buildings

Article
Assessing the Socio-Economic Impacts of Rural Infrastructure
Projects on Community Development
Shahid Hussain 1 , Rashid Maqbool 2, * , Ammar Hussain 1 and Saleha Ashfaq 3

1 Department of Business Management, Karakoram International University, Gilgit 15100, Pakistan;

[email protected] (S.H.); [email protected] (A.H.)
2 Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering, Northumbria University,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
3 School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Public construction infrastructure projects have been recognized as one of the fundamental
tools in enhancing community socio-economic conditions for community development. The pur-
pose of this study is to empirically investigate the impacts of socio-economic factors on community
development of rural regions. Through a questionnaire survey administrated in Pakistan, public
construction practitioners’ views were sought and evaluated. Empirical support for the argument
originated from the data collected from 213 respondents in Pakistan’s public construction industry.
The questionnaire’s data were evaluated employing the partial least square structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). The study’s findings showed that economic and social factors influence the
community development of rural regions. The result obtained from PLS-SEM proposed a more
viable method to realize community development and objectives. The study’s results have offered
precious lessons for local authorities, policymakers, and project stakeholders to strengthen the drive
for achieving community development goals. Strategies supporting community development in
rural regions are indispensable for local community development. This study provides empirical
Citation: Hussain, S.; Maqbool, R.; confirmation for the understanding and combining the community development concept; it illumi-
Hussain, A.; Ashfaq, S. Assessing the nates absent knowledge about community development, especially in rural regions. This is one of
Socio-Economic Impacts of Rural the few studies investigating the influencing dimensions of community development in rural regions.
Infrastructure Projects on To the authors’ best knowledge, this is the first research article providing empirical evidence of the
Community Development. Buildings influencing dimensions of community development in rural regions in a developing country.
2022, 12, 947. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings12070947
Keywords: socio-economic; rural areas; community development; public infrastructure projects
Academic Editor: Paulo Santos

Received: 6 June 2022

Accepted: 30 June 2022
1. Introduction
Published: 3 July 2022
Infrastructure projects in the rural region are usually constructed to support the local
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
community enabling them to access the resources, to resolve the rural problems, hence,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
positively changing the general rural environment [1] and also helping to achieve numerous
published maps and institutional affil-
goals and objectives of communities [2,3]. However, the absence of these projects poses
iations.
severe socio-economic problems for the local communities, for example, devastating impact
on living standards, adverse impact on quality of life, more expenditure on healthcare and
education [4], lower economic growth, and increased unemployment [5]. The importance
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
of infrastructure projects in a community’s life necessitated taking necessary action for
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. community development [3,6] in rural regions.
This article is an open access article Recently, rural infrastructure has gained popularity in the public domain to make the
distributed under the terms and public infrastructure projects sustainable in the rural areas that directly support the devel-
conditions of the Creative Commons opment of the community. The idea of sustainability while constructing the development
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// projects to strengthen sustainable societies [7] in the rural region has many features. One of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the fundamental socio-economic elements is the influence of infrastructure on sustainable
4.0/). rural development, such as regional economic development through providing transport

Buildings 2022, 12, 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070947 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022, 12, 947 2 of 18

infrastructure among territories which can also help decrease societal differences [8]. Public
infrastructure projects have the ability to influence many features of societal and economic
activities [9] such as better quality of life, gross domestic growth, quality education, em-
ployment, poverty alleviation, education, and better healthcare facilities [10,11]. The study
performed by Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz [12] explores that an accurately sustainable con-
struction project, for instance, should comprise social as well as economic significance about
the end-users and concerns about the influence of the project in the society in terms of the
education, health, and safety of society or public involvement. Socio-economic dimensions
have the potential to define community development in the contemporary era, especially in
rural regions, and their influences are shown to be associated with local development [13].
During the past decade, approaches have been suggested to measure the infrastructure
project’s sustainability [14–16], directing to create community development considerably.
The infrastructure projects conduce sustainability both in the short and long term that can
be evaluated using socio-economic enhancement standards and objectives. The standards
are needed to a medium that must be satisfied to achieve the standards of sustainability [17]
and community development. In Pakistan, the public construction industry is regarded as
a dynamic sector because of its volatile market situation [7]. The growth and progress of
this sector have been found remarkable compared to the other areas of the economy. In
Pakistan, rural infrastructure is still in the initial stages of the adoption of sustainability and
community development. The infrastructure projects and their influence on community
development remain a significant national issue, left unexplored. Therefore, this study aims
to identify the various socio-economic dimensions of infrastructure projects to enhance the
development of local communities in rural regions.
There is a lack of research on this significant part, and in developing nations such as
Pakistan, that how economic and social development factors can jointly enhance community
development. Li et al. [18] have taken economic development and social development
as independent variables, whereas the dependent variable was development in their
study. The current research provides to the existing body of knowledge by applying the
approach of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) for investigating
how embedding socio-economic dimensions in day-to-day operations of the local society
can enhance the community development through public infrastructure projects. Hence,
this study investigates contemporary socio-economic dimensions to enhance community
development, using data from Pakistan public construction practitioners.
The community is the key and fundamental unit of rural development. The fun-
damental objective of the study is to explore the socio-economic dimensions to enhance
community development in rural regions of Pakistan. This study will contribute to the
current literature in three different aspects. First, the community development paradigm is
well captured in social sciences, which also has importance in construction management
literature. This study contributes to providing experience from a developing country’s
construction industry. Second, it presents the socio-economic perspectives critical for the
development of communities in the rural region, and lastly, it provides implications for
the policymakers to consider the social and economic realities for the community devel-
opment of the infrastructure projects and its influence on the community life in the rural
region [14,19].
The current paper is organized as follows: Section 2 examines the associated literature
review. Whereas Section 3 designs the conceptual model of the study. Then the following
section which is Section 4 explains the research methodology, whereas Section 5 is about
results and data analysis. The last section which is Section 6 describes and discusses the
results. The last section includes conclusion, some recommendations for future research,
research implications, limitations, and delimitation of the study.
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 3 of 18

