Case Study

Green Building and Sustainable Infrastructure:

Sustainability Education for Civil Engineers
J. T. Kevern, A.M.ASCE1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil College of Engineering on 11/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper discusses a framework for incorporating sustainable design/thinking as a new civil engineering course and experiences
from the pilot offering. Important areas are outlined to aid all engineers in understanding sustainability in context with traditional engineering
principles. Green-building rating systems were used to introduce the concepts of sustainability in buildings and infrastructure, highlighted by
presentations from green-building professionals. By providing a better understanding of sustainability through education, civil engineers can
provide proactive solutions to a growing global infrastructure. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000048. © 2011 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Engineering education; Sustainable development; Curricula; Teaching methods.
Author keywords: Engineering education; Sustainable development; Curricula; Teaching methods.

Introduction
Society requires that new projects be sustainable while also adher-
ing to basic engineering principles such as structural design,
economics, safety, and constructability. However, the design
requirements for engineering professionals are changing more
rapidly than universities are adapting to this new paradigm in
construction. The ever-changing nature of sustainability presents
challenges to design engineers especially when asked to incorpo-
rate new relatively unproven technologies into traditional design
methodologies.
Although the topics of sustainability appear throughout many
journals, conferences, and university campuses and some schools
offer degrees in sustainability, information on the role of civil
engineers in sustainability and green building is lacking. Before
developing the course described in this paper, a review of existing
civil engineering and non–civil engineering curricula was per-
formed. Most of the available engineering education literature
related to sustainability focused on integrating aspects of sustain-
ability into existing courses or only provided global-scale sugges-
tions on aspects of sustainability that should be presented to
students (Chau 2007; Anastas and Lankey 2002). Environmental
issues are most commonly integrated into environmental engineer-
ing courses, whereas social aspects are integrated into a service-
learning course such as a senior capstone course (Riley et al.
2007; Grimberg et al. 2008). Sustainability is often integrated
through case studies presented as potential ideas for capstone proj-
ects. The current literature provided many suggestions for topics
related to sustainability but was not helpful in providing case
studies of sustainability courses specifically for civil engineers.
Consequently, this paper provides actual examples of topics,
1
Assistant Professor, Civil and Mechanical Engineering Dept., Univ. of
Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64110. E-mail: kevernj@umkc
.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 15, 2010; approved on
August 27, 2010; published online on September 2, 2010. Discussion per-
iod open until September 1, 2011; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 137, No. 2, April 1,
2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 1052-3928/2011/2-107–112/$25.00.
homework, projects, and feedback as a case study to help other civil
engineering programs implement sustainability offerings.
What is LEED? What does “green” mean? What is sustainable?
Everyone wants sustainability, but what do they really want?
Although this question is not as common today as it was a few years
ago, not everyone is familiar with sustainability, especially civil
engineers. These questions posed by the professional engineering
community in Kansas City allowed the Civil Engineering
Department at the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC)
to develop Green Building and Sustainable Infrastructure, a
graduate-level course piloted in the spring of 2009 and first offered
in the fall of 2009. Enrollment for the course was capped at 30,
UMKC’s largest for a civil engineering graduate course.
Kansas City has the greatest number of civil engineers (per
capita) in the United States. It is the fourth largest engineering
community in the country, with regional and national headquarters
of many engineering firms. Consequently, one of the urban mis-
sions for UMKC is providing continuing education to the engineer-
ing community. The relative porosity of UMKC faculty with local
engineers allows rapid adjustments to better meet the needs of the
community. Courses in green building and sustainability were
needs identified through both informal discussions and a request
made by the engineering advisory board to the Civil Engineering
Department. The community was excited about being greener, but
it was also reluctant to the unknown and to change. So, the green-
building course focused on the role of civil engineers in the context
of sustainable design in addition to discussing technologies to
become more sustainable.
The basic core competencies of the profession were set in the
post–World War II environment of producing engineers for the cold
war. Although the current requirements produce competent,
well-rounded, traditional civil engineers, there is the need, more
than ever, to produce graduates who understand how green building
and sustainability fit into traditional engineering roles. How do
civil engineers balance the original core education components of
structural analysis, soil mechanics, water and wastewater design,
transportation, and construction with the need to be green?
Unfortunately for civil engineers, this means being uncomfortable,
being flexible, evaluating new technologies, working with other
professions, and returning to being ingenious and thinking. Green
Building and Sustainable Infrastructure took the excitement and

