Reader's Response to Developing Sustainable Infrastructure in New Cities

     In the article “Developing Sustainable Infrastructure in New Cities”, Cho (2014) states that developing cities cannot sustain steady growth by ignoring economic, social, environmental challenges and the impact of rapid urban expansion. The writer introduced the Envision Sustainability Rating System, a tool from Harvard University used to measure the sustainability of newly built infrastructure. She then mentions the King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) that is being built with the Envision Certification firm at its roots, citing positive impacts on local communities. According to Cho, infrastructure sustainability has a huge role to play in the swift expansion of developing cities. I agree with her and I think countries must look thoroughly into their city planning before they start construction, but she did not mention critical points like how Envision is readily accessible to developing countries and other alternative rating systems.

     The first thing to know about Envision is how available it is, and how a lot of their material is found free online. The rating system has been great tool for benchmarking a project against others and gaining recognition in the industry since its introduction 3 years ago. It is the current reference for best practices in all types of infrastructure (Nelson, 2015). Envision offers many services, including the Envision checklist, the Envision sustainability infrastructure rating system and the Envision Sustainability Professional course. Firstly, the checklist is used as an educational tool to help users familiarise with the sustainability characteristics of infrastructure design, it can also be used as a precursor to the sustainability infrastructure rating system. The rating system is what Envision uses to evaluate projects. A third party reviewer is needed to certify a project for an award using the same rating system found free online. Lastly, Envision conducts courses to train Envision Sustainability Professionals so that these professionals can go back to their project team and guide them with the Envision philosophy. Both the checklist and the rating system are free, only the third party reviewer and the course cost a little bit of money. All the materials provided by Envision are easy to use and anyone with an internet connection can have access to their services. I think it is absolutely critical that Envision is visible to developing countries where cities are still being planned, and this is something Cho failed to mention.

     One other point that Cho did not talk about is the existence of alternate rating systems in the industry. While Envision is a very useful tool for all types of infrastructure, there are rating systems out there that focus on projects that are much less complex and much smaller in scale. In a small project where manpower is limited, a self-assessed system employed by Envision can require extra time commitment from a team that could already be working very hard. This is where systems like Greenroads comes in. Although it only certifies roadway projects, it is purely third party reviewed which means the project team can focus on the project and not on the certification process. Project teams in developing countries with small projects, low budget or limited manpower can find rating systems like Greenroads extremely useful.

     In conclusion, the article by Cho talks about how important it is to build sustainable cities in developing countries and how Envision aids this cause. However, she did not mention how developing countries have easy access to Envision and the presence of other rating systems that could be better suited to small projects.