The rationale for simple approaches for sustainability assessment and management in contaminated land practice.

The scale of land-contamination problems, and of the responses to them, makes achieving sustainability in contaminated land remediation an important objective. The Sustainable Remediation Forum in the UK (SuRF-UK) was established in 2007 to support more sustainable remediation practice in the UK. The current international interest in 'sustainable remediation' has achieved a fairly rapid consensus on concepts, descriptions and definitions for sustainable remediation, which are now being incorporated into an ISO standard. However the sustainability assessment methods being used remain diverse with a range of (mainly) semi-quantitative and quantitative approaches and tools developed, or in development. Sustainability assessment is site specific and subjective. It depends on the inclusion of a wide range of considerations across different stakeholder perspectives. Taking a tiered approach to sustainability assessment offers important advantages, starting from a qualitative assessment and moving through to semi-quantitative and quantitative assessments on an 'as required' basis only. It is also clear that there are a number of 'easy wins' that could improve performance against sustainability criteria right across the site management process. SuRF-UK has provided a checklist of 'sustainable management practices' that describes some of these. This paper provides the rationale for, and an outline of, and recently published SuRF-UK guidance on preparing for and framing sustainability assessments; carrying out qualitative sustainability assessment; and simple good management practices to improve sustainability across contaminated land management activities.

[1]  Gernot Döberl,et al.  Introducing a goal-oriented sustainability assessment method to support decision making in contaminated site management , 2013 .

[2]  Euro Beinat,et al.  The REC decision support system for comparing soil remediation alternatives. A methodology based on risk reduction, environmental merit and costs , 1998 .

[3]  R. D. Bromley,et al.  Dealing with dereliction : the redevelopment of the Lower Swansea Valley , 1979 .

[4]  J. G. Isebrands,et al.  Linking phytoremediated pollutant removal to biomass economic opportunities. , 2005 .

[5]  V. Castan-Broto,et al.  Understanding success in the context of brownfield greening projects: The requirement for outcome evaluation in urban greenspace success assessment , 2009 .

[6]  Idalina Dias Sardinha,et al.  A sustainability framework for redevelopment of rural brownfields: stakeholder participation at SÃO DOMINGOS mine, Portugal , 2013 .

[7]  Neil A. Clark,et al.  Monitoring the sustainability of the Southern forest , 2004 .

[8]  S. Mourato,et al.  Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis , 2008 .

[9]  Valérie Cappuyns,et al.  Combining life cycle analysis, human health and financial risk assessment for the evaluation of contaminated site remediation , 2014 .

[10]  Jonathan W. N. Smith,et al.  Benchmarking of Decision-Support Tools Used for Tiered Sustainable Remediation Appraisal , 2013, Water, Air, & Soil Pollution.

[11]  Richard Boyle,et al.  The SuRF-UK Indicator Set for Sustainable Remediation Assessment , 2011 .

[12]  Van Liedekerke Marc,et al.  Progress in the Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe , 2013 .

[13]  Van Camp Godelieve,et al.  Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection.Vol. I. Introduction and Executive Summary. , 2004 .

[14]  Steven Broekx,et al.  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? , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[15]  H. J. van Veen,et al.  Selection of and Setting Priorities for Remediation Options , 1995 .

[16]  C. P. Nathanail,et al.  Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration , 2011 .

[17]  Paul Bardos,et al.  Comparison of international approaches to sustainable remediation. , 2016, Journal of environmental management.

[18]  G. Leaves.  Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management , 2011 .

[19]  Paul Bardos,et al.  Progress in Sustainable Remediation , 2014 .

[20]  Matthias Gross,et al.  Sustainability assessment and the revitalization of contaminated sites: operationalizing sustainable development for local problems , 2010 .

[21]  Kalliope Pediaditi,et al.  Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield, regeneration to greenspace initiatives: A meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools , 2010 .

[22]  R. Brouwer,et al.  Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands , 2004 .

[23]  Stephan Bartke,et al.  No perfect tools: trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing support tools for land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields. , 2015, Journal of environmental management.

[24]  S. Cellini,et al.  Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. , 2015, The Genetic resource.

[25]  Christopher Hook,et al.  Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects , 2011 .

[26]  G. Kingsbury,et al.  Reclamation and redevelopment of contaminated land. Volume 2. European case studies , 1992 .

[27]  Sara S. Metcalf,et al.  The Dynamics of Brownfield Redevelopment , 2011 .

[28]  Abir Al-Tabbaa,et al.  Sustainability of land remediation. Part 2: impact assessment , 2008 .

[29]  N Voulvoulis,et al.  The Appropriateness of Multicriteria Analysis in Environmental Decision-Making Problems , 2005, Environmental technology.

[30]  Richard Boyle,et al.  Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF-UK framework , 2011 .

[31]  N Witters,et al.  Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for "gentle" remediation approaches: the European context. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[32]  Abir Al-Tabbaa,et al.  Sustainability of Land Remediation. Part 1: Overall Analysis , 2008 .

[33]  C. Paul Nathanail,et al.  Integrating Remediation and Reuse to Achieve Whole‐System Sustainability Benefits , 2013 .

[35]  David E. Ellis,et al.  Sustainable Remediation White Paper—Integrating Sustainable Principles, Practices, and Metrics Into Remediation Projects , 2009 .

[36]  U. Forum,et al.  Sustainable remediation white paper—Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects , 2009 .

[37]  C. P. Nathanail,et al.  Integrating decision tools for the sustainable management of land contamination. , 2004, The Science of the total environment.

[38]  Abir Al-Tabbaa,et al.  Sustainability: A new imperative in contaminated land remediation , 2014 .

[39]  K. Pediaditi,et al.  Evaluating the sustainability of brownfield redevelopment projects : the Redevelopment Assessment Framework (RAF) , 2005 .

[41]  S Schädler,et al.  Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[42]  Riina Antikainen,et al.  Eco-efficiency in contaminated land management in Finland: barriers and development needs. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.