HOW TO INTEGRATE SUSTAINABILITY INTO

GEOTECHNICAL PRACTICE
L. Villoria & D. Sandilands
Aurecon, Tauranga.

ABSTRACT
There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that human-induced global warming has already caused
profound alterations to natural and human ecosystems. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, if the current trend in carbon emissions continues, global temperature is likely to rise between 3.7 and
4.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century (IPCC, 2018), which would bring
devastating consequences to our natural and built environment. According to national statistics, 20% of New
Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions come from manufacturing and construction. In this context, the
government has set ambitious environmental targets to incentivise behaviour change of clients and end users
to pursue more sustainable practices. Geotechnical engineering offers great potential for enhancing the
sustainability of infrastructure due to early involvement in the design and construction process and ability to
influence design outcomes. However currently, socio-environmental aspects are typically prioritised low or
not even considered, within geotechnical assessments. The lack of understanding of sustainability concepts
and the need for a flexible assessment methodology directly applicable to geotechnical engineering are key
challenges that practitioners face when trying to integrate sustainability into their projects. The paper reviews
the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability and some of the assessment tools most
relevant to geotechnical engineering. Several case studies are then presented to demonstrate the
implementation of sustainable practices into geotechnical engineering practice. Lastly, a ‘sustainability
checklist’ has been created for use by the practitioner during the early stages of development projects.

1 INTRODUCTION
Over the last decades, the importance of sustainable development has been increasingly recognised by
governments, businesses and individuals across the globe. Although there is no one single definition that
encapsulates the concept of sustainable development, the most notable is that quoted by Brundtland in the
United Nations report ‘Our Common Future’ (Brundtland, 1987):
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

1
More than three decades have passed since publication of Brundtland’s report and still today, sustainability is
often regarded as a complex, intangible idea, involving intricate economic, social and environmental factors –
on this at least there is consensus – which everyone seems to embrace but hardly anyone can put into practice.
Fortunately, at the same time, global initiatives such as the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals
(United Nations, 2015) have driven many strategies and action plans which are now implemented and proven
successful in many countries around the world.
In the New Zealand context, through the implementation of the Climate Change Response (zero carbon)
Amendment Act, the Government has committed to reduce all net greenhouse emissions (except biogenic
methane) to zero by 2050. According to current statistics, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are about
44 per cent carbon dioxide, of which 20 per cent come from manufacturing and construction (MfE, 2019). The
environmental impact of construction is large compared to other aspects like vehicle emissions and household
energy consumption (Chau et al. 2008), so sustainable changes in construction would have a significant
beneficial impact. Also, the Code of Ethical Conduct of Engineering New Zealand (2016) states that engineers
‘must have regard to reasonably foreseeable effects on the environment from those activities and have regard
to the need for sustainable management of the environment; the environment being ecosystems and their
constituent parts, including people and communities and all natural resources and physical (man-made)
resources’.
In this scenario, civil and geotechnical engineering play a crucial role in creating the infrastructure needed for
New Zealand’s zero carbon future while promoting social equity and supporting the national economy. Cut to
waste earthworks is not as cheap as it used to be (particularly if contaminated) and financiers like banks and
investment companies are beginning to require sustainability measures on their projects. Future projects will
probably comprise a higher proportion of brownfield sites, with a focus on densification of cities, and less of
the greenfield developments of the past.
Improving current geotechnical practices would help reduce adverse impacts at the early stages of a
construction project, when some of the greatest gains can be made (Jefferis, 2008). However, there is a
widespread lack of awareness and uncertainty on how to integrate sustainability into geotechnical practice,
compounded by the need for a well-established sustainability assessment tool applicable to all areas of
geotechnical engineering. Section 3.1 of this paper presents various existing methodologies that have been
developed and tested overseas and can be adapted in New Zealand.
The aim of this paper is to identify the key obstacles that are preventing sustainability to be embedded into
geotechnical projects, and to encourage practitioners to define and implement sustainable strategies that could
lead to a paradigm shift in the attitude of the geotechnical industry.