2. State of the Art on Socio-Economic Impacts of Rural Infrastructure Projects on

Community Development
Public infrastructure projects perform a coercive role in enhancing the development of
rural regions all over the world [20]. Infrastructure in rural areas, such as roads, hospitals,
educational institutions, irrigation canals, water supply, electricity, and telecommunication,
helps facilitate growth and fulfill basic requirements and useful activities in the rural re-
gion [21]. Improved rural development has often been connected with more investment.
Some have leaped, stating that rural areas would be suitable for rapid socio-economic
growth if only they had a better competitive infrastructure accessible from several ur-
ban regions [22]. The expectation is that improved quality education, better water and
electricity, low transportation cost, improved telecommunication, and increased informa-
tion infrastructure in rural regions can enhance the economic conditions and quality of
life [4,23,24], help in poverty reduction and development of rural residents [25,26]. A
set of socio-economic dimensions ascertained the community development. Gorbenkova
et al. [27] proposed a model measuring settlement development at the rural level permits
achieving the primary index of settlement development in rural areas and defining the
significant features and it is appropriate for use in the enhancement of regional planning
projects. Elmualim et al. [28] found that legislation is the most important handler for
accomplishing sustainable practices.
To enhance the general socio-economic conditions of rural residents, public infras-
tructure projects help improve the sustainability performance of future generations. It is
also believed that rural infrastructure projects can generate more local job openings and
the economic base of the indigenous civic can be supported [29]. Fan et al. [30] revealed
that rural infrastructure and rural development are connected to reducing rural poverty
and increasing the standard of living through agricultural productivity improvement,
employment opportunities, and nonfarm employment. It is considered that rural infras-
tructure is constructed to help various economic, social, and environmental goals. A survey
done by Shen et al. [21] in China’s rural regions showed that in developing countries the
infrastructure in rural areas has a vital role in poverty alleviation, development of the
community, and agricultural growth. Furthermore, they revealed eight vital measurement
criteria for determining the advantages of investing in rural infrastructures such as status of
employment, standard and quality of living, an ability to provide related amenities, safety
benefit, index of air pollution, degree of surface water pollution, solid waste pollution level
and impact of water, and soil loss.
According to Moseley [31], rural development is defined as a continuous and sus-
tainable procedure of social, cultural, economic, and environmental changes planned
to improve the continuing welfare of rural civics. Stimulation of economic growth and
poverty reduction [32] are basic purposes, and they are the main sources of the social and
economic development of rural regions. Growth is the only approach to providing an
enduring solution to the poverty problem and increasing the overall well-being of rural
dwells [30]. Lucas [33], for example, suggested a systems approach to assessing the role
of rural educational institutions may be more suitable where “the community system”
signifies incorporation of the comparatively objective factors of the economic infrastructure
with the fulfillment of important social needs. Ahmad et al. [24] examined that community
empowerment has a strong impact on sustainable development in rural regions of Pakistan.
The authors found that a sense of community is a vital explanatory variable in describing
the association between empowerment of the community and project sustainability so that
the residents can accomplish the standard of living.
A study was done by Warhurst [34] that believes that the overall improvement made
with regard to development is measured by a mixture of the particular areas regarding
their interest. Indicators of community development have to be chosen and agreed upon
by the suitable societies of interest [35]. Riva et al. [36] found that the usage of electricity
is interrelated with various dimensions of socio-economic development, such as revenue-
creating endeavors, market production, and profit maximization, enhancing the domestic
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 4 of 18

economy, citizen health and population, education, and shared values. Similarly, Okkonen
and Lehtonen [37] found that community wind power is the key source of resources to
be re-invested in regional development goals, such as local trades, social services, and
infrastructure and interactions. Moreover, a study held by Cook [38] reviews the literature
on the role and the relationship of infrastructure, rural electrification, and development in
rural areas on economic growth and social development.
Pavlovskaia [39] found that the necessary measures and conditions for interference
should be satisfied to achieve a sustainability standard. Sustainability must be started at
the local public level, where the necessities, benefits, and desires of the residents compared
with community development must be examined and achieved. National investment
policies in infrastructure projects and development plans are indispensable for community
development and will continue in a state’s strategy and remain to play a substantial role in
intending regard to economic development, social welfare, and sensible utilization of avail-
able natural resources [14,19]. Krajangsri and Pongpeng [15] revealed that development
goals could be enhanced successfully with the help of sustainability in rural infrastructure
projects.
Albeit there have been many previous papers by scholars and researchers on factors
for enhancing socio-economic sustainability, there is a lack of research that combines
and systemizes the relationship between socio-economic development dimensions and
community development by using the PLS-SEM technique especially in the context of rural
regions in Pakistan. This study shapes the previous research by providing and assessing a
conceptual model of how socio-economic development factors can influence community
development in rural regions. In line with this knowledge gap, the key objective of this
study has been to increase the understanding of community development efforts from socio-
economic development. Henceforth, the current study aims to fill the existing gap in the
present literature by studying the projects related to public infrastructure that contributes
to socio-economic development which drives the community development in the context
of rural territories.
Furthermore, sustainable infrastructure can be applied as a local growth mechanism
to increase community development [40], and it has become an important component
in the accomplishment of development goals [15] in rural counties. The current study
has identified the substantial importance of socio-economic dimensions and community
development. The public infrastructure project promotes community development [15] in
both short and long term, which can be determined by means of socio-economic develop-
ment measures, conditions, and goals, as the socio-economic status of local residents is the
strongest predictor of the community development.

3. Conceptual Model
The conceptual model of the study (Figure 1) is grounded on a review of existing
literature, a questionnaire survey, and pilot study. The model presented in this study
is a detailed description of socio-economic development and community development
that has so far been overlooked in the literature. Partial least square structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) is employed to evaluate the socio-economic dimensions that enhance
the community development of rural regions, and a conceptual model is developed. This
model is comprised of two independent variables and one outcome (dependent) variable.
Employing the structural equation modeling (SEM) method, the model is developed with
27 observed variables and grouped into three categories. These groups are social factors
(SOC), have twelve observed variables and economic factors (ECO), and have ten observed
variables. The endogenous latent variable community development (COMD) has five
observed variables.
Buildings 2022,12,
Buildings2022, 12,947
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of 18
18

Figure1.1.Conceptual
Figure Conceptualmodel
modelof
ofthe
thestudy.
study.

Socio-economic elements
Socio-economic elements playplay aa vital
vital role
role in
in enhancing
enhancing community
community development.
development.
Variouscountries
Various countriesworldwide
worldwidehave have been
been intensifying
intensifying thethe sustainability
sustainability of infrastructure
of infrastructure for
the
for reason that that
the reason sustainable
sustainableinfrastructure
infrastructurepossibly enhances
possibly the community
enhances the community development
develop-
of anyofregion.
ment Socio-economic
any region. Socio-economic factors werewere
factors significant factors
significant that that
factors support
supportcommunity
commu-
development,
nity development, such such
as productivity,
as productivity,development,
development,accessibility, growth,
accessibility, and sharing
growth, [41].
and sharing
Public infrastructure
[41]. Public projectsprojects
infrastructure promote economic
promote welfare,welfare,
economic social benefits, and facilitate
social benefits, and acces-
facili-
sibility and convenience
tate accessibility to the societies
and convenience [40].
to the Arnold[40].
societies [42] found
Arnoldthat[42]economic
found that concerns
economic are
indispensable with the aim of ensuring, between other things productivity
concerns are indispensable with the aim of ensuring, between other things productivity and economic
stability, whereas
and economic social concerns
stability, are essential
whereas social concerns to are
make sure satisfaction
essential to make sure of objectives
satisfaction and of
needs, for example, security, social justice, better education, provide
objectives and needs, for example, security, social justice, better education, provide equal equal opportunities.
Community
opportunities. development
Communityisdevelopment
certainly a normative
is certainlyconcept [43], concept
a normative signifying [43],values and
signifying
ethical
values contemplations of the societyof[44],
and ethical contemplations the satisfying
society [44],human needshuman
satisfying and confirming
needs and social
con-
equity [45], and increasing economic growth [46]. Although there
firming social equity [45], and increasing economic growth [46]. Although there are a are a number of studies
to investigate
number community
of studies development,
to investigate community nevertheless,
development, therenevertheless,
is a lack of knowledge
there is a lack thatof
develops a comprehensive theoretical framework of socio-economic
knowledge that develops a comprehensive theoretical framework of socio-economic di- dimensions and com-
munity
mensions development.
and community In response
development.to this In
knowledge
response gap, there
to this is a requisite
knowledge to develop
gap, there is a req-a
conceptual model that can be utilized in policy and decision-making
uisite to develop a conceptual model that can be utilized in policy and decision-making to confirm that public
infrastructure
to confirm thatprojects are constructed
public infrastructure in relation
projects to traditions
are constructed inthat will to
relation benefit the local
traditions that
community. A model is necessary to access public construction
will benefit the local community. A model is necessary to access public constructionpractitioners’ views toprac-
find
out how socio-economic
titioners’ views to find out dimensions enhance the dimensions
how socio-economic community enhance
development. the community de-
The findings from this study are imperative because they propose a complete assess-
velopment.
ment of construction practitioners. Such evidence can be indispensable for the government
The findings from this study are imperative because they propose a complete assess-
and decision-makers to evaluate the effectiveness of community development. Such
ment of construction practitioners. Such evidence can be indispensable for the govern-
findings can also be important for the community development of rural infrastructure
ment and decision-makers to evaluate the effectiveness of community development. Such
projects. This study contributes insight into the observed differences of the respondents
findings can also be important for the community development of rural infrastructure
concerning the level of significance of the variables. Public construction policy-makers
projects. This study contributes insight into the observed differences of the respondents
and practitioners can benefit from realizing the socio-economic development that enhances
concerning the level of significance of the variables. Public construction policy-makers
community development and thus making new balanced policies and plans for improving
and practitioners can benefit from realizing the socio-economic development that en-
the community development goals.
hances community development and thus making new balanced policies and plans for
The following hypothesis is suggested for the relationship between the socio-economic
improving the community development goals.
dimensions and community development:
The following hypothesis is suggested for the relationship between the socio-eco-
nomic
H1. Thedimensions and are
economic factors community
significantly development:
and positively enhancing community development.

