96

ARTICLE
Sustainability and geotechnical engineering: perspectives and
review
Dipanjan Basu, Aditi Misra, and Anand J. Puppala
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15

Abstract: The built environment serves as a dynamic interface through which human society and the ecosystem interact and
influence each other. Understanding this interdependence is a key to understanding sustainability as it applies to civil engi-
neering. There is a growing consensus that delivering a sustainable built environment starts with incorporating sustainability
thoughts at the planning and design stages of an infrastructure construction project. Geotechnical engineering can significantly
influence the sustainability of infrastructure development because of its early position in the construction process. In this paper,
the scope of geotechnical engineering towards sustainable development of civil infrastructure is reviewed. The philosophies and
definitions of sustainability as applicable to geotechnical engineering are discussed. A comprehensive review of the research and
case studies performed in geotechnical engineering, in relation to sustainable development, is presented in an effort to outline
the scope and goals of sustainable geotechnical engineering.

Key words: sustainability, geosustainability, resilience, reliability, geosystems.

Résumé : L’environnement bâti sert d’interface dynamique à travers laquelle la société humaine et l’écosystème interagissent
et s’influencent l’un et autre. La compréhension de cette interdépendance est la clé de la compréhension de la durabilité telle
qu’appliquée en génie civil. Il y a un consensus grandissant qui considère qu’un environnement bâti durable commence par
l’intégration de la pensée durable aux étapes de planification et de conception d’un projet de construction d’infrastructure. Le
For personal use only.

génie géotechnique peut influencer significativement la durabilité d’un développement d’infrastructure en raison de la position
en début du processus de construction. Dans cet article, une revue de l’apport du génie géotechnique vers le développement
durable d’infrastructures civiles est présentée. Les philosophies et définitions de la durabilité applicables au génie géotechnique
sont discutées. Une revue détaillée de la recherche et d’études de cas réalisés en génie géotechnique et reliés au développement
durable est présentée afin de définir les objectifs et buts du génie géotechnique durable. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : durabilité, géodurabilité, résilience, fiabilité, géosystèmes.

Introduction phones — sustainability of the physical world is heavily depen-

Sustainability of a system is its ability to survive and retain its
functionality over time. In very simple terms, sustainability deals
with the supplies (capacities) and demands (loads) in a system, and
as long as the supply is greater than the demand, the system
is sustainable. When put in a global perspective, the concept of
sustainability deals with the fundamental questions related to the
survivability and functionality of the physical world, and is there-
fore inextricably connected to social, environmental, economic,
and engineered systems. It is the interconnectedness of these sys-
tems that makes sustainability a complex concept because the
supplies and demands of one system affect the supplies and de-
mands of the other systems. Time is an inherent aspect of sustain-
ability, and questions related to sustainability must be addressed
by considering supplies and demands that change over time.
Engineered systems serve human societies by drawing resources
from nature and, in the process, generate emissions and wastes
that nature has to absorb. To be competitive, engineering prod-
ucts must be cost effective and have to function properly over
their design life. Clearly, engineered systems are inextricably
connected to the social, environmental, and economic systems.
Because humankind is heavily dependent on engineered systems —
from living in temperature-controlled houses to using cellular
dent on the contributions of the engineered systems. Responsible
and ethical engineering practices can contribute towards a sus-
tainable world through the development of reliable and robust
engineering products that are economically viable and ensure
social well-being, exploit the least amount of natural resources,
and generate the least amount of wastes.
The civil engineering industry has its footprints on all human
efforts to control, modify, and dominate nature and natural systems.
It is estimated that the construction industry accounts for about 40%
of the global energy consumption and depletes large amounts of
sand, gravel, and stone reserves every year (Dixit et al. 2010). Con-
struction activities also add to the problems of climate change, ozone
depletion, desertification, deforestation, soil erosion, and land, wa-
ter, and air pollution (Kibert 2008). A geotechnical construction proj-
ect not only has the aforementioned detrimental effects on earth’s
resources and environment but also changes the land use pattern
that persists for centuries and affects the social and ethical values
of a community. Thus, geotechnical projects interfere with many
social, environmental, and economic issues, and improving the
sustainability of geotechnical processes is extremely important in
achieving overall sustainable development (Jefferis 2008; Long
et al. 2009; Pender 2011). In fact, geotechnical design and con-
struction, being placed early in a civil engineering project, can

Received 27 March 2013. Accepted 26 May 2014.

D. Basu and A. Misra. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue W., Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1,
Canada.
A.J. Puppala. Department of Civil Engineering, Box 19308, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA.
Corresponding author: Dipanjan Basu (e-mail: dipanjan.basu@uwaterloo.ca).

Can. Geotech. J. 52: 96–113 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2013-0120 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 11 June 2014.
 Basu et al.
significantly contribute to sustainable development by making
sustainable choices and setting a precedent for the remainder
of the project. Although the role of geotechnical engineering in
sustainable development is being increasingly recognized, there is a
general lack of understanding regarding how exactly geotechnical
processes can contribute to the overall sustainability of the world. At
the same time, there is a scarcity of geosustainability literature and
of an integrated framework for sustainable geotechnical practice
(Abreu et al. 2008).
The purpose of this paper is to connect the broader scope of
sustainable development with geotechnical engineering and to
present a review of the research done on different aspects of sustain-
ability in geotechnical engineering. The definitions and concepts of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
sustainability are introduced, and the different approaches for sus-
tainable practices in engineering are discussed, with an aim to relate
sustainability to geotechnical engineering. In this regard, the con-
cept of resilience is introduced, as it is closely related to engineering
sustainability, and the available resilience quantification methods
are briefly outlined. Further, the recent research studies in geotech-
nical engineering that contribute to sustainable development are
discussed. In addition, the available sustainability assessment frame-
works in geotechnical engineering are reviewed. These varied topics
are integrated together in an attempt to define the scope and goals of
sustainable geotechnical engineering.
Sustainability, engineering, and geotechnology
Definitions and philosophies of sustainability and
connection to engineering
For personal use only.
Brown (1981) described a sustainable society as “ … one that is
able to satisfy its needs without diminishing the chance of future
generations”. The Brundtland Commission (Brundtland 1987),
formed under the auspice of the United Nations, adapted the ideal
of Brown (1981) and defined sustainable development as “develop-
ment that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. The
definition by the Brundtland Commission carries a connotation of
time and takes into account intergenerational justice, but is often
criticized for being anthropocentric (Curran 1996), for having a neg-
ative connotation and for restricting the focus to a limited resource
use (Wood 2006). An alternative definition states that sustainability
is improving the quality of human life while living within the carry-
ing capacity of the supporting ecosystem (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991).
This definition is less anthropocentric and emphasizes the supply
and demand concept mentioned previously.
Although the definitions in the preceding paragraph delineate
the scope of sustainability, they do not provide a definite pathway
to develop sustainable engineering practices or to solve engineer-
ing sustainability problems. In fact, the solution approach to sus-
tainability problems has been a matter of debate and research
across different disciplines over a long period of time (Jefferis
2005). Often, this debate surfaces as the development of two fun-
damentally different approaches, namely, weak and strong sus-
tainability. “Weak sustainability” assumes that natural capital is
replaceable by human capital or technological development as
long as the total capital base remains constant or increases (Arrow
et al. 2003), while “strong sustainability” (Daly 2005) advocates
against the decline of natural resources exclusively. Thompson (2010)
explained the debate as the difference between two philosophies,
namely, resource sufficiency and functional integrity. The “resource
sufficiency” approach has an anthropocentric view without any rec-
ognition of biodiversity or of the moral values of nonliving entities,
and determines the sustainability of a practice on how long the
practice could be carried on at the present rate of consumption. In
contrast, the “functional integrity” approach measures the sus-
tainability of a practice based on the threat it creates to the repro-
ducing capacity of a self-regenerating system, and supports the
97
“deep ecology” school of thought propagated by Næss (1949),
which states that the right of all forms of life to live is a universal
right and no particular species has more of this right than any
other species. Thus, there are two alternate views of sustainability: a
one-dimensional, anthropocentric view as advocated by weak
sustainability or resource sufficiency and a multi-dimensional,
all-encompassing view as supported by strong sustainability or
functional integrity.
In the engineering domain, Seager et al. (2011) identified two
different approaches that have been taken to solve the sustain-
ability problems: (i) the business-as-usual approach and (ii) the
systems engineering approach. The business-as-usual approach to
sustainable engineering is essentially a one-dimensional, anthro-
pocentric approach that relies on technological innovation and
upgrade as a solution to all problems — genetically modified
seeds for higher food production and nuclear power generation
for increased power demand are some examples. Seager et al.
(2011) pointed out that technological upgrade comes at a price that
is not affordable by most countries in the world, and hence, the
business-as-usual approach indirectly promotes social inequality
and injustice. Moreover, the long-term impacts of using innova-
tive technologies are not always apparent, and further research is
required before these technologies can be used at a larger scale.
In the systems engineering approach, the design objective is to
minimize the cost of production with prudent use of resources
and with a constraint on harmful emissions (Gradel 1997, Kibert
2008) — thus the approach is economy centric, with some consider-
ations for the natural environment. A problem with this approach is
that it is nearly impossible to arrive at a global consensus regard-
ing what constitutes an optimal solution for any sustainability
problem (Seager et al. 2011). Even if a solution is decided to be
optimal, in moving from the stage of technological innovation to
the stage of optimization, the primary focus is on improving cost
efficiency rather than on sustainability. Again, as processes be-
come cost efficient, prices of commodities decrease, which in-
creases mass consumption and consumption-driven production.
As production increases, resource consumption increases and so
does the related environmental impacts — these adversely affect
the sustainability agenda (Fiksel 2007).
A more recent approach to systems engineering is to incorpo-
rate the three Es — environment, economy, and equity — as
design objectives. This is in contrast to the optimization approach
described earlier in which cost is the design objective, and envi-
ronmental impacts and social concerns act as constraints. The
three Es concept represents the multi-dimensional approach to-
wards sustainability as advocated by functional integrity. A simi-
lar approach is practiced in public enterprises for full accounting
of environmental, social, and economic cost and benefits using
the triple bottom line concept (Slaper and Hall 2011). Achieving a
balance of the three Es, however, is a difficult task involving
tradeoffs because the three Es are often at conflict between them-
selves (Hempel 2009; Fig. 1). The most common conflict is between
the economic growth and environmental protection, and there is
also a conflict between economy and equity, which manifests
itself in an unequal distribution of wealth. The three Es approach,
however, has been criticized by Seager et al. (2011) for attempting
to define and solve sustainability problems at the process scale
whilst sustainability issues in reality have global implications.
Clearly, sustainability-related problems are complex, and ac-
cording to Seager et al. (2011), sustainability problems are sim-
ilar to “wicked problems” defined by Horst Rittel in the 1960s
(Buchanan 1992). The concept of wicked problem was originally
put forward as an antithesis to the linear thinking process, which
assumes that solving any problem is a two-step process involving
problem definition and problem analysis (Buchanan 1992). Rittel
and Webber (1973) pointed out that, in multi-dimensional, multi-
partisan projects like planning or construction, different stake-
holders may have different issues and concerns that are at conflict
Published by NRC Research Press
 98
Fig. 1. Three aspects and conflicts of sustainable development.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
with other stakeholders’ interests and priorities. In such cases, it
is difficult to define a single problem that can address all the
issues of all stakeholders. Also, such issues and concerns generally
arise from the requirements and perceptions of the stakeholders
at that particular given time and situation, and these require-
ments may change over time. Thus, today’s solution may not re-
main relevant or may not be adequate at a future date. These
problems that suffer from both problem formulation issues and
temporal uncertainty were named wicked problems and are de-
fined as “class of social system problems which are ill formulated,
where the information is confusing, where there are many clients
and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifi-
cations in the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Buchanan
For personal use only.
1992).
Sustainable engineering problems are wicked problems, as they
share the five most relevant characteristics of wicked problems:
(i) they are difficult to formulate, (ii) multiple but incompatible
solutions exist, (iii) time frames are open-ended, (iv) the problems
are unique, and (v) competing value systems or objectives exist in
the problem. Such problems and their impacts transcend disci-
plines and processes, and hence, require a solution approach that
can bring about “integrations of signs, things, actions, and envi-
ronments that address the concrete needs and values of human
beings in diverse circumstances” (Buchanan 1992).
Seager et al. (2011) suggested the use of a sustainability science
approach that aims at providing a global view for solving sustain-
able engineering problems. Conceptually introduced by Mihelcic
et al. (2003) and Kates et al. (2001), the sustainability science ap-
proach replaces the discipline-specific solution approach to sus-
tainability issues with a global approach in which ideas and
concepts are drawn from all related fields of sustainability study
and then integrated into a solution for the sustainable engineer-
ing problem. The sustainability science approach requires that all
the stakeholders in the process should have an understanding
of the process and its impact, and should share an appreciation
of the global reach of the issues. For example, for infrastructure
construction projects to be sustainable, the construction engineer
should have enough knowledge about the impacts of the emis-
sions and pollution created during the construction process and
about the regulations and policies concerning the emissions and
pollution, in addition to his or her usual knowledge of resource
consumption and safety. Also, to maximize social equity, it is
necessary to involve the people in the neighborhood of the con-
struction site in decisions that concern their socioecological envi-
ronment. To be able to participate meaningfully in the decision
process, all stakeholders should have sufficient knowledge about
the different technological alternatives available for the construc-
tion process and about the impacts of these alternatives. Such
an approach requires dissemination and sharing of knowledge
across different disciplines and social categories, which facilitates
the understanding of the transdisciplinary and temporal nature
of sustainability issues (Mihelcic et al. 2003).
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
Seager et al. (2011) and Mihelcic et al. (2003) suggested introduc-
ing sustainability science approach to the engineering curriculum
so that the future engineering community develops an apprecia-
tion for the global reach of the sustainability problems and can
use the aforementioned, holistic approach to solve these prob-
lems. However, because the sustainability science approach is still
under development, at present, the systems engineering ap-
proach of balancing the three Es seems to be the most promising
approach for sustainable engineering at the project scale.
Reliability, resilience, and adaptability as part of
sustainable engineering
For any infrastructure engineering project, ensuring the safety,
serviceability, and reliability of a facility or product is as impor-
tant as balancing the three Es. A design with too much focus on
the environmental impact or economy may lead to a marginally
safe and “efficient” structure without any scope for redundancy
(in this context, efficiency relates to frugal design with minimal
use of resources and money, while redundancy refers to extra
provisions that may become useful if design loads and stresses are
exceeded). Such a design may readily fail under unprecedented
and unanticipated external threats (Chateauneuf 2008) and does
not support the sustainability agenda. The lack of resilience
against unaccounted external forces and threats is often not ac-
ceptable in civil engineering particularly for those structures that
are part of critical infrastructures. Geostructures are often impor-
tant components of critical infrastructures, and hence, thoughts
on sustainability in geotechnical engineering should include the
reliability and resilience aspects of engineering design. Thus, in
the civil and geotechnical engineering domains, sustainability
can be looked upon as a dynamic equilibrium between four Es —
engineering design, economy, environment, and equity, as de-
scribed in Fig. 2.
Reliability of a structure is a measure of its safety against pos-
sible identified failure states — reliability-based design ensures
that the structure is sufficiently away from its identifiable failure
states so that it can perform its intended set of functions under
predicted external loads. Traditionally, reliability-based design
has been used in critical infrastructures like transportation – road
construction networks, water supply networks, or power supply
networks. Critical infrastructures are defined as the lifeline sys-
tems like transportation and power supply networks without
which other systems (e.g., cities) cannot function (O’Rourke 2007).
Therefore, the safety and reliability of such critical infrastructures
are of paramount importance to the social and economic well-
being of a region or country.
Geostructures like embankments, slopes, and bridge founda-
tions are important components of critical infrastructures like
transportation networks, while dams are critical infrastructures
themselves (O’Rourke 2007). Failures in any of them can initiate
complete or partial loss of functionality of other related structures
and systems and can severely impact the social and economic infra-
structure of any country. Geotechnical engineering also has a prom-
inent role in waste containment — a geotechnical failure in a landfill
system can be both socially and environmentally disastrous, with
spreading and leaching of contaminants. Moreover, unlike struc-
tural systems that handle uncertainties related mostly to external
loads, geotechnical engineering suffers from significant uncertain-
ties related to soil and rock properties in addition to uncertainties in
external loads (Long et al. 2009). Further, material properties in
geotechnical design may alter due to a change in the surrounding
environment (e.g., a contamination can alter the soil properties, and
permafrost can get degraded due to climate change) and can add to
the uncertainties in the system. Therefore, reliability-based design
should be an essential part of sustainable geotechnical design.
The underlying assumption in reliability-based design is that
the failure states can be predicted and the associated probabilities
Published by NRC Research Press
 Basu et al. 99

Fig. 2. Four Es of sustainability in engineering projects.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15

of failure can be estimated (risk-based or “fail-safe” design). In Fig. 3. Loss of resilience in community as function of time.
recent times, there is a growing consensus that it is not entirely
possible to anticipate the likelihood, manifestation, and conse-
quences of all future threats (i.e., failure states), and hence, safety
measures are always inadequate (Simoncini 2011; Vugrin et al.
For personal use only.

2011). For example, Rogers et al. (2012) pointed out eight categories
of possible threats that the physical civil infrastructure may en-
counter: (i) gradual deterioration from aging, exacerbated by adverse
ground conditions (including chemical, biological, and physical
threats); (ii) damage due to surface loading or stress relief due to
opencut interventions; (iii) severely increased demand, and ever-
changing (different, or altered) demands; (iv) terrorism; (v) the effects
of climate change; (vi) the effects of population increase, including
increasing population density; (vii) funding constraints; (viii) severe
natural hazards (extreme weather events, earthquakes, landslides,
etc.). Although designs should be made flexible and robust to ward
off as many threats as possible, it is impossible to design engineering
systems that are foolproof against all possible threats. Therefore, for
systems to be sustainable, it is necessary to ensure that the system is
inherently capable of bouncing back to its functionality irrespective
of the nature or magnitude of shock or distress it is subjected to.
Such systems are called resilient systems. The resilience of a system is
defined as its ability to return to its original “state” after a perturba-
tion without any “regime change” (Holling 1996, 2001; Walker and
Salt 2006). Resilience is particularly important for interconnected
systems where a failure in any part can quickly propagate to other
parts and can easily trigger a system failure (Park et al. 2011). Geo-
structures are often an integral part of critical infrastructure sys-
tems; therefore, resilience must be incorporated in geotechnical
engineering designs. For infrastructure systems, Bruneau et al. (2003)
chose four parameters (four Rs) as measures of community resil-
ience: (i) robustness, as defined by the capacity of the system or its
parts to perform its function even under external disturbance; (ii) re-
dundancy, as measured by the degree to which an affected part is
substitutable; (iii) resourcefulness, defined as the ability to identify
threats and set up plans for handling such threats; and (iv) rapidity
with which external disturbances are addressed. Rogers et al. (2012)
made an important distinction between resistance and resilience:
resistance relates to design and activities concerned with prevention
and protection of a system, while resilience relates to response and
The concept of resilience is far-reaching, and in order for a society
to be resilient, several aspects of resilience across disciplines have to
be explored. For example, Rogers et al. (2012) considered the resil-
ience of ecological, economic, physical infrastructure, community,
and government systems together for a holistic conceptualization of
resilience from an interdisciplinary perspective. In a similar ap-
proach, Bocchini et al. (2014) considered four dimensions of resil-
ience, namely, technical, organizational, social, and economic, and
further pointed out three beneficial outcomes of resilience consider-
ations: more reliability, faster recovery, and lower consequences.
Thus, resilience is not only related to the resilience of engineering
structures (hard resilience) but also to the community it affects (soft
resilience) as described earlier in the text (Miao and Banister 2012). In
fact, resilience is inherently related to social vulnerability (Phillips
et al. 2009), and geotechnical designs, particularly those against di-
sasters and unprecedented events, must take into consideration the
plights of the vulnerable communities within a society.
Bruneau et al. (2003) quantified the loss of resilience of a com-
munity due to earthquake as the total expected degradation of
a chosen time-dependent performance function Q(t) (where t is
time) summed over a period of time (Fig. 3). Mathematically, the
loss of community resilience R is expressed as

冕
recovery after a disruptive event reduces the functionality of the tr
system. Reliability-based design discussed previously can ensure ad-
(1) R⫽ [100 ⫺ Q(t)] dt
equate resistance in a structure or system, but resilience requires
additional considerations as discussed in the following. td

Published by NRC Research Press

 100 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 4. Resilience as function of time.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15

where td is the time at which disruption happens, and tr is the Fig. 5. System regime change due to loss of resilience.
time at which full or partial but stable functionality is restored
(Fig. 3). Henry and Ramirez-Marquez (2011) proposed a similar
approach to define resilience of a system as a function of time.
They suggested using a quantifiable and time-dependent figure-
of-merit or system-level performance function F(t) (e.g., flow, de-
For personal use only.

lay, connectivity, etc.) for measuring resilience of the system

(Fig. 4). Because of a disruptive event, the value of F(t) may de-
crease, and how much F(t) recovers after remedial actions are
taken or whether F(t) attains its original value after system recov-
ery is a measure of its resilience. Mathematically, resilience ᑬ is
defined by Henry and Ramirez-Marquez (2011) as

F(tr) ⫺ F(td)
(2) ᑬ(t) ⫽
F(t0) ⫺ F(td)

where t0 is the initial time (i.e., the time when there was no
disruption), td is the time at which disruption stops (after its start
at te) and the system is at its minimal performance level, tr is any
time after the time td at which the system starts recovering (Fig. 4).
ᑬ < 1 during the time tf – td over which the system recovers and
attains a stable constant value at t = tf. ᑬ = 1 if the system attains
full functionality (i.e., if F(tr) = F(t0)) at t = tf. Thus, in contrast with
traditional fail-safe approach of design, resilience-based design
can be looked upon as a “safe-to-fail” approach in which the sys-
tems are expected to fail under unexpected stressors and aims at
containing the failure and recovering from the failure with least
impact (Ahern 2011). For infrastructure systems, Bocchini et al.
(2014) presented an integrated approach for sustainability and
resilience considerations in design through a probabilistic frame-
work in which the expected life cycle impact of an infrastructure
on a community is considered to be a sum of impacts from regular
events (e.g., construction, normal operations, scheduled mainte-
nance, and deconstruction) multiplied by their corresponding
probabilities of occurrence and of impacts from extreme events
(e.g., natural disaster and terror attacks) multiplied by their cor-
responding probabilities of occurrence.
In addition to sudden external shocks, a system may also lose its
resilience over time because of slow and natural changes in its
own properties and in its environment. As shown in Fig. 5, a
system is most resilient when it is at state 1 and its resilience
decreases as it moves through states 2 and 3. The vertical axis of
Fig. 5 can be thought to represent the “potential energy” of the
system, with the minimum energy representing the most stable
state as is true for mechanical systems. At state 3, even a small
amount of external perturbation (or addition of energy) can cause
a change of that state. The change from state 1 to state 3 is often
gradual and natural, and hence, may not be captured in a system
designed only to respond to sudden external shocks. Therefore,
sustainable designs must perform checks against resilience (Lombardi
et al. 2012) both from sudden shocks and from gradually changing
demands and properties of systems in a multi-disciplinary frame-
work.
Adaptive capacity of a system ensures that such slow and grad-
ual changes are recognized by the system and managed effec-
tively, so that the system does not get close to stage 3. Thus,
adaptability of a system can help manage its resilience. An adapt-
able system may preserve the diverse elements in a system, in-
crease the redundancy and flexibility of the system, and may be
more capable of absorbing external unpredicted disturbances
without any significant loss of functionality (Folke et al. 2002). An
engineered system can be deemed adaptive when it is managed in
a way such that it is responsive to slow changes in its own funda-
mental properties (e.g., strength of the material) and in its envi-
ronment (e.g., change in flooding frequency). With an adaptive
management strategy, an engineered system is better equipped to
handle changes in demands over time and is therefore more effi-
cient. For example, if a levee system is monitored for change in

Published by NRC Research Press

 Basu et al.
rainfall pattern over time and in the rainfall-induced flooding pat-
tern in the region, and required modifications in the levee system are
undertaken from time to time, then the system becomes less suscep-
tible to failure from increasing flood levels. Such an adaptive man-
agement of engineered system ensures the safety, reliability, and
longer life of the system, which eventually leads to less resource
consumption and to social and economic benefits.
Sustainability and geotechnology
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that sustainability is
a multi-scale, multi-disciplinary, and multi-dimensional paradigm
that aims at ensuring the well-being of the living and nonliving
world for the current and future generations. Geotechnical engineer-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
ing, being discipline specific, cannot solve global sustainability
problems completely, but can contribute towards their solu-
tions. Geostructures and geooperations often form important in-
terfaces between the built and natural environments, and interact
with and affect a wide variety of externalities — for example,
dams and levees buffer the fluctuations in hydrologic cycles and
affect water movement across political boundaries, extraction of
petroleum resources from the subsurface affects the natural en-
vironment and global economy, and landfill systems prevent con-
taminants from reaching groundwater across regional scales.
Further, geotechnical engineering has a very important role in
mitigating or containing disasters, and failure to do so is often cata-
strophic to society — for example, breach of a levee system during a
hurricane or tsunami has far-reaching consequences on the civil
infrastructure and society, breakdown of underground water pipe-
lines caused by soil liquefaction during an earthquake can signifi-
For personal use only.
cantly reduce the ability to mitigate widespread fire that may occur
as an aftermath of earthquakes, improper or lack of slope manage-
ment can cause rainfall or earthquake-induced landslides that can
wipe out communities and affect regional transportation networks,
and terror attacks on underground transit systems by bomb blast can
lead to collapse of the physical infrastructure and heavy loss of life.
Thus, geotechnical engineering has a wide gamut and a global reach,
and can influence the sustainable development of infrastructure and
civil societies in a significant way (Fig. 6). Sustainable geotechnics can
therefore be thought of as a subdiscipline focusing on geotechnical
engineering practices that reverse (at least partially) the detrimental
effects of past geotechnical practices on nature and society, and en-
sure the well-being of society and natural environment at all times. It
should not only include environment-friendly practices that are cost
effective and cause minimal financial burden to the present and
future generations, but also promote reliability- and resilience-based
analysis and design, and adaptive management strategies so that
social vulnerability is minimized and overall well-being is upheld. Sus-
tainability assessment should also be a part of sustainable geotechnical
practices to ensure that sustainability goals are indeed achieved.
A report entitled “Geological and geotechnical engineering in
the new millennium: opportunities for research and technologi-
cal innovation” by the US National Academy of Sciences mentioned
seven categories where geotechnical engineering can contribute to
improve the sustainability of the societal system (Long et al. 2009).
These include (i) waste management, (ii) infrastructure development
and rehabilitation, (iii) construction efficiency and innovation,
(iv) national security, (v) resource discovery and recovery, (vi) mit-
igation of natural hazards, and (vii) frontier exploration and de-
velopment. Pantelidou et al. (2012) reviewed the applicability and
importance of the seven sustainability objectives for geotechnical
engineering that were originally developed for buildings by ARUP
(2010). These include (i) energy efficiency and carbon reduction,
(ii) materials and waste reduction, (iii) maintaining natural water
cycle and enhancing natural watershed, (iv) climate-change adap-
tation and resilience, (v) effective land use and management,
(vi) economic viability and whole life cost, and (vii) positive contri-
bution to society. Based on Long et al. (2009) and Pantelidou et al.
(2012) and on a similar list by Basu et al. (2013), the topics that can
101
be considered to be a part of sustainable geotechnical engineering
can be listed as follows: (i) use of alternate, environment-friendly
materials and reuse of waste materials in geotechnical construc-
tion (e.g., use of construction and demolition wastes in pavement
subgrade); (ii) innovative, environment-friendly and energy-efficient
geotechnical techniques for site investigation, construction, moni-
toring, retrofitting, ground improvement, and deconstruction (e.g.,
bioslope engineering and use of natural fiber in soil reinforcement);
(iii) retrofitting and reuse of foundations and other geotechnical
structures; (iv) use and reuse of underground space for beneficial
purposes like pedestrian pathways, public transit, and water distri-
bution system, and for storage of energy, carbon dioxide, and waste
products; (v) characterization, analysis, design, monitoring, repair-
ing, and retrofitting techniques in geotechnical engineering that
ensure or contribute to reliability (robustness and resistance) and
resilience; (vi) geotechnical techniques involved in the discovery
and recovery of geologic resources like minerals and hydrocarbons,
and in exploitation of renewable energy sources, such as shallow and
deep geothermal, solar, and wind energies; (vii) geotechnical tech-
niques for pollution control and redevelopment of brownfields and
other marginal sites; (viii) mitigation of geohazards (e.g., landslides,
earthquakes, and blast) that also include the effects of global climate
change; (ix) environmental and socioeconomic impacts from geoac-
tivities, for example, from mining and petroleum extraction, dam
construction, and waste disposal; (x) practice of geoethics and geodi-
versity; and (xi) development of sustainability indicators and assess-
ment tools in geotechnical engineering.
It is important to recognize that sustainability outcomes from a
civil engineering solution can be ensured in two ways: by doing
the right project and by doing the project right (ISI 2013). Choos-
ing the right project often depends on the owner and policy mak-
ers, and is often beyond the scope of the civil and geotechnical
engineers, although they can provide their inputs in the decision-
making process. In fact, choosing the right project can have a
significantly greater chance of success from a sustainability stand-
point than completing the project using good engineering that
follows appropriate sustainability guidelines. The earlier the sus-
tainability objectives are considered in a project, the better the
outcome because the availability of sustainable alternatives de-
creases as a project proceeds from the planning to the execution
stage (Fig. 7) (Pantelidou et al. 2012). For example, in a building
foundation project, there can be a choice of foundation types at
the planning stage, while the choice is limited to the materials to
be used in the design stage; and in the execution stage, the choice
is limited to the machinery used. Therefore, to achieve maximum
benefit from sustainability considerations, it is necessary to incor-
porate sustainability objectives at the planning and design stages
of a project (Misra and Basu 2011). The analysis framework of
Lombardi et al. (2011) on the critical sequencing of sustainability-
related actions and decisions within a project to obtain the most
sustainable solution through a series of compromises in the de-
sign process can be adopted in geotechnical projects.
On a project level, the following steps can positively contribute
to a sustainable geotechnical solution: (i) involving all the stake-
holders (e.g., owner, lawmakers, engineers, architects, users, and
members of the affected community) at the planning stage of the
project so that a consensus is reached regarding the steps to
achieve a sustainable solution (such as control of pollution during
and after construction, financial impact on the affected commu-
nity, choice of environment-friendly materials, aesthetic accept-
ability, acceptability of the project to the local community, etc.),
and in subsequent stages to maintain transparent flow of infor-
mation and to gain consensus on any required change from the
initial plan; (ii) proper site characterization so that the geologic
uncertainties and associated hazards are minimized; (iii) robust
and reliable analysis, design, and construction that involves
minimal financial burden and inconvenience to all the stakehold-
ers; (iv) optimal use of materials and energy in planning, design,
Published by NRC Research Press
 102 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 6. Impacts and influences of geotechnical engineering.

Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
For personal use only.

Fig. 7. Typical steps in geotechnical projects (modified from Pantelidou et al. 2012).

Published by NRC Research Press

 Basu et al.
construction, and maintenance of geotechnical facilities; (v) use of
materials and methods that cause minimal negative impact on
the ecology and environment; (vi) reuse of existing geotechnical
elements (e.g., foundations and retaining structures) to minimize
wastage; (vii) appropriate and adequate instrumentation, monitor-
ing, and maintenance to ensure proper functioning of the facility;
and (viii) performing adequate checks against resilience (which may
include engineering, social, economic, and ecological resilience) and
redesigning if necessary. This approach can contribute towards bal-
ancing engineering integrity, economic efficiency, environmental
quality, and social equity as part of a sustainable geotechnical solu-
tion.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
Review of studies related to sustainable
geotechnology
In this section, the recent studies related to sustainable geotech-
nics are reviewed in the context of the theories and philosophies
of sustainability described earlier in the text. The use of the word
sustainability and its several variations has become commonplace
in geotechnical and civil engineering parlance, and often the im-
plications of sustainability are wrongly attributed to only environ-
mental impact or carbon emissions. It is important to recognize
that sustainability has multiple dimensions because of which the
following review will assess the legitimacy of these studies in the
context of the multiple dimensions of sustainability. Several
geotechnical research studies and practical projects have been
performed in the recent past that can be considered to contribute
towards sustainable development. The scope of these studies and
For personal use only.
projects fall within the 11 categories mentioned in the previous
section. A large number of these studies are based on the common
notions of sustainability like recycling, reuse, and use of alterna-
tive materials, technologies, and resources. However, whether
such new approaches actually lead to sustainable solutions or not
must be assessed properly. For example, Clift and Wright (2000)
have questioned the economic and environmental sustainability
of recycling and reuse. They argued that the aim of end-of-life
management should not only include removal of hazardous ma-
terials but also include minimization of the environmental im-
pact. Reverse logistics studies in the UK and Sweden showed that
the benefits of recycling are largely offset by the environmental
impact of transporting back used materials, and the practice
may be unsustainable economically and environmentally for
low-cost, low-reusability materials (Clift and Wright 2000). Thus, a
complete sustainability assessment framework is necessary for
geotechnical projects to ascertain the relative merits of different
options available for a project.
Considering the aforementioned, the literature review is di-
vided into three parts. In the first part, studies that contribute in
one or more ways to sustainable development are reviewed. In
the second part, the sustainability evaluation methods related
to geotechnical engineering are discussed. The third part presents
a critical appraisal of the studies presented in the previous two
parts. The review is restricted to a few broad areas of geotechnical
engineering that are most relevant to sustainable development.
Figure 8 gives a summary of the literature review on geosustain-
ability.
Geotechnical studies for sustainable development
As geotechnical engineering uses natural and manufactured raw
materials in large quantities, a significant part of the sustainability-
related research in geotechnology has focused on introducing
new, environment-friendly materials and on reuse of waste mate-
rials. This branch of geotechnical engineering has existed for long
in the form of geoenvironmental engineering. However, the tra-
ditional environment-related focus is slowly widening, and a life
cycle view is often considered in recent geoenvironmental-related
projects (Praticò et al. 2011).
103
The reuse of industrial wastes in pavements is a major area of
research in transportation geotechnics. Extensive literature is
available on the use of fly ash and bottom ash in concrete mix for
roads and highways (Kim et al. 2005; Chrismer and Durham 2010;
O’Donnell et al. 2010; Solis et al. 2010), off-specification fly ash for
strengthening soil rubber mix for use as pavement base (Wiechert
et al. 2011), shredded scrap tires as a lightweight fill material in
pavement embankments (Humphrey and Blumenthal 2010;
Voottipruex et al. 2010), recycled asphalt shingles in pavement
mixtures (Cascione et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2010; Thakur et al.
2011; Warner and Edil 2012), spent blast abrasives in hot mix as-
phalt (Mattei and Khanfar 2008), blast-furnace slag and fly ash as
cohesive nonswelling soil cushion (Rao and Sridevi 2011), cement-
stabilized quarry fines as pavement bases (Saride et al. 2010), re-
cycled glass-crushed rock blends for pavement subbase (Ali et al.
2011), fine recycled glass as a sustainable alternative to natural
aggregates (Disfani et al. 2011), and foundry sand in roadway sub-
base (Bradshaw et al. 2010). Anochie-Boatang and Tutumluer (2011)
developed material characterization techniques, performance
models, and laboratory procedures for determining the suitability
of oil sands as road building materials. A study is underway in
southern Nigeria in which cement kiln dust is used to improve the
strength of highly erosive soil for road construction (Oduola 2010).
Apart from transportation geotechnics, there are other areas
where alternative materials have been used. Vinod et al. (2010)
studied the use of lignosulfonate, which promotes surface vege-
tation and natural subsurface fauna, for soil stabilization. Leong
(2006), Storesund et al. (2008), and Wu et al. (2008) recommended
the use of bioengineering and geosynthetics to make slopes sus-
tainable. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) report on “Cost-effective and sustainable road slope sta-
bilization and erosion control” (NCHRP 2012) also suggested using
soil bioengineering for slope stabilization because of its cost effec-
tiveness and enhanced erosion resistance. Yim (2004) suggested the
use of new materials and innovative technologies for environmental
sustainability in the post-construction use of slopes. Sridharan and
Prakash (2008) performed research studies on the beneficial use of
otherwise hazardous coal and fly ash in different geotechnical con-
structions. Patel and Bull (2011) considered the use of pulverized fly
ash for improvement of the thermal properties of energy piles.
Meegoda (2011) studied the use of recycled mixed glass and plastic for
segmental retaining wall units. The Environment Protection Author-
ity (EPA Victoria, Australia 2009) recommended the use of biosolids
as geotechnical fill material, provided proper testing and character-
ization of the biosolids are done. Innovations in ground improve-
ment projects can contribute to sustainable development. The use of
solar-powered prefabricated vertical drains (Indraratna et al. 2010;
Pothiraksanon et al. 2010) and improvement of the mechanical and
hydraulic properties of soil using in situ soil bacteria through
biomineralization and biopolymerization (Yang et al. 1992; DeJong
et al. 2006; Fauriel and Laloui 2011; Inagaki et al. 2011) are some
examples of innovative ground improvement techniques.
Spaulding et al. (2008) compared, using three case studies, the
use of ground improvement techniques as an alternative to conven-
tional deep foundations in an attempt to reduce the environmental
impact. In the first case study, the use of dynamic compaction was
compared with excavation and engineered fill. In the second case
study, controlled modulus columns under slab-on-grade were com-
pared with driven piles. In the third case study, a cement–bentonite
cutoff wall was compared with a soil–bentonite cutoff wall. The au-
thors concluded that, in all the cases, the alternatives of ground
improvement provided better economy and reduced the carbon foot-
print, mostly due to the use of low-embodied-energy materials like
fly ash. Egan and Slocombe (2010) also compared the use of ground
improvement techniques, particularly, vibro-replacement stone
columns, as an alternative to traditional deep foundations and
concluded that stone columns are better from the environmental
loading standpoint and that further reduction in the loading is
Published by NRC Research Press
 104
Fig. 8. Summary of geosustainability literature review.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
For personal use only.
possible if recycled materials and aggregates are used in vibro
stone columns.
The use of geosynthetics has been shown to reduce the environ-
mental impacts of geotechnical construction (Heerten 2012). Jones
and Dixon (2011) reported a study by the Waste and Resources
Action Program (WRAP) in the UK that compared several designs
using traditional concrete and steel with alternative designs using
geosynthetics. The designs were compared based on their embod-
ied energy consumption, and it was found that, in all the cases,
the use of geosynthetics led to less consumption of embodied
energy. Similar results were obtained by Heerten (2012) for two
projects, a new district road project and a slope protection proj-
ect, on the basis of their cumulative energy demand and carbon
dioxide emissions over their entire life cycle. Stucki et al. (2011)
showed that geosynthetics have less environmental impact than
conventional geomaterials when used in filtration, road construc-
tion, landfills, and slopes. Heerten and Werth (2010) proposed to
improve the safety of levees against soil erosion through the use
of different geosynthetics in the levee cross section.
Reuse and retrofitting of foundations is a traditional practice
for almost all refurbishment projects, but recently, the concept
has been extended for redevelopment projects as well (Butcher
et al. 2006a). Strauss et al. (2007) identified eight factors that drive
this change in practice: (i) location; (ii) archaeology and historical
constraints; (iii) geological conditions and constraints; (iv) sustain-
ability and material reuse; (v) land value and cash flow projections;
(vi) construction costs; (vii) consistency in building locations; and
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
(viii) approvals and development risk. Reuse of foundations is an
attractive option because the cost of removal of an old foundation is
about four times that of construction of a new pile, disturbance to
adjacent structures caused by foundation removal can be avoided,
and backfilling of voids created by the removed foundation is not
required (Butcher et al. 2006a). Several case studies demonstrating
the benefits of reuse of foundations have been documented
(Anderson et al. 2006; Butcher et al. 2006b; Katzenbach et al. 2006;
Tester and Fernie 2006). A case study of an idealized redevelopment
of an office building, documented by Butcher et al. (2006a), compares
the whole life cost of the different design options for foundations —
design for partial reuse, design for no reuse, and design for full reuse.
The study shows that foundations designed for reuse have a much
lower whole life cost than foundations designed without the reuse
option, although the initial premium is slightly greater for founda-
tions designed for reuse. Butcher et al. (2006a) also found that the
embodied energy consumed in reusing foundations is nearly half of
that consumed in installing new foundations. Leung et al. (2011) de-
veloped an optimization algorithm for reuse of pile foundations to
obtain the best configuration of new piles to be used alongside the
existing piles so that the superstructure loads are safely transferred
and, at the same time, material use is minimized.
Another important contribution of geotechnical engineering to
sustainable development is the utilization of underground space
for housing and facilities. The International Tunnelling and Un-
derground Space Association Committee on Underground Space
(ITACUS 2011a) and Asadollahi and Zeytinci (2011) remarked that
Published by NRC Research Press
 Basu et al.
the use of underground space helps in preserving land for further
expansion and development of facilities by future generations.
Underground space is being utilized by many countries like Hong
Kong, Japan, Singapore, Canada, Denmark, and Norway for differ-
ent reasons like severe weather and topography (Rogers 2009).
The city of Helsinki in Finland developed a master plan for under-
ground use of space that divides the available space into five cat-
egories: (i) community technical systems; (ii) traffic and parking;
(iii) maintenance and storage; (iv) services and administration;
and (v) unnamed rock resource (ITACUS 2011b). The Norwegian
Tunnelling Society provides examples of sustainable use of under-
ground spaces ranging from powerhouses for hydropower projects
(Broch 2006) and underground telecommunication centers (Rygh
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
and Bollingmo 2006) to storage of hydrocarbons (Grov 2006), and
wastewater treatment plants (Neby et al. 2006; Ronning 2006). Un-
derground structures like tunnels play an important role in water
supply systems and in the transportation sector (Roberts 1996). The
use of underground space for mass storage of food, liquid, and gas is
also gaining popularity in many countries across the world (Roberts
1996). Rock caverns are in use for mass transit systems in Hong Kong,
e.g., the Taikoo Cavern Station (Swales et al. 2011). Enhanced security,
lessened environmental burden, increased energy efficiency, ease of
maintenance due to less atmospheric exposure, enhanced protec-
tion against human-inflicted and natural calamities, less interrup-
tion to traffic and city life, and better economy have been cited as
some of the beneficial effects of use of underground space (Sterling
et al. 1983; Carmody and Sterling 1985). Jefferson et al. (2009) sug-
gested locating the transportation infrastructure and utility infra-
structure of Birmingham Eastside underground to reduce the load
For personal use only.
on land use and to reduce the environmental effects of emissions.
Fragaszy et al. (2011) pointed out that underground space can be
efficiently used in storing energy, particularly renewable energy like
solar, tidal, and wind energy, which are characterized by intermit-
tent supplies with seasonal or diurnal fluctuations in production.
Underground space can be successfully used for compressed air en-
ergy storage (CAES) (Pasten and Santamarina 2011). In fact, Kim et al.
(2012) showed that the use of rock caverns for CAES can be more
energy efficient and environment friendly than other energy storage
options. Storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide as well as pre- and
post-combustion carbon dioxide from power plants in subsurface
formations (Stevens et al. 2008; Firoozabadi and Cheng 2010) is an-
other example of sustainable use of underground space that has a
potential to reduce the greenhouse gas related effects on earth’s
climate. A report entitled “Underground engineering for sustainable
urban development” by the National Academy of Sciences outlines
the scope of underground engineering for sustainable development
(Gilbert et al. 2012).
Geotechnical engineering has a prominent role in the alterna-
tive energy sectors like geothermal. Case studies show that deep
foundations can be used as energy storage and transmitting ele-
ments (Quick et al. 2005), while concrete surfaces in contact with
the ground (e.g., pavements and basement walls) can act as heat
exchangers (Brandl 2006). The role of geotechnical engineering in
promoting geothermal energy includes developing inexpensive
and novel methods for drilling and trenching, understanding and
using the thermal properties of soil and backfill materials, under-
standing the effect of thermal cycles on the behavior of energy
piles, developing modeling tools and design methods for thermal
load balancing to prevent long-term temperature changes in the
densely populated areas, and understanding the limits of extract-
able energy for vertical and horizontal ground source heat pumps
(Fragaszy et al. 2011). Research is in progress to develop proper
characterization, analysis, and design of energy-related geostruc-
tures like energy piles (Abdelaziz et al. 2011; Laloui 2011; Peron
et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2011).
Geohazards mitigation is an important aspect of sustainability
in geotechnical engineering. Yasuhara et al. (2011) cautioned that
the probability of occurrence of combined geohazards (e.g., heavy