2 SUSTAINABILITY IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

2.1 Principles
Sustainable development in the context of our built environment can be considered an interaction between the
four E’s: Equity, Environment, Engineering and Economy (Figure 1, Basu & Puppala 2015). The challenge is
managing the trade-offs and conflicts between the four E’s and realising that a sustainable engineering solution
today might be different tomorrow, as priorities evolve. Monitoring and alteration of solutions over time is
necessary.

2
Figure 1: The four E’s of engineering sustainability

The core principles to sustainable projects, (Kibert, 2008; Weaver, 2002; IPENZ, 2004), all of which
geotechnical engineering can impact on, include:

Figure 2: Principles of engineering sustainability, colour coded into the four E’s

Overall, the current development of the geotechnical engineering industry follows the inertia of traditional
practices in global consumption, production and decision-making, which disregard the principles of
engineering sustainability and are the direct cause of the accelerated deterioration of our natural and socio-
economic environment. There are emerging alternatives, such as ‘circular economy’, that are already driving
a global change towards a more sustainable way of living, where the longer the resources and materials are in
use (through reuse, recycling), and the lesser the impact they have on the environment, the more valuable they
become.

2.2 Main barriers to sustainable design and practice in geotechnical engineering

At present, the main obstacles that are preventing the adoption of more sustainable practices in geotechnical
engineering are lack of awareness and incentive, and cost. Furthermore, the complexity and fragmentation in
the current construction chain makes it difficult to assess the effect of different choices and procedures in a
holistic way (Holt et al, 2009). Table 1 presents some of the current barriers to sustainable geotechnical
construction and the approaches that can be taken to overcome each of them. In order for sustainable
construction practices to become the norm, a combined effort between the public, the government and all
construction professionals is required.

3
Table 1: Summary of the main barriers to sustainable geotechnical construction
Type of
Description Solution approach
barrier
Cost of undertaking sustainability studies to ensure Embedment of new design methods and new materials
design and construction sustainability principles are specifications in the geotechnical industry to eliminate
implemented effectively. extra time and cost associated with new skills and
Risk of higher design and construction costs of materials. Consideration of multi-attribute cost
Financial sustainable projects compared to conventional projects. assessments over simpler single action cost-benefit
approaches.
Often, the developer investing in sustainable practices Market and governmental incentives, increased users
during design and construction is not the direct demand for sustainable developments.
beneficiary of the long-term investment return.
Problems with identifying the impacts of certain Early engagement of geotechnical practitioners (and all
geotechnical activities on the overall sustainability of a other disciplines) when developing sustainable
project. construction strategies for a project.
Introduction of new skills and technologies, which might Governmental incentives combined with suitable
increase construction risks. training.
Preclusion due to regulation. Government investment into periodic review of
regulation and openness/incentivisation to accept new
solutions and material types.
Lead managers and designers that drive a project are Geotechnical engineering has the privilege of typically
Technical
usually not geotechnical professionals, somewhat being required early in the project life cycle e.g.
reducing the effectiveness of geotechnical initiatives. preliminary ground investigations to assess project
feasibility and support resource consent. Geotechnical
sustainability ideas and advice can therefore be broached
to project leads early in the project.
Risk aversion, professionals are less likely to Progression of education and research, to improve
design/specify new solutions and materials that they are confidence. Adoption of sustainability practices by the
not experienced with and do not have a proven track geotechnical profession will develop a proven track
record. record.

Geotechnical professionals not being aware or are Increase research, training resources and knowledge
Lack of uncertain about new technologies, processes and transfer within the geotechnical industry. Both
awareness materials. Prevalence of conventional thinking. government and private companies need to promote
sustainability and empower employees to implement it.

3 REVIEW OF EXISTING SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOLS

The vast majority of the sustainability research in geotechnical engineering has been focused on reducing the
environmental impact of specific materials and construction processes. However, very few attempts have been
made to develop assessment methods aimed at improving sustainability in geotechnical projects in a holistic
way (Jefferis, 2008). This section reviews some of the existing sustainability assessment tools and rating
systems and it provides an overview of various methodologies developed specifically to support sustainability
decision making in geotechnical engineering projects.
One of the challenges of assessing sustainability is that it involves both physical (i.e. air pollution) and non-
physical (i.e. health and wellbeing) aspects and therefore different approaches and ways of measurement are
required to address them all. There are several tools which can be used to inform sustainable decisions in the
built environment, these can be broadly categorised as follows:
• Environmental tools, such as Life Cycle Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment;
• Economic tools, such as Cost-Benefit Analysis;
• Social value measurement tools, such as Cost-Effectiveness Analysis;
• Rating-based tools, such as BREEAM, LEED, Green Star or CEEQUAL.

4
Environmental tools are used to identify the impacts of the different construction processes on the natural
environment and can be used at the early stages of a project to select the most environmentally sustainable
design. The authors find life-cycle analysis (LCA) to be most appropriate to geotechnical projects as it uses
quantitative mechanisms to evaluate carbon emissions associated with different construction and operation
processes throughout the life of a project. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) can also be used but is more
appropriate for qualitative-based analysis.
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a decision-making tool built to identify the optimal alternative by simply
comparing its monetary costs and benefits. This tool is widely used within the construction sector. The cost-
effectiveness analysis (CEA), on the other hand, is a methodology similar to CBA that measures the effect of
an activity from a societal point of view, rather than considering only the monetary value. This is particularly
useful when comparing multiple project methodologies - for example, when choosing materials to be locally
sourced or imported, as it allows the relative social benefit of each approach to be assessed.
Although the tools mentioned above can be used in isolation to assess certain aspects of a geotechnical project,
it is evident that a multicriteria analysis (MCA) that combines environmental, economic and social tools is the
most appropriate to inform sustainability decision making. MCA can be used to assess conflicting criteria,
such as cost and environmental impact, by adding weights or scores to defined objectives or categories, based
on their relative importance for each project. An example of how this can be applied to geotechnical projects
is presented in Section 3.1.
As of today, a well-established system that equally addresses the four E’s of sustainability has not yet been
developed within the construction industry. Nevertheless, there are several rating tools available aimed at
assessing sustainability (or parts of it) of construction projects, most of them in the form of internationally
recognised certification schemes. Broadly speaking, the most common rating tools can be classified as follows:
• Rating tools used to assess the environmental performance of buildings: BREEAM, LEED or Green
Star are examples of rating systems where a certification level is achieved based on building’s
performance under each of a number of environmental categories;
• Rating tools focused on environmental performance of civil infrastructure: CEEQUAL and
Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) rating tool are used for roads, railways, airports and other civil
infrastructure and are also focused on achieving the highest certification level based on environmental
performance during design and construction stages.
As anticipated, none of the existing rating-based tools provide a holistic sustainable approach (incorporating
the four E’s) and all of them are too award focused, which reduces the incentive to exceed the minimum
standards on any particular category or subcategory.

3.1 Existing sustainability assessment methodologies for geotechnical engineering

Misra & Basu (2011) developed a MCA framework combining LCA, EIA and CBA to calculate a sustainability
index for pile foundations. In a hypothetical case study, they assessed the suitability of driven piles and drilled
shafts from a sustainability perspective and found that driven concrete piles were a slightly more sustainable
option. The proposed methodology is as follows:
1. An LCA is done to quantify the resource consumption and CO₂ emissions associated with each alternative
from planning to disposal stages;
2. An EIA is carried out to quantify the impact on climate change and biodiversity;
3. Generation of a socio-economic indicator through CBA, in this case by comparing cost benefit against
community disturbance caused by noise and vibrations;

5
4. Weights are applied to resource consumption, environmental and socio-economic categories based on their
relative importance for the project. All category scores are added and the final score for each alternative is
compared.