H1. The
H2. The social
economic factors
factors are significantly
are significantly and positively
and positively enhancing
enhancing community
community development.
development.

H2.
4. The social
Research factors are significantly and positively enhancing community development.
Methodology
The procedure for data collection consists of three key phases as shown in Figure 2,
4. Research
such Methodology
as in phase one the authors identified key variables from the relevant literature then
The procedure
the authors foradata
conducted pilotcollection
study, andconsists
finally,ofthe
three key phases
authors as shown
conducted in Figure 2,
a questionnaire
such as
survey. in phase one the authors identified key variables from the relevant literature then
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 18

Buildings 2022, 12, 947 6 of 18

the authors conducted a pilot study, and finally, the authors conducted a questionnaire
survey.

Figure2.2.Data
Figure Datacollection
collectionprocedure.
procedure.

AApreliminary
preliminaryquestionnaire
questionnaire was
wascarried outout
carried based on socio-economic
based on socio-economic dimensions and
dimensions
community
and community development of rural
development ofregions emerging
rural regions from the
emerging literature
from review and
the literature written
review and
in a well-defined
written and clear
in a well-defined andlanguage to improve
clear language the respondents’
to improve the respondents’capacity to exercise
capacity to ex-
comprehensive
ercise comprehensiveassessment. A small
assessment. A pilot
smallstudy
pilot with
study14with professionals was conducted
14 professionals was con-
before distributing the questionnaires, and the questionnaire
ducted before distributing the questionnaires, and the questionnaire was refined was refined according to
accord-
the response. The purpose of the pilot study was to confirm the
ing to the response. The purpose of the pilot study was to confirm the content validity andcontent validity and
completeness
completenessofofthe thesurvey
surveyquestionnaire
questionnaireinin apprehending
apprehending thethe
enhancing
enhancing factors applicable
factors applica-
to Pakistan. The experts were senior executives from the public construction
ble to Pakistan. The experts were senior executives from the public construction depart- departments
with
ments more
withthan
more 15than
years15of working
years experience.
of working Furthermore,
experience. Furthermore,all theallprofessionals had
the professionals
better knowledge regarding implementing community development.
had better knowledge regarding implementing community development. The question- The questionnaire
was improved based on the professionals’ opinions. The final questionnaire consists of
naire was improved based on the professionals’ opinions. The final questionnaire consists
two main parts. The first part consists of the respondent’s personal profile, e.g., age,
of two main parts. The first part consists of the respondent’s personal profile, e.g., age,
experience, qualification, etc., while the second part consists of 27 comprehensive factors,
experience, qualification, etc., while the second part consists of 27 comprehensive factors,
which is shown in Table 1. The second part is categorized into three main sub-groups, i.e.,
which is shown in Table 1. The second part is categorized into three main sub-groups, i.e.,
social-related factors (SOC), economic-related factors (ECO), and community development
social-related factors (SOC), economic-related factors (ECO), and community develop-
(COMD). A five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) was used
ment (COMD). A five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) was
to gauge the importance of each factor.
used to gauge the importance of each factor.
The sampling framework used for this study consisted of construction practitioners
The sampling framework used for this study consisted of construction practitioners
employed in Pakistan’s public construction industry. In total, 300 questionnaires were
employed in Pakistan’s public construction industry. In total, 300 questionnaires were dis-
distributed to randomly selected construction practitioners in Pakistan. A simple random
tributed to randomly selected construction practitioners in Pakistan. A simple random
sampling method is applied for the selection of the sample. The targeted respondents of the
sampling
study weremethod
those who is applied for the
are directly selectionwith
associated of the sample.
projects suchThe astargeted respondents
executives, head of the of
the study were those who are directly associated with projects such
department, managers of the project, engineers, and architects who have been working with as executives, head of
thesampled
the department, managers and
organizations of the project,
have engineers,
experience relatedandtoarchitects
infrastructurewho have been work-
and sustainable
ing with the sampled
development projects. organizations and have experience related to infrastructure and sus-
tainable development projects.
The data collection effort produced 213 completed questionnaires, yielding a response
rate ofThe
77%.data
For collection effort and
this study, email produced
in-person 213methods
completed werequestionnaires, yielding
chosen for the survey a re-
because
sponse rate of 77%. For this study, email and in-person methods
it allow direct correspondence between the investigator and the targeted respondents. Thewere chosen for the sur-
vey because
study it allow to
used PLS-SEM direct correspondence
evaluate the hierarchicalbetween the investigator
conceptual model. PLS-SEM and theistargeted
a common re-
spondents. The
multivariate studytechnique
analysis used PLS-SEMthat istoused
evaluate the hierarchical
to assess variance-based conceptual model.
structural PLS-
equation
SEM is[47].
models a common
Moreover, multivariate analysis technique
PLS-SEM provides that is
an opportunity to used
concludeto assess
complexvariance-based
procedures
of relations and causal relationships that are else complex to explain.
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 7 of 18

Table 1. Socio-economic development factors and community development factors.

Sr. No. Factors Code

Economic Factors
1 Improve access to employment opportunities [48] ECO_1
2 Increases farming income [49] ECO_2
3 Increases local income [50] ECO_3
4 Increase agricultural production [51] ECO_4
5 Decrease traveling cost [4] ECO_5
6 Increase in the demand for local products [4] ECO_6
7 Create new business investment opportunities [52] ECO_7
8 Expands the rural economy [53] ECO_8
9 Ensures long-term business profitability [14] ECO_9
10 Create many jobs for locals [54] ECO_10
Social Factors
1 Provision of social infrastructure [55] SOC_1
2 Availability of job opportunities [56] SOC_2
3 Access to a public facility [57] SOC_3
4 Access to work [58] SOC_4
5 Proximity to business activities [58] SOC_5
Provision of public facilities, e.g., Schools, health care services,
6 SOC_6
and sports facilities [58]
7 Preservation of local characteristics [59] SOC_7
8 Improves local standard of living [1] SOC_8
9 Security against crimes [58] SOC_9
Establishment of different business activities, e.g., Retail, shops,
10 SOC_10
banks [59]
11 Ability to fulfill psychological needs [60] SOC_11
12 Satisfaction of welfare requirements [61] SOC_12
Community Development
1 Embraces sustained resident empowerment and equity [62] COMD_1
2 Supports residents in their advocacy for their neighborhood [63] COMD_2
3 Increase community capacity building [64] COMD_3
4 Rural community resilience [41] COMD_4
Resource development, involves increased productivity and
5 COMD_5
growth [41]

5. Results and Data Analysis

5.1. Descriptive Statistics
The information related to the demography of the 213 respondents is presented in
Table 2. The key target respondents for the survey were construction practitioners who
have gained familiarity with the concept of socio-economic and community development.
The respondent’s age was divided into five groups; starting from 21–25 years (7.51%),
26–30 years (11.27%), 31–35 years (21.60%), 36–40 years (37.09%), and above 40 years
(22.54%). Most of the respondents were aged 36–40 and above 40 and better understood
the importance of the study. This could be attributed to that respondents in this age range
have better knowledge about the socio-economic factors that enhance the community
development in the region.
Data analysis from Table 2 shows that 33.33%, 43.19%, and 23.47% have a bachelor’s
degree, master’s degree, and MPhil degree, respectively. While the majority of the respon-
dents have a master’s degree (43.19%) and most of the respondents were experienced in
the study and had suitable information to understand the questionnaires and to answer
accordingly. This implies that respondents had enough competency to respond to the
survey questionnaire.
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 8 of 18

Table 2. Characteristics of the study population.

Total Percentage
Working Experience
5–10 years 51 23.94%
11–20 years 71 33.33%
21–30 years 66 30.99%
>30 years 25 11.74%
Age
21–25 16 7.51%
26–30 24 11.27%
31–35 46 21.60%
36–40 79 37.09%
>40 48 22.54%
Education
Bachelors 71 33.33%
Masters 92 43.19%
MPhil 50 23.47%
Target respondents
Executive Engineers 44 20.66%
Department heads 54 25.35%
Project managers 42 19.72%
Project engineers 51 23.94%
Architects 22 10.33%

5.2. Measures and Analysis

The questionnaire is assessed on a five-point Likert scale to evaluate how socio-
economic factors influence community development through public infrastructure projects
in the rural region. To measure the hypothesized model, Smart PLS V3.0 was used to
conclude the parameters of the conceptual model. In this circumstance, PLS path modeling
was employed with a path weighting scheme for inside approximation [65] with 1000 max-
imum iterations. Subsequently, bootstrapping was applied with 5000 subsamples with no
sign changes were used to obtain the standard estimate errors [65].
According to Henseler et al. [66], PLS comprises a two-step method that includes
estimation of the outer measurement model and measurement of inner structural model.

5.2.1. Assessment of Outer Measurement Model

It was necessary to measure the reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of
the scales to examine the qualities of the measurement model. The measurement model
must be measured with regard to their reliability and validity. The outer measurement
model comprises all unobserved variables in the model and denotes the indicators for each
construct. To check the internal consistency of the model, the researchers have employed
different measures, i.e., Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance
extracted (AVE). The criterion checked was Cronbach’s alpha and CR, which validate
the internal consistency and an approximation of the reliability based on the indicator
correlations. A normal limit value for an accepted model recommended by previous
researchers had a Cronbach’s alpha value greater than 0.7, CR score was higher than 0.7 [67],
and AVE was above 0.5 [68]. The results from Table 3 show that Cronbach’s alpha and CR
for all constructs were greater than the limit value (0.7), indicating acceptable reliability.
The AVE for all constructs was more than 0.5, implying convergent validity at the construct
level. The results from Table 3 validated convergent validity since all indicators loaded
significantly higher on their hypothesized indicators than on other variables. Internal
reliability and construct reliability of all constructs were achieved. Hence, the model is
suitable for the analysis.
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 9 of 18

Table 3. Construct reliability and validity.

Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE

Economic Factors 0.957 0.963 0.725
Social Factors 0.954 0.959 0.664
Community Development 0.816 0.872 0.577

Discriminant validity (DV) can be measured by testing the cross-factor loadings of

the computes [69]. The intra-construct factor correlations must be higher than the inter-
construct factor correlations [70]. Moreover, DV defines the point to which a construct
is empirically definite from other constructs in the path model [71]. Furthermore, from
Table 4, the Average Variance Exerted (AVE) square root was measured to ensure the
discriminant validity, which was higher than the inter-correlations of the variables with the
other variables in the model. Further verification for discriminant validity gets through
assessment of the cross loadings when there are no cross-loadings of measured items on
latent constructs. Table 5 shows the cross loadings of all factors in the model. Accordingly,
the suggested model was observed as acceptable, with support of sufficient reliability,
convergent and discriminant validity and confirming the hypothesized study model.

Table 4. Fornell–Larcker criterion test.

Economic Factors Social Factors Community Development

Economic Factors 0.851
Social Factors 0.243 0.815
Community Development 0.639 0.625 0.76

Table 5. Cross loadings.

Economic Factors Social Factors Community Development

ECO_1 0.809 0.185 0.534
ECO_2 0.823 0.260 0.515
ECO_3 0.797 0.302 0.561
ECO_4 0.933 0.198 0.578
ECO_5 0.815 0.220 0.562
ECO_6 0.852 0.185 0.548
ECO_7 0.839 0.201 0.546
ECO_8 0.906 0.166 0.535
ECO_9 0.840 0.200 0.525
ECO_10 0.889 0.148 0.525
SOC_1 0.166 0.822 0.503
SOC_2 0.212 0.780 0.478
SOC_3 0.226 0.849 0.519
SOC_4 0.156 0.821 0.481
SOC_5 0.241 0.770 0.545
SOC_6 0.182 0.771 0.443
SOC_7 0.198 0.823 0.520
SOC_8 0.201 0.827 0.497
SOC_9 0.169 0.840 0.495
SOC_10 0.192 0.788 0.537
SOC_11 0.213 0.843 0.505
SOC_12 0.210 0.835 0.561
COMD_1 0.507 0.471 0.803
COMD_2 0.490 0.500 0.802
COMD_3 0.517 0.407 0.752
COMD_4 0.465 0.488 0.718
COMD_5 0.448 0.503 0.721
 SOC_9 0.169 0.840 0.495
SOC_10 0.192 0.788 0.537
SOC_11 0.213 0.843 0.505
SOC_12 0.210 0.835 0.561
COMD_1 0.507 0.471 0.803
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 COMD_2 0.490 0.500 0.802 10 of 18
COMD_3 0.517 0.407 0.752
COMD_4 0.465 0.488 0.718
COMD_5 0.448 0.503 0.721
5.2.2. Assessment of the Inner Structural Model

