Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Approach and Methodology
2.1. Data
- 24% energy, petroleum and related equipment
- 15% consulting, design and professional services
- 15% manufacturing, materials and industrial machinery
- 13% transportation and defense
- 9% chemical, bioengineering, medical and pharmaceutical, food and beverage, and water and sanitation
- 4% computers equipment and software, electronics and telecommunications
2.2. Assumptions
3. Attitudes of Engineers Towards Sustainability
3.1. Practicing Engineers
3.2. Engineering Students
3.3. Additional General Comments
4. Attitudes and Actions of Engineering Corporations Towards Sustainability
Sustainable technology/measure | Organization currently involved with (%) | Worked on in past year (%) | Considered one of two most important (by practicing engineers) | Considered one of two most important (by engineering students) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Designs that reduce energy use or emissions | 71 | 64 | 64 | 66 |
Designs complying with environmental standards and regulations | 71 | 54 | 23 | 7 |
Designs using renewable/recyclable/recycled materials | 43 | 27 | 24 | 0 |
Designs that reduce material waste in manufacturing | 40 | 22 | 13 | 21 |
Designs with non-toxic materials | 37 | 20 | 10 | 10 |
Designs with low carbon footprints | 36 | 21 | 10 | 11 |
Manufacturing with less energy and natural resources | 33 | 21 | 27 | 43 |
Manufacturing processes that pollute less | 31 | 15 | 11 | 14 |
Products that can be disposed of safely | 29 | 15 | 9 | 13 |
Products that require less packaging | 16 | 9 | 4 | 6 |
5. Factors Influencing Sustainable Design
Factor | Most likely (%) | One of top three most likely (%) |
---|---|---|
Regulatory requirements | 42 | 69 |
Client demand | 19 | 51 |
Rising energy costs | 16 | 53 |
Ability to gain a market advantage | 6 | 30 |
Long-term return on investment | 5 | 25 |
Personal sense of environmental responsibility | 5 | 19 |
Government/industry incentives | 3 | 32 |
None of the above | 3 | 5 |
- 34% consider sustainable technologies for new products only if they are cost-saving;
- 27% invest in sustainable technologies only if they increase throughput and cut costs of existing products/processes;
- 24% invest in sustainable technologies if they do not affect throughput or cost of existing products;
- 19% will spend extra to incorporate sustainable technologies in most new products;
- 15% do not invest in sustainable technologies;
- 9% invest in sustainable technologies to make a statement with some flagship products but not others.
6. Changing Attitudes and Views
7. Barriers and Challenges
- Economics and cost. Respondents indicated that cost is a major consideration when deciding to factor sustainability into a new product or process. The concerns include high start-up and re-tooling costs, and the long-term nature of the return on an investment in sustainability.
- Competitiveness. Many feel that adopting sustainable practices in engineering will make the work non-competitive relative to those, within a country or abroad, that do not enhance sustainability.
- Market forces and customer demand. Many believe that expanded sustainable engineering is hindered by inadequate customer demand for more sustainable engineering and a lack of corresponding market forces that drive sustainable engineering practices.
- Corporate culture and commitment. There is normally not an ingrained corporate culture that supports and fosters sustainable engineering in companies, and other corporate priorities usually receive much greater attention. Further a firm commitment from corporate leaders is commonly not present.
- Incentives. Corporations often list inadequate incentives from governments as a barrier to improved engineering sustainability, while practicing engineers often cite a lack of employee incentives.
- Inertia and change. With many corporations and engineers, there is often a reluctance to change, combined with an inertia, that renders it difficult to introduce sustainable engineering practices. This is partly due to the transitional nature of a shift to more sustainable engineering practices and the uncertainty regarding the ultimate destination.
- Practices. Commonly accepted and consistent practices for performing sustainable engineering and for developing sustainable products are often indicated to be lacking. In particular, it is often indicated that an improved understanding of best practices would be very useful.
- Assessment. Corresponding to the previous point, it is often noted that there is a significant lack of commonly accepted and consistent measures for assessing sustainable engineering and, more broadly, sustainability.
- Codes and standards. Often engineers cite the lack of codes and standards for sustainable practices and products as a hindrance to the enhancement and extension of sustainable engineering practices.
- Regulations and laws. There are few regulations and laws that call for sustainable engineering, or set sustainability thresholds that need to be met.
- Success stories, failures and best practices. Many indicate that they feel that more reports of successful applications of sustainable engineering are needed to foster further uses, and that unsuccessful attempts to incorporate sustainable engineering into processes and products need to be explained to help others learn.
