Sustainability appraisal tools for soil and groundwater remediation: How is the choice of remediation alternative influenced by different sets of sustainability indicators and tool structures?

Science of the Total Environment

Volumn 470-471, Issue , 2014, Pages 954-966

  Beames, Alistair ^a,b   Broekx, Steven ^a   Lookman, Richard ^a   Touchant, Kaat ^a   Seuntjens, Piet ^a,b,c  

^a FLEMISH INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH VITO   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Brownfield revitalization; Carbon footprint; Decision support; Remediation; Sustainability assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; CARBON FOOTPRINT; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GROUNDWATER; POLLUTION; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; TOOLS;

BROWN FIELDS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (DSSS); DECISION SUPPORTS; REMEDIATION STRATEGIES; SOIL AND GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION; SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL; SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT; SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS;

REMEDIATION;

CARBON DIOXIDE; GROUND WATER;

BROWNFIELD SITE; CARBON FOOTPRINT; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; GROUNDWATER POLLUTION; GROUNDWATER RESOURCE; SOIL REMEDIATION; STANDARDIZATION; SUSTAINABILITY; WATER QUALITY;

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; CARBON FOOTPRINT; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOIL MANAGEMENT; SOIL POLLUTION; SOIL POLLUTION INDICATOR; SOIL WATER CONTENT; STANDARDIZATION; TECHNOLOGY; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION INDICATOR;

BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION; CARBON FOOTPRINT; DECISION SUPPORT; REMEDIATION; SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION; GROUNDWATER; SOIL;

EID: 84887590507     PISSN: 00489697     EISSN: 18791026     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.044     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Aertsens J., De Nocker L., Gobin A. Valuing the carbon sequestration potential for European agriculture. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:584-594.
2. Agostini P., Critto A., Semenzin E., Marcomini A. Decision support systems for contaminated land management: a review. Decision support systems for risk-based management of contaminated sites 2009, 1-20. Springer, US. A. Marcomini, G.W. Suter, A. Critto (Eds.).
3. Bardos P. Conceptual site or project models for sustainability assessment. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on sustainable remediation; 2012 14-16 Nov; Vienna, Austria 2012, [http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/aktuelles/veranstaltungen/2012/sustrem2012/present/09_Bardos_P_Conceptual_Models_and_Sustainability_SustRem2012.pdf [accessed 2 May 2013]].
4. Bardos P. SuRF-UK: annex 1: "indicators". Proceedings of contaminated land: applications in Real environments annual conference: sustainable land management - decision support frameworks and tools for the sustainable development of land; 2013 26 Sep; London, UK 2013, [http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=372:Other-CLAIRE-Documents&Itemid=61 [accessed 7 October 2013]].
5. Beinat E., van Drunen M., Janssen R., Nijboer M., Koolenbrander J.G.M., Okx J.P., et al. REC: a methodology for comparing soil remedial alternatives based on the criteria of risk reduction, environmental merit and costs 1997, REC Consortium, [http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/Images/RECreport2-A1112FF6-69C9-40BA-8B27EC1FED9AC27C_tcm53-102713.pdf [accessed 31 May 2013]].
6. Bérubé E., Yang W., Noël de Tilly R., Borque B., Prilesky H., Uzarowski L., et al. GoldSET: application of a sustainability decision support tool to the roof asphalt shingles recycling project of metro Vancouver. Proceedings of pavement session, annual conference of the transportation association of Canada; 2009 18-21 Oct; Vancouver, Canada 2009, [http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2009/pdf/tilly.pdf].
7. Bleicher A., Gross M. Sustainability assessment and the revitalization of contaminated sites: operationalizing sustainable development for local problems. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 2010, 17:57-66.
8. Brinkhoff P. Multi-criteria analysis for assessing sustainability of remedial actions. Applications in contaminated land development: a literature review 2011, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, [Report No.: 2011:14. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/150656.pdf [accessed 16 September 2013]].
9. Cappuyns V. Environmental impacts of soil remediation activities: quantitative and qualitative tools applied on three case studies. J Clean Prod 2013, 52:145-154.
10. Carlon C., Critto A., Ramieri E., Marcomini A. DESYRE: decision support system for the rehabilitation of contaminated megasites. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2007, 3:211-222.
11. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital (reprinted from nature 1997; 387: 253-260). Ecol Econ 1998, 25:3-15.
12. Finnveden G., Hauschild M.Z., Ekvall T., Guinée J., Heijungs R., Hellweg S., et al. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manage 2009, 91:1-21.
13. Franz M., Pahlen G., Nathanail P., Okuniek N., Koj A. Sustainable development and brownfield regeneration. What defines the quality of derelict land recycling?. Environ Sci 2006, 3:135-151.
14. Gasparatos A. Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. J Environ Manage 2010, 91:1613-1622.
15. Geldermann J., Rentz O. Multi-criteria analysis for technique assessment: case study from industrial coating. J Ind Ecol 2005, 9:127-142.
16. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability reporting guidelines, version 3.0 2006, Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam, [https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Sustainability-Reporting-Guidelines.pdf [accessed 30 May 2013]].
17. Golder Associates GoldSET user guide: a decision support tool to embedded sustainability into project planning and design. GoldSET Version V. 12.05.03 2012.
18. International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) Project sustainability management guidelines 2004, FIDIC Bookshop, Geneva, [http://fidic.org/books/project-sustainability-management-guidelines-2004 [accessed 30 May 2013]].
19. Mao D., Lookman R., Van De Weghe H., Van Look D., Vanermen G., De Brucker N., et al. Detailed analysis of petroleum hydrocarbon attenuation in biopiles by high-performance liquid chromatography followed by comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography. J Chromatogr A 2009, 1216:1524-1527.
20. Maring L., Sinke A.J.C., van Duijne J. Final report ABC tool - assessment of benefits and costs 2004, TNO, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands, [Report No.: R2004/076].
21. Matthies M., Giupponi C., Ostendorf B. Preface - environmental decision support systems: current issues, methods and tools. Environ Model Software 2007, 22:123-127.
22. Munda G. Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy 2006, 23:86-94.
23. Niemeijer D., de Groot R.S. A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol Indic 2008, 8:14-25.
24. Nijhof A.G., Weenk A., Janssen R. REC-method, risk reduction, environmental merit and costs - phase 1 1995, CUR/NOBIS, Gouda, the Netherlands, [http://www.soilpedia.nl/Bikiwiki%20documenten/NOBIS/Risicoreductie,%20Milieuverdienste%20en%20Kosten%20(RMK)%20-%2095-1-03/95-1-03%20phase%201.pdf [accessed 31 May 2013]].
25. Onwubuya K., Cundy A., Puschenreiter M., Kumpiene J., Bone B., Greaves J., et al. Developing decision support tools for the selection of "gentle" remediation approaches. Sci Total Environ 2009, 407:6132-6142.
26. Pediaditi K., Doick K.J., Moffatt A.J. Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield, regeneration to greenspace initiatives A meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools. Landscape Urban Plan 2010, 97:22-36.
27. Pollard S., Brookes A., Twigger-Ross C., Irwin J. Fragmentation, convergence and harmonisation: where are we going with integrated decision-making?. SRA-Europe: facing the new millennium, proceedings 9th annual SRA-Europe conference; 1999 10-13 Oct; Rotterdam, The Netherlands 1999.
28. Praamstra T. Carbon footprint of soil remediation. Proceedings of the green remediation conference; 2009 9-10 Nov; Copenhagen, Denmark 2009, [http://www.eugris.info/newsdownloads/GreenRemediation/proc_decision_support.htm [accessed 9 April 2013]].
29. Schädler S., Morio M., Bartke S., Rohr-Zanker R., Finkel M. Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model. J Environ Manage 2011, 92:827-837.
30. Schädler S., Morio M., Bartke S., Finkel M. Integrated planning and spatial evaluation of megasite remediation and reuse options. J Contam Hydrol 2012, 127:88-100.
31. Schädler S., Finkel M., Bleicher A., Morio M., Gross M. Spatially explicit computation of sustainability indicator values for the automated assessment of land-use options. Landscape Urban Plan 2013, 111:34-45.
32. Sullivan T. Evaluating environmental decision support tools 2002, Environmental and Waste Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, [Report No.: BNL-74699-2005-IR http://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/30163.pdf [accessed 31 May 2013]].
33. SuRF-UK A review of published sustainability indicator sets: how applicable are they to contaminated land remediation indicator-set development? 2009, CL:AIRE, [http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=24:initiatives&Itemid=78 [accessed 16 September 2013]].
34. SuRF-UK A framework for assessing the sustainability of soil and groundwater remediation 2010, Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), London, [http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=61:initiatives&Itemid=78 [accessed 31 May 2013].
35. SuRF-UK Annex 1: the SuRF-UK indicator set for sustainable remediation assessment 2011, Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), London, [http://www.claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=262:initiatives&Itemid=78 [accessed 31 May 2013]].
36. Tol R.S.J. The marginal damage costs of carbon dioxide emissions: an assessment of the uncertainties. Energy Policy 2005, 33:2064-2074.
37. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (UNWCED) Our common future (the Brundtland Report) 1987, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
38. US Air Force Center for Engineering, Environment (US AFCEE) Sustainable remediation tool (SRT) user guide 2010.
39. US Air Force, US Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Memorandum of understanding green and sustainable remediation strategies report 2013, [Report No.: AF/EPA R9 GSR MOU Footprint Analysis, REPORT 10/6/12].
40. Sustainable urban infrastructures: an ecosystem approach 2012, Springer, Dordrecht. E.M. van Bueren, H. van Bohemen, L. Itard, H. Visscher (Eds.).
41. Wedding G.C., Crawford-Brown D. Measuring site-level success in brownfield redevelopments: a focus on sustainability and green building. J Environ Manage 2007, 85:483-495.