation strategies, and implementing plans. The sustainable development plan (SRIP) is critical for protecting transportation networks from the effects of climate change. Sustainable development principles are critical for clarifying the proposed project’s relationships with the local and larger society, economy, ecosystems, and various institutions. The ability of a system or structure to recover from disruption while continuing to function and adapt to new circumstances is referred to as resilient infrastructure. Low-carbon infrastructure coexists with resilient infrastructure, and the pursuit of resilient infrastructure necessitates a reduction in the likelihood of failure, a lessening of the negative consequences when failures do occur, and a reduction in the time required to recover due to an increase in the facilities’ capacity to endure, adapt, and change. As part of the implementation process, RID experts must consider how climate change will impact transportation infrastructure. Risk assessment is a systematic method of looking for things that could go wrong, determining how bad they could be, and determining how likely they are to happen. Adaptable designs must include multiple measures to prevent system breakdowns. Climate change’s effects on road infrastructure, as well as rising sea levels, continue to jeopardize low-lying transportation infrastructure. Implementing SRIP necessitates the development of a climate change response mechanism.

The pursuit of sustainable development goals (SDGs) is the primary driver of road infrastructure development (RID), but multiple parties are involved in the process, causing confusion. To effectively manage stakeholder processes, Jeffry (2009) proposed a framework based on a preventative double-path relationship between stakeholders and institutions. Bal et al. (2013) proposed a five-stage framework for stakeholder management, which includes identifying key players and issues, conducting analysis and plans, tightening restraints on making promises, creating a plan and soliciting input from interested parties, and monitoring its effectiveness. Successful stakeholder management for sustainable road infrastructure project (SRIP) implementation has been shown to have several benefits, such as enhanced understanding of the fiscal position, improving status, building relationships, developing trust, and enduring collaborative relationships, distributing skills and practices, and recognizing and mitigating threats and vulnerabilities. Infrastructure projects involving roads include a range of complex activities, and it is essential for infrastructure projects to evaluate potential project partners prior to making a final decision. Dealing with many stakeholders and maintaining a reasonable degree of concordance between their interests is crucial for fruitful endeavours. It is important for project groups and partners to have a shared understanding of the project’s goals and solicit their input and for a precise approach to identify and manage project partners throughout the execution phase. However, RID is still in its infancy when it comes to managing stakeholders and relationships. Stakeholder management has been ad hoc due to a lack of standardized methodologies, approaches, strategies, and processes, and infrastructure development procedures should include a systematic approach to managing stakeholders. The bulk of SRIP implementation needs come from stakeholders, making project partners crucial. The sustainable development (SD) strategy emphasizes the importance of SRIP execution to stakeholders, such as architects, quantity surveyors, conservationists, environmentalists, regional managers, project managers, suppliers, subcontractors, and sustainability consultants. This section of the research addressed the omissions of previously analysed comprehensive factors in SID models and frameworks, including climate change response, public involvement, and stakeholder management. Strategies for filling these gaps were discussed. An analysis of relevant academic literature was conducted.

This Chapter examined the development of sustainable road infrastructure in Ghana including transportation roads, and laws, regulations, and frameworks. The Ministry of Transport (MoT) and the Ministry of Roads and Highways (MRH) are responsible for the development of transportation infrastructure and related services. The Department of Urban Roads (DUR) is responsible for facilitating the movement of people, goods, and services and promoting economic and social development of urban regions. The Metropolitan and Municipal Assemblies established road centres to manage, construct, and maintain city roads, the Ghana Road Fund (GRF) was established to provide funding for the maintenance of Ghana’s road network, and the Koforidua Training Centre (KTC) was established in 2007 to provide management and project implementation staff with professional development and hands-on training. The current road length is 71,418 km, including 42,045 km of feeder roads, 14,873 km of trunk roads, and 14,500 km of urban roads. The budget for preventative maintenance is expected to rise year over year. Road infrastructure development (RID) can lead to positive societal outcomes, such as financial gains, employment opportunities, social support systems, equal rights for women and men, increased productivity, and less pollution, but it can also have unintended consequences such as deteriorating air and water quality, noise and vibration, soil erosion and sedimentation, disruption of essential services, confusion between drivers and pedestrians, changes to the landscape and habitat, and eminent domain takings. Environmental and social evaluations of development projects in Ghana must comply with several laws and regulations, and there is no unified sustainability policy or guideline in place to regulate the development of highway infrastructure projects. Resettlement is expected to help those who have been displaced by development initiatives and the Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1994 provides the authority to authorize facilities, set performance standards, and ensure compliance with standards and regulations. The Forestry Policy focusses on reducing deforestation and enhancing ecological and social commitment of forest areas, while the method for managing cultural property requires investigating and cataloguing damaged objects. Sector medium-term development plan (SMTDP) provides solutions for enhanced RID access, while the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) incorporates ecological factors into the Ghana Integrated Transport Plan. The resettlement policy framework (RPF) coordinates laws, rules, and procedures to manage road infrastructure projects and establishes criteria for determining eligibility and entitlement. The Directorate of Policy and Planning of the MRH is responsible for managing road safety and the environment, while the Directorate of Monitoring and Evaluation oversees Monitoring and Evaluation of road projects. The Ghana Highway Authority’s (GHA) four-person Road Safety and Environmental Management Unit (EMU) is responsible for addressing social and environmental issues associated with the feeder roads zone. Sustainable development (SD) has not received much attention from the Ghanaian government, with state-owned institutions prioritizing economic growth over social benefits and environmental preservation. Local governments should include a sustainability framework in their strategic planning for the successful execution of sustainable projects.

