Is underground space the answer to our problems? (journal review)

In the journal article, “Sustainable Development and the Use of Underground Space”, underground tunnels and buildings are hailed to be the solution to sustainable development. Roberts’ (1996) idea of sustainable development was one that limits imports, has efficient and effective infrastructure systems, maximises the use of urban and rural lands, and produces cost-effective exports with the least waste. Municipal waste should also be re-used as inputs for agriculture.

By limiting imports, Roberts is suggesting that agriculture has to be expanded to meet the needs of a growing population. He argues that rural areas should be kept as agricultural lands, which means that development and construction has to be focused in already urbanised areas. He envisions that “future megacities will be concentrated, attractive and healthy places to live, surrounded by rural areas”.

However, such a plan is difficult to accomplish for countries with small land areas (such as Singapore). Farming in these small countries can hardly meet the demands of the population. Expanding farming would mean that urbanized lands have to be retreated for ‘rural’ lands. Although high intensity farming can help increase output with the restricted space, it is usually too costly for long-term dependency. Of course, such a move would be going against the nature of economics because it would be forcing countries with no comparative advantage in agriculture to grow their own food. On another note, it is possible that instead of having agriculture, the intended lands for farming can undergo reforestation which can reduce the overall carbon footprint of the country.

According to Roberts, using underground space has many benefits to the environment in terms of resource recycling, reduction of vehicle carbon emission, recovery of farm lands, and energy savings.

The first benefit he talked about is resource recycling. In order to reduce waste, the waste products of one industry can be the raw materials of another. Industrial parks can be connected via underground tunnels, for the transportation of waste products to the industry that can use them, for the construction of combined waste treatment plants (which can be more efficient as the scale is bigger), and the exchange of cooling/heating waste water (water used for cooling purposes that is heated up and no longer useful can be passed on to industries that require heated water). Of course, all these would need a low-energy delivery system located underground. Such an idea is feasible and has great potential to reduce wastage and even lower energy consumption, but it is only practical in counties with highly diversified industries. Otherwise, it is very unlikely for one industry to find the waste products of another as potential raw materials.

Photo from Jamiecphotos.com

The second benefit of using underground space would be the reduction of vehicle emissions. By developing an efficient and reliable underground mass public transportation system, it would encourage commuters to switch to the cheaper and faster alternative which is underground. This would decrease the number of motor vehicles on the road. Less petroleum would be used and less carbon dioxide and acidic gases would be emitted. Since transport, in particular motor vehicles, is a significant contributor to anthropogenic carbon emissions in Asia and most likely the whole world, a reduction in vehicle volume would definitely alleviate the pressures of global warming (Ohara et al., 2007). Such a massive transportation system would be best situated underground because the ground can snuff out the high decibels generated by the rapidly moving trains and also the system would be protected from destructive natural forces like hurricanes and even earthquakes. 

Lastly, Roberts highlighted the most important function of underground structures which is energy savings. Underground structures can reduce the amount of energy required for the running of factories, transportation, offices and homes. It was indicated in the article that studies have shown that decreasing energy consumption by as much as 50% would have no reduction in standard of living. This proves that lowering our energy needs would have almost no trade-offs to living quality. He also wrote that “improvements in energy efficiency will be more economical than developing new supplies of energy”.  I believe that this is the most optimum measure in the present moment. While alternative sources of energy are being developed, we should cut down on our use of energy as much as possible until a viable source is found. Research on renewable energy is imperative and the government should pump funds into research. But at the same time, we need to actively reduce our exorbitant energy usage to minimise the damage done to our environment.

In conclusion, the use of underground space is a potential solution to a sustainable future, but it is not the best or only solution. This is because the effectiveness of underground structures may not apply to every country and construction costs are high. It is recommended that larger developed countries explore the use of underground space in those aspects suggested by Roberts and assess the advantages. Developing countries should also start taking an interest in underground structures and draft out plans of their future land use. They should also conduct exploratory studies to determine the feasibility of underground projects. Singapore is still relatively new to underground structures and more improvements can be made to expand underground transportation systems and make it more efficient.

Article reviewed:

Roberts, D. V. (1996) Sustainable Development and the Use of Underground Space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 11 (4). p. 383-390.

Literature cited:

Ohara, T. A. et al. (2007). An Asian emission inventory of anthropogenic emission sources for the period 1980–2020. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 7(16). p. 4419-4444.