Literature DB >> 23973957

Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for "gentle" remediation approaches: the European context.

A B Cundy1, R P Bardos, A Church, M Puschenreiter, W Friesl-Hanl, I Müller, S Neu, M Mench, N Witters, J Vangronsveld.   

Abstract

Gentle Remediation Options (GRO) are risk management strategies or techniques for contaminated sites that result in no gross reduction in soil functionality (or a net gain) as well as risk management. Intelligently applied GROs can provide: (a) rapid risk management via pathway control, through containment and stabilisation, coupled with a longer term removal or immobilisation/isolation of the contaminant source term; and (b) a range of additional economic (e.g. biomass generation), social (e.g. leisure and recreation) and environmental (e.g. CO2 sequestration) benefits. In order for these benefits to be optimised or indeed realised, effective stakeholder engagement is required. This paper reviews current sector practice in stakeholder engagement and its importance when implementing GRO and other remediation options. From this, knowledge gaps are identified, and strategies to promote more effective stakeholder engagement during GRO application are outlined. Further work is required on integrating stakeholder engagement strategies into decision support systems and tools for GRO (to raise the profile of the benefits of effective stakeholder engagement and participation, particularly with sector professionals), and developing criteria for the identification of different stakeholder profiles/categories. Demonstrator sites can make a significant contribution to stakeholder engagement via providing evidence on the effectiveness of GRO under varying site contexts and conditions. Effective and sustained engagement strategies however will be required to ensure that site risk is effectively managed over the longer-term, and that full potential benefits of GRO (e.g. CO2 sequestration, economic returns from biomass generation and "leverage" of marginal land, amenity and educational value, ecosystem services) are realised and communicated to stakeholders.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contaminated land; Europe; Gentle remediation; Phytoremediation; Risk management; Stakeholder engagement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23973957     DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  9 in total

1.  Plant responses to a phytomanaged urban technosol contaminated by trace elements and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Authors:  Lilian Marchand; Celestino-Quintela Sabaris; Dominic Desjardins; Nadège Oustrière; Eric Pesme; Damien Butin; Gaetan Wicart; Michel Mench
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Costs and Benefits of Delaying Remediation on Ecological Resources at Contaminated Sites.

Authors:  Joanna Burger
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2019-08-03       Impact factor: 3.184

3.  Stakeholder Engagement Behavior(s) in Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: A Network Embeddedness Perspective.

Authors:  Hongli Lin; Yuming Zhu; Jiahe Zhou; Bingxu Mu; Caihong Liu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  Green and sustainable remediation (GSR) evaluation: framework, standards, and tool. A case study in Taiwan.

Authors:  Wen-Yen Huang; Weiteng Hung; Chi Thanh Vu; Wei-Ting Chen; Jhih-Wei Lai; Chitsan Lin
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-08-13       Impact factor: 4.223

5.  Environmental health perceptions in a superfund community.

Authors:  Raja M Nagisetty; Daniel A Autenrieth; Sarah R Storey; William B Macgregor; Loran C Brooks
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2020-03-02       Impact factor: 6.789

6.  Ecosystem services consideration in the remediation process for contaminated sites.

Authors:  Matthew C Harwell; Chloe Jackson; Michael Kravitz; Kira Lynch; Jewel Tomasula; Anne Neale; Michele Mahoney; Carlos Pachon; Karen Scheuermann; Gregory Grissom; Kristen Parry
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2021-02-14       Impact factor: 6.789

7.  Phytostabilization-Management Strategy for Stabilizing Trace Elements in Contaminated Soils.

Authors:  Maja Radziemska; Magdalena D Vaverková; Anna Baryła
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Effects of Residential Environmental Screening and Perception Surveys on Superfund Environmental Health Risk Perceptions.

Authors:  Raja M Nagisetty; William B Macgregor; David Hutchins; Daniel A Autenrieth; Alyssa M Plant
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-02       Impact factor: 4.614

9.  Regional Variations of Public Perception on Contaminated Industrial Sites in China and Its Influencing Factors.

Authors:  Xiaonuo Li; Wentao Jiao; Rongbo Xiao; Weiping Chen; Yanying Bai
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2016-04-08       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.