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.

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.

Increasing levels of everyday cycling has many benefits for both individuals and for cities. Reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality and safer spaces for all vulnerable road users are among the significant benefits for urban developments. Despite this, public opposition to cycling infrastructure is common, particularly when it involves reprioritising road space for cycles instead of vehicles. The purpose of the research was to examine various stakeholders’ perspectives on proposed cycle infrastructure projects. This study utilised an innovative data collection approach through detailed content analysis of 322 public consultation submissions on a proposed active travel scheme in Limerick City, Ireland. By categorising submissions into support, opposition, and proposals, the study reveals the nuanced public perceptions that influence behavioural adaptation and acceptance of sustainable transport infrastructure. Supportive submissions, which outnumbered opposition-related submissions by approximately 2:1, emphasised the need for dedicated cycling infrastructure, enhanced cyclist safety, and potential improvements in environmental conditions. In contrast, opposition submissions focused on concerns over car parking removal, decreased accessibility for residents, and safety issues for vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly. Proposal submissions suggested design modifications, including enhanced safety features, provisions for convenient car parking, and alternative cycle routes. This paper highlights the value of structured public consultation data in uncovering behavioural determinants and barriers to cycling infrastructure adoption, offering policymakers essential insights into managing public opposition and fostering support. The methodology demonstrates how qualitative data from consultations can be effectively used to inform policy by capturing community-specific needs and enhancing the design of sustainable urban mobility systems. These findings underscore the need for innovative, inclusive data collection methods that reveal public sentiment, facilitating evidence-based transport policies that support climate-neutral mobility.

The successful execution of large-scale infrastructure projects is essential for economic growth and societal development, but these projects are too often beset with financial risks. The main financial risks related to infrastructure projects, including cost overrun, funding uncertainty, currency fluctuation, and regulatory change are examined in this research. The study identifies and assesses the magnitude and frequency of these risks by combining surveys and analysis of financial reports. The findings show that current risk management strategies, including hedging, contingency funds, and public-private partnerships, are often unsuitable to respond to the specific needs of financial uncertainties. The research suggests the need for an all-encompassing financial risk management framework that relies on real-time data analysis and a cocktail of risk assessment tools. Additionally, the development of strategic tailored approaches to address financial risk recovery depends on proactive stakeholder engagement. This research complements the existing literature on risk management in infrastructure projects by highlighting the financial dimensions of risk management and suggesting future research on advanced financial tools and technologies. Ultimately, large-scale infrastructure project sustainability and success contribute to economic stability and societal well-being can only be achieved through effective financial risk management.