105
rainfall and earthquake occurring simultaneously) has increased
due to climate-change effects and suggested measures like the use
of geosynthetics, development and economic evaluation of adap-
tive technologies, and innovations in the design of geostructures
to mitigate such hazards. The effects of climate-change-induced
degradation of permafrost have been considered in the assess-
ment of stability and functionality of road embankments. The
degradation of permafrost induces differential settlement and
dip in road embankments — improvement of the insulation
capacity of soil to preserve the permafrost and improvement of
soil strength using different ground improvement methods have
been proposed as possible remedies (Ciro and Alfaro 2006). Harris
(2005) studied the effect of permafrost degradation on mountain
slope stability and concluded that traditional approaches to land-
slide hazard prediction may not be adequate for climate-change-
triggered loss of permafrost. The biological and engineering impacts
of climate change on slopes (bionics) project undertaken in the UK
concluded that climate change, because of its effects on soil water
content and vegetation type, impacts slope stability (Kilsby et al.
2009). Similar conclusions were made by Hughes et al. (2009) based
on a full-scale test of a typical UK infrastructure slope. Glendinning
et al. (2009) advocated the use of a proper management system for
infrastructure slopes because of the complex interaction between
roadside vegetation and soil. According to Andersson-Sköld et al.
(2008), subsurface contaminant transport is also affected by cli-
mate change because of the fluctuations in the groundwater table
caused by climate-change-induced disasters like floods and land-
slides.
Geodiversity is another important aspect of geosustainability. Geo-
diversity refers to the variety of materials (e.g., minerals, rocks, sed-
iments, and soil), forms, and processes that form the earth (Osborne
2000). As part of sustainability efforts, preservation of the geodiver-
sity (more aptly referred to as geoheritage) and ensuring that an-
thropological activities have minimal detrimental impact on it is
essential. According to Prosser et al. (2010), geodiversity is impacted
by natural hazards, and loss in geodiversity occurs more from the
lack of flexibility in human efforts to control the natural disasters
than from the disasters themselves. Prosser et al. (2010) suggested
that a proper understanding of the geomorphological processes and
of their sensitivity to changes and efforts to conserve rather than
prevent is necessary to preserve geodiversity.
Geoethics is another aspect of geosustainability that is gaining
importance, particularly in disaster management and geohazard
mitigation. Geoethics draws its principles from geosciences, soci-
ology, and philosophy (Limaye 2012) and is defined as the “study
and promotion of the evaluation and protection of the geosphere”
(Peppoloni and Capua 2012). Geoethics defines a code of practice
for geoscientists who act as interpreters between nature and peo-
ple (Peppoloni and Capua 2012). Incorporating geoethics in proj-
ects can encourage development of practices that restrict overuse
of natural resources, are acceptable to society, and are economi-
cally viable for the investor (Limaye 2012). Geoethical activities
include reliably predicting natural hazards, informing people
about possible natural hazards and educating them about ways of
mitigating the hazards (Parkash 2012), and disseminating knowl-
edge that may encourage people to conserve natural resources
and geodiversity. Although ethical practices are necessary for
sustainable development, application of the geoethical princi-
ples to real life situations is often very complicated (Lambert
2012; Limaye 2012).
Sustainability assessment tools in geotechnology
Any geosustainability assessment framework should have a life
cycle view of geotechnical processes and products (Dam and
Taylor 2011) and should (i) ensure societal sustainability by pro-
moting resource budgeting and restricting the shift of the envi-
ronmental burden of a particular phase to areas downstream of
that phase, (ii) ensure financial health of the stakeholders, and
Published by NRC Research Press
 106
Fig. 9. SPeAR template.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
For personal use only.
(iii) enforce sound engineering design and maintenance. As the
uncertainties associated with geotechnical systems are often
much greater than those with other engineered systems (Barends
2005), a sustainability assessment framework for geotechnical
engineering should include an assessment of the reliability and
resilience of the geosystem, and offer flexibility to the user to
identify site-specific needs.
From the environmental impact point of view, quantitative en-
vironmental metrics like global warming potential (Storesund
et al. 2008), carbon footprint (Spaulding et al. 2008), embodied
carbon dioxide (Chau et al. 2008, Egan and Slocombe 2010), em-
bodied energy (Chau et al. 2006; Ove ARUP and Partners Hong
Kong Ltd. 2006; Soga 2011), and a combination of embodied energy
and emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur
oxides, and nitrogen oxides) (Inui et al. 2011) have been used to
compare competing alternatives in geotechnical engineering. How-
ever, assessing the sustainability of a project based solely on metrics
like embodied carbon dioxide or global warming potential involves
ad hoc assumptions, puts excess emphasis on the environmental
aspects, and fails to consider a holistic approach that must also
include technical, economic, and social aspects (Holt et al. 2010;
Steedman 2011). Carpenter et al. (2007) suggested that, for any
decision-making framework, a combination of life cycle analysis and
site- and material-specific factors can be more contextual than a
singular metric. Jefferson et al. (2007) also pointed out that the use of
one metric to evaluate the sustainability of a project may not always
be sufficient — a holistic sustainability assessment tool in geotech-
nical engineering upholding the four Es of engineering sustainabil-
ity is required.
Among the sustainability assessment tools that address the
multi-dimensional character of sustainability, some are qualita-
tive and represent the performance of a project on different
sustainability-related sectors pictorially. One such qualitative in-
dicator system, known as the sustainable geotechnical evaluation
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
model, was developed by Jimenez (2004) and is used for compar-
ing the sustainability of the different alternative materials used
for slope stabilization. The system judges the sustainability of a
geotechnical project based on the categories of social, economic,
environmental, and natural resource use, and on other subcate-
gories like water use, land use, and reusability of materials. Holt
(2011) and Holt et al. (2009) developed GeoSPeAR, an indicator
system for geotechnical construction, by modifying the sustain-
able project appraisal routine (SPeAR) developed by ARUP (2010)
(Fig. 9). SPeAR uses a color-coded rose diagram to assess a project
on the basis of four main criteria — social, economic, environ-
mental, and natural resources — and 20 subcriteria. It consists of
a circle, which is divided into sectors along the circumference
based on the criteria and subcriteria mentioned earlier. Each sec-
tor corresponding to a subcriterion is further divided radially into
seven color-coded segments. The performance of a project in a
particular subcriterion is indicated by shading one of the seg-
ments with its respective colors. The closer the shaded segment is
to the center of the diagram, the more sustainable the project is
with respect to that particular subcriterion. GeoSPeAR replaced
some of the master planning related indicators of SPeAR (e.g.,
accessibility to schools and recreational facilities, and availability
of transportation facilities like pedestrian and bicycle facility and
public transport infrastructure) with geotechnical-related indicators
(e.g., responsible use of materials and resources, recycling and reuse
of existing substructures, energy use, efficiency in design, and site
investigation). GeoSPeAR also includes an optional provision for life
cycle assessment (LCA) of a project to bring transparency to the sus-
tainability indicators like carbon dioxide emissions, noise, and vibra-
tions (Holt et al. 2010). Holt et al. (2009) provided a step-by-step
procedure (Table 1) that should be followed in combination with
GeoSPeAR, and suggested performing LCA to determine the impacts
of a design choice on the resource base and the environment.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Basu et al.
Table 1. Steps to be followed in assessing sustainability in geotechni-
cal projects.
Step Detail
Pre-assessment Communication between all parts involved in
the process
1 Setting up boundaries for the assessment
2 Data collection from the project for different
indicators
3 A baseline assessment using GeoSPeAR
4 Identifying areas of sustainability concern
5 Performing LCA to evaluate impact of
different design options
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
6 Reassessment of improvement for changes in
design option
7 Repetition of steps 5 and 6 to arrive at the
expected level of improvement
The second category of multi-dimensional assessment frame-
works consists of quantitative and life cycle based tools. Life cycle
costing (LCC) has been used in pavement design for choosing the
economically best option among different alternatives (Riegle and
Zaniewski 2002; Praticò et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2011) — this ap-
proach puts some emphasis on the environmental and social im-
pacts by converting these impacts into monetary value. Zhang
et al. (2008) used a combination of LCC and LCA to assess the sus-
tainability of pavements. Pittenger (2011) developed a performance
metric known as green airport pavement index (GAPI) for comparing
For personal use only.
the sustainability of alternative airport pavement treatments — GAPI
combines the performance of an alternative pavement treat-
ment in the categories of LCC, resource use, and project manage-
ment by using relative weights to calculate the metric. Lee et al.
(2010a) combined LCA and LCC to quantitatively assess the advantage
of using recycled materials in pavements — their study showed that
considerable savings in the categories of global warming potential,
energy consumption, water consumption, and hazardous waste gen-
eration can be made when recycled materials are used in construc-
tion. Lee et al. (2010b) modified the framework proposed by Lee
et al. (2010a) and introduced a LCA-based rating system known
as building environmentally and economically sustainable
transportation – infrastructure – highways (BE2ST in-highways). BE2ST
in-highways (Fig. 10) is primarily applicable for projects where
recycled materials are used. In this framework, the stakeholders’
consensus on choosing the impact categories and the targeted
reduction in those categories is required at the start of the project.
Points are assigned to projects based on how closely the target
values are achieved — the target values are set with reference to
the impact that would be caused if virgin materials were used in
place of recycled materials. Torres and Gama (2006) developed the
environmental sustainability index (ISA) for quantifying sustain-
ability of underground mining and geotechnical works. The ISA
considers impact in the categories of (i) materials, water, and
energy use, (ii) geotechnical and water qualities, (iii) atmosphere
quality, (iv) biodiversity and cultural heritage, and (v) waste and
environmental impacts. Misra (2010) and Misra and Basu (2012)
proposed a muticriteria-based quantitative framework for assess-
ing the sustainability of geotechnical projects — the framework
considers resource consumption, environmental impact, and so-
cioeconomic benefits of a project over its entire life span (Fig. 11).
The use of resources is taken into account based on the embodied
energy of the materials used; the impact of the process emissions is
assessed using environmental impact assessment; and the socio-
economic impact of the project is assessed through a cost benefit
analysis. Three indicators are derived from the three aspects and
are combined through weights to calculate the sustainability in-
dex for the different alternatives available for the project.
107
The third approach to sustainability assessment is based on point-
based rating systems that provide a measure of sustainability of proj-
ects based on points scored in the different relevant categories.
Jefferson et al. (2007) proposed a set of 76 generic indicators and 32
technology-specific indicators for ensuring the sustainability of
ground improvement methods. The indicator system, known as en-
vironmental geotechnics indicators (EGIs), was used at construction
sites for ground improvement projects and is based on a point score
system — one for harmful to five for significantly improved con-
struction practice. The system was developed by borrowing concepts
from the existing sustainability indicators like SPeAR and BREEAM
(Jefferson et al. 2007) and by modifying the concepts to suit the par-
ticular aspects of ground improvement projects. The EGIs system is
designed to cover the entire range of activities over the lifetime of a
project but does not consider the economic or social aspects of sus-
tainability. Laefer (2011) developed a scoring system to augment
SPeAR for assessing the sustainability of foundation reuse projects.
In transportation infrastructure, some sustainability rating systems
have been developed in recent years that influence the research on
alternative geomaterials. These include GreenLites (McVoy et al.
2010), I-LAST (Knuth and Fortmann 2010), Greenroads (Muench and
Anderson 2009), and Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) –
green pavement rating system (Chan and Tighe 2010). These rating
systems assign points to projects based on different categories, one
of which is optimum use of natural resources. Thus, these rating
systems provide an impetus to research in alternative sustainable
geomaterials.
Decision support systems are also in use in geotechnical asset
management. The rockfall hazard rating system developed by the
Oregon Department of Transportation (Pierson and Vickle 1993)
and uniform condition index for assessing the performance of
infrastructures (McKay et al. 1999) are examples of decision sup-
port systems that have been successfully used in transportation
geotechnics. According to Bernhardt et al. (2003), most of the avail-
able asset management systems are for single asset systems, i.e., they
do not consider the interconnected nature of the assets. As geotech-
nical assets are closely tied to other structures, the existing manage-
ment systems may not be adequate for geostructures. Moreover, the
existing systems do not consider life cycle costs and performance of
the assets. Developing a performance-based asset management tool
exclusively for geotechnical assets needs substantial effort, and such
a tool is yet to be formulated (Bernhardt et al. 2003).
Critical appraisal of existing literature
It is often assumed that the use of recycled and alternative
material contributes towards sustainable development. This may
not be always true. For example, there is often a lack of sufficient
understanding and experience regarding the behavior of these
alternative materials. Such lack of knowledge may lead to conser-
vative estimation of material performance and greater consump-
tion of materials, or to unanticipated failures, none of which
supports the sustainability agenda. Moreover, the long-term per-
formance of these materials is often not known, and degradation
of the material properties may lead to failures. Further, some of
the waste products used in construction, e.g., industrial wastes,
may lead to contamination, which will adversely affect sustain-
able development. At the same time, a shift from traditional use
of materials may adversely affect the local market, which in turn
will affect the economy and lifestyle of the local community.
Fleming et al. (2011) suggested that assessment of the risks associ-
ated with innovative use of materials and distribution of the risks
among all the stakeholders are necessary to ensure that the ap-
proach to sustainability is not stifled due to financial reasons.
Practices like innovative ground improvement techniques or
reuse of geostructures should also be carefully assessed in terms
of their effectiveness towards global sustainability. It is undeni-
able that reuse of foundations or use of solar energy in construc-
tion is a sustainable choice from material-use and environment
Published by NRC Research Press
 108
Fig. 10. Design flowchart of BE2ST in-highways.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
For personal use only.
Fig. 11. Multi-criteria-based sustainability assessment framework.
points of view. However, considering the entire project, these may
sometimes have negligible benefits, and the risks associated with
the use of such alternatives (e.g., the risk of failure of existing old
foundations due to lack of adequate information) may negate the
use of such alternatives. Similarly, the use of geosynthetics may
reduce the embodied energy of a geotechnical construction, but
the performance of geosynthetics may not always be as good as
traditional materials. For example, reinforced earth structures are
more flexible than steel reinforced earth structures and may be more
prone to failure under sudden shocks like hurricane or bomb blast.
For important structures, the use of steel reinforcement over geosyn-
thetics may better serve the sustainability agenda, considering all
the aspects of sustainability. Similarly, geosynthetics drains may not
always perform better than a gravel drain.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
The use of underground space may fail to deliver on the social
sustainability aspects, although performing well on resource use
and economy, if such use does not satisfy the aesthetical and
psychological makeup of the people using the underground facil-
ity. For example, creation of underground space for pedestrian
walkways may cause security threats (e.g., these spaces may har-
bor burglars) in some countries, and such constructions may cre-
ate more problems than solutions. At the same time, in some
countries these walkways are used by homeless people and may
lead to public nuisance.
The important point here is that decisions on sustainability should
not be based on “popular choices” but on rational judgments and
thorough assessments considering the multi-dimensional and
multi-disciplinary aspects of sustainability. It should be kept in
Published by NRC Research Press
 Basu et al.
mind that sustainable choices are situation and project specific,
and one size may not fit all.
The earlier discussion is applicable to the sustainability assess-
ment tool as well. Appropriate choice of a sustainability assess-
ment framework depends on the scope and goal of a project. The
assessment tools presented earlier may serve the profession well.
However, none of these tools encompass all the aspects of sustain-
ability from a multi-disciplinary point of view. For example, none
of the presented assessment frameworks consider resilience. At
the same time, the temporal dimension of changing sustainability
objectives is not addressed in these tools. It is relevant to mention
here that assessment frameworks like the Urban Futures method
(Lombardi et al. 2012), applicable to urban development, and En-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
vision sustainability rating system (ISI 2013), applicable to civil
infrastructure, which have been developed in the recent past,
have a much wider and comprehensive scope and are more holis-
tic. It would be beneficial to integrate these or similar holistic
assessment frameworks to the available assessment frameworks
in geotechnical engineering.
Remarks on state of the art
The civil engineering profession is witnessing a time of shifting
paradigms at the backdrop of global climate change, economic
downturn, population growth, and increased natural hazards.
These factors have made governing bodies all over the world re-
think the ways of day-to-day business, and endeavor toward sus-
tainable development is an obvious outcome of such efforts. The
geotechnical profession has also been motivated by the sustain-
ability wave, which is particularly important because the profes-
For personal use only.
sion lies at the interface of the natural and built environments,
and can significantly influence the economy, society, and environ-
ment. Recognition of sustainability as an important component
of geotechnical engineering by the International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) and the Geo-
Institute (GI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
through formation of sustainability-related committees and organi-
zation of sustainability-themed conferences (e.g., 18th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
(ICSMGE) 2013, Paris, France, and GeoCongress 2014, Atlanta, USA) is
a testimony of the important and variegated roles geotechnical en-
gineers play towards sustainable development of civil infrastructure.
As the literature review shows, sustainability in geotechnical
engineering is often driven by the common notions of environ-
mental sustainability, and most projects and research studies
focus on material reuse and recycling, energy efficiency, and
minimization of wastes and emissions as the basis for sustainable
development. Whilst it is important to put emphasis on “green”
construction techniques, this alone will not achieve sustainable
development. It is the holistic approach that balances the economic,
social, and environmental needs and ensures robust engineering
and resilience checks that will lead to sustainable development. In
this regard, it is important to distinguish between constructions
performed in a sustainable way and the sustainability of the final
product. Sustainable development can be achieved only through
multi-dimensional assessment and decision-making considering all
the pillars (four Es) of engineering sustainability.
The current state of practice does not put much importance on
the resilience of geostructures. However, for important geotech-
nical projects like dams and levee systems, resilience and adaptive
management of the systems are as important for sustainability as
the environmental, economic, and social aspects. As seen in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina, the levee system in New Orleans de-
signed as a rigid, fail-safe system was incapable of handling the
storm surge and proved to be a major cause of the ensuing catas-
trophe. Therefore, particularly for geostructures that are related
to critical infrastructures, reliability, resilience, and adaptive
management should be incorporated in the design and assess-
109
ment of geotechnical systems. Iai (2011) identified three new
trends in geotechnical design to incorporate sustainability:
(i) geostructures are now designed for performance rather than
for ease of construction; (ii) designs are now more responsive to
site-specific requirements; and (iii) designs consider soil–structure
interaction rather than just analysis of structural or foundation
parts.
Although the aforementioned trends are encouraging, the
geotechnical profession is far from making sustainability as the
all-encompassing goal because, like most other engineering pro-
fessions, it is dominated by economic considerations. It is possible
that a sustainable and resilient solution may result in greater
initial cost, but sustainable solutions lead to less cost over the
lifespan of the project or structure. Even if the cost is more, it is
still important to go beyond financial considerations and consider
a holistic picture because, as ethical and responsible citizens and
engineers, we are obliged to protect our environment, be sensitive
to societal needs, and be fair to the needs and aspirations of future
generations. At the same time, it is important to educate the
public and engineers on sustainability. Within the geotechnical
profession, there is still apathy and even skepticism towards sus-
tainability among several professionals. Some consider sustain-
ability to be an overused buzzword, and others believe that
practices are already sustainable because most geostructures in
the world adequately serve the design life. It has to be emphasized
that sustainable engineering is not just about good engineering
but smart engineering considering the future needs and constraints.
Incentives from governing bodies would be helpful in encouraging
sustainable practices. Such incentives should not only include direct
financial benefits but also include legal securities in case of inadver-
tent and unanticipated failures as a consequence of sustainability
efforts, sustainability education to communities, opening up com-
munication channels among different stakeholders to understand
and reach consensus on the demands and supplies, and encourage-
ment to academia to perform research for making engineering
processes, practices, and products sustainable and to educate the
current and future generations about sustainability and its benefits.
Summary
Incorporating sustainability in engineering requires an under-
standing of the definitions and ideological conflicts that characterize
sustainability and of the approaches that can make engineering pro-
cesses sustainable. Philosophically, sustainability is a global concept
that requires equal distribution of all the resources of the planet
among its inhabitants, minimization of the impacts of anthropo-
genic development, and equal opportunities for all species to grow
and sustain themselves over generations. However, when sustain-
ability concepts are incorporated in engineering, this global view
is scaled down to an anthropocentric view with a focus on tech-
nological advancement, often without any knowledge of the com-
plex interconnections between ecological processes and the built
environment. Therefore, a gap exists between sustainability as a
concept, and as it is used in engineering practice. There is a lack of
consensus regarding what an ideal solution to sustainability prob-
lems in engineering can be or what the most suitable approach to
solve such problems might be. Thus, there is a need for education,
research, and effective communication regarding sustainability
within the engineering profession.
In practice, two approaches are generally used to incorporate
sustainability in engineering: the business-as-usual approach and
the systems engineering approach. The systems engineering ap-
proach can be further categorized into the system optimization
approach and the three Es approach. The business-as-usual and
system optimization approaches have a bias towards maximizing
the financial gain, while the three Es approach balances the eco-
nomic, social, and environmental aspects of engineering processes.
Sustainability in engineering should also include the reliability and
Published by NRC Research Press
 110
resilience aspects, and hence, instead of the three Es approach, a four
Es approach, combining environment, economy, equity, and engi-
neering design, has been suggested in this paper.
Sustainability issues are particularly important for critical in-
frastructures that sustain the life line of human existence. Geo-
structures are essential components of all infrastructural systems,
and failure in geostructures like slopes and dams often spells
catastrophes to the natural and human environment surrounding
it. These structures are resource intensive, and hence, a failure in
these structures also translates into significant economic loss for
the community. Also, because geotechnical constructions take place
at the initial stages of a project, incorporating sustainability in
geotechnical construction can set a trend that may finally result in
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
considerable financial and environmental benefits through the later
stages of the project.
Sustainability-related studies in geotechnology essentially belong
to two categories: those that contribute to global sustainability
through the use of alternative materials and innovative engineering
and those that develop sustainability assessment frameworks. A crit-
ical review of the relevant research studies is provided. It is recom-
mended that a holistic approach considering environmental, social,
economic, reliability, and resilience aspects (the four Es) should be
developed in geotechnical engineering for sustainable development
of civil infrastructure and society.
References
Abdelaziz, S.L., Olgun, C.G., and Martin, J.R., II. 2011. Design and operational
considerations of geothermal energy piles. In Proceedings of GeoFrontiers
2011, Dallas, Tex. [CD-ROM].
For personal use only.
Abreu, D.G., Jefferson, I., Braithwaite, P.A., and Chapman, D.N. 2008. Why is
sustainability important in geotechnical engineering? In Proceedings of Geo-
Congress 2008. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178. pp. 821–828. doi:10.
1061/40971(310)102.
Ahern, J.F. 2011. From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: sustainability and resilience in the
new urban world. Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning Graduate
Research and Creative Activity, Paper 8.
Ali, M.M.Y., Arulrajah, A., Disfani, M.M., and Piratheepan, J. 2011. Suitability of
using recycled glass-crushed rock blends for pavement subbase applications.
In Proceedings of GeoFrontiers 2011, Dallas, Tex. pp. 1325–1334. [CD-ROM].
doi:10.1061/41165(397)136.
Anderson, S., Chapman, T., and Fleming, J. 2006. Case history: the redevelop-
ment of 13Fitzroy Street, London. In Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence on Reuse of Foundations for Urban Sites. Edited by A.P. Butcher,
J.J.M. Powell, and H.D. Skinner. pp. 311–320.
Andersson-Sköld, Y., Fallsvik, J., Hultén, C., Jonsson, A., Hjerpe, M., and Glaas, E.
2008. Climate change in Sweden – geotechnical and contaminated land con-
sequences. In Proceedings of the 1st WSEAS International Conference on
Environmental and Geological Science and Engineering, Malta, 11–13 Sep-
tember. pp. 52–57.
Anochie-Boatang, J., and Tutumluer, E. 2011. Sustainable use of oil sands for
geotechnical construction and road building. Journal of ASTM International,
9(2): 1–15. doi:10.1520/JAI103651.
Arrow, K.J., Dasgupta, P., and Mäler, K.G. 2003. Evaluating projects and assessing
sustainable development in imperfect economies. Environmental and Re-
source Economics, 26(4): 647–685. doi:10.1023/B:EARE.0000007353.78828.98.
ARUP. 2010. Sustainable building designs strategy. Available from http://
www.arup.com/Services/Sustainable_Buildings_Design.aspx [accessed 29 Oc-
tober 2013].
Asadollahi, P., and Zeytinci, A. 2011. Sustainable development of infrastructures
using underground spaces: role of academia. In Proceedings of the ASEE
Middle Atlantic Regional Conference, Farmingdale State College, SUNY,
29–30 April.
Barends, F.B.J. 2005. Associating with advancing insight: Terzaghi Oration 2005.
In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan, 12–16 September. pp. 217–248.
Basu, D., Puppala, A.J., and Chittoori, B. 2013. Sustainability in geotechnical
engineering – general report. In Proceedings of the 18th ICSMGE, Paris.
pp. 3155–3162.
Bernhardt, K.L.S., Loehr, J.E., and Huaco, D. 2003. Asset management framework
for geotechnical infrastructure. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE,
9(3): 107–116. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2003)9:3(107).
Bocchini, P., Frangopol, D.M., Ummenhofer, T., and Zinke, T. 2014. Resilience
and sustainability of the civil infrastructure: towards a unified approach.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, ASCE, 20(2). [Published online ahead of
print.] doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000177.
Bradshaw, S.L., Benson, C.H., Olenbush, E.H., and Melton, J.S. 2010. Using
foundry sand in green infrastructure construction. In Proceedings of the
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
Green Streets and Highways 2010 Conference, ASCE, 2010: 280–298. doi:10.
1061/41148(389)24.
Brandl, H. 2006. Energy foundations and other thermo-active ground structures.
Géotechnique, 56(2): 81–122. doi:10.1680/geot.2006.56.2.81.
Broch, E. 2006. Why did the hydropower industry go underground. In Sustain-
able underground concepts. Norwegian Tunnelling Society Publication 15.
pp. 13–18.
Brown, R.L. 1981. Building a sustainable society. W.W. Norton, New York.
Brundtland, G.H. 1987. Our common future: report of the World Commission on
environment and development. Oxford University Press, UK.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R., Lee, G., O’Rourke, T., Reinhorn, A.,
Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W., and von Winterfelt, D. 2003. A
framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of
communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4): 733–752. doi:10.1193/1.1623497.
Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, VIII(2):
1–21. doi:10.2307/1511637.
Butcher, A.P., Powell, J.J.M., and Skinner, H.D. (Editors). 2006a. Whole life cost