Jefferson et al. (2007) developed a set of environmental geotechnics indicators (EGIs) specifically tailored to
assess the sustainability of geotechnical projects, which can be considered as an enhanced version of Jimenez
(2004) sustainable geotechnical evaluation model (SGEM). For each pre-defined indicator, points are allocated
(on a score from 1 to 5) based on predominantly qualitative sustainability measurements, as appropriate. The
scores from each stage (from feasibility to long-term monitoring) are then added to provide an overall
sustainability score. The EGIs were applied to a case study site in the UK where land contamination
remediation measures were required. The study assessed soil washing which enabled 100% of previously
unusable land to be redeveloped for mixed residential and commercial use. Between 20 and 30% of the
materials delivered were from sustainable sources and >50% of the materials and workforce were sourced
locally.
Another tool specifically developed for geotechnical engineering is GeoSPeAR, an indicator system developed
by Holt et al. (2009) by modifying the Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR©), previously developed
by Arup (2007). GeoSPeAR uses a colour coded diagram to assess a project’s performance on four main areas:
social equity, economic viability, environmental protection and efficient use of natural resources. The
performance of each indicator is assessed against a scale of best and worst cases (based on current legislation
and best industry practices) and the average performance of each sector is then transferred into the diagram in
the form of shaded segments. The closer the shaded segment is to the centre of the diagram, the more
sustainable the project is with respect to those particular criteria.

Figure 3: EGI’s rose diagram for a case study site (left) and GeoSPeAR (right) typical diagram

Table 2 identifies the main strengths and weaknesses of each of the methodologies described in this section.
All can be adopted within New Zealand geotechnical practice.

6
Table 2: Overview of some of the existing sustainability assessment methodologies for geotechnical
engineering

Sustainability system Strengths Weaknesses

- Indicators are not segregated into economic, - Predominantly a qualitative analysis.
social and environmental categories, which - Despite its potential to provide a holistic
offers an opportunity for a more holistic analysis, pre-defined indicators are heavily
approach. environmentally focused, lacking
Jefferson's EGIs
- Flexible, allows for adaptation of indicators to consideration of socio-economic aspects.
Methodology
suit every project's requirements and can be - No weighting system is applied, which means
applied for every stage. that it is by default 'easier' to rate higher on
- Results are presented in a visual, those stages with a lesser number of
understandable way. indicators.
- Flexible, allows for adaptation of indicator to
- Predominantly a qualitative analysis.
suit every project's requirements and can be
- Some of the best and worst cases used to
applied for every stage.
GeoSPeAR evaluate performance are based on UK
- Results are presented in a powerfully visual
policies and best practices. Requires
way which helps to quickly identify areas of
adaptation to NZ context.
improvement.
- Allocation of weighting to the different
- Good combination of qualitative and
categories has a big impact on the final score
Misra & Basu’s quantitative analysis. Provides a clear
and it is completely subject to the
Sustainability Index methodology adaptable to most geotechnical
practitioner’s judgement. Most suited to early
projects.
stages of a project (i.e. planning, design).

