Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Farouk, A.M.; Radzi, A.R.;
Romali, N.S.; Farouk, M.; Elgamal, M.;
Hassan, R.; Omer, M.M.; Rahman,
R.A. Performance Indicators for
Assessing Environmental
Management Plan Implementation in
Water Projects. Sustainability 2024,16,
3146. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su16083146
Received: 26 February 2024
Revised: 5 April 2024
Accepted: 7 April 2024
Published: 10 April 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Performance Indicators for Assessing Environmental
Management Plan Implementation in Water Projects
Abdelrahman M. Farouk
1
, Afiqah R. Radzi
2
, Noor Suraya Romali
1
, Mohamed Farouk
3, 4,
* , Mohamed Elgamal
3
,
Raouf Hassan 3,5 , Mazen M. Omer 1,6 and Rahimi A. Rahman 1, 7, *
1Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al-Sultan Abdullah,
Kuantan 26300, Malaysia
2Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
3Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic
University (IMSIU), Riyadh 11432, Saudi Arabia
4Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11517, Egypt
5Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Aswan University, Aswan 81542, Egypt
6Department of Civil Engineering, Higher Institute of Science and Technology, Tiji, Libya
7Faculty of Graduate Studies, Daffodil International University, Dhaka 1341, Bangladesh
*Correspondence: miradi@imamu.edu.sa (M.F.); arahimirahman@umpsa.edu.my (R.A.R.)
Abstract: This research aims to examine the performance indicators that are crucial for assessing
the implementation of environmental management plans (EMPs) in water projects. To achieve this
aim, a questionnaire survey, integrating a systematic literature review (SLR), was used to identify the
initial performance indicators. Subsequently, ten interviews with environmental professionals were
carried out to uncover additional indicators not identified by the SLR. Following the survey design
and pilot study of the survey, the data collection resulted in 112 valid responses from environmental
professionals engaged in water projects in Saudi Arabia. The data analysis encompassed reliabil-
ity tests, mean ranking, normalized mean analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The normalized mean analysis highlighted
13 critical
parameters among 39 for further investigation. The EFA disclosed three underlying con-
structs: environmental impact indicators, operational and safety indicators, waste management, and
public safety indicators. PLS-SEM was used to validate the relationship between these indicators and
the successful implementation of EMPs. The results indicate that all three underlying constructs posi-
tively influence the effective execution of such plans. This is the first study to model the relationships
of the performance indicators in water projects. The study’s findings underscore the importance of
developing precise performance indicators tailored to diverse construction projects that are mainly
focused on water facility construction. The identified performance indicators offer significant insights
for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers and provide a solid foundation for the advancement
of knowledge in the field of environmental management.
Keywords: sustainable development; water projects; environmental management plan; performance
indicators
1. Introduction
Environmental management is of paramount importance when addressing the myriad
challenges and concerns that are present in developing countries [
1
]. These challenges
encompass diverse facets, such as the urgent need for pollution removal technology, energy
conservation, and rigorous environmental impact assessment. The intricate nature of envi-
ronmental plans, influenced by factors like human life, property, safety, and ecology, adds
a layer of complexity that demands careful consideration [
2
]. Recognizing the significance
of risk assessment and management in environmental planning is crucial. Moreover, the
integration of social and physical dimensions in environmental management through policy
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083146 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 2 of 19
planning, which underlines the need for a holistic approach, is one of the main issues that
management currently faces [
3
–
5
]. The environmental management plan underscores the
importance of establishing a centralized system for managing environmental data and
facilitating streamlined processes [
6
]. A humane and participatory approach is needed
for environmental management, one which emphasizes the importance of setting feasible
targets and implementing practical strategies [
7
,
8
]. An ecological perspective on environ-
mental management planning emphasizes the importance of considering regional factors
and adopting process-oriented strategies. This holistic approach provides a more com-
prehensive and context-specific understanding [
9
]. Furthermore, a critical consideration
across different contexts involves finding a balance between fostering economic growth
and ensuring environmental protection, especially amid rapid industrial development [
8
].
Environmental management is facing a range of issues, including the need for ad-
vanced pollution removal technologies, energy conservation, and rigorous environmental
impact assessments, which pose significant hurdles [
1
]. Organizations struggle with under-
standing and complying with intricate environmental regulations, implementing practical
solutions to reduce environmental impacts, engaging leadership and employees in environ-
mental practices, and maintaining process efficiency while incorporating environmental
management practices [
10
]. In parallel, the global oil market’s increasing focus on enhanc-
ing oil recovery requires the addition of chemical components, such as surfactants, alkalis,
and polymers, to oil reservoirs. These additions alter interface structures and impact fluid
flow characteristics and phase interactions, influencing production efficiency and energy
consumption throughout the oil recovery, gathering, processing, and transportation pro-
cesses [
11
]. The environmental plans are complex, and there are many factors to consider,
such as human life, property, safety, and ecology [
2
]. Emphasizing the importance of risk
assessment and management in environmental planning and promoting the integration of
social and physical dimensions through policy planning are essential considerations. These
challenges highlight the need for comprehensive and adaptive environmental management
strategies to effectively address the multifaceted issues that are faced on a global scale [
12
].
Comprehensive environmental management plans offer an array of benefits to orga-
nizations. Improved environmental performance, compliance with legislation, and cost
savings are among the tangible advantages. Furthermore, they can lead to increased profits,
provide access to new markets, and enhance the capability to secure grants [
13
]. The
intangible benefits are equally significant, as environmental management plans contribute
to a company’s positive image, showcase a commitment to clients’ well-being, and promote
the efficient use of resources. Finally, they provide a structured format for measuring,
managing, and auditing environmental processes, ensuring a systematic and accountable
approach to sustainability goals. In summary, the importance of environmental manage-
ment is underscored by the array of benefits it offers to organizations; it mitigates challenges
while fostering sustainable practices and responsible corporate citizenship.
Despite the importance of having an environmental management plan, it has still not
been fully implemented, especially in water projects. There has not yet been a study that
examines the performance indicators that are crucial for assessing the implementation of
environmental management plans in water projects. To fill this gap, this research aims to
examine the performance indicators that are crucial for assessing the implementation of
environmental management plans in water projects; this examination has the potential to
offer valuable insights and advancements in the field. To achieve this aim, the research
flow starts with a literature review to find previous works and to identify the research gap;
this is followed by the research methodology, which consists of survey development, data
collection, and data analysis. Then, the results are presented, followed by a discussion.
Lastly, the research implications and conclusions are presented. Figure 1below shows the
conceptual framework of the study.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 3 of 19
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19
discussion. Lastly, the research implications and conclusions are presented. Figure 1 be-
low shows the conceptual framework of the study.
