Mega infrastructure projects and their contribution to sustainable development: the case of the Athens Metro

In the past two decades, there has been an explosion in the number of publications on the topic of “sustainability,” to the point where “sustainability science” is now commonly regarded as a separate subject. Despite this, “sustainability” remains a vague notion that can be understood in various ways depending on the surrounding circumstances (Purvis et al. 2018). A common way to explain the concept of “Sustainable Development” is by referring to the economy, society, and environment as three separate but interdependent “pillars”. These “pillars” can be represented graphically as supporting sustainability or intersecting circles. As Purvis, Mao and Robinson 2019 highlighted, the lack of literature conceptualising “sustainability” and “sustainable development,” the “three pillars” of environmental, economic, and social, have gained support. This is usually done by balancing seemingly equally desirable goals within these three categories but uses vary. One problem with this conceptualisation is its lack of theoretical development; it seems to arise in the literature and be taken at face value.

Nevertheless, this method has been presented as a shared vision of sustainable development since 2001 (Giddings et al. 2002). Geiger et al. 2021 research used the three-pillar sustainability model as a conceptual framework to examine how individuals evaluate climate policies and how these evaluations predict policy support. We consider individuals’ evaluations of 1) environmental impacts (i.e. perceived policy effectiveness), 2) economic impacts emerging, and (3) social impacts of policies. Sustainable development has implications for major project planning, evaluation, and implementation (Vardopoulos et al. 2021). Environmental and social elements have a significant impact on project planning and delivery. The concept of sustainability is still in its infancy and its operationalisation. It is uncommon for all environmental, social, and economic factors to be addressed within a project (Dimitriou, Harman and Ward, 2010).

The social component is one of sustainability’s foundations. However, social components are evaluated less frequently than economic and environmental dimensions. Infrastructure development includes the planning, construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of a service or facility to meet a public need. In this regard, infrastructures serve as an intermediary link that enables sustainable social development (Tsilika and Vardopoulos 2022). The project and society may be harmed if the social dimension is neglected during infrastructure development. Non-reversal impacts that may jeopardise intergenerational life quality have long-term effects on future generations’ development (Sierra et al. 2018). As Sierra et al. 2017 mentioned in the research of methods for estimating the social sustainability of infrastructure projects, according to Colantonio (2011), social sustainability can be defined as both a situation and a process that works to enhance the quality of life in a community. According to Asomani-Boateng (2015), one of the characteristics of social progress is the improvement of interventions. Others connect ecological and economic viability with the health of the present and future generations (Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz, 2013; Mostafa & El-Gohary 2014). The ways in which infrastructure is conceived, constructed, put to use, and eventually abandoned will define the social repercussions of the infrastructure (Sierra et al. 2016). According to Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz (2013), it is essential for the design and planning of an infrastructure project to consider the context of the region, the user, the commitment of relevant stakeholders and the identification of those stakeholders (Anastasiadou et al. 2022). A significant number of societal repercussions are contingent on either pre-existing conditions or immediate actions (Van de Walle 2009). In several contexts, socio-economic development in the short term can be detrimental to underdeveloped regions (Foth et al. 2013). Consequently, it is important to ensure that distribution systems include those most susceptible to harm (Mostafa & El-Gohary 2014). People are interested in what will happen in the long run. Using goals and criteria for social development might help you figure out whether or not a project’s infrastructure will be able to support itself over time (Pavlovskaia 2013). The majority of the societal expectations of the 1990s were satisfied by Labuschange et al., 2005. Focusing on long-term social reform goals in a zone is more vital. The types of social indicators are utilised to decide the path that must be taken to improve society (Fulford et al. 2015). A social indicator is a tool that may be used to evaluate how well a society is achieving its development goals or bettering its citizens’ lives over time (Noll 2013). When it comes to determining the social sustainability of infrastructure, the knowledge gap presents itself in two different ways: (1) the social contribution of infrastructure in terms of how it interacts with its surroundings (Gannon & Liu 1997; Van de Walle 2009; Asomani-Boateng et al. 2015); and (2) the possible long-term benefit distribution effects balanced against its short-term contribution. (1) The social contribution of infrastructure in terms of how it interacts with its surroundings (Colantonio 2011; Foth et al. 2013; Sierra et al. 2016). These are the foundational pieces upon which this inquiry is built.

