Fostering Sustainability and Resilience in Engineering Education and Practice: Lessons Learnt from the 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes

Abstract

Sustainability involves continuously enhancing processes to yield long-term environmental, economic, and social benefits. The construction industry necessitates innovative and practical approaches in both education and construction practice to foster sustainable development. This study contributes to the discourse on sustainability in engineering education and construction practice by presenting the outcomes of the European-funded project “CLOEMC VI—Common Learning Outcomes for European Managers in Construction”. The main aim of this study is to investigate construction practices and civil engineering education from the perspective of sustainability considering the impact of earthquakes on the construction sector. This study incorporates insights from interviews conducted with construction professionals in the region affected by the February 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes in Turkey. The interviews examine reflections on building sustainable cities through earthquake-resilient practices. This study also conducts a questionnaire survey targeting academics in civil engineering departments in Turkey. The questionnaire survey evaluated the integration of sustainability and resilience into civil engineering curricula. The key contribution of this research lies in demonstrating how the manuals developed under the EU-funded project can be effectively integrated into engineering education and how insights from disaster-affected communities can inform a more robust framework for sustainability. This study provides valuable guidance for policymakers and researchers in developing strategies for implementing sustainability in engineering education and the construction industry, ultimately contributing to the advancement of sustainable development practices.

1. Introduction

Sustainability, as a term, was first mentioned in the Brundtland Report published by the United Nation’s World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 [1]. The report defines sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [1]. In a generic definition, sustainability represents the efficient use of natural resources to deliver resources to the next generations. Therefore, the concept is embraced in a wide range of areas from production planning to architectural design [2].

The construction industry is among the leading industries in many countries. The industry contributes to the global gross domestic product by 13% based on the McKinsey&Company report [3]. Moreover, building and construction encompasses 36% of global energy use, as well as 39% of energy-related carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions [4]. Therefore, sustainability is a top priority for the construction industry in addition to researchers and governments. The main sustainability objectives in the construction industry are to achieve net-zero energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimize waste generation, improve long-term performance, enhance the quality of the indoor environment, foster social equity, and conserve natural resources [5,6]. In sustainable construction, life cycle assessment, energy efficiency, durability, recycling, and innovative alternative materials are among the main concepts. Engineering practices such as applying energy-efficient technologies, resilient structures, optimization of resources, and design practices, including creating human-centric spaces and using sustainable materials, help in achieving sustainable construction [5].

Resilience is “the intrinsic ability of a system to adjust its functioning before, during, or following changes and disturbances, so that it can sustain required operations under both expected and unexpected conditions” [7]. Resilience focuses on response of a system to a disruptive event or persistent stress by being prepared for threats, absorbing impacts, recovering, and adapting [8]. It has four essential characteristics: (1) robustness, the capability to withstand extreme events while continuing to provide services; (2) rapidity, indicating the speed at which a structure recovers from an event to achieve a high level of functionality; (3) redundancy, the availability of alternative elements or components within the system to ensure continuity; and (4) resourcefulness, the ability to effectively manage resources, address challenges, establish priorities, and coordinate actions during and after an extreme event [9].

Seismic resistance primarily aims to prevent the total or partial collapse of structural systems to preserve life in case of a seismic event with a lower probability of occurrence and to limit structural and non-structural damage under frequent earthquakes [10]. To mitigate seismic risk on structures, earthquake-resistant design approaches utilize stiffness, strength, and ductility, which could be effectively achieved through designated seismic-energy-dissipative members to absorb seismic energy input [11]. Furthermore, care should be taken in the design of essential structural members in seismic-force-resisting systems, such as shear walls, beams, columns, and horizontal diaphragms (i.e., concrete deck or cross-bracings), to withstand and properly distribute the forces exerted on the structure along the horizontal and vertical directions under ground shaking.

In earthquake-resistant design and evaluation approaches, seismic resistance refers to the capability of structures to sustain seismic demands during severe ground shaking without compromising structural integrity. Therefore, the term “seismic resistance” can be associated with the response of structural systems as a whole and/or their components, such as columns, beams, connections, etc., prescribed at a certain seismic hazard level. Seismic resilience, on the other hand, relates to a more comprehensive and holistic approach that introduces additional demand indicators to conventional seismic-resistance-based methodologies [12]. Seismic resilience quantifies both the seismic resistance of structural and non-structural elements as well as the post-earthquake recovery phase by contemplating various measures including, but not limited to, the repair cost, downtime, disruption of functionality, and so on. In a broader sense, seismic resilience combines the traditional seismic resistance objectives (e.g., collapse prevention or life safety) with economic, social, and environmental performance objectives [13]. The relationship between sustainability and resilience was considered based on three perspectives in previous studies. Some studies viewed resilience as an integral part of sustainability. According to this view, enhancing a system’s resilience contributes to its sustainability; on the other hand, improving its sustainability does not necessarily increase its resilience [8]. For a system to achieve sustainability, it should account for the vulnerabilities to disturbances [14]. Another perspective is that sustainability is a component of resilience. Enhancing a system’s sustainability contributes to increased resilience; however, the converse is not necessarily true. Resilience prioritizes maintaining critical functions such as safety, performance and profitability, and sustainability reinforces the system’s capacity to withstand adverse events [8]. On the other hand, some studies proposed that resilience and sustainability are separate concepts which can complement or compete with each other. Sustainability and resilience are complementary concepts that can be significantly strengthened when effectively integrated, especially in civil infrastructure [9]. Sustainability is evaluated in terms of the following three pillars: environmental, economic, and social context [15,16]. Resilience dimensions are economic, social, technical, and organizational. Sustainability and resilience both describe a system’s status across time, emphasizing the system’s capacity to endure under typical operating conditions and in responding to disruptions. As a result of their similar emphasis on system survival, they utilize common study approaches [8]. They both integrate structural analysis with economic and social aspects. Both concepts utilize methods such as decision-making analysis and life cycle assessment to optimize the system [9]. The sustainable development goals that were developed by the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development [17] include goals related to resilience and sustainability. These are “Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation” (Goal 9) and “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (Goal 11). These goals also show the complementary nature of sustainability and resilience.

Sustainability and resilience share certain similarities; however, they are separate concepts. Sustainability mostly focuses on broad geographic scales and long-term timeframes compared to resilience. On the other hand, resilience may focus on one geographic or temporal scale while potentially compromising another. Sustainability initiatives often aim to preserve traditional resource use, environmental knowledge, and natural resources. In contrast, resilience initiatives mostly aim to adapt to changing conditions, promote innovative applications of traditional knowledge, and develop new environmental knowledge [8]. Even though resilience and sustainability are distinct concepts, they are complementary. The synergy between resilience and sustainability can be utilized by integrating their similar principles. By leveraging this synergy, decision-makers can create systems that not only withstand immediate disruptions but also promote economic, social, and environmental well-being over time [9].

Despite their increasing importance, sustainable and resilient practices in the construction industry are not yet well understood, largely due to the absence of comprehensive development strategies. Transforming construction methods, materials, and human behavior requires integrating sustainability and resilience into engineering education and prioritizing their practical implementation across the industry. To address this gap, this study builds on findings from the European Union (EU)-funded Common Learning Outcomes for European Managers (CLOEMC VI) project, which developed manuals to incorporate sustainability into engineering curricula. The project is related to the EU Dir 89/48/EWG on regulated professions with respect to the recognition, promotion, and certification of qualifications by international associations and organizations—from construction. The main task of the project is to improve the directive’s ideas, which will lead to the creation of a proper EU system of comparison, certification, and mutual recognition of managerial qualifications in construction. The profile of construction managers’ education, responsible for cooperation in the field of construction in the EU, was developed in different countries. In this context of the project, a questionnaire was administered to construction professionals and academics for content validity.

2. Research Background

2.1. Sustainability in the Construction Industry

The construction industry is dynamic and complex due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders in projects. As market rules and regulations are continuously changing, customer demands are also changing due to various reasons, such as the need for adaptable structures, demand for digital interactions, sustainability requirements, and demands for high resilience (e.g., [18]). Therefore, the future of the construction industry relies more on a product-based approach, consolidation, customer-centricity, investment in technology and facilities, internationalization, and sustainability as implied in the McKinsey report [3]. Therefore, most companies are now developing means to foresee the environmental impact, especially when sourcing materials, to make manufacturing processes more sustainable and trying to optimize supply chains for sustainability and resilience. Moreover, it is expected that companies will focus more on off-site production to avoid waste rather than fabricating elements on the job site. This way, production efficiency is expected to increase while developing sustainable practices.

Sustainability is investigated in terms of the following three main pillars in the construction industry: environmental, economic, and social. The environmental aspect is mostly the main focus of sustainable construction studies due to the significant impact on resources and energy consumption [6]. Environmental sustainability embraces components such as cleaner production, pollution prevention, greenhouse gas emission reduction, waste management, resource depletion, and design elements, which are environmentally friendly [15,19]. Economic sustainability involves the assessment of all costs and benefits over a specified period of construction life cycle phases [6]. This aspect also encompasses elements related to creating a public or private investment flow, relying on the efficient use of resources and the assessment of economic efficiency concerning social criteria rather than profitability [20]. Shen et al. [19] mentioned that sustainable construction often places less emphasis on profitability and rather focuses on reducing harm to the environment. Therefore, the term represents components that directly benefit society, such as waste management, reuse, and prevention. The sustainability approach could result in conflicts between short-term economic goals and long-term environmental benefits, but this could help to create a balance between the two needs to reach a mutually beneficial equilibrium. Social sustainability rather encompasses different parameters such as social acceptance, equity and opportunity, adequate social services [6], training and education [21], employment [22], cultural heritage [19], traffic [23], and security [24]. Furthermore, workplace safety provisions, access to personal protective equipment, community protection during construction, and construction demolition stages were implied as significant concerns in social sustainability [15].

Sustainability in the construction context has been widely studied in previous research. For example, Marcelino-Sádaba et al. [25] advocated for the assessment of sustainability at the project level, which could be an important driver for project management. They implied that projects designed with sustainability criteria and organizations committing to sustainability goals are key to achieving sustainable projects. Therefore, project management is a key factor in driving sustainability and facilitating a sustainable process, where project managers are trained in sustainability. Construction projects are recommended to ideally start with a feasibility study that incorporates sustainability components prior to the project to achieve a harmonious end, as this activity would directly impact the success of the project as a whole [19]. A major portion of the studies further focused on the life cycle phases in construction projects. Most studies highlighted “ecodesign” as a factor that can impact sustainability in construction projects [25,26,27]. Ecodesign is sometimes used to replace the terms “green design” or “product design concerning environmental issues” [16]. Petzek et al. [28] mentioned that sustainability should also be taken into consideration for the renovation and deconstruction phases, since these phases are mostly associated with environmental sustainability. This allows for recycling and reusing the materials acquired by the demolition that can be used for new materials.

On the other hand, there are barriers articulated by previous studies regarding the adoption of sustainability in construction. Tokbolat et al. [29] stated that a considerable portion of barriers related to sustainable construction rely on economic aspects, followed by governmental issues and educational barriers. Therefore, the study suggests that construction professionals aiming to improve sustainability performance can focus on such barriers and develop ways to overcome them for a better performance in construction projects. In another study, Aigbavboa et al. [30] implied that the most important challenges faced by the South African construction industry in terms of sustainable construction practices is the assumption regarding the additional cost of building projects and a lack of understanding regarding the benefits.

2.2. Sustainability and Resilience in the Context of Earthquakes

Sustainability and resilience are critical when addressing the impact of earthquakes. Resilience is the ability to adapt to the demands, challenges, and changes that arise during and after a disaster. Adaptive capacity implies that individuals, communities, and institutions can effectively adjust to adverse conditions when responding to the impacts of a disaster [14]. Resilience, in the context of earthquakes, focuses on resistance to, recovery from, and adaptation to seismic events. Following a disaster, resilience is influenced by a short-term period, focusing on survival and addressing urgent needs, and a long-term period, which includes a recovery period spanning weeks or even years. In the long term, resilience and sustainability are closely linked. Communities often depend on short-term resilience to recover from disasters. However, as disasters recur and their impacts accumulate, short-term strategies become inadequate for addressing the root causes of hazards. Consequently, longer-term measures are required, which align with the principles of sustainable development. Sustainability plays a crucial role in managing risks associated with natural hazards and supporting recovery efforts following such events [14].

In previous studies, the sustainable and resilient design and construction of structures have been widely studied. Sustainability in the context of earthquakes involves the design, construction, and deconstruction of buildings and infrastructure whilst minimizing environmental, economic, and social impacts. Ismail et al. [31] investigated sustainability in the context of disaster resilience. The study implied the necessity of examining both concepts in terms of dynamic interactions. The study further indicated that post-disaster reconstructions have a considerable impact on the socio-ecological system. Therefore, the study highlighted that adopting sustainable construction in housing reconstruction practices might foster system thinking, where a holistic decision-making process could be created, resulting in reduced environmental damage. This, in turn, reinforces disaster resilience in the built environment. Cutter [32] implied that current disaster policies are not proactive but are rather reactive and have a short-term focus. Therefore, the importance of disaster resilience in communities in the long term is often discarded. The study suggests that communities’ ability to prepare, plan, and respond to disasters in the most effective way can be reinforced by achieving sustainable practices. The study conducted by Tarhan et al. [33] investigated the relationship between resilience and sustainable development. The study highlighted the critical role of information and communication technologies (ICT) in terms of increasing resilience and driving sustainability to maximize efficiency, minimize emergency, and avoid redundant material use. The study concludes that a well-established ICT system helps to manage both pre- and post-disaster processes and creates sustainable disaster resilience in the long term. Asprone and Manfredi [34] developed a framework of urban sustainability. They implied that resilience is an integral component of urban sustainability and should be evaluated in the context of sustainability aspects. Even though many studies have investigated sustainability and resilience in the context of disasters and earthquakes, the impact of earthquakes on sustainability has not been researched appropriately. In this study, to better understand and analyze the impact of earthquakes on sustainability, a recent earthquake in Turkey was investigated.

2.3. General Information About the 2023 Kahramanmaras Earthquakes

On 6 February 2023, the Kahramanmaras earthquakes—Pazarcik (Mw 7.7) and Elbistan (Mw 7.6)—occurred along the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ), resulting in over 50,000 fatalities and extensive damage to more than 1.5 million properties across 11 provinces [35,36]. These seismic events caused significant ground deformations and severe shaking intensities, leading to widespread building collapses, infrastructural damage, and service disruptions. The construction sector and civil engineering professions were profoundly impacted, facing challenges such as legal disputes, assessment of damaged structures, provision of temporary and permanent housing, and efforts to restore business operations. To investigate the impact of the earthquakes from a sustainability perspective, one of the objectives of this study is to analyze the insights gained from the earthquakes in construction practices. Figure 1 is a map of the region, showing the fault zones and earthquake epicenters. One of the world’s main seismic zones, the EAFZ, is close to where the earthquake occurred. Although earthquakes have historically occurred in this region, the 2023 incident was very powerful in terms of both its magnitude and the extensive damage it produced.

In this regard, reconnaissance in the aftermath of the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquake sequence, which occurred within nine hours and affected eleven cities in the southeast region of Turkey, unveiled that residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings along with the lifeline structures were designed and built without any consideration for the environmental, social, and economic outcomes of potential severe ground shakings [35,36]. The two sequential earthquakes showed that many structures, most of which were made of reinforced concrete, collapsed or were severely damaged [35,36] due to various flaws in the material quality, construction methods, and quality assurance. As presented in Figure 2, weak columns, low concrete strength, on the order of 8 MPa or less, a lack of seismic detailing, corrosion in rebars, and poor construction practices were the common weaknesses of the surveyed reinforced concrete buildings that experienced imminent collapse [35]. Similarly, industrial facilities, transportation systems (highways, tunnels, viaducts), pipelines, harbors, tunnels, and non-building structures, such as silos, elevated tanks, or similar structures, were also severely damaged during the main events and aftershocks, as shown in Figure 3. It is crucial to note that these failures are not only costly to renew or repair but also cause legal issues that involve several entities. In addition, even minor damage to the structural or non-structural elements contained in industrial facilities that disrupt their operationality would trigger both short- and long-term economic losses, leading to immense social problems in the vicinity. Also, apart from the seismic resilience and economic points of view, substantial damage to such lifeline structures, such as water pipelines and transportation systems in particular, is likely to create critical infrastructure problems in addition to a disruption of operations, which would, in turn, lead to a short-term epidemic [38] as well as serious health issues [39] in the disaster area.

This earthquake has several similarities and differences with other devastating earthquakes that happened in different regions of the world. The Haiti earthquake in 2010 also had devastating consequences with a magnitude of 7.0 Mw [40]. The Haiti earthquake and Kahramanmaras earthquake had several similarities. For example, both areas were affected by powerful earthquakes along active fault lines. In both cases, the high population density and poorly constructed buildings exacerbated the impact. Haiti, like many parts of Turkey, had a lack of modern seismic building codes. Both earthquakes led to severe infrastructure damage, overwhelming emergency services. The two earthquakes also had some differences. Although the Haitian earthquake’s magnitude of 7.0 was lower than the Turkish earthquake’s of 7.8, a disproportionately high number of people died because Haiti lacked infrastructure and structures that could withstand earthquakes. Compared to Haiti, where the destruction was more extensive due to a lack of planning and resources, Turkey’s economy and infrastructure are far better established, allowing for a quicker, but still strained, rebuilding effort.

Another big earthquake—the Great East Japan earthquake—occurred in Japan with a magnitude of 9.0 Mw. The earthquake triggered a massive Tsunami and a nuclear disaster at Fukushima [41]. This earthquake also had similarities with Kahramanmaras earthquake. Due to their locations on tectonic plate boundaries—Japan is on the Pacific and Eurasian plates, while Turkey is on the Arabian and Eurasian plates—both countries are extremely vulnerable to earthquakes. Major cities were within striking distance of the earthquake in both regions, but Japan’s infrastructure and readiness were far superior, reducing the death toll to below what may have been predicted. On the other hand, the two earthquakes were different in some ways. Despite the bigger magnitude, fewer people died in Japan because of much better earthquake engineering techniques, such as stronger seismic codes and early warning systems. The devastation from Turkish earthquake was exacerbated by the lack of preparation and the large concentration of buildings that were at risk, some of which were built without consideration for seismic safety.

To address the foregoing issues associated with the post-earthquake functionality of buildings and infrastructure systems, the engineering community has leaned toward a new design philosophy called “seismic sustainability” [42,43,44]. Seismic sustainability, in structural engineering terms, refers to damage control that enables structural systems to remain repairable after strong ground motions [44]. As such, the proposed multi-objective design approach [42,43] intends to provide earthquake-resistant structures with ease of realignment and repairability by limiting permanent deformations and the use of replaceable seismic fuses that are designated to “sacrifice” themselves during severe earthquakes. Therefore, in the sustainable seismic design approach, the conventional seismic-force-resisting systems that are intentionally designed to be damaged are replaced with their sustainable counterparts, such as self-centering seismic lateral force-resisting systems [45,46] and/or the use of replaceable members with stable hysteretic response to dissipate seismic energy without failure [47].

2.4. Sustainability and Resilience in Civil Engineering Education

Sustainability and resilience in engineering education have been investigated in previous research. There has been an increasing effort to incorporate sustainability into engineering curricula. However, the current progress in integrating and applying sustainability concepts, methods, and tools within engineering education remains unclear [48]. In an early study, Wang [49] mentioned that there has still not yet been an agreed consensus on what defines sustainability and how to provide it as an efficient course in the current construction engineering curriculum. Therefore, he suggested that sustainability knowledge areas should be carefully identified and embedded in the sustainability course curriculum. Moreover, student feedback demonstrated that there should be more discussion regarding construction types, frequent site visits and observing construction processes, and more in-class discussions and involvement to better learn the core insights of sustainability in the context of construction education. Sustainability is integrated into engineering curricula through various approaches, including embedding sustainability concepts into existing courses, designing new courses related to sustainability, offering specialization in sustainability as part of graduation projects, and incorporating sustainability through project-based learning [48]. Further, graduate programs and certification programs focusing on sustainability can be offered [50]. Active learning is recognized for its ability to enhance student retention compared to traditional cognitive-based teaching methods. Approaches such as project-based learning provide significant benefits but require considerable effort and strong collaboration with external stakeholders, and they present difficulties in evaluating individual learning outcomes. Alternatives like games, simulations, and role-playing can help overcome some of these challenges [48].

Lim et al. [51] argued that sustainable construction can be achieved through intense sustainable knowledge and expertise. They further implied that the lack of sustainable construction development stems from the limited sustainability knowledge of construction workers. Therefore, they proposed the integration of sustainability into the construction curriculum so that students can become aware that sustainability is of utmost importance for the development of the construction industry [52]. Further, the following criteria were found to be closely linked to sustainability, considering student outcomes: (i) the ability to apply engineering design to create solutions that address specified needs while considering public health, safety, and welfare as well as global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors; and (ii) the ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering, making informed judgments considering global, economic, environmental, and societal impacts [48].

Zakaria et al. [53] proposed an integrated framework for disaster management education into civil engineering curricula, with a specific focus on sustainability. They identified key sustainability elements relevant to disaster management education considering the disaster management cycle, including mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery phases. Additionally, the study determined the most critical sustainability elements in fostering disaster resilience among civil engineering students. Milcarek et al. [50] proposed approaches for integrating sustainability and resilience principles into the engineering design process, emphasizing how these concepts can be taught in engineering education. Lopez del Puerto et al. [54] developed an undergraduate program titled “Resilient Infrastructure and Sustainability Education”. They implemented and assessed the program in an interdisciplinary student group involving architects, engineers, and construction managers. The program is designed to equip students with the necessary knowledge to design and construct resilient, sustainable infrastructure, and problem-solving to decrease the impact of natural disasters on such systems. They presented case studies and provided opportunities, including site visits and internships, to enhance the education experience. Some studies focused on resilience to natural hazards in engineering education. Winkens and Leicht-Scholten [55] reviewed these studies and highlighted knowledge gaps in engineering curricula related to resilience and disaster and risk management. Infrastructure resilience courses were mostly integrated into civil engineering curricula, with limited integration across other disciplines, which resulted in a lack of holistic approaches. Toprak et al. [56] further implied that construction managers need modernized techniques both in engineering education and in practice, and this could be achieved by providing a clear set of guidelines such as proposing common learning outcomes for European managers.

Given this context, sustainability and resilience must be thoroughly examined within the construction industry to proactively achieve development goals. While the significance of integrating sustainability and resilience into construction courses has been emphasized in various studies, there remains a noticeable gap in recent efforts addressing sustainability education and practices. In particular, the focus on earthquakes and lessons learned from earthquakes is quite limited in terms of improving the curriculum. Despite several efforts both by academics and industry practitioners, sustainability yet remains a concept that is not thoroughly integrated into curricula and roadmaps provided by firms. In particular, some terms such as sustainable resilience, sustainable education, and sustainable construction still remain vague, where clear definitions are not provided and efficient programs are not established. Hence, one of the objectives of this study is to examine the current situation of the civil engineering curriculum and propose strategies to integrate sustainability and resilience into the civil engineering curriculum in the context of earthquakes. This study presents the content of manuals designed to promote sustainability education while aligning with the needs of the industry. The findings are informed by feedback from industry practitioners in regions affected by the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes in Turkey, as well as from academics across various institutions in the country.

3. Material and Methods

This study first provides a literature review of sustainability and resilience in the construction industry. Then, the study presents the content developed in the context of sustainability for the EU-funded project titled “Common Learning Outcomes for European Managers in Construction (CLOEMC VI) Project”. In the second part, semi-structured interviews conducted with construction industry experts in the regions affected by the 2023 Kahramanmaras earthquakes in the southeastern part of Turkey are discussed in the sustainability context (See Appendix A.1). In the third part, a questionnaire survey was conducted with academics in civil engineering departments to investigate earthquake impacts through a sustainability perspective and draw implications for the civil engineering curriculum (See Appendix A.2). Figure 4 shows the steps taken to conduct this research.

3.1. CLOEMC VI Project Manuals

The CLOEMC VI project consists of seven manuals. The first manual, M33 Design and Execution of Facades for Construction Managers, presents general information about facades, their properties and classification, their design and assembly, related technology, ecological aspects, and health and safety issues along with case studies. The second manual, M34 Digital Twin in Construction, covers the fundamentals of technology used in construction projects such as digital twins, building information modeling (BIM), drones, sensors, and artificial intelligence (AI). The third manual, M35 Urban Mining in Construction, details the methods of recycling in construction and the utilization of construction and demolition waste, along with case studies. The fourth manual, M36 Environmental Impacts of Earthquakes and Mining for Construction Managers, includes environmental impacts of earthquakes and mining, earthquake resilience, structural health monitoring, and management operations in seismic and mining regions. In the fifth manual, M37 Logistics in Construction, the process model, attributes, and organization of construction logistics, along with sustainability requirements and digitalization, are covered. The sixth manual, M38 Green Technology for Construction Managers, presents green technology and circular economy, materials and resources management, energy efficiency, water conservation, indoor environmental quality, site development, and land use, along with best practices and case studies. The last manual, M39 Talent Management and Future Competences of Construction Managers, gives detailed information about talent management and talent development in the construction industry. In previous CLOEMC projects, sustainability was investigated as a separate manual as “M17: Sustainability in construction” in CLOEMC III and “M31—Social sustainability in construction” in CLOEMC V. Sustainability has been assessed as part of Manual 38: Green technology for construction managers, where the sustainable development of areas and the revitalization of urban spaces and case studies of sustainable site development are presented.

The content sufficiency of the manuals was evaluated by a group of experts, including academics, researchers, project managers, engineers, and architects from different countries in Europe. Figure 5 presents the level of sufficiency that was rated by the experts. A total of 43 responses were collected out of 100 sent out, resulting in a response rate of 43%. The question intended to gather information as to whether the new areas of knowledge presented for each manual were sufficient or not. Figure 5 presents the ratings of the respondents, from No to Yes. For the M33 Design and Execution of Facades for Construction Managers Manual, 11.6% of the respondents implied that the content was not sufficient, where 11.6% expressed the content was slightly sufficient. A total of 20.9% of the respondents were neutral in terms of the sufficiency of the content, where the majority (34.9% + 20.9%) indicated that the content was either sufficient or very sufficient. For the M34 Digital Twin in Construction Manual, 2.3% of the respondents indicated that the content was not sufficient, 20.9% of the respondents reported that the content was slightly insufficient, and 18.9% of the respondents were neutral about the content, which can be translated as they found some content sufficient, whereas they found some content insufficient. The majority of the respondents (27.9% + 30.2%) reported that they found the content sufficient. For the M35 Urban Mining in Construction Manual, 7.1% of the respondents indicated that they found the content insufficient, 21.4% implied that they found the content slightly insufficient, and 23.8% stated they neither found the content insufficient nor sufficient. A considerable portion of the respondents (28.6% + 19.0%) reported that they found the content sufficient. For the M36 Environmental Impacts of Earthquakes and Mining for Construction Managers, 9.5% reported that they found the content insufficient, 19% stated that they thought the content was slightly insufficient, and 4.8% were neutral about the content. The majority (26.2% + 40.5%) responded that they found the content sufficient. For the M37 Logistics in Construction Manual, 2.4% indicated that the content was not sufficient, 9.5% stated that they thought the content was slightly insufficient, and 16.7% were neutral about the content. The majority (38.1% + 33.3%) reported that they found the content sufficient. For the M38 Green Technology for Construction Managers Manual, 9.5% reported that they found the content insufficient, 11.9% implied that they found the content slightly insufficient, and 16.7% were neutral about the content. The majority (19% + 42.9%) reported that they found the content sufficient. For the M39 Talent Management and Future Competences of Construction Managers Manual, 7.1% indicated that they found the content insufficient, 11.9% reported that they found the content slightly insufficient, and 21.4% were neutral about the content. The majority of the respondents (16.7% + 42.9%) expressed that they found the content sufficient.

3.2. Semi-Structured Interviews with Construction Industry Practitioners

The second part of this study involved semi-structured interviews conducted with construction industry practitioners in the earthquake-affected regions of southeastern Turkey (See Appendix A.1). The interviewees were determined through purposive sampling based on specific criteria, i.e., role in the construction project, years of experience, and geographic location, to ensure that the selection of participants aligned with the research objectives. Participants were selected from civil engineers, primarily those employed in project management roles within the construction industry, who could offer a comprehensive understanding of the overall situation. Participants were determined based on having at least 10 years of experience in the construction industry to ensure informed perspectives. Additionally, selection criteria included direct experience of the earthquake and active involvement in a construction project at the time of the event. The geographic focus of the study included Hatay, Kahramanmaras, Gaziantep, and Adiyaman, which were among the cities most severely affected by the earthquake.

The interviews were conducted in March 2024 in the earthquake-affected cities of Hatay, Kahramanmaras, Gaziantep, and Adiyaman. A total of seven interviews were conducted, where each took around 30 min and involved both structured and unstructured questions. The interviewees were provided with an informed consent form, where it was explicitly stated that the data collected would be kept confidential and anonymous. They were also provided with the technical aspects of the interviews so that they were aimed at providing unbiased information. The responses were recorded in written form.

First, general information was asked about the respondent and the company, including questions regarding the position of the interviewee in the construction project, their years of expertise in the construction industry, the company or the institution that they worked for, the area of expertise of the organization, the project that the organization was conducting at the time of the earthquake, and the type of the project. General information regarding the interviewed construction professionals can be seen in

Table 1. General information regarding interview respondents from earthquake-affected region in Turkey.

Respondent’s Position	Respondent’s Years of Experience	Company’s Area of Expertise	Company’s Role in the Project	Project Type	The Project Phase at the Time of Earthquake
Project manager	20	Infrastructure	Owner	Natural gas pipeline	Operation and maintenance
Owner	19	Residential	General contractor	Residential building	Construction
Site supervisor	14	Superstructure, public buildings, residential	General contractor	School building	Construction
General coordinator	25	Industrial structures	General contractor	Port construction	Construction
Project manager	10	Industrial structures, residential	General contractor	Retrofitting	Design
Owner	35	Infrastructure, industrial structures	General contractor	Port infrastructure	Construction
Project manager	29	Infrastructure, industrial structures, transportation, water structures, residential	Consultant	Infrastructure, railway, wastewater treatment, hospital building	Design, construction

. The respondents were civil engineers working as project coordinators, project managers, or company owners, each with at least 10 years of experience and working in the earthquake-affected region. The companies that the respondents worked for were primarily specialized in infrastructure, superstructure, industrial structures, transportation, and residential buildings within engineering and construction activities. The predominant roles of these companies were general contractors and owners, with one consultant firm included. The respondents were involved in projects such as natural gas pipeline, port construction, wastewater treatment, hospital building, and residential building projects. At the time of the earthquake, most of the projects were in the construction phase, while some were still in the design phase, and one infrastructure project had been completed and was in the operation and maintenance phase. The general information regarding the respondents shows their high level of expertise and the comprehensive range of projects they were involved in.

In the following part of the interview, some open-ended questions were asked, such as precautions taken by the project manager and the company before the earthquake and the action plan of the project manager and the company during and right after the earthquake. To investigate the effects of the earthquake on sustainability, economic, environmental, and sociological impacts caused by the earthquake were asked about. Further, observations regarding the future of the industry after the earthquake, legal procedures to be developed for disaster prevention, and technological tools to prevent disasters were discussed.

3.3. Questionnaire Survey with Academics in the Civil Engineering Department

In the third part of this study, a questionnaire was designed and administered to the academics in the civil engineering departments of universities in Turkey, either offering lectures or conducting studies on sustainability or disaster resilience (See Appendix A.2). The questionnaire was sent out to a total of 25 academics in November 2024, and a total of 17 responses were taken from 9 different institutions, where multiple respondents were recorded from some institutions. The questionnaire involved 12 questions. In the first part of the questionnaire, generic information was collected from respondents, such as affiliation, academic title, years of experience in teaching, and list of courses taught in sustainability and disaster resilience. Figure 6 presents the respondents’ field of study. According to Figure 6, it was observed that most of the respondents conducted studies in geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, and construction engineering and management, respectively. A relatively lower portion of respondents had other fields of studies, such as hydraulic and water resources, disaster management, and earthquake engineering.

The academics were asked about their years of teaching experience, as can be seen in Figure 7. According to the figure, it can be seen that 47.1% of the respondents had 16 or more years of teaching experience, whereas the remaining had 6–10 years (29.4%), 11–15 years (%11.8), 3–5 years (5.9%), and 0–2 years (5.9%). This proves that the majority of the respondents had broad experience in teaching.

The titles of the academics are shown in Figure 8, which reflects that the majority of the respondents (43.8%) were full professors, whereas 18.8% were associate professors, assistant professors, and research assistants.

The second part of the questionnaire aimed to explore the impacts of earthquakes on sustainability and disaster resilience, the integration of these concepts into civil engineering curricula, the resources and perceptions needed to enhance their incorporation, and the challenges faced in this integration.

After data collection through interviews and questionnaires, the data were compiled and analyzed qualitatively in accordance with the objectives of this study. The following sections further discuss the results and provide recommendations accordingly.

4. Results and Discussion

Based on the analysis of the content of the manuals and collecting observations of experts, it was revealed that the content of all the manuals was found to be satisfactory to a great extent. On the other hand, some suggestions were made by the respondents, such as adding additional content to some manuals. For example, a respondent proposed that facade material selection, quality control, assurance, aesthetic and climatic factors in facade design, and local regulations for facade design should be mentioned as part of M33. Moreover, another respondent suggested that mass timber and cross-laminated timber should be mentioned as part of M38. Further feedback was provided by a respondent, indicating that railway design, engineering, and BIM use in railway design should be included as part of M34.

4.1. The Impact of Earthquakes on Sustainability in Construction Practices

In order to examine the impact of earthquakes on sustainability in particular, three important questions were asked. These three questions were about sustainability dimensions, i.e., the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the earthquakes on the construction industry and stakeholders. The responses provided insightful perspectives. Regarding the environmental impacts of the earthquakes, the interviewees reported extensive damage to drinking water pipelines and sewage systems across multiple provinces, which caused significant delays in water supply and raised environmental concerns. Because of extensive precautions taken by water utilities, municipalities, and the government, the risks were mitigated with minimal impact, but the interviewees stressed that the potential for more severe consequences in future disasters requires careful attention. They emphasized that the resiliency of lifelines—such as water and sanitation systems—is essential for survival and recovery during disasters. This aligns with Mavrouli et al. [57], who noted that compromised water supply infrastructure can lead to infectious diseases and public health crises, underscoring the importance of addressing these vulnerabilities as part of environmental sustainability efforts.

Another critical environmental concern was related to material quality in construction. The interviewees reported that concrete used in collapsed buildings failed to meet minimum standards, raising questions about construction practices. They suggested that legal sanctions should be implemented to deter contractors from compromising material quality. Kusuma et al. [58] recommended that tracking concrete and ambient temperatures during production can reduce energy use and waste. Proper maintenance of concrete plants and mixers further minimizes variability and ensures material efficiency. These practices, when followed, not only ensure structural safety but also contribute to sustainable construction by reducing rejected concrete, unnecessary repairs, and material waste. One respondent further pointed out that reconstruction activities required overproduction of construction materials such as cement and aggregate, which may cause adverse environmental effects.

Additionally, several interviewees raised concerns about air quality, especially asbestos release from collapsed buildings. They referenced findings by Gavett [59], who reported that airborne pollutants, such as asbestos, can cause significant health issues, as seen after the collapse of the World Trade Center. Corapcioglu and Oymael [60] further emphasized that asbestos can cause irreversible environmental harm, recommending regulatory compliance, recycling improvements, and air quality monitoring to mitigate its effects.

Regarding the economic impacts of the earthquakes, the respondents underlined that the earthquakes severely affected the economy and the construction industry. The respondents highlighted the economic burden on the government for retrofitting and reconstruction activities after the earthquakes. The construction industry plays a significant role in deconstruction, repair, and reconstruction. General contractors underscored increased labor and material costs due to a lack of construction workers, increased demand, material shortages, supply chain disruptions, and transportation issues. In addition, the effect of inflation worsened the situation. These factors resulted in unexpected costs that were much higher than the planned budget. The respondents addressed the issue of inadequate budgeting that was predetermined in the contracts. Since no revisions had been made to the budgets, the contractors faced significant financial challenges. Another respondent highlighted the issue that some companies that lack sufficient experience but view reconstruction activities in the region as an opportunity have increased competition, thereby creating pressure on bids.

The following question addressed the sociological effects of the earthquake. The earthquake had profound and predominantly negative social impacts on the affected communities. Many individuals experienced significant injuries and personal losses, with some losing family members or acquaintances. The respondents pointed to critical issues after the earthquake, such as shelter, security, and basic hygiene facilities. Despite significant efforts over the first year, including personal initiatives, institutional interventions, and government aid, challenges in basic needs, such as housing, nutrition, education, and daily necessities, have been only partially addressed, and a full return to pre-earthquake normalcy seems to take considerable time.

A project manager mentioned the psychological toll that the disaster took on affected communities, with many people experiencing high levels of stress, anxiety, and sleep disturbances long after the event. These psychological impacts align with social sustainability principles, as Zuo et al. [15] noted that community well-being must be prioritized during all phases of construction and disaster recovery. The interviews underscored the need for firms to adopt sustainable practices that prioritize the mental health and protection of affected communities, especially during the construction, demolition, and recovery phases. According to the respondents, the psychological trauma of the earthquake continues. Even minor tremors trigger stress and anxiety, highlighting the lasting psychological impacts of the disaster. A noticeable shift in housing preferences has been observed compared to pre-earthquake attitudes. Structural safety and soil conditions have become key concerns for residents who also avoid high-rise buildings and prefer low-rise, single-family homes.

The final question aimed to determine whether firms had adopted innovative disaster prevention mechanisms. The interviewees noted that enhancing communication channels—such as using radio frequencies and satellite phones—was a priority recommendation. Strengthening these communication tools ensures the timely and accurate flow of information to the public and improves internal coordination within firms, leading to more effective disaster response. This recommendation reflects the insights of Dao et al. [61], who emphasized that integrating IT with human resources and supply chain management enhances operational resilience and builds sustainability capabilities. The interviewees also stressed the need for collaboration between municipalities and the government to develop stricter construction audits and location standards, which could prevent future damage and foster a disaster-resilient culture. More innovative approaches have further been provided by researchers for different disasters. For example, Li et al. [62] indicated that a graphics processing unit (GPU)-accelerated systematic platform is critical for large-scale nuclear structure cluster–soil interaction analysis, since cluster, geology, and terrain effects are evaluated in such analyses. The study further implied that different simulation procedures should be developed for diverse scenarios to evaluate the coupling effects of the factors. Cai et al. [63] developed an analytical model for estimating the extinction time of nitrogen injection into a closed utility tunnel. The study highlighted that this is essential to assess the thermal environment and estimate the fire detection time in engineering practice.

Given this background, the impacts of earthquakes in the context of sustainability are presented in terms of the aforementioned three pillars.

Table 2. Impacts of earthquakes in the context of sustainability dimensions.

Sustainability Dimensions	Earthquake Impacts
Environmental	Geological impacts	- surface rupture - landslides - liquefaction
	Hydrological impacts	- tsunamis - coastal flooding
	Air quality impacts	- release of natural gas, methane, radon - dust and fine particles - asbestos
	Ecosystem impacts	- destruction of wildlife and natural areas - damage on biodiversity
	Human-related secondary impacts	- construction debris and hazardous waste - critical infrastructure disruption, such as water, sewage, and gas pipelines - industrial and chemical waste and spills - secondary fire hazards - carbon emissions
Economic	Damage to property and infrastructure	- repair, retrofit, and reconstruction costs
	Business continuity disruptions	- supply chain disruptions - material shortages - labor displacement and labor shortages - increasing labor and material costs - productivity loss
	Decline in economic growth	- reduced industrial output - reduced consumer spending - increased government spending and national debt
Social	Loss of lives and injuries
	Forced displacement and migration
	Basic services	- housing, shelter, and security problems - overload of healthcare system - public health problems, sanitation problems, and infectious diseases - mental health problems such as psychological trauma
	Critical infrastructure and social services	- critical infrastructure disruptions such as electricity and water supply - damage to transportation and communication systems - education disruptions
	Community	- unemployment - loss of community networks - crime and security issues - destruction of cultural heritage

shows the impacts of earthquakes in the context of sustainability dimensions.

The responses from the interviews clearly highlight the need for civil and construction engineers to adopt sustainable practices that address both environmental, economic, and social challenges. Firms are encouraged to implement innovative mechanisms, including better communication infrastructure, improved material tracking, and compliance with environmental regulations, to ensure both safety and sustainability. These insights align with Rodriguez-Nikl’s [64] assertion that resilience precedes sustainability—structures must first meet sustainability standards to achieve resilience. The Kahramanmaras earthquakes demonstrate that civil and construction engineers must balance environmental responsibility, public health, and structural safety to build infrastructure that can withstand future disasters.

By embedding these lessons into both practice and education, engineers will be better equipped to design resilient systems that meet both present and future challenges. Future professionals must develop leadership skills, technical expertise, and knowledge of regulatory frameworks to coordinate effectively during crises. Integrating IT with human and material resources, as suggested by Dao et al. [61], will be essential for creating sustainable, resilient systems. Furthermore, addressing risks such as asbestos release, water infrastructure damage, and material quality will promote public health and sustainable recovery. This comprehensive approach ensures disaster preparedness and advances long-term sustainable development goals. Also, the development of practical frameworks could be useful to explain the strong interaction between sustainability and resilience. However, this link should be investigated thoroughly in terms of measurable and unmeasurable parameters, where both computational and qualitative methods are used to provide a clear set of guidelines for integrating the concepts into engineering education. On the other hand, there are still challenges with conducting effective training for sustainability in terms of disaster management. Practically, firms need to report how disaster impacts could be mitigated by sustainable practices to trigger a faster integration of sustainable practices into engineering education and encourage researchers to investigate the three pillars of sustainability with respect to disaster impacts. The study conducted by Papadopoulos et al. [65] implied the role of big data to explain disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability. Rodriguez-Nikl [64] developed a framework to investigate sustainability and resilience. In this respect, the data of a coastal town subject to sea-level rises and large storms was utilized to generate the framework. Nevertheless, the study concluded that computational methods are not sufficient to explain the link between sustainability and resilience. Rather, the study proposes the use of a qualitative evaluation to avoid ambiguity and unmeasurable uncertainty.

4.2. The Roles of Stakeholders in Construction Practices

In the context of earthquakes, sustainability and resilience in construction practice requires coordinated efforts from multiple stakeholders. The government has a critical responsibility in establishing regulatory frameworks, enforcing seismic building codes, and control and monitoring. The government plays a critical role in urban planning and establishing land use regulations. Further, disaster preparedness and emergency response are significant responsibilities of the government. The government can also play a role in providing subsidies and tax incentives for earthquake-resistant and sustainable construction. The construction industry is responsible for appropriate building design, material selection, and construction. Indeed, there is still a lack of clear guidelines and standards that highlight how to integrate sustainability in both engineering education and construction projects. Many construction firms are still struggling with adopting regulatory frameworks for sustainable practices and developing disaster resilience programs in the lack of enforcing regulations [66]. Another stakeholder is universities and research institutions, which contribute to education, training, knowledge creation, and skill development. Professional associations have a role in setting industry standards. Financial institutions may offer loans and grants for developing earthquake-resilient and sustainable structures, while the insurance sector can offer earthquake insurance programs. In addition, local communities may support disaster preparedness efforts and drive sustainability goals.

In addition to sustainability and resilience, construction companies and governments have a critical role in ensuring safety and security. This is important to sustain the well-being of citizens and workers and the longevity of structures. Construction companies are committed to maintaining safety on sites, where governments set standards and guidelines for ensuring site safety and security [67]. Companies provide training, encouraging the use of personal protective equipment, safety protocols and practices, inspections and audits, and accident reporting and investigation procedures [68]. On the other hand, governmental bodies establish and enforce safety standards depending on the type of work and conditions, propose regulatory frameworks, conduct regular inspections and compliance checks, create public awareness for safety, and prepare emergency response and management procedures for disasters [69]. Both governmental bodies and companies should work in close collaboration for the effectiveness of safety and security implementations. Therefore, governmental actions should encompass proposing regulatory frameworks and safety standards to help companies develop immediate action for the safety of workers and protection of physical assets.

4.3. The Impact of Earthquakes on Sustainability in the Civil Engineering Curriculum

Several questions were directed to academics to examine the integration of sustainability and resilience concepts into civil engineering curricula. The courses that respondents offered related to sustainability and disaster resilience were asked about. The most commonly listed course names were Sustainable Construction, Earthquake Engineering, Seismic Hazard and Risk Assessment, Earthquake Risk Management, Building Disaster Resilient Communities, Principles of Risk Management and Planning, and Early Warning and Rapid Response Systems in Disaster Management.

The respondents were asked whether the current curriculum effectively integrates sustainability and disaster resilience concepts into courses in terms of respondents’ affiliated institutions. It was surprising that the majority of the respondents indicated that they were neutral to this question, where a considerable portion implied that they disagreed with the fact that the current curriculum effectively integrates sustainability and resilience concepts into the courses taught (Figure 9). This indicates that even though sustainability and resilience concepts are incorporated to some extent, their integration should be more comprehensive and effective to better equip students with the necessary knowledge and skills. Further, the statement “Sustainability and disaster resilience should be integrated more deeply into the civil engineering curriculum” was asked in terms of whether the respondents agreed or disagreed. As can be seen in Figure 10, most of the respondents agreed that these concepts should be better integrated into the civil engineering curriculum. This reveals that course contents should be revised to better integrate sustainability and resilience concepts and that these concepts should be based on the facts, where real cases should be given examples.

In order to examine the impact of earthquakes on sustainability, the respondents were requested to evaluate the impact in terms of the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social aspects. In terms of environmental impacts, the respondents replied that destruction in natural areas, erosion, chemical waste, and carbon emissions were among the most significant negative impacts. Moreover, a respondent indicated that anthropogenic activity after disasters might adversely affect the environment. Another response was the negative impacts on biodiversity due to the large amount of waste, which, in turn, causes environmental pollution. Landslides, tsunamis, and other secondary effects, which are severely damaging to ecosystems and wildlife habitats, were further listed as part of the environmental impacts.

In terms of economic impacts, the respondents mentioned infrastructure and superstructure damage, business interruptions, reconstruction activities after disasters, negative impacts on economic growth, increased costs of reconstruction activities, and employment problems. Moreover, the respondents further emphasized that earthquakes heavily burden a country’s financial resources. It was further stated that reconstruction costs for infrastructure, homes, and public buildings can redirect funds from essential services like education and healthcare.

The social impacts of earthquakes on sustainability are significant and multifaceted, affecting various aspects of society. According to the answers of the respondents, one of the most prevalent concerns was the enduring psychological trauma caused by the earthquakes. The loss of loved ones, injuries, and general stress have long-lasting impacts, leading to mental health issues. This not only affects the individuals directly involved but also society. Another social challenge mentioned was access to basic services such as housing, health care, and education. Disruption in these areas may also affect social development and long-term well-being. Earthquakes further increase economic inequality and poverty. Many respondents also highlighted that earthquakes often lead to forced displacement and migration due to destruction or unsafe living conditions, which can result in further social problems.

One other question was “To what extent do you believe recent earthquakes have impacted sustainability dimensions?”. A major part of the respondents (42.9%) indicated that earthquakes have a critical impact that affects multiple sustainability dimensions, and 35.7% perceived a major impact with substantial effects. Additionally, 14.3% noted noticeable but limited long-term effects, whereas only 7.1% considered the impact to be minor (Figure 11).

The resources that would help in better integrating the impacts of earthquakes on sustainability into courses were also asked about. Figure 12 shows the responses to this question. The respondents implied that research papers and field observations can be highly effective in terms of revealing the impacts of earthquakes on sustainability in engineering education courses. They further indicated that using case studies and organizing workshops and training can be other effective means of presenting the impacts of earthquakes on sustainability in engineering courses.

The challenges that the respondents faced in terms of integrating sustainability and disaster resilience concepts into teaching were questioned about. Figure 13 presents the responses to this question. The majority of the respondents (42.9%) implied that they faced insufficient curriculum time as a big challenge in terms of integrating sustainability and disaster resilience concepts. Moreover, 21.4% further implied that a lack of institutional support is a major cause of not being able to integrate sustainability and disaster resilience into engineering courses. Other impactful reasons were mentioned, such as limited training on sustainability concepts, limited case studies, and a lack of motivation and time.

Given this background, one can conclude that sustainable practices are of critical importance in creating safer and more resilient environments, especially in the case of disasters. Therefore, sustainability should be carefully considered in terms of both engineering education and construction firms to deliver more resilient, environment-friendly, and sustainable structures. The results of this study revealed that there is not yet a well-framed sustainability implementation guide for both academics and industry practitioners, so the concept is conceived by a broader community. Moreover, sustainability’s paramount importance in terms of building resilient cities has also not yet been perceived by practitioners in the industry. To create awareness for sustainable practices and emphasize why resilient cities should be built with sustainable approaches, this study encourages both researchers and practitioners to develop more research in sustainability and provide clear guidelines regarding its implementation.

4.4. Integrating Sustainability and Resilience into Civil Engineering Education

To integrate sustainability and resilience into civil engineering education, several strategies can be implemented in terms of curriculum design and teaching methods. In curriculum development, sustainability and resilience concepts should be incorporated into fundamental civil engineering courses. In structural engineering, seismic design principles and earthquake-resilient design should be included. In geotechnical engineering, soil stabilization and landslide risk assessments can be integrated to existing courses. Transportation engineering courses can introduce resilient road networks and green infrastructure. Construction management courses can integrate sustainable construction methods, carbon footprint reduction, disaster risk management, construction law, and ethics. Further, specialized courses related to resilient and sustainable infrastructure, disaster risk management, alternative sustainable materials, and life cycle assessment can be offered. In addition, certification programs related to disaster risk management and green buildings can be offered to students. The questionnaire results show that although there are many specialized courses, the integration of these concepts into the civil engineering curriculum requires improvement.

In courses, several teaching methods can be applied. The questionnaire results show that publishing research papers can help disseminate the lessons learned from disasters. More interactive methods such as field observations are considered helpful. Site visits and field studies after disasters may help students analyze structural damage and recovery efforts. Moreover, internships and industry collaborations may promote hands-on training. While developing courses, case studies can be integrated. Using cases from real projects could further guide students to collaborate on multi-faceted projects involving sustainability and resilience practices. In relevant courses, simulation and modeling tools for structural resilience modeling, seismic risk assessment, and life cycle analysis can be utilized. Further, project-based learning is significant in analyzing real-world problems. Multi-disciplinary project groups are encouraged to enhance collaboration among different professions.

The proposed integration of sustainability, resilience, and engineering education could open new paths for engineering graduates. Students learning to think about these systems in a sustainability context could gain the ability to foresee the long-term impact of project designs and predict what could be the results of such integration in terms of economic, environmental, and social pillars. The integration of sustainability into engineering curricula could also create opportunities for engaging new ideas in terms of waste reduction and resource efficiency. Investigations into resilience in the array of sustainability pillars could help engineering students to incorporate risk and uncertainty in design decisions, considering environmental challenges such as climate change and natural disasters. Since resilience allows for the evaluation of the capacity of systems, different adaptation strategies, such as adaptive design for future unpredictability and system flexibility, could be developed through a detailed scrutinization of resilience in terms of environmental considerations. Investigations into sustainability along with resilience could provide a system-based perspective involving different disciplines of engineering education. The potential framework of sustainability, resilience, and engineering education could further develop a better understanding of engineers’ ethical responsibilities towards developing sustainable and resilient infrastructure.

4.5. The Roles of Stakeholders in Civil Engineering Education

The responses to integrating sustainability and disaster resilience into the civil engineering curriculum pose some challenges. Even though this need was clearly emphasized in the responses, more actionable strategies are required for smoother integration. In this respect, governmental bodies may launch sustainability and disaster resilience programs as part of engineering education, where students get introduced to the concepts earlier in their bachelors’ education. Moreover, trade unions and non-governmental organizations can organize awareness programs for sustainability and disaster resilience, where volunteer work is encouraged through training, seminars, and conferences. As another strategy, government-supported research institutions and private organizations may offer funding programs to support the association between sustainability, disaster resilience, and engineering education, where M.Sc.- and Ph.D.-level students could conduct research regarding the challenges and benefits of integrating sustainability and resilience into engineering curricula. Reward mechanisms and incentive programs should be created in engineering organizations for fulfilling sustainability and resilience goals. To address the deficiencies in integrating sustainability into engineering curricula in the context of disaster resilience and mitigation, new courses should be designed in the form of modules, where at least two or three modules focus on sustainability and its pillars and sustainable practices for resilient structures. Finally, experimental studies can be conducted to teach students about the impacts of disasters and how to mitigate them. By learning through experiments, students can conceive the fundamentals of sustainable and disaster-resilient practices and implement them once they start working in the field. Further, the effective integration of sustainability into university curricula requires leadership from professional bodies within specific disciplines. However, academic curricula may not align with industry needs. There is a time lag in universities’ responses to changes in industry demands, regulations, or standards. Additionally, the industry often lacks clear sustainability-related requirements, and the identification of these needs is limited [48]. This highlights the role of the construction industry in civil engineering education. Finally, as Frydrych et al. [70] highlighted, developing common learning outcomes for European managers is essential in terms of acquiring professional qualifications and fostering engineering education in different areas.

5. Conclusions

This study investigated the sustainability approach based on the perspective of engineering education and developing resilient practices for the construction industry. In this context, this study provides the outputs of the CLOEMC VI project, where sustainability was investigated as an important topic in the context of manuals developed for the project.

Apart from the outcomes of the project, this study further presents the results of a semi-structured interview conducted with the people affected by the major Kahramanmaras earthquakes in Turkey, where thousands of lives were lost and thousands of buildings either collapsed or were damaged. The interviews conducted with the affected people revealed that sustainability must become one the critical elements of design and disaster resilience culture. To enhance awareness for sustainability and facilitate sustainable designs, the interviewees further recommended that both local municipalities and government work together in terms of bringing strict regulations for construction audits and building location selection, where the location is further evaluated in terms of soil conditions. This study demonstrated that workshops and training could be effective means of investigating earthquake impacts on sustainability. Moreover, research papers and case studies were indicated to be helpful in terms of analyzing the impacts of earthquakes on sustainability in engineering courses.

The results of this study also demonstrated that sustainability must be investigated closely in terms of civil engineering education, where graduates are expected to develop a knowledge base about sustainable practices and implement them once they are committed to work on construction projects. On the other hand, the interviews conducted with academics implied that sustainability has still not been perceived as an essential part of engineering education, where curricula are still designed considering conventional approaches. In particular, the interviews emphasized that sustainability should be evaluated as part of resilience culture, where disaster resilience can be achieved through well-set sustainable practices. The outputs of the CLOEMC VI project further revealed that regulations regarding sustainability and engineering education in terms of sustainability should be improved to open a path for civil engineering students in terms of getting more familiar with the concepts and developing ideas about more innovative and environmentally friendly sustainable practices.

This study recommends that a learning model could be developed for higher education in order to integrate sustainability into the engineering education curriculum. On the other hand, this study suggests that both governmental and non-governmental organizations should work together to issue standards and guidelines for a sustainable program and create disaster resilient environments. In particular, it is of utmost importance to introduce sustainability and its goals in the early years of engineering education so that students can become familiarized with the fundamentals of sustainability and its pillars. As sustainability goals encompass the forming of resilient cities, it is critical that young researchers and early graduates of engineering degrees establish sustainability programs towards disaster resilience and management in their institutions. Hence, future research should be conducted towards creating a conceptual learning model regarding forming resilient and sustainable practices. Moreover, agendas should be created for establishing restrictive standards for engineering works in terms of achieving sustainable goals and development.

On the other hand, this study had some limitations, as it took considerable time to contact the interviewees in order to obtain their responses to the questions related to the earthquakes. The interviews were conducted face-to-face in the earthquake-affected region, so it was challenging to reach construction practitioners as they were working in several sites in different locations in the affected region.

The results of this study can open up new research areas, as this study has the potential to lead both industry practitioners and policymakers in scrutinizing sustainability in the context of disaster preparedness and resilience. Moreover, researchers can develop mathematical models, where pillars of sustainability relating to disaster management can be operationalized and quantified, revealing the level of association between the pillars and disaster management in terms of some essential parameters.