Integrating the Social Dimension in Remediation Decision-Making: State of the Practice and Way Forward

Sustainable remediation guidance, frameworks, and case studies have been published at an international level illustrating established sustainability assessment methodologies and successful implementation. Though the terminology and indicators evaluated may differ, one common theme among international organizations and regulatory bodies is more comprehensive and transparent methods are needed to evaluate the social sphere of sustainable remediation. Based on a literature review and stakeholder input, this paper focused on three main areas: (1) status quo of how the social element of sustainable remediation is assessed among various countries and organizations; (2) methodologies to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate societal impacts; and (3) findings from this research, including challenges, obstacles, and a path forward. In conclusion, several existing social impact assessment techniques are readily available for use by the remediation community, including rating and scoring system evaluations, enhanced cost benefit analysis, surveys/interviews, social network analysis, and multicriteria decision analysis. In addition, a list of 10 main social indicator categories were developed: health and safety, economic stimulation, stakeholder collaboration, benefits community at large, alleviate undesirable community impacts, equality issues, value of ecosystem services and natural resources, risk-based land management and remedial solutions, regional and global societal impacts, and contributions to other policies. Evaluation of the social element of remedial activities is not without challenges and knowledge gaps. Identification of obstacles and gaps during the project planning process is essential to defining sustainability objectives and choosing the appropriate tool and methodology to conduct an assessment. Challenges identified include meaningful stakeholder engagement, risk perception of stakeholders, and trade-offs among the various triple bottom line dimensions. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Elise Beck,et al.  Evaluation of socio-spatial vulnerability of citydwellers and analysis of risk perception: industrial and seismic risks in Mulhouse , 2008 .

[2]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Conceptualising sustainability assessment , 2004 .

[3]  P. Lal,et al.  Quantifying Global Impacts to Society from the Consumption of Natural Resources during Environmental Remediation Activities , 2016 .

[4]  Sugihara Hiroshi.  What is Occam's Razor? , 1997 .

[5]  Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination , 2004 .

[6]  D. R. Ridsdale.  ASSESSING SUSTAINABLE REMEDIATION FRAMEWORKS USING SUSTAINABILITY DISCOURSE , 2015 .

[7]  K. Bickerstaff.  Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. , 2004, Environment international.

[8]  Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts,et al.  Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors , 2009 .

[9]  Paul W. Hadley,et al.  Green Remediation or Sustainable Remediation: Moving From Dialogue to Common Practice , 2015 .

[10]  C. Prell,et al.  Social Networks and Natural Resource Management: A social relational approach to natural resource governance , 2011 .

[11]  Andrea Bohmholdt.  Evaluating the Triple Bottom Line Using Sustainable Return on Investment , 2014 .

[12]  C. Paul Nathanail.  Sustainable remediation: Quo vadis? , 2011 .

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

[14]  Petr Klusáček,et al.  Assessing Success Factors of Brownfields Regeneration: International and Inter-Stakeholder Perspective , 2015 .

[15]  Barry C. Field,et al.  Natural resource economics : an introduction , 2000 .

[16]  D. Sanscartier,et al.  Environmental, social, and economic benefits of biochar application for land reclamation purposes , 2014 .

[17]  Filip Alexandrescu,et al.  Report on Country and State Level Specific Characteristics : TIMBRE Deliverable D2.2 , 2013 .

[18]  Angela Fisher,et al.  Guidance for Performing Footprint Analyses and Life-Cycle Assessments for the Remediation Industry , 2011 .

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

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

[21]  J. A. Adams,et al.  Social Sustainability Evaluation Matrix (SSEM) to Quantify Social Aspects of Sustainable Remediation , 2014 .

[22]  Alex L. Marten,et al.  Estimating the social cost of non-CO2 GHG emissions: Methane and nitrous oxide , 2012 .

[23]  Christopher Glenn,et al.  Metrics for integrating sustainability evaluations into remediation projects , 2011 .

[24]  Anil Graves,et al.  Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[25]  T. Dixon.  The Property Development Industry and Sustainable Urban Brownfield Regeneration in England: An Analysis of Case Studies in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester , 2007 .

[27]  Jaan-Henrik Kain,et al.  Management of Complex Knowledge in Planning for Sustainable Development: The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Aids , 2008 .

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

[29]  D H Oughton,et al.  Social and ethical issues in environmental remediation projects. , 2013, Journal of environmental radioactivity.

[30]  Örjan Bodin,et al.  Social Networks and Natural Resource Management , 2011 .

[31]  C. Prell,et al.  Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Management , 2009, Society & Natural Resources.

[32]  Lingfang Li,et al.  Decision Making Using Rating Systems: When Scale Meets Binary , 2008 .

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

[34]  Kathryn E. Newcomer,et al.  Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation , 2010 .

[35]  Lisa White,et al.  Strategic environmental assessment in the electricity sector: an application to electricity supply planning, Saskatchewan, Canada , 2012 .

[36]  Jacqueline Schirmer,et al.  Scaling up: Assessing social impacts at the macro-scale , 2011 .

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

[38]  Candice S Walters.  2014 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan , 2014 .

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

[40]  Michael E. Miller,et al.  Estimating Social Impacts of a Remediation Project Life Cycle With Environmental Footprint Evaluation Tools , 2013 .

[41]  Nicholas Z. Muller,et al.  Weighing the Value of a Ton of Pollution , 2010 .

[42]  Grant W. Neeley,et al.  Perceived Risk and Citizen Preferences for Governmental Management of Routine Hazards , 2005 .

[43]  Örjan Bodin,et al.  A social relational approach to natural resource governance , 2011 .

[44]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Learning by doing: sustainability assessment in Western Australia , 2013 .

[45]  C. Prell.  Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology , 2011 .

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

[47]  Abir Al-Tabbaa,et al.  The adoption of sustainable remediation behaviour in the US and UK: a cross country comparison and determinant analysis. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.