and environment impact case studies. In Reuse of foundations for urban
sites: a best practice handbook. IHS BRE Press, Berkshire, UK, pp. 116–119.
Butcher, A.P., Powell, J.J.M., and Skinner, H.D. 2006b. Stonebridge Park – a de-
molition case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Reuse
of Foundations for Urban Sites. Edited by A.P. Butcher, J.J.M. Powell, and
H.D. Skinner. pp. 321–330.
Carmody, J., and Sterling, R. 1985. Earth sheltered housing design. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York.
Carpenter, A.C., Gardner, K.H., Fopiano, J., Benson, C.H., and Edil, T.B. 2007. Life
cycle based risk assessment of recycled materials in roadway construction.
Waste Management, 27: 1458–1464. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.03.007.
Cascione, A., Williams, R.C., Gillen, S., Bentson, R., and Haugen, D. 2010. Utili-
zation of post consumer recycled asphalt shingles and fractionated recycled
asphalt pavement in hot mix asphalt. In Proceedings of the Green Streets and
Highways 2010 Conference, ASCE, 2010. pp. 349–359. doi:10.1061/41148
(389)29.
Chan, P., and Tighe, S. 2010. Quantifying pavement sustainability in economic
and environmental perspective. Transportation Research Board 89th Annual
Meeting, Washington. [DVD].
Chateauneuf, A. 2008. Principles of reliability-based design optimization. Struc-
tural design optimization considering uncertainties. Edited by Y. Tsompanakis,
N.D. Lagaros, and M. Papadrakakis. Taylor and Francis.
Chau, C., Soga, K., and Nicholson, D. 2006. Comparison of embodied energy of
four different retaining wall systems. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Reuse of Foundations for Urban Sites. Edited by A.P. Butcher,
J.J.M. Powell, and H.D. Skinner. pp. 277–286.
Chau, C., Soga, K., Nicholson, D., O’Riordan, N., and Inui, T. 2008. Embodied
energy as environmental impact indicator for basement wall construction. In
Proceedings of Geo Congress 2008. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178.
pp. 867–874. doi:10.1061/40971(310)108.
Chrismer, J.L., and Durham, S.A. 2010. High volume fly ash concrete for highway
pavements. In Proceedings of the Green Streets and Highways 2010 Confer-
ence, ASCE, 2010. pp. 390–400. doi:10.1061/41148(389)32.
Ciro, G.A., and Alfaro, M.C. 2006. Adaptation strategies for road embankments
on permafrost affected by climate warming. In Proceedings of the IEEE EIC
Climate Change Technology Conference. pp. 1–10. doi:10.1109/EICCCC.2006.
277271.
Clift, R., and Wright, L. 2000. Relationships between environmental impacts and
added value along the supply chain. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 65: 281–295. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00055-4.
Curran, M.A. 1996. Environmental life cycle assessment. McGraw Hill, USA.
Daly, H.E. 2005. Economics in a full world. Scientific American, September 2005,
293(3).
Dam, T.V., and Taylor, P.C. 2011. Seven principles of sustainable concrete pave-
ments. Concrete International, 33(11): 49–52.
DeJong, J.T., Fritzges, M.B., and Nüsslein, K. 2006. Microbially induced cementa-
tion to control sand response to undrained shear. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(11): 1381–1392. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2006)132:11(1381).
Disfani, M.M., Arulrajah, A., Younus Ali, M.M., and Bo, M.W. 2011. Fine recycled
glass: a sustainable alternative to natural aggregates. International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 5(3): 255–266. doi:10.3328/IJGE.2011.05.03.255-
266.
Dixit, M.K., Fernández-Solis, J.L., Lavy, S., and Culp, C.H. 2010. Identification of
parameters for embodied energy measurement: a literature review. Energy
and Buildings, 42: 1238–1247. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016.
Edwards, A.R. 2005. The sustainability revolution. New Society Publishers.
Egan, D., and Slocombe, B.C. 2010. Demonstrating environmental benefits of
ground improvement. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Ground Improvement, 163(1): 63–69. doi:10.1680/grim.2010.163.1.63.
EPA Victoria, Australia. 2009. Guidelines for environmental management: Use
of biosolids as geotechnical fill. Environment Protection Authority (EPA),
Publication No. 1288, June 2009.
Fauriel, S., and Laloui, L. 2011. A bio-hydro-mechanical model for propagation of
biogrout in soils. In Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in Geotech-
nical Engineering. [CD-ROM]. pp. 4041–4048. doi:10.1061/41165(397)413.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Basu et al.
Fiksel, J. 2007. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. IEEE
Engineering Management Review, 35(3): 5–12. doi:10.1109/EMR.2007.4296420.
Firoozabadi, A., and Cheng, P. 2010. Prospects for subsurface CO2 sequestration.
AlCHE Journal, 56(6): 1398–1405. doi:10.1002/aic.12287.
Fleming, P.R., Frost, M.W., and Lambert, J.P. 2011. Geotechnical specification for
sustainable transport infrastructure. Available from https://dspace.lboro.ac.
uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/3521 [accessed 27 December 2011].
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., and Walker, B.
2002. Resilience and Sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in
a world of transformations. Ambio, 31(5): 437–440. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-31.
5.437.
Fragaszy, R.J., Santamarina, J.C., Amekudzi, A., Assimaki, D., Bachus, R.,
Burns, S.E., Cha, M., Cho, G.C., Cortes, D.D., et al. 2011. Sustainable develop-
ment and energy geotechnology – potential roles for geotechnical engineering.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(4): 611–622. doi:10.1007/s12205-011-0102-7.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
Gilbert, P.H., Ariaratnam, S.T., Connery, N.R., English, G., Felice, C.W., Hashash, Y.,
Hendrickson, C.T., Nelson, P.P., Sterling, R.L., et al. 2012. Underground engi-
neering for sustainable urban development. Report of the Committee on
Underground Geoengineering for Sustainable Development, National Re-
search Council, The National Academic Press, Washington, D.C.
Glendinning, S., Loveridge, F., Starr-Keddle, R.E., Bransby, M.F., and Hughes, P.N.
2009. Role of vegetation in sustainability of infrastructure slopes. In Proceed-
ings of the Institution of the Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability,
162(2): 101–110. doi:10.1680/ensu.2009.162.2.101.
Gradel, T. 1997. Industrial ecology: definition and implementation. In Industrial
ecology and global change. Edited by R. Socolow, C. Andrews, F. Berkhout, and
V. Thomas. pp. 23–41.
Grov, E. 2006. Storage of hydrocarbon products in unlined rock caverns. Norwe-
gian Tunnelling Society Publication 15. pp. 19–28.
Harris, C. 2005. Climate change, mountain permafrost degradation and geotech-
nical hazard. In Global change and mountain regions. Edited by U.M. Huber.
Springer, the Netherlands.
Hempel, L.C. 2009. Conceptual and analytical challenges in building sustainable
communities. In Towards sustainable communities. 2nd ed. Edited by
D.A. Mazmanian and M.E. Kraft. The MIT Press. pp. 33–62.
For personal use only.
Henry, D., and Ramirez-Marquez, J.E. 2011. Generic metrics and quantitative
approaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliability Engineer-
ing & System Safety, 99(1): 114–122. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.09.002.
Heerten, G. 2012. Reduction of climate-damaging gases in geotechnical engi-
neering practice using geosynthetics. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 30:
43–49. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.01.006.
Heerten, G., and Werth, K. 2010. Mitigation of flooding by improved dams and
dykes. In Proceedings of the International Sysmposium, Exhibition, and
Short Course on Geotechnical and Geosynthetics Engineering: Challenges
and Opportunities on Climate Change, Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 225–237. doi:
10.1680/grim.11.00011.
Holling, C.S. 1996. Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In Engi-
neering within ecological constraints. Edited by P. Schulze. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 31–44.
Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and
social systems. Ecosystems, 4: 390–405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
Holt, D.G.A. 2011. Sustainable assessment for geotechnical projects. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Birmingham, UK.
Holt, D.G.A, Jefferson, I., Braithwaite, P.A., and Chapman, D.N. 2009. Embedding
sustainability into geotechnics. Part A: Methodology. Proceedings of the In-
stitution of Civil Engineers, 163(3): 127–135. doi:10.1680/ensu.2010.163.3.127.
Holt, D.G.A., Jefferson, I., Braithwaite, P.A., and Chapman, D.N. 2010. Sustain-
able Geotechnical Design. In Proceedings of Geocongress 2010, Fla. [CD-ROM].
Hughes, P.N., Glendinning, S., Mendes, J., Parkin, G., Toll, D.G., Gallipoli, D., and
Miller, P.E. 2009. Full-scale testing to assess climate effects on embankments.
Proceedings of the Institution of the Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustain-
ability, 162(ES2): 67–79. doi:10.1680/ensu.2009.162.2.67.
Humphrey, D., and Blumenthal, M. 2010. The use of tire-derived aggregate in
road construction applications. In Proceedings of the Green Streets and High-
ways 2010 Conference, ASCE, 2010. pp. 299–313. doi:10.1061/41148(389)25.
Iai, S. (Editor). 2011. Towards global sustainability. In Geotechnics and earthquake
geotechnics towards global sustainability. Springer.
Inagaki, Y., Tsukamoto, M., Mori, H., Sasaki, T., Soga, K., Al Qabany, A., and
Hata, T. 2011. The influence of injection conditions and soil types on soil
improvement by microbial functions. In Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2011:
Advances in Geotechnical Engineering. [CD-ROM]. pp. 4021–4030. doi:10.1061/
41165(397)411.
Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Kelly, R., and Buys, H. 2010. Sustainable soil
improvement via vacuum preloading. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Ground Improvement, 163(1): 31–42.
Inui, T., Chau, C., Soga, K., Nicholson, D., and O’Riordan, N. 2011. Embodied
energy and gas emissions of retaining wall structures. Journal of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(10): 958–967. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000507.
ISI. 2013. Envision sustainability rating system. Institute for Sustainable Infra-
structure (ISI). Available from http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/
index.cfm [accessed 31 October 2013].
111
ITACUS. 2011a. Sustainable urban underground development. White paper by
International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association Committee on
Underground Space (ITACUS).
ITACUS. 2011b. Planning the use of underground space. White paper by Interna-
tional Tunnelling and Underground Space Association Committee on Under-
ground Space (ITACUS).
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for Earth. A strategy for sustainable living.
Gland, Switzerland.
Jefferis, S.A. 2005. Geotechnics in harmony with the global environment: Dream
or deliverable? In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan.
Jefferis, S.A. 2008. Moving towards sustainability in geotechnical engineering. In
Proceedings of the Geo Congress 2008. Geotechnical Special Publication No.
178. pp. 844–851.
Jefferson, I., Hunt, D.V.L., Birchall, C.A., and Rogers, C.D.F. 2007. Sustainability
indicators for environmental geotechnics. In Proceedings of the Institute of
Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability, 160(2): 57–78. doi:10.1680/ensu.
2007.160.2.57.
Jefferson, I., Rogers, C.D.F., and Hunt, D.V.L. 2009. Achieving sustainable under-
ground construction in Birmingham Eastside? In Engineering geology for
tomorrow’s cities. [CD-ROM]. Edited by M.G. Culshaw, H.J. Reeves, I. Jefferson,
and T.W. Spink. Geological Society, London. Engineering Geology Special
Publication 22, paper 312.
Jimenez, M. 2004. Assessment of geotechnical process on the basis of sustain-
ability principles. M.Sc. thesis, University of Birmingham, UK.
Jones, R., and Dixon, N. 2011. Sustainable development using geosynthetics:
European perspectives. Geosynthetics, June 2011.
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., et al. 2001.
Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517): 641–642. doi:10.1126/science.1059386.
Katzenbach, R., Ramm, H., and Werner, A. 2006. Reuse of foundations in the
reconstruction of the Hessian Parliament complex – a case study. In Proceed-
ings of the International Conference on Reuse of foundations for urban sites.
Edited by A.P. Butcher, J.J.M. Powell, and H.D. Skinner. pp. 385–394.
Kibert, C.J. 2008. Sustainable construction. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc.,
New Jersey.
Kilsby, C., Glendinning, S., Hughes, P.N., Parkin, G., and Bransby, M.F. 2009.
Climate-change impacts on long-term performance of slopes. Proceedings of
the Institution of the Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 162(ES2):
59–66. doi:10.1680/ensu.2009.162.2.59.
Kim, B., Prezzi, M., and Salgado, R. 2005. Geotechnical properties of fly and
bottom ash mixtures for use in highway embankments. Journal of Geotechni-
cal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(7): 914–924. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2005)131:7(914).
Kim, H.-M., Rutqvist, J., Ryu, D.-W., Choi, B.-H., Sunwoo, C., and Song, W.-K. 2012.
Exploring the concept of compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock
caverns at shallow depth: a modeling study of air tightness and energy bal-
ance. Applied Energy, 92: 653–667. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.013.
Knuth, D., and Fortmann, J. 2010. The development of I-LAST™ Illinois - livable
and sustainable transportation. In Proceedings of the Green Streets and High-
ways 2010 Conference, ASCE, 2010. pp. 495–503. doi:10.1061/41148(389)40.
Laefer, D.F. 2011. Quantitative support for a qualitative foundation reuse assess-
ment tool. In Proceedings of the GeoFrontiers 2011, Dallas, Tex. [CD-ROM].
pp. 113–121. doi:10.1061/41165(397)13.
Laloui, L. 2011. In-situ testing of heat exchanger pile. In Proceedings of the
GeoFrontiers 2011, Dallas, Tex. [CD-ROM]. pp. 410–419. doi:10.1061/41165
(397)43.
Lambert, I.B. 2012. Geoethics: a perspective from Australia. Annals of Geophys-
ics, 55(3): 377–378. doi:10.4401/ag-5556.
Lee, J., Edil, T.B., Benson, C.H., and Tinjum, J.M. 2010a. USE of BE2ST in-highways
for green highway construction rating in Wisconsin. In Proceedings of the
Green Streets and Highways 2010 Conference, ASCE, 2010. pp. 480–494. doi:
10.1061/41148(389)39.
Lee, J., Edil, T.B., Tinjum, J.M., and Benson, C.H. 2010b. Quantitative assessment
of environmental and economic benefits of using recycled construction ma-
terials in highway construction. In The TRB 89th Annual Meeting Compen-
dium of Papers.
Leong, K.W. 2006. Greening geotechnical slope stabilization: a sustainable chal-
lenge in tropical Asia. Presentation in short course for Singapore (PUB) field
inspectors on Feb. 2006.
Leung, Y.F, Soga, K., and Klar, A. 2011. Multi-objective foundation optimization
and its application to pile reuse. In Proceedings of the GeoFrontiers 2011,
Dallas, Tex. [CD-ROM]. pp. 75–84. doi:10.1061/41165(397)9.
Limaye, S.D. 2012. Observing geoethics in mining and in ground-water develop-
ment: an Indian experience. Annals of Geophysics, 55(3): 379–381. doi:10.4401/
ag-5573.
Lombardi, D.R., Caserio, M., Donovan, R., Hale, J., Hunt, D.V.L., Weingaertner, C.,
Barber, A.R.G., Bryson, J.R., Coles, R., et al. 2011. Elucidating sustainability
sequencing, tensions, and tradeoffs in development decision-making. Envi-
ronment and Planning B, Planning and Design, 38: 1105–1121. doi:10.1068/
b36161.
Lombardi, D.R., Leach, J.M., Rogers, C.D.F., and The Urban Futures Team. 2012.
Designing resilient cities: a guide to good practice. HIS BRE Press, Bracknell,
UK.
Published by NRC Research Press
 112
Long, J.C.S., Amadei, B., Bardet, J.-P., Christian, J.T., Glaser, S.D., Goodings, D.J.,
Kavazanjian, E., Major, D.W., Mitchell, J.K., et al. 2009. Geological and
geotechnical engineering in the new millennium: opportunities for research
and technological innovation. Report of the Committee on Geological and
Geotechnical Engineering in the New Millennium; Opportunities for Re-
search and Technological Innovation, Committee on Geological and
Geotechnical Engineering, National Research Council, The National Aca-
demic Press, Washington, D.C. Available from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/
11558.html [accessed 30 October 2013].
Mattei, N.J., and Khanfar, A. 2008. Reduction of landfill waste by recycling spent
blast abrasives in hot mix asphalt in New Orleans. In Proceedings of GeoCon-