Performance indicators for assessing EMP implementation in water projects
Examine performance indicators crucial for assessing the implementa tion of EM Ps in water projects
Environmental Impact
Indicators
Operational and Safety
Indicators
Waste Management and
Public Safety Indicators
Partial least squares structural equation modeling
• Understanding Enviro nmental Management Plans in Wate r Projects
• Environmental Performance Evaluation: Indicators and Insights
• Comparative Analysis of Performance Indicator Studies Across Construction Projects
There is a research gap in identifying and examining performance indicators crucial fo r assessing
the implementation o f EMP in w ater projects
Research
title
Research
aim
Previous
literature
review
Research
aim
Research
analysis
Research
results
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Understanding Environmental Management Plans in Water Projects
The existing body of literature reveals diverse perspectives on the implementation of
environmental management plans (EMPs) in water projects. Researchers have explored
the integration of environmental management systems (EMS) under the International Or-
ganization for Standardization (ISO14000) as a decision support tool [14], emphasizing its
applicability in managing water environmental treatment projects [15]. The identification
of construction types and environmental impact factors and the establishment of control
schemes to prevent contamination have emerged as crucial components [15]. Further-
more, the studies have underscored the importance of creating environmental action
plans (EAPs) tailored to water projects that succinctly summarize the constraints, adverse
effects, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements [16]. The historical awareness
of the environmental consequences in irrigation and water works has prompted a call for
the integration of environmental aspects into the planning process, with an emphasis on
processes such as identification, implementation, monitoring, and performance measure-
ment for successful environmental management [17,18]. The case studies on hydropower
projects further demonstrate the successful integration of legal requirements and cooper-
ative relationships among project participants; this integration allows alignment with the
effective implementation of EMPs in water projects [19]. The challenges faced by water
development projects, including delays and cancellations due to environmental impacts,
have prompted the proposal of principles to integrate environmental considerations into
decision-making processes [20], offering valuable insights for robust EMPs. The compre-
hensive analysis of future trends and directions in water management contributes to the
shaping of EMPs that prioritize long-term sustainability and positive impacts [21]. The
recommendations considering environmental flows in water projects align with the
broader goal of ensuring sustainable infrastructure development through well-structured
EMPs [22]. Finally, initiatives to anticipate and mitigate negative environmental impacts
in hydropower projects, covering aspects from water quality to cultural relics, emphasize
the need for comprehensive EMPs tailored to the specific challenges of water projects [23].
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Understanding Environmental Management Plans in Water Projects
The existing body of literature reveals diverse perspectives on the implementation of
environmental management plans (EMPs) in water projects. Researchers have explored
the integration of environmental management systems (EMS) under the International Or-
ganization for Standardization (ISO14000) as a decision support tool [
14
], emphasizing
its applicability in managing water environmental treatment projects [
15
]. The identi-
fication of construction types and environmental impact factors and the establishment
of control schemes to prevent contamination have emerged as crucial components [
15
].
Furthermore, the studies have underscored the importance of creating environmental
action plans (EAPs) tailored to water projects that succinctly summarize the constraints,
adverse effects, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements [
16
]. The historical
awareness of the environmental consequences in irrigation and water works has prompted
a call for the integration of environmental aspects into the planning process, with an em-
phasis on processes such as identification, implementation, monitoring, and performance
measurement for successful environmental management [
17
,
18
]. The case studies on hy-
dropower projects further demonstrate the successful integration of legal requirements and
cooperative relationships among project participants; this integration allows alignment
with the effective implementation of EMPs in water projects [
19
]. The challenges faced
by water development projects, including delays and cancellations due to environmental
impacts, have prompted the proposal of principles to integrate environmental considera-
tions into decision-making processes [
20
], offering valuable insights for robust EMPs. The
comprehensive analysis of future trends and directions in water management contributes
to the shaping of EMPs that prioritize long-term sustainability and positive impacts [
21
].
The recommendations considering environmental flows in water projects align with the
broader goal of ensuring sustainable infrastructure development through well-structured
EMPs [
22
]. Finally, initiatives to anticipate and mitigate negative environmental impacts
in hydropower projects, covering aspects from water quality to cultural relics, emphasize
the need for comprehensive EMPs tailored to the specific challenges of water projects [
23
].
Collectively, this literature underscores the multifaceted approaches and considerations
that have been explored in the past to enhance the effectiveness of EMP implementation in
water projects.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 4 of 19
2.2. Environmental Performance Evaluation: Indicators and Insights
The concept of environmental performance (EP) has been thoroughly scrutinized, with
the findings providing a nuanced definition of EP as the culmination of an organization’s
efforts to manage environmental aspects in alignment with its policy, objectives, targets,
and other performance requirements [
24
]. The importance of environmental performance
indicators emerges prominently, and the literature underscores their increasing significance
at the company level [
24
]. The researchers advocate an integrated framework that not
only evaluates performance but also uses advanced tools, like the Eco balance tool, to
assess the environmental impact of a company’s products and processes. Simultaneously,
the assessment of the current environmental management systems sheds light on the
need for comprehensive comments on overall environmental performance and provides
insights into the effectiveness of the control exercised by organizations [
25
]. Environmental
performance evaluation, grounded in a life cycle perspective, is highlighted as essential for
industrial improvement [26].
The literature emphasizes the role of indicators in conveying the current state of
environmental issues and in driving the improvements that are beneficial to both the com-
pany and the environment [
27
]. The studies stress the strategic importance of developing
environmental performance indicators for managerial control, strategic advantages, and
performance reporting across different company functions. The assessment extends beyond
traditional industry settings, with studies evaluating an industrial port and estate, utilizing
specific environmental performance indicators to identify deficiencies, and recommending
improvements [
28
]. The literature collectively underscores the increasing interest in envi-
ronmental performance assessment, detailing historical contexts, diverse approaches, and
the pivotal role of indicators as potent tools for both performance evaluation and public
information [
29
]. This body of work contributes significantly to understanding the broader
landscape of performance indicators for assessing environmental management plans and
their relevance in diverse organizational contexts.
2.3. Comparative Analysis of Performance Indicator Studies across Construction Projects
Table 1presents previous performance indicator studies across construction projects.
In [
30
], the paper aimed to investigate the performance indicators (PIs) that are crucial
for assessing EMP implementation in highway construction projects. The data collection
methods involved a systematic review, interviews, and a questionnaire survey, while the
data analysis employed mean score ranking, normalization, agreement analysis, factor
analysis, and fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE). The findings revealed 21 critical PIs that
are essential for evaluating EMP implementation in highway construction projects. Then,
the next paper [
8
] focused on examining the PIs for assessing EMP implementation in road
construction projects. As with the previous study, it used a systematic review, interviews,
and a questionnaire survey for data collection, and it applied analytical methods such as
mean score ranking, normalization, agreement analysis, overlap analysis, factor analysis,
and fuzzy synthetic evaluation. The outcome of the analysis identified 18 key PIs that are
crucial for monitoring EMP execution in road construction projects. The third paper [
31
]
aimed to identify performance indicators for assessing EMPs in road and highway con-
struction projects. It gathered qualitative data from certified environmental assessors and
environmental observers from the Department of Environment through interviews and
used thematic analysis for data interpretation. The study identified three themes and
eight subthemes related to EMP performance indicators in road and highway construction
projects. The fourth paper [
32
] focused on examining PIs for assessing EMP implementation
in water supply construction projects. The data collection methods included a system-
atic review, interviews, and a questionnaire survey, while the data analysis techniques
involved mean ranking analysis, the normalization method, principal component analysis
(PCA), and FSE. The study identified 18 critical PIs that are essential for evaluating EMP
implementation in water supply construction projects. In this study, the focus is on the
critical indicators for assessing EMP implementation in water projects. The data collection
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 5 of 19
methods encompassed a systematic review, interviews, and a questionnaire survey, while
the data analysis techniques included reliability tests, mean ranking, normalized mean
analysis, EFA, and partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Table 1. Comparative analysis of performance indicator studies.
Paper Aim Data Collection Data Analysis Findings
[30]
To investigate PIs for
assessing EMP
implementation in highway
construction projects.
Systematic review + Interviews +
Questionnaire survey
Mean score ranking,
Normalization method,
Agreement analysis,
Factor analysis, and FSE
21 critical PIs
[8]
To examine the PIs for
assessing EMP
implementation in road
construction projects
Systematic review + Interviews +
Questionnaire survey
Mean score ranking,
Normalization method,
Agreement analysis,
Overlap analysis, Factor
analysis, and FSE
18 key PIs
[31]
To identify performance
indicators for assessing
EMPs of road and highway
construction projects.
Acquiring qualitative data from
certified EAs and EOs from the
DOE + Interviews
Thematic analysis 3 themes and
8 subthemes
[32]
To examine the PIs for
assessing EMP
implementation in water
supply construction
projects
Systematic review + Interviews +
Questionnaire survey
Mean score ranking,
Normalization method,
PCA, and FSE
18 critical PIs
This paper
To examine PIs crucial for
assessing the
implementation of EMPs in
water projects
Systematic review + Interviews +
Questionnaire survey
Mean score ranking,
Normalized method, EFA,
and PLS-SEM
13 critical parameters
and 3 underlying
constructs
2.4. Research Gap
Despite the extensive exploration of the multifaceted approaches and considerations in
EMPs for water projects, there is a research gap related to the identification and examination
of the performance indicators that are crucial for assessing the implementation of EMPs.
Further research is needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of the indicators that
effectively measure the success and impact of EMPs in water projects in order contribute to
improved environmental sustainability and management practices. Hence, to cover this
gap, this research aims to examine the performance indicators that are crucial for assessing
the implementation of EMPs in water projects.
3. Methodology
The methodological procedures for this research are separated into four phases to
assist in achieving the research aim. Figure 2illustrates the methodological procedures of
this research.
3.1. Survey Development
This study employed a questionnaire survey to quantitatively assess the implemen-
tation of EMPs in water projects across Saudi Arabia. Surveys are a well-established and
effective means of gathering a wide range of responses from professionals, especially when
random sampling techniques are used [
33
]. The following sections will delve into the
process of developing the survey used in this research.
It is worth noting that although the variables used in the study by Radzi et al. (2024) [
32
]
and those in this study are similar, the analyses conducted are distinct. Despite both
studies utilizing the same survey instrument, it is important to note that the analyses
were conducted for different research objectives, resulting in variations in the findings
and interpretations. The mean ranking table may appear identical because it represents
an output of the process rather than direct replication. Moreover, this study is part of a
broader research endeavor, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 6 of 19
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19
Systematic literature review Semi-structu red interview s
Survey development and pilot test
39 performance indicators
Exploratory
factor
analysis
Mean and
Normalization
method
Pa r ti a l least squares
structural equation modeling
Data collection
112 valid responses
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
4
Data analysis
Reliability
analysis
Measurement model
evaluation Structural model evaluation
Discussion and Interpretation Research implications
Conclusion
Phase
3
13 Criti cal
performance
indicators
Pa r ti a l least squares
structural equation modeling
3 underlying constructs
Figure 2. Methodological procedures for this research.
3.1. Survey Development
This study employed a questionnaire survey to quantitatively assess the implemen-
tation of EMPs in water projects across Saudi Arabia. Surveys are a well-established and
effective means of gathering a wide range of responses from professionals, especially
when random sampling techniques are used [33]. The following sections will delve into
the process of developing the survey used in this research.
It is worth noting that although the variables used in the study by Radzi et al. (2024)
[32] and those in this study are similar, the analyses conducted are distinct. Despite both
studies utilizing the same survey instrument, it is important to note that the analyses were
conducted for different research objectives, resulting in variations in the findings and in-
terpretations. The mean ranking table may appear identical because it represents an out-
put of the process rather than direct replication. Moreover, this study is part of a broader
research endeavor, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
3.1.1. Systematic Literature Review
To identify potential performance indicators, a systematic literature review (SLR)
was conducted. The SLR process began with a search for relevant articles in the Scopus
database using the “title/abstract/keyword” function. The keywords used were “water”
AND “construction” AND “indicator” AND “environment*”. As a result, 129 papers were
identified. To ensure the selected literature was eligible for this review, inclusion and ex-
clusion criteria were used. First, the articles were selected from peer-reviewed journals
Figure 2. Methodological procedures for this research.
3.1.1. Systematic Literature Review
To identify potential performance indicators, a systematic literature review (SLR)
was conducted. The SLR process began with a search for relevant articles in the Scopus
database using the “title/abstract/keyword” function. The keywords used were “water”
AND “construction” AND “indicator” AND “environment*”. As a result, 129 papers
were identified. To ensure the selected literature was eligible for this review, inclusion
and exclusion criteria were used. First, the articles were selected from peer-reviewed
journals only due to their higher quality, which results from a more thorough peer review
process [
34
]. Second, articles directly related to performance indicators in construction
projects were considered. Third, the articles were written in English. After the initial
screening of the abstracts, 26 articles were identified as potentially suitable for further
review. After a comprehensive examination of their content, 13 articles were found to be
valid for further investigation.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 7 of 19
3.1.2. Semi-Structured Interview
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with environmental professionals. Non-
probabilistic sampling, which is purposive sampling, was employed to select the par-
ticipants. Ten environmental professionals were involved in the interviews to identify
performance indicators that were not reported in the existing literature. This method of
combining both SLR data and interview data to comprehensively identify the relevant
variables during survey development has been employed in previous works [
35
]. The
interview began with an introduction to the interview’s purpose and topic. The questions
were then presented, with follow-up questions used when necessary to clarify responses.
The questions were adjusted as needed to ensure accuracy. At the end of each interview,
gratitude was expressed to the participants. After each interview, a summary was shared
with the respondents for validation. Following Braun and Clarke’s technique, thematic
analysis was applied to the interview data to develop a comprehensive list of performance
indicators [34].
3.1.3. Survey Design
The performance indicators identified in both the semi-structured interviews and the
SLR were combined to create the survey, resulting in a total of 39 indicators (see Table 2).
The survey’s first page included the study objectives and contact information. The first part
of the survey asked about the backgrounds of the respondents and their experience related
to water projects. The Section 2presented the list of performance indicators identified
through the SLR and interviews. The respondents were requested to rank the performance
indicators using a five-point Likert scale, with one being not important and five being
very important. The Likert scale was chosen for its precision, and it is commonly used
in construction management research [
36
]. Finally, the respondents were provided with
space at the end of the survey to add and rank any additional performance indicators that
they deemed necessary. It is important to clarify that the performance indicators listed
in Table 1were derived from a combination of sources, including SLRs, semi-structured
interviews, and a pilot study. These indicators were not arbitrarily selected by the authors
but emerged as outputs of the survey development process. They represent a synthesis
of insights gathered from different approaches to ensure comprehensive coverage and
relevance to the study objectives.
Table 2. Performance indicators identified in prior works and semi-structured interviews.
Code Performance Indicators Sources
IND01 Soil erosion Interview; [37,38]
IND02 Traffic accidents on construction site Interview; [39–41]
IND03 The smells of the run-off water Interview; [38,42]
IND04 Dust appearance Interview; [43]
IND05 Spills of chemical substances [44]
IND06 Construction waste [38,45–47]
IND07 Clogged drainage [37]
IND08 Overflowed silt trap Interview
IND09 Oil/fuel spills Interview; [44]
IND10 Traffic accidents among public users Interview
IND11 Visibility drops Interview; [43]
IND12 Changes in the color of bodies of water Interview
IND13 Excessive cut and fill Interview; [48]
IND14 Traffic emission gas [43,44,49]
IND15 Vegetation depletion [37,45,48,50,51]
IND16 Wildlife appearance on construction sites [42,43,45,48,49,52]
IND17 Unpleasant air odors [43,44,53,54]
IND18 Changes in the color of the run-off water Interview
IND19 Landslide occurrence Interview; [39]
IND20 Light pollution (during nighttime) [38,42]
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 8 of 19
Table 2. Cont.
Code Performance Indicators Sources
IND21 Restricted site accessibility [43]
IND22 The smell of nearby bodies of water Interview
IND23 Slope failures Interview; [37,48,51]
IND24 Depletion of agricultural land [39]
IND25 Excessive noise Interview
IND26 Irregular flood Interview
IND27 Destruction of animal habitat [38,42,43,48,49]
IND28 Public safety [37]
IND29 Deforestation [39,48]
IND30 Changes in the color of silt traps Interview
IND31 Open burning Interview
IND32 Alteration of topography [51]
IND33 Spread of disease [55]
IND34 Vibration occurrences Interview
IND35 Traffic congestion Interview
IND36 Social disturbance [46]
IND37 Increase in scheduled waste [38,45–47]
IND38 Road safety hazards Interview
IND39 Proliferation of pests [46]
3.1.4. Pilot Test
The feedback obtained from the pilot test is crucial for improving the survey’s quality
and estimating completion time [
56
]. Hence, a pilot test involving ten personnel, from both
industry and academia, with over ten years of experience in water projects, was conducted.
