| 1. |
- Anderson, Robert, 1988
(författare)
-
Investigating the Relation between Efficient, Effective and Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Sites
- 2018
-
Licentiatavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Remediation of contaminated sites reduces negative impacts to humans and the environment, but the process itself is typically associated with high costs to society and large environmental footprints. The sustainable remediation concept has, over the past decade, brought increased attention to the often-overlooked contradictory effects of site remediation. At the same time, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is concerned over the slow progress of publicly funded projects, calling for more efficient and effective remediation. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the impact of a sustainability view on the efficiency and effectiveness of contaminated site remediation. How efficiency and effectiveness are considered in literature with respect to contaminated sites was studied. The contribution of a sustainability view on the selection of remedial actions was demonstrated through scenario analysis (Paper I). This involved using the SCORE sustainability assessment method to analyze four real case study sites in Sweden. Remediation alternatives at the same four case studies were assessed based on project efficiency and effectiveness indicators found from literature and group interviews (Paper II). Sustainability assessment, considering broader environmental effects, soft social aspects, and economic externalities, can result in a decision support outcome which differs compared with more limited assessment approaches, typically balancing trade-offs such as the extent of remediation with negative secondary effects such as emissions. The studied effectiveness and efficiency indicators, pertaining primarily to time, costs, and amounts removed, generally favour the most extensive and low-cost alternatives, respectively. The indicators are not seen to strongly support the most sustainable alternatives, however a full sustainability view likely leads to less extensive and expensive remediation projects compared to a traditional assessment approach.
|
|
| 2. |
- Anderson, Robert, 1988, et al.
(författare)
-
What's the point? The contribution of a sustainability view in contaminated site remediation
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Science of the Total Environment. - : Elsevier BV. - 0048-9697 .- 1879-1026. ; 630, s. 103-116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Decision support tools (DST) are often used in remediation projects to aid in the complex decision on how best to remediate a contaminated site. In recent years, the sustainable remediation concept has brought increased attention to the often-overlooked contradictory effects of site remediation, with a number of sustainability assessment tools now available. The aim of the present study is twofold: (1) to demonstrate how and when different assessment views affect the decision support outcome on remediation alternatives in a DST, and (2) to demonstrate the contribution of a full sustainability assessment. The SCORE tool was used in the analysis; it is based on a holistic multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach, assessing sustainability in three dimensions: environmental, social, and economic. Four assessment scenarios, compared to a full sustainability assessment, were considered to reflect different possible assessment views; considering public and private problem owner perspectives, as well as green and traditional assessment scopes. Four real case study sites in Sweden were analyzed. The results show that the decision support outcome from a full sustainability assessment most often differs to that of other assessment views, and results in remediation alternatives which balance trade-offs in most of the scenarios. In relation to the public perspective and traditional scope, which is seen to lead to the most extensive and expensive remediation alternatives, the trade-off is related to less contaminant removal in favour of reduced negative secondary effects such as emissions and waste disposal. Compared to the private perspective, associated with the lowest cost alternatives, the trade-off is higher costs, but more positive environmental and social effects. Generally, both the green and traditional assessment scopes miss out on relevant social and local environmental secondary effects which may ultimately be very important for the actual decision in a remediation project.
|
|