5.2.2.The next step of

Assessment is the
the fundamental standard
Inner Structural Modelfor the measurement of the inner structural
model, which comprises the significance of the path coefficient (β), the coefficient of
The next step
determination (R2 ),iseffect
the fundamental standard for
size f 2 , the predictive the measurement
relevance of the inner index,
(Q2 ), goodness-of-fit struc-
tural model, which comprises the significance of the path coefficient (β),
and model fit summary. The following sections describe more detailed information for the coefficient of
determination
each step. (R2), effect size f2, the predictive relevance (Q2), goodness-of-fit index, and

model fit summary. The following sections describe more detailed information for each
step.
Significance of the Path Coefficient (β)
Significance of the Path
An estimated Coefficient
variation in the(β) latent endogenous variable for a unit variation in
the exogenous variable is represented
An estimated variation in the latent byendogenous
the path coefficient, which
variable for is variation
a unit also calledin the
the
standardized beta coefficients (β) of the structural model. The values of β
exogenous variable is represented by the path coefficient, which is also called the stand-of every path in
the hypothesized path model were evaluated, and greater β value denotes
ardized beta coefficients (β) of the structural model. The values of β of every path in the the significant
influence on anpath
hypothesized endogenous
model were variable. In partial
evaluated, and least square
greater (PLS)
β value path modeling
denotes to define
the significant in-
the confidence interval of the path coefficients, the non-parametric bootstrapping
fluence on an endogenous variable. In partial least square (PLS) path modeling to define technique
was applied. Then,
the confidence to validate
interval of the thepath significance of the
coefficients, the path a t-test was used.
coefficients,bootstrapping
non-parametric tech-
niqueFrom
was Table 6 and
applied. Figure
Then, 3, it canthe
to validate be significance
seen that theofeconomic
the path factors have athe
coefficients, greater
t-test was
path
used.coefficient in the model, which is 0.518, this shows that it has a higher variance value
and high influence relating to achieving the aims of community development in rural
From Table 6 and Figure 3, it can be seen that the economic factors have the greater
regions. The t-value of the model is greater than the minimum cut-off value 1.96 at the
path coefficient in the model, which is 0.518, this shows that it has a higher variance value
5 percent significance level [72]. The p-value of the model is 0.000. Moreover, on the basis
and high influence relating to achieving the aims of community development in rural re-
of the final findings as revealed in Table 6 and Figure 3, it is found that economic factor
gions. The t-value of the model is greater than the minimum cut-off value 1.96 at the 5
and community development (β = 0.518, t-value = 12.982, p-value = 0.000) was positive
percent significance level [72]. The p-value of the model is 0.000. Moreover, on the basis
and statistically significant; thus, H1 was supported. The findings of SEM analysis support
of the final findings as revealed in Table 6 and Figure 3, it is found that economic factor
H2, indicating a robust and positive direct relationship between the social factor and
and community development (β = 0.518, t-value = 12.982, p-value = 0.000) was positive and
community development (β = 0.499, t = 12.022, p = 0.000). From this calculation, it can be
statistically significant; thus, H1 was supported. The findings of SEM analysis support H2,
concluded that all the hypothesized paths relationship in the path model were significant
indicating a robust and positive direct relationship between the social factor and commu-
and meaningfully verified.
nity development (β = 0.499, t = 12.022, p = 0.000). From this calculation, it can be concluded
Tableall
that the hypothesized
6. Path paths
coefficient of the relationship in the path model were significant and mean-
model.
ingfully verified.
Beta Standard Deviation t-Test p-Values
TableEconomic
6. Path coefficient
Factors ->of the model.
0.518 0.040 12.982 0.000
Community Development Beta Standard Deviation t-test p-Values
Social Factors ->
Economic Factors -> Community Development
0.499 0.5180.041 0.040 12.022 12.982 0.000
0.000
Community Development
Social Factors -> Community Development 0.499 0.041 12.022 0.000

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Path
Path model
model of
of the
the study.
study.

Coefficient of Determination (R2 )

The R2 measures the complete effect size for the structural model and is thus a degree
of the model’s predictive accuracy. The model shows R2 values of 0.67 (substantial), 0.33
(moderate), and 0.19 (weak). In this study, as from Figure 3, the inner path model is 0.643
for the community development of endogenous latent constructs. This suggests that the
two independent constructs, i.e., economic and social factors have a significant 64.3% of the
variance in enhancing the community development in the rural regions. The result from
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 11 of 18

Figure 3 reveals that the suggested model has 63.4% of explanatory power for community
development with R2 value equal to 0.634.

Effect Size f 2
The f 2 is used to evaluate the influence of an individual exogenous latent variable
on the endogenous latent variable. To measure the f 2 value of each exogenous latent
construct in the path model, we calculate the f square value from the calculation. f 2 values
of 0.35, 0.15, and 0.02 means large, medium, and small effect, respectively. In this study,
as from Table 7, the effect size of the f 2 value of social-related factors was 0.655, which
means substantial impact on the endogenous latent construct, whereas economic-related
factors was measured to be 0.706 which also means substantial impact on the community
development.

Table 7. Effect size f 2 .

Community Development
Economic factors 0.706
Social factors 0.655

5.2.3. Model’s Predictive Relevance Q2

As represented in Figure 3, R2 value of the model was 0.634, which shows that the
conceptual model has satisfactory explanatory significance. It is not a good method to
support models based on only R2 values [73]. Therefore, a nonparametric Stone–Geisser’s
test [74] was applied to ascertain the predictive relevance of the model. By running the
blindfolding procedure with an omission distance of seven, generated cross-validated
redundancy value for the endogenous latent variable which was above zero, i.e., 0.345, this
gives confirmation for the strong model’s predictive relevance.

Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) Index

While PLS-SEM do not explain global goodness-of-fit indices of the model, to validate
that the model adequately explicates the survey data, we use the GOF index for both
models, i.e., outer measurement model and inner structural model, which is introduced by
Tenenhaus et al. [75] as the goodness-of-fit index for PLS-SEM. The GOF index is measured
by the following equation which is suggested by Tenenhaus et al. [75].
p
Goodness-of-Fit = Average AVE × Average R square (1)

The cut-off values for GOF index are in between 0 and 1, where 0.1 is small GOF, 0.25
is medium GOF, and 0.36 is large GOF. In this study, the GOF is 0.65, which denotes that
the model fits the data totally satisfactorily and has effective predictive power.

Model Fit Summary

Table 8 shows the model fit summary of the conceptual model of this study, and the
SRMR is a degree of estimated model fit. It evaluates the differences between the observed
correlation matrix and the model-implied correlation matrix. Thus, it permits evaluating
the average magnitude of the differences between observed and expected correlations as
an absolute measure of (model) fit criterion [76]. The study has a good model fit when
SRMR = < 0.08 [77]. According to the threshold, in this study SRMR is 0.069, Chi-Square is
3108.44, NFI is 0.586, and rms-Theta is 0.202, as exhibited in Table 8.
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 12 of 18

Table 8. Model fit summary.

Saturated Model Estimated Model

SRMR 0.069 0.069
d_ULS 1.793 1.793
d_G1 4.54 4.54
d_G2 4.394 4.394
Chi-Square 3108.44 3108.44
NFI 0.586 0.586

Latent Variable Correlation

Table 9 shows the correlation coefficient between the latent variables. The coefficient
in the “Latent Variable Correlation” Table 9 shows that economic factors have a strong
correlation to community development at a higher absolute value of 0.639, whereas social
factors have a tied correlation to community development at the greater absolute value of
0.625. Furthermore, Table 9 shows the degree of correlation (0.243) between the social and
economic variables.

Table 9. Latent variable correlation output.

Economic Factors Social Factors Community Development

Economic Factors 1 0.243 0.639
Social Factors 0.243 1 0.625
Community Development 0.639 0.625 1

Based on the above complete and detailed analysis of the measurement model and
structural model, it is determined that both models were confirmed and validated.

6. Discussion
The findings of the current study revealed that both proposed hypotheses were
robustly sustained, and economic and social factors enhance community development
through public projects. Findings of the current study revealed that economic factors
(β = 0.518, t = 12.982, p = 0.000, H1 accepted) are vital to the attainment of community
development. The results are similar to the previous research in the same area, such as Ortiz
et al. [78] concluded that improving economic indicators of development are moving into
consideration in the construction industry, which creates building sector sustainability and
encourages the use of sustainable construction practices. Moreover, the authors inferred
that public construction industries should utilize construction rules and policies to enhance
community development.
Similarly, Shen et al. [56] found that the construction project’s sustainable perfor-
mance throughout its life cycle is a key feature in triumphing the purpose of community
development. The current study findings reveal and provide empirical evidence to the
previous studies that suggested economic factors lead to an improvement in community
development outcome in rural regions by constructing public projects in the region. Public
projects in rural regions are believed to be a vital source of solving community problems.
Moreover, infrastructure projects encourage economic welfare, and comfort and facilitate
the local civics. An infrastructure project contributes to community development in the
long and short term, which can be determined using economic enhancement standards
and targets. Better strategies and policies that assist economic growth may be vital in
accomplishing community development [45]. Sustainable infrastructure has developed
as great functioning qualities which are likely to have better performance for the current
local residents and future generations. Hence, this will increase employment opportunities,
local income, agriculture production, create many jobs, etc. Moreover, rural infrastructure
plays a vital role in community benefit and positively influences the rural economy and
enhances community development by building infrastructure projects. Economic factors
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 13 of 18

are indispensable to the attainment of community development through public projects.

An appropriate and sustainable infrastructure project in rural regions is one of the most
significant infrastructure features that enhances ease of access to regions and improves rural
development. If the construction practitioners consider the economic factors, substantial
enhancement would be placed to improve sustainable practices. The findings reveal and
provide empirical evidence to the previous studies that suggested economic factors lead to
an enhancement in the outcome of community development in rural regions.
Similarly, the findings of the study showed that social factors positively and signifi-
cantly influence community development (β = 0.499, t = 12.022, p = 0.000), that provides
support for H2. This finding suggests that the integration of the social factors can directly
enhance community development. This finding is similar to the finding of Holden et al. [45]
who found that social equity and democratic participation are the important themes of
community development. The public project contributes to community development in
the long and short term, determined through social development measures. The measures
are necessary for an intervention that should be accomplished to achieve a community de-
velopment criterion [17]. According to the Gannon and Liu [79], infrastructure is a creator
of long-term development in the regions of ultimate needs. Generally, the influence on
social improvement in the short-term and long-term increases the community development
in the region. However, the findings of this study are supported by the views of earlier
studies, such as Vuong et al. [80], Sierra et al. [17], Yilmaz et al. [23], and Holden et al. [45].
It was found from this study that social factors have distinctive domains on community
development through public projects. The basic aim is to design infrastructure projects
that would provide more jobs, proximity to business activities, access to work, improve the
standard of livings, ensuring their welfare and security against crimes. Moreover, the study
found that social-related factors are supposed to be carried out in construction projects to
address social activities so that community development can be enhanced. Therefore, it is
suggested that the government should make a set of policies in line with theoretical and
practical findings to enhance community development in rural regions.
Moreover, social factors as the vital facet of community development are of significant
worth to sustainable rural development, as the on-going growth and progress of rural
development. In a related study, Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz [12] equally asserted that if
social factors are identified which are more indispensable for the community development,
they can be accomplished during the different phases of the infrastructure project because
they are more societally oriented.

7. Conclusions and Policy Implication

The key contribution of current study was using PLS-SEM to examine the relationship
between socio-economic factors and community development in rural regions through
public infrastructure projects and to elucidate the causal relationship. Given both significant
path coefficients, the hypotheses proposed in this study seem to have been confirmed; that
is, the SEM model was established.
The results of this study can support the public construction industries to improve
community development in the rural areas by incorporating the vital constructs they need
to set their emphasis on the betterment of the rural society and the trustworthiness of
the public construction projects. The model manages to incorporate many segments of
the industry’s administration systems into a distinct management system for enhancing
and completing success of the projects accomplished by the industry for community
development in rural areas. If economic development is better in the region, investing the
economic conditions of the residents accurately and adequately would be better and more
sustainable. The model will be adept at accomplishing potential development and needs
for the benefit of current and future generations in the rural regions.
The construction industry practitioners tend to agree that the development of infras-
tructure projects has a positive influence on the region’s community development as well
as increasing the facilities. Rural residents within the rural areas in Pakistan are strug-
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 14 of 18

gling with socio-economic encounters and immediately necessary innovative actions are
needed to maintain inhabitant needs and primary services. In this research, we examined
the critical socio-economic factors that enhance the community development of the rural
regions.

7.1. Research Implications

The outcomes of the development of SEM in this study will benefit the public con-
struction industries in ascertaining the key areas where socio-economic enhancement is
necessary and help the public construction experts to realize the most important enhancing
factors, which can be applied as standards for the public construction industry to enhance
the community development. The model can be used before the execution of a public
project to choose the sustainable alternatives in the rural regions most appropriate to a
situation for the benefit of its community development. Accordingly, the results of this
study can be a guide for related rural community development research. It provides for
ascertaining useful rural socio-economic policies and plans concerning enhancing accessibil-
ity, development, productivity, and growth. Furthermore, this study gives a complete and
valuable approach to monitoring community development and to support in enhancing
the community development in rural regions. Moreover, we revealed that better social
and economic conditions enhance the local communities’ sustainable life. This study has
important implications for policy- and decision-makers. The socio-economic factors that
keep showing up as the important factors may draw policymakers’ attention to enhance
the community development in rural regions. The gap between community and public
organizations as well as public authorities could be linked through further interaction.
According to the findings and the literature examined in the current study, government
construction authorities and practitioners should develop and make suitable strategies for
community development that enhance the widespread use of public infrastructure projects
and promote better opportunities for the local residents while considering the needs of the
local residents.

7.2. Future Recommendations

In the future, this research will be extended so that the relations with other socio-
economic dimensions can be identified and assessed that enhance community development.
More research is needed in other sectors in different industries and in other territories.
Moreover, important factors that may most likely guide the analytical and logical strength
of the model are supposed to be investigated in future research. Due to restricted means
and time limitations, this study used a simple random sampling method; nevertheless,
future research can carry out to fulfill this limitation by applying other sampling methods.
Moreover, respondents in Pakistan may possibly have different approaches and skills
backgrounds compared to that of other countries’ respondents. Thus, future studies
that expand and sample sufficient numbers of multi-diverse respondents from different
countries improve the robustness of the elucidated findings.

7.3. Limitations
Although, this study was performed in Pakistan in a specific setting and shed light on
several vital matters, some limitations should be taken into consideration. As mentioned
above, due to restricted means and time limitations the current study comprises respon-
dents (practitioners) from public construction industry only; because of that a comparative
analysis of results with different industries was not possible; thus, it is believed a limitation
of the current study. Moreover, the theoretical findings may not be applied to other sectors
of projects in different territories.
Another possible limitation of the research is of missing the gender aspects of the
respondents and accordingly no inferences provided on it. The role of gender-specific
characteristics is of importance to predict the possibilities of social factors. However, in
the case of rural Pakistan, where most of the construction and policy experts are men and
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 15 of 18

thus for the purposes of this paper women are essentially excluded. However, in order to
capture this element, further research is needed to capture the gender-specific impacts on
the socio-economic factors in the development projects.

7.4. Delimitation of the Study

The study is delimited to a group of public construction practitioners from rural areas.
Public practitioners were requested both to participate and respond to a questionnaire
survey. The findings were generally attributed to the questionnaire survey, the researchers’
personal judgment, and the related personal opinions about community development in
rural regions. Therefore, the objective of this study was to propose and describe an effective
and logical method for measuring socio-economic dimensions enhancing community
development that adequately accounting for the progression of the rural community and
trustworthiness of the public construction projects in Pakistan. This study used simple
random sampling in which an equal representation of genders who have a clear idea of
community development and living in rural areas constituted the respondents of the study.
The collected data were analyzed using PLS-SEM technique.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.H. and R.M.; Data curation, S.H.; Formal analysis,
S.H. and A.H.; Funding acquisition, R.M.; Investigation, S.A.; Methodology, S.H. and S.A.; Project
administration, R.M. and A.H.; Software, S.H. and S.A.; Supervision, R.M.; Validation, R.M. and A.H.;
Visualization, R.M.; Writing—original draft, S.H., R.M. and A.H.; Writing—review & editing, A.H.
and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wahid, A.; Ahmad, M.S.; Abu Talib, N.B.; Shah, I.A.; Tahir, M.; Jan, F.A.; Saleem, M.Q. Barriers to Empowerment: Assessment of
Community-Led Local Development Organizations in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 74, 1361–1370. [CrossRef]
2. Tan, Y.; Hou, L.; Zhang, G. A Study of Sustainable Practices in the Sustainability Leadership of International Contractors. Sustain.
Dev. 2020, 28, 697–710. [CrossRef]
3. Sinakou, E.; Pauw, J.B.; Goossens, M.; Van Petegem, P. Academics in the Field of Education for Sustainable Development: Their
Conceptions of Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 321–332. [CrossRef]
4. Hussain, S.; FangWei, Z.; Ali, Z.; Xu, X. Rural Residents’ Perception of Construction Project Delays in Pakistan. Sustainability 2017,
9, 2108. [CrossRef]
5. Agarwal, S.; Rahman, S.; Errington, A. Measuring the Determinants of Relative Economic Performance of Rural Areas. J. Rural
Stud. 2009, 25, 309–321. [CrossRef]
6. Hussain, S.; Wang, X.; Maqbool, R.; Hussain, M.; Shahnawaz, M. The influence of government support, organizational inno-
vativeness and community participation in renewable energy project success: A case of Pakistan. Energy 2022, 239, 122172.
[CrossRef]
7. Maqbool, R.; Rashid, Y. Detrimental changes and construction projects: Need for comprehensive controls. Int. J. Proj. Organ.
Manag. 2017, 9, 154–170. [CrossRef]
8. Li, J. Land Sale Venue and Economic Growth Path: Evidence from China’s Urban Land Market. Habitat Int. 2014, 41, 307–313.
[CrossRef]
9. Dudzińska, M.; Bacior, S.; Prus, B. Considering the Level of Socio-Economic Development of Rural Areas in the Context of
Infrastructural and Traditional Consolidations in Poland. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 759–773. [CrossRef]
10. Maqbool, R.; Rashid, Y.; Ashfaq, S. Renewable energy project success: Internal versus external stakeholders’ satisfaction and
influences of power-interest matrix. Sustain. Dev. 2022. [CrossRef]
11. Martens, M.L.; Carvalho, M.M. Key Factors of Sustainability in Project Management Context: A Survey Exploring the Project
Managers’ Perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1084–1102. [CrossRef]
12. Valdes-Vasquez, R.; Klotz, L.E. Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for
Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 80–89. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 16 of 18

13. Tian, Y.; Wang, L. Mutualism of Intra- and Inter-Prefecture Level Cities and Its Effects on Regional Socio-Economic Development:
A Case Study of Hubei Province, Central China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 16–26. [CrossRef]
14. Gilbert Silvius, A.J.; Kampinga, M.; Paniagua, S.; Mooi, H. Considering Sustainability in Project Management Decision Making;
An Investigation Using Q-Methodology. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1133–1150. [CrossRef]
15. Maqbool, R.; Amaechi, I.E. A systematic managerial perspective on the environmentally sustainable construction practices of UK.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 1–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Jiang, S. Sustainable Infrastructure Projects in Balancing Urban-Rural Development: Towards the
Goal of Efficiency and Equity. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 445–454. [CrossRef]
17. Sierra, L.A.; Pellicer, E.; Yepes, V. Method for Estimating the Social Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 2017, 65, 41–53. [CrossRef]
18. Li, M.; Wang, J.; Chen, Y. Evaluation and Influencing Factors of Sustainable Development Capability of Agriculture in Countries
along the Belt and Road Route. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2004. [CrossRef]
19. Mahdei, K.N.; Pouya, M.; Taheri, F.; Azadi, H.; Van Passel, S. Sustainability Indicators of Iran’s Developmental Plans: Application
of the Sustainability Compass Theory. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14647–14660. [CrossRef]
20. Ahmad, M.S.; Abu Talib, N. Analysis of Community Empowerment on Projects Sustainability: Moderating Role of Sense of
Community. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 129, 1039–1056. [CrossRef]
21. Shen, L.; Asce, M.; 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]
22. Fox, W.F.; Porca, S. Investing in Rural Infrastructure. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2001, 24, 103–133. [CrossRef]
23. Yilmaz, B.; Daşdemir, I.; Atmiş, E.; Lise, W. Factors Affecting Rural Development in Turkey: BartIn Case Study. For. Policy Econ.
2010, 12, 239–249. [CrossRef]
24. Ahmad, M.S.; Talib, N.B.A. Empirical Investigation of Community Empowerment and Sustainable Development: Quantitatively
Improving Qualitative Model. Qual. Quant. 2014, 49, 637–655. [CrossRef]
25. Ahmad, M.S.; Abu Talib, N.B. Empowering Local Communities: Decentralization, Empowerment and Community Driven
Development. Qual. Quant. 2014, 49, 827–838. [CrossRef]
26. Shakil Ahmad, M.; Abu Talib, N.B. Local Government Systems and Decentralization: Evidence from Pakistan’s Devolution Plan.
Contemp. Econ. 2013, 7, 33–44. [CrossRef]
27. Gorbenkova, E.; Shcherbina, E.; Belal, A. Rural Areas: Critical Drivers for Sustainable Development. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018, 51,
786–790. [CrossRef]
28. Elmualim, A.; Valle, R.; Kwawu, W. Discerning Policy and Drivers for Sustainable Facilities Management Practice. Int. J. Sustain.
built Environ. 2012, 1, 16–25. [CrossRef]
29. Aarseth, W.; Ahola, T.; Aaltonen, K.; Økland, A.; Andersen, B. Project Sustainability Strategies: A Systematic Literature Review.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1071–1083. [CrossRef]
30. Fan, S.; Hazell, P.; Thorat, S. Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India. Am. J. Agric. 2000, 82, 1038–1051.
[CrossRef]
31. Moseley, M. Rural Development: Principles and Practice; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
32. Yuan, T.; Ye, L.; Xiaohong, C. Evaluating the Impact of Rural Road Investment Projects on Household Welfare in Rural Area:
Evidence from Fujian Province. Int. Conf. Transp. Eng. 2009, 3602–3608.
33. Lucas, B.G. A Rural Perspective: School Closure and Community Protest. McGill J. Educ./Rev. Sci. L’Éduc. McGill 1982, 17.
Available online: https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/7475 (accessed on 5 June 2022).
34. Warhurst, A. Sustainability Indicators and Sustainability Performance Management. In Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Devel-
opment; World Business Council for Sustainable Development and International Institute for Environment and Development:
Coventry, UK, 2002.
35. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An Overview of Sustainability Assessment Methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9,
189–212. [CrossRef]
36. Riva, F.; Ahlborg, H.; Hartvigsson, E.; Pachauri, S.; Colombo, E. Electricity Access and Rural Development: Review of Complex
Socio-Economic Dynamics and Casual Diagrams for More Appropriate Energy Modelling. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 43, 203–223.
[CrossRef]
37. Okkonen, L.; Lehtonen, O. Socio-Economic Impacts of Community Wind Power Projects in Northern Scotland. Renew. Energy
2016, 85, 826–833. [CrossRef]
38. Cook, P. Infrastructure, Rural Electrification and Development. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2011, 15, 304–313. [CrossRef]
39. Pavlovskaia, E. Using Sustainability Criteria in Law. Int. J. Environ. Prot. Policy 2013, 1, 76–78. [CrossRef]
40. Asomani-Boateng, R.; Fricano, R.J.; Adarkwa, F. Assessing the Socio-Economic Impacts of Rural Road Improvements in Ghana: A
Case Study of Transport Sector Program Support (II). Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2015, 3, 355–366. [CrossRef]
41. Basiago, A.D. Economic, Social, and Environmental Sustainability in Development Theory and Urban Planning Practice. Environ-
mentalist 1999, 19, 145–161. [CrossRef]
42. Arnold, D.M.G. Strategiewechsel Fur Eine Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Osterreich. Bundesminist. Verkehr Innov. Technol. 2001, 4,
347–365. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 17 of 18

43. Gareis, R.; Huemann, M.; Martinuzzi, R.A.; Sedlacko, M.; Weninger, C. The SustPM Matrix: Relating Sustainability Principles to
Project Assignment and Project Management. In Proceedings of the EURAM 11 Conference, Talinn, Estonia, 1–4 June 2011.
44. Silvius, G.; Schipper, R.O.N.; Van Den Brink, J.; Planko, J. Sustainability in Project Management; Gower Publishing, Ltd.: Aldershot,
UK, 2012.
45. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. The Imperatives of Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 213–226. [CrossRef]
46. Esseghir, A.; Haouaoui Khouni, L. Economic Growth, Energy Consumption and Sustainable Development: The Case of the Union
for the Mediterranean Countries. Energy 2014, 71, 218–225. [CrossRef]
47. Schubring, S.; Lorscheid, I.; Meyer, M.; Ringle, C.M. The PLS Agent: Predictive Modeling with PLS-SEM and Agent-Based
Simulation. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 4604–4612. [CrossRef]
48. Faiz, A.; Faiz, A.; Wang, W.; Bennett, C. Sustainable Rural Roads for Livelihoods and Livability. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 53,
1–8. [CrossRef]
49. Koirala, K.H.; Mishra, A.; Mohanty, S. Impact of Land Ownership on Productivity and Efficiency of Rice Farmers: The Case of the
Philippines. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 371–378. [CrossRef]
50. Qin, Y.; Zhang, X. The Road to Specialization in Agricultural Production: Evidence from Rural China. World Dev. 2016, 77, 1–16.
[CrossRef]
51. Dillon, A.; Sharma, M.; Zhang, X. Estimating the Impact of Rural Investments in Nepal. Food Policy 2011, 36, 250–258. [CrossRef]
52. Ding, S.; Kim, M.; Zhang, X. Do Firms Care about Investment Opportunities? Evidence from China. J. Corp. Financ. 2018, 52,
214–237. [CrossRef]
53. Anríquez, G.; Stamoulis, K. Rural Development and Poverty Reduction: Is Agriculture Still the Key. Electron. J. Agric. Dev. Econ.
2007, 4, 5–46.
54. Xia, B.; Chen, Q.; Skitmore, M.; Zuo, J.; Li, M. Comparison of Sustainable Community Rating Tools in Australia. J. Clean. Prod.
2015, 109, 84–91. [CrossRef]
55. Teriman, S.; Yigitcanlar, T. Social Infrastructure Planning and Sustainable Communities: Example from South East Queensland,
Australia. World J. Soc. Sci. 2011, 1, 23–32.
56. Shen, L.Y.; Hao, J.L.; Wing, V.; Tam, Y.; Yao, H.; Shen, L.; Hao, J.L.; Tam, V.W.; Yao, H. A Checklist for Assessing Sustainability
Performance of Construction Projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2007, 13, 273–281. [CrossRef]
57. Modinpuroju, A.; Prasad, C.S.R.K.; Chandra, M. Facility-Based Planning Methodology for Rural Roads Using Spatial Techniques.
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2016, 1, 41. [CrossRef]
58. Chan, E.H.W.; Lee, G.K.L. Contribution of Urban Design to Economic Sustainability of Urban Renewal Projects in Hong Kong.
Sustain. Dev. 2008, 16, 353–364. [CrossRef]
59. Chan, E.; Lee, G.K.L. Critical Factors for Improving Social Sustainability of Urban Renewal Projects. Soc. Indic. Res. 2008, 85,
243–256. [CrossRef]
60. Murphy, K. The Social Pillar of Sustainable Development: A Literature Review and Framework for Policy Analysis. Sustain. Sci.
Pract. Policy 2012, 8, 15–29. [CrossRef]
61. Irfan, M.; Hassan, M.; Hassan, N. Unravelling the Fuzzy Effect of Economic, Social and Environmental Sustainability on the
Corporate Reputation of Public-Sector Organizations: A Case Study of Pakistan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 769. [CrossRef]
62. Bansal, P. The Corporate Challenges of Sustainable Development. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2002, 16, 122–131. [CrossRef]
63. Baker, E.A.; Wilkerson, R.; Brennan, L.K. Identifying the Role of Community Partnerships in Creating Change to Support Active
Living. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2012, 43, S290–S299. [CrossRef]
64. Liberato, S.C.; Brimblecombe, J.; Ritchie, J.; Ferguson, M.; Coveney, J. Measuring Capacity Building in Communities: A Review of
the Literature. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 850. [CrossRef]
65. Chin, W.W. How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2010; pp. 655–690.
66. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Adv. Int.
Mark. 2009, 20, 277–319. [CrossRef]
67. Gefen, D. Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice Structural. Struct. Equ. Model. 2000, 4,
7. [CrossRef]
68. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurements Error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
69. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research;
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 295–336.
70. Klein, R.; Rai, A. Interfirm Strategic Information Flows in Logistics Supply Chain Relationships. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 735–762.
[CrossRef]
71. Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Smith, D.; Reams, R.; Hair, J.F. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): A
Useful Tool for Family Business Researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strateg. 2014, 5, 105–115. [CrossRef]
72. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
73. Hair Jr, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage
Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
74. Stone, M. Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1974, 36, 111–147. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 947 18 of 18

75. Tenenhaus, M.; Esposito Vinzi, V.; Chatelin, Y.-M.; Lauro, C. PLS Path Modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205.
[CrossRef]
76. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Will, A. SmartPLS 3.0. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkozje))/reference/
ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=2376307 (accessed on 5 June 2022).
77. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification.
Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [CrossRef]
78. Ortiz, O.; Castells, F.; Sonnemann, G. Sustainability in the Construction Industry: A Review of Recent Developments Based on
LCA. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 28–39. [CrossRef]
79. Gannon, C.A.; Liu, Z. Poverty and Transport; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
80. Vuong, Q.-H.; Vuong, T.-T.; Ho, T.M.; Nguyen, H.V. Psychological and Socio-Economic Factors Affecting Social Sustainability
through Impacts on Perceived Health Care Quality and Public Health: The Case of Vietnam. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1456. [CrossRef]