Month: May 2023

Categories
Economics Infrastructure Lytton Advisory

Risks of building infrastructure in the Pacific

Taking a broader view of construction risk management

The unique nature of the Pacific poses several large risks in building infrastructure in Pacific Island nations.  While the risks are not necessarily unique to the Pacific, the potential combination of these factors can increase the overall risk profile of building infrastructure in the Pacific and might require stronger risk responses.  The following six factors are worth considering.

Natural disasters: Pacific Island nations are prone to earthquakes, cyclones, and other natural disasters, which can damage or destroy infrastructure projects.

Political instability: Political instability in Pacific Island nations can lead to changes in government policies, which can affect the financing and completion of infrastructure projects.

Limited financial resources: Many Pacific Island nations have limited financial resources, which can make it difficult to fund infrastructure projects.

Limited skilled labor: Many Pacific Island nations have a limited pool of skilled labor, which can make it difficult to find workers to complete infrastructure projects.

Environmental concerns: Building infrastructure in Pacific Island nations often requires the use of natural resources and the modification of the landscape, which can raise environmental concerns.

Cultural sensitivity: Building infrastructure in Pacific Island nations requires sensitivity to the cultural traditions and values of the local communities, which can present challenges.

A risk approach that does not consider these elements is inherently risky. How do you handle this kind of risk in your organisation?

Categories
Circular Economy Economics Local Government Lytton Advisory

Sustainability Experiements: A-B Testing Household Waste Management

As Queensland’s local governments strive to ensure sustainability in waste management, innovative techniques like A-B Testing are increasingly gaining traction. This method, commonly used in marketing to test consumer preferences, can also be applied to household waste behaviour. It involves comparing two groups – one following the current waste management practice (A) and the other testing a new approach (B).

Recently I have been thinking about three ways this might be done in a local government context:

Study 1: Recycling Education Programs. Educational programs about the importance and methods of recycling are key to promoting responsible waste management. A-B Testing can be used to measure their effectiveness. Group A could continue with the current education approach, while Group B would receive enhanced education material – perhaps more engaging, interactive content. The success could be measured in terms of recycling rates, contamination rates, and waste volume reduction.

Study 2: Waste Collection Frequency. Changing the frequency of waste collection is another variable local governments could experiment with. Group A could maintain the current schedule, while Group B could have more frequent recycling pickups and less frequent general waste pickups. This encourages households to recycle more and could result in substantial landfill reduction.

Study 3: Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Policies. Finally, implementing PAYT policies could be a game-changer. Under this scheme, households are charged based on the amount of waste they produce. Group A could continue with the flat fee structure, while Group B would test the PAYT policy. The impact would be measured through waste volume, disposal costs, and recycling rates.

A-B Testing in these areas could provide local governments with robust data on the effectiveness of new waste management strategies. It’s an evidence-based approach that can drive better policy-making and offer several potential gains. There are many more options for this kind of analysis.

But what are the benefits?

For the councils, the benefits include better resource allocation, improved recycling rates, and reduced costs associated with waste management. It can also drive innovation in service delivery and contribute to sustainability goals.

Ratepayers also stand to gain significantly. Efficient waste management systems can lead to lower rates over time. Moreover, they provide an opportunity for households to play an active role in waste reduction and recycling, contributing to the larger goal of environmental sustainability.

A-B Testing allows us to bring data to the heart of decision-making, fostering an innovative, evidence-based approach to household waste management. Queensland local governments, by embracing such methodologies, can set an example in driving sustainability through informed, data-driven decisions.

#ABTesting #WasteManagement #Sustainability #QueenslandLocalGovernment #InnovationInPolicy #Recycling #PayAsYouThrow

Categories
Economics Lytton Advisory Waste Management

When should a local government deliver waste services from in-house resources?

The drive to outsourcing is an alluring one with promises of lower costs, fewer workforce issues and risk transference.  However, it is important to realise that there are a few situations in which it may be more advantageous for a local government to deliver waste services from in-house resources.

When the community is small and the volume of waste generated is low, it may be more cost-effective to have an in-house team handle waste collection and disposal.

If the local government has the necessary equipment and personnel to provide waste services, it may be more efficient to deliver these services in-house rather than contracting out to a private company.

In cases where the local government has specific regulations or policies in place for waste management, it may be easier to ensure compliance by delivering services in-house.

If the local government is able to secure funding or grants for waste management programs, it may be more beneficial to use these resources to hire and train an in-house team rather than paying a private company.

These are also the other side of the coin to consider when deciding whether the advantages of outsourcing can be realised.

How does your local council assess whether the in-house opportunities are worthwhile?

Categories
Lytton Advisory

Can Local Governments Deliver Sustainable Infrastructure?

As local governments continue to face the challenge of delivering more essential infrastructure services to their communities, it’s important for them to prioritise sustainable infrastructure development. By implementing a series of sustainable infrastructure practices, they can minimize environmental impacts and reduce long-term maintenance costs, while providing reliable and effective services to their communities. Here are three big concepts to consider.

Green infrastructure

One way that local governments can promote sustainable infrastructure development is by prioritizing green infrastructure projects. Green infrastructure refers to the use of natural systems such as parks, wetlands, and green roofs to manage stormwater, reduce heat island effects, and improve air quality. By investing in green infrastructure projects, local governments can help to minimize the environmental impact of their infrastructure development projects and create more livable and sustainable communities.

Energy-efficient technologies

Another important consideration for sustainable infrastructure development is the use of energy-efficient technologies. By adopting energy-efficient building designs and technologies, local governments can reduce the energy consumption of their infrastructure projects and lower long-term maintenance costs. For example, the use of solar panels, energy-efficient lighting systems, and smart building technologies can help to reduce energy use and costs over the long term. It can also provide a catalyst for local businesses to follow because local government purchasing helps create the market for these services.

Leveraging the power of data and technology

In addition to promoting sustainable infrastructure development through green infrastructure and energy-efficient technologies, local governments can leverage the power of data and technology to optimize infrastructure operations and maintenance. By investing in asset management systems and predictive maintenance technologies (PMTs), local governments can improve infrastructure performance and reduce the need for costly and disruptive repairs and replacements. The pros and cons of asset management systems and PMTs needs to be carefully considered to ensure the business cases for leveraging these approaches generates financial and economic returns.

Infrastructure that is sustainable reduces or avoids some of the pitfalls of the build-and-forget approach. It better embeds the service delivery ethos required to extact the maximum value for ratepayers and the wider community.

How far along the sustainable infrastructure journey is your organisation?

Categories
development Economics Infrastructure

Appointment

Lytton Advisory is pleased to announce that Managing Director Craig Lawrence has been appointed to a Panel of Economic Experts for Australia’s Solomon Island Resource Facility (ASRIF).

ASIRF supports the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in meeting the objectives of Australia’s aid program in the Solomon Islands.

Craig previously advised the Ministry of Infrastructure Development there on how to incorporate economic tools to assess climate change adaptation strategies into the transport invesment guidelines.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of Lytton Advisory’s engagement with Pacific Island nations on a range of economic and infrastructure issues.