1 Introduction

The depleting resources and the growing environmental awareness, social requirements and the balanced use of economy were the basis of the idea of sustainability. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) therefore introduced the “triple bottom line” criteria, to achieve sustainability in the construction industry. The approach encompasses economy, equity and environment generally termed as 3 Es (Fig. 1). Based on four priorities for change, ASCE developed a five-year roadmap to implement Sustainable Development (SD) in Policy Statement 418 ASCE (2013).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Aspects of sustainability (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009)

Full size image

Numerous studies have been conducted contributing to SD. Some of the works are focused on geosynthetics, material reuse and recycling (Pham 2020), and some contribute to the use of underground space (Broere 2016). Geohazards mitigation is an important aspect (Kuriqi et al. 2016; Muceku et al. 2016; Yasuhara et al. 2012). Similarly, new technologies are gaining the highlight of researchers such as biotechnology (Omoregie et al. 2018) and nanotechnology (Taha and Alsharef 2018).

Recycled material and alternate material usage are often considered to be contributing to sustainability, but it is not always the case. Different factors of sustainability should be considered as well while doing so such as the economic viability, long-term performance, environmental impacts, acceptance by the community and many more. The local market must also not be disrupted due to a complete shift from traditional methods to innovative techniques, which ultimately will affect the community and the ongoing economic aspects of their life. Similarly, the use of underground space seems to be a smart and intelligent way to achieve sustainability but, in some cases, psychological issues of community such as security threats and their aesthetic sense may not allow such.

Assessment of activities must be carried out to confirm and authenticate their effectiveness in achieving the SD goals. This is in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (UNSDG) 12, specifically target 12.B (Johnston 2016). Different approaches have been used to do so, some being anthropogenic as “Weak Sustainability” (Arrow et al. 2003) and others multi-dimensional revolving around the 3 Es as “Strong Sustainability” (Daly 2005). Seager et al. (2012) developed an approach termed as “Sustainability Science” to cope with the complexity of engineering problems. Rating systems were developed in civil engineering as well such as Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (BRE 2014), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (HOK et al. 2008), Environmental and Whole Life Cost Estimating Tool (ENVEST 2) (Watson et al. 2004), Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL) (BRE 2018), Design Quality Indicator (DQI) (Gann et al. 2003), EnVision (ISI 2015), Environmental Geotechnics Indicators (EGI) (Jefferson et al. 2007) and SPeAR (ARUP 2010). A few of these systems are unidimensional and others multi-dimensional.

Geotechnical engineering has different dynamics and specifics as compared to other fields of civil engineering. Being heterogeneous, geotechnics carries uncertainties far more complicated than any other civil engineering branch. As identified by Misra and Basu (2011) and Basu et al. (2015), geotechnical engineering lacks a dedicated assessment tool. A thorough review of the available literature on sustainability and assessment tools confirmed that no tool is specific to geotechnical projects, and therefore, a new tool must be developed. The review focused on understanding the technical dynamics of geotechnics, sustainability and existing assessment tools, and their potential applicability to geotechnical projects.

The study aims to develop one such tool that is dedicated to geotechnical projects, encompassing the 3 Es of sustainability, with the inclusion of Engineering as suggested by Basu et al. (2015) to modify it to 4 Es (Fig. 2). The objectives of this study are to identify the areas of geotechnical projects that need to be assessed, develop indicators for these areas, quantify them on a scale for coherent assessment throughout and evaluate Pakistan’s construction industry that whether any assessment tool is used specifically to geotechnics.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Triple bottom line approach with associated conflicts with the inclusion of engineering (Basu et al. 2015)

Full size image

The new tool developed is named Geo-SAT (Geotechnical Sustainability Assessment Tool). This paper focuses on the assessment of social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainability. The system differentiates among these aspects and therefore has an advantage over others.

2 Available sustainability assessment tools

Several assessment techniques/tools have been developed within the past few decades. Some can be implemented at all stages and some are restricted to only a few phases of construction. Some are generic and others project-specific, some unidimensional and others multi-dimensional. Two systems that are well established are the Environmental Management System and Corporate Social Responsibility (Braithwaite 2007). But both these tools are unidimensional. Therefore, new tools were developed in the construction industry as identified in Sect. 1, to make sure that they are multi-dimensional and assess all the complexities of engineering ventures. A summary of a few well-developed multi-dimensional tools as SPeAR (Holt 2010) and EnVision (ISI 2015) is presented in this section.

