TODAY’S COLLABORATION, TOMORROW’S SUCCESS IN LID TECHNOLOGIES ADOPTION

JOSHUA OLORUNKIYA, Ph.D CandidateELIZABETH FASSMAN, PhD, A.M.AMSCE

ASSOC.PROF. SUZANNE WILKINSON, PhD

The University of AucklandDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering

20 Symonds Street, Auckland, New ZealandTel: +64212628688

Email:jolo006@aucklanduni.ac.nz

Philadelphia Low Impact Development SymposiumGreening the Urban EnvironmentSeptember 25-28, 2011, Philadelphia, PA

Research Background: LID in NZNegative environmental impacts associated with stormwaterrunoff;

Slow rate of LID uptake and failure of pioneered LID projects as aresult of design and construction defects.

Promotes uptake of LID technologies through: Identification and development of implementation framework

that ensure project team collaboration to ensure properconstruction; and

Develop framework(s) for creating incentives to influencestakeholders’ decisions to design, commission and build LIDinfrastructures.

The DCB hesitation factors to adopt LID technologies

Design it Commission it

Build it

Cost of adoption

Maintenance and durability

Perception about failed pilot projects

Methodology

On-the-Spot Survey with Interview

Profession # Interviewed

Avg. Yrs.Experience

Developers 2 40

D/Architects 5 30

Engineers 4 26

L/ Architects 4 20

TOTAL 15

Online SurveyProfession #

SurveyedAv.Yrs.Experience

Architects 25

Reg. Authority 30

Engineers 37

Developers 14

Contractors 20

Other Consultants

42

TOTAL 168

Respondents’ perception of LID adoption barriers(On-the-spot survey)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No

of

Po

siti

ve R

esp

on

ses

Barriers to LID Adoption

Technical Factor

Economic Factor

Risk Factor

Social Factor

Institutional Factor

Risk Factor28%

Economic Factor15%

Technical Factor23%

Institutional Factor23%

Social Factor11%

Categorical barriers to LID adoption

Proposed Solutions...

1. Fair and equitable contractual risk-sharing– Pre-contract risk terms negotiations?

- IRA∫(P)

– Contract form = risk sharing + adoption

– Risk sharing +Incentive

61%

10%

29%

70%

6%

24%

51%

18%

31%

71%

13%

16%

Proposed Solutions continues...

2. Target solutions for appropriate stakeholders

– Channels of influence

3. Incentives provisions to influence stakeholders decisions to design, commission and build;

4. Target institutional change.

Channels of influence to promote LID uptake

Conclusion

• Overwhelming response supports fair andequitable contractual risk sharing to promoteadoption of LID infrastructures;

• There is a general trend and preference fordemonstration projects.

• The younger and less experienced are moreopen to new ideas than the “old guard”

THANK YOU jolo006@aucklanduni.ac.nz