The provided quality of life improvement is a foundational piece of sustainable development that describes another aspect of sustainable infrastructure growth (Cortesi et al. 2022). In 1995 Manfred Max-Neef defined the “threshold hypothesis”, stating that ‘for every society, there seems to be a period in which economic growth brings about an improvement in the quality of life but only up to a point—the threshold point—beyond which, if there is more economic growth quality of life may begin to deteriorate. Dimitriou, Harman & Ward, 2010 state that equal access to services promotes individual and communal quality of life. These issues receive little attention because they are frequently political; they are more difficult to characterise since measurement often necessitates judgement. Social factors must alleviate poverty. This is essential to Brundtland’s sustainable development strategy and a World Bank aim. The environment and society are inextricably interwoven (Zopounidis et al. 2020). Disasters and failures worldwide show the need to preserve ecosystems for human economic and social well-being (Skayannis and Zafeiriou 2021). Any infrastructure project involves environmental and social risks. Comprehensive project assessments should identify and weigh all critical factors, but they are never certain. There may be environmental and social risks. For example, the volume of complaints about an infrastructure project’s environmental impact can force rethinking and rerouting a project section, increasing development and construction costs and incurring delays.

Furthermore, problematic transportation access to a major city reduces local centre activity, employment opportunities, and the accessibility of town centre facilities to poor communities, raising the project’s cost for public sponsors. Some project influence factors are difficult to predict and may represent minor or major risks; however, if they enter, the consequences might be severe (Dimitriou, Harman and Ward, 2010). Failure to appropriately examine environmental and social factors can result in substantial risks, such as losing the support of key stakeholders, failing to identify how to fulfil stakeholder objectives, or causing unacceptable consequences that are too expensive to repair (Passas et al. 2022). As part of their infrastructure development plans, more project sponsors emphasise developing and presenting a “sustainable business case.” However, a project’s environmental, social, and economic factors are rarely balanced. Decision-making often necessitates trade-offs to attain project goals and objectives (Vardopoulos 2019). To handle the risks, uncertainties, and tensions associated with these trade-offs, suitable and transparent institutional capacity and governance frameworks are required. This is critical since many institutional frameworks for major projects are too fragmented and isolated to allow for satisfactory compromises. Few infrastructure stakeholders now publicly believe economic growth should be the sole or significant consideration in project evaluation. According to Dimitriou, Harman and Ward, 2010, 81% of survey respondents related to the infrastructure industry; economic development should not be the only criterion. Sustainability is still perceived in multiple ways (for example, see; Zorpas 2014; Egidi et al. 2020; Kavouras et al. 2022; Ragazou et al. 2022). Therefore, to achieve successful sustainable development, societal acceptance and enhancing the quality of life of the users and communities engaged in the infrastructure project should be addressed (Fischer and Anekudzi 2011).

The need for transportation services, and by extension, energy, will continue to be driven by the rise of the population. On the other hand, the shift toward urbanisation will give rise to very different cities. Although it is anticipated that the world's largest cities will have more than 10 million residents by 2030, many of the world's cities with the highest population growth are smaller settlements with fewer than 500,000 people. (Tsafos 2019) Because of its larger population and higher population density, a city with more than 10 million residents will have distinct energy issues than a metropolis with 500,000 or 1 million inhabitants (Halkos and Tzeremes 2014). Therefore, along with population expansion and urbanisation, the industry will be a major driver for transportation services. Transport services form a network linking various nodes in industrial supply chains. Moving people and things from one location to another entails transportation, which also involves a variety of other considerations such as cost, convenience, time, and safety. (Tsafos 2019) Full-time jobs transporting people and products and delivering urban services like food are made possible by ride-sharing services in emerging economies, making them a potential route out of poverty. When exactly oil demand will peak is a topic of heated discussion. (Halkos and Tzeremes 2011) Even though the EIA predicts demand will keep rising until 2040, other analysts predict it will decrease much sooner. Several areas, like sustainable development and economic growth in the transportation sector, require policy guidance, and discussions on this topic must be broadened (Tsafos 2019). The provision of transportation services must include safety features for the public. Data are essential for discovering novel patterns, yet it is often inaccessible or behind expensive paywalls. To properly control data, governments must adopt a methodical and comprehensive strategy. Using social and behavioural policy, governments should "promote" public transportation as the better choice. Fuels are becoming available to power motorbikes, automobiles, trucks, trains, and eventually ships and aeroplanes, causing urban areas to evolve and new business models to emerge (Halkos and Tzeremes 2011) (Tsafos 2019).