4 SUSTAINABILITY OPPORTUNITIES
Implementation of sustainable practices in geotechnical engineering don’t need to be onerous for the
practitioner. Simply being aware of a project’s potential impact on the environment, and fundamental decision
making is a good start. For example, designing a foundation that minimises the volume of reinforced concrete
which is not necessarily always defaulting to a shallow foundation. In some cases, a pile foundation can have
less volume than a shallow pad foundation and can be constructed with the same plant (excavator with an auger
attachment rather than a bucket). For remote project sites like a cell phone tower on a hill, the saving on
reinforced concrete is supplemented further by saving on concrete truck movements.
There are also simple approaches to improve sustainability through design philosophy. For example, the NZ
Building Code (via NZS1170.5) currently requires new buildings to avoid collapse, prevent loss of life and
allow evacuation following an Ultimate Limit State (ULS) earthquake (typically with a 1/500 or 1/1000 year
recurrence period and probability of occurrence of 5-10% over a 50 year building life). This implies that the
code minimum building design can meet this requirement but may need to be demolished following the
earthquake. Is this design philosophy sustainable when an intermediate earthquake smaller than the ULS could
also cause irreparable damage to a building? Liquefaction induced ground damage is often calculated to be
triggered at lower than ULS earthquake shaking levels with a binary response (i.e. it either occurs or doesn’t,
rather than structural load which may be considered to increase linearly with the level of earthquake shaking).
If significant liquefaction is calculated to be triggered at approximately a 1/150 to 1/250 year recurrence period
earthquake (not uncommon) for a new building designed to the code minimum requirement, the probability of
that building requiring demolition following an earthquake may be approximately 20-30% over its 50 year
design life (due to liquefaction induced damage). This is a considerably higher risk than intended by the code
but is still currently allowed and often acceptable to a developer who assumes that their insurer will provide
cover. Such an approach isn’t resilient and fails the sustainability principles of equity within and between
generations. A sustainable approach to this situation would be to mitigate the liquefaction risk and engineer
the building for a lower probability of demolition/repair post-earthquake.
Other scenarios may be more complex to assess for sustainability. Timber poles may be an attractive ground
improvement solution beneath a building at first glance from a sustainability perspective, because timber is a
7
renewable resource. Conversely, the design life of the timber poles would be shorter than an alternative, such
as stone columns, so it is unclear which option is more sustainable.
Studies are available to help guide us, such as:
• Research by Egan et al. (2010) found dynamic compaction and stone column ground improvements to
have a smaller environmental impact than traditional deep foundations (Continuous Flight Auger and
driven cast in-situ piles), particularly if recycled materials and aggregates were used to form the stone
columns. The embodied carbon dioxide savings were found to be up to 90%, in addition to time and
cost savings provided by the stone columns as compared with the traditional piles. Jefferson et al.
(2010) also assessed the sustainability of stone columns.
• Spaulding et al. (2008) undertook three case sustainability studies of ground improvement:
- Dynamic compaction vs undercut of uncontrolled fill and replacement with engineered fill
imported from a nearby borrow pit (22km from the jobsite).
- Controlled Modulus Columns vs driven piles.
- Soil-bentonite wall vs a cement-bentonite wall.
- In all three cases the ground improvement options (dynamic compaction, Controlled Modulus
Columns and soil-bentonite wall) were found to be more cost effective and also significantly
reduced the carbon footprint of the projects.
• Chau et al. (2011) assessed the embodied energy and gas emissions of four types of retaining walls.
Propped steel sheet piles and minipile walls were found to have less embodied energy and gas
emissions than cantilever steel tubular wall and secant concrete pile wall systems. The difference in
CO2 emission for a propped sheet pile or minipile retaining wall and a secant pile wall of 100m length,
was found to be approximately equivalent to an average 2.0L family car being driven for 5.5 million
kilometres (or roughly 550 cars being driven for a year in NZ).
• Soga et al. (2011) calculated the embodied energy for several retaining wall options for; a hypothetical
motorway widening, a basement of an actual high rise building in London, and embankments and
cuttings on an actual highway widening project in London. The results indicated that the highest
concentration of embodied energy was within the construction materials, over the installation energy
and transport energy. A recycled steel wall generally has less embodied energy than the equivalent
concrete wall system, which is in turn more efficient than the equivalent virgin steel system. The study
found that minimising materials usage has the most impact for reducing embodied energy for retaining
walls.
• The life-cycle environmental impact of a reinforced concrete retaining wall was compared to a
bioengineered slope by Storesund et al. (2008), finding that the bioengineered slope had about half of
the environmental impact of the concrete wall, however the concrete wall had lower whole of life costs
as it didn’t require as much maintenance.
• On the positive impacts of retrofitting and reuse of foundations (Misra and Basu, 2011).
• Earthquake resilient foundation systems (Kupec et al. 2019, Mahoney et al. 2015 among others).
• On sustainable landslide management (Flentje et al. 2018).
• Ali et al. (2011) showed through laboratory testing that recycled glass could be blended with recycled
aggregate by up to 30% by mass and provide satisfactory performance as a pavement subbase.
• A review of sustainability papers from the 19th ISSMGE conference by Anand et al. (2018), covering
topic including use of recycled and alternate geomaterials, sustainable foundations, innovative ground
improvement techniques, waste management, and tools for assessment of sustainability and resilience.
8
 • The authors of this paper consider that ground improvement is generally more sustainable than
traditional deep foundation solutions. Because in comparison, ground improvement typically has a
lower carbon footprint, is less likely to inhibit future foundations and often generates less or no spoil
(particularly advantageous for contaminated sites).
Sustainability considerations and opportunities at the different stages of a geotechnical project are presented
in Figure 4. The arrow indicates that, the earlier we take action, the more chances we have to make a real
impact on the sustainability of our projects.
A proposed checklist for geotechnical engineers is also presented at the back of this paper.

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We all have a part to play in contributing to a sustainable world. Geotechnical engineers have the benefit of
early project involvement across industry markets and can make a difference to our current practices, for the
better. The promotion of sustainability and creation of guidance by Engineering New Zealand and the New
Zealand Geotechnical Society should be an essential part of the process. For example, development of a NZ
geotechnical specific sustainability assessment tool, similar to EGI’s, GeoSPeAR or the Misra & Basu (2011)
method discussed in Section 3.
The authors intend that this paper begins to pave the way towards a more responsible future for the geotechnical
engineering industry in New Zealand, by encouraging geotechnical practitioners to:
• Familiarise themselves with the general principles of sustainability and the importance of balance
across the four E’s of sustainable development (Section 2.1, Figures 1 and 2).
• Gain a better understanding of the current barriers to sustainability and the importance of working
collaboratively with government and other disciplines to overcome them.
• Start using any of the existing sustainability assessment tools outlined in Section 3 to support decision
making in their projects;
• Expand and share knowledge within the industry to stimulate or inspire other practitioners to
implement sustainable practices.
• Implement sustainability in geotechnical projects and keep abreast of latest research and studies
regarding sustainable practices; hopefully practitioners find Section 4, Figure 4 and the flow chart
attached at the back of this paper a useful start.

9
Figure 4: Sustainability considerations and opportunities for geotechnical projects

10
11
6 REFERENCES
Ali, M.M.Y., Arulraja, A., Disfani, M.M. & Peeratheepan, J. 2011. Suitability of Using Recycled Glass-Crushed Rock
Blends for Pavement Subbase Applications. Procs.of GeoFrontiers 2011, Dallas, Texas.
Anand, P., Dipanjan, B., Olivier, C. & Jasaswee, D. 2018. General Report of TC 307 – Sustainability in Geotechnical
Engineering Rapport général du TC 307 -Développement durable en géotechnique. 19th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Sep 2017, Séoul, South Korea.
Arup. 2007. SPeAR Handbook.
Basu, D. & Puppala, A. 2015. Sustainability: an emerging discipline within geotechnical engineering. Conference: 16th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, January 2015. Edinburgh, UK.
BRE, 2018. BREEAM UK New Construction 2018, Technical Manual. BRE Global Ltd. UK.BRE, 2019. CEEQUAL
version 6: Technical Manual. BRE Global Ltd. UK
Brundtland, G. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
Chau, C., Inui, T., Soga, K., & Nicholson, D. 2011. Embodied Energy and Gas Emissions of Retaining Wall Structures.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137(10), 958-967, October 2011.
Chau, C., Soga, K., Nicholson, D., O'Riordan, N., & Inui, T. 2008. Embodied Energy as an Environmental Impact
Indicator for Basement Wall Construction. GeoCongress 2008, 867-874.
Engineering New Zealand. 2016. Code of Ethical Conduct. 1 July 2016.
Egan, D. and Slocombe, B.C. 2010. Demonstrating environmental benefits of ground improvement. Proc. of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Ground Improvement, 163(1), 63- 70.
Flentje, P. & Chowdhury, R. 2018. Resilience and sustainability in the management of landslides. Proc. of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, 171 February 2018 Issue ES1, 3-14.
Holt, D.G.A, Jefferson, I., Braithwaite, P.A., & Chapman, D.N. 2009. Embedding sustainability into geotechnics. Part
A: Methodology. Proc. of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 163(3), 127-135.
Holt, D.G.A, Jefferson, I., Braithwaite, P.A., & Chapman, D.N. 2010. Sustainable Assessment for Geotechnical
Projects. University of Birmingham.
Flentje, P. & Chowdhury, R. 2018. Resilience and sustainability in the management of landslides. Proc. of the
Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability, 171 February 2018 Issue ES1, 3-14.
IPCC, 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global
response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. In Press.
IPENZ. 2005. Practice Note 05 Sustainability and Engineers. Engineering New Zealand (formerly The Institution of
Professional Engineers New Zealand, IPENZ). May 2005.
IPENZ. 2004. Sustainability and Engineering in New Zealand. Engineering New Zealand (formerly The Institution of
Professional Engineers New Zealand, IPENZ).
Jefferis, S.A. 2008. Moving Towards Sustainability in Geotechnical Engineering. GeoCongress March 9-12, 2008.
Jefferson, I., Gaterell, M., Thomas, A.M., & Serridge, C.J. 2010. Emissions assessment related to vibro stone columns.
Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering 156(2): 63–73
Jefferson, I., Hunt, D.V.L., Birchall, C.A. and Rogers, C.D.F. 2007. Sustainability Indicators for Environmental
Geotechnics. Proc. of the Institute of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability, 160(2), 57-78.
Jimenez, M. (2004). Assessment of Geotechnical process on the basis of sustainability principles. MSc Thesis at the
University of Birmingham, UK.
Kibert, C.J. Sustainable Construction; Green Building Design and Delivery, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
Jersey, 2008.
Kupec, J., Mahoney, D., & Parish, R. 2019. Resilience approach to foundation design – A client’s perspective.
ANZGEO, Perth, Australia.
Mahoney, D. & Davidson, R., 2015. Building Post-Earthquake Business Resilience Through Geotechnical Design: A
Christchurch Case Study. 10PCEE, Sydney, Australia.
12
MFE, 2019. MfE Data Service, Greeenhouse Gases Data [online], Ministry of Environment, viewed 20 September
2019, <https://data.mfe.govt.nz/data/category/environmental-reporting/atmosphere-climate/greenhouse-gases/>.
Misra, A. & Basu, D. 2011. Sustainability in Geotechnical Engineering Internal Geotechnical Report 2011-2. University
of Conneticut Technical Report.
NZGBC, 2017. Green Star: Technical Manual v3.2. New Zealand Green Building Council, NZ.
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd. 2014. International Sustainability Systems Comparison. Key International Sustainability
Systems: energy and Water Conservation Requirements.
Sewell, J.E. & Fraser, D.J. 2019. A Study of the Effectiveness of BREEAM as an Assessment Tool for Sustainability by
Interview of Practitioners. The Sheffield Hallam University Built Environment Research Transactions.
Soga, K., Chau, C., Nicholson, D. & Pantelidou, H. 2011. Embodied energy: Soil retaining geosystems. KSCE Journal
of Civil Engineering, 15, 739-749.
Spaulding, C., Masse, F. & LaBrozzi, J.(2008). Ground Improvement Technologies for a Sustainable World. Proc. of
the Geo Congress 2008, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178, 891-898.
Stats NZ, 2019. New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions [online], Stats NZ Tautauranga Aotearoa, viewed 20
September 2019, https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
Storesund, R., Massey, J., & Kim, K. 2008. Life cycle impacts for concrete retaining walls vs. bioengineered slopes.
Geocongress 2008, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 178 ASCE, New Orleans: 875–882.
Trusson, M. 2019. Whole Life Costing for Sustainable Building. Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2019.
United Nations, 2015. Report: Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
Sustainabledevelopment.un.org.
USGBC, 2013. LEED: Reference Guide for Building Design and Construction, v4.1. U.S. Green Building Council, U.S.
Weaver, P. 2002. Defining Science for Sustainable Development. Adaptive Integration of Sustainable Research and
Policy for Development – Deliverable Two. University of Durham January 2002.

13