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 107

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(2): 107-112

 need for sustainable course offerings and combined information
from many different industries to provide relevance for civil
engineers.
Challenges to Being Sustainable
Sustainability is a fluid, ever-changing process. Consequently, yes-
terday’s sustainable design will not be tomorrow’s. The lack of a
consistent definition and current information, combined with the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil College of Engineering on 11/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
bureaucracy surrounding building and design codes, means that
the next generation of sustainable designs will require decisions
from competent, knowledgeable engineers. Sustainable design
involves considering all phases of a project life cycle from plan-
ning, design, construction, operation and maintenance, and reha-
bilitation and replacement. The best decision for one step may
not be the best for another. Depending on the project and location,
importance will shift between the economic, environmental, and
societal impacts. Considering the triple bottom line often introdu-
ces competing interests with competing information that must be
synthesized by educated engineers. Being sustainable is challeng-
ing, but engineers can make informed, safe decisions through
education and understanding.
Being Ingenious and Breaking Down Silos
Green building and sustainability stress often require integrating
different areas early on and throughout a project to achieve success.
Relatively new and untested green technologies often require even
more coordination. The inspiration and engineering context of the
course was based on the principles outlined in the National
Concrete Pavement Technology Center (CP tech center) document
Building Sustainable Pavements with Concrete (Van Dam and
Taylor 2009). The following principles were presented initially
and throughout the semester as a road map for sustainable
engineering:
1. Get smart—In the past, civil engineers provided many different
services on a single project, from surveying and soil testing to
structural design and construction inspection. Lately, engineers
have become specialists and have lost perception and under-
standing of how decisions affect the bigger project. Sustainable
technologies are changing rapidly, and the only way to keep
abreast of technology is through continued education.
2. Design to serve the community—The ultimate goal for engi-
neers is to improve conditions for the greater community. The
greater community is both human and nature, and decisions
must consider the impacts to both.
3. Choose what you use—Select the best material for the client,
project, and environment, considering now and the future. Use
local materials, and recycle old ones into the new project when
possible. In many cases, selecting a more expensive yet long-
lasting product will be cheaper and greener over the project’s
life cycle.
4. Less is more—Fewer materials used in a project result in lower
emissions. Optimize systems whenever possible, and build
according to what society requires.
5. Minimize impacts to the community—Projects can affect the
community in a variety of negative ways. Think holistically
about noise, safety, delays, emissions, and energy consump-
tion. A better design results in a better project for everyone.
6. Take care of what you have—Longevity is the key to sustain-
ability. In most cases, maintaining an existing item now is bet-
ter for the environment than buying a new green product.
108 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2011
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(2): 107-112
7. Innovate—Identify a problem as an opportunity. Educate
yourself. Evaluate new products. Learn from your mistakes.
Manage future risks through more education.
8. We are all in this together—Sustainable design requires the
involvement, participation, and cooperation of everyone. Get
used to interacting with disciplines with a variety of knowledge
bases. Help educate others on how their decisions affect civil
engineering as you learn how your decisions affect them.
The eight steps were loosely based on the 12 principles of green
engineering presented by Anastas and Zimmerman (2003) and then
modified for civil engineering project considerations.
Course Outline and Objectives
Course Objectives
The course was designed to introduce the students to a wide variety
of available techniques, technologies, systems, initiatives, and up-
coming policies. Within the context of the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET) course-specific outcomes,
the important topics within sustainability align with many of the
learning outcomes (ABET 2010; Kelley 2008). The following is
a simplified list of ABET learning outcomes that align with the
current concepts of sustainability for civil engineers and were di-
rectly addressed in Green Building and Sustainable Infrastructure.
1. Ability to apply the knowledge of mathematics, science, and
engineering;
2. Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet
desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic,
environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, man-
ufacturability, and sustainability;
3. Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams;
4. Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems;
5. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility;
6. Ability to communicate effectively;
7. Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engi-
neering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and
societal context;
8. Recognition of the need for and ability to engage in life-long
learning;
9. Knowledge of contemporary issues; and
10. Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering
tools necessary for engineering practice.
Because the course was not specifically listed as writing inten-
sive, technical communication was fostered through reviews,
reports, projects, and presentations throughout the semester.
Course Outline
The course covered 14 weeks. The class was taught one evening per
week for 3 h. Green rating systems for buildings and infrastructure
were covered over 6 weeks, with most of that time focused on
LEED for new construction. Table 1 is a summary of the course
outline.
Using LEED as a Platform to Introduce Green
Building
The U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green rating system
has become ubiquitous in the commercial-building market.
In the United States, commercial building typically progresses
with an owner hiring an architect and the architect hiring engineers
when required. So, for most traditional projects, the engineer’s
 Table 1. Course Schedule information on the particular LEED section but were encouraged
Week Topic to expand with project examples, experiences, and suggestions for
interactions with their particular profession on LEED projects.
1 Introduction to sustainability
2–5 LEED for new construction
6 Other rating systems Course Activities
7 Hot-topic presentations, exam #1
8 Hot-topic presentations The initial division of course activities between lectures and active-
9 Energy and environment
learning activities such as case studies and projects was based on
the student feedback provided by Wang (2009) in “Sustainability
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil College of Engineering on 11/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10 Low-impact development
11 Storm-water BMPs
12 Urban heat island
13 Life-cycle analysis
14 Life-cycle inventory
involvement is compartmentalized to fulfill duties only on a limited
scope. This traditional approach creates numerous change orders,
overruns, and in many cases, less than optimal results. However,
LEED and other green-building rating systems require team inte-
gration to help minimize problems and allow new technologies to
be successful. Now the civil engineer may be involved with the
architect, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, landscape archi-
tect, suppliers, and contractors. Because LEED also encourages the
use of new materials, the team can be creative, allowing the engi-
neers to solve problems. For many engineers, the idea of working in
an interdisciplinary team to creatively solve a problem is a new and
exciting concept.
LEED is the most widespread green-building rating system in
the country and was used to introduce the concept of rating systems
to the students. Although point-based ratings systems have the
weakness of projects only trying to achieve enough points for a
particular rating level instead of purely considering sustainable
options, the principles supporting the particular points have merit
and help define green building. During the first one-third of the
semester, LEED credit areas helped introduce site selection, water,
materials, energy efficiency, and air quality. The LEED sections
were supported by using Haselbach’s The Engineering Guide to
LEED—New Construction (2008). The textbook provides credit
explanations and examples from an engineer’s perspective. To help
provide context for the material and structure to a 3-h class, experts
were invited to speak to the class about LEED areas in addition to
those that the civil engineer is responsible for.
The first half of each LEED class covered credit areas, calcu-
lations, and point rankings. During the second half of each LEED
class, a speaker who is knowledgeable in the particular LEED sec-
tion presented. The presentations covered projects and technologies
related to the credit area and were made relevant by using stories
and pictures of the projects. A summary of the invited presenters is
shown in Table 2. The presenters were instructed to base their
for Construction Engineering.” Because sustainability is a rapidly
changing area, the assignments and projects were designed to iden-
tify state-of-the-practice technologies and allow students to select
areas of interest for more investigation and presentation to the other
students. LEED and associated technologies occupied approxi-
mately one-third of the course. One additional class period was de-
voted to other green rating systems including other available LEED
products, Green Globes, Energy Star, the National Association of
Home Builders’ green home-building guidelines, Greenroads, and
the Federal Highway Administration’s Green Highways Partner-
ship. The course then transitioned to urban sustainability issues
of storm-water management and urban heat island (UHI) mitiga-
tion. The storm-water portion included the history of storm-water
problems and the progression to current legislation. Then the
course covered low-impact development and technologies to re-
duce storm-water runoff. Following urban issues was a class period
discussing the causes of UHI, calculations, and mitigation strate-
gies. One class period was devoted to discussing unsustainable
practices leading to federal hazardous waste legislation, using
examples such as Love Canal and Times Beach. The lecture on
unsustainable practices also included air pollution, global warming,
and greenhouse gas reduction programs. Discussion of the previous
state of environmental practices and on-going legislation helped
show how widespread small changes incorporated in sustainable
development are now possible because the major problems and
practices of the past have been addressed. The final portion of
the course discussed the basics of environmental inventory and
life-cycle assessment (LCA). This section introduced the students
to the popular LCA tools available from the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)—the Building for Environmen-
tal and Economic Sustainability (BEES) program—and those from
the Athena Institute for Green Globes and the pilot for LEED
(NIST 2007; Athena Institute 2010). Although LEED for new con-
struction was used to introduce green building, the course quickly
covered many other related topics.
Class Activities and Homework
The course started by splitting the students into three groups to
work on a triple bottom line project. Before any course introduc-
tion, the groups were separated and asked to design a doghouse.

Table 2. LEED Presentations

LEED area
Sustainable site
Water efficiency
Materials and resources
Energy and atmosphere
General LEED
Presentation topic
Planning for sustainability—the case of Lafitte
Greenway, New Orleans 2006–2009
Storm-water BMPs
Building material reuse—removing the
roadblock (planet reuse)
MEP systems for LEED energy and atmosphere
Green building in Kansas City metro/the future of green
Presenter background
Professor in School of Urban Planning and Design
Storm-water engineer/adjunct professor of civil engineering
Civil engineer/owner of material reuse company
Mechanical engineer/LEED professional/local
USGBC board member
Civil engineer/local USGBC board member

JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 109

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(2): 107-112

 The first group was asked to design the most environmentally
friendly doghouse imaginable. The second group was asked to
design a doghouse by imagining themselves as the dog. Every pos-
sible amenity was included for the dog’s comfort. The third group
was asked to design two economical doghouses. One was designed
to last for 1 year, and the other was designed to last for 50 years.
The groups presented their designs to the entire class and then were
asked to compromise on a final design. The triple bottom line
project helped to initially describe balancing competing social,
environmental, and economic concerns within a life-cycle per-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil College of Engineering on 11/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
spective.
Each week a seminal or thought-provoking paper was assigned
for review and critique. Papers were selected from many different
areas and were often selected with attitudes contrary to engineering
practices. The presenters were asked to recommend a seminal paper
in their field for review. Some of the more interesting selections
included the following:
• “Energy and Equity”—a paper written in the midst of the energy
crisis in the 1970s, suggesting that society has declined since the
invention of vehicles that allow travel beyond the speed of the
bicycle (Illich 1978).
• “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and
Contradictions of Sustainable Development”—a paper that
helped explain the role of urban planners and the contradictions
between development and sustainability (Campbell 1996).
• “Stratospheric Ozone Change”—a paper from 1989 that
strongly suggested that chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) from
humans were causing holes in the ozone layer. This paper
was written in a language similar to the current climate change
debate and helped the students understand that current theories
may be universally accepted facts in 20 years (Jackman 1989).
Some of the other readings included indoor air-quality monitor-
ing from elementary schools (Petronella et al. 2005), remediating
hydrocarbon groundwater (Kornuc and Webb 2001), lowering
energy usage versus human comfort (Kwok and Rajkovich
2010), and using pervious concrete to mitigate the urban heat island
(Kevern et al. 2009). A very popular YouTube video arguing the
benefits and drawbacks of addressing climate change (Craven
2007) was also viewed. Students were asked to summarize the
paper/video, present a bulleted list of the author’s conclusions, pro-
vide a critical review, and discuss major problems or issues with the
presented theories. The concept of a critical review was new to the
students, and feedback was required to explain that critical reviews
did not always have to be negative. The reviews were an effective
method to introduce nonengineering views and to develop critical-
review skills.
Homework was assigned from The Engineering Guide to LEED
—New Construction (Haselbach 2008) to illustrate the type of cal-
culations required for LEED projects. Whenever possible, addi-
tional questions were included, requiring description in LEED
context of storm water, construction waste, and material staging
of nearby projects.
Projects and Presentations
The green-building course included three projects: (1) a hot-topics
paper, (2) development of a road rating system, and (3) an urban
Table 3. Final Project Area Results
Location Total area (acre) Roof area (%)
Loop, Kansas City, MO 450 25
Overland Park, KS 480 9 14
110 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2011
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(2): 107-112
climate final project. The hot-topic project required the students to
select a recent unique sustainable technology and to research for a
short paper of five to seven pages. The selected hot topics were
grouped into energy-efficient technologies, carbon dioxide seques-
tration/reduction technologies, innovative building products, urban
climate management, and a few miscellaneous technologies. A
style guide was provided; and papers were reviewed, revised,
and resubmitted to allow feedback and improve writing. The stu-
dents then created a 5-min presentation of the hot topic for the class.
The hot-topic presentations allowed the introduction of a large
number of technologies in a relatively short amount of time
(one class period).
Near the end of the LEED section, the students were asked to
develop a green-building rating system for roads and infrastructure.
The context was to develop a preliminary method for state depart-
ments of transportation to vet incoming bids on greenness and to
provide a weighting scheme to preferentially select the more sus-
tainable options. The project was assigned before covering the
Greenroads rating system to allow unique solutions (Greenroads
2010). Because many of the students were professionals working
in different areas of civil engineering, the project solutions were
tailored to the students’ daily activities. Ratings were design based,
construction based, or a combination of both. Most projects
included a point system to adjust evaluated bid costs. However,
a portion of the projects included subjective factors to be evaluated
by a panel of judges, requiring presentations by the bidding teams.
The resulting projects were creative and unique.
The final project was weighted as equivalent to a final exam.
The students as green-building experts were asked to assemble
plans for storm water and UHI mitigation. Two areas were selected:
downtown Kansas City, Missouri, and suburban Overland Park,
Kansas. Downtown Kansas City is a high-density commercial dis-
trict with UHI and storm-water issues. The Overland Park area in-
cluded a low-density commercial district and typical residential
suburban homes. Both areas encompassed approximately 450 acres.
Students were required to determine the amount of impervious-to-
pervious area, as well as the roof, parking, and roadway areas.
Typical pollutant loadings were provided, and design suggestions
were required to treat the water-quality volume for both private
owners and the municipalities. For the urban section, students were
required to estimate the current energy usage and potential
savings by using recommended UHI mitigation strategies. Students
were required to estimate total heat storage along with potential
surface and air temperature decreases. Basic references to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s storm-water information and
UHI pages were provided [Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory 2000a, b; Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)
2010; International Stormwater BMP Database 2010]. Students
were encouraged to research the solution rather than ask the
professor basic questions.
The final projects ranged from one to more than 120 pages with
corresponding levels of detail. Impervious areas were defined by
simply using a ruler on a printed-out sheet to downloading the
regionally available geographic information system (GIS) data.
The precision of the data was quite good, with greater than 85%
of the class being within one standard deviation of the average
Parking area (%) Road area (%) Total impervious area (%)
38 22 85
14 37
 for both locations. The impervious area results are shown in Table 3.
One of the more-ambitious students performed a whole building
energy simulation on the downtown area and performed a sensitiv-
ity analysis on the different UHI mitigation options. The results
have been assembled into a journal article for submission and pre-
pared for presentation to the City of Kansas.
After the success of the hot-topic presentations, the graduate stu-
dents were asked to each select a storm-water best management
practice (BMP) and prepare a 5-min presentation for the class.
The presentations were divided into structural, nonstructural, pre-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil College of Engineering on 11/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
construction, and postconstruction BMPs. Again, the large number
of short presentations allowed a variety of potential storm-water
solutions to be introduced.
Student Feedback and Observations
Students were invited to provide feedback throughout the semester
and were surveyed at the end of the course. Student surveys were
initially based on the sustainability reflection survey in “Teaching
Sustainability in Building Design and Engineering” (Riley et al.
2007). In the second offering, a full student assessment will be
implemented before and after the course to determine if the student
learning objectives were met. The following is a summary of the
instructor’s opinion and of student evaluations.
Instructor’s Thoughts
Being a point-based system, LEED is difficult to teach. Context,
technologies, and applications are crucial to making the informa-
tion interesting and relevant. Student presentation and technical
writing abilities were much less developed than anticipated.
Consequently, grading reports and presentations were difficult
without significant revisions. The technical presenters brought
interesting and different aspects to the course. Additional areas
to consider for presenters would be additional storm water,
policy/government, and hydrology.
Student’s Thoughts
The technical presenters were well received, and many additional
topics were requested. More social aspects of green building were
recommended. More discussion of specific green technologies and
of storm-water management was suggested. The assignments were
relatively open ended, and the students requested more structure
and guidance. The common negative themes were that the time
spent on LEED specifics seemed excessive and that the student pre-
sentations needed improvement. The comments will be incorpo-
rated into the second version.
Summary
This paper presents the experience at the University of Missouri–
Kansas in developing the civil engineering graduate course Green
Building and Sustainable Infrastructure. LEED was used to intro-
duce the concept of green building and discuss green-building tech-
nologies during the first one-third of the course. Technical speakers
from the industry provided context to the various LEED credit
areas. Additional content areas included other green rating systems,
hazardous waste, global warming, storm-water management, low-
impact development, urban heat island, and life-cycle analysis.
Learning was supplemented by projects, a midterm paper, and sev-
eral student presentations. Notable recommendations for improve-
ment included limiting the time spent discussing LEED specifics
and increasing the number and variety of technical presentations.
The technical communication (writing and presenting) abilities of
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2011 / 111
J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(2): 107-112
the students were inadequate, and suggestions have been included
for more incorporation of student presentations into the under-
graduate curricula. The Green Building and Sustainable Infrastruc-
ture course was a success in its first offering, and many of the
students have passed their LEED Green Associates or Accredited
Professional exams.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the individuals who pro-
vided the materials to make the green-building course a success.
Dr. Liv Haselbach’s help in writing the course text and in providing
suggestions for course material is appreciated. The American
Institute of Architects provided LEED materials. Thanks to the in-
dustry speakers, Dr. Jacob Wagner; Elise Kirchoffer, P.E.; Nathan
Benjamin, P.E.; Kevin Pinkowski, P.E.; and Donald Baker,
P.E. Special thanks to the Kansas City engineering community,
who requested the course to be developed.
References
Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET). (2010).
“Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Effective for accredita-
tions during the 2010-2011 accreditation cycle.” 〈http://www.abet.org〉
(July 22, 2010).
Anastas, P. T., and Lankey, R. L. (2002). Advancing sustainability through
green chemistry and engineering, ACS symposium series 823, Ameri-
can Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Anastas, P. T., and Zimmerman, J. B. (2003). “Design through the 12 prin-
ciples of green engineering.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 37(5), 94A–101A.
Athena Institute. (2010). “Impact estimator for buildings and ecocalculator
for assemblies.” 〈http://www.athenasmi.org/about/index.html〉 (Aug.
27, 2010).
Campbell, S. (1996). “Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban plan-
ning and the contradictions of sustainable development.” J. Am. Plann.
Assoc., 62(3), 296–312.
Chau, K. W. (2007). “Incorporation of sustainability concepts into a civil
engineering curriculum.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 133(3),
188–191.
Craven, G. (2007). “How it all ends.” YouTube video, 〈http://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg〉 (Aug. 27, 2010).
Greenroads (2010). Greenroads manual V1.0, 〈http://www.greenroads.us〉
(Aug. 27, 2010).
Grimberg, S. J., Langen, T. A., Compeau, L. D., and Powers, S. E. (2008).
“A theme-based seminar on environmental sustainability improves
participant satisfaction in an undergraduate summer research program.”
J. Eng. Educ., 97(1), 95–103.
Haselbach, L. (2008). The engineering guide to LEED—New construction,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Illich, I. (1978). Toward and history of needs, Pantheon, New York.
International Stormwater BMP Database. (2010). “Analysis of BMP
performance 2008.”〈http://www.bmpdatabase.org/〉 (June 22, 2010).
Jackman, H. (1989). “Stratospheric ozone change.” Environ. Sci. Technol.,
23(11), 1329–1332.
Kelley, W. E. (2008). “General education for civil engineers: Sustainable
development.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 134(1), 75–83.
Kevern, J. T., Haselbach, L., and Schaefer, V. R. (2009). “Hot weather com-
parative heat balances in pervious/impervious pavement systems.”
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Countermeasures to Urban Heat Islands,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
Kornuc, J., and Webb, S. (2001). “A tree growing in the path of contami-
nated groundwater remediates fuel hydrocarbons.” Contam. Soil
Sediment Water Mag., Oct., 4–8.
Kwok, A., and Rajkovich, N. (2010). “Addressing climate change in
comfort standards.” Build. Environ., 45, 18–22.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. (2000a). “Cool roofing material
database.” 〈http://eetd.lbl.gov/CoolRoofs/〉 (June 22, 2010).
 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. (2000b). “Cool roofs.” 〈http://eetd
.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/〉 (Aug. 27, 2010).
Mid-America Regional Council (MARC). (2010). “Mid-America Regional
Council.” 〈http://www.marc.org〉 (June 22, 2010).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2007). “Building
for environmental and economic sustainability (BEES).” Building
and Fire Research Laboratory, Office of Applied Research, Gaithers-
berg, MD, 〈http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/〉 (Aug. 27,
2010).
Petronella, S., Thomas, R., Stone, J., Goldblum, R., and Brooks, E. (2005).
“Clearing the air: A model for investigating indoor air quality in Texas
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil College of Engineering on 11/26/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
schools.” J. Environ. Health, 67(10), 35–42.
Riley, D. R., Grommes, A. V., and Thatcher, C. E. (2007). “Teaching
sustainability in building design and engineering.” J. Green Build.,
2(1), 175–195.
Van Dam, T., and Taylor, P. (2009). “Building sustainable pavements
with concrete—Briefing document.” Rep. by the National Concrete
Pavement Technology Center, Track 13 CP Road Map, Ames, IA,
〈http://www.cproadmap.org/publications/sustainability_briefing.pdf〉
(Aug. 27, 2010).
Wang, Y. (2009). “Sustainability in construction education.” J. Prof. Issues
Eng. Educ. Pract., 135(1), 21–30.

112 / JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL ISSUES IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND PRACTICE © ASCE / APRIL 2011

J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., 2011, 137(2): 107-112