Following feedback from the participants in the pilot test, adjustments were made to refine
the survey, resulting in its finalization.
3.2. Data Collection
The target population for this study involved environmental professionals who had
experience in water projects in Saudi Arabia. In this study, purposive sampling was em-
ployed. Purposive sampling involves selecting knowledgeable and skilled individuals [
57
]
who are available, willing to participate, and capable of articulating their experiences and
opinions clearly, expressively, and reflectively [
58
]. A total of 112 valid responses were
obtained. Table 3demonstrates that the majority of the respondents possessed ten or more
years of experience in water projects. Additionally, 72.3% of the respondents reported
involvement in at least two water projects. These findings suggested that the collected data
were reliable for further analysis, given the significant level of professional experience in
water projects among the respondents.
Table 3. Background of respondents.
Characteristics Categories Frequency Percent (%)
Years of experience in water projects
Fresh graduate 17 15.2
Less than 3 years of experience 12 10.7
3 to 10 years 17 15.2
10 to 15 years 17 15.2
More than 15 years of experience 49 43.8
Number of water projects involved in
Only 1 project 31 27.7
2 to 5 projects 23 20.5
6 to 10 projects 14 12.5
11 to 20 projects 17 15.2
More than 20 projects 27 24.1
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 9 of 19
3.3. Data Analysis
3.3.1. Data Reliability
A reliability analysis was performed to assess the consistency and reliability of the sur-
vey. Cronbach’s alpha (
α
) coefficient was utilized to evaluate the internal consistency of the
39 performance indicators. A value of
α
equal to or greater than 0.70 is commonly regarded
as acceptable [
59
]. The 39 performance indicators yielded an overall score
of 0.944 at
a
significance level of 5%, confirming the reliability of the data. Next, the dataset underwent
screening using the two-standard deviation approach to identify any outliers [
32
]. Based
on the calculation, the calculated intervals for the two-standard deviation method were
4.178 and 2.504. Hence, IND29 and IND28 were identified as outliers as they fell outside
the two-standard deviation interval values. As a result, IND29 was excluded from further
analysis as it was considered less critical by professionals compared to the other indicators.
However, “Public safety” (IND28) was retained for further analysis, as it was deemed
potentially very important. IND28 might be of paramount importance in a water project,
justifying its retention despite its being an outlier.
3.3.2. Mean Ranking Analysis and Normalization Method
Initially, mean score ranking analysis was utilized to ascertain the relative rankings
of the performance indicators. In instances where multiple indicators exhibited identical
mean values, priority was accorded to those demonstrating the lowest standard deviation
(SD). A lower standard deviation (SD) implies that the variations in responses are not
statistically significant; thus, the reliability of the mean value as a representation for the
majority of respondents is enhanced [
59
]. Following the ranking of performance indicators,
a normalization method was applied to identify the crucial performance indicators [
60
].
Using this approach, the minimum mean value was standardized to 0, while the maximum
mean value was standardized to 1. Subsequently, the remaining mean values were trans-
formed into decimal values within the range of 0 to 1. The performance indicators with
normalized values of 0.60 or higher were identified as critical performance indicators.
3.3.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
EFA is a statistical technique used to investigate potential correlations among perfor-
mance indicators. To ascertain the sample size required for EFA, the ratio of the sample
size to the number of variables was computed. With 13 critical performance indicators
identified through the normalization method, the calculated ratio of the sample size to
the number of variables exceeded the recommended threshold of 5 [
61
,
62
], indicating an
adequate sample size. Next, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value and Bartlett’s test of
sphericity were assessed to ensure the suitability of the data for conducting EFA. The KMO
value should be greater than 0.50 [
63
]. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to evaluate
the relationships between the variables. If the original correlation matrix is not an identity
matrix, the data are deemed suitable for EFA [
64
]. Moreover, PCA was used to extract
factors and to identify the underlying constructs within the dataset. In addition, variables
with factor loadings of more than 0.50 were regarded as significant and valuable for the
interpretation of these constructs [65].
3.3.4. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)
In this study, structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to test the hypothe-
ses. SEM facilitates the direct measurement of observed variables; latent variables are
inferred from these observed variables. A structural equation model encompasses both
measurement and structural components. The measurement model delineates the as-
sociation between each observed variable and its corresponding latent variable, while
the structural model elucidates the relationships among the latent variables. SEM exists
in two principal forms: covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and partial least squares SEM
(PLS-SEM). PLS-SEM was favored over CB-SEM due to its superior ability to handle non-
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 10 of 19
normal datasets and small sample sizes [
66
]. Moreover, PLS-SEM is suitable for exploratory
research involving theoretical models that are not well established [67].
PLS-SEM generates both measurement models and a structural model. The outer
measurement model is designed to assess the consistency and validity of observed vari-
ables. Convergent validity and discriminant validity are key criteria used to evaluate
the validity of the measurement model. To ascertain convergent validity, metrics such as
Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR) scores, and average variance extracted (AVE)
are employed. It is recommended that Cronbach’s alpha, which measures the internal
consistency of indicators, should surpass a threshold of 0.5 [
68
], while CR scores should
be above 0.6 [
69
]. Convergent validity is assessed using AVE, with a value greater than
0.5 considered
satisfactory [
69
], indicating that, on average, the construct explains over 50%
of the variance of its items. Then, the discriminant validity of the measurement model is
assessed. Discriminant validity plays a crucial role in assessing theoretical relationships
between constructs [
70
]. A study by Hulland [
71
] proposed two methods to evaluate
discriminant validity: the Fornell–Larcker criterion and indicator cross-loading analysis.
According to the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the variance within a construct should outweigh
the variance between that construct and any other construct. Cross-loading analysis ensures
that the indicators exhibit stronger correlations with the construct they are intended to
measure compared to any other constructs in the model [
72
]. After evaluating the measure-
ment model, the validity of the structural model is evaluated based on the significance and
relevance of the relationships within the model.
4. Results
4.1. Result of Mean Ranking Analysis and Normalization Method
Table 4displays the results of the mean ranking analysis and normalization method for
assessing EMP implementation in water projects in Saudi Arabia. The critical performance
indicators, identified by the fact that they have normalized mean values of at least 0.60,
are presented. A total of thirteen indicators met this criterion; thus, they qualified as
critical performance indicators. These thirteen indicators, with normalized values of 0.60 or
above, are considered critical for the evaluation of EMP implementation in water projects
in Saudi Arabia.
Table 4. Critical performance indicators for assessing EMP implementation.
Code Performance Indicator Mean Standard Deviation Normalized Value Rank
IND28 Public safety 4.214 1.043 1.000 * 1
IND38 Road safety hazards 4.098 0.910 0.929 * 2
IND04 Dust appearance 3.955 0.874 0.842 * 3
IND07 Spills of chemical substances 3.839 1.205 0.772 * 4
IND26 Construction waste 3.813 1.061 0.755 * 5
IND06 Construction waste 3.795 1.428 0.745 * 6
IND25 Excessive noise 3.759 1.042 0.723 * 7
IND01 Traffic accidents on construction site 3.732 1.147 0.707 * 8
IND19 The smells of the run-off water 3.696 1.130 0.685 * 9
IND37 Dust appearance 3.661 0.982 0.663 * 10
IND12 Changes in the color of bodies of water 3.652 1.213 0.658 * 11
IND09 Oil/fuel spills 3.634 1.464 0.647 * 12
IND21 Restricted site accessibility 3.571 1.145 0.609 * 13
Note: * Represents performance indicators with normalized values > 0.50.
