Incorporating the soil function concept into sustainability appraisal ofremediation alternatives

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 129, Issue , 2013, Pages 367-376

  Volchko, Yevheniya ^a   Norrman, Jenny ^a   Bergknut, Magnus ^b,c   Rosén, Lars ^a   Söderqvist, Tore ^d  

^a CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c Envix   (Sweden)

^d Enveco Environmental Economics Consultancy Ltd   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Contaminated sites; Ecosystem services; Multi criteria decision analysis; Remediation; Soil functions; Sustainability assessment

Indexed keywords

CONTAMINATED LAND; DECISION ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; EUROPEAN UNION; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTY; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; SOIL MANAGEMENT; SOIL PROPERTY; SOIL REMEDIATION; SUSTAINABILITY;

ARTICLE; BIOREMEDIATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; SOIL MANAGEMENT; SOIL PROPERTY; SOIL QUALITY;

CONTAMINATED SITES; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; REMEDIATION; SOIL FUNCTIONS; SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SOIL; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 84883210036     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.025     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Bardos P. Areview of the contaminated land rehabilitation network for environmental technologies in Europe (CLARINET). Part 2: working group findings. Land Contamination & Reclamation 2003, 11(1):15-30.
2. Bardos P.R., Nathanail C.P., Weenk A. Assessing the Wider Value of Remediating Land Contamination: a Review 2000, R & D report P238, UK Environmental Agency, Bristol, (assessed 01.05.11.). http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/.
3. Bardos P., Bone B., Boyle R., Ellis D., Evans F., Harries N.D., Smith J.W.N. Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF-UK framework. Remediation 2011, 21(2):1-138.
4. Blum W.E.H. Functions of soil for society and the environment. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 2005, 4:75-79.
5. Boggia A., Cortina C. Measuring sustainable development using a multi-criteria model: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management 2010, 91:2301-2306.
6. Bone J., Head M., Barraclough D., Archer M., Scheib C., Flight D., Voulvoulis N. Soil quality assessment under emerging regulatory requirements. Environment International 2010, 36:609-622.
7. Bone J., Head M., Jones D.T., Barraclough D., Archer M., Scheib C., Eggleton P., Voulvoulis N. From chemical risk assessment to environmental quality management: the challenge for soil protection. Environmental Science and Technology 2010, 45(1):104-110.
8. Brinkhoff P. Multi-criteria Analysis for Assessing Sustainability of Remediation Actions: Applications in Contaminated Land Development. A Literature Review 2011, 102. Chalmers Reproservice, Gothenburg, Sweden.
9. Brown S., Sprenger M., Maxemchuk A., Compton H. Ecosystem function in alluvial tailings after biosolids and lime addition. Journal of Environmental Quality 2005, 34:139-148.
10. Cash D.W., Adger W., Berkes F., Garden P., Lebel L., Olsson P., Pritchard L., Young O. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 2006, 11(2):8. (accessed 23.05.11.). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/.
11. COM Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Protection of Soil and Amending Directive 2004/35/EC 2006, Brussels, Belgium, (accessed 03.06.10.). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/com_2006_0232_en.pdf.
12. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., van den Belt M. The value of the World's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
13. Dawson J.J.C., Godsiffea E.J., Thompson I.P., Ralebitso-Senior T.K., Killhama K.S., Paton G.I. Application of biological indicators to assess recovery of hydrocarbon impacted soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 2007, 39:164-177.
14. de Groot R. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 75:175-186.
15. de Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M.J. Atypology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 2002, 41:393-408.
16. Ekins P., Simon S., Deutsch L., Folke C., de Groot R. Aframework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological Economics 2003, 44:165-185.
17. Epelde L., Hernández-Allica J., Becerril J.M., Blanco F., Garbisu C. Effects of chelates on plants and soil microbial community: comparison of EDTA and EDDS for lead phytoextraction. Science of The Total Environment 2008, 401(1-3):21-28.
18. Epelde L., Becerril J.M., Hernández-Allica J., Barrutia O., Garbisu C. Functional diversity as indicator of the recovery of soil health derived from Thlaspi caerulescens growth and metal phytoextraction. Applied Soil Ecology 2008, 39(3):299-310.
19. Epelde L., Becerril J.M., Mijangos I., Garbisu C. Evaluation of the efficiency of a phytostabilization process with biological indicators of soil health. Journal of Environmental Quality 2009, 38(5):2041-2049.
20. Epelde L., Becerril J.M., Kowalchuk G.A., Deng Y., Zhiu J., Garbisu C. Impact of metal pollution and Thlaspi caerulescens growth on soil microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2010, 76(23):7843-7853.
21. FAO Africover Land Cover Classification 1997, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
22. Fisher B., Turner K.R., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:643-653.
23. FRTR Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide 2002, USA, (assessed 20.10.10.). http://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section1/toc.html, fourth ed.
24. Gibson C.C., Ostrom E., Ahn T.K. The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecological Economics 2000, 32:217-239.
25. Hausman D.M., McPherson M.S. Economic Analysis and Moral Philosophy 1996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
26. Hein L., van Koppen K., de Groot R.S., van Ierland E.C. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 2006, 57:209-228.
27. Johnson D.L., Ambrose S.H., Bassett T.J., Bowen M.L., Crummey D.E., Isaacson J.S., Johnson D.N., Lamb P., Saul M., Winter-Nelson A.E. Meanings of environmental terms. Journal of Environmental Quality 1997, 26:581-589.
28. Lamarque P., Quètier F., Lavorel S. The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Comptes rendus Biologies 2011, 334:441-449.
29. Lear G., Harbottle M.J., van der Gast C.J., Jackman S.A., Knowles C.J., Sills G., Thompson I.P. The effect of electrokinetics on soil microbial communities. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 2004, 36(11):1751-1760.
30. Lear G., Harbottle M.J., Sills G., Knowles C.J., Semple K.T., Thompson I.P. Impact of electrokinetic remediation on microbial communities within PCP contaminated soil. Environmental Pollution 2007, 146(1):139-146.
31. Lehmann A., Stahr K. The potential of soil functions and planner-oriented soil evaluation to achieve sustainable land use. Journal of Soils Sediments 2010, 10:1092-1102.
32. Lehmann A., David S., Stahr K. TUSEC-A Manual for the Evaluation of Natural Soils and AnthropogenicUrban Soils 2008, 224. Hohenheimer Bodenkundliche Hefte, Stuttgart. Bilingual ed.
33. Li H., Shi W.-y., Shao H.-b., Shao M.-a The remediation of the lead-polluted garden soil by natural zeolite. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009, 169:1106-1111.
34. Linkov I., Varghese A., Jamil S., Saeger T.P., Kiker G., Bridges T. Multi-criteria decision analysis: a framework for structuring remedial decisions at contaminated sites. Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making 2004, 15-54. Kluwer. I. Linkov, A. Ramadan (Eds.).
35. Linkov I., Satterstrom F.K., Kiker G., Batchelor C., Bridges T., Ferguson E. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environmental Risk Management - the State of the Art 2006, 32:1072-1093.
36. MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
37. Makino T., Kamiya T., Takano H., Itou T., Sekiya N., Sasaki K., Maejima Y., Sugahara K. Remediation of cadmium-contaminated paddy soils by washing with calcium chloride: verification of on-site washing. Environmental Pollution 2007, 147(1):112-119.
38. Mendoza G.A., Martins H. Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management 2006, 230:1-22.
39. Norrman J., Volchko Y., Rosén L., Brinkhoff P., Norin M., Söderqvist T., Kinell G., Norberg T. Development of a tool for evaluating the sustainability of remediation alternatives. Proceedings of the 16th Nordic Geotechnical Meeting. Copenhagen, May 9-12, 2012 2012, vol. 2/2:793-800. dgf-Bulletin 27.
40. Plaza G., Nałecz-Jawecki G., Ulfig K., Brigmon R.L. The application of bioassays as indicators of petroleum-contaminated soil remediation. Chemosphere 2005, 59:289-296.
41. Postle M., Fenn T., Grosso A., Steeds J. Cost-benefit Analysis for Remediation of Land Contamination 1999, R & D technical report P316, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
42. Rodrigues S.M., Pereira M.E., Ferreira da Silva E., Hursthouse A.S., Duarte A.C. Areview of regulatory decisions for environmental protection: Part II-the case-study of contaminated land management in Portugal. Environment International 2009, 35(1):214-225.
43. Rönnbäck P., Kautsky N., Pihl L., Troell M., Söderqvist T., Wennhage H. Ecosystem goods and services from Swedish Coastal habitats: identification, valuation, and implications of ecosystem shifts. Ambio 2007, 36(7):534-544.
44. Rosén L., Söderqvist T., Back P.E., Soutukorva Å., Brodd P., Grahn L. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) as a tool for prioritization of remedial actions at contaminated sites. Method development and examples. Swedish: Kostnads-nyttoanalys Som Verktyg För Prioritering Av Efterbehandlingsinsatser. Metodutveckling Och Exempel På Tillämpning.). Sustainable Remediation Programme 2008, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, report 5836.
45. Rosén L., Söderqvist T., Back P.E., Soutukorva Å., Brodd P., Grahn L. Mulicriteria analysis (MCA) for sustainable remediation at contaminated sites. Method development and examples. Swedish: Multikriterieanalys (MKA) För Hållbar Efterbehandling Av Förorenade Områden. Metodutveckling Och Exempel.). Programmet Hållbar Sanering. Sustainable Remediation Programme 2009, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, report 5891.
46. SAB Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services: a Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board 2009, Washington. EPA-SAB-09-012, May 2009, (accessed 05.06.11.). http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/F3DB1F5C6EF90EE1852575C500589157/$File/EPA-SAB-09-012-unsigned.pdf.
47. Sagoff M. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and the Environment 2007, 280. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. Second ed.
48. Schädler S., Morio M., Bartke S., Rohr-Zänker R., Finkel M. Designing sustainable and economically attractive browndfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model. Journal of Environmental Management 2011, 92:827-837.
49. Schindelbeck R., van Es H.M., Abawi G.S., Wolfe D.W., Whitlow T.L., Gugino B.K., Idowu O.J., Moebius-Clune B.N. Comprehensive assessment of soil quality for landscape and urban management. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 88:73-80.
50. Sparrevik M., Barton D.N., Bates M.E., Linkov I. Use of stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis to support sustainable management of contaminated sediments. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 46:1326-1334.
51. SuRF-UK AFramework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation 2010, 53. CL: AIRE, London, (accessed 05.06.11.). http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload%26view=file%26id=61:initiatives%26Itemid=78http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload%26view=file%26id=61:initiatives%26Itemid=78.
52. SuRF-UK Annex 1: The SuRF-UK Indicator Set for Sustainable Remediation Assessment 2011, 18. CL: AIRE, London, November 2011, (accessed 24.11.11.). http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_resource%26controller=article%26article=253%26category_id=29%26Itemid=61.
53. Turner K.R., van den Bergh J.C.J.M., Söderqvist T., Barendregt A., van der Straaten J., Maltby E., van Ierland E.C. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecological Economics 2000, 35:2-7.
54. van den Bergh J.C.J.M. Externality or sustainability economics?. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(11):2047-2052.
55. van Hees P.A.W., Elgh-Dalgren K., Engwall M., von Kronhelm T. Re-cycling of remediated soil in Sweden: An environmental advantage?. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2008, 52:1349-1361.
56. Vegter J., Lowe J., Kasamas H. Risk-based land management - a concept for the sustainable management of contaminated land. Land Contamination & Reclamation 2003, 11(1):31-36.