2.1 SPeAR

Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR) was developed by ARUP (2010). It is a software-based assessment tool. The aim is to incorporate different stakeholders into understanding the concept of sustainability. The system is based on the environmental programs of the United Nations (UN) and the indicators defined by the UK government. The results are shown on a figure similar to a dartboard having shaded concentric circles intending to hit the center (Fig. 3). The closer the indicator is to the center, the more sustainable it is. The rating is done on a scale of − 3 to + 3, from least to most sustainable aspects, respectively. A score of − 3 (worst case) relates to bare compliance and 0 represents the best practices currently available. + 3 represents the benchmarks set to meet sustainability standards in each field by experts. It divides the project into 4 main categories, i.e., environment, natural resources, societal and economic. Each category is subdivided into further categories as can be seen in Fig. 3. Environment and society have 6 sub-categories and economic and natural resources have 4.

Fig. 3
figure 3

SPeAR template (Basu et al. 2015)

Full size image

2.1.1 Strengths

  • SPeAR model can be applied at any stage within the project from planning to long-term monitoring. It gives you feedback throughout that how much has one been able to achieve the set goals and identify where one has missed. In other words, it gives you a framework for continuous improvement and assessment.

  • It does not compare one project with another, but instead compares the different aspects within a project, thereby considering each project unique.

  • It is a method to improve the project in terms of sustainability and not an award system to be asked for.

  • It gives the flexibility to modify, add or remove any indicator as per the project’s nature and therefore is both generic and technique-specific.

2.1.2 Weaknesses

  • A proper assessment team is required for effective results.

  • Modifications are required to the indicators to configure it with geotechnical engineering.

  • The assessment is generic and not quantified.

  • The numbering is based on engineering judgment keeping in mind the best and worst cases as benchmarks.

2.1.3 SPeAR to Geo-SPeAR

The indicators defined by SPeAR are very broad and generic and can be used for assessment of geotechnical projects, but still, there are a few indicators that need to be removed. Holt (2010) removed 16 of 122 indicators, as they were based on advanced level business decisions. The indicators removed are given in Table 1. Some indicators were modified and some added. Modified and new indicators are given in Table 2. Despite these works, the weaknesses persist and therefore suggest the development of a new tool.

Table 1 Indicators removed from SPeAR by (Holt 2010)
Full size table
Table 2 Indicators modified by Holt (2010)
Full size table

2.2 EnVision

Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure developed EnVision in 2015. It is a decision-making tool based on the triple bottom line approach (ISI 2015). EnVision is based on 5 categories, i.e., Leadership, Quality of Life, Climate and Risk, Natural World and Resource allocation. These categories are assessed using 60 sustainability criteria. Each criterion is assessed using 5 scales, i.e., Restorative, Conserving, Superior, Enhanced and Improved. The complete points scorecard is shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Points scorecard for EnVision (ISI 2015)

Full size image

2.2.1 Strengths

  • The system is based on a qualitative and quantitative rating scheme specific to civil engineering.

  • The system focuses on the resilient and long-term impacts of decisions on the environment and society.

  • The system targets to lower the costs and time of the owner and community and makes sure the stakeholders’ communication is enhanced.

2.2.2 Weaknesses

  • The system has no marginal distinction between different aspects of sustainability.

  • The scale defined for all criteria is different and not consistent throughout. A few criteria lack a complete scale.

  • The system is weak in assessing the engineering activities carried out during the project life cycle.

  • The system is generic and does not target geotechnical projects and therefore requires modifications.

2.3 Need of a new framework

The different aspects of sustainability and the multiple assessment tools available in the construction industry were studied. It was concluded that geotechnical engineering needs the development of a new sustainability assessment tool. The tool should focus on the achievement of SD goals related to the diverse geotechnical dynamics. This paper focuses on the assessment of the triple bottom line approach specific to geotechnical engineering. The tool developed is called Geo-SAT (Geotechnical Sustainability Assessment Tool).

3 Methodology to develop a framework for Geo-SAT

Available literature pertinent to sustainability and geotechnical engineering was reviewed to analyze the application potential of tools to geotechnics. Efforts were made to review the impact of past and current construction practices and the current decision-making on sustainability in the field of geotechnics. The field experience of the authors gained from several projects was also taken advantage of. The recommendations of different researchers to achieve sustainability were also considered. Using this approach, indicators were developed alongside a quantifiable scale. The complete details of the works studied for review and development of this tool are shown in Table 3. A questionnaire survey based on multiple questions was conducted in Pakistan. The survey focused on the investigation of the literature findings, i.e., practices followed, and if any tool specific to geotechnics was used (Fig. 5). The questionnaire was divided into sections based on demographic information and 6 stages of a project, i.e., feasibility, design, construction, etc. A total of 44 questions were asked. Each question was based on a scale of 1 (harmful) to 5 (significantly improved), showing the impact of activities carried out in Pakistan on the sustainability. One question was specific to the use of any sustainability assessment tool.

Table 3 Sources referred to develop indicators and sub-indicators for social, environmental and economic aspects
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Methodology to develop a new framework for geotechnical projects

Full size image

4 Results and discussion

Eighty-two responses from 70 firms associated with construction activities in Pakistan participated in the survey. All these firms were targeting different phases of construction (Fig. 6). The survey reflected the current practices followed in Pakistan and understands their impacts on sustainability. Based on the expertise and experiences, the respondents confirmed that only 15.9% of the firms used sustainability assessment techniques and the rest do not use any (Fig. 7). The tools used were not specific to geotechnics and thereby indicate the need for a new system.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Survey results of construction activities carried out by respondents

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Survey results related to the use of sustainability assessment tool in Pakistan

Full size image

4.1 Framework to develop Geo-SAT

Based on 4 Es, Geo-SAT was developed using detailed literature specific to geotechnics, sustainability and assessment tools. The complete details of the works studied are shown in Table 3. The framework was based on 5 sections called “aspects,” i.e., General Information, Engineering, Social, Environmental and Economy. Each section was then subcategorized into “stages” which are based on “indicators,” which are further grounded on “sub-indicators.” The framework is based on a total number of 169 sub-indicators and 79 focusing on the triple bottom line. The impact of each indicator on sustainability is assessed using a Likert scale of 1–5, i.e., detrimental, reduced, neutral, improved and significantly improved. The scale for 16 of these indicators was kept the same as of EGI. Sixty-three new indicators and scales were developed as a whole.

4.1.1 Social aspect of Geo-SAT

Vanclay (2002) identified 80 impacts related to the social aspect of sustainability in general. Using the works of researchers enlisted in Table 3 and the practices followed in Pakistan, a total of 31 sub-indicators specific to geotechnics were derived and quantified. These were divided into eight broad stages (Fig. 8). These indicators along with their impacts are summarized in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Framework for assessment of the social aspect of sustainability

Full size image
Table 4 Community stage: social aspect
Full size table

  • S-01 to S-02: The community must be consulted before the start of any project. This ensures their point of view and helps understand what to expect from the project. Not taking community on board is one of the reasons that the majority of the projects fail to safeguard the utilities being used by the communities.

  • S-03 to S-05: The essence of any community is its culture and the archelogy. These resources must be protected as these are a vital part of sustainability. This was recognized by the Asia-Europe Foundation in 2008 by initiating a program call Connect2Culture. Similarly, in 1996, “Villette-Amazone” was organized in Paris by the French Committee for Environment and Sustainable Development to combine architecture and ecological urbanism with projects (Kagan 2014). UNSDG target 11.4 aims at this indicator.

  • S-06 to S-09: The UNSDG 5 targets “gender equality” to end all sorts of gender discrimination. Equal opportunities are further targeted in indicator 5.5 of UNSDGs. Therefore, the approaches made in any developed society or community should not be gender or age specific. They should target multiple groups. Also, the UN declaration 34 in 2030 Agenda for SD focuses on the cohesion in a community. Table 4 summarizes indicators S-01 to S-09.

  • S-10 to S-16: Once the facility is constructed (and during construction as well), it should be safe against any threats and must provide safety to the community as well. This is in line with UN declaration 34 in 2030 Agenda. It should not have harmful effects on the health of the occupying species. It should have a disease control program especially in the case of communicable diseases as highlighted in UNSDG target 3.3. Also, during its lifetime, it should be a source of income and employment for the communities (UNSDG targets 9.2 and 12.8). At the salvage stage, the facility advisably should have redevelopment potential and be used in the future.

Table 5 summarizes indicators S-10 to S-16.

Table 5 Security, land use and livelihood stages: social aspect
Full size table

  • S-17 to S-21: Keeping in mind the alarming climate changes and the threats associated, the structure or facility must provide services such as irrigation, flood control, connectivity, etc. Efforts must be made to combat disasters and reduce social losses (UNSDG targets 11.5 and 15.3). Similarly, accessibility and connectivity not be compromised (UNSDG target 11.2).

