Literature DB >> 27450992

Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options.

Valérie Cappuyns1.   

Abstract

Sustainable remediation requires a balanced decision-making process in which environmental, economic and social aspects of different remediation options are all considered together and the optimum remediation solution is selected. More attention has been paid to the evaluation of environmental and economic aspects, in particular to reduce the human and environmental risks and the remediation costs, to the exclusion of social aspects of remediation. This paper investigates how social aspects are currently considered in sustainability assessments of remediation projects. A selection of decision support tools (DSTs), used for the sustainability assessment of a remediation project, is analyzed to define how social aspects are considered in those tools. The social indicator categories of the Sustainable Remediation Forum - United Kingdom (SuRF-UK), are used as a basis for this evaluation. The consideration of social aspects in the investigated decision support tools is limited, but a clear increase is noticed in more recently developed tools. Among the five social indicator categories defined by SuRF-UK to facilitate a holistic consideration of social aspects of a remediation project only "Human health and safety" is systematically taken into account. "Neighbourhood and locality" is also often addressed, mostly emphasizing the potential disturbance caused by the remediation activities. However, the evaluation of 'Ethics and Equality', Communities and community involvement', and 'Uncertainty and evidence' is often neglected. Nevertheless, concrete examples can be found in some of the investigated tools. Specific legislation, standard procedures, and guidelines that have to be followed in a region or country are mainly been set up in the context of protecting human and ecosystem health, safety and prevention of nuisance. However, they sometimes already include some of the aspects addressed by the social indicators. In this perspective the use of DST to evaluate the sustainability of a site remediation project, should be tuned to the legislation, guidelines and procedures that are in force in a specific country or region.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Communication; Health and safety; Site remediation; Social indicators; Stakeholders; Sustainability assessment; Sustainable remediation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27450992     DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.035

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


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  A Methodology to Evaluate Ecological Resources and Risk Using Two Case Studies at the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Amoret Bunn; Janelle Downs; Christian Jeitner; Taryn Pittfield; Jennifer Salisbury; David Kosson
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Risk valuation of ecological resources at contaminated deactivation and decommissioning facilities: methodology and a case study at the Department of Energy's Hanford site.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Christian Jeitner
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  A paradigm for protecting ecological resources following remediation as a function of future land use designations: a case study for the Department of Energy's Hanford Site.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; David S Kosson; Kevin G Brown; Jennifer Salisbury; Christian Jeitner
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Cleanup and Complexity: Nuclear and Industrial Contamination at The Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California.

Authors:  Nicola Ulibarri; Cameron L Tracy; Ryan J McCarty
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 3.266

6.  Combining ecological, eco-cultural, and environmental justice parameters to create Eco-EJ indicators to monitor cultural and environmental justices for diverse communities around contaminated sites.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; David S Kosson; Kevin G Brown; Jennifer Salisbury; Michael Greenberg; Christian Jeitner
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 3.307

7.  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

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.