4.2. EFA Results
The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value calculated for the performance indicators
stands at 0.856, surpassing the minimum threshold of 0.50. Conversely, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity yielded a significant p-value of 0, indicating that the dataset was not an identity
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 11 of 19
matrix. Consequently, the data were deemed suitable for exploratory factor analysis (EFA).
Table 5presents all the critical performance indicators that were successfully loaded onto
the three underlying constructs. Collectively, these constructs accounted for 58.838% of the
total variance. To assign appropriate labels to each construct, factors with higher factor
loadings or the complete set of variables can be considered [
69
]. Hence, these constructs
were named ‘Environmental impact indicators’, ‘Operational and safety indicators’, and
‘Waste management and public safety indicators’.
Table 5. Results of EFA.
Constructs Performance Indicators for Assessing
EMP Implementation Code Factor
Loadings
Variance
Explained
Environmental Impact Indicators
Spill of chemical substance IND06 0.802
29.562
Oil/fuel spills IND09 0.769
Changes in the color of bodies of water IND12 0.760
Clogged drainage IND07 0.755
Soil erosion IND01 0.725
Slope failures IND25 0.571
Landslide occurrence IND19 0.571
Operational and Safety Indicators
Restricted site accessibility IND21 0.802
15.358
Irregular flood IND26 0.728
Road safety hazard IND38 0.670
Waste Management and Public
Safety Indicators
Increase in scheduled waste IND37 0.749
13.919
Construction waste IND04 0.652
Public safety IND28 0.628
4.3. Hypotheses Development
Based on the EFA results, three hypotheses were developed:
H1: Environmental impact indicators positively influence EMP implementation.
H2: Operational and safety indicators positively influence EMP implementation.
H3: Waste management and public safety indicators positively influence EMP implementation.
4.4. PLS-SEM Results
4.4.1. Measurement Model Evaluation
Convergent validity refers to the level of agreement between two or more indicators
of the same construct. Table 6illustrates that all the indicator loadings exceeded the
recommended value of 0.60 for exploratory research. According to Table 6, the Cronbach’s
alpha values for all the constructs exceeded 0.5, indicating indicator reliability. Furthermore,
the CR values, representing internal consistency, ranged from 0.898 to 0.771; thus, they all
surpassed the 0.60 threshold and affirmed the adequacy of internal consistency reliability in
this model. Additionally, the AVE values for all three constructs exceeded the 0.50 threshold
required for convergent reliability.
After evaluating the measurement model, the subsequent step involves assessing its
discriminant validity using the Fornell and Larcker criterion. According to the findings
in Table 7, the measurement indicates satisfactory discriminant validity, as the highest
correlation of a construct is with itself. An alternative approach to the assessment of the
discriminant validity of the measurement model involves examining the cross-loadings of
the indicators. As shown in Table 8, each indicator displayed the highest factor loading on
the construct it was designed to measure in the model. This confirmation indicates that the
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 12 of 19
measurement model exhibits sufficient convergent and discriminant validity for structural
path modeling.
Table 6. Measurement model evaluation.
Constructs Code Indicators Outer
Loadings
Cronbach’s
Alpha CR AVE
Environmental
Impact Indicators
IND06 Spill of chemical substance 0.819
0.866
0.898 0.558
IND09 Oil/fuel spills 0.803
IND12 Changes in the color of bodies of water 0.683
IND07 Clogged drainage 0.816
IND01 Soil erosion 0.743
IND25 Slope failures 0.674
IND19 Landslide occurrence 0.671
Operational and
Safety Indicators
IND21 Restricted site accessibility 0.836
0.689
0.828 0.618
IND26 Irregular flood 0.826
IND38 Road safety hazards 0.687
Waste Management and
Public Safety Indicators
IND37 Increase in scheduled waste 0.676
0.568
0.771
0.530
IND04 Construction waste 0.698
IND28 Public safety 0.803
Table 7. Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker).
Constructs Environmental
Impact Indicators
Operational and
Safety Indicators
Waste Management and
Public Safety Indicators
Environmental Impact Indicators 0.747 - -
Operational and Safety Indicators 0.485 0.786 -
Waste Management and Public Safety Indicators 0.419 0.457 0.728
Table 8. Indicators’ cross-loading.
Indicators Environmental
Impact Indicators
Operational and
Safety Indicators
Waste Management and
Public Safety Indicators
IND06 0.819 0.340 0.392
IND09 0.803 0.421 0.322
IND12 0.683 0.240 0.112
IND07 0.816 0.448 0.276
IND01 0.743 0.309 0.336
IND25 0.674 0.427 0.345
IND19 0.671 0.328 0.387
IND21 0.416 0.836 0.330
IND26 0.417 0.826 0.414
IND38 0.299 0.687 0.331
IND37 0.160 0.356 0.676
IND04 0.265 0.328 0.698
IND28 0.433 0.331 0.803
4.4.2. Structural Model Evaluation
The structural model evaluation of PLS-SEM is crucial as it involves validating the
proposed hypotheses using bootstrapping. Accordingly, the structural model evaluation
conducts bootstrapping with 5000 subsamples [
72
]. Table 9presents the results of the
structural model evaluation. As a result, all three components are validated to induce EMP
implementation positively.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 13 of 19
Table 9. Structural model evaluation.
Relationships Path Coefficient
T Statistics
pValues Results
Environmental Impact Indicators →EMP Implementation 0.735 14.727 0.000 Supported
Operational and Safety Indicators →EMP Implementation 0.262 7.786 0.000 Supported
Waste Management and Public Safety Indicators
→
EMP Implementation
0.194 5.867 0.000 Supported
5. Discussion
5.1. Environmental Impact Indicators
Environmental impact indicators, which are instrumental in steering the implementa-
tion of environmental management plans in Saudi Arabian water projects, have garnered
significant attention due to their pronounced effects. Notably, the impact of chemical spills
has been a subject of concern [
73
]. These spills pose a substantial threat to water quality,
necessitating the detection, control, and removal of hazardous substances [
74
]. These recent
studies collectively underscore the urgent need for comprehensive measures to prevent
and address chemical spills. Similarly, the implementation of environmental management
plans is significantly influenced by oil and fuel spills, events with the potential for severe
pollution and environmental damage. It is highly critical for effective pollution prevention
and control plans, especially in response to human errors and equipment failure. In [
75
], the
research further emphasizes the importance of risk assessment and emergency treatment
plans for water sources affected by oil spills, especially with regard to water quality and
safety. Protection, response, and cleanup techniques play a critical role in minimizing the
environmental impacts of the freshwater spill response.
These recent studies collectively stress the need for robust environmental management
plans to address the potential impact of oil and fuel spills on water projects. Moreover,
the aesthetic assessment of water bodies, including their color, plays a pivotal role in guid-
ing water quality management and environmental impact analysis in water projects [
75
].
However, the implementation of environmental management plans faces challenges re-
garding the potential adverse effects of leaching from submerged soils, which affects
water
quality [76].
Additionally, water conservancy projects can induce significant hydro-
ecological impacts, such as changes in river discharge and sediment, exacerbated by alter-
ations in water color. Consequently, changes in the color of bodies of water directly impact
the implementation of environmental management plans in water projects, especially with
regard to water quality and ecological balance. Collectively, these insights underscore the
intricate relationship between environmental impact indicators and the success of EMPs
implementation in Saudi Arabian water projects [32].
5.2. Operational and Safety Indicators
Operational and safety indicators play a pivotal role in influencing the effective imple-
mentation of environmental management plans in water projects in Saudi Arabia. These
indicators are essential components, ensuring the seamless execution of project activities
while prioritizing the safety of personnel and the surrounding environment. The intercon-
nected nature of operational efficiency, safety measures, and environmental management is
critical in water projects, given the potential risks associated with construction and mainte-
nance activities in ecologically sensitive areas. One key operational indicator that directly
impacts the execution of an environmental management plan is restricted site accessibility.
In Saudi Arabia, where water projects navigate diverse landscapes, the accessibility of
project sites becomes paramount. Restricted access can impede the deployment of mon-
itoring and mitigation measures, making it difficult to promptly address environmental
concerns. An effective environmental management plan should incorporate strategies to
overcome site accessibility challenges, facilitating efficient monitoring and intervention
efforts. Irregular floods represent another operational and safety concern affecting the
successful implementation of environmental management plans in water projects [77].
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 14 of 19
The unpredictable nature of floods poses threats to both project infrastructure and the
surrounding environment. In Saudi Arabia, where flash floods are possible in many areas,
integrating careful planning and preemptive measures into environmental management
plans becomes crucial [
78
–
80
]. This includes establishing early warning systems and de-
signing resilient infrastructure to withstand unforeseen flood events, safeguarding both
operational continuity and the local ecosystem. Road safety hazards, although seemingly
unrelated to environmental concerns, play a vital role in the overall success of environmen-
tal management plan implementation in water projects. The transportation of materials
and personnel involves road networks that can pose risks to both human safety and the
environment. Accidents or spills during transportation can have immediate consequences
on water quality and nearby ecosystems. Therefore, an effective environmental manage-
ment plan should incorporate stringent road safety protocols, minimizing the likelihood
of accidents and ensuring the safe transportation of materials and consequently reducing
potential environmental impacts [81,82].
5.3. Waste Management and Public Safety Indicators
Waste management and public safety indicators stand as pivotal elements influencing
the robust implementation of environmental management plans in water projects across
Saudi Arabia. The effective handling of waste, both during and after project execution,
directly contributes to the preservation of ecosystems and the prevention of environmental
degradation. Additionally, ensuring public safety is paramount in regions where water
projects often intersect with inhabited areas. Recognizing the interconnectedness of waste
management, public safety, and environmental sustainability is crucial for the success-
ful execution of water projects in the kingdom [
83
]. The first critical indicator, increased
schedule waste, poses a significant challenge to environmental management plan imple-
mentation. The generation of scheduled waste, such as hazardous materials, demands
meticulous attention. Improper disposal or mismanagement of such waste can lead to
soil and water contamination, endangering both human health and the environment. An
effective environmental management plan must incorporate stringent waste management
practices, including proper disposal and treatment procedures, to mitigate the potential
adverse effects of increased scheduled waste.
Construction waste can have a significant impact on the environment, including pollu-
tion, habitat disruption, and visual blight. To minimize these impacts, an environmental
management plan for water projects should include measures to reduce, reuse, and recycle
construction waste. Such a plan should identify the types of debris that the project will
generate, estimate the types and quantities of materials or waste generated by the project
site, and propose intended disposal methods. Successful waste management plans should
also contain goals for waste recycling, salvage, or reuse. A well-developed construction site
waste management plan (SWMP) will help to eliminate or reduce construction waste and
protect the environment and public health [
84
]. Public safety is an essential indicator that in-
fluences the success of environmental management plans in water projects. The interaction
between project activities and the public requires careful consideration to prevent accidents
and ensure the well-being of local communities. In water projects, potential hazards such as
open excavation sites, heavy machinery, and altered traffic patterns can pose risks to public
safety. A robust environmental management plan must integrate measures to address
and mitigate these safety concerns, ensuring a harmonious coexistence between project
activities and the surrounding communities [85].
6. Implications
6.1. Practical Implications: Environmental Impact Indicators
This comprehensive study of environmental impact indicators in Saudi Arabian water
projects has significant practical implications for the effective implementation of EMPs.
The identified environmental impact indicators, derived through a meticulous process
involving a systematic literature review, interviews with environmental professionals, and
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 15 of 19
a survey incorporating 39 performance indicators, offer valuable insights for practitioners.
The study emphasizes the critical importance of addressing chemical spills, especially
those threatening water quality; these spills necessitate robust detection, control, and
removal measures. Moreover, the research underscores the need for effective pollution
prevention and control plans, especially in response to oil and fuel spills, highlighting the
urgent need for risk assessment and emergency treatment plans. Additionally, the study
reveals the impact of aesthetic assessments, such as changes in watercolor, on water quality
management, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to environmental management
plans in Saudi Arabian water projects. In practical terms, professionals in the field are
urged to integrate these insights into their EMPs to enhance the overall environmental
sustainability of water projects.
6.2. Theoretical Implications: Environmental Impact Indicators
The theoretical implications derived from the study of environmental impact indi-
cators in Saudi Arabian water projects contribute significantly to the broader theoretical
framework of environmental management in construction projects. By employing a system-
atic literature review, interviews, and a comprehensive survey, the study not only identifies
the specific environmental impact indicators that are crucial for EMP implementation, it
also highlights the intricate relationship between these indicators and project success. The
incorporation of theoretical perspectives from environmental sciences, risk assessment,
and emergency response planning enriches the understanding of how theoretical concepts
translate into practical strategies for safeguarding water quality and ecological balance.
The study underscores the relevance of considering aesthetic assessments, such as changes
in watercolor, within the theoretical constructs of environmental impact analysis. The
theoretical framework developed through this research provides a foundation for future
studies in the field of construction management, offering insights into the interplay of
environmental indicators and the success of EMP implementation. Researchers and aca-
demics can use these theoretical underpinnings to expand upon existing environmental
management theories and refine conceptual models, fostering a deeper understanding of
the theoretical landscape surrounding construction projects in ecologically sensitive areas.
7. Conclusions
This research aims to examine the performance indicators that are crucial for assessing
the implementation of EMPs in water projects. To achieve the study’s aim, this paper
conducted a questionnaire survey. The survey development included the conducting of
an SLR to identify performance indicators. Subsequently, ten interviews were conducted
with environmental professionals to identify potential indicators not identified by the SLR.
After designing the survey and conducting a pilot study, the survey was finalized for
data collection. In total, there were 112 valid responses from environmental professionals
involved in water projects in Saudi Arabia. The data analysis included reliability tests, mean
ranking, normalized mean analysis, EFA, and PLS-SEM. The normalized mean analysis
identified 13 critical parameters out of 39 for subsequent analyses. EFA revealed three
underlying constructs: environmental impact indicators, operational and safety indicators,
and waste management and public safety indicators. PLS-SEM was employed to validate
the relationship between these indicators and the implementation of the environmental
management plan. Although the aim of the paper was achieved, it is essential to point out
this limitation. The identified literature from the SLR comprised only 13 articles, which
may have affected the quality of the results. The questionnaire survey and the interviews
helped in overcoming this limitation.
This study stands out due to its comprehensive investigation of environmental impact
indicators and their pivotal role in shaping EMPs for Saudi Arabian water projects. The find-
ings suggest that all three underlying constructs positively influence the implementation of
such plans. By delving into the specific importance and challenges of the EMP indicators,
this research significantly enriches the field of environmental management. Furthermore,
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 16 of 19
the study’s findings underscore the importance of developing precise performance indica-
tors that are tailored to the diverse construction projects and are focused on the construction
of water facilities. This broader implication highlights the crucial need for customized
strategies to effectively address environmental concerns across different sectors, thereby
fostering sustainable development practices. The identified performance indicators offer
valuable insights for policymakers in shaping effective environmental management plans.