- Confidentiality. The need for confidentiality to protect competitive advantages often is cited as hindering the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned from applying sustainable engineering.
- Short-term focus. The common focus on short-term benefits, rather than a life-cycle approach to benefits, usually hinders the long-term decision making needed to support sustainable engineering practices.
8. Comparisons and Further Discussion
9. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
References
- Curran, M.A. Wrapping our brains around sustainability. Sustainability 2009, 1, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuhlman, T.; Farrington, J. What is sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 3436–3448. [Google Scholar]
- Stock, P.; Burton, R.J.F. Defining Terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1090–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ciegis, R.; Ramanauskiene, J.; Martinkus, B. The concept of sustainable development and its use for sustainability scenarios. Engineering Economics (Inzinerine Ekonomika) 2009, 2, 28–37. [Google Scholar]
- Waas, T.; Hugé, J.; Verbruggen, A.; Wright, T. Sustainable development: A bird’s eye view. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1637–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burns, T.R. The sustainability revolution: A societal paradigm shift. Sustainability 2012, 4, 1118–1134. [Google Scholar]
- Clifton, D. Sustainable business: Are we heading in the right direction? Sustainability 2012, 4, 586–603. [Google Scholar]
- Batterham, R.J. Sustainability: The next chapter. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 4188–4193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, M. The rhetoric of sustainability: Perversity, futility, jeopardy? Sustainability 2010, 2, 645–659. [Google Scholar]
- Goepel, M. Formulating future just policies: Applying the Delhi sustainable development law principles. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1694–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbott, K.W.; Marchant, G.E. Institutionalizing sustainability across the federal government. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1924–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singer, M. Eco-nomics: Are the planet-unfriendly features of capitalism barriers to sustainability? Sustainability 2010, 2, 127–144. [Google Scholar]
- Frisk, E.; Larson, K.L. Educating for sustainability: Competencies and practices for transformative action. JSE 2011, 2, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Umeda, Y. The Needs of Meso Level Research for Sustainability Research and Agenda of Research and Education of CEIDS. In Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society; Matsumoto, M., Umeda, Y., Masui, K., Fukushige, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 564–568. [Google Scholar]
- Reid, A.; Petocz, P.; Taylor, P. Business students’ conceptions of sustainability. Sustainability 2009, 1, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selby, D.; Jones, P.; Kagawa, F. Sustainability promotion and branding: Messaging challenges and possibilities for higher education institutions. Sustainability 2009, 1, 537–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kagawa, F. Dissonance in students' perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability: Implications for curriculum change. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2007, 8, 317–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chalkley, B.; Sterling, S. Hard times in higher education: The closure of subject centres and the implications for education for sustainable development (ESD). Sustainability 2011, 3, 666–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbeng, L.O.; Probert, J.; Phillips, P.S.; Fairweather, R. Assessing public attitudes and behaviour to household waste management in cameroon to drive strategy development: A Q methodological approach. Sustainability 2009, 1, 556–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cairns, R.D. Accounting for sustainability: A dissenting opinion. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1341–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allenby, B.; Allen, D.; Davidson, C. Sustainable engineering: From myth to mechanism. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2007, 17, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, M.A. Engineering sustainability: A technical approach to sustainability. Sustainability 2012, 4, 2270–2292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allenby, B.R. The Theory and Practice of Sustainable Engineering; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bakshi, B.R.; Fiksel, J. The Quest for sustainability: Challenges for process systems engineering. AIChE J. 2003, 49, 1350–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.; Chilvers, A.; Hillier, J. The socio-technology of engineering sustainability. Eng. Sustain. 2011, 164, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulder, K.F.; Segalàs, J.; Ferrer-Balas, D. How to educate engineers for/in sustainable development: Ten years of discussion, remaining challenges. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonker, G.; Harmsen, J. Engineering for Sustainability: A Practical Guide for Sustainable Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mihelcic, J.R.; Crittenden, J.C.; Small, M.J.; Shonnard, D.R.; Hokanson, D.R.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, H.; Sorby, S.A.; James, V.U.; Sutherland, J.W.; Schnoor, J.L. Sustainability science and engineering: The emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5314–5324. [Google Scholar]
- Pearce, O.J.D.; Murry, N.J.A.; Broyd, T.W. Halstar: Systems engineering for sustainable development. Eng. Sustain. 2012, 165, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graedel, T.E.; Allenby, B.R. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Fenner, R.A.; Ainger, C.M.; Cruickshank, H.J.; Guthrie, P.M. Widening engineering horizons: Addressing the complexity of sustainable development. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2006, 159, 145–154. [Google Scholar]
- Armand, J.-L. The bringing together of technology, sustainability and ethics. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, E.P. Teaching engineering ethics with sustainability as context. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 232–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, G.; Kosoris, J.; Hong, L.N.; Crul, M. Design for sustainability: Current Trends in sustainable product design and development. Sustainability 2009, 1, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, S. Temporal objects: Design, change and sustainability. Sustainability 2010, 2, 812–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindow, K.; Woll, R.; Stark, R. A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Engineering Design. In Leveraging Technology for a Sustainable World; Dornfeld, D.A., Linke, B.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 197–202. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, M.A.; Kishawy, H.A. Sustainable manufacturing and design: Concepts, practices and needs. Sustainability 2012, 4, 154–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rutkauskas, A.V. Using sustainability engineering to gain universal sustainability efficiency. Sustainability 2012, 4, 1135–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E.M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3309–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, M.A. Energy sustainability: A pragmatic approach and illustrations. Sustainability 2009, 1, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnanapragasam, N.V.; Reddy, B.V.; Rosen, M.A. Sustainability of an energy conversion system in Canada involving large-scale integrated hydrogen production using solid fuels. Int. J. Energ. Environ. 2011, 2, 1–38. [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, G.P. Engineering sustainability: Thermodynamics, energy systems, and the environment. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004, 28, 613–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomkiewicz, M. On the feasibility of a timely transition to a more sustainable energy future. Sustainability 2010, 2, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonn, B.; Frymier, P.; Graves, J.; Meyers, J. A sustainable energy scenario for the United States: Year 2050. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3650–3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F. Developing a sustainability assessment model: The sustainable infrastructure, land-use, environment and transport model. Sustainability 2010, 2, 321–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zavrl, M.Š.; Zeren, M.T. Sustainability of urban infrastructures. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2950–2964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bi, Z. Revisiting system paradigms from the viewpoint of manufacturing sustainability. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1323–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bettencourt, L.M.A.; Kaur, J. Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 19540–19545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, W.C.; Dickson, N.M. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8059–8061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kates, R.W. What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 19449–19450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orecchini, F.; Santiangeli, A.; Valitutti, V. Sustainability science: Sustainable energy for mobility andits use in policy making. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1855–1865. [Google Scholar]
- Mulder, K. Engineering education in sustainable development: Sustainability as a tool to open up the windows of engineering institutions. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2004, 13, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segalàs, J.; Ferrer-Balas, D.; Svanström, M.; Lundqvist, U.; Mulder, K.F. What has to be learnt for sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competences at three European universities. Sustain. Sci. 2009, 4, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hanning, A.; Abelsson, A.P.; Lundqvist, U.; Svanström, M. Are we educating engineers for sustainability? Comparison between obtained competences and Swedish industry's needs. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 305–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svanström, M.; Palme, U.; Wedel, M.K.; Carlson, O.; Nyström, T.; Edén, M. Embedding of ESD in engineering education: Experiences from Chalmers University of Technology. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2012, 13, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, A. Sustainable design: A new paradigm for engineering education. Int. J. Engng. Ed. 2010, 26, 252–259. [Google Scholar]
- Nagel, R.L.; Pappas, E.C.; Pierrakos, O. On a vision to educating students in sustainability and design: The James Madison University School of engineering approach. Sustainability 2012, 4, 72–91. [Google Scholar]
- Sustainable Design Trend Watch Survey Results, ASME, 2012. Available online: http://memagazine.asme.org/Web/Sustainable_Design_Trend.cfm (accessed on 12 July 2012).
- Winters, J. Compelled to be Green. Mech. Eng. 2010, 132, 42–45. [Google Scholar]
- Autodesk/ASME Sustainability Survey Results, Autodesk, 2009. Available online: http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/asme_surveyresults2.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2012).
- Brown, A.S. Conflict on the green. Mech. Eng. 2009, 131, 42–45. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, A.S. Penetrating the engineering culture. Mech. Eng. 2012, 134, 42–45. [Google Scholar]
- American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Available online: http://www.asme.org/about-asme (accessed on 30 November 2012).
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Rosen, M.A. Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions. Sustainability 2013, 5, 372-386. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5010372
Rosen MA. Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions. Sustainability. 2013; 5(1):372-386. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5010372
Chicago/Turabian StyleRosen, Marc A. 2013. "Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions" Sustainability 5, no. 1: 372-386. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5010372
APA StyleRosen, M. A. (2013). Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions. Sustainability, 5(1), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5010372