Advertisement

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1466–1472 | Cite as

An Alternative Way to Determine Overall Performance of Infrastructure — A Case Study of Korean Infrastructure Facilities

  • Sanghyeok Kang
  • Soohyun Park
  • Jongwon SeoEmail author
Construction Management
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

It is very important to assess overall infrastructure performance in order to establish a national plan for sustainable development and to make a long-term financial budget. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the overall performance of infrastructure facilities and propose a method to determine investment priorities for performance upgrades. In order to evaluate infrastructure performance, we categorized infrastructure into nine facility groups: roadways, railways, subways, ports, dams, buildings, levees, water supply and sewerage, and retaining walls and then conducted an expert questionnaire survey about facility performance using a Likert scale 1 to 5: highly dissatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, and highly satisfied. As a result, it was found that the current overall infrastructure performance in Korea had increased by 3.5% compared to year 1994. The facility performance rankings were in the order of dams, roadways, levees, ports, buildings, railways, retaining walls, water supply and sewerage, and subways, which means that investment should be prioritized to subways as well as water supply and sewerage to improve their performance. We also developed a Matrix of Performance Satisfaction that demonstrates trends of performance satisfaction. It is expected that facility performance can be evaluated more thoroughly using the proposed method.

Keywords

infrastructure performance investment priority performance satisfaction matrix infrastructure policy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ASCE (2001). 2001 report card for America’s infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE (2005). 2005 report card for America’s infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE (2009). 2009 report card for America’s infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASE (2013a). 2013 report card for America’s infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ASCE (2013b). Failure to act–The Impact of current infrastructure investment on America’s economic future, American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  6. ASCE (2017). 2017 infrastructure report card–A comprehensive assessment of America’s infrastructure, American Society of Civil Engineers.Google Scholar
  7. Aschauer, D. A. (1990). “Why is infrastructure important?” Conference of Federal Reserve Bank of Boston on the 3 rd Deficit: The Shortfall in Public Capital Investment, Harwtch Port, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Project Steering Committee (2012). Canadian infrastructure report card volume 1: 2012 municipal roads and water systems, Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Project Steering Committee.Google Scholar
  9. Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Project Steering Committee (2016). Canadian infrastructure report card: Informing the future, Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Project Steering Committee.Google Scholar
  10. Cho, N. G., Lee, C. Y., Kim, H. S., Jung, J. G., Oh, S. H., Lim, Y. T., Lee, B. J., and Seo, M. H. (2012). A study on the integrated infrastructure development, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (in Korean).Google Scholar
  11. Cutter S. L., Boruff, B. J., and Shirley, W. L. (2003). “Social vulnerability to environmental hazards.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 242–261, DOI: 10.1111/1540–6237.8402002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engineers Australia (2010). Infrastructure report card 2010 Australia, Engineers Australia.Google Scholar
  13. Galehouse, L., Moulthrop, J. S., and Hicks, R. G. (2003). Pavement preservation Compendium II: Principles of pavement preservation–definitions, benefits, issues, and barriers, pp. 4–15, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. ICE (2010). The state of the nation infrastructure 2010, Institution of Civil Engineers, https://www.ice.org.uk/stateofthenation.Google Scholar
  15. Jung, J. B. and Yoon, G. (2014). Master plan in safety innovation, Report 14–25–01, National Research Council for Economics, Humanities and Social Sciences (in Korean).Google Scholar
  16. Kang, S. and Lee, Y. (2013). An understanding of an infrastructure report card of the advanced countries and its implication in Korean infrastructure policies, Research Report, 2013–01, Construction Economy Research Institute of Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  17. Kang, S., Choi, S. I., Kim, H., and Lee, J. (2016). “A study on performance evaluation of infrastructure safety and maintenance,” Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 80–89, DOI: 10.6106/KJCEM.2016.17.2.080 (in Korean).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kwon, C. H. (2017). A study on the establishment of integrated information framework for national facilities safety management, MSc Thesis, Sangmyung University, Seoul, Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  19. Lee, H. I. and Park, C. H. (2016). Trend of maintenance investment in domestic transportation infrastructure, Research Report #2016–36, Construction & Economy Research Institute of Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  20. MoLIT (2016). Special act on the safety control of public structures, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (in Korean).Google Scholar
  21. National Council on Public Works Improvement (1988). Fragile foundation: A report on america’s public works, National Council on Public Works Improvement, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd Ed., McGraw–Hill, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Shin, S. Y., Lee, S. M., Won, J. S., and Bae, Y. S. (2011). Long–term policy plan for safe city Seoul, Report 2011–WP–22, Seoul Development Institute, Seoul, Korea (in Korean).Google Scholar
  24. Usman, T., Fu, L., and Miranda–Moreno, L. F. (2010). “Quantifying safety benefit of winter road maintenance: Accident frequency modeling.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1878–1887, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Usman, T., Fu, L., and Miranda–Moreno, L. F. (2012). “A disaggregate model for quantifying the safety effects of winter road maintenance activities at an operational level.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 48, pp. 368–378, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wanvik, P. O. (2009). “Effect of road lighting: An analysis based on dutch accident statistics 1987–2006.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 123–28, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2008.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Yoo, B. K. and Kim, D. Y. (2013). Aging infrastructure in korea and its future, Weekly Economic Review, Vol. 536, Hyundai Research Institute (in Korean).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Civil Engineers 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringIncheon National UniversityIncheonKorea
  2. 2.Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations