Life cycle management for improving sustainability effectiveness in area-based infrastructure projects: lessons from Thailand

Purpose Life cycle management (LCM) is increasingly recognized as a strategic approach for improving infrastructure sustainability; however, evidence remains limited on how perceived implementation of LCM practices is associated with perceived sustainability effectiveness across the life cycle of area-based infrastructure projects (AIPs), particularly in developing countries. This study examines these associations in Thai local administrative organizations (LAOs). The Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide the policy context; they are not measured as separate empirical constructs. Design/methodology/approach Literature synthesis and expert screening were used to develop the questionnaire. A total of 645 valid questionnaires from Thai LAOs were analyzed using SPSS Version 28, exploratory factor analysis, reliability analysis, correlations and multiple regression. Qualitative consultations supported item refinement and interpretation; because participant counts and a formal qualitative coding record were unavailable for this revision, they are not presented as an independently validated mixed-methods strand. Findings Construction and monitoring and evaluation and improvement were positively associated with perceived sustainability effectiveness, whereas the coefficients for data gathering and design and development were not statistically significant when all four phase scores were entered simultaneously. Correlations among phases indicate interdependence but do not establish mediation, sequential effects or causality. Five highly rated sustainability outcomes concerned budget use, environmental impacts, quality of life and safety, service life and management efficiency. Originality/value The study contributes a stage-based empirical examination of perceived LCM implementation and perceived sustainability effectiveness in Thai LAOs. It distinguishes the policy framing supplied by SEP and the SDGs from the four phase scores and composite sustainability outcome that were actually measured. The results offer context-specific managerial implications and do not constitute empirical validation of SEP, the SDGs or individual governance mechanisms.