The evolving role of engineers: towards sustainable development of the built environment

POLICY ARENA

THE EVOLVING ROLE OF ENGINEERS:TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

HEATHER J. CRUICKSHANK* and RICHARD. A. FENNER

Centre for Sustainable Development, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge,

Cambridge, UK

Abstract: Sustainable development requires consideration of the requirements of systems

that interact in a complex way. Consideration of these systems, with regard to the provision of

infrastructure for the built environment serving an increasingly urbanised world, requires

engineers to embrace a range of additional skills beyond the engineering science they have

traditionally relied upon to solve engineering problems. This will require changes to theway in

which engineering education prepares students for professional practice. This paper draws on

field research and recommends expanding the solution space open to engineers. To facilitate

this broader decision-making requirement, it provides a framework to assist engineers in

arriving at a suitable solution. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: engineers; sustainable development; ethics; engineering education.

1 INTRODUCTION

The main elements of sustainable development can be considered as nested systems

(Figure 1), of which the environmental system is inevitable and provides the context in

which everything else is set. The laws of nature are non-negotiable and everything must

operate within them. Thus the environmental system supports and makes human activity

possible. Within that system, we have created society, which operates in accordance with

instinctive and cultural laws. Society has then invented the economic system to serve its

own purposes. Economies cannot function in isolation from our decisions since without us

they would not exist (Tideman, 2001).

Journal of International Development

J. Int. Dev. 19, 111–121 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jid.1352

*Correspondence to: Heather Cruickshank, Centre for Sustainable Development, Department of Engineering,University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Engineers work at the interfaces between these systems, providing (i) products where

society interacts with economy and (ii) infrastructure at the society/environment boundary.

As a result, engineering activities have a major impact on the world. Consequences range

from the quantity of non-renewable resources used and the changes made to the quality of

the natural environment (environmental system), to effects on people through the services

to support human gatherings (social system). Engineering is also likely to require (and

generate) large amounts of money (economic system). When viewed in this way the

similarities between engineering activities and the fundamental elements of sustainable

development become apparent even if this is not always recognised, particularly by

engineers themselves.

Engagement with sustainable development must include the improvement of the built

environment, which serves the most basic human needs in terms of shelter, water supply

and sanitation, and infrastructure to enable social organisation. Providing these essential

services necessarily impacts on the natural environment (Brandon, 1999) and as the rapidly

growing human population is further increasing the demand for societal and physical

infrastructure, the need to provide this in a sustainable way is also growing.

Engineers provide this infrastructure that underpins society. At all levels, civil

engineering (or less formal manifestations thereof) provides the basis on which people can

build their lives. Consequently, the discipline is both vital to and intimately affected by the

principles of sustainable development.

1.1 The Built Environment

The urban population has increased markedly over the last 150 years. In 1850 there were

only two cities in the world with over 1 million inhabitants (London and Paris) and by 1950

only Greater London and New York City had populations over 10 million (Herkert, 1998).

Now almost half the global population resides in cities, many of which have populations

larger than some countries. This move has resulted in a dramatic shift in the way humans fit

into the ecosphere (Rees, 1999).

Figure 1. Elements of Sustainable Development as a nested system.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 19, 111–121 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/jid

112 H. J. Cruickshank and R. A. Fenner

There are currently 26 metropolitan areas with populations of over 10 million people and

of those, only 7 are not in developing countries. There are 61 mega-cities (those with over

5 million inhabitants) in total, and of these, less than one-third (18) are not in developing

countries. These mega-cities currently account for around 7 per cent of the global

population, and this proportion is likely to increase. The United Nations predict that over

5 billion people will be living in cities by 2025 (UN, 1995).

In high-income countries there is often a high urban population as a percentage of the

total country population with up to 80 per cent living in cities and towns, and this can have a

detrimental effect on the environmental system with over two-thirds of the world’s

pollution being associated with cities in rich countries (Rees, 1999). These rich cities,

mainly in the developed North, are imposing the greatest load on the global commons, in

particular the eco-sphere (Rees and Roseland, 1998). They are intensive ‘nodes of

consumption’ with an ecological footprint typically ‘two to three orders of magnitude

higher than the geographic areas they physically occupy’ (Rees, 1999). Furthermore, due to

the separation between production and consumption, the inhabitants of these high-income

cities may be unaware of the degradation of the resource base on which they depend that

results from their consumer lifestyles (UNDP, 1998).

Also, many of the problems affecting the poor of the developing world are found in the

mega-cities (Hardoy and Satterthwaite, 1992) and as the urban population grows, so will

the problems associated with it. The way that cities develop in the coming century will be a

key factor in achieving a sustainable future, or not. Anyone involved in creating the built

environment will have a major role to play in contributing to sustainable development of

cities and beyond (Rees, 1999) but they need to engage in dialogue, and importantly,

consensus, between different strands of professional expertise and with recipients and

beneficiaries of this development in the built environment (Brandon, 1999). The role that

technological innovation will play in this is also very important, because it can drive the

way in which society is structured, and consequently, the way in which resources are

consumed and wastes generated (Beder, 1994; Herkert et al., 1996).

The current trend of urbanisation certainly has the potential for serious negative

implications, but there is also the opportunity for some advantages of economies of scale

offered by population concentrations including lower costs per capita of services such as

piped water, sewerage connections, waste collection and other public amenities and their

associated infrastructure (Rees, 1999).

Professional engineers have a sound understanding of the scientific principles that

underpin both the natural and the technical world and they already have many of the skills

necessary to address sustainable development issues (Parkin, 2000a). However,

widespread practice still needs to reflect this. Parkin (2000b) suggests that achieving

human well-being within the sustainable development constraints may be ‘as pivotal a

moment in history as when the agricultural age gave way to the industrial era’.

Achieving sustainable development presents different challenges compared with other

dimensions of the built environment management problem. These include issues such as

‘longer time perspective; wider social, political and economic context; greater number

of actors; lack of a framework; absence of feedback mechanisms; [and] weakness of

evaluation tools’ (Brandon, 1999). However, there must be caution about the perception of

engineers by the wider community. Despite the industry’s best intentions to be at the

forefront of the work, the prospect of engineers initiating and shaping the implementation

of sustainable development ideals is in doubt due to a history of impressive but somewhat

ill-conceived projects (McCully, 1991). As a result, some key players, including


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Evolving Role of Engineers 113

representatives of the World Bank, consider that engineers should be left to carry out

implementation at the end and should not be involved at all in framing the policies

(Campbell, 2002). Crofton (1995) observes that engineers tend to compartmentalise work,

knowledge and skills and this can be an obstacle by restricting the growth of broader

perspectives and integrated solutions. Given that traditionally engineers have taken a

specific (and narrow) technical role with little involvement in wider aspects or implications

of the work, this opinion is hardly surprising (Campbell, 2002).

Engineers need to re-evaluate their role and responsibilities in the development process

and re-address what it is we are trying to do, to demonstrate that we have an understanding

of the broader issues and that we are able to construct appropriate solutions.

2 REDEFINING THE ENGINEER’S ROLE

This paper examines the wider framework that engineers need to embrace if they are to

expand their ‘design space’ and formulate more holistically conceived solutions to any

given problem. To achieve this, two areas must be addressed. First, clear guidelines need to

be articulated that help engineers both develop and assess the sustainable development

implications of their work. Secondly, achieving the necessary skills to implement

sustainable development requires modifications to the way engineers are educated.

In particular, there is a need for engineers to consider the social system aspects of

sustainable development, rather than the more conventional considerations of balancing

environmental protection with economic growth, largely through cost-benefit analysis.

Campbell (2002) acknowledges that engineers have been part of the problem as well as its

potential solution and that now the engineer’s role may be more about conserving the

quality of the resources we have left. Sustainable development policies must address issues

of equity and just distribution of resources and opportunities, but these are often not

considered by engineers (Herkert, 1998).

2.1 Widening Horizons

Much has been written about sustainable development, such that it is often hard to make the

necessary connections with engineering at the day-to-day level of practical implementa-

tion. Whilst classical civil engineering activity has aimed at satisfying three overarching

requirements, those of quality, cost and time, a wider framework is needed to help guide the

engineer towards solutions that are more responsive to real needs, especially important in

many development situations. This helps to define a new enlarged solution space which

accepts, but goes beyond, considerations of economic profitability, market conditions, and

competition as the drivers behind the choice of solutions. Such a framework has been

proposed (Fenner et al., 2006), which attempts to encapsulate the sustainable development

debate through encouraging engineers to work within a wider system boundary, defined

through the following elements (Figure 2).

2.1.1 Ethical foundation

This can provide the intellectual underpinning, and hence the justification for seeking a

specific course of engineering action (or avoidance). It links the project proponents, the

policy environment that relates to a project, the people affected by the project and the


DOI: 10.1002/jid


professional team involved. It encourages engineers to explore the justification for a

scheme, and how it fits with the prevailing policy, end users and the environment.

2.1.2 Justice through participation

This covers the area of social equity, equal rights for development, democracy, public

participation and empowerment. It also requires engineers to be scrupulous in terms of

transparency and justification in decision-making. The social implications of development

should be considered at the engineering design stage, taking into account any cultural,

religious, ethnic or gender issues that might be relevant. The benefits for key recipients

must be considered as well as ensuring that the effects are not over-damaging for the rest.

Genuine concerns should be embraced through a willingness to adapt and modify designs,

and a process of managing disagreements accepted by all parties.

2.1.3 Efficient co-ordinated infrastructures

In consciously shaping the built environment, the engineer should be striving to create

infrastructure that is ecologically acceptable, energy and resource efficient, and contributes

to healthy, vibrant and cohesive living spaces. Engineering services such as transport

systems, water and sanitation, communication networks, flood defences, buildings and

other aspects of urban fabric impact on the lives of all those who live in towns and cities,

sometimes with negative consequences (traffic congestion, pollution, visual impact, noise

and wider system failures). Areas of good practice therefore include the use of alternative

building materials, minimising waste, maximising energy efficiency, and facilitating

recycling and material conservation.

2.1.4 Maintenance of natural capital

Recent trends have seen increasingly tight environmental constraints being imposed on

engineering activity. Indeed the ability to mitigate environmental impacts has been seen in

Figure 2. Widened system boundary for engineering (Fenner et al., 2006).


DOI: 10.1002/jid


the minds of many engineers as evidence that sustainable development is being addressed

and achieved. Whilst the need to maintain ecosystem diversity is important, it is not

presented here as the sole or over-riding driver. Nevertheless opportunities should be

sought throughout for enhancement as well as mitigation.

2.1.5 Holistic financial accountability

This requires that the narrow and internal interests of individual parties are at least viewed

in the light of wider project, community and environmental interests. The form of

agreement and contract between parties can unintentionally induce inefficiencies in a

system because the wider implications are not considered.

2.1.6 Systems context

Issues such as environmental degradation, poverty and economic success are

fundamentally interlinked and can only be addressed through integrative management.

Capra (2003) has described a world that is complex, hierarchically structured and

characterised by non-linear dynamics. Such inherent complexity leads to indeterminacy

and uncertainty. The linear approach to procure, design, build, operate and decommission

can lead to a failure to recognise the wider context in which engineering takes place as part

of a series of complex systems, with feedback loops involving society and the environment.

A systems view should help avoid the possibility of merely translating a given problem into

a more remote state or others’ responsibility.

2.1.7 Interlinking scales

Sustainable development can be viewed very differently from the perspective of individual

life styles, or collectively at regional, national and global levels. Not only should distant

spatial impacts be considered that may seem beyond the perceived remit of the ‘local’

engineer, but inter-generational interests also need to be addressed and protected. It is the

duty of the engineer to address aspects of a project that affect future generations and seek to

develop designs and strategies in anticipation of their needs as well as those of the present.

This raises the difficult question of where the boundary of an engineering project should be

set and how far its influence should be considered.

2.1.8 Future vision

In the Thirty Year Update to Limits to Growth, Meadows et al. (2004) suggest that a

sustainable world can never be fully realised until it is widely envisioned, whilst accepting

that vision without action is useless and needs to be disciplined by scepticism. Vision is

necessary to guide and motivate, and leads to a continuous need for re-invention of

engineering practices and a challenging attitude towards traditional procedures, which may

have been conceived within a much narrower framework, suitable for its time, but no

longer capable of meeting modern challenges. This encourages the setting of ambitious

goals and targets that stimulate creativity and innovation.

These eight key elements provide the wider boundary for the framework we are seeking,

which helps contextualise engineering activity against a backdrop of sustainable

development. The focus here is on problem definition and many of these elements translate

most effectively into the early stages of project delivery, impacting on the scope and

feasibility stages as well as on aspects of implementation through the design, construction

and operational stages. Fenner et al. (2006) have described how this framework may be

translated into a series of practical questions applicable to a range of engineering projects,


DOI: 10.1002/jid


largely within a developed country context. These are designed to enable practising

engineers to be self critical of their decisions and can be used as concise references against

which engineering actions can be judged. A similar approach can be taken for development

in a developing country context and these are discussed in the next section.

3 KEY CRITERIA

A set of key criteria that can be used to guide engineering activity is proposed in Table 1.

Addressing the summary questions can help to structure consideration about the

contribution of a project towards sustainable development, including identification of

trade-offs made between the key criteria.

Consideration of the key criteria can illustrate whether short-term benefits are being

made at the expense of long-term requirements and this may suggest a route to varying the

development path to allow for rectification of this as required. The aim is not to use the key

criteria to identify a perfect project, should such a thing even exist, but rather to use the

lessons learned to allow individual projects to contribute to the further development

process. It is also worth remembering that significant lessons sometimes can be learned

from problems more readily than successes and valuable knowledge gained in this way can

contribute to iterative improvements in future projects.

All assessments are to some extent subjective because the priorities (and prejudices) of

the assessor will affect the value-judgements made. However, being aware of this fact and

considering the analysis of the key criteria can help reveal useful information.

Previous authors have noted the difficulty associated with professional decision-making.

For example, suggesting that under ‘crisis conditions or time constraints’ the process is not

rational and draws extensively on personal professional experience from which

professionals recognise patterns of events from previous experience and aim to act in a

similar way to previous successful actions (Klein, 1998; Perlman and Varma, 2001). These

Table 1. Summary of key criteria (Cruickshank, 2004)

Key criteria Question

1 Is maintainable To what extent can the development be operated,

maintained and renewed without external intervention?

2 Meets a need How does the development contribute to addressing a need

and in what ways does the development contribute positive benefits

to the recipient and wider community?

3 Is culturally appropriate How culturally appropriate is the development considering

who was responsible for its assessment?

4 Is appropriately affordable Are those responsible for the initiation, operation and maintenance

of the development willing and able to pay the costs required?

5 Does not unreasonably

consume resources

What level of consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources

is caused by the development and how appropriate is this consumption?

6 Is not excessively damaging What effect does the development have on the condition of the global

commons and on local resources including human and social capital?

7 Promotes equity In what ways does the development increase intra-generational equity

addressing issues of gender equality, reduction of poverty

and improving rights for children?

8 Allows future development Does the development allow for future development possibilities

and in what ways are future developments constrained?


DOI: 10.1002/jid


types of crisis conditions certainly occur in development situations. Often engineers are

working alone or in relatively small groups, they are under a variety of pressures to deliver

and are often working in remote locations or places where communications are difficult.

They therefore lack the support network that exists in more traditional engineering

environments. As a result, it is often tempting for engineers to resort to methods and

technologies that they are familiar with, but this may not adequately contribute to

sustainable development.

A key recommendation is that continual reassessment is made throughout project

delivery so that iterative improvements can be achieved during the process of

implementation (Cruickshank, 2004), ensuring real needs are met. The body of previous

experience from prior projects needs to be drawn together in a useable way so that

practitioners can benefit from the knowledge of others rather than on having to rely on their

own limited scope. This would help accelerate the rate of iterative improvement and

learning lessons from the past.

4 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Applying the principles of sustainable development to practical development engineering

requires a wider perspective to be taken by the decision-making engineer in terms of the

spatial and temporal impacts arising from actions and decisions taken. It is important to

consider the wider framework discussed here, in particular when providing basic

infrastructure in poor communities. In these cases, often the engineer has a direct contact

and engagement with the recipients of a development engineering project and therefore is

likely to experience/observe more directly the benefits gained from a consideration of

sustainable development, than an engineer who is more remote from the recipients of their

decisions.

The widened framework of engineering decision-making and practice set out in this

paper has been developed through investigation of case studies both in the UK context

(Fenner et al., 2006) and in a range of developing and transitional countries (Cruickshank,

2004). By considering the key criteria questions, it is evident that a number of similarities

exist in the way engineers can contribute to sustainable development, no matter the

environment in which they operate. However, what is important is that decisions are made

in relation to case-specific considerations.

It has been found from field research that outputs (i.e. physical infrastructure elements)

are often counted as a means of measuring success rather than assessing the less

quantifiable outcomes that the project really strove to achieve. For example, in Afghanistan

(typical of development projects elsewhere) the total number of wells installed was

measured rather than monitoring improvements in health that was the reason for installing

the infrastructure. Thus simple indicators of activity are often inadequate in reflecting the

achievement of basic development goals.

Similarly, inadequate or inappropriate consultation can lead to contravening local

administration structures responsible for operation and maintenance of an installed system.

This was demonstrated through a project in Albania, where the implementing agency and

well-meaning engineers had engaged with local women’s groups but failed to work with

local councillors, resulting in difficulties at the hand-over stage and a lack of clear

responsibility allocation that threatened the long-term sustainability of the infrastructure.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Alternatively, good engagement with recipients and accurate identification of their

needs, combined with planned medium-term external facilitation support, can establish

lasting systems. For example, a local agency working in Nepal committed considerable

time before the construction of infrastructure began, to fully engage with the recipient

community and also planned for a further 2-year engagement after completion of the

building phase, to ensure full and effective hand-over of maintenance responsibility and

rectification of any initial problems, both technical and systemic (Cruickshank, 2004).

5 EDUCATIONAL CHALLENGES

Engineers of the future will need to consider the consequences of their developments, and

more importantly, of their own actions, if they are to contribute to sustainable development,

and it is therefore vital that the broader issues of the application of technology are included

in their education and training. Jonathan Porrit of Forum for the Future suggests that there

is ‘no technological block to doing what we do now in a sustainable way’ but that when

engineers and scientists are asked to solve problems, often the wrong questions are posed

due to a lack of vision about the future (Stansfield, 1998) and this often results in

unsustainable outcomes.

To be effective in addressing the pressing problems facing global society in the

twenty-first century, engineering education needs to evolve and embrace some of the ‘soft

skills’ that lie at the interface of the physical sciences and the humanities/social sciences.

This is an area infrequently explored by engineers, despite ever increasing requirements to

seek multi-disciplinary solutions.

Some significant moves have been made towards improving sustainable development

education and training. We are still far from accepting the communication of these issues

into the general curriculum, although initiatives such as the Royal Academy of Engineering

(RAE) scheme to fund Visiting Professors in Engineering Design for Sustainable

Development in universities across the UK is making steps towards this aim. Since its

inception in 1998, the scheme, which enables respected engineering practitioners from

industry to contribute significantly to the activities of academia in respect of curriculum

development in this area (see RAE website: http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/vps/

sustdev), has produced a variety of outcomes. These include recently a set of guiding

principles (Dodds and Venables, 2005), which has helped to illustrate the importance of

sustainable development and what can be achieved in a practical context. One of the

outputs of the scheme is a collection of case studies that demonstrate the much useful good

practice that is already being achieved.

Traditional academic courses have focussed on the solution of problems and have

equipped students with the necessary skills to resolve complex problems within a relatively

narrow solution space. This reflects the Newtonian or deterministic approach rooted in

commanding a thorough knowledge of engineering science. It is an essential requirement

that engineers develop a rigorous understanding of the physical and mathematical

principles through which their designs will function, but engineering design is only part of

a spectrum of skills needed in the delivery of projects, products and services. Engineering

is affected by, and affects, other issues that are not so easily defined. Sowhilst engineers are

frequently seen as ‘problem solvers’, much greater emphasis needs to be placed at an

earlier stage in the process through ‘problem definition’, to ensure that the real needs

underlying each issue are actually met. This requires dealing with non-technical details and


DOI: 10.1002/jid


future engineers must have an understanding of the qualitative as well as the quantitative

aspects of their practice (Fenner et al., 2005).

Many of the problems associated with increasing urbanisation are complex and do not

lend themselves to tried and tested solutions. The starting point for the engineer should

therefore be to understand this complexity, even though the systems relationships involved

may be inexactly described. This can be achieved by an awareness of the context in which

engineering activity takes place and this in turn can be defined through a careful dialogue

with all stakeholder groups. Economic and social factors such as the balance of true and

wide-ranging costs and benefits, now and in the future, must be taken into consideration.

Broadening the boundaries of the design space is therefore a key challenge in redefining the

requirements of future engineering education.

6 CONCLUSIONS

As engineers begin to embrace the concepts of sustainable development in their every day

work, particularly when providing infrastructure for the built environment that supports an

ever increasing urban population, their role is evolving. It has been shown here that

consideration of an expanded framework and enlarged solution space helps to guide the

engineer towards solutions that are more responsive to real needs, especially important in

many development situations. Field research has confirmed the usefulness of this approach.

However, if engineers are to be able to fully engage with such an expanded realm of

decision-making, then their education needs to equip them with the capacity to understand

and embrace skills beyond the traditional Newtonian mechanics of engineering science.

Engineers need to embrace their role as providers for society and use ‘soft skills’ to

facilitate useful engagement with recipients and other stakeholders, including sharing of

experiential knowledge (of both good and bad experiences) between themselves and with

other professions for the benefit of development projects.

Engineering practice in a development context and consideration of the wide and far

reaching aspirations of sustainable development concepts require engineers, their

employers, funders, educators and society as a whole, to think differently about the

role of engineering. By addressing the demands of a wider sphere of problem solving,

engineering can enhance provision of infrastructure in the built environment in a more

effective way then ever before.

REFERENCES

Beder S. 1994. Sustainable Development. Scribe Publications: Victoria, Australia.

Brandon PS. 1999. Sustainability in management and organization: the key issues. Building Research

and Information 27(6): 391–397.

Campbell A. 2002. The world summit on sustainable development: a view from an engineer. Ingenia

14: 59–61.

Capra F. 2003. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. Flamingo: London.

Crofton FS. 1995. Engineering on and off the road: sustainable development policies and practice.

Developing Ideas (bi-monthly journal of IISD, special online edition available at http://www.

iisd.org/didigest/special/default.htm).


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Cruickshank HJ. 2004. Embedding the Concepts of Sustainable Development into Practical Civil

Engineering. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Dodds R, Venables R. 2005. Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles. London:

The Royal Academy of Engineering.

Fenner RA, Ainger CM, Cruickshank HJ, Guthrie PM. 2005. Embedding sustainable development at

Cambridge University Engineering Department. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher

Education 6(3): 229–241.

Fenner RA, Ainger CM, Cruickshank HJ, Guthrie PM. 2006. Widening horizons for civil engineers:

a sustainable development framework. ICE Journal: Engineering Sustainability 159 ES4 Decem-

ber 2006.

Hardoy JE, Satterthwaite D. 1992. Third world cities and the environment of poverty. Geoforum

15(3): 307–333.

Herkert JR. 1998. Sustainable development, engineering and multiple corporations: ethical public

policy implications. Science and Engineering Ethics 4: 333–346.

Herkert JR, Farrell A, Winebrake JJ. 1996. Technology Choice for Sustainable Development. IEEE

Technology and Society Magazine, Summer.

Klein GA. 1998. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

McCully P. 1991. A case against climate aid. The Ecologist 21(6): 244–251.

Meadows DH, Randers J, Meadows DL. 2004. Limits to Growth: 30 Year Update. Chelsea Green

Publishing Company: White River Jct., VT.

Parkin S. 2000a. Sustainable development: the concept and the practical challenge. Civil Engineer-

ing: Proceedings of ICE Paper 12398, Issue 138: 3–8.

Parkin S. 2000b. Contexts and drivers for operationalizing sustainable development. Civil Engineer-

ing: Proceedings of ICE Paper 12404, Issue 138: 9–15.

Perlman B, Varma R. 2001. Teaching engineering ethics. Proceedings of American Society for

Engineering Education. Annual Conference and Exposition.

ReesW. 1999. The built environment and the ecosphere. Building Research and Information 27(4/5):

206–220.

Rees W, Roseland M. 1998. Sustainable communities: planning for the 21st century. In Sustainable

Development and the Future of Cities, Hamm B, Muttagi PK (eds). ITDG Publishing: Boughton-

on-Dunsmore; 203–221.

Royal Academy of Engineering. website www.raeng.org.uk. For visiting professors scheme

www.raeng.org.uk/education/vps/sustdev.htm.

Stansfield K. 1998. Engineering a sustainable future. The Structural Engineer 76(23 & 24): 444–

446.

Tideman SG. 2001. Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics. Adapted from paper

presented to a forum in the Netherlands, January.

United Nations. 1995. World Urbanization Prospects. The United Nations: New York.

United Nations Development Programme. 1998. The Human Development Report—Consumption

for Human Development. Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Documents

The evolving role of engineers: towards sustainable development of the built environment