This study aims to identify the causes of delays in public construction projects in Thailand, a developing country. Increasing construction durations lead to higher costs, making it essential to pinpoint the causes of these delays. The research analyzed 30 public construction projects that encountered delays. Delay causes were categorized into four groups: contractor-related, client-related, supervisor-related, and external factors. A questionnaire was used to survey these causes, and the Relative Importance Index (RII) method was employed to prioritize them. The findings revealed that the primary cause of delays was contractor-related financial issues, such as cash flow problems, with an RII of 0.777 and a weighted value of 84.44%. The second most significant cause was labor issues, such as a shortage of workers during the harvest season or festivals, with an RII of 0.773. Additionally, various algorithms were used to compare the Relative Importance Index (RII) and four machine learning methods: Decision Tree (DT), Deep Learning, Neural Network, and Naïve Bayes. The Deep Learning model proved to be the most effective baseline model, achieving a 90.79% accuracy rate in identifying contractor-related financial issues as a cause of construction delays. This was followed by the Neural Network model, which had an accuracy rate of 90.26%. The Decision Tree model had an accuracy rate of 85.26%. The RII values ranged from 68.68% for the Naïve Bayes model to 77.70% for the highest RII model. The research results indicate that contractor financial liquidity and costs significantly impact construction operations, which public agencies must consider. Additionally, the availability of contractor labor is crucial for the continuity of projects. The accuracy and reliability of the data obtained using advanced data mining techniques demonstrate the effectiveness of these results. This can be efficiently utilized by stakeholders involved in construction projects in Thailand to enhance construction project management.

The present paper discusses the case of the Madrid Nuevo Norte Project (MNNP) in order to examine the relation of this mega-project with the city’s sustainable development. For this reason, the study used a qualitative approach using semi-structural interviews with experts (Madrid’s town hall, Madrid State, and the program management office and other external) that relayed strongly with MNNP. The expert panel requirements are split in six expertise areas: sustainability, urban development, urban planning, government or public affairs, project management or Madrid Nuevo Norte (MNN) key stakeholders. The study highlighted the vital importance of MNNP as a flagship sustainable project for the rest of Europe, that meets sustainability criteria for contributing substantially in the improvement of the quality of life of final users and for the community in general. For instance, it contributes to the regeneration of the city’s degraded area, to the interconnection of an isolated part of the city and public transportation connection, improving the external image of Madrid. Despite of it, there are some challenges that should be carefully managed such as applying sustainable solutions from other cities not properly tailored to Madrid, housing pricing accessibility increase due to the lack of terrain in Madrid and the politization of the project as discussion topic between local parties. In this context, local authorities should give particular emphasis in complying with the principles of sustainability for improving the overall performance of MNNP, ensuring social justice and prosperity for the people of Madrid.

Infrastructure decision-making has traditionally been focused on the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Nevertheless, there remains no consensus in the infrastructure sector regarding a favored approach that comprehensively integrates resilience principles with those tools. This review focuses on how resilience has been evaluated in infrastructure projects. Initially, 400 papers were sourced from Web of Science and Scopus. After a preliminary review, 103 papers were selected, and ultimately, the focus was narrowed down to 56 papers. The primary aim was to uncover limitations in both CBA and MCDA, exploring various strategies for amalgamating them and enhancing their potential to foster resilience, sustainability, and other infrastructure performance aspects. Results were classified based on different rationalities: i) objectivist, ii) conformist, iii) adjustive, and iv) reflexive. The analysis revealed that while both CBA and MCDA contribute to decision-making, their perceived strengths and weaknesses differ depending on the chosen rationality. Nonetheless, embracing a broader perspective, fostering participatory methods, and potentially integrating both approaches seem to offer more promising avenues for assessing the resilience of infrastructures. The goal of this research proposal is to devise an integrated approach for evaluating the long-term sustainability and resilience of infrastructure projects and constructed assets.

While there has been much discussion about the large infrastructure needs in Asia and the Pacific, less attention has been paid to public expenditure efficiency in infrastructure services delivery. New constructions are not the only solution, especially when governments have limited capital to invest. Globally, new infrastructure projects face delays and cost overruns, leading to an inefficient use of public resources. The root causes include the lack of transparency in project selection, the lack of project preparation, the silo approach by public entities in assessing feasibility studies, and the lack of public sector capacity to fully develop a bankable pipeline of projects. To tackle these issues, governments need a smarter investment approach and to do so, enhancing public service efficiency is very crucial. The paper suggests a “whole life cycle” (WLC) approach as the main strategic solution for the discussed issues and challenges. We expand the definition of WLC to include the entire life cycle of the infrastructure asset from need identification to its disposal. The stages comprise planning, preparation, procurement, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and disposal. This is because we believe any efficient or inefficient decision throughout such a wide life cycle influences the quality of public services. Hence, in this holistic approach, infrastructure life cycle consists of four phases: planning, preparation, procurement, and implementation. Governments could enhance public efficiency and thus improve access to finance throughout the WLC by several solutions. These are (i) preparing infrastructure master plan and pipelines and long-term budgeting during the planning phase; (ii) establishing framework and guidelines and improving governance during preparation phase; (iii) promoting standardization, transparency, open government, and contractual consistency during the procurement phase; and finally (iv) continued role of government and total asset management during the implementation phase. In addition to these phase-specific means, key WLC solutions include proper use of technology, capacity building, and private participation in general and public-private partnership (PPP) in particular.

This study critically examines the implications of international transport corridor projects for Central Asian countries, focusing on the Western-backed Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA), the Chinese initiative “One Belt—One Road”, and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) supported by the Russian Federation, India, and Iran. The analysis underscores the risks associated with Western projects, highlighting a need for a more explicit commitment to substantial infrastructure investments and persistent contradictions among key investors and beneficiaries. While the Chinese initiative presents significant benefits such as transit participation, infrastructure development, and economic investments, it also carries risks, notably an increased debt burden and potential monopolization by Chinese corporations. The study emphasizes that Central Asian countries, though indirect beneficiaries of INSTC, may not be directly involved due to geographical constraints. Study findings advocate for Central Asian nations to balance foreign investments, promote economic integration, and safeguard political and economic sovereignty. The study underscores the region’s wealth of natural and human resources, emphasizing the potential for increased demand for goods and services with improved living standards, strategically positioning these countries in the evolving global economic landscape.

The US Infrastructure Investment and Job Act (IIJA), also commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, passed in 2021, has drawn international attention. It aims to help to rebuild US infrastructure, including transportation networks, broadband, water, power and energy, environmental protection and public works projects. An estimated $1.2 trillion in total funding over ten years will be allocated. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill is the largest funding bill for US infrastructure in the recent history of the United States. This review article will specifically discuss funding allocations for roads and bridges, power and grids, broadband, water infrastructure, airports, environmental protection, ports, Western water infrastructure, electric vehicle charging stations and electric school buses in the new spending of the Infrastructure Investment and Job Act and why these investments are urgently necessary. This article will also briefly discuss the views of think tank experts, the public policy perspectives, the impact on domestic and global arenas of the new spending in the IIJA, and the public policy implications.