Considerable literature indicates a positive link between mega infrastructure project investments and sustainable development (indicatively; Mitoula and Patargias 2002; Mitoula et al. 2013; Vardopoulos and Theodoropoulou 2018; Mitoula and Papavasileiou 2021; Papavasileiou and Mitoula, 2021). However, some researchers cite the possible negative impacts of such projects, socially, on social and environmental developments. As such, controversy exists in this field of study. Besides, while some previous studies offered key insight into the socio-economic impact of megaprojects and the concept of sustainability, little research exists into the impact of mega infrastructure projects investments on sustainable development under the prism and consideration of society. On the other hand, some of the studies offered valuable insights by considering the challenges in assessing megaprojects’ impacts on socio-economic and environmental development but not under the measurable opinion of the users and communities affected by this mega infrastructure project. This presents a research gap the proposed study deems worthy of further exploration.

The primary objective of this research is to investigate the role of the Athens Metro mega infrastructure project in sustainable development by analysing society’s perspective on the project’s impact on the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economy, the environment, and society.

Primary data were collected using prototype survey questionnaires administered to select adult participants. The questionnaire addresses the impact of infrastructure on the environment, the economy, and social life. As a result, the questions are tailored to the environmental, social, and economic impact of mega infrastructure in sustainable development. Thus, the primary questions for the survey reflect the social opinion of the effects of the Athens Metro mega infrastructure project by the interrelation of sustainable development fundamental pillars. The questionary target participants include literate adults with adequate knowledge about infrastructure and its implications on the economy, the environment, and people’s lives. Permanent residents of Attica’s region, urban, and suburban settings were prioritised because they have adequate experience in their respective areas crossed or served by the Athens Metro. As a result, they are more likely to observe this mega infrastructure project’s effects on all aspects of their lives and surroundings. In addition, individuals of any employment or job status were eligible to participate in the research, provided they were permanent residents of their respective areas. For instance, a permanent resident will more likely recognise the primary purpose of infrastructure, and infrastructural implications on the people, the economy, and the environment.

The interrelationship between the three pillars of sustainable development represented by the variables (Table 3) of environment, quality of life and commerce and their effect on sustainable development/growth (Fig. 2) can be expressed mathematically as a system of equations:

The three pillars of growth (environment, quality of life and commerce) are denoted by \({\text{Env}}\), \({\text{Qual}}\), and \({\text{Comm}}\), respectively. In addition, all equations include a vector of explanatory variables \({\varvec{X}}\) that is common across all equations. This contains controls for various demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. Specifically, all equations include controls for gender, age, education, marital status, urban areas, and employment status of the respondents. Furthermore, each equation includes in its specification a set of variables that is unique for the specific equation and excluded from the other equations, denoted by \({\varvec{Y}}\), \({\varvec{Z}}\), \({\varvec{W}}\), and \({\varvec{V}}\). This helps with the identification of the above system of equations and the estimation of the parameters of interest.

Although each Eq. (1)-(4) could be estimated independently, this would neglect the interrelationship between the three pillars of growth. Therefore, in order to capture this interdependency, we estimate Eqs. (1)-(4) as a system of equations, where the four key variables of interest are simultaneously determined within the system while also allowing for correlation between the error terms (\(u\), \(\eta\), \(\varphi\), and \(\psi\)).

All four outcome variables in Eqs. (1)-(4) are binary, taking the value of one of the individuals who reported an improvement about the particular outcome and zero otherwise. The equations are estimated using a Linear Probability Model (LPM). ¹The LPM is simply the application of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), where the dependent variable is a binary variable instead of a continuous variable. The major advantage of LPM is its interpretability, as the estimated coefficients refer to changes in the probability that the outcome variable takes the value of one.

After studying people’s perceptions in relation to the three pillars of growth and growth itself, we focus on what makes people more receptive to infrastructure projects by examining users’ overall level of satisfaction with such projects.

The user satisfaction equation is given by:where \({\text{Satisf}}\) is a binary variable (Table 3) taking the value of one if the respondent overall is satisfied with the infrastructure project and zero otherwise. \({\varvec{X}}\) is the same vector as the one used in the analysis above, containing demographic and socio-economic variables and controls for the type of project. \({\varvec{Q}}\) is another vector containing other determinants of user satisfaction. Finally, \(\nu\) is the error term.