Practitioners can benefit from the detailed analysis of the critical parameters and underlying
constructs; this analysis enables them to enhance the implementation of such plans in water
projects. Furthermore, researchers can build upon the findings of this study and contribute
to the ongoing development of knowledge in the field of environmental management.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.M.F., M.F., M.E., R.H. and R.A.R.; methodology, A.R.R.,
A.M.F., M.F., M.E., R.H., M.M.O. and R.A.R.; validation, R.A.R.; formal analysis, A.R.R.; resources,
A.M.F., M.F., M.E. and R.A.R.; data curation, A.M.F., M.F. and M.E.; writing—original draft prepa-
ration, A.R.R.; writing—review and editing, A.M.F., N.S.R., M.F., M.E., R.H., M.M.O. and R.A.R.;
visualization, A.R.R.; supervision, N.S.R., M.F., M.E. and R.A.R.; project administration, M.F. and
R.A.R.; funding acquisition, M.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This study is supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam
Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), grant number IMSIU-RG23107.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding authors. The data are not publicly available due to some of the data being proprietary
or confidential in nature. Therefore, data may only be provided with restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Sikdar, P.K. Environmental Management: Issues and Concerns; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021.
2.
Chen, Y.-C.; Lien, H.-P.; Tzeng, G.-H. Measures and evaluation for environment watershed plans using a novel hybrid MCDM
model. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010,37, 926–938. [CrossRef]
3. Bryant, R.L.; Wilson, G.A. Rethinking environmental management. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 1998,22, 321–343. [CrossRef]
4.
Chouhan, V.K.; Khan, S.H.; Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. Sustainable planning and decision-making model for sugarcane mills
considering environmental issues. J. Environ. Manage. 2021,303, 114252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Wilson, G.A.; Bryant, R.L. Environmental Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2021.
6.
Xiang, X.; Li, Q.; Khan, S.; Khalaf, O.I. Urban water resource management for sustainable environment planning using artificial
intelligence techniques. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021,86, 106515. [CrossRef]
7.
Margerum, R.D. Integrated environmental management: The foundations for successful practice. Environ. Manag. 1999,24, 151–166.
[CrossRef]
8.
Dahalan, N.H.; Rahman, R.A.; Ahmad, S.W.; Ibrahim, C.K.I.C. Public monitoring of environmental management plan implemen-
tation in road construction projects: Key performance indicators. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2023, ahead-of-print.
9.
Virapongse, A.; Brooks, S.; Metcalf, E.C.; Zedalis, M.; Gosz, J.; Kliskey, A.; Alessa, L. A social-ecological systems approach for
environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 2016,178, 83–91. [CrossRef]
10.
Head, B.W. Managing environmental and sustainability challenges. In Wicked Problems in Public Policy: Understanding and
Responding to Complex Challenges; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 83–106.
11.
Hong, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, J.; Xu, Y.; Xin, H. Effect of interface structure and behavior on the fluid flow characteristics and phase
interaction in the petroleum industry: State of the art review and outlook. Energy Fuels 2023,37, 9914–9937. [CrossRef]
12.
Na, N.A. Risk in the Modern Age: Social Theory, Science and Environmental Decision-Making; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019.
13.
Yenidogan, A.; Gurcaylilar-Yenidogan, T.; Tetik, N. Environmental management and hotel profitability: Operating performance
matters. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2021,17, 7–19. [CrossRef]
14. ISO 14000; Environmental Management. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
15.
Chen, D.; Chen, Y.; Li, N.; Zhang, H.; Duan, H.; Liu, J.; Sun, P. Environmental Management Scheme of EPC Model for Water
Environmental Treatment Project. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management
and Real Estate; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 376–389.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 17 of 19
16.
Hickie, D.S. The Development of Environmental Assessment Processes for Projects within the Water Environment; Loughborough
University: Loughborough, UK, 1998.
17.
Chitale, M.A. Environmental management in water resources projects: Indian experiences of irrigation and power projects. Int. J.
Water Resour. Dev. 1988,4, 108–116. [CrossRef]
18.
Herath, S.; Chong, S. Key components and critical success factors for project management success: A literature review. Oper.
Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2021,14, 431–443. [CrossRef]
19. Zhang, Y.; Tang, W.; Duffield, C.F.; Zhang, L.; Hui, F.K.P. Environment management of hydropower development: A case study.
Energies 2021,14, 2029. [CrossRef]
20. Adams, B. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in a Developing World; Routledge: London, UK, 2008.
21.
Ke, Y.; Chen, Y.; Liang, S.; Hu, J.; Hou, H.; Quan, J.; Li, X.; Duan, H.; Yuan, S.; Yang, J. Environmentally sound management of
industrial solid waste: A paradigm of proposed bi-tetrahedron. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023,198, 107212. [CrossRef]
22.
Hirji, R.; Davis, R. Environmental Flows in Water Resources Policies, Plans, and Projects: Findings and Recommendations; World Bank
Publications: Herndon, VA, USA, 2009.
23.
Baby, S. Approach in developing environmental management plan (EMP). In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Environmental Engineering and Application, Shanghai, China; IACSIT Press: Singapore, 2011; Volume 253.
24.
Azzone, G.; Noci, G.; Manzini, R.; Welford, R.; Young, C.W. Defining environmental performance indicators: An integrated
framework. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 1996,5, 69–80. [CrossRef]
25.
Rowland-Jones, R.; Pryde, M.; Cresser, M. An evaluation of current environmental management systems as indicators of
environmental performance. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2005,16, 211–219. [CrossRef]
26. Thoresen, J. Environmental performance evaluation—A tool for industrial improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 1999,7, 365–370. [CrossRef]
27.
Metcalf, K.R.; Williams, P.L.; Minter, J.R.; Hobson, C.M. Environmental performance indicators for enhancing environmental
management. Environ. Qual. Manag. 1996,5, 7–11. [CrossRef]
28.
Saengsupavanich, C.; Coowanitwong, N.; Gallardo, W.G.; Lertsuchatavanich, C. Environmental performance evaluation of an
industrial port and estate: ISO14001, port state control-derived indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2009,17, 154–161. [CrossRef]
29.
Gautam, R.; Singh, A. Critical environmental indicators used to assess environmental performance of business. Glob. Bus. Manag.
Res. Int. J. 2010,2, 224–236.
30.
Dahalan, N.H.; Rahman, R.A.; Hassan, S.H.; Ahmad, S.W. Performance indicators for public evaluation of environmental
management plan implementation in highway construction projects. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2023, ahead-of-print.
31.
Dahalan, N.H.; Rahman, R.A.; Ahmad, S.W. Environmental management plan (EMP): Performance indicators for road and
highway construction. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: College Park, MD, USA, 2022; Volume 2532.
32.
Radzi, A.R.; Farouk, A.M.; Romali, N.S.; Farouk, M.; Elgamal, M.; Rahman, R.A. Assessing Environmental Management Plan
Implementation in Water Supply Construction Projects: Key Performance Indicators. Sustainability 2024,16, 600. [CrossRef]
33.
Krosnick, J.A. Improving question design to maximize reliability and validity. In The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 95–101.
34.
Clarke, V.; Braun, V. Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014;
pp. 1947–1952.
35.
Rani, H.A.; Farouk, A.M.; Anandh, K.S.; Almutairi, S.; Rahman, R.A. Impact of COVID-19 on Construction Projects: The Case of
India. Buildings 2022,12, 762. [CrossRef]
36.
Farouk, A.M.; Rahman, R.A.; Romali, N.S. Economic analysis of rehabilitation approaches for water distribution networks:
Comparative study between Egypt and Malaysia. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2021,21, 130–149. [CrossRef]
37.
Kaufman, M.M.; Wigston, D.L.; Perlman, E.B. Environmental evaluation of subdivision site developments. Environ. Manag. 2002,
29, 801–812. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38.
Niemeijer, D.; De Groot, R.S. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol. Indic. 2008,8, 14–25. [CrossRef]
39.
Dangi, M.B.; Chaudhary, R.P.; Rijal, K.; Stahl, P.D.; Belbase, S.; Gerow, K.G.; Fernandez, D.; Pyakurel, B. Impacts of environmental
change on agroecosystems and livelihoods in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environ. Dev. 2018,25, 59–72. [CrossRef]
40.
Gilchrist, A.; Allouche, E.N. Quantification of social costs associated with construction projects: State-of-the-art review. Tunn.
Undergr. Sp. Technol. 2005,20, 89–104. [CrossRef]
41.
Ramani, T.; Zietsman, J.; Eisele, W.; Rosa, D.; Spillane, D.; Bochner, B. Developing Sustainable Transportation Performance Measures
for TXDOT’s Strategic Plan: Technical Report; Texas Transportation Institute: Bryan, TX, USA, 2009.
42.
Anderson, J.L.; Muench, S.T. Sustainability trends measured by the greenroads rating system. Transp. Res. Rec. 2013,2357, 24–32.
[CrossRef]
43.
Fernández-Sánchez, G.; Rodríguez-López, F. A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project
management—Application to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indic. 2010,10, 1193–1201. [CrossRef]
44.
Gallego, I. The use of economic, social and environmental indicators as a measure of sustainable development in Spain. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2006,13, 78–97. [CrossRef]
45.
Park, J.-W.; Ahn, Y.H. Development of a green road rating system for South Korea. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2015,
6, 249–263. [CrossRef]
46.
Shen, L.; Lu, W.; Peng, Y.; Jiang, S. Critical assessment indicators for measuring benefits of rural infrastructure investment in
China. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2011,17, 176–183. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 18 of 19
47.
Tam, V.W.Y.; Tam, C.M.; Shen, L.Y.; Zeng, S.X.; Ho, C.M. Environmental performance assessment: Perceptions of project managers
on the relationship between operational and environmental performance indicators. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2006,24, 287–299.
[CrossRef]
48. Chang, A.S.; Tsai, C.Y. Sustainable design indicators: Roadway project as an example. Ecol. Indic. 2015,53, 137–143. [CrossRef]
49.
Umer, A.; Hewage, K.; Haider, H.; Sadiq, R. Sustainability assessment of roadway projects under uncertainty using Green
Proforma: An index-based approach. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2016,5, 604–619. [CrossRef]
50.
Wang, Z.; He, X.; Zhang, C.; Xu, J.; Wang, Y. Evaluation of geological and ecological bearing capacity and spatial pattern along
du-wen road based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the technique for order of preference by similarity to an ideal
solution (TOPSIS) method. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020,9, 237. [CrossRef]
51.
Yang, H.; Wang, Z.; Dai, Q. Ecological impact assessment method of highways in Tibetan Plateau: A Case study of Gonghe-Yushu
Expressway. J. Mt. Sci. 2020,17, 1916–1930. [CrossRef]
52.
Sun, C.; Xu, S.; Qi, W.; Chen, C.; Deng, Y.; Pei, N.; König, H.J. Biodiversity constraint indicator establishment and its optimization
for urban growth: Framework and application. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019,14, 125006. [CrossRef]
53. Goedkoop, M.; Spriensma, R. The Eco-Indicator 95; PRéConsultants Amersfoort: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 1995.
54.
Jeon, C.M.; Amekudzi, A. Addressing sustainability in transportation systems: Definitions, indicators, and metrics. J. Infrastruct.
Syst. 2005,11, 31–50. [CrossRef]
55.
Venner, M. Environmental Stewardship Practices, Procedures, and Policies for Highway Construction and Maintenance; The National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
56. Fellows, R.F.; Liu, A.M.M. Research Methods for Construction; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021.
57. Cresswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011.
58.
Bernard, H.R. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD,
USA, 2017.
59.
Staplehurst, J.; Ragsdell, G. Knowledge sharing in SMEs: A comparison of two case study organisations. J. Knowl. Manag. Pract.
2010,11, 1–16.
60.
Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I.; Wen, Y.; Ameyaw, E.E.; Wang, S.; Ke, Y. Cross-sectional analysis of critical risk factors for PPP water
projects in China. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015,21, 4014031. [CrossRef]
61. Gorsuch, R.L. Factor Analysis, Hillsdale, New Jersey, L.; Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1983.
62. Kline, P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis; Routledge: London, UK, 2014.
63. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage: London, UK, 2009; pp. 175–179.
64. Pallant, J. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
65. Osborne, J.W. What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis? Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2015,20, 2.
66.
Hair, F.H., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM):
An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014,26, 106–121. [CrossRef]
67.
Joreskog, K.G. The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparative aspects. Syst. Under
Indirect. Obs. Part I 1982, 263–270.
68. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory 3E; Tata McGraw-Hill Education: Columbus, OH, USA, 1994.
69. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011,19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
70.
Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015,43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
71.
Hulland, J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J.
1999,20, 195–204. [CrossRef]
72.
Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
73.
Sherif, M.; Liaqat, M.U.; Baig, F.; Al-Rashed, M. Water resources availability, sustainability and challenges in the GCC countries:
An overview. Heliyon 2023,9, e20543. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74.
Nam, S.-H.; Ku, T.-G.; Park, Y.-L.; Kwon, J.-H.; Huh, D.-S.; Kim, Y.-D. Experimental study on the detection of hazardous chemicals
using alternative sensors in the water environment. Toxics 2022,10, 200. [CrossRef]
75.
He, F.; Ma, J.; Lai, Q.; Shui, J.; Li, W. Environmental Impact Assessment of a Wharf Oil Spill Emergency on a River Water Source.
Water 2023,15, 346. [CrossRef]
76.
Kaur, G.; Singh, G.; Motavalli, P.P.; Nelson, K.A.; Orlowski, J.M.; Golden, B.R. Impacts and management strategies for crop
production in waterlogged or flooded soils: A review. Agron. J. 2020,112, 1475–1501. [CrossRef]
77.
Addas, A. Exploring the pattern of use and accessibility of urban green spaces: Evidence from a coastal desert megacity in Saudi
Arabia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022,29, 55757–55774. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78.
Abdulrazzak, M.; Elfeki, A.; Kamis, A.; Kassab, M.; Alamri, N.; Chaabani, A.; Noor, K. Flash flood risk assessment in urban arid
environment: Case study of Taibah and Islamic universities’ campuses, Medina, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Geomat. Nat. Hazards
Risk 2019,10, 780–796. [CrossRef]
79.
El Bastawesy, M.; Al Ghamdi, K. Assessment and management of the flash floods in Al Qaseem Area, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Int. J. Water Resour. Arid Environ. 2013,3, 146–157.
Sustainability 2024,16, 3146 19 of 19
80.
Rahman, M.T.; Aldosary, A.S.; Nahiduzzaman, K.M.; Reza, I. Vulnerability of flash flooding in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Nat. Hazards
2016,84, 1807–1830. [CrossRef]
81.
Jamal, A.; Rahman, M.T.; Al-Ahmadi, H.M.; Mansoor, U. The dilemma of road safety in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia:
Consequences and prevention strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020,17, 157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82.
Retallack, A.E.; Ostendorf, B. Current understanding of the effects of congestion on traffic accidents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2019,16, 3400. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83.
Abubakar, I.R.; Maniruzzaman, K.M.; Dano, U.L.; AlShihri, F.S.; AlShammari, M.S.; Ahmed, S.M.S.; Al-Gehlani, W.A.G.; Alrawaf,
T.I. Environmental sustainability impacts of solid waste management practices in the global South. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2022,19, 12717. [CrossRef]
84.
Omer, M.M.; Rahman, R.A.; Almutairi, S. Construction waste recycling: Enhancement strategies and organization size. Phys.
Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2022,126, 103114. [CrossRef]
85.
Council, N.R. Prudent Practices in the Laboratory: Handling and Management of Chemical Hazards, Updated Version; National Academies
Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mohamed Farouk
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohamed Farouk on Apr 15, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
