SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of triple bottom line of sustainability for geotechnical projects

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The American Society of Civil Engineers set three pillars of sustainability, the triple bottom line approach, revolving around the environment, economy and equity. This approach is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations. Activities undertaken in any construction project must follow this approach and must be audited to validate their impact on sustainability. Geotechnical projects lack an audit/assessment tool encompassing the triple bottom line. Efforts were made to modify SPeAR (Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine) into Geotechnical SPeAR, but the system lacks the quantification scale as used by Environmental Geotechnics Indicators. The study aims to develop a new tool called Geo-SAT (Geotechnical Sustainability Assessment Tool), overcoming these limitations, incorporating engineering as a vital pillar. Geo-SAT is based on indicators quantified on a scale of 1 (detrimental) to 5 (significantly improved) to assess the impact of actions taken or considered, on sustainability. The total number of indicators developed is 169 out of which 79 are specific to the triple bottom line approach and 90 to engineering. These indicators are generic and can be used for geotechnical projects with the flexibility of exclusion as per the nature of the project. The different fields targeted are dams, foundations, landslides, contaminated site remediation, soil and erosion control, offshore construction and transportation. This tool will serve as a potential code of sustainability for geotechnical projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASCE:

American Society of Civil Engineers

BREEAM:

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method

CEEQUAL:

Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme

DQI:

Design Quality Indicator

EGI:

Environmental Geotechnics Indicators

Geo-SAT:

Geotechnical Sustainability Assessment Tool

LCCA:

Life Cycle Cost Analysis

LEED:

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

SD:

Sustainable development

SPeAR:

Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine

UNSDG:

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

References

  • Arrow, K. J., Dasgupta, P., & Mäler, K.-G. (2003). Evaluating projects and assessing sustainable development in imperfect economies. Environmental & Resource Economics, 26(4), 647–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ARUP. (2010). Sustainable building designs strategy. Retrieved August 15, 2019 from https://www.arup.com/expertise/services/buildings/sustainable-buildings-design

  • ASCE. (2013). Policy statement 418—The role of the civil engineer in sustainable development. Retrieved November 18, 2019 from https://www.asce.org/issues-and-advocacy/public-policy/policy-statement-418---the-role-of-the-civil-engineer-in-sustainable-development/.

  • Basu, D., Misra, A., & Puppala, A. J. (2015). Sustainability and geotechnical engineering: Perspectives and review. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 52(1), 96–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, A. K. (1992). Indus water treaty: The negotiating process. Water international, 17(4), 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, P. (2007). Improving company performance through sustainability assessment. In P. W. Jowitt (Ed.), Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers-engineering sustainability (Vol. 2 and 160, pp. 95–103). London: Thomas Telford Ltd

  • BRE. (2014). BREEAM UK new construction (1st ed., Vol. 1). Watford: BRE Global Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRE. (2018). An introduction to CEEQUAL. Watford: BRE Global Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broere, W. (2016). Urban underground space: Solving the problems of today’s cities. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, 245–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Brundtland report. Our common future. Comissão Mundial: Marseille.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E. (2005). Economics in a full world. Scientific American, 293(3), 100–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gann, D., Salter, A., & Whyte, J. (2003). Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Building research & information, 31(5), 318–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. (2005). Climate change, mountain permafrost degradation and geotechnical hazard. In U. M. Huber, H. K. M. Bugmann, & M. A. Reasoner (Eds.), Global change and mountain regions (1st ed., pp. 215–224). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmuth, O. K. A., Transformation, I. f. M., & Services, D. o. C. D. o. R. E. (2008). LEED certifcation guidebook: Process management guidebook for projects in the district of Columbia. In J. Doussard, J. Wotowiec, & K. Aucamp (Eds.), (1st ed., pp. 71). Washington, DC: Government of the District of Columbia Department of Real Estate Services.

  • Holt, D. G. A. (2010). Sustaibale assessment for geotechnical projects. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, A. (2003). Life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of using recycled materials for asphalt pavements. University of California Transportation Center.

  • HSE. (2015). Managing health and safety in construction. Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Guidance on Regulations. The Stationery Office Norwich.

  • ISI. (2015). Envision rating system for sustainable infrastructure. Washington, DC: ISI and Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, I., Hunt, D. V., Birchall, C. A., & Rogers, C. D. (2007) Sustainability indicators for environmental geotechnics. In P. W. Jowitt (Ed.), Proceedings-Institution of civil engineers engineering sustainability, 2007 (Vol. 160 and 2, pp. 57). Institution of Civil Engineers

  • Johnston, R. (2016). Arsenic and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Arsenic research and global sustainability: Proceedings of the sixth international congress on arsenic in the environment (As2016), June 19-23, 2016, Stockholm, Sweden (pp. 12). CRC Press.

  • Kagan, S. (2014). Art and sustainability: Connecting patterns for a culture of complexity (2nd emended edition 2013, Vol. 25). Bielefeld/Wetzlar: Transcript Verlag/Majuskel Medienproduktion GmbH.

  • Kalair, A. R., Abas, N., Hasan, Q. U., Kalair, E., Kalair, A., & Khan, N. (2019). Water, energy and food nexus of Indus Water Treaty: Water governance. Water-Energy Nexus, 2(1), 10–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. I., Jamil, S. M., Ali, L., Akhtar, K., & Javaid, M. (2014). Feasibility study of Kalabagh dam Pakistan. Life Science Journal, 11(9s), 458–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibler, K., Tullos, D., Tilt, B., Wolf, A., Magee, D., Foster-Moore, E., et al. (2012). Integrative Dam Assessment Model (IDAM) documentation: Users Guide to the IDAM methodology and a case study from Southwestern China. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchherr, J., Ahrenshop, M.-P., & Charles, K. (2019). Resettlement lies: Suggestive evidence from 29 large dam projects. World Development, 114, 208–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchherr, J., & Charles, K. J. (2016). The social impacts of dams: A new framework for scholarly analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 60, 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuriqi, A., Ardiçlioglu, M., & Muceku, Y. (2016). Investigation of seepage effect on river dike’s stability under steady state and transient conditions. Pollack Periodica, 11(2), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerer, L. B., & Scudder, T. (1999). Health impacts of large dams. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19(2), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazmanian, D. A., & Kraft, M. E. (2009). Toward sustainable communities: Transition and transformations in environmental policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, I., & Roberts, C. (2003). Using the SPeAR TM assessment tool in sustainable master planning. In Proceedings of US Green Building Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. US Green Building Council, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2003

  • Misra, A., & Basu, D. (2011). Sustainability in geotechnical engineering (D. o. C. a. E. Engineering, Trans.). Internal geotechnical report (Vol. 2, pp. 49). University of Connecticut.

  • Muceku, Y., Korini, O., & Kuriqi, A. (2016). Geotechnical analysis of Hill’s slopes areas in heritage town of Berati. Albania. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 60(1), 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omoregie, A. I., Siah, J., Pei, B. C. S., Yie, S. P. J., Weissmann, L. S., Enn, T. G., et al. (2018). Integrating biotechnology into geotechnical engineering: A laboratory exercise. Transactions on Science and Technology, 5(2), 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peppoloni, S., & Di Capua, G. (2012). Geoethics and geological culture: Awareness, responsibility and challenges. Annals of Geophysics, 3(55), 335–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, V. P. (2020). Rice husk ash burnt in simple conditions for soil stabilization. In P. D. Long & N. T. Dung (Eds.), Geotechnics for sustainable infrastructure development (pp. 717–721). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Praticò, F., Saride, S., & Puppala, A. J. (2011). Comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis for selection of stabilization alternatives for better performance of low-volume roads. Transportation Research Record, 2204(1), 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, A. J., Pinkse, M. A., Kendall, A., & DeJong, J. T. (2017). Life-cycle assessment of ground improvement alternatives for the Treasure Island, California, redevelopment. In Geotechnical frontiers 2017 (pp. 345–354).

  • Scudder, T., & Colson, E. (2019). From welfare to development: A conceptual framework for the analysis of dislocated people. In A. Hansen & A. Oliver-Smith (Eds.), Involuntary migration and resettlement (pp. 267–287). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seager, T., Selinger, E., & Wiek, A. (2012). Sustainable engineering science for resolving wicked problems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(4), 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, B. (2001). Social impacts of large dams: Gender, equity and distribution issues. Economic and Political Weekly, 36, 4108–4114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taha, M. R., & Alsharef, J. M. A. (2018). Performance of soil stabilized with carbon nanomaterials. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 63, 757–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilt, B., Braun, Y., & He, D. (2009). Social impacts of large dam projects: A comparison of international case studies and implications for best practice. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, S249–S257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3), 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, P., Mitchell, P., & Jones, D. (2004). Environmental assessment for commercial buildings: Stakeholder requirements and tool characteristics. Retrieved June 26, 2019 from https://digitalcollections.qut.edu.au/1661/.

  • Yasuhara, K., Komine, H., Murakami, S., Chen, G., Mitani, Y., & Duc, D. (2012). Effects of climate change on geo-disasters in coastal zones and their adaptation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 30, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geotechnical Engineering, NUST Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

    Faisal Raza, Badee Alshameri & S. Muhammad Jamil

Authors
  1. Faisal Raza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Badee Alshameri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Muhammad Jamil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Badee Alshameri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raza, F., Alshameri, B. & Jamil, S.M. Assessment of triple bottom line of sustainability for geotechnical projects. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 4521–4558 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00786-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00786-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation