Assessing the sustainability of underground space usage — A toolkit for testing possible urban futures

  • D. V. L. HuntEmail author
  • I. Jefferson
  • C. D. F. Rogers


A description of the future as it might be without forecasts, predictions and trend analysis can be referred to as a ‘sfuture scenario’. An abundance of scenarios literature exists in which numerous pictures have been painted of changed future worlds. However, upon closer inspection it becomes apparent that virtually all of this literature refers to changes occurring above ground, ignoring the inevitable consequences (or opportunities) for sustainable use of underground space, not least in densely populated urban areas, some of which may be underlain by complex geological conditions. This paper reports on the development (to date) of an ‘Urban Futures’ (UF) toolkit for sub-surface environments (including infrastructure and utilities) which, through use of ‘key’ questions ‘sustainable’ indicators and a ‘contextual’ narrative, allows for better definition and measured performance of underground space in the UK, both today and in the future. The toolkit explores possible uses for underground space within 4 plausible and well-cited future scenarios (i.e. New Sustainability Paradigm, Fortress World, Market Forces and Policy Reform). This forms part of a much larger generic toolkit which the UF research team are developing for exploring possible future scenarios over a range of UK urban regeneration case study areas.


urban futures toolkit underground space sustainability 


  1. Berkhout F, M Eames and J Skea (1998) Environmental Futures Scoping Study: Final Report. SPRU—Science and Technology Policy Research). Brighton, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Berr (2007) Energy Market Outlook. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Ofgem. p 121Google Scholar
  3. Blakely EJ and MG Snyder (1998) Separate places: Crime and security in gated communities. In: M. Felson and R.B. Peiser eds.), Reducing crime through real estate development and management, Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, pp 53–70Google Scholar
  4. Christozov D (1997) Montreal underground: a case for indoor city planning. Conference of the Associated research Centers for Urban Underground Space, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  5. Cosgrove W, Rijsberman F (2000) World Water Vision: making water everybody’s business. London: EarthscanGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza R (2003) A vision for the future of science: reintegrating the study of humans and the rest of nature. Futures 35: 651–671Google Scholar
  7. Defra (2002) Sewage Treatment in the UK: UK Implementation of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Dept. for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. p 20Google Scholar
  8. Defra (2008a) Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for England. Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, p 98Google Scholar
  9. Defra (2008b) Municipal Waste Management Statistics. Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. p 2Google Scholar
  10. Dempsey N (2009) Briefing: UK-India research network. Proceedings — Institution of Civil Engineers: Urban Design and Planning.Google Scholar
  11. DTI (2002) Futures 2020: Revised Scenarios and Guidance. Department of Trade and Industry. p 36Google Scholar
  12. DFT (2008) Regulations for Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004: Permit Schemes (England) Regulations 200[7] [retrieved on January 5th 2011 from]
  13. EA (2006) Environment Agency Scenarios 2030. Environment Agency: BristolGoogle Scholar
  14. EA (2009) Water for people and the environment. Environment Agency: Bristol. p 92Google Scholar
  15. Galil NI and Yaacov L (2001) Analysis of sludge management parameters resulting from the use of domestic garbage disposers. Water Science and Technology, 44(10): 27–34Google Scholar
  16. Gallopin G, Hammond AL, Raskin P and Swart R (1997) Branch Points: Global Scenarios and Human Choice. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. p 55Google Scholar
  17. Golany G (1989) Urban underground space design in China. University of Delaware Press, Newark. p 160Google Scholar
  18. Hammond A (1998) Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century, p 293Google Scholar
  19. Hall L (2004), Underground Buildings: More than Meets the Eye, Quill Driver Books, World Dancer Press, inc., Sanger, California. p 215Google Scholar
  20. Hunt DVL, Jefferson I and Rogers CDF (2009). Geotechnics the next 60 years. Discussion Article. Geotechnique, 59(8): 723–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ICE (2009) The State of the Nation: Defending Critical Infrastructure. Institution of Civil Engineers, London. p 16Google Scholar
  22. IPCC (2000) Emissions scenarios: summary for policy makers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. pp 3–12Google Scholar
  23. Kahn H and AJ Wiener (1967) The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-three Years. Macmillan publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplan RD (1994) The coming anarchy. The Atlantic Monthly, 273(2): 44–76Google Scholar
  25. Karlberg T and Erik N (1999) Food Waste Disposers — Effects on Wastewater Treatment Plants. A Study from the Town of Surahammar. VA-FORSK REPORTGoogle Scholar
  26. Makropoulos C, Memon FA, Shirley-Smith C et al (2008) Futures: an exploration of scenarios for sustainable urban water management. Water Policy 10(4): 345–373Google Scholar
  27. Marvin S and Slater S (1997) Urban infrastructure: the contemporary conflict between roads and utilities. Progress in Planning 48: 247–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. NJUG (2003) Utilities guidelines on positioning and colour coding of apparatus. National Joint Utilities Group, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2001) OECD Environmental Outlook. OECD, Paris. p 309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. OECD (2008) OECD Environmental outlook to 2030. Environment & Sustainable Development 2008 2008(1): 523Google Scholar
  31. Ofwat (2009) Service and delivery — performance of the water companies in England and Wales 2008–09. The Water Services Regulation Authority, Birmingham. p 50Google Scholar
  32. Parker HW (2004) Underground space: good for sustainable development, and vice versa. International Tunnelling Association (ITA) Open Session: World Tunnel Congress, Singapore. May, 2004. p 17Google Scholar
  33. Randerson (2008) Expert warns climate change will lead to ‘barbarisation’. The Guardian. Thursday May 15th.Google Scholar
  34. Raskin P, Gallopın G, Gutman P, et al (1998) Bending the Curve: Toward Global Sustainability. Stockholm Environment InstituteGoogle Scholar
  35. Raskin P (2005) Global scenarios and the millennium ecosystem assessment: an historic overview. Ecosystems 8: 133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raskin P, Banuri T, Gallopin G, Gutman P, et al(2002) Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead Boston: Stuckholm Environment Institute-Bottom. Available online at: [retrieved on January 5th 2011 from]
  37. Ratcliffe JS and Sirr L (2004) Futures thinking for the built and human environment — The Prospective Process Through Scenario Thinking for the Built and Human Environment: a tool for exploring urban futures. The Futures Academy. Dublin Institute of Technology. p 14Google Scholar
  38. Ravetz J (2000) City Region 2020: Integrating planning for sustainable environment. Earthscan, London 2000, p 307Google Scholar
  39. Rogers CDF and Hunt DVL (2006) Sustainable Utility Infrastructure via Multi-Utility Tunnels, Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering 2006 conference, Towards a sustainable future, Calgary, May 23rd 2006, Paper CT-001Google Scholar
  40. Sellberg B (1996) Environmental benefits: a Key to increased underground space use in urban planning. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 11(4): 369–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sterling RL (2000) Planning for cost effective underground space use in urban areas. In: Zhao, Shirlaw and Krishnan (eds), Tunnels and Underground Structures. pp 51–59Google Scholar
  42. Sterling R and Carmody J (1993) Underground Space Design: A Guide to Subsurface Utilization and Design for People in Underground Spaces. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. p 328Google Scholar
  43. UNEP (2002) Global Environment Outlook 3: Past present and future perspectives. United Nations Environment Programme. p 410Google Scholar
  44. UNEP (2007) Global Environment Outlook 4: Environment for Development. United Nations Environment Programme. p 572Google Scholar
  45. Van Asselt MBA, De Niet R, Peters SSM, et al (1998) Towards Visions for a Sustainable Europe: An overview and assessment of the last decade of European scenario-studies. 1998, ICIS: Maastricht. p 96Google Scholar
  46. Von Meijenfeldt, Ernst (2003) Below Ground Level, Creating New Spaces for Contemporary Architecture, Birkhauser Publisher for Architecture, Basel. p 264Google Scholar
  47. Walton JS, El-Haram M, Castillo NH et al. (2005). Integrated assessment of urban sustainability. Engineering Sustainability 158(2): 57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Water UK (2009) Water Facts: Water Resources [retrieved on January 5th 2011 from]
  49. WBCSD (1997) Exploring Sustainable Development. Summary Brochure. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Geneva.Google Scholar
  50. Yoo C, Kim SB, Shin HC and Baek SC (2005) Effect of tunnelling and groundwater interaction on ground and lining responses. Underground space use: Analysis of the past and lessons for the future. Erdem and Sollak (eds). pp 217–223Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. V. L. Hunt
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. Jefferson
    • 1
  • C. D. F. Rogers
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations