Literature DB >> 24239816

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?

Alistair Beames1, Steven Broekx2, Richard Lookman2, Kaat Touchant2, Piet Seuntjens3.   

Abstract

The state-of-the-science in sustainability assessment of soil and groundwater remediation is evaluated with the application of four decision support systems (DSSs) to a large-scale brownfield revitalization case study. The DSSs were used to perform sustainability appraisals of four technically feasible remediation alternatives proposed for the site. The first stage of the review compares the scope of each tool's sustainability indicators, how these indicators are measured and how the tools differ in terms of standardization and weighting procedures. The second stage of the review compares the outputs from the tools and determines the key factors that result in differing results between tools. The evaluation of indicator sets and tool structures explains why the tools generate differing results. Not all crucial impact areas, as identified by sustainable remediation forums, are thoroughly considered by the tools, particularly with regard to the social and economic aspects of sustainability. Variations in boundary conditions defined between technologies, produce distorted environmental impact results, especially when in-situ and ex-situ technologies are compared. The review draws attention to the need for end users to be aware of which aspects of sustainability are considered, how the aspects are measured and how all aspects are ultimately balanced in the evaluation of potential remediation strategies. Existing tools can be improved by considering different technologies within the same boundary conditions and by expanding indicator sets to include indicators deemed to be relevant by remediation forums.
© 2013.

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

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24239816     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  5 in total

1.  A scientometric analysis and visualization of global research on brownfields.

Authors:  Hongli Lin; Yuming Zhu; Naveed Ahmad; Qingye Han
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  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

3.  An Integrated Approach for the Environmental Characterization of a Wide Potentially Contaminated Area in Southern Italy.

Authors:  Daniela Ducci; Stefano Albanese; Lorenzo Boccia; Egidio Celentano; Elena Cervelli; Alfonso Corniello; Anna Crispo; Benedetto De Vivo; Paolo Iodice; Carmela Langella; Annamaria Lima; Maurizio Manno; Mario Palladino; Stefania Pindozzi; Marina Rigillo; Nunzio Romano; Mariangela Sellerino; Adolfo Senatore; Giuseppe Speranza; Nunzio Fiorentino; Massimo Fagnano
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Control of Contaminant Transport Caused by Open-Air Heavy Metal Slag in Zhehai, Southwest China.

Authors:  Jiang Zhao; Zhihua Chen; Tao Wang; Caijuan Xiang; Mingming Luo; Hongxin Yuan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-02-02       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 5.  Past, Present, and Future of Groundwater Remediation Research: A Scientometric Analysis.

Authors:  Qibin Chen; Guilian Fan; Wei Na; Jiming Liu; Jianguo Cui; Hongyan Li
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.