  • S-22 to S-27: Larger structures often face political issues and therefore must be catered during the planning stages. A few such examples are Kalabagh Dam in Pakistan facing domestic political issues (Khan et al. 2014) and the continuous conflict between India and Pakistan since 1960, most popularly called as “Indus water treaty” (Biswas 1992; Kalair et al. 2019). The indicators developed to assess activities related to these concerns are given in Table 6.

    Table 6 Infrastructure and political stages: social aspect
    Full size table

  • S-28 to S-29: Information must be shared and be readily available for the community. This information helps in increasing the connectivity and the cohesion among communities. Majority of the researchers face this difficulty of accessing data in Pakistan. The authors too faced such difficulties. Therefore, efforts must be made to help researchers carry out research activities and help grow the people associated.

  • S-30 to S-31: Large dams have caused massive relocations. Reports suggest a total number of almost 80 million (Kirchherr et al. 2019). This resettlement must be planned and should have a grievance mechanism to accommodate the social insecurities of people displaced. The indicators S-28 to S-31 are given in Table 7.

    Table 7 Geoethics and resettlement stages: social aspect
    Full size table

4.1.2 Environmental aspect of Geo-SAT

The environmental aspect was subdivided into ten stages as shown in Fig. 9 and was developed using 37 different sub-indicators. The indicators and their effects on sustainability for each stage of sustainability are summarized in Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Framework for assessment of the environmental aspect of sustainability

Full size image
Table 8 Soil and land and biodiversity stages: social aspect
Full size table
Table 9 Waste, indoor environment and landscaping stages: environmental aspect
Full size table
Table 10 Water and energy stages: environmental aspect
Full size table
Table 11 Climate change, air quality, noise and light stages: environmental aspect
Full size table

  • En-01 to En-10: Contaminated land remediation projects need to be assessed by the technique-specific indicators developed by Jefferson et al. (2007) for EGI (UNSDG target 3.9). Erosion and sediment control are one important aspect of geotechnics. These must be met with a plan thoroughly drafted as a report along with all the relevant drawings. The plan must include inspections and monitoring activities. The project must also ensure the protection of local habitats of occupying species and should not be a habitat to harmful species. The indicators developed to assess activities related to these concerns are given in Table 8.

  • En-13 to En-18: The waste associated with any project during construction and operation must be cleared through the use of a plan, including hazardous or special waste (UNSDGs targets 6.3, 11.6, 12.4 and 12.5). Secondly, the landscape and indoor environment must provide a pleasing environment with maximum benefits to the occupants and nearby community. The indicators developed to assess activities related to these concerns are given in Table 9.

  • En-19 to En-27: Water is the most essential compound for all living organisms. Maintaining the aquifers, reducing the use of clean water on construction projects and its efficient use via monitoring and avoiding pollution, is necessary (UNSDG targets 6.3–6.6). Keeping in mind the depleting resources and the impacts of fossil fuels as a source of energy, measures are required to control their usage and should be used efficiently. Monitoring is required and awareness must be spread among the users to control unsustainable practices (UNSDG targets 7.2, 7.3, 7.A, 7.B and 12.C). The indicators developed to assess activities related to these concerns are given in Table 10.

  • En-28 to En-37: Any construction project has severe impacts on the air quality because of the emissions. The dust produced limits the visibility and causes diseases as well. The equipment and practices are a major cause of noise pollution as well. As a whole, the surrounding climate is disturbed. Therefore, efforts are required to control all these negative impacts associated with geotechnical projects. The UNSDG targets related to these concerns are 11.6, 11.B, 12.4, 15.2 and goal 13. The indicators developed to assess activities related to these concerns are given in Table 11.

4.2 Economic aspect of Geo-SAT

The economic aspect was subdivided into three stages as shown in Fig. 10 and was developed using 11 different sub-indicators. The indicators and their effects on sustainability are summarized in Tables 12 and 13.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Framework for assessment of the economic aspect of sustainability

Full size image
Table 12 Economic effect stage: economic aspect
Full size table
Table 13 Facilities management and labor standards stage: economic aspect
Full size table

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) encompasses all the costs associated with the lifetime of a project. This helps in identifying the weaknesses and benefits of any project. The return on investment period is identified as well, ensuring efficient planning. The distortions faced by the local economy are also identified. The carbon price fluctuations need to be considered along with the timeline of the project and need to be considered in the LCCA. The indicators developed to assess activities related to these concerns are given in Table 12.

The land developed after the construction of the project must give benefits to the community in terms of business or any other infrastructure. Secondly, the structure should be flexible enough to support the changes along its timeline. This can be done using appropriate technologies which will ensure lower operation and maintenance costs. It should be noted that the labor standards must be followed as well during this entire process. The indicators developed to assess activities related to these concerns are given in Table 13.

4.3 Discussions

A new tool was developed for the sustainability assessment of geotechnical projects called Geo-SAT, focusing on the environment, economy, social and engineering aspects. The tool is based on a total of 169 quantifiable indicators, 79 dedicated to the triple bottom line. The number of indicators retained from EGI for social, environmental and economic aspects are 6, 16 and 2, respectively. The scale measures the impact on sustainability on a scale of 1 (detrimental) to 5 (significantly improved) and is coherent throughout. This tool overtakes the weaknesses of other tools such as quantifiable indicators, exclusive division among the aspects, consistent scale, marginal distinction among the different aspects of sustainability and specific to geotechnical projects. Each aspect is divided into stages which are assessed using indicators summarized in Fig. 2. The assessment for each stage is totaled, averaged and plotted on a graph as shown in Fig. 11. The greater the area of the closed polygon, the more sustainable is the project. Efforts were also made to develop a relationship between the Geo-SAT indicators and UNSDGs. The tool helps to assess the different aspects individually but does not classify or rate the project as a whole. It should be noted that the cost analysis of the implementation of Geo-SAT on any project has not been conducted. Case studies should be considered to do so. It is worth mentioning here that the difficulty of accessing data in Pakistan limited the researches to develop and quantify indicators based on literature review only.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Sample averaged Geo-SAT score

Full size image

5 Conclusions

Within the recent past, efforts have been made in the field of geotechnics to incorporate sustainability such as material reuse and recycling, use of geosynthetics, efficient utilization of underground space, incorporation of biotechnology and nanotechnology, and geohazards mitigation. These activities need to be audited and assessed to measure their impact on sustainability. Geotechnical projects have come up short on a sustainability evaluation technique. To date, the assessment techniques followed in the construction industry fall short on the capability of utilization to geotechnics. This is because available tools are either unidimensional or lack a consistent measurement scale. Some do not consider engineering as a fundamental pillar of sustainability. Although modifications were made to the Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine tool to ensure its applicability to geotechnics, but still the technique did not suffice the need. A questionnaire survey conducted in Pakistan with 82 responses from 70 firms affirmed the deductions of the literature review. Therefore, using a detailed literature review of sustainability, geotechnology, past and current construction practices, recommendations of researchers as a way forward and the existing appraisal techniques, a new assessment tool called Geo-SAT (Geotechnical Sustainability Assessment Tool) was developed. The tool is based on 4 Es (engineering, equity, economy and environment) and dedicated to geotechnical projects. Using indicators and sub-indicators specific to geotechnical projects, Geo-SAT covers the “triple bottom line” approach. A reliable scale of 1 (detrimental) to 5 (significantly improved) was used that reflects the impact on sustainability. The scale is reliable as it is easy to comprehend and follow. Geo-SAT is developed using 169 indicators, 90 devoted to engineering, 31 to social characterized by 8 stages, 37 to environmental based on 10 stages and 11 to economic aspect assessed in 3 stages. The total number of indicators retained from Environmental Geotechnics Indicators is 24. A total score for each stage is calculated, averaged and plotted on a graph in the form of a closed polygon. The greater the area of the closed polygon, the more sustainable is the project. The different aspects are differentiated in this tool that helps in understanding sustainability related to geotechnical projects. The major strengths of Geo-SAT are:

  • The indicators created are explicit to geotechnical projects.

  • This tool gives the adaptability of including or barring indicators according to the nature of the project.

  • The scale is well-characterized and straightforward.

  • This system will go about as a code for guaranteeing sustainability in geotechnics.

  • Geo-SAT targets the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to achieve sustainable development agenda for 2030.

  • The average score for each stage gives a clear reflection of performance at each stage and ultimately the respective aspect.

  • Assessment can be carried out at any stage of the project. Iterative assessments will ensure continuous improvement along the timeline of the project, thus ensuring better project management.