gress 2008: Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation. Geotechnical Spe-
cial Publication no. 178. pp. 417–424. doi:10.1061/40971(310)52.
McKay, D.T., Rens, K.L., Greimann, L.F., and Stecker, J.H. 1999. Condition index
assessment for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works. Journal of Infra-
structure Systems, 5(2): 52–60. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(1999)5:2(52).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
McVoy, G.R., Nelson, D.A., Krekeler, P., Kolb, E., and Gritsavage, J.S. 2010. Moving
towards sustainability: New York State Department of Transportation’s
GreenLITES Story. In Proceedings of the Green Streets and Highways 2010
Conference, ASCE.
Meegoda, J.N. 2011. Production of segmental retaining wall units from recycled
mixed glass and plastic. In Proceedings of the GeoFrontiers 2011, Dallas, Tex,
pp. 1335–1344. doi:10.1061/41165(397)137. [CD-ROM].
Miao, X., and Banister, D. 2012. Coping with natural disasters through resilience.
Working Paper No. 1059. Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and
the Environment, University of Oxford.
Mihelcic, J.R., Crittenden, J.C., Small, M.J., Shonnard, D.R., Hokanson, D.R.,
Zhang, Q., Chen, H., Sorby, S.A., James, V.U., et al. 2003. Sustainability science
and engineering: the emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environmental
Science & Technology, 37: 5314–5324. doi:10.1021/es034605h.
Misra, A. 2010. A Multicriteria based quantitative framework for assessing the
sustainability of pile foundations. M.S. thesis, University of Connecticut.
Misra, A., and Basu, D. 2011. Sustainability metrics for pile foundations. Indian
Geotechnical Journal, 41(2): 108–120.
Misra, A., and Basu, D. 2012. A quantitative sustainability indicator system for
For personal use only.
pile foundations. In Proceedings of the Geocongress 2012, Oakland, Calif. pp.
4252–4261. doi:10.1061/9780784412121.437. [CD-ROM].
Muench, T.S., and Anderson, J.L. 2009. Greenroads: a sustainability performance
metric for roadway design and construction. Final Technical Report TNW
2009-13, WA-RD 725.1 Transportation Northwest (TransNow), University of
Washington.
Næss, A. 1949. Ecology, community and lifestyle. Reprinted by Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1989.
NCHRP. 2012. Cost-effective and sustainable road slope stabilization and erosion
control. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Neby, A., Backer, L., Vikane, K., Nilsen, T.A., and Salamonsen, O. 2006. New Oset
water treatment plant facilities situated underground. In Sustainable un-
derground concepts. Norwegian Tunnelling Society Publication No. 15.
pp. 45–52.
O’Donnell, J., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., and Bradshaw, S.L. 2010. Trace element
leaching from recycled pavement materials stabilized with flyash. In Proceed-
ings of the Green Streets and Highways 2010 Conference, ASCE. pp. 272–279.
doi:10.1061/41148(389)23.
Oduola, R.O. 2010. Studies on a cement kiln dust (CKD) - stabilized low-strength
soil for road pavement construction in eastern Nigeria. In Proceedings of the
Green Streets and Highways 2010 Conference, ASCE. 449–460. doi:10.1061/
41148(389)37.
O’Rourke, T.D. 2007. Critical infrastructure, interdependencies, and resilience.
The Bridge, 37(1): 22–29.
Osborne, R.A.L. 2000. Geodiversity: “green” geology in action. In Proceedings of
the Linnean Society of New South Wales. Vol. 122, pp. 149–173.
Ove ARUP and Partners Hong Kong Ltd. 2006. Consultancy Agreement No. CAO
L013 - Consultancy study on life cycle energy analysis of building construc-
tion. Final Report. Available from http://www.emsd.gov.hk/emsd/e_download/
pee/FinalReport.pdf [accessed 30 October 2013].
Pantelidou, H., Nicholson, D., and Gaba, A. 2012. Sustainable geotechnics. In
Manual of geotechnical engineering. Vol. 1. Institute of Civil Engineers, UK.
Park, J., Seager, T.P., and Rao, P.S. 2011. Lessons in risk- versus resilience-based
design and management. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Man-
agement, 7(3): 396–399. doi:10.1002/ieam.228.
Parkash, S. 2012. Ethics in disaster management. Annals of Geophysics, 55(3):
383–387.
Pasten, C., and Santamarina, J.C. 2011. Energy geo-storage - analysis and geome-
chanical implications. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(4): 655–667.
doi:10.1007/s12205-011-0006-6.
Patel, G.P., and Bull, J.W. 2011. Selection of material used for thermopiles for
recycling heat within a building. In Proceedings of the GeoFrontiers 2011,
Dallas, Tex. [CD-ROM]. pp. 400–409. doi:10.1061/41165(397)42.
Pender, M.J. 2011. Prologue: Designing for sustainability from the big picture to
the geotechnical contribution. In Geotechnics and earthquake geotechnics
towards global sustainability. Edited by S. Iai. Springer.
Peppoloni, S., and Capua, G.D. 2012. Geoethics and geological culture: aware-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
ness, responsibility and challenges. Annals of Geophysics, 55(3): 335–341.
doi:10.4401/ag-6099.
Peron, H., Knellwolf, C., and Laloui, L. 2011. A method for the geotechnical
design of heat exchanger piles. In Proceedings of the GeoFrontiers 2011,
Dallas, Tex. [CD-ROM]. pp. 470–479. doi:10.1061/41165(397)49.
Phillips, B.D., Thomas, D.S.K., Fothergill, A., and Blinn-Pike, L. 2009. Social vul-
nerability to disasters. CRC Press.
Pierson, L.A., and Vickle, R.V. 1993. Rockfall hazard rating system: participant’s
manual for NHI course 130220. Report FHWA SA-93-057. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Pittenger, D.M. 2011. Evaluating sustainability of selected airport pavement
treatments with life-cycle cost, raw material consumption, and Greenroads
standards. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2206: 61–68. doi:10.3141/2206-08.
Pothiraksanon, C., Saowapakpiboon, J., Bergado, D.T., Voottipruex, P., and
Abuel-Naga, H.M. 2010. Soft ground improvement with solar-powered drain-
age. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers– Ground Improvement,
163(1): 23–30. doi:10.1680/grim.2010.163.1.23.
Praticò, F., Saride, S., and Puppala, A. 2011. Comprehensive life cycle cost Anal-
ysis for the selection of stabilization alternative for better performance of
low volume roads. In Proceedings of the 10th Low Volume Roads Conference.
Transportation Research Board, Washington. Vol. 2, pp. 120–129. doi:10.3141/
2204-16.
Prosser, C.D., Burek, C.V., Evans, D.H., Gordon, J.E., Kirkbride, V.B., Rennie, A.F.,
and Walmsley, C.A. 2010. Conserving geodiversity sites in a changing climate:
management challenges and responses. Geoheritage, 2: 123–136. doi:10.1007/
s12371-010-0016-7.
Quick, H., Meissner, S., Michael, J., Quick, H.D., and Arslan, U. 2005. Innovative
foundation systems for high rise buildings. In Proceedings of the 1st Intelli-
gent Building Middle East Conference, Bahrain.
Rao, A.S., and Sridevi, G. 2011. Utilization of industrial wastes in pavements laid
over expansive clay sub-grades. In Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2011: Ad-
vances in Geotechnical Engineering. [CD-ROM]. pp. 4418–4427. doi:10.1061/
41165(397)452.
Reigle, J.A., and Zaniewski, J.P. 2002. Risk-based life-cycle cost analysis for
project-level pavement management. Transportation Research Record, Jour-
nal of the Transportation Research Board, 1816: 34–42. doi:10.3141/1816-05.
Rittel, H.W.J., and Webber, M.M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Policy Sciences, 4(2): 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.
Roberts, D.V. 1996. Sustainable development and the use of underground space.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 11(4): 383–390. doi:10.1016/
S0886-7798(96)00039-9.
Rogers, C.D.F. 2009. Substructures, underground space and sustainable urban
environments. In Engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities. Edited by
M.J. Culshaw, H.J. Reeves, I. Jefferson, and T.W. Spink. Geological Society,
London. Engineering Geology Special Publications No. 22. pp. 177–188. doi:
10.1144/EGSP22.14.
Rogers, C.D.F., Bouch, C.J., Williams, S., Barber, A.R.G., Baker, C.J., Bryson, J.R.,
Chapman, D.N., Chapman, L., Coaffee, J., et al. 2012. Resistance and resilience –
paradigms for critical local infrastructure. Municipal Engineer, Proceedings
of ICE, 165(2): 73–84. doi:10.1680/muen.11.00030.
Ronning, P.A. 2006. Underground facilities for wastewater treatment – why
build this type plant in excavated rock caverns? In Sustainable underground
concepts. Norwegian Tunnelling Society Publication. Vol. 15, pp. 41–44.
Rygh, J.A., and Bollingmo, P. 2006. Underground telecommunication centres. In
Sustainable underground concepts. Norwegian Tunnelling Society Publica-
tion. Vol. 15, pp. 31–35.
Saride, S., Puppala, A.J., and Williammee, R. 2010. Assessing recycled/secondary
materials as pavement bases. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Ground Improvement, 163(1): 3–12. doi:10.1680/grim.2010.163.1.3.
Seager, T., Selinger, E., and Wiek, A. 2011. Sustainable engineering science for
resolving wicked problems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Eth-
ics, 25(4): 467–484. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9342-2.
Simoncini, L. 2011. Socio-technical complex systems of systems: can we justifi-
ably trust their resilience? In Lecture notes in computer science. Edited by
C.B. Jones and J.L. Lloyd. pp. 486–497.
Slaper, T.F., and Hall, T.J. 2011. The triple bottom line – what is it and how does
it work? Indiana Business Review, Spring 2011.
Soga, K. 2011. Infrastructure: Embodied energy and gas emission of geotechnical
infrastructure. In Geotechnics and earthquake geotechnics towards global
sustainability. Edited by S. Iai. Springer.
Solis, A.V., Durham, S.A., Rens, K.L., and Ramaswami, A. 2010. Sustainable con-
crete for the urban environment: a proposal to increase fly ash use in con-
crete. In Proceedings of the Green Streets and Highways 2010 Conference,
ASCE. pp. 401–407. doi:10.1061/41148(389)33.
Spaulding, C., Masse, F., and LaBrozzi, J. 2008. Ground improvement technolo-
gies for a sustainable world. In Proceedings of the Geo Congress 2008.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178. pp. 891–898. doi:10.1061/40971
(310)111.
Sridharan, A., and Prakash, K. 2008. Coal ash utilization and sustainable waste
management. In Proceedings of the First US-India Workshop on Global Geo-
environmental Engineering Challenges, New Delhi, India, 7 November 2010.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Basu et al.
Steedman, R.S. 2011. Geotechnics and society: carbon, a new focus for delivering
sustainable geotechnical engineering. In Geotechnics and earthquake
geotechnics towards global sustainability. Edited by S. Iai. Springer.
Sterling, R., Farnan, W.T., and Carmody, J. 1983. Earth sheltered residential
design manual. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Stevens, S.H., Kuuskraa, V.A., Gale, J., and Beecy, D. 2008. CO2 injection and
sequestration in depleted oil and gas fields and deep coal seams: worldwide
potential and costs. Environmental Geosciences, 8(3): 200–209.
Storesund, R., Messe, J., and Kim, Y. 2008. Life cycle impacts for concrete retain-
ing walls vs. bioengineered slopes. In Proceedings of the Geo Congress 2008.
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178. pp. 875–882. doi:10.1061/40971
(310)109.
Strauss, J., Nicholls, R., Chapman, T., and Anderson, S. 2007. Drivers affecting
frequency of foundation reuse and relevance to U.S. cities. In Proceedings of
Geo-Denver 2007: Contemporary Issues in Deep Foundations. Geotechnical
Special Publication, ASCE. pp. 1–10. doi:10.1061/40902(221)20.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Waterloo on 06/13/15
Stucki, M., Büsser, S., Itten, R., Frischknecht, R., and Wallbaum, H. 2011. Compara-
tive life cycle assessment of geosynthetics versus conventional construction
materials. Report on behalf of the European Association for Geosynthetic
Manufacturers (EAGM).
Swales, M.J., Howley, C., and Jenkins, P.E .2011. Sustainable infrastructure in
excavated spaces – a geotechnical perspective on Hong Kong practice for ground
modeling and analysis. Available from http://hkie.cvd.annualconference.
i-wanna.com/download/Session%203_Sawles%20Mark_Mott_r.pdf [accessed
27 December 2011].
Tester, P.D., and Fernie, R. 2006. A case study for total foundation reuse for a car
park in Coventry, UK. In Proceedings of International Conference on reuse of
foundations for urban sites. Edited by A.P. Butcher, J.J.M. Powell, and
H.D. Skinner. pp. 375–384.
Thakur, S.C., Han, J., Chong, W.K., and Parsons, R.L. 2011. Comparison of prop-
erties of RAP aggregates extracted by ignition and centrifuge methods. In
Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in Geotechnical Engineering.
[CD-ROM]. pp. 4525–4534. doi:10.1061/41165(397)463.
Thompson, P.B. 2010. What sustainability is (and what it isn’t). In Pragmatic
sustainability: theoretical and practical tools. Edited by S.A. Moore. Routledge.
pp. 16–29.
For personal use only.
Torres, V.N., and Gama, C.D. 2006. Quantifying the environmental sustainability
in underground mining. In Proceedings of the XV International Symposium
on Mine Planning & Equipment Select, Torino, Italy.
Vinod, J.S., Indraratna, B., and Mahamud, M.A.A. 2010. Stabilisation of an erod-
ible soil using a chemical admixture. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers – Ground Improvement, 163(1): 43–51. doi:10.1680/grim.2010.
163.1.43.
Voottipruex, P., Bergado, D.T., and Tanchaisawat, T. 2010. Lightweight recycled
geomaterials reinforced with geogrids. Proceedings of the Institution of
113
Civil Engineers – Ground Improvement, 163(1): 13–21. doi:10.1680/grim.2010.
163.1.13.
Vugrin, E.D., Warren, D.E., and Ehlen, M.A. 2011. A resilience assessment frame-
work for infrastructure and economic systems: quantitative and qualitative
resilience analysis of petrochemical supply chains to a hurricane. Process
Safety Progress, 30(3): 280–290. doi:10.1002/prs.10437.
Walker, B.H., and Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and
people in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Wang, B., Bouazza, A., and Haberfield, C. 2011. Preliminary observations from
laboratory scale model geothermal pile subjected to thermal-mechanical
loading. In Proceedings of the GeoFrontiers 2011, Dallas, Tex. [CD-ROM].
pp. 430–439. doi:10.1061/41165(397)45.
Warner, J.D., and Edil, T.B. 2012. An evaluation of reclaimed asphalt shingles for
beneficial reuse in roadway construction. Journal of ASTM International, 9(1).
doi:10.1520/JAI103665.
Watson, M.J., McGraw, J., Johnson, E., Linell, D., and Dai, S. 2010. The effect of
recycled asphalt materials on hot mixed asphalt pavement performance.
In Proceedings of the Green Streets and Highways 2010 Conference.
pp. 323–336. doi:10.1061/41148(389)27.
Wiechert, E.P., Dunham-Friel, J., and Carraro, J.A.H. 2011. Stiffness improvement
of expansive soil-rubber mixtures with off-specification fly ash. In Proceed-
ings of Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in Geotechnical Engineering. [CD-ROM].
pp. 4489–4497. doi:10.1061/41165(397)459.
Wood, B.R. 2006. The role of existing buildings in the sustainability agenda.
Facilities, 24(1–2): 61–67. doi:10.1108/02632770610639206.
Wu, T.H., Trenner, B.R., Fox, P.J., Kokesh, C.M., Beach, K., and Barker, D.H. 2008.
Soil bioengineering for slope stabilization in Ohio. In Proceedings of Geo
Congress 2008. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178. pp. 883–890. doi:10.
1061/40971(310)110.
Yang, I.C.-Y., Li, Y., Park, J.K., and Yen, T.F. 1992. The use of slime-forming
bacteria to enhance the strength of the soil matrix. In Proceedings of the 1992
International Conference on Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery. pp. 89–96.
doi:10.1016/S0376-7361(09)70052-4.
Yasuhara, K., Komine, H., Murakami, S., Suzuki, K., and Duc, D.M. 2011. Climate
change-induced compound geodisasters: lessons from case histories. Journal
of Science, Earth Sciences, 27(1S): 1–10.
Yim, K.P. 2004. Sustainability considerations in the design of slope works. Tech-
nical report submitted to the Architectural Services Department, Hong Kong.
Zhang, H., Keoleian, G.A., and Lepech, M.D. 2008. An integrated life cycle assess-
ment and life cycle analysis model for pavement overlay systems. In Life-cycle
civil engineering. Edited by F. Biondini and D. Frangopol. Taylor & Francis
Group, London.
Zhang, W., Yang, J., Fan, X., Yang, R., and Yu, B. 2011. Life-cycle cost analysis
of base course using cold in-place recycling: case study. In Proceedings of
Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in Geotechnical Engineering. [CD-ROM].
pp. 4428–4437. doi:10.1061/41165(397)453.
Published by NRC Research Press