A Delphi study was conducted to identify the critical variables of successful implementation of sustainable road infrastructure projects (SRIPs) in developing countries, determine the reasons for the various viewpoints held by infrastructure development professionals, determine what motivates and pushes the infrastructure sector to pursue sustainability, and determine the factors that could impact the implementation of a project for sustainable road infrastructure. Expert feedback was used to determine values for these metrics and indicators, and most of the panellists reached a consensus on the final decision. Statistical methods were used to determine whether there was a general agreement with respect to the statements and questions asked. The findings of the study were presented alongside its overarching principles. The most important criteria for SRIP implementation were socio-cultural sustainability, economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, and engineering performance, with little consensus on environmental sustainability and public participation. The primary purpose of this study was to identify the most crucial determinants of effective SRIP implementation in low-income nations. Interquartile deviation (IQD) values ranged from 7.0 to 8.1, but IQD values varied from 2.00 to 3.00. Thirty-one environmental sustainability indicators were assessed as important or very important, with 26 out of 30 having IQD values between 0.00 and 1.00. Six sub-attributes were deemed extremely significant and four important when experts examined institutional sustainability, with no consensus on the final four indications (IQD 1). Fourteen of twenty-one Public Participation Indicators were deemed ‘major’ by panellists for SRIP implementation, with consensus among experts. Ten factors contribute to diverse perceptions of sustainability, with only 2 deemed crucial and 18 deemed important. The four most essential indicators of successful SRIP implementation are VHI: 9–10). The other seven criteria were crucial because their median scores were between 7.00 and 10. The Delphi survey explained why various individuals in the infrastructure industry have divergent views on what it means to be sustainable. Twenty-one factors were identified as contributors to divergent perspectives on sustainability among infrastructure industry stakeholders. The Delphi survey also established the factors that affect the success of SRIP implementation in low-income countries, leading to the development of the conceptual SRIPI model.

This chapter discusses the proposed integrated sustainable road infrastructure project implementation (ISRIPI) model and its constructs and sub-constructs, as well as public participation (PP), climate change response (CCR), and stakeholder management (SM). CEEQUAL was the most comprehensive rating system, with 11 criteria. Lim (2009) and Ugwu and Haupt (2007) were the most thorough studies examining sustainability models for infrastructure projects, focussing on social and cultural sustainability (SCS), economic sustainability (ES), environmental sustainability (EnS), institutional sustainability (IS), health and safety (HS), project management (PM), resource utilization and management (RUM), and engineering performance (EP). The Brundtland Report and Rio Summit defined social sustainability as the right to a decent standard of living, social justice between generations, within generations, and around the world. Thin (2002) showed social justice, unity, investment, and safety as aspects of society. Rosenström et al. (2006) defined social qualities as objects that make people happy. Cultural sustainability is access to cultural assets for current and future generations, and cultural legacy is the collection of physical signals passed on from the past to each civilization and, by extension, to all humans. EnS seeks to reduce the environmental impact of road infrastructure projects. Sustainable road infrastructure project implementation (SRIPI) must consider PM issues such as delivery system, risks, duration, performance assessment, sustainability clauses, and contract type. Quality control systems must be set up to ensure the optimum utilization and management of resources in SRIPI. EP criteria measure sustainable road infrastructure projects’ (SRIP) durability, quality, resilience, adaptability, functionality, carrying capacity, and robustness. This research developed an SRIPI model based on the models of CEEQUAL, Lim (2009), and Ugwu and Haupt (2007). The hypothesized framework consists of 37 SRIPI factors, including SCS, ES, IS, HS, PM, RUM, EP, CCR, PP, and SM. It projected the analytical authority of these constructs in the success of SRIPs to test whether the realization of SRIPI outcomes depends on the supposed indicators of the variables. SRIPI is a multidimensional structure composed of 11 latent variables, derived from